I think the difference is in the breadth of control they can exert. US buying 10% stake in Intel, bailing out auto manufacturers, giving tax incentives to expedite select industries, etc… are very similar to Chinese state control, but not identical.

Fair assessment that’s it’s not a true communism, but it mimics the aftermath of a failed communism which is seen over and over, hence the reference.

Maybe add value to a conversation instead of arrogantly thumping your chest like you know everything?

Don’t discount the internet coming into existence and more and more social isolation in developed nations.

The first case of lung cancer was (insert year), cigarettes weren’t introduced until (later year).

I’m not claiming Tylenol causes autism, but your logic isn’t disproving either.

China has a state controlled economy. No business persists unless allowed. That’s closer to a communist setup than a free market.

It also removes incentive to invest in research, so you need a balance. In communism, that’s not as big a problem.

Don’t forget the stockpiles of cash by not fairly paying their labor. The PRC has been playing the long game.

Let’s use a school bully allegory to see how bad it is.

Big Bully has been stealing lunches and sitting on Little Billy since Big Bully moved into town. Little Billy kicks his shin and steals a nickel and hides it. Big Bully retaliates by pulling off Little Billy’s fingernail and promises to stop if he gets his nickel back. Little Billy complies; Big Bully continues pulling the next fingernail.

All of the teachers are watching horrified, but the superintended is Big Bully’s parent.

deleted by creator

You can already see the hallmark signs of a state funded media campaign to undermine any and all claims that the ceasefire has been broken and continues to be so.

They’re using the fact that people are tired of seeing and reading about horrible things knowing they have no control over it. As a result, the public are now personally invested (mental wellbeing) into the ceasefire being real. Even if the bombing campaign and conditions are nearly identical to pre-“ceasefire” levels, the general public is exhausted and takes the (still propagandized) media’s coverage as truth.

You’re the one bringing up eugenics buddy. Reading comprehension: the long lost art.

No rule applies 100% of the time. Understanding that putting good into the world can improve your environment beyond easily identified individual gains is an intelligent concept likely surfacing from group survival, not individual conscious thought.

Imagine you’re born into a world where 1 out of every 100 people is a socio/psychopath and 10 are (to use your terms) less knowledgeable and prone to manipulation of behavior.

Low socioeconomic status is likely to grow for the subset of 10ths that keeps growing exploited under the less ethical influence of the 1s. Low socioeconomic status is linked to having more offspring, which slowly grows the “10s” to higher and higher relative percentage of the population.

Identifying this mechanism and being concerned for the implications as related to life’s adaptation ability, is certainly controversial, but not eugenics. Eugenics is intentional, this hypothetical just a natural process. The thought of people perishing without recourse is the scary part. I never proposed it needed to run its course “because”, just that it might be too late to stop it now. To be eugenics flavored, I argue intent is necessary. Again, not advocating, just acknowledging it may be unavoidable.

What intelligence level on average do you need to be empathetic? Humans are a social creature because being in a community has survival utility. Individually we lose something, but gain in aggregate. Empathy is intelligence. And natural selection and outlining a hypothesis isn’t eugenics. You’ll note that no where in my comment did I advocate for this or even insinuate it.

The connection to eugenics is on you and your thoughts.

I’m starting to believe natural selection didn’t just get us to where we are, it kept us here.

The genetic variation in the human brain will lead to more and more good and bad variations generation after generation. Stupidity used to have deadly consequences, now it’s just poverty (or the White House).

Our society wants to be inclusive and accepting and liberating and safe, but what if that just doesn’t work with our current make? What if these mild deviations and mutations only progress forwards when the weak traits perish? We don’t have that mechanism anymore so weak and dangerous personality traits persist and continue to vote.

It’s a scary thought, but I can’t see anything wrong with the logic, especially observing how it’s taking hold across the globe.

“Gen Z” didn’t topple anything. This is coordinated by big money.

deleted by creator

In a fair world, we would be celebrating our machine labor achievement and enjoy our free time. Instead we have capitalism and virtual luddites shouting to protect menial labor.

Humanity… sigh