If you adopt a specific outlook, the duplicity is less stark.

Russia is attacking a sovereign nation and when they took land, they took people. To most, that makes them the bad guys.

Backing away from that and making this a geopolitical chess game, both players have coaches. Sounds fair.

I get that you’re having a bit of fun. On a separate branch here, I make a similar point.

What people argue about is how much of one makes it “x.” They can seldom say it’s not capitalist, socialist or even communist.

We quibble over which side of a line it lands. And googling this lead to about a 50/50 split between capitalist and socialist.

I didn’t pull the idea that they’re capitalist out of my ass.

And all of the side stuff is people completely missing the article. It’s pedantic and cheap intellectual points and so rarely thoughtful or insightful.

Is lemmy usually this wannabe edgelord?

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.

Not every investment works out.

I’m not down on them.

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.

Good reply, thank you.

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.

Did you read the article before posting?

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.

No. It was alpha. If Google approves, look for excitement tomorrow.

I can accept a day or two of delay if I get a functional app for lemmy. I miss Sync so much…

Not even a little.

There was th Civil War and white folk got to pretend shit was settled while back folk knew better. Took until the 60s for things to start to shake up and even then White’s weren’t sure they should support something like requiring equal treatment.

Then we got the Voting Rights Act Then SCOTUS, in recent years, decided we didn’t need that anymore. People are legitimately surprise the Court decided this way. Recent rulings have been a constant erosion.

You need to Google “sea lion troll.”

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.

It’s daft, touched-in-the-head kind of behavior.

Ah. The source of your anger.

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.

And I doubt you want that.

Trump can fuck off to jail. I’d like to see him tried for treason.

DeSantis has shown he’s a non-starter.

At this point they’re hoping for a dark horse pro-retreat candidate.

🤡

Come on now. You attack without much provocation at all. But there’s no hate or purity tests?

That’s a damn lie.

What you’ve missed (clearly) in a lot of this is I could be an ally on some topics but you can’t stop lashing out in some “righteous” crusade.

If persuasion were a battlefield, you’d be killing your own.

See… that’s the thing. I never said…

You’re off your rocker. I’m tired of being completely misrepresent while you say I said things I didn’t.

And that, is how I know you hate. You do it persistently.

Your replies in the branch are as off topic as my own. And you know it. No high ground left.

I’ll add: I’m not that worked up about whether I’m respected. It’s that you throw your disrepect around potential and quasi-allies for not being pure enough. I’ve stated this clearly multiple times.

To add further: posting a slew of links criticizing the US for trying yo help spread Democracy when your aspersions go far further… isn’t the kind of critical thinking you present it to be.

It’s like me saying soviet Russia wanted more communism in the world. It’s obvious.

You’re daft. I wasn’t forced to admit that the US has an oligarchy and you didn’t add one bit of persuasion to my conclusion. I’ve been there for years.

You create an image of the people you talk with and then argue with that image.

There are two things wrong with that. You don’t see the person. And you’re arguing instead of anything useful. Both track back to an unnecessary and unhealthy predilection to combativeness.

You look for fault in others. You look for reasons to feel or be righteous. You look for all this stuff. And sometimes, you find it where it isn’t.

Your style is broken. Your approach is broken. You vision of who you speak with is broken. You’ve forgotten that with very rare exception, all posters are people.

You act like you’re the sole arbiter of a person’s worth and that that always tracks to being on the “right side” of issues you exclusively care about. It’s immature and, honestly, intellectually lazy.

And if the topic of persuasion or decency doesn’t seem substantive to you, then you really need to reflect on why that’s your response.

Let’s add: you responded quickly to the tankie part. What say you about hating people for their country of origin? Because you’ve shown active disdain as soon as you think you know they’re from places.

Checking yours is how people quickly identify the tankie who hates people for their country of origin.

LOL. I’m not trolling, I’m just distracting one.

It’s only returning to normal if normal people keep informing themselves (with truth) and voting.

Otherwise the extreme right will put this whole thing in peril again as quickly as they can.

I have no disagreement with calling our system an oligarchy. It’s part of why I’m pro-socialism.

Money isn’t the only thing driving the oligarchy, but it’s way up there on my list.

Profound, immeasurable wealth is a blight and a hallmark of poor mental health.