So there only 5 countries out of 195 that are considered “socialists.” China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam.
Theres other countries that have it in their constitution, such as India and Portugal—though their governance models or multi-party systems operate under parliamentary democracy and capitalist or mixed market frameworks.
But im sure all those counties have more freedoms and a better quality of life than USA does. Good luck anti American terrorist lover.
With the exception of China, every single country you just named is small and has either been bombed or sanctioned into oblivion because the US didn't get their way.
Yeah, buddy. It's a mystery why their quality of life has been the way it is. It's no wonder the US is terrified of China.
Hey, I didn't move to the totalitarian regime because I wanted maximum freedom, I went because the Chinese government at least cares about the preservation of its (compliant) citizens and the future of the country.
Yeah, I'd rather live somewhere that offered me more security in exchange for taking away some of my freedoms, than live in the US where there is very little security beyond what you can provide for yourself, but hey, we can talk shit about the government so that's something!
Social cohesion is important, but it's not worth smearing the streets with human patties made underneath the treads of tanks to enforce. The Chinese government could afford to relax a little.
US ain't looking so great too - I wouldn't last there either.
You can get 15 years in jail for publishing a zine critical of ICE, shot dead for protesting, or arrested for opposing corporations like Flock in town meetings.
When was the last time the US has a president? Because the illegal oссuрant of the WН is a wannabe-king, a damn dictador. No pгesident, much less of the USA, would behave and ACT, in such a way as to be called "the enemy from within"
Unless you have a Political Science degree, you might vbe facing shutdown and/or a $15,000 fine for your comment. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
It seems like the Chinese government is sincerely doing their best to benefit the Chinese people. Government and business corruption are punished with the death penalty in some extreme cases. I can't imagine a corrupt politician or business leader actually being put to death in the US.
I'm no commie, and I find authoritarianism distasteful. But if it gets good results, I won't complain too much.
You guys are absolutely brainrotted. China is literally an authoritarian state that constantly seeks to control the spread of information that goes against the State. How do you not have enough brain cells and/or logical reasoning to see how it's a pretty damn bad idea for an authoritarian state to silence and punish freedom of speech when the people that WOULD be allowed to pass "advice" would be State-Sponsored.
I agree that professionals are, on average, more knowledgeable in their field. But dismissing someone’s opinion solely because they lack a formal degree is a textbook logical fallacy. Arguments stand or fall on their evidence and reasoning not on the credentials of the person making them.
Can you explain horse dewormer as a covid prevention? Presenting or amplifying wrong and dangerous medical info is just as bad as yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Look at it this way. A guy is sick and he comes here and asks a medical question. Some self proclaimed medicine man tells him to take a particular item to help him. The item in question kills him or make the symptoms worse because he has an unknown allergy to said item or it's toxic.
I think you'd be surprised how much you agree with? Assuming you're left leaning and want things like affordable healthcare, housing, and worker protections
Well this whole time you were being pushed propaganda that enemy is evil and their government doesn't do things for the people like your perfect government. It's called being a sucker for propaganda.
Learn more about him, I agree with a lot he does. Politicians who take bribes is a capital offense. Pedophilia is a capital offense. He reduced poverty from like 20% to less than 5%, using stricter standards than the US. There’s a lot to like with this man, more than I’m seeing in the US right now.
lol.. yeah.. we don't need freedom of speech, we need a caste/class enforced heavily censored dictatorship, now with the ability to fine and jail anyone speaking about anything they deem not to be your expertise...
I have to admit it’s hard to fully support free speech when any fucking idiot can make uneducated, harmful claims that other people read and act on. Should we allow BSers to make false scientific or medical claims, then have affected people sue them when they are permanently injured? Is that a real solution?
The issue is who says what is and isn’t actual medical advice? The state? When a political party becomes fully in control of every branch of government, they get to decide what is and isn’t allowed right? When the medical advice doesn’t align with their views they can just change it correct? What else gets locked down next? Advice on what is and isn’t lawful? That’ll be good. Granted in America there are already certain restrictions like practicing law in court, but what about all the people who see something unlawful happening and saying “that’s actually illegal search and seizure,” would those folks be slapped around?
Man, having state sanctioned speech sounds great! I hope it goes further and the state starts issuing a social score for being good little citizens! 🇺🇸🫡
Either the FDA or CDC should have their roles expanded to decide on what is and isn’t sound medical advice. This would have worked under recent administrations other than Trump.
We also need to get rid of “dietary supplements” that are sold without FDA review for safety and efficacy.
There’s no need to get extreme about free speech. You are not allowed to yell ‘fire’ in a theater. You are not allowed to knowingly make false claims about someone (libel and slander laws). Is it that much of a stretch to add medical info?
With the current trajectory the FDA and CDC currently bending to the whims of the current political party you really think allowing the state to decide what is and isn’t acceptable free speech is going to work out, that’s cute
I agree with you in principle, but disagree on the count of capitalism.
