I said this on Reddit and they agreed that you don’t deserve to be alive if you’re not working, it’s really a disease of the mind to believe this shit.
I could see why tho. What happens today is not the same as this ideal probably. You could argue that if your a fit, 20s, healthy, etc. and you just sit home all day, your kinda a waste, but then again siting somewhere else 9-5 is also a waste so.
Eh, I can see why would someone think that. There are things that I disagree with more.
I mean it does make sense if you keep in mind that we traded having to hunt and forage for a system that let’s you buy these things indirectly with currency.
You just need to leave out the whole thing of empathy and morality and reduce the whole system to a exchange of goods and services for money.
It’s more like you haven’t earned the right for other people to do the work of keeping you alive.
Human life requires work to sustain. Someone has to do that work. The most fair system is one in which that responsibility falls on the person benefitting from it.
ie, to be alive, you must contribute work. Because your life requires work to maintain.
I’m so torn on this meme because on the one hand I have the same gut reaction of “yeah, but youll die if you don’t do jack shit in the woods, you kind of have to be useful to live”.
But then I think about our society … the billions of dollars going to rich people who do nothing, the millions of people who work in jobs that are useless, or the millions who work jobs that actively harm society, and in that context, the amount and type of work does seem like bullshit. It’s not like going into your marketing firm 5/7 days of your life means a farmer gets to work less. People like to comfort themselves with vain thoughts like ‘we all just gotta do our partfor the system to work’, but that’s objectively not true. Lots of parts of our system are objectively bullshit and are excised completely through new laws and legislation and society keeps working fine, in some cases much better.
There is a difference between believing everyone owes a debt to the society and civilization you participate in to support those who cannot support themselves, and not deserving to live if you didn’t fit into the rigid hierarchy structures we’ve built for work. But often these sentiments get mixed together.
I don’t think they do. In our society we don’t really let people die just because they don’t fit in. When there’s someone who can’t take care of their self, we take care of them.
Where are you talking about and comparing to what? Cause I see a lot of people dying in the streets because of mental illness or drug addiction when I take the subway to work. We don’t throw them away like ancient Sparta but we definitely don’t come close to providing the services they need to the things they need to begin to get off the street. Cause the solution now is put the homeless in prison and that’s going just fine right? …Right?
As a selfish conservative you should already know that they are the exact ones who want to steal every single security net from every citizen whilst simultaneously enabling corporations to destroy unions and create monopolies.
I mean c’mon, you have to know this. It’s the core tenet of the traitor supporting party. Thieving, stealing, cheating, and lying are all that the magat traitors have to offer.
I live in reality, and I myself have been given free resources when I’ve been unable to work.
In my country, I have never seen a hungry person who could not obtain food due to lack of fitting in or having money or any requirement other than “oh that person has a stomach and needs food, so let’s feed them”.
That is the reality I see all around me. If you want to call that a “fairy tale”, I challenge you to provide evidence of a person being treated in the way you’re describing. Anywhere other than say a concentration camp or japanese pow camp.
What part of our society is letting people die because they don’t fit in? This is a serious question, because everybody seems to believe what I’m saying is a fairy tale, and yet I see it happening all around me.
How, exactly, are you getting the impression out society is one that doesn’t value the life of people who don’t fit in?
This meme is mainly talking about workers who are worked to death to “earn a living”. Capitalists who leech off of workers do not deserve to be alive.
Of course, that’s not the case for those who are physically unable to work to the same extent as others. Basically, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
We have more than enough resources for everyone, so long as the working class can control the means of production instead of the capitalists who try to hoard all the wealth.
“Earning a living” doesn’t state that people should die if the choose to be a grifter or a thief or some other dishonest person that takes from others and doesn’t contribute to society. It just means those people didn’t earn their living.
In a functional society everyone should contribute to better the society. “Earning a living” is a statement of pride in contributing to society value equal to or greater than the value you get from it. If someone is making a living through dishonest means so isn’t earning a living, it can be something they should be ashamed of
Note that socialist societies have similar expressions like “from each according to their ability to each according to their need”. The intent is the same, encourage people to contribute to society. What if I don’t contribute according to my ability and just want to take what I need? Does that statement imply I’ll be sent to a gulag if I don’t contribute according to my ability? OMG socialism says I don’t deserve to live!!!
