Upload
Login or register

nightmaren

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:12/25/2010
Location:Ontario
Stats
Content Thumbs: 728 total,  1082 ,  354
Comment Thumbs: 25783 total,  32106 ,  6323
Content Level Progress: 70% (7/10)
Level 72 Content: FJ Cultist → Level 73 Content: FJ Cultist
Comment Level Progress: 30% (300/1000)
Level 325 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 326 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Subscribers:5
Content Views:53691
Times Content Favorited:105 times
Total Comments Made:8001
FJ Points:2938

latest user's comments

#2 - This is what I think when I see all the racist content on this…  [+] (2 replies) 04/28/2015 on Some people should learn this -1
#5 - anon (04/29/2015) [-]
Your comment begs the question of why you're still here
User avatar
#28 - nightmaren (05/02/2015) [-]
'still here'
#69 - Because that's literally not the point of the comic. I can pro…  [+] (2 replies) 04/28/2015 on Go green 0
User avatar
#70 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
So to you, it's unfair for him to try and save money? It's evil for him to not spend money he doesn't have to? Because he didn't do anything wrong, despite you wanting to try and find some way of twisting him being smart into being bad. The same as the artist, who really just didn't think it through.

Paying people = using people
getting people to do things without paying them = smart, not evil
not spending money you don't have to = smart, not evil
not working had when you don't have to = smart, not evil

And he's helping the community, because that park is a part of the environment.

If he wasn't wearing a suit, would you still label him as evil?
User avatar
#95 - nightmaren (04/29/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to twist things to make it look like he did something wrong. I'm saying he did something wrong. It's pretty widely agreed upon that exploiting people = bad.
I don't know what makes you think that paying someone to do something is using them, that's pretty stupid. Paying people to do things for you is only 'using them' in a literal sense. When you pay someone to do something they know what they're doing, and they know why you want them to do it. When you trick people into doing something because you don't want to pay someone to do it, or you don't want to do it yourself, and your cards aren't all on the table, and youu don't give any money back to the people who helped clean it: you are exploiting them. It's not even up for debate.
It is a smart move though, and I do admire what he did, the same way I admire Petyr Baelish. Petyr's one of my favourite characters, but that doesn't mean he's not a dick.
Again, we shouldn't admire the guy in this comic for "helping the community" because he didn't set out to improve the community; he set out to use people for his personal gain. To help explain this to you, I've revised your chart.

Paying people = Giving people money to complete a task they set out to do. Helps them put food on the table and pay their bills. Helps the economy. You said early that giving people "good feelings" is worth more than money. That's not even mildly true.
getting people to do things without paying them = Smart, although it doesn't help the economy, it doesn't help feed anybody, it doesn't help pay anybody's bills. Is only morally okay if the people you're getting to do the things know why you're doing it and all your cards are on the table and they agree to it.
not spending money you don't have to = Is a bad thing to do when you trick people into doing things for you when you could be paying people who specialize in it to do it for you
not working had when you don't have to = Is a bad thing to do when you trick people into doing things for you when you could be paying people who specialize in it to do it for you
#67 - No, hiring someone to do something is consensual for lac…  [+] (4 replies) 04/28/2015 on Go green +2
User avatar
#68 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
He's not lying about anything. He's just not telling the people he owns the land - and I don't think that matters at all. He wants his land clean, that's the important thing, and so he's getting it done. He's not making the people believe anything they wouldn't otherwise believe. He's not saying he doesn't own the land. And even though he's not paying the people, they're still getting a more important reward than cash. Feelings. All cash does is give people a way to go get good feelings - he's just giving them the good feelings. Is it such a bad thing that it happens to benefit him as well? I don't think so.
User avatar
#69 - nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-]
Because that's literally not the point of the comic. I can promise you that the author did not intend for that to be representative of him at all. As I've already stated, this comic is clearly about how the rich exploit the poor; you're not meant to assume that all he wants is to make people happy. And I would think that if he did, he would also have some kind of sense of fairness, and would at least donate something to the community, or give the organizers some money.
It's honestly not debatable that he used and exploited people for his own profit; as he could have just hired and payed people to clean the land for him, which would still have been a good thing, similar to "letting people feel good about it". It would have had the same result, and some people would have gotten money, which goes a lot farther than feeling good about yourself. He motivated the people to do it so he wouldn't have to pay anybody. End of the story. Just because good things happened because of it doesn't excuse the fact that he manipulated a group of people for his own selfish profit.
User avatar
#70 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
So to you, it's unfair for him to try and save money? It's evil for him to not spend money he doesn't have to? Because he didn't do anything wrong, despite you wanting to try and find some way of twisting him being smart into being bad. The same as the artist, who really just didn't think it through.

