Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
Coming soon

What immediately stands out is that the definition of capitalism stands by itself whereas Socialism is defined as 'opposition to the capitalist order'. That's asymmetrical. One is an idea and the other is a reaction to that idea? Would socialism still exist if capitalism did not?
Maybe some socialists would be happy with just being a response to another idea, but I'm sure most of them would rather have a more independent definition in the sidebar. But hey, I'm not a socialist so maybe I'm seeing problems where there are none.

Score hidden · 9 hours ago

Socialism is a reaction to capitalism though. It’s the antithesis to capitalism.

see more

Does that mean that without capitalism, there would be no socialism? And if so, what exactly would we have instead?

I use the 60/40 tactic. I always try to have around 60% btc and 40% alts

see more

I have 60% in alts and 40% in other alts.

My buying of VET is part technological part pure speculation on hype. The market wants another Ethereum and Vechain has sufficient goodwill.

This throws me back to last year when everyone was screaming that ans/neo was the ethereum of china

see more

That kind of pump would be sweet.

Can't help but feel some massive organised campaign is driving all of this.

I'm sure a collaboration of 170 newspapers will come out to say that they aren't collaborating against anyone; that would be ridiculous.

see more

All published on the same day.

I think people need to understand that blockchain is not all about cryptocurrency.

see more

I think people need to understand that separating the two renders both useless.

He violated the terms of use for the platforms he was on. He's free to keep talking and speaking, no one took away his right to free speech. He's just not on those private platforms he was kicked out of when he violated their terms of use.

Kind of like when you say anything against donald trump on T_D and they kick you out cause they don't want you violating there subs rules...

see more
1 point · 16 hours ago · edited 16 hours ago

It's quite clear that it's not just Alex Jones but any considerable competition to the mainstream media, on any side, in any flavour, are being targeted. Alex Jones is a suitable first target. Obnoxious, vulgar, strident but with considerable social klout. But in the same week TeleSUR, a very left-leaning and progressive media agency, got removed from Facebook without any explanation as well.
I see the established press chipping away at their competition.They're lobbying Google and Facebook for these things. And, because these corporations are already on the backfoot when it comes to the Senate asking them to 'prevent discord', they're eager to oblige.
Yes they're private spaces, but they've become so ubiquitous to modern life that they're also the public square for all intents and purposes. They're privately owned public squares where those who own it, nudged by the state and the established press, are now applying an ideological filter to everyone who uses it.
The state is in an extremely convenient position right now. In order to apply mass censorship, they no longer need to break the first amendment, they can just ask Zuckerberg to do apply it for them.
If your only consumption is mainstream media then you have nothing to worry, everyone will stay as it is. But those who like alternative media and indie journalists, their available media selection will grow stale and impoverished very fast. The bleakest thing about this is that it will achieve the opposite of what it's intended to do. When you take controversial speakers out of the equations there will be less dialogue, there will be less discharge of political tension. Instead resentment and polarization will fester underground. Understanding between political sides will decrease to the point where the only interaction possible between them is direct violence in the streets.

Or good parenting.

see more

They do sound alike in many situations:
"We wouldn't want anything to happen to you."
"Accidents happen when you least expect it."
"Don't go around talking to the wrong people."
"We really need to consider your own health here."

Load more comments

I think the derp state is of the mindset that there can never be any trials for war crimes if there is never any end to the war.

see more

Op Are you using a tablet or something? Id like to know since my sister is interested in buying one of them drawing pads TIA

see more

For beginners the Huion screens are more affordable.

What drawing pad is that?

see more

That's a Cintiq, he's using a Wacom pen. Top-end drawing screens. If you want to give it a shot yourself as a starter I recommend Huion screens.

Keto branded products are mostly overpriced.

Original Poster13 points · 20 hours ago

I believe it centers around the idea that immigrants are more motivated than their compatriots who didn't immigrate. The question would be, are they also more intelligent? Black people who move the US also tend to score far higher than blacks who are native to the US, and that's despite the lack of European genes that most African American people have some of.

see more

Ethnicity and genes are not the same thing. A particular ethnic demograpic's average IQ is a broad mix of many different environments, amongst which are genes but also many environmental ones. This makes it very easy to derive an average IQ for race but very difficult to derive an IQ for a particular set of genes.
What the higher IQ amongst British black people does is indicate that IQ might be way more environmentally influenced than genetically influenced. It shows that the lower IQ amongst American blacks may be due to upbringing rather than some innate limitation.
Of course it would require a lot of of work to properly test this hypothesis. There are 31 million Black Americans and only 1 million Black British as well.

Original Poster0 points · 1 day ago

It's another ecosystem that already has quite a few companies building on it, the newest one is the coinsuper exchange that was launched in february.

The companies can be found at Metaverse focusses on a stable ecosystem and digital identities, so all of these will either totally run on the ecosystem or will use their digital identities for uses to identify themselves on the application.

see more

Why not run it on NEO?

Original Poster-6 points · 1 day ago

neo is centralised with it's own 5 handpicked nodes

see more

But he's the cofounder.

Ripple owns majority of the coins. FALSE

Many more educational pieces HERE for you.

