I'd say, nobody with access to this website would ever say yes.  Considering any nation with a walled garden for an information distribution system, you'd probably see a lot more yes votes.

Don't bother arguing with Moloch, he doesn't listen and only reads from very specific sources, thus his knowledge base is akin to swiss cheese.  He's still asserting mixed-economy nations are socialist even after I corrected him (and he only asserts this because he's parroting the aforementioned sources, not because he's actually given it any thought.)  He's also saying Sweden--that place where Muslims are literally overrunning the nation and breaking their welfare system--is doing "well", along with the rest of Europe.  Yeah, apparently Europe is doing well, according to Moloch and his very specific sources; bet you can't guess which ones *cough Forbes The Guardian Huffington Post CNN cough*.

I wouldn't say socialism is losing against capitalism exactly; socialism is self-defeating in the sense that, while capitalism allows us to build up prosperity rapidly, socialism allows us to burn prosperity rapidly (usually for ideological reasons like "feed and house the needy" and whatnot.)  Thus, socialism only ever follows capitalism and only works until there's nothing left to "burn", in which case you either collapse as a nation or go back to being capitalist.  In this sense, socialism always loses against capitalism, socialism is made possible only because of capitalism, and a socialist system which rejects its capitalist counterpart will inevitably fail as it always has and always will, in the same way that someone who spends more than they earn will inevitably go broke and, in the case of having nobody to help them, die.  In the sense that supporters of socialism are losing against supporters of capitalism, I think this was the general case up until recently, as far as the highest-functioning nations went.  It's mostly just the lower-intelligence people who don't like capitalism, because they know they can't compete; lower-intelligence people always prefer socialism in the presence of higher-intelligence people because it's perceived as an easy way to even the playing field: just steal from the higher-intelligence people.  What's in it for the higher-intelligence person to accept socialism?--ultimately they just lose.  There is a real incentive for this individual to reject socialism, just as there's a real incentive for the other individual to accept socialism: the socialist has something to gain, because the socialist is worse off in the presence of someone who is better off.

In other words, socialism prevails when you have a great disparity of intelligence, which can be translated as a great disparity of wealth since higher-intelligence people fare better in their careers.  In a nation where everyone's stupid, or in a nation where everyone's smart, socialism would be pointless because there's either nobody to steal ("redistribute") from (in the case where everyone's stupid) or there's no incentive to steal (in the case where everyone's smart.)  To say that socialism is losing against capitalism (as far as supporters of either go), is to say that there's a small or shrinking gap in intelligence differences.  In nations which low-intelligence people are flooding (e.g. much of Islam) in high-intelligence nations (e.g. much of Europe), socialism is ramping up (until the point that there's nothing left to pillage, which is happening soon for many countries.)

So in this sense, socialism has been winning as of late, particularly considering the west.  But as more and more high-intelligence people grow tired of these low-intelligence people, things are bound to swing in the other direction, or bound to head down the path of the Soviet Union and Cambodia etc.

Christ, you're an idiot.

None of them are good for the future of the USA; only thing Bernie will ultimately accomplish is a tightened coupling between corporation and state, and that consolidation will continue to push us towards totalitarianism, which is what's truly killing the economy (after all, it must die for a master to come in and tell us what to do) and which Bernie just doesn't seem to understand; if Bernie is not a dictator by the time his 4-8 years is up, he'll have paved the way perfectly for the next guy, much like the preceding presidents.  Bernie wants to help but he doesn't know how because he doesn't know what's actually wrong, and by extension, nor do his supporters.  Socialism does not lead to more power to the people, socialism leads to more power for the state with the excuse given that it will do the people good, that it will represent you (LOL because it has a track record of doing this right), that after it seizes this power it'll just give it up, "redistribute" it; how many times must this happen in history before people wise up?  The obvious answer: they never will: there's a sucker born every minute.  All we can do is disassociate from the people who can't figure it out.

Let's be honest: there's plenty of Americans who are not good for the future of the USA either.  A leader is nothing without their followers.

