kkj

There is no way to be a leftist or progressive dictatorship. There is no leftist or progressive way to have unequal laws for women, or to prevent gay people from marrying, or to deny people medical care. It's a contradiction in terms. You may believe that Iran or India becoming more powerful is an overall good thing, but it is objectively and definitionally not progressive or leftist.

India is well to the right of e.g. Norway. Brazil only recently moved to the relative left. Argentina is also very right-wing (and also a lot more settler-colonialist than most of the countries not allowed into the White Countries Club). Iran and Afghanistan are about as far-right as they come, despite being very much opposed to the global order as it stands today. I wasn't discounting the so-called "Global South," I just also don't think that an imperialist past (or even present) is the only factor in determining whether a country is right-wing. In fact, I'd potentially go so far as to say that the majority of poorer countries are *farther* right than wealthier ones. The exceptions that come to mind are Cuba, Vietnam, Burkina Faso, Bolivia, and Mexico, but on the other side you have the ones I've already mentioned, plus Qatar, Lebanon, El Salvador, Pakistan, and more. Not doing imperialism is good, and *refusing* to do it is better (as opposed to simply being unable), but it doesn't singlehandedly make an extremist theocracy leftist. If your country does not interact with others at all but is still an absolute monarchy with laws that explicitly discriminate against marginalized groups, it's an isolationist right-wing state, not a leftist one.

The global status quo is liberalism. Social democracy is to the left of liberalism. And I never said that socialism was fascism, I said that the USSR *gave way to* fascism. Vladimir Putin's Russian Federation is fascist. The USSR collapsed, and fascism followed, much like the Weimar Republic collapsed and was replaced by the Nazis. That doesn't mean that the liberals in the Weimar Republic were fascists.

Anarchist Catalonia, modern Rojava, more than a few pre-Columbian North American societies, the Paris Commune of 1793... Maybe read some theory instead of making arguments from ignorance. And you can care about results without having historical results. Anti-monarchism in general had basically zero results post-Industrial Revolution until the liberals won in North America in the late 18th century, but that didn't mean that they didn't care about results, just that they hadn't achieved much yet. The American Revolution was pretty quickly followed by the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, several more French revolutions, Brazilian independence, and eventually the October Revolution, the most recent Chinese civil war, the Cuban Revolution, and so on. Between 1775 and 1925, the general concept of people voting on matters of statewide policy went from a relic of the Classical Era that had ended more than 1800 years earlier to the norm in North America and Europe. 1800 years of obscurity, then 150 years to ubiquity in the world's wealthiest states and another 50 to expand to most of the rest. Sure, anarchism has had a longer period out of the spotlight, not having been the norm since roughly the invention of agriculture ~8000 years ago, but you never know when it might return. Having a concrete, achievable plan to get results is good, but you also want to make sure that the results you're striving for are just, otherwise you end up with liberalism again. And we all know how that ends up.

Being better at violence doesn't make you more left, it makes you better at violence. That can be useful, but it isn't the same thing. Your argument boils down to "might makes right" and could be expanded to classify social democracy as "more left" (after all, it's left of the global status quo and its citizens are the happiest on average). In fact, you might even be able to use the argument for liberalism; it's left of monarchy and fascism. Sure, it frequently decays into fascism, but so did the USSR.

He certainly wasn't stupid, but a rational person would have never bugged the DNC in preparation for an election where he was that heavily favored. He only stood to lose, but he was paranoid.

Nixon was pretty irrational himself.

You could even fake one from a country that no longer exists. Are they really going to verify a birth certificate from Czechoslovakia?

This is a popular strategy for police brutality.

If you want lightweight, KDE is not your best choice. LXQt and Xfce are actually intended for low resource usage.

AIs can’t play golf.

😬

By that measure, “no one is illegal on stolen land” implies that the colonizers aren’t illegal on the land that they stole.

You can swap letters every turn until your opponent gives up and quits.

I see vim preinstalled more than nano (e.g. in container images). I’ve been trying to convert to micro, though. It has better support for terminal emulators than nano.

Biden’s term was after the Trump term that didn’t quite start any new wars (though not for lack of trying, they assassinated an Iranian general).

The staunch vegetarian stance of not eating anything you yourself killed

Maybe they're very high up, where water boils at a cooler temperature.

DP++ HDMI support tells the GPU to output HDMI. If the GPU can’t output HDMI 2.1 over an HDMI port, it can’t output it over a DisplayPort (as a general rule; you could theoretically wire the DP for a higher standard, but why would you?)