Search:

[QUOTE=rumox;892916]For just ~$15 a week ($10 USD) you can all have health insurance!

[SIZE=1]I know it's more complicated than that, but you get the idea[/SIZE]

edit: never mind just googled your healthcare budget. what the fuck?[/QUOTE]

This obviously doesn't fully explain the cost, but this is an illuminating example: Medicare is forbidden by the government from negotiating costs of drugs with pharmaceutical companies, afaik. So if pharma says they have to pay 50x the price every other country pays, medicare bends over and says "okay daddy". The same issue applies with other industries.

Originally Posted by rumox

For just ~$15 a week ($10 USD) you can all have health insurance!

I know it's more complicated than that, but you get the idea

edit: never mind just googled your healthcare budget. what the fuck?

This obviously doesn't fully explain the cost, but this is an illuminating example: Medicare is forbidden by the government from negotiating costs of drugs with pharmaceutical companies, afaik. So if pharma says they have to pay 50x the price every other country pays, medicare bends over and says "okay daddy". The same issue applies with other industries.

[QUOTE=rumox;892914]Oh right, corporate owns America[/QUOTE]

Basically. The democrats also take extensive donations from the health insurance companies. With a handful of exceptions, any democrat that gets anywhere has to kiss the ring, and the exceptions still have to bow to the will of the party.

The whole situation is a total clusterfuck.

Originally Posted by rumox

Oh right, corporate owns America

Basically. The democrats also take extensive donations from the health insurance companies. With a handful of exceptions, any democrat that gets anywhere has to kiss the ring, and the exceptions still have to bow to the will of the party.

The whole situation is a total clusterfuck.

here is an overview of some things in the American system. Helz can correct me if I'm wrong about any of these:

Medicare - a program that provides healthcare to those aged 65 and older, paid by taxpayer.

Medicaid - a program that provides healthcare to people sufficiently poor via the taxpayer. (but unlike what you may be thinking, you have to be REALLY poor to be eligible for this, afaik)

VA - the closest thing to an actual socialist healthcare program in the US - taxpayed healthcare for veterans. Unlike with medicare where the government pays for private hospitals, the government pays the hospital directly.

Health insurance - As the name implies, you pay a private company a monthly premium to get healthcare when you need it. However, it's more complicated than "Pay X a month, then get help when you're sick". There are also copayments and deductibles. A 20% copayment means you pay 20% of the cost of some treatment, while the insurance company pays the remaining 80%. A deductible is an upfront payment you make when you want treatment to get the insurance company's assistance in footing the bill.

Obamacare - Under the Obama administration, the affordable care act was passed. It reigned in some of the most exploitative aspects of American health insurance (i.e. being able to refuse coverage to people with pre-existing conditions being among the most famous). They forced everyone outside of the south to get health coverage or pay a fine (again, unless they're super poor), but they also expanded medicaid and subsidized insurance to everyone in the lower-middle class outside of the south.

here is an overview of some things in the American system. Helz can correct me if I'm wrong about any of these:

Medicare - a program that provides healthcare to those aged 65 and older, paid by taxpayer.

Medicaid - a program that provides healthcare to people sufficiently poor via the taxpayer. (but unlike what you may be thinking, you have to be REALLY poor to be eligible for this, afaik)

VA - the closest thing to an actual socialist healthcare program in the US - taxpayed healthcare for veterans. Unlike with medicare where the government pays for private hospitals, the government pays the hospital directly.

Health insurance - As the name implies, you pay a private company a monthly premium to get healthcare when you need it. However, it's more complicated than "Pay X a month, then get help when you're sick". There are also copayments and deductibles. A 20% copayment means you pay 20% of the cost of some treatment, while the insurance company pays the remaining 80%. A deductible is an upfront payment you make when you want treatment to get the insurance company's assistance in footing the bill.

Obamacare - Under the Obama administration, the affordable care act was passed. It reigned in some of the most exploitative aspects of American health insurance (i.e. being able to refuse coverage to people with pre-existing conditions being among the most famous). They forced everyone outside of the south to get health coverage or pay a fine (again, unless they're super poor), but they also expanded medicaid and subsidized insurance to everyone in the lower-middle class outside of the south.

[QUOTE=rumox;892886]Subsidized capitalism? Is this some revisionist theory lol. Googling it returns Crony Capitalism (doesn't apply to Aus health care) and State Capitalism (also doesn't apply to Aus health care). How am I pushing subsidized capitalism? What I said isn't even close to what you gave an example of subsidized capitalism is. Have I read into your post incorrectly or vice versa? What's going on.[/QUOTE]

You're misunderstanding what he's trying to say. He's not trying to say your system is bad. He's trying to say that most of the democrats in the USA aren't actually pushing for some form of socialized healthcare as it exists in Australia or many European countries. He's saying they actually push for a hybrid program where the government foots part of the bill and insurance companies cover the rest (i.e. subsidizing health costs, proposing "medicare for all who want it", increasing eligibility for medicaid etc.). These proposals allow health insurance companies to continue to play a large role and result in a meaningfully different incentive structure. He's using the term "subsidized capitalism" informally to convey that.

p;edit moved some part to another post

Originally Posted by rumox

Subsidized capitalism? Is this some revisionist theory lol. Googling it returns Crony Capitalism (doesn't apply to Aus health care) and State Capitalism (also doesn't apply to Aus health care). How am I pushing subsidized capitalism? What I said isn't even close to what you gave an example of subsidized capitalism is. Have I read into your post incorrectly or vice versa? What's going on.

You're misunderstanding what he's trying to say. He's not trying to say your system is bad. He's trying to say that most of the democrats in the USA aren't actually pushing for some form of socialized healthcare as it exists in Australia or many European countries. He's saying they actually push for a hybrid program where the government foots part of the bill and insurance companies cover the rest (i.e. subsidizing health costs, proposing "medicare for all who want it", increasing eligibility for medicaid etc.). These proposals allow health insurance companies to continue to play a large role and result in a meaningfully different incentive structure. He's using the term "subsidized capitalism" informally to convey that.

p;edit moved some part to another post

[QUOTE=Oberon;891453]No, that isn’t it lol. The international community is going to fuck China over. Especially if it turns out the virus was released on purpose by them (not saying that it was), in which case there may even be a war.[/QUOTE]

We owe em trillions of dollars/pounds. Corporations with major sway in our governments are desperate to keep the Chinese market as a buyer. Many of our own industries no longer exist. We're fully dependent on China for imports. The trade tariffs didn't even hurt them, they easily went through a loophole and kept selling the USA crap with no tariffs.

