So instead of addressing the misogyny, let’s sweet it under the rug by not allowing women to compete in the top tournaments? By your logic, shouldn’t we just make a third transgender category to solve the transphobia?

Who said it would be entirely men? Chess had this format forever and any woman that had the ability to compete in the top level open tournaments was competing in them.

What coup attempts are you talking about? Let’s try to focus on coups that were at least attempted or has any substantial evidence of being in the works.

I am not talking about coup attempts. I am exactly talking about lack of coup attempts in countries, where you would expect superpowers to start one if they could. But they can’t. I failed coup attempt already signals instability of your system. Or do you believe a good political system should have regular coup attempts that have to be suppressed by force?

There is no logic in their claim. It’s an absurd what if. Monarchies were unable to suppress democracies. It’s like saying “what if communism causes the sun to explode”. That would be bad, but it’s not reality.

PS: I guess I can also address the logic part notwithstanding the ridiculous assumption. Suppress by an external country is not the same as supporting a coup, which is exacerbating an internal problem. No system can withstand an overwhelming external force, but we need it to at least withstand covert agitation of internal issues. Because that is something that does happen in reality, between US, Russia, Iran, China, you have no lack of agitators. You won’t be able to exist in a bubble.

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension skills. I never wrote anything like that.

The problem isn’t political systems, it’s superpowers intervening

There can be more than one problem.

Please prove me wrong and tell me how e.g. the coup in Chile 1973 could have been prevented by decentralizing power.

A coup still inherently relies on there being internal forces willing to execute said coup. I don’t dare say being capitalist could have stopped this particular one, quite likely it couldn’t. But it it is at least more resilient in general.

If it was impossible to resist superpower sponsored coups, I am sure the Baltics wouldn’t be able to remain democratic right next to Russia.

The Russian Revolution was communist but the USSR was never communist.

This whole thread is about communism always collapsing into authoritarianism so quickly it is not even ever “really implemented”.

What is this bullshit argument? If a lightbulb stops working after 10 years, is it as useless as a lightbulb that breaks after 10 minutes?

can’t be easily overturned

Did I write they have to be impossible to overturn? Why don’t you read what I write more carefully instead of reacting to some made up version of my comment.

Do I have to remind you that capitalistic democracies other than USA exist? Plenty of them work decently well. Certainly still far from perfect, but well enough to prove these issues can be overcome, and are therefore non-fatal.

Youre saying a political system can only work if there is not a single aspect that can be taken advantage of? Thats equivalent to every single person being controlled 100% in their actions.

I did not say anything even close to that. I am saying a political system can only work if it can’t be easily overturned. It has nothing to do with how much it controls peoples lives or if it can be taken advantage of.

My entire point is that political systems like democracies are not isolated from economic systems. Democracies fail when combined with communism, because all power is concentrated in the political apparatus, leaving no leverage for the rest of the population. Then, seizing power and removing democracy is too easy.

I don’t see how what you write relates to what I write other than what-aboutism directing attention to (non-fatal) issues of capitalism instead of addressing the fatal issues of communism.

A political and economic system is not some random piece of infrastructure, like a solar panel. It’s more comparable to a padlock. It’s entire point is to manage human nature. If all people were benevolent and willing to work for collective good on their own, we wouldn’t need political systems at all. Neither would we need padlocks. A padlock that can’t hinder an intruder is a bad padlock. A political or economic system that can’t handle human nature (greed, lust for power) is a bad system.

Even if that’s true, so what? You are just pointing out one possible reason why communism doesn’t work in reality. Still doesn’t work.

If I say my immortal potion recipe would work in an alternate reality where humans didn’t breathe oxygen, it does not make it any more useful. Equally, in our reality, coups, assassinations and embargoes exist. If a political system can’t withstand them, it is not useful.

The Russian Revolution was communist but the USSR was never communist.

Yes. But what does that mean? If I have a recipe for potion of immortality, but anyone that drinks the resulting potion dies instead, it’s a bad recipe. It doesn’t matter its promise of immortality sounds good.

Communism makes good promises. However, every time you have a communist revolution, it ends up being authoritarian instead. What does that say about the communist political system?

Doesn’t it? I am pretty sure they have authority over everyone. US and other non signatories just do not have to hand them over. But if they ever visit a signatory state, they should be arrested.

Yes.

deleted by creator

Honestly, in a way, (ubiquitous fast) internet ruined gaming. When you had to buy physical disks, there was no way to continuously monetize a game. Studios had to make new good games and they did.

Back then, there were awesome games for phones as well. I still have an old phone with just to keep galaxy on fire 2. N.O.V.A. 2 was basically Halo game on phones. Before that, there was awesome java games for dumb phones.

The Olympics shouldn’t exist as they are now in the first place.