Lurker > Unbridled9

I have it now and it is NOT fun! Almost threw myself through a door just now. Have you ever had it?

zebatov posted...

I like Japans method.

Execution by anime teen?

Veedrock- posted...

The peasants have to wash and wear the same clothes every day, so nobility would flex on them by wearing excess fabric on their shoulders.

Yea no. If that WAS true they'd be happy with those big, poofy, shoulders we see, not a cape (which there's very little art of them wearing). Plus there's far better ways to 'flex' on them, like wearing expensive fabric and, ya know, living in a castle. Some peasant gets uppity, throw them in the stocks. Using a cape, a usually filthy cape, would be laughable. There are certainly ones who wore robes because they LOOKED awesome and plenty of art of them on MILITARY CAMPAIGNS, but no one would wear it just 'to flex'.

I'm more interested in seeing these celebrates who live in manors and are used to the high life struggle with minor things like, say, risking being homeless, unfair rent prices, struggling at a McDonald's job, and more.

The concept is simple. Take a bunch of celebrities and extremely wealthy people (talking top 1% here) and drop them in the middle of NYC. They have to survive for one year. They cannot access any of their wealth or anything and have to start off, effectively, as a homeless person. Do you think people would like this show?

Ferarri619 posted...

How about have the prisoner in a room with about five C4 going off?
Or if we wanna get real ridiculous, put a prisoner in a desert somewhere and use helicopters to bomb the shit out of it

Nah. They might survive the latter. The former would be overkill as well. You gotta balance the explosion with visibility.

How about an anime show that features cooks engaging in cooking competitions that actually teaches you how to make them as well so you can make them at home? If ONLY there was some show like that, I would so watch it. But alas, no show engaging in wars between foods. Maybe if there was a busty woman who wore an American flag bikini cooking as well...

I wonder how many people are actually solving it as opposed to guessing randomly. This is an insanely hard math problem after all!

Originally a cape was utilized to deal with various forms of weather. Rain and cold most notably. Basically, think of it as a way to carry a blanket/raincoat around.

Think 'work from home' might stick around simply because people can't afford to drive to work?

Assuming an infinite number of multivereses... Hell no! Somewhere out there is a version of me that's the Empress of Mankind!

I object.

While it may be the most 'humane', execution by cannon is far more awesome and should be done simply because of said epicness.

They talk about personal responsibility and then go nuts over wearing a mask.

If we all took the personal responsibility to wear a mask for a couple of years, we could not only eradicate COVID but the common cold as well.

I seem to recall pointing this out to you before.

It is NOT easy to eradicate a disease at all. Only two human diseases have been wiped out, smallpox and rindopest. While several others (like polio) are on their back legs, it's VERY hard even with diseases that are not particularly infectious and easily vaccinated. It took us decades to wipe out smallpox, until 1977, and that was relatively easy to stop once a workable vaccine was discovered. Covid 19 is highly infectious and has multiple strains already. Pretty much the only way it could have been stopped is if patient 0 had been identified immediately and the whole place quarantined. We still have no clue who patient 0 is or even if this virus came from a bat or a Chinese lab (let's not get into that). Even then the vaccine is NOT 100% effective especially if you're going with, say, the Chinese version. Even if it was and everyone was on board with it, it would likely take DECADES to actually finally wipe out and that's assuming no new strains immune to the vaccine popped up.

So no, there was never any realistic hope of 'wiping out COVID'. That's why the goal was to 'flatten the curve'. I.E. make it so that it spread slower so the hospitals could handle it; not wipe it out. Cause there was no way it was going to be wiped out from day 1.

So only slow/stupid people deserve it?

Over 90% of people can't get the right answer to this problem. Can you figure out the answer?

Here's a question. What would it take for you to fire the nukes? Would you be willing to do it at all or would you be willing to risk it to protect allies and the like? Would you defend an ally against a nuclear power knowing full well it could trigger a nuclear war?

Edit: In case you are wondering, I would honor any alliances made prior even if it meant having to risk the nukes going off. If I am unwilling to fire and risk it, I may as well not have it. With that said, I would VERY much like to find ways to de-escalate first.

The issue with MAD is that, as much as you DON'T want to fire the nukes, you have to be WILLING to fire the nukes. Otherwise it doesn't work. Like, if you have a gun, but your opponent knows you're too much of a coward to actually use it, you may as well not have it while they rob your house and/or beat you up. What this means for Putin is that, so long as he's WILLING to use the nukes, other nations can't risk getting involved because, well, end of the world. If nukes didn't exist I suspect there'd be a lot more support for Ukraine flowing in if not open war already declared on Russia. This will also play an issue when China inevitably attacks Taiwan. If America defends Taiwan then China may as well fire off it's nukes because America might fire it's own first.

