Fascism has both an economic side and a governing side. What I'm referring to in that post is mostly economic. While China does have an actual democracy, its power structure is highly concentrated (though without free speech, democracy seems somewhat pointless.) Fascism, from a governing perspective, doesn't even pretend to be a democracy, and is more like a monarchy. So from that perspective, China wouldn't be the same as fascism, but economically, there doesn't seem to be a big difference.
Except that wouldn't be capitalism. Even under Marxian theory, people can capitalize on their own labor (Marx had a certain fondness of the US by the way, even when labor conditions were at their worst ever.) If changing jobs was made impossible, then that doesn't allow you to capitalize on your own labor by selling it to the highest bidder.
Actually, what China has is more akin to fascism. Fascism doesn't necessarily depend on race (depends who you ask, but it didn't start that way.) Rather, fascism is all about having a highly concentrated power force its population into the state's idea of what a good society should be. For example, if the government felt that high frequency trading was bad for society, then it would force companies that do it out of business. You can capitalize under fascism, but only if the government deems it 'good'.
Though China seems to be doing this on a micro scale rather than a macro scale. Instead of bending businesses to their will, they bend people to their will.
It's kind of obvious that you're living in the deep end, so I'm not going to bother with most of your post. However, it seems you think I'm a neocon or at least know someone who is. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Unlike you, I don't let political affiliations define who I am or what I believe in. Terms like left and right only have any relevance in France, where they originated. Here in the US, these terms only lead to confusion and division. Speaking very honestly, I have Republicans call me a liberal, and Democrats call me a conservative, both very often. When either gets to know me a little, they call me moderate or libertarian. I am neither of these things; I have strong opinions on many issues, and I believe that capitalism doesn't work without regulation and laws (and I am very anti-socialism and anti-communism.)
But continue with your "us vs them" mentality if it makes you happy.
Actually, the US Army inadvertantly teaches you to have a low first impressions of any new authority figure by default. After you run into so many bad leaders and really dumb spec-5s and 6s, and 90-day-wonder-what-to-do butterbars, you tend to take the idea of heirarchy less seriously than you did before taking the oath.
The Cherokee, Hopi and Lakota domestically in the 18th and 19th century.
I think if genocide was the end goal, the trail of tears wouldn't have been a thing, they would have just killed them instead.
In the 20th one could argue that there was an effort underway to do so to black Americans as part of the eugenics movement before World War Two made it unfashionable.
The eugenics movement (outside of Europe) wasn't about race so much as it was about making sure undesirable people, such as drug users, didn't procreate. Prominent black people were participants in it, namely they wanted to improve the image of the black race by sterilizing blacks who were "immoral".
In terms of foreign entanglements, we don't have a specific policy of genocide but we certainly don't seem to mind Israel turning Gaza in to a Concentration Camp or colonizing the West Bank.
I recall Israel pulling their own people out of the West Bank, including people who lived there before Israel became a thing again. And you might to look up the definition of a concentration camp.
During Vietnam we basically waged chemical warfare and tried to defolate the Jungle and Rice paddies.
I don't think you know much about the Vietnam war. The US didn't wage anything, that whole mess started with France (along with scores of other messes in other countries, up to and including slavery.) If you want to talk about crimes against humanity, go read about the origins of the Hanoi Hilton.
Hell if I know, but you're a fucking moron if you think indiscriminately leaking classified documents to unknown third parties doesn't put military personnel at risk. That's not a talking point, it's just a fact, before and after 2010.
I'm not one for whaboutism, but you may as well ask me about millions of other draft dodgers while you're bringing irrelevant people into the topic. Really, I don't care at all about them, neither do I care about Trump, over any issue at all. They, along with deserters, don't really mean anything to me. They didn't try to get their fellow soldiers killed. I would think more of Manning if he simply deserted instead.
Here's a quote from Adrian Lamo on exposing Manning:
âoeHad I done nothing, I would always have been left wondering whether the hundreds of thousands of documents that had been leaked to unknown third parties would end up costing lives, either directly or indirectly.â
In case you're not familiar, Lamo was the person who Manning was passing these documents to in order to have them made available via WikiLeaks.
