Patents are not, at their core, a good thing. They are nice for an idealized and transient scenario, but the reality of capitalism is that the vast, vast majority of investment, production, etc. are done by a handful of large companies, and that includes R&D. Patents are, in reality, overwhelmingly one of the many tools large corporations have to shut out upstarts. In short, it entrenches the power of monopolies, trusts, and similar large businesses.

And that’s without even starting on how the law can be abused and, with the way our legal systems work, it is fundamentally more abusable for the side that has more money and can afford top corporate lawyers to concoct convenient arguments, leaving little Jimmy in the dust.

deleted by creator

Just removing veto power seems like the simpler solution (not that that would happen either)

I already said there are valid complaints (and again, I dislike it and don’t use it), I simply believe that the hate being so emphatic is because of sinophobia, though a lot of people wouldn’t say it openly (though the “crazies” do, as you say, and there are a lot of “crazies” on Steam and Reddit").

I think it’s that a Chinese company owns significant stake in them. I agree that they certainly aren’t improving the platform

Sinophobia. There are valid complaints about the platform, to be clear (and I personally don’t like or use it!), but the reason is recieves so much dislike is Sinophobia. We even got a dweeb saying “Chinese spyware” in this very thread.

I agree, but Merriam-Webster remains a bad way to try to squash claims of nuance. You are correct independent of the bad and redditor-esque method of argument you chose. You should know very well that texts with actual authority exist that better establish these things, like the DSM in this case.

You shouldn’t try to answer clinical questions with Merriam-Webster. It’s a very redditor thing to do and just as incorrect as that would suggest.

There is a substantial difference between “being suicidal” in the clinical sense and having decided to commit suicide. We have no reason to believe, lacking an avenue for the “self expression” of immolation, that he would have jumped from a bridge or hung himself in the attic. As far as we can tell, he looked at the present political situation and judged that the most effective thing he could do to accomplish what he believed had to be accomplished was by doing something that required the investment of dying. That’s not the same thing as “being suicidal”, though you and I both disagree with his choice for our respective reasons.

As far as I can tell, that’s mostly not what the study says. What it is saying is that the event of a judicial election and the pressures associated therewith demonstrably cause systemic disadvantage to defendants and appellants near election time, but it doesn’t actually address how the overall rulings of elected judges compare to appointed judges except for one study it mentions that does say, in your defense, that they [elected judges] reverse death sentences less often in the states that have the death penalty. However it goes on to say:

These studies leave open several important research questions. For example, they generally do not compare systems, and thus do not address whether some re-election or retention election systems have more of an impact on criminal justice outcomes than others, or whether reappointment processes may also have an effect.

And later says:

Much of the empirical research considering the impact of judicial selection dynamics on criminal justice outcomes has focused on elections. Further study is needed to understand the incentive structures created by appointive systems, particularly those that provide for reappointment. The few studies that have considered these dynamics suggest there may be reasons for concern.

For example, in one such study, Joanna Shepherd examined how the political preferences of those determining whether to extend a judge’s tenure impact judicial decision-making. Just as the public’s preferences may impact case outcomes within electoral systems, Shepherd found that the preferences of governors can have a similar effect in states where they play a role in reappointing judges. 92 Indeed, Shepherd determined that as governorships change hands, so too do judicial rulings; when a Republican governor replaces a Democratic governor, judges’ rulings in a variety of cases, including criminal cases, shift.93 Shepherd’s findings suggest that reselection pressures are a concern even outside the election context, and highlight the need for further inquiry into the dynamics of appointive systems.

And that’s really the full extent to which it addresses the subject of appointment.

No it is democratic, which the KPD at this point was no longer. They were working on setting up a Stalinist dictatorship and no longer a council democracy.

I was going to let it go, but this really bugs me. What are you even talking about here?

This does not read to me as a response

I’m pretty sure Yog isn’t the one doing the deleting, though I don’t know 100%, but you can still see deleted comments in the modlog, so the context isn’t actually lost, just inconvenient (that’s how I know what all the comments were, since I got here after the deletions). Anyway, I’ve antagonized yog multiple times and he’s never deleted any of my comments. My view on him is that he’s very driven and determined with his agitating and gets a little caught up in his passion for it when he gets resistance from people, especially since a substantial amount of that resistance if from genuinely reactionary assholes. I can understand being frustrated with him, though.

There’s no evidence Trump will be worse on Palestine than the Dems. The idea that Trump is worse than any future frontrunner is myopic alarmism, you’ll be whipped into a new frenzy just the same with most or perhaps all future candidates (some of whom will be substantially worse). Furthermore, most people live in states where their vote doesn’t have any impact on the winner of the election, sothem voting blue only serves to legitimate the popular mandate of the genocidal dems. I don’t know, this is all very obvious but it’s like my 50th time saying it in this stupid thread.

You say we’re on the same side, but your ideology is one of supporting perpetrators into perpetuity because the tautology you’ve been talked into has no off-ramp, no point in the future where you stop taking “emergency” “temporary” “provisional” “compromises” to “reduce harm” and instead make actual positive progress. There will always be a new election, there will always be a new Republican platform that declares an interest in doing heinous shit, and very frequently there will be more sincere fascists than Trump, like if Tom Cotton ever runs, and there will never be some demon democrat you won’t vote for because they are running against someone who is 1% more reactionary, and that thereby necessitates everyone giving them unconditional support.

It’s an unserious strategy based on the panicked mindset of people who are stuck in an abusive relationship with liberal media.

Vote third party, put actual pressure on the Dems to make concessions. If they have your vote no matter what, they have no reason to listen to you.

The other fellow was being a real asshole, so I think perhaps the mod was primed to a very hostile reading (e.g. of our friend yog being a paid shill or something), since I think you were being obnoxious but it’s counter-productive to take mod action against something so trivial when just responding suffices.

If you’re interested in an answer, while I don’t entirely agree with Yog on most issues relating to China, Marxists are obliged to have quite a lot of evidence to back up their claims while liberals can just sort of coast off of cultural norms because their ideology is already hegemonic. I don’t keep a list of links because I don’t take notes for almost anything, but I definitely make sure to remember the titles (etc.) of useful articles so I can retrieve them in a circumstance like this. That’s very inefficient though, so it makes sense that yog would just keep them on-hand for common liberal talking points to prevent needing to look them up over and over.

When did I ever say I would do that? I am plainly not advocating for such a thing.

“usually not as bad” requires a citation, since we can point to lots of evidence of systemic injustice in sentencing as it is. example

What you are describing is a judge pursuing an agenda and/or having an unconscious bias, which is what we have already. That’s the thing I keep getting with objections to voting in judges, problems that we already have presented as though they only apply to elected judges, or problems that would be demonstrably less bad with popular input.

Biden is already supplying arms and Harris has vowed to do the same and gone on endlessly about Israel’s “right to defend itself” and how anti-genocide protesters are pro terrorism and so on. I’m not saying Trump won’t fully support Israel, I’m saying there is no light between that and the Biden-Harris position.

You need judicial succession anyway, given that people die, but we have plenty of examples of the intuition you express there not holding up. After all, there are no term limits for US congress people despite the strict term limits for the President.

Of course, I oppose term limits, I think they’re another guardrail for capital, since the capitalists don’t have a term limit on their wealth, which they can use to keep backing pliable puppets.