It seems to me that the problem stems from you thinking communism necessitates authoritarianism.

It doesn’t technically necessitate it, it just makes it very likely to happen, due to its insistence on there being only one political party. Communism isn’t just an economic system, it’s predicated on a government-run economy in a way that most other economic systems aren’t.

Someone saying they are a communist would be the same situation as you saying you are a socialist

If they mean socialist, they should say ‘socialist.’ Most people understand this to mean that you’re for things like free education, medical care, etc. When you say you’re a communist, at least in the West, you’re signifying to others that you either like or support governments like the USSR and CCP. I understand what you’re saying about there being some overlap in the terms, but the main distinction to me is that communists believe in a single political party system of government, whereas socialists don’t.

Because the US and other countries make such a point of preventing communism from succeeding, it can be frustrating when a lack of successful large scale communism is used as proof that communism can’t work.

While the U.S. has certainly put a lot into preventing communism from spreading, it hasn’t always succeeded. I would argue that the communist states that do exist demonstrate its main problem quite clearly: a single political party system puts a government on the fast track to authoritarianism. Multiple political parties mean there is always an opposition to a government that becomes authoritarian; it’s not a fool-proof defense against it, but way better than with only one party.

I have tried my very best to not make any assumptions about you, other than the political ideology you stated you had, but if I accidentally did, please tell me. I do not wish to offend you, and rather just want to provide my input on what you have said.

No, you didn’t make assumptions, and I appreciate your cordiality.

You made a lot of assumptions about me in your comment. I’m not going to bother with them, because that’s honestly your job to handle.

I don’t equate communism with (democratic) socialism. I consider myself a democratic socialist, and that’s part of the reason I consider myself progressive. The main difference is that democratic socialism makes room for multiple political parties, while communism accommodates only one. This is the essence of tyranny. No progressive should advocate for communism, because communism is another form of authoritarianism: subjugation to state rule.

I have my problems with “woke” culture, just as I do with conservative culture. But most of my problems with woke culture have to do with their rhetoric and means of achieving their goals, rather than the goals themselves. A racially mixed workplace is something I highly value; achieving it by means of affirmative action is not something I support, because I think 50+ years of it have shown that it doesn’t really work. Yes, it has been shown to improve interracial relations in the workplace, but it has also been shown to cause workers to question the competency of coworkers that benefit from it, and make those who don’t feel discriminated against. This is not what it was intended for. It was supposed to counter inherent racist biases in corporate hiring systems. Instead, it’s become a system that is the very least viewed as a loophole for non-white employees. Obviously, not every case is an example of a non-white employee gaining an unfair advantage over a white employee, probably only a small fraction qualify as such, but as a system it has created the perception that Whites are being discriminated against. And its proponents have done virtually nothing to address that. That needs to change. I’m not saying the spirit of affirmative action needs to end, but its implementation need to change.

If and when you respond, I would encourage you to not make assumptions about my stance. I don’t fit into the political boxes neatly.

I’ve seen people advocate for communism here and asked them to name an example of a communist government of a major country that hasn’t devolved quickly into a dictatorship, and let me tell you, the hysteria and rage could power a small city. I’m fairly progressive, I like to think, but it seems like a lot of lemmings have gone so far down the anti-capitalist rabbit hole they’ve literally come out the other side in China and are wearing Mao stickers.

For the same reason liberals bash on Texas all the time: it’s a flagship state for the political brand that’s an easy target due to its size and problems (due to its size).

No, that’s a fact.

Xenogears. Just off the top of my head.

I suppose because it’s insulting to the fact that there are good games out there that actually deserve attention.

If it was an RPG that was even close to contending for that title, I would acquiesce to it. As it stands, I think the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Personal taste is personal taste, and that’s fine, but if you’re going to make bold claims like this, you should have to be burdened with the duty of backing it up. I don’t accept that this reporter’s personal opinion matters more than the RPG fans’ opinions as a whole. For them to make such a bold claim on such a public forum means they need to provide substantial evidence for it.

Let’s get back to basics though: this was a bold statement done in an article title to get clicks. You can tell talk till sunrise about a person’s right to have their own opinion, but this isn’t really what’s going on. This is a journalist making a hyperbolic statement to get clicks. Fuck them. Fuck them and their marketing strategy. Tell me it’s not exactly that: a marketing strategy. Tell me it’s not a ploy to bolster the author’s career. Tell me there’s something substantial underneath this that warrants serious attention, rather than a click-bait article that’s meant to incite anger and garner clicks that way. How much does your contention that this reflects a genuine opinion stand up to the idea that it’s just a cheap attention grab?

“The greatest RPG ever made?” Not even close. Why do titles need to be this hyperbolic?

When my WiFi has a 5-10 minute hiccup because my ISP is upgrading its network.

<sigh> How will I ever last?

Chicagoan here. Chicago does have a problem with violence—but it’s really limited to certain areas. Chicago is a highly segregated city by today’s standards with a long history of neglecting and abusing it’s Black population on the South side of the city. The CPD is famous for corruption and racism, going back decades at least. Like any major city, gang activity is a major problem in the poor areas, and I suspect its in those areas that one can truly be shot “out of the blue.”

Don’t get me wrong, I love Chicago, and it’s a great city everyone should visit. But like any major city, it’s got its dark sides, and you’re right, we can’t do anything about that until we acknowledge it.

In the U.S., that crap about how the Democrats are actually a cabal of pedophiles and the entire organization is just a front for a global sex trafficking ring for children. Like, how do you get substantial parts of the population believing what QAnon says? Unbelievable.

“It’s legitimate salvage!”

You don’t see it about single fathers either. Why harp on a gender factor that isn’t relevant when the real issue is class and wealth disparity?

You seem really set on insisting that there’s a link between intelligence and morality, and at this point I don’t think I have the energy to disabuse you of that notion. Suffice it to say, you’re wrong on both the individual and societal levels. Much of the history of civilization is war, and involved in that comes conquest and reorganization of societal boundaries. Pretty much every society today is the product of a chain of wars. Are you going to say all societies are bad, just because there’s blood in their foundations?

The world isn’t as black-and-white as you’re painting it. Intelligence isn’t linked to morality and morality itself is more gray than black-and-white. That latter part is something you should definitely have learned in your ethics class.

Yes, morals utilize reason and logic, but that doesn’t mean you’re necessarily more moral if you’re smarter. At best, it might mean that certain moral perspectives are easier to grasp if you’re smarter, but even if you grasp them that doesn’t mean you hold them.

“eugenics is unwise”

Is a statement describing applying reason to derive a moral understanding.

No. It’s a statement asserting that eugenics has flaws and drawbacks that will ultimately prove detrimental to its own goal. This has nothing to do with the moral argument against it.

There is no contradiction there. The “although, it is” simply acknowledges that eugenics is unwise; the point is that that isn’t what makes it a morally bad idea.

And there’s no magic going on. Morality and intelligence just aren’t the same thing and aren’t linked in any way. Smarter people are not necessarily more moral or vice versa.

No, you’re missing the point: don’t conflate intelligence and morality. Eugenics isn’t a bad idea because it’s unwise (although, it is); it’s a bad idea because it’s unfair and takes people’s fundamental human rights away.

Intelligence doesn’t make you more ethical. If they “won,” the future intelligent people they created would still be raised by parents who believed in eugenics, and so they too would likely regard it as good.

I left during the API thing, went back briefly later on, and left again when I realized how messed up moderation and subreddit rules had become. As usual, dumb business people are ruining that site for everyone.