u/XXXTentacle6969

By my definitions, Soc Dems are more capitalist. Socialism requires workers to own the means of production which requires (usually) abolition of private property and government mandates against capital owners.

By the definitions conservatives use, or even some leftists use, it’s kinda 50-50. Conservatives call Obamacare, public transit, progressive taxes or basically anything the government does socialist.

By the first definition, you can’t really be a mix, you’re either capitalist or socialist. By the 2nd definition, every economy exists on a spectrum between capitalism and socialism.

Also what politicians would you consider Soc Dems? Are AOC, Mamdani, and Bernie Soc Dems are Dem Socs? If they’re too far left, is Pete Budigeg a Soc Dem? Where’s the line between Neolib and Soc Dem

Based on my 1 minute ChatGPT read, it seems like we observed galaxies rotate too fast on the outside and concluded we’re either wrong about gravity, or something else that has mass is acting on the outside of the galaxy (dark matter).

Why do we assume it’s dark matter and not just something else we can’t understand yet? Or is dark matter the something else we can’t understand and we just gave it the name dark matter?

I’m also not extremely well read on astronomy so I may not understand a lot of these concepts well enough to even comprehend it.

Every definition of racism I’ve ever read says it’s just being prejudice, antagonism or discrimination based on race, which means anyone can be racist to anyone. Where are people getting that you have to be in a position of power to be racist from?

This mf went down 3-1 to the greatest team in NBA history and proceeded to average 36, 12 and 10 on 59TS% and win 3 straight games to bring Cleveland its first major sports championship in like 50 years. Not to mention that the warriors were 5th that year in defensive rating, and had the best defender of the 2010s (probably). It’s just unreal to sit and think about sometimes.

Socialism is viewed more favorably than capitalism among democrats now and the reason seems pretty obvious to me.

1. Conservatives call anything Socialism that involves the government paying for something. They called Obamacare socialism.

2. Actual socialists call countries that redistribute a lot socialist. Norway, Sweden and Denmark have been used endlessly to justify socialism from people who are actual “workers own the means of production” socialists.

To me socialism has always meant “workers owning the means of production”, which usually involves no private property, no landlords, and things like that. Social democracy doesn’t have a black and white definition to me but I would call someone a social democrat if they just wanted more taxation and redistribution from our current government.

Anyway I just think it’s funny how lefties and conservatives have both contributed to socialism being favorable by calling anything socialism.

I’m a 7’4 center that plays only rec and I average 6, 13 and 10 on 70% fg

The 60s were definitely less skilled than today but idk why ppl think the 70s were extremely different. I think ranking relative to era is obviously what you should do, but people who don’t will start in the 70s for some reason. Kareem won at least 3 rings as the 2 option and won all his MVPs in the 70s, yet people will have him top 5 ever, while saying Wilt and Bill didn’t have good enough comp to be top 5. The comp in the 60s was definitely better than the 70s because of the ABA. If you watch a game pre 2000 it looks so much worse than today, which is fine, that’s how evolution of a sport works. But the extreme hate the 60s get is crazy when ppl will regularly have Kareem top 5 because of all the stuff he did in the 70s

I’ve read pretty extensively on things like seed oils, HFCS, aspartame and stuff like that, and I’ve found at least some scientific evidence to say that they could be worth avoiding. I disagree with the strength of the claims people make about them but I at least understand their arguments.

However I’ve never seen any scientific backed argument against GMOs. They sound extremely scary on paper and I think that’s where they get their bad wrap from. But I’ve never seen a piece of evidence to suggest that they’re not completely safe and as good for you as their non-GMO counterparts. Even if you agree with me, if you have a strong piece of evidence you see people cite please let me know

I’ve genuinely never seen any evidence to suggest beef tallow is healthier than canola oil. Canola has one of the better omega 3-6 ratios of all oils and almost every (well ran) study I’ve read comparing saturated fats to polyunsaturated says polyunsaturated is better. The only studies I see where the outcomes are similar are when they use an oil that’s like 99% omega 6.

If we compare Brunson’s run this year to 2001 AI, AI had the DPOY and an all stars with along with the 6MOY. Brunson just had 1 all star in KAT. Both teams were top 7 in Defensive Rating (6ers 5th, Knicks 7th).

In the first round, the 76ers beat the 41-41 Pacers (no all stars, 35 year old Reggie Miller), 47 win Raptors (Vince and Davis were all stars), and the 52 win bucks (Allen and Robinson were all stars). And we all know they lost to the Kobe Shaq Lakers in 5.

The Knicks beat a 46 win hawks team (1 all star), 45 win 76ers (1 all star), and a 52 win Cavs team (1 all star). However the Knicks beat the 62 win spurs, more wins than the 01 Lakers btw, and they beat them in 5.

In the playoffs, Iverson had 33 points (2nd in NBA) on 43% eFG (4% below league average) and Brunson had 28 (1st in NBA) on 52% eFG (3% below league average).

In the finals, Brunson had 33PPG on 47 eFG, while Iverson had 36 on 44 eFG however the Lakers were 23rd in defensive rating and the spurs were 3rd.

So Brunson has slightly worse scoring numbers against a way better defense and actually won the finals, while the best team AI beat was a 52 win bucks team, and Brunson beat a 62 win spurs team in 5. They both had an all star teammate and a great defense behind them. I don’t think if you put Brunson on that 76ers team they beat Kobe and Shaq, but I also don’t think Iverson would’ve beaten this spurs team, because Brunson had to be the most clutch player I’ve seen since LeBron to beat them. Whenever Wemby, Castle, and Harper win multiple championships, we’re gonna look back and say Brunson had one of the greatest playoff runs ever when he beat these guys.

I think that winning a championship as the best player should be the most important thing when ranking players, depending on the context of that championship obviously. However, I think we underrate having winning seasons and deep playoff runs a lot. If you are consistently making the playoffs as a top 3 seed and winning 1-2 series each year, that should be a strong case for your all time ranking.

For example, James Harden has won on every team he’s been on. Consistently makes the playoffs as a top 3 seed and wins a series or 2. Tracey McGrady rarely made it out of the first round. James Harden is a much better winner than T Mac, but ppl will look at both of them as “scorers who can’t win” when harden has won way more.

Same when comparing Duncan to Kobe. Duncan won for his entire career. Kobe had a few stretches where they’d miss the playoffs and get bounced in round 1. This is a strong argument for Duncan imo. Duncan is a better winner than Kobe, even tho they have the same number of championships. It’s like when we look at who’s a “better winner” (stupid term), we disregard every season they didn’t win a championship and assume it’s all the same.

1 and 2 is clearly Lebron and MJ (as much as I love Bill Russell and Wilt), but who’s the worst player you could hear someone out for as 3 all time?

Wilt
Russell
Kareem
Duncan
Magic
Kobe
Shaq
Bird
Curry
Hakeem

Are all understandable to have at 3 for me, depending on people’s reasoning. Is there anyone else who has any case to be 3 all time or are any of those players I named not valid to you?

I’m also factoring in that different people have different criteria for GOAT rankings

Edit: after you name a player you should say where they rank all time on your personal list. Ranges are fine

You draft an NFL team, but every round you don’t pick a position the top 3 can’t be picked anymore. So say you pick QB first, now you can’t pick Chase, Puca or JJ at WR. If you choose a WR second, now your RB can’t be 1-6 and so on.

If you’re only drafting an offense, what order do you draft each position?

I’m going:
QB
LT
RT
WR
C
LG
RG
RB
WR
TE
WR

Edit: ballpark the top 3, if 3 and 4 are about even then don’t pick either. Every pick should be like a tier lower. The exercise is meant see how much u value each position