Religion is ignorance and refusal to face reality.
As long as people behave, treat others, and vote according to the sacred scriptures written by a crackhead thousands of years ago, and their influence shapes the world around me and puts a limit to my freedom, then there will be no distinction between religion and extremism. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
I’m a pansexual protestant Christian skepticist, who has not once tried to convert anyone and votes for far left parties. Please enlighten me how I’m inherently ignorant and taking your freedom.
Despite millenia of disproven lies about a non existing almighty being, you still believe this being indeed does exist and indeed is almighty without ever having any measurable effect on the world whatsoever.
How is that not ignorant?
and taking your freedom.
I don’t support the statement that you personally take away anyones freedom.
But organized churches have a long standing tradition of suppression and if you are part of one you support that at least indirectly.
Corporations have been stealing ever since the dawn of time, anyone working under a big company willingly is not the one to blame, and also what’s with this ‘I know everything’ stuff in the comments section? Is your only basis of hating 90% of the world’s population is that they believe in a god? If anyone can tell for a fact that God doesn’t exist, go on, but everyone knows its a matter of choice and you can’t prove that god doesn’t exist
But I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and reply to your specific points.
Corporations have been stealing ever since the dawn of time, anyone working under a big company willingly is not the one to blame
That is a strawman argument.
In most societies people are more or less forced to work for some employer, so I think it is hard to blame a worker for the company he works for.
And additionally I think one can blame a worker if they choose to work for the ethically worst companies.
Is your only basis of hating 90% of the world’s population is that they believe in a god?
That is very insulting.
I don’t hate religious people, my mother is deeply religious and I truly love her.
But she is misguided and gives time, effort, believe and most of all money to an organization that still to this day promotes homophobia, suppresses women and staunchly defends child rapists.
I don’t like that and I won’t stop criticizing it.
but everyone knows its a matter of choice and you can’t prove that god doesn’t exist
Off course it is your prerogative to believe in god.
I wouldn’t ever want to ban you from believing in whatever you want.
But you shouldn’t be surprised if people put you in the same category with people believing in a flat earth or something like that.
If you just choose to believe random stuff without evidence than it is only natural that your opinion is not taken seriously.
It is not like there are two equally valid theories about what to believe.
One group believes in things if there is proof and one group believes in things because some dude from the bronze ages wrote it down.
I am gonna make an apology for the fact that I am getting a little bit excited, which might be becoming apparent, religion is a complex subject and discussing so much matter is a bit complex and no one here in the comments seems to be interested in having a discussion but rather spouting nonsense against 90% of the world
But I will agree that I am also against giving money to organizations that promotes hate, whether it’s affiliated with religion or not, that money is better spent on a better cause, and I also respect the fact that you don’t hate religious people, but also there are lots of institutions affiliated with religion that work for a good cause, a lot of churches and mosque provide shelter, gurudwaras are famous for providing food, atleast where I live
The thing is I don’t think a person should be judged for their beliefs but rather they should be judged based on their actions, a person kills someone, it should be condemned, no matter if he is a priest or the pope, a person donates money to the charity and helps someone, that should be praised, no matter what he believes personally about god
Me believing in a flat earth is me disbelieving in a proven fact, you would be right to call me dumb, but there is no study that disproves the existence of god, so if anyone believes in one, you can’t call him/her dumb because it’s not against any proven fact, it’s just that he thinks that life around him is enough evidence that someone out there exists, and there is nothing unscientific or unreasonable about that, and spouting hate comments against them and claiming they are dumb, banning them for wearing a piece of clothing is just wrong, no matter how you look at it.
Nobody is saying that people should be judged by their religion. People here are saying Religion itself encourages anti-science and bigoted views.
Secondly, it’s absolutely unscientific to believe that the lack of disproof is sufficient evidence for belief. This is fundamentally unreasonable and is just as much proof as saying that pigs can fly when nobody observes them.
No, religious people are not morally wrong for being religious, and they are not to blame. Religion itself is.
Listen everyone! According to cowbee, we should make sure that from now on, nobody will ever put out any hypothesis ever again! It’s absolutely unscientific! Any claim should be absolutely 100% correct and if not, we should leave it at there!
Believing firmly in a hypothesis without confirmation of said hypothesis is not sound. Again, pigs flying when nobody can see them, and firmly believing in it.
This gets additionally dicey when religion is used as a tool to restrict women’s rights, and uphold homophobia, transphobia, and racism.
The scientific method works by creating a hypothesis, and testing it to verify. It does not work by creating a hypothesis and firmly believing in it until its disproven. You take an agnostic approach until confirmed one way or the other.
Hey first and foremost, thanks for the good faith discussion.
I want you to be reassured that I don’t hate you for your religion.
And I don’t think you or any religious person is necessarily dumb.
We just happen to fundamentally disagree on certain points that seem to hold at least some value for both our lives.
And I will gladly admit that believing in god has the fundamental difference to believing in a flat earth that you described. The flat earth is soundly disproven and the existence of god is not.
I would in reply try to refine my point to saying that I think believing in god is comparable to believing in the easter bunny or the often quoted flying spaghetti monster (that I purposefully didn’t want to invoke earlier).
Yes you are absolutely free to believe in any of those things.