The international community ain't doing shit, at least not for a while. Like climate change, corporate interests will dominate the conversation until things start getting reeeaally bad.

p;edit w.r.t. the tarrifs [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhMAt3BluAU&t=60m40s[/url]

Originally Posted by Oberon

No, that isn’t it lol. The international community is going to fuck China over. Especially if it turns out the virus was released on purpose by them (not saying that it was), in which case there may even be a war.

We owe em trillions of dollars/pounds. Corporations with major sway in our governments are desperate to keep the Chinese market as a buyer. Many of our own industries no longer exist. We're fully dependent on China for imports. The trade tariffs didn't even hurt them, they easily went through a loophole and kept selling the USA crap with no tariffs.

The international community ain't doing shit, at least not for a while. Like climate change, corporate interests will dominate the conversation until things start getting reeeaally bad.

p;edit w.r.t. the tarrifs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhMAt3BluAU&t=60m40s

[QUOTE=Oberon;891427]China is going to be fucked after covid :)[/QUOTE]

Do not underestimate Winnie the Pooh.

Originally Posted by Oberon

China is going to be fucked after covid

Do not underestimate Winnie the Pooh.

[QUOTE=Oberon;890915]About economic systems. One question I’ve always asked myself I s - what comes next after capitalism? It’s almosy certainly an economic system we’ve never heard of... maybe 3D printing and increasing automation will bring it about. If everyone can produce, maybe companies will become sort of obsolete and everyone will just be self-employed. Perhaps the new economy will be based around the ownership of natural resources or of land or artificially intelligent systems (and AI research, ofc).

This is a very basic and probably naive assumption, but it’s nteresting to think about.[/QUOTE]

You have a more optimistic view of the world than me. I expect the Chinese model to be the next big thing. I don't know if the Chinese model will replace the current model per se, but I think as the US superpower continues to decline, countries (especially less stable countries) will start to feel the pressure to flip to a Chinese model, in exactly the same way communist countries felt crushing pressure to flip to capitalism after the fall of the Soviet Union. They understand how to use technology to enforce rigid social unity in a way the extremists of yesterday could only dream of. Though China doesn't share the USA's fervour for spreading their ideology, they will nevertheless have an incentive to export their political model to secure more reliable allies and trading partners.

Originally Posted by Oberon

About economic systems. One question I’ve always asked myself I s - what comes next after capitalism? It’s almosy certainly an economic system we’ve never heard of... maybe 3D printing and increasing automation will bring it about. If everyone can produce, maybe companies will become sort of obsolete and everyone will just be self-employed. Perhaps the new economy will be based around the ownership of natural resources or of land or artificially intelligent systems (and AI research, ofc).

This is a very basic and probably naive assumption, but it’s nteresting to think about.

You have a more optimistic view of the world than me. I expect the Chinese model to be the next big thing. I don't know if the Chinese model will replace the current model per se, but I think as the US superpower continues to decline, countries (especially less stable countries) will start to feel the pressure to flip to a Chinese model, in exactly the same way communist countries felt crushing pressure to flip to capitalism after the fall of the Soviet Union. They understand how to use technology to enforce rigid social unity in a way the extremists of yesterday could only dream of. Though China doesn't share the USA's fervour for spreading their ideology, they will nevertheless have an incentive to export their political model to secure more reliable allies and trading partners.

[QUOTE=Plotato;891060]ok nerds, i can't believe im going to have to take on a serious character for the first time in this sewer of a site but i need to elaborate on this topic because saint peter hath declared me the next messiah.

you wanna know why the cost of insurance is so damn high? because barely any competition exists in this field. a public + private combination ensures your insurance stays shit because 1) there is no incentive for the public service to do itself any better because public industries have virtually no competition, and because the public edition of "heathcare" exists, only existing private insurance (which are usually the big fucks) can maintain any standing. what this does is 1) limits choice and 2) people always say government should provide a basic level of care. well, what is the basic level??? what if the government doesn't cover say, chemotherapy? colonoscopies? aids treatment? in addition, healthcare is also goddamn expensive because increased regulation to healthcare logistics have 1) enacted a barrier to entry and 2) for existing corporations, allow quasi-monopolistic pricing and are forced to raise their prices because the time it takes for healthcare equipment to be approved is too damn high, and thus the costs have to be high in order to recuperate.

this is the current argument undergoing any hybrid system and its -- government is never doing enough [I]but[/I] government should provide healthcare to people, so the costs of government healthcare keeps rising and rising. obamacare hasn't solved the problem of healthcare at all. people's needs are unlimited and thus there is no such thing as a "government basis" for healthcare. a hybrid system wouldn't work, hasn't worked, and the evidence is the united states with the aberration that is the promise of "affordable care". I wonder if people know Sweden's social security is privatized, or that Switzerland has a decentralized insurance system, precisely because government, like everything else, always mismanages these processes because how the hell is a politician with a degree in history or law going to figure out the logistics of social security, or healthcare for the matter?? this is one of the biggest problems, where government begins to "budget" healthcare, which it shouldn't. give people what they need at that time. the difference between how private healthcare "budgets" healthcare is that private healthcare have to budget towards demand, something that is done MUCH MUCH faster by private choices. this is why LASIK is so easy and quick to get (in the U.S., at least), because LASIK is one of those things untouched by public malfeasance.

this is the thing people keep misunderstanding about healthcare in the private sector. they HAVE to perform well. if they perform badly, then they will get 1) sued to death 2) shittalked to death and 3) deathed to death. but if the government performs badly then well we'll just increase our budget to fix that problem... and if that didn't fix it we'll just increase our budget again.

the fact that government provides a baseline to begin with, and a pretty high and costly one at that to begin with, gets rid of choice. Sweden, UK have their "universal healthcare" models which still are burdened by bureaucratic inefficiency, and continually rising costs. the tax burden, by the way, is mainly on the poor. most of universal healthcare systems still affect the poor the most in society, and as the cost of healthcare rises, so will the burden on poor people. "taxing" rich people is a pipe dream typically and it only serves to reduce tax revenue more often than it raises it. the "middle class" is the group to which the most tax will be collected, virtually always. it works slightly better in Switzerland because the government only subsidizes the poor who cant afford it, whilst everyone else is mandated to purchase [I]private[/I]. otherwise, their hands are off the table on healthcare and insurance.