Paying people = using people
getting people to do things without paying them = smart, not evil
not spending money you don't have to = smart, not evil
not working had when you don't have to = smart, not evil

And he's helping the community, because that park is a part of the environment.

If he wasn't wearing a suit, would you still label him as evil?
User avatar
#95 - nightmaren (04/29/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to twist things to make it look like he did something wrong. I'm saying he did something wrong. It's pretty widely agreed upon that exploiting people = bad.
I don't know what makes you think that paying someone to do something is using them, that's pretty stupid. Paying people to do things for you is only 'using them' in a literal sense. When you pay someone to do something they know what they're doing, and they know why you want them to do it. When you trick people into doing something because you don't want to pay someone to do it, or you don't want to do it yourself, and your cards aren't all on the table, and youu don't give any money back to the people who helped clean it: you are exploiting them. It's not even up for debate.
It is a smart move though, and I do admire what he did, the same way I admire Petyr Baelish. Petyr's one of my favourite characters, but that doesn't mean he's not a dick.
Again, we shouldn't admire the guy in this comic for "helping the community" because he didn't set out to improve the community; he set out to use people for his personal gain. To help explain this to you, I've revised your chart.

Paying people = Giving people money to complete a task they set out to do. Helps them put food on the table and pay their bills. Helps the economy. You said early that giving people "good feelings" is worth more than money. That's not even mildly true.
getting people to do things without paying them = Smart, although it doesn't help the economy, it doesn't help feed anybody, it doesn't help pay anybody's bills. Is only morally okay if the people you're getting to do the things know why you're doing it and all your cards are on the table and they agree to it.
not spending money you don't have to = Is a bad thing to do when you trick people into doing things for you when you could be paying people who specialize in it to do it for you
not working had when you don't have to = Is a bad thing to do when you trick people into doing things for you when you could be paying people who specialize in it to do it for you
#64 - That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm not saying not doing go…  [+] (7 replies) 04/28/2015 on Go green -1
User avatar
#66 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
And if we could agree to keep our responses short now, I'm tired and this isn't fun.
User avatar
#65 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
You manipulate people all the time! Hiring someone is manipulation. Asking someone to do something is manipulation. And it's no more cheap for him to do that instead of hiring someone than it's cheap for you to eat leftovers instead of buying more food. He's just finding a different way to do something. Tom fucking Sawyer does it and he's a goddamn literary hero with his white fence.

And those people aren't being abused. They're being shown a problem and they chose to care about that problem, and they chose to fix that problem. And the guy is definitely passionate about the problem. He's passionate because he'll get more money for clean land than shitty land, and there's nothing wrong with that.
User avatar
#67 - nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-]
No, hiring someone to do something is consensual for lack of a better word , with all cards on the table. It's an agreement. Same thing when you ask someone to do something for you. They are agreeing to do something for you for your benefit. When someone gets a job, they are agreeing to do something to get paid.

