This is pants on head stupid
OBJECTION! @ Objection @lemmy.ml Posts 18Comments 1,635Joined 1 yr. ago
OBJECTION! @ Objection @lemmy.ml
Posts
18
Comments
1,635
Joined
1 yr. ago
Agree with your overall point, but a "revealed preference" isn't necessarily a lie or lake of self-knowledge. A recovering alcoholic might have a revealed preference for alcohol but that doesn't mean they're lying when they say they don't want it or that they're unaware of the temptation they have for it (insane as this may sound, people have actually made this argument before). The whole economic concept rests on massive philosophical and psychological cans of worms about what defines a person's identity and wants, which economists are happy to oversimplify and ignore. The average person can't really be expected to track entire supply chains for every purchase they ever make, which is why we have regulations. Instead of having every individual track every part of the production of every purchase, we (as a society) assign someone the job of investigating the production process to see if there's anything that we would find objectionable.
If a lot of people say that they have a problem with sweatshops, but then purchase goods made in sweatshops, you could argue that their behavior "reveals" their true preference, but it would be equally valid to say that what what they actually consciously express is their true preference and their failure to live up to it is driven by ignorance, succumbing to temptation, or regulatory failure.
The math contributes some to this. Let's say the correct answer is 1%, and out of ten people, 9 of them guess 1% and the other guesses 51% - that one guess shifts the average from 1% to 6%. And if it's 1%, then there's no room for people to underestimate and bring the number back down, and the same is true of numbers close to 100%. The numbers closer to the middle don't necessarily mean that people were more correct on an individual level, but that some people overestimated and others underestimated and it came out closer to the right number. The graph ought to give information about the spread of errors and not just the raw average.
It's a staging area for the US that's very close to China, so there's that reason strategically. But really, there's not a lot of reason to which is why they haven't done so already. China is, as far as I'm aware, perfectly happy with the traditional US approach towards Taiwan, a policy of "strategic ambiguity" that doesn't officially recognize Taiwan as independent (while informally supporting them) and which has kept the peace for many decades. China does not gain much from provoking a military confrontation with the US, as things stand, China is winning the peace through economic development while the US is going all in on the military. By maintaining the status quo, China can leave the issue open and kick the can down the road, maintaining the possibility that someday in the future they may be in a strong enough position to press the issue.
Even still, China now has its own academia and engineering, and is larger than Taiwan. Hence, even without the corporate espionage mainland China is known for, wouldn’t investing in their burgeoning semiconductor industry make more sense, rather than spending that money on war?
That's exactly what they've been doing. That article mentions that they've actually recruited 3000 engineers from Taiwan's chip industry to help develop their own chips.
Yet while taking Taiwan would mean access to deep-water ports, it’s not as though Taiwan would ever pose a threat to Chinese power projection—their stance is wholly defensive. If China decided to pull an “America” and send a carrier to the Middle East or something, no one would stop them and risk a war.
Taiwan's stance is defensive, but the same isn't necessarily true of the US, which operates in Taiwan. The US has recently started throwing around rhetoric and shifting spending focuses towards treating a hot war with China as a serious possibility, insane as it may be. This is (hopefully) just bluster to justify defense spending, but I'm not at all convinced that if China sent a carrier to the Middle East, the US would not retaliate. If anything, they're looking for a reason.
So a handful of people grew consciences and decided that they didn't like the Nazis, but what was actually done to them while they remained loyal, or to others who never turned against them? "Some people grew disillusioned" isn't the same thing as the Nazis actively turning on them personally.
When the Nazis seized property, it was generally the property of minorities which was then often redistributed upwards to the rich. Many bourgeoisie made out like bandits, so long as they were white and didn't have a conscience.
Like, just google what happens to most oligarchs when they support any kind of authoritarianism. Whether it’s Mussolini, Hitler, or Putin, they always get shafted in the end.
What on earth are you talking about? The oligarchs who supported Hitler made a bunch of money, saw organized labor crushed, and then did fine after the war. Nazi war criminal Fritz ter Meer, who was a senior board member of IG Farben, manufacturing Zyklon B for the gas chambers, got a couple years in prison and then became chairman of Bayer.
There are definitely similarities, but China has its own fascinating history there, with a lot of traditional beliefs resurfacing as weird, sanctioned versions of themselves after the cultural revolution had mostly suppressed them.
