Privatization of everything lead us to a dystopia. Who could have predicted that...

We could give private entities the benefit of the doubt. All major wars, oppressions, and similar atrocities up to this point have been started by governments.

That statement is so wrong, theres no point in wasting my time refuting it

Oh no. And I was looking forward to hearing how the Rothschilds really start all wars and politicians and the people are just puppets pulled by their strings... or whatever other absurdity you surely would have come up with.

Funny thing is, aside from corporations using leverage against goverments to wage wars on behalf of their interests, there were multiple instances of corporations themselves engaging in warfare. But youre so fucking dense that at, what close to age 40, you dont know about it.

A simple google search can save you further embarrassment

All major wars, oppressions, and similar atrocities up to this point have been started by governments.

Forgot to read the word "major"? Nobody cares about some methed up lunatic in a 3rd world jungle with 200 kids cooped up in 70s Toyota pickups, a couple AK47 and 2, 3 bazookas at his command.

Name examples of major atrocities committed by private entities. I assume you don't consider the Third Reich, Soviet Russia, or the CPC private entities, or run or controlled by private entities.

Private entities rarely had as much power as states, as capitalism isnt that old of a system. But here is an example of a major atricity commited by a private entity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State

Unless you somehow dont consider 10-20mil dead a major atricity

Oh snap, I love King Leopold sneakers, so much egg on my face.

I can't.

Accurate observation :)

Actually his first post was already ridiculously off base. I was just not so rude to directly point that out. But since he doesn't seem to mind:

There is no privatization. Free market capitalism has existed for hundreds of years, and while the technology has changed, the system hasn't.
As a matter of fact concentration of wealth and power within private entities is less than it has been in some instances in the past. The Fuggers, Rockefellers, Carnegies, Ford make Bezos and Zuckerberg look like a joke.
The free market is more free and balanced than ever today. There has to be some criticism, like for example credit being too easily accessible by the rich and too hard for small business, bailouts favoring the already rich, and quasi-monopolies like Intel and Nvidia that should be broken up. But those aren't really major points in the grand scheme.

There is no dystopia either; if there are beginnings of it, then caused by governments rather than by corporations.
As a whole, we the citizens of the civilized 1st world certainly have it better than ever.
Nobody is enslaved - yeah, most people work 9-5, but if you don't want to do that you can start your own business and do very well for yourself, or just collect basic income if you want to sit on your ass all day, in case of which you still have a roof over your head and a full fridge.
Free speech is easier than ever. Everyone can splurt their worthless nonsense out on the internet for everyone to read. Yes, Google, FB and co. are somewhat shaping that, but probably more for business than for nefarious reasons. Podcasts like JRE, Valuetainment, Jordan Peterson, even Infowars and co., that are mostly anti-establishment and very open and critical are very popular on exactly those platform - does anyone think that would be the case if free speech was suppressed?
Yes, governments incrementally try to restrict us, and corporations through lobbying try to shape the system in their favor to widen the gap between the rich and poor. But a significant percentage of the population seems to be aware of that and more or less actively fighting back.
Frankly, the spying by governments on their citizens and themselves, as partly revealed by Edward Snowden, is worrying, and needs to stop. As long as we have TOR and TLS, the situation isn't dire, meaning we can still act privately, anonymously, if we want to - but we certainly need to make it clear to governments that that shit won't fly.

In conclusion, to blame free market capitalism for anything that's wrong today is ridiculous, and there cannot be any argument for that. Last century we had 30 mio people die by the hands of (national) socialists, and 100 mio people by the hands of outright commies (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, ...). That's what happens in the absence of a free society with free markets. And that's all one needs to know.

As a whole, we the citizens of the civilized 1st world certainly have it better than ever.

That's a pretty limited framework. Sure, the West has it good. Meanwhile, global hunger has been on the rise since 2014, partly due to climate change, which the 1st world is causing in part because of free market capitalism leading to the unchecked use of fossil fuels. On top of that, some of our day to day comforts, like cheap food, cheap clothes, cheap smartphones and so on and so on are directly dependent on the exploitation of labor of people from Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and South America.

You're basically looking at the winners of a system and then saying "well they have it good, so the system works guys!" I do agree with you though that the 1st world is doing much, much better than most people within it seem to (want to) think. I also agree with you that the "BIG CORPORATION BAD" reflex some people seem to have doesn't exactly contribute to solving the problems we're confronted with.

I'd argue that if hunger is on the rise in the 3rd world, then it's because these fucktards breed like rabbits without regard for their own society's well being. That's nobody's fault but their own.
Overpopulation is the real problem behind pollution and destruction of habitats too - if there were 800 million humans on the planet instead of 8 billion, the damage to nature would be far less severe. Or if there was 8 million, the damage to nature would be almost non-existent. So guess what, the real solution to most of the problems in this world is: condoms! :)

The climate change discussion is moot, because at this point, and probably for the next couple of decades or centuries, we will have nothing more than theories on the topic. We know from historical data that the climate changes all the time, and at this point we cannot explain most of the past changes. We have no working models for our current climate.
Yes, we know that CO² is a greenhouse gas and that we are currently releasing significant amounts of it into the atmosphere. That's about all we know.
A claim that a current rise in global hunger is (partially) caused by man-made climate change is no more than just that: a claim.

Globalized markets lead to the exploitation of 3rd world workers - partially true. But corporations didn't sign global trade deals - governments did.

Didnt take you long to take the mask off and start pushing straight up nazi conspiracy theories.

You see cant see the corporate responsibility for explotation of 3rd world people, yet you can point to people with a carbon footprint 10-20 times smaller than yours and say they are excess population. The conservative mind is trully amazing.

What a sad retard you are

Give it a few years and he'll be calling the privatization of oxygen 'a service to humanity'.

What's the point when you can start taxing literal human CO2 output?

The point is that this malignant system makes us work for things that used to be free, or at least, things that you were personally in control of. It promotes dependency, not self-reliance or self-empowerment. As long as you work for your basic needs, you're serving the interests of whomever is in control of the resources you need to survive, leaving little time to develop and focus on your individual self. In a world like that, the entity you're working for tends to get the better end of the bargain.

There's an overwhelming amount of evidence which substantiates the collaboration between the higher-ups of both public and private sector and their keenest intent to centralize (privatize) the world's resources and shrink people's freedoms - by merging everything into one giant conglomerate with countless subsidiaries.

There's no place for 'government' when resources are in private hands. Religion, banks, 'nobility' and corporations are the government. Which is why i think the distinction you're making between corporations and government a post below, is naive at best. Just how exactly do you think the rich are getting richer and the poor - poorer?

Tin foil, mixed with just a little Marxism. Delicious combo!

Let me guess, the solution is seizing the means of production, right?

How can that possibly be the conclusion either of you have drawn from what I've said, especially when it's the very ideology I'm against?

Do you know what the difference between capitalism and communism is when they're in full gear and the bigger fish have eaten the smaller ones? None. It's the minority that manages wealth, using the majority as (human) resources.

Okay, commie. You'll surely will easily be able to identify plenty of cases in history in which free market capitalism has lead to total authoritarian control of a nations, with hunger, war, death as a result - as in Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism, or right now in North Korea.

Let me save you the effort - you can't.

Free market capitalism is simply the following: private enterprise is offering you goods and/or services for money. If you like the offer, you can accept; if you don't like the offer, you can tell them to fuck off, meaning either not buy at all or choose a competitor.
Anyone can enter this competition. Customers, aka the people, are voting with their purse and steering development of goods and services in the direction they want. There is nothing more free and democratic, and nothing more completely opposite to authoritarianism, which is required for communism (because people bloody damn well aren't going to give up the fruits of their labour voluntarly).

The other defining difference between capitalism and communism is that capitalism is simply more effective. Citizens get rewarded directly for their productivity, because if you're more efficient than your competition, you make more profits. That in turn drives productivity. It's a virtuous circle.
In communism, the fruits of your labour are appropriated. Your productivity is not judged. There is no different reward for you working, or pretending to work. Actually, if you produce better results, they will still get taken away, so you are actually punished for being productive. As individuals produce less, society produces less, leading to less resources being available for the individual, leading to the individual becoming even less productive due to hunger, desperation etc, etc. It's a vicious circle.

The only commonality between capitalism and communism is their starting letter. The former always leads to prosperity, the latter always leads to death.

One last comment then: you're creating a false dilemma between full blown state led planned economy or the current capitalist system. There's quite a lot in between.

Also, I'd argue that the state capitalism of China is proving to be much more efficient than the market capitalism of the United States and Europe, at least at creating economic growth. But don't get out of your limited framework on my account, you'd might have to admit you don't know everything :)

Provide a nation with (or at least let them get away with stealing) the building plans to the world's finest machinery, a billion drones to manufacture these technological products, a wealthy customer base abroad, and somewhat free / competitive markets with no restrictive human rights or environmental protection laws, and it'll likely turn a profit.
For how easy a task it has been given, China has not done extraordinarly well.

Besides his obvious blunders, that's probably the reason why pseudo-intellectual leftist dirtbags despise Trump - because he is the first Western politician to have the common sense and backbone to openly oppose this toxic relationship.
Their hate for their own kind, successful white capitalist society, and the longing for a just system where everyone is equal (equally miserable) will lead them to applaud any means of the former's demise. Luckily they will not be getting their wish.

you're creating a false dilemma between full blown state led planned economy or the current capitalist system. There's quite a lot in between.

Using rhetoric to soften the distinction between capitalism and communism, prosperity and poverty, right and wrong, good and evil. You do that well. Still very easy to see through though.

