• 0 Posts
  • 91 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 19th, 2023

help-circle
  • It is my firm opinion that all people are inherently stupid. We’re just apes that evolved to live in simple ape societies, but we somehow ended up living in insanely complex societies that are all interconnected with each other. It’s just too much for our ape brains to keep up with everything.


  • The intelligent thing to do is to commission studies and reach out programs to understand WHY far right parties like AfD are surging in the polls. That way you can actually understand the concerns of the people who choose to support these parties, the reasons why they’re supporting far right parties over less extreme alternatives, and what deradicalization methods are actually effective.

    The dumb thing to do is to make assumptions as to why these parties are growing in popularity, and double down on them eternally regardless of how invalid or wrong those assumptions are. It’s equally as stupid to try to use force and censorship to exclude these people from public life instead of addressing the underlying issues that led to this situation in the first place. It’s like the establishment is trying to give these movements validation, martyrs, and reasons to radicalize further.


  • I mean companies can force him out by themselves if they’re pressured enough. Also all companies make unsuccessful business bets. What matters is that from a neutral third person point of view, these companies aren’t doing anything that they’re not supposed to be doing. They’re putting sectors of the American economy in danger of collapse, they’re not committing crimes left and right, and their services are satisfactory for most people.


  • A group of people doesn’t have to be a majority to be statistically significant. If 13% of people suddenly woke up with arms growing from the tops of their heads, you’d be noticng them all the damn time, unless you’re a recluse.

    The central issue issue here revolves around whether or not this is percentage is significant. You specifically said that this figure is statistically significant, which means it’s calculated somewhere, right? Is this something that’s calculated in the report? Did you calculate yourself? If so what was the chosen neutral baseline?

    If there are no calculations and this is just your opinion, then I gotta say that I disagree with you. Your making the assumption that the 13% behave as a bloc, which doesn’t sound likely.

    For example, it is highly unlikely that everybody who holds this opinion is a registered or active voter. According to the Census Bureau, in the 2024 election, 73.6% of eligible voters were registered and only 65.3% were registered to vote. It’s also likely that many of the people who hold this opinion are still willing to vote for women candidates even if they prefer male candidates. According to a 2019 Gallup survey, 94% of Americans were willing to vote for a female president.

    This conclusion is further strengthened by the survey you shared because it showed that this 13% isn’t made up of just a few demographics, but rather it’s spread across all demographics. Considering how different demographics vote very differently in elections, it is very unlikely that this 13% has the ability to sway elections as you seem to imply… unless you have evidence to show that it does.

    Your experience doesn’t show anything. Neither does mine, because anecdotes are not, nor ever will be, valid evidence of anything useful in discussions about social or political issues.

    Okay, that is fair. However, we’re using actual data now, and the data seems to indicate that my original assumption is correct. This is something that’s rare in our society.





  • Putin will never stop being a war criminal until the day he dies. If he takes over all of Ukraine, he will move to Moldova then Georgia then Latvia then Estonia and so on.

    The moment this war ends, the Russian Federation will collapse. People forget but Russia has collapsed twice in the last century by doing the same things it’s doing now.

    It collapsed the first time when the out of touch tyrannical Tsarist government dragged the country into a needless war (WWI) while the country was going through a crises. The country collapsed and formed the Soviet Union.

    It collapsed a second time when the out of touch tyrannical communist government dragged the country into a needless war (Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) while the country was going through a crises. The country collapsed and formed the Russian Federation.

    Now the same thing is happening. The country has an out touch tyrannical dictator that dragged the country into a needless war during a time of crises. Once the war is over the country will revolt and collapse once again.


  • I don’t like Elon, fuck him. My point is that what you’re asking for is setting a precedent we never had. We’ve always had complimentary system between the private and public sectors, most countries are like this as well. Nationalizing companies without a genuine justification is going to cause shock waves throughout the economy. Why would investors spend capital in the country if the government can snatch up their business the moment they’re deemed important? If that’s the only thing needed to nationalize companies, what’s stopping idiots in government like Trump from just weaponizing it by nationalizing any company that competes with his own businesses, political opponents, or his crony friends? Not to mention, where is confidence that our incompetent government is going to manage these companies better than they can manage themselves? These are all really big questions.

    There’s a reason why nationalization is left as a temporary last resort measure to rescue economic sectors from collapse. You could make an argument that this would apply for a publicly traded company like Boeing that’s quickly heading towards collapse. Considering how they’re only commercial plane manufacturer, that means they’re our entire industry. The company’s stability is a matter of national security. But SpaceX? None of this applies.

    SpaceX is a private business that’s stable, reliable, and competitive. They’re doing exactly what they’re supposed to. It’s easy to say that we should just nationalize companies without thinking about the consequences. I’m in favor of things like universal healthcare, public transit systems, and more power to our research agencies. But these things have to come to fruition through stronger regulations and government alternatives, not nationalization. If there are cases where a company has to be nationalized and there are no alternatives, then they should be bought out.

    I don’t think what I’m saying is controversial.




  • Gorilladrums@lemmy.worldtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worldthats why
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    But your study proves my point though. The percentage was 13% across all demographics back in 2018 when the study was conducted. If you actually look at at the graphs, they all show a pretty significant and stead drop over the decades. Well, 2018 was 7 years ago, so if project the data to the modern day, it’s very likely that figure is in the single digits now.

    Even if we assume that the data remained steady since then, which it probably hasn’t, then that means at least 87% of the population don’t hold this view. That’s not just a majority, that’s an overwhelming majority. So while my experience is ancedotal, this shows that my experiences are actually unique but a part of much bigger societal trend.



  • Yes, that’s why no one in this entire thread suggested anything even remotely close to this. it’s stupid, and a stupid strawman.

    The guy that I replied said that we should nationalize any company that receives tax dollars if we depend on it… Buts that case for virtually the entire economy. Everything is touch by our tax dollars and everything in our economy is intertwined. It is a ridiculous suggestion.

    Nationalizing spaceX temporarily in order to restore confidence in it’s largest, most important customer, after that customer’s trust has been repeatedly violated by the executive and the board that keeps him in power, is NOT NATIONALIZING THE ENTIRE ECONOMY nor would it be untoward if Boeing or Lockheed’s CEO was dumb enough to engage in this bullshit.

    The government doesn’t nationalize on the behalf of companies, it only temporarily nationalizes when to protect the American economy at large. For example, in 2008 the government took hold of a bunch of auto companies to prevent a collapse of this sector. This is not happening here for SpaceX so it doesn’t make sense to do it.

    The thing is you would actually have a really good case to temporarily nationalize Boeing because it is basically our entire commercial plane manufacturing sector, and it’s quickly heading towards collapse. This is a case where it makes sense. Starlink and SpaceX don’t fall under this umbrella.