So, that’s leninism iirc. I do believe Rosa Luxembourg called out this strategy for what it was, authoritarian horsepuddle.

Funny, cause here (Norway) half of political parties and discourse are going ape over this. Otoh, which is my perspective, wave as they leave, if they’re too poor to live here they can F off.

Nice Germans who who are respectful and tolerant are welcome. Nazi Germans get shot at. That’s what your granddad would probably say. Listen to granddad.

Based on her position and annoyance I think you misspelled ‘shait’.

Thank you, cake sounds like a good idea 😊

I’m gonna piggy back mine on this one. Before the invention of writing, the only new thoughts you could ever encounter, were from the people you would meet face to face.

Also hard to tell the difference between this guy and AI, cause they both sound flat and machine like.

It’s really simple, either all the people benefit or the people become divided. The conflict that comes from that is usually a path to destruction.

Only a Russian would misspell ‘bed’ as ‘bad’. Nice try kaputchnik.

I have the ungrateful job of teaching English. I have two types of students. Screenies and non-screenies. The former are like this meme, they pick up a lot from popular culture, games, etc, and are often bored with classes. Then you have the latter group, they have very little exposure to English and usually very little interest as well. A third group exists, and they’re the kids that are in between and do the work in class.

Now one would think that getting everyone into the first group would make my job easy, however, those kids are usually a special subset of kids who will learn independently just from their interests. The other two groups could do hour for hour exactly the same as the Screenies, but they would never reach that proficiency level without other instruction. On the other hand, a lot of screenies do poorly at formal English, like grammar, spelling and word choice, because much of their learning is casual.

So long story short, to the meme, yeah, I know.

Which part?

The main idea as I understand it, is that the workers produce value and that value will never be fairly distributed back to them unless the workers themselves are in charge. This is an analysis of human nature, the owners are fundamentally selfish and will try to maximize their profits, workers to them are merely a means to that end. Therefore workers will be underpaid for the value they create and in the worst case, horribly exploited. I agree 100% with this analysis, as it can be seen a thousand different cases of in history.

The answer to this according to communism is that the workers, who are the majority, take over, become themselves the owners, and distribute the value they create fairly. As a person who believes in democracy, not just in the political sphere, but also in the economic sphere, this seems a good idea.

Communism then branches into multiple factions on how to achieve that goal, coercion and violence, or use elections and the power of the state. In the former cases, such as the Soviet Union, such situations open up for power grabs and authoritarian leaders, which I dislike.

The latter tactic created the European, and especially the Nordic welfare states, through democratic means. These states are not communist, as they abandoned the goal of workers in charge, and went for regulated capitalism instead. While better than most, these states now struggle, as even regulated capitalism distributes wealth from worker to owner.

In these states the workers are again exploited for the benefit of the owners. This is not explicitly understood, because this understanding and its terminology is considered a failed system, reference the Soviet system. Instead the exploitation is warped into other grievances, such as anti-globalism or anti-immigration, leading to a takeover of power by the political fringes. The fringe supported by the owners will have more funds and therefore better chances. And while that fringe may portray itself as pro worker, it will in fact represent a true capture of the state by the owners, leading to the opposite, based on the analysis of human nature as mentioned above.

Tldr: don’t ask questions if you can’t be bothered to read the answer 😅

Is it just me or are these studios failing a cash-thrown-at-them situation? I know I get my anime from dodgy websites, but if there was a Netflix (2017 version of Netflix that is) for “all” anime, I’d pony up and so would my pony and most of his friends…

Onto

35 For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. 36 I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’

37 “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? 39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

40 “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters,[a] you were doing it to me!’

There are many parts of Christianity, but these are among the clearest words of its founder. Wherein this admonition do you find a framework to do bad?

My point is not that we don’t know yet, my point is that we can’t know. All our knowledge is based on studying the natural universe, if something is beyond it, then by definition it would not be knowable by studying our universe. Perhaps at some stage we could reach a way of examining and understanding the supernatural, but for our intents and purposes it’s outside the box, while we are inside, and our only way to relate to it is to choose whether we believe in there being something outside the box or not.

The answer that any person who has thought about it and not rejected the idea is: If a being that has created and shaped our universe exists, it exists (at least partly) outside of our universe. Like a programmer doesn’t have to follow in his life the limitations of his code in programming, such an entity’s existence would be so far outside our modes of thinking that “who created him?” would simply fall flat as a question.

To begin to answer such a question one would have to have some knowledge of the plane of existence where the divine resides, and as that is outside the realm of what we can understand through physics and the natural world we live in, the question becomes unanswerable.

The question then becomes, can something exist on another plane of existence? The answer is of course, we can’t examine anything outside our universe, so, the answer must be, we don’t or can’t know.

I suppose then, the next question becomes, do you want to believe that there is something /someone outside the natural universe that gives meaning to our existence?

How you fit your parents in law in microwave?

Mark 9:40 for whoever is not against us is for us.

Context is important when reading any historical text.

My favorite biblical conspiracy theory. Simeon bar Yonah, was a fisherman until he became a disciple. Jesus had faith in him so he called him his rock, the steady foundation that could always be relied on. The Greek for rock is Petros. As it just so happens, Simeon was son of Yonah, as the prefix “bar” shows, in English it would be Simon “the Rock” Johnson. And in case anyone is curious, Dwayne happens to mean fish hook. Also, the modern day Rock has a daughter called Simone, bringing us full circle. And thus we have proven biblical prophecy, or something, I’m not a quantum.

The name was Petros, which is the Greek translation of the arameic word Cephas, meaning rock, or stone. Andrew was Andreas, Philip was Philipos, and so on. The translators of the Bible changed the names to sound more relatable. Your lack of the most fundamental knowledge of history puts you in the category you so flavorfully defined.