Look, I don't want to sound rude, but everything you’ve written in this thread so far is on par with stuff you'd find in the essay of a teenager. Your world view is so narrow and out of touch and your socioeconomic and geopolitical understanding hardly exceeds that of a 12th grader in a public school. For a 40 year-old you really do sound like you just came out of the womb. I'm sorry if it sounds derogatory, but it's just the truth. Regardless, it’s pretty clear that you misunderstand me and my stance on either communism or capitalism. I'll have a crack at providing a well structured retort, the bulk of which I'm thoroughly confident you're just going to ignore and brush off.

I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Nzr0. Why is the wealth gap increasing world-wide? Why are the rich getting richer and the poor – poorer? Why does 1% control more than 50% of the world’s wealth and resources? Personally, ‘half’ is undercutting it. Why does that number keep increasing? Why do people have to work 2-3 jobs / 18 hrs a day just to get by? Why are banks and multinationals always bailed out in times of crisis, while regular people lose their homes and businesses? Why do the powerful gain more and more power? Why are the rich more likely to get away with the same crime committed by a poor person? Whose interests does the judicial system really serve? Who stands to gain from any type of crisis?

There is no ‘free market’ when banks issue money with interest which you eventually have to pay back. There is no ‘freedom’ when you’re in perpetual debt to those banks, because it’s logically impossible to repay money with more money, when the feds have monopolized the printing of money. There is no ‘free market’ when thanks to this inherent corruption, the banks eventually go after your property and your resources once they’re tired of loaning out money which you were never able to repay in the first place.There's no 'free market' when banks decide what to fund and who to fund. There's no 'freedom' when the feds do not answer to the government and yet they're in control of the very thing that is running the world. There is no freedom when most banks are under the jurisdiction of BIS in Switzerland - a country which conveniently walks away unscathed from every war while being at the heart of it. There is no "free" market when you have no resources left to challenge the competition with. There is no “free market” when so few corporations own so much intellectual property. There’s nothing “free” in a world where so few have so much, and so many have so little.

The times where someone could make a name for themselves coming from nothing are coming to a close. Big corporations have just become too big and it’s a tightly-knit club, leaving little to no room for the new kid on the block to make something of himself. Even when that happens, these people are either crushed like a bug or are quickly bought out. Thus, the choices we have are becoming ever more restrictive. The less money you have, the less choices you have.

With the right crisis and the complicity of the media, demand is easily manufactured for anything these days, values are distorted, economies are destroyed, public property becomes private, views are radically shifted, chaos ensues, order is restored, the constitution is suspended and amended, freedoms are shrinked, surveillance is increased, and non-conformists are straightened out with batons, cuffs, rubber bullets and drugs. Spreading chaos to yield a profit is not a fucking ‘conspiracy theory’. It’s a legitimate, albeit, an insidious business strategy and it’s how America conducts business since corporate fascists took over, especially the arms industry.

China is an atheist totalitarian shit hole. Russia is an orthodox totalitarian shithole. Europe, Christianity and certain parts of the middle east are being fucked by Islam. Africa and the Middle East, areas that you consider ‘3rd world’ are being pillaged for their resources to support the ‘1st world’ leaving a wasteland behind. Just where the hell do you think the raw materials that make up your computer and smartphone come from? Where do you think they end up in when it’s time to throw them away? No matter how much leaders around the world claim they're for or against war - war is how you redistribute wealth. War is how the wealthy become wealthier.

America is heading the same direction. The west is at an inflection point where everything is going to collapse under its own weight, unless it addresses the root of the problem and reexamines its tampered values. Capitalism (the way it's defined in school textbooks) has run its course. It's finished. It did what it was supposed to. It normalized ‘profit at the expense of other people’s labor’. For the work you’re putting in, you’re getting scraps in return. It turned independent workers into consumers. It helped the wealthy who were already ahead of the curve to consolidate their position at the top by eating up all the competition and twisting the legal system to their benefit. It turned immorality, avarice and narcissism into a virtue. We’re selling pieces of our lives for the benefit of the few. What you have in the world right now is corporate, oligarchic marxist collectivism where public rights are being substituted with corporate rights and individuality is being eradicated. Patriotism and love for one's traditions is being equated to fascism and racism. Forced multiculturalism (disguised as a migrant crisis) is annihilating all sense of identity and it's destabilizing the entirety of Europe. The line that separates government and corporation is fading away at a rapid pace. Countries are becoming corporations - overtly. Citizens are becoming employees and are treated as a numbers, not as individuals. People are already being conditioned to accept robots dictating their behavior. Censorship is running amok. Pensions are constantly being cut. Cash is becoming a thing of the past. UBI (‘free’ money), digital currency, information, gold and silver are becoming the ""new"" standard. Nature is being destroyed and industrialized (artificialized) - and so is the human body. The petrodollar is going down the drain and so will America’s (and by extension the world’s) economy. Once the dust settles you'll find yourself in a digitally automated tyranny disguised as global democracy - a welfare state where everything is monitored, markets are overseen by AI and your worth has been reduced to a barcode. What’s coming is a global regime that will succeed where fascism, socialism, communism failed - alienating people from their own spirit. If you think this is tinfoil material, man do I feel sorry for you – although sometimes I do envy people like you.

You dismiss things that go way over your head as ‘tinfoil’ and attack things you’re in disagreement with, using logical extremes. ‘Got a problem with capitalism? You must be a communist!’ Like, come on. Is there no such thing as something in-between? Why do we even have to limit ourselves to these concepts? How about you attempt to synthesize opposites instead of resorting polarized thinking? What about other perspectives? That way we might get somewhere and have an actual discussion, not a bitter debate where all you do is become ever more rigid in that skull of yours.

I don’t think you’re misinformed, but I don’t think you have a firm understanding of anything you’ve said so far either. The bulk of your opinions is antiquated pop-culture garbage. You live in the past. You're looking short term, I'm looking long-term. And like i said, both capitalism and communism eventually lead to the same outcome. You just get there faster with communism. You support competition; I support cooperation – that doesn’t make me a communist. The truth lies somwhere in-between. The simplest analogy I can give you is that humanity is a body whose organs and cells are competing against each instead of working together for the maintenance and evolution of the body while still preserving their individual identity. As such, the body is deteriorating. It's dying. You don’t need to own the entire world to be happy, but you don’t need to be a minimalist either. It's one thing to be equal, it's another thing to have equal opportunities - at least when it comes to primal needs. It's one thing to work for wealth starting from nothing, it's another thing to be born into it. It's one thing to become wealthier, and another to become wealthier by absorbing other people's wealth. There's a clear imbalance plaguing the world - it always has. There’s a balance to be stricken between you and your surroundings and this balance cannot be found in either capitalism or communism or any other man-made system. For balance to exist, its mechanisms must be discovered, not invented. I'm all for private ownership, but the scales have tipped long ago.

I don't care how successful you think you are in your life. Your problem is that you're judging the efficiency of the system based on your own ability to function and willingness to live within its framework. You're seeing things entirely from your own myopic perspective and personal experience, instead of trying to place yourself in the shoes of others who haven't had the same opportunities or upbringing as you. Not all of us have the same values as you. You’re using childish terms like ‘3rd world’, being completely oblivious to the factors that make a ‘3rd world’. How much have you traveled the world in order to find out how much TV/Internet aligns with reality? What do you know about self-governance using natural law as a compass? What are the differences between man-made law and natural law? What do you know about natural law, canon law and their ascendancy over common, civil, criminal, corporate and tax law? What do you know about sovereign, absolute and qualified immunity? What do you know about analogical and lateral thinking using the body as a reference point to know the universe? What do you understand when you hear ‘the human body is the microcosm of the macrocosm and man is the unit of all measure’? You see, I know you know next to nothing about either of those things, because I wouldn’t have to write any of the previous paragraphs to arrive at these concepts.

word

Simple != naive. If anything is naive, it's overcomplicating simple issues.
We have a firm understanding of the most important social, economic, politicial concepts from history. We do not need convoluted new theories. We know what works, we know what doesn't work.

I am at least positively surprised by some of the concerns raised in your post.
I am well aware of the widening gap betwen the rich and the poor, the unjust availability of credit, bailouts favoring the already rich, and so on - I was the first to mention these issues in this thread, in post #7.
I am also well aware of the justice system favoring the rich.
So our society is corrupt - guess what, it's still less corrupt, unequal, unjust than 50 or 100 years or even longer ago. Ever heard the terms "feudalism", "primae noctis", ...?

As for your 3rd paragraph, I personally shared these viewpoints about a decade ago. I still share some, and have grown out of others. Information is the key.
If you view the monetary supply, the P/E ratio of the stock market, public/private/corporate debt, size of the derivative bubble, and similar indicators, things definitely look worrying, and have been at least ever since the US, and most of the world with it, abandoned the gold standard in the 1970s.
The present imbalances will either result in a massive deflationary crash or hyperinflation, or even a combination of both. Most likely everthing but hard assets will be wiped out.
I'm not necessarly a proponent of the "Creature from Jekyll Island" narrative, but we don't even need to quarrel about that - agreed, we definitely need sound money and a more secure financial system without all these convoluted investment vehicles that reek of nothing but fraud and danger.

