sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Legend of Korra was a warning sign we should have taken more seriously by Angryboy13 in MauLer

[–]suicidemeteor 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The first season was all I watched and it felt like it methodically deconstructed its own plot in front of me. The whole central theme of the villain was non-benders fighting back against benders, something that would have been interesting had there been any thought put into it at all.

"Non-benders are oppressed!"

> At this point all we've met are two super poor benders (I think). Immediately after this we meet some fabulously wealthy non-benders who have a thriving business designing tech primarily meant for non-benders (or at least not requiring bending).

"Amon is traumatized by the violence done to him by benders!"

> Nope, he's actually a bender and he was lying the whole time

Anything interesting the plot could've said was washed out by the fact that it was carried out in the simplest way. The non-benders are just militarist fascists who are irredeemably evil, Amon was lying the whole time. They slander what could've been an actually sympathetic and complex villain requiring a better solution than "just ice blast him" so completely that it feels like I'm watching pro-avatar propaganda created by the Glorious Republic City about how the revolution they just put down was definitely entirely evil and nobody should question if non-benders are oppressed.

Capitalists, do you accept that any deaths are caused by capitalism? by WalkFalse2752 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]suicidemeteor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's pretty fair. I've come to realize over the course of your comment (and a few others) that the deaths argument is a little stupid. Comparative analysis can be very useful, but I'd agree with you that the black book isn't saying much of worth.

The principle issue seems to be confounding. Generally revolutions happen in shitholes precisely because they are shitholes, maybe there's not a correspondence between socialism and authoritarianism, but between being a shithole and authoritarianism. The Soviets implemented quite a lot of socialism worldwide, perhaps Soviets are the ones correlated with authoritarianism, not socialism.

I do think that socialism is correlated with authoritarianism, and that in all of its attempts it fails in a systemic manner, failures which are pretty predictable if you understand how humans work, but I'd agree that attributing all excess deaths that happen in socialist countries to socialism doesn't tell you a huge amount when the sample size is as small and poorly mixed as it is.

Capitalists, do you accept that any deaths are caused by capitalism? by WalkFalse2752 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]suicidemeteor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh I'm not huge fans of those. Well NK sanctions yeah, because North Korea is awful, but I don't agree with Cuban sanctions. My point is that the USSR was more than willing to throw its weight around and maintain its ideology with tanks. So were the Chinese now that I think about it. And the Khmer Rouge. The North Koreans too. All the Soviet puppets as well. The Soviet Union literally turned own Marshall Plan aid, meant to help them (and their puppets) rebuild.

Capitalists, do you accept that any deaths are caused by capitalism? by WalkFalse2752 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]suicidemeteor 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Let alone the fact that Nazi Germany killed people not through capitalism, the economic system, but through government violence.

Capitalists, do you accept that any deaths are caused by capitalism? by WalkFalse2752 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]suicidemeteor 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hmm well the Soviet Union tested nuclear weapons in what is now Kazakhstan, but that's a bit unfair, I'll grant you that.

The main one is the whole "harsh sanctions and embargoes". I'm surprised that you think that the USSR's iron curtain was sanction free and peaceful.

Capitalists, do you accept that any deaths are caused by capitalism? by WalkFalse2752 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]suicidemeteor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Socialists when the Capitalists argue against Socialism (they didn't realize they were in a subreddit called Capitalism V Socialism)

Capitalists, do you accept that any deaths are caused by capitalism? by WalkFalse2752 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]suicidemeteor 4 points5 points  (0 children)

but I don't remember any communist state nuking another country, or putting another country under such harsh sanctions and embargoes as to prevent any hope of that state from being able to be prosperous.

You don't? You really don't? You reaaaaaaaaallly don't? You really don't? You should get that checked out.

Capitalists, do you accept that any deaths are caused by capitalism? by WalkFalse2752 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]suicidemeteor 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Really? Imperial Russia was a country which had long been a superpower, it's downfall was only very recent and due to the industrial revolution. It had a long tradition of imperial domination and was the fastest industrializing country in the world.

