No point lying. If you check the modlog plenty of his comments get removed. You can check for yourself.

I don't see how that follows.

Because you need to get to imperialism via capitalism.

Socialism's goal is to provide for its people; in theory, why can't it engage in colonialism to bring in resources to benefit its people?

There is definitely no other way.

Its obvious how capitalism leads to imperialism, but it's definitely not obvious how that would be the only way to arrive there.

Any elaboration you can provide would be great because you're acting as if it should be obvious why what you're saying is true but it absolutely is not.

Your wiki link for inequality has China ranked 98, not 71, putting it much closer to the USA at 107.

I'm not sure if you understand how a ranked list works: you can invert the ranking order and the relative difference is identical. Whether you say China is 98 and USA 107 (a difference of 9) or you say China is 71 and the USA is 62 (a difference of 9), the relative difference is the same (it's 9). The only difference is how you interpret which is better, which I didn't do. My point was they're similar and middling in the ranking.

Also notably, the Gini index has a very long list of nominally “capitalist” countries ahead of China, which meet your criteria for a sustained fight against inequality and taking care of the poor.

This is irrelevant to the point I was making. My point wasn't that China is uniquely positioned with low income inequality. My point was twofold: it is middling in its rankings (i.e., not the most unequal), and it's decreasing. The fact that it's steadily decreasing is directly related to the point I made about the CPC truly working for the people to solve the real problems they're facing: they identified a problem, identified some causal factors, discussed the importance of fixing it, made plans of how to fix it, are implementing those plans, and make reports on the progress of those plans. You'll also notice that those capitalist countries which have less income inequality than China have more government intervention in the market (i.e., tempering the "free market") in part because the issue doesn't address itself in a capitalist system, and intervention has to be taken to address the problem. This is what China is doing, too: their income inequality problem isn't magically going away on its own free will, it is going away because of government intervention in the economy.

Forgive me as you’ve written quite a bit here but this seems to be the only concrete policy to discuss vis-a-vis capitalist vs communist systems. The rest is subjective language about “working for the people”. Every politician gets up on stage and talks about how they’re fighting hard to give people better lives. No one really gives those statements any credit.

The difference is that Western politicians rely on selling a promise and not delivering. Yes, they get up on stage and talk, and then do nothing. With the CPC, they actually show results. They make plans and publish them, they implement them, and they publish update reports that show whether or not they stuck to what they said they would do. This is not another situation with empty promises; if it was, they either wouldn't publish update reports or the update reports would show that they aren't doing what they said they would. You're confusing form and function: both CPC and Western politicians make promises, but the Western politicians do not deliver and the CPC does. There's a reason CPC support in China is so high, and it's because the party truly works for and benefits the people; if it were empty promises that never benefited the people, they wouldn't have so much support for the party.

(Edit: I was wrong in the direction I had sorted when I wrote this comment initially. I have removed the now irrelevant part. My point still stands: the two countries I compared are similar, and China is middling in it's ranking; inverting the sort order doesn't make the countries less similar, and since they're middling, inverting the sort order means they're still middling. I didn't make a claim that one was better than the other).

My issue is that you said they're capitalist. They're not. They do use a market economy in addition to a planned economy, as part of the overall socialist economic system. It's not a binary either-or; using a market economy doesn't mean it's capitalism, and planned economy (intervention) doesn't mean it's socialism. When I said they're structural terms, and relate to purpose: capitalism's purpose is to maximally extract profit and concentrate wealth; socialism's purpose is to better the lives (materially and culturally) of its people. China, as a socialist system, takes advantage of the benefits that a market economy can offer (efficiency, competition, resource allocation, demand and pricing signals) but doesn't use it to extract and concentrate wealth: instead, it uses the net benefits of the market economy to benefit the people. Similarly, a purely planned economy can be very stable and fair but is prone to stagnation and slow progress. By using both systems simultaneously, taking the relative advantages of each, China is able to benefit from efficiency and stability. There's also no pure free market economy: every capitalist economy has degrees of government intervention (another name for planned economy), especially in times of crises.

I also don't know what you meant about a "strong central government" not making them communist. That seems like a strawman. Nobody would say that a strong central government makes it communist, or a lack of a strong central government means it's not communist. "Strong" with no other qualifies is also not very useful: do you mean tough and resilient, or do you mean controlling?

I weighed calling them socialist, but it seemed… unhelpful when what i was trying to highlight that the unemployed youth are relying on family, and not the state.