I am well aware of resource depletion. I dabbled in investments for a while, and I did research my fundamentals. Ore grades in metals have been deteriorating for centuries. The EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) of oil has decreased by almost two orders of magnitude within a century.
As I already said, we are resource consumers. As a matter of fact, one of the most basic definitions of life is that of a user / transformer of energy and raw materials. Since we're the result of billions of years of evolution, currently enjoying an exponential rise in our abilities, we have naturally become very efficient at that process.
As individuals, and as a society, we won't overcome our need for progress. We will always be harvesting resources, using them as we find most appropriate / efficient.
As I said, there simply need to be less of us. We can overcome (actually trick / circumvent, not directly oppose) our need for procreation by the use of contraceptives, satifsfying our instincts and urges without multiplying.

As for "communism and capitalism eventually have the same outcome": name examples. The US has been by definition a capitalist nation for 250 years. When will it finally produce the death and suffering that all major examples of communism has in less than 1/10th that time? Or is it just that you have a baseless theory that is plain historically wrong?

Your ideas about capitalism are way off base - it has produced enormous technological progress and prosperity. Sure the owner of the company takes the lion share of the profit - he put the most effort in and assumed all the risk. Many startups go broke - only the fewest make it. Highest risk and effort gets the biggest reward, lowest risk and efforts gets the scraps or nothing. That's not only called capitalism, it's called LIFE.
(And yes, I know, today we have boards of investors that have their own motives, and funds that use HFT algorythm to manipulate stocks in their favor, etc etc yada yada.. no need to enlighten me on that.)

Sorry if I don't address the spiritual and philosophical portion of your post. Been there, done that :P I'm more into pragmagical considerations today.

So, what are your solutions? First, as I already stated, I don't agree with your definition of the problem - I for one know noone who is hungry, who can't afford medical care, who doesn't have a roof over his/her head, and who isn't free to voice his/her opinion - in comparison with any era in the history of mankind, that's paradise. Progress has been continually happening in all parts of the world, with minor exceptions like communist North Korea.
I partially stated my solutions to the problems I acknowledge in this post, and more detailled in post #54. I encourage you to do the same. I will not be reading and responding to more hot air.

I for one know noone who is hungry, who can't afford medical care, who doesn't have a roof over his/her head

I worked at a courthouse clerking cases in the NL, mainly small claims and therefore mainly low income people, and I can tell you, this says a lot more about the people you know than the society we live in. I saw people who were hungry, who couldn't afford medical care and who got evicted pretty much daily. They're the exception obviously, but for them, our society is anything but paradise.

If I've learned something during my short stay here, it's that if a person wants to suffer, he/she will find a way to suffer. There are more than enough people out there who will piss a good life away any chance they get. Anyone you meet in the court system will likely be just those kinds of people.
Glad you recognize that exceptions are not the rule.

With all due respect, that attitude is just as naive as the idea that all poor people are victims of the larger system. I'm not going to pretend there aren't people who cause their own misery, because I saw them. At the same time, I'm not going to pretend that all poor people deserve their faith, because I also saw a lot of them who simply got unlucky or who were ill equipped to deal with the pressures of our society for some reason. There are people who make and keep themselves poor and there are people who show us the flaws within our society.

I'm also guessing you've never or rarely seen the inside of the court house, let alone the hearings about small claims, so I'm wondering how you know so much about the people you meet there.

who simply got unlucky or who were ill equipped to deal with the pressures of our society for some reason

Or maybe it condenses down to just "who are ill equipped"?

Name concrete cases of individuals who have been so "screwed over by the system" that they cannot function, rather than themselves being the cause of their problems.

Hey, I just googled, and it even says we have 14000 homeless people in Austria. Guess what! Those are the fucktards that are unwilling to go to the city's office, fill out a form, and start collecting their free 900€ basic income a month!
We have one homeless person in our village. He had a beautiful large house, and one day he just decided to quit society and go live in the forest. I think the proper definition for individuals like him is "nutcase".

Even if you can name legitimate examples, as previously stated and painfully obvious, some small number of exceptions are not representative of society, and nit-picking them is not beneficial to the ongoing discussion.
As a matter of fact, we've arriving at the same point we've been earlier: we do have a system that satifies the needs of the vast majority of its members; if we want to go further than that and try to make everyone happy and equal, it amounts to communist utopia, which has been proven to lead to suffering and death.

I'm just going to repeat my question: how do you know so much about why people end up in the court system if you've never spoken to any of them for a meaningful amount of time?

To give a simple counterpoint to your homeless people example: a lot of people who ended up sitting across from me in court were functionally illiterate. To them, filling out a form without help is a genuine obstacle.

You're also not really arguing against me but against what you think my views are. I never said I think it's realistic to make everyone happy and equal. I do think we can all do a lot better than we're doing now.

Illiteracy in certain less functional (often by birth) individuals cannot be blamed a society in which quality basic education is not only free, but mandatory!

You seem to believe your views are extraordinary? Nope. Basic psychology and basic history has long determined that humans follow a more or less fixed set of behaviors.
The path to communism has been figured out. First there is trauma - we witness the suffering of our peers. Some personalities perceive this as part of life, others perceive it as injustice. Some of the latter will conjure up solutions. Some of those turn activist. Some of those turn extremist. Some of those are very capable.
You and some others in this discussion are in the beginning to middle stages. The very few at the end are named "Marx", "Stalin", "Mao".

Haha i think theres more to communism than just basic empathy. Its true tho that without being empathetic to others suffering you wont ever become communist, but thats only a part of it. Lots of people you call communists could never reconcile with other aspects of it. Theres strong anti-communist sentiment on the large portion of the of the left spectrum. Hell every relevant nominaly left party in EU atm is explicitly anti-communist

If not being a piece of shit was all it took for someone to become communist, like you implied, communism would still be going strong.

Hell every relevant nominaly left party in EU atm is explicitly anti-communist

So which relevant right party politician in Europa isn't explicitly anti-national socialism and anti-racist? :)

Communism as well as facism have been identified as evil by common consensus. They're not socially acceptable to publicly identify with. Doesn't mean a lot of very motivated individuals aren't exactly what they claim not to be and wouldn't partake in either in a heartbeat, if the opportunity arose. Doesn't negate that a significant portion of the population has forgotten the lessons of history and would be naive and well-intentioned enough to not recognize the beginnings of evil and oppose them.

That's why I've asked of everyone within this thread whose statements I find "suspect" to state their concrete goals and measures for removing their perceived injustices. Complaints and hollow words will not reveal your true motives - your actions, or at least least your plans for actions, will.
My solutions for the challenges I see in this world are stated in post #54. Unsurprisingly I have not yet gotten anyone to reveal theirs :)
I still invite you to state yours.

"The goal of socialism is communism"

-Vladimir Lenin

"Communism as well as facism have been identified as evil by common consensus"
LOL what? by the victors and how the western propaganda driven by some special "chosen people" portrays Western history?
ie
fascism was not identified as evil by most of the Germans EVEN when the war broke out, until the bombs of the victors were falling over their head
you seem to act and think as national boundaries and blood has long been abolished -since these are pillars of development for civilizations this in fact would mean the perish of modern world and return to caveman

for whatever reason most communistic political systems became dictatorships ... where basically the leader lives like a king and abuses its people ... a counter example might be china with their political party ...
maybe a non-dictatorship communist state, that still has a functioning voting system can work ...
I am reading here and there a bit about China, which is of course fueled by a lot of negative propaganda ...
but a lot of things make sense ...
building their own google, facebook, twitter, etc. for example ... also their AI and social points are not necessarily a bad thing ... it comes down if that social points system can be abused or not, if can hardly be abused I dont see how it damages society ... china still cares about its people and brings them prosperty ... unlike for example germany

There's a reason for communist dictatorships: once a population witnesses communism in effect, it would never support it via a democratic process. Communism is so damaging, it has to be upheld by force.. and eventually, even that fails, once the people have hit their breaking point and are willing to risk their lives in a bloody revolution

China at this point may be more capitalist than the West. The economy isn't managed, production isn't seized and re-distributed. It stills lacks many of the essential freedoms of the West though, which is why it will continue to trail the West in per-capita GDP.

Bloody revolution ... times are over for long for now ... once basic needs (food, shelter) are not met maybe then ... internet society are also different, they have more distraction etc. and they are more consumeristic, they dont really meet IRL and can form big bonds and create a mass fighting for something, and view on the world is pretty nihilist ...

It stills lacks many of the essential freedoms of the West though, which is why it will continue to trail the West in per-capita GDP.

Not so sure about that, I think China will become wealthy like Japan, South Korea Hong Kong in the near future

I have some pretty bad news for you. If there's one place in the world right now that is closest to a cyberpunk dystopia, it's China. Just ask the citizen journalist reported on the covid outbreak in Wuhan... oh wait you can't, they disappeared. Maybe ask the citizens of Hong Kong, though they might be a little apprehensive after China recently implemented a law that makes 'subverting' their authority over Hong Kong punishable with a life sentence in prison. Perhaps you could ask the Uyghurs, though they also might be a little wary about talking with foreigners.

its true all this is implemented ...
yet it is a party doing that ...
question is if democracy is really better or if it is even real ...
maybe christianity brought us all these humanist values in the west and not democracy ... but for some reason christianity is systematically being killed off by the elites ... I wonder why :-) ...
truth being told ... a humanist AI immune to corruption might be humanities only saviour

Disregarding that one is a form of government and the other is just the freedom of trade coupled with the concept of property, capitalism lets the competent people amass wealth/capital/power. Then the commies seize the means of production, ruin it, because they're commies and have no clue of ANYTHING, starve and shoot the people and it takes a violent revolt (100% of the time) to normalize the country. 50 years later retards say "oh it wasn't real communism". Fuck off.

