And that’s also what Trump crowd promises their voter base.

The issue is how they are going to achieve that. The Soviet way was very inefficient, led to many unprofitable plants in the system and budget holes being closed with selling fossil resources to “capitalist” countries. And eventually tanked the USSR.

Succeeding in creating such industries in the first place and making them work is more likely with Soviet approaches. But making that a stable, efficient system is just impossible with Soviet approaches.

So they have to spend enormous funds at creating humongous processes and plants and logistics, and then prevent those owning said processes and plants and logistics from creating a bureaucratic-political deadlock which USSR was usually in. Any change would reduce some party’s power and increase another’s, so most ministries would oppose any change of status quo, and that is why all Soviet attempts at creating, say, a country-wide computer network to increase production and planning efficiency, or at optimizing military industries, or at standardization were killed.

USSR could have personal computers common enough, and not clones of Western successful designs, except clones were the only thing that wouldn’t cause such a deadlock. Domestic designs meant some ministry losing to some other.

There was a de-facto college ruling the country, with every party in that college having a veto right. Better than today’s Russia, of course.

Same even with fossil fuels export dependency, frankly - big companies today are not so different from USSR in terms of internal structure, yet they are efficient enough. It’s just that such a way of getting value would be, again, less likely to cause deadlocks.

The more intelligent (thus requiring standardization and competition, not just controlling land or oil and gas reserves) always lost to the more basic (sell something abroad, or choose a foreign design and clone it).

It’s a bit similar to how Byzantine empire killed itself, actually. Inviting foreign power to help in internal affairs became normalized. They didn’t even feel, apparently, slow and steady conquest by Turks whose help they’d employ against each other.

Yes, I missed that part, meant more the “working all your life on the same plant” thing.

The USSR didn’t have any limits to choosing an employment

You were distributed to a place by the state after finishing your education. If you left that place too soon, you’d be frowned upon and that’d be mirrored in your labor book (USSR had such a document, basically a dossier documenting your whole history of employment with characteristics, you could get such a “flattering” characteristic by a superior not liking you that you’d never be accepted to a good place after, and you couldn’t refuse or lose a record in your labor book).

and people weren’t forced to work anywhere.

Being unemployed for too long was literally, seriously, illegal in the USSR. Google for “тунеядство”.

People with something really bad in their labor books (say, dissidents) or some other necessary documents (being German after the war, being Jewish in a wrong period of time) had problems finding a place that would accept them, and would sometimes be prosecuted for being unemployed (that was usually informal employment, because you still had to eat something).

But in general yes, some kind of employment was always possible. Dying from hunger or being homeless was almost ruled out. Most of the population lived in some sort of “acceptable poverty” - conditions very bad by US measure, but with the previous correction. That’s sort of one good thing that most people from ex-USSR agree on.

Seems that they want to repeat the USSR of 70s, just capitalist and without the revolution and industrialization and mass repressions preceding stages, and rather right-wing.

Maybe they want that to avoid the same fate due to avoiding state capitalism and overregulation combined with politics inside the bureaucratic machine. If they are moderately smart.

Or maybe they just want to repeat the same track with modern technologies. Then it’ll suck.

That’d be the humanity.

Any system without wide popular involvement turns into shit.

Wide popular involvement requires simplicity and small number of levels, and ability to ruin and rebuild any part of the state apparatus quickly. So it’s limiting, but those limits are liberating, one can say.

At the same time there are no good systems for that wide popular involvement, one would have to pick between Switzerland and the idealized Soviet system, neither is perfectly functional.

I mean, I doubt he’d refuse her offering to SLAM him, I think there was no such offer.

Franco sort of was nicer.

Ah. I see. I have some remnants of irrational sympathy to Boers after reading Boussenard’s book for stupid boys in my childhood.

But yep, encouraging Afrikaners to come somewhere in bunches seems to be a red flag.

I think you’d have a pretty steep uphill argument to say that this administration is not a white supremacist (and misogynist) movement at its core.

Maybe you are right, it’s just hard to believe something to be that simple, all other cases I’ve seen have a saner core, just evil.

I’ve heard that you have a huge demographic of black christians there, so abortion restrictions would also mean more black babies. Same for pornography.

Immigration restrictions - a lot of people from “white” countries were immigrating too, so not sure.

I don’t think it’s that. It’s making more bullshit laws, because a law really puts pressure only at those not in power. Creating plenty of tooling to jail and suppress opponents.

And also some people might genuinely think porn is harmful and they’re sorta right, if you have proper sexual education and available contraception, porn is harmful and it’s better to reduce age of consent (so that teenagers doing teenage things wouldn’t fear getting jailed) and limit porn (it affects one’s brain similarly to other addictions). A bit like in Iceland maybe?