This is a fundamental problem with M.A.D. During the cold war both primary powers, as much as they hated each other, were largely content to handle things relatively diplomatically. I.E. vying for control of smaller nations instead of conquering them. Now there's a problem in that a nation with nukes can attack another nation and if a nation with nukes comes to their defense they're free to fire since the other nation might fire first. The west is largely a defensive force currently that doesn't desire to expand and is happy with the status quo. NATO's almost more of a military version of the EU at this point instead of something made to specifically counter Russia (though recent actions have shown exactly WHY it continues to exist). However the same is not true for China and Russia. China desperately wants to snuff out Taiwan and expand it's sphere of influence and Putin desires to rebuild the U.S.S.R.

As a result it comes down to a simple question of what China and Russia are actually willing to DO. The moment China attacks Taiwan or Russia does something to force NATO to act, it's basically over. However, if America backs down from Taiwan and Russia doesn't provoke NATO it's basically 0 as they'll continue to expand 'in peace'. I.E. they'll engage in massive militaristic expansions conquering the weaker nations and/or installing puppet governments, but no nukes will be involved.

Edit: I should add that, while Russia will almost certainly win the military invasion of Ukraine, it's been a massive failure in basically all other regards. Despite far more numbers and being one of the 'big' nations and what should be a far more technologically superior military it's failed to secure the decisive victory it should have been able to procure and it's also resulted in mass international condemnation and galvanized the vast majority of the world against Russia as well as shown exactly WHY NATO continues to exist. There's two primary paths forwards. Either A) Putin realizes how horrible things went, that he can't challenge NATO in a ground war, and that not even the Russian people support what's happened and cools off. Or B) Putin sees this as a 'nothing left to lose' situation and proceeds to go all-in and commits everything, including his willingness to fire nukes. He's not going to get voted out even if 100% of the vote is against him, so he's not worried about public opinion so long as they don't openly revolt (which is very unlikely).

Technically yes. There's been reports of companies shutting down so fast their employees had no clue it was even happening.

In reality, not really. There's a bunch of contracts and the like which would have to be settled and resolved, a multitude of financial things that would need to be paid, and so-forth. While a small company could probably lock it's doors and just settle all the stuff after once you move beyond one primary office space there's just a lot of legal stuff.

Like, if Apple decided to shut down tomorrow, even if they locked the home office, there's a bunch of apple stores out there in places like malls and such, places that produce their products, and other things which would need to be dealt with. So they couldn't JUST lock down and be done with it.

I'm surprised anyone suspected Smithers. It was too obvious. Same with Homer.

Surviving a nuclear blast and keeping out intruders are not the same thing. That said, I wonder what he's going to do when the ghouls and glowing ones start roaming about.

Rotpar posted...

"They said Simpson DNA, so it could be anyone of us; except Mom because she's a Bovier."

"No, when I married your father I took everything, including his DNA!"

Bow-chicka-wow-wow!

HornedLion posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/3/9/AAckHXAAC_Xf.jpg

I am 100% convinced that if the majority of the population, especially democrats, began to state how strongly theyre against blowing their own dads it wont be long before conservatives start making advances on their fathers.

These idiots dont have a mind of their own, they just choose the opposite of what the dems do.

What are you doing step-dad?

In all seriousness though... What the heck? I get there being paranoia over a 'New World Order' but that's an entirely different can of worms from what we have here. Like... Wow... Just... Wow... Wow...

I don't think this guy is right-wing except in his own mind. This level of insanity basically applies to only the deluded.

Playsaver posted...

So, 1+1 will equal 2 only when it's convenient from now on?
I know one state tried to change the value of .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

Change the value to 'Cherry'.

adjl posted...

That is the endgame of this, though. Because of that, I doubt it will pass, but there's no version of this where a teacher doesn't get fined for mentioning evolution in class to a student with staunchly creationist parents, and that will be appealed up to whatever court it takes to strike down the law as violating the separation of church and state. This is no different from the laws the Scopes Monkey Trial called attention to and sparked debate around, and we can see how that debate has...

*sunglasses*

Evolved.

No matter how many times I hear the name I can't help but imagine them actually putting a monkey on trial.

adjl posted...

Oh, that's exactly what it is. I don't think anyone's even remotely doubting that. I would also expect to see it used to push back against teaching evolution (which will probably ultimately be its downfall, since that's failed several times throughout history) and any sort of sex ed that doesn't consist entirely of "sex is evil never do it" (which they'll get away with because people refuse to realize that abstinence-only sex ed objectively makes sex-related stuff worse for everyone), but it's absolutely meant to punish teachers that try to say that gay people count as people or that white people aren't the chosen people of God.

I really doubt they'll try to push either belief even if this bill gets passed; especially since it would turn the courts into a religious battleground which would be nightmarish for all involved. I suppose that's another reason it won't get passed, because anyone objecting to it on the grounds that it's a 'deeply held religious belief' will have to PROVE it's a 'deeply held religious belief' in a court of law. So can you imagine being the poor judge who would have to rule on the case of the nature of the holy trinity because some teacher accidentally misrepresented it in a history class and lost their job as a result? Even within the Bible, while it does speak out against LGBT stuff, you'd need to prove it was a 'deeply held religious belief' (which would not likely stand up in court as the majority of Christian sects have, even if they disapprove of it, have decided that God is more than willing to accept them into Heaven... But can we PLEASE not get into a religious debate here on this?)