The truth about Japan's lack of sexually active men is simple to understand: the more limited your social space, the harder people fight for those spaces, to the point that most people can't compete; those who cannot compete become "beautiful ones", or what's known in Japan as "herbivore men."  There was an experiment named "The Mouse Utopia" which showed a sped-up version of this phenomenon, you can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM  The mice in this video which gave up their sexuality focused almost solely on maintenance of their appearance; the key here is that they neglect to have families, which is among the parallels with herbivore men.  Consider, now, the appearances of herbivore men:








Some Western examples:


It's not just Japan; you can find this in any country where social space is becoming increasingly limited.  It's noticeable over here in the West as well with the rise of e.g. feminism and mgtow, and falling birthrates.  But Japan appears to be in the most advanced stage of this.  Of course, Japan is well known for its severely limited space physically, but this translates to limited social space as well, especially considering how machines do more and more of the work which would otherwise necessitate people (i.e. give them a space in society), and now consider the dawn of sex bots which would weaken the social power of women, given enough time and innovation, and thus tighten the space for them as well--but likewise, the lack of participating men naturally lends itself to the rise of non-participating women, for women have to compete with one another for the remaining participating men.  Notice that this is primarily occurring in the most advanced nations.  Meanwhile, the sex drives of the worst nations flourish--esp. noticeable with the middle-eastern "refugees" and their rapefest as of late.  And of course, their appearances are nothing to envy.

The problem is not limited geography--this can be an issue, particularly considering Japan, but seeing as there's plenty of empty physical space in, say, America, and yet still we are seeing a rise of the beautiful ones, it becomes clear that the true issue here is the lack of social expansion--this is becoming increasingly true for the latest generations, they just don't have anywhere they need to be for there's nobody who wants them and it shows with their ideological leanings, e.g. SJWs and Bernie supporters (socialists, i.e. exacerbators.)  If you understand how the state impedes market activity which directly translates to slower business creation and worse business performance, you will understand how a state which grows its power lends itself to the issue: when you're paying the cost of high taxes and the watering down of your purchasing power a la inflation, you're left with less for yourself, and this makes it difficult to produce new businesses, in other words to create more social space; allotting people more of their own earnings would allow people the time, resources, energy and motivation to expand and procreate.  The alternative resolution to this issue is, instead of increasing the amount of social space, you decrease the amount of people competing for those spaces: enter, war.  But that doesn't help anybody at best and just sets everyone back at worst (especially consider its cost not just in human lives but the financial expenses involved per se), it's more like a violent expulsion of the at-present non-necessary members of society than a beneficial solution to the core issue, being lack of social expansion.  Through improvements to our rate of social expansion, those non-desired members of society become desired once again (well, except for the violent criminals, they'll still be non-desired) as there is eventually a surplus of social space to fill, rather than competition for limited and shrinking space--a golden age, totally opposite to what we have today.

I have done some research, and here's what I've found:


Pretty jarring; "accept what I believe or else we'll steal from you, and if you resist we'll enslave you or worse!"


Uh huh...  Straight from the Quran.


At this point, you do either of the following: accept that one is not a Muslim unless they actually follow what they claim to believe (else you'd be a hypocrite), or hone up to the fact that this is all hatred stemming from Muslims aimed at non-Muslims.  You can deflect all you want, nobody's buying your bullshit aside from other Muslims.  Your awful attempts at English make you even less charitable, but such is to be expected from a Muslim where about 6 out of 10 of you are illiterate in any language, let alone your own--yet somehow it is the non-muslims who are the beasts; it'd be funny if it weren't so sad: an entire society which is completely lacking in self awareness.

Here's some more fun facts about Muslim people and their countries:


Even assuming Muslims did not hate everyone, this is a pretty clear indication to stop following Islam.

Contraception allows you to have it both ways: you can have sex while avoiding pregnancy.

You're not thinking about what entity does the bailing out.  In both the case between America and Iceland, it was the socialistic element which does the bailing out, it is the interventionist; the capitalistic element can, at best, influence these decisions made by the socialist element, which all depends on where the power in the market is concentrated; in the case of America with its "quantitative easing", this would be banks, so of course the banks would bail themselves out.  It's the same socialistic element which allowed such a crisis to occur at all through superceding the citizen's right to regulate their own economy.  What you're calling "capitalism" and "socialism" are your own original definitions of these terms.  Personal definitions are useless because there is no common understanding as to what you mean when you say e.g. "socialism"; for example, if I choose to refer to a piano as a "banana", and I tell people that I can play the banana, they will rightfully question what I am actually saying; it's better to just call a piano a "piano."  So let's recap what these words actually mean:



From this we can conclude:

1. Iceland is not an example of socialism, by every standard it is considered a "mixed economy", which is essentially a mixture of both capitalism and socialism:

If you want an example of a real socialist nation--by the common definition, not by your own original definition--you can look at North Korea or Venezeula today, or Cambodia or the Soviet Union of the past, among other examples which you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states


The common thread?  They're all shitholes with grinding poverty and extreme wealth/influence inequality.

