Socialism:
>Your earnings and worth are largely based on how valuable you are to the government
Capitalism:
>Your earnings and worth are largely based on how valuable you are to the public
Out of curiosity, how much does that about sum it up? It does help explain why Socialism under the NSDAP is the only time that it ever "worked" (Because most of the higher-ranking members were devoted nationals, and, therefore, considered the citizens of the nation to be highly valuable); and why it is that the highest paid people in Capitalist nations are those that pretty much "own everything" (Because they're able to provide so much for the public), along with explaining why trying to succeed in a Capitalist country is mostly "hard".
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 69F85EA5BA7C24F69E26A03D0C638BD2-102616.png (100.2 KB, 418x419, Nothing is free.png)
Socialism theoretically puts society before capital. Marxist socialism specifically tends not to work because the society it promotes is extremely theoretical and doesn't account for real life people being assholes. The revolutionaries sieze the capital saying they'll redistribute it, and then they just don't.
Capitalism puts capital before society. Putting capital before society obviously generates a lot of capital, which initially bosts quality of life for everyone, but over time that capital will tend to concentrate in just a few hands. It's essentially the same thing that happens in real-life marxism but slower and less violently: those in power end up with all the wealth. And in real-lifw capitalism, those people aren't necessarily the ones who add the most value to society. Congress votes to give itself pay raises. The bankers essentially make profit out of thin air by charging interest on loans. It's worth noting that interest bankers tend to be much, much wealthier than the business owners who actually provide jobs for people. Of course, even the job-providing capitalists aren't immune to being greedy assholes, and they will try to use their power to try to bypass the theoretical "dollar vote" function of the free market at every turn, and in so doing they become able to make more profit off of inferior products and thus consolidate wealth even faster. Take Monsanto being allowed to sue people for not using their seeds, or take Disney bribing critics to give good reviews to shit movies for example.
Capitalism sounds logical in theory, and marxism sounds nice in theory, but neither one of these really accounts for the fact that human beings are greedy assholes who game the system whenever they can.
Capitalism puts capital before society. Putting capital before society obviously generates a lot of capital, which initially bosts quality of life for everyone, but over time that capital will tend to concentrate in just a few hands. It's essentially the same thing that happens in real-life marxism but slower and less violently: those in power end up with all the wealth. And in real-lifw capitalism, those people aren't necessarily the ones who add the most value to society. Congress votes to give itself pay raises. The bankers essentially make profit out of thin air by charging interest on loans. It's worth noting that interest bankers tend to be much, much wealthier than the business owners who actually provide jobs for people. Of course, even the job-providing capitalists aren't immune to being greedy assholes, and they will try to use their power to try to bypass the theoretical "dollar vote" function of the free market at every turn, and in so doing they become able to make more profit off of inferior products and thus consolidate wealth even faster. Take Monsanto being allowed to sue people for not using their seeds, or take Disney bribing critics to give good reviews to shit movies for example.
Capitalism sounds logical in theory, and marxism sounds nice in theory, but neither one of these really accounts for the fact that human beings are greedy assholes who game the system whenever they can.
>>253869
>Take Monsanto being allowed to sue people for not using their seeds
Could you provide a source on that? The only thing I can find in regards to Monsanto suing people is because they're either replicating their patent or using their seeds without a license: http://archive.ph/ABgwx
>take Disney bribing critics to give good reviews to shit movies for example.
That actually is illegal unless the reviewers discloses that they've received benefits from Disney. Several companies have gotten nailed for that.
>Take Monsanto being allowed to sue people for not using their seeds
Could you provide a source on that? The only thing I can find in regards to Monsanto suing people is because they're either replicating their patent or using their seeds without a license: http://archive.ph/ABgwx
>take Disney bribing critics to give good reviews to shit movies for example.
That actually is illegal unless the reviewers discloses that they've received benefits from Disney. Several companies have gotten nailed for that.