IMO, they're seeing a lot of what's happening in the coastal areas and feel threatened immensely by them on religious, political (the things being expressed are immensely left-leaning while OK is a very right-leaning state), and personal level; hence the bill. I'd wager it's not even intended to target any actual teachers teaching in the state (if it does hit them it's incidental, though a good thing in their eyes). Instead trying to discourage teachers from, say, Portland from moving to OK and threatening the local culture and such.

I want to make this clear. I am not advocating for any position, agreeing with, or disagreeing with, what they are saying. Just giving my interpretation of what they are proposing with this bill.

Upon reading it, I'm not so sure it's 'seeking to ban reality' so much as it's trying to stop pro-LGBT and CRT from being taught.

Firstly, it's referring to 'positions'. This term is ambiguous but seems, IMO, to refer more to political positions and stances as opposed to 'facts'. If they were trying to ban, say, evolution I don't think they would have been using this term. They may have also been seeking to provide protection for religious schools from political/social strong-arming attempts. I further think this is the case because it later references 'outside assistance' which seems to be a very odd term to utilize if they were talking about more conventional things like, say, teachers teaching more conventional sex-ed instead of abstinence-only. Especially with a punishment of 'immediate termination' which seems like an attempt to immediately sever and end the issue instead of having it erupt into a major legal battle. Finally it's final paragraph says 'an emergency is hereby declared to exist' which, again, seems very odd for more conventional 'controversial' positions. Additionally, the timing of the bill seems to suggest that this is the intent.

Now, assuming the goal here is to ban pro-LGBT and CRT, I certainly feel it will backfire and you will likely end up with it backfiring and resulting in religious wars as two religious groups will proclaim each other to be pushing for stuff that violates their personal beliefs. Not to mention a bunch of minor things that were previously non-issues becoming targets like, say, medical classes having to omit blood transfusions because some religions are against it. This is not to mention that it will, almost certainly, end up hitting the state supreme court and will likely get elevated to the top dogs because it seems explicitly intended to target democrats and pro-LGBT positions and it will likely get destroyed there.

As such I doubt this bill will pass. It will likely get rejected outright with, maybe, a few token votes to show support for it's content but no actual intent to get it passed. This seems to be more about 'sending a message' than actual intent to pass because it so vaguely defines the term 'positions' and doesn't provide and protections for any subject or limits as to what constitutes a 'closely-held religious belief'. Plus the whole bit about immediate termination seems to be of dubious legality even if this law gets passed. I'm pretty sure you can't legally fire someone due to religious/political/etc beliefs unless they've been shown to be impacting their quality/capability to work or causing turmoil within the company even with at-will employment (as it would constitute discrimination).

So I doubt this bill will get passed and is more likely meant as a scare tactic, an attempt to show that the people of Oklahoma don't approve of what's being taught in schools, and reassure people who disapprove of those things for religious reasons that their politicians are on their side. I would expect we'll see a lot of them voicing their support but ultimately voting against the bill assuming it ever reaches that level.

A lot of bills get proposed and never get anywhere for a multitude of reasons. This seems likely to be one of those only it got a lot more attention due to it's content. I wouldn't be worried and, even if it does get approved, it seems practically assured to get overturned before long.

Edit: I also want to make it clear that, assuming it is as I speculated and it's targeted against LGBT's, I am immensely opposed to it. I believe a person has a right to their own sexuality and sexual identity and banning that, at least within appropriate contexts, in school is immensely against that personal belief of mine.

The problem with that is that there was no way that what happened on the farm wouldn't have inevitably happened. Even in some hypothetical setting in which both Snowball and Napoleon got turned into sausage before the uprising you would still have had a bunch of animals who would have been in a leaderless society that would, almost inevitably, fallen apart the moment someone took power. While Benjamin would likely have been the best choice and he likely would not have treated the animals anywhere near as badly as the pigs (it's very difficult to tell when dealing with what-ifs) you'd still inevitably have had a system that defeats itself. The farm would still need to produce to survive, work would still have needed to have been done, and it would have been impossible to maintain the preached philosophy. While it would be nice to believe that 'four legs/wings = good, two legs = bad' especially given what the other farmers tried, it would be inevitable that other farmers would have appeared. There are only two ways that the system could have progressed without the animals coming under the sway of humans once again. Namely some animal rises to take the role of farmer who owns the property and manages it like a farmer (granted, very likely a better one than Napoleon) or there is a mass collapse of society (at least at the local level) resulting in the humans leaving and the area becoming 'wild'. Or, to take it out of fairy-tale stories, a communist society in which everyone is equal/the workers own the means of production/etc. cannot exist on a macro-scale because either products and labor needs to happen which means the development of, at the very least, a worker and manager class; or you live in a society in which said things are not required which means effective regression to pre-historic levels. It's why small-scale communes can work for a time. Because the workload to maintain twenty to fifty people is relatively small and those present are willing to give up a lot of things to live at what is, effectively, a basic level. But once you try to move beyond that it simply doesn't work or apply anymore.