I would fight to defend your right to believe in them.
But I cannot ever accept it as truth or even an educated opinion to hold without any proof pointing specifically towards the existence of any god.
And not to end on a negative note.
I love life around me, I love nature, I love animals.
I think the world is a wonder.
I do not believe any god made it the way it is.
I have no reason to believe that.
I just love it for itself.
Despite millenia of disproven lies about a non existing almighty being, you still believe this being indeed does exist
There is a whole area in Philosophy called Philosophy of Religion that would really like your disproof of the existence of such a being. They have atheists and theists alike.
I don’t have to proof something doesn’t exist, someone that wants to be taken seriously has to proof why they would believe something does positively exist.
If you are claiming something doesn’t exist you should prove it. Why should I take your argument seriously without proof? You see how this goes both ways?
If something exists it should be easy to prove. There should be some form of sign of it.
This is absolutely not true. Things can exist without being accessible to you directly in a manner that makes it easy to prove their existence.
On the other hand it is hard to disprove the existence of anything at all. How do we know there is not some teapot in outer space?
Proving non-existence is not always hard. If we were arguing about the food in your fridge and I were claiming you had food in your fridge when you did not you could easily prove me wrong by just showing me the contents of your fridge.
More importantly, why does the hardness of doing a thing give you special status to make claims without proof? Seems like you are artificially constructing rules here solely because they benefit your position.
We can’t. But that is no reason to believe there is one.
The universe is massive. There are teapots here. Why is it not plausible to believe some other alien race would not also construct some kind of teapot? Also, consider the fact that all teapots here on earth are literally teapots in “outerspace” in some sense.
I agree with your points. I just want to add that what OP was talking about is that the existence of a deity or higher power is not falsifiable and thus is impossible to logically disprove. I’m sure many, many, many people have tried on both sides.
My favorite proof against any higher power is from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy:
Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don’t. QED.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
“Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Edit: changes “logically prove” to “logically disprove” as that’s why the concept of a higher power cannot be disproven.
My issue here is with what I perceive as bad argumentation, double standards and general ignorance to the field of study where these sorts of questions are applicable on the part of the person I am replying to.
Edit: I want to be clear that I’m not saying you are doing that. I am referring to the other people I have been replying to.
More importantly, why does the hardness of doing a thing give you special status to make claims without proof?
It doesn’t. But, “God doesn’t exist” is not a claim, it is a counter-claim to the claim “God exists”. The very concept of a higher power didn’t even exist until people started claiming without evidence that it did exist, and it’s been many branching games of telephone of that original unproven claim since then that has resulted in basically every major religion.
The counter-claim of “God doesn’t exist” needs no proof beause it is countering a claim that also has no proof. If and when the original multiple millenium old claim of “God exists” actually has some proof to back it up, then the counter-claim would need to either have actual proof as well to support it, or debunk the “evidence” if possible. But again, the original claim is literally thousands of years old and still has absolute bupkis to prove it, so… I’m not too worried.
ETA:
The universe is massive. There are teapots here. Why is it not plausible to believe some other alien race would not also construct some kind of teapot? Also, consider the fact that all teapots here on earth are literally teapots in “outerspace” in some sense.
The other person you replied to worded this bit poorly. The original analogy is trying to convince people on Earth to believe that there is a teapot(which is too small to see with a telescope) orbiting the Sun independently somewhere in between Earth’s and Mars’ orbits. It’s completely illogical to believe seeing as humans haven’t sent anything without scientific value beyond maybe the moon, and there’s no evidence aliens have visited our solar system let alone left a teapot in orbit. But since it can’t be proven there isn’t a teapot orbiting by itself, does that mean you should believe there is? No, of course not.
It doesn’t. But, “God doesn’t exist” is not a claim, it is a counter-claim to the claim “God exists”.
I’d agree that at least sometimes it is a counter claim, but I don’t agree that counter claims aren’t claims themselves. The wording “counter claim” seems to me to indicate that “counter claims” are just claims of a particular type?
“God doesn’t exist” is surely a statement right? If I tell you “god doesn’t exist” (in response or not to something you’ve said), this feels like I am claiming the statement “god doesn’t exist” is true.
The very concept of a higher power didn’t even exist until people started claiming without evidence that it did exist, and it’s been many branching games of telephone of that original unproven claim since then that has resulted in basically every major religion.
I absolutely agree with you on this point.
The counter-claim of “God doesn’t exist” needs no proof beause it is countering a claim that also has no proof. If and when the original multiple millenium old claim of “God exists” actually has some proof to back it up, then the counter-claim would need to either have actual proof as well to support it, or debunk the “evidence” if possible. But again, the original claim is literally thousands of years old and still has absolute bupkis to prove it, so… I’m not too worried.
I don’t think we need proof to reject a claim like “god exists”. There’s no real good evidence for it and all attempts at proofs of this in the history of the philosophy of religion have been analyzed and critiqued to death in some pretty convincing ways.
But, there is to me a difference between rejecting the truth of a claim vs excepting the truth of its denial. So, for example if you tell me tax code says X, that is not a proof of what tax code says. It would make sense for me to not outright believe you (since we are strangers), but you could be telling the truth, so it seems equally silly for me to immediately jump to believing tax code doesn’t say X too.
