Just over half of U.S. adults (52%) say they favor allowing public school teachers to lead their classes in prayers that refer to Jesus

Nationwide, a slightly larger share of Americans say they favor allowing teacher-led prayers referencing God (57%)

It’s right there in OP.

I grew up in one of those states and it’s part of why I’m a certified America Hater today. I genuinely don’t think people who haven’t been exposed to it, even within the country, but especially outside of it, really have a grasp on how prominent and powerful religion is in the US. Hell, I didn’t fully understand it myself until I lived outside of the country for a time and saw what normal is like. This country is a madhouse.

Usually you don’t go, “You forgot to respond to this” if you don’t actually have anything there you want the other person to respond to. If you do not know how to have a conversation with another person go learn how to do that and get back to me.

What’s there to address? You’re just asserting what you personally like.

The more the capitalists are able to gain power (through making a bunch of money), the more they’ll push the government to cut those social services and to remove regulations. The system you describe is viable only to the extent that the capitalists can be kept in check.

Many existing socialist countries (Vietnam, China, etc) have implemented a market economy, as it’s necessary to participate in the global economy, and it can be useful for economic development, at least to a point.

I’m not really sure what you want me to answer here.

Ignoring the core principle of Capitalism, free markets, makes it impossible to actually talk about Capitalism in theory or in practice.

The confusion comes from the fact that the word capitalism has two meanings. The original meaning, which the other person and myself are using, has nothing to do with free markets:

1854, “condition of having capital;” from capital (n.1) + -ism. The meaning “political/economic system which encourages capitalists” is recorded from 1872 and originally was used disparagingly by socialists. The meaning “concentration of capital in the hands of a few; the power or influence of large capital” is from 1877.

It was only later, in reaction to socialism, that capitalism began to take on this meaning you’re using, where it’s supposedly disconnected from class interests and is just about some abstract economic principle. But using the second definition, it’s impossible to talk about capitalism in practice because, as I said, such a system has never existed and will never exist.

Your argument against can be used for every other economic system as well, so it becomes a matter of pros and cons which will never declare a clear winner and always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved.

Huh? Economic systems where the interests of capitalists are prioritized are best for the capitalists, economic systems where the interests of workers are prioritized are the best for workers. Also, aren’t you declaring a clear winner when you say you can, “always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved?”

They’re talking about capitalism in practice. In practice, economic policy is shaped less by ideology and more by they relative power of economic classes. When the rich have power, they get policies that favor themselves enacted, and vice versa. It’s only in theory that capitalism is about “free markets,” in practice, the rich support free markets if they alternative is something that’s more harmful to themselves (like taxes and nationalization) and oppose them when the alternative is beneficial to themselves (subsidies).

“Free market capitalism” is a purely theoretical idea that has never existed, and will never exist, because someone’s always going to have enough power to get the government to intervene in the economy to promote their own interests. Generally, left-wing people talking about capitalism mean capitalism in practice, not the theoretical idea.

Yeah, the way we can show all minorities that we’re in this together, that we’ll stand by each other even when it’s unpopular and inconvenient, to stop the state from splitting off groups and trampling them underfoot… is to split off Palestinians and support candidates who want to trample them underfoot because standing up for them is too inconvenient.

Historically, you’re completely wrong.

1. Hitler came to power with the support of capitalists (here meaning “people who own substantial capital” rather than “ideological supporters of capitalism”). They saw him as a way to maintain order against socialism and to break the power of unions. A similar story happened in Italy, and in other fascist countries.

2. Many capitalists did in fact benefit from fascism. There’s some confusion about fascist economic policies, but you should know that the term “privatization” was first coined to describe the economic policy of Nazi Germany. When they nationalized companies, it was because they were minority owned, and often they were redistributed upwards to the capitalists.

3. Labor rights suffered tremendously under fascism, with labor organizations exterminated, allowing capitalists to impose much worse conditions, lower pay, and longer hours on the workers, as well as using prisoners for slave labor. Any attempt to challenge these conditions would be considered treasonous, undermining the war effort.