Or, put another way, the animals dream was doomed to failure right from the start because it's not how the world works unless they were also willing to escape into the wild. That the pigs were cruel masters who abused their power just doomed the situation harder. Likewise, even a commune that did, somehow, purge itself of corruption would be doomed to failure as, in order to keep running and functioning as a society, it would need to betray its core principles. Equality, worker-controlled, call it what you like. You have a bunch of workers just producing with no oversight you get nowhere and each type of work holds different values and so-forth. You can never achieve the ideals Marx laid out because they are a fantasy that sounds sweet but is unobtainable until such times as labor itself becomes irrelevant.

That those who criticize communism often no nought what they talk of.

And on cue, as if summoned by magic to prove my point

My point is that Communism is a system of government that brings nothing but death and misery, not only fails in it's intended goal but swings in the opposite direction so hard it's extremely difficult for a modern mind to comprehend, provides a breeding ground for corruption that's not just ample but effectively ensured by it's very nature, and the people defending it blindly believe that it hasn't been tried before because their professors told them so and this time it will be different without even providing a reason as to why it MIGHT be different in the slightest, effectively relying on wishes to change things.

Let me ask, let's say you have your perfect communist utopia. How will you ensure everyone is equal? Who will hold the power to ensure equality, or that the workers hold the power, or whatever you plan on claiming? How will you hold them accountable? How will you stop them from abusing their power? Who will decide what goods need to be produced, what labor is required, and how said labor is performed? How will you reconcile the uneducated but hard working with the educated but lazy? What about people who produce goods that hold no direct value like art, music, or the like? What about luxury goods like smart phones, non-utilitarian cars, jewelry, reclining chairs, and such? Does a man who has a dog deserve more food than a man who doesn't have one or does he need to feed the dog from his own food ration? How will you even decide how to distribute things like food and wealth? How many hours do you think you will be REQUIRED to work or that everyone will work hard to maintain the system while you live a decent life working 10 hours a week if at all? Have you even thought this through?

I don't believe that capitalism is a perfect system. I would argue that we're no longer in a capitalist system and have transitioned into some form of corporate oligarchy. I certainly support some issues such as universal healthcare as I believe they will help out many people. This system certainly needs fixing and changing. However, claiming that, not only Communism is the solution, but that 'real communism hasn't been tried yet' is insane. If you cannot muster up a real argument here, than we're done.

Metalsonic66 posted...

Yeah the whole point of Animal Farm was that corrupt people in power can warp the best of intentions

• You seemed to have missed the whole point. It's a fairy tail retelling of the rise of the Soviet Union using the story of an animal farm as a medium (for example, Snowball is Trotsky, Napoleon is Stalin). The point that it tries to drive home the hardest is that, even though the farm STARTED with seemingly-good intentions, it was doomed to fail almost right from the start. The animals were both unwilling to stand up to Napoleon's abuses of power and incapable of understanding that his power was even BEING abused in the first place. That's how the commandments go from 'Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend. No animal shall wear clothes. No animal shall sleep in a bed. No animal shall drink alcohol. No animal shall kill any other animal. All animals are equal.' to being ruled by a group of pigs who break every one of those rules with 'All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others' as their only remaining commandment and not even being able to remember IF there were other commandments and, as I recall, other human farmers noting how he'd managed to deprive his animals of even more feed and get more productivity and what they could do to do the same to their own farms.

I don't see how you go from a distinct retelling of the Soviet Union and it's many failings and shortcomings to 'it's about how corrupt people can warp the best of intentions'. The whole POINT is that communism is bad as the animals routinely suffer and have their lot in life made worse while the pigs accrue more and more power, even selling one of them off 'to the knacker' to make a quick buck. While it's true that the good intention was corrupted by the pigs in charge, that's not the whole point of the novel. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. In the end they cannot tell the difference between the pigs (who claimed to have been doing their best for the animals) and the oppressive humans (whom they rebelled against).

All you've done is parrot radical right talking points while you refuse to actually learn what communism is.

Communism is what brought misery and death to millions upon millions of people who lived horrific lifestyles yet were deluded into believing they were better than in the evil, capitalist, west by their government espousing the belief that they were 'for the people' while enacting mono-party absolutist rule and stripping away every right they could have possibly had in the process.

'Communism hasn't really been tried.' is a fantasy told by worthless college professors to students who don't know any better because they believe that, with enough pixie dust, unicorn tears, and a pot of leprechauns gold, it will be different THIS time.

Democracy is inherently a socialist concept; you don't believe in democracy and you don't believe in socialism. You see fascist states and mislabel them communist and scream "Communism Bad" while never actually knowing what communism is. You only double down on your misinformed position while ignoring everything else

There is no way to have a good faith argument with you, so I won't bother to try and hold one.

Considering you didn't even read what I said, I would say it's the other way around. I literally said ' It's almost like I believe in democracy but not that a simple majority vote is the right way to do it.' You know... Like I believe in Democracy just not the whole 'simple majority' rule. You've also not only put the cart (socialism) before the horse (democracy), but your cart is a wardrobe instead of a cart. In other words, if anything, socialism would a democratic concept as democracy not only came first as a political concept (dating all the way back to ancient Greece and, itself, is an off-shoot of Republics), but socialism really has nothing to do with democracy. After all, what happens when the people democratically vote to reject socialism and communism? This isn't to even mention you've deluded yourself into a extreme black/white mentality in which any form of governance in which the common man holds a vote or a nation enacts a public welfare program is an inherently socialist concept and couldn't/wouldn't happen under a capitalist system.

