It does not matter if the person is 97% in agreement with them, that 3% makes them a “liberal” which really is just a way to say “conservative” to those who hurl that label like a slur.
I feel like I so often see this sentiment from folks that I disagree with much more than 3%. I’ve had this ~3% reference genocide, foreign policy, the carceral state, education, economics, immigration, transportation, food, housing, healthcare, and more. The article we are having a conversation about is detailing the ways the current hegomonic global economic system, neoliberal capitalism, is failing to contend with the scientific reality of it’s consumption and practices. I, as a communist, have criticism of those that put profit over the only life sustaining planet we know of. With the realities of the climate science, the liberals of our neoliberal capitalist economy are not doing enough to stop the expansion of fossil fuels and are on track to lead us to ecological devastation.
Sorry not sorry if the choice words for those diving us to mass death for personal gain hurt your feelings.
I know you are referring to China, and that’s true, but there’s more to it than that. We have this concept of developmental/climate justice when discussing our policies to save the environment. Western capitalists/imperialists have made use of fossil fuels for a long time now to develop their economies then use that economic might to subjugate the rest of the world and keep them underdeveloped. It is only fair that those who have benefited most from burning carbon take on more of the burden of transitioning away from it. Asking developing nations to shoulder that burden is telling them to deny themselves the benefits of the modern economy.
Ideally, the historically biggest polluters would use the wealth they’ve accumulated to help this transition. Even if it means some economic pain, they can relatively afford it compared to those other countries. In the mean time, those developing nations could make use of fossil fuels to catch up their economy to some reasonable standard before transitioning, potentially with the help of those developed nations, to renewables.
The trouble is, under capitalism, the people who hold power are the same people who have been made wealthy from exploiting fossil fuels and they have an entrenched interest in maintaining the market for those fuels so they can stay wealthy. Even if the social benefit of a green transition is evident, the threat to their profits is enough to have them fight against it. In this way, at a point in time when we ought to have already begun a transition away from fossil fuels, we have been routinely blocked by those entrenched interests.
China is a case for why socialism is better positioned to tackle this issue. When modern China was founded, it was an agrarian society previously under the thumb of both feudalism and western colonialism. Meanwhile Western countries had been industrializing off of coal and then later oil for a considerable time before this. So they made use of fossil fuels to develop their country into the modern industrialized country we see today. (Also remember that a lot of their industry was aimed at exporting to western consumers, so their development and the resulting carbon footprint can’t be entirely disentangled from western capital.) But what have they been doing with that development? China has been using it’s ability to set economic priorities and divert capital where needed to make great strides in things like solar panels, electric vehicles, and mass transit. Because at least some capital is controlled by interests who aren’t directly beholden to the profit incentive, they are able to do what needs to be done for the good of society and the world instead of allowing for markets to eternally doom them to short term priorities.
The US has an economy developed enough to take care of everyone and still develop new technology if they chose to do so for quite some time now and we’ve known about climate change for decades. We needed to start a massive project on the level of the New Deal, industrializing for WWII, or the space race decades ago, but we have failed to do that because of who controls the resources and political power in our society. The meager attempts at environmental regulation have done little to slow down climate change. It’s only gotten worse over time and at an accelerating rate that will only get worse as we experience more feedback loops.
Despite all of this, what is the capitalist class doing? They’re pushing to get rid of the few regulations we have. They’re building data centers to spend even more energy on a project that arguably won’t even benefit most people. They’re continuing to incite wars over resources. They’re building bunkers so they can hide away from the consequences of their actions. Capitalism is killing us. We might not agree with everything that China is doing, but they are showing what a government can do when it is motivated by interests other than capital.
Are the capitalists building out wind farms in California, Oklahoma and Texas good or bad? How about all the solar farms in the desert? Is Slate Auto good or bad as it’s partially funded by Bezos? How many data centers is china building? (hint: lots) Your obsession with capitalism seems to ignore the vast variation of human nature…
I mean, of course it’s good if we get those things on a scale that will fix the problem. However, the critique socialists have of capitalism isn’t based on human nature or some moral judgement of individual capitalists. It’s based on an understanding of capitalism as a system and what forces drive it to produce the results we observe.