When you run a campaign to motivate people into doing something, regardless of if it's a good thing or not, to get them to do something for free, that's exploitation. If the people really cared about the lake, they would have cleaned it themselves. If the guy said in his initial presentation "This is a job I could be simply paying other people to do, I'm going to pretend to give a shit about this thing and make it seem really important, so you think it's important enough to fix even though it probably isn't, and then I'll sell the land and take all the profit for myself and not give you any. Being passionate about something happening is different from being passionate about the issue itself. If someone wants to get good grades to go to a good school, that doesn't mean they're passionate about doing their homework.
User avatar
#68 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
He's not lying about anything. He's just not telling the people he owns the land - and I don't think that matters at all. He wants his land clean, that's the important thing, and so he's getting it done. He's not making the people believe anything they wouldn't otherwise believe. He's not saying he doesn't own the land. And even though he's not paying the people, they're still getting a more important reward than cash. Feelings. All cash does is give people a way to go get good feelings - he's just giving them the good feelings. Is it such a bad thing that it happens to benefit him as well? I don't think so.
User avatar
#69 - nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-]
Because that's literally not the point of the comic. I can promise you that the author did not intend for that to be representative of him at all. As I've already stated, this comic is clearly about how the rich exploit the poor; you're not meant to assume that all he wants is to make people happy. And I would think that if he did, he would also have some kind of sense of fairness, and would at least donate something to the community, or give the organizers some money.
It's honestly not debatable that he used and exploited people for his own profit; as he could have just hired and payed people to clean the land for him, which would still have been a good thing, similar to "letting people feel good about it". It would have had the same result, and some people would have gotten money, which goes a lot farther than feeling good about yourself. He motivated the people to do it so he wouldn't have to pay anybody. End of the story. Just because good things happened because of it doesn't excuse the fact that he manipulated a group of people for his own selfish profit.
User avatar
#70 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
So to you, it's unfair for him to try and save money? It's evil for him to not spend money he doesn't have to? Because he didn't do anything wrong, despite you wanting to try and find some way of twisting him being smart into being bad. The same as the artist, who really just didn't think it through.

Paying people = using people
getting people to do things without paying them = smart, not evil
not spending money you don't have to = smart, not evil
not working had when you don't have to = smart, not evil

And he's helping the community, because that park is a part of the environment.

If he wasn't wearing a suit, would you still label him as evil?
User avatar
#95 - nightmaren (04/29/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to twist things to make it look like he did something wrong. I'm saying he did something wrong. It's pretty widely agreed upon that exploiting people = bad.
I don't know what makes you think that paying someone to do something is using them, that's pretty stupid. Paying people to do things for you is only 'using them' in a literal sense. When you pay someone to do something they know what they're doing, and they know why you want them to do it. When you trick people into doing something because you don't want to pay someone to do it, or you don't want to do it yourself, and your cards aren't all on the table, and youu don't give any money back to the people who helped clean it: you are exploiting them. It's not even up for debate.
It is a smart move though, and I do admire what he did, the same way I admire Petyr Baelish. Petyr's one of my favourite characters, but that doesn't mean he's not a dick.
Again, we shouldn't admire the guy in this comic for "helping the community" because he didn't set out to improve the community; he set out to use people for his personal gain. To help explain this to you, I've revised your chart.

Paying people = Giving people money to complete a task they set out to do. Helps them put food on the table and pay their bills. Helps the economy. You said early that giving people "good feelings" is worth more than money. That's not even mildly true.
getting people to do things without paying them = Smart, although it doesn't help the economy, it doesn't help feed anybody, it doesn't help pay anybody's bills. Is only morally okay if the people you're getting to do the things know why you're doing it and all your cards are on the table and they agree to it.
not spending money you don't have to = Is a bad thing to do when you trick people into doing things for you when you could be paying people who specialize in it to do it for you
not working had when you don't have to = Is a bad thing to do when you trick people into doing things for you when you could be paying people who specialize in it to do it for you
#62 - If he didn't help then I would say he did a bad thing, persona…  [+] (9 replies) 04/28/2015 on Go green 0
User avatar
#63 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
I disagree. You're literally saying that if you have an opportunity do a good thing, and you don't, that you do a bad thing. You literally have every chance to do good things every day, but you don't, so by your logic everything you do is bad. And who says he's pretending to be passionate? He wants his land to be clean, and went through the trouble of getting the people on his side - he's clearly passionate.

And you can't assume bad about him that wasn't stated in the comic - I could say "what if he's a pedophile?". It changes the rules. If he was a pedophile, and the lake was where he rapes children, I'd say he's definitely doing something wrong in having the people clean up the evidence.
User avatar
#64 - nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-]
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm not saying not doing good things is a bad thing. I'm saying exploiting people is a bad thing. I'm saying that actively manipulating people into doing shit for you for free because you're too cheap and lazy to do it yourself, or even fucking hire someone.