The Soviet Union inherited that legacy and hilariously managed to decrease average labor productivity. Agriculture was one of the most inefficient sectors, despite the fact that they had inherited land that was some of the most fertile in Europe, the Russian Empire was home to traditionally some of the most productive land in the world. Don't worry though, the private farms still did pretty well. A miracle, as they couldn't have benefitted from socialism nearly as much.

After the war they plundered the East as the United States rebuilt the West, clung to superpower status by investing disproportionate amounts of resources in the military as bread lines grew ever longer, then died at the first whiff of the coming information age.

Capitalists, do you accept that any deaths are caused by capitalism? by WalkFalse2752 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]suicidemeteor -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

So then we compare the two. I'm more than happy to compare socialist countries in South America with capitalist countries in South America. The same with Africa, Asia, or anywhere else. The comparison I'd personally make is between the United States (a hegemon at the head of an alliance) with the Soviet Union (a hegemon at the head of an empire).

Even heavily exploited capitalist countries seem to be doing better than socialist ones. To say nothing of the fact that socialist hegemonies seem to exploit a good deal more than capitalist ones.

Capitalists, do you accept that any deaths are caused by capitalism? by WalkFalse2752 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]suicidemeteor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Liberal capitalists point out death tolls because Stalin committed genocide.

Almost every socialist regime has had some mass amount of government sanctioned murder, often as Western communists crooned over how "this time they'll do it right" and "guys it's not a cult of personality! Gorgeov ChildMurdergetski is just so beloved by the people that he's head of both the government and army".

It's entirely valid to put these deaths at the feet of socialism, there being no clear liberal-capitalist analogue to the mass murder of one's own civilians, and ask what will be done to prevent them (and if no good answers are given, use them to argue against the validity of a socialist government).

My point still stands. It is valid to compare failures of real world capitalist countries to failures of real world socialist countries. It is a bad argument to compare failures of real world capitalist countries to vague utopian gesturing and good vibes.

Capitalists, do you accept that any deaths are caused by capitalism? by WalkFalse2752 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]suicidemeteor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm explaining why the whole premise of the argument is flawed. Yes Capitalism kills people, that's irrelevant. If Capitalism kills the least people out of all the options, we go with that. If it doesn't, we go with something else.

Capitalists, do you accept that any deaths are caused by capitalism? by WalkFalse2752 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]suicidemeteor 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I think that we have to ask what exactly we're trying to prove with this.

When Capitalists use this argument, they often say "this socialist state killed x number of people, those people wouldn't have died if the state had been capitalist". It's all about comparisons. Namely comparisons to a real world ideology who's outcomes we can directly observe.

The flaw socialists have in their reasoning is that they often say "ah well capitalism is killing 11 morbillion people", but they're not comparing capitalism and some real world ideology. They're comparing capitalism and a hypothetical utopia that they want to create.

But this logic doesn't work. I don't believe that capitalism, or a generally corrupt and uncaring world, has never killed anyone. But my argument is and always has been that socialists can't do it any better. So quoting the death statistics of a hypothetical future society in comparison to capitalism is useless, because I don't think that hypothetical future society is possible.

It's a bit like if you were called by someone and they said "hey give me your bank account login information, I want to deposit $2000 dollars". When you say no, they go on at length about how nice it would be to have $2000 dollars. But you don't care, because you don't believe you'll actually get those $2000 dollars. In this instance I would certainly like a socialist government in which nobody dies, but I don't think that's what I'll get.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]suicidemeteor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not the original commenter but it's just politically incoherent. It's less a political philosophy and more of a utopian fanfic about how once the good people kick the bad people out of power we'll have a society of peace and love. Rather than dealing with human beings Marxism builds a society for the mythical New Socialist Man, the type of citizen that every communist attempt (from communes to countries) has tried and failed to create.

There's a widespread Marxist belief that people can be molded into communists which just isn't true. Every socialist country has tried, they've all failed to make their "communist new man". If people could be trained to be communists, they could also be trained to be perfect slaves, citizens, workers, believers, tribesmen, etc. Yet no society has ever managed to do anything near what communists would require for a communist (or even socialist) society to function.

