When you’re marrying someone you’re usually not like “lets try this and see where it goes” (that’s called dating), you’re more like “till death do us part” so yes, divorce is failure more often than not. Ending a relationship, not so much
I can understand your perspective, but I want to offer an alternative view, maybe less bound to societal preconceptions. I married my partner for many reasons, financial, wanting to raise a child together, wanting to share my life with them… But staying married for the rest of our lives is a crazy concept for us. The marriage has its purposes, but we both know that life can change and that we could decide that we had a good time, and that now the time has come to move on. A marriage is less romanticised for us, it has practical reasons. I guess being polyamorous helps with defining new relationship ideas on many levels ;)
None of those reasons require marriage, so it’s not a satisfying reason. I want to know why MARRIAGE, specifically? Just checking it off a bucket list perhaps?
It seems to me that all of the reasons they provides are all reasons to get married. Especially raising a child, given the privileges that are afforded to married parents in a lot of places (especially in the case of adoption, or IVF using a stranger’s genetic material). Something doesn’t have to require marriage for the benefits of it to outweigh the cons for a specific situation.
The question seems to me to be kind of confusing. What alternative are you comparing it to? Some sort of local structure like domestic partnership?
The post I’m replying to was acting as if they had some new wisdom from being polyamorous and their perspective on marriage. But it sounds like they’re just using it as a business move which is something a lot of non polyamorous people do as well, and nothing new. I wasn’t asking what reasons could possibly exist to get married outside of romance or whatever you’re talking about, I was asking SPECIFICALLY THEM why they bothered, with their “unique” perspective on relationships. But it seems the only actual reason they have is taxes, despite their diatribe.
Taxes alone is a valid reason. So long as there are social, financial and legal benifits to the institution then there is no argument to have. If you feel that love or religion is a requirment that I feel your concept of marraige is outdated.
No, you are a misunderstanding me. The post I’m replying to was acting as if they had some new wisdom from being polyamorous and their perspective on marriage. But it sounds like they’re just using it as a business move which is something a lot of non polyamorous people do as well, and nothing new. I wasn’t asking what reasons could possibly exist to get married outside of romance or whatever you’re talking about, I was asking SPECIFICALLY THEM why they bothered. But it seems the only actual reason they have is taxes, despite their diatribe.
In a lot of animal species, relationships are lifelong. For most of their history, humans had life long marriages in all corners of the world. Why are you calling it "a crazy concept "?
I used WSL for a job and it worked fine. It’s kind of a weird VM that doesn’t really integrate with the host OS fully, but it works for many use cases.
Git BASH has more direct system integration and hardware access than WSL, though it’s been a couple of years since I had to look at WSL at all. Hopefully they’ve improved the integration over time.
That’s what saved me too but I’m still stuck with unpredictable crashes, 150GB of HDD / 8GB of RAM lost in the void and bullshit ads for copilot in the lock screen …
I think human nature is inherently greedy and selfish, and capitalism is best equipped to use this in a way that benefits society. Workers are motivated to work harder and learn new skills to find the most rewarding job they can. Businesses are motivated to create products and run as efficiently as possible. Consumers are motivated to get as much value as the can out of their money. Everyone in the equation is acting selfishly and in their own self-interest (which I believe humans are inclined to do anyway) but when applied on a societal level, everyone benefits. However I will concede that this is a balancing act that requires some level of government regulation to maintain.
On the other hand, I think communism only works when everyone acts altruistically. Which is noble, but unrealistic.
I agree. Businesses and owners have too much influence. I want more unions, trust-busting, and consumer protections. Workers seem to be organizing more at least, which is a good start.
It’s the inability to see the forest for the trees. We were raised in a capitalist economic system, as were all of our past family members. The failings of capitalism appear to be the failings of human nature. In reality, meta analysis of multiple studies on human greed show that people will be inherently more kind to each other than be cruel. Quick search will bring up many articles on these studies. Plus, exchanges in material goods within communities where money hadn’t been invented would show that people didn’t barter, they gave their goods away to their neighbors, and the good deed would be remembered and reciprocated in times of need. You can look up “Gift Economy” in Wikipedia.
I also highly recommend reading or listening to the audiobook for The Dawn of Everything A New History of Humanity by David Graeber and David Wingrow. It is extremely interesting and eye opening.
Human nature is co-operative and altruistic, there’s evidence going back to barely recognisable AS human and it’s literally a key reason why we’re the dominant species.
