- Messages
- 916
@Göring So let's suppose for the sake of argument that Inclupedia wouldn't be profitable. So what?
It's a pioneering project, kind of like Wilbur and Orville Wright developing the first airplane. The first airplane didn't really do anything directly profitable. It didn't carry passengers or cargo any useful distance. The point of it was to serve as a proof of concept and pave the way for more profitable stuff.
The nigger mentality is to be like, "If it don't make dollahs then it don't make sense." That's why niggers never accomplish anything besides selling crack on a street corner and then making five cents an hour wiping down tables in prison.
What distinguishes the white race from others is that we do cool stuff for the sake of doing cool stuff. Whites have also become the wealthiest race, because we kept our skills sharp and forged connections in the process of doing that, and eventually found ways to make money.
Or you could look at cause and effect the other way, and say that whites made so much money we could afford to do stuff like hang around trying to fly airplanes at Kitty Hawk. Wilbur and Orville started out at a bike shop and applied the skills and resources from that to building airplanes.
At any rate, the point of the bike shop is not to be like, "Ima get drunk and fuck horses now that I have the minimum amount of money to do that" and then not develop an airplane. Or, if that is how it is, then that strikes me as a really European way of thinking which would explain why the airplane wasn't invented in Europe.
It makes you wonder, why wasn't the airplane invented till the 20th century? I mean, we had the various components, like the internal combustion engine. Maybe people just didn't give much of a shit about flying because they had their various leisure activities or they didn't see profitability in doing the initial research and engineering and experimentation to come up with the proof of concept. But I mean, why does everything have to be about profit.
It reminds me of how in prison, when I was teaching an economics class, a black dude would raise his hand and spend a lot of time asking how to make money off of these concepts. They didn't really have intellectual curiosity to learn for the sake of learning, out of faith that there would be some benefit through unexpected means, or through a concern for how society needed better macroeconomic policies.
At any rate, it's kind of a moot point because any website in, say, the top 100 will probably be profitable anyway, although I dunno if @matth wants to address that argument either in agreement or disagreement. I would think that pretty much anything that attracts a lot of eyeballs can be monetized, if only because Google or some other big company will want to buy it so they can control it and use that influence to promote their other products.
Well, it's partly a question of whether we should care about doing anything that isn't profitable.
This is why medical pot has been illegal for so long. People have said all along, "You can't patent a plant, and therefore there's no money to be made in doing research to prove that it has a medical use." So instead money went into loading people up with a bunch of oxycontin and other addictive drugs for their pain management.
When people insist everything has to be profitable to be worth doing, then it's hard to have any public goods, without state funding. But state funding is allocated based on politics, as again, interest groups try to use it for purposes that will be profitable to them rather than for the public good.
Maybe what should've happened, is that I should've been a professor at a university and gotten some students to help build Inclupedia. Basic research and development sometimes happens that way. I'm not sure what department would handle something like that, though; maybe engineering and computer science, but you have to be good at getting grants, I suppose, and to do that, you have to put forth an idea that funders can understand and appreciate the value of. If it's something too obscure, then maybe they won't get what it's about, and then you're stuck doing a bunch of stuff you don't really care about, to make your living.
@Göring 's basic attitude is, "Till women give up the pussy to me, I'm not going to do anything for society, because why should I."
Idk, when has that mentality ever gotten women to spread their legs, or caused a reform of society. Seems like it would work better to work on stuff that's going to increase your power and influence in various ways. Then, even if you don't get pussy, you might still be able to promote the patriarchy or something by using your position as a bully pulpit.
More likely, you find some kind of niche where you don't have to do a lot of work but still get paid to be some sort of expert or visionary, kind of like what this dude was doing for awhile. Erik Möller - Wikipedia Basically you get a sinecure in exchange for your early contributions.
Going on strike and saying, "Society needs to give me what I want or I'm not going to contribute my labor" doesn't really work unless you have a lot of leverage. E.g. labor unions can restrict the ability of new workers to enter their field.
Yeah, you can sabotage your own civilization by refusing to contribute your skills to promote innovation, but that gets real old. I spent four years in prison basically doing that, and it gets tedious. And it doesn't really work too well unless you're in solidarity with others who are joining you in the same goals, unless you're trying to inspire people like 100 years down the road, and even then, when that time comes, they're going to need to have others on their side.
Idk, am I really the only one on this planet who has this project as their calling? Am I really that alone? I guess it happens all that time, and we just never hear about it because nobody really understands or cares about a calling that isn't theirs. All they see is that someone didn't succeed, wasn't happy, etc. and the reasons why remain mysterious, although the shrinks are happy to give some kind of bogus explanation.
