[go: up one dir, main page]

  • 0 Posts
  • 532 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 8th, 2024

help-circle
  • Logic doesn’t need non-NES sources.

    You might as well be complaining my sources weren’t MAGA enough for you. Logic is immutable, that’s why my entire argument is constructed through comparison to MAGA.

    You can’t say MAGA is bad without agreeing China is bad for the same reasons. You also can’t say China is good without agreeing MAGA is good for the same reasons.

    That makes my comparison impossible to attack as untrue and why you are running from it as needing sources. I don’t need sources to see a square peg fits a square hole. I can just point out both are square shaped, which I have.

    Same with “repeating things that have been disproven by basically by every Chinese person.”

    That’s an assumption you’re making. You might as well be saying “repeating things that have been disproven by basically every MAGA.”

    They have disproven nothing. They just say they have. Same as you. You are confusing opinions as facts, as long as they come from a Chinese source. Same as MAGA confusing Trumps opinions for facts if they come from a MAGA source.

    Here’s China banning a Winnie the Pooh movie from releasing there:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/07/china-bans-winnie-the-pooh-film-to-stop-comparisons-to-president-xi

    Who’s afraid of Winnie the Pooh? The Chinese government, apparently. Chinese censors have banned the release of Christopher Robin, a new film adaptation of AA Milne’s beloved story about Winnie the Pooh,

    Here’s an explanation for why they banned it that will likely get you arrested for reading:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-40627855

    The blocking of Winnie the Pooh might seem like a bizarre move by the Chinese authorities but it is part of a struggle to restrict clever bloggers from getting around their country’s censorship.

    It is not only that China’s censors will not tolerate ridicule of the country’s leader, they do not want this beloved children’s character becoming a kind of online euphemism for the Communist Party’s general secretary.

    Bloggers started to refer to being censored as having been “harmonised” - bei hexie le 被和谐了 - but, by changing the tones in Chinese or changing the characters, you can fudge the meaning. So another hexie is river crab 河蟹。In other words, when you see an image of a river crab on the internet in China, it is likely to be a reference to something having been censored.

    Another Chinese leader Jiang Zemin came up with a political theory called Three Represents, san ge daibiao 三个代表。If you switch that around a bit it becomes dai san ge biao 带三个表, or wear three watches. So the wearing of three watches became a cheeky way of referring to his contribution to China’s socialism “with Chinese characteristics”.

    It is not necessarily easy to get around China’s censors though. For example they have been extremely successful at virtually wiping out the existence of the country’s number one dissident Liu Xiaobo - the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who died in custody here last week - at least as far as the general public goes.

    Most Chinese citizens have simply never heard of him.

    On that note, by all means research the above on your own internet from non-NES sources, and see what you find. I’m sure your results will be completley unbiased as only the “BEST” results have been pre-chosen as available for you to read.

    Go look up Liu Xiaobo and then explain how your result is the “BEST” at describing his work and who he is.


  • Woke is a made up term. It has no definition. It has no consistent meaning. It does not “depend on when you became politically conscious.” it depends on if you understand and recognize yellow journalism as a thought terminating practice rather than an intelligent one.

    There is no debate here. The entire conversation in the article is based on a false perspective of history as determined by the propaganda written about it rather than true events.

    This article might as well be titled, “Did Jews leave us worse off?”

    Because it’s literally written from the same falsely framed perspective as that statement is, and you unfortunately carried it further.

    Specifically, from your summary:

    “The woke crowd created problems that pushed people away that may have mostly agreed with them.”

    Is not a real thing that happened. This is history as perceived by its oppressors. You might as well be stating, “The Jews created problems that pushed people away that may have mostly agreed with them.”

    That problem Jews created? Existing. The problem “woke” created? Existing.

    Same with “Illegal Immigrants.” Same with “Trans” Same with every single marginalized group our current oligarchs can easily blame to shift the conversation away from them stealing your tax dollars through Reagonomics to start a international child sex trafficking network.

    They’re framing history as if the actions of these people and concepts are bad, despite the bad actions ONLY existing within the Propaganda they created.

    Did trans people create bathroom problems that pushed people into passing bathroom laws and banning them? Or did they exist at a time there was a constant stream of propaganda saying they were?

    Okay. Now ask yourself the same about “woke.” Did they actually create problems? Or did their voices exist at a time when there was a constant stream of propaganda saying they were creating a problem?

    That’s why there’s a negative shift in perspective between the 90’s and 2000’s. That’s when Fox News and post 9-11 conservative propaganda started. There was no magical political awakening. It was when the fairness doctrine died and letting idiots on TV say the dumbest most un-American and unintelligent things imaginable became legal. Now to the point where propaganda is the primary perspective coming from nearly all our news channels, so we as a society can no longer easily determine what’s real from what’s a paid talking point.

