Jup sehe ich auch so und hier wird auch oft Durchgangsverkehr gesperrt oder immerhin schickanen installiert sodass die Autos sich nur dort Entlangbewegen wenn es wirklich notwendig ist.
Teilweise gibt es anscheinend kurzfristig Umstiegsschwierigkeiten aber grundsätzlich scheint der Kram in die richtige Richtung zu gehen trotz den hundert Kleinigkeiten die halt immer schief laufen.
I’ve been playing beamNg for 4+ years and it’s been in ea the entire time since 2015, possibly the best car game you can get for 20€.
Slay the spire I’ve also owned since early access, it’s maybe the most beautiful single player card game to exist. Although it only spent 1-2 years in ea.
Don’t be the first to buy ea games I guess but if the game is already fun why not.
The problem is that we need to for many reasons transition to an international order of democratic cooperation instead of economic and military domination. And if the US can never accept this kind of shared and cooperative approach foreign policy of everyone is going to be forever dragged towards this kind of zero sum bullshit we have at the moment. Even though it’s obvious that foreign policy doesn’t have to be zero sum.
Even if other countries are potentially less honest with their implementation of global treaties, even a relatively slow movement there and maybe a more thorough movement in the US makes everyone better off.
The only way to actually foster a cooperative relationship is to make yourself vulnerable, otherwise it’s just coercion and power not cooperation. And yes if you get hurt too much maybe you’ll have to leave again, but this pessimistic outlook from the get go is certainly never going to lead to the changes we obviously need.
How do we solve things that require global attentio and accountability, like climate change, with an increasingly hostile and isolationist country calling the shots on decisions about global economic matters.
Simply put if I want to live in a world somewhat resembling the current one in 60 years, American collapse or integration into global democracy is a necessity.
Also calling a country that has been at war for 80+% of it’s history a protector of global peace seems a bit questionable. Similarly I don’t think anyone can conclusively say that the US has done more or less harm than good. But by that same nebulous metric shouldn’t China hold that same title, as well as the Soviets, the British empire, the Spanish empire,the Romans ?
I would expect almost everyone to feel more ambiguously about the later list than the US, but both the US and empires of the past are exactly what they’ve always been, a tool for those inside, especially the ones in power to increase their quality of life, while everyone outside gets to be exploited, integrated, subjected to rules that do harm, and be attacked, regime changed and so on. It’s not actually the US that is a problem it’s the US being a modern empire that’s the problem.
That the US tries to be a liberal democracy doesn’t really lessen it’s status as an empire, especially if the powers at be largely prevent it’s people to decide against the status quo of domination.
Almost by necessity the most powerful are the most harmful if there are no systems to prevent their harm, diffuse their power etc.
Schade wie die Realität immer mit dem harten linken haken kommt. Aber auch irgendwie schön auf die art und weise in welcher Leiden und Schönheit überlappen.
Die Hymne ist halt trotzdem besser was will man tun.
Only if you see no alternative does treating them as the same actually benefit the crappier, if you realise resonably well that they are two sides of the same coin, and realise that this coin doesn’t create much good, it just exploits people. You can vote so that the less crappy ones survive as long as the really crappy ones are a threat, but also fight against the liberals as well if they are currently keeping you down.
Sure it might be hard to imagine a socialist US but if that’s not the goal then you might be missunderstanding the meme quite frankly.
Not accepting Wikipedia as some reasonable baseline for truthful or commonly accepted definitions is the sort of hill I wouldn’t want to die on but sure. Especially for content that is so politically contentious Wikipedia usually settles on a reasonably holistic description where other outlets will leave out downplay or politically color certain parts of definitions, obviously this happens there too, but it’s more likely to be corrected especially on divisive Issues. I mean you can go ahead and read the discussion page related to a topic and find out why and how sections came to be.
I’m not trying to lecture you I simply think that having any discussion is impossible if there is no shared understanding. Which is why I deferred to Wikipedia simply the most common database of knowledge in the world. The articles there might show me to be ignorant, but unlike you I’ve at least read parts of them with the intent to understand the information provided. Which I do to some extent not to completely accept what is said there but just to effectively communicate with other people, because Wikipedia gets close to a common definition for anything you might be talking about.
It’s not about a completely factual definition because the topic is way to complex and nuanced to have one that isn’t at least several long books, everyone lacks understanding of the topic because it’s impossible in many ways to have a complete understanding of it. That’s why it’s a philosophical topic and not a natural science, the topic is currently completely impenetrable for the scientific method alone.
It is interesting and important to discuss precisely because it’s so hard to grasp, so multifaceted and so central to all of our lives at the same time. And as I said before if we can’t agree on baseline definitions all that potentially interesting discussion is lost on us.
I don’t even really know where to start. First is probably that you don’t get to define words on a whim and that your definition of both capitalism and socialism lacks understanding. Just read the Wikipedia entry for both and you’ll find them better defined within the first sentence of their respective entry.
And honestly I’m too tired to properly explain all the traps you fell into after that so good luck with your Libertarian socialist dream or something idk
I’m not sure why large scale decision making has to be deferred to a single person instead of a large group. Tbh that’s one of the main problems with current large companies. Why not conduct a fucking vote, not about who should make the decision, but about what decision is made.
This might be true in some sense of talking about this topic but putting economic freedom as the marker for capitalist/socialist tendencyes of a country is a strange choice. No normal person will go yeah these two social democracies are actually more capitalist, than the 5 companies that make up the US government.
Idk in my world Denmark and Slovenia aren’t as capitalist as the US while being significantly more democratic.