I don't care if you want to say bad things about the military or the US government; hell, I've done it plenty of times. But deliberately trying to get your battle buddies killed? What a miserable psychopathic piece of shit.
Genocide? Of whom? And the video Manning leaked was deliberately misrepresented by Assange to boost his own ego, as others in WikiLeaks have stated.
What's particularly bad about this is Manning was leaking information with the specific intent to cause harm to the Army, (possibly leading to the deaths of US soldiers) without being aware of its contents at all. Manning did this purely out of spite; it had nothing to do with whistleblowing. The reason he did this goes back to his early days in the Army. Read on:
Nothing would make Manning more happy than to see his comrades die simply because he was deliberately an asshole in basic. As an Army veteran myself, I have zero sympathy for that stupid fuck.
What's most telling is that he's looking for "technologists" (my god what a stupid word, more on this later) who want social justice. Then for good measure, he asks for people who want to work for the common good and public interest.
Personally, I don't know of any lawmaker who doesn't think that they aren't doing the latter two, including the ones that ultimately work toward their own benefit. Furthermore, social justice is mutually exclusive from the other two. The idea behind it is to pay lip service to making everybody equal, except for the political elite, who deserve a special status for gracing us with their political enlightenment, and what you really end up with is Venezuela: A once prosperous country that now can't afford to wipe it's own ass despite sitting on black gold while dear socialist leader eats caviar. Even if you somehow had both social justice and prosperity, you'd just end up like that movie equilibrium.
Now, more on his call for technologists: Personally I had to look up that word just to clarify what his intention is. Google defines it as an expert in a particular technology field without specifying what kind of technology (I get the feeling they're referring to information technology exclusively.) The first link (Wikipedia) expands that to just about anything relating to science, in addition to one mention of what would involve policy decisions. The second link limits it to information technology again, but also gets philosophical and almost religious, sounding a bit like another dumb word meant to sound grandiose: Scientologist. The third expands to all sciences, but says technologists work with their hands while engineers direct, plan, and design but not actually build.
In other words, there really doesn't appear to be a commonly understood meaning of that word. Given this Bruce Schneider uses it to refer to information technology, it's pretty obvious that he's just thinking in terms of what is most relevant to himself. And given he's calling just for the ones who want social justice, it's pretty clear that he's thinking in terms of his own political ideology.
So basically, here's what Bruce Schneider is saying: "I want more people like me, who will work towards my priorities, to be in office!". Gee, I wonder who else would want the same thing? Everyone, perhaps?
Unfortunately, there is no cure. The only treatment option is to have somebody shout "Are you fucking serious?" every time you do or say something incredibly stupid while trying to appear that you're actually sophisticated when you really aren't.
Just for that, I'm going to buy a bump stock. I don't own a rifle that has a pistol grip, but fuck it, I'll buy a bump stock anyways. I don't use Instagram, but I'll create an account and post a nice selfie of me holding a bump stock.
However the line between free speech, and being uncomfortable about something is very hard to draw.
Fuck that. It's easy to draw: There is no right to always be comfortable when somebody is speaking. The right to free speech trumps nearly all others, including rights that don't actually exist. I've personally felt discomfort from things people say plenty of times. We all do. Everybody does. Get the fuck over it.
I honestly can't believe that there would be any discussion about drawing any lines around free speech just because it bothers somebody. Speech that offends you is not violence.
Except it's still not socialized, it's welfare. There is quite a distinction. The abundance of resources allow them to have plenty of money to provide plenty of welfare.
Slashdot Mirror
Fascism has both an economic side and a governing side. What I'm referring to in that post is mostly economic. While China does have an actual democracy, its power structure is highly concentrated (though without free speech, democracy seems somewhat pointless.) Fascism, from a governing perspective, doesn't even pretend to be a democracy, and is more like a monarchy. So from that perspective, China wouldn't be the same as fascism, but economically, there doesn't seem to be a big difference.
They just gave a warning.
