I understand that's the theory, but these situations were specifically not something that could be easily gleaned. We're talking like reminiscing about things that happened in our pre internet youth that there's no record of anywhere and that came up randomly in conversation. I'm definitely aware of the dynamic, even before ubiquity of the internet, it's true that sometimes companies would know people were pregnant before the person did based on their purchasing profile. This wasn't that though, there's just no possible connection.

That happened a few times now, so pretty much nothing is going to convince me it's not the case.

This was my understanding, but I just don't believe it anymore. There have been way, way too many time my wife and I were talking about an incredibly niche thing that didn't come up through the internet in any way, and lo and behold the algorithm presented those key words. Nobody will ever convince me it isn't being done to some extent.

Everyone else tackled primaries, I think... yes, it's where the parties select who will run in the general. Some parties have open primaries were any registered voter can vote in them, others have closed primaries where only registered party members may vote. In the past Democrats have usually been open and Republicans closed, but I'm not sure how that is today.

Why does there seem to be such disparity in the views of candidates from the same party?

True of most systems that use winner take all voting as it leads to two big parties. Parliamentary systems ease this somewhat, but even in England, for example, it's historically been common to have Corbyn-types and Blairites under the same roof, which is a pretty big disparity.

In the end, it isn't as big of a difference as some people make it out to be. The difference is that where a parliamentary system with ranked voting usually sees coalitions form between parties to govern, the same thing happens in systems like the American one within each party. So the Democrats might need to appease the Progressive Caucus, or the Black Caucus, or whatever... Republicans same thing with the Tea Party types vs the old school conservatives vs the alt right, etc. It's just whether these coalitions form within each party or between different ones.

(to be clear, I do think the parliamentary + ranked choice system is better for representation, I'm just pointing out the difference isn't quite as stark as some suggest... the idea is the same).

Agreed, there are definitely exceptions I could think of, just speaking generally.

I really wonder if there is any place outside of a concert venue that these folks find music on speakers acceptable? I kind of get it if they're solo, just use headphones, but... hanging out in a group and listening to music together at the beach is about the most normal use of a beach trip I can think of.

No worries, dude, I'm with ya... I completely understand the disillusionment, but people touting the death of electoralism that think they're really being revolutionary, IMO are being useful idiots for the elite. And its definitely rampant here... I'm back and forth on whether to stick around, honestly.

My friend, you are very much barking up the wrong tree here. And I don't blame you one bit, there is a ton of what you're describing here and it is very frustrating, but you've misunderstood me to be saying something I'm not. I think it's helpful to know historical context to know that even more leftism is not only possible, but has happened... but I think Mamdani is still a huge win in this current political climate and I think attempts to tear him down are almost laughably self-defeating from anyone considering themselves on the left.

Fully agree with you man, we should take the W here as a much needed shift left of the Overton window....

Communists aren’t a hive mind, expats from socialist countries, even if they believe themselves to be communists, may have faulty lines or flawed understanding. You don’t have to speak if you don’t want to, but surely you can understand how an expat teaching in a western country has certain understandings that likely go against proletarian Marxism-Leninism.

I think you're leaving such a narrow window for who is allowed valid thoughts on socialism as to be essentially exclusive to people you think are right, which doesn't seem super useful or insightful to me.

Again, you don’t have to speak if you don’t want to, but I would argue that you’re inviting more dogpiling by not expounding on what you mean.

The block feature is easy enough to use, and I'm happy with it. It isn't really your business, honestly.

Conversation can only really happen when both parties participate, when someone lays out an assertion without backing it, it can only be attacked directly, not as a point but as the assertion it is, which lends itself more to dogpiling.

I didn't really lay out an assertion though, the other person did. I just said I don't buy their premise that my comment was an example of why study of Marxism-Lenninism is strictly necessary and why. The onus isn't really on me to do anything, even in formal debate, which this is not.

I was interested in the initial conversation, just not the more general topic on theory that it was moving to. I think it usually ends up in navel-gazing at best and toxicity at worst, and I gave it up years ago. In person or private when there's less want for performative argument and point scoring, it can be more interesting. The tone is just very different when people talk directly to you vs when they publicly debate you. Just my personal take, I just don't do it anymore as I've gotten older.

Yeah, but Windows is no easier to install... most people just don't experience it because it is the usual pre installed OS. I don't think it's really fair to count that against Linux... in terms of the installation process, I found them to be similar, which is to say a pain in the butt. I wouldn't recommend a non tech person try to install WIndows either.

Aside from that, no, it did not need any further set up aside from installing Steam via the repository. Arguably easier than in WIndows, certainly not harder. I did also install VLC but probably wasn't necessary, there was a pre installed media player I don't remember the name of...

It's funny you mention drivers as that's what made me switch it over. A Windows update inexplicably borked some video card drivers. I didn't need to install any drivers manually for the Linux setup, it all worked out of the box without any issues so far. Driver pains used to be a big issue years ago, but I think for 90% of PCs it's a non issue today.

No, it was a very vanilla Windows setup. At least I can't think of anything... what kind of workarounds did you have in mind?

Unlikely, considering the professor was a communist who lived in China and did his PhD on the history of female silk workers in China.

I'm honestly not really interested in a wider conversation regarding the merits of Marxism and its variants at the moment. I might be willing to speak privately about my thoughts if you're really interested in them, but I think in this forum it lends itself to dogpiling and I've already received comments I don't consider very conducive to civil discussion, so I'm not going to engage here.

"Historically" being the key word here... the political landscape of America, and frankly the western world, changed after the 80's shift to neoliberalism via Reagan and Thatcher.

I have not said Israel shouldn't exist. I've said it shouldn't be an ethnostate. That's all. While you're trying to tar anyone against the idea of an ethnostate as an antisemite, I might point out that the most vociferous advocates for ethnostates in America are white nationalists such as the KKK. So maybe we should keep this converation between you and I rather than slandering each other based on who is standing on our side, because you'll find you have your own pretty unsavory types standing with you. Including, ironically, ardent antisemites.

You can call yourself pragmatic, but supporting the genocide or apartheid of a people because the people doing the genociding were themselves once genocided seems pretty ideological rather than pragmatic. I don't think this puts you in a very good position to finger wag others for their views on racism, cowboy.

I think the lesson of the 20th century is very, very clearly that ethnostates only lead to genocide and war. They almost have to by definition... the story of the Balkans and central Africa for the past century has been one of attempting to establish borders based on race and then humanitarian disasters followed as people who didn't fit into those borders were either forcibly expelled or killed. This can't really be denied, can it? And aren't we seeing this exact thing play out in Israel?

Can you explain to me how it is possible to have an ethnostate without engaging in either genocide or apartheid? Because I can't see how that's possible.

I think we also need to acknowledge there's a pretty big difference in a people currently or within a few generations culturally connected to a land, and people who have been displaced for literal centuries. Do we give Britain back to the Gaelic peoples that were displaced by Saxons? They can both claim a cultural connection and have been present the entire time, as with Jews in the area around Israel. How far back do we go?

In any case, no, even in the case of indigenous peoples, I absolutely do not support ethnostates because of the above... they invariably and always lead to genocide and apartheid, which I feel should be avoided at all costs. Do you not?