“God doesn’t exist” is surely a statement right? If I tell you “god doesn’t exist” (in response or not to something you’ve said), this feels like I am claiming the statement “god doesn’t exist” is true.
This ties into the part you absolutely agreed with. The word “God” as it is defined now would not exist without the original unproven claims that God. Even if you’re not responding “God doesn’t exist” directly to someone who said “God exists”, you are if nothing else still responding to the original millennia old claim that they do exist. For that reason, it is always a counter-claim.
As for what makes counter-claims different from regular claims, it’s simply that the burden of proof lies first with the original claim. A counter-claim has no responsibility to prove their claim until such time as the original claim presents evidence supporting itself.
I don’t think we need proof to reject a claim like “god exists”. There’s no real good evidence for it and all attempts at proofs of this in the history of the philosophy of religion have been analyzed and critiqued to death in some pretty convincing ways.
I absolutely agree. That was kinda my point. If the claim ever did get some actually noteworthy evidence, then it would certainly need to be properly proven or disproven… but I don’t think that will ever happen.
So, for example if you tell me tax code says X, that is not a proof of what tax code says. It would make sense for me to not outright believe you (since we are strangers), but you could be telling the truth, so it seems equally silly for me to immediately jump to believing tax code doesn’t say X too.
The problem with that is I at least in theory could have looked up the tax code, remembered it, and then told you it correctly. Sure, I could have lied or remembered wrong, but it was 100% within my capacity to give you the accurate information, and even show you where I got the information from. With a claim about God’s existence, that’s impossible for either side of the debate as far as we know, and since the original claim was “God exists”, that side is, possibly forever, stuck holding the burden of proof.
This ties into the part you absolutely agreed with. The word “God” as it is defined now would not exist without the original unproven claims that God. Even if you’re not responding “God doesn’t exist” directly to someone who said “God exists”, you are if nothing else still responding to the original millennia old claim that they do exist. For that reason, it is always a counter-claim.
If I say god doesn’t exist to you I feel like I’m making a true or false factual claim to YOU rather than to a bunch of old dead people or some greater historical/cultural context. The history of the word/definition might be relevant for deciding what the word means, but the claim is aimed at YOU. The actual truth status of the claim (even if we call it a counter-claim) that I might be making is either true or false (assuming we subscribe to bivalence like that) regardless of the history or culture that lead us to the discussion.
As for what makes counter-claims different from regular claims, it’s simply that the burden of proof lies first with the original claim. A counter-claim has no responsibility to prove their claim until such time as the original claim presents evidence supporting itself
It seems like a silly double standard for only one side to have a burden to prove their claim, but the other gets to claim the negation is true with no burden of proof.
For example, if you say “2+2 is 4” and my response is “NO IT IS NOT. IT IS 3! I REFUSE TO PROVE IT THOUGH”, not only will I be wrong in a classical arithmetic sense but I have presented no argument for why you ought to believe my new counter claim to your original claim. It would make no sense to believe me without more info in such a case.
The problem with that is I at least in theory could have looked up the tax code, remembered it, and then told you it correctly. Sure, I could have lied or remembered wrong, but it was 100% within my capacity to give you the accurate information, and even show you where I got the information from. With a claim about God’s existence, that’s impossible for either side of the debate as far as we know, and since the original claim was “God exists”, that side is, possibly forever, stuck holding the burden of proof.
The fact that you can look up tax code is not really a problem for my hypothetical example. It is not particularly hard to come up with hypotheticals where you just can’t easily obtain the answer. We could rephrase the context, perhaps we are stranded on a desert island? We could rephrase the question, perhaps it is about what some obscure historical figure had in their pockets on the day they died?
To be clear, I’m not trying to argue for or against the existence of god. My issue is that there should be a burden of proof for the CLAIMS “god exists” and “god does not exist” if somebody is claiming either is true. I don’t think there’s any kind of burden for believing some random claim without proof, but I think it’s silly to commit to the negation of a claim without proof unless you have a reason to believe the negation. You can always just not commit and say you don’t know in such a case, rather than believing the claim or its negation.
It seems like a silly double standard for only one side to have a burden to prove their claim, but the other gets to claim the negation is true with no burden of proof.
Why is it silly that the claim originally presented should have to present evidence first? The counter-claim only has zero burden of proof so long as the original claim has failed to give any proof of their own.
For example, if you say “2+2 is 4” and my response is “NO IT IS NOT. IT IS 3! I REFUSE TO PROVE IT THOUGH”, not only will I be wrong in a classical arithmetic sense but I have presented no argument for why you ought to believe my new counter claim to your original claim. It would make no sense to believe me without more info in such a case.
You wouldn’t have to present an argument yet, at that stage. I’d think you’re really dumb for needing something like that proven to you, but the initial burden of proof would still be on me. However, when I quickly and easily provide proof that 2 + 2 does equal 4, THEN the burden of proof falls to you to prove your counter-claim.
Why is it silly that the claim originally presented should have to present evidence first? The counter-claim only has zero burden of proof so long as the original claim has failed to give any proof of their own.
That’s not what I’m claiming. I’m saying the claim AND counter-claim should provide evidence/proof before either one is accepted. Blindly believing not B because you can’t prove B is just as bad in my opinion as believing B itself with no proof.
