how does that make it political?
"To me video games are the so-called 'real France,'" he said. "The real France operates according to a video game logic, and that game logic is socialism"
That doesn't strike you as overtly and primarily political in nature? Beyond that, it's simply inane.
And a lot of chasing GDP or national wealth or Educational policy sometimes seem to be maximising some goal - like a game- rather than just running countries for the benefit of people.
I think its actually a very telling analogy if you think a little more deeply about it.
In America if you get seriously hurt you get taken to hospital and lose some money
In America you can only carry 2 guns
In America if you try and run forward and sideways at once the two velocities are combined and you run twice as fast
I guess some of them work
Just because the current president has the label "socialist" for historical reasons it doesn't make it socialism.
neo-conservate means pro war especially against non-democratic regimes they don't like seeking to remake them into democracies.
This is so totally dumb behaviour, that I can't even begin to describe it. What's equally dumb is assuming that if you agree with some group on one thing, then you should also agree on everything else.
Basically - for me, giving yourself a political label is a sign of subpar thinking. Giving others political labels is disingenuous.
I changed two words - I replaced America with France and "neo-liberalism" with "socialism".
It helps to get rid of these articles and keep the site a good one for startups/hacking/interesting articles, so for me it's worthwhile.
The article doesn't hurt my feelings: I think it's genuinely silly and low-quality.
Look at the low quality sub-thread that your comment spawned.
That's an honest question, by the way. Since there is no barrier to entry to joining this site, there's nothing preventing masses of people arriving and crowding out the good content, which is of interest to far fewer people than politics are.
I'm more than happy to sacrifice otherwise useless karma in order to call stuff out, as the karma points serve no other purpose.
The same is true of homelessness where it is easy to discuss it in broad economic terms that can be dogmatic. But actually it is a social problem which means that it is caused by people breaking the agreed rules of the game. If a family member has no home you are supposed to let them sleep on the couch until they get back on their feet. When these basic societal rules break down we are only left with the state which is not a good replacment for family and friends.
Politicians love waving flags and "supporting the troops". But when some if these men come home and can't adjust, the flags get out away. Many turn to alcohol and start a spiral the ends on a street somewhere.
> healthcare .. which we mostly agree about
Social democracy is the mainstream worldview at the moment in educated debate. Even the US moves in that direction. A social democrat will look at opposition to public healthcare with disbelief, "can anyone really be so mean?" Or disbelieve it altogether as you do.
Well-funded public healthcare is central to the socal democrat worldview. It's easy to argue towards at the moment, because it aligns with the momentum of public policy.
For freedom-centric people, it's uncomfortable. The person opposing it will often be inarticulate, to the point of appearing to be crazy. Their task is hard: they are not merely opposing one policy, but the whole momentum of worldview that's driving it. That's hard to do well. But beneath the rambling, there's probably a legitimate philosophical position that's not understood properly even by the speaker.