4. Even when their countries were defeated militarily, many capitalists got off scot-free. For example, the pharmaceutical company Bayer (which merged with Monsanto in 2016) was once a part of IG Farben, which manufactured Zyklon B for the gas chambers. After the war, Bayer rehired Nazis to high level positions, including for example Fritz ter Meer, who had been on IG Farben’s board of directors and became chairman of Bayer, despite being a convicted Nazi war criminal.

Classic XCOM is really fun imo, but it does suffer from some quality of life issues. It’s possible to fix some of that with mods though and imo it still holds up. I’ve definitely put more time into the reboot of the series, but the original has a grittier feel, a bit more “open world,” where you’re gonna miss UFOs and you’re gonna have to cut and run sometimes, and there’s also a lot of exploits and tricks you have to figure out on your own (intended or otherwise).

Xenonauts is a more direct remake and it’s good, more balanced and polished, but when I play it sometimes I just say, “I’d rather be playing old school XCOM.” Hard to put my finger on it, and it might just be that I already know the tricks for the original, or that the jankyness makes it fun. Xenonauts does hold up on it’s own but it’s hard not to compare the two.

Generally games have gotten better but I’d say there’s a handful that have withstood the test of time (especially with basic UI improvements).

It’s sad because for most people school is about the only time anybody cares enough about your thoughts to actually read an essay and respond to it intelligently.

I specifically disabled my watch history to get this. If I want to watch something, I’ll go to my subscriptions. Why would I want to interact with YouTube’s algorithm?

"What we need to do to ensure that Iran never achieves the ability to be a nuclear power, that is one of my highest priorities,” she added.

Whitaker followed up, asking, “If Iran is building a nuclear weapon, would you take military action?”

“I’m not going to talk about hypotheticals at this moment,” said the vice president.

I really hope you someday get to experience the receiving end of the politics you support.

Worse, unquestionably.

“”“Saddam apologist”“” here meaning, anyone who opposed the Iraq War.

Fucking hawks, I stg. Every time.

They learned how to avoid being held responsible for genocide by outsourcing it.

I don’t fully agree that Israel Iran is violating international law. When a country’s existence is being questioned by Iran or Hamas Israel or the US, it’s not so easy to respond strictly within the framework of international law

Who struck first?

Ah but of course, PoC don’t get to have security concerns, do they?

The problem is that you see people dismissing criticism and think it’s a disagreement of principle when in fact they hold the same principle and disagree on what does or does not meet the agreed upon criteria.

I haven’t added any extra meaning at all, nor is there any attempt to “derail” the conversation. You’re attacking something that nobody actually believes.

See, like, I see my criticism as factual and respectful, and you disagree. You don’t think it’s factual because you disagree with my analysis. Virtually all disagreements about what criticism is valid are like that.

I’m not adding any additional meaning. As I explained, nobody says, “My group is above criticism” but what they say is, “The criticisms against my group are nonfactual and/or disrespectful.” Everyone agrees with the principle you’ve said, but that principle is completely meaningless because any perspective that wants to shut down criticism will just say that it’s nonfactual or disrespectful.

If you just think critically about it and break down what your statement actually means, it’s just “I agree with criticism I agree with.” I don’t really know what more I can say to explain that, it seems very straightforward to me. From your other comments, you talk about people criticizing major religions, well, suppose someone from a major religion says, “I agree, and also, I think such and such criticism is disrespectful.” Maybe you don’t think it’s disrespectful. Maybe they make a criticism about you that they don’t find disrespectful, but you do. Who determines which criticisms meet the criteria of factual and respectful? Everyone can accept your standard and carry on exactly as they were, simply saying that the criticism they agree with meet the standard and the criticisms they disagree with don’t. It’s pretty meaningless.

Are you often finding yourself in situations where people aren’t disputing facts and norms, but just whether, in principle, legitimate criticism should be said at all? Can you give me an example?

Basically you’re just saying, “I agree with criticism I agree with.” Nobody would say, outright and in principle, that they think a group is above criticism, but people are going to disagree on which criticisms are factual and respectful.