so you wanna know how to solve the insurance problem? get government's grabby little hands away from the whole shieza. really. they're not helping, in fact, they're only enacting higher walls for entry, while they are allowing themselves to perform like crap when it does. in no way can private insurance make someone wait for care because the person needing care is the customer, and they NEED customers. in no way can private insurance deny people with preexisting care, because someone else will steal that revenue if they choose to deny it. but no, government adds rules and exerts control over these industries thinking they can do good, but all it does is, in fact, ALLOW insurance to deny people with preexisting care because lo and behold, if you can cut costs, you will, and only by virtue of the government allowing you the environment to do such a thing.

speaking of insurance, did you know switching to Geico could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

yes, i wrote that shit so you could switch to Geico. Geico gets you the insurance savings you expect. Get an additional 15% credit on new auto, motorcycle, and RV policies for the full 6-month and 12-month insurance policy term.

ass bandits[/QUOTE]

I feel your analysis fails to account for the full nature of competition.

Healthy competition fundamentally starts at the consumer. Consumers (en masse) need to assess their options in an informed, objective manner, and make the correct decision for health insurance companies to be incentivized to cut costs and offer a higher quality service. In practice, most the consumers don't understand their insurance very well, and the insurance companies devote their time to obfuscating their own costs and coverage. So, in practice, it's not clear to the health insurance companies that simply cutting their costs will make them more competitive - the consumer may not even recognise the benefit they're receiving.

Another prerequisite of competition is that it needs to be more profitable for companies to compete rather than just to work together. It's not always in the interests of health insurance companies to gut eachother's profits plummeting costs. It may be (and often is) more profitable for all the companies to agree to maintain some exorbitant cost. Healthcare is unique in the sense that the notion of supply and demand is rather intrinsically broken. If all the apples at the supermarket are gone off, you won't buy an apple. If all the video games this year look lame, you won't buy a video game. However, if you're [I]sick[/I], you still [I]need[/I] care. So, if the health insurance companies all agree to raise their costs together, they know your only option is to suck it up. What usually fixes issues like this is a new competitor entering the market and offering cheaper costs. But hospitals generally do exclusive contracts with one or a select few health insurance companies. Entering the market requires you to out-bid all these massive, well-established companies for contracts at these hospitals. In short, it'd be such an expensive endeavor that new entrants into the market have much more to profit from just working with the powers that be rather than trying to overthrow an entire system.

The last thing about competition is that it doesn't always benefit the consumer. There are fundamentally two ways of making your product more attractive to the consumer. You can raise the value of your own product, or sabotage someone else's (indirectly). Why compete with this small insurance company when you can simply buy up exclusive contracts with all the hospitals in their area? This is a less relevant point since US companies are now forced to take people with preexisting conditions, but preexisting conditions presented another example of competition [I]not[/I] benefitting the consumer - accepting these consumers would only raise costs, and make the company less competitive. This is also an example of how profit incentive doesn't always maximize coverage, as you imply in your second-to-last paragraph. Profit incentive is a curious thing, and in some sectors can produce very perverse outcomes. I'm reminded of that HIV treatment that got its price hiked by 10x a few years back in the US - an objectively profitable move if at least 10% of HIV patients continue to pay for the drug, irrespective of whether the rest don't survive. Or the absurd cost of insulin. Though I digress.

This doesn't really link into the above anywhere, but it's important to remember that the US congress sadly doesn't just have a corruption issue, but a corruption culture. Members of congress receive between hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars from health insurance companies, and then will take large sums from other key players. They rely on this money to win reelection. Members of congress that propose or even support bills that piss off the health insurance companies guarantee that those hundreds of thousands will be used against them during the next election. This is also why many regulations that exist appear only to further limit external competition. What you guys need is full on state-funded healthcare. It wouldn't be great, but anything else would inevitably be worse due to the pharmaceutical company's and health insurance company's power.

Originally Posted by Plotato

ok nerds, i can't believe im going to have to take on a serious character for the first time in this sewer of a site but i need to elaborate on this topic because saint peter hath declared me the next messiah.

you wanna know why the cost of insurance is so damn high? because barely any competition exists in this field. a public + private combination ensures your insurance stays shit because 1) there is no incentive for the public service to do itself any better because public industries have virtually no competition, and because the public edition of "heathcare" exists, only existing private insurance (which are usually the big fucks) can maintain any standing. what this does is 1) limits choice and 2) people always say government should provide a basic level of care. well, what is the basic level??? what if the government doesn't cover say, chemotherapy? colonoscopies? aids treatment? in addition, healthcare is also goddamn expensive because increased regulation to healthcare logistics have 1) enacted a barrier to entry and 2) for existing corporations, allow quasi-monopolistic pricing and are forced to raise their prices because the time it takes for healthcare equipment to be approved is too damn high, and thus the costs have to be high in order to recuperate.

this is the current argument undergoing any hybrid system and its -- government is never doing enough but government should provide healthcare to people, so the costs of government healthcare keeps rising and rising. obamacare hasn't solved the problem of healthcare at all. people's needs are unlimited and thus there is no such thing as a "government basis" for healthcare. a hybrid system wouldn't work, hasn't worked, and the evidence is the united states with the aberration that is the promise of "affordable care". I wonder if people know Sweden's social security is privatized, or that Switzerland has a decentralized insurance system, precisely because government, like everything else, always mismanages these processes because how the hell is a politician with a degree in history or law going to figure out the logistics of social security, or healthcare for the matter?? this is one of the biggest problems, where government begins to "budget" healthcare, which it shouldn't. give people what they need at that time. the difference between how private healthcare "budgets" healthcare is that private healthcare have to budget towards demand, something that is done MUCH MUCH faster by private choices. this is why LASIK is so easy and quick to get (in the U.S., at least), because LASIK is one of those things untouched by public malfeasance.

this is the thing people keep misunderstanding about healthcare in the private sector. they HAVE to perform well. if they perform badly, then they will get 1) sued to death 2) shittalked to death and 3) deathed to death. but if the government performs badly then well we'll just increase our budget to fix that problem... and if that didn't fix it we'll just increase our budget again.