    So that’s why Science is now questionable. Why our Education is now questionable. And the sustainability of our economy is now questionable.

    Having intelligent discussions about all of those things was what “woke” started as. And our oligarchs hated that it always boiled down to them needing to pay more to improve them. So instead of paying for a country with better science, education, and a healthy economy, they paid to convince you all those things weren’t needed, or were under attack by “woke” and that’s why they were deteriorating.

    So now we can’t have a sincere discussion about politics without needing to first overcome the needlessly unintelligent shit people believe is real.

    Like the concept that “woke” pushed anyone away instead of the manufactured propaganda around it that did. We’re cooked if every political conversation needs to start with a discussion on whats real or paid propaganda, but here we are.


  • This is literally a distillation of the wikipedia about the chinese government.

    It is not.

    Your Chinese Government tells you who is best, and you believe them.

    That does not mean, in anyway, those people are indeed the best at what they do.

    You blindly trust your government to make that determination for you.

    Let me make your governments undemocratic nature completely obvious to you by simply not talking about China for a bit.

    Would you consider America GREAT right now? According to it’s current President, it’s the greatest it’s ever been. The head of the FBI? The greatest. Our FDA? The greatest. Our Education department? The greatest.

    Just like China, Trump now decides who is the “BEST” for us. So on paper, according to him and our Whitehouse website, we’re now the BEST there is, run by great people with a great president to Make America Great Again (MAGA) TM.

    Except all that is bullshit. You know it. I know it. They’re just SAYING they’re great. Using the media they own to repeat that lie until everyone who hears it believes them.

    So now a large portion of our population is MAGA, and fully believe a convicted ex-con reality TV pedofile is a “GREAT” president. A washed up podcaster is a “GREAT” head of our FBI, an insane heroine addict with brain worms is a “GREAT” doctor, and the wife of a scandalous wrestling federation owner makes for a “GREAT” teacher.

    None of that is actually GREAT. They’re all just about the furthest you could get from what “great” is.

    All these morons just have enough popularity to lie about being GREAT. And nearly 40% of this country is stupid enough to believe them.

    The same is true with how you feel about your “Chinese Democracy” being filled with the “BEST” people.

    It’s not. It’s just filled with whoever your government wants to call “BEST.” And you, just like MAGA, blindly trust their opinion. As that’s the way you were raised.

    In reality, your government is entirely built around what’s best for THEM. Not YOU. So it’s filled with similar idiots.

    That’s why it’s BEST for Chinese Democracy if YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT:

    Someone who protested your government for Democracy in Hong Kong and was jailed for 5 years for it. Jailed because what was BEST for “Chinese Democracy” was suppressing any conversation about real Democracy. That’s why he was punished, and why you can no longer discuss it without threat of the same. Something your government has been doing for it’s entire existence.

    All because what’s BEST for Chinese Democracy, is YOU NOT discussing or thinking about what’s best for YOU.

    So unless YOU have an actual say in what’s BEST for YOU, you do not have a democracy. You have something pretending to be one, while also pretending to know what’s BEST for you.

    Same as our current US government. Pretending to be Democratic and GREAT, while it’s actually all about just doing whatever Orange man feels like that day. Invading Iran, capturing the President of Venezuala, all of that was GREAT according to our government, the same way yours tells you what’s BEST.

    The difference is this US government is obviously bullshit to anyone born before it. Yet clearly the same isn’t true for you. If you were born before 1989 you would have seen your current government target, expel, and assassinate it’s best doctors, teachers and generally the “BEST” people they had if they happen to be pro-democracy.

    Tianneman Square is banned from discussion in your country because it’s proof your government actively killed pro-democratic protestors including students. Running them over with military vehicles, burning their remains, and then washing them down street drains.

    All to make way for “Chinese Democracy” TM. The Chinese version of MAGA. Which is what you live in now.

    The reason you’re not allowed to know about Tianneman Square is that it proves your current government is not at all Democratic and actively killed people who supported real democracy. You not knowing this is what they consider “BEST” for you. Because then you might realize you don’t live in a democracy.

    At least I’m free enough to admit that in my own country. Specifically, America is no longer a Democracy.

    You’d be jailed if you tried to say the same. Because that’s what’s BEST for those who run China. They fear you knowing this and trying to change their government into something better for YOU, so they make it illegal for you to express any other opinion than the one you’re currently arguing.

