You're right it's not, since neither did I comment on the original poster's message, but the one's you were responding to, nor did I assume anything about the original poster. And I'm certain I was not the person you originally replied to either.
Maybe pay more attention next time? If you're interested in my answer to the OP, I have that below in another comment that answers to the OP, not you answering to someone else that commented on the OP.
As far as I know, Larian is not such a company like you mention. Everything they've done or said so far, to my knowledge, both referring to BG3 and their previous games is classes above the average for the industry.
Of course it's your decision to not buy their game based on the fact they had to use WotC's IP, but you're punishing an actually good developer for something they did not have a choice on (WotC's ethics and way of running things).
Truth is like that you're not hurting them, and most importantly not hurting WotC who'd get a small percentage of a small percentage of your sale. Couple of bucks at best is nothing to WotC's bottom line.
But that's your prerogative and that's fine. However, I do suggest you play the game, cracked if you must because so far with about 20h in, it's an amazing game from a great company. Maybe it won't make you buy it, but at least it might make you consider supporting their other, or future, games that are not connected with WotC. Because the last few years we're fast to point fingers to others, but forget to reward the few that do things properly.
You know what an example is? Regardless of whether I agree with him or not, those were examples. They good list a whole bunch of other foods or shampoos or drinks or whatever the hell you can imagine. The poster was trying to make a point. Fixating on the examples and giving personal examples of people you specifically don't do the two things the poster mentioned doesn't make the argument lose its merit.
My personal opinion on the subject is very different than the poster's, which can be summarized to that I don't oppose art because I don't like the artist, I won't stop reading Lovecraft or listening to Vivaldi because they were trash people, because their art is great. So I don't in fact agree with what the poster said, but clinging to personal examples to refute an argument while ignoring the global average which is what the argument was using is disingenuous.
With the same logic, since the people you know don't eat meat, that'd mean there's no problem with the meat eating in the world, which I'm sure you'd rush to point out the absurdity of logic there.
Lol, no. Considering the three largest sources of emissions as far as countries are concerned are about 50% of the global total, refuse to take action, nothing is going to change.
I'm actually not. I think many approaches have their pros and cons. Anarchy sounds a lot better as a path to a classless system, I don't disagree with Trotsky's permanent revolution, though I am heavily against his 4th International (and to a big degree the 3rd one as well) and I think that socialism is the hardest way to make it work, but if it does, is probably the best since it prepares the populace to think in a different way.
But good for you for figuring me out when I haven't done that myself in over 20 years I'm in politics.
As for that dick contest about communists before Marx and their books, because it is a dick contest at this point, I never claimer Marx was the first to talk about communism, or use that word. Even the manifesto was commisioned by a pre existing party namely the Communist League. A party that existed before Marx and Engels came in contact with them.
But Marx was in fact the first to bring those ideas together, from philosophy to economy to politics etc and describe a full featured system that covered it all (for his time, times changing and things adapt), which is why is the one most well known and remembered with his name attached to it. Take it further, back to ancient Greek philosophers why don't you?
The original poster asked an ELI5 of communism. While what you say is not wrong, it's far from ELI5. Even for someone like me who spent years reading on all that, there were a couple of things you mentioned I didn't know about. At the end of it all there's a reason that if you look at the history of communism most will refer to Pre-Marx and after. And a simple answer to a simple question of "what be?" has to start somewhere. I chose Marx since it's probably the best entry point for someone who has no idea.
I disagree about the part of enough attempts and fair share, but honestly, I don't care much. Could very well be something completely different and as long as it kept the basis of no inequality, no ruling elite, free education and medical care and so on, I'd be in. I just haven't found anything that does that even half convincingly.
My belief is that similar to how back in the 18th century, they couldn't see past the following system, namely capitalism, we can't see and plan for past a classless system now, which for the moment is communism, regardless of the path there. That doesn't mean that societal evolution will stop there.
I'm not quite sure how to reply to that, because you make some good points. I flatly disagree that communism can't work. It's like saying Capitalism couldn't work because for a whole century the French revolution was failing before 1789. Which is not even the first humanity's attempt for a capitalist system, but the first well known one. We still have ways to go and failed attempts to try to get it right.