the fact that government provides a baseline to begin with, and a pretty high and costly one at that to begin with, gets rid of choice. Sweden, UK have their "universal healthcare" models which still are burdened by bureaucratic inefficiency, and continually rising costs. the tax burden, by the way, is mainly on the poor. most of universal healthcare systems still affect the poor the most in society, and as the cost of healthcare rises, so will the burden on poor people. "taxing" rich people is a pipe dream typically and it only serves to reduce tax revenue more often than it raises it. the "middle class" is the group to which the most tax will be collected, virtually always. it works slightly better in Switzerland because the government only subsidizes the poor who cant afford it, whilst everyone else is mandated to purchase private. otherwise, their hands are off the table on healthcare and insurance.

so you wanna know how to solve the insurance problem? get government's grabby little hands away from the whole shieza. really. they're not helping, in fact, they're only enacting higher walls for entry, while they are allowing themselves to perform like crap when it does. in no way can private insurance make someone wait for care because the person needing care is the customer, and they NEED customers. in no way can private insurance deny people with preexisting care, because someone else will steal that revenue if they choose to deny it. but no, government adds rules and exerts control over these industries thinking they can do good, but all it does is, in fact, ALLOW insurance to deny people with preexisting care because lo and behold, if you can cut costs, you will, and only by virtue of the government allowing you the environment to do such a thing.

speaking of insurance, did you know switching to Geico could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

yes, i wrote that shit so you could switch to Geico. Geico gets you the insurance savings you expect. Get an additional 15% credit on new auto, motorcycle, and RV policies for the full 6-month and 12-month insurance policy term.

ass bandits

I feel your analysis fails to account for the full nature of competition.

Healthy competition fundamentally starts at the consumer. Consumers (en masse) need to assess their options in an informed, objective manner, and make the correct decision for health insurance companies to be incentivized to cut costs and offer a higher quality service. In practice, most the consumers don't understand their insurance very well, and the insurance companies devote their time to obfuscating their own costs and coverage. So, in practice, it's not clear to the health insurance companies that simply cutting their costs will make them more competitive - the consumer may not even recognise the benefit they're receiving.

Another prerequisite of competition is that it needs to be more profitable for companies to compete rather than just to work together. It's not always in the interests of health insurance companies to gut eachother's profits plummeting costs. It may be (and often is) more profitable for all the companies to agree to maintain some exorbitant cost. Healthcare is unique in the sense that the notion of supply and demand is rather intrinsically broken. If all the apples at the supermarket are gone off, you won't buy an apple. If all the video games this year look lame, you won't buy a video game. However, if you're sick, you still need care. So, if the health insurance companies all agree to raise their costs together, they know your only option is to suck it up. What usually fixes issues like this is a new competitor entering the market and offering cheaper costs. But hospitals generally do exclusive contracts with one or a select few health insurance companies. Entering the market requires you to out-bid all these massive, well-established companies for contracts at these hospitals. In short, it'd be such an expensive endeavor that new entrants into the market have much more to profit from just working with the powers that be rather than trying to overthrow an entire system.

The last thing about competition is that it doesn't always benefit the consumer. There are fundamentally two ways of making your product more attractive to the consumer. You can raise the value of your own product, or sabotage someone else's (indirectly). Why compete with this small insurance company when you can simply buy up exclusive contracts with all the hospitals in their area? This is a less relevant point since US companies are now forced to take people with preexisting conditions, but preexisting conditions presented another example of competition not benefitting the consumer - accepting these consumers would only raise costs, and make the company less competitive. This is also an example of how profit incentive doesn't always maximize coverage, as you imply in your second-to-last paragraph. Profit incentive is a curious thing, and in some sectors can produce very perverse outcomes. I'm reminded of that HIV treatment that got its price hiked by 10x a few years back in the US - an objectively profitable move if at least 10% of HIV patients continue to pay for the drug, irrespective of whether the rest don't survive. Or the absurd cost of insulin. Though I digress.

This doesn't really link into the above anywhere, but it's important to remember that the US congress sadly doesn't just have a corruption issue, but a corruption culture. Members of congress receive between hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars from health insurance companies, and then will take large sums from other key players. They rely on this money to win reelection. Members of congress that propose or even support bills that piss off the health insurance companies guarantee that those hundreds of thousands will be used against them during the next election. This is also why many regulations that exist appear only to further limit external competition. What you guys need is full on state-funded healthcare. It wouldn't be great, but anything else would inevitably be worse due to the pharmaceutical company's and health insurance company's power.

[QUOTE=Voss;890787]I'm literally clarifying so I don't assume!!!!![/QUOTE]

Ok fair xD

Originally Posted by Voss

I'm literally clarifying so I don't assume!!!!!

Ok fair xD

[QUOTE=Voss;890684]It's unclear to me whether or not the argument stated by oberon is if nazis are left/right on the american spectrum, or a more abstract global/philosophical spectrum.

If he's saying it's the latter, then I'll fuck off from this thread. If he's saying it's the former? I'll keep saying that he's spouting bulllshit Faux "News" drivel.

However, historically speaking, it's also very clear that Oberon will never commit himself to a position and this thread will be closed in approximately 5.24 pages. And then in 0.89 months later, we'll have some related discussion again where rinse and repeat ourselves.[/QUOTE]

I get that we end up arguing about American politics a lot, but you can't just assume every conversation is happening in a strictly American context. That's rather silly lol

Also, though I get annoyed when he seems to concede a point as wrong then repeats it in a later convo, I don't think you should get annoyed when there's no serious movement in his opinion, generally speaking. With all due respect, we're probably like one one-hundredth of his information sources, with most of the rest giving a very different set of facts in a very different manner. "Winning" an argument with someone will just convince them they haven't read enough rather than all their prior information being wrong. If someone's mind is genuinely changed that's great, but I think realistically the most valuable thing we can get out of this is hearing from the other side.

Lastly, let's not lose perspective and bear in mind he's not even voting in the US election, so getting worked up about his American opinions is particularly meaningless.

Originally Posted by Voss

It's unclear to me whether or not the argument stated by oberon is if nazis are left/right on the american spectrum, or a more abstract global/philosophical spectrum.

If he's saying it's the latter, then I'll fuck off from this thread. If he's saying it's the former? I'll keep saying that he's spouting bulllshit Faux "News" drivel.

However, historically speaking, it's also very clear that Oberon will never commit himself to a position and this thread will be closed in approximately 5.24 pages. And then in 0.89 months later, we'll have some related discussion again where rinse and repeat ourselves.

