I'm happy to criticize China on its actual faults, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions based on inadequate or inaccurate information. The standard for evidence is much lower when it comes to criticizing China, most of the media we consume comes from Western sources, and people just don't have firsthand experience and will believe just about anything, and so I may push back more simply because there is more bullshit to push back on.

You accuse me of "mindlessly endorsing" everything they do, but there is stuff I criticize and when I don't, I explain my reasons quite thoughtfully. What I don't do is mindlessly criticize everything they do (or are accused of doing, or assumed to be doing, without evidence) which is pretty much the standard that people expect from me. There's countless accounts on here that only ever criticize China and do so without providing explanations or justifications for it. They don't even come up with any original quips, it's all just lazily repeating "haha Winnie the Pooh" to each other with zero thought or analysis. Generally, these people could only name one or two events from Chinese history, and have no interest whatsoever in learning about or understanding their perspective, which makes having an intelligent discussion on the subject impossible.

Ah, the classic diffusion of responsibility under capitalism.

The consumer is blameless because they have no control over the production process. The people committing abuse are blameless because they're just doing what they're paid to do, and if they didn't do it someone else would. The CEO is of course blameless because they have a feduciary responsibility to maximize profits for their shareholders. And so, the real villains are the shareholders, like granma who has a S&P 500 retirement fund with 0.00001% of the company.

If you accept that when it comes to meat, then what's the difference when it comes to something like slave labor, or sweatshops? A company sets up in a third world country with deplorable, illegal conditions, which are necessary to compete in the market and secure a contract with a multinational corporation, if their practices get exposed, the big corporation pleads ignorance, some low level manager takes the fall, and they set up another company to do the exact same thing. Once again, everyone's just responding to price signals and doing what they're told or what they need to to keep their job.

It's a wonderfully designed system that ensures that the evil necessary to keep the machine running can be performed without the hindrance of those peaky little consciences. But I have to question whether it's more moral to make sure everyone can pass the buck for doing something wrong, rather than one person directly doing the same thing and being responsible for it.

Is it more "moral" to kill someone if you do it via firing squad where only one gun is loaded than just having one person shoot them? Is it more "moral" to be 1% responsible for abusing 100 animals than 100% responsible for abusing 1? I'm not sure I understand the moral framework you're using to arrive at your conclusions.

Go has been changed a lot by technology, mostly for the better. The ability to review every game you play with AI, for free, is an invaluable resource, and we've also learned a lot about the game from AI.

But, there are also several limitations that it's important to be mindful of. The AI likes to play on the razor's edge because it can read well enough to know exactly when it's actually in danger. A human player trying to emulate that style will often just get themselves killed. Human teachers can still be more useful, despite being weaker, because they can better identify trends in a person's thought process and explain the "why" behind a move, communicating the general principles that we as humans need to rely on because we aren't computers and can't read out every variation every time. Sometimes people get too obsessed with trying to play the "top engine move," and it can blow up in their faces.

I was at a go event a couple years ago where a professional from overseas was reviewing people's games, and somebody got in an argument over a move because the pro criticized his move, but the player said the AI backed him up. I can kinda understand both sides of that. On the one hand, if the AI says something, it's not wrong. But on the other hand, I think it's important to consider multiple perspectives and incorporate them into your play, and you'll always be able to put things into the AI, so I think there's something to be said for biting your tongue and just letting the pro give their perspective with the limited time you have them for. I guess I've never been one to be afraid of telling stronger players when I think they're wrong, but it feels kind of disrespectful to me to pull AI on a visiting pro.

I guess one part of the game I find appealing and beautiful is that there's so many ways to play it, and your moves can serve as an expression of your personality. Introducing this sort of objective lens can get in the way of developing your style and making your own judgements. On the other hand, getting feedback that tells you when your judgement is way off can help your refine your instincts going forward. It's just that it's important to understand why the AI is saying something, and to understand that a minor percent loss can be worth it to push the game in a direction that's easier for you to play. It's a complicated subject, all-in-all.

That's called Reductio Ad Absurdum and is a valid, classic form of argumentation. If you take their premises to their logical conclusion, the result is absurd, so their premises must be false.

You don't get to arbitrarily limit where a premise gets applied in order to pick and choose which conclusions to stand by. It isn't a strawman to show that someone's premises lead to conclusions that they would disagree with, that's literally the point.

Posted it myself, just now, just for you.

To be clear, what you're suggesting is that stories that the Chinese government is actively talking about would be censored on lemmy.ml. Let's see if that's true! Can't wait to find out!

Atlanta, Denver, somewhere in Virginia, Maryland, or DC, or possibly Ohio or Pennsylvania. There's places like Austin and some places in Florida that might have cool people, but the state government is trash.

I saw Greenville recommended, and this is anecdotal, but last time I was there visiting friends, we (visibly queer) got followed around by this crazy guy with a metal pipe making all kinds of death threats. I love my friends but that sealed the deal for me on not wanting to live there. There are some neat places there ngl, the sex themed desert restaurant was a fun place for a queerplatonic hangout, but in general it's not exactly going to be a refuge from Trump supporters.

"Libs" is short for "liberal," meaning a supporter of capitalism. Those on the American right who aren't fascists are generally liberals, though they often don't know what it means. When I criticize liberals, it's from a leftist/anti-capitalist perspective.

I'm not talking about changes over time, talking about things I've seen recently on here regarding Russia's current status, in response to news stories and comments discussing the danger of escalation going nuclear.

Dessalines himself posted this video

I don't have a map handy, but South Africa's case was supported by the 57-member Organization of Islamic Countries along with many others so your "193" number is obviously way off.

That's still complete nonsense. The Nordic countries also have publically owned industries, most notably, the oil industries responsible for much of their wealth. There's as much of a case for them being socialist as there is for Russia, which is to say, not much of one at all.

But to cite Russia's past socialism as a reason to call it socialist now is by far the most absurd thing about this meme and your argument. The reason that socialist government doesn't exist anymore is because it was destroyed and replaced by the current government. You might as well call the US monarchist because it used to be a British colony. It's completely insane.

I wish I could get paid to post, but unfortunately, I signed a noncompete agreement with George Soros for a role as a paid actor in a false flag mass shooting so now I'm not allowed to be a paid actor in any other conspiracy theories. I'm just opposing genocide pro bono to keep my posting skills sharp so that I can apply once my contract expires.