There is of course the labor issue, but let’s focus on the market aspect and how it relates to environmental issues for now. In a market economy, the pursuit of profit and growth combined with the laws of supply and demand create pressures that make some companies successful and others fail. This can be looked at like an evolutionary process. Survival of the fittest. Capitalists aren’t bad because they are bad people, it’s that only bad people become successful capitalists. Companies that are unwilling to engage in maximum profit seeking behavior over the long run get filtered out.
Then there is the financial aspect of this. Investors generally speaking don’t make money off of steady profits. They make money when the price of the stock increases above what they bought it for so that they can sell it for a profit. This dynamic demands continual growth. A company that is not growing is one that will be abandoned by investors or pressured to do so through ownership voting. This growth is necessary to outcompete other companies who can also seek to reinvest or acquire more capital to expand further.
These phenomena aren’t really in dispute. A pro-capitalist economist would say that this decentralized system of economic pressures creates incentives for growth and innovation. These incentives ultimately result in an optimized economy that has efficiently allocated it’s resources in the way that meets people’s needs. There is some degree of truth to this, but ultimately the claim that this form of economy produces desirable results for society demands evidence of these outcomes. It also depends on what you value. Was capitalist industrialization good for the workers who died in unsafe factories? Was it good for those in other countries which we violently exploited for profit? Was it good for managing our environment and natural resources in a sustainable way?
There is plenty of evidence that despite the progress made under capitalism, it has failed to produce desirable results in many respects as well. And once again, capitalist economists have analyses of these failures. For example, the damage to the environment is a problem referred to as “the tragedy of the commons.” While we all benefit from having a habitable environment, the pressures of the economy are such that no one person or corporation has enough of an incentive to take on the costs of pursuing that benefit on their own. And again, this isn’t merely a matter of preference for greed. Companies that choose to take on this additional cost for a relatively small return risk losing to companies that do not do so.
It is also evidently true that market competition is not always sufficient to keep companies in check. For all sorts of reasons, various industries have consolidated into monopolies or near monopolies. The basic assumptions of the market model are no longer satisfied. (Many buyers and sellers such that none have the ability to act as price setters.)
On top of the mainstream capitalist economic analysis of capitalism, there are of course additional critiques by Marxist economists, but this is already getting long enough.
Lastly, the typical liberal response is to say “ok, capitalism has these problems on it’s own, but we can just regulate it.” This sounds like a nice solution, but the problem is that these capitalists are able to convert their economic power into political power through campaign donations, media ownership, etc. We keep trying to regulate corporations, but these efforts ultimately fail or prove insufficient because the government which would pass and enforce these laws owes it’s political power to the very corporations it would be regulating. Fundamentally, the problem with capitalism is that it’s antidemocratic. A government can’t be of, by, and for the people if it depends on the wealth of a handful of capitalists more than it does the votes of the general public.
People often misunderstand what socialism is. It’s not just one thing. It’s not just “the government does stuff.” There are two core components of it: 1) You must observe and analyses the world and the relationships within it to understand how things change and then adapt to these conditions and changes accordingly. 2) That political power in society should be in the hands of the working class, aka the majority of the population.
The goal in this is to have the means by which we can collectively make decisions that we believe will benefit from society. That doesn’t mean we’ll get everything right, but at least we had that choice and we can learn from our mistakes and move on. Capitalism at it’s most theoretical is a system with nobody at the wheel. “The invisible hand” of the market guides priorities for society, not any particular conscious choice by people. More realistically, capitalism is a system in which wealthy capitalists make decisions for the rest of us. In either case, if the incentives aren’t aligned to be in favor of public good, then we don’t get public good.
Also, before you go “but China” again: I already said that I don’t agree with literally everything China, or any particular government, does. Doing so would be dogmatism. It would fail the first principle of socialist philosophy to analyze the world scientifically. I can look at their successes and failures and use that knowledge to make future decisions. Even for their successes, it isn’t automatically the case that we should copy their successes. Different times, places, and people create different conditions which need to factor into your analysis. What worked for them may not work for us, but it at least tells us something.
Holy wall of text, batman. It would be hilariously ironic if it’s AI generated, but I am too lazy to check. But to the point: what is the “working class” in modern society?
You must observe and analyses the world and the relationships within it to understand how things change and then adapt to these conditions and changes accordingly.
Capitalism is quite good at that.
That political power in society should be in the hands of the working class, aka the majority of the population.
It is in America and many other western nations. The main problem is life is too easy and no one votes. Where big S socialism has been tried on a large scale, that power disappears quite quickly…
Per capita, or are you just trying to be snarky? Because I believe Qatar, and religious monarchy, but I don’t think that’s the answer your fishing for.