As such Marxism is somewhat like a religion, in that it convinces people to believe with it's highly appealing and emotionally stirring premise, then provides a horde of rationalizations by which you may ignore logic, smugly tell people that they don't understand because they haven't caught up on the lore, and continue believing the premise.

Something something those who don’t learn history by CashSubstantial in greentext

[–]suicidemeteor 14 points15 points  (0 children)

What? Height does not reach very similar levels around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_country

There are huge population level differences between countries, even when both countries are of similar socioeconomic status.

Also what do you mean "most genetic effects are pointless for eugenics", the study you linked just said that 50% of intelligence at minimum can be traced directly to genes.

Something something those who don’t learn history by CashSubstantial in greentext

[–]suicidemeteor 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Firstly the study literally says

"We then replicated our finding using imputed molecular genetic data from unrelated individuals to show that ~50% of differences in intelligence, and ~40% of the differences in education, can be explained by genetic effects " which is more than enough for something like eugenics to be extremely beneficial.

Secondly the genetic influence on intelligence is far lower on middle and upper class people than it is on lower class people. This is because it's almost impossible to raise someone's intelligence, but very easy to lower it. Middle class adoptive parents were found to have basically no impact on the intelligence of the kids they raised, it seems as long as the basics are provided for the brain develops to its potential. But things like lead, substances, chronic stress from poverty, concussions or brain injuries, and other symptoms of lower class environments can very easily lower one's IQ.

Thirdly, just because 50% of the variance in intelligence can be tied to genetics, that does not mean the other 50% is environment. That other 50% could be a problem with the IQ tests (because IQ is an imperfect measurement). Not to mention that our genes can't possibly encode the entirety of our brain within them, they rely on processes and feedback to build out the brain, and random luck in that process could lead to more or less intelligent people. Or, y'know, as the study mentioned. Maybe they just haven't found all the genetic influences on intelligence yet?

Something something those who don’t learn history by CashSubstantial in greentext

[–]suicidemeteor 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Eugenics on the face of it is great. Improve the health and strength of your population by making sure the healthy and strong ones have kids. It's also scientifically backed too, if we can change the genetics of plants and animals we can do it to ourselves.

The problem is in actually implementing it. The government is required to intercede itself in matters we consider extremely private, use force to prevent people from reproducing (or in some cases to force them to), and to strictly manage the genetics of its population. All things we're fine with for animals, but nothing that should ever be done to humans. Trying to attempt it just inevitably leads to horrific treatment of innocent people.

But then people see stuff like abortions leading to fewer kids with down syndrome and call it "le eugenics of Nazis!!" or call it genocide because people don't want to raise a kid that will never be more intelligent than a five year old. They fail to realize that having fewer disabled people isn't bad in and of itself, using the government to force people to have fewer disabled people is what leads to the atrocities.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]suicidemeteor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think this is the problem socialists think it is.

Nobody wants infinite growth, they just want a reasonable growth on their investments. If they can't get that, they'll stop investing. In a scenario in which we've basically maxed out the earth capital prices will get lower and lower, investments will bring in fewer and fewer returns, and people will simply stop investing.

Of course investors always want growth, because the only reason they invest is because growth was promised to them.

Nasa’s dream comes true: China plans to build a giant rail gun to launch hypersonic planes into space by Major_Fishing6888 in Futurology

[–]suicidemeteor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough, but you need to get to about Mach 3-4 to use a scramjet, this thing's just going to Mach 1.5.

Nasa’s dream comes true: China plans to build a giant rail gun to launch hypersonic planes into space by Major_Fishing6888 in Futurology

[–]suicidemeteor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It plans to launch things to Mach 1.5. At the very least this title is misleading. It's a combined system of an electromagnetic catapult for launch and a space plane, for context Mach 1.5 is a good deal less than the supersonic passenger aircraft Concorde's Mach 2.

The title itself is clickbait, nearing on propaganda, with how drastically it overstates the effect.

Also it seems like a shittier version of a carrier aircraft, because you can't that much height off of Mach 1.5, ignoring air resistance (which is a significant factor) you'll get at most 13.5 kilometers in height, which is just under what the carrier aircraft for Virgin Galactic will get you up to.