But hey, you keep trying a generic argument parroted a thousand times over by ignorant college youths who got brainwashed by a professor who claim to be intelligent yet also keep believing that real communism will work THIS time if they click their heels together three times and all those other communists weren't the inevitable result of such a system while calling ME misinformed on the matter.

Heck, what even IS your argument? That, somehow, I have no knowledge of Communism because I haven't read that book (While it seems you haven't read history books or stuff like Animal Farm)? Why do you even think it 'will be different' this time?

Lokarin posted...

fun fact - a microwave can double as a faraday cage, albeit a 'leaky' one

Thanks for the tip. I tried to call my phone while it was in there and it didn't work.

BEERandWEED posted...

If all electronics get fried tonight, having a functional switch won't help you survive.

Having some hamms would be more useful.

A functioning switch = tradable good, stress reliever, entertainment, and so-forth. It may not help you wrestle rad-roaches into submission, but it's far from useless when it comes to survival.

So no.

And there's the answer; socialism is incompatible with your core beliefs. Nothing I say will ever change that or convince you otherwise; it is not worth taking the time to explain how wrong you are.

(BTW in Canada where we have five and a half major federal parties, 36% constitutes a majority)

I said it was irrelevant. Which it is. If your argument for communism depends entirely on me living in a democratic nation, than you don't have an argument. Likewise, if your argument can be undone by me simply NOT agreeing with democracy, you don't have an argument. Remember, this is not about 'convincing me'; this is about if communism WORKS. What if I was FROM a communist nation like Venezuela or China and said communism didn't work and democracy was being abused to maintain the powers of a despot and, thusly, I didn't believe in it anymore? Would you have a case then?

Also, I find it hilarious that you claim I don't believe in democracy when all I said was that I don't believe 51% should be able to dictate what the other 49% does. Especially when I followed it up by saying I did believe a government should represent and serve it's people as opposed to a select group of elites. It's almost like I believe in democracy but not that a simple majority vote is the right way to do it.

And neither are communist states except in name only, but because you've been told and conditioned to believe this is what communism looks like, you will continue to parrot that misconception.

We'll make it simple for you:

Do you believe in democracy? Yes or No

Irrelevant (I don't believe 51% should be able to dictate what the other 49% does, but I do believe that a government should be representative of the people it governs as opposed to a opposed to a select faction of elites and should serve it's people instead of said elites). I reject communism. You'll notice that all these nations claim they have it, yet in practice they don't in the slightest. You don't seem to understand that you're presenting a 'no true Scotsman' type fallacy. I.E. presenting your idea from counter-examples by excluding them. Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc. All nations that claimed to be communist and, for all practical intents and purposes, are. Yet you are excluding them because 'they're not true communisms' while ignoring that either, A) this IS true communism or B) any attempt to form a 'true communism' will inevitably be destroyed and turned into a despotic regime. So pick your poison. It either fails because it's core idea is inherently flawed and promises a system it can't deliver... Or it fails because it creates a system that is so easily exploited by despots and elites that it can never exist for long, if at all.

I find it funny that you're accusing me of brainwashing when your entire argument is an uninventive and generic 'real communism has never been tried' while I'm presenting real-world examples, showing why it can't work via written examples, and so-forth. All while you repeat lines that, no doubt, were likely taught to you by your college professor and you're repeating without a thought or question.

Continue spouting off the propaganda you've been brainwashed your entire life to believe, but all you sound like is Tuck Carlson:

See, here's the thing. All the examples and things I mentioned are REAL. It's not propaganda. I can point to things like how China treats it's citizens terribly, the horrors of the gulags, the starvation in North Korea, and so-forth. You can't point to an example of a 'real communism/communism done right/whatever'. Because it doesn't exist.

adjl posted...

So... Capitalism, with socialist policies applied as needed to prevent that capitalism from reducing people's quality of life? What a novel concept that I'm sure nobody has suggested before as being a way to improve countries that are taking capitalism too far.

I wouldn't call it that. It's more of capitalism with a government in place that has placed a higher value on the quality of life for it's citizens than other endeavors. The high taxes simply add more fuel for them to burn in the fire to keep the engine going. For better or worse a lot of America's wealth goes into things like the military which a lot of these other nations simply don't do. It's made America arguably the strongest military in the world, but it's also COSTLY! I'm not going to debate if America should or shouldn't be doing that, just accepting that it is. I'm certain that if America adjusted it's budget percentages (within reason) to mirror many of these nations we'd see a drastic QoL improvement for all of America's citizens but it wouldn't be without sacrifices.