Simple question, simple answer. It’s China by a large margin. Also check out their industrial ground pollution, which is bad but nothing compared to the old Soviet Union. Your real answer might be humans are the problem rather than specific governmental/economic systems.
As with almost every statistic, if you’re not measuring per capita, your basically just measuring population. Convenient blindness to that suggests you’re acting in bad faith.
I mean that still dodges the point but to yours, I don’t ignore the history, I think the actions and rapid industrialization of the USSR and China lead to incomprehensible suffering. I also don’t think it’s a valid comparison especially given the modern context has China doing a lot of work in the global transition to renewables.
What you do seem to ignore is that systems beyond capitalism are just as likely to pollute. Per capita pollution may have more to do with poverty than altruism. China is trying real hard to catch up…
Because all of these things take place in a world’s history of context, I don’t agree it suggests they are just as likely to pollute.
I think all political systems have the propensity to pollute, especially with the energy availability of fossil fuels, but where I would disagree and why I think it’s isn’t a good faith argument is that you’re framing China as trying to catch up in per capita pollution when they are so very clearly not given the amount of work they are doing solar, nuclear, railroads, EVs.
I also agree that this is not exclusively altruism, and that divorcing themselves from oil is also a means to disconnect the global economy from the petrodollar, but I don’t really see this as a point against it.
China and it’s a dictatorship but if you mean economic system, it’s capitalist. It also manufactures everyone else’s shit for them so if you order shit off Amazon in the US or Canada, that increases China’s pollution too.
I’m going out on a limb especially after reading that last snarky line, but I wanna think there’s good faith in your approach to me here.
I’ve had this ~3% reference genocide, foreign policy, the carceral state, education, economics, immigration, transportation, food, housing, healthcare, and more.
In those cases, those would absolutely be conservatives and those cases are not related to my point. We may quibble over solutions to these issues you listed but I doubt we would disagree at all, at minimum, that they are problems or how they manifest. What I find is that people on the internet love to assign entire worldviews based on next to nothing. Definitely been called a zionist without expressing anything even remotely zionist. Definitely been called a nazi for literally saying “nazis are horrendous and deserve harsh punishments, but they are objectively human beings”. In that case I was told I should be executed for being a nazi sympathizer.
The fact that capitalism is THE number one root societal problem and I freely profess that view has NEVER changed anyone’s mind in one of these exchanges though. I must be lying, apparently. Everyone on here is trying to out-left each other. Anyone might be a secret conservative who lies about their positions. It’s basically reverse-McCarthyism.
sorry if the choice words for those diving us to mass death for personal gain hurt your feelings.
What “hurts my feelings”, more accurately written “upsets me that humankind will clearly NEVER be at any level of peace”, is that the word liberal carries different meanings to different people and yet it’s used as a divisive cudgel here. Online haters love to point to the academic definition as though it’s agreed upon and everyone uses the word that same exact way. …There is no word fully agreed on. Context affects their meanings. People, shockingly, usually do not have PolySci degrees nor do they usually literally even know that textbook definition. On lemmy, “liberal” means “I hate you, your politics are at least slightly different than mine.” In the US, for decades liberal meant “more progressive and less conservative.” In any case, my issue is the use of the term as a way to identify a hated outgroup, largely imaginary in this space, and it’s used at the drop of a hat. These exchanges would NEVER happen in almost any real life context. You likely IRL would hear someone say “liberal” and attempt to parse their meaning based on what else they say. For some reason on lemmy, that never happens.
I do not identify with that label whatsoever, particularly not with how it’s defined academically or used as a slur here. I would like to see capitalism neutered or dismantled. The number of people who give a shit that I and many others agree with that goal is depressingly and shockingly low on this platform. That is the point I am making.
I’m not at all surprised by this reaction. The “Communist” (I’m going to do you the same favor and assume you’re a card-carrying Nazi) is completely unmoved, deeply zealous, judgy, and condescending. Not even the least bit surprising. You did deceive me with what you wrote, though I should’ve taken the hint from your disingenuous last line and not wasted any more of my time.
You’re right though. I’m a secret conservative. I spend five minutes at a time many times a day faking a viewpoint which would make absolutely zero sense to fake.
Now I’m blocking yet ANOTHER brilliant sleuth who correctly identified me.