You wouldn’t have to present an argument yet, at that stage. I’d think you’re really dumb for needing something like that proven to you, but the initial burden of proof would still be on me. However, when I quickly and easily provide proof that 2 + 2 does equal 4, THEN the burden of proof falls to you to prove your counter-claim.
A lack of evidence or proof for some claim B is not sufficient proof for not B. It doesn’t really matter what claim we assign to B here.
For example, you might not have evidence/proof that it will rain today (i.e. B is the statement “it will rain today”), that doesn’t give you sufficient evidence/proof to now claim that it will not rain today. You just don’t know either way.
I said there are millenia worth of disproven lies.
Which there are.
Like that the whole world was flooded and repopulated by one single family, which is disproven by DNA samples.
Or that it is gods will that priest stay unmarried, which is historically agreed that it was a measure to keep wealth inside the church organization.
Or so so many more.
I never said there was prove god doesn’t exist.
And like I said, there doesn’t need to be as long as there is no documented sign whatsoever that points towards god actually existing.
I see where I misunderstood. To reframe, you’re saying that claims made by various religions/churches, which are presented as evidence of God, have been disproven, not that God has been disproven.
Obviously, the fact of whether or not there is a creator cant really be disproven, but I would say that any of the gods conjured up by humans have a pretty substantial amount of evidence going against their existence.
If there is a creator of some kind, it is so far beyond our comprehension that it is pretty much useless to ponder on.
Also, I’m not the person you were going back and forth with. I apologize for jumping in the conversation at a strange point.
I never said there was prove god doesn’t exist. And like I said, there doesn’t need to be as long as there is no documented sign whatsoever that points towards god actually existing.
You also said: “A nonexistent almighty being”. Did you mean no gods exist, or did you mean all the gods people claim to exist so far have been debunked?
More importantly, for the claim “no god exists” specifically, I disagree that no proof is required in general. There needs to be an actual proof as much as there needs to be a proof of the negation, that “a god exists”, for either to be worth accepting. If neither can be proved, why commit to believing the truth of either?
Additionally, disproving particular examples doesn’t prove the general rule. Having no documented sign pointing to the existence of a god does not confirm the absence of a god anymore than having no documented signs of a gas leak in your home confirms the absence of a gas leak in your home. Perhaps the detector you are using is broken, perhaps the type of gas leaking in your home is not detectable by your detector.
It would also be incredibly hard to design any kind of empirical test to confirm or disconfirm the existence of gods in general (not just the christian flavored ones).
“Academic philosopher Michael V. Antony (2010) argued that despite the use of Hitchens’s razor to reject religious belief and to support atheism, applying the razor to atheism itself would seem to imply that atheism is epistemically unjustified. According to Antony, the New Atheists (to whom Hitchens also belonged) invoke a number of special arguments purporting to show that atheism can in fact be asserted without evidence.”
If only you could read, maybe you’d be more tolerant, but I doubt it, sigh.
The sheer arrogance to post a philosophical minority opinion paired with an insult and then end it with a sigh.
And while I am not particularly familiar with Mr. Antony’s work I can tell you that he either didn’t understand or purposefully misused Hitchen’s Razor insofar as you indeed can not apply it to Atheism the same way you can apply it to christianity.
The reason for that being that there is no particular thing at all you have to believe to be an atheist.
Atheism in and of itself doesn’t assert anything at all.
So there is nothing that could be dismissed.
Atheism says there is no reason to believe in god.
How does Hitchen’s Razor dismiss that? It doesn’t.
Not to mention your quote still is no argument towards the positive existence of god.
And if you don’t show me how I am supposed to be intolerant, I will take it as the baseless insult that it is and will no longer discuss with you.
Atheism says gods doesn’t exist. So yes, it very much goes both way.
Stop moving the goal post. You’re just an intolerant cunt that freely bash on people, insisting that any form of belief is bad, because you can’t conceive a good one in your defective brain.
I’m not trying to prove that gods exist, as unlike you, I’m not saying gods exist, because I don’t care about proving or disproving either way. I don’t feel so egocentric that I need others people to feel like I do.
It helps some people, and the only viable and truly defensible position is agnosticism. And like everything with humans, yes, it is sometimes used for evil. If that’s your argument, you’re against everything a human can ever use and you should become an hermit.
A cunty intolerant hermit, when you think about it, which would prolly help people more than the stupid points you’re trying to make.
PS : You’ve already proven your incredibly limited view by stating before that religion = Christianity basically.
It seems like you should understand my point/position before you reply to me if you want this conversation to be productive? Why is understanding those things irrelevant to you?
Why is understanding those things irrelevant to you?
Because philosophy, debate and logic were part of the basic school curriculum when I was a kid, and as a result I understand your particular subjective perpective is irrelevant to this conversation…
I’m “oh-so-focused” on that because you’re “oh-so-focused” on telling me about “empirical investigations” that disprove the existence of gods, which have literally nothing at all to do with my point.
The lack of reading comprehension here is definitely on your end.
Me (sans-snarkyness) in the original comment you replied to: “Hey, the field of philosophy where this stuff is studied is called philosophy of religion. Proofs for and against the existence of a god have been critiqued to shit there. You should read about it.”
