I’m still not sure you got it.
There is no issue in criticizing these CEOs. They are horrible indeed. But they are like this and they have been promoted to this spot because we’re in a system (capitalism) which values this behaviour. Not because they’re Indian…
It’s funny how people will find anything to blame except for the problem itself when the problem is capitalism.
And it’s not like we’ve seen anything odd happen when people systematically blame a particular race/religion/nationality in history… /S
Although your sentiment is correct, it must be said this DOES NOT give you “access” to him.
Yes!
It’s based on your viewing history.
You can run a little experiment to verify this if you want. Take some subject you usually watch and take some channel your have interest in (and you will keep watching similar videos). Set that channel as “don’t recommend channel”. After a while (never calculated how long), you’ll get recommendations of that channel again.
I also don’t get Mr Beast recommendation as I don’t watch similar content, but there are channels I need to keep blocking since I like the subject but not those channels in particular.
I was mostly just saying that the “don’t recommend channel” approach is not a solution for everyone.
I’ve seen some of those videos since my son likes him. The issue is that a lot of his content is obviously scripted. If the content itself is scripted (faked), why should I believe that money is actually given out in the end and, again, not just part of the script?
It’s not permanent, even if you click on “don’t recommend channel”. After a while, YouTube will ignore your choice and show it to you again if it feels like it.
Fine, but for those that call it X, there is Xitter as a better option.
Would a quantum computer count as a finite state machine? If not, wouldn’t it be an example of something different?
How about we agree to call X/Twitter as Xitter. It avoids the confusion.
Source?
It’s funny how this image built of China to discredit anything they do leads a whole bunch of people online to just completely make stuff up on the spot against any positive news. When it comes to the point that a whole bunch of people are just making stuff up on the spot, we know how efficient the propaganda has been.
Every time I see a comment about North Korea, I recommend watching “The Haircut” by BoyBoy. You can find it on YouTube. It’s just 20 minutes long and it’s quite entertaining to watch.
There’s a nice part on the video about the “Prison Camps” and “Death Squads” which are applicable to “voluntary donations” as well. It also applies to the “poor people of NK” as well.
Holy smokes!! Part of their taxes are invested in their military industrial complex???
MADNESS!!
Whenever I hear the term “concentration camp”, I always remember The Haircut.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
First of all, I will say I’m definitely no expert on communism, but it’s definitely not true that “I don’t know a thing about it”.
As I mentioned, there are quite a few views on what communism is. Communism precedes Marx and Engels and there is even a small book from Engels which discusses previous views of communism (called utopian) to their view of communism (called scientific). The phrase you mentioned precedes Marx and Engels’s work and they study how that phrase could become true. In their work, Marx and Engels do mention scientific communism cannot be exclusively theoretical (which they call praxis), for the risk of being utopian. So according to past and current experiences (USSR, China, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, North Corea), there are quite a few developments and different views on communism. They don’t all agree on everything, but they do agree on “not having privately owned means of production”. On the Stalin era of USSR, it was considered something similar to the phrase you mentioned, but it was somewhat inneficient. People need incentives for their work and discoveries and it was not based exclusively on needs, as that phrase implies. The reality was complex, btw. This is really a generalistic view and don’t expect it to be flawless.
There are a variety of views from different authors and political experiences. But they’re mostly rooted on not having privately owned means of production (a consensus exists for big corporations at least). This would mean big corporations cannot be privately owned, it must belong to the workers themselves. This implies the destination of profits should be decided between its workers, and not its owners. This might even make many more people rich than just some random dude (like Musk) for owning the whole thing.
In general, there is no contradiction between being rich and communism. In fact, the workers should get the profits for what they build.
I don’t think you actually know what communism is.
I like them already!!
Death to capitalism!