ChairmanMeow

I feel like you're being overly pedantic here. The idea was intended to have the exact same effect, for the exact same reason. The only difference is the medium.

The most important element of a "laugh track" isn't the track, it's the element of laughter purposefully being inserted rather than being elicited from the audience. Sure, these days it's easiest to do with a recording. But if you wanted to do so before recordings existed, that was possible too: you just need to hire people to do it.

But you're correct that they didn't have recording equipment in ancient times. But that also wasn't the point of the video.

You could have a hired group of people to laugh at certain jokes in a theatre show? Would sound exactly like and have the same purpose as a laugh track. It'd be live and not recorded, but just as non-genuine as actual laughter from the audience.

Wrong.

"Russia is in violation of the Minsk Agreements" https://cepa.org/article/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/#:~:text=Russia%20is%20in%20violation%20of%20the%20Minsk%20Agreements

They even took a town 6 days after signing it.

Switzerland was a part of the wars of the 2nd, 5th and 6th coalition against Napoleon against the British.

Yes you look great too 😉

Loving the gradual improvement in this series. Looks great!

Please don't say this, we are discussing an attack by a migrant a week out from the election, many of those 30 germans injured are still in hospital as we speak... we'll turn around and the AFD will outright win the election like Geert Wilders or Trump

Polls barely moved after the last attacks. Geert Wilders did not "outright win" the election, he got 25% of the vote but was forced to abandon most of his anti-Islam rhetoric at the negotiation table, and even had to concede the position of PM to a bureaucrat formerly from the labour party. He's in a somewhat unstable coalition with three other parties which would lose their majority if elections were held today, and he doesn't have a majority in the senate.

Just saw this, they must be placing the bollards due to all these right wing extremist attacks right?

Yes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Magdeburg_car_attack

Most lethal recent one was perpetrated by an AfD fanboy.

But they mostly had to station permanent police protection near mosques, synagogues and politicians from parties that aren't the AfD. Still over 1300 attacks last year alone.

It seems like the people of Germany (and France and Sweden and England, actually majority of Europe now that I think about it) disagree

They can disagree all they like, the numbers don't lie. Besides, these far right parties do not command majorities. AfD is at 20% (which actually is comparatively low compared to other countries).

and that's from 2018, the amount of attacks has only grown and so has the outrage

The media likes to greatly magnify these events. Right-wing violence is orders of magnitude greater than Islamic violence is in Germany, but the media isn't putting every attack on the front page.

There were 1136 violent crimes perpetrated by right-wing extremists in Germany in 2024. Just because the media doesn't like to report on it doesn't make it less true.

Islamic extremism is a problem. It pales in comparison to right-wing, homegrown extremism.

Brexit consolidated the EU. Even Meloni, far-right as though she may be, has ended up surprisingly pro-EU. Desire to leave the EU also dropped dramatically after people saw the shambles that is Brexit.

Russia openly admitted they had no intention to stick to the Minsk agreements. So why should Ukraine?

It's important for Leftists to take an internationalist stance, so as to avoid perpetuating Imperialism like PatSocs seek to.

The result is alienation of the voting public. A local approach is necessary to appeal to voters because large international movements rarely if never actually materialize. They don't offer substiantial improvements in living standards that are within reach, instead promising great things in the far-flung future.

It's also why Trump is so effective in messaging: he advocates immediate improvements for voters within the US. Voters don't seem to care he likely won't deliver, but it gives him broad enough appeal to get elected. He does also connect with other conservatives internationally, but it isn't his main priority at all.

I don't know what point you're trying to make about the Soviets with respect to "killing millions" or "banning opposition" outside of what I said, you aren't really pointing at specifics so there's nothing for me to respond to, other than to say the Black Book of Communism has long been debunked.

The various political purges, famines etc... Those aren't in dispute.

As for the Soviets, power was dramatically equalized, especially compared to Tsarist Russia and the Russian Federation. For Stalin, the CIA didn't think him a dictator.

Sure, compared to monarchism/tsarism things were more equal. But that's a depressingly low bar to set, especially when compared to the post-war democracies situated a bit further west. You've linked a single document with little context supposedly written shortly after Stalin's death. At that time, fairly little was known about the inner workings of the Soviet Union, which was largely discovered later. Stalin was not a very typical dictator, in the sense that he was quite frugal and a genuine Bolshevik, e.g. he really was strongly ideologically motivated, rather than a direct lust for power that's typical for dictators. But he was still the undisputed leader of a one-party state that did not tolerate dissent, had a very powerful secret police at his disposal and frequently removed people he did not like from power (or had them killed). Stalin himself commented on his lack of warmth for humanity after his wife died. He was absolutely ruthless and consolidated considerable power to himself and his innermost circle, enough to deeply concern Lenin when he was still alive. Historians generally agree Stalin was a dictator, albeit a somewhat atypical one.

What you describe, with your heavy progressive tax rates, has only ever been in place in countries fearing a revolution while neighboring a Socialist power, historically the USSR.

The US had a 77% tax rate on the highest incomes in 1918, which predates the USSR by 4 years. It dropped in the interwar period and picked up again with the start of WW2. Budgetary pressure is what in the vast majority of cases increases tax rates. It's statistically by far the most important factor, not the threat of countries like the USSR. There are far too many countries near the USSR that did not increase tax rates, and vice versa, to assume this is the case.

The Nordics fund their safety nets through brutal loans and export of Capital, a process identified and tracked as Imperialism.

You know that their balance sheets are public information, right? They don't show some kind of massive funding from brutal loans on the global south. The vast majority of their initial wealth came from the export of natural resources, but these days they are primarily service economies.

I'm not saying those schemes don't exist (they do) but said schemes are not unique to specifically the west. Notably China is often criticised for similar schemes, taking control of important infrastructure in the process.

I think a big part of your worldview is thinking the Nordics separate from US Imperialism, and not willing accomplices to the looting of the Global South.

You have repeatedly made incorrect assumptions and conclusions on my worldview, and you seem to hold a somewhat simplistic and onesided view of the world yourself. I don't think we will be nearing each other in this discussion. That's fine, it's okay to disagree on things. Particularly on politics it's important to keep a diversified set of opinions around. I do value your view on things, even if I don't find myself agreeing with it.

Finally, I'd just like to add that I don't make perfect the enemy of good. I refuse to accept bad is somehow good, or exempt from criticism, just because worse exists. I have a set of principles I simply will not compromise on, that I do not think are unreasonable. Plenty of ideologies or political parties don't cross my red lines, some do. I have a personal preference of course, and I consider that my democratic right to have. I also acknowledge that the world doesn't like being expressed in simple ideological terms. No "historical narrative" ever fully pans out. That's fine, I can live with that. I simply try to focus on the problems in front of me, that I can realistically help solve, and try to avoid anything that could prevent me from helping to solve problems in the future.

I intend to leave this discussion here, as I don't see much value in continuing it (and it's getting late). Thanks for your civil participation in it. Hopefully Lemmy will also learn to upvote civil discussion even if they don't agree with every comment in it.