APassenger

Would Biden break an Occupy like Obama did?

I'm extremely down in Facemeta. But no one is entitled to the services of another person/entity (without a contract/agreement).

You can require payment, that's fine. But you can't require they use or carry your service.

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.

If someone has a source or refutation, I'll click and read, but until then I'll run with what I find.

ITT: a lot of "either/or"

I'm not sure that evolution cares one with about any of our theories. If it means I'm the dad and I'm the dad more often... then it will be favored.

If I enjoy it more, she enjoys it more or it means that my sperm have increased likelihood of winning... that's all that matters.

And when I say "or" above, it can include any of those things. It need not be exclusive.

They have no heart or soul, only brief flickers of "try" followed by "squirrel!"

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've done it here, you're doing it in others threads.

Instead of telling them to vote for a candidate they barely believe in, why not recommend they find candidates they like, locally, state, etc and help them. But then in general elections, vote for someone who can win.

It's an entire extra sentence that takes less time than calling them whiny.

You're boiling the options down to a suck ass, "eat your dinner" message and if you want to prevent rightward movement, I think calls to action are better.

We move things to the correct position by having candidates that make a compelling case for why this (waves around) isn't working. Then voting for what we got when we must.