Every Rule post, including this one, provides clues to the nature of the underlying RULE. Once somebody actually figures out what the RULE actually is, it is posited that the fediverse will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
I’m gonna have to check this out because I just mentioned this as an idea for Lemmy the other day. The amount of posts I see about the same thing in different communities is too damn high.
Haha, the appeal of political science to me is less about arguing with strangers about the news and more talking about broader philosophies and theories and then applying them to what we are seeing in the world. I feel like I can have a more nuanced conversation about the prisoner’s dilemma with regards to x topic, or applying philosophies like American Pragmatism to solving problems.
Talking about the news without using some of the tools political scientists use has so many emotional trip wires that it can feel like I’m just keeping up with the Kardashians. That said sometimes I just can’t help but keep up with the Kardashians.
“You can philosophize over how many fairies fit on a toadstool all day, but if it won’t help anything, what’s the point?”
If you’re talking politics, you need to take a step back and ask how useful your questions are. It may be tempting to try solving a conflict that has a long history by finding out “who started it”, but if the answer would yield no progress in the peace process, it would be a better use of time and energy to focus on other discussions.
I’ve used it as an economic philosophy as well. Instead of looking at capitalism and socialism as ideologies to guide thought, look at them as tools to an end. Identify your goals for society (more educated populace, lower infant mortality, greater freedom of the press, etc.) and then look at what different perspectives bring for solutions. Sometimes you may find letting a free market take it’s course is an answer. Sometimes you may find deep regulation or nationalization is the answer.
When this philosophy is applied to something more personal like religion, it would ask “is the religion that you are in helping you or hindering you?” If someone’s religion gives them immense guilt and depression, it would be worth it to consider something else. If an alcoholic finds peace in a Mormon Temple, then it might just be what they need. It’s a pretty chill philosophy when it comes to religion.
Thank you, that’s an excellent read! This reminds me of the “expected value of perfect information” - sometimes it is worthwhile to answer a question, and sometimes it isn’t. Every once in a while I find myself in an engineering call discussing a minor problem, and I run the numbers to see if the change we are discussing is even worth talking about. One time the combined salaries of the people on the call had already outpaced the cost savings of the change over the next 10 years. We quickly stopped that discussion lol
A book about current events or a book about the study of politics? OP indicated they were political theory focused, so a lot of the theory was written by old dead guys; not exactly news about current events.
Plato has basically nothing to do with modern politics.
You’re going to laugh, but I’m absolutely serious here: if your objective is to understand modern politics, I would start with The Prince and the Communist Manifesto.
Both of these are short, written by extremely influential figures, written for non-academic audiences, and have some amount of relevancy to current political operations. They absolutely do not explain modern politics, but they are important foundational texts. Spend 20 hours on the manifesto; 2 hours to read and 18 hours of commentary and related topics. Avoid going deeper into the communist rabbit holes. stop there. Spend 30 hours on the prince; look for college level lectures. You can spend more than 30 if you like, but don’t go for the self help guru dipshits, obviously.
Just keep in mind the target audences and the potential bias the two authors bring to the table.
After those two, I want you to read On Liberty and read up on John Locke’s social contract theory. Those four works will get you a lot of milage.
I’ve read a good part of Communist manifesto and found it interesting. The fascist Manifesto is very similar to it. I found very weird that communists are against fascists, given that their manifestos are so similar.
Depends on what you’re wanting to focus on, but a great start would be Rules for Rulers by Arnold Meltsner, Freakonomics by Levitt & Dubner, CIA: legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner, confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins are some that I started early.
That’s how I browse (all & scaled or all & new) and I’m a CS nerd. To make the experience less annoying I’ve blocked a bunch of communities mainly because they’re not interesting to me (there’s a lot of anime and/or porn communities, fucking hell), but it’s generally a nice experience – I can run into all kinds of things that I hadn’t heard of before. I haven’t even gotten traumatized yet! Shame the only way to filter the feed is to block communities, but eh
More people should read Marx. Even if you don’t take everything he says, much of what he writes can be directly applied to today and can help people make sense of their current situations.
Id love to see people apply dialectical materialism to their life and society and still think “yeah but there are still good things about capitalists siphoning value out of worker’s labot!”