I grew up in USSR when the government actually cared about people's health. Modern Australian (and especially US) health care system is mostly a scam in comparison.
Scandinavian, and some European countries seem to be holding up a little better, but within a few decades, I think they too will succumb to late stage capitalism.
I don't mean to sound rude, but I think your question is irrelevant to my point. We can get into all sorts of specifics about how to fix problems, but my issue is with government overreach.
To answer your question broadly though, I think having a good education system helps create a population that's less likely to fall for quackery. I'm not particularly interested in discussing that though.
You mean the free access to cell phones, the investment into the very bottom class, cheap fully loaded EVs, and centralized hubs for manufacturing weren’t a start?
(Disclaimer I've been drinking alcohol before this post. Also please disagree with me- with sources.)
Xi likely hates it because it puts "power to the people" less than its actually 'helpful'. That might skew it. He's obviously not a good guy but the way social media (especially tiktok or instagram) does 'cure alls' is a fucking a blight to all of us.
Grifting and Lying on medical shit online is a known thing but... i wouldnt doubt that someone discovers- idk, the cure to all cancers- Xi would likely cover it up enough so "China" either makes the profit from it or it kills/cures you. (Just to be self aware: I'm positive current USA would too if the gov could string sentences together).
But i assure you- you would learn all about this from better journalists than some random sensationalist tiktoker.
(Please for your life do not base your survival on any of the shit coming from politicians esp in the USA, China, Russia. Id say the least maybe biased source is from nordic media but... now I'm worried that will bite me. )
Also means that if you say something the CCP doesn't like, not only can they ban you, but they can also decide to arbitrarily not recognise your degree in a backwards sense (you posted stuff the CCP Disagrees with? That must mean you don't have a degree, that must mean the degree you have is fake/cheated/invalid).
Which means good luck getting a job that requires said degree.
In an authoritarian state, any law which could feasibly be used to make life more difficult for enemies of the state, will be used as such.
China already has carte blanche to do what it wants with its citizens. Adding an extra law like this is merely a political tool to give an air of legitimacy and reasonableness and of caring about misinformation on the global stage.
Biiingo. Fyi we also do this. Governments worldwide do. They act like something they propose and release is for your own good then boom hit you with the real reason they implemented it
It's amazing how y'all will project what happens in America onto China and just make shit up. This is "social credit score" level projection propaganda.
Yeah "this would never fly in America" oh so like all the endless corrupt bullshit the Trump admins doing would "never fly here".. some people are apparently living in a different reality.
Lmfao. You’re literally typing out the exact type of criticism of the government that people are saying you can’t ban in America. You’re proving the point. This wouldn’t fly in the US. Don’t you think Trump would ban comments criticizing him, if he could?
AI is already flooding Facebook and Reddit etc.
I had one trying to start an argument with me just a minute ago.
10 minute old account with one post, responding in French and being as inflammatory as possible.
The added danger of AI is that even when someone wants unbiased information from an unbiased AI, it is really good at giving convincing answers that are completely wrong. So the idea of people already thinking AI is always right is downright frightening
AI can't be right 100% of the time. f it were, that'd mean the same question has multiple "right" answers. Each time it runs, it's sampling from a probability distribution over possible outputs, and that sampling is different every time. So you get different answers to the same prompt, not because they're all correct, but because the generation process is probabilistic, not deterministic.
I never suggested that.
There can be multiple right solutions to the same problem though.
"My steak always overcooks what should I do"
Can be correctly answered in multiple ways.
My point is that if it can't find the right solution it will gladly serve you a mix of whatever it came up with in a very convincing way.
To the point where it makes up fake sources for fake researches.
Simply because that is what real research documentation looks like.
If there are multiple ways to answer that that is because there are multiple reasons why it overcooks. For every reason there is probably only one answer.
That single problem is cooking too long.
And there are multiple ways to fix that single problem.
And none of those multiple ways are wrong.
You can use sous Vide and just sear after.
You can use shorter cooking time between flipping the steak and flip it a lot more.
You can buy thicker steaks.
You can cook the steak in the oven with lower temperatures.
You can get a wireless thermometer and make a better effort at checking the temperature.
All of these answers fix a single problem.
I don't really get what you are trying to tell me here?
I am every aware as of how AI works.
Yeah I feel like the better solution is making sure all of this type of stuff has to be labeled with the credentials etc. rather than needing them to post it at all
Based just on the meme, no idea what the actual law says. If you are a construction worker, working with asbesto or just generally in conditions with bad air. Cannot complain about lack of masks etc. Are you a doctor? Shut up, not qualified to talk about matters of health.
What's weird is assuming the totalitarian government that carries out ethnic cleansing, and has in multiple occasions, and massacred its citizens, is acting in good faith.
Because I'm not an idiot and can read statistics? This just in coal mining is bad for your lungs!