Brevity is the soul of wit. Nicely put :)

Exploitation of 3rd worlders is the responsibility of corporations, not the governments... Calling people nazi and talking about mask slipping...

I never meet people like him offline, so I'd assume he has little influence among his peers IRL. Just your random online troll that needs some sense and manners slapped into him.

I bet you have great influence among your rightwing conspiracy youtube watching group of 40 yearolds.

Ive met many people like you irl and you are usually nobodies and weirdos

Weirdo definitely. No more than you or anyone else on this site though :P

Nobody, not really. Successfully self employed in IT, organizing / promoting my own events with 100-300 guests, and the internationally most successful player in Q3 in my country - that's just a few of my accomplishments, as an example of what you can do if you work towards exploiting your potential, instead of hiding your commie ass behind someone else's desk for 40 hours a week.

Dude both of you are racist idiots and i have no problem calling you that

No, you have a problem arguing any real point and thus all you do is call people racist/nazi/bigot. Like all the other reddit NPCs.

We both know who you are, theres nothing for me to gain from debating you. Its not like youre acting i good faith. Go watch some Jordan Peterson, dont waste your time one me

Ah, arguing in good faith. No matter what is being said, you know the real meaning. I'm sure the irony is lost on you, but know this, I don't think you're arguing in bad faith, that implies a level of intelligence I don't think you have.

I dont know what the real meaning behind everyones words is, but i read enough of what you write to know the meaning behind yours. You dumb fucks think youre so smart, but it takes such a short exchange with you to completely figure you out.

See, what reveals your true motives, apart from the incessant name-calling, ironically is that people like you will never reveal their true motives. You will be quick to call out a problem, but never once offer a solution.

Why? Because your solution has a red flag and 100 mio deaths behind it. And no matter how many of you little punks will go online to try to distort reality, that is still not socially acceptable.
So you hide in the shadows and cause dissent, until your time comes - which sadly for you will be never.

What motives am i hiding? A solution to what was I supposed to offer? You came to whiteknight fucking corporations. What a cuck thing to do.

You too are pointing out problems, even tho they arent real problems, but a rightwing conspiracy theory, and dont directly offer solution. However, the way you phrase it implies a solution.

I'd argue that if hunger is on the rise in the 3rd world, then it's because these fucktards breed like rabbits without regard for their own society's well being. That's nobody's fault but their own.
Overpopulation is the real problem behind pollution and destruction of habitats too - if there were 800 million humans on the planet instead of 8 billion, the damage to nature would be far less severe. Or if there was 8 million, the damage to nature would be almost non-existent. So guess what, the real solution to most of the problems in this world is: condoms! :)

Youve found the enemy and you implied a solution. We either kill them, let them starve, forbid them to procreate, or some combination of the three.

Maybe do us all a favour, lead by example and blow your brains out for benefit of the future generations

I love your tone.

We either kill them, let them starve, forbid them to procreate, or some combination of the three.

The commie reveals its true colors and the desire for power. Under no circumstances should people be left to their own devices (aka freedom), no they need to be controlled. Go fuck yourself back to reddit.

I wish you a one way trip to subsaharan africa where you can be left to your own devices. Vile idiot

Oh no, the commie that calls people racist for no reason uses Africa in a derogatory way. I'm shocked.

Haha, nice one. That is bad faith im talking about. Either that, or you have the reading comprehension level of a chat bot. But i doubt even you are that stupid. Youre just dishonest and a trully shitty person. Figures that youre a conservative

I don't understand why you stray out of reddit, just stay there.

Jumping to conclusions, putting words in other peoples' mouths, incessant insults / personal attacks, concealing your motives, misinterpreting historical facts - got any other hobbies?

I'm not hiding my solutions.

- pollution and destruction of habitats: stop uncontrollable human procreation, independent of region and race. How? By first raising awareness - most people still believe procreating is something positive - if they knew better, many would choose not to. Second, revoke financial incentives like state sponsored child / family benefits - let's see how many couples decide to have children if they actually have to pay for them! Third, as much as I am against government programs, sponsor and advertise birth control - contraceptives should be free for everyone.
Those three measures should reduce birth rates significantly. Of course, people today will still live out their lives, so the effect of the measures will be delayed. Still, that's the best we can do.
Of course, further technological progression towards renewable energy is also part of the solution. The free market is currently taking care of that - EVs, solar panels, heat pumps etc. are being offered to customers, and customers are buying them.

- overpopulation and hunger in the 3rd world: I have no solution. They should learn from us and stop screwing themselves over and move toward a modern civilized society and economy. Stable currency is one of the most important factors in that.

- corporations too influential, widening gap between the rich and poor, ...: potentially part of the normal cycle of society? One generation builds society up, the next doesn't appreciate their accomplishments and tears it down again.
Either way, there are still plenty of wise minds at work trying to prevent corporations from gaining too much power. The common schmoe needs to take advantage of all the information that's out there, grow some brains and some balls, adopt some morals and values, and stand up for what's right with a firm voice.
As I already stated I don't believe we have a major issue at this point in time, because our standards of living are way beyond anything they have been in the past. Perhaps at some point in the future the situation will deteriorate to where no peaceful option is possible. I don't believe it will, but maybe there has to be a revolution.
Just to make it clear - no outright (government) measures / programs can be a solution, because they have been proven to be prone to being coopted, poorly thought out, too narrow-minded, too inefficient. What needs to happen will have to happen organically.


I realize my efforts are wasted here, and you and ones like you will never supply your own solutions, because either a) you have none; you just like to complain b) it will reveal your true motives, which you cannot admit. At best I expect a half assed parroting of the common consensus, like "we need to drive more EVs" or "tax the rich".

Either way, I wanted to put something constructive out there instead of throwing insults back or just exiting the discussion.

This will never work. The social and evironmental responsibility cannot be satisfied by the corporations themselfes.
Funnily enough, this is explained in detail in the first part of the documentary I linked, which you resented before watching (because of...?).

I already told you, it reeks of propaganda.

Boy. Where to start.

Let's begin with the idea that climate change is caused by overpopulation. This is quite simply not true. Right now, China, the USA, the EU and Russia are responsible for 55% of emissions. Cumulatively, it's 66%. Emissions are caused by the wealthy, plain and simple. In fact, the poorest people in the world contribute less than 1%.

Secondly, 3rd world people "breeding like rabbits". The birth rate in sub-Saharan Africa has steadily been dropping since the 80's. It's been dropping to about the global average in South Asia [since the 60's. The average is still about double in sub-Saharan Africa than the global average, I'll give you that. At the same time though the infant mortality rate
in sub-Saharan Africa is also about double the world's average and life expectancy is 62 as opposed to 70 in the rest of the world.

Thirdly, unless you're going to want to tell me there's some massive conspiracy among scientists, I think you hugely underestimate how much we do know about climate change and its impacts on the world already. I'd recommend checking out the website of the IPCC, specifically the summary of their report on a global average temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Then remind yourself we're already at a 1 degrees Celsius increase and have basically done fuck all to stop it so far.

Most people in the West don't know this kind of stuff (or choose to close their eyes to it), but the reality is that our wealth and our lifestyle is dependent on and causing a lot of suffering everywhere else in the world other than China (and they aren't exactly helping the world either).

Finally, if you don't think big multinationals had direct influence in global trade deals, I have a bridge to sell you.

So the fact that the countries / societies with higher share of emissions have multiplied their population less than other regions solves things?

Population in the 1st world has still been constantly increasing ever since the start of industrialisation, which is directly related to increase in pollution.
The only viable solution is decreasing birth rates, and decreasing overall population. The individual reducing its resource consumption is no more than a pleasant fiction - there just have to be less individuals.

I never mentioned any sort of conspiracy concerning climate change - please don't put words into my mouth :)

Wealth and lifestyle in the 1st world may be partially correlated to suffering in the 3rd world today. However, we were doing pretty much equally as well when our production base was not yet shipped overseas, which doesn't suggest that our lifestyle is dependent on 3rd world quasi-slave labour.

I did not accuse of promoting conspiracy theories. I just wanted to point that you have a wrong perception of our understanding of climate change -- but I also know there is a vocal minority who will disparage the science itself when you bring that up. I did not say you were one of them, because I assume you simply didn't know. It's not like your average person spends any time whatsoever researching this kind of stuff. If you do want to know more, I'd recommend reading the book "The Uninhabitable Earth". It's basically a popsci summary of the IPCC report I linked in my previous comment with some angsty musings about the incoming disasters mixed in.

Let's go again to the idea that emissions are linked to population increase. Let's start with your assumption that the population of the first world (let's limit ourselves to the EU for simplicity's sake) has been increasing. Technically speaking, that's true. The growth percentage however has gone from a whopping 1% in the 60's to 0.15% now. The graph of CO2 emissions per capita meanwhile shows no correlation whatsoever to population increase. While the population remained more or less steady, emissions per inhabitant of the EU continued to rise extremely until the oil crisis of the 80's, when a slow drop started. That drop seems really good and positive, but it's still much higher than the global average (though not nearly as high as the US, which is four times higher than the global average, America First!). Also, while our emissions have been declining, [China has been right there picking up our slack. Right around the time manufacturing started to move to China and we started importing everything from Asia.

Speaking of which, around the same time, the purchasing power parity (basically standard of living) of a EU inhabitant mysteriously skyrocketed. We're not about as well off as before. Since production started moving overseas, our PPP has tripled.

