5 ms·

I encountered this myself after responding to someone's comment about the Universal Basic Income (UBI) concept, and got spammed with negative replies. I figured

I encountered this myself after responding to someone's comment about the Universal Basic Income (UBI) concept, and got spammed with negative replies. I figured it was just ardent supporters, bots make sense though given the speed of the responses. Sadly, I think this may be the new normal of politics in the 2020s.

SuoDuanDao 7y ago
I had the same experience. I wonder what's behind it and how well organised the group is.
jshevek 7y ago
From what I have seen of Yang Gangers, that could very well have been the result of real people. A high proportion of them are always online, highly vigilant, eager to participate in online activism.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > From what I have seen of Yang Gangers, that could very well have been the result of real people. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The very fact that people are questioning whether political support is real or not the significant problem.
speedplane 7y ago
> after responding to someone's comment about the Universal Basic Income (UBI) concept, and got spammed with negative replies. I figured it was just ardent supporters, bots make sense though given the speed of the responses. Ardent non-supporter of UBI here! Not a bot!! The nefarious issue with UBI is that it threatens our existing social safety nets. The social goal is not to give everyone a single basic income, it's to give everyone a single basic standard of living. It's far more fair and moral to give folks access to basic standards of human decency (e.g., healthcare, education, housing, food, air), than writing them a check and letting them fend on their own. The moral underpinning of social safety nets is not to increase the total or average, but to increase the lowest.
- gremlinsinc 7y ago
  Bernie supporter here AND UBI supporter, (not Yang's version per se though). I support a bigger more expansive UBI that would basically cover all food, housing, and major monthly expenses. We still need education/healthcare though as Bernie suggests. Which is why I support him. I like the idea of ending the current welfare system because it makes the recipient feel 'less' because they're on 'state assistance' vs everyone gets 3k/month + 500 per dependent per month. We'd need a different tax system though, and need maybe VAT to offset it a little. It would move everyone above poverty though so pretty much everyone could afford at least some level of taxes. It would also give job mobility and more ability to negotiate wages. Some would choose to stay home and join esports leagues, or start an arts career or go back to school, or start a business. Meaning less people would be required by labor, meaning supply/demand would be in worker's favor -- which would drive up wages. I think there's definitely a place for UBI on the table, AS LONG as single-payer and free college ALSO exist - -and college debt forgiveness.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > Bernie supporter here AND UBI supporter, (not Yang's version per se though). I support a bigger more expansive UBI that would basically cover all food, housing, and major monthly expenses. I agree that those basics that make up common humanity should be covered. But I differ on how to get there. UBI means writing a check to someone, and letting them spend it how they wish. They can spend it on food and healthcare, their startup, or alcohol and gambling. But if the purpose is to set a minimum level human decency (food, housing, healthcare), then we should provide that level of decency, rather than writing a check and hoping people will use it wisely. If an entrepreneur takes their UBI check and rather than buying healthcare, puts it into a startup that eventually becomes big, that may be a better result for the overall economy, but we've still failed that person in providing a minimum level of humanity. The moral purpose behind UBI is not to just write checks, it's to allow humans to retain their humanity. Providing solid public schools, healthcare, and basic housing better provide that minimum level of dignity than sending a person a check.
    - gremlinsinc 7y ago

SuoDuanDao 7y ago

I had the same experience. I wonder what's behind it and how well organised the group is.

jshevek 7y ago

From what I have seen of Yang Gangers, that could very well have been the result of real people. A high proportion of them are always online, highly vigilant, eager to participate in online activism.

speedplane 7y ago
> From what I have seen of Yang Gangers, that could very well have been the result of real people. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The very fact that people are questioning whether political support is real or not the significant problem.

speedplane 7y ago

> after responding to someone's comment about the Universal Basic Income (UBI) concept, and got spammed with negative replies. I figured it was just ardent supporters, bots make sense though given the speed of the responses. Ardent non-supporter of UBI here! Not a bot!! The nefarious issue with UBI is that it threatens our existing social safety nets. The social goal is not to give everyone a single basic income, it's to give everyone a single basic standard of living. It's far more fair and moral to give folks access to basic standards of human decency (e.g., healthcare, education, housing, food, air), than writing them a check and letting them fend on their own. The moral underpinning of social safety nets is not to increase the total or average, but to increase the lowest.

gremlinsinc 7y ago
Bernie supporter here AND UBI supporter, (not Yang's version per se though). I support a bigger more expansive UBI that would basically cover all food, housing, and major monthly expenses. We still need education/healthcare though as Bernie suggests. Which is why I support him. I like the idea of ending the current welfare system because it makes the recipient feel 'less' because they're on 'state assistance' vs everyone gets 3k/month + 500 per dependent per month. We'd need a different tax system though, and need maybe VAT to offset it a little. It would move everyone above poverty though so pretty much everyone could afford at least some level of taxes. It would also give job mobility and more ability to negotiate wages. Some would choose to stay home and join esports leagues, or start an arts career or go back to school, or start a business. Meaning less people would be required by labor, meaning supply/demand would be in worker's favor -- which would drive up wages. I think there's definitely a place for UBI on the table, AS LONG as single-payer and free college ALSO exist - -and college debt forgiveness.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > Bernie supporter here AND UBI supporter, (not Yang's version per se though). I support a bigger more expansive UBI that would basically cover all food, housing, and major monthly expenses. I agree that those basics that make up common humanity should be covered. But I differ on how to get there. UBI means writing a check to someone, and letting them spend it how they wish. They can spend it on food and healthcare, their startup, or alcohol and gambling. But if the purpose is to set a minimum level human decency (food, housing, healthcare), then we should provide that level of decency, rather than writing a check and hoping people will use it wisely. If an entrepreneur takes their UBI check and rather than buying healthcare, puts it into a startup that eventually becomes big, that may be a better result for the overall economy, but we've still failed that person in providing a minimum level of humanity. The moral purpose behind UBI is not to just write checks, it's to allow humans to retain their humanity. Providing solid public schools, healthcare, and basic housing better provide that minimum level of dignity than sending a person a check.
  - gremlinsinc 7y ago