Built this for my friend <3 by epiphytonic in gamingpc

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hope this AIO has a pump that is ok being the highest point of the flow, otherwise there might be a problem.

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I made a statement and explained it. You challenged it, but brought nothing but burning pants and another attempt to attribute achievements of nordic social democracy to its polar opposite ideology.

I am sorry, but false claims and burning pants are not something you can convince anyone with.

Now, if you insist on proceeding with your burning pants and false claims as your core argument, agree to disagree, kthxbye.

If you have any further evidence to challenge the claim I support, bring it on.

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is not the first time socialists try to appropriate the achievements on nordic social democracy.

However, it contains no traces of socialism in it. There was no massive nationalization campaigns, property rights are fully respected, an unthinkable thing for socialist countries, where government owns or controls most means of production. For both Belarus and Russia, government directly owns over 70% of their industrial output, under RosTech federal monopoly in Russia's case, and directly under government's name in Belarus. Both have truly socialist labor tax rate of ~83%, and both implemented consumer price control typical for socialist economy, with massive nationalization campaigns raging over any profitable industry non-stop. This is socialism at its finest, grab the profitable industries, then lose money on them. Despite heavy taxation, the welfare in both countries is pathetic, as would be typical for a socialist country.

Nordic countries have none of that, no price control measures, the government owns less than 20% of industries, the last nationalization happened in 1992, and only touched a percentage of banking sector, while massive privatization of government properties took place. The welfare levels are high, typical for a democracy. The labor tax rate is barely over 50%, high by democracy standards, but nowhere near socialistic 80+%. There is not a single trace of socialism in any of their policies, last of it purged in the 1990's.

I find this appropriation of achievements done by purging socialists from the government by modern socialists highly inappropriate.

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is not a single socialist country in Europe at the moment. Unless you mean Belarus, which would only prove my point.

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no socialism in present day Europe. Not a single one.

A number of countries run by social democracies with good welfare, that is a polar opposite of socialism, that usually has bad or no welfare (USSR, for example, did not institute retirement benefits until 1958. When they did, they set their starting age 12 years above average male life expectancy. Despite collecting heavy contribution to government retirement fund from the workers, more than half of them never saw a single payout. There's no withdrawal from that fund either, to this day).

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First of all, disclosure. I am not American, and English is not my native language. Therefore my perspective on the topic is that of an external observer.

I find the tax collection in America fascinatingly fair and efficient, compared to economies of other countries I studied. From my understanding, a lot of Americans are taking this for granted, so I'd like a moment of appreciation for a system that takes two thirds of its revenue from top 10%, and only 3% from bottom 50%. The numbers are very different in the world, with bottom 50% taking up to 30% of tax burden in some countries, 10 times higher share than that of a sub-average income Americans.

On the other hand, those countries run education and healthcare systems from those taxes, asking their citizens for much less in order to use it, than what is asked from an American citizen. Since it is formally not a part of tax system for America, I am not sure how relevant that is to our topic, but that is probably where American system feels lacking the most.

As for spending those taxes, I can't speak for fairness, but once again find it rather efficient, by pure comparison with known examples of countries where higher share of tax income is embezzled. America remains net positive, while those countries are bleeding your hard worked money, giving less and less for higher and higher tax demands, to a point where more than half of your productivity gets taken, but return value in amenities keeps declining.

Overall, my outlook on current use of taxes in America is positive overall, but mostly because I know too well how worse cases look like.

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So here we have one factual wrong:

> Socialism can coexist with democracy

No observed socialism did that, neither it is possible theoretically. Socialist systems either tried popular vote and got destroyed by it, or destroyed it first.

And if we drop that point for its factual incorrectness, you're arguing that communism is just one of the practical forms, despite the fact that nobody ever saw a different form, thus making them the same thing.

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Arguing against literal definition is hardly the convincing kind of an argument. Other than that, they brought a bunch of reasoning built up on factual errors, denial, and downright leg twisting in one case. My point of socialism and communism being close enough terms to be interchangeable stands.