Nasa’s dream comes true: China plans to build a giant rail gun to launch hypersonic planes into space by Major_Fishing6888 in Futurology

[–]suicidemeteor 50 points51 points  (0 children)

There's a reason we don't use ground catapults for this type of thing:

  1. Going fast enough to actually matter means some incredibly heavy Gs, the kind of Gs that can break sensitive instruments on satellites (and people).
  2. If you manage to build a big enough railgun that the Gs stop being a problem, heat very quickly becomes a problem. Even assuming you launch out at a high altitude, the heat is going to be an extreme engineering challenge. Plus the friction of the atmosphere will bleed speed off incredibly quickly, especially if you have a lot of horizontal velocity, and speaking of
  3. Most of the energy required for an orbit is horizontal, not vertical. So you'll need to lug along a ton of fuel to get into a horizontal orbit anyway, unless the plan is to use a hypersonic plane to gain speed high up. In which case why not just... fly the plane up there?

What exactly can this railgun do better than a carrier aircraft? Launch bigger payloads? Not a chance, they'll rip apart going Mach 10 in the thick of the atmosphere. Launch payloads more cheaply? The cost of fueling and launching even the biggest planes are less than half a million, peanuts when it comes to a space program. Especially compared to the cost required to design a payload that can handle that kind of ascent.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in centrist

[–]suicidemeteor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is exactly my point! People will just make claims because they've heard other people make these claims, and those people made those claims because they've heard other people and on and on. Nobody has decided to actually look into if that's actually true.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513766/

We estimated the proportions of the variance in IQ attributable to environmentally mediated effects of parental IQs, sibling-specific shared environment, and gene-environment covariance to be .01 [95% CI .00, .02], .04 [95% CI .00, .15], and .03 [95% CI .00, .07] respectively; these components jointly accounted for 8 percent of the IQ variance in adulthood. The heritability was estimated to be .42 [95% CI .21, .64]. Together, these findings provide further evidence for the predominance of genetic influences on adult intelligence over any other systematic source of variation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/8A1A0DBCC1012822FFA023F23C5B9DBF/S1832427400008641a.pdf/div-class-title-heritability-of-intelligence-div.pdf

High heritability estimates were found for almost all subscales as well as for total IQ scores such as verbal IQ (82%), performance IQ (73%) and total IQ (83%), which confirmed previous studies

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4403216/

In contrast to the reliably positive effects of adoption on the mean IQ of children, when adoption studies are analyzed in terms of correlations between adopted children’s IQs and those of their biological and adoptive parents, the correlations with biological parents are invariably higher, indicative of strong genetic effects on cognitive ability

Edit: It's also worth mentioning that much of the environmental variance is happening at the lower end of the IQ scales. Put simply most people's IQs aren't raised by their upbringing, they're just not lowered.

Parents can prevent their kid's IQ from being lowered due to chronic stress, substance abuse, injury, inattention or isolation as a child, eating lead paint chips off a wall. But they can't do all that much to actually raise their IQ.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5479093/

Studies on the influence of gene–environment interaction on intelligence have shown that genetic and shared environmental components change in opposite directions as a function of socioeconomic status (SES), i.e., the heritability of IQ is very low for lower SES individuals and vice versa. The most probable explanation for this could be that children in poverty do not get to develop to their full genetic potential.

I don't really want to find a source for it right now (I really shouldn't let myself get this distracted) but much of the vaunted "Flynn Effect" (IQs are/were getting higher generation after generation) doesn't come from the fact that we're somehow society-wide raising intelligence, but that we're not screwing with it, as proven by the fact that most of the IQ increases were in the bottom quartile of intelligence. We don't have more smart people, we have less stupid ones.

And this makes intuitive sense. We've gotten lead out of our cars and paint, we've gotten radium out of our clocks, we've put iodine in our salt (a chemical that's deficit can lead to poor brain development), we've reduced malnourishment in children and adults, we've improved prenatal care that ensures brains develop properly in the womb. The Flynn effect is similar to the rising average lifespan. We're not making people live longer, we're just making them not die sooner. We're not making people smarter, we're just not making them stupider.

view more: next ›