I'm gonna leave it at this because I feel I have sufficiently argued my point: free market capitalism has winners (the first world) and losers (everybody else). The winners do lift up everybody else in the long term, but not without making sure they remain on top and not without squeezing as much out of the losers as they can. On top of that, our overconsumption has led to a great deal of greenhouse gas emission and widespread deforestation, leading to rapidly rising temperatures, the impacts of which disproportionally affect the poor while the emissions are disproportionally caused by the wealthy. Everybody else suffers so that we can buy iPhone's, do drugs, go backpacking and have fridges full of cheap meat and closets full of cheap clothes.

You remind me of another person I used to debate with online. She used to throw heaps of data at me that I would have to process in order to get to her point. She was hard to refute, not because of the quality, but of the quantity of data she provided. She desperately lacked real understanding - but she sure did read a lot of studies.

So CO² emissions in Europe moved from about 7 metric tons per capita in 1960 to about 7 metric tons today. Your point?
The progression seems to correlate with oil prices and emission regulations, the latter of which we have now effectively exhausted - Otto motors are not going to get more efficient, and no miracle waste purification technologies are on the horizon either.

Why don't we stop overcomplicating the issue though and just take a look at population growth vs energy consumption. Seems correlated enough? This almost perfectly relates to pollution too, since most of our consumption stems from the burning of various, today mostly fossil, energy sources.

Purchasing power parity? Is that not calculated through those ridiculous "basket of goods" that sometimes even include processing power? Meaning if your iPhone 8 is mathematically 100 times as powerful as your iPhone 4, it is calculated that you have 100 times the purchasing power? Lol.
Simple life experience will tell you that on an average wage today, you can afford just about equal to what you could a couple of decades ago - a home, a car, decent food, and a couple of toys and a vacation a year.
Of course you can always deny simple truths and instead point to carelessly & impractically calculated pseudo-data.

While I do not view outsourcing of production to Asia and other non-1st world regions as beneficial or sustainable, it is just wrong to claim that these regions suffer because of us - hell, we provide them with jobs & send them money!
We are actually hurting ourselves... our current standard of living is not supported by real economic strength, but rather by debt. And no, not capitalism, but only a few very misguided or possibly corrupt politicians are responsible for that.

You do have made your point: you have collected plenty of data, and largely fail at interpreting it correctly. You very much aren't alone with your lack of logical intelligence and common sense though.. very sadly so :/

Dont waste your time providing sources, those dont interest him. Hell just move the goalposts or provide you with more mental gymnastics.

You gotta realize that youre not talking with a misguided young man here, but with a middle-aged racist idiot

Stop projecting, maybe he isn't dumb enough to blame King Leopold's atrocities on a non-existent corporation. Maybe his sources won't be arguing against him. You keep calling people racist, we know that's all you got.

King Leopold ran Congo as a private business, with Belgian state having nothing to do with it, you absolute fucking moron

Nice cope, businesses don't have armies.

Except when they do https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_armies


Btw Leopold used mercenaries to enforce his rule in Congo

You absolute moron

During the period of Company rule in India, 1757–1858, the Company gradually acquired sovereignty over large parts of India, now called "Presidencies". However, it also increasingly came under British government oversight, in effect sharing sovereignty with the Crown. At the same time, it gradually lost its mercantile privileges.


Company rule in India (sometimes, Company Raj,[2] "raj", lit. "rule" in Hindi[3]) was the rule or dominion of the British East India Company over parts of the Indian subcontinent. This is variously taken to have commenced in 1757, after the Battle of Plassey which saw the Company conquest of Mughal Bengal.[4] Later, the Company was granted the diwani, or the right to collect revenue, in Bengal and Bihar;[5] or in 1773, when the Company established a capital in Calcutta, appointed its first Governor-General, Warren Hastings, and became directly involved in governance.[6] By 1818, with the defeat of Marathas followed by the pensioning of the Peshwa and the annexation of his territories, British supremacy in India was complete.[7]

You wanna use feudalism, to prove that private businesses are evil, next?

It gained soverignty over large parts of India before it got taken over by the crown. It even say so in the shit you pasted. Imbecile

You wanna use state to prove that businesses are benevolent? LMAO

You absolute moron

You should look up the meaning of sovereignty.

You should pee in youre mouth. See, i can spout meaningless sentences too

You're (notice the correct usage) confusing meaningless with illiterate.

Oh noes, a typo. You win after all

Yeah, it was so hard.

I forgot the most important bit: in 2012, a report found the EU wastes 173kg of food per EU inhabitant.

But obviously hunger in the third world is because those fucktards aren't as smart and civilized as us and we shouldn't feel bad about it, right?

"Everyone can splurt their worthless nonsense out on the internet for everyone to read"
yes, unless "everyone" ceases to be unimportant and sufficiently many people listen to him -at which point the political party of the neo-comrade western system just erases his content and shut him up

Did youtube not operate just recently a massive purge on its channels based on political views? they erased Stefan Molyneux and the one you mentioned, infowars, through others.

If you really want to test the "free speech" mantra in the Western world just create the National Socialists TV Channel -noone cannot say they were not warned abt the content -and see how it goes.

The Rockefellers the Rots and the rest of "chosen people or people of God" act like a huge mafia in control of all important assets especially those responsible with "RE-education" of the goyim. The difference is that while nationalists of the last centuries at least cared for their nation -be the result of their actions good or bad as they were -the neo-bosses and politicians of today just gather together to develop economical strategies based on their very own interests -in this process they don't care about your good life but about how to better use you so that their power can increase. The fact that modern world in the West experienced such development is thanks to science and the working abilities of the Western normal people -everything else like "exploitation of 3rd world" -although existing and increasing even more the profit of these monsters -is just dust in the mouth of the fool - because these robberies of the poor does not significantly contribute to the development of the West, only increases the profits of the very rich even more while contributing to the general welfare of the normal Western people by a very slightest margin.

Governments are currently under control of corporations.

Retarded faggot spotted.

except government isn't any better, i call it the human monkey syndrome or devaluation of human life due to scientific look at things, have you ever thought how science basically devalued human life by portraying human individual as a monkey descendant ie no god exists and we are just a collection of replaceable atoms, its not even because of corporations but basically giving science more power than it deserves, ie you basically allow yourself to be degraded into a human robot machine and than you complain about being treated like a number in a ledger, it's all about science bro. don't like god? fine there is your monkey chain strapped very tightly on your neck.

There are some parallels even with chess, chess used to be a game not solely of deepthough and strategy, but also a mystery and romantic attacks, with oncoming computer advancements and using them to analyze the game the game got reduced to a sport where the AI (brute force caclulus is also AI) is the ultimate god ...
and the game lost a lot of its attractiveness ...
humanity has become the same, you are not a being, you are a product of a DNA that can be potentially replicated ... you define yourself completely through your work, your position in that enterprise where you can be replaced by someone else in a short manner of time ... isnt that funny you define yourself through something where you can be easily replaced and you are out :-)

science basically devalued human life by portraying human individual as a monkey descendant

You're completely right on the what, wrong on the how. It devalued life by enabling the population explosion. The abundance of human life is what devalues it, not any political meaning you're trying to ascribe to science, that's retarded.

nope, at least in my book, just a lot of humans is not a problem, problem is in science itself, a thing is only judged by its physical properties,

if it wasn't for ethics constrains that are imposed by religious organizations, we would have all kinds of crazy experiments on humans,

just a reminder of what was going on during ww2 in nazi concentration camps where they infected people with diseases just to see what happens.

science in itself is not a problem, it's what it can do to society and it will do in longterm, if not limited by checks and balances it will lead to 1 to 1 recreation of what we see in all the dystopic scenarios aka bioshock and other stuff like that

a human is basically a biorobot, but that doesn't mean that we all should be treated like trash whether this thesis is true or not. we leave no place for a miracle, presuming that each being is 100% predictable so we can decide their fate.

science does not i repeat does not have ethics in itself, it's just a set of laws that enables "technological progress", so politics is hand in hand with science in regard to manipulating public opinion.

a person with low iq for example is deemed an outcast, even though we have very questionable goals as far as what progress is, for example once humans will be surpassed by ai, there is no guarantee that there will be place for us humans to exist in such scenario, even for the top 1 percent, why would machine want these less evolved flesh and bone creates guide itself?

it's just an illusion of progress that will infact lead to our own extinction (btw i think this is not the first time for human civilization, ever wondered what happened to ancient egypt/aztecs) due to completely materialistic and shortsighted worldview that we just leave here once, so why not do whatever we want.

it will lead not only to our own extinction but a really creepy life for whatever is going to be left to "live".

it's just an illusion of progress that will infact lead to our own extinction (btw i think this is not the first time for human civilization, ever wondered what happened to ancient egypt/aztecs) due to completely materialistic and shortsighted worldview that we just leave here once, so why not do whatever we want.

Really, you're using extinct, multiple sky-daddy, civilizations as evidence of "religion good" or "religion necessary"?

if it wasn't for ethics constrains that are imposed by religious organizations, we would have all kinds of crazy experiments on humans,

The ones like kiddie fucking, genital mutilation? Or maybe the aztec human sacrifices?

that kind of logic you ascribe to is going to lead us to the very scenario bioshock and many other games and books warn us, a bigot logic of trying to play god, while ascribing and acknowledging that humans are monkeys, a logic only a child could consume.

