I’ve been playing beamNg for 4+ years and it’s been in ea the entire time since 2015, possibly the best car game you can get for 20€.
Slay the spire I’ve also owned since early access, it’s maybe the most beautiful single player card game to exist. Although it only spent 1-2 years in ea.
Don’t be the first to buy ea games I guess but if the game is already fun why not.
Yeah this whole thing a bit maximized might be neatly wrapped up in this Hegelian insight rephrased in 2014 found on the wiki
“It is Hegel’s insight that reason itself has a history, that what counts as reason is the result of a development. This is something that Kant never imagines and that Herder only glimpses.”
In this way if not even the greats can do it how could a modern person or a think tank but at the same time does this not imply we currently need all three of them.
Also is the modern YouTube video essay channel sort of a think tank for terminally online people ? Maybe food for thought, maybe a joke who knows really.
It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. As much as reading and understanding smith and other philosophy is important for the individual, think tanks unfortunately seem necessary in a modern context aiming to transform, often quite unreadable, as your excerpt demonstrates, philosophical learning, into applicable law/policy.
As with everything this process is utterly captured by right wing and market fundamentalist interests. Just sort this list by Bias/Affiliation and skim some of the descriptions it’s a bit horrific, but it also might save you from reading an old school stochastic parrot with an inhumane agenda. Or if you actually find one you can agree with it might give you a reasonable first source.
The Adam smith institute is a right wing free market think tank with likely very questionable donors. wiki It likely doesn’t really do research but takes sources that support their preexisting believes and retells them.
Certainly it was at least very hard to make the capitalist exploitation of the worker so all encompassing before the invention of the mechanical watch (Although there was likely a ton of housework and the general situation was garbage what with feudal lords and all that) . It then likely exploded with the industrial revolution and at least in places where the working class managed to emancipate themselves got somewhat cut back. Now especially for countries outside of the west and increasingly also the US and parts of EU it’s likely getting worse, especially with multi employment and precarious employment(gig work, semi self employment, 0h contracts, mechanical turk …).
Generally i feel work where you or your peers get to keep the total output of your work isn’t really a problem, it’s a problem when your work gets appropriated into this terrible machine and as a result you are alienated from the work.
If sapolsky is to be believed we have the natural inclination to view in- and out- group as part of our brain. Everything else is learned or a coping mechanism. I guess this is why people propose lived multiculturalism especially during childhood as a solution to xenophobia.
No matter if he can be believed or not on this fact the book is fun wiki
Rojava wants a few words.
You are right but also wrong at the same time. People might be able to be antisemitic without being Nazis, but if they are in this way afraid or in rejection of ‘the other’ they’ve certainly at least been taught this kind of thinking by a fascist that tries to exploit both them and ‘the other’ for their own gain. In this way the Israeli right wing Government as well as IDF and police are thoroughly fascist just as much and in exactly the same way as Hamas are. “no blacks, no dogs, no Jews” can not be put up by a person that hasn’t been taught to reject others in this way, this rejection is the fascist lie they have internalized, and it is the reason why we call them a fascist.
The splintering of this concept of rejection into, antisemitism racism homophobia Islamophobia patriarchy … isn’t useful when trying to reject the ideas of their suppression, it only muddies the waters. They are the same struggle against unjustified oppression, in parts of which we may be a benefactor, and in other parts we may be oppressed, this shouldn’t make their existence any more justifiable.
To cowardly to scream so I hiss at the mirror instead.
Only if you see no alternative does treating them as the same actually benefit the crappier, if you realise resonably well that they are two sides of the same coin, and realise that this coin doesn't create much good, it just exploits people. You can vote so that the less crappy ones survive as long as the really crappy ones are a threat, but also fight against the liberals as well if they are currently keeping you down.
Sure it might be hard to imagine a socialist US but if that's not the goal then you might be missunderstanding the meme quite frankly.
Not accepting Wikipedia as some reasonable baseline for truthful or commonly accepted definitions is the sort of hill I wouldn’t want to die on but sure. Especially for content that is so politically contentious Wikipedia usually settles on a reasonably holistic description where other outlets will leave out downplay or politically color certain parts of definitions, obviously this happens there too, but it’s more likely to be corrected especially on divisive Issues. I mean you can go ahead and read the discussion page related to a topic and find out why and how sections came to be.