I get that we end up arguing about American politics a lot, but you can't just assume every conversation is happening in a strictly American context. That's rather silly lol

Also, though I get annoyed when he seems to concede a point as wrong then repeats it in a later convo, I don't think you should get annoyed when there's no serious movement in his opinion, generally speaking. With all due respect, we're probably like one one-hundredth of his information sources, with most of the rest giving a very different set of facts in a very different manner. "Winning" an argument with someone will just convince them they haven't read enough rather than all their prior information being wrong. If someone's mind is genuinely changed that's great, but I think realistically the most valuable thing we can get out of this is hearing from the other side.

Lastly, let's not lose perspective and bear in mind he's not even voting in the US election, so getting worked up about his American opinions is particularly meaningless.

[QUOTE=Oberon;889827]Nah I don’t know any unfortunately. My maininterest is in how these systems came about in the first place. My feeling is that it’s technological advancement, primarily, that drives economic evolution. So the reason why many people were slaves was because technology was too primitive to allow free men tone productive, and that the value of labour (for this reason) was basically null in the small.[/QUOTE]

As technology continues to advance, do you think we could head back to a more exploitative system? Maybe democracy itself was a temporary glitch of our intermediate technological stage. Or do you think things will continue to get better?

I'm gonna call it a night.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Nah I don’t know any unfortunately. My maininterest is in how these systems came about in the first place. My feeling is that it’s technological advancement, primarily, that drives economic evolution. So the reason why many people were slaves was because technology was too primitive to allow free men tone productive, and that the value of labour (for this reason) was basically null in the small.

As technology continues to advance, do you think we could head back to a more exploitative system? Maybe democracy itself was a temporary glitch of our intermediate technological stage. Or do you think things will continue to get better?

I'm gonna call it a night.

[QUOTE=Oberon;889825]I think the only thing that will happen if Biden gets elected is that I’ll feel even more sorry for Biden. I don’t think Biden should be in that race at all; he’s senile and lost. I can’t understand why he got nominated lol. I feel bad for him honestly.[/QUOTE]

Did you hear? Obama was literally ringing candidates after South Carolina asking them to drop out so Biden could overtake Sanders. They oppose the people's uprising at their own expense tbh.

Originally Posted by Oberon

I think the only thing that will happen if Biden gets elected is that I’ll feel even more sorry for Biden. I don’t think Biden should be in that race at all; he’s senile and lost. I can’t understand why he got nominated lol. I feel bad for him honestly.

Did you hear? Obama was literally ringing candidates after South Carolina asking them to drop out so Biden could overtake Sanders. They oppose the people's uprising at their own expense tbh.

[QUOTE=Frinckles;889817]It came off that you're not a big political spectrum fan. Can you elaborate on your distinctions?[/QUOTE]

As in, the distinction between "far" and "extreme"? I think to call someone "extreme" should mean to make some statement about their methods and what they're willing to do to instate their political ideals. Whether they're willing to compromise on people's rights, commit violence or do other bad things, whereas to call someone "far" should literally just mean having "far left" or "far right" opinions. I refer back to the coops and the libertarianism, for example.

Originally Posted by Frinckles

It came off that you're not a big political spectrum fan. Can you elaborate on your distinctions?

As in, the distinction between "far" and "extreme"? I think to call someone "extreme" should mean to make some statement about their methods and what they're willing to do to instate their political ideals. Whether they're willing to compromise on people's rights, commit violence or do other bad things, whereas to call someone "far" should literally just mean having "far left" or "far right" opinions. I refer back to the coops and the libertarianism, for example.

[QUOTE=Oberon;889815]That’s one way of looking at it, I suppose.
Something i find really interesting (and that people never really seem to talk about) is the evolution of economics. From the slave-labour factories of Greek Antiquity through feudalism, mercantilism and finally capitalism.[/QUOTE]

I'd totally read a thread on that but I don't think we'd be able to keep the conversation going LOL.

I'd be intrigued to read a book on older economic systems if you know a good one. I've been on the last chapter of "What Terrorists Want" for half a year now lol.

Originally Posted by Oberon

That’s one way of looking at it, I suppose.
Something i find really interesting (and that people never really seem to talk about) is the evolution of economics. From the slave-labour factories of Greek Antiquity through feudalism, mercantilism and finally capitalism.

I'd totally read a thread on that but I don't think we'd be able to keep the conversation going LOL.

I'd be intrigued to read a book on older economic systems if you know a good one. I've been on the last chapter of "What Terrorists Want" for half a year now lol.

[QUOTE=yzb25;889814]You reminded me of the super libertarian Ayn Rand types on the far right, which are quite the opposite of authoritarian. When people talk about horseshoe theory they always go straight to Hitler and Stalin as if they're the only far left and far right and yes, I suppose morally they appear quite indistinguishable, but even they have massive political disagreements. Outside of the Hitler-Stalin thing which itself is quite short-sighted the far left and far right are really not comparable.[/QUOTE]

Fuck I forgot to say, it's a very good point to make a distinction between "far" and "extreme". The two are conflated far too much.

Originally Posted by yzb25

You reminded me of the super libertarian Ayn Rand types on the far right, which are quite the opposite of authoritarian. When people talk about horseshoe theory they always go straight to Hitler and Stalin as if they're the only far left and far right and yes, I suppose morally they appear quite indistinguishable, but even they have massive political disagreements. Outside of the Hitler-Stalin thing which itself is quite short-sighted the far left and far right are really not comparable.

Fuck I forgot to say, it's a very good point to make a distinction between "far" and "extreme". The two are conflated far too much.

[QUOTE=Oberon;889812]I agree with you. I actually distinguish between far (right or left) and radical/extreme (right or left). For instance I am far right economically because I’m staunchly against interventionism, but I am not radical right because I don’t think the State should cease to exist.

One other example is George Orwell. He was far left but not radical left (I actually like Orwell)[/QUOTE]

You reminded me of the super libertarian Ayn Rand types on the far right, which are quite the opposite of authoritarian. When people talk about horseshoe theory they always go straight to Hitler and Stalin as if they're the only far left and far right and yes, I suppose morally they appear quite indistinguishable, but even they have massive political disagreements. Outside of the Hitler-Stalin thing which itself is quite short-sighted the far left and far right are really not comparable.