@Taleya Is there any scientific material on this? I've had this discussion again and again with my family, from the far side of ultimately altruistic to vastly egoistic... and if there is (hopefully unbiased) scientific material on this, we might settle this argument.
off the top of my head there’s the ancient remains found multiple times of disabled and/or badly injured hominids who were treated (signs of healing) and lived long into adulthood despite requiring extensive care from others, the fact an extended childhood in our species means that our young are vulnerable for a far longer period than any other animal (a necessity since you can’t fit a fully formed adult brain through a human pelvis) and require cooperation with others to raise and continue the species, the fact we have developed specialised skillsets (that are shared between us rather than developing and being held isolate and then lost when the person who holds then dies).
When you have a group that works together go up against one that doesn’t, the former comes out on top. When this competition is for resources and survival, it becomes an evolutionary pressure.
If you do a quick googs you should find scores of whitepapers - but the egoistic argument falls flat on its face out of the gate because we have the word ‘sociopath’ and it’s not considered something to emulate. Neither is ‘egotistical’. We’ve literally got coded into our language that isolation, self-absorption and ‘self serving at the cost to others’ are bad concepts. Being a self absorbed shithead is documented as wrong as far back as our tales can possibly go.
Not going to downvote, but I do think you’re lacking quite a bit of insight into the reasons human society exists at all. Cooperation is the reason human society exists at all, so saying we’re inheritly selfish is kinda laughable in that context.
I would encourage you to look up information on dialectical Materialism and the necessity of capitalism as a stage in that dialectical.
Capitalism had a purpose, and it’s past time for us to move on.
Explain open source, free software, linux community, lemmy / the fediverse, and many many other things not formed around profit, largely maintained by people in their free time motivated by community over profit.
People aren’t inherently greedy. People are born into a system that rewards greed, and punishes altruism. There have been many different societies with many different political and economic systems, and capitalism is a fairly new one all things considered.
Rational self interest is irrational. If only a few can succeed, chances are you fail. If everyone only looks out for themselves, then everyone fails. Humanity’s biggest strength — what set us apart from many other animals — is our ability to work together and look out for each other.
Capitalism doesn’t work, and is destroying the Earth.
Freeloaders, like large corporations taking open source and then not giving back, is yet another symptom of a system that rewards extraction and self interest.
FOSS exists despite capitalism. The fact that people are willing to work on something out of their own passion, or sense of community, directly contradicts the fundamental assertion of capitalism.
Fuck that, I do not concede the point. At least, I don't concede that humans are /more/ selfish than we are compassionate. Our emotional wiring evolved for hundred-human tribes that required a lot more empathy and cooperation than competition.
You don't have to go so far as to disincentivize greed. Greed is socially useful in small doses. Adam Smith wasn't a total idiot. Just stop letting the people who shape society make it so only the greedheads survive.
You’re preaching to the choir. “Concede the point” is a figure of speech which means the speaker is going explore an assumption despite not believing it themselves.
My point is that the whole “capitalism is the best economic system we know about because humans are greedy” argument is sophistry. It doesn’t even make sense in the context of its own flawed premise.
Even if it was true that human nature was inherently greedy and selfish then it would be an argument for creating systems that discourage such behaviors. What you’re arguing is akin to saying that you should encourage a person struggling with alcoholism to drink more.
@Gigan@SouthEndSunset
Human nature is not inherently greedy and selfish because human beings possess an inherent capacity for empathy, cooperation, and solidarity, which when nurtured within equitable social structures, can create a collective ethos centered on mutual aid, communal ownership, and the pursuit of the common good, transcending the narrow confines of greed and selfishness perpetuated by systems of exploitation and inequality like capitalism.
Greed, selfishness and our hyper-individualism is a product of our society, not society as a product of our nature
These sentiments are something encouraged by those in power as it is advantageous for them to have the masses in want
There are underlying instincts for survival and dominance that have manifested today as greed and selfishness, but that is something an equitable society can address given the chance
To suggest otherwise is incredibly degrading humanity
@Gigan@SouthEndSunset
There is nothing bad about the collective ownership of the means of production. I can, however, think of many things that are bad about one person owning the entire means production despite not doing any work, which is what exists under capitalism.
Dialectical Materialism. Right now, they are. You either work towards communism or capitalism moves towards consolidation of capital. Those are your choices.
thats not a mix though, it was just a bandaid over capitalism, borrowed from socialistic ideas. the capital accumulating class was never extinguished, eventually leading to the same problems today all over again.
hence why we advocate for a systemic change, if you can’t accumulate capital, you can’t buy back the system again like it is rn. this is pretty much the crux of the issue here.
I mean, it’s just literally what they call themselves. Sure, they lie or don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about, but that’s kind of their whole deal.
