PZK

I don't think I have seen all three at once before.

Gee, it sure sounds like an appeal that the abductor would use to try to leverage a hostage situation. "You wouldn't want them to get hurt... would you?"

Beyond the absurdity of using a hospital patient as a metaphor, it also serves to ridicule it's own position: A hospital patient is dying, you the doctor offer to save the patient by giving them medicine. This person ridicules you for even trying and casts you as a murderer if you fail.

This argument is also projecting. It casts the socialist as not knowing what they are doing by messing with "levers that no one could possibly understand". Yet the post implies that those unknowable levers are a perfect analogue to a patient who is hooked up to what is clearly an understandable apparatus of life support. It sounds like the argument doesn't not in fact know what those nebulous levers are, yet describes the socialist position as clueless to the "complexity of society".

Better not try to fix the dying machine. It's death is certain, but trying to save it is uncertain, and that's too scary.

If the source isn't negative about China, or doesn't cast them as the villain in every scenario, it must be propaganda.

But naturally, the opposite is never propaganda.

"While you studied western tactics and equipment, I studied the mine."

I am in the US... so...

Though I think the fervor has died down because it is normal now with what the average person perceives as not much change because the borders are not moving.

"Pity me."

"Black people will come out in droves to vote for Trump because he is a criminal... like them."

How are you supposed to keep them from passing on the cost of taxes to their tenants?

You have to realize that they still "own" a limited resource that lends them power to leverage over others. The only way you make this abuse go away is to have the people collectively own the land. Any accommodating regulations you place on landlords will only be temporary until they are worn down and removed.

They could not have won. Their army and their "reich" collapsed the moment they suffered a major defeat. The Soviet Union by comparison suffered horrific defeats and losses in the early stages of the eastern front and the nation rallied back and won the war. Why couldn't the Germans do this? Because their "reich" was nothing more than plundering Europe, and it fell apart when it encountered its first test of resilience. The thousands of miles of captured territory was quickly lost despite plenty of opportunities to build and create contingencies in the event their offensives failed. They didn't do it. They didn't have a back up plan, or a way to transition their military into fighting a war of attrition.

The militant fascism required them to invade everything and everyone as quickly as possible. To try to fabricate a scenario where the Nazis made smart and long-term war winning decisions is to effectively make them not Nazis to begin with. You can argue that they may have had more success if Rommel was given command of everything but he never would have been able to create the political movement that gave him the tools in the first place. To speculate further is to create an alternate history scenario where everything went perfect for the Nazis and they had a dramatic regime and ideology change in the midst of their conquests.

Victory for the Nazis was total domination and nothing else. Conquering and holding Europe alone would never have been seen as "winning the war", at least as far as they were concerned.

The argument can be made that any military force could have won if they just made no mistakes and got lucky everywhere they needed to. Despite having most of the cards in their favor early on, they lost. That isn't a reflection of how close they were to victory, but how fragile their victories had been.

I have been enjoying pop os. A lot more plug and play than I was expecting.

*Me saying a fairy tale scenario that will not exist under capitalism.

*Reality standing behind me.

You can't and wont deliver a long term solution for "middle class" people by working within that system. The goal of capital is ultimately to have as few as people as possible, with as much power as possible. Any middle class you are talking about will become lower class and poverty class with enough time. It absurd that you can look at the current system and believe that it would ever deliver on your promise. Believing that it would work with an uncorrupt government is trying to say that there is an "ideal" version of capitalism out there and we just need to do that.

You are looking at the only version of capitalism that exists. Any regulations, safeguards, and safety nets will be corrupted and withered away eventually because the people and institutions that supposedly uphold these ideals will be rewarded for doing so. You create a competitive class system and you are shocked and outraged when people cash it out to gain, or maintain their social class to avoid becoming lower class.

They can't. I guess the game is over.

What are liberals supposed to do if they can't just label something to dismiss it?

Destroying their sense of identity is one of the most effective things you can do.