Originally Posted by Oberon

I agree with you. I actually distinguish between far (right or left) and radical/extreme (right or left). For instance I am far right economically because I’m staunchly against interventionism, but I am not radical right because I don’t think the State should cease to exist.

One other example is George Orwell. He was far left but not radical left (I actually like Orwell)

You reminded me of the super libertarian Ayn Rand types on the far right, which are quite the opposite of authoritarian. When people talk about horseshoe theory they always go straight to Hitler and Stalin as if they're the only far left and far right and yes, I suppose morally they appear quite indistinguishable, but even they have massive political disagreements. Outside of the Hitler-Stalin thing which itself is quite short-sighted the far left and far right are really not comparable.

[QUOTE=Oberon;889809]I am not very knowledgeable about economics, but my impression was that while China has a more liberal economy than say the Soviet Union, they still heavily regulate it (e.g. state capitalism ?) is[/QUOTE]

I think China is probably best understood as "nuanced communism". When capitalist economies started out, they had a hardcore laissez faire approach with child miners and no social safety net and very little state interference. We realized that it was inhumane and extremely inefficient, so we moved towards a more "nuanced" capitalism, with the state owning lots of public utilities, transport and healthcare, as well as micromanaging the crap out of companies. There's more regulation than one person could ever read. The same thing happened in China but in reverse.

Originally Posted by Oberon

I am not very knowledgeable about economics, but my impression was that while China has a more liberal economy than say the Soviet Union, they still heavily regulate it (e.g. state capitalism ?) is

I think China is probably best understood as "nuanced communism". When capitalist economies started out, they had a hardcore laissez faire approach with child miners and no social safety net and very little state interference. We realized that it was inhumane and extremely inefficient, so we moved towards a more "nuanced" capitalism, with the state owning lots of public utilities, transport and healthcare, as well as micromanaging the crap out of companies. There's more regulation than one person could ever read. The same thing happened in China but in reverse.

[QUOTE=Frinckles;889806]Kind of like what the horseshoe theory suggests (that I talked with yzb about), they can share similar qualities. Shutting down conversation (media) and propaganda seem to be recurring themes.

Edit: free speech is probably the word to use here.[/QUOTE]

I kinda didn't wanna argue the point too hard because the whole left-right spectrum is kinda crap anyway, so arguing whether it's better or worse with horseshoe theory seems kind of like missing the forest for the trees.

But I'll point out you can be radical and centrist (Ataturk) and you can be far-left without being authoritarian. For example, coops are not inherently authoritarian but you also really can't get more leftist than coops lol.

Originally Posted by Frinckles

Kind of like what the horseshoe theory suggests (that I talked with yzb about), they can share similar qualities. Shutting down conversation (media) and propaganda seem to be recurring themes.

Edit: free speech is probably the word to use here.

I kinda didn't wanna argue the point too hard because the whole left-right spectrum is kinda crap anyway, so arguing whether it's better or worse with horseshoe theory seems kind of like missing the forest for the trees.

But I'll point out you can be radical and centrist (Ataturk) and you can be far-left without being authoritarian. For example, coops are not inherently authoritarian but you also really can't get more leftist than coops lol.

[QUOTE=yzb25;889800]I wasn't trying to make a point or pull some kinda gotcha. I was literally curious because to me China is a country that really doesn't fit onto the political spectrum in a clear way. They identify as a Leninist state and all the land is technically state-owned plus the CPC has at least 20% ownership of every company but they employ heavy free market mechanics and are deeply classist. I think countries like China demonstrate the shortcomings of the political spectrum as a classification system, as well as the limitations of trying to class every economic system as simply capitalist or communist.[/QUOTE]

Basically, he mentioned arguments about the classification of nazism so I took a shot in the dark and asked if he had a take.

Originally Posted by yzb25

I wasn't trying to make a point or pull some kinda gotcha. I was literally curious because to me China is a country that really doesn't fit onto the political spectrum in a clear way. They identify as a Leninist state and all the land is technically state-owned plus the CPC has at least 20% ownership of every company but they employ heavy free market mechanics and are deeply classist. I think countries like China demonstrate the shortcomings of the political spectrum as a classification system, as well as the limitations of trying to class every economic system as simply capitalist or communist.

Basically, he mentioned arguments about the classification of nazism so I took a shot in the dark and asked if he had a take.

[QUOTE=Oberon;889790]Left wing for sure but why do you ask?[/QUOTE]

I wasn't trying to make a point or pull some kinda gotcha. I was literally curious because to me China is a country that really doesn't fit onto the political spectrum in a clear way. They identify as a Leninist state and all the land is technically state-owned plus the CPC has at least 20% ownership of every company but they employ heavy free market mechanics and are deeply classist. I think countries like China demonstrate the shortcomings of the left-right political spectrum as a classification system, as well as the limitations of trying to class every economic system as simply capitalist or communist.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Left wing for sure but why do you ask?

I wasn't trying to make a point or pull some kinda gotcha. I was literally curious because to me China is a country that really doesn't fit onto the political spectrum in a clear way. They identify as a Leninist state and all the land is technically state-owned plus the CPC has at least 20% ownership of every company but they employ heavy free market mechanics and are deeply classist. I think countries like China demonstrate the shortcomings of the left-right political spectrum as a classification system, as well as the limitations of trying to class every economic system as simply capitalist or communist.

[QUOTE=yzb25;889781]Where would you put Jinping's China on the spectrum?[/QUOTE]

If indeed it has a place on this antiquated, Western-centric system

Originally Posted by yzb25

Where would you put Jinping's China on the spectrum?

If indeed it has a place on this antiquated, Western-centric system

[QUOTE=Frinckles;889767]If I'm understanding it correctly, it's not to really throw ambiguity to either of those things. Just that they hold closer similarities than more moderate-left/right wing positions.

Seems like every day I see a YouTube video about whether or not Nazism (or whatever the fuck else bad ideology is out there) is left or right wing.

I can certainly see your issues with it because it can muddy the waters. Maybe we're just re-writing history again.

Edit: I wanted to add a quote I thought was interesting:



I think Ideological purity is definitely something becoming glamorized these days; But with a focus on the individual and it's kind of fascinating and horrifying. Far left and far right culture has gotten to the point of doxxing, cancel culture and threats targeted at the individual, not the policies they support. Media has become polarizing as hell.[/QUOTE]

Where would you put Jinping's China on the spectrum?