2. America is not an example of a capitalist nation.  Again, it has a mixed economy, with elements of both capitalism and socialism.

The nations closest to being capitalist would be Singapore and Hong Kong:

Finally, a poll I can answer honestly

If those making less than 15/hr were deserving of 15/hr, they'd already be paid this much.  As others have said, all this will do is cut off anyone whose labor is not worth 15/hr, as opposed to the naive expected result of "everyone gets a pay raise."  If you can't afford to live there with these wages, then you go somewhere else; I'm making less than that in Texas and I still get by just fine, with plenty of free time to spare.  I imagine it's so expensive to live in California because the higher cost of taxes on everyone, and since businesses will just pass the cost of these taxes onto the consumers, the end result is higher priced everything, on top of taxes which translates to lower wages; it's no wonder you can't get by with less than 15/hr.  Now that more people will have to get on the government support program (since they can't find work now), the cost of these taxes will rise even higher, pushing more people into 'poverty'.  The end result is, everyone's a pawn of the state, state takes control over everything to compensate, bada bing, hello state socialism--precisely what the central controllers want: all the control they can get, for this control equates to power.  Further: why the arbitrary increase?  Why not make it 100/hr, and have everyone live like kings, if raising the minimum wage raised wages all together?  Because they know it doesn't work like that, they'd kill their economy instantly when the only people who were allowed to work were the very wealthy.  There would be no labor left to tax, so Cali would have to resort to forcing people into labor, and that'd be a neon red flag lighting up the entire planet as to how these policies were turning the state into a Soviet shithole.  No, gotta ease into the shithole, gotta do it stealthily, so people don't notice what they're getting into.  All for what, so the 0.001% can live like gods from their central planner's palace while everyone else suffers?  Fuck that shit.

There's definitely some truth to this, but not a lot; the only phone number I remember is my own, everyone else's is stored in my phone which alleviates me from the task of remembering them.  It's not that I forgot, I never learned these numbers to begin with, I didn't need to.  It's no different from writing these numbers in a notebook and referring to this notebook whenever I needed a given number; I don't need to memorize these numbers so it's better that I don't, it'd be wasted mental space otherwise, and wasted time spent in memorization.  To be fair however, this method I mentioned will likely lead to me remembering the numbers anyway, as I'd be punching them in every so often; the phone let's me skip this step as well.  I only remember my own phone number because I inevitably have to give it out; similarly to the point I mentioned about remembering numbers I have to punch in, I remember mine because I often have to give it out.

I don't remember what I did on Monday because there is no need to remember these things.  With or without digital devices, I wouldn't remember such minutiae.  I can tell you what probably happened:

1. I ate some food several times
2. I worked on my projects
3. I went to the bathroom several times
4. I drank some water, and probably a soda, several times
5. I used the Internet at some point in time, probably to watch YouTube

There's really nothing worth remembering as to what specifically happened on this day.  I know some people remember literally everything, but that's not everyone.  What benefit is it to me that I remember what happened on this day?  It's not because my phone stores this data--I don't consciously store any data on my phone about what I do each day--it's because it's not worth remembering.  There are a ton of things I remember about my past, both recent and distant, but just another day in the life is not among those things.  Maybe it's because my life isn't particularly interesting right now; perhaps if I spent the last week traveling, I'd remember my Monday more vividly.

They observe that people forget things, but don't observe whether people have always forgotten things which they don't need to remember.  When they associate it to digital amnesia, they completely miss the idea that people have always stored relevant info, ever since it became easy and permanent to do so.  Had people not done this, they probably would've forgotten what they wanted to remember anyway, or had to spend time and energy memorizing important info.  Where's the digital amnesia here?  There were no digital devices in the 1800's and yet people still stored information and forgot the information they stored--it's the whole reason they write it down, so they wouldn't lose it when they inevitably forget.  Digital amnesia doesn't exist: it does not adequately explain this timeless phenomena, at best it's a trendy term for it.  All that's been changed is the method as to which people record info.


