lurklurk

joined 2 years ago
[–] lurklurk 5 points 2 days ago

4 years

that's very optimistic

[–] lurklurk 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They're not wrong

[–] lurklurk 2 points 2 days ago

I'm sorry for your loss of a brother.

[–] lurklurk 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That sounds more like "pretty well initially" than "pretty well overall"; I guess it's an effect of the authoritarianism that they get stuck after a while, as people can stay in power even if they're not doing well

[–] lurklurk 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Does quiche need to rise? Aren't the egg whites in the filling and you only need them to set into a delicious binder for the cheese etc?

[–] lurklurk 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

I found this article on the subject which was pretty interesting. It seems they did develop faster right after the war:

The North Korean economy initially showed promise. North Korea controlled 80 percent of the peninsula’s coal and minerals as well as the vast majority of heavy machinery from Japanese colonial rule; this advantage allowed the country to rapidly industrialize in the first decade after the Korean War. With total power in its hands, the government ensured that all citizens attained primary and secondary education, and it leveraged its large supply of machinery and electrical power to produce goods and grain for its people.

Since then, obviously, they have fallen far behind

[–] lurklurk 3 points 4 days ago

Do you have an example of a properly socialist country that is doing better than the nordics?

Otherwise, perhaps we should look closely at the politics in the nordics for inspiration of what to do that actually seems to work?

[–] lurklurk 5 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Compare any communist country to a capitalist country at the same level of technological development and the communist country comes out ahead in wealth and happiness.

Could you name an example of this happening?

[–] lurklurk 18 points 4 days ago

"we're all gonna die one day, why delay the inevitable"

[–] lurklurk 2 points 4 days ago

Yeah that sounds pretty fair honestly. Being cautions to feel safe is pretty understandable. Outright considering every man the same would be a bit harsh, and also obviously incorrect.

[–] lurklurk 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)

If there were as many man and women pilots, and the vast majority of airline crashes were by men and intentional, that would certainly be worth discussing.

I bet it would still make some men angry though, as people often have an emotional knee-jerk reaction to defend what they see as their in-group. That reaction is not always helpful. Instinctively seeing "men" as your team and "women" as an opposing team leads to all kinds of BS we'd be better off without.

For fairness, it's also not great when women see "women" as their team and "men" as the enemy. It doesn't lead to quite as many rapes and murders though.

[–] lurklurk 1 points 5 days ago

you can't argue away math, sorry

view more: next ›