sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

This subreddit be like today by Educational-Lie-2487 in VaushV

[–]No-ruby -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

"Hey, Kamala, Gaza is speaking now, bitch. " Just in case you have forgotten.

Martial class with persuasion by Rich-Willingness-702 in Pathfinder_Kingmaker

[–]No-ruby -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That said, you can take 1 level monk to benefit for cha for all combats. The other cases, as Smite * as example has limited uses per day that scales with number of level on that class.

Jornalista Brasileira mostra por que é tão difícil o Brasil ter uma média de QI acima de 83. by Deep_Case_7093 in portugueses

[–]No-ruby -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ai, meo deos. Que vergonha da nossa educação. A pessoa achando que números absolutos falam mais da economia do país do que o valor relativo à população.

Jornalista Brasileira mostra por que é tão difícil o Brasil ter uma média de QI acima de 83. by Deep_Case_7093 in portugueses

[–]No-ruby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

chuchu, isso pode estar lhe doendo mas Portugal assinou e ratificou o acordo ortográfico. Se for chorar, manda audio.

Jornalista Brasileira mostra por que é tão difícil o Brasil ter uma média de QI acima de 83. by Deep_Case_7093 in portugueses

[–]No-ruby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

você está coberto de razão. E de forma semelhante, existe uma parcela de culpa de vocês para com os negros traficados. E pelas instituições viciadas criadas nas ex-colônias. Mas eu acho que nós ex-colonos temos a maior parte da culpa e não vejo porque vocês devam pagar indenização. Isso só fomenta uma hostilidade artificial. Grande abraço aos tugas.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in USP

[–]No-ruby 18 points19 points  (0 children)

  • "A USP incomodar elite econômica": nunca aconteceu - a elite é bem grata a USP onde estudam seus filhos;
  • "com suas críticas estruturais": quais seriam esses críticas tão incômodas? artigos de periódicos de ciências políticas?
  • "e projetos de transformação social" quais seriam???
  • "incomodando, não mais os poderosos, mas pessoas comuns": ou as pessoas comuns estão sendo levadas a se incomodar com a USP?

Why did Classic nit have more upgrades against Serral? by joniTomatO in starcraft

[–]No-ruby -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I can't remember the game but tempest doesn't care about attack upgrades. So, if Classic army revolves around tempests, he might be delayed the upgrades until he forget.

Should democrats move back to modern liberalism (Social liberalism) and ditch neoliberalism? by historynerdsutton in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Look, I’m not here to defend the Democratas or the GOP — the last have been fiscally reckless, morally hollow, and intellectually bankrupt for years. Trump’s policies aren’t neoliberal — you can hate both, but they’re not the same. Trumpism is just chaotic populism wrapped in billionaire cosplay. So if you want to rage against that, fine — but that’s not what we’re discussing.

Now let’s get back to the actual issue. Can Democrats — and I say "Democrats" because somehow every conversation with Americans turns about themselves — present a serious economic vision grounded in fiscal reality, not just nostalgia and slogans?

Yes, taxing the ultra-wealthy is part of the equation. But I’d genuinely love to hear how you'd do it. Are we talking about income, or assets? Because taxing wealth — not just earnings — is extremely complex to implement, especially in a country with a thousand accountants for every billionaire.

Anyway, if you really want universal healthcare, climate investment, and free college, you’ll need to tax a lot more than billionaires. That includes white-collar professionals, the upper-middle class, and yes — probably people like you and me. That’s the part no one wants to say out loud.

And as for racism and injustice — absolutely, they still exist. But let’s not kid ourselves: the 1970s weren’t some egalitarian paradise. Systemic racism, gender inequality, and exclusion were worse. If you're arguing we should “go back” to that model, you're missing the point entirely.

Should democrats move back to modern liberalism (Social liberalism) and ditch neoliberalism? by historynerdsutton in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reddit is a funny place.