I think you've got it backwards. One of the lesser known, positive parts of the Cultural Revolution (which was primarily a horrible clusterfuck) was the Barefoot Doctors program, in which medical students were fast-tracked in education and sent out to the rural regions of China, which had never before had access to modern medicine. It was a very basic level of care, but it increased the number of doctors per person tenfold in the span of five years, and access to vaccines had a significant impact, increasing life-expectancy and reducing child mortality. However, because medical supplies in those regions were limited (and the scale of the program), the doctors were instructed to supplement care with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). This allowed the program to be rolled out more quickly, and the partial reliance on TCM may have helped with public acceptance (since it was what they already believed in), but it had an unfortunate side effect that it legitimized TCM.
This program was phased out in the 80's with China's broader economic shift, towards privatization, while also moving away from TCM. The new policies made care less accessible and focused more on curing serious ailments rather than preventative care. China has made some efforts to address these issues, though I'm not well informed enough about their current system to weigh in.
A lot of the modern popularity of TCM likely comes from the time of the Barefoot Doctors program, because people remember their quality of life improving during that time and then declining later when the focus was shifted away from TCM, incorrectly attributing it to TCM's effectiveness rather than the accessibility of care and focus on prevention. Which is to say, many of the people who believe in TCM may actually be nostalgic for the healthcare system implemented during the Cultural Revolution.
Just over half of U.S. adults (52%) say they favor allowing public school teachers to lead their classes in prayers that refer to Jesus
Nationwide, a slightly larger share of Americans say they favor allowing teacher-led prayers referencing God (57%)
It's right there in OP.
I grew up in one of those states and it's part of why I'm a certified America Hater today. I genuinely don't think people who haven't been exposed to it, even within the country, but especially outside of it, really have a grasp on how prominent and powerful religion is in the US. Hell, I didn't fully understand it myself until I lived outside of the country for a time and saw what normal is like. This country is a madhouse.
Usually you don't go, "You forgot to respond to this" if you don't actually have anything there you want the other person to respond to. If you do not know how to have a conversation with another person go learn how to do that and get back to me.
What's there to address? You're just asserting what you personally like.
The more the capitalists are able to gain power (through making a bunch of money), the more they'll push the government to cut those social services and to remove regulations. The system you describe is viable only to the extent that the capitalists can be kept in check.
Many existing socialist countries (Vietnam, China, etc) have implemented a market economy, as it's necessary to participate in the global economy, and it can be useful for economic development, at least to a point.
I'm not really sure what you want me to answer here.
Ignoring the core principle of Capitalism, free markets, makes it impossible to actually talk about Capitalism in theory or in practice.
The confusion comes from the fact that the word capitalism has two meanings. The original meaning, which the other person and myself are using, has nothing to do with free markets:
1854, "condition of having capital;" from capital (n.1) + -ism. The meaning "political/economic system which encourages capitalists" is recorded from 1872 and originally was used disparagingly by socialists. The meaning "concentration of capital in the hands of a few; the power or influence of large capital" is from 1877.
It was only later, in reaction to socialism, that capitalism began to take on this meaning you're using, where it's supposedly disconnected from class interests and is just about some abstract economic principle. But using the second definition, it's impossible to talk about capitalism in practice because, as I said, such a system has never existed and will never exist.
Your argument against can be used for every other economic system as well, so it becomes a matter of pros and cons which will never declare a clear winner and always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved.
Huh? Economic systems where the interests of capitalists are prioritized are best for the capitalists, economic systems where the interests of workers are prioritized are the best for workers. Also, aren't you declaring a clear winner when you say you can, "always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved?"
They're talking about capitalism in practice. In practice, economic policy is shaped less by ideology and more by they relative power of economic classes. When the rich have power, they get policies that favor themselves enacted, and vice versa. It's only in theory that capitalism is about "free markets," in practice, the rich support free markets if they alternative is something that's more harmful to themselves (like taxes and nationalization) and oppose them when the alternative is beneficial to themselves (subsidies).
"Free market capitalism" is a purely theoretical idea that has never existed, and will never exist, because someone's always going to have enough power to get the government to intervene in the economy to promote their own interests. Generally, left-wing people talking about capitalism mean capitalism in practice, not the theoretical idea.
Yeah, the way we can show all minorities that we're in this together, that we'll stand by each other even when it's unpopular and inconvenient, to stop the state from splitting off groups and trampling them underfoot... is to split off Palestinians and support candidates who want to trample them underfoot because standing up for them is too inconvenient.
Historically, you're completely wrong.
- Hitler came to power with the support of capitalists (here meaning "people who own substantial capital" rather than "ideological supporters of capitalism"). They saw him as a way to maintain order against socialism and to break the power of unions. A similar story happened in Italy, and in other fascist countries.
