Well, I didn't say there is a functioning example. I said that the ideas of books are shaping realities in one way or another. Like it or not but books matter.
"right, so communism is good, it is just those pesky people that are in the way... ๐"
Well I did not say that. But I agree that communism is a lot of wishing that people are better than they are.
"the fact that somewhere else is some nazi moron is also a problem, but it is not a defense for a communism"
These things are in fact not a different problem. When we talk about power structures and state forms and what's the best way to organize a country, context matters. It matters how those people where killed, it matters how many people in other state forms had to suffer and it matters what are the dynamics behind all of that. Otherwise a statement like that is rather manipulative and not allowing to engage with the ideas of communism and the underlying values.
"well of course we are talking about every attempt at practical realization of communism in human history. no one cares about a fictional dream in a book. fictional dream in a book does not kill people, all the practical attempts at bringing it to life does"
I strongly disagree with this statement. States like communist Russia happens because of the idea in a book but where twisted during there implementation and formed into something else. Therefore stating that communism killed so many people is wrong. The implementation of communism turns out to end up in authoritarian structures like so many revolutions do (example: France after their first revolution).
Okay the thing is, the original statement made in the post is not about a subset. It just says that 20% of people are responsible for 80% of the crime. You talk about something else.
I find the in the image postet statement difficult cause when such a statement like in the post is stated, the implied followup question is, who are those 20%? And then everyone is again talking how poor people and immigrants "are just like that" instead of talking about structural change. Its a context less statement inviting to filling the gaps in discourse with your own prejudice, allowing manipulative individuals to steer your mind.
The problem is not that authoritarian regimes that mark themselves as communist cause a lot of deaths trough Missmanagement and suppression (great famine was mostly Missmanagement). Its how and by whom these numbers are used. When far right politicians call general health programs communism (which its not) and then cite that number (which had already been explained to be much lower), that is weaponizing it in a harmful way to suppress some potentially useful policy. This is what the other commentor was saying with "red scare".
I also think they communism killed x number of people is also bullshit because what do you even call communism? States like Russia under stalin or Mao China were closer to authoritarian regimes than communism as defined by Marx.
Further I think that this number doesn't make much sense at all since it also lacks any context to make it useful.
What bothers me is that your source literally says "pareto in prison" and that "20% of inmates were responsible for approximately 90% of all rule violations". So these are already people who did a crime and are in prison. This is not the same as" 20% of the general population commit 80% of all crimes". I don't even think the pareto ratio thingy sounds implausible, its just that "crime" is a broad word where also a lot of bullshit must be included for this like driving without a ticket on the train or parking your car in a no-no zone or speeding. Otherwise we would have 20% of the population who are thieves, murderers and rapist which we obviously don't have.
I feel you
Well, it really depends where you are located and what field of work you are in. Where I am from in Europe, wages are different per employee. When you account for women working more often in part time, work in lesser paid care jobs (which is BTW also sexist that jobs mostly done by women get paid less) and that they tend to stay at home more often for the kids and all the other stuff, you still end up with something like 6% of wage difference for the same work that you can not account to anything. Wherever you are from, I think you can look that easily up in some academic literature what and how they adjust these things. What this actually boils down to is that talking about your wages with your coworkers helps and that unions and collective wage agreements are the hot shit.
Step 1: move to a big city with high rental cost in which having kids is not feasable for young families. Step 2: start a social hobby there Step 3: life the hedonistic lifestyle!
Well, you are right and that's why one should also support smaller stores like gog. However I think this is not valves corporate greed but more a hardware price increase thing. I think the reason why valve is okay to its customers is because its a private company and not a publicly traded one. The moment Gaben leaves and another head of the company moves valve to the stock market, the ship is wrecked.
Yes, but zfs snapshots are not an off-site backup which is more what i am looking for. Besides this, zfs snapshots are of course something i want to implement
You did not mention where the target of the borg backup is, but you want an external service. I believe there is a service that works wells with borg backup, but have not used it.
I did write that the borg backups would be stored on an external drive, sorry that this point wasnt clearer.
I basicly for the start have one big usb 20tb hdd drive (it was discounted and costed only little more than the 12 tb same brand one) to store my backups and i plan to get more drives when i can afford them. The idea with an additional machine i had as well, but thats maybe something further down the road.
the question is that for the start, if a borgbackup of the zfs pool on an external drive with all those services would work. I am a bit worried about their databases yucking up or something.
"no, i am explaining what the phrase really means and you are decided to only accept explanation that allows you to get mad."
I guess confused is the better term, not mad. To me your quoted article has nothing to do with the statement since they talk about different groups. But I guess it does not matter. I wish you a lovely day with whatever you do :)