I also feel like a lot of Americans have come out against capitalism because, for all intents and purposes, capitalism has failed and collapsed into what is effectively an oligarchal corporatism (not sure if that's the right word). Jobs get exported overseas while wages get kept low for the average citizen in an increasingly starved job market. Prices go up through inflation while incomes remain stagnant or even go down. Many people need multiple jobs just to be able to be classified as 'poor'. Meanwhile the heads of major companies horde wealth to the point where they could probably use $100 bills as fireplace logs and not even notice. They seem to dictate policies and hold sway in government equal to, if not superior to, people. Many go to college for degrees and get into massive debt only to find a job market that puts them on-par with the people who never went to college if not worse off due to 'lack of experience' and so-forth. When presented with that it's easy to believe that capitalism has unconditionally failed due to the personal misery many live in. I suspect a lot of people don't so much 'support communism' as they are 'sick of capitalism and want it gone' and they're willing to take ANYTHING to replace it and Communism has that nice promise of helping the worker out...

Thing is, what you wrote could easily be a copypasta for capitalism. Most times people criticize communism, they end criticizing capitalism, largely because they don't understand what communism is.

Capitalism will one day end, the choice we have is whether it will end with the destruction of the human species, or with the concerted effort to shift to a new economy. Communism is merely that shift from our current state to some new paradigm more aligned with a civilized society.

Turn off Faux News, read Das Kapital.

Stop reading Das Kapital, read Animal Farm. Or 1984. Or really any history book about communist nations.

Seriously, it's one of those annoying arguments that, when it fails, they argue 'well, it wasn't REAL communism'. So when it succeeds it's real communism, but when it fails and results in two nations that killed more than WWII Germany on their own, not to mention multiple other nations with massive death counts that failed to reach those amounts, the common man being reduced to an effective slave, an oligarchical upper class of privileged elites, dissenters vanishing in the middle of the night, and many other horrors, it's 'not real communism'.

Wake up. This IS real communism! Das Kapital is the fantasy here. A perfect society that can't be obtained held up by fanciful dreams and fairy dust. Capitalism has problems, yes, but it's done FAR more to improve peoples lives and make the world a better place than Communism; which has done the exact opposite. Do you seriously think you'll end up working, say, a 20 hour work week and then spend the rest relaxing and playing video games? No. You won't. Someone needs to grow that food. Someone needs to clean those sewers. Someone needs to do all the hard labor that makes a society run. However now, instead of choosing to do so and getting paid arguably decent money for it, you're going to be drafted into doing it by the government and paid in being allowed to eat. You won't get some decent house or something; you'll get shoved into some grey block apartment building that will be utterly miserable to live in and will consider yourself lucky if the bread line isn't too long... and this is if you're LUCKY and don't end up in a nation where, say, you're forced to farm all day but end up starving to death in your little shack.

Real Communism has been tried. Multiple times. What you're reading is a Communist fantasy. There won't be some magical society where you're free to pursue leisure because you're free of landlords, enjoying the arts in your free time because artists are now free to create, and working only a few hours at a job you'll love. You're going to be thrust into a communal farm where you'll work until you drop and the only 'art' will be a television with six channels that provide only the bare needs and a constant loop of propaganda only interrupted when the glorious leader wishes to make an announcement. THAT is Communism! The system that considers it's own citizens traitors and/or corrupted by capitalism if they get caught eating a snack roll and actively tries to shoot down balloons sent carrying them from their more prosperous neighbor. A system that has no problem engaging in ethnic cleansing then having someone of said ethnicity run the Olympic torch to try and claim that they're not.

Yea. Keep telling yourself that. Maybe, one day, you'll wish upon a star and that will happen.

Yes, that's how communism works; it's the process of transitioning away from the destructive system of oppression that is capitalism.

But no, let us continue to sacrifice a thousand souls a day to the golden throne to keep the Emperor's decaying body in his permanent state of un-death.

I apologize in advance as the 'real communism has never been tried' thing serious grinds my gears and ticks me off. If this wasn't what you meant, feel free to disregard the following

Yea. Let me guess. 'Real Communism has never been tried'. You might wanna look into those 'socialist' states because they're basically capitalist nations with high taxes that turn around and use said tax money to fund social welfare systems. They're not communist or 'socialist' by any means besides delusion.

The simple fact is that 'real communism' results in tyrants, starvation, horrific prison conditions, and so-forth because it's very core concept is inherently flawed. Let's take a simple set-up.

Assume you are in charge of building a train to an outlying village on the other side of a mountain. You can go around it which will take more steel, or through it which will require more engineers. Firstly you'll need an entire infrastructure just to MAKE the steel and train the engineers in the first place so already the concept is flawed because this means you need mundane workers to mine and smelt the steel but educators to train the engineers who won't be working the mines and will not directly produce any sort of material gain on their own... but let's ignore that.

Which do you, as a true communist, wish to do? One costs more material resources but will impose a lesser strain on the engineers and workers, another will cost less resources but put more strain on the workers. Which is correct?