    It’s literally illegal for you to express any form of agreement with what I’ve said. And you really think that’s democracy? Democracy isn’t being trained to think China #1 > You #1. That’s just brainwashing. Same as MAGA.


  • Me: Maybe people who have the most experience and expertise should be able to discuss those opinions openly so as to reach consensus as to what the “BEST” outcome could be for literally anything imaginable.

    You: Mao Daddy #1. Better than all “experts” who hurt his feelings. (Including Pooh Bear)

    Bro. Stop hurting yourself in your confusion. I was never comparing western democracy to anything other than it’s absense from this world. Something you are clearly rooting for without understanding what that obviously implies about your own “democracy.” You’re just controlled by Mao daddy, same as MAGA is controlled by Trump. Constant exposure to a false reality that you can’t tell is fake due to your own limited freedom.

    Your allegiances should be to yourself, not someone exploiting your insecurities and daddy issues. Fuck all countries, and work to better yourself so you can be a voice that others listen to about what’s BEST. That’s what all authoritarian fucks fear most, so stop thinking they’re anything more than just bunch of bullshit they made you afraid of.


  • ThErE’s No QuEsTiOn oN wHo ThE BeSt PluMbEr is… "

    Yes there absolutely is and always will be a question on who the best fucking plumber is.

    “BEST” isn’t some kind of universally defined state of being. What’s “BEST” is completely fucking subjective and SHOULD be determined by a network of experts or peers, as that’s likely how your are determining what’s BEST for you.

    As THAT IS HOW EVERYONE DEFINES WHAT IS “BEST.”

    Whose the best plumber in your area?

    Did you check Google? And find someone with 500 reviews that are all 5 stars?

    How about Yelp?

    How about the Better Business Bureau?

    Wow. Every single resource available that can determine who the “BEST” plumber is comes from a collection of unique inputs from others that have a shared experience of using that plumber. All whose collected perspectives on Google reviews let a sentient jar of mayonnaise like yourself determine who the BEST plumber is.

    Whats BEST is completely subjective at best, and not easily determined by anyone but a panel of experts which you clearly use without noticing on a near daily basis.

    At worst, BEST is an ever changing non-existing state that can never be determined without other fixed inputs.

    Whose the BEST basketball player?

    Is it Michael Jordan or LeBron James?

    ARE BOTH THE “BEST” DEPENDING ON HOW THAT QUESTION IS ASKED?

    Oh shit, looks like you need additional input to determine what the BEST even is in literally every single interpretation of it imaginable.

    Maybe you should hire a panel of experts to figure out who THE BEST IS at that moment. Or maybe a massively broad review of everyone’s opinion to determine from the masses who the BEST IS TO THEM.

    OH SHIT THAT’S DEMOCRACY AND THE OBVIOUS FUCKING BENEFITS THAT ADDED EXPERTISE AND PERSPECTIVE PROVIDES.

    What is BEST isn’t simple to determine at all. Your entire argument is garbage. And based on a laughably dumb and short sighted perspective that doesn’t hold up to the most basic scrutiny.


  • The problem is addiction. Same as any other drug. It’s no coincidence that Facebook and X were rolled out as free services, with free accounts, where you can interact with anyone for free.

    Before the digital drug dealers running each changed that deal. Needing money, running ads, and restricting what you can do that all used to be free.

    These companies got us addicted to using tech in place of human socialization and then monitized that addiction.

    People can’t leave because for some it’s the only human contact they have. Even if it’s artificial, they still want it to the point of it hurting themselves. Just like any other addiction.


  • Great question. Putin is like Trump. He acts like he’s under constant threat. So if an attempt on his life fails, it just becomes another propaganda point about Russians being under threat of the West. Something that most of them are now completely sick of hearing. So it would be a piece of news immediately doubted as real, as it’s distributed through the same propaganda channels as his actual propaganda.

    Worst thing: Putin would retaliate. But he currently has no army or soldiers to do so. So he’d threaten nukes as he already has, and immediately be ignored as he always is.

    If the US tried to kill Putin, and failed, he’d cry wolf to an uncaring world that’s heard him say the same for decades. His complaints will fall on deaf ears until the next attempt is successful.


  • Completely agree about the nukes. And I think that’s a good point to bring up.

    Imo, and this is completely just my own perspective: We’re currently already on a course for nukes likely being used again. If not by Russia, then by the US or Israel in relation to the war in Iran.

    So when it comes to an active nuclear threat, I feel we’re already there. And since we are, it then becomes better to eliminate anyone willing to use nukes than it is to wait until they’re all old enough to not care if they do.

    Imo, Putin becomes far more of a nuclear threat as he ages. The next best time to eliminate that threat was yesterday. Otherwise we may not get a chance at all, as he’ll just use them anyway.