You're also assuming things about him that aren't mentioned in the comic. The reason this comic exists is to explain some of the faults of capitalism, or at least to show how the rich can abuse the poor, so I don't think your assessment that 'he's always owned the land and he wants to move but he wants to clean it up before he leaves because he's just so passionate about it and so he gathers the community together to clean it up before he sells it' is a fair one.
Yes, theoretically somebody could go through the four stages of this comic and be passionate about the lake and genuinely want the lake to be in a good condition before they sell it, and if that were the case I wouldn't think they were doing a bad thing, but that's not what this comic is about. This comic is about the people who do this without giving a shit, this is about the people who exploit others for their own profit.
User avatar
#66 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
And if we could agree to keep our responses short now, I'm tired and this isn't fun.
User avatar
#65 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
You manipulate people all the time! Hiring someone is manipulation. Asking someone to do something is manipulation. And it's no more cheap for him to do that instead of hiring someone than it's cheap for you to eat leftovers instead of buying more food. He's just finding a different way to do something. Tom fucking Sawyer does it and he's a goddamn literary hero with his white fence.

And those people aren't being abused. They're being shown a problem and they chose to care about that problem, and they chose to fix that problem. And the guy is definitely passionate about the problem. He's passionate because he'll get more money for clean land than shitty land, and there's nothing wrong with that.
User avatar
#67 - nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-]
No, hiring someone to do something is consensual for lack of a better word , with all cards on the table. It's an agreement. Same thing when you ask someone to do something for you. They are agreeing to do something for you for your benefit. When someone gets a job, they are agreeing to do something to get paid.

When you run a campaign to motivate people into doing something, regardless of if it's a good thing or not, to get them to do something for free, that's exploitation. If the people really cared about the lake, they would have cleaned it themselves. If the guy said in his initial presentation "This is a job I could be simply paying other people to do, I'm going to pretend to give a shit about this thing and make it seem really important, so you think it's important enough to fix even though it probably isn't, and then I'll sell the land and take all the profit for myself and not give you any. Being passionate about something happening is different from being passionate about the issue itself. If someone wants to get good grades to go to a good school, that doesn't mean they're passionate about doing their homework.
User avatar
#68 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
He's not lying about anything. He's just not telling the people he owns the land - and I don't think that matters at all. He wants his land clean, that's the important thing, and so he's getting it done. He's not making the people believe anything they wouldn't otherwise believe. He's not saying he doesn't own the land. And even though he's not paying the people, they're still getting a more important reward than cash. Feelings. All cash does is give people a way to go get good feelings - he's just giving them the good feelings. Is it such a bad thing that it happens to benefit him as well? I don't think so.
User avatar
#69 - nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-]
Because that's literally not the point of the comic. I can promise you that the author did not intend for that to be representative of him at all. As I've already stated, this comic is clearly about how the rich exploit the poor; you're not meant to assume that all he wants is to make people happy. And I would think that if he did, he would also have some kind of sense of fairness, and would at least donate something to the community, or give the organizers some money.
It's honestly not debatable that he used and exploited people for his own profit; as he could have just hired and payed people to clean the land for him, which would still have been a good thing, similar to "letting people feel good about it". It would have had the same result, and some people would have gotten money, which goes a lot farther than feeling good about yourself. He motivated the people to do it so he wouldn't have to pay anybody. End of the story. Just because good things happened because of it doesn't excuse the fact that he manipulated a group of people for his own selfish profit.
User avatar
#70 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
So to you, it's unfair for him to try and save money? It's evil for him to not spend money he doesn't have to? Because he didn't do anything wrong, despite you wanting to try and find some way of twisting him being smart into being bad. The same as the artist, who really just didn't think it through.

Paying people = using people
getting people to do things without paying them = smart, not evil
not spending money you don't have to = smart, not evil
not working had when you don't have to = smart, not evil

And he's helping the community, because that park is a part of the environment.

