What makes you think they’re pretending? Do you think all politicians are ideological nhilisists? That no politician, ever, anywhere, actually adheres to an ideology? Because I’m pretty certain that most do. And I think it matters what ideology guides a politician. I mean, I want to know that before I decide to vote for someone. I want to know what their guiding philosophy is. I think that’s important information.

The liberal dream. (I use liberal in the classical sense. Here in the US - where people don’t know what words mean - instead of “liberal” folks here might refer to them as “centrists,” “moderates” or “neoliberals.” Interesting that neoliberals are somehow not liberals here in the US, even though “liberal” is IN THE DAMN NAME!)

Marxism-Leninism is a dead-end.

I have never refunded a game on Steam. But then, I usually wait to buy a game until it’s been out for a while and usually on sale.

I found this in 30 seconds.

It’s more than a little disingenuous to pretend that Bernie Sanders hasn’t received significant criticism from the left, especially on matters related to race and gender.

Even if he was completely free of controversy, you’d find something to disqualify him. Maybe even just the fact that he’s white and/or a man. Men are inherently sexist and white people are inherently racist, so either of those characteristics alone would be enough.

But I will concede that there could potentially be a candidate who could be deemed acceptable, but such a candidate would necessarily hold limited appeal to the working class broadly, and especially the white working class, specifically, thus making them not a threat to capital. So, yes, liberals might allow a candidate who fails to meet their unattainable standard, but only if that candidate poses no threat of actually organizing the working class.

The standard is perfection. You establish that any and all leftists must attain this standard, or they are not true leftists. This works because perfect is an unattainable standard for every single leftist (and in fact every human, everywhere), so all are guaranteed to fall short of it. It’s such an easy, effective means of suppressing actual leftist movements. Remember, liberals are not new to this. They’ve been doing this for the better part of a century now, and they’ve gotten quite good at it.

Just keep waiting for that glorious international proletarian revolution. I’m sure it will start any day now.

I should clarify. I think increasing technological complexity can lead to progress, but I don’t think it always does. I think progress from increasing technological complexity often follows an s-curve. I’m not denying the progress that has come from the significant technological advancement of the last few centuries, I’m just not sure continued technological advancement will lead to that same level of progress over the next few centuries.

Technological progress isn’t free.

I’m just not convinced progress scales 1:1 with increasing technological complexity. In fact, I think progress might be better achieved by lowering costs and complexity, rather than increasing them. Maybe more isn’t always better.

Extremely complex and expensive engineering and technology development for 400 MW of net electricity generation. Why not just build a 400 MW solar farm (with battery shortage, of course)? There’s a massive, natural fusion reactor in the sky blasting the Earth with petawatts of energy every day, for absolutely free.

Nah, the bubble will have popped by then. Honestly, most people will probably be using fewer resources because the post bubble recession could be severe.

When people finally realize that AI, robots, big space rockets, and self driving cars are not feasible and/or not enough to sustain our infinite growth economy, it’s going to be kinda like realizing you forgot your parachute just after you jumped out of the plane.

The right in the US only says what their cult leader tells them to say. If he says the government is bad (which he often does when he’s not the one running it), it’s bad, but when he says it’s good, (which he often does when he’s the one running it) they say it’s good.

I like Gnome. I like KDE, too. I actually think they’re both great, in their own ways, but I personally prefer Gnome.

It is. And so is American football. You don’t believe that because you’re ignorant, but just because you don’t like or understand a sport doesn’t mean it isn’t a real sport.

Thank you for the clarification.

What we call AI today isn’t really artificial intelligence. When you have a conversation with an AI chat bot you’re not talking to another thinking entity, you’re interacting with software that has been designed to give the illusion of conversing with another intelligent being. The technology has advanced enough that the illusion can be very convincing, but it is still only an illusion. That’s why I don’t fear LLMs being self aware and taking over the world, because they’re not real intelligences. They don’t have the ability to think for themselves because they don’t have the ability to think.

Edit: please read ricecake’s reply for an important correction to my comment.

So should rugby be called handegg, too?