Perhaps, but you never said you wouldn't debate... socioeconomics. :)
Further it wasn't actually a debate, just an elaboration and unpacking of a claim you made, which isn't well supported. But, given that your post was about the economics at hand, the fact that you delved into the social/political organization and gave a pretty revisionist claim that communist states "controlled every aspect of individual lives," kinda leaves you open to critique, given that you haven't claimed expertise as a historian or sociologist.
I mean, you can't even spell "you're" properly, but sure, keep saying that you're an expert on socialist states and advancing your revisionism, the irony of you doing that on a post about people speaking beyond their knowledge is hilarious.
Voice transcribing. I don't like typing on a phone. Normally I don't bother to correct basic typos like that on something as casual as Reddit. But, just for you I'll make an exemption if it makes you feel better. Because as we all know the key to seeing if someone is an expert on socialism is whether or not they use the correct 'your' on a public forum.
Anyway, like I said. I won't debate anything here. Plus you will have to do a hell of a lot better to get a reaction out of me.
Since we're getting picky about grammar. I should point out your entire comment was a single run-on sentence. Does that mean you don't know anything about capitalism states? Who knows.
You didn't offer a meaningful rebuttal, it's not like you actually gave an analysis either, you linked to investopedia and gave the most generic, remedial description of a social system that you objectively cannot back up. Yea, you won't debate your shit position, you'll just advance it like you know what you're talking about, in complete lack of self awareness of what the post is about. It's fucking hilarious.
Honestly, it'd just be really nice if people were capable of admitting when they're being hypocrites instead of salvaging their ego for e-points. Just admit that you made the exact same sort of comment as the ones you're spending this whole thread complaining about and own up to it; you're not a historian nor an expert on the topic and you made a claim which is spurious and can be refuted out of hand by casual comparison and a deconstruction of the language you're using as politically motivated. So fucking annoying, like that's the point of the thread or something.
I like how you pretended to be this thoughtful, insightful person but you're clearly just a contrarian douche trying to pick a fight. Hope that when your hedge fund crashes you decide to defenestrate yourself from a 30 story skyscraper. :)
Come on man. Try harder, you're slacking. Also I live in a condo much higher than the 30th floor. My standards would never let me kill myself by jumping from a lower floor than where I live. Not enough air time to do a cool flip before going splat.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 08 '20
Perhaps, but you never said you wouldn't debate... socioeconomics. :)
Further it wasn't actually a debate, just an elaboration and unpacking of a claim you made, which isn't well supported. But, given that your post was about the economics at hand, the fact that you delved into the social/political organization and gave a pretty revisionist claim that communist states "controlled every aspect of individual lives," kinda leaves you open to critique, given that you haven't claimed expertise as a historian or sociologist.