I feel like a shorter list would be the ones that don't.

What lesson? That "green" energy is unreliable and not worth it? And that the federal governments energy plan will only make these things worse?

There's no other lesson a reasonable person could learn from this.

I suspect it will actually work out more like this:

-Hourly jobs are cut/hours reduced.

-Middle class salaried jobs stay roughly the same.

-Enough inflation that any raises the lower/middle class get will be moot.

So ultimately everybody but the wealthy are worse off.

Yelled about how green energy could have prevented the crisis caused by green energy?

"We explicitly built our machines not to be auditable, and then disallow them to be examined when the results of elections are in question. Therefore we're suing you for not blindly trusting us despite our incredibly sketchy history that's been reported on for years." - Dominion

I wonder what the authors thoughts on the electoral collage or only land owners originally being allowed to vote is?

Plus, this is like the opposite of critical theory, so I'm actually shocked. But critical theory is such a contradictory mess they can find some way to justify it.

That's not true. They'll gladly accept "lived experience" if you have the correct identity and say what they want you too.

An important thing to note in a debate like this is that asserting the negative requires just as much proof as asserting the positive. I see that a lot where people hold a negative claim without evidence but demand proof of the positive claim.

So, in this situation, where the other person calls the idea that "capitalism gives people a better life than 99.9% of people who ever lived" bullshit, they're actually making the claim that "capitalism does not give people a better life than 99.9% of people who ever lived". Josh Parks should have defended his position and then asked the other commenter to defend their position with the same rigor they expected him to defend his.

I'm going to start referring to the media as the Ministry of Truth since that's clearly what they want to be.

They don't push these kind of shootings because then people might catch on to the fact that most shootings are gang related and happen in places with the strictest gun laws.

"I tried so hard and got so far, but in the end it didn't even matter." - Linkin Park/Republicans

At a presumably private greenhouse?

I'd love for one of them to point out any of this hate they keep talking about.

I think the hate they mean must be their own. I'm not seeing it come from anybody else.

Nbd, but the GBI agent investigating it "committed suicide" a few weeks later.

Sorry I don't have a link off-hand. Hopefully somebody else can help me out.

So I guess she'll be reviewing Cuomo?

Isn't the power grid non-capitalist? Although I guess it's different in Texas. Do they have competing power companies there?

And the skyrocketing gas prices were due to hovernment intervention. Which is practically the opposite of capitalism.

Can I get a source on them calling it a gaffe? It seems too retarded for even them.

That would be a valid point if we didn't all know that logic is an oppressive white supremacist construct.

Biden is on video deliberately pinching a young girls nipple. What we can verify with video proof of what he does to children goes well beyond just sniffing.

I love how "defeating" the wrong political views is "protecting democracy".

The dude is literally on video pinching a young girl's nipple.

"I say nice thing about America not failing while actively working towards that goal. But I don't make mean tweets which makes me best suited for this job."

Brought to you by the people preaching "unity".

That statement isn't an algorithm. It's an inequality. Think of the double bars as representing the "length" of what's inside.

Typically with a statement like this A and U will depend somehow on n, which is a value we can choose.

Without more context it's hard to say, but I would guess that what's going on that the ratio of the "lengths" of A and U is a quantity that they want to minimize for whatever reason. That inequality says we can ensure that ratio is "small enough" by choosing n so that the right hand side is "small enough".

Let me first give basic definitions of individualism and collectivism. These may not be the definitions that you'd find in philosophy books, but I think this is pretty much what people here mean by them.

Individualism: The idea that the individual is the ultimate arbiter of one's actions. It's up to the individual to determine what's best for themselves and to decide how to live their lives.

Collectivism: The idea that the collective is the ultimate arbiter of one's actions. The individual must act in accordance with the needs of the collective. The collective decides how the individual lives their life.

You have a few misunderstandings.

1. Individualism doesn't preclude collective organization or action. There's nothing to say that individuals can't decide it's in their best interest to act collectively. An individual can feel a sense of duty to their family/community/country/whatever.

2. There are no purely individualistic or collectivist societies. Realistically, there's a spectrum from individualism and collectivism and all societies lie somewhere on that spectrum. So to answer your question: yes, the US has some collectivist attributes.

Personally, I don't think from a purely theoretical/philosophical viewpoint that either individualism or collectivism necessarily lead to tyranny or tragedy. However, I would argue that collectivism will always tend towards tyranny and makes it much easier to justify horrible things. That being said, both ends of the ideological spectrum have issues, and extreme adherence to one or the other will more likely lead to the issues being amplified. Further, neither extreme is realistically achievable in the real world.

I would argue that the more individualistic end of the spectrum leads to better results because it doesn't require altruistic behavior to work properly, which collectivism does.

Communism, in particular, has the issue of requiring adherence to a philosophically pure form of collectivism that can't be achieved in practice. Ideologically pure collectivism allows for the justification of atrocities in the name of the greater good. Because of this, communism will always devolve into what it has historically. On paper, communism seems like a decent idea. The problem is that, to work, communism requires perfect adherence to an ideology that humanity is incapable of.

"I hid the data because I didn't want to be held accountable for causing so many unnecessary deaths." - Andrew "The People's President" Cuomo