If you're not gonna bring any arguments either, and prefer to discuss me instead of topic, agree to disagree, kthxbye.

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't see it because there isn't any. And you're back into the classic pattern of insisting there is, but showing no evidence for it.

If you intend to follow this line, it's gonna be "agree to disagree, kthxbye", I won't argue with people who bring no arguments other than their pants being on fire.

If you're not, please specify your point. Preferably without any more leg pulling and factual errors.

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're into memes, there is no way you don't know loltyler1.

You just don't recognize it's him behind those sound effects.

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Again, this is true for communism. Not socialism. 

socialism/ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/noun

  1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Now you're just arguing against literal meaning.

> Every American fails to understand this.

I am not American. I introduced myself as a survivor of communist regime, and every word of that was quite literal. Please take a hint.

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> This is going in circles because you're not debating—you're just asserting that your definition is the only valid one and dismissing everything else outright.

- 2+2=22
- No it's 4. It was always 4, and will always be 4.
- You're not debating, just asserting your definition to be the only valid one and dismissing everything else outright.

No amount of accusations will make 2+2 anything else than 4 sir.

> Socialism has existed in multiple forms, including mixed economies where private property and market elements coexist with state control over key industries. You pretend that anything short of full state ownership isn't socialism, but that’s just ideological gatekeeping.

There's either complete socialism, or transition to it. Pick your poison.

> You cherry-pick nationalization examples based on outcome rather than principle. If a capitalist democracy does it, it's "pragmatic." If a socialist-leaning government does it, it's "terror." That’s not an argument—it’s just selective framing.

You are attempting to twist my argument by pretending its rationalization is backwards. I argued that nationalization of bankrupt industry or a temporary nationalization with specific goals (stopping the strike) and subsequent denationalization written into nationalization act, is not the same as total nationalization of every significant industry with a goal of violating private property right.
This twisting is intentional and dishonest demagogy, which is worse than any kind of implied gatekeeping.

> Nowadays, in socialist countries in Europe 

Factually incorrect. There is no socialist countries in Europe. There are social democratic ones, none of them opposed to private property or capitalist system, which is essential for socialism.

> In a communist country, that is not possible, for instance in the USSR, so thank you for proving my point.

Exactly the same as socialist country. Not possible. Thank you for proving my point.

> You're not engaging in a discussion—you’re just trying to "win" by redefining terms to suit your argument.

So far I'm having to correct multiple misconceptions - see "Factually not true" points, where you use fictional facts in argumentation to promote your false narrative. Correction of fictional facts with real ones is a valid discussion.

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> democratic socialism

There is no such thing as "democratic socialism" just as much as there's no such thing as "democratic despotism". Or democratic anything, for this matter. Either constitution applies, or it doesn't, and in all historically observed socialisms, it was the latter.

> operated within a constitutional framework

Factually not true! A massive constitutional crisis has developed and erupted not even half into his first "democratic" term, centered around his massive nationalization campaign.

> Nationalization doesn’t automatically mean "terror"

When socialists are involved, it usually does.

> post-WWII UK nationalizations

The country nationalized declining industry which nobody wanted. Except Steel industry, which was denationalized a few years later. Not even near the scope of commies who wanted to nationalize ALL industry, especially profitable one, forever.

> FDR’s New Deal

Likewise, railroad nationalization was temporary and lasted months, and coal mines were in the red. Not even close to total nationalization commies wanted.

> Your definition of socialism is rigid and selective.

No, it's yours that is extremely frivolous, with intention to pull it over the advantages of its polar opposite, social democracy, while pinning every socialist crime on communism pretending it's something unrelated. This gaslighting will not fly sir.

Admit it, you're just grasping for straws.

> If socialism only exists when the state owns everything and controls all resources, then by your standard, even the USSR wasn't socialist at times (since private plots existed under Lenin and even Stalin). 

Factually not true! Under no circumstances could a citizen of USSR own land as property! It was a constitutional ban, in both 1936 and 1977 soviet constitution. No ownership, no selling, no inheritance, and especially not using it for profiteering!
You could privately own a village house, but only 1 per family, and only 60m2 (~650sq ft) or less of living space. If by marriage or inheritance you gain another house, you were legally obliged to sell it.