Speak for yourself.  It's all about how you use them.  They're just like any other technology, just a tool.  You were stupid or clever before ever approaching the tool, and the stupid or clever things you do with the tool are an extension of the self; self-degradation is a habitual choice, and so is self-improvement.

Our means of communication would be way more stunted; we'd have to rely on central distributors like newspapers and the radio to get a lot of our knowledge, decentralized information distribution would occur mostly via word-of-mouth which would travel much slower.  This would've made it much easier for central institutions to dupe society at large with propaganda.  The Internet facilitates this as well, but makes it very easy for people to not buy into that, and makes alternative sources widely available, which makes it very difficult to control the narrative.  The narrative is extraordinarily important in manipulating how people understand reality, which allows for greater control over what those people do, so it's a very common thing for powerful institutions to wrestle this.  The Internet helps to democratize the narrative, and many of us can see now how the narratives from before the Internet's popularity are beginning to crumble, what many would call getting "red pilled."  Void of this, perhaps we can look at North Korea as to what happens when the narrative is under full control by a central authority.

Then there's the total oversaturation of knowledge which allows people to learn just about anything they want with no barriers but presence of an Internet connection and a device that can browse it, and the latter gets cheaper all the time.  It has completely supplanted libraries, as it's cheaper, more convenient, and more widely available; you can even get the same books from the library in pdf form from the Internet, even college textbooks.  You can literally get a college education in your own home, so long as you are disciplined.  This allows for people to self-improve at an incredible rate; just about anything you want to learn about, and much of what you want to learn to do, can be studied on the Internet, often times at no cost.  This raises the value of every human being with Internet access--to varying degrees, anyhow, as some people choose to get more benefit from it than others--which likewise raises our quality of life.  Without the Internet, it'd be a bit more difficult to get this knowledge; libraries would still be around but there's no guarantee that the book you need will be available to you, just due to how libraries work, typically stocking just one, maybe two copies of a single book.  If some book happens to be popular--say, a book on a certain language--you'll find it difficult to get a relevant text, and if you do, someone else will be deprived of it.  Or perhaps the best book on the topic is never around and you're left with an inferior product which may not fulfill your needs adequately.  Not so with the Internet: there's always enough copies for everyone and then some, since a single file is infinitely duplicable.  So no matter what the fad is, you can always learn to your heart's content from the best content available at the time (plus, interactive learning resources often do a better job than just books, e.g. programming courses.)

However, this does not necessarily deprive computers of software; let's say, without the Internet, to get your software fix you'd have to visit the store, or perhaps order a copy of a piece of software to your home.  Here comes the next problem: the high price of knowledge, esp. when paired with licensing and other such limitations.  Rather than a course for learning a given language being free (such as Duolingo, or perhaps just a website), you instead must pay a hefty fee to purchase a piece of software which does the same (let's say, Rosetta Stone), or perhaps void of that you'd pay for a book on the language.  The case without the Internet is always more expensive to the consumer than the case with the Internet, factoring in piracy as well.  Due to the heightened cost of learning, fewer people learn, and learn less often, as it requires more labor on behalf of the consumer to pay for this cost; say, after you shell out 1000$ for the language software, you then want to get a book on programming concepts, and the best book you can find costs 120$, with worse books getting as low as 30$.  Then let's say you want to get another book, say, for anthropology; ultimately you must limit yourself as to what you can or can't learn, and limit yourself as to the quality of your learning material, because every time you pick something up, you'll have to pay a great deal for it, or take a gamble with the library having it in stock.  Ultimately it's inferior to the benefit of the Internet, for without it, while our quality of life may improve, it will at beast improve at a slower rate.

Consider this: without the Internet, software like Photoshop would still exist as something you could buy in the store.  You could still possibly find someone locally who will sell it bootleg, but without that, you'd have to get it legit.  This software is very expensive, however, and the end result would be, Adobe would get just about as much cash as they were getting before, except now that people who can't afford it won't be able to easily pirate it.  So all you wind up with is far fewer people who can use this software competently (since learning resources would also be scarcer), which means bloated prices for these professionals, which means limited availability of such professionals, which means overall less efficient image creation and manipulation with a higher cost for businesses; say, if you wanted to get a business logo, you'd need to shell out a lot more cash for the same level of quality you could get now from any of this site's freelancers.  These costs are always passed on to the consumers, who foot these bills from higher priced goods.  Perhaps we'd still see a lot more traditional artists, but traditional artistry is always more expensive to pull off than digital due to tool costs and increased time to resolve certain problems like changing a color, so the cost would still be higher than it is now.  With the Internet, both the software is freely available (albeit illegally) and the resources to not only learning it, but to master it, are widely available free of charge, thus graphic design is much cheaper with more professionals around.  So more businesses can get graphic services for less, even smaller businesses and startups which otherwise would find it hard to pay for such.  Hooray for piracy!