Dunno what “white culture” is, seems to be some American delusion. From here it seems you have in general the same culture, whatever the skin color. Even ebony slang, IIRC, is similar to how rural white people speak in some states south. I may be wrong, haven’t made the Columbus excursion yet.

The “GOP senator pegged by pink furries while his tradwife is being handled by caring black gentlemen” new trend?

“Step…”? “Schoolgirl”? “Interracial”? “Incest”? “Cuckold”? Something about police?

Or what?

I know it’s the reserve hole for Russia, must be all the criminal culture.

the cause and effects of social levers before.

I don’t use social levers here and I am not interested in them unless that’s the only thing the interaction is about.

You are not becoming a more valuable human by being more social, and I don’t care about quantity in arguments.

The conversation is about being right and wrong, not about social levers. Nobody was trying to gain your respect or otherwise socialize with you anyway. Would be weird.

This is some kindergarten-level social competency my dude.

I don’t think “social competency” is a good person’s attribute and under pressure people err.

Everyone fucks up, but when you do, you’re supposed to apologize.

That’s weighted by the situation. If in the rest of it you were right and you are apologizing, you might cause harm.

That’s in abstract, not in this particular case.

Society doesn’t need to accommodate immaturity/anger management issues like that, but it definitely should shun racism.

This seems dangerously close to considering what crowd thinks to be right. I prefer a machine gun or at least to run away.

Anyway I’m not talking to society, it can go fuck itself.

Do better.

Just did.

If there is valuable “social competency”, it’s in saying “no” despite any pressure and in holding your ground on your principles. Unless those principles dictate otherwise and exactly till that moment.

So maybe I can teach you.

and you’re just very bad at explaining your position on an extremely sensitive subject?

An extremely sensitive subject is normally discussed the same way as an absolutely mundane subject, just very sensitive.

Like a big system is like a small system, just big. And vice versa.

Order of statements in a conversation or actions in a conflict matters, and a statement or an action can have different weight.

Quite obviously if you are generally right, but have used some nasty insults, you are still generally right. Even if the other side is perfectly polite.

And, again, why are you listing other ways to insult people, as if they are fine when they’re not?

God, are you dense.

Life is a rarely a zero-sum exchange, and quite often both sides aren’t perfect people. Just because someone slapped you after you called them a slur doesn’t mean you’re now in the right because they escalated to physical violence.

You even write that yourself. When someone is violating your private space or just attacking you on the street because they don’t like you for whatever reason (autistic people get a lot of that) and they are a humiliated good-for-nothing creature with no other ways to reinforce their self-confidence, you might say a lot of things including slurs to get rid of them, and be right.

Like I fundamentally am having trouble relating to you on this. I can’t tell if your mental is that fucked, if you are terrible at explaining something I’m missing, or if you’re trying to troll. I’ve come across differences in opinions, based on severity and direction. It feels like we’re not using the same system.

No, you are trying to play intelligent refusing to admit you get a very simple mechanism.

They have a simplistic tit-for-tat moral code

The alternatives are limited to “my group is always right” and “I pick one aspect and ignore all others, and the one aspect is always arbitrarily chosen, and when the comparison kinda equals, the result is arbitrarily chosen”. If you have any to add, you are welcome.

And the word “simplistic” is usually used by people unable to defend their position with actual points. It’s kinda useless otherwise.

and ignore the relative degree of contempt telegraphed by different ethnic slurs.

Since it is not given here what the particular slur would be compared against for any “relative degree”, your comment clearly presents you as someone who

tends to not be very bright

, and the advice I won’t accept wasn’t answering my comment. I said that a continuation of an argument doesn’t say much about the beginning.

Ethnic slurs are a subset of insults here. Not much different from addressing someone’s body features, impairments, life story specifics.

There is no situation where you are on the right side when using a slur.

Of course there is, every time it’s a minor part of the event. Like 3000 is greater than 2001, despite 1 being greater than 0. Seems simple enough.

Ah. OK, stopping defending her.

It’s funny how these things work, where I live nationalists are rather intelligent people, that kind is just thugs. And something about “white race” being said seriously I’ve only heard from people, eh, limited in their worldview and thinking it’s absolutely normal. Older teachers, for example. Or my idiot dad, but at the same time anything right-related in my interests he would perceive as signs of scary-scary fascism, I don’t think one can see that combination often.

Not being protective of telling children anything such, but I have used ethnic slurs in the past, especially when answering other insults. And when you were being unjustly attacked, then slipped and said something bad, and then are being attacked for that too as if that justified the beginning, then it’s a natural reaction to double down on the unfortunate words too.

So, eh, depends on the situation. I think I have right to answer people attacking me and putting me into a fight-or-flight situation with any words, they’ll still be in the wrong. But if this is not what happened, then using someone’s race as an argument worthy of repetition should be punished.