Very glib. My point remains though - if this stuff were popular, it would be used more. So why don’t we have it in the US? How do you propose to get around that?
Your point does not stand at all, you shared an anecdote. There is no empirical data supporting your claim, in actuality the majority of the people who lived during the time of the Soviet Union say they miss it and life was better in the USSR.
You didn’t address any of my questions. If this stuff is so popular, why isn’t it used more? How do you propose to overcome the objections of the vast majority of Americans and Europeans, including the rich and powerful?
Finish your argument before you start a new one sweetie. You made a claim that you could not back up, the available empirical data opposes your claim, and yet you declare your point still stands. It does not.
In a proper civil dialogue we conclude disagreements before moving on to the next wall you’ve thrown shit at to see what sticks. So if you want to ask questions and get them answered, then you gotta show yourself to be acting in good faith as well. This requires behaving like a normal person and not some little weasely booger who cannot admit fault or themself answer any questions - In your case you gotta either admit you were wrong, provide reasonable critique for why the data is not applicable (this of course requires you read the texts you have been given, something I doubt you will ever do, you types rarely even make it past the headline and even then it is typically only a brief skim, feverishly hunting for some sentence you can misinterpret) or provide sufficient empirical data that can help create a working hypothesis alongside the other data.
Ok great some people affected liked it. You win and have a huge penis.
That does not mean it is popular here and I still don’t see a way forward for it.
Until we all see that, we will generally bounce between unregulated capitalism and (what I favor) which is well regulated capitalism with worker and environmental protections.
we will generally bounce between unregulated capitalism and (what I favor) which is well regulated capitalism with worker and environmental protections.
If only that were true. Unfortunately the next stop on your train is fascism not better regulation.
There is nothing to win, we are having a discussion and you are behaving like an angry toddler, and I am asking that you behave normal in order for this conversation to be gainful. If you are not interested in dialogue, why engage in it? Just don’t respond instead of wasting everyones time.
That does not mean it is popular here
Factually untrue, as the data shows. Furthermore if you think “I win” then that does mean it is popular there. Why do you lie?
Until we all see that, we will generally bounce between unregulated capitalism and (what I favor) which is well regulated capitalism with worker and environmental protections.
Completely vibes-based statement with nothing supporting it. Read Reform or Revolution.
Then why don’t we have this as our current form of government? How to you propose to get everyone to buy in to this in the US? If you can’t reduce it to practice, this is just impractical Internet bullshit talk.
I assert that that’s all this will ever be. We have zero chance of this being implemented here.
We do however have a chance of getting back to regulated capitalism. All we need is a new TR.
Then why don’t we have this as our current form of government? How to you propose to get everyone to buy in to this in the US? If you can’t reduce it to practice, this is just impractical Internet bullshit talk.
Finish your argument before you start a new one sweetie.
For us to be able to go deeper into discussion we need to first agree on the facts that form the basis of the discussion, which we do not at the moment. You have to either accept that your point was wrong and integrate that acceptance into your line of argument or argue for your point being correct - This is done by either supplying sufficient empirical data that helps create some synthesis with the rest of the data or you go through the given data and explain why it is faulty or insufficient as a basis for a rebuttal.
As the rest of the comment you are responding to explains, you have still yet to do this.
Finish your argument before you start a new one sweetie.
This is condescending and intended to distract from the main point by being inflammatory You keep dodging because you don’t have an answer.
You have to either accept that your point was wrong and integrate that acceptance into your line of argument or argue for your point being correct - This is done by either supplying sufficient empirical data that helps create some synthesis with the rest of the data or you go through the given data and explain why it is faulty or insufficient as a basis for a rebuttal.
As the rest of the comment you are responding to explains, you have still yet to do this.
Nah. It can’t be popular enough to work here. If it could, you would have said how. You’re just diverting from that fact because you don’t actually have an answer.
Lmk when you want to actually make progress on anything regarding this topic and not just nitpick tediously. The main point is that there’s no way to get those political systems to fly here because people don’t want them currently.
Very glib. My point remains though - if this stuff were popular, it would be used more. So why don’t we have it in the US? How do you propose to get around that?
Your point does not stand at all, you shared an anecdote. There is no empirical data supporting your claim, in actuality the majority of the people who lived during the time of the Soviet Union say they miss it and life was better in the USSR.
Gonna steal @[email protected] comment:
You didn’t address any of my questions. If this stuff is so popular, why isn’t it used more? How do you propose to overcome the objections of the vast majority of Americans and Europeans, including the rich and powerful?
Finish your argument before you start a new one sweetie. You made a claim that you could not back up, the available empirical data opposes your claim, and yet you declare your point still stands. It does not.
In a proper civil dialogue we conclude disagreements before moving on to the next wall you’ve thrown shit at to see what sticks. So if you want to ask questions and get them answered, then you gotta show yourself to be acting in good faith as well. This requires behaving like a normal person and not some little weasely booger who cannot admit fault or themself answer any questions - In your case you gotta either admit you were wrong, provide reasonable critique for why the data is not applicable (this of course requires you read the texts you have been given, something I doubt you will ever do, you types rarely even make it past the headline and even then it is typically only a brief skim, feverishly hunting for some sentence you can misinterpret) or provide sufficient empirical data that can help create a working hypothesis alongside the other data.
Ok great some people affected liked it. You win and have a huge penis.
That does not mean it is popular here and I still don’t see a way forward for it.
Until we all see that, we will generally bounce between unregulated capitalism and (what I favor) which is well regulated capitalism with worker and environmental protections.
If only that were true. Unfortunately the next stop on your train is fascism not better regulation.
There is nothing to win, we are having a discussion and you are behaving like an angry toddler, and I am asking that you behave normal in order for this conversation to be gainful. If you are not interested in dialogue, why engage in it? Just don’t respond instead of wasting everyones time.
Factually untrue, as the data shows. Furthermore if you think “I win” then that does mean it is popular there. Why do you lie?
Completely vibes-based statement with nothing supporting it. Read Reform or Revolution.
https://lemmy.world/comment/26373832
What do you feel this link provides?
Evidence of the impracticality of what you propose.
Then why don’t we have this as our current form of government? How to you propose to get everyone to buy in to this in the US? If you can’t reduce it to practice, this is just impractical Internet bullshit talk.
I assert that that’s all this will ever be. We have zero chance of this being implemented here.
We do however have a chance of getting back to regulated capitalism. All we need is a new TR.
Finish your argument before you start a new one sweetie.
For us to be able to go deeper into discussion we need to first agree on the facts that form the basis of the discussion, which we do not at the moment. You have to either accept that your point was wrong and integrate that acceptance into your line of argument or argue for your point being correct - This is done by either supplying sufficient empirical data that helps create some synthesis with the rest of the data or you go through the given data and explain why it is faulty or insufficient as a basis for a rebuttal.
As the rest of the comment you are responding to explains, you have still yet to do this.
This is condescending and intended to distract from the main point by being inflammatory You keep dodging because you don’t have an answer.
Nah. It can’t be popular enough to work here. If it could, you would have said how. You’re just diverting from that fact because you don’t actually have an answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
Lmk when you want to actually make progress on anything regarding this topic and not just nitpick tediously. The main point is that there’s no way to get those political systems to fly here because people don’t want them currently.
deleted by creator