File (): E585E6431A6EF0E474050C4310D5D950-52126.png (50.9 KB, 532x606, 1577119075749.png)
>>253873
When has legality stopped them? Check out the reviews for the latest soi wars. Disregarding the questionably large score itself, what's more interesting is that it stayed constant at that value. Not just before and after. People were watching it like a hawk and the score was frozen at that value as more reviews kept pouring in. It's virtually impossible for the audience rating score to at least not fluctuate a bit as the review count grows that much. The only logical explanation is that the reviews were rigged.
When has legality stopped them? Check out the reviews for the latest soi wars. Disregarding the questionably large score itself, what's more interesting is that it stayed constant at that value. Not just before and after. People were watching it like a hawk and the score was frozen at that value as more reviews kept pouring in. It's virtually impossible for the audience rating score to at least not fluctuate a bit as the review count grows that much. The only logical explanation is that the reviews were rigged.
>>253907
I don’t understand what the picture is supposed to prove. Why would you expect the next 9000 reviewers to have a different opinion than the first 29,000? It’s the same movie and the sane audience. Why would the first 29,000 not be a big enough sample to determine what opinion the average movie going reviewer has of the rise of Skywalker? Statisticians are usually pleased to collect a sample of 1000 to try to find a sample that is representative of the average. 29000 reviews is more than enough to find the average.
Even if the next 9000 did have a different opinion of the Rise of Skywalker than the first 29000 (why would they though?), 29000 is a number three times that of 9000, and so the next 9000 would have to have an opinion on average 3 points different to move the average of the whole by a single point.
If you want to prove that a Rotten Tomatoes modifies scores or that Disney uses bots, there are much better examples
I don’t understand what the picture is supposed to prove. Why would you expect the next 9000 reviewers to have a different opinion than the first 29,000? It’s the same movie and the sane audience. Why would the first 29,000 not be a big enough sample to determine what opinion the average movie going reviewer has of the rise of Skywalker? Statisticians are usually pleased to collect a sample of 1000 to try to find a sample that is representative of the average. 29000 reviews is more than enough to find the average.
Even if the next 9000 did have a different opinion of the Rise of Skywalker than the first 29000 (why would they though?), 29000 is a number three times that of 9000, and so the next 9000 would have to have an opinion on average 3 points different to move the average of the whole by a single point.
If you want to prove that a Rotten Tomatoes modifies scores or that Disney uses bots, there are much better examples
>>253909
Why would you expect the next 9000 reviews to have the exact same opinion as the first 29000, though?
Why would you expect the next 9000 reviews to have the exact same opinion as the first 29000, though?
>>253911
Going by that logic, seeing the score hover around the same approximate value would be expected. To see the score literally flatline is completely bizarre. That's simply not the way these things work.
Going by that logic, seeing the score hover around the same approximate value would be expected. To see the score literally flatline is completely bizarre. That's simply not the way these things work.
>>253915
It's still at 86% even now at 45k. It's been at 86% since the first few thousand reviews from the initial showing when the die hard fans who are predisposed to love it showed up for midnight showings. The score should have fluctuated a bit if not shifted outright in a different direction once the population of normalfags started watching it.
It's basically impossible for the score to stay this constant the whole time.
It's still at 86% even now at 45k. It's been at 86% since the first few thousand reviews from the initial showing when the die hard fans who are predisposed to love it showed up for midnight showings. The score should have fluctuated a bit if not shifted outright in a different direction once the population of normalfags started watching it.
It's basically impossible for the score to stay this constant the whole time.
>>253916
There are many things wrong with this, so I am just going to make a list:
People who watched the film on Friday don’t necessarily all post a review on Friday. Some may post a review days later, and some the same night, meaning that many of these new reviews are likely from people who watched it on Friday
Not every die hard Starwars fan who thinks “I have to watch this film as early as possible!” watched it on Friday instead of Saturday. We are still in the first weekend of release. At least some starwars fans have jobs, families, or whatever else stops them from watching it on literally the first night. I am certain that some of them wanted to see it, but were met with a sold out theater. Some were afraid of a sold out theater and waited. Plenty of starwars fans who wanted to see the film probably wanted to wait until crowds were lesser.