I feel like I so often see this sentiment from folks that I disagree with much more than 3%. I’ve had this ~3% reference genocide, foreign policy, the carceral state, education, economics, immigration, transportation, food, housing, healthcare, and more. The article we are having a conversation about is detailing the ways the current hegomonic global economic system, neoliberal capitalism, is failing to contend with the scientific reality of it’s consumption and practices. I, as a communist, have criticism of those that put profit over the only life sustaining planet we know of. With the realities of the climate science, the liberals of our neoliberal capitalist economy are not doing enough to stop the expansion of fossil fuels and are on track to lead us to ecological devastation.
Sorry not sorry if the choice words for those diving us to mass death for personal gain hurt your feelings.
Remind me again which country is the largest polluter on the planet and what their government system is?
I know you are referring to China, and that’s true, but there’s more to it than that. We have this concept of developmental/climate justice when discussing our policies to save the environment. Western capitalists/imperialists have made use of fossil fuels for a long time now to develop their economies then use that economic might to subjugate the rest of the world and keep them underdeveloped. It is only fair that those who have benefited most from burning carbon take on more of the burden of transitioning away from it. Asking developing nations to shoulder that burden is telling them to deny themselves the benefits of the modern economy.
Ideally, the historically biggest polluters would use the wealth they’ve accumulated to help this transition. Even if it means some economic pain, they can relatively afford it compared to those other countries. In the mean time, those developing nations could make use of fossil fuels to catch up their economy to some reasonable standard before transitioning, potentially with the help of those developed nations, to renewables.
The trouble is, under capitalism, the people who hold power are the same people who have been made wealthy from exploiting fossil fuels and they have an entrenched interest in maintaining the market for those fuels so they can stay wealthy. Even if the social benefit of a green transition is evident, the threat to their profits is enough to have them fight against it. In this way, at a point in time when we ought to have already begun a transition away from fossil fuels, we have been routinely blocked by those entrenched interests.
China is a case for why socialism is better positioned to tackle this issue. When modern China was founded, it was an agrarian society previously under the thumb of both feudalism and western colonialism. Meanwhile Western countries had been industrializing off of coal and then later oil for a considerable time before this. So they made use of fossil fuels to develop their country into the modern industrialized country we see today. (Also remember that a lot of their industry was aimed at exporting to western consumers, so their development and the resulting carbon footprint can’t be entirely disentangled from western capital.) But what have they been doing with that development? China has been using it’s ability to set economic priorities and divert capital where needed to make great strides in things like solar panels, electric vehicles, and mass transit. Because at least some capital is controlled by interests who aren’t directly beholden to the profit incentive, they are able to do what needs to be done for the good of society and the world instead of allowing for markets to eternally doom them to short term priorities.
The US has an economy developed enough to take care of everyone and still develop new technology if they chose to do so for quite some time now and we’ve known about climate change for decades. We needed to start a massive project on the level of the New Deal, industrializing for WWII, or the space race decades ago, but we have failed to do that because of who controls the resources and political power in our society. The meager attempts at environmental regulation have done little to slow down climate change. It’s only gotten worse over time and at an accelerating rate that will only get worse as we experience more feedback loops.
Despite all of this, what is the capitalist class doing? They’re pushing to get rid of the few regulations we have. They’re building data centers to spend even more energy on a project that arguably won’t even benefit most people. They’re continuing to incite wars over resources. They’re building bunkers so they can hide away from the consequences of their actions. Capitalism is killing us. We might not agree with everything that China is doing, but they are showing what a government can do when it is motivated by interests other than capital.
Are the capitalists building out wind farms in California, Oklahoma and Texas good or bad? How about all the solar farms in the desert? Is Slate Auto good or bad as it’s partially funded by Bezos? How many data centers is china building? (hint: lots) Your obsession with capitalism seems to ignore the vast variation of human nature…
I mean, of course it’s good if we get those things on a scale that will fix the problem. However, the critique socialists have of capitalism isn’t based on human nature or some moral judgement of individual capitalists. It’s based on an understanding of capitalism as a system and what forces drive it to produce the results we observe.
There is of course the labor issue, but let’s focus on the market aspect and how it relates to environmental issues for now. In a market economy, the pursuit of profit and growth combined with the laws of supply and demand create pressures that make some companies successful and others fail. This can be looked at like an evolutionary process. Survival of the fittest. Capitalists aren’t bad because they are bad people, it’s that only bad people become successful capitalists. Companies that are unwilling to engage in maximum profit seeking behavior over the long run get filtered out.