Originally Posted by Frinckles

If I'm understanding it correctly, it's not to really throw ambiguity to either of those things. Just that they hold closer similarities than more moderate-left/right wing positions.

Seems like every day I see a YouTube video about whether or not Nazism (or whatever the fuck else bad ideology is out there) is left or right wing.

I can certainly see your issues with it because it can muddy the waters. Maybe we're just re-writing history again.

Edit: I wanted to add a quote I thought was interesting:



I think Ideological purity is definitely something becoming glamorized these days; But with a focus on the individual and it's kind of fascinating and horrifying. Far left and far right culture has gotten to the point of doxxing, cancel culture and threats targeted at the individual, not the policies they support. Media has become polarizing as hell.

Where would you put Jinping's China on the spectrum?

Horseshoe theory always seemed dumb to me tbh. Marxism-Leninism and fascism may both suck, but you can't just conflate them because they both happen to be authoritarian and bad.

Horseshoe theory always seemed dumb to me tbh. Marxism-Leninism and fascism may both suck, but you can't just conflate them because they both happen to be authoritarian and bad.

[QUOTE=Lysergic;888947]Lynch the Survivor claim!


[vote]Rumox[/vote]




I'm 14 questions into the long one, and I already think half the questions asked are really poorly/ambiguously phrased. Like "Local governments give each region good representation of their views." I'm not entirely sure what the fuck this question is even supposed to mean. Like... it depends? I'm sure a local government comprised of, say, KKK members in a mostly minority community would probably not give good representation. In an ideal world, under a democratic system? Sure, maybe - depends on voters, levels of voter engagement, and a bunch of other factors (like how gerrymandered / representative is the voting process to begin with).


No clue how to answer about half of these in just different strengths of "agree/disagree" because for many of the questions, I both agree AND disagree: e.g. "should anyone who wants to be free to enter the country?" I feel like I agree with the general sentiment of this (freedom of movement is important, as is the freedom to immigrate - it's one of the things that has historically made my country strong), but the way the question is phrased makes it seem like a trap - like "AHA! So you DO want Nazis to be able to enter the country freely!"


Curious to see what my results will be.


EDIT:

"Military spending is a waste of money."

Come the fuck on. Yes, when you are at peace (IF you are spending disproportionately high on military compared to things like social safety nets or basic infrastructure, etc; though obviously not for just maintaining basic defense). Obviously not when you are being like... Red Dawn'd by hostile paratroopers. How do I add context to "agree/disagree/unsure"?


EDIT:

"Laws should be completely consistent within all regions of a nation"


Seriously? Why isn't there a "depends on the damn law" option? A total campfire ban / stringent fire regulations makes sense in California; less so on the Gulf Coast. But there's a good case to be made for things like, say, murder being fairly universally standardized.


I don't think I'm going to make it to 216 because every fucking question makes me want to type up a new rant on how bad the questions are.


EDIT:

"The national government needs more power"

Fuck the people who wrote these questions.

Am I an authoritarian fascist if I strongly agree that the national government needs more power to enforce climate regulations without thinking that they just need a blanket "more power" in every category? I feel like I am answering "neutral/unsure" to [i]every question[/i] except the obvious gimmes like "should we wipe out countries that don't serve us" or shit like that.

EDIT:

Please define "more power" you quiz writing hacks. That's like the vaguest thing ever, and it's been in like five questions now. "More power" can mean anything from extra taxation powers for infrastructure maintenance to fucking death camps.


EDIT:

"When people have already suffered for technology to be developed, we should use that technology"

Is the technology in question like... new, better solar panels, or Skynet? FFS

"Nations should cooperate whenever it benefits them both"

There are more than two nations. "Sure, but not if it comes at the cost of a third nation, unless the third nation is doing some fucked up shit" doesn't seem to be an option, so I guess neutral/unsure it is.


EDIT:

"The United Nations should have a military to enforce its resolutions"


It kind of does?


[url]https://peacekeeping.un.org/en[/url]


EDIT:

So near the end finally got a bunch of questions where I could solidly answer how I felt one way or the other. But those early categories were hard to get through without a little more nuance.[/QUOTE]

In defense of the questionnaire, I think the questions are intentionally phrased divisively / ambiguously to draw out people's ideology. You're not supposed to ask "what is the context" or "what are the facts". You're supposed to give your gut "feeling" responses, and assume the context is "your" context and the facts are "your" facts. If you have no gut "feeling" response, then perhaps you just aren't ideologically inclined. If you boil every question of policy down to its specifics, providing people with a specific context and set of facts, then people will more or less agree unless they have some fundamentally philosophically different view of morality.

Originally Posted by Lysergic

Lynch the Survivor claim!

-vote Rumox

I'm 14 questions into the long one, and I already think half the questions asked are really poorly/ambiguously phrased. Like "Local governments give each region good representation of their views." I'm not entirely sure what the fuck this question is even supposed to mean. Like... it depends? I'm sure a local government comprised of, say, KKK members in a mostly minority community would probably not give good representation. In an ideal world, under a democratic system? Sure, maybe - depends on voters, levels of voter engagement, and a bunch of other factors (like how gerrymandered / representative is the voting process to begin with).


No clue how to answer about half of these in just different strengths of "agree/disagree" because for many of the questions, I both agree AND disagree: e.g. "should anyone who wants to be free to enter the country?" I feel like I agree with the general sentiment of this (freedom of movement is important, as is the freedom to immigrate - it's one of the things that has historically made my country strong), but the way the question is phrased makes it seem like a trap - like "AHA! So you DO want Nazis to be able to enter the country freely!"


Curious to see what my results will be.


EDIT:

"Military spending is a waste of money."

Come the fuck on. Yes, when you are at peace (IF you are spending disproportionately high on military compared to things like social safety nets or basic infrastructure, etc; though obviously not for just maintaining basic defense). Obviously not when you are being like... Red Dawn'd by hostile paratroopers. How do I add context to "agree/disagree/unsure"?


EDIT:

"Laws should be completely consistent within all regions of a nation"


Seriously? Why isn't there a "depends on the damn law" option? A total campfire ban / stringent fire regulations makes sense in California; less so on the Gulf Coast. But there's a good case to be made for things like, say, murder being fairly universally standardized.


I don't think I'm going to make it to 216 because every fucking question makes me want to type up a new rant on how bad the questions are.