Normies watch films on the first weekend too. Almost all films, be they franchises or stand alones, will have significantly more people watch them on the first weekend than any weekend there after, with the average drop off between the first and second weekends around 40-60%. Star Wars is a big action packed blockbuster designed to appeal to normies, of course plenty of them will watch it on the first weekend.
Star Wars fandom is normie. Almost the entire population of the United States has seen and liked at least one of the Star Wars movies. The population that are “fans” of starwars correspondingly is pretty similar to the movie going population at large. Even in an episode of “How I met your Mother” they make fun of a girl for not liking a Ewoks, and do assume she must have been an adult when Return of the Jedi came out. If it were Undertale, Anime, or My Little Pony you could think the people who like it would be different from average, but Star Wars is basically average.
Normies and “Star Wars fans” who watched the movies could like it about the same amount. JJ Abrams creates a starwars film that, while atrociously paced, is at least fun and entirely inoffensive. There is enough action to keep people entertained and no major moments to offend fans. There is no reason for fans of Star Wars to have a very different opinion of this fun-but-safe film than non-fans, particularly since starwars is and always has been a dumb, action blockbuster series that appeals to the common denominator to begin with. Contrast this film against Rian Johnson’s the Last Jedi, which took risks, and was perceived as disrespectful by fans, but not as offensive to non-fans. I was one of the “non-fans” who watched the film on the opening Friday when my friend and I bought two of the last four available seats. There was a scene where it’s seems that Chewbacca dies, and my drunken friend - who has a “Galactic Empire Passport” wallet, and thus may be considered a “fan” of Star Wars - said “fuck this movie. But wouldn't you know it? Chewbacca is actually alright, and so my friend is placated. It’s an inoffensive film designed to attempt to be satisfactory to everyone. Maybe it succeeded at least in part.
It’s entirely possible that the samples are very different, they just aren’t different enough to register on the primitive audience score system. Mathematically, in order for 9000 new reviews to move the audience score when added to 29,000 existing reviews, those reviews would have to be about 3.2% different to move the score by 1%, the lowest that would be registered. When only 14% give negative reviews, that’s a massive difference in the amount of negative reviews. You would need around 22% more or less negative reviews in the second sample to move the average of the whole up or down by 1. That’s a massive difference in attitudes. Why would you expect that much difference in just two days?
The bottom line is that it’s only been a couple days since the movie came out. Of course the reviews are consistent.
\r
There are many things wrong with this, so I am just going to make a list:
People who watched the film on Friday don’t necessarily all post a review on Friday. Some may post a review days later, and some the same night, meaning that many of these new reviews are likely from people who watched it on Friday
Not every die hard Starwars fan who thinks “I have to watch this film as early as possible!” watched it on Friday instead of Saturday. We are still in the first weekend of release. At least some starwars fans have jobs, families, or whatever else stops them from watching it on literally the first night. I am certain that some of them wanted to see it, but were met with a sold out theater. Some were afraid of a sold out theater and waited. Plenty of starwars fans who wanted to see the film probably wanted to wait until crowds were lesser.
Normies watch films on the first weekend too. Almost all films, be they franchises or stand alones, will have significantly more people watch them on the first weekend than any weekend there after, with the average drop off between the first and second weekends around 40-60%. Star Wars is a big action packed blockbuster designed to appeal to normies, of course plenty of them will watch it on the first weekend.
Star Wars fandom is normie. Almost the entire population of the United States has seen and liked at least one of the Star Wars movies. The population that are “fans” of starwars correspondingly is pretty similar to the movie going population at large. Even in an episode of “How I met your Mother” they make fun of a girl for not liking a Ewoks, and do assume she must have been an adult when Return of the Jedi came out. If it were Undertale, Anime, or My Little Pony you could think the people who like it would be different from average, but Star Wars is basically average.