Except that wouldn't be capitalism. Even under Marxian theory, people can capitalize on their own labor (Marx had a certain fondness of the US by the way, even when labor conditions were at their worst ever.) If changing jobs was made impossible, then that doesn't allow you to capitalize on your own labor by selling it to the highest bidder.
Actually, what China has is more akin to fascism. Fascism doesn't necessarily depend on race (depends who you ask, but it didn't start that way.) Rather, fascism is all about having a highly concentrated power force its population into the state's idea of what a good society should be. For example, if the government felt that high frequency trading was bad for society, then it would force companies that do it out of business. You can capitalize under fascism, but only if the government deems it 'good'.
Though China seems to be doing this on a micro scale rather than a macro scale. Instead of bending businesses to their will, they bend people to their will.
It's kind of obvious that you're living in the deep end, so I'm not going to bother with most of your post. However, it seems you think I'm a neocon or at least know someone who is. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Unlike you, I don't let political affiliations define who I am or what I believe in. Terms like left and right only have any relevance in France, where they originated. Here in the US, these terms only lead to confusion and division. Speaking very honestly, I have Republicans call me a liberal, and Democrats call me a conservative, both very often. When either gets to know me a little, they call me moderate or libertarian. I am neither of these things; I have strong opinions on many issues, and I believe that capitalism doesn't work without regulation and laws (and I am very anti-socialism and anti-communism.)
But continue with your "us vs them" mentality if it makes you happy.
Actually, the US Army inadvertantly teaches you to have a low first impressions of any new authority figure by default. After you run into so many bad leaders and really dumb spec-5s and 6s, and 90-day-wonder-what-to-do butterbars, you tend to take the idea of heirarchy less seriously than you did before taking the oath.
The way back machine has to know about a website before it can archive it. You should leave the thinking to those of us who can.
The Cherokee, Hopi and Lakota domestically in the 18th and 19th century.
I think if genocide was the end goal, the trail of tears wouldn't have been a thing, they would have just killed them instead.
In the 20th one could argue that there was an effort underway to do so to black Americans as part of the eugenics movement before World War Two made it unfashionable.
The eugenics movement (outside of Europe) wasn't about race so much as it was about making sure undesirable people, such as drug users, didn't procreate. Prominent black people were participants in it, namely they wanted to improve the image of the black race by sterilizing blacks who were "immoral".
In terms of foreign entanglements, we don't have a specific policy of genocide but we certainly don't seem to mind Israel turning Gaza in to a Concentration Camp or colonizing the West Bank.
I recall Israel pulling their own people out of the West Bank, including people who lived there before Israel became a thing again. And you might to look up the definition of a concentration camp.
During Vietnam we basically waged chemical warfare and tried to defolate the Jungle and Rice paddies.
I don't think you know much about the Vietnam war. The US didn't wage anything, that whole mess started with France (along with scores of other messes in other countries, up to and including slavery.) If you want to talk about crimes against humanity, go read about the origins of the Hanoi Hilton.
Hell if I know, but you're a fucking moron if you think indiscriminately leaking classified documents to unknown third parties doesn't put military personnel at risk. That's not a talking point, it's just a fact, before and after 2010.
I'm not one for whaboutism, but you may as well ask me about millions of other draft dodgers while you're bringing irrelevant people into the topic. Really, I don't care at all about them, neither do I care about Trump, over any issue at all. They, along with deserters, don't really mean anything to me. They didn't try to get their fellow soldiers killed. I would think more of Manning if he simply deserted instead.
Oh. I don't care.
Be more specific. Name the time period and the specific people that the US attempted genocide on.
Here's a quote from Adrian Lamo on exposing Manning:
âoeHad I done nothing, I would always have been left wondering whether the hundreds of thousands of documents that had been leaked to unknown third parties would end up costing lives, either directly or indirectly.â
In case you're not familiar, Lamo was the person who Manning was passing these documents to in order to have them made available via WikiLeaks.
I don't care if you want to say bad things about the military or the US government; hell, I've done it plenty of times. But deliberately trying to get your battle buddies killed? What a miserable psychopathic piece of shit.
Also, he didn't "rat" on anything, he indiscriminately gave out classified information without even knowing what's in it.
