So if a cheater wins hard enough, it can be called “fair and square”? Not sure what specifics could get me on board with that.

Perhaps, but with all of the voter suppression and election rigging that has been done by the Republicans, can you really say he won “fair and square” at this point?

Your not wrong, though that kinda re-enforces my point. What would it take to convince a society to abandon an inherently unethical economic system?

This will be something of a unhelpful and unpopular answer, by you probably can’t.

What would convince you to stop eating meat from factory farms? What would convince you to only buy electronics from completely ethically sourced companies? What would convince you to only eat healthy nutritional food? To exercise regularly? So on and so forth?

There are many good and important, but inconvenient, things to do. But for most folks, the first step is wanting to. If he doesn’t, it will be an uphill battle.

I initially assumed this was unpopular because “just wipe the knives off…” and “why sharpen them at all?”. Boy am I surprised.

Better to look the fool than open your mouth and prove everyone right

$150 billion out of $1.7 trillion…

A 40% reduction in emissions that we are no where near on track to meet.

Income inequality down for the first time since '07, largely due to the middle class wealth stagnating. The ultra wealthy increased their wealth the fastest of all groups.

I’m more invested in not sending weapons to Israel tbh. And this isn’t even picking apart the mass amount of issues both political parties align on or simply ignore.

I’m voting for Kamala. I’m super stoked that Biden dropped out. I believe Trump would be worse on all of these fronts, and I think Kamala has a better chance to win.

But a lot of people are still rightly disappointed in the Democrats, and to write us all off as Corporate shills and Tankies is alienating a group that you probably agree with on many levels.

Comparison mostly. HD and 3D isn’t impressing you by virtue of it being superior to real life (it isn’t after all), it’s impressing you compared to other examples of the same thing done “worse”. The best portrait artist in the world can not make something look more “real” than the reference material, but it can compared to other attempts at painting.

This is true in other natural things as well. For example, a really big tree surrounded by smaller similar sized trees feels “really impressive” compared to a mountain surrounded by other… similar sized mountains. Or why a particularly colorful plant seems impressive surrounded by a bunch of green and brown plants.

On the other hand, things like OLED screens can be impressive compared to the natural world due to their ability to arrange and display colors rarely found in nature.

Their not worried about it

This comment is beautiful. It manages to admonish another for a concept it in of itself can not grasp.

It’s just a waste of energy on the part of the animators.

Bashing, no. Saying their effort to pursue their art is a “waste of energy” because it won’t be appreciated, yes.

Nobody thought it looked “realistic”. But it was insane how fast the technology was improving. They weren’t comparing it to reality, they were comparing it to games of just a year before.

And honestly, it was really impressive to see.

I wish I had opinions as strong as this.

lol, holy shit… I can’t believe I didn’t notice that.

So I apparently have too much free time and wanted to check. So I asked ChatGPT how long the border was exactly, and it could only get an approximate guess, and it had to search using Bing to confirm.

Saying “maybe you should reevaluate” =/= “must be true”. People did reevaluate if Trump won the 2020 election (a bit too many times frankly), and every time it came up to be a false claim. As is the case with your definition of Communism.

Furthermore, I did not try to setup a Utopia, nor did I call Russia, China, or Communism in general a Utopia. So I’m kinda confused about why you even brought that up… Regardless, even if Russia and China did add market economies, that wouldn’t change the definition of Communism, just the type of economies those countries have.

I think what you meant to say was “If countries that have tried to implement Communism consistently add Market Economics, then perhaps Communism is not a self-sufficient system, and as such it is not a comprehensive solution to the ills of Capitalism”. Which again wouldn’t change the definition of Communism, but would at least be a coherent argument.

Perhaps you need to change your definition of re-evaluate, and of… definition.

P.S. Just curious, do you ever get tired of misrepresenting the positions you are arguing against?

Fair point, the majority was laid by private companies, but the research for modern fiber optic cables was done at publicly funded universities.

Typing it all in caps doesn’t make it not true. Words have meanings, Russia and China both have private corporations run for profit. They do have some socialist policies, but they certainly do not have economic systems characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

If you keep having people tell you “those aren’t real communists”, then just maybe you should reevaluate your definition of Communism.

First off, just because something is developed in the public sector does not make it Communist. If you don’t know what words mean, don’t use them please. I don’t have time to go over definitions.

Secondly, the ground work for undersea cables, radio towers and satellites were indeed a direct result of work and funding from the public sector. The private sector wanted nothing to do with the internet until the mid 90’s when enough work had been done that it was deemed “profitable”.

A better example of what Capitalism does best would be adding advertisements to the internet, or the fact that Americans pay more per megabit than any European country on average.

Completely agree! Though time travel wasn’t a MacGuffin, it was just a plot contrivance. A Macguffin is an interchangeable irrelavent object used to drive the motivation for the plot. The “tesseract” in Avengers, or the “Philosopher/Sorcerer’s Stone” in Harry Potter for example.

Sorry to be pedantic, I fully agree with your actual point, and just thought you might want to know.