And your insults are very mature and are valuable.

What do you disagree with? Were they under siege? Or not? Were the communist countries in their “pure” state or heavily influenced by outside forces trying to destroy it? Is something in it’s “proper” state when forced into extremes?

So making claims without backing them up. I see.

No arguing the points. I see.

Yes, you do. You have agreed to all the relevant points for my argument.

In my argument, I made it very clear that I don’t care whether or not you want to see these nation as communist or not, just wanted to note that the arguments would start there.

But instead, my argument is that total harm cause is a flawed method because as you stated yourself and I hope you agree with yourself, the socialist state were forced into more state power to protect themselves. That paranoia and that power together cause much of the harm. Both wouldn’t have existed if they weren’t under siege, which again is what you claim. So looking at the harm of socialism/communism and comparing it with capitalism, acts like the harm of socialism wasn’t partly caused by capitalism as well. So that comparison sucks and the argument fails.

And I am fairly certain, you agree with all of this, while you might dislike the words that I used.

It is so interesting how you all focus on how it is a communist state (by your chosen definition in this context) but ignore that in my comment, I am making clear that I am willing to accept that one want to call that communist for the sake of the conversation regardless of if, how or why it might or might not be the same or different. So you are welcome to call that communist. My point is simply whether or not that is communist is up to debate as a simple disagreement in definition of what makes a state communist, would kill the argument. And by calling it pre-communist, they admit that there is a definition of “communist” that the state is “pre” of, while, of course, insisting that it is communist, which is obviously a different definition because if it would be the same, it wouldn’t be “pre”.

So there are multiple definitions that one could use for communist in the context, if one would chose a definition of communist state that means the state operates in communism, then you can’t point at the victims of socialist state and call them victims of communism. If one would chose a definition that means the state aiming for communism, then of course, you could count them. And a person listen to the argument as presented in the original post could simply say “well there haven’t been a communism state, of course, the number is lower.” And the argument failed. Calling these states socialist, would avoid that, but of course then you couldn’t quite argue that communism is less harmful than capitalism, if you compare socialism and capitalism. And the argument for communism would fail for that reason.

If you think that is just semantics, then think that but you are wrong. It is about the validity of an argument that someone is trying to use to get people to support the cause that you seem to want to support. If I were you, I would care about the quality of the argument.

Where? Give 1 example.

So you agree with me. Great. Good conversation.

I am not mixing up the terms.

Socialist countries aren’t communist, you call them pre-communist which highlights my point.

In my original comment, I make clear that if you want to count these countries as communist countries, you can but then you have to acknowledge the siege (as you call it). In this comment, you agree that they (the socialist countries that you chose to count as communist countries to even get this far into the argument) are under siege and consequently don’t behave as they would otherwise. By agreeing to that, you agree to my second point. You keep repeating the “less than capitalist countries” as if i was arguing that at all. Nowhere i said anything about them doing more or less harm than any other entity.

You should really ask yourself what you are arguing with whom. I mean i could start arguing with you that the earth isn’t flat and act like you said that if that helps you to understand.

Not in the same way or for the same reason.

You weren’t a target for being capitalist.

Socialist countries

thanks for making my point. Socialist is not communist.

exist under siege […] mistakes […] meant to protect socialist that exist out of genuine necessity to fight

So they weren’t allowed to exist in the same comparable peace than capitalistic nations, and might have been forced to cause more harm due to it.

can compare peer countries

Yes but that is not what the comment proposed and is a different argument and please remember the previous points. And of course, the peer countries comparison doesn’t include the possible long term struggles and issues that the whole history of e.g. colonialism and capitalism can show. But communism (not socialism) doesn’t have that history. And socialism might have more of a history but on a much smaller scale than colonialism and capitalism and again in not the most fair environment. So the argument is very different and the original argument is flawed.

I have 1 big problem with this argument.

Please don’t misunderstand. This is about the argument and nothing else.

This community likes to remind everyone that no communist country was allowed to just be communists in peace. So there was no “proper” communist country.

So if you want to count the death of those people as death due to communism, that is already a questionable decision for some people.

But then you want to compare the relatively short life of “communism” to capitalism and colonialism… that comparison is bad.

Is it like comparing covid with aids by total deaths, there is no way, you will come to any conclusion worthwhile.

I don’t think that is a winning argument for anything.

Well the racism and misogyny is for entertainment and the “stop eating fast food and go outside” is for “personal growth” and a positive mindset.

IMPORTANT: it is not a call to action. It is a call to think about the action and change nothing.

Well, he wanted “sub 10 micron accuracy” on all parts and given the reason especially for visible pieces and that obviously includes the panels. Those panels are famously not lining up properly and due to physics, extend and retake based on temperature, which… causes bending and even more misalignement. As Elon clearly didn’t want that and expected 400 times better results, and he knows more about manufacturing than any other person, no one knew that it will not be possible to be sub 10 micron accurate. Right? But why is there a forum conversation from 2012 about the gap issues with the delorean? And why are they telling the person asking that it is normal and unavoidable with stainless steel? Was that a commonly known issue? Yes it was.

While I am not a fan of ai and don’t trust them… google forced them down my throat and I think you should see it too. https://imgur.com/a/AnQE0xm

How did Elon not know, If he knows more about manufacturing than any human alive, when random people on the internet were aware of the issues with stainless steel panels and gaps? Mystery.

Well she legally changed her full name because she didn’t want to have any relationship with her father and calls him a pathetic man-child.

Elon musk doesn’t seem supportive and so consequently, he will probably not put her in his will, at least it is a real risk for Vivian (if she wanted his money). As she publicly said that she wants nothing from Elon, I would be surprised that she would accept the inheritance.

So Vivian probably rejected her father, cutting all ties, knowing that she loses a predictably ridiculously huge inheritance. Like 1% of elon’s wealth would mean that 7.5 billion…

So i think it is bit unfair to imply that she is only belonging to a minority. I also don’t want to talk to her because I just don’t care for her, like I don’t really care about my friend’s neighbour’s cousin’s mother-in-law. But saying that she is in a hole for being a child of elon as if it was a choice? Shitty take. But if if she would be in that hole, cutting off her father and consequently rejecting a huge inheritance, would dig someone out of that hole for me.

Why is it broken when provisioning?

Also anyone who is running windows on even a small scale for a company has endless experiences of broken windows feature (admittedly long before ai) so Microsoft blaming the provisioning is also very misleading.

Ofc “windows uses ai, windows broken” is an insane simplification. But the absolutely fair critic is “windows stops having a qa team in 2014, and entirely depend on automated testing by the developers, windows starts to have more issues, windows starts to rely on more public testing, doesn’t fix the issue with lack of qa, windows uses ai to code, windows has noticeably more issues (i have gotten noticeably more complaints from end user about their PERSONAL devices at home), windows blames provisioning.” The no qa team company let ai write their QA tests and is surprised that their provisioning doesn’t work and ignores all the other issues with windows.

Yeah but that makes the whole thing so funny.

The funniest shit is that when comparing professional athletes with the average human, they are all “freakshows”. Pro athletes are far taller, or shorter, heavier or lighter. The hormone levels aren’t comparable either. Nothing about pro athletes is “normal”.

First thing, I have ever read/heard of this man and honestly respect.

He also said, AI must be a choice.