xor

Not sure I can think of anything I’d enjoy less than trying to build a web app in cpp

“Okay but cruel” seems like a weird way to say bad

And yet the idea that someone could coup the US has gone from unthinkable to genuinely feasible in one election

You’re right, that the net impact is exactly half of voting for trump instead - in that you only reduce biden’s vote, as opposed to increasing trump’s.

In less consequential elections, I absolute agree that voting for the candidate you want is key. But the risk here of a bad candidate is not just a shit period of government, but a genuinely significant risk of incurring a coup.

If you assume a default vote of “any viable candidate other than trump”, you still move in the same direction as voting for trump instead if you vote for a 3rd party candidate.

In countries with a healthier (not two party) system, this is typically the point where the centrist and left parties tend to form an electoral alliance to avoid the disaster candidate. That doesn’t really work for presidential elections though, so individual votes need to take on that same role to minimise the risk.

Are you okay? Your response must be just the word “conputer”

You really don’t need to be worried about the US running out of munitions, if there’s one thing the USA does well, it’s pumping out obscene amounts of weapons

I’m sure they’re devastated to hear it

The frustrating thing is that, in classic UK fashion, these problems are almost entirely self-inflicted by privatisation, with the company responsible trying to do it as cheaply as possible, even if that means half-assing it.

This exact same site was in the news yesterday(!) as well for having long term cyber security vulnerabilities.

I think that’s exactly the point they’re making

That’s nice

I’m still mad about git master

Master as in “the master copy”

And they went and broke a bunch of tools and workflows to change it

And its cousin “yes, but your browser doesn’t have the right DRM software embedded in it, go fuck yourself”

if it is so clearly superior to capitalism, then such a company would outperform its competitors and naturally lead to a proliferation of communism that way, because most or all of its competitors would end up adopting it

Tell me you have absolutely no idea what an economic system is without saying it. It’s not a method for optimising the amount of money that can be squeezed out of a business.

I don’t support any political system

Okay, well there’s no point discussing them ever I guess, cool, back to feudalism everyone. Thank goodness you saved us from wasting our time trying to find a system that ensures quality of life.

To be perfectly honest with you, it’s immensely clear that you really don’t have even the most basic idea of what communism is, but you have decided that whatever it is, it’s terrible. There’s no point having a discussion if you refuse to actually understand the subject of the discussion.

Let’s leave these here - you’re clearly not interested in actually considering the concepts, so there’s nothing to be gained from this. It’ll save us both a lot of wasted further time.

Wrong comment mate

You’re working on the assumption that violence just creates random inequality whenever it occurs, rather than that the use of violence in our current system is a tool used with intent to maintain the status quo.

Deciding we shouldn’t make any change to our economic system because police would still be necessary is, frankly, an absurd stance to take. To be clear, communism is not an alternative to democracy, it’s an economic not political system, though of course its ideals do align with democracy.

So you don’t support any political system? Or do you have some magic solution in which everyone magically lives in harmony?

This is why I’m frustrated - you work entirely on the assumption that violence is an integral part of communism, but that’s really not the case, at least not in a way distinct from how it can be necessary to maintain stability in any other system. For example, physically restraining a murderer to arrest them is appropriate, but that is not as a result of communism or capitalism, but as a functional requirement for the prevention of further violence.

While moving from one political system to another frequently involves violence, that doesn’t mean it’s an integral part of the system itself. For example, the transition to democracy from absolute monarchy involved violence in almost every example, but violence isn’t part of democracy itself.

But my frustration isn’t that you don’t have the same point of view as me - in fact I’ve actively avoided stating my own stance on economic systems - it’s that you repeatedly use strawman arguments to avoid actually engaging with the economic concepts themselves.

violence and inequality in a capitalist system are intrinsically connected

You got this right, in that the idea is that inequality is enforced through violence. But you assume there’s some consensus on when it should be used to push back against inequality, and you inexplicably seem to believe that this consensus is “always”. But this really isn’t the case.

Your regularly scheduled reminder that Mr 70 hours is the step- father in law of Britain’s prime minister

You’re still pulling shit out of your arse - your proof that communists hate police is that some people (not communists, just some people) protested against police 4 years ago??? That had nothing to do with communism whatsoever. You clearly don’t understand that not all leftists are communists, and not all leftists are ACAB.

So you’ve decided that a ~200 year old economic system is actually about an unrelated movement that’s happened in the last decade.

COMMUNISM IS NOT ABOUT POLICING. It’s an economic system based on the abolition of private wealth.

It doesn’t say whether police are good, or when violence is appropriate.

“Communism is dumb because there is violence and communism doesn’t solve that violence”

Eating lunch doesn’t solve all violence either, but you still do it.

This is the shit that frustrates me to no end. I’m not even saying we should switch to a communist system. I’m saying we should put enough consideration into the economic concepts to pick out what works well and what doesn’t in a modern society.

But you’re so wrapped up in your personal imagination of what communists think that you’re entirely incapable of thinking about its propositions at all.

Have you noticed that almost every argument you have is based entirely on what other things you think communists think, as opposed to anything about what communism actually is?

Your entire ACAB argument is totally unrelated to both me and communism other than the fact that you’ve decided that’s what communists think.

Your chain of reasoning was:

(1) Communists hate police (???)

(2) Communists only hate police because they don’t work for them

(3) Police have power

(4) Power corrupts

=> (5) Communism is bad

1 & 2 are both just random bullshit you’ve decided is true about communists

3 is true

4 is true

5 is totally unrelated to 1, 2, 3 & 4

The problem with that is that power always corrupts, not matter how good its intentions

Well yes, that’s kinda the entire concept of communism. A huge part of its goal to equitably distribute wealth is that it reduces the power imbalance caused by the huge difference in wealth in capitalist economies.

I think it’s also worth considering the impact of different voting systems on this as well, which is hard to do in an experimental way.

The effect of, for example, first past the post’s 2 party system is hard to know for sure, but almost certainly has a substantial impact on how political views transition over the long term.