It's a pioneering project, kind of like Wilbur and Orville Wright developing the first airplane. The first airplane didn't really do anything directly profitable. It didn't carry passengers or cargo any useful distance. The point of it was to serve as a proof of concept and pave the way for more profitable stuff.
The nigger mentality is to be like, "If it don't make dollahs then it don't make sense." That's why niggers never accomplish anything besides selling crack on a street corner and then making five cents an hour wiping down tables in prison.
What distinguishes the white race from others is that we do cool stuff for the sake of doing cool stuff. Whites have also become the wealthiest race, because we kept our skills sharp and forged connections in the process of doing that, and eventually found ways to make money.
Or you could look at cause and effect the other way, and say that whites made so much money we could afford to do stuff like hang around trying to fly airplanes at Kitty Hawk. Wilbur and Orville started out at a bike shop and applied the skills and resources from that to building airplanes.
At any rate, the point of the bike shop is not to be like, "Ima get drunk and fuck horses now that I have the minimum amount of money to do that" and then not develop an airplane. Or, if that is how it is, then that strikes me as a really European way of thinking which would explain why the airplane wasn't invented in Europe.
It makes you wonder, why wasn't the airplane invented till the 20th century? I mean, we had the various components, like the internal combustion engine. Maybe people just didn't give much of a shit about flying because they had their various leisure activities or they didn't see profitability in doing the initial research and engineering and experimentation to come up with the proof of concept. But I mean, why does everything have to be about profit.
It reminds me of how in prison, when I was teaching an economics class, a black dude would raise his hand and spend a lot of time asking how to make money off of these concepts. They didn't really have intellectual curiosity to learn for the sake of learning, out of faith that there would be some benefit through unexpected means, or through a concern for how society needed better macroeconomic policies.
At any rate, it's kind of a moot point because any website in, say, the top 100 will probably be profitable anyway, although I dunno if @matth wants to address that argument either in agreement or disagreement. I would think that pretty much anything that attracts a lot of eyeballs can be monetized, if only because Google or some other big company will want to buy it so they can control it and use that influence to promote their other products.
Well, it's partly a question of whether we should care about doing anything that isn't profitable.
This is why medical pot has been illegal for so long. People have said all along, "You can't patent a plant, and therefore there's no money to be made in doing research to prove that it has a medical use." So instead money went into loading people up with a bunch of oxycontin and other addictive drugs for their pain management.
When people insist everything has to be profitable to be worth doing, then it's hard to have any public goods, without state funding. But state funding is allocated based on politics, as again, interest groups try to use it for purposes that will be profitable to them rather than for the public good.
Maybe what should've happened, is that I should've been a professor at a university and gotten some students to help build Inclupedia. Basic research and development sometimes happens that way. I'm not sure what department would handle something like that, though; maybe engineering and computer science, but you have to be good at getting grants, I suppose, and to do that, you have to put forth an idea that funders can understand and appreciate the value of. If it's something too obscure, then maybe they won't get what it's about, and then you're stuck doing a bunch of stuff you don't really care about, to make your living.
@Göring 's basic attitude is, "Till women give up the pussy to me, I'm not going to do anything for society, because why should I."
Idk, when has that mentality ever gotten women to spread their legs, or caused a reform of society. Seems like it would work better to work on stuff that's going to increase your power and influence in various ways. Then, even if you don't get pussy, you might still be able to promote the patriarchy or something by using your position as a bully pulpit.
More likely, you find some kind of niche where you don't have to do a lot of work but still get paid to be some sort of expert or visionary, kind of like what this dude was doing for awhile. Erik Möller - Wikipedia Basically you get a sinecure in exchange for your early contributions.
Going on strike and saying, "Society needs to give me what I want or I'm not going to contribute my labor" doesn't really work unless you have a lot of leverage. E.g. labor unions can restrict the ability of new workers to enter their field.
Yeah, you can sabotage your own civilization by refusing to contribute your skills to promote innovation, but that gets real old. I spent four years in prison basically doing that, and it gets tedious. And it doesn't really work too well unless you're in solidarity with others who are joining you in the same goals, unless you're trying to inspire people like 100 years down the road, and even then, when that time comes, they're going to need to have others on their side.
Idk, am I really the only one on this planet who has this project as their calling? Am I really that alone? I guess it happens all that time, and we just never hear about it because nobody really understands or cares about a calling that isn't theirs. All they see is that someone didn't succeed, wasn't happy, etc. and the reasons why remain mysterious, although the shrinks are happy to give some kind of bogus explanation.