Power dichotomy will always slander any “third option”. They’ll even say something dumb on its face like third way is “x”. There are only two solutions, “with us” or “against us”. Anything outside these choices is literally unthinkable for the power structure. The power structure cannot imagine a future where it does not exist. If you ask the unthinkable alternative, they will default to “oh you must be one of the enemy”. We know that category well. They stand for every thing we don’t stand for.
Describe what you consider the “third way” that isn’t capitalists owning the means of production, workers owning the means, or the state owning the means.
No, I asked for a third pill. I didn’t say “take my third pill”. I also hope we can escape the narrow minded concept of a society centered on the tug of war to “own the means”.
No it isn't, but it does highlight the main issue:
Communism would work if it weren't for people trying to co-opt it for power
Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism is the end goal (since, it being automated, means there should effectively be no way to hijack it), but we ain't getting there for a long time. Let's go for socialism first and work from there
That’s just human nature unfortunately. We like to help one another and hate to see another human being suffering because we know that could be us. But capitalism has conditioned and limited us out of our human nature to help one another, because either there is no profit in helping the poor or destitute, or we lack the means to help.
People are products of the environment. These influence the ideas people have, who then shape their environment which in turn further influences the ideas people have.
Being conditioned by the material conditions of Capitalism is the opposite of Idealism, it’s Materialism.
Its a realistic view of humanity, not a realistic view of the world we have allowed the greediest among us to create. You should read The Dawn of Everything A New History of Humanity, it goes extreme in depth to explain just how wrong your nihilistic view in humanity is, cooperation is the norm, what Capitalism has created is the anomaly.
This goes into a fight over philosophy of human nature. However, since the days of the Roman republic over 2000 years ago where capitalism wasn’t even a concept, people have used political systems to consolidate and gain power over others. It is undoubtabele that there will be people who try to co-opt the system for their personal gain
I’ve been to Capitalist countries, I’ve been to Communist countries.
Guess which system has their people immigrating to the other system on rafts with their children, just to try the other system. Guess which system builds walls to keep people IN, guess which system has beggars asking for milk for their children instead of money.
Your comment isn’t the dunk you think it is when it brushes up against the harsh truth that is reality.
Bruh I’ve seen families begging for food outside of grocery stores in the United States of America. Now what communist countries had beggers asking for milk?
Every source i can find puts homelessness rates in China at max 1,000,000 and all of them say that they live in shelters, not on the streets.
Cuba had been under embargo from the USA since 1962.
Laos has a massive poverty proborm because of debt which is a capitalist construct.
That statistic on Vietnamese homeless Children is 16 years old, and every source ive found states they have been making great strides since then to fight poverty and homelessness.
You Capitalist Apologists are so blind to reality it is pathetic there are 18 capitalist countries with higher homeless populations than China. You literally have to divorce yourself from reality to attack Communism. You might as well be covered in shit, while mocking someone for having toilet paper stuck to their shoe.
Socialism is usually built from the remains of a previous brutal regime. Starvation doesn’t end overnight.
This is the case for both Russia and China. After stabilizing they had an unprecedented improvement in nutrition, longevity and such.
The same can’t be said for the vast majority of capitalist states, who still experience starvation despite being perfectly capable of feeding everyone.
I’ll check all the logs as soon as she stands up from her desk. Thanks so much.
And about the “joke”, not really a joke. Most of us see that as nothing more than a slight bump on the road. But Windows users moving over to the brighter side of computers will see that as an excuse to go back to pain. People are weird.
Fedora 40 removes X by default (you’d have to install it yourself), so this is going to be using Wayland. Seems like they’re using Ryzen integrated graphics, so at least it shouldn’t be related to any of the problems with Nvidia on Wayland.
That’s correct. She’s on Ryzen integrated, and Wayland by default, and all info on this subject out there points to Nvidia related issues. Thanks guys.
This happens to me consistently on Linux Mint. My secondary monitor which is an HDMI TV resumes fine and takes over as primary. The primary screen on a Display Port over USB fails to wake up.
I’m using the edge kernel line, version 6.5. I’ll try to downgrade to 5.15 to check if this is a kernel regression.
I’m running an AMD system with embedded graphics from Minisforum, btw. What are you running and which kernel?
i got pop (fresher kernel?) and xorg but same issue you described. i keep unplugged unless i am using it but also since it will limit main monitor fps.
I have tried disconnecting and then connecting the display to see if it will wake up, but it doesn’t work. Sometimes shutting down the display and turning it on again work.
I managed to get it on kernel 5.15 and replicate the issue. I had to find its USB-C charger to keep it on while I power down my monitor otherwise it would hard shutdown it. So, connecting the monitor back, the weirdest thing just happened. The display rearranged, but didn’t use the new monitor. Instead, the lock screen got resized and I could see my session behind it without logging in (!).