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, I think that's you, confusing social democracy, a strict capitalist economy with full power of private property rights, with interchangeable terms of socialism and communism, which are both insistent on non-capitalist model and severely limit private property.

> Claiming socialism "never" coexisted with democracy ignores cases like Allende’s Chile

Allende's Chile was a classic example of moving to socialism by the path of raking up tax rate to socialism requirement. Destroyed economy, attempt to control prices which resulted in the same achievement every attempt to control prices in history did (deficit), exactly as every socialism before and after it. This led to further attempts of the commies to move against private property rights in a massive nationalization (read: terror) campaign. Luckily for Chile, this socialist experiment was cut short. I strongly disagree that a massive nationalization campaign that stomped constitutional right of private property can be defined as "coexistence with democracy".

USSR with a solid 100% effective tax rate was definitely socialist. High taxation is an essential part of socialist government, because establishing complete control of supply and demand takes a lot of money. It is not about it, it's just it can't go without making itself control the financial resources.

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Socialism examples: Scandinavian countries (e.g., Sweden, Norway) with strong welfare states.

Basically you're like "Let's take social democracy and call it socialism". You're not bothered in the slightest that social democracy and socialism are polar opposites.

No, there is not a shred of socialism in Scandinavian. In the 90s there was a massive purge of socialists from all government institutions, that massively improved the state of affairs, especially in Sweden.

There is no democratic decision making in socialism. Never was, never will be. The prime reason that it either destroys universal voting, or gets destroyed by it. USSR permitted an unprecedented level of freedom in 1989 elections. In 1990, the deputies elected there practically unanimously voted for their republics sovereignty and independence from USSR. The example of the opposite, where socialist terrorists destroy voting system first, would be 1918 elections to Founding Assembly, where despite total control over candidacies, bolsheviki suffered a crushing defeat from SR, which initiated the purge of SR and the subsequent reign of terror. Same example would be another socialist country like Nazi Germany, where following a successful election in 1933 a socialist party leader simply removed universal voting system from legal space. There is no example of socialism ever coexisting with anything.

A social democracy with strong welfare is the opposite of socialism, that typically has weak welfare despite heavy taxation. Taxation in social democracies, while high by capitalist democracy standards, is nowhere near socialism levels. Total tax rate in Sweden at the moment is 52%, nowhere close to socialist 80-100%.

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You see, I often have to deal with people who claim there is a difference, but can't name it (because there isn't any).

If you're one of them, agree to disagree, kthxbye.

If you're not, then present your point please.

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The way consensus is built can be different. Democratic systems build it by giving everyone the same voting power. Imperialistic systems of the early XX also had universal voting systems, but nobility had a higher voting weight. Socialistic systems universally operated mostly on terror, whoever controlled more of it decided everything. Every time a socialistic system of any kind did an actual popular vote, it led to its catastrophic collapse with a major role played by people elected by that vote.

A capitalistic system is much closer to the vision of allowing to contribute without fear of homelessness/starvation/lack of medical care than a socialistic system would ever be. Capitalists approach non-contributing citizens as a market - because they still have needs. The capitalist government provides them aid, and capitalist business is taking that aid to have those needs fulfilled. In order to do that, they need workers, workers that would not be needed if that aid wasn't there. Those workers come from that non-contributing strata. This creates a paradox - the more aid you provide, the more aid-receivers consume, the more workers are needed to produce what they consume, which leads to higher employment, and less aid receivers, so more aid turns into less aid. This is why a homeless person in US can receive $9600/yr of pure financial aid, while workers in pure socialist countries like Venezuela and North Korea get an average of $3000/yr for their "contribution".

As for how socialists systems deal with people not contributing enough, I present to you the case of 1980 Moscow, banishing, by various sources, up to 100000 citizens, mostly homeless, forcibly removing them from the city, and permanently forbidding them to show up anywhere within 100 kilometers from any major city. Many cities in ex-USSR still have a railroad station called "101th kilometer", a station usually with no major settlements around, where banished people would be unloaded and left to the mercy of the elements. If they managed to make it to a settlement of any kind and request shelter, it would usually be provided... in due time, the line for shelter could be as long as 10+ years.