You: “Oh yeah! Well I can disprove any god you like.”
Congrats? Do you want a gold star or something?
Go study philosophy of religion. These kinds of proofs and disproofs are part of that field along with their critiques. That’s the point I’m making in the comment you originally replied to. Nothing about my point is subjective.
Sorry for getting your panties in a twist over paraphrasing your totally irrelevant point. Please understand, I don’t give a shit about what you think you can prove or disprove.
Any supernatural phenomenon, upon rigorous delineation, becomes provably false
Great point, one of the MAJOR challenges with arguments about whether a god does or does not exist is that the whole notion of a god is incredibly vague and not “rigorously delineated” in a general sense. Literally any introductory course in philosophy of religion would point this out.
Great point, one of the MAJOR challenges with arguments about whether a god does or does not exist is that the whole notion of a god is incredibly vague and not “rigorously delineated” in a general sense. Literally any introductory course in philosophy of religion would point this out.
So not only are you functionally illiterate, but you’re also largely ignorant of the field you claim to have some sort of knowledge on. Great going, chief. Just a little headsup - philosophy isn’t short for “we talk about shit while holding a beer”.
Have you studied philosophy of religion? Sounds a lot like you haven’t. Maybe reading up on it will help you? You can fix your reading comprehension and also learn not to say the dumbest shit possible on topics of religion. It’s really a win-win for you.
I think you understand neither what a skepticist is, nor how religion or free churches work. And by your logic I assume you have to be an anarchist, since every government that ever existed - or society for that matter - has exercised some form of suppression.
I think your overgeneralizing, intollerant way of thinking is sickening and hardly better than that of a racist or sexist.
And please don’t tell me what my beliefs are. That’s pretty church-y of you.
I think you understand neither what a skepticist is, nor how religion or free churches work.
Well you’re wrong in both, but I am curious why you would think that.
And by your logic I assume you have to be an anarchist,
Hilariously wrong here.
since every government that ever existed - or society for that matter - has exercised some form of suppression.
Care to explain what that has to do with anything I said in this thread?
I think your overgeneralizing, intollerant way of thinking is sickening and hardly better than that of a racist or sexist.
And I think you resort to personal insults because you have no valid arguments against my positions.
But please humor me and tell me how I am intolerant in an comparable way to a racist or sexist.
And please don’t tell me what my beliefs are. That’s pretty church-y of you.
I’m a pansexual protestant Christian
Are you kidding me? You told about your beliefs yourself.
And it’s especially rich after your whole post made assumptions about me.
Well you’re wrong in both, but I am curious why you would think that.
You claim I believe in an almighty being, yet this is a key point where a skepticist might disagree with your average Christian. Moreover you claim I am supporting oppression, yet you don’t even have the slightest idea what church I’m in and what they do or ever did. So you seem to have either huge misconceptions or you are prejudiced to a point where you are dismissive of anything that doesn’t fit your narrative.
I’m a pansexual protestant Christian
Are you kidding me? You told about your beliefs yourself.
This just shows how you don’t view Christians as individuals at all. Claiming to know exactly what I believe in based on that sole statement is exactly as silly as me claiming: ‘I know what you believe, because your are an atheist.’ Acting like you know a strangers beliefs for certain is arrogant to say the least.
Care to explain what that has to do with anything I said in this thread?
Well, you judge churches based on the fact that some where oppressive in the past (and yes, I know some are still today). Based on that you either have to hate pretty much all governments, since it obviously doesn’t matter whether anything have changed, or you have double standards.
And I think you resort to personal insults because you have no valid arguments against my positions.
If you feel attacked by me calling out your intolerant and overgeneralizing way of thinking, that’s just because you are unable to defend yourself against a fact. Your words leave no other conclusion than that your are extremely prejudiced against Christians. You might have expressed yourself badly once, but you doubled down on your hate and ignorance. You might have good reasons for it, but would you excuse someone being racist for having had bad encounters with an ethnic group? Just as you probably wouldn’t, neither do I excuse your statements about Christians.
I didn’t want to reply at all because it is starting to get ridiculous and noone else keeps reading this.
But please just for the sake of being honest, show me where I am intolerant or hateful?
I replied to other comments in this thread as well, there should be plenty to pick from.
Show me my intolerance, show me my hate.
I even make it easier for you.
I think religion is a cancer to society.
I think all religions are basically cults.
Make a straightforward argument how my statements are either hateful or intolerant.
Because while those statements are my honest opinion, I am still strongly in favour of freedom of religion.
I would never forbid anyone from practicing their religion as long as they don’t infringe on someone else’s rights in doing so.
I don’t hate anyone for being religious. There are wonderful religious people.
Still I think they are wonderful despite their religion, not because of it.
I don’t even hate you, despite your ongoing insults towards me.
I just think you are very wrong on a fundamental level and haven’t yet learned to deal with being told so.
Care to back your statement that ‘religion’ is ignorant? No one has any Idea what happens after death or are you enlightened enough to know and which case I would like you to tell us, which religion is taking away your freedom? You have the choice, you can follow any religion or leave it
What happens after is that brain stops functioning, as a result of that, your body starts to rot. Nothing else happens. Your brain, that I argue is the real you, stops functioning.
which religion is taking away your freedom?