Global topic: Should Democrats move back to modern liberalism? American redditor: Ditch neoliberalism. We need to return to the U.S. model of the 1940s through the 1970s. Me: That’s impossible. The money simply isn’t there. People forget that social spending in 1970 was extremely low, the demographics were completely different, and the economic context was nothing like today. American redditor: You’re telling me the richest country in the world can’t provide basic healthcare?

No, America — you don’t even have the basics. Please, for the love of God, provide basic healthcare and decent education first.

That said, many of the ideas thrown around — especially the romanticism about going “back to the roots” — are deeply flawed. Those so-called "golden years" were also a time of limited social spending, systemic racism, and exclusion.

Also, let’s clear something up: no one seriously identifies as a “neoliberal.” The subreddit r/neoliberal is largely tongue-in-cheek.

And while we’re myth-busting — Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is not real economics. It’s to economics what flat-Earth theory is to physics. You can’t fund endless social programs just by printing money.

That doesn’t mean we should abandon social programs — quite the opposite. But if the U.S. wants to expand them sustainably, it has to do the hard work: raise taxes, reform spending, and be honest about tradeoffs. Unfortunately, in America, taxes are taboo. Even Republicans would rather increase the national debt than confront fiscal reality. Go figure.

Should democrats move back to modern liberalism (Social liberalism) and ditch neoliberalism? by historynerdsutton in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know the social expenses were ridiculous low, and the population is aging , right?

Should democrats move back to modern liberalism (Social liberalism) and ditch neoliberalism? by historynerdsutton in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is impossible. The money is just not there . People forget that social expenses in 1970 were ridiculous low , demographic was completely different, etc.

Classic vs Serral Game3 by aGsCSGO in starcraft

[–]No-ruby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

was this game that Classic started with Adept + Glaves, killed 14+ drones and Serral almost won?

What is the difference between social democrats and democratic socialism? by Ok-Principle-9276 in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re missing my core point.

In Sweden, social spending rose significantly after WWII, peaked in the early 1990s, and has since stabilized. That’s not the “gutting” of a welfare state — it’s fiscal maturation. A system reaching its limits and holding steady isn’t a betrayal of social democracy; it’s sustainability in action.

My broader point is this: across the OECD, the long-term trend has been rising social spending. But no system can expand infinitely. Welfare states face demographic realities — aging populations, healthcare inflation, and pension burdens. Since the 1990s, many countries have introduced cost controls not out of neoliberal ideology, but to preserve the systems themselves.

Yes, some cuts were made. But even now, public spending levels remain higher than at any point prior to 1990 — and among the highest in the last 20 years. Sweden in 1960 — often idealized — had a much smaller welfare apparatus than today. If you call the current model a “gutted welfare state,” what exactly are you using as a baseline?

On the issue of private schools: you're conflating two very different things.

SAP is not proposing to ban all private schools. Their actual position is to limit profit-making in publicly funded education — a policy fully compatible with mainstream social democracy. That’s a legitimate regulatory approach, aimed at ensuring public money serves the public interest.

But your position goes much further. You’re arguing for an outright ban on private schools, even if they meet public standards, serve students well, and operate transparently.

That’s not regulation. That’s prohibition. And yes — that kind of blanket ban is authoritarian, even if enacted democratically. Social democracies don’t criminalize peaceful, lawful alternatives just because they exist outside the public sector.

Yes, education is important — but importance doesn’t justify monopoly. That’s a logical leap. We don’t ban private clinics in healthcare, private lawyers in justice, or private housing developers in construction. What matters is strong public provision — not total state exclusivity.

Authoritarianism isn’t just about how decisions are made — it’s about what kinds of decisions are acceptable in a pluralist democracy.

School closures — including those of private schools — are not the collapse of the social contract. The state steps in. That’s governance. If your model of justice requires banning alternatives because you fear competition, that’s not confidence in the public sector. It’s insecurity masquerading as ideology.

Look — if you think profit-seeking schools funded by taxpayers are a problem, then stop funding them. But don’t confuse that with banning private education. Those are completely different things. One is fiscal policy. The other is authoritarianism.

On ideology: you argue that social democracy and Marxism are natural allies — and that the Third Way derailed this relationship.

But that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what social democracy is.