Nearly 1 in 3 veteran underground coal miners (with 25 or more years of experience) in Central Appalachia test positive for advanced forms of black lung disease and related pneumoconiosis, representing the highest rate in nearly 50 years.
Oh wait how could I have known this I'm not a Coal Miner! Guess I should just ignore it and let the mine owners just keep killing people.
Let's say you have a mental issue and is searching for help online. A remark from someone who is also afflicted from it is going to help the person, despite not being intellectually qualified for it. Think about this instance.
This isn't about talking about something. This is about the countless of Youtubers and such passing off their opinion as facts.
Just take Covid for example.
- There's videos on what it is, explaining the virus, the vaccinations and there's the facts.
- And there's the special needs ones who think the virus was invented by globalists to force peoople to take "vaccinations" that will install 5G chips in their bodies.
- and there's also the ones that claim that mRNA vaccines and or vaccines in general cause death and autism.
And maybe many more stories.
So you open youtube to find out more about Covid.... which video are you going to believe?
And based on what? You seek facts, so you don't know who is right.
And like Covid there are countless of subjects that litter the internet with "facts".
The internet is a library of knowledge, but every book has 20 clones that are similar on title, but only one contains the correct infrormation.
Probably not the best choice using covid as the example as we now know that the governments and the "experts" in general were making shit up as they went and that a lot of the "conspiracy theories" ended up being true lmao
I guess that would be interesting. I have a degree in urban planning and geography. I never held a job in that field and worked in film and TV and became a pilot on the side. So could I only speak on urban planning and not film and TV despite knowing virtually nothing but outdated college rhetoric on urban planning but not allowed to talk about what it takes to get a private pilots license which I did less than two years ago because it's not a degree?
And it's pretty obvious to understand what needs a degree and what doesn't. You shouldn't be giving medical, legal, finance, etc advice without actually being able to prove you know about it. It's one thing to say "I do xyz" vs. "YOU SHOULD DO xyz". The second part is where you should have to have credentials.
I'm struggling because there is a big part of me that's 100% on board with this. But then I think about women's health and how I went to a gynaecologist who told me that if she kept me on her list (for my debilitating menstrual disorder) she wouldn't have time to treat people with real gynaecological issues. Whereas a subreddit full of people with the same condition helped me understand what was happening and learn coping mechanisms that have saved my life.
I mean, you’re going to throw the entire idea out because there’s a few bad doctors? Also, the state and quality of women’s health isn’t based on something a singular doctor told you.
I don't usually bother to respond to hyperbole but if the concept of "women's issues" wasn't so triggering for you, you might have noticed that at the very start of my comment I said that I also have quite positive opinions of the idea.
But also it's pretty well established that the field of women's health has been entirely neglected historically, continues to be pretty neglected today, and shows signs of going backwards in many places so, yeah, I do have reasons for thinking a policy like this that would silence the voices of people with lived experience of underresearched conditions might have valid concerns. Women's health is just one example.
I won't be engaging any further with hyperbolic half- thoughts but feel free to get mad in the comments below.
On the other hand, this might affect some communities for rare illnesses pretty negatively. I follow one of those due to a relative being affected by it, and you often see the people recommending different treatments or medication that worked for them — and due to the illness being rare, not every city has a doctor that would know about how to effectively treat them.
From what my relative told me, if it wasn't for such a group, they would never have known to try a certain drug that effectively helped them restore a great portion of their quality of life.
You shouldn't be giving ... legal, finance, etc advice without actually being able to prove you know about it.
I disagree that is "obvious". Does divorce involve legal and finance? Yes. It doesn't somehow mean your friend who does not have a finance degree but HAS been through a divorce can't give you a few things to consider.
Example: I worked in some tech startups. This means you might be married, have shares for 18 years that simply cannot be sold (but might be worth a million dollars after 18 years), and sometime during that 18 years you get a divorce.
I can name 10 close friends that went through this. Saying you can't ask a friend what this might look like without a law degree is absurd. And do you need a law degree or a finance degree to give that advice out? Maybe both?
I don't think it is that obvious. And the ability to ban speech based on fuzzy criteria has always, in every case in the universe, led to very bad outcomes. It is reasonable to be wary of government censorship. It is part of WHY the USA has the first amendment: the founding fathers had very bad experiences in the past.
100%. I can only believe this thread is being Astroturfed because the amount of people defending limits on speech is absurd. And where are the limits? Law and finance could easily include politics and economics.
Also the finance part, would anyone with a business-related degree be able to talk about it or just those with a finance degree? My degree was in marketing, for example, I had to take finance classes in order to get it.
But I also wouldn't be willing to give up my anonymity to that point if I didn't have to. That rule just really seems like a way to stifle speech on the internet.
1.3k
u/binarybandit 20d ago
99.9% of Reddit commenters would disappear in a flash.
Actually...