i've actually always wondered what specifically did so. I have heard of incentives and tax cuts but notihng specific nor statistics

the thing is that to study the case correctly we need to see more info on the other acts (?) i don't doubt the p ossibility it's just hard to find the sources

@Fire i don't doubt they exist i just meant in case someone had the specific sources. Exactly because i know they get buried all the time. Or maybe in case some outlet or thread had published a summary or a major compilation of data

because well it's a lot of information considering its almost 4 years now so yeah

neither socialism or capitalism are inherently bad really. Socialism in a general sense was made to regulate or counter capitalism and nowadays capitalist policies are used to counter socialist ones so it just really depends. Both sides have had their horrible stuff in one side Mao and Stalin the other one Hitler and Mussolini 🤷‍♂️

Bernie calls himself a "democratic socialist" which is a way too broad term that i'm completely sure is just mislabeled because its closer to being a socialdemocrat, which is not the same

democratic socialism is any form of socialism thats democratically elected. Authoritarian or not, radical or not, if it was (fairly and democratically) elected at least ONCE it qualifies as democratic socialism. All the way down to socialdemocracy which is a far more moderate system which kind of applies to alll of europe and even the US i would say

now i believe bernie has some far more radical tendencies than just socialdemocracy considering the stuff he says, his speech and his role models. But that's up to his actions considering many change their political positions when in charge of a political position whatever it is

science is not necessarily fact because it's an *interpretation* of reality, reality is fact, therefore science isn't necessarily reality. But regardless what did you mean back there by how can science be responsible though (?) @DjPhoenix i got a little confused

yeah but like what do you mean by that i just didn't understand (maybe i had to backtrack more LOL)

certain genders can have genetic influence yes but i won't quote percentages or numbers because every time a study comes up saying a different thing so it's complicated. But the majority of it is psychoogical/enviromental yes.

@DjPhoenix ahhhhhh okay i get it now i agree then

and how so (?) you mean as in reality depends on perception as well or (?)

and i mean i'm just curious really

@honeyblush it's not harmful for the most part but it gets wild when privileges (which are subjective anyway) are misunderstood as rights or when first-guesses are misunderstood (say i don't know this person and i misgender them and the person gets angry just because of that even if i had no idea, etc)

@DjPhoenix of course, but at the same time, wouldn't the fact that it's a simulation be reality then.

in our simulation but i'm talking about the macroscopic level.

The reality would then be that *we* live in a false reality

in that case what you're saying is that reality is subjective. Which is and isn't true at the same time. Because reality isn't subjective (there is one out there, we just don't know it and might never because it's beyond human comprehension, we can't know everything), our *interpretation* of it is. So if what you mean is that our interpretation doesn't have to be right then it's completely true.

@DjPhoenix but that's literally what i said (?) LOL that we're limited to our perception. That's our "reality" and by the fact that it's "ours" it means that it's an interpretation. Because reality isn't subjective, we are.

of course thats the point of it being just an interpretation

i'm not really disagreeing with most of it, just with saying there is no reality just because it's beyond our understanding. Your argument is a part of mine basically

reality is a fact what we perceive as reality *isn't* necessarily and that's what you mean, basically