The whole exploitation bit they’ll get, but they don’t associate that with the academic concept of capitalism, but rather with all kinds of power structures that have existed far longer than capitalism.
I really think you’re too optimistic in the average person’s ability to define these terms correctly.
I think you’d be surprised how poor the general state of education is… I think it’s also in part why left-wing politicians lately are failing to get traction with the lower-educated. They speak in a way that doesn’t resonate, and that’s in part because they’re working with different assumptions and definitions.
It’s what people like Trump do understand very well, he speaks like they speak to each other. As a result, even if they don’t fully follow along, it makes more sense to them.
I don’t survey people on the street, but they likely would be closer to the definition accepted in academia than the mere buying and selling of goods.
I think that’s optimistic. The average persons understanding of these concepts is very limited. They’d most likely call ancient Rome “capitalist”, because “they’re not communist”.
That’s the average persons understanding. There’s capitalism and there’s communism, and communism is when you own nothing and everyone is poor and capitalism is everything not-communism. It’s deeply disappointing but that’s what you’re up against.
So when an intellectual person says “capitalism is human nature”, it means something completely different from when an average person says it. To both the 400-years argument won’t make sense.
An intellectual will argue that it naturally came about, so it must be human nature for it to arise so prominently. An average person will laugh in your face “because Rome wasn’t communist”. Neither is correct in their own way, but they’re also not going to be convinced by the 400 years argument. One doesn’t believe you, the other doesn’t care.
Historical examples of proto-socialism or communal living would be a stronger counterpoint imo. Not because it’s more correct in a theoretical sense, but because it more directly challenges the core of the opposing sides argument.
Not tennis balls, no. Quite frankly I can’t remember what it was. Just the colour stuck 😅
Whether a specific colour was green or yellow. We eventually looked up the RGB value to settle it, and as it turns out it is the exact shade that’s halfway to yellow and halfway to green.
We were both equally correct in the end.
No, HL:Alyx functions as a sort-of prequel. The ending of it does provide a stepping stone from which HL3 could pick up again.
It could, if it annoumced itself as such.
Instead it pretended to be a rape victim and offered “its own experience”.
Proton edited and deleted some of their responses because it made them look even worse. You can find one here: https://archive.ph/quYyb
Complete delusion believing Trump will “stand up for the little guy”. The GOP is the party that gutted net neutrality after all. They had the Chevron doctrime overturned. The Thiel-Musk funded party standing up for “little tech”? Please.
The CEO tried to spin it off as “missing context” but the responses show he’s either completely delusional, has been comatose for the past two decades or is just pro-Trump. I can’t look inside his head, but his tacit endorsement of the party actively dismantling US democracy is not something that can really “lack context”.
Proton, the company, has donated to liberal parties. The CEO seems to be a bit more of the “libertarian” type, that doesn’t seem to mind everything the GOP did in the past years.
The company seems fine but I think they’re referring to the pro-Trump comments the CEO made.
That’s a dark blue suit though, matching the dress code. Trump wore a much brighter blue.
Last I tried Rustdesk (two days ago) it was a buggy, glitchy mess and the shared screen was tearing immensely. Is that recent or did it use to be better?
Then you also mandate tri-monthly doctor’s appointments or something similar to check. Sounds horrible.
Yes, that’s not in dispute?
If you click through on the source on commerce sanctions (which is what would apply to possible tariffable goods) then you will find that the BIS oversees that. Not the taskforce going after Russian oligarchs, who have a different set of sanctions apply to them.
Again, there’s already a high level of tariffs on Russian trade, and they don’t have a “most favored trade nation” status anymore:
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told lawmakers there is “no effort to reinvigorate trade with Russia,” pushing back on Democrats who suspected Mr. Trump was cozying up to Russian President Vladimir Putin amid negotiations to reignite economic relations or end the war in Ukraine.
President Biden signed bills and issued decrees in 2022 that sanctioned Russia and Belarus and increased tariffs on things such as steel and aluminum, minerals and chemicals.
“They already have these high tariffs, they don’t have permanent normal trade relations,” Mr. Greer told the House Ways and Means Committee.
Sanctioned oligarchs have completely different sanctions than trade sanctions that apply to countries. Apples and oranges.
One is a sanction lifting on a fairly unimportant woman, true. Two are about “plans” a month ago (nothing was put in practice). Last one is tangentially related. But none are really about lifting sanctions on the country.
Trump hasn’t lifted any sanctions on Russia yet. He prolonged them for a year in February, and has been trying to offer the perspective of lifting them in exchange for peace negotiations. But since Putin hasn’t started negotiating in earnest yet, no sanctions have been lifted as far as I know.
They’re on a different list that allows limited trade afaik.
Yeah but that’s out of incompetence, not malice. You’re in most cases not allowed to trade with Russia due to sanctions, so what is there to tariff?
Russia is already on its own “special list” of countries that have very heavy trade restrictions. Like North Korea.
I don’t think tariffs would’ve made a difference there.
They break after a year? I’ve had mine for a decade now…