alcoholicorn [comrade/them, doe/deer] @ alcoholicorn @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

186

Joined

5 yr. ago

I don't like the framing of people believing what they've been told by teachers, parents, and the media all their life all being gullible imbeciles.

Some of them even examine both sides to get a full understanding of the issue, by watching both CNN and Fox News.

No idea. I can see why they'd do it if someone was giving out invites to tons of people who literally do not seed, but you can't expect everyone to have a good ratio since they must all average out to 1.

I think most of the talk is just to encourage seeding.

It's fundamentally impossible for everyone to have a positive ratio.

Even if you include 'killed by police' (or, in some cases, killed by militia) this stands true.

Over the last decade, police in America have killed at least between 950 and 1250 people a year.

The actual numbers are probably higher because police don't report all the people they kill, so statisticians are limited to searching news stories that contain the relevant data.

we're not talking about the nature of the system here, we're talking about this specific instance.

If I buy a million lotto tickets that have a 50% payout, it would be incomplete if not deceptive to point at one ticket and say "Well you might win 100 bucks, we don't really know" instead of "the reason they're selling you those tickets is because the risk and expense is greater than the payout."

Hiring people is extremely expensive and having those people do nothing between projects is even more so.

That's still an example of NASA eating an expense of R&D while Lockheed gets the profits.

Just because a river flows south doesn't mean you couldn't find an eddy in the currents that flows north for a few seconds.

But the water still has nowhere to flow but south. If the cost was less than expected return, these companies would do this research internally. Even if for just one moment, one tiny aspect of the program did make a profit, it wouldn't change the nature of the system.

If NASA was a profitable enterprise, it wouldn't require external funding, and Lockheed and co would be doing that research themselves to keep that profit for themselves.

NASA isn't like CNSA or Roscosmos in that they don't make their own rockets. It exists first and foremost to funnel money to aerospace contractors by either directly contracting with them or providing R&D in cases where cost/risk is greater than expected profit.

A similar relationship exists with publicly funded universities selling patents to pharma.

getting rid of a large portion of our law enforcement

I'm pretty certain neither party supports this. After 2020, every state and city, including dem-run ones increased police funding.

If you're talking about republicans complaining about the FBI because it went after Trump, they're just as likely to abolish prisons because some jan 6ers got convicted. These people like those institutions too much when they're doing their primary purpose of neutralizing leftist political movements.

Also you're not private property nor do you own significant capital. It's not your law enforcement.

I know right? Of course it's sold at a loss, that's why NASA is paying Boeing to do the research.

Can't have Boeing waste money on R&D, that would hurt their shareholders.

Both sides developed jet engines. The allies didn't get them into a fighter until after the war though.

I'm not sure how true that is.

Cats don't literally think they're hunting when you play with them, since cats don't pur when they're hunting.

I've two cats, the more sociable cat that can play with people/animals without hurting them shows excitement as soon as I pick up the laser pen.

The one that can only play with toys ignores the laser pen.

They both understand they're not going to catch anything, and the one that only enjoys catching things doesn't engage.

Whether the initial protesters had good reason or not, fascists quickly co-opted the movement in the same way they co-opted the liberal protests in Ukraine.

Hungary doing something 65 years later doesn't justify the actions of the Soviets.

Their actions 65 years later prove there were significant numbers of nazis waiting in the wings, and that the soviets were insufficiently oppressive.

OK, is there a more recent case where you believe supporting the US over critically supporting its opposition is vindicated by history?

You're not gonna find any utopian communists on hexbear, they're almost all marxists.

Were smoking it in a dangerous or threatening way?

What exactly was wrong with Kruschev's decision to send the tanks into Hungary to stop the fascist uprising?

Given the historical context of the literal genocides the US was facilitating in asia and south america at that time, even if you ignore the literal fascist collaborators hijacking the movement and pretend it was just a bunch of liberals fighting for "freedom", keeping them from falling within the west's claws would have been justified.

If your criticism was that the USSR was too heavy handed putting down the fascists, look at what's happened since.

Truely nobody is as oppressed as straight cis pink brits.

Everything I like is socialist, trains? Socialist. Gardening? Socialist. Cooking a huge meal where someone else does the dishes? That's socialism.

Car dealership owners are a pretty big lobby, at least 20% of them are making 1.5m/y and tend to be very involved in local politics.

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~yagan/Capitalists.pdf