My parents circumcised my penis when I didn’t know what they were doing, they permanently stole a part of me; and as a result of that crap, my sex life is ruined forever. They took away my freedom because of you shitheads who are ruining our world by influencing people into accepting religion. You guys have the audacity to claim that people have a choice after indoctrinating children of religions so that once they are adult they follow your religion.
If you are so about choices, then make sure your kids don’t get to know about superstitious beliefs until they are an adult and only then tell them about your fantasies that you believe that a bearded man is watching us from the sky. I bet your kid is going to think you’ve gone crazy.
Unfortunately I don’t think you will be able to actually getting anything from them. They clearly already look down on you for believing what you believe.
I don’t get what your sexuality has to do with anything, but anyhow.
Why do you have to be {insert cult-membership here} if you believe in something? Don’t dare to believe {whatever} for yourself? Do you need to be told what to believe and how? You don’t make it sound like that, yet you are christian, hence member of said cult? I don’t get the correlation. Why does one rarely hear people say “i believe in some god, but I’m not a member of blahblah”?
When I was studying for PMP, I remember there was even a term for this. Because you’re good at one thing, it was expected that you would be good at something else as well, not taking into consideration that managing people is completely different from the domain they were an expert on. Of course, sometimes it helps to have some previous domain knowledge to be able to lead a specific team, but that doesn’t mean it’s automatic.
What companies really need to realise is that there should be different promotion tracks, and some of them are individualistic, i.e. being promoted as an expert in their field, rather than being promoted to have to manage people.
I wonder who is doing this voting? Oh, it’s people who live in the areas we can’t afford to live in. And capitalists add lobbying power to those voters selfish interests.
Go to/watch any planning or proposal meeting and watch the pearl clutching and nimbyism. I think you know this but you want to demand “studies” instead of engaging in good faith.
In the United States at least, your local government’s public hearings for new housing developments kinda begs to differ.
People will demand the homeless be eliminated from their area while simultaneously opposing development of housing or shelters for the homeless in their area.
So maybe you’re right though: they don’t hate the apartments more, they simply can’t make up their mind on which they hate more.
I think it’s more so that people don’t want an apartment complex built in their backyard, not that they are opposed to them being built in an area where there is proper infrastructure
Well there’s considerable difference between an apartment complex in a suburb not designed for heavy traffic and less developed areas where there’s room for expansion for infrastructure.
We can’t expand roads in my area, either for an extra lane (which I know is a sin) or for buses because it would be right up on houses at that point.
However, just a few miles down the road on the main drag, there’s undeveloped land that would be perfect. Build it there.
When I say “backyard” I mean literally in your backyard. Instead of name calling and downvoting, have a fucking conversation and ask in a respectful manner what somebody means. Stop being a douche because you automatically assume somebody who thinks slightly differently than you is wrong.
I wasn’t being mean spirited with my original comment, it was a legitimate question. Whenever I hear people say something like “I don’t want that!” I like to find out why. It’s just curiosity. Sorry if it came across mean.
Well articulated. I’m not from the US, but I’ve seen housing developments go sideways when they built four 10-story blocks (not in somebody’s back yard, but in an area without proper infrastructure) and after 1000ish people had moved in there were 1 hour long queues just to get out of the complex because there was only one road with one lane per direction. And the only bus stop was not really reliable.
This was not built in the middle of the city because of land availability (and huge prices even if there was land available - you’re near the metro and tram and a bus stop? pay 50% more. oh, you’re near a park too? pay 50% more on top of that). Should we just tear down old buildings in low density areas in the city to make room for big blocks? Some might be worth tearing down because of age and overall condition, but good luck getting people to move out.
I agree but want to say everyone jumps to homeless. There are a ton of normal people that are suffering from high rent, lack of options, etc. We need to think about way more than homeless.
Most people think homeless as jobless, etc. But when we have people with entirely ok jobs that can’t afford rent (see people living in their cars), addressing basic normal housing addresses both for a startling amount.
Aside from zoning laws, there’s the lack of a unified federal intervention. This prevents any one area from addressing the local homeless issue because any area that takes steps to address it will consequently absorb more homeless individuals from other places in the country. For example, if a city in California develops a program to house any homeless individuals, then homeless individuals from other cities and states will be more likely to go to said city to get housed. Even worse, there are states that would actually pay for their transportation. What would happen is that either the city would have to solve a much larger homeless problem as new homeless move into town, or the initial wave of homeless people will be house while the new arrivals and homeless will stay homeless, leaving a continued homeless problem.
Sure they do. Look at all of the posts from my neighbors on Facebook and Nextdoor every time a developer tries to build an apartment building instead of a single family home in our neighborhood.
We’re not building homes, we’re not focussing on density. But apparently our elected officials have no problem letting people set up shanty towns. Where do you think the priorities lay?
Most people just don't understand that being really good at something doesn't mean you can't be terrible at something else. Like, I can problem solve a wide variety of things, but there are a few things that I just have no success at even if I know the problem and the likely solution.