Uhh.... Manning had a connection with WikiLeaks. When he leaked classified Army data, who do you think he gave it to?
Genocide? Of whom? And the video Manning leaked was deliberately misrepresented by Assange to boost his own ego, as others in WikiLeaks have stated.
What's particularly bad about this is Manning was leaking information with the specific intent to cause harm to the Army, (possibly leading to the deaths of US soldiers) without being aware of its contents at all. Manning did this purely out of spite; it had nothing to do with whistleblowing. The reason he did this goes back to his early days in the Army. Read on:
https://huwieler.net/2017/01/1...
Nothing would make Manning more happy than to see his comrades die simply because he was deliberately an asshole in basic. As an Army veteran myself, I have zero sympathy for that stupid fuck.
What's most telling is that he's looking for "technologists" (my god what a stupid word, more on this later) who want social justice. Then for good measure, he asks for people who want to work for the common good and public interest.
Personally, I don't know of any lawmaker who doesn't think that they aren't doing the latter two, including the ones that ultimately work toward their own benefit. Furthermore, social justice is mutually exclusive from the other two. The idea behind it is to pay lip service to making everybody equal, except for the political elite, who deserve a special status for gracing us with their political enlightenment, and what you really end up with is Venezuela: A once prosperous country that now can't afford to wipe it's own ass despite sitting on black gold while dear socialist leader eats caviar. Even if you somehow had both social justice and prosperity, you'd just end up like that movie equilibrium.
Now, more on his call for technologists: Personally I had to look up that word just to clarify what his intention is. Google defines it as an expert in a particular technology field without specifying what kind of technology (I get the feeling they're referring to information technology exclusively.) The first link (Wikipedia) expands that to just about anything relating to science, in addition to one mention of what would involve policy decisions. The second link limits it to information technology again, but also gets philosophical and almost religious, sounding a bit like another dumb word meant to sound grandiose: Scientologist. The third expands to all sciences, but says technologists work with their hands while engineers direct, plan, and design but not actually build.
In other words, there really doesn't appear to be a commonly understood meaning of that word. Given this Bruce Schneider uses it to refer to information technology, it's pretty obvious that he's just thinking in terms of what is most relevant to himself. And given he's calling just for the ones who want social justice, it's pretty clear that he's thinking in terms of his own political ideology.
So basically, here's what Bruce Schneider is saying: "I want more people like me, who will work towards my priorities, to be in office!". Gee, I wonder who else would want the same thing? Everyone, perhaps?
Actually, you're wrong about the tax benefit, or rather, who benefits.
https://www.dailymotion.com/vi...
I see you suffer from artism. Here are a few educational resources about this crippling disease:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.dailymotion.com/vi...
Unfortunately, there is no cure. The only treatment option is to have somebody shout "Are you fucking serious?" every time you do or say something incredibly stupid while trying to appear that you're actually sophisticated when you really aren't.
So... Are you fucking serious?
Are those the ones that get pissed off and start swearing because the bus was 30 seconds late?
All they're missing is a toothbrush moustache.
Just for that, I'm going to buy a bump stock. I don't own a rifle that has a pistol grip, but fuck it, I'll buy a bump stock anyways. I don't use Instagram, but I'll create an account and post a nice selfie of me holding a bump stock.
However the line between free speech, and being uncomfortable about something is very hard to draw.
Fuck that. It's easy to draw: There is no right to always be comfortable when somebody is speaking. The right to free speech trumps nearly all others, including rights that don't actually exist. I've personally felt discomfort from things people say plenty of times. We all do. Everybody does. Get the fuck over it.
I honestly can't believe that there would be any discussion about drawing any lines around free speech just because it bothers somebody. Speech that offends you is not violence.
Reusable rockets, fastest 0-60 street legal cars, a battery that sustains a large region in Australia... Yep, pretty insignificant.
So tell me, just how much have you made shorting Tesla so far?
Except it's still not socialized, it's welfare. There is quite a distinction. The abundance of resources allow them to have plenty of money to provide plenty of welfare.
He's probably European.
You missed a pretty important word in that quote of yours: Welfare. Welfare is not socialism.