No, The Donald was encouraging political violence and was becoming a legal liability for Reddit to continue hosting. But they needed to ban a major left wing subreddit at the same time to do a “both sides bad” thing and preempt the fascist talking points about social media having a liberal bias.

Wait, like the drug dealer? but seriously, “they have moderation, so you don’t have to read or engage with facts, since they have a viewpoint” isn’t the dunk you think it is.

though, to be fair, kulaks are bad.

wait, like the drug dealer?

I always joke that right-wing politics is all projection. But here we are with the cult of capital being dismissive to non-believers

Dark Eucharist of the Real God!

Yes that is the explanation of hegemonic ideology. Liberals assume that they are the default and everyone will just agree with them. And any entertainment of horseshoe theory requires the belief that “there are only two categories of politics, liberal centrism and ‘not liberal centrism’. So by virtue of not being liberal centrists, you are in the same box as Hitler. Hmm, if you want to not be a Nazi, you should cheer lead genocide with Biden!”

No, it was the cold war. The First World was US/West Aligned, the Second World aligned with the Soviet Union/Communism, and the Third World trying to sit out and not take sides.

If the guy was a chill roommate, probably preferable to cockroaches. Creepy or violent would probably push things towards the mostly harmless insects.

No, there are really tangential analogies about how self-interested behavior can have negative consequences, but it is and has always been based around a bunch of numerous myths. Externalities is a better description of this.

Elinor Ostrom investigated management of the commons and the original description of tragedy of the commons was a complete lie. The commons were enclosed so that in this transitional stage of feudal lords could become businessmen that could profit off of using the land rather than taxing a peasant community living off of it. The enclosed commons is an asset to generate profit, where if enough of an increase in profit could be achieved, that could be reinvested, meant that exhausting the land would be an economically rational strategy. Where, if a peasant community is using it to sustain themselves, they have to carefully manage and steward that land so it is still producing for themselves years later, their children, and their grandchildren. The complete opposite of what the “tragedy of the commons” describes.

Who could have seen this coming? Who could have foreseen that all of Web3 was a ponzi scheme that would say anything to get people to pretend hashes on a blockchain is worth 100s of 1000s of dollars. Who? WHO?

Depends on the person TBH