The most infuriating one for me is that if I can't see something then I cannot line it up right. A screw or bolt out of view means I have a 50/50 chance of ever getting it started even though I know how I can move it to fit in. Like I know to tilt and whatever, but without a visual frame it becomes impossible. A ton of people just yell me I am not trying hard enough, even though attempting to learn for decades hasn't worked out for me.
But with even the slightest view I can get it started no problem. Being told I am not trying hard enough is infuriating when I am just being honest that it is my limitation.
Alternatively, I’ve met plenty of people who are so desperate to climb the ladder that, even knowing full well their deficiencies, they climb to a level where those deficiencies become detrimental for everyone around them.
If you aren’t a good organizer, and climb into an organization centric position, that’s 100% on you. If you aren’t a good leader and take a coordinating position, that’s on you. If you aren’t good at lining up blind screws, and you knew that was a core competency for your job when you took it, that’s on you. It’s not that I expect you to be “smart enough to overcome” whatever you’re bad at, but you shouldn’t be in positions where something you’re bad at, but can’t overcome, is a major part of your duties.
At that point, yes, I’m going to be “mean” and directly point out your deficiencies.
It seems like you’re describing the phenomenon where people get promoted up until the point where they don’t do a good job anymore.
I never knew how people can not see that the position was not for them and still accept it, and even work the job for years.
I could take a job where I had the technical responsibility for what my team makes, but I don’t ever want to be anybodys boss. All of that personal stuff on a day to day basis, negotiating pay, etc just isn’t for me.
It’s actually insane how many teachers and other education professionals waved me off with ‘you’re smart enough, just try harder’ while I was obviously suicidally depressed and extremely dysfunctional. Having undiagnosed autism because I was a teenage girl in the '00s was fun.
You’re not wrong. My nan died the other day, fucking guy didn’t even take of his cap as they carried her through the kitchen to the backdoor. The box of Zatteran’s at least bowed its head.
I need more details. Let’s get to the bottom of this. How long had it been been since you arrived home? Were you standing or sitting down? Holding any drinks? How heavy is your backpack?
Yeah I feel like we’re getting somewhere now. At first I was on OP’s side, but now I’m imagining them like sitting on the sofa drinking a Diet Dr Pepper while watching Judge Judy reruns and half carrying on a conversation with their dad while wearing their backpack. Then after Judge Judy renders her verdict, dad is suddenly like “why are you wearing a backpack?” Then OP gets defensive and weird, and finally we find ourselves at the situation in the meme.
That would be pretty weird if if I did that. But in case anyone is curious, It was a few minutes after I had just gotten home from college and went inside the house and then went over to my dad to say hi before going to my room. He immediately asked me why I had my backpack on and I told him that I had just gotten back from college. It was at that moment he told me that wearing a backpack while talking to someone was weird. My Mom later walked in and asked what we were yelling about and she then started laughing because of how stupid the conversation was. I was standing the entire time we were arguing.
Is this a first time occurrence? Has there ever been any other indication of your dad’s discomfort around people wearing backpacks? There might be some history here that you’re not aware of. Some past bad experience he had. A kind of PTSD.
Ok maybe now he’s on to something. Did you just like get home and start pacing around with your backpack on? At that point why would you still have your backpack on lol
Idk, I talked with a bartender once who said he thought it would be amazing to drive one, and I said I didn’t think I could stomach it because of Musk, and he said I shouldn’t get political over a car. Well, they don’t interest me enough to ignore the Elon part.
I rented one in California. I was never been so frustrated with a car before in my life. There are no knobs, for ANYTHING. Everything is done through the touchscreen. Try navigating the A/C system in traffic. Or as the sun goes down and the screen brightness doesn’t dim, blinding you as you drive. I will never buy a Tesla, and it starts with the UI of the car. Elon is just the icing on that shit cake.
I watched a friend of mine try to parallel park hers once and just about died laughing at how shit the autopark was. She said it kept determining that the right lane was actually the curb, so it would go through all of the motions of parking and then just stop in the middle of the street. Every time I read about or interact with a Tesla, I feel like I find out about something else they added because it looks or sounds cool but doesn’t actually work.
This is one of the criticisms of the car that hits home for me. People are now replacing old Teslas which they bought ‘full self driving’ for without ever receiving the feature.
The UI is not the worst I’ve ever had in a car, it sacrifices a lot in favor of simplicity and/or software but a lot of simple tasks can be done through voice or happen automatically.
Wipers are auto, headlights are auto, but if you need to adjust them without using a voice command, you’re gonna say “why can’t this just be like a normal car”
You do get used to a lot of the quirks pretty quick. But there are a lot of quirks to get used to.
Not an Elon fan, just got one for a steal of a deal through a family member.
Same exact story. The whole first 2 hours I’m constantly having my kids Google Google how to lock the car, how do we adjust the mirrors, how do we turn it on, how do we change the radio station, how do we turn on the air, etc etc etc. On the third day my daughter is just trying to open the door and she yells “why is this car so fucking annoying?!”
It’s obvious it was designed by a child trying to look cool to the other kids.
Honestly, why? Their “no harsh edges, flowing contours” looked good in 2010 but is now completely played out and ugly. Coupled with the fact that no Tesla has had a facelift in nearly a decade, I think they’re the ugliest cars on the road rn.
the cabin height being a giant bubble is what i dislike. they pretend to be smaller cars than they are. a small tesla next to a normal crossover vehicle is a good way to remind yourself how big they actually are.