I’ve got this on dmesg: [119330.829398] amdgpu 0000:63:00.0: [drm] *ERROR* no VCPI for [MST PORT:00000000e7b3da3d] found in mst state 000000005563f49a
journalctl gives more details:
<span style="color:#323232;">May 03 17:05:01 Glass /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[1601]: (II) AMDGPU(0): Allocate new frame buffer 2560x1440
</span><span style="color:#323232;">May 03 17:05:01 Glass /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[1601]: (II) AMDGPU(0): => pitch 10240 bytes
</span><span style="color:#323232;">May 03 17:05:01 Glass rtkit-daemon[1209]: Supervising 7 threads of 3 processes of 1 users.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">May 03 17:05:01 Glass rtkit-daemon[1209]: Successfully made thread 33483 of process 1581 owned by '1000' RT at priority 5.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">May 03 17:05:01 Glass rtkit-daemon[1209]: Supervising 8 threads of 3 processes of 1 users.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">May 03 17:05:01 Glass csd-media-keys[1761]: Unable to get default sink
</span><span style="color:#323232;">May 03 17:05:01 Glass csd-color[1770]: failed to reset xrandr-Samsung Electric Company-SAMSUNG gamma tables: gamma size is zero
</span><span style="color:#323232;">May 03 17:05:01 Glass csd-color[1770]: failed to reset xrandr-Samsung Electric Company-SAMSUNG gamma tables: gamma size is zero
</span><span style="color:#323232;">May 03 17:05:01 Glass /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[1601]: (II) Quirked EDID physical size to 0x0 cm
</span><span style="color:#323232;">May 03 17:05:01 Glass /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[1601]: (--) AMDGPU(0): HDMI max TMDS frequency 225000KHz
</span><span style="color:#323232;">May 03 17:05:01 Glass /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[1601]: (II) AMDGPU(0): EDID vendor "SAM", prod id 29044
</span><span style="color:#323232;">May 03 17:05:01 Glass /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[1601]: (II) AMDGPU(0): Using hsync ranges from config file
</span><span style="color:#323232;">May 03 17:05:01 Glass /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[1601]: (II) AMDGPU(0): Using vrefresh ranges from config file
</span><span style="color:#323232;">May 03 17:05:01 Glass /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[1601]: (II) AMDGPU(0): Printing DDC gathered Modelines:
</span>
I got it to switch monitors using Cinammon’s Display app, but it will not take two displays at the same time.
Weirdest thing is I could swear it didn’t use to happen on Mint 21 until I both upgraded to 21.2 and switched to the edge low latency kernel. It doesn’t bother me much, and everything else just works, plus I’m addicted to aptitude so I need a Debian based distro.
No. Moving goalposts means there is no definitive measure of completion. Communism has one. If you’ve read anything at all about it, you would know that. But hey you were told it was bad in school, and thinking for yourself is difficult. You do you.
That’s not how words work. Things mean what they are used to mean.
Y’all understand this perfectly when describing “capitalism.” That word becomes synecdoche for every level and aspect of modern reality. By definition, capitalism is only really the part where having money makes money, but nobody has any trouble understanding what you mean when you refer to its consequences and implications. Nor would you respect if libertarians split hairs about “corporatism.” Like oh, this isn’t capitalism, because it lacks X and Y and Z, which have never existed, so how dare you talk about bad things that actually happened.
It’s more that anticommunists judge Socialist states by their inability to fulfill Communist ideals at the level of development AES countries are at, as though they exist in a perfectly frozen picture absent history and trajectory.
Yeah sure dude, existing in a context is why people condemned police states.
‘People who don’t know the difference between these terms must be using the more-recognizable one as an oblique criticism of the gap between theory and practice’ is the most .ml take I have ever seen.
Condemning the USSR and PRC for not achieving a global stateless, classless, moneyless society is ridiculous. This isn’t a gap between theory and practice, lol. Communism isn’t anarchism.
Yep, but I also understand what Communists actually advocate for and understand that countries building Communism should be judged like every society: with respect to trajectory, not as a snapshot.
Communism isn’t a goal because it is stateless, classless, and moneyless. Rather, Communism is a goal because the process of getting there is to create a society benefitting all and directed for the working class, by the working class.
You have repeatedly ignored explanations of what people are doing and why, to instead engage in scoffistry at opinions sourced from the vicinity of your pelvis.
Repeated efforts to highlight how that’s what you’re doing, and get back to what people say and mean, led you to dismiss people entirely. “Perhaps what you mean isn’t worth much?” is a confession.
lemmy.ml
Oldest