Oh, so you have nothing other than projecting upon me? Using primitive fairy tales makes ME childish...

no you just project your own childish logic upon serious issues, it's not about you or me having a heated argument, i have always tried to be honest with my opinion and it has nothing to do about being right or wrong on esr in particular.

i never believed in science as a worldview and i never treat religion as a fanatical dogmat, i see what happens and take it as objectively as possible, and what i see right now with ai and brain microchips going forward is a dead end terminator doom scenario, which btw is alwaready acknowledged as a way moving forward, it's just not very publicly avaible since it will probably cause havoc in society if most people will know the plan of so called scientific community for humanity, their plan is to implement all of this in near future as close to 2030 so it's not time to keep acting like a child.

You're only convincing me that humans are monkeys in desperate need of brain chips. Not science, you.

Do you think humanity doesn't need religion?

Yes.

Don't you think humanity disagrees with you?

No, it's at worst divided. That logic is not good, you can use it with communism or genocide too.

Was there any godless civilization in human history?
I can also say every communism starts with killing religion :^)

This one?

Yeah it does, it's competition. Lots of religions start by killing an old one. I find laughable the idea that communists are atheist.

I don't think we stopped living in christian civilization just because majority of people doesn't go to church ;)
I guess the only place where people are raised to become "new soviet man" is America (that's only big cities/states?).
Christianity started by dunking on judaism ergo it's the best religion by far ;)
What do you mean by saying commies aren't atheist?
Is there some Moloch they belive in or do you mean that everyone needs to belive in something.
If it's not Jesus it will be Stalin, Marx or whoever?

Christian civilization in Europe exists only in statistics. It is still tradition for newborns to be baptized and committed into Christianity. Most adults are then too lazy to officially change their profession, or they fear that not identifying with Christianity could hamper their chareer choices (some few powerful conservative old men in some large companies are still devout Christians).

I know noone, including myself, who isn't officially, on paper, Christian. I know noone, including myself, who doesn't really believe religion and God are nonsensical, laughable ideas.

Less and less people are involved in religious shenanigans, yes.
But I wouldn't say we hopped into some parallel universe pagan civilization.
It may mean we are approaching the end of this civilization.
I understand why you can view religion as some useless, under-the-rock thing but I think it's not totally accurate...
You were raised in a environment influenced by christian morals that are good and useful to have.
Now you judge society from your own point of view being... too generous.
If I'm not retarded, average person can't be THAT retarded.
But as far as I know humanity always had religion, always needed it, always drifted towards it and whenever someone took it, it wasn't making anything better.
America is good example.
People there think that two guys/grills can form a family.
Getting divorced is common as fug.
Unborn babies are holocausted.
Public schools are pooping out commies.
Many such cases.

I believe my own example again explains it best. I was raised by Christian parents. I was indoctrinated to believe in God and Jesus and the afterlife and the commandments, which I did. I remember it as quite pleasant. In my teenage years to early adulthood I searched more and more for truth and began to question everything. I didn't "rebel", as you might conclude, but rather I just wanted to find out what was real so I didn't lie to myself. Sooner or later I was forced to conclude there was absolutely zero proof for anything religion-related, and couldn't live my life by what I realized were just tales and tradition that had been blindly passed from one generation to the next.

I never abandoned my morals. As a matter of fact, I believe this ultimate version of honesty is the most moral way to live.
I do not disagree with the most basic commandments like "do not lie, do not steal, do not kill" - not because someone told me so, but because I am capable of reflection and empathy and recognize that I would not want that to be done to me, so I will not do them to others.
I care for others and will help them. I do believe life has meaning, if only because it is finite and we might as well enjoy it while we're here.

I personally have known many Christians who I would not describe as moral, who will lie and inflict harm to further themselves, or just to amuse themselves with the suffering of others.

Religion probably has had some benefits around the time of its inception. Better the commandments than anarchy. Roman basic law and Athenian democracy most likely were a lot more useful though.
Religion might also still have some benefit for "lesser" humans, who are mentally and morally deficient. Better for them to turn to Jesus than to go to jail. But overall, for any modern, thinking, normal human being, it should be an antiquated concept.

u should not underestimate the subconcious impact of christian stories and commandments you get to learn in childhood ... it probably makes society more reliable in general and less evil ... of course there are always cheaters, also booksmart christians who cheat the system, who just use the religion as a tool and commit fraud on the ideas behind it to get what they want ... I would say people who often didnt win anything in their lives but are highly narcistic for some reason and therfore have a giant minority complex (because they never won anything) and are really good in "exaggerated" storytelling about themselves, are very likely to cheat the system even if they had read the whole bible ... this kind of personality trait will always be stronger than any call to reason ... but I would say there is a lasting impact on normal people without these issues and it makes the society better as a whole because people want to be good people in front of god ... now ask yourself where society is shifting with the "new bible stories" from series like game of thrones, where the winner is the guy who mastered trickery and backstabbing in order to gain power ...

Well I can say afair I did believe in the commandments as a child, For example I didn't lie at all, because it "was forbidden", and I was outraged when I witnessed people lying.
Maybe religion did shape my value system. I am kind of sure though I would have developed morals and values either way, by myself or with the help of another person or system.

One should very much consider war btw. Countless wars in history have been motivated by religion.
We have the least amount of warfare in the history of humanity right now, coinciding with the least amount of religion. And the one country that does continually wage war is still rooted in religion, which gives them an imperialistic attitude - "God bless America" can be used to justify any atrocity.

I would have developed morals and values either way, by myself or with the help of another person or system.

When you do not belive in Kharma or an overseeing power, why should you not immediately try to think that you can "trick" the system ...

have the least amount of warfare in the history of humanity right now

isn't that due to christianity and the power of the christian states? Do you think it would be better with certain other non christian states in power?

And the one country that does continually wage war is still rooted in religion

so you think its christian people in the u.s. that decide to wage war in middle east for example?
Are these wars meant to bring christianity into the middle east?

Morals are simple: treat others as you want to be treated. Every normal human being eventually figures out this simple rule.

As I said, we have the least amount of war right now, coinciding with the least amount of religion. We used to have constant war in Europe while Christianity ruled.

US wars are NOT religious crusades, but imperialistic power-play.. and their imperialism is empowered by the belief that God prefers them ("God bless America").

Every normal human being eventually figures out this simple rule.
I think you are too optimistic.
I didn't respond earlier because a wigger from another village stole my bike and I can't do anything about it, so I wasn't in a mood :^)
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand that basic idea. Like at least 99!
Also last X American wars were fought for Israel.
So the only god involved would be Moloch :^)

Every human being is able to figure out simple morals, indepedent of religion. That's the point.
Doesn't mean that everyone is willing to live by those morals (also independent of religion).

But I will say one thing: for the sake of the enormous numbers of twisted souls who know right from wrong, and still choose to do wrong, I hope there is a god - because I would really love for those assholes to burn in hell for all eternity.

It's sad when everyone and their mom knows someone is a filthy thief but police can't do shit and the only thing that would make a difference would be leveling this wigger's head with pavement.
But that's pretty illegal :^)
I don't know if these people can comprehend morality or were they raped by their parents/school/uncle one way or another and think that "me steal = good, stolen from me = bad".
I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who simply can not follow simple rules.

Apart form your personal beliefs, you're 100% right. It always makes me laugh when first world countries sjw tries to blame everything on religion- for example i have heard faggots whine that girls aren't giving them pussy because of "religion", while literally NOONE under 45 years of age goes to church, ever.

Millennials are completely agnostic, when not outright atheist.

But starbucks commies are still trying to scapegoat the church over their own personal shortcomings, while at the same time completely ignoring actual religious and patriarchal societis like islamic ones- because that's a big no-no, that religion is so cool when it throws gays from towers and cuts off little girls' clitoris.

With that logic you can say we're still living in pagan civilization. Some African countries are living christian civilization still, I find them much more comparable to any muslim country than any European one.

What do you call a fanatical belief against all evidence? I call it religion, communism fits.

With that logic you can say we're still living in pagan civilization.

No.

What do you call a fanatical belief against all evidence? I call it religion, communism fits.

Are you saying there's a proof God doesn't exist?
That's peak r*ddit.
Literally every commie in history starts with dealing with the church.
Hitler would be the exception, he was smart enough to leave people be and fuck them later (as if Luther didn't fucked Germany enough :^)).

No, I'm saying there is no evidence god exists. I don't know X, therefore Y is only proof of low intelligence.

was hitler a commie?

Almost. (National) Socialism isn't communism, but pretty close.

do you think hitler was left wing?
by "national" socialism you mean nazism?

Extreme left and extreme right ideologies aren't necessarly contradictory.

Careful now, you're getting awfully close to escaping your left vs right, black and white world view.

Never been there. Stop projecting, dumbass.

do you agree that nazi germany was fascist, and that fascism is right wing?

National socialism, facism and communism are all for enslaving people.
(It's bad btw)

Yep. The common denominator is some power hungry asshole who wants to control the world. Political ideology for them is just a convenient pretense to gain and retain power. And if you want to do that, extreme leftism or extreme rightism won't do.. can't very well maintain extreme nationalism with a free market economy, or communism without nationalism.

religious education is very important
like fear and pain
nice words like empathy and kindness are empty when confronted with evil
a kid will become the adult you want by education
teach your kids to kill at 6 and at 30 they will have 100 victims on their "resume" without remorse
you obviously did not experience the other side of the spectrum

its not the abundance of humans ... it is the lack of work or lack of usage of them, which is devalueing the people ... people effectively always have to fight for scarce "resources", so the less competitors, the better ...
maybe when AI is doing all the work noone has to fight anymore over resources ...