Normies and “Star Wars fans” who watched the movies could like it about the same amount. JJ Abrams creates a starwars film that, while atrociously paced, is at least fun and entirely inoffensive. There is enough action to keep people entertained and no major moments to offend fans. There is no reason for fans of Star Wars to have a very different opinion of this fun-but-safe film than non-fans, particularly since starwars is and always has been a dumb, action blockbuster series that appeals to the common denominator to begin with. Contrast this film against Rian Johnson’s the Last Jedi, which took risks, and was perceived as disrespectful by fans, but not as offensive to non-fans. I was one of the “non-fans” who watched the film on the opening Friday when my friend and I bought two of the last four available seats. There was a scene where it’s seems that Chewbacca dies, and my drunken friend - who has a “Galactic Empire Passport” wallet, and thus may be considered a “fan” of Star Wars - said “fuck this movie. But wouldn't you know it? Chewbacca is actually alright, and so my friend is placated. It’s an inoffensive film designed to attempt to be satisfactory to everyone. Maybe it succeeded at least in part.
It’s entirely possible that the samples are very different, they just aren’t different enough to register on the primitive audience score system. Mathematically, in order for 9000 new reviews to move the audience score when added to 29,000 existing reviews, those reviews would have to be about 3.2% different to move the score by 1%, the lowest that would be registered. When only 14% give negative reviews, that’s a massive difference in the amount of negative reviews. You would need around 22% more or less negative reviews in the second sample to move the average of the whole up or down by 1. That’s a massive difference in attitudes. Why would you expect that much difference in just two days?
The bottom line is that it’s only been a couple days since the movie came out. Of course the reviews are consistent.
\r
>>253923
>The bottom line is that it’s only been a couple days since the movie came out. Of course the reviews are consistent.
The first couple days are when it should be at its most volatile. Opinions should be at their hottest right now as people decide whether they loved it purely because it was soy wars or whether they hated it because it was a stupid ending the series. Furthermore, with fewer reviews, each individual vote should coubt for more and thereby contribute to fluctuations. You have to consider how RT's user-review system works. Any review over 3.5 factors in as an upboat, any review under a 3.5 factors in as a downboat. If every single review was a 3, it'd be 0%, and if every review was 4, it'd be 100%. It's not as though users are just consistently choosing a rating of 86%. Even if it just so happened that it was actually 86% of viewers that liked the film, you would have at least expected minor variations, especially at the beginning. The score shouldn't stabilize like this til later, as reviews slow down and the public comes to a more general consensus on the film.
It's worth noting that Rise of Skywalker has had the least profitable opening weekend of any Star Wars film since Disney bought the franchise, which is itself an indicator that it's not being very well-received, and is therefore inconsistent with a viewer-approval rating of 86%.
>The bottom line is that it’s only been a couple days since the movie came out. Of course the reviews are consistent.
The first couple days are when it should be at its most volatile. Opinions should be at their hottest right now as people decide whether they loved it purely because it was soy wars or whether they hated it because it was a stupid ending the series. Furthermore, with fewer reviews, each individual vote should coubt for more and thereby contribute to fluctuations. You have to consider how RT's user-review system works. Any review over 3.5 factors in as an upboat, any review under a 3.5 factors in as a downboat. If every single review was a 3, it'd be 0%, and if every review was 4, it'd be 100%. It's not as though users are just consistently choosing a rating of 86%. Even if it just so happened that it was actually 86% of viewers that liked the film, you would have at least expected minor variations, especially at the beginning. The score shouldn't stabilize like this til later, as reviews slow down and the public comes to a more general consensus on the film.
It's worth noting that Rise of Skywalker has had the least profitable opening weekend of any Star Wars film since Disney bought the franchise, which is itself an indicator that it's not being very well-received, and is therefore inconsistent with a viewer-approval rating of 86%.
