Yu Jing is a hot mess

Back on @the huanglong 's very-good list of suggestions for WB, I agree with every single one of them except removing Shang-Ji.

If you're not making Jujaks hang off Shang-Ji to be included, Shangers as an occasional high-quality element make sense. Just restrict them, like to AVA2.

 

Okay good point. How about no Shang-Jesus then?
I just think they do fit with WB well thematically and for playstyle (they really up the hacking game, and decent reactive-hacking linkteams to play along with the Guilang-deployable repeaters is a definite WB highlight IME).

 

Sigh.... Again... Literally. No.

Your argument is actually ridiculous on its premise, as you're suggesting that anything other than an ultra-anarcho capitalist / libertarian is a form of "modern socialism".
It isn't.

This is self contradictionary sophistry.

Modern socialism would be Venezuela.

Was this forced on you?

Yes, this is one of the primary reasons we don't like Sweden (as a state) and is often reffered to as a "forbudsland" or "The country of prohibition".

 

Hilarious. Just because Maduro's party calls itself "Socialist" doesn't mean it is more that than NSDAP was.

He used loss of social welfare as threat to those who would not vote for him. He removed almost all social privileges given by Chavez. He uses the military to terrorize the populace and remove their ability to criticize and protest his rule. He has established a full on cult of the Dear Leader.

Again, he's about as "socialist" as Stalin was. He's a full on fascist and you gotta have real heavy propaganda blindfolds to deny that.

And before you try to imply again that I'm a communist, I grew up in the oppression of the Polish communist regime, so kindly step off.

 

I'd be 100% ok with Shang Ji removal. Let the IA units be restricted to IA.

 

No, I'm not saying that. Nice try at a strawman though!

I'm saying that wealth-redistribution by taking revenue from high earners and applying it to social-welfare programs is socialism. That's a pretty basic functional part of the definition.

The new definition of "socialism" is founded on how the proceeds of capital are distributed, and to who. The ownership-of-means thing is only part of it in the modern application. There are all sorts of socialist mechanisms, which include devolving collective-bargaining outside the government (see comment about Denmark below). The end question is how much of the revenues from capital investment are returned to participants in labor, and to people who don't participate in labor (the really key bit). It ends up being about a ratio and set of behaviors, not a "this particular activity, it is Socialist! That particular activity, it is Capitalist!"

[EDIT for clarity: Social democracy is included, as is market socialism, when either takes revenue directly from capital benefits through means other than taxation (taxation also counts I would say because it's compulsary, but I'm being strict here because we're arguing the point).]

Pensions are a great example of that, with usually-mandated social-benefit gains from capital activity (revenue of corporations, usually tied to the laborer's worth to that corporation expressed in their earnings) going into a pool. This is usually not done through direct taxation, which is an important point. The pool is then usually used to invest in the financial market, becoming massive market-forces in their own right. The benefits of that really-capitalist kind of investment are then returned to the laborers who had the pension. However this sometimes gets hijacked by pension-management companies, who extract much of the value and occasionally collapse them. Anyways: hybrid.

It's also why countries like Denmark, which has a remarkably low amount of state ownership of corporations (exactly three including the lottery, airports, and rail) but is a leader in Active Labor Market Policy (social-welfare savings to cover unemployment through a selection of means including direct payments and re-education) is still considered "socialist".

And let's not even get into the government-enforced pension-savings scheme (which has a cool capitalist investment backend that I've spent a lot of time reading about though). Or the policy supporting unions and collective bargaining to a degree rarely seen outside northern Europe, which moves state power to negotiate with capital into the hands of organized labor (which is still, you guessed it, a form of socialism).

No, that is using the modern definition of socialism. The "ownership of the means of production" thing was replaced in the late 20th century.

Attempting to claim that a functional definition with several real-world examples given is sophistry is, fortunately, not even a good enough argument to meet the very low bar of sophistry.

EDIT: For the kids in the back of the class who were meme-ing instead of reading, here's a modern definition of market socialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

No, that's communism, -a centrally-planned economy- with government ownership of the means of production. It doesn't work.