This is a trap that people keep falling in to. Just because a socialist country doesn't do "good thing X" doesn't mean it's not socialist. No system is perfect; the difference is that the CPC makes strong plans, sticks to them, and publishes progress reports to address the problems that do arise. Should the state be taking the burden here where family currently is? Perhaps. But it's failure to do so doesn't mean the system isn't socialist. Again, I'll repeat my earlier statement: being "socialist" is a statement that is about the purpose of the government and the relation of the government to its people; it is socialist if it is for the benefit of the people en masse. Being "socialist" is not a statement of a utopic ideal antithesis to capitalism.

If you truly are willing to read about this, the book I mentioned is a good overview of China as it exists, as an implementation of a socialist society, at a level that does not require previous knowledge of theory or of China. Being intended for a foreign audience, it makes a concerted effort to address common misconceptions held by those outside of China about China. It's also very heavily sourced: each chapter ends with several pages of citations used in that chapter, including primary sources from CPC members, official government documents, analysis and critiques, and "historical"/foundational texts.

But nothing is falling, all of the temperature records are rising.

I see what you're saying. I had taken the use to mean the situation is tumbling, not the temperatures. But upon a closer reading (of the title specifically) it seems a more reasonable interpretation of the word tumble is:

Climate records tumble,

The object of the verb 'tumble' is "climate records". That is, the climate records are tumbling. A tumbling record is one which has fallen over and been surpassed. So what they're saying by using the word "tumble" is: previous climate records have fallen over and been surpassed.

I do agree it's a weird word choice, but I don't think it's wrong or even playing on a potential uncommon secondary definition. It's not saying temperatures have tumbled, but rather records have tumbled.

They're lucky their content is high quality because god damn the pre-roll and inline ads are always absolute fucking garbage. I know the show host doesn't control what ads the network uses, but they've literlly had USA military recruiting ads on their show, which is peak irony.

I've set my podcast player to skip the first X seconds to get past the pre-roll, and my finger is trained to skip-forward through the ads, but some automated system would make life a lot easier (and listening to Behind the Bastards more enjoyable).

Yeah, it's not out of character unfortunately. It's just an extension of the "strikers/unionizers are greedy bastards" rhetoric that's common in the USA. They've done a good job of painting advocating for your rights as a laborer as being "greedy".

The concentration at which it is released is already internationally regarded as safe. They aren't dumping a high concentration that, by nature of distribution in the ocean, will eventually reach a safe concentration. They're diluting it to safe levels before they even release it. I'm going to copy part of another comment I made in this thread here:

Here's an IAEA overview as of February 2023,

The discharge of the ALPS treated water into the sea will be conducted after i) purification/re-purification to meet regulatory standards set based on international standards with an exception of tritium and ii) to allay the concerns of the consumers, the target concentration of tritium should be the same as the operational target (less than 1,500 Bq/L, that is less than 1/40 of the regulatory standard value for tritium) by sufficient dilution (more than 100 times) by sea water, prior to the discharge into the sea, and iii) The total annual amount of tritium to be discharged will be at a level below the operational target value for tritium discharge of the Fukushima Daiichi NPS before the accident (22 trillion Bq/year).

This release will represent less ocean irradiation than did the operating Fukushima plant.

It’s very probable that war crimes did happen as they happen with every country in a war.

So many weasel words. It's not just "very probable", Finland's own government published and stands by a multi-hundred page report documented how it did happen. Also, not every country was offering up volunteers to help murder Jews, so don't make this "all sides" junk claim.

Also, you glossed over the key point I made: if the cost to get protection from what you perceive as an invading threat is to offer up volunteers to kill Jews, you are completely in the wrong for accepting that protection. That is not a fair trade-off to make.

Anyone have a non-paywalled version? It would be nice if you would post the entire article contents as post body if you're going to post paywalled sources, @HowRu68@lemmy.world.

not rival of Signal, WhatsApp (or similar), but instead a complement for higher privacy

Sure sounds like you're a rival if your bio is accurate. What do you gain from positioning yourself as not-a-rival? Wouldn't it be more honest and benificial to position yourself as a rival, and be very explicit in how and why you are better than alternatives?

Sorry for the several hashtags, it’s just the habit when posting

Why is this a habit though? It doesn't help discoverability, at least not for random shit like #people and #policy and #terms. What is the point of that? Don't all these services have full-text search, where searching for #Signal and Signal are equally effective at finding comments mentioning Signal? And, even if it was exceptionally useful at helping discoverability, it really hurts readability: it becomes harder to scan and is visually cluttered. It takes me significantly longer to read somethign full of #tags than without, and I'm lately likely to forgo reading such a comment entirely rather than put up with line noise.

Of course there's not. It's a reflex: China → malicious. It doesn't require evidence and, since it's not normally questioned in daily discourse, the person saying it seemingly never questions whether it makes any sense to make such a baseless claim.