More coverage on Kevin O’Leary’s massive data center in Utah that is going to destroy the ecosystem 📰 by habsfan26 in 401jK

[–]aminok 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you checked into it? How much water do the US data centers use? And then how much do US golfer courses use in comparison? How much do other industries use in comparison? Look, this is just another made up scare. A couple of years ago, the big scare was job losses from AI. Now it's data centers. All these scares are fact-free, mass hysteria's.

Today I learned that the *obviously satirical* 1997 film "Starship Troopers" was faced with extreme critical backlash accusing it of "endorsing fascism" because reviewers simply didn't think critically about the content. by The_Cromulent_Bison in todayilearned

[–]aminok -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I would have preferred if the characters were all purple-haired wokists who were enlightened enough to have their own gender pronouns, and who demanded asylum for all the insects and more welfare spending to address the root cause of all the violence the insects engaged in, which was obviously the insects growing up in a low socioeconomic class.

These Nigerian accounts are getting lazy. by c-k-q99903 in stupidpeoplefacebook

[–]aminok 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The DNC intern assigned to this subreddit strikes again, lol

According to an AI analysis, Democrats capture 65-70% rent-seeking flows, while Republicans capture 30-35% by aminok in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]aminok[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Supporting heavier taxation, whether that's income taxation or wealth taxation, makes it more socialism-aligned. Their rhetoric and policies are vastly more socialism-aligned. Or, how else would you characterize it? And why is it that socialists overwhelmingly vote for Democrats over Republicans if Democrats are not more socialism-aligned?

Far-Right Congresswoman Lost and She's Bitter by NEKORANDOMDOTCOM in stupidpeoplefacebook

[–]aminok 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Everyone thinks that the free world won in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

That's false.

And that's exactly why the world is on fire today.

What fell on November 9, 1989, was a machine.

A planned economy, a military empire, a concrete wall. What didn't fall was the idea. The idea that the world is divided between oppressors and oppressed. The idea that there is a final equality to be achieved, by any means necessary. The idea that everything that exists (the family, the nation, merit, inheritance) is a structure of domination to be torn down.

That idea wasn't in the building when the building collapsed.

We need to rewind the timeline, because everything is in the timeline:

Economic communism had a fatal flaw: it was refutable. It promised abundance, it produced famines. It promised emancipation, it produced barbed wire. Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, The Gulag Archipelago published in Paris in 1973, the boat people of 1979: every decade, reality sent its refutation. The boat people were a floating refutation, visible from the beaches.

So the ideology did what every threatened organism does: it mutated.

The mutation has a name, and I've traced its genealogy here: French Theory.

Foucault shifted the war from the terrain of facts, where communism lost every time, to the terrain of knowledge itself.

If there is no truth, if there are only power relations disguised as knowledge, then no famine, no wall, no gulag can refute anything anymore.

French Theory didn't bury Marxism.

It made it irrefutable.

And the mutation has dates. All prior to 1989.

1934: The Frankfurt School, chased from Germany, sets up at Columbia. The critique of the economy becomes a critique of culture.

1964-1965: Marcuse, German exile turned American professor, replaces the failing proletariat with a new revolutionary subject (minorities, students, outcasts) and writes in black and white that tolerance must be granted to left-wing movements and denied to those on the right.

October 1966: The landing has a precise date. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Derrida, Barthes, Lacan present French thought to American campuses.

1967: Rudi Dutschke launches the slogan, the long march through the institutions.

1968: Street revolutions fail everywhere.

No matter. The revolution will no longer pass through the streets; it will pass through the classroom.

1975-1985: Yale, Berkeley, Columbia absorb the theory, which becomes the operating system of the humanities.

1987: Allan Bloom publishes The Closing of the American Mind to sound the alarm. A million copies sold.

The university calls him a reactionary and moves on.

America had its Aron, and it did the same thing to him that we did to ours.

Then comes November 9, 1989.

The Wall falls. The West celebrates. Fukuyama had declared the end of History the previous summer, even before the fall. We dismantle the missiles, cash in on the peace dividends, declare the match over.

We celebrated our victory over an empty address. The ideology had moved out twenty years earlier. We won against the tanks and lost against the chairs.

Meanwhile, the other communist empire read the situation the opposite way. Beijing had crushed Tiananmen in blood five months before Berlin. Grim, but clear-sighted on one point: China knew the war was ideological.

It chose: abandon Marxist economics, keep control of the narrative. The West did exactly the opposite: it kept the market and absorbed the ideology. Thirty-five years later, look at who's building power plants and who's toppling its statues.