And you are ignoring the appeal of an obvious joke that’s designed to be annoying to liberals/centrists and whatever. But also just be funny to everyone else. This sub is memes the twitter account is obvious ragebait/ shit posting just from the name alone…
The key here is “enjoyable” not “making their lives miserable” it doesn’t matter whether anyone actually suffers or any change is enacted, it’s a joke it’s primary purpose is to be funny. It’s secondary or tertiary purpose might be propaganda or education or whatever, it’s still mostly just funny, for people that get it at least.
The joke here is on some level obviously includes the absurdity of arguments constructed against a nonsense critique trying to defend a system that the people arguing don’t even really realize the joke is critiquing. Which is why the account tries to amp up the absurdity with their (non) dismissal of the pointles arguments.
To pull this whole joke into a more centrist perspective it’s like posting whatever inclusive or “woke” idea on /pol/ and just typing nonsense as the replies to the highly structured but deeply misunderstanding shit that /pol/ will dream up on that given day. And having a great laugh about it.
Just that we exchange /Pol/ for twitter which is now apparently partially musk dickridig and as such a conservative late stage capitalist realist echo chamber. And we laugh at the stupid defenses they spin up for a non attack on their chosen saviour. Where the point of the joke is so obviously not understood by the people replying, but obviously understood by people voting here.
And probably only partially understood by you, and or me, but that’s something we don’t need to get into, because if we do, we are again missing the point of the joke.
It’s not everyone gets an equal share but “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” this is the aim of socialism and what most people on lemmygrad probably want to achieve.
And we are so far away from that, and rich people defend their privilege so violently, that a transition towards it is transformative or in other words revolutionary.
Capitalism will never approach that because capital will always defend itself and thus always exploit the worker and nature, for it’s own gain. It will always write the laws create the systems and create the plurality of news and culture to support itself. It will spin up system upon inneficent system (…) just to not give up the last bit of profit and control.
Providing an alternative will never be as easy as “everyone gets an equal share” and every socialist will know that. The only people who will provide this reductive explanation will be people who know next to nothing about socialism, or even just communism / ML. Or have been thoroughly indoctrinated despite good knowledge. At least all the socialists I’ve read or heard have tried to find a much more nuanced alternative, instead of pretending there’s just no point or no need to search for one.
Ich reagiere primär allergisch auf die selbe Anekdote die ich jedes Mal zu hören bekomme wenn ich ohne Helm Fahrrad fahre oder irgendwen wissen lasse das ich das tue. Auch die Anmaßung allen Fahrrad Fahrern ohne Helm Eitelkeit oder Risikounbewusstsein vorzuwerfen bringt mich natürlich auf die Palme weil ich normalerweise eben ohne Helm fahre.
Bei insgesamt einer Chance von ~ 10^-6 pro Jahr bei meiner Fahrleistung in einen Unfall zu kommen wo ein Helm dann die Chance einer schweren Verletzung nochmal halbiert bzw. das Risiko gegen 10^-7 bewegt, ist schlicht und ergreifend nicht handlungsrelevantes Risiko um meinen Spaß oder Gemütlichkeit zu reduzieren, was ich mit einem Helm nunmal tue. Vor allem wenn einem bewusst ist das Straßenverkehrs(Auto) und haushaltsunfälle ein sehr ähnliches Risiko haben.
Grundsätzlich der Fokus auf Risikominimierung in der Gesellschaft, in völligem unwissend wie groß das Risiko für einen ist, und ohne die potentiellen und konkreten Vorteile des Risikos mit einzurechnen macht uns kalt, langweilig und schwach.
Es ist so als wärst du Raucher oder würdest Alkohol trinken und jeder der dies mitbekommt würde dir direkt verbal auf die Finger hauen, ohne irgendeineb Takt oder irgendeine Einsicht in dein Leben und deine Umstände.
Außerdem solltest du die Kosten, die das dem Gesundheitssystem erspart, gegenrechnen und da ist ne halbe Milliarde echt ein Kleckerbetrag.
Wenn man das hier mit irgendeiner Konsequenz grundsätzlich verfolgt hatt man ein system erschaffen in welchem nichts erlaubt ist um die Kosten für das Gesundheitswesen zu reduzieren.
Der signifikante Unterschied zwischen Gurt und Helm ist zum einen das der Helm nicht Teil des Fahrrads ist und dies auch nicht sein kann, beim Gurt hingegen kann man Autoherstellern den Gurt vorschreiben, und die meisten Menschen nutzen ihn weil er eh da ist. Beim Fahrradhelm ist diese availability einfach unmöglich, und gleichzeitig der verstoß viel offensichtlicher als das fahren ohne Gurt, also würden als Konsequenz Verfolgungsaufwand und unterdrückt unverhältnismäßig größer als nötig.
Es ist im Grunde das selbe wie eine Legalisierung von Cannabis nur halt die Gegenposition, wenn das Verbot oder Gebot so sehr an der Realität der betroffenen Gruppe vorbei geht ist es ein schlechtes Gesetz.
The good safety of nuclear in developed countries goes hand in hand with its costly regulatory environment, the risk for catastrophic breakdown of nuclear facilities is managed not by technically proficient design but by oversight and rules, which are expensive yes , but they also need to be because the people running the plant are it’s weakest link in terms of safety.
Now we are entering potentially decades of conflict and natural disaster and the proposition is to build energy infrastructure that is very centralized, relies on fuel that must be acquired, and is in the hands of a relatively small amount of people, especially if their societal controll/ oversight structure breaks down. It just doesn’t seem particularly reasonable to me, especially considering lead times on these things, but nice meme I guess.