However, the most important thing in my eyes is to learn from the past. Being in a country that was surrounded by communism, tried, and was refused help from the then socialist states, I know very many people that still look back to those times with fondness. From my country and neighboring ones that were parts of the socialist block. But all those implementations had their problems and these same people would be the first to admit that. Our job is to go through all that history and judge it with clear heads, see where it went wrong and how or why, so in the next attempts we'll fail in a different way, until we get it right. Similar to how every socioeconomically system did so far.
I don't care about Anarchy or Socialism or Trotskyism or whatever, as long as it gets us to the end goal of a classless system without economic or power elites that see us as data nodes to profit off. Each of those approaches has its pros and cons and there are many others as well.
But saying it failed so we best move on, because the first handful of attempts went wrong is not going to bring any change whatsoever.
And you keep using different names to describe them. As you should. Communism is not one thing and never was. But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.
It's how it was defined in the communist manifesto in 1848. You could say it's Marxism, but I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well, like Engels and others who based on Marx's mostly economic study added the philosophical and political angles.
Every theme or name change after the manifesto (that is not found in later revisions by the communist international) is attempts at adapting it with different angles and for different purposes and circumstances, aka NOT base or pure communism. Don't bundle everything in one basket and try to make sense, same way that bundling Putin's Russian form of Capitalism with US's imperialism and French Revolution's early capitalism together doesn't make sense either.
He asked for pure communism, I answered for that. If he asked about Trotsky, I'd focus more on the permanent revolution and the Fourth International. If he asked of Stalin, I'd talk about his socialism in one country theory
Without search engine and without going into detail that is out of the scope, anarchy is a different path to a classless system. Said classless system is different enough from communism to warrant discussion but close enough for that discussion to be devolving into anarchy vs socialism most of the time to differentiate the path to that system.
Said path in anarchy is comprised of setting up collectives that start small, neighborhood small, and gradually evolve. Each collective shares almost everything between its members and there's no leadership or ranking across its members.
Anything deeper than that leads to a long discussion that is out of the scope of this thread and definitely out of the scope of the ELI5 the post I originally replied to needed or had the philosophical basis to understand possibly. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they are quite different approaches to a similar goal, a classless society that money does not rule all.
In feel like you make it complicated to arrive at your conclusion here. Communism, as described by Marx and Engels and to some degree Lenin, is something very specific that covers most aspects of the society. Political, social and economic. Marx himself wrote books upon books on the economy of a socialist, communist system.
It is not an abstract "I don't like capitalism so let's try something different" approach. And yes, many have tried to adapt it, as you mentioned which is why those different approaches carry a different name 'anarchist communism' in your example. Because they are different enough from flat out communism.
True communism in a country is impossible.
You can have socialism, or anarchy, which we've seen before, but communism cannot function in one country alone, unless said country is completely and absolutely self reliant.
A major part of communism is internationalism, which is why socialist countries had the Comintern. (Communist International). Besides a political/social system, communism has a strong basis as an economic system. You can't apply communist economic system principles to the capitalist market.
To my knowledge, no existing country is self reliant to the point that they can completely cut off trade with the rest of the world. USSR didn't do it, China didn't do it and they were the two biggest countries at the time.
That, of course is all a very surface level ELI5, and if you want to ask something more specific or in depth, feel free to.
Still speak with a professional. Don't self diagnose. I don't know if you have and know for a fact that it's depression, but if you haven't and are just going from symptoms that can be dangerous.
There's a whole slew of mental disorders that might appear as depression at first but are something else, and for some of them, weed can even make them worse than they'd be without it. I speak from personal experience on that. I thought I was depressed, took weed and it turns out it was schizoaffective disorder with major depressive onset. Weed made it much worse than it'd have to be.
I'm not saying that to scare you or anything, cutting off weed and taking proper medication really helped me out personally. But if you're thinking it's some mental disorder, it's always better to get proper diagnosis and medication for it.
I wish you the best regardless. As for the question, when is it too much, the answer was given already. When it starts affecting your life. And yes, weed is not addictive, physically at least, but it definitely is psychologically. If you feel shit when cutting it off, or can only function with it, it's still addiction.