>>253924
>The first couple days are when it should be at its most volatile
It’s probably worth mentioning at this point that there is no time stamp on the image with the 29,000 reviews and the 38,000. There is really no reason to believe that they were even taken in different days. But to address the point, why would it be volatile?
>with fewer reviews, each individual vote should coubt for more and thereby contribute to fluctuations.
If there were 100 reviews, this would be true, as one negative review could alter the percentage. But we’re not at 100 reviews, we’re at 300 times 100 reviews, and each review does not alter the total. 29,000 reviews is more reviews than most movies get over the entire course of their run. Alita Battle Angel, for instance, had 32000 reviews on total, and that was also a blockbuster action film. Antman and the Wasp only ever 23,000.
I don’t know if you have ever taken a class in statistics, and it has been many years since I have, so the mathematics behind it are difficult to explain in detail. But once you get past a sample size of around 1500, random chance I’d not going to cause the mean of the sample to vary much. The vast majority of opinion polls, for instance, have samples of less than 1500. 29000 is a huge sample size, and variation based on random chance is extremely improbable.
>You have to consider how RT's user-review system works
The only thing that matters for these purposes is if RT’s user review system is any different in how it measures things than it was 3 days ago, and it almost certainly isn’t. If the user review system is shitty, then it is equally shitty compared to how it was on Friday and so should produce the sane results as it did then. Nothing has changed.
> It's not as though users are just consistently choosing a rating of 86%
Well obviously. 86% of reviewers are giving a score of 3.5 or higher and 14% are giving it a score of less than 3.5 and the numbers make that pretty obvious.
> you would have at least expected minor variations, especially at the beginning
And there probably were variations at the beginning, back when there were 100 or 1000 or 3000 reviews. But we aren’t looking at screen shots of when there were 100 and 1000 reviews. But we are well past the beginning. We are at past 29000 reviews, more reviews than most films get in their entire run.
>The score shouldn't stabilize like this til later, as reviews slow down and the public comes to a more general consensus on the film
And the consensus of opening weekend is that 86% liked the film. Maybe they’d feel differently if polled in a year? Random chance by itself is not going to cause this number to change, and it would take a vast change in opinion to change the average of the whole at all
>It's worth noting that Rise of Skywalker has had the least profitable opening weekend of any Star Wars film since Disney bought the franchise, which is itself an indicator that it's not being very well-received, and is therefore inconsistent with a viewer-approval rating of 86%
Orrrrrrrr it means that people who didn’t like the Last Jedi and knew they wouldn’t like this one never went to see this one. How well a film does in its opening weekend is about how good people think it will be, and about how well marketed it is. Things like word of mouth and audience reviews won’t even make a difference until the second weekend when people have had the chance to hear what other people think of it. The Rise of Skywalker has the disadvantage of being released after The a Last Jedi. That’s bad marketing that scares off viewers. It’s also poorly reviewed by critics. But that doesn’t mean that the people who do show up to watch it don’t enjoy it.
>The first couple days are when it should be at its most volatile
It’s probably worth mentioning at this point that there is no time stamp on the image with the 29,000 reviews and the 38,000. There is really no reason to believe that they were even taken in different days. But to address the point, why would it be volatile?
>with fewer reviews, each individual vote should coubt for more and thereby contribute to fluctuations.
If there were 100 reviews, this would be true, as one negative review could alter the percentage. But we’re not at 100 reviews, we’re at 300 times 100 reviews, and each review does not alter the total. 29,000 reviews is more reviews than most movies get over the entire course of their run. Alita Battle Angel, for instance, had 32000 reviews on total, and that was also a blockbuster action film. Antman and the Wasp only ever 23,000.
I don’t know if you have ever taken a class in statistics, and it has been many years since I have, so the mathematics behind it are difficult to explain in detail. But once you get past a sample size of around 1500, random chance I’d not going to cause the mean of the sample to vary much. The vast majority of opinion polls, for instance, have samples of less than 1500. 29000 is a huge sample size, and variation based on random chance is extremely improbable.
