Would Biden break an Occupy like Obama did?

One of the themes I've seen here is people saying someone said something they didn't then taking issue with what they heard/inferred.

I didn't say they don't have eminent domain, as an example. I'm saying that the closest thing I've seen to their model is eminent domain - and even then, it's different.

It's as if people here are so keen to land a point that they invent one. I've been on a variety of fora for decades. The frequency of misrepresentation and zero fucks about making it right is... I've never seen it so prevalent. People act like they aren't talking to people.

Straight Dope, people cared. Giraffe board (after the switch), people cared. StumbleUpon, Reddit... people cared that they were seen "arguing" in good faith. They curated their reputation by listening and if they fucked up, many (not all) would try to reset and some would apologize.

I'm not simply describing my experience. I'm describing threads or branches where all I do is read comments.

If you adopt a specific outlook, the duplicity is less stark.

Russia is attacking a sovereign nation and when they took land, they took people. To most, that makes them the bad guys.

Backing away from that and making this a geopolitical chess game, both players have coaches. Sounds fair.

I remain a bit lost on why you think quoting my citation helped, but I have a theory. I see a lot of glib on lemmy. Are your usual sparring partners here that inept or clueless?

Honest question: are they? I'm still getting the hang of lemmy and so far it seems like a lot of self congratulatory wannabe-edgelord stuff.

Like it's puffery with just enough citations for posters to think they're smart?

And along the way, no citation is the right citation. I'm not lumping you into all this, I'm wondering if that's what this is right now.

I don't see people having discussions. I see people correcting each other on secondary points and missing the forest for the trees.

Edit: I didn't need my citation clarified to me. That you think that's what you did by quoting it is odd. If you added context, a link to why you think it's a richer topic, I'm good with it and I enjoy learning.

But I had read it and did not need it read back to me.

The parenthetical part that you didn't address was the key part. Being and staying in good graces is likely key to a seamless transition into the next 70 years. That's different from eminent domain.

I get that you're having a bit of fun. On a separate branch here, I make a similar point.

What people argue about is how much of one makes it "x." They can seldom say it's not capitalist, socialist or even communist.

We quibble over which side of a line it lands. And googling this lead to about a 50/50 split between capitalist and socialist.

I didn't pull the idea that they're capitalist out of my ass.

And all of the side stuff is people completely missing the article. It's pedantic and cheap intellectual points and so rarely thoughtful or insightful.

Is lemmy usually this wannabe edgelord?

I'm a little lost here. By posting a section of what I linked... are you thinking you're making a point?

I read it. I also know that the 70 year thing has only recently meant anything (the rule is slightly older than 70 years). As a practical matter, what you extracted is what makes sense.

Some will make more note of the parenthetical: "although the legal procedures for title renewal have not yet been legislated."

That can also mean, stay in our good graces and things can go smoothly. In most other countries that specific concern isn't a thing.

Officially owning the land and needing to re-authorize is different from eminent domain.

This is basically my understanding.

I get that they're attempting to master plan and be ahead of things. I also know infrastructure is an investment - and sometimes it's partially a jobs program.

Not every investment works out.

I'm not down on them.

I'm down on low-effort, glib and smug responses and I'm hitting more of it on Lemmy than I hit elsewhere. I'm not sure if this is the result of reddit leading to a population swing or if lemmy already had a lot of "smart" people who could be better than they are.

If I plan to smear someone. I click their post history. I've stopped myself from many errors and found a way to build a common ground. I've also found fools and decided they weren't worth it.

But if I plan to be dismissive, I do the research.

If you don't like them being called capitalist, then your quarrel is with a whole heap of people (and academics).

The question, like I alluded to earlier, isn't whether they are capitalist, but a question of how much. And many, after careful study, have determined them to be capitalist.

Those determinations are based on measurable things and philosophy (somewhat).

Also: you are clearly not my original intended audience. In the referenced thread I was getting low-effort, glib comments that snowballed upvotes.

Not unlike the person who deemed me to be a republican. It's easy to look at my post history.

I'm not a republican. But glib is easy. And glib, low-effort posters were the primary intended audience. Know-it-alls.

Good reply, thank you.

And I'll defer to your categorization and consider the reading recommendation.

I weighed calling them socialist, but it seemed... unhelpful when what i was trying to highlight that the unemployed youth are relying on family, and not the state.

The responses yesterday seemed to think China is just giving away money. They aren't.

Also: all developed nations are socialist. What people argue over is where lines are drawn.

Ad hoc and poison the well while being very wide of the mark, too.

Nicely done.

My politics align more with Sanders than anyone well known politician. Surplus is surplus and the left needs to retain the right to call a spade a spade.

Not all infrastructure spend is good. I'm both envious of what they have and stymied by articles documenting unused cities.

For ease of research, I recommend "China ghost cities." Maybe those cities will make sense and not every idea has to work, but that is surplus, ergo excess.

Did you read the article before posting?

There are descriptions of embittered and/or depressed youth. They are not describing young people so well cared for (by the state) that they are opting out.

And older family will eventually perish or cease to have the means. Something must take the place to ensure production at certain levels.

Also: fewer hours per job, with an unchanging workload would lead to more jobs. Not fewer. Unless automation, computing or improved engineering lower the overall effort.

Edit to add one more point: China is Capitalist. The land use thing is communist, but fundamentally they went capitalist decades ago. The notion that they're doling out buckets of money to people mystifies me (building unnecessary infrastructure is a job).

If someone has a source or refutation, I'll click and read, but until then I'll run with what I find.