The end of history

My left hand is named "semantic jab" and my right hand is named "ad hominem"

Tragicomedy

Nerd

You're no longer saying "owner", we're making progress.

Now do tell us : if the combined revenue and appreciation of assets are not greater in value than the expenses (eg mortgages, services, taxes, opportunity cost), what point is there to being a landlord?

(This is a trick question, by the way)

Yeah sure the money flows like this : renter -> mystery black hole -> landlord -> bank

I was right not to take you seriously

The point is that renters pay for home equity. They just don't earn home equity. Landlords retain 100% of that and 100% of the value gained by the asset. You are catastrophically wrong about that.

Whether or not you think that's ethical, it's still a fact.

Well, we either ignore deaths or we don't. The United States of America ran the largest slave trade in history and nearly wiped out the native population of an entire continent, nuked two cities, overthrew countless democracies, and bankrolled/trained fascist and/or religious fundamentalist militias all over the world. This is all historical fact.

But it also represents one of the strongest cultures in history, as well historical advancements in science, technology, civics, etc. Just like the USSR. Whereas the Nazis only represent industrialized genocide, eugenics and fascist oppression, the Soviet Union and the USA represent both the good and bad of humanity in extreme amounts. Their evils can be denounced just as much as their successes can be celebrated, and more usefully both can and should be studied and not completely discarded on weak ideological grounds. That's why they're both admissible in civil discussion.

Hexbear is very into counter-narrative, and I'm guessing a lot of them would disagree with my take here, but I think that if liberals and communists can't find middle ground in that then liberals are simply not representing themselves honestly.

check out this dope ass catgirl

You don't need to go super far left to find convincing arguments against US foreign policy. Noam Chomsky is a mainstream intellectual after all, and he coined the phrase "consent manufacturing".

The idea that the US acts in total self interest should be presumed true in all cases, but that doesn't on its own defeat the idea that its intervention in Ukraine is good. The logical next step is to ask ourselves whether this intervention ever had any chance of changing the outcome of the conflict at all. If it didn't, and most people here would agree that it didn't, then the US' involvement amounts to wartime profiteering at the cost of human lives.

edit: I should also add, there's good reason to believe that NATO expansion is what caused the conflict, and that the west did this in spite of clear and explicit warnings from Russia

I know I shouldn't think of Hexbear as /r/chapotraphouse 2 but we did bring the best-in-class shitposting along with us. Now we also have retrieved the ability to evangelize

You mention Russian and CCP propaganda a lot. Why is your skepticism only directed at US state enemies? Do you deny that western media has uncritically disseminated US state propaganda about US state enemies in the past, or do you still believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?