I get that they’re attempting to master plan and be ahead of things. I also know infrastructure is an investment - and sometimes it’s partially a jobs program.
I’m down on low-effort, glib and smug responses and I’m hitting more of it on Lemmy than I hit elsewhere. I’m not sure if this is the result of reddit leading to a population swing or if lemmy already had a lot of “smart” people who could be better than they are.
If I plan to smear someone. I click their post history. I’ve stopped myself from many errors and found a way to build a common ground. I’ve also found fools and decided they weren’t worth it.
But if I plan to be dismissive, I do the research.
If you don’t like them being called capitalist, then your quarrel is with a whole heap of people (and academics).
The question, like I alluded to earlier, isn’t whether they are capitalist, but a question of how much. And many, after careful study, have determined them to be capitalist.
Those determinations are based on measurable things and philosophy (somewhat).
Also: you are clearly not my original intended audience. In the referenced thread I was getting low-effort, glib comments that snowballed upvotes.
Not unlike the person who deemed me to be a republican. It’s easy to look at my post history.
I’m not a republican. But glib is easy. And glib, low-effort posters were the primary intended audience. Know-it-alls.
And I’ll defer to your categorization and consider the reading recommendation.
I weighed calling them socialist, but it seemed… unhelpful when what i was trying to highlight that the unemployed youth are relying on family, and not the state.
The responses yesterday seemed to think China is just giving away money. They aren’t.
Also: all developed nations are socialist. What people argue over is where lines are drawn.
Ad hoc and poison the well while being very wide of the mark, too.
Nicely done.
My politics align more with Sanders than anyone well known politician. Surplus is surplus and the left needs to retain the right to call a spade a spade.
Not all infrastructure spend is good. I’m both envious of what they have and stymied by articles documenting unused cities.
For ease of research, I recommend “China ghost cities.” Maybe those cities will make sense and not every idea has to work, but that is surplus, ergo excess.
There are descriptions of embittered and/or depressed youth. They are not describing young people so well cared for (by the state) that they are opting out.
And older family will eventually perish or cease to have the means. Something must take the place to ensure production at certain levels.
Also: fewer hours per job, with an unchanging workload would lead to more jobs. Not fewer. Unless automation, computing or improved engineering lower the overall effort.
Edit to add one more point: China is Capitalist. The land use thing is communist, but fundamentally they went capitalist decades ago. The notion that they’re doling out buckets of money to people mystifies me (building unnecessary infrastructure is a job).
If someone has a source or refutation, I’ll click and read, but until then I’ll run with what I find.
If everyone who claims that is a loon (and they may be), then the leakers are auto-discredited.
Again and with clear emphasis because it looks like it was missed: I’m not saying UAPs are extraterrestrial. I’m making a meta-point.
If leakers are almost automatically easily classed as loons, then any inquiry isn’t an inquiry. They may be off their rockers.
And even “super-advanced tech” need not have extraterrestrial origin. But UAPs happen. We all seem to have forgotten O’Hare. Whatever happened was in passenger jet airspace.
Regardless of what planetary origin, UAPs deserve inquiry.
This is a thought provoking book. The author was even interviewed by Colbert and presented very cogently. Which is why I bought and read it.
Before anyone knee-jerks, it attempts to only use the most credible UAP encounters and looks at them with skepticism and a scientific mind.
It wouldn’t though. I’m not saying UAPs are extraterrestrial. I’m saying as long as each person who leaks is met with plenty of, “no, you’re crazy.” It would help contain it.
Both with pressure and delegitimization. Now… proof is the thing that’s required. Not simply testimony.
You’re not using the term correctly. Or keep doing it wrong, up to you.
I understand that you’ve answered that you get to decide if a person is worthy of respect or dignity or decency. I find it highly ironic since you seem to exist on a part of the spectrum that would want those things for (almost?) everyone. That may not be true, but you seem inclined to push socialist ideas. I’m very open to that, personally. Many Americans are; the culture wars are used to distract and divide and it works.
If I’ve persisted in my question on why you become knee-jerk incivil, it’s because the answers so far have landed as “because.” Your most recent response hits more authentically and I appreciate it. I’ve sparred with trolls. I’ve sparred with those who genuinely disagree for good (and bad) reasons. Authentic, mature conversation appeals to me.
Dropping to name calling (emojis) based on the first reply on a thread lowers discourse. I’ll stop here. I just wish that shit didn’t happen so much.
I’m not your opponent but you sure set out that way when you correctly determined I’m in and from the US. The combativeness was not deserved, it was off-putting and I am much less likely to want to engage. Shrug.
I’m not jumping in to start fights. I jump in to ask why you’re doing it.
There’s a difference. Clown faces (a pattern, not an instance), vomit emoji… all that is is you doing something for your feels and to feel better than. They do exactly zero for anything a normal, mature peraon would hope to generate.
You say you want meaningful exchange and you doggedly defend yourself as you bring the discourse down to single emoji and knee-jerk judgments.
You’re creating an unhelpful dynamic. Being likeable helps. Being right is “logically” enough. For persuasion, it is a distant second on a good day.
Being more likeable and less glib can help. Or, You’re not here to help. You’re here to feel better than. Your choice and you get to choose, but be consistent. If it’s the later, don’t criticize it in others, please.
Let’s go one further and I’ll ask other than when I told you themat you required evidence and you were being a hypocrite, when did I demand evidence over and over? Or do you not know what sealioning is?
I’m not demanding evidence. I’m asking why you’re so darn incivil to so many people. You look like an unsympathetic Don Quixote and it helps none of your points.
And if you’re not here to persuade, why post so many of a specific kind of article.
Again. I don’t follow you around. I’m in certain communities for a reason. And then you shit all over them.
The local Overton window shifted. You’d found a bubble you liked and now it’s different and more perspectives are flooding in. Not all perspectives are informed, but you are being credibly challenged now.
The big fish in a small pond finds itself in a different body of water.
I’m not insulting people until very recently and it’s only you. You cast a wide net with your anger and it’s helping no one. And it hurts your cause.
I never said you sealion me. Not once. You keep seeing things as said that aren’t. And then you complain about reading comprehension of your sparring partners.
It’s shameful. And I’m not using that lightly. You act shamefully. It’s fucking embarrassing the way you’re trying to advance ideas by insulting people.
Other people are here. Adapt.
If we need to have a thread about maladaptive rhetoric so you cam deem my discussion on topic I’ll point out that posting a single clown emoji or vomit one is not topical, either. It only further lowers discourse and makes you into an easily discarded clown.