Leftist fascism is called fascism, because the term leftist doesn’t actually mean anything but fascism and communism do.

It isn’t the city getting wealthier, it’s the capital owners. This is one of many mechanisms by which they absorb all wealth increases.

Put those monkeys underwater and you might conclude that drowning is in their nature. I know of the studies you’re referencing regarding monkeys being taught to use money and I’m aware that they were done with monkeys in captivity. In the same vein, the debunked study about “alpha” wolves was done on wolves in captivity and observations of wolves in their natural environment countered the study’s findings. Our actions are a result of the context and material conditions that we are in.

People dominate others for personal gain because they live in a system that rewards them for doing so. Place those people in a system that rewards them for helping others and the very same selfish impulse will make them saints. The “tragedy of the commons” is enlightenment era defeatist bullshit. The commons existed and were managed by people for thousands of years before capitalists enclosed them and dared to claim that it was the inevitable result of human nature.

If that’s something they need then that’s something they should get. No one will be happy doing nothing forever, in that year they will likely find something that makes them happy, especially if opportunities are made available to them.

These kinds of movements are a consequence of over-exploitation. The “lie down” movement - also “let it rot” - is similar to the “quiet quitting” movement in the US. People will not be motivated to contribute when they are struggling and do not see any benefit to trying harder. If these people were fairly compensated for their labor and had greater autonomy over how to contribute they would not lose motivation. Alienation from the result of their labor is also a huge contributor; feeling rewarded for your work can be as simple as seeing the result (a teacher seeing their students find their passions, for example).

Communism envisions a society where there are no haves and have nots (classless) and socialism is put forward as the economic system that will get us there eventually. There are criticisms to be made about the method but the vision is good.

Capitalism does what you’re doing here, snarkily talk down to anyone who dares suggest such a society might be possible and is worth working towards, and puts forward instead that there must be haves taking advantage of have nots for society to function and that no other way is possible.

Our electoral system has a lot of problems. You’re still wrong about Trump’s 20 point lead.

Sovcits are almost certainly under studied, but if I took enough time I’m sure I could find some research showing that less educated people are more likely to fall for scams.

Be right back…

Edit: Here you go

Yes, we’re both making claims and using anecdotes to support them and it seems neither of us will move from our positions without stronger evidence. Your claim that most sovcits are either wealthy or educated seems absurd to me, so in a data-poor environment I’m sticking with the simpler of the two options. I’m open to changing my mind, but not with only anecdotes. If you could make a logical case for why sovcits would be mostly educated or wealthy then that could be enough, given neither of us have hard data to give.

The majority of sovcits aren’t getting into shootouts with police, those are extreme examples. Most of them are just people trying to get out of paying debt.

Examples are anecdotes.

Just because you can find examples of educated people falling for grifts doesn’t mean most people who fall for grifts are educated. Frankly, it’s absurd and completely counterintuitive. You would have to show me some hard data to prove that correlation.

Those are just the most visible people due to their wealth and influence. For every rich sovcit there are probably a thousand in abject poverty. They live in rural areas, usually in mobile homes, and fly Gadsden flags. I’ve known several. Try working for an ISP as an installer or repairman and some might even take a few shots at you.

The focus this community has on sovcits strikes me as mean-spirited and cruel. These are mostly poorly educated or mentally handicapped people with major financial issues who are being scammed by people offering false solutions to their problems.

Millions of people are saddled with bills they can’t pay and an uncaring and complicated bureaucracy they struggle to navigate because of poor education, then they find a community of people claiming to have the solution to all of their problems. It doesn’t have to work, they just have to believe it does and they will rationalize away any sign that it doesn’t. The sovcit community gives them a feeling of autonomy and control they will not easily part with.

historically humans aren’t usually burning down libraries on purpose.

How on earth have you come to this conclusion.

The corporations that took control of the Internet don’t want us to remember.

It’s because this isn’t about privacy at all, it’s about a popular social media platform being outside the control of domestic intelligence agencies. The US is unable to control the narrative on TikTok the way they do on American social media, which allowed pro-palestinian sentiment to spread there unhindered. It had a huge effect on the politics of the younger generation (IMO a positive one) by showing them news and first hand accounts they wouldn’t have seen otherwise.

Edit: And yes, China is able to control the narrative on TikTok and that is a potential problem, but so far they’ve had a fairly hands-off approach to US TikTok aside from basic language censorship. I figure the way China sees it is that an unmoderated free-for-all will do more to sow divisions in the US than a carefully controlled (and therefore obvious) pro-China narrative ever could.

I would think that those types are better suited to research or other medical professions that don’t interact with patients like imaging or something.

Oops, wrong arachnid. You are indeed correct.