I've thought about this a lot actually, but I figured it out. So when you're presented with a good choice and a bad choice, you go for the good one. Works every time.

I don't see it. How does a society tolerating the intolerant not enable them to be intolerant, even if you believe in social contract theory?

Blatant flaw in this: I don't want to murder anyone. I don't want to rape anyone. I don't want to be racist to anyone (though I acknowledge I am). And the moment I would do something like that to anyone, I would be a murderer or a rapist, and that's a shitty thing to be. So no thanks.

I think they're taking it bit too literally

That's all I ever commit

If you're comfortable with whatever text editor git uses, give git rebase -i a try.

The "give yourself a treat after" type of advice is pretty shit. I know the guy who hands out the treats, and we're on pretty good terms. I'm pretty sure I can get him to give me a treat without doing the task. Heck I'll probably give myself two treats.

So the favelas are bad, obviously, but I don't quite see the relation to democracy. They're certainly an indicator of poverty, but I'm not entirely sure what they indicate regarding democracy.

Then we can look at Brazilian latest election scandals etc.

I don't really know about these scandals, but when I think about other scandals surrounding elections, they're not necessarily an indictment of the democratic system itself, right? I mean, Trump clearly disputed the election results of the 2020 election, but does that mean the election was unfair? But in all honesty, I haven't looked at their latest election scandals, and you seem to have looked at it, so maybe you know better. What was the latest election scandal?

Then we can look at corruption levels in politics.

I suppose we could. Did you? Is it worse in Brazil?

What we want: henry cavill in the exact outfit on the left

What we got: henry cavill in the normal superman outfit

Not pictured: an AI rendering of the above, because do we really need to spend resources on that?

I’m pretty sure in practical terms Canada is still more Democratic in many aspects

I'm not as familiar with either system as you seem to be. What is it about Brazilian politics that makes you feel Canada is more democratic?

Terrorist is a politicized, meaningless term, and always has been. Its only use is propaganda. The fact that the word snuck into legislation is incredibly frightening. In the UK, you cannot support a terrorist group. What defines a terrorist group? Whatever the fuck the home security office wants.

The most twisted part about this is that at least immigrants create jobs as well. Just like you and me, they need housing, groceries, doctors, entertainment, and so on and so forth. The idea that an immigrant is a net negative for the job market is exactly as stupid as getting upset at people for having more children because it will have a negative effect on the job market.

Do you want to read a terrible joke?

A trillionaire and the richest man in the world walk into a bar. Bartender says: "what will it be mr Musk?"

I think you have an oversized confidence in our international justice system. When the good guys commit genocide or war crimes, no one goes to the Hague. Cases in point: Indonesia (twice over), Guatemala, the war on "terror".

Nothing ambiguous about it. Insert family guy skin color swatches meme. You might be looking for the term "hypocrisy" instead.

Which version of capitalism would you prefer? Does it still involve the private ownership of the means of production?

I think that capitalism as we have it, but with a solid welfare state as you describe, is pretty close to my ideal society. But when I think about how such a system evolves over time in the presence of privately owned businesses, it seems to me that it is an unstable equilibrium. That is, it has an inherent tendency to break down the welfare state. I'll sketch the argument.

The first ingredient is that the owning class has an outsized influence on politics. This happens through a number of means, including:

• threat of capital flight ("if you pass this bill I don't like, I will take my gizmo factory abroad")
• direct bribes / lobbying ("if you pass this bill I like, I'll give you a nice cushy job at my gizmo factory", and also campaign donations)
• ownership of the media that completely shape the opinions of the electorate

Through these means they can influence politicians to pass laws that benefit the owning class. Note that it is not beneficial to politicians to do something about this. This is their bread and butter.

The next ingredient is that the welfare state as you and I would like to see it (UHC, UBI, and so on) is detrimental to the owning class. A solid welfare state means that workers have a much stronger position to negotiate from. Without UHC, refusing a crappy offer is much riskier since your health is at stake, for example. That is to say, the welfare state drives up operating costs for the owning class. As such, it is in their best interest to fight tooth and nail against the welfare state.

Combine these two ingredients, and you see that in the presence of privately owned businesses, you eventually lose whatever kind of welfare state you had. A similar argument shows that moving towards such a welfare state from our current system is very unlikely.

You don't need capitalism to have the concept of currency. It predates capitalism, and has existed in systems alongside capitalism.

What? Where did they say that? They're talking about Israel.

I'm not saying they're not socialists. I was just asking why rockslayer used the term radlib to refer to them. I don't think they know what the term means.