You're welcome.

(...and stop being upset).

see more

99% is not the same as the majority. That website debunks strawmen.

Also: regarding their 55b escrow:

You can expect us to continue to use XRP for incentives to market makers who offer tighter spreads for payments and selling XRP to institutional investors.

That's just word salad for OTC Ripple sale.

It's not my fault if you have trouble understanding the way business is done.

see more

Clearly it's theirs for not being upfront about what they're doing.

Remember when idiots used to type urls in the search box?

Yea you see what type of people still do this today.

see more is the 1st google result. is the 2nd google result. That's not a big difference considering people often go through the first four or five websites if they want to research something.

13 points · 1 day ago

Yeah I figured out I’m not a day trader...

see more

The market is 'untradeable' right now. This is when professional traders take a break until the trends start making sense again.

Comment deleted1 day ago

Here, have some more then.

Who's making you use Facebook? Or Reddit? I don't engage with social media at all. You are choosing these things. Stop doing so.

see more

Now you're trying to downplay the role social media plays in our lives. You tried that one before btw.
My voice is insignificant. It's not the insignificant voices that need protecting. It's the people who stick their necks out that matter. It's the people that build their career on it and reach millions of followers and then engage with another person's whole new batch of millions of followers. And sure they all do it voluntary, but they also do it without any real other options besides non-participation. Facebook, Twitter and Google have a massive monopoly on social media and they're acquiring anything that threatens to compete, like Snapchat and Instagram. To not be able to use them would mean taking yourself out of the open exchange of ideas.
The internet could be the greatest invention since fire, but not if we allow a select few people to smother it before it could even become truly truly big in allowing mankind to quickly find the best ideas through intense competition. Performing mental gymnastics to justify the curtailing of this massive value simply because it temporarily suits you in getting one over on your political opponent is incredibly short-sighted.

So, the general disclaimer that basically all websites use right now essentially means that's your speech restriction is pointless. All they need to do is put a boilerplate disclaimer somewhere saying they reserve the right to remove content they find offensive.

see more

Like I said, size matters. Once a social media platform grows of a certain size, they should be considered utilities. You're focusing on small-time amateur messageboards but that's a red herring. Nobody cares about those.
Our communication has shifted to a new level. We're no longer spreading our ideas through pamphlets, journals and gatherings in a town square. We're taking it directly online. And it's not like this has fallen out of the government's reach either. This really gave me the shivers:
The Senate Judiciary Committee just flat out asked Mark Zuckerberg to:

adopt a “mission statement” expressing their commitment “to prevent the fomenting of discord.”

The government is already interfering in our public discourse. What we're looking at here is a new, and all encompassing field of communication that is created by private entities and now leveraged by the state to control what people say and hear. It's the government and corporations working together to set the stage for how our ideas are spread. And again, yes, the law is on their side. Just like segregation laws were on the side of racists first. Laws are made up by people, they can change as our society changes. The only reason otherwise forward thinking and liberal-minded people aren't seeing this is because this move started with encroaching on people they disliked. They put their dislike for Alex Jones first and adjusted their principles accordingly. It's the most cynical form of hypocrisy.

Load more comments

6 points · 1 day ago

Archimonde, is that you?

see more

"Archimonde's trait 'Doom has come to this world' will start him off in the sanctuary at the start of the match. Wherever he wallks destruction and death follows him till he reaches the enemy core."

"Effective counters include, and are a limited to, Lunara's wisp ability."

Maestro turret on his side of the wall

see more

That'll be fun for the Consulate garage.

Person - you are clearly confused as fuck. The chemical signals your brain is getting are either not adequate or too strong. Have your doctor change your hormone regimen ASAP. I can diagnose you from here.

see more

Oh let me guess, it's the soy and I should get some of that Infowars manly man masculine testosterone for extra alpha power supplements? I would, if I were that insecure.

Haha you’re a male? Like born male and not transitioning? Shit i thought you were MTF.

Don’t know what your problem is then 😂😂😂

Have a good one in any case 😂🤣😂🤣

see more

Glad you asked. My problem is people who bother those minding their own business. The whole don't thread on me, non aggression principle and all that. Making a big deal about transgenders following the rules and not demanding anything from anyone puts you in the same category as the SJW's on the left.

Load more comments

Any plan that touches SS will be DOA. The old vote in herds and will insist that they get UBI and the SS they paid into. No chance in hell they will give up their $1300 check for a $1000 one.

see more

No chance in hell they will give up their $1300 check for a $1000 one

Sad but true. I would though. If I had to pick between $1300 conditional and $1000 unconditional I wouldn't hesitate a second.

2 points · 1 day ago · edited 1 day ago

Would you give up your $1300 SS check for a $1000 UBI check plus a $400 SS check top-off?

see more

Where did the $400 come from?

Load more comments

9 points · 1 day ago

Are you saying Pandas are not cute?

see more

Are you saying them being cute is an evolutionary trick to convince humans to keep them alive?

Cake day
April 29, 2012
Moderator of these communities

76,698 subscribers


1 subscriber


1 subscriber

Trophy Case (3)
Six-Year Club

Team Periwinkle

Verified Email

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.