Let me tell you the answer. Neither is correct. Instead you go through the mountain (saving raw resources) and press the villagers on the other side to become 'engineers'. If any resist they are capitalist sympathizers and to be imprisoned and forced into prison labor. I then proceed to have the 'engineers' tunnel through the mountain while bragging about the great success that the project has been. Falsify financial reports and passenger numbers to indicate that the railroad is a massive success. When the railroad inevitably fails I proceed to blame it on either capitalist sabotage or the local officials or something and ensure the media runs a non-stop smear campaign so that no one ever finds out the truth. Meanwhile I pocket the money and laugh all the way to the bank as I come off as a hero of the communist people when all I actually did was force unskilled laborers into dangerous conditions to produce a shoddy product that was doomed to fail.

This is exactly what we see happening in places like China and saw in the U.S.S.R. Government officials gladly forced what was effectively slave labor to work on shoddy and dangerous products while they profit off the rich... Because this is what communism BREEDS! Equality among workers... in that all are equally miserable and effectively enslaved. If you dissent you're likely to... vanish...

But...

BUT!

Did you ask yourself 'do we even need this railroad in the first place?' I wager you didn't and you simply assumed that it was needed. For all you know this is a village of, like, 50 people with no need of a railroad and all you've done is produce a wasteful railroad that only exists because the government says it should exist.

If you think that there will be some perfect communist utopia let me tell you, you're better off hunting unicorns. What you will see, every time, is massive mono-parties that claim to be 'for the people' but instead quash any dissent and opposition and even people who simply wish to do something as simple as move a garbage pile but don't have the parties endorsement (that actually happened in China) as the workers will be effectively turned into a slave force and the party elites live lives of opulent indulgence. We're freaking out in America because our Walmart's, while still having food and other products, are having issues keeping stock... while in places like Venezuela people are having to fight to defend their lemon trees because the people are starving while the 'president' dines on feasts and always seems to get at least 51% of the vote no matter how unpopular he is.

Why do you think your vision of communism will succeed? Because you wished it to be?

adjl posted...

In Canada, Tim Hortons recently started advertising that their breakfast sandwiches were now made with "fresh-cracked eggs," and the overwhelming response to those ads was "what were they made with before?". Presumably, they used containers of pre-broken eggs, so it was still pretty much just egg being used and not actually some bizarre facsimile, but I was still pretty entertained by how hard the campaign backfired.

It was likely an egg loaf.

https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/danaegcoverphoto-1.png

IIRC it's basically whites and yolks separated then reformed to allow for easy shipping and delivery. Failing that I wouldn't be surprised if they'd used some sort of frozen egg patty that they just re-heated and put on.

wpot posted...

Here's how this will go:
1) Putin wasn't going to put all of that on the border and do nothing: it would look like he backed down.
2) If he were going to attack Kiev he'd be doing it now
3) Putin has to know that internal Russian support for what he is doing would ebb quickly if Russia took many casualties attacking Ukraine. Russians can see what's going on.
4) Therefore, this is the "big move"...and it probably ends here militarily after a lot of yelling and sanctions. Given that Russia already occupies these areas there shouldn't be a huge battle.
5) The sanctions will be harder to implement and maintain given that these chunks are less important, frankly, than Crimea. Given everything said over the winter they will certainly be placed, but they will fade away after the world's attention shifts and someone sees a need to extend an olive branch to Russia. Putin/Russia will survive with China's help for those few years.
6) So...this will feel a lot like the Crimea episode after a few years. Maybe he'll bite off another chunk in a few more years if it suits him politically. Or maybe he'll infiltrate Ukraine's elections and get someone elected that he likes. Or maybe someone in Russia will actually figure out how to topple him.

He's accomplished what he claimed to want in the Russian media (protection for the theoretically oppressed Russians) and defied the West. Politically that's what he wanted to do.

I disagree with point 2. I feel he's likely either to claim the region then, when Kiev attacks, claim they were being hostile and aggressive and needed to be 'pacified' or something. Alternatively, he'll keep finding 'pro-Russia citizens' that need to be 'rescued' or whatever until there's no more Ukraine left. Then it will be on to, likely, Poland in so far as Europe is concerned (though I expect him to work on the asian nations first).

BEERandWEED posted...

Capitalist love war.

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 34: War is good for business.

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 35: Peace is good for business.

Way I take that is that both war and peace are good for business and you should look at both as opportunities to earn money. Especially since rule 9 is 'Opportunity plus instinct equals profit.'

Gaawa_chan posted...

I don't understand the supposed lefties who simp for Chinese and Russian imperialism. It's like their political takes begin and end with "USA bad," and I am the furthest left person I know. There is a schism between the anarchist left and the ML left that causes odd things like this to happen in discourse. As I am of the former, I do not think simping for any State's imperialist actions is something any self-respecting leftist ought do.

Paying attention to Vaush's content has been interesting because he has been fairly spot-on in his takes through this whole affair, which is pretty unusual because the topic is NOT his strong suit at all, but he comes into contact with people across the political spectrum with terrible takes on this subject.
https://twitter.com/VaushV/status/1495884116901957633

I agree. Putin's play wasn't even subtle. I don't think anyone was fooled for a second that he was planning to invade.