I’m not trying to lecture you I simply think that having any discussion is impossible if there is no shared understanding. Which is why I deferred to Wikipedia simply the most common database of knowledge in the world. The articles there might show me to be ignorant, but unlike you I’ve at least read parts of them with the intent to understand the information provided. Which I do to some extent not to completely accept what is said there but just to effectively communicate with other people, because Wikipedia gets close to a common definition for anything you might be talking about.
It’s not about a completely factual definition because the topic is way to complex and nuanced to have one that isn’t at least several long books, everyone lacks understanding of the topic because it’s impossible in many ways to have a complete understanding of it. That’s why it’s a philosophical topic and not a natural science, the topic is currently completely impenetrable for the scientific method alone.
It is interesting and important to discuss precisely because it’s so hard to grasp, so multifaceted and so central to all of our lives at the same time. And as I said before if we can’t agree on baseline definitions all that potentially interesting discussion is lost on us.
I don’t even really know where to start. First is probably that you don’t get to define words on a whim and that your definition of both capitalism and socialism lacks understanding. Just read the Wikipedia entry for both and you’ll find them better defined within the first sentence of their respective entry.
And honestly I’m too tired to properly explain all the traps you fell into after that so good luck with your Libertarian socialist dream or something idk
I’m not sure why large scale decision making has to be deferred to a single person instead of a large group. Tbh that’s one of the main problems with current large companies. Why not conduct a fucking vote, not about who should make the decision, but about what decision is made.
This might be true in some sense of talking about this topic but putting economic freedom as the marker for capitalist/socialist tendencyes of a country is a strange choice. No normal person will go yeah these two social democracies are actually more capitalist, than the 5 companies that make up the US government.
Idk in my world Denmark and Slovenia aren’t as capitalist as the US while being significantly more democratic.
But only for the 4 weeks a year you spend in unusually cold weather, the other 48 it’s more efficient.
It’s not like truly arctic places are a reasonable application but the overwhelming majority of our population lives south of Quebec and north of Wellington. So it’s not a relevant point, everyone in the Arctic can just use resistive heating or burn fuel, and if we get everything else on heat pumps we reduce our enegy use by a factor of 2-3 regardles.
And you are ignoring the appeal of an obvious joke that’s designed to be annoying to liberals/centrists and whatever. But also just be funny to everyone else. This sub is memes the twitter account is obvious ragebait/ shit posting just from the name alone…
The key here is “enjoyable” not “making their lives miserable” it doesn’t matter whether anyone actually suffers or any change is enacted, it’s a joke it’s primary purpose is to be funny. It’s secondary or tertiary purpose might be propaganda or education or whatever, it’s still mostly just funny, for people that get it at least.
The joke here is on some level obviously includes the absurdity of arguments constructed against a nonsense critique trying to defend a system that the people arguing don’t even really realize the joke is critiquing. Which is why the account tries to amp up the absurdity with their (non) dismissal of the pointles arguments.
To pull this whole joke into a more centrist perspective it’s like posting whatever inclusive or “woke” idea on /pol/ and just typing nonsense as the replies to the highly structured but deeply misunderstanding shit that /pol/ will dream up on that given day. And having a great laugh about it.
Just that we exchange /Pol/ for twitter which is now apparently partially musk dickridig and as such a conservative late stage capitalist realist echo chamber. And we laugh at the stupid defenses they spin up for a non attack on their chosen saviour. Where the point of the joke is so obviously not understood by the people replying, but obviously understood by people voting here.
And probably only partially understood by you, and or me, but that’s something we don’t need to get into, because if we do, we are again missing the point of the joke.
Eh I’m pretty sure these parts are there to satisfy some outside actors, the theory behind it certainly is socialism/anarchism, and if you can make transformative change without sticking strictly to definitions from the 30s, that’s still a good thing. Also I believe that democracy/socialism is not really a once you’ve got it you’ve got it thing but a continuous process that strives to better itself constantly, so yes it’s still being built and it will be forever.
The good safety of nuclear in developed countries goes hand in hand with its costly regulatory environment, the risk for catastrophic breakdown of nuclear facilities is managed not by technically proficient design but by oversight and rules, which are expensive yes , but they also need to be because the people running the plant are it’s weakest link in terms of safety.
Now we are entering potentially decades of conflict and natural disaster and the proposition is to build energy infrastructure that is very centralized, relies on fuel that must be acquired, and is in the hands of a relatively small amount of people, especially if their societal controll/ oversight structure breaks down. It just doesn’t seem particularly reasonable to me, especially considering lead times on these things, but nice meme I guess.