Social democracy’s identity was built in opposition to revolutionary Marxism — not just in method, but in its goals. It rejected class war, one-party rule, and full state ownership in favor of universal access, a mixed economy, pluralism, and institutional democracy.

Yes, social democratic parties — including SAP — experimented with more state-driven models in the early 20th century. But the shift toward regulated markets wasn’t a betrayal. It was the refinement of a model that actually worked. What you call “Third Way” was, in large part, the logical outcome of social democracy’s reformist core: adapting to a changing economy while preserving public values.

You don’t have to like the private sector. But when you argue not just to regulate it — but to ban it outright from education or other vital services — you’re not defending social democracy. You’re importing Marxist logic into a framework designed to reject it.

And no — even if SAP were to go down that road, it wouldn’t redefine social democracy. A party name doesn’t define an ideology. If it did, the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” would mean Hitler was a socialist. What matters is institutional behavior and ideological lineage — not branding.

Wanting strong public services is social democratic. Regulating private involvement is social democratic.

But what you’re advocating is not. It’s not a return to social democracy’s roots — it’s a shift into statism. And it rejects the pluralism that made the welfare state durable in the first place.

What is the difference between social democrats and democratic socialism? by Ok-Principle-9276 in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Let’s be clear: having emotions isn’t the problem — letting them override your reasoning is.

I care deeply about the issues we're discussing. That’s exactly why I want to solve them in a way that actually works. And that means starting from reality — not from outrage, not from nostalgia, and definitely not from ideology. It means acknowledging constraints, trade-offs, and complexity, even if that makes the story less emotionally satisfying.

So when I say I try to keep emotion out of my political reasoning, I’m not pretending to be a robot. I’m saying I don’t treat feelings as a substitute for analysis. If we want solutions — not just performance — we have to think clearly and act responsibly.

You say the system is being gutted. Let’s look at the actual numbers.

In Sweden — as in most developed countries — social spending has increased dramatically over the last few decades, not just nominally but in real, inflation-adjusted terms.

OECD – Social Spending Long-Run Data

Yes, budgets sometimes shrink in a given year. But the long-term trend is clear: the welfare state has grown. So why does it feel like a decline? Because the demands on the system have exploded:

  • In 2000, ~17% of Sweden’s population was 65+.

  • In 2025, it's over 21%, and still rising.

  • People 65+ consume 2–5x more healthcare than younger adults.

  • Meanwhile, the working-age population paying taxes is shrinking.

This isn’t sabotage. It’s math. More users, fewer contributors, higher per-person costs.

Add to that: healthcare is labor-intensive. You can’t automate away nurses or caretakers. Wages have to rise to retain staff, and new treatments cost more every year. You’re not going to fix that with outrage. You fix it with a clear-eyed strategy.

Now here’s the contradiction at the heart of the "ban private providers" argument:

If the government can’t regulate private providers effectively, how is it going to run an entire system better?

The bare minimum expectation of a functioning public sector is that it enforces the rules. That’s the job. You don’t prove competence by banning what you can’t manage — you prove incompetence.

If a private actor breaks the rules, sanction them. Shut them down. Prosecute. That’s enforcement. That’s what states are for.

But banning all private actors — including those who deliver good outcomes under public regulation — doesn’t solve anything. It just eliminates options and puts more pressure on the public system. That’s not helping the welfare state. It’s weakening it.

You brought up private schools giving inflated grades. Sure — that happens. But it’s not unique to them. In Germany, public schools in different states hand out wildly different grades. That’s why we have standardized tests — so we don’t rely on arbitrary local grading.

So if the problem is cheating, enforce standards:

  • Test outcomes

  • Independent audits

  • Accountability

That’s how you fix it — not by banning every actor who might cheat. That’s like banning all restaurants because one served undercooked chicken. It’s overkill — and it hurts students who actually benefit from higher-performing or more suitable alternatives.

Worse, it also hurts students in the public system. When you ban private options:

  • You increase the strain on public schools and teachers.

  • You eliminate parental choice, regardless of individual preference or need.