Modern socialism is France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Germany. Some means-of-production ownership (usually hybrid), and social-welfare programs invested in with money taken by taxation in some cases, but also by direct pension investments or required contributions to Active Labor Market Policy programs.

Also, the Venezuela thing is meme-level argument about this stuff man. Keep up. I can give you a better strawman over a beer sometime, even though I try not to feed the trolls ammo.

While this is irrelevant to your poor argument about government structure, I'm not sure you understand How To America. If you want to earn over minimum wage, you generally need either a degree or a trade. So yes, to be able to survive in most American cities, you need a higher income, which makes participation in these systems somewhat coercive.

He said, evading pinning down which Nordic he is from. I'm guessing Denmark, given the talks-free-trade-but-benefits-from-socialism thing.

EDIT: My offer is lower for Denmark. One US passport, my US healthcare, my student debt, the guns, but you also have to help keep my parents alive when their pensions tank due to deregulation.

 

As far as White Banner is concerned, it's a subversive Sectorial meant to rely largely on its solo pieces, so I think it should support those midfielders and AD troops more effectively than Vanilla instead of being another Fireteam Core delivery system. Swapping the Shang Ji for a more accessible Jujak would reduce the shooting power by a bit but would free up points for solo elements. Buffing up the Tian Gou's support and Hacking abilities in a link (a CoC profile would be great for an active Daofei LT) would work well with WB's expanded Hacking network to keep the midfield safe for Daofei, Guilangs and Ye Mao to move. Speaking of Ye Mao, getting them a proper filler profile with a Combi Rifle or less would make a Haris more appealing as a mid-table predator, as would access to either of the WB Characters.

From a fluff and visuals angle, I'd like to see a bit more visibly old tech on WB models. I love the big puffy vest on the Jujak, and seeing a bit more old-style power armour or field engineering solutions could be a nice aesthetic to contrast the unified, parade-ready look of the Invincible Army or the dignified, ceremonial uniforms of the IImperial Service.

 

Okay, so you're actually saying tax is socialism.
I'm arguing with people who have no actual idea of what socialism is, while simultanously hearing them say I don't know what socialism is.

Objectively false

 

Apparently you missed the part where I said "Social democracy is included, as is market socialism, when either takes revenue directly from capital benefits through means other than taxation (taxation also counts I would say because it's compulsary, but I'm being strict here because we're arguing the point)."

I won't hold it against you. You're probably not much of a reader, given your views. Let's get real simple then.

Socialism:
- Your Danish pension plan with mandated contributions that are not tax.
- The Active Labor Market Policy contributions that your Danish employer is required to make, which are not tax.
- Government ownership of part or all of corporations.
- Payments to the unemployed or elderly, made via an extraction from the revenues of capital, whether that be through tax or non-tax methods. [EDIT: Strictly speaking this is social democracy, but functionally it is capital being forced to subsidize the needs of labor and the non-functional part of the labor pool. Which is... dun dun DUUUUUN socialism!]

EDIT: Dude, this passport-trade offer is real hot. I'll even grumble at Swedes for you when we switch places, and shake my fist at them for you in a free-market way. I just ask that you make fun of Florida for me while I'm out of the country.

 

White Banner army should be a banner army first and foremost, with subversion coming in second. It has a reputation for being subversive because Guilang train there, and then suffered some intense Flanderization and became the white face infiltrator faction (despite white faces being common across all yu jing). Jamming in the Daofei (who as far as I know have no lore association with white banner until the logo was redesigned, fuck don't get me started on not updating the fluff or including them in invincible army) and the hundun to make it feel more like the Guilang sectorial was silly, but whatever we all love Hundun and Daofei.

Remember the units that rock up in outrage to mess with the mercs, Hac Tao, Tiger, and Guijia. These are all the classic Yu Jing special formations that support the Banner Armies (Which are made up of Zhanshis), prior to the rollout of invincible army. Hac tao is easy fix, add it at AVA2. Making Guijia interesting in white banner is hard, because it's a big solo unit and shares the spotlight with another TAG. Given it has Duo, I think making Yemao and Jing Qo pure wildcards would help it perform better than in Vanilla and these benefits would extend to the Blue Wolf as well, which I have never used so can't comment if it is needed. Either way, Yemao engineer is a natural fit for guijia because they both superjump.