If he wasn't wearing a suit, would you still label him as evil?
User avatar
#95 - nightmaren (04/29/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to twist things to make it look like he did something wrong. I'm saying he did something wrong. It's pretty widely agreed upon that exploiting people = bad.
I don't know what makes you think that paying someone to do something is using them, that's pretty stupid. Paying people to do things for you is only 'using them' in a literal sense. When you pay someone to do something they know what they're doing, and they know why you want them to do it. When you trick people into doing something because you don't want to pay someone to do it, or you don't want to do it yourself, and your cards aren't all on the table, and youu don't give any money back to the people who helped clean it: you are exploiting them. It's not even up for debate.
It is a smart move though, and I do admire what he did, the same way I admire Petyr Baelish. Petyr's one of my favourite characters, but that doesn't mean he's not a dick.
Again, we shouldn't admire the guy in this comic for "helping the community" because he didn't set out to improve the community; he set out to use people for his personal gain. To help explain this to you, I've revised your chart.

Paying people = Giving people money to complete a task they set out to do. Helps them put food on the table and pay their bills. Helps the economy. You said early that giving people "good feelings" is worth more than money. That's not even mildly true.
getting people to do things without paying them = Smart, although it doesn't help the economy, it doesn't help feed anybody, it doesn't help pay anybody's bills. Is only morally okay if the people you're getting to do the things know why you're doing it and all your cards are on the table and they agree to it.
not spending money you don't have to = Is a bad thing to do when you trick people into doing things for you when you could be paying people who specialize in it to do it for you
not working had when you don't have to = Is a bad thing to do when you trick people into doing things for you when you could be paying people who specialize in it to do it for you
#59 - Okay but he wouldn't have been delegating anything. The implic…  [+] (11 replies) 04/28/2015 on Go green 0
User avatar
#60 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
That's still not him doing anything bad. You're just saying he failed to do a good thing when given the opportunity, but he never did anything bad. We don't do a million good things every day.
User avatar
#62 - nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-]
If he didn't help then I would say he did a bad thing, personally. Pretending to give a shit about something and speaking about it only to motivate others to do it for you so that you can make is a dick move imo unless he were to give some of the money from selling the place to the people who helped clean . Pretending to be passionate about something in order to exploit people are actually passionate about it to serve you is an asshole move, regardless of if it has a good effect or not.

Also whose not to say he's not planning on selling the figurative pond or lake to a resort or a hotel or a gas station or some shit like that and just tear up all the work the people did in the first place anyways?
User avatar
#63 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
I disagree. You're literally saying that if you have an opportunity do a good thing, and you don't, that you do a bad thing. You literally have every chance to do good things every day, but you don't, so by your logic everything you do is bad. And who says he's pretending to be passionate? He wants his land to be clean, and went through the trouble of getting the people on his side - he's clearly passionate.

And you can't assume bad about him that wasn't stated in the comic - I could say "what if he's a pedophile?". It changes the rules. If he was a pedophile, and the lake was where he rapes children, I'd say he's definitely doing something wrong in having the people clean up the evidence.
User avatar
#64 - nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-]
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm not saying not doing good things is a bad thing. I'm saying exploiting people is a bad thing. I'm saying that actively manipulating people into doing shit for you for free because you're too cheap and lazy to do it yourself, or even fucking hire someone.

You're also assuming things about him that aren't mentioned in the comic. The reason this comic exists is to explain some of the faults of capitalism, or at least to show how the rich can abuse the poor, so I don't think your assessment that 'he's always owned the land and he wants to move but he wants to clean it up before he leaves because he's just so passionate about it and so he gathers the community together to clean it up before he sells it' is a fair one.
Yes, theoretically somebody could go through the four stages of this comic and be passionate about the lake and genuinely want the lake to be in a good condition before they sell it, and if that were the case I wouldn't think they were doing a bad thing, but that's not what this comic is about. This comic is about the people who do this without giving a shit, this is about the people who exploit others for their own profit.
User avatar
#66 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
And if we could agree to keep our responses short now, I'm tired and this isn't fun.
User avatar
#65 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
You manipulate people all the time! Hiring someone is manipulation. Asking someone to do something is manipulation. And it's no more cheap for him to do that instead of hiring someone than it's cheap for you to eat leftovers instead of buying more food. He's just finding a different way to do something. Tom fucking Sawyer does it and he's a goddamn literary hero with his white fence.

