MyMindIsLikeAnOcean

This is key.

If there weren’t bots…Reddit would make its own bots. Reddit dances a fine line of allowing the population to be a certain proportion of bots because they increase real engagement by picking fights with its real users, as well as creating never-ending “content” for people to read and vote on. They only ban bots when real users notice they are bots - which is less and less frequently - even though Reddit has the tools and information to ban them long before that point.

Reddit could easy eliminate almost all of them, but that would be expensive and they’d lose real users as a result.

We can absolutely blame AI for everything. The reason AI took over Reddit is because Reddit fired their human moderators in favour of AI moderation. It’s basically a vicious circle of bots learning how to avoid being banned, and auto moderation learning how they’re avoiding being banned…repeat.

…the obvious problem being that bots are valuable to Reddit because they increase real engagement…if there weren’t bots, Reddit would make its own bots to do basically the same thing. Reddit only wants to restrict bots to a certain proportion of the population, rather than eliminate them.

Let’s be real…Reddit itself is moderated by AI.

People who moderate subs should be called “hall monitors” or something. It’s rare to find moderators who are actually moderating with impartiality, rather that being petty and taking sides. They also have tools to exploit the Reddit auto-mod system.

It was enshitified ages ago.

I’m no longer a professional chef…and I almost exclusively use a cast iron pan over a wood fire to cook (when I use a pan). There’s pretty much nothing you can’t cook in it as long as you’re vigilant. It’s simple to keep clean and seasoned.

I don’t think he really ever had them. He was making what…250 grand a month from the Russians (some ridiculous number)? When he lost that cash he immediately changed his format from Russian propaganda to toxic centrism to try and steal viewers from people like Candace Owens…and it’s didn’t work.

“Calling out Trump” is clearly a rhetorical tactic to distract from your incorrect assessment of Maduro. It should be noted that you’re aligned with Trump when you say that, and it should give you pause.

You don’t seem to remember your own comment. You used the most extreme straw man, adorned with sarcasm, to asses Maduro…there was no reality in your reply.

Meh, the fact that you think you’re talking to liberals is pretty amusing. Why defend an argument when you can attack the messenger, right?

Tim Pool is struggling for relevance after he got his spigot of Russian money cut off.

I don’t know if somebody fired a gun or made some sort of noise near his home…but I certainly know that Tim is disingenuous and a liar and I don’t doubt he would sensationalize, exaggerate or completely invent an event to improve his ratings now that he has to rely on listeners to make money.

ETA: never mind…he didn’t even call the cops. It’s made up.

Far-out.

By “neutral” they mean “don’t try to reflect your visitors in the gift shop, make sure everything is for white people”.

I can’t comment on the various toxicities…but I was a high-end chef for 20 years. Stainless (proper stainless, with a high quality underside) and cast iron pans were essential for their respective purposes. Non-stick pans generally weren’t used outside of breakfast in kitchens without a flattop. Copper was a gimmick for homeowners…never saw one in a kitchen. My understanding was the copper was on the outside and the shtick was it was supposed to regulate heat better…BS AFAIK…it just made them look slick and therefore easier to sell.

Stainless are the go-to for searing and sautées…nothing is going to stick if you know what you’re doing and monitor the pan. Cast iron was for things you started on the stovetop and moved to the oven to finish…and/or for things you blacken or crust. In my experience the same effect can be achieved with a stainless pan (never buy a pan with a plastic handle that can’t go in the oven and always cook with a hot-cloth)…but some chefs swear by cast iron for niche purposes and they’re certainly easier to clean and last longer, even if they’re useless for sauteeing (square shape).

Oh…woks can compliment stainless pans for sauteeing if you have people who know what they’re doing with them…you pretty much can’t leave a wok unattended…but they get the best results for what they’re made for (stir fry, fried rice, etc).

Gas is the only choice for proper heat regulation. All the other elements are out of the question for proper cooking.

Your position is there has never been a benevolent leader? Power corrupts universally and equally? That’s nuts, quite frankly.

It’s absurd to suggest that Trump and Maduro are equivalent. They’re not equal in a single way, even if you believe they’re both bad.

Yes I have listened to his speeches and read his lefislation…that’s why I’m saying what I’m saying.

You’re citisizing things I didn’t say…I know Maduro is popular there. I don’t know how else to say it: I believe he has the best interests of the working class in mind.

Agree wholeheartedly.

It should be obvious to far more people that this country should get to decide it’s own destiny. We have no idea what a Chavismo…or even Castro Cuba would have looked like unmolested. It should also be obvious that what’s feared most in the west is the success of those systems.

The thing that absolutely floors me is that Trump had a Bay of Pigs…and nobody (in the mainstream) talks about it.

We also get it from Maduro and the rest of the Chavanistas: his party rules by supreme power and decree. The way his party allocates power as a matter of internal affairs, may be another story.

Please, let’s not talk in absolutes. This notion that any and all narratives that you deem negative are part of a grand conspiracy just isn’t true.

I implied in my original reply that I believe Maduro may be benevolent, along the lines of Castro. I don’t really have a problem with dictators…the problem with dictators is they’re usually fascists. That isn’t the case in Venezuela.

It’s interesting that I agree with you, here. A major difference I see between Venezuela and the USSR is that the USSR generally tried to assimilate, arrest or murder the resistant capitalist classes (ie dekulakization), while Venezuela seems to be generally exiling or marginalizing them.

It’s my understanding that Venezuela has kept its political assassinations and imprisonments low and targeted, which was not the case in the USSR.