You say that low demand (lack of work or lack of usage of them) is devaluing people and in the same breath you postulate that the solution to that is eliminating (or transferring) the demand altogether?

If we get teleportation for free tomorrow, you think that will make the car prices skyrocket?

ur problem is you see humans as warehouse items ...
we still live in a human centered society for the most part ...
human are required to work right now to make societies run, that's why not working is connected with negative feelings, at the same time societies need some people unemployed as well, to make the currently employed people more fearful and work harder ... but working is not the only use of humans ...
but yeah, I am not sure how live will turn out to be with AI overlords and humans not having any aim to aspire too ... maybe we get our own matrix if we are not already in it :-)

Commies and Jesusfreaks. ESR in 2020 :)

There's nothing freaky about Jesus :^)

We're not monkeys, we're apes, homie. :-) And I dunno what's so wrong with being an ape, or why you need to have some immaterial soul to be able to be happy and enjoy life.

RIP Harambe... ; - ;

At the end of the day, it's just powerful individuals exercising their power. What difference does it make whether they took the path of government or the path of corporation to achieve it?

Exactly. I never got this "dont thread on me... unless youre a company, then please thread on me" mentality

Corporations are more accountable to you. If you don't give them money they don't get power. Vote or not, someone is getting power in government. And they're held "accountable" once every 4 years, as opposed to every financial quarter.

Corporations are more accountable to you.

They're literally designed to be accountable to their owners and whatever laws regulate them, not citizens. Whereas democratic governments are, according to ostensible principles, designed to be accountable to citizens. So while this theoretical point doesn't guarantee that it's so, you should be aware of the systemic issues with your claim at the very foundations.

If you don't give them money they don't get power.

Unless you're not their client, or obviously you're a minority of their clients.

Vote or not, someone is getting power in government.

If you're not an anarchist, that's probably good? Similarly, if you're not anti-capitalist and don't want a dead economy, 'buy or not, someone is getting control of huge corporations' is also good.

And they're held "accountable" once every 4 years, as opposed to every financial quarter.

Wonder if there's consideration over who the accountability goes to here.


Look, as awful as these points are--about as silly as suggesting a command economy because the government has a responsibility towards us whereas corporations don't, so they MUST be better at actually running businesses--I just generally don't understand how you're typing this out at this level of abstraction with this many extremely obvious faults and not taking a pause to rethink it.

Or hell, just take the plunge, go full anarchocapitalist and invest all your money into the most hip altcoin.

Name me a successful corporation to genocide its customer base. They are accountable because they always want your money. Like a junkie, and you're the dealer.

Why do you ignore all of my post, reply with one only somewhat related talking point and also again fail to note what I mentioned--namely that they do not in fact always want your money, they often go for specific types of clients that don't include you?

Because that's gibberish - every corporation wants my money. They get it only if they have something I'm willing to pay for. Pharmaceutical companies would love it if I bought birth control diaphragms. The fact that they're not stupid enough to pretend I will doesn't mean they don't want my money.

Right the companies producing products aimed entirely not at you are accountable to you in the sense that even though you will never buy their products, they don't think you'll buy their products, they don't spend any effort in trying to make their products more appealing to you, in theory you could pay them money.

Good talk.

Like I said, gibberish. But at least you're making it short enough for me to read. Add meaning and I might even engage with it.

Whereas democratic governments are, according to ostensible principles, designed to be accountable to citizens.

You do realize that in the whole Western world, except Switzerland, there is no direct democratic process (which just to make clear I'm not necessarly advocating for)? Politicians are voted into office on account of their promises during their campagin. They have ZERO obligation, legal or other, to adhere to their promises after they are elected. As a matter of fact you can describe a career politician as a career liar.

Companies are held accountable to their claims every single hour of every single day. You cannot deliver on what you claim? Look how long you will remain in business.
THAT is a truly free and democratic process.

Unless you're not their client, or obviously you're a minority of their clients.

So companies are in the habbit of restricting their customer base and potential profit? Last time I checked EVERY large company wants to sell me their phones, CPUs, gas, real estate, electricity, etc etc.
Ever seen an advertisment anywhere? Do you get the feeling that companies are very restrictive in their advertising? Lmao.

If you're not an anarchist, that's probably good? Similarly, if you're not anti-capitalist and don't want a dead economy, 'buy or not, someone is getting control of huge corporations' is also good.

Yeah, it's great every time a military coup succeeds and some murderous psychopath gets into power. I bet our grandparents were real glad when Hitler got into office.
No evidence that we need quality individuals in office, eh? As long as there's somewhat there and we don't have to suffer from anarchy.

In the free market, if there's no buys, corporations would stop existing. There can never be someone completely incapable in control of a corporation, at least not for any significant amount of time - if he fails, the enterprise fails with him. Competition assures quality with perfect reliability.


On a final note, I find it disturbing that you accuse someone of showing "extremely obvious faults" in their argument, while lacking the most basic understanding of some of the concepts you are discussing. Seems like a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect to me.

You're just using words in random order, pasting half-truths and pretending they're exact points.

Like, representative democracy is somehow contradictory to democracy or accountability?

Politicians have zero obligation to adhere to their promises, even though they work extremely hard in order to appear as such, thus in fact it's impossible to properly divorce their job from doing the actual promises? Not that it's always enough at all, but you're going way overboard.

Companies are held accountable to their claims every single hour of every single day. You cannot deliver on what you claim? Look how long you will remain in business.
THAT is a truly free and democratic process.

Okay this is like something you'd see in a dishonest, dumbed down political ad. Not only you could choose to say the same about politicians, with many of their careers ruined in moments to be uploaded to social media in seconds, it'd also be the same silly half-truth you're peddling here. And calling it democratic is a joke, you're just adding a word you think sounds good here.

So companies are in the habbit of restricting their customer base and potential profit? Last time I checked EVERY large company wants to sell me their phones, CPUs, gas, real estate, electricity, etc etc.
Ever seen an advertisment anywhere? Do you get the feeling that companies are very restrictive in their advertising? Lmao.

Do you sincerely, in order to win a debate, pretend that companies do not ever specialize in specific markets and in many, many cases do not generally go for your money? Is this the level of dishonest debating you're at?

Yeah, it's great every time a military coup succeeds and some murderous psychopath gets into power. I bet our grandparents were real glad when Hitler got into office.
No evidence that we need quality individuals in office, eh? As long as there's somewhat there and we don't have to suffer from anarchy.

How the fuck did you get there from If you're not an anarchist, that's probably good? Similarly, if you're not anti-capitalist and don't want a dead economy, 'buy or not, someone is getting control of huge corporations' is also good.?

In the free market, if there's no buys, corporations would stop existing. There can never be someone completely incapable in control of a corporation, at least not for any significant amount of time - if he fails, the enterprise fails with him. Competition assures quality with perfect reliability.

Okay that last sentence breaks me. Were you jerking off to an advertisement as you were writing that last sentence? I'm genuinely perplexed how you can expect to pass this off as points to consider, they're entirely lacking nuance and delusional.

representative democracy is somehow contradictory to democracy or accountability

In our current Western system of representative democracy, politicians stay in office independent of their truthfulness and efficiency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_promis...n_promises

Name one recent case in which a politician suffered serious consequences for lying to the population.

Name one case of a major politician getting fired for being utterly incompetent and outright damaging to the nation, like Obama doubling the national debt within his two terms (10 to 20 tn $), destroying the solvency of the US forever.

Not only you could choose to say the same about politicians, with many of their careers ruined in moments to be uploaded to social media in seconds

Name one concrete example of your claim. Trump is caught in nonsense every day. Is he removed from office? Is his career ruined? No, he'll likely get re-elected!

Here's what happens when mistakes are made in private enterprise: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/2/17928314/a...dieselgate

How the fuck did you get there from If you're not an anarchist, that's probably good? Similarly, if you're not anti-capitalist and don't want a dead economy, 'buy or not, someone is getting control of huge corporations' is also good.?

That's exactly what your statement means / leads to, dumbass. You're probably so in shock at your own idiocy and moral corruption, you cannot even admit what you said.


You have outed yourself enough. Revel in your perverted world view.. fixing you would be a life's work.

big corporations are essentially the same as political parties, it's the same guys that win there ...

Oh, so it's this time of year again.

Let me guess the themes:
- climate change
- poor get poorer
- Holodomor/Mao etc.
- iPhones start slowing down
- central banks are free market entities

I think it's important to focus on the right things. There's a movement that sort of grabs attention in this area and consists of big social media personalities making the movement all about them and their friends getting reprimanded for this or that. I think that's largely a very small part of the issue and not worth focusing that heavily on.

I think someone who cares about this should look to form a holistic perspective that involves privacy considerations, copyright law, open source, a demand for open algorithms that determine what we see in our feeds at the very least, a demand for customizable and deterministic (in the sense that they're predictable to you) options for algorithms that display things to you, projects to move towards user-controlled open source websites that aren't filled up with bigots right away and are instead looking to attract a diverse userbase. Many things such as this. The users have the influence to demand these things and more, they just have to care enough and be given reasonable options.

Similarly one should probably look at the influence corporations have in politics, because nothing is happening without changing the law accordingly.

My general worry with all of this is that most of the time when I hear people complain about this, I'm hearing it from the perspective that their favorite content creator was banned, and the content creators are decrying it as the death of free speech. Without any insight whatsoever into the topics I mentioned, or even a more complete view of free speech. As long as the situation is such, we aren't moving forward.

user controlled open source websites, that would be good ...
I think services should also be decentralized, just like the internet ...
with decentralization comes freedom ... a service like youtube basically becoming just another protocol and dns should be overriden by a search service with open source algorithms and anonymized data storage

SBMM is for communists. The real solution lies in lowering the population of Quake. Frags have lost their value since we stopped worshipping John Carmack.

