deleted by creator

Grok is still woke!!!

I don’t have a list of specific instances on hand. But he was kind of a contrarian voice for a while that I listened to over a decade ago, but in 2016 went in the more anti-woke (anti-CRT in terms of the time) and very reactionary culture war turn.

You losers are still using mechanical tweezers? I upgraded to optical tweezers long ago.

“Despite claims to the contrary”, to grossly simplify Wittgenstein, a word’s meaning is how it is actually used.

And critically, not just since Trump. As soon as the ink dried on the Nazi surrender, the US and OSS/CIA armed and funded every fascist they could find since fascists are the most dedicated anti-communists.

Again, despite claims to the contrary, tankie for most people means “anything left of the Democrats, or willingness to break with US foreign policy.”

If I were criticizing various nations more than the U.S., I wouldn’t shame people for “authoritarian bootlicking”. Glass houses and all that.

Free market religious fundamentalists.

sounds like you are stupid enough.

An accurate rejoinder would be “In my brain, I am not stupid enough to believe that the market is an omniscient omnipotent God that makes everything perfect in all places and all times, in the absence of public input. I am not stupid enough to think that individuals and corporations are perfect benevolent actors that can do no wrong, because doing wrong always means making less profits and doing good always means more profits” FTFY

Purged the Anarchists? No you are the lying disingenuous person here. If we were talking about the Russian Civil War, you might have something approaching a point.

Edit: proving the point, hatred over “tankies” is just that you don’t want your own positions or viewpoints challenged or questioned

yes they are, Tankie has become so abused and meaningless as now only means anything to the left of Dick Cheney or not going along with US foreign policy.

Spanish Civil War, where the Soviet Union was the only foreign power to give large amounts of aid to the Republicans and France and Britain sat out, and US oil and other business interests backed Franco. Where there were divisions over tactics and priorities but where communists fought with the Republicans, and it is largely after the defeat and popularizers like Orwell that a stabbed in the back myths about communists came to prominence. Yes, the liberals were not a complete monolith, so there were some liberals with the Republicans.

Also, in an underdeveloped, still mostly feudal society, liberalism can still be a progressive force.

I am being short and glib since I was just responding to an epically dumb post. but if you want to know how fascism is a necessary outgrowth of liberalism and the need to protect and serve capitalism leads liberalism towards fascism in crisis.

https://www.amazon.com/Apprentices-Sorcerer-Tradition-Critical-Sciences/dp/1608462021

Unless you are a diehard right-winger, Liberals will always be more likely to betray you than anyone on the left. The causality is backwards here, liberals will always side with fascists over the left, thus they are identified as moderate-fascists. Just like how the Democrats want nothing more than to just be polite Republicans.

The Winnie the Pooh stuff is just completely made up by Western propaganda. Also, how hard is “yellow face is racist”, when saying an Asian looks like a cartoon with yellow skin?

Free speechers on .world can’t handle interacting with any dissenting opinions to the left of the Bush Administration.

No, there are really tangential analogies about how self-interested behavior can have negative consequences, but it is and has always been based around a bunch of numerous myths. Externalities is a better description of this.

Elinor Ostrom investigated management of the commons and the original description of tragedy of the commons was a complete lie. The commons were enclosed so that in this transitional stage of feudal lords could become businessmen that could profit off of using the land rather than taxing a peasant community living off of it. The enclosed commons is an asset to generate profit, where if enough of an increase in profit could be achieved, that could be reinvested, meant that exhausting the land would be an economically rational strategy. Where, if a peasant community is using it to sustain themselves, they have to carefully manage and steward that land so it is still producing for themselves years later, their children, and their grandchildren. The complete opposite of what the “tragedy of the commons” describes.