And those people aren't being abused. They're being shown a problem and they chose to care about that problem, and they chose to fix that problem. And the guy is definitely passionate about the problem. He's passionate because he'll get more money for clean land than shitty land, and there's nothing wrong with that.
User avatar
#67 - nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-]
No, hiring someone to do something is consensual for lack of a better word , with all cards on the table. It's an agreement. Same thing when you ask someone to do something for you. They are agreeing to do something for you for your benefit. When someone gets a job, they are agreeing to do something to get paid.

When you run a campaign to motivate people into doing something, regardless of if it's a good thing or not, to get them to do something for free, that's exploitation. If the people really cared about the lake, they would have cleaned it themselves. If the guy said in his initial presentation "This is a job I could be simply paying other people to do, I'm going to pretend to give a shit about this thing and make it seem really important, so you think it's important enough to fix even though it probably isn't, and then I'll sell the land and take all the profit for myself and not give you any. Being passionate about something happening is different from being passionate about the issue itself. If someone wants to get good grades to go to a good school, that doesn't mean they're passionate about doing their homework.
User avatar
#68 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
He's not lying about anything. He's just not telling the people he owns the land - and I don't think that matters at all. He wants his land clean, that's the important thing, and so he's getting it done. He's not making the people believe anything they wouldn't otherwise believe. He's not saying he doesn't own the land. And even though he's not paying the people, they're still getting a more important reward than cash. Feelings. All cash does is give people a way to go get good feelings - he's just giving them the good feelings. Is it such a bad thing that it happens to benefit him as well? I don't think so.
User avatar
#69 - nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-]
Because that's literally not the point of the comic. I can promise you that the author did not intend for that to be representative of him at all. As I've already stated, this comic is clearly about how the rich exploit the poor; you're not meant to assume that all he wants is to make people happy. And I would think that if he did, he would also have some kind of sense of fairness, and would at least donate something to the community, or give the organizers some money.
It's honestly not debatable that he used and exploited people for his own profit; as he could have just hired and payed people to clean the land for him, which would still have been a good thing, similar to "letting people feel good about it". It would have had the same result, and some people would have gotten money, which goes a lot farther than feeling good about yourself. He motivated the people to do it so he wouldn't have to pay anybody. End of the story. Just because good things happened because of it doesn't excuse the fact that he manipulated a group of people for his own selfish profit.
User avatar
#70 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
So to you, it's unfair for him to try and save money? It's evil for him to not spend money he doesn't have to? Because he didn't do anything wrong, despite you wanting to try and find some way of twisting him being smart into being bad. The same as the artist, who really just didn't think it through.

Paying people = using people
getting people to do things without paying them = smart, not evil
not spending money you don't have to = smart, not evil
not working had when you don't have to = smart, not evil

And he's helping the community, because that park is a part of the environment.

If he wasn't wearing a suit, would you still label him as evil?
User avatar
#95 - nightmaren (04/29/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to twist things to make it look like he did something wrong. I'm saying he did something wrong. It's pretty widely agreed upon that exploiting people = bad.
I don't know what makes you think that paying someone to do something is using them, that's pretty stupid. Paying people to do things for you is only 'using them' in a literal sense. When you pay someone to do something they know what they're doing, and they know why you want them to do it. When you trick people into doing something because you don't want to pay someone to do it, or you don't want to do it yourself, and your cards aren't all on the table, and youu don't give any money back to the people who helped clean it: you are exploiting them. It's not even up for debate.
It is a smart move though, and I do admire what he did, the same way I admire Petyr Baelish. Petyr's one of my favourite characters, but that doesn't mean he's not a dick.
Again, we shouldn't admire the guy in this comic for "helping the community" because he didn't set out to improve the community; he set out to use people for his personal gain. To help explain this to you, I've revised your chart.