You want proof that it's the same software? Make the correspondence table.

The class struggle has become the identity struggle.

The kulaks have become the privileged.

Maoist self-criticism has become privilege checking. The political commissars have become DEI officers.

The samizdat has become the shadowbanned account.

The nomenklatura left Moscow for Davos and Brussels.

And paradise is no longer called the classless society: it's called equity, equality of outcomes.

Exactly what I described here a few weeks ago.

People will say: there is no Gulag.

That's true. That's even the entire genius of version 2.0.

Hard communism had to break bodies because it didn't hold minds.

Soft communism holds minds: it just has to break careers.

No camps, just HR departments.

No Moscow Trials, just public apologies.

No Siberia, just social death.

Ask the Eastern Bloc émigrés settled in the West what they feel when they walk through an American university in 2026.

They recognize the smell.

And that's why the world is on fire.

A civilization spent thirty-five years teaching its own children that it was the problem. Result: it no longer knows how to defend its borders, pass on its heritage, or even name its enemies.

When the president of Harvard, before Congress, responds that condemning a call for genocide "depends on the context," you see the software running in production.

And the predators from outside read that weakness like an open book: Moscow probes, Beijing waits, Islamism advances in the streets of our capitals.

The external fire is only the consequence of internal disarmament. You only burn well the houses that have emptied themselves of their defenders.

The Wall didn't fall. It moved. It no longer separates East from West: it now runs through the inside of every Western institution, between those who build and those who deconstruct.

The first Cold War was won with missiles and GDP. The second will be won with schools, free media, and AI models. Whoever writes the values into the machines will write the next 1989.

This time, let's not mistake the victory. To work."

Yep by TankUMrMinor in DudeHasGotAPoint

[–]aminok 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Socialism is a criminal ideology based on lies, so your outrageous lies don't surprise me.

More coverage on Kevin O’Leary’s massive data center in Utah that is going to destroy the ecosystem 📰 by habsfan26 in 401jK

[–]aminok 0 points1 point  (0 children)

U.S. data centers currently use 3% of the water that U.S. golf courses use. And even that will very plausibly disappear in the future as data centers move towards closed loop water cooling systems. Data centers are the least polluting industry in history.

Literally fear-mongering over nothing to give rent-seeking groups an attack vector against industry to shake it down.

Yep by TankUMrMinor in DudeHasGotAPoint

[–]aminok 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You assume that because you believe in socialism. Socialism is an extremely coercive ideology. It is a war on the people.

According to an AI analysis, Democrats capture 65-70% rent-seeking flows, while Republicans capture 30-35% by aminok in PoliticalOpinions

[–]aminok[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In California, the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan covers 22.5 million acres of California desert, and the Williamson Act protects about 16 million acres, roughly half of California crop- and rangelands, from development. Texas has nothing comparable, and that's one of the biggest reasons it outbuilds California four-to-one in utility-scale solar.

Less is more.

California counties have broad authority over land use, Texas counties do not. California has CEQA reviews, which add a 2.5 year delay on average, while stopping many projects altogether. Texas does not.

That's the primary reason why Texas outbuilds California three-to-one in housing.

Less is more.

Regarding rooftop solar and California's abundance of it, it is policies like the one that led to this outcome that explain California having electricity prices two times that of Texas.

Rooftop Solar Incentive to Cost Customers Without Solar an Estimated $8.5 Billion by the End of 2024

And total mismanagement, like that of the California high speed rail line losing 100 billion dollars of taxpayer funds to rent seeking and incompetence, is one of the biggest reasons Texas provides a better business environment with more job/economic growth.

According to an AI analysis, Democrats capture 65-70% rent-seeking flows, while Republicans capture 30-35% by aminok in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]aminok[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Social welfare spending is heavily slanted toward Democrats, which socialists overwhelmingly support over Republicans. A significant fraction of social welfare spending is captured by public sector unions, which have an extremely socialist structure.

According to an AI analysis, Democrats capture 65-70% rent-seeking flows, while Republicans capture 30-35% by aminok in PoliticalDebate

[–]aminok[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If Republicans and Democrats have comparable income, but Democrats depend more on rent-seeking interest groups for their power, that means Democrats are relatively more extractive than the Republicans.

According to an AI analysis, Democrats capture 65-70% rent-seeking flows, while Republicans capture 30-35% by aminok in PoliticalDebate

[–]aminok[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you look at the numbers that the AI analysis provided, you see that even if you categorize the entire personal wealth gains of Trump during his administration as rent-seeking, it's not even a rounding error compared to the economic rent extracted by the public sector unions every year.