- Many capitalists did in fact benefit from fascism. There's some confusion about fascist economic policies, but you should know that the term "privatization" was first coined to describe the economic policy of Nazi Germany. When they nationalized companies, it was because they were minority owned, and often they were redistributed upwards to the capitalists.
- Labor rights suffered tremendously under fascism, with labor organizations exterminated, allowing capitalists to impose much worse conditions, lower pay, and longer hours on the workers, as well as using prisoners for slave labor. Any attempt to challenge these conditions would be considered treasonous, undermining the war effort.
- Even when their countries were defeated militarily, many capitalists got off scot-free. For example, the pharmaceutical company Bayer (which merged with Monsanto in 2016) was once a part of IG Farben, which manufactured Zyklon B for the gas chambers. After the war, Bayer rehired Nazis to high level positions, including for example Fritz ter Meer, who had been on IG Farben's board of directors and became chairman of Bayer, despite being a convicted Nazi war criminal.
Classic XCOM is really fun imo, but it does suffer from some quality of life issues. It's possible to fix some of that with mods though and imo it still holds up. I've definitely put more time into the reboot of the series, but the original has a grittier feel, a bit more "open world," where you're gonna miss UFOs and you're gonna have to cut and run sometimes, and there's also a lot of exploits and tricks you have to figure out on your own (intended or otherwise).
Xenonauts is a more direct remake and it's good, more balanced and polished, but when I play it sometimes I just say, "I'd rather be playing old school XCOM." Hard to put my finger on it, and it might just be that I already know the tricks for the original, or that the jankyness makes it fun. Xenonauts does hold up on it's own but it's hard not to compare the two.
Generally games have gotten better but I'd say there's a handful that have withstood the test of time (especially with basic UI improvements).
The problem I've always had with the term is that you can't really define a term by pointing to a comic and going like, "It's like when someone does this sort of thing." Like there's a bunch of things the sea lion is doing, one is:
pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence
Like if you get a grudge against a user and constantly hound them in every thread about a topic they don't want to discuss, that's pretty rude (and if you do this offline like in the comic, it's straight-up harassment). That's bad regardless of what form it takes. On the other hand, if it's just a regular conversation and not following from thread to thread, you have every right to expect people to provide evidence for their claims. Another is:
maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter
"Feigning ignorance of the subject matter," is also part of the Socratic Method, isn't it? I don't think it's inherently bad to be like, "What specifically does this term mean, and why do you think this specific case meets the criteria?" If you believe something, you ought to be able to state things in clear terms, and that's an important part of a healthy debate, it helps the other side to identify the point of disagreement where they break with your line of reasoning. Otherwise, how do you even go about having a productive conversation with someone you disagree with at all?
In my opinion, these sorts of internet neologisms are dangerous even if they are addressing a legitimate thing, because once it's out there, you can't control who's going to use it. For example, "mansplaining" was intended to refer to a specific type of thing where a man assumes he's an expert on a subject and explains in a paternalistic way, while often being ignorant of the subject matter, like random guys on Twitter trying to lecture a female astronaut about how space works. But there are also people who use it/interpret it to mean, "Whenever a man explains something" - even if he is actually qualified to speak on the subject, which provokes a backlash (and obviously the problem is made worse by people trying to exacerbate the backlash, including through sockpuppets).
The ambiguity of the term "sealioning" allows it to be used to shut down good faith questions and discussion, while leaving the accused without a lot of options to defend themself. "What do you mean by 'sealioning?' What specifically did I do or say that meets that definition, and why should that be grounds to dismiss what I'm saying, or to conclude I'm acting in bad faith?" is generally going to be met with, "That's more sealioning." If critically examining the concept of sealioining is sealioning, then I'm just inclined to dismiss the term entirely.
Trumps not wrong for once.
He's definitely wrong morally, constitutionally, and strategically just not legally, per how the courts have (mis)interpreted the constitution.
Sanctions haven’t been working
Well, in order to work, they'd have to have a coherent objective.
They did work at bringing Iran to the negotiating table, which led to Obama's Iran deal. The only problem being that Obama made it, so Trump had to hate it. The only thing the US actually wants from Iran is for it to be an enemy the president can bomb to look tough.
it should be effective at stopping their program.
The program that we have no evidence actually existed, that is. Certainly, if they weren't actively persuing one before, they'd be mad not to now. How else could they stop the frequent, random unprovoked aggression from the US?
It's sad because for most people school is about the only time anybody cares enough about your thoughts to actually read an essay and respond to it intelligently.
Exactly.
See also: Military Operations Other Than War, Low Intensity Conflicts, Police Action (e.g. Vietnam).
Makes sense. If we can trust 87 year olds to govern the country, why can't we trust them to drive? /s