Who would have thunk it?

isn’t “lawlessness from the court” an oxymoron?

This is one of those images that could be an album cover.

Scary times

I’m gonna quote what I already said elsewere on this issue:

The appeal of humanoid robots isn’t just automating production (because if it was just that specialized robots would be far better than any generalist humanoid), instead I think the appeal of humanoid robots is as a tool to manage the balance between employment and production output.

As a socialist society you want to become able to guarantee jobs and access to the products of labor to your citizens. Which means you have to balance level of automation with necessary output: too many robots and there’s not enough work for everyone, too few and there might be shortages of certain things due to underproduction. This means that ideally you want to be able to retire a few machines when there are peoples in need of a job and bring more machines in when workers retire or stop working for whatever other reasons.

But you can’t make the switch quickly enough with specialized robots because these require conditions so vastly different from human workers that you need to refit the entire factory floor or at least part of it both to bring robots in or to get them out, which can take months to years. With humanoid robots though, they can work with the exact same factory floors the human workers use, meaning switching between robots and humans is as easy as ordering the robots to walk in or out of the factory. That’s the best argument for humanoid robots in my opinion, and because of that I think it makes a lot of sense for a socialist country to develop the technology.

I’d like to add on top of that: the framing of a binary choice between either specialized robots or generalist humanoid robots is wrong. Humanoids will without a doubt work alongside specialized robots, just like human workers currently do.

“YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE SURE THIS BAR IS SAFE AND WELCOMING TO EVERYONE!!!”

“I already am.”

I don’t believe this is likely.

Your comparison with Venezuela here neglect just how vastly different the 2 situations are. Not only is Venezuela far weaker militarily, they are also far closer to the US and their only trade routes to Eurasia are by boat which the US navy can easily intercept. Meanwhile Iran is on the same continent as China and Russia’s immense supply chains and industrial bases, they have a huge industrial base of their own, they mostly make their own weapons, they have huge sea and land trade networks.

Between the western economies making it clear to the whole world that they are now a sinking ship and the fact that even if the US can somehow block the maritime routes between Iran and China, Iran would still have land roads that the US has no ability to blockade whatsoever; making such a deal would make no sense for Iran.

Yes, Iran would not win from a prolong fight with the US, but they not lose from it either, in fact they are likely able to sustain the attrition of that kind of fight for far longer than the US could, especially with Chinese and Russian supply chains being right there on the same continent as them.

The only way it would last only weeks is if the US navy gets repelled or destroyed without ever touching boots on Iranian soil. There is no scenario in which the war lasts only weeks and the US wins. One or both of these propositions necessarily has to be false.

Well… Gamers, you know what to do.

Where did you quote that from?

Am I the only one for whom the image isn’t rendering?

another 10 years or so, and by that time Amerikkka will have already collapsed for a myriad of other reasons so maybe this entire post is pointless.

The Democrats would’ve, at a bare minimum, left USAID slower.

You are reduced to splitting hair about hypotheticals. You might want to try moving on to other arguments. Assuming you have any left.

I’m not going to bother responding to the last part. Unless it’s easier to organize under the GOP, it’s irrelevant.

Oh, dodging inconvenient arguments now are we? Your “point” was that it’s supposedly easier to organize under the Democrats so the fact that it isn’t is absolutely relevant.

This is just sad at this point. You reached a level of throwing-everything-at-the-wall-in-the-hope-something-will-stick that probably does more harm than good to your position in the minds of peoples reading this thread.

How many the Democrats would’ve killed is almost definitely less

You don’t even know what you’re saying yourself you damned clown 🤡 This is the party who spent their last presidential term funding and arming a genocide btw, on what ground are you arguing that this very same party would have given a shit about killing less peoples this way?

They certainly wouldn’t have left the WHO. Staying in the WHO is just good business sense, aside from for the private hospitals but the impacts of a highly lethal global pandemic on stability and on the safety of the rich isn’t worth it.

Again, you are arguing for voting for a party that is guilty of funding and arming a genocide. And these are the argument you are bringing up to make your case. Is staying in the WHO worth supporting a genocide? Heck fucking no!! In the name what ridiculous alternate moral philosophy are you arguing that it remotely makes up for even a fraction of it?

I’d also like to point out that you being reduced to praising the Democrats for what they maybe wouldn’t have done in the hypothetical scenario where they would have won isn’t a very good look for your side of the argument, just saying.

And people will have more space to organize when under a predictably evil government than a chaotic one. Unless you’re relying on the death and destruction for a recruitment drive.

Again, genocide. Is potentially having a slightly easier time organizing worth supporting genocide? No, It’s not!

Also, the Democrats have increased the budget of the US’ militarized police forces as much, if not more, than the Republicans. Does a party that give as much or more money to a brutal force of repression who already have military grade weapons than the other sound easier to organize under to you? Have you peoples already forgotten Biden’s brutal crackdown on strikes and protests during his presidency?

Even if the Democrats would’ve cut it USAID, they would’ve been far less sudden about it.

“No but you see, they might have done it too, and in the same way, but at least they would have done it slower! That’s totally better right?”

Just take the L already. You can’t even argue your own point without making a total fool out of yourself.

The Democrats make it pretty clear that they do not care about our votes, or about beating Republicans.

Wasn’t your whole point that the Democrats would block or at least slow down the Rep? You do realize that this sentence voids the argument right?

Why the fuck do you go to bat for Copmala and Genocide Joe then?!

You mean the one where they let the Republicans repeal Roe v Wade without doing anything about it despite their candidate being president? That one? In that case please do forgive me as it’s obviously very different! If it had been a Republican Roe v Wade would have been overturned, but thanks to the Democrats Roe v Wade has been overturned but at least a democrat was president! Soooo much better!

slightly different

Even you have reached the point where you can’t confidently affirm their differences anymore and are reduced to having to add diminutive adjectives in front to prevent yourself from getting called out for saying something that is obviously false. You’re out there fighting for the scraps left of your “argument” after we tore it to shreds, it’s frankly pathetic. And pretty funny to me so please by all means do go on.

Neither is the party you support lmao. May I remind you that despite billions of $ in campaign findings, dozens of appearances on TV and other mass medias, dozens of political rallies, all while being the one of the 2 duopoly party and having no obstacle, Kamala still managed to lose to Trump of all peoples.