Yes he’s certainly an authoritarian. Authoritarian doesn’t automatically mean bad…there’s such a thing as the concept of a benevolent dictator.

What evidence do you have that “the country went to shit” or “Venezuela is not a nice place to live in” or that he’s a “corrupt dictator”?

This original post, presumably, attempts to scratch slightly beneath the surface of what we hear on the news and suggest that your above statements only apply to a certain “deserving” class.

I don’t actually know a lot about Venezuela, and I’m asking these questions in earnest. I started to ask questions a lot earlier, but certainly looking into Maria Machado (this years Nobel Peace Prize winner) made some alarm bells go off. Could it be that the narrative is controlled by Machado and her neoliberal/right wing ilk, and she actually represents a large minority class of people that was purged/displaced in Venezuela?

I’m still investigating.

Seem like he’s a typical academic. I get it…you prefer to muddy the waters and shoot the messenger then engage with the content. Alternate view to…something you didn’t read? I assure you it doesn’t “demonize socialism”…it just chronicles events according to disclosure/a “data dump” of declassified files. It’s not ideological…it’s for eggheads who don’t want to read thousands of documents. When I read it it just helped me understand the playing field better.

The problems with the USSR weren’t with socialism, you’re missing my message. They were with capitalists corrupting it from within. There’s certainly an argument to be made that too much control was allocated to regional bureaucrats - when targeted positive/idealistic authoritarianism was more appropriate while socialism was in its infancy. But this in the context of just Russia, because I don’t agree with the expansion that created the USSR: my opinion is it created an unmanageably large state with too many “distracting” regional issues that were ripe for capitalists to exploit. Those faithful to the cause were simply stretched too thin and they couldn’t deliver a meaningful improvement to enough people, largely because the guilty regional bureaucrats weren’t loyal to the cause and they created systematic exploitation of the people they were tasked to help. Obviously I’m being unrealistic…just trying to get closer to 20/20 hindsight.

That’s a ridiculous way to frame a public university employee…but I’m just going to declare an impasse and drop it if we can’t agree on facts.

Talk about virtue signalling and purity testing, yikes. Still, thank you for the conversation, I will admit I’m a little amused at you trying to “out socialist” me, but I don’t feel I need to list my credentials in return…I’m comfortable with how militantly virulent I am on the subject of socialism ;)

Like I said: put two leftists together, and they’ll find a way to argue. I’ve been guilty of it too…it is what it is.

I gave you evidence…and you ignored it. I can provide additional evidence beyond ‘54, if you acknowledge those archives.

You believe Marxism allows for the billionaire and political classes in China that control the means of production? Bold.

You don’t “own” Marxism, btw. Most Marxists I know at least acknowledge and criticize the very large problems in the USSR and China. I mean…I also could be considered a Marxist…but I consider myself a post-Marxist because he’s been improved on. I also think we can do better than Marx the man as a foundation - don’t get me started on Lenin, lol. The weird thing is I like Stalin (but Che all the way).

This isn’t zero sum: I’m not saying either is all bad because they have kleptocrats and billionaires. We haven’t even broached the topic of what I think about the USSR and China as a whole (because you’re so hung up on denying their systematic problems in favour of focusing on the positives?) in contrast to what we see in the western democracies (for example) you’re typing as if i condemn them and I prefer the USA, or something…not a thing.

The USSR absolutely had oligarchs, don’t be absurd. I’m not strictly talking about the Politburo…who stole plenty and took the fall, I’m talking about the oligarchs - who didn’t blink into existence out of the ashes of the USSR - but rather came to be because of what they amassed at the expense of the people during the USRR. The savvy middle managers, the smugglers, the entire KGB. The Art of the Bribe is an excellent book that methodically outlinines how these proto-oligarchs came to be and how they destroyed and corrupted socialism. Telling me about the idealistic version of the USSR isn’t interesting…I’m more interested in reality.

Meh…save the “Marx wasn’t an egalitarian” stuff for the people who aren’t socialists. There absolutely was a very large wealth and power class in the USSR as there is in China now…both would be abhorrent to Marx. There’s a difference between being somewhat better off because you work harder and/or are responsible for administering a novel concept…and literally never working because you have so much power and influence you don’t need to: those people were lousy in the USSR, and exist to a lesser extent in China.

It’s an apples and oranges conversation because it can be argued that the Chinese billionaires hurt their people less than the oligarchs/kleptocrats did in the USSR…but you first must acknowledge they exist - if you want to move past the mass intentions of their systems and have the conversation about how the classes in communist were/are bad and why.

The reason I prefer Cuba isn’t because their system is a superior application of socialism…but rather because Cuba is so small and their rich people tend to be more enmeshed in the population and steal less.

I’m not saying all this because I don’t like socialism and dismiss The USSR and China as failures out of hand - quite the contrary - I’m saying it because socialism is a project that we need to achieve and we have to learn from what’s been done/being tried to achieve it.

Yeah…I just don’t see either state like you do. Both states feature(d) too many wealthy/powerful people for me to consider them entirely socialist. They’re both hybrids…like every state. The USSR heavily featured oligarchs who stole from the people, and who worked against the peoples’ interest on a mass scale. China features a party system that does the same, to a lesser degree.

I think Cuba is a pretty good example of what I’d like to see in a socialist state, minus the ongoing American “meddling”. I wish they didn’t have to rely on tourism to survive, tho…don’t like the classes it creates. Would be much better if they could trade efficiently.