  • Not after losing half a million citizens and untold amounts of Military equipment in the Ukraine. Russia is now literally weaker than they’ve ever been, and Trump has spent that whole decline sucking Putins Dick behind closed Doors instead of cutting it off.

    Putin’s only powerful because you fall for that narrative. He’s a weak man, with weak ideas, in a weak body, riddled with pancreatic cancer.

    Killing him now would be easier than ever, and every leader in the world is a big ass pussy about it because they believe social media over reality. When social media has been almost completely controlled by Russian intelligence for the last decade.

    Putins a weak bitch that could be snuffed out in a moment the same as the Ayatolla. The only reason you think he’s untouchable is because you believe the propaganda he’s been putting out instead of the cold facts:

    His economy is weak. His Military is weak. He is weak.

    Letting him live out of the fear he’s a bigger monster than that is how he’s stayed alive this long. And it’s amazing to me our world leaders are such big pussies to fall for it. Which explains why Trump has so easily grabbed them all.








  • Hey! I think this is a FANTASTIC question, because the answers reveal the diverse ways we all categorize what a “good” game is.

    The straightforward simple nature of it like TicTacToe makes it good.

    The easy on boarding to new players makes it good.

    The simple task and challenge while not deep, is competitive enough to make it good.

    Even bad games can become good under the right circumstances or perspectives. Sonic 06 is generally considered to be one of the worst games in the franchise, and an overall bad game. But it’s great to watch others play it because of how bad it is. It’s great to watch speed runs, or the odd glitch hunting videos. Playing it JUST to experience how bad it is can even be enjoyable and “good” to anyone that likes playing bad games.

    My point is, what makes a game truly “good” isn’t just a single thing about it that someone might like, but rather, a combination of all those “good” things about it that work together in a way to create a better experience than the sum of its parts. Multiple “good” things all working together to make an experience that is uniquely “good” to that game.

    So what’s interesting, is that all the different perspectives in this thread prove fairly well that Flappy Bird was indeed a good game.

    However, the one part about it that people haven’t mentioned yet that I appreciated about it most:

    Was the fact that the bird had some of the worst physics ever.

    Having a linear jump up, but an accelerating decent down that despite its description, felt like juggling a rock in high gravity more than making a bird flap it’s wings.

    It was SO UNINTUITIVE, that even with the quick onboarding it felt like playing a carnival game that was rigged for you to lose. And just like those games, there was a trick to getting good at it. And that trick created a learning curve needed to actually get gud at Flappy Bird. One that in combination with its easy and simple concept, quick onbaording, and competitive design (leader boards) made it honestly a great experience at the time that I feel hasn’t quite been captured since.

    (With the closest being maybe Baby Steps or Getting Over It, but neither have such a simple design. Rather a simple mechanic pushed to its limit.)

    Anyway, thanks for asking this! Imo, Flappy Bird was definitley a good game worth talking about.




  • I appreciate your critical analysis and doubt, but from my perspective I’ve been watching this problem grow for the last 20 years and it’s indeed as abysmal as this article makes it out to be. (If not worse…)

    In short, real wages haven’t increased in America in well over 30ish years. Federal minimum wage hasn’t budged in nearly 20.

    People have so little money now, the average American is now buying their first house at the age of 40. (The average age was around 28 in the 80’s for comparison) 40 is now the new average age of first time home buyers in America, and I find that a far better metric to analyze in determining Americans current level of savings than what’s contained in this article.

    As it goes to show that working for 20 years for the average American is now how long it takes to earn enough for a house. So that’s 20 years every average American is spending at work to save for the biggest “retirement” investment this article doesn’t account for.

    Home ownership is literally going to be non-existant for Gen alpha at this current rate it is changing at. As in addition to wages not increasing in decades, costs for all the basics have been increasing in that same time. Insurance rates gave increased nearly 5x in the last 20 years. Rent has more than doubled, as well as the price of all American made cars. All expenses coming from a pool that hasn’t increased in 30 years of flat wages. Which is why it’s taking so long for most Americans to save enough for their first house, let alone retirement.

    It’s far worse than what this article is saying imo, because there are far better red flags to analyze than how this article approaches it. I completly agree this article isn’t doing well at supporting their claim, but also encourage a look at alternate data points, as the picture is actually far worse than what this article and most others make it seem. Imo, that’s why this study left out assets like Roth IRAs and Homeownership, because it would have painted an even worse picture, not a better one. At least imo, based on the other facts I’ve provided (but admittedly haven’t sourced, going by recent memory, so feel free to correct me).