The way i remember it being thought in school, it seemed to imply that they created the fenomena of "people ruling", that it didnt exist before them. If you went into more depth into the question, you would get to this reduced thesis that they only defined a system that was supposedly democratic. But most kids wont pay close attention, and this euro-centric propagada succeeds in forming their worldview.
Of course, the creator has an interest to show this data to the advertisers if they have a good audience retention during these sponsored segments. The creators that want to hide this probably can be assumed to have a worse retention... So the advertisers can just ask for the data and know how much money that ad space is worth, and make decent estimates even when the creator refuses to share that data.
In the end, that data may very well influence how much the creator receives.
The creators sell adventisement space and want the advertisers to know that their channel is a good investment, so the more they can prove to the advertisers that their sponsor segments arent skipped, the more they can charge for it.
"I'm going to the supermarket to steal food so I can save up for a new iphone. I could just steal the iPhone, but that could be unethical, so I'll steal the food instead cause that is ALWAYS ethical."
When you phrase it like that, it's lik stealing is the only way to feed your family. If that is the case, sure stealing is obviously justified. If there are other options to feed you family, it becomes a more complicated dilemma.
It probably depends on what these other options are, who you're stealing from, etc.
A reform that faces backlash and, by the force of collective movements, overcomes backlash and capitalist resistance, is a form of revolution. I think such movements may lead to socialism, or other things (better or worse).
Edit: who is downvoting me speak your mind, im curious... I know what i said doesnt sound like most leninist discourse, but in practice im not sure how they differ.
... the population decreases. The parts of the population reproducing less becomes smaller than the part reproducing more... and reproduction naturally goes above replacement rate again... Because replacement rate decreases with the population size
Is this the consensus in the usa already? Just curious cause I'm not from there, and everywhere I look online this is the consensus (in my bubble at least).
Edit: I know the media doesn't admit stuff like this, but I mean consensus in like the general feeling of talking to people in real life about this war.
I guess it depends on the dose. I had good and bad moments on acid, and now I'm too afraid to take acid and have a bad trip, cause I know I should probably get over some stuff before. Mushrooms I have only taken small doses and I just got more enthusiastic in the way I was talking to friends, laughing more probably...
I get that sometimes there is implied context. But at this point we are guessing what her argument is... some guess the argument is just "it grew there naturally so it must be supposed to be there" and you should be able to replace "it" with anything, while other people like you guess that its implied that "it" shouldnt be replaced with things that grow aberrantly. The analogy dinogatorr makes is fine for critiquing the first 'unrefined' argument that we see a lot of people make all the time. We could use "implied" context to dismiss any pointing out of flawed logic leading to good conclusions (you need to swap the objects for that, i suppose).
The way i remember it being thought in school, it seemed to imply that they created the fenomena of "people ruling", that it didnt exist before them. If you went into more depth into the question, you would get to this reduced thesis that they only defined a system that was supposedly democratic. But most kids wont pay close attention, and this euro-centric propagada succeeds in forming their worldview.
I guess any ruling class considers itself democratic, since everyone that doesnt get a say are also not considered actual people.
There is political strength in doing it like the last line said and using the established franchise.
"has to be"? why do you have to ask this question?
Of course, the creator has an interest to show this data to the advertisers if they have a good audience retention during these sponsored segments. The creators that want to hide this probably can be assumed to have a worse retention... So the advertisers can just ask for the data and know how much money that ad space is worth, and make decent estimates even when the creator refuses to share that data.
In the end, that data may very well influence how much the creator receives.
The creators sell adventisement space and want the advertisers to know that their channel is a good investment, so the more they can prove to the advertisers that their sponsor segments arent skipped, the more they can charge for it.
If it doesn't justify that, than it's not an "out for misanthropes".
"I'm going to the supermarket to steal food so I can save up for a new iphone. I could just steal the iPhone, but that could be unethical, so I'll steal the food instead cause that is ALWAYS ethical."
This is such a silly discussion...
Sure let's not state the obvious because underisk can't see nuance it will think it justifies letting people starve.
When you phrase it like that, it's lik stealing is the only way to feed your family. If that is the case, sure stealing is obviously justified. If there are other options to feed you family, it becomes a more complicated dilemma.
It probably depends on what these other options are, who you're stealing from, etc.
A reform that faces backlash and, by the force of collective movements, overcomes backlash and capitalist resistance, is a form of revolution. I think such movements may lead to socialism, or other things (better or worse).
Edit: who is downvoting me speak your mind, im curious... I know what i said doesnt sound like most leninist discourse, but in practice im not sure how they differ.
... the population decreases. The parts of the population reproducing less becomes smaller than the part reproducing more... and reproduction naturally goes above replacement rate again... Because replacement rate decreases with the population size
I guess it's fine then
I don't think anyone's saying he has these ideas. But he is probably influenced by people with these ideas.
Is this the consensus in the usa already? Just curious cause I'm not from there, and everywhere I look online this is the consensus (in my bubble at least).
Edit: I know the media doesn't admit stuff like this, but I mean consensus in like the general feeling of talking to people in real life about this war.
I love people talk about how/why theyre glad to be alive cause it somehow makes me glad I'm alive too.
Well.... ok.... but just maybe...
I could have said the same, word for word.
I guess it depends on the dose. I had good and bad moments on acid, and now I'm too afraid to take acid and have a bad trip, cause I know I should probably get over some stuff before. Mushrooms I have only taken small doses and I just got more enthusiastic in the way I was talking to friends, laughing more probably...
I get that sometimes there is implied context. But at this point we are guessing what her argument is... some guess the argument is just "it grew there naturally so it must be supposed to be there" and you should be able to replace "it" with anything, while other people like you guess that its implied that "it" shouldnt be replaced with things that grow aberrantly. The analogy dinogatorr makes is fine for critiquing the first 'unrefined' argument that we see a lot of people make all the time. We could use "implied" context to dismiss any pointing out of flawed logic leading to good conclusions (you need to swap the objects for that, i suppose).