Paying people = Giving people money to complete a task they set out to do. Helps them put food on the table and pay their bills. Helps the economy. You said early that giving people "good feelings" is worth more than money. That's not even mildly true.
getting people to do things without paying them = Smart, although it doesn't help the economy, it doesn't help feed anybody, it doesn't help pay anybody's bills. Is only morally okay if the people you're getting to do the things know why you're doing it and all your cards are on the table and they agree to it.
not spending money you don't have to = Is a bad thing to do when you trick people into doing things for you when you could be paying people who specialize in it to do it for you
not working had when you don't have to = Is a bad thing to do when you trick people into doing things for you when you could be paying people who specialize in it to do it for you
#57 - That doesn't exempt them from feeling obligated to help.  [+] (13 replies) 04/28/2015 on Go green 0
User avatar
#58 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
Unless he was too busy delegating to physically help. It's why a director doesn't handle the lights or cameras.
User avatar
#59 - nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-]
Okay but he wouldn't have been delegating anything. The implication of the post is that he runs a campaign to motivate people to clean some lake or pond or whatever, and the people go and do it before he sells it. It doesn't show him "overseeing" or "delegating" the clean up itself; all it shows him doing is telling people they should want to do it.
User avatar
#60 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
That's still not him doing anything bad. You're just saying he failed to do a good thing when given the opportunity, but he never did anything bad. We don't do a million good things every day.
User avatar
#62 - nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-]
If he didn't help then I would say he did a bad thing, personally. Pretending to give a shit about something and speaking about it only to motivate others to do it for you so that you can make is a dick move imo unless he were to give some of the money from selling the place to the people who helped clean . Pretending to be passionate about something in order to exploit people are actually passionate about it to serve you is an asshole move, regardless of if it has a good effect or not.

Also whose not to say he's not planning on selling the figurative pond or lake to a resort or a hotel or a gas station or some shit like that and just tear up all the work the people did in the first place anyways?
User avatar
#63 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
I disagree. You're literally saying that if you have an opportunity do a good thing, and you don't, that you do a bad thing. You literally have every chance to do good things every day, but you don't, so by your logic everything you do is bad. And who says he's pretending to be passionate? He wants his land to be clean, and went through the trouble of getting the people on his side - he's clearly passionate.

And you can't assume bad about him that wasn't stated in the comic - I could say "what if he's a pedophile?". It changes the rules. If he was a pedophile, and the lake was where he rapes children, I'd say he's definitely doing something wrong in having the people clean up the evidence.
User avatar
#64 - nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-]
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm not saying not doing good things is a bad thing. I'm saying exploiting people is a bad thing. I'm saying that actively manipulating people into doing shit for you for free because you're too cheap and lazy to do it yourself, or even fucking hire someone.

You're also assuming things about him that aren't mentioned in the comic. The reason this comic exists is to explain some of the faults of capitalism, or at least to show how the rich can abuse the poor, so I don't think your assessment that 'he's always owned the land and he wants to move but he wants to clean it up before he leaves because he's just so passionate about it and so he gathers the community together to clean it up before he sells it' is a fair one.
Yes, theoretically somebody could go through the four stages of this comic and be passionate about the lake and genuinely want the lake to be in a good condition before they sell it, and if that were the case I wouldn't think they were doing a bad thing, but that's not what this comic is about. This comic is about the people who do this without giving a shit, this is about the people who exploit others for their own profit.
User avatar
#66 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
And if we could agree to keep our responses short now, I'm tired and this isn't fun.
User avatar
#65 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
You manipulate people all the time! Hiring someone is manipulation. Asking someone to do something is manipulation. And it's no more cheap for him to do that instead of hiring someone than it's cheap for you to eat leftovers instead of buying more food. He's just finding a different way to do something. Tom fucking Sawyer does it and he's a goddamn literary hero with his white fence.

And those people aren't being abused. They're being shown a problem and they chose to care about that problem, and they chose to fix that problem. And the guy is definitely passionate about the problem. He's passionate because he'll get more money for clean land than shitty land, and there's nothing wrong with that.
User avatar
#67 - nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-]
No, hiring someone to do something is consensual for lack of a better word , with all cards on the table. It's an agreement. Same thing when you ask someone to do something for you. They are agreeing to do something for you for your benefit. When someone gets a job, they are agreeing to do something to get paid.

