Yes, that happens. The far more serious problem, though, is the widespread support among workers who gain nothing from it. The ideology we absorb in the West from an early age goes something like: “Anyone can make it. It’s just a matter of hard work. And therefore, those with even less than you are lazy and deserve their fate.” That dynamic is far more consequential than a handful of top earners.

Please know that you made me chuckle.

Oh, I agree with you. It has been overused and I’m not a fan. Maybe the most overused acronym of all time?

I guess I was annoyed by you being pedantic resulting in me… being pedantic. Tragic, really.

Thanks for the sketch. I enjoyed it. It was awesome but more in the hot dog kind of way.

If you only take it in the most literal sense, sure. A pointless exercise, don’t you think? Sometimes words have a funny way of meaning more than one thing. For most this concept works and GOAT can be meaningful. No, I’m not talking about the animal. Just to be clear.

Very hot take but maybe Nintendo? I know, I know. They suck in some regards. But some of their games are still innovative.

So the term is meaningless for you? That’s fine.

Again, if something was the greatest of all time, it does not mean it still has to be. Otherwise the term is meaningless as even greater things might come in the future.

It does not. “Greatest of all time back in the day” does not imply it’s still the greatest. By your logic the future is also a time. As we don’t know it yet, nothing can ever be the greatest of all time, making the term meaningless.

Much of society is held up by Gabe Newell? That’s an extremely weird take to me. I think he’s absolutely irrelevant and his passing would have little to no impact on me or anyone I know. Most people don’t even know him.

I’m not a mental health expert and I mean this in the kindest way possible: are you okay, OP? This theory is so bizarre to me that I’m actually worried about you. Maybe something to think about? Again, no expert. Take care.

What an absurd world we live in.

I wasn’t expecting much but you’re right. It’s a good selection.

Why should he worry about how much he’s thinking about your comment? Isn’t provoking reactions part of posting something like that publicly or was it mainly meant as venting?

I actually agree with his sentiment but wouldn’t really be able to explain what exactly irks me. I think there can be value in reflecting on how relationship dynamics or social environments contribute to people drifting toward more extreme views. That doesn’t mean it’s your fault or that you’re responsible for his choices. But your first comment came across as if you saw yourself as having little or no role in the dynamic at all and I don’t think that’s true.

I think it actually makes sense to think about some of the questions posted by @Ediacarium@feddit.org. You might be able to better understand why you reacted so strongly.

It’s very much in the direct traffic flow of bikes, is it not? They then have to pass onto the street with cars or wait.

At idle, when the 5 HDDs are spun down, it’s around 25W. When everything’s up and running and under load it’s around 50W.

That’s hilarious.

You’re still defining democracy purely by outcomes. A government that delivers results and therefore retains legitimacy. By that logic any successful authoritarian system qualifies, which makes the definition meaningless.

I think we just have a fundamental disagreement on what democracy is and I don’t see that resolving itself here.

The class critique of western democracy is legitimate and I don’t dismiss it. Structural change attempted within liberal democratic systems consistently runs into capital, media and institutional resistance before it gets anywhere. That is a real problem worth taking seriously. But that does not make China a democracy. It makes western liberal democracy compromised. Those are two different problems.

On the local mechanisms, you listed them again without addressing the point. Consultation, local elections and cadre accountability are compatible with authoritarian systems. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have versions of all of them. Responsiveness is not the same as accountability.

The documented treatment of Uyghurs and the 709 crackdown are hard to square with a system that claims genuine popular accountability.

We probably won’t agree on this one and that’s fine.

If democracy means a government that implements the will of the majority, then every functional dictatorship that delivers economic growth qualifies. Singapore, UAE, Rwanda. You have defined away the problem entirely.

The reason procedural guarantees like elections, term limits and an independent press matter is precisely because they are how you verify the claim that the government represents the majority. Without them you are just taking the government’s word for it. Which is not democracy, it is blind trust.

Also Mussolini did not fall because people stopped liking him. He was overthrown by the Italian king and his own Grand Council after military defeat. Popular approval held up considerably longer than it should have. That is actually the point.

The eight other parties all legally commit to CPC leadership in their founding documents. They cannot oppose it, campaign against it or replace it. Calling that multiparty democracy is like calling a company with one shareholder a cooperative because it has nine employees.

On Japan and South Korea: yes, US client states with real problems. But both have had their ruling parties voted out and replaced by the opposition. That has never happened in China and cannot happen. That remains the point.

The rest is redefining democracy until it means whatever produces the answer you want. Consultative processes, local pilots, cadre accountability, all of that can exist in an authoritarian system. And it does. The question is still the same one: can the people remove the government? A long and elaborate no is still a no.

Even taking Hickel at face value, his own anonymized studies show support dropping to 62-77%, well below the headline figure. He also admits the methodology has its own problems.

But more importantly, none of this answers the actual question. Plenty of people liked Mussolini. Democracy is not about whether people approve of their government. It is about whether they can peacefully remove it. In China they cannot. That is the whole point. I’m glad most seem to like it. That does not make it a democracy, though.