Capital is Marxism, plainly, but I’m obviously not going to recommend that to start. Instead, if you want to be more well-read than 90% of people, read Wage Labor and Capital as well as Value, Price, and Profit. You can find these on the Marxist Internet Archive for free: marxists.org
No problem! There are a ton of useful works, the Manifesto of the Communist Party is fun and Principles of Communism is a good FAQ too, but VPP and WLaC make up the best 1-2 punch of Marxism you can get.
Kinda agree, as Marx’s critique of Liberalism/Capitalism is top-notch. However, the texts are so hard to read and it feels like you need an university degree to even be able to finish or grasp some of them.
Honestly I disagree but I wouldn’t mind seeing them coexist. But I say this because I’ve actually grown kind of fond of wojak so what the fuck do I know
Every single time Bill Gates gets mentioned in public conversation this needs to be the first thing said about him for the rest of his life. Given the power Bill Gates has he could have easily pushed for Covid vaccines to be made generic and saved tens of thousands? of lives.
This isn’t some pipe dream or unrealistic 20-20 hindsight no one could have had. All he had to was decide it was important to advocate for it and use his power to make it happen. It was no guarantee, but more than anyone else on the planet he has the public, private and monetary unilateral leverage to make something like that happen.
Given the complete lack of desperation or forced choices in Bill Gates life, the choice not to push for generics (and be a talking head on tv actively against them) can and should be seen as indiscriminate mass murder on a societal scale. In terms of world impact it obliterates everything Bill Gates built with windows, computers, all his philanthropy and involvement in medical science… ALL of it in one tidal wave of violence and brutal lack of compassion.
Makes me angry when I hear dumb conspiracies about Bill Gates when this is aspect is sitting there right in the open and it is so much more evil than most of the conspiracies (you know what is worse than having a chip in your head?Your loved one dying from Covid).
Correct me if i am wrong but DNSSEC has nothing to do with encryption of your request. It is used to verify that the record you received is from the correct authority. Furthermore your DNS requests have to go through your ISP even if you don’t use their DNS server as it is your only connection to the Internet.
The only thing you could do is encrypt the traffic somehow (dns over https exists), but then you have to trust that provider instead, and your ISP can still see the IP addresses you try to reach after you know them and might be able to still do a domain lookup using DNS if it is also configured to return the domain when looking up the IP. If they would put in the effort of course.
Correct, DNSSEC is like a signature, you can be reasonably sure that DNS wasn’t poisoned. If you’re looking for encrypted DNS, use DoH (DNS over HTTPS) or DoT (DNS over TLS).
While I have great confidence in my ISP, I use Quad9 as they also provide the above plus don’t do ECS (optional) and block malicious domains.
That’s not entirely true. It’s only very recently that browsers have started using a new system called Encrypted Client Hello which hides the domain of the request. Prior to this all requests needed too have the Host field unencrypted so the receiving server knows which certified to respond with. I imagine there’s still quite a few servers which don’t support the new setup still.
I don’t know about that. Technically it wouldn’t be necessary but I can see providers limiting you to a single IP instead of a /64 and needing to do it anyway, because the tech exists anyway. Or for privacy reasons. There is IPv6 NAT, after all…
I don’t see carrier grade NAT ever being used for IPv6. The extra equipment for that makes the network more expensive, less reliable, and introduces extra latency.
One thing ISPs are doing is still handing out dynamically assigned prefixes rather than static. Self hosting is still going to be a pain.
That’s not the ideology though, guillotine memes are essentially just pushing for revolutionary restructuring of the state and economy. Nobody simply thinks “kill rich” and stops thinking there.
The path to a better society is elimination of Capitalism, so Capitalists aren’t really going to agree to that, no matter how nice it would make things.
In this case it would be self-defense. The only reason anyone thinks otherwise is because the danger posed by a billionaire money hoarder is far more abstract than what most people are accustomed to.
This argument is basically the same as those put forward by the right wing nut jobs that think their second amendment rights to tote a rifle will let them fight against the US govt.
Just because a method functioned a couple centuries ago in a far simpler time, does not mean it will function today. Gotta keep up with the times there gramps.
Are you operating under the impression that the French Revolution created the current republic? If so, you’re missing many, many steps. One of which was a fellow named Napoleon who crowned himself emperor.
The important part is to direct the anger towards the real enemy: the leeches sucking our planet dry and planning their escape off world. „Left“ and „Right“ are categories we were told to think in, along with buzzwords like „neoliberal“ and „woke“.
As in the definition of a cult, special language is used to divide us further and cut us off from one another.
