The US is a failed state. There’s no other way to put it.

That would be great.

Sure. But what I’m getting at is that this way of consuming information likely leads to people being anything but well informed. Because of this social media “newswoth” logic, they mainly read content that isn’t very well thought out – if only because it was written under time pressure.

{Placeholder for a particularly witty comment next time}

Why shouldn’t you get a well-considered answer? I’m sure you’ll take another look at the thread. It does happen, but then you’re usually one of the few people who read these well-considered answers.

I’m not saying that there aren’t well-researched answers on social media, I’m just getting at the fact that there’s time pressure if you want your answer to reach a certain audience.

Yes, but there’s no guarantee that this topic will ever be discussed again. It’s a bit like when you think of a good comeback after a verbal exchange - you have the right argument, but it doesn’t matter anymore. Next time, you’ll be prepared, but next time may never come.

What I mean by this is that every topic is treated like breaking news on social media. However, news reports are characterized by the fact that they are usually outdated by the next day because they are only relevant for a limited period of time. This is not true for many topics discussed on social media. In fact, it is even possible to repeat something after a certain period of time (e.g., reposting memes), which is impossible with actual news reports.

That’s true, of course. But these responses are hardly visible to most people. Of course, the thread is still online years later, but since people today generally only use social media apps, they no longer see these responses, no matter how valuable they may be. If anything, they only perceive these delayed responses as part of the data sets of LLMs – but then mostly without reference to the original content.

I mean, the quality of content hardly matters if you’re late. If you waited just one day to respond to this post, no one would notice your comment.

My parents always said: “No path in vain.” By that, they meant that I should - for example - always take some plates with me and put them straight into the dishwasher when I’m on my way to the kitchen anyway. That’s probably why my place looks pretty tidy today.

If I didn’t still do that, the household chores would eventually overwhelm me.

An example of a feudal context: real estate companies that made Drump and his father big.

Blackstone Group, Gray Star Real Estate, Vonovia SE, LEG Immobilien AG, China Vanke, and so on.

These are all multi-billion dollar companies that are still controlled by people. They are not state-owned companies or anything that would be useful to society. This is about profits.

You can, of course, continue to insist that my blanket statement is not entirely correct, but I stand by it. Not much has changed since feudalism: there are still masters and servants — and I think it will always be that way.

So, I’m not saying that it’s something new — quite the contrary — I’m saying that hardly anything has changed in hundreds of years.

You don’t seem to understand what I’m getting at: we are just as ruled by an elite today as we were five hundred years ago. Regardless of the political system, nothing has changed except the way it happens.

It is not. My statement was that humanity never overcame Feudalism.

You made it there maybe was some time when.

Here is a definition a Feudalism. Pls tell me how anything meaningful has changed beyond the obvious things.

Feudalism is a social, economic, and political system that dominated medieval Europe, roughly from the 9th to the 15th centuries. In this system:

• Land ownership was the basis of power. Kings or lords owned large estates and granted portions of their land to vassals (nobles, knights) in exchange for loyalty, military service, and other support.
• Vassals managed these lands and had control over the peasants (serfs) who worked them. The peasants, in return for protection and the right to work a portion of land for their own needs, owed labor, goods, or services to their lords.
• Obligations and relationships were personal and hierarchical, based on mutual duties rather than state laws or centralized authorities.

Maybe the last point but not really - look at the US.

Can you name any society in which the population is not ruled by some form of feudal lord? In the sense that the population is not ruled, but works together for a good life.

I am not aware of any such society.

Edit: A society that has not long since been wiped out because it stood in the way of greed.

Yes, exactly, the entire US administration is made up of people like that. Apart from their terrible character, virtually none of them are even remotely qualified for their positions.

Kristallnacht

Am I obliged to sacrifice my time to correct nonsense? I don’t think so.

Do your own due diligence if you don’t believe me.

I just don’t feel like responding because it would take some effort to refute all of that. I think anyone who does even half a decent amount of research will quickly realize that it’s either simply wrong or cherry picking. It’s pointless anyway to try to convince people who are so entrenched in their opinions.

But hey, it’s good to know that people are impressed just by mentioning a few random sources.

You’d be better off reading the Wikipedia article about Orwell instead of forming an opinion based on random social media comments.

Not sure if we are talking about the same George Orwell here or how you came to the conclusion that he was a “right-wing POS” - he was definitely not.