I just explained to you how your own response confirms my point but be upset over someone making fun of you for stating the headline of their reference as some interesting insight.

You didn’t even bother to argue my point. You repeated the headline of the article that I send you. Are you sure that I need to learn that?

I would have given you a proper response if your response would have been. Calling something “controversial” is literally saying that there are conflicting opinions on the matter, which means it is NOT no brainer.

he just moved to types via JSDoc which is run through the TS compiler, as well as to .d.ts files.

Congratulations, you read the headline.

But “just” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It is literally why he moved.

https://devclass.com/2023/05/11/typescript-is-not-worth-it-for-developing-libraries-says-svelte-author-as-team-switches-to-javascript-and-jsdoc/

Some people disagree with it being a no brainer.

Well you are mad at me for looking at cause and effect, and consequently, being unwilling to blame the harm of communist countries on communism, while you complain about liberals not looking at cause and effect.

I don’t know what that is called but at least for me, it is really entertaining to watch people argue against themselves. I am happy to know that you aren’t enjoying your wasteful usage of your limited time.

It wasn’t.

My point was when comparing capitalism and communism, that it is unfair to act like these systems operated independent from each other and no action of either of them were influenced by the other; That the communist harm in that comparison is purely communist and wholly part of and consequence of communism.

Because if the harm isn’t wholly part of and consequence of communism, the harm is not pure communism, or as i phrased it, “proper” communism.

Edit: and if you wonder why i didn’t talk about the influence of communism on capitalism instead, well can you really point at the harm of capitalism and tell me how communism influenced it?

Well if you don’t want me to blame communism for the harm, then why argue with me about the harm as a proper and necessary part of communism?

I got it. You want me to blame communism for the harm that it caused and the harm is the entirely the fault of communism. I heard you. That is what you argued for, for so long. I heard you.

I see, so your issue is that i talk about “purity” to highlight the corrupting force of foreign threats. So you are upset that i don’t want to place the blame for the harm entirely on the system communism/socialism, okay, if you want me to entirely blame communism for the harm that the states cause, I will. I will act like harm was purely motivated by communism and the logical consequence of communism.

And your insults are very mature and are valuable.

What do you disagree with? Were they under siege? Or not? Were the communist countries in their “pure” state or heavily influenced by outside forces trying to destroy it? Is something in it’s “proper” state when forced into extremes?

So making claims without backing them up. I see.

No arguing the points. I see.

Yes, you do. You have agreed to all the relevant points for my argument.

In my argument, I made it very clear that I don’t care whether or not you want to see these nation as communist or not, just wanted to note that the arguments would start there.

But instead, my argument is that total harm cause is a flawed method because as you stated yourself and I hope you agree with yourself, the socialist state were forced into more state power to protect themselves. That paranoia and that power together cause much of the harm. Both wouldn’t have existed if they weren’t under siege, which again is what you claim. So looking at the harm of socialism/communism and comparing it with capitalism, acts like the harm of socialism wasn’t partly caused by capitalism as well. So that comparison sucks and the argument fails.

And I am fairly certain, you agree with all of this, while you might dislike the words that I used.

It is so interesting how you all focus on how it is a communist state (by your chosen definition in this context) but ignore that in my comment, I am making clear that I am willing to accept that one want to call that communist for the sake of the conversation regardless of if, how or why it might or might not be the same or different. So you are welcome to call that communist. My point is simply whether or not that is communist is up to debate as a simple disagreement in definition of what makes a state communist, would kill the argument. And by calling it pre-communist, they admit that there is a definition of “communist” that the state is “pre” of, while, of course, insisting that it is communist, which is obviously a different definition because if it would be the same, it wouldn’t be “pre”.

So there are multiple definitions that one could use for communist in the context, if one would chose a definition of communist state that means the state operates in communism, then you can’t point at the victims of socialist state and call them victims of communism. If one would chose a definition that means the state aiming for communism, then of course, you could count them. And a person listen to the argument as presented in the original post could simply say “well there haven’t been a communism state, of course, the number is lower.” And the argument failed. Calling these states socialist, would avoid that, but of course then you couldn’t quite argue that communism is less harmful than capitalism, if you compare socialism and capitalism. And the argument for communism would fail for that reason.

If you think that is just semantics, then think that but you are wrong. It is about the validity of an argument that someone is trying to use to get people to support the cause that you seem to want to support. If I were you, I would care about the quality of the argument.

Where? Give 1 example.

So you agree with me. Great. Good conversation.

I am not mixing up the terms.

Socialist countries aren’t communist, you call them pre-communist which highlights my point.

In my original comment, I make clear that if you want to count these countries as communist countries, you can but then you have to acknowledge the siege (as you call it). In this comment, you agree that they (the socialist countries that you chose to count as communist countries to even get this far into the argument) are under siege and consequently don’t behave as they would otherwise. By agreeing to that, you agree to my second point. You keep repeating the “less than capitalist countries” as if i was arguing that at all. Nowhere i said anything about them doing more or less harm than any other entity.

You should really ask yourself what you are arguing with whom. I mean i could start arguing with you that the earth isn’t flat and act like you said that if that helps you to understand.

Not in the same way or for the same reason.

You weren’t a target for being capitalist.

Socialist countries

thanks for making my point. Socialist is not communist.

exist under siege […] mistakes […] meant to protect socialist that exist out of genuine necessity to fight

So they weren’t allowed to exist in the same comparable peace than capitalistic nations, and might have been forced to cause more harm due to it.

can compare peer countries

Yes but that is not what the comment proposed and is a different argument and please remember the previous points. And of course, the peer countries comparison doesn’t include the possible long term struggles and issues that the whole history of e.g. colonialism and capitalism can show. But communism (not socialism) doesn’t have that history. And socialism might have more of a history but on a much smaller scale than colonialism and capitalism and again in not the most fair environment. So the argument is very different and the original argument is flawed.