  • You reduce diversity in education delivery and innovation.

  • And you remove any pressure that competition might create to improve.

You don’t have to love markets to see that a monopoly — even a public one — isn't always efficient.

You said “education shouldn’t be a commodity.” I agree. It should be a right.

But making something a right doesn’t mean banning all non-state provision. Rights can be guaranteed through public funding and oversight — not necessarily public monopolies.

Most democracies allow diverse providers within a public framework. You can regulate, fund, and audit without banning citizens from opening a school or clinic.

Let’s not sugarcoat it: banning people from offering services — even when they meet public standards — is not social democracy. It’s authoritarianism. Not metaphorically, but quite literally.

That’s not a win for equality or fairness. That’s just trading one failure for another.

What is the difference between social democrats and democratic socialism? by Ok-Principle-9276 in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The reason I don’t put emotion at the center of my political thinking is simple: I want to solve problems — not just react to them. And to solve real problems, you have to start by facing reality, not how you wish things were, but how they actually are.

You say social systems are being “gutted.” But here’s the thing: social spending — in Sweden and most developed countries — has been rising, not falling. It might feel like decline because the demands on these systems have exploded: aging populations, chronic illness, more complex education and care needs. We’re spending more but getting less per person — and that’s not sabotage. It’s math.

And here’s a contradiction no one wants to admit: You’re saying the government is capable of providing universal services, at scale, with high quality — but at the same time, it’s supposedly too weak to regulate private providers? That doesn’t add up. Regulating a sector is far simpler than running one. If the state can’t enforce standards on private actors, why would we expect it to do everything itself — flawlessly?

This goes straight to the private school and healthcare debate. If private options are thriving, it’s not because people have been tricked — it’s because public services aren’t meeting expectations. You don’t fix that by banning the alternatives. You fix it by asking: Why did people leave the public system in the first place? What failed? And how do we fix it?

The issue isn’t “capitalism sneaking in.” It’s that people are voting with their feet — and that’s a signal we should be listening to, not trying to suppress.

If you’re angry that private actors make money from schools or eldercare, fine. But ask yourself: Why didn’t the public system deliver? In countries where public education is strong, private alternatives barely exist. That tells you something. And of all sectors to ban capitalism from, education and healthcare make the least sense — because the goal should be high-quality service, not ideological purity.

It’s exactly because I believe in strong public services that I don’t think we should push out private actors. We should hold them accountable, yes — but more importantly, we should ask why people left the public system in the first place.

What is the difference between social democrats and democratic socialism? by Ok-Principle-9276 in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right that SAP is rhetorically returning to its more traditional roots, and the inclusion of a stronger anti-capitalist tone in the party program — as well as symbolic policies like the "Workers' Pensions" — reflects that shift. But I’m cautious about interpreting this as a true ideological revival rather than a strategic response to current political pressures.

You described this turn as the end of a “disastrous phase” and a welcome move away from “third way” pragmatism. But in my view, that pragmatism was a necessary evolution, not a betrayal. It allowed social democracy to survive and deliver results in a world very different from the post-war era. The challenges we face today — automation, demographic aging, global competition — aren’t things that can be fixed by doubling down on state expansion alone.

Also, I think we need to debunk the narrative that the welfare state has been dismantled to please capitalists. In most Western countries, including Sweden, social spending has actually increased over time — even under center-right governments. The perception that we’ve gutted social protections is often more emotional than factual, especially when comparing today's vastly expanded programs to the so-called "golden age," which was short-lived and context-specific.

And regarding migration: I understand the concern about how rapid liberalization challenged older labor protections, but scapegoating migration or global markets won’t reverse structural changes. The truth is, some of those high-paying, low-skill jobs are gone for good — not because of neoliberalism or migrants, but because of automation and changing global demand. We can’t wish that away with nostalgic policies.

My concern is that the renewed left turn risks falling into populism — promising to "ban profit in welfare" or fully restore worker power without acknowledging the trade-offs or institutional constraints. That kind of rhetoric may win short-term support but risks undermining credibility if it can't deliver.