There are some negatives to having the Internet around, like making it easy to spy on the population, making it easy for unsavory people to connect with others, e.g. pedophiles, but overall I think we're far better off with it than without.  I don't think Bitcoin would be possible without it, nor all the technologies being built due to its existence, like OpenBazaar.  These two things alone would be reason enough to lament the non-existence of the Internet, the freedom these two technologies will allot us is priceless.

I use Syncthing and only sync between my own personal devices; nothing safer for the convenience

https://syncthing.net

Before:



After:

Venezuelans don't need bitcoin, the socialist system will provide.

I can believe it; individuals with stronger ties with their community are healthier overall than stragglers, for two reasons: because we are social animals with a real need for human interaction, and because a financially connected community can better pay for the bills, e.g. similarly to how insurance works, except when it comes to religion they're often generous with their money towards other members of the religion (at least as far as Christianity goes.)  I'm always hearing about Christians helping other Christians through troubling times, more so than other groups of people.  Not to mention, less stress from individuals with clear support from a large community indicates a cleaner recovery from whatever is ailing the suffering party.

Religion is not necessary to achieve that, however, and non-spiritual individuals can experience the exact same effects by doing the exact same actions.  What I've noticed about atheists is that they tend to be socially disjointed, particularly noticeable in socialist dictatorships (which usually abhor religion.)  Void of this ability to become socially connected, they instead employ a form of national emulation of the community (after the national socialists destroy the real thing of course), i.e. everyone's family and helps each other (with the big difference between this and the real thing is the presence of guns and "or else"; literally just a shell of a society.)

I feel that ideology can do well to bridge the gap between the absence of religiosity/spirituality and the benefits which communal connectivity brings, since ideology is effectively the same as the glue which keeps religious people connected: it's a group of people who share a common set of beliefs, so it follows that these people will want to see each other thrive, and it follows that they will help their peers when they're not doing well.  It's just a shame that the notion of ideology has been tarnished by unstable and destructive people, even to this day.  I feel that the libertarianism is the most likely candidate for this success, also considering it has a very high presence of Christians, which gives atheists an opportunity at community with each other, and with the religious, due to sharing a common belief system which implies sharing--at least partially--common behaviors and preferences.

IIRC men make up roughly half of all domestic abuse victims.  This only includes the cases we're aware of; I get the feeling men report their abuses less than women.  Going off this alone, women are at least equally as violent as men.  Men find it hard to fight back knowing they'll go to jail if they do, since it's bad to hit someone but "taboo" to hit a woman as a man; the police are notorious for arresting the male in a domestic abuse situation even if the male did no wrong, so it's better that the police are never called in that event.  All this double standard does is encourage violence from females towards males, which in turn encourages males to avoid relationships with females, thus we can connect this double standard to the rise of MGTOW and falling birth rates in the west.  But let's be honest, has there ever been a double standard which yielded positive results?

Anyway to answer the question, yes, it's as common as the man beating the woman.

Extremely unlikely.  You may as well argue that guns wouldn't be so widespread had the first guy to use a gun hadn't done so.  Eventually someone else would've figured it out and used it to their advantage, setting the whole thing in motion: since nobody wants to be at a disadvantage, they must adopt the technology; only thing stopping it before was: nobody knew it even existed for one, or how it was possible for two once knowledge of its existence is there.  Surely had the Chinese not used that first gun in the 11th century...


You can fuck right off, I haven't a single relationship between any of these things, not with nuking Japan and not with the Rongelap genocide.  What makes you any better than the men who chose to do these things?--both you and them hoped for the needless deaths of innocents.  Meanwhile I want nothing but peace and prosperity for us all.  If there were far more people like me and far less people like you, the world would be just peachy.  Let that sink in.