Then there is the financial aspect of this. Investors generally speaking don’t make money off of steady profits. They make money when the price of the stock increases above what they bought it for so that they can sell it for a profit. This dynamic demands continual growth. A company that is not growing is one that will be abandoned by investors or pressured to do so through ownership voting. This growth is necessary to outcompete other companies who can also seek to reinvest or acquire more capital to expand further.
These phenomena aren’t really in dispute. A pro-capitalist economist would say that this decentralized system of economic pressures creates incentives for growth and innovation. These incentives ultimately result in an optimized economy that has efficiently allocated it’s resources in the way that meets people’s needs. There is some degree of truth to this, but ultimately the claim that this form of economy produces desirable results for society demands evidence of these outcomes. It also depends on what you value. Was capitalist industrialization good for the workers who died in unsafe factories? Was it good for those in other countries which we violently exploited for profit? Was it good for managing our environment and natural resources in a sustainable way?
There is plenty of evidence that despite the progress made under capitalism, it has failed to produce desirable results in many respects as well. And once again, capitalist economists have analyses of these failures. For example, the damage to the environment is a problem referred to as “the tragedy of the commons.” While we all benefit from having a habitable environment, the pressures of the economy are such that no one person or corporation has enough of an incentive to take on the costs of pursuing that benefit on their own. And again, this isn’t merely a matter of preference for greed. Companies that choose to take on this additional cost for a relatively small return risk losing to companies that do not do so.
It is also evidently true that market competition is not always sufficient to keep companies in check. For all sorts of reasons, various industries have consolidated into monopolies or near monopolies. The basic assumptions of the market model are no longer satisfied. (Many buyers and sellers such that none have the ability to act as price setters.)
On top of the mainstream capitalist economic analysis of capitalism, there are of course additional critiques by Marxist economists, but this is already getting long enough.
Lastly, the typical liberal response is to say “ok, capitalism has these problems on it’s own, but we can just regulate it.” This sounds like a nice solution, but the problem is that these capitalists are able to convert their economic power into political power through campaign donations, media ownership, etc. We keep trying to regulate corporations, but these efforts ultimately fail or prove insufficient because the government which would pass and enforce these laws owes it’s political power to the very corporations it would be regulating. Fundamentally, the problem with capitalism is that it’s antidemocratic. A government can’t be of, by, and for the people if it depends on the wealth of a handful of capitalists more than it does the votes of the general public.
People often misunderstand what socialism is. It’s not just one thing. It’s not just “the government does stuff.” There are two core components of it: 1) You must observe and analyses the world and the relationships within it to understand how things change and then adapt to these conditions and changes accordingly. 2) That political power in society should be in the hands of the working class, aka the majority of the population.
The goal in this is to have the means by which we can collectively make decisions that we believe will benefit from society. That doesn’t mean we’ll get everything right, but at least we had that choice and we can learn from our mistakes and move on. Capitalism at it’s most theoretical is a system with nobody at the wheel. “The invisible hand” of the market guides priorities for society, not any particular conscious choice by people. More realistically, capitalism is a system in which wealthy capitalists make decisions for the rest of us. In either case, if the incentives aren’t aligned to be in favor of public good, then we don’t get public good.
Also, before you go “but China” again: I already said that I don’t agree with literally everything China, or any particular government, does. Doing so would be dogmatism. It would fail the first principle of socialist philosophy to analyze the world scientifically. I can look at their successes and failures and use that knowledge to make future decisions. Even for their successes, it isn’t automatically the case that we should copy their successes. Different times, places, and people create different conditions which need to factor into your analysis. What worked for them may not work for us, but it at least tells us something.
Holy wall of text, batman. It would be hilariously ironic if it’s AI generated, but I am too lazy to check. But to the point: what is the “working class” in modern society?
You must observe and analyses the world and the relationships within it to understand how things change and then adapt to these conditions and changes accordingly.
Capitalism is quite good at that.
That political power in society should be in the hands of the working class, aka the majority of the population.
It is in America and many other western nations. The main problem is life is too easy and no one votes. Where big S socialism has been tried on a large scale, that power disappears quite quickly…
Per capita, or are you just trying to be snarky? Because I believe Qatar, and religious monarchy, but I don’t think that’s the answer your fishing for.
Palau, actually, but Qatar isn’t far behind.