But yea. There's a bunch of brainwashed far-leftists out there whose politics begin and end more or less at 'US bad'. Or, more accurately, 'anyone who isn't on the far left is a <insert horrible accusation here>!'. So if you're a free-speech absolutist you are supporting hate speech. Believe in capitalism and you're a monster who wants to exploit the working class or something. The result is that, since the vast majority of America ISN'T on the far left, their narrative becomes 'America bad'.

I want to keep both from being taken.

Zareth posted...

Enjoy your sanctions, Vlad.
Have fun going broke in a couple months.

Not likely. Their trade with China and other Russia-centric nations will likely keep them afloat. It may hurt, but they won't go broke.

NeoSioType posted...

Do the fallout shelters come with wifi and anime body pillows?

No. They came with Putin body pillows.

Metalsonic66 posted...

Maplestory nub

I've only got ten slots.

Which of those MMO's is currently the best? Though, we all know, Hello Kitty Island Adventure is the true number 1.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Tales of Eternia even has Meredy on the box...

Karn/Danq, Danved, who is most certainly not Devdan and whatever that skateboarding kid was called.

No clue about the other six games.

Dark Cloud has Ungaga who is arguably more tribal/native than black, but I could understand why people would assume he was at a glance and he would potentially qualify. So it's probably not that.

Edit: How do we DEFINE black? Japan isn't, exactly, the most progressive nation out there, especially in regards to racial stereotypes. So are we talking someone with simply dark skin or someone who distinctly fits the potential racial stereotypes? Such as Devdan's curly hair/pesudo-afro?

You are invalid and you should be ashamed of your invalidity.

I don't have a clue why you are or why you should be ashamed of it, just that you are and you need to be ashamed of it.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

The lawsuit itself was legit. The bullshit/silly part was a slander campaign by McD.

Yea... The coffee one only sounds stupid until you actually know the details. We're not talking 'hot coffee' we're talking 'dangerously scalding coffee that caused serious damage to people if it got spilled on them'. As I understand it they may as well have put whatever got splashed on them into boiling hot water in regards to how dangerous and painful it was. We're not talking 'warm brew', we're talking 'hot enough to burn and melt your skin'. Once I found out the details my opinion did a complete flip and I am now on the side of the suers.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It's more than just the difference between "knowledge" and "common sense", though. We've kind of proven that the more we invent devices that "remember" things for us or "think" for us, the less capable our brains become at replicating the same processes. The human brain is lazy - if it doesn't have to do something, it doesn't want to do it.

The invention and proliferation of written language actively weakened our ability to memorize and accurately transmit information via oral tradition. Calculators tend to weaken our ability to do math in our own heads. People today have a much harder time remembering phone numbers than people 50 years ago did. And so on.

The Internet has effectively placed the sum total of human knowledge at everyone's fingertips, but at the same time weakened our ability to recall information over time. Worse, because there's no real filter on that data to separate fact from fiction, our ability to detect the signal/noise ratio of all the information pouring into our brains is greatly limited (ie, we're exposed to so much information so often, we've kind of lost the ability to evaluate and fact-check it effectively, meaning a lot of what we think we know is potentially wrong anyway).

People today like to think they're "smart" (and definitely smarter than everyone else who's ever lived in the past), but a larger collection of data is about the only thing we have going for us . Our sum total of accumulated knowledge is absolutely greater, but our ability to remember and process it is likely much more impaired than our ancient ancestors.

So if you definite intelligence as "knowing things", we probably are smarter. But if you define it as being better able to process information, we probably aren't.

While I agree that common sense/wisdom/whatever has gone on the decline, I immensely disagree with your reasoning since it's shown that those progresses have also lead to massive leaps forward in knowledge. For example, a 'calculator', even if it weakens your personal ability to do math (which I find suspect) allows for rapid and accurate calculations repeatedly. I.E. even if it 'weakens' your ability, it gives a massive net positive by reducing your number of mistakes and allowing you to focus on the actually hard, non-calculator-able, parts of the problem.

But even if what you were saying was true, what 'we're looking at isn't a failure of knowledge, but a failure of sense. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that an egg contains eggs. You don't even need a language for that (well, you'd need to know what an egg was and that you couldn't eat it, but a language isn't needed for that). With something like 'gluten free' a lot of people don't really know WHAT gluten actually is. Just that this mysterious thing has suddenly popped up in celebrity diets and they say that gluten is bad for you so they avoid it. They don't know what it IS or what likely has it, just to avoid it. However, something like a pizza box that reminds it's customers to open the box before eating the pizza inside isn't some lack of knowledge of what a box is or it's lack of edibility, it's either a complete failure of any form of common sense, an overwhelming sense of ignorant apathy, or an intentional effort on the part of the 'victim'.

Which is why I blame the lawyers. It's cheaper to just include a 'contains eggs' label on your egg carton than deal with a lawsuit (as mentioned by Link) despite the only reason a person wouldn't realize that without some form of mental disability being intentional efforts. Additionally negative and ignorant views are allowed to exist and thrive online now because it's so easy to not only find like-minded individuals but to form an echo-chamber (I don't mean something political here. I'm talking about the truly ignorant like Flat-Earthers or 9/11 truthers).