Tigers are also a solo unit so it's difficult to make them shine in a sectorial compared to vanilla. I think here is the obvious spot for a sectorial-specific profile. And given it's the "subversive" sectorial with Tigers, why not a subversive Tiger profile with parachutist (deployment zone) like Van Zant and Rasyats. Yu Jing used to have this skill in Ko Dali (a tiger soldier) after all, and we lost onibawan and Shinobu. It's only fair.

 

I said: "I'm not sure you understand How To America. If you want to earn over minimum wage, you generally need either a degree or a trade.

And @Zewrath said:

Sorry, which of us is from a shitty rural town in the US with a mostly-dead group of friends thanks to heroin and no prospects? I'm afraid it's not the Dane crapping downhill from his socialist country onto everyone else.

Sure, a minority of people trying really hard to do the bootstraps thing get lucky in the US. For most people, lack of education or a trade is doom to low-level wages.

Here's what the US Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes regarding education and wages. Simple bar graph for your simple understanding, deeper data linked if you'd like to talk about trades etc.

TLDR: If you have a high school diploma at best, you are fubar. And this is -with- the outlying bootstrappers dragging that number upwards.

https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2020/data-on-display/education-pays.htm

Passport trade now enlarged to include race riots as a nice freebie. Oh, and opiate epidemics.

Stick to Infinity dude, you're not great at political economics.

 

You're a 'Murican who doesn't understand the term socialism and actually think Social Democracy and Tax is socialism.

I would demand my money back from what ever college you attended

What you're saying is, you're butthurt but you cannot say I'm wrong.

Yes, your statement is objectively false.

 

I literally just quoted what I read, just to spite wikipedia educated morons like you.
It's ironic you're suggesting that I'm not "much a reader" when you fail to read a simple forum and demonstrate your "expertise" via wiki.

Take a hike man, nothing is more embarrassing than pseduo intellectuals trying to act like they are the smart person in the room

 

I agree you have zero arguments and reddit-level comprehension of political economics. Keep pasting memes, somebody might fall for this.

 

Except I don't.

You, on the other hand, is a linguist Polak, who claims to be an expert on fascism while never actually been able to display or argue any points to prove that.

This is why I'm respond with meme on your posts. They have literally no value.

Also, who the fuck uses Reddit anyway, I would honestly ALMOST respect a person who uses 4Chan more than Reddit.

 

Well, since you insist and since what you're saying is litterally meme-worthy, because you actually talk like a meme...

 

Here's the funny thing, bud: It ain't about me, or about you. Your argument is wrong, and it's easy to disprove. Watching you take that personally -is- funny though.

[statement being "If you want to earn over minimum wage, you generally need either a degree or a trade."]

I'll just let the data (already linked, you ignored it) from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (hardly a commie front) speak for itself. Simple bar graph, all you have to do is look.

https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2020/data-on-display/education-pays.htm

This is great. You literally didn't read anything above.

There's a good way to explain this even to simps: Socialism is the direction of benefits from capital to the needs of labor (the general populace). Classically, that was done via ownership of the means of production.

Nowadays most socialist countries (Nordics, France, Germany) redirect those benefits differently. Some are direct (your Danish pension or unemployment schemes taking contributions from your employer, ie not as tax, or the French getting dividends from corporations they own 21% of. These are NON-TAX methods, "classic socialism" with some cool modern twists.

However if you want a pound of flesh from these companies to reinvest in society, you need an accounting method. There's already an easy one out there: Tax on revenues. It's way easier to both calculate and justify than direct ownership or mandated contributions (which is part of why I admire Denmark's mandated contributions).

So we've gradually funded socialist programs (caring for our old and our sick, paying for Erasmus programs, whatever) through tax instead of direct contribution. This is what's called "market socialism," as well as "social democracy." This is usually via the use of taxation to contribute to specific programs, which is what makes it different from general taxation.

This loops back into classic socialism when we tax certain activities at a higher rate because of their societal costs and link those taxes directly to social programs: sales of liquor that fund rehab centers, sales of tobacco going to anti-tobacco campaigns, carbon emissions going to clean energy investment (especially in state-managed funds, which happens in Europe).