>You have to consider how RT's user-review system works
The only thing that matters for these purposes is if RT’s user review system is any different in how it measures things than it was 3 days ago, and it almost certainly isn’t. If the user review system is shitty, then it is equally shitty compared to how it was on Friday and so should produce the sane results as it did then. Nothing has changed.
> It's not as though users are just consistently choosing a rating of 86%
Well obviously. 86% of reviewers are giving a score of 3.5 or higher and 14% are giving it a score of less than 3.5 and the numbers make that pretty obvious.
> you would have at least expected minor variations, especially at the beginning
And there probably were variations at the beginning, back when there were 100 or 1000 or 3000 reviews. But we aren’t looking at screen shots of when there were 100 and 1000 reviews. But we are well past the beginning. We are at past 29000 reviews, more reviews than most films get in their entire run.
>The score shouldn't stabilize like this til later, as reviews slow down and the public comes to a more general consensus on the film
And the consensus of opening weekend is that 86% liked the film. Maybe they’d feel differently if polled in a year? Random chance by itself is not going to cause this number to change, and it would take a vast change in opinion to change the average of the whole at all
>It's worth noting that Rise of Skywalker has had the least profitable opening weekend of any Star Wars film since Disney bought the franchise, which is itself an indicator that it's not being very well-received, and is therefore inconsistent with a viewer-approval rating of 86%
Orrrrrrrr it means that people who didn’t like the Last Jedi and knew they wouldn’t like this one never went to see this one. How well a film does in its opening weekend is about how good people think it will be, and about how well marketed it is. Things like word of mouth and audience reviews won’t even make a difference until the second weekend when people have had the chance to hear what other people think of it. The Rise of Skywalker has the disadvantage of being released after The a Last Jedi. That’s bad marketing that scares off viewers. It’s also poorly reviewed by critics. But that doesn’t mean that the people who do show up to watch it don’t enjoy it.
>>253915
86% is the very definition of “the same approximate value” of 86%. With a sample so huge you will not see significant variation by random chance alone
>>253924
>>253916
>>253907
You know what? I’m going to answer all of these with a single question: Have you (already) seen The Rise of Skywalker in theaters?
86% is the very definition of “the same approximate value” of 86%. With a sample so huge you will not see significant variation by random chance alone
>>253924
>>253916
>>253907
You know what? I’m going to answer all of these with a single question: Have you (already) seen The Rise of Skywalker in theaters?
>people actually defending soy was itt
OK who shared this site with plebbit? Honestly this thread was closed with >>253869 being the perfect answer. (((Capitalism))) an (((communism))) are two sides of the same sheckle. This is /pol/ 101.
OK who shared this site with plebbit? Honestly this thread was closed with >>253869 being the perfect answer. (((Capitalism))) an (((communism))) are two sides of the same sheckle. This is /pol/ 101.
File (): DFC8C2747E887647617D6CC88C5BA91C-66523.jpg (65.0 KB, 601x440, 1577157148718.jpg)
>>253915
It's definitely bought but at a certain point the margin of error locks in on the correct average and 1000000 votes won't do shit.
It's definitely bought but at a certain point the margin of error locks in on the correct average and 1000000 votes won't do shit.
File (): 2D28A07DC4B2F27E1875EF8F3C127B99-774912.jpg (756.8 KB, 1577x1847, 1577153579334.jpg)
The thing about capitalism is the less valuable you are, the less you get to decide people's earnings and worth, including your own. So no that doesn't sum it up, unless you consider 1% of the population to be "the public." Maybe this would be better:
Socialism:
>Your earnings and worth are largely based on how valuable you are to the Socialists
Capitalism:
>Your earnings and worth are largely based on how valuable you are to the Capitalists
Socialism:
>Your earnings and worth are largely based on how valuable you are to the Socialists
Capitalism:
>Your earnings and worth are largely based on how valuable you are to the Capitalists
16 replies | 4 files | 13 UUIDs | Archived