Even calling for guillotines is kind of the same thing. We should stop killing each other. Just seize everything they have and leave them fending for themselves, same as every one of us.
The idea that Capitalists are directly controlling the media and intentionally inflammatory to create endless culture war that divides the Proletariat against itself is a firmly leftist belief.
Leftists generally are correct and also morally superior to conservatives, yes. Conservativism is reactionary and opposes liberation, in favor of maintaining current power structures, even if it relies on outward hatred of the less fortunate.
Although it is understandable that you are frustrated with the „others“, I think the „right wing nutjobs“ are not what conservatism actually aspires to be.
If you read up on conservative values, the ideas are partly morally sound:
limited government
rule of law
fiscal responsibility
human dignity
Those were the only ones I could find that are most probably agreeable. I agree that fascists are evil but if we put everyone in that basket who wants to take care of their homeland we’re no better than them. We should know better.
There’s a difference between espoused values and practical plans. Conservatives want strong government, draconian punishment to keep people in line, limited social safety nets, and traditional gender roles and family structure. All of this is built on regressive outlook and results from reactionary outlook.
That is what current „conservative“ politicians in certain countries do. What I‘m saying is that we‘re only hurting ourselves if we hate each other. Instead we must agree on things and keep each other honest imo.
One reason why conservatives turn to right wing nutjobs is because someone (populists) promises them answers they can understand. The evidently more educated side instead looks down on them. Its obvious from the derogatory language some people use.
I‘m saying we wont make this world better by killing each other. The enemy is in control of the media and tries to cut off education (paywall it, dilute it) so we‘re easier to manipulate.
Correct, which is why the left needs to win over right wingers and convince the right to become left, as the right stands in support of this power structure.
I understand that your heart is in the right place, but this is woefully naive.
Convincing someone right wing to come to the left is to convince the right wing that the majority of profit should benefit labor. If the right believed that they deserved the products of their labor, they would be left.
Shaking hands with racists, sexists, homophobes, bigots, transphobes, etc. Is regressive and puts minority groups in danger.
The right does not see that they are victims of Capitalists. The left, does. Thus, the left need to bring the right to the left.
People have called me naive since I was very young, often getting enraged when I turned out to be right, which was often the case.
Agreeing on small things is what breaks the dams. You dont need to believe me, just try to live healthier, be more productive, etc. It doesnt work like that. Small changes lead to the big outcomes.
You might be shaking hands with child molesters, murderers and other scum in every group you’re in. That argument is defeatist. You‘d need to scan every person for every detail so you dont have to worry about their ideology being the wrong one.
I‘d say its your opinions that are a little short sighted tbh.
Buddy, right-wing is defined by supporting Capitalism, along with upholding racial, gender, and sexuality hierarchies.
The only way the right would work with the left to liberate themselves from Capitalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia, is if the right became left.
You aren’t making a profound statement, everyone agrees that the Proletariat should work together. However, in order to do so, the right must learn and become left.
Its the third time you‘re saying the same stuff. I suppose we must agree to disagree here. You go educate the cat to become a dog. I‘ll teach them to behave different. Good luck. :)
People aren’t born right wing, that’s absurd. You’re pretending that supporting Capitalism is genetic.
You aren’t teaching people how to behave differently, if you’re trying to convince the right that they deserve the value of their own labor, then you’re convincing them to be left! There’s no such thing as an anticapitalist right winger.
As in the definition of a cult, special language is used to divide us further and cut us off from one another.
Which definition of a cult is that? Because there is no scientific definition. There are models for high-control organizations (a term used specifically because “cult” has too much baggage for scientific methods), and language is only one aspect of information control. Every single organization on Earth will create its own language for things. That alone doesn’t mean they’re high-control.
I’ve been in a high-control organization. It doesn’t work like that, and I think diluting the term to cover such broad categories is insulting.
Saying something shares the mechanics of a cult is not insulting to someone who has been in a cult if that is what you mean.
Its a pattern I recognized. People fight over who is right and left, neo-contra-whatever. Its ultimately not informative and makes misunderstandings more common.
And what I‘m actually saying is that the media is controlled by the same people who benefit from us fighting instead of demanding housing prices go down immediately or wages go up accordingly. Its not that hard. We‘re just told its impossible.
I mean, technically displacing the air with that time machine on such a massive time scale is just as likely to result in returning to a civilization of dolphin people as riding a dinosaur would.