EDIT:

"The national government needs more power"

Fuck the people who wrote these questions.

Am I an authoritarian fascist if I strongly agree that the national government needs more power to enforce climate regulations without thinking that they just need a blanket "more power" in every category? I feel like I am answering "neutral/unsure" to every question except the obvious gimmes like "should we wipe out countries that don't serve us" or shit like that.

EDIT:

Please define "more power" you quiz writing hacks. That's like the vaguest thing ever, and it's been in like five questions now. "More power" can mean anything from extra taxation powers for infrastructure maintenance to fucking death camps.


EDIT:

"When people have already suffered for technology to be developed, we should use that technology"

Is the technology in question like... new, better solar panels, or Skynet? FFS

"Nations should cooperate whenever it benefits them both"

There are more than two nations. "Sure, but not if it comes at the cost of a third nation, unless the third nation is doing some fucked up shit" doesn't seem to be an option, so I guess neutral/unsure it is.


EDIT:

"The United Nations should have a military to enforce its resolutions"


It kind of does?


https://peacekeeping.un.org/en


EDIT:

So near the end finally got a bunch of questions where I could solidly answer how I felt one way or the other. But those early categories were hard to get through without a little more nuance.

In defense of the questionnaire, I think the questions are intentionally phrased divisively / ambiguously to draw out people's ideology. You're not supposed to ask "what is the context" or "what are the facts". You're supposed to give your gut "feeling" responses, and assume the context is "your" context and the facts are "your" facts. If you have no gut "feeling" response, then perhaps you just aren't ideologically inclined. If you boil every question of policy down to its specifics, providing people with a specific context and set of facts, then people will more or less agree unless they have some fundamentally philosophically different view of morality.

[QUOTE=secondpassing;869263]:][/QUOTE]

[I]intrigue intensifies[/I]

Originally Posted by secondpassing

:]

intrigue intensifies

[QUOTE=yzb25;869225]Well, at the very least, they can present drastically different natures of god to the point where they only seem to nominally refer to the same god.[/QUOTE]

Either way, as Ganelon said, the representation of God is so different in these different religious texts that it justifies referring to the "Christian god" or "Muslim god" regardless of whether you technically deem that to be philosophically correct.

Originally Posted by yzb25

Well, at the very least, they can present drastically different natures of god to the point where they only seem to nominally refer to the same god.

Either way, as Ganelon said, the representation of God is so different in these different religious texts that it justifies referring to the "Christian god" or "Muslim god" regardless of whether you technically deem that to be philosophically correct.

[QUOTE=aamirus;869217]The god of judaism, Christianity, and Islam is the exact same god[/QUOTE]

Well, at the very least, they can present drastically different natures of god to the point where they only seem to nominally refer to the same god.

Originally Posted by aamirus

The god of judaism, Christianity, and Islam is the exact same god

Well, at the very least, they can present drastically different natures of god to the point where they only seem to nominally refer to the same god.

My new theological stance is countably infinite agnosticism, and frankly I implore the rest of you to join me. There really is no evidence to the contrary, and logically the burden of proof is on the rest of you to convince me otherwise.

My new theological stance is countably infinite agnosticism, and frankly I implore the rest of you to join me. There really is no evidence to the contrary, and logically the burden of proof is on the rest of you to convince me otherwise.

We define an individual to be countably infinitely agnostic iff. for all n they do not hold any belief over the nth order belief

We define an individual to be countably infinitely agnostic iff. for all n they do not hold any belief over the nth order belief

Who said being agnostic is neutral? Believing that you don't believe either way is surely a form of belief!

Personally, I'm a third order agnostic. Which means I don't hold any belief over whether I don't hold any belief over whether I don't hold any belief!

Who said being agnostic is neutral? Believing that you don't believe either way is surely a form of belief!

Personally, I'm a third order agnostic. Which means I don't hold any belief over whether I don't hold any belief over whether I don't hold any belief!

Yeah in practice the left/right divide goes far beyond economics lol.

I think the alliances question is a nod to shit like NATO or the GCC. Alliances are always about much more than "let's not attack eachother lol". I can imagine how someone may oppose joining alliances in principle, though some countries really don't get the privilege of choosing not to pick a side.

Yeah in practice the left/right divide goes far beyond economics lol.

I think the alliances question is a nod to shit like NATO or the GCC. Alliances are always about much more than "let's not attack eachother lol". I can imagine how someone may oppose joining alliances in principle, though some countries really don't get the privilege of choosing not to pick a side.

I don't know how I feel about the specific labels but it's drawing out a lot of distinctions in people's worldviews tbf

I don't know how I feel about the specific labels but it's drawing out a lot of distinctions in people's worldviews tbf

[QUOTE=secondpassing;868454]Interesting to see how people can be isolationist and multiculturalists at the same time. Same goes for globalists and being for assimilation.

I thought they'd be connected.[/QUOTE]

Immigrants are awesome but trade should be heavily regulated.

Originally Posted by secondpassing

Interesting to see how people can be isolationist and multiculturalists at the same time. Same goes for globalists and being for assimilation.

I thought they'd be connected.

Immigrants are awesome but trade should be heavily regulated.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;868153]damn dude are you a fan of Bread Santa?[/QUOTE]

This? [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conquest_of_Bread[/url]

Maybe... :3

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

damn dude are you a fan of Bread Santa?

This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conquest_of_Bread

Maybe... :3

[QUOTE=Renegade;868150]Full disclosure I did the short version of the test - no time for 200 questions.[/QUOTE]

Ah, so the test missed your nuanced take on fanatic secularism. A pitfall of the 280 character age.

Originally Posted by Renegade

Full disclosure I did the short version of the test - no time for 200 questions.

Ah, so the test missed your nuanced take on fanatic secularism. A pitfall of the 280 character age.

[QUOTE=Renegade;868146][ATTACH=CONFIG]27100[/ATTACH]

Fanatic secularist - I like that!![/QUOTE]

Holy shit 100. You must have said strongly agree to the ban religion one you crazy man XDDD

Originally Posted by Renegade

Fanatic secularist - I like that!!

Holy shit 100. You must have said strongly agree to the ban religion one you crazy man XDDD

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27099[/ATTACH]

The phrasing of a lot of the questions is very hardline. I guess they do that to minimize "neutrals"?

The phrasing of a lot of the questions is very hardline. I guess they do that to minimize "neutrals"?