When you run a campaign to motivate people into doing something, regardless of if it's a good thing or not, to get them to do something for free, that's exploitation. If the people really cared about the lake, they would have cleaned it themselves. If the guy said in his initial presentation "This is a job I could be simply paying other people to do, I'm going to pretend to give a shit about this thing and make it seem really important, so you think it's important enough to fix even though it probably isn't, and then I'll sell the land and take all the profit for myself and not give you any. Being passionate about something happening is different from being passionate about the issue itself. If someone wants to get good grades to go to a good school, that doesn't mean they're passionate about doing their homework.
User avatar
#68 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
He's not lying about anything. He's just not telling the people he owns the land - and I don't think that matters at all. He wants his land clean, that's the important thing, and so he's getting it done. He's not making the people believe anything they wouldn't otherwise believe. He's not saying he doesn't own the land. And even though he's not paying the people, they're still getting a more important reward than cash. Feelings. All cash does is give people a way to go get good feelings - he's just giving them the good feelings. Is it such a bad thing that it happens to benefit him as well? I don't think so.
User avatar
#69 - nightmaren (04/28/2015) [-]
Because that's literally not the point of the comic. I can promise you that the author did not intend for that to be representative of him at all. As I've already stated, this comic is clearly about how the rich exploit the poor; you're not meant to assume that all he wants is to make people happy. And I would think that if he did, he would also have some kind of sense of fairness, and would at least donate something to the community, or give the organizers some money.
It's honestly not debatable that he used and exploited people for his own profit; as he could have just hired and payed people to clean the land for him, which would still have been a good thing, similar to "letting people feel good about it". It would have had the same result, and some people would have gotten money, which goes a lot farther than feeling good about yourself. He motivated the people to do it so he wouldn't have to pay anybody. End of the story. Just because good things happened because of it doesn't excuse the fact that he manipulated a group of people for his own selfish profit.
User avatar
#70 - demandsgayversion (04/28/2015) [-]
So to you, it's unfair for him to try and save money? It's evil for him to not spend money he doesn't have to? Because he didn't do anything wrong, despite you wanting to try and find some way of twisting him being smart into being bad. The same as the artist, who really just didn't think it through.

Paying people = using people
getting people to do things without paying them = smart, not evil
not spending money you don't have to = smart, not evil
not working had when you don't have to = smart, not evil

And he's helping the community, because that park is a part of the environment.

If he wasn't wearing a suit, would you still label him as evil?
User avatar
#95 - nightmaren (04/29/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to twist things to make it look like he did something wrong. I'm saying he did something wrong. It's pretty widely agreed upon that exploiting people = bad.
I don't know what makes you think that paying someone to do something is using them, that's pretty stupid. Paying people to do things for you is only 'using them' in a literal sense. When you pay someone to do something they know what they're doing, and they know why you want them to do it. When you trick people into doing something because you don't want to pay someone to do it, or you don't want to do it yourself, and your cards aren't all on the table, and youu don't give any money back to the people who helped clean it: you are exploiting them. It's not even up for debate.
It is a smart move though, and I do admire what he did, the same way I admire Petyr Baelish. Petyr's one of my favourite characters, but that doesn't mean he's not a dick.
Again, we shouldn't admire the guy in this comic for "helping the community" because he didn't set out to improve the community; he set out to use people for his personal gain. To help explain this to you, I've revised your chart.

Paying people = Giving people money to complete a task they set out to do. Helps them put food on the table and pay their bills. Helps the economy. You said early that giving people "good feelings" is worth more than money. That's not even mildly true.
getting people to do things without paying them = Smart, although it doesn't help the economy, it doesn't help feed anybody, it doesn't help pay anybody's bills. Is only morally okay if the people you're getting to do the things know why you're doing it and all your cards are on the table and they agree to it.
not spending money you don't have to = Is a bad thing to do when you trick people into doing things for you when you could be paying people who specialize in it to do it for you
not working had when you don't have to = Is a bad thing to do when you trick people into doing things for you when you could be paying people who specialize in it to do it for you
#383723 - They're based off of dinosaurs, specifically Ornithiscian dino…  [+] (1 reply) 04/20/2015 on Hating - file complaints,... 0
User avatar
#383725 - tvfreakuk (04/20/2015) [-]
I assume it's just due to the misconception that they are actually frogs - not just thinking "It couldn't possibly be this, so I'll draw it this way instead"

I mean - like I said, I never really thought about it much, but looking back I can tell that if I had thought about it I would've just automatically assumed frog.