Or you shedding some of your microbiome’s bacteria and fungi into the environment and whoops: they outcompeted something “local” and now whole species change.
I honestly don’t think there’d be any way to avoid doing something that could possibly change the future in a dramatic way, because that far back incredibly minute changes could possibly lead to huge differences (because chaos theory), to the level of “a butterfly didn’t flap its wings because I accidentally squashed it with my time machine, and now humanity never happened. Oops.” But any change that means you didn’t ever go on your trip means you have some sort of paradox on your hands, and then it becomes a question of how timelines work
I think you could drastically minimize any impact by doing the time travel in space and merely observing from high orbit, assuming your time machine has no form of exhaust, which if you have a time machine seems like a relatively small engineering challenge by comparison.
You might displace a few atoms in the void, but it’s the safest way one could go about it.
Oh yeah, like an observation platform. That’s probably the only way you’d be doing time travel anyhow since it’s also space travel because the Earth now isn’t where the Earth was 200 million years ago; doing an atmospheric re-entry across time when you’re not 100% sure where exactly everything will be sounds like an occupational health hazard and inadvisable at best. Gods fucking help you if anything goes wrong and you violently scatter pieces of your fancy time machine across a few square km of densely populated (by animals including genus Homo) area.
Well, I don’t think time travel backwards in this manner is possible, but if it is, it would have to operate under the laws of thermodynamics which means the energy (and maybe even some of the atoms) that was “transported back in time” would represent a paradox.
The energy and/or some of the atoms in you and the time machine were already somewhere in the past when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Which presents a paradox (and this is probably not even the only paradox), so how does the universe conserve energy in that situation?
Somehow the “original” atoms and energy that became you and the machine would need to be reconciled with the duplicates that suddenly turned up.
So maybe there’s a mysterious process that obliterates energy? What would it be and how would it work? Would that be equivalent to the false vacuum that could fundamentally destroy the universe as we currently know it?
Or maybe there’s nothing to actually stop duplication of energy and atoms and it’s entirely feasible to go back in time. You take the time machine back, see some dinos from space, and you managed to otherwise not change a thing. That means in some dozens of million years, you and that machine will be sent back to exactly the same time and location again because nothing has changed. Bam, now you and that time machine are in triplicate. But, with nothing really changing, the same process will occur again and again. Does it reach a point where there’s so much duplicated energy / matter that something fundamentally different has to happen? Would all those duplicate yous and time machines coalesce into a giant cosmic object that comes crashing down to the Earth like a giant asteroid, thus killing off most dinosaurs and paving the way for human evolution? Hmmm.
Luckily, as far as we understand things, there’s no way to go back in time (only less fast to the future, which isn’t the same). For one thing, because there’s no backup mechanism for reality to jump back to.
Timelines are fiction. They hurt some fundamental principles of how the universe works. Time isn’t like a river or a line at all; better start thinking of time like the air around you: it’s just there, can be formed, affects things but there can’t be less than none.
Aww, it’s ok. And it’s good to point out that time travel to the past very likely isn’t a thing, people sometimes assume it’s something we’ll eventually be able to do
I'm just curious how we'll define "realistic", because someone who's into just software programming might be satisfied with a studio apartment. I can't live without my basement workshop however. I like to make stuff.
I don’t think we need to make this literally true - we can put in a lot of wiggle room, because we just need to restrict doing this at scale
Say, no more than 2 homes per household, 1 extra for each additional adult. You want a vacation house, or a place near work? Fine. You want to buy another house and take your time moving? Fine. You want both? Make some compromises.
Or we could make the limit 5 per household - that would be excessive, but if they couldn’t rent them out it would still decomodify housing, because it’s people buying homes at scale that really is killing us
From there, you’d crack down locally - if you want to live in the boonies, I don’t care if you have 5 acres. If you live in a city with a housing shortage, maybe you only get a certain square footage per person, maybe certain areas are primary residence only, or however you want to slice it
Looks like some weird artifact. The original author deleted all his original tweets back in October, so I can’t find the original; but he did retweet Stephen King’s quote tweet of someone else’s tweet of a screenshot of his original tweet (wow I hate that sentence) and that screenshot doesn’t have this artifact in it.
They match up so exactly that I’m pretty convinced this has to have originally been the same image, just mangled by some sort of an uploader or something.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.