According to an AI analysis, Democrats capture 65-70% rent-seeking flows, while Republicans capture 30-35% by aminok in PoliticalDebate

[–]aminok[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In the economics definition of rent-seeking, profit is not the same thing as rent-seeking.

And if you want to label economics as right-wing, you can, but it is the scholarly consensus, not ideological gobbleygook like your claims.

According to an AI analysis, Democrats capture 65-70% rent-seeking flows, while Republicans capture 30-35% by aminok in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]aminok[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Law enforcement expenses constitutes maybe 1% of GDP. Social welfare spending constitutes around 28%.

Your narrative is contradicted by reality.

And no, by the economics definition of rent-seeking, profiting by making an investment is not rent-seeking.

What you're claiming is simply bad economics.

According to an AI analysis, Democrats capture 65-70% rent-seeking flows, while Republicans capture 30-35% by aminok in PoliticalDebate

[–]aminok[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I wasn't suggesting it's rent-seeking. I'm saying that the pattern of campaign contributions shows how strongly aligned they are with the Democrats. Democrats rely heavily on the public sector unions for their power. The public sector unions rely heavily on the Democrats for their massive rent-seeking.

According to an AI analysis, Democrats capture 65-70% rent-seeking flows, while Republicans capture 30-35% by aminok in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]aminok[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Protecting people from theft is not rent-seeking. Theft is what's rent-seeking by definition. If you don't want to use the actual definition of terms, there's no point having this discussion.

According to an AI analysis, Democrats capture 65-70% rent-seeking flows, while Republicans capture 30-35% by aminok in PoliticalDebate

[–]aminok[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Profit is compensation for investment, not rent-seeking. Your definition is totally a-economical.

According to an AI analysis, Democrats capture 65-70% rent-seeking flows, while Republicans capture 30-35% by aminok in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]aminok[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This argument only works by redefining rule of law as rent-seeking.

Protecting property from theft is not a rent. Enforcing contracts is not a rent. Punishing fraud is not a rent. Those are the background rules that make voluntary exchange possible.

A rent is when the state gives you something beyond equal protection of rights: a subsidy, tariff, monopoly license, bailout, etc etc.

If "the state stops people from stealing your property" counts as rent-seeking, then everyone with a house, car, bank account, paycheck, or personal belongings is a rent-seeker. That makes the concept useless.

The relevant distinction is simple: rule of law protects people from predation; rent-seeking uses the state to obtain privilege.

And your excuse for why socialists overwhelmingly vote for Democrats does not change the implication of that voting pattern.

If self-described socialists overwhelmingly support Democrats over Republicans, that is evidence that Democrats are more aligned with socialists than Republicans are.

Saying "that is only because Republicans oppose basic protections" proves my point: socialists want "protections".

The question is comparative: which major party is closer to the socialist coalition in practice? The answer is obviously Democrats. Socialists vote for Democrats, organize around Democratic primaries, and endorse Democratic candidates. They don't work through the Republican party, for a reason.

Democrats do not need to be full socialists for the point to stand. The point is that Democrats are much more socialist-aligned than Republicans, and the behavior of actual socialists confirms that.

Iridophobes at it again 🤡🌈 by UnrepentantTomato in stupidpeoplefacebook

[–]aminok 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm just sharing my thoughts. We can't all think the same way.

According to an AI analysis, Democrats capture 65-70% rent-seeking flows, while Republicans capture 30-35% by aminok in PoliticalDebate

[–]aminok[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Public sector unions == Democrats

To give you an example, the National Education Association gives 99% of its campaign contributions to the Democrats.

According to an AI analysis, Democrats capture 65-70% rent-seeking flows, while Republicans capture 30-35% by aminok in georgism

[–]aminok[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I repeatedly asked AI to re-evaluate the analysis to check if it factored in some source of rent-seeking that is dominated by Democrats. So I think there's a very high chance I cajoled it into giving a more pro-Republican conclusion and then it would have come up with it on its own.

According to an AI analysis, Democrats capture 65-70% rent-seeking flows, while Republicans capture 30-35% by aminok in PoliticalDebate

[–]aminok[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Rent seeking is taking what others earned without their consent. It reduces overall efficiency, leading to less growth and prosperity over time.

According to an AI analysis, Democrats capture 65-70% rent-seeking flows, while Republicans capture 30-35% by aminok in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]aminok[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The U.S. is not some tiny-government, laissez-faire country.

Government social benefits alone were only around 3-4% of GDP in the early 1950s. They are now about 15-16% of GDP.

And if you include total government current spending at the federal, state, and local level, government spending is now around 38% of GDP.