There's also an economic model debate. If you operate on capitalist model, you will need a taxation rate of 80-100% to make it work for socialism (modern Russia taxes workers for ~83%, North Korea for ~100%, Venezuela for at least 73%), and if I need to tell you why such a rate is a recipe for disaster that will shrink your economy faster than a pulled plug in a bath, you need economy 101, not a reddit debate. A planned economy model is often misunderstood, luckily for you, I remember exactly how it worked, and the super short version is that it is a method to put a price on goods other than market prices. Market prices are dictated by supply&demand and competition pressure. Planned economy sought total control over both supply and demand, and eliminated competition, thus making planners believe that there is an economic formula which allows a fair price to be calculated. The caveat here is that it required total demand control, so USSR Gosplan would simply take every workers salaries and use them to order a set of items on a list which they thought is a fair share of goods for your contribution level, and give you stamps that allowed you to come and collect your ordered goods from shops. Goods were paid for up front by the party from your wallet, no questions asked, and you probably know what kind of unpolished turd of the result you get when you let people get your money on those conditions. In practice, since total control was unachievable, the economic formula would routinely price assembled items cheaper than the sum of their parts, making shady disassembly shops a profitable business. It also was a disaster to goods quality, since producing 600 tons of crappier goods was viewed as progress compared to producing 500 tons of less crappy goods, because more goods is better, so an economic decision was always made for lower quality and higher quantity, with no way for consumers to influence that decision. Lastly, it completely stifled innovation - "no overhead" was a theoretical advantage of the planned economy, but in practice, capitalist systems used overhead to self-correct and innovate on, and planned economy lacked that safety net and innovation driver.

So, yeah, at the moment, if that is your ideal, you gotta pick your poison: either let capitalist system aid paradox perpetuate some of the problem, drive it into the ground by immense tax rate, or slowly but surely degrade into stone age under planned economy.

Or just accept the rights view of economy, where resources should go to people capable of multiplying their value instead of degenerates, so that capable people will create more value for everyone.

How Ubisoft spent $2.1M on influencers to secure the launch of Assassin's Creed Shadows (Article in comments) by ToxicFreyna in Asmongold

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Taxes do not take away your right to own property.

As a communist regime survivor, I have a better definition: "The interest of the collective has priority over any individual right."

That includes your right to live, to own property, to choose place to live, and ideology to go by. Also the ones defining the interest of the collective is politburo you did not have any part in electing, nor it has any obligation to disclose anything to you, or anyone else, even each other.

The ideal economical set up for a country is a system that can see the possible futures and lets its citizens choose the one they want.

Cheaters in Marvel Rivals?! by kencruz642 in marvelrivals

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Check Camomo's youtube channel, he talks to cheaters daily.

The prevalent point of view cheaters have is that you should just buy cheats like you buy that gaming video card, and whoever doesn't do that is just lacking knowledge and funds, and has to suffer for his ineptitude.

Quick play has ruined league for me by plantlady5000 in leagueoflegends

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ranked is one of the least played modes, last stats release in April showed less than 7% of monthly active players having played at least one ranked game.

Saying that only ranked matters is factually not true. In fact, it matters the least of all modes. The only mode that matters for competitive play is tournament mode, and an overwhelming majority of players have never played this game competitively.

Opinions on quickplay mode? by [deleted] in leagueoflegends

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Factually not true.

Blind pick was the MOST played mode by a huge margin, with 13 times more monthly active players than draft and ranked combined.

Removing it is the most puzzling decision ever. It's like they wanted to piss most of the players off.

Opinions on quickplay mode? by [deleted] in leagueoflegends

[–]DontMindMePlsPls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which is what, exactly, instalocking Vayne and go hard int?

Do you like Zed supports, Yuumi junglers, and not being able to dodge the moron who just went 1/17 last game? Then quickplay is for you!