Simple question, simple answer. It’s China by a large margin. Also check out their industrial ground pollution, which is bad but nothing compared to the old Soviet Union. Your real answer might be humans are the problem rather than specific governmental/economic systems.
As with almost every statistic, if you’re not measuring per capita, your basically just measuring population. Convenient blindness to that suggests you’re acting in bad faith.
And speaking of blindness, ignoring the history of communism is your version of bad faith…
I mean that still dodges the point but to yours, I don’t ignore the history, I think the actions and rapid industrialization of the USSR and China lead to incomprehensible suffering. I also don’t think it’s a valid comparison especially given the modern context has China doing a lot of work in the global transition to renewables.
What you do seem to ignore is that systems beyond capitalism are just as likely to pollute. Per capita pollution may have more to do with poverty than altruism. China is trying real hard to catch up…
Because all of these things take place in a world’s history of context, I don’t agree it suggests they are just as likely to pollute.
I think all political systems have the propensity to pollute, especially with the energy availability of fossil fuels, but where I would disagree and why I think it’s isn’t a good faith argument is that you’re framing China as trying to catch up in per capita pollution when they are so very clearly not given the amount of work they are doing solar, nuclear, railroads, EVs.
I also agree that this is not exclusively altruism, and that divorcing themselves from oil is also a means to disconnect the global economy from the petrodollar, but I don’t really see this as a point against it.
Huh weird response for someone who is righteous
They’re not going to act in good faith. They’re a tankie.
China and it’s a dictatorship but if you mean economic system, it’s capitalist. It also manufactures everyone else’s shit for them so if you order shit off Amazon in the US or Canada, that increases China’s pollution too.
I’m going out on a limb especially after reading that last snarky line, but I wanna think there’s good faith in your approach to me here.
In those cases, those would absolutely be conservatives and those cases are not related to my point. We may quibble over solutions to these issues you listed but I doubt we would disagree at all, at minimum, that they are problems or how they manifest. What I find is that people on the internet love to assign entire worldviews based on next to nothing. Definitely been called a zionist without expressing anything even remotely zionist. Definitely been called a nazi for literally saying “nazis are horrendous and deserve harsh punishments, but they are objectively human beings”. In that case I was told I should be executed for being a nazi sympathizer.
The fact that capitalism is THE number one root societal problem and I freely profess that view has NEVER changed anyone’s mind in one of these exchanges though. I must be lying, apparently. Everyone on here is trying to out-left each other. Anyone might be a secret conservative who lies about their positions. It’s basically reverse-McCarthyism.
What “hurts my feelings”, more accurately written “upsets me that humankind will clearly NEVER be at any level of peace”, is that the word liberal carries different meanings to different people and yet it’s used as a divisive cudgel here. Online haters love to point to the academic definition as though it’s agreed upon and everyone uses the word that same exact way. …There is no word fully agreed on. Context affects their meanings. People, shockingly, usually do not have PolySci degrees nor do they usually literally even know that textbook definition. On lemmy, “liberal” means “I hate you, your politics are at least slightly different than mine.” In the US, for decades liberal meant “more progressive and less conservative.” In any case, my issue is the use of the term as a way to identify a hated outgroup, largely imaginary in this space, and it’s used at the drop of a hat. These exchanges would NEVER happen in almost any real life context. You likely IRL would hear someone say “liberal” and attempt to parse their meaning based on what else they say. For some reason on lemmy, that never happens.
I do not identify with that label whatsoever, particularly not with how it’s defined academically or used as a slur here. I would like to see capitalism neutered or dismantled. The number of people who give a shit that I and many others agree with that goal is depressingly and shockingly low on this platform. That is the point I am making.
Just seeing how you act in this thread I don’t trust your view of those interactions, and your mod logs help confirm my hesitancy.
Seems like you lack communications skills and are upset at others for it.
I’m not at all surprised by this reaction. The “Communist” (I’m going to do you the same favor and assume you’re a card-carrying Nazi) is completely unmoved, deeply zealous, judgy, and condescending. Not even the least bit surprising. You did deceive me with what you wrote, though I should’ve taken the hint from your disingenuous last line and not wasted any more of my time.
You’re right though. I’m a secret conservative. I spend five minutes at a time many times a day faking a viewpoint which would make absolutely zero sense to fake.
Now I’m blocking yet ANOTHER brilliant sleuth who correctly identified me.