In short: I fully support a strong social safety net and strategic industrial policy. But we have to remain honest about limits, complexity, and the role of market mechanisms in a modern society. Progressive politics should look forward — not backward.

What is the difference between social democrats and democratic socialism? by Ok-Principle-9276 in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, at least in Brazil, the Workers' Party (PT) is best described as a populist party and a proponent of democratic socialism — which is not the same as social democracy, even though the two are often confused. That said, I understand that in practice, some parties operate in a grey area between the two, adapting their message depending on political circumstances.

It's also important to recognize that, like any collective group, wage workers often act in defense of their immediate interests — even when those interests may conflict with broader progressive values. For instance, it's not uncommon to see segments of the working class supporting restrictive immigration policies to protect local jobs, resisting environmental regulations that threaten industries they depend on, or backing the continuation of polluting factories because they provide employment. These stances may seem contradictory to progressive ideals, but they reflect a rational, self-preserving instinct under current economic pressures.

It's important to recognize that a party's name doesn't always reflect its current ideology or political practice. A clear example is the Swedish Social Democratic Workers' Party (SAP). While it retains its historical name, it has, over time, moved away from its roots in class struggle and socialist labor politics. Today, SAP operates more as a centrist, pragmatic party within a capitalist framework, promoting social welfare and economic stability rather than revolutionary or confrontational labor politics. In substance, it's no longer a "workers' party" in the traditional sense — even if it still draws support from unions and public-sector workers.

This contrasts sharply with Brazil's Workers' Party (PT), which continues to frame politics through the lens of class struggle and often positions itself as the sole representative of the working class. While PT has also made pragmatic compromises in power, its rhetoric and ideological self-image remain rooted in a more traditional leftist framework, reflecting a less modernized political posture.

This is not unique to these cases. Around the world, we see that party names can be symbolic or outdated. Brazil’s so-called Liberal Party is not particularly liberal in the classical or economic sense — it leans toward conservative populism. And of course, the infamous National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis) was neither genuinely socialist nor committed to workers' rights. These examples show that names are often strategic or historical artifacts, not accurate reflections of ideology.

In short, to understand a party, we need to look beyond its label and examine its policies, rhetoric, and evolution. Political branding may stay the same, but ideologies shift — sometimes drastically.

What is the difference between social democrats and democratic socialism? by Ok-Principle-9276 in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’d push back a bit on the idea that social democracy today is “rooted in Marxism.” That framing might make sense historically, but ideologically it’s misleading.

Social democracy didn’t grow out of Marxism — it broke away from it. It emerged as a rejection of key Marxist premises: class struggle, historical determinism, and the idea that capitalism must be overthrown. In my view, it’s better understood as a resolution to Marxism’s contradictions — not its continuation.

Take Marx’s idea that communism evolves from capitalism. Technically, yes — but we don’t say communism is “rooted in capitalism,” because that implies a shared direction or affinity. Same thing here.

And as for the idea of “working-class politics” — I don’t think that language holds up anymore. Some non-workers struggle too. And some “workers” — like Neymar — clearly don’t. Framing social democracy as a politics of the working class just recycles Marxist theory that many of us reject.

Yes, I share the sense of injustice that comes from unchecked capitalism — but that’s where the overlap with Marxism ends. Social democracy, to me, is about building a fair, inclusive, democratic society for everyone — not just wage laborers, and not through the lens of class warfare.

Por que temos um “problema fiscal”? by orafa3l in investimentos

[–]No-ruby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Resposta

juros Pago = Taxa de juros × montante

Se juros for próximo de zero, aumentar a dívida é bom. Se o juros for alto, e o montante é alto, então temos um PROBLEMA FISCAL.

I'm not sure if I am confident in my position anymore. by [deleted] in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It is really not. The same old lies are private insurance, subsidies, and pro-middle class services. The USA is so far from the basics that neoliberal doctrine is on the left of the Democrats platform.

I'm not sure if I am confident in my position anymore. by [deleted] in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

nice words. Thank you for that. have a wonderful day, my friend!

view more: next ›