Here is an interesting documentary about the root of the corporate power und abusive behaviors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQYsk-8dWg

Ugh, 2 hours, spare us. Is the conclusion that the root is government or is it more crypto-commie propaganda?

Please don't watch it if you don't find it interesting. I kept watching until almost the end, because what some people like Chompsky say is always very enlightening to me, and I hope to watch the end soon.

The length notion only applies for informative but dry documentaries right?, which in my mind this is far from.

What? No. Long and dry would make it a real documentary. When it has one message being broadcast for 2 hours it's just propaganda. Granted, I didn't watch it, but ending it with a Michael Moore monologue doesn't speak objectivity and dry facts to me.

Are you criticizing a documentary before you have even seen it? Oh, 2 hours propaganda, sure. And you know that without even watching, genius!

Let me offer you my diarrhea for supper and don't you dare criticize it before taking a bite. No, actually I'm gonna need you to eat the whole thing first...

Wow, such a fitting comparison. The documentary is exactly like diarea, NzrO knows this without even watching, because he is a god!

I didn't know you were this ignorant. Your predjudice makes you stupid. Too bad.

It is fitting, I have more than one way to tell when something is shit. Yeah, I 'm prejudiced (against shit, my god), but Meph1sto beat you to calling me a bigot.

See, you could only really know this with certainty if you watched it.

Everything else is your brain+ego telling you that you are so incredibly smart so you can build an opinion about something in mere seconds with high accuracy. But truth of the matter is, you should be aware of that in the back of your mind, you absolutely can't. Noone can. It's a kind of delusion.

I don't get why you're so fucking defensive, did you make this movie? If I post a 2 hour flat earth documentary, would you be inclined to watch even 5 minutes of it?

btw, that is some circular reasoning "I know that it's shit without watching" "yes I'm predudiced, but only against shit"

Circular reasoning would be "I didn't watch it because it's shit and I know it because I didn't watch it". I say I can see and smell shit, so I don't need to consume it. I could be wrong, but when asked, all you do to sway me is "just eat it". You don't explain why it looks and smells like shit, or even say that it doesn't, you just egg me on to eat it.

Again, the comparison to "shit" is completely ridiculous. You can smell shit, I grant you that (but not your own bullshit it seems), but no one cares for your scat fetish, keep that to yourself please.

You cannot smell the quality of a documentary, this thread is proof of it.

"What? No. Long and dry would make it a real documentary. When it has one message being broadcast for 2 hours it's just propaganda"

"Granted, I didn't watch it,"

Then realistically you can't make a conclusion.

Kill yourself. And don't don't tell me you don't want to if you haven't tried it.

lol what

How can you make a conclusion on suicide if you haven't gone all the way through with it? Lol what is right, it's your logic, you tell me.

I never made conclusions on suicide? xD

Lots of money leads to greed which leads to one of two things - either the corporation's own everything (USA) or the state (China). Pick one.

where gaming meets fascism

https://streamable.com/w4l7zl

It’s that’s time of the month when esr solves the world problems.

Yeah and we ain't gonna do shit about it because they adopted and perfected propaganda and mass mind control techniques based on the MKULTRA research. The rabbit hole is very deep and leads to what looks exactly like satanism and black magick, only practiced in very measured and scientific ways.

Twitter bans trump
Twitch bans PogChamp emote

WTF is going on here?

Mass censorship is wrong no matter what a person believes.

Is mass censorship of pornography on most sites wrong? (not trying to make any analogy, just challenge the statement).

Valid point

How about

"Mass censorship is wrong no matter what a person believes unless it involves kids"

xD?

Where did I say kids? Normal, legal pornography and other nsfw posts. Ofc illegal content must be banned no matter what, this is beyond the argument.
Edit: unless this is what you meant, kids as consumers of the content. Then we're on the same page.

Well mass censorship of porn usually involves kids and rightly so that's why I mentioned i tlol.

What is with all these retarded r*ddit tier questions?
Pretending to be blind and retarded, ignoring nuance just to make a question.
Truly intredasting :o

Pacman play nice because I love you

I love you too! <3

u r weird with your off topic comments ... this is about political censorship of companies taking massive influence in poltitics by deplatforming people without the allowance of the government, i.e. a judge who still uphelds the values of freedom of speech that gives them the permission ... and deplatforming is just the tip of the iceberg, they already take massive influence with their algorithms in what they recommend to you and in the search results ...
also previously you had some off topic comment where I got some information from a "tabloid" source because it was valid information and u criticized me for reading a "tabloid", guess what I dont read tabloids, but it appeared on google search and tabloids are still valid sources, and its just about having a valid source for me ... you are just searching superficially for some attack points that are completely invalid

I wrote that your obsessive interest in twitch hots is akin to tabloid reading, in another thread, Now you are being offtopic.

No, it's not, because it's consistent. Now how is it right claim you allow pornography but delete everything not to your taste?

Ok so you're saying that mass censorship is wrong, unless it's consistent?

Comment I replied to reminded me of proposition put forward by the pm of my country, to make illegal censoring accounts on social media and how out of touch it was. Not only because how cynical it is on his part, but also totally not taking into account the reality that a lot of things are being censored in most places and nobody in his right mind, who understands how internet trolling works would want to change it.

Oh, those of sound mind are the ones too stupid to deal with internet trolls on their own, huh? If only their dev's had done the exception handling.

By trolling here I mean ppl being assholes just because they can and because they can avoid any responsibility on the internet. If you, for example, make it illegal to remove pornography or other obscene content "on a whim" or "in mass censorship effort", you will have ppl flood sites for minors with it until it is forced to shut down any communication.

Its not a case of mass censorship, its a case of.

One side is allowed to say, incite and do wrong against another, while another side is pulled up on it for smaller things. That is worse than censorship because its censorship with bias. So its actually oppression.

Play store
App store
Google
Facebook
Twitter
ICANN
Web Archive

Between them control everything in the west and they're all without a couple of hundred miles of each other.

They've built up a monopoly now they are abusing it.

the man was allowed to skirt the rules until he lost power and stopped scaring them with regulation. Worrying about Trump when he's got perhaps the most access to press in the entire world is a gross misunderstanding of even a positive right to free speech. It's an entire dishonest game people pull with anything to do with communication.

These companies


1) are deathly afraid of being regulated, so they're eternally skirting lines. The way this mostly works is that the right, which has for years been spreading way more misinformation, is catered for and any website policy that bans misinformation (that you want as a person designing websites for normal people with shit to worry about to use, shocker i know but people find endless bullshit on their feeds annoying) will be endlessly redesigned to make sure the fair policies don't disproportionately affect the right. Even though neutral policies would, so it's an ideological redesigning of what would be more neutral policies.

So while the companies have centre-left working forces, the higher up people making the moderation decisions are often righwing partisans working to make sure that Qanon, antivaxxers, white supremacists and the like have as much access to gullible boomers as possible. People who sound the alarms about this are normally shut down, and only excessive bad press forces them to make belated changes, like for example with the capitol storming.


2) want the profit that results from people using their websites, and even though it's obvious that people don't generally feel like their lives improve from conspiracist fake news on their feed, it does increase their engagement, making it worth it for these companies to affect their users negatively to squeeze extra reading minutes out of them. This goes even for genocide incitement, with some cases of facebook employees sounding alarms that their platform is being used for terrible things and those employees being punished for it, because surely spending more money on paying attention to these things and lowering engagement just isn't worth it even if it saves lives.


Beware of all the liars or useful fools that think that the rich owners of these companies care about anything more than money and prolonged moneymaking by making their platforms more engaging. Just because their workforces are centre-left and they put out these insincere centre-left press releases doesn't mean they won't make their users lives worse by allowing bullshit from the left or the right spreading fake news on people's feeds, and won't reverse engineer all of their policies to allow one side to spread way more bullshit after it turns out that an original, neutral policy predominantly censors a side that will threaten them with regulation. Currently that's the right, but I don't think the owners give a shit which side it is.

Final bit thing those pretending the right is being treated unfairly won't tell you: before and after designing their policies to make sure the right doesn't feel unhappy about their fake news uncensored, the dominant political content-makers on Facebook were and are rightwing

.

Nah, that was debunked.

Got any links then? A new NYU report once again affirms that the two biggest political actors on FB are conservative, Trump dominated Biden in engagement in sept 2020, Trump dominated politicians in terms of interactions in 2020 jan to nov 3rd, etc...

He also dominated votes on the election day :^)

Worrying about Trump when he's got perhaps the most access to press in the entire world

www.stefanmolymemeisanazi.notanargument.gov.pl

Cool it with the anti-semitic remarks.

Reading this thread has collectively dropped my I.Q by 900 points.

Well done. You've all been played by your own confirmation biases.

The internet has become portalized, while it is an open network you only use few sites, each having monopolies for user data and profiting massively f rom crowd network effects ... basically it is not possible to compete against that anymore ... you can make a better site than ebay for auctions, but noone will visit your site, same is true for instagram, youtube, whatsapp, etc., developing a better technology wins you nothing ... it is not a free competition anymore ... and these user data monopolies are basically working closely together with governments and national security agencies ... its game over since the analog space does not really exist anymore for free thinking and political visions ... u r all owned by the big bro