One man’s “all look similar” is another man’s “strong design language”. I think BMW kidney grills are played out 30 years ago, but some people love them. Lambo wedges are played out. Jeep boxes are played out. Etc.
I personally like the no-harsh-edges look. I don’t think it’d look especially out of place if it was released this year.
To me that’s kind of just the design language. Like how all BMWs look similar, or all Mazda’s look similar. Etc. Typically a strong recognizable brand is considered good, even in the auto industry.
And really idgaf if they all look the same. Model s, smaller model s (3), bigass model s(x), medium size Model s(y). That’s fine. I don’t need a single brand to offer everything, I can go to other brands for variety.
I’m not a car guy, I just don’t pay close attention. I drove a delivery van when the Tesla cars were gaining popularity, and I straight up had the thought one day how weird it was that there were a lot of '90s Ford Taurus sedans still on the road.
I won’t go so far to say they’re timeless, obviously, but I think the design has holding power. Their design language isn’t especially bold but it’s not out of place compared to newly released models from competitors. It’s disappointing that they haven’t made any bold changes, but I don’t think that means they’re dated.
I don’t doubt it can last 20 years, but I doubt any Tesla will last as long as an average Toyota. We know batteries have limited cycles. When an engine takes a shit it’s a few grand. When batteries take a shit, you’ll never even consider replacing them because they’re 5x-10x more expensive than the car is worth. So off to the landfill. Definitely saving the planet or much money buying a higher end model Tesla.
I think it becomes economical sensible for a lowest priced model 3 if you qualify for all the rebates (state and federal), otherwise it’s an early adopter tech toy.
Ya that would be difficult for a Tesla fan. Easier just to make a baseless claim and pretend you could but simply don’t want to refute anything with facts.
Then why even reply… Waste of time and space. It’s ok to just move on.
Lithium batteries are very expensive(20k) and don’t last 250-300k miles. That’s an undeniable fact.
Engine swaps are not even close to that. You can swap 5 engines for the cost of a full battery swap.
And EVs aren’t saving the world. They’re saving a few people some money on gas. Which is much less than the extra cost of the cars unless you drive a lot, or live somewhere with expensive gas.
20% battery degradation after 100k miles is not a small issue. It’s extremely significant to the equation of value.
These aren’t “opinions.” They’re facts that are well addressed and talked about routinely. There’s no secret information about the limits of lithium batteries. They’re literally 18650 batteries. The same batteries consumers used for over a decade. We’re all aware of battery degradation.
First of all, only 1% of gas cars make it to 200k miles. So even if we accept your contention about battery loss, 99% of EVs will last as long as gas cars.
Second, EVs lose experience about 10% capacity loss per 100k miles. Some a little more, some a little less. So at 200k miles they’ll still have somewhere around 80% of their initial range. Your 20% estimate is wrong, except maybe for Nissan Leaf which had poor heat management. My Chevy bolt had 50k miles on it with no appreciable capacity loss.
Third, battery replacement on a tesla is around $13k which is not 5-10 times the cost of the car. Battery prices are also decreasing as more of them are made, so the cost will be lower in the future.
I don’t expect any of this will change your mind, since it’s based on Fox News talking points, but I don’t want other people misled.
First of all I have never owned a car that got less than 250k. But every car I’ve ever had was made in Japan and maintained properly. That statistic is meaningless because 1) many cars aren’t maintained 2) many cars are “totaled” for no good reason 3) cars are resold to people who refuse to or can afford to maintain them.
I didn’t say 10-15x the *original cost * of the car. By the time a car has let’s say 150k+ on it it’s not very valuable. It’s 17k for a full replacement on their smallest vehicle. So a $20k+ battery on midsized car (the actual cost of a full battery replacement, not according to Elon) won’t get replaced at all. The car will be totaled.
Replacing a full battery is not $13k. You are citing the average cost which includes if only one cell needs replacement. Replacing an transmission or a engine is much more affordable than a full battery replacement.
It’s not fox news. It’s fox news talking points that pretend EVs are good enough to save the world, and we can keep on feeling fine with an unsustainable “solutions” instead of dealing with the real issues.
Very misleading arguments you are making. EVs will make no meaningful changes to saving your wallet, the environment, or resolving climate change. And definitely won’t lessen the amount of waste headed to landfills in 15 years.
Serious question: do people on team fruit also call other “culinary vegetables” fruits, such as cucumbers, zucchini, corn, eggplants, bell peppers, green beans, etc.?
I don’t mind calling all of those things fruit. It seems people get really weird about making savoury meals out of fruit. Like I know a tomato is a fruit, I put tomato on pizza, I never once while making pizza have a thought about whether a vegetable or a fruit is going on my pizza. It’s just a tomato, it can swing both ways.
I prefer polysemy. There is a very useful category of “edible plants typically used in savory dishes”. Imagine someone being upset with you because you brought green beans when they asked for a side of vegetables.
I don’t see the point in taking the botanical definition of fruit and pretending it’s useful in the culinary world.
Fruits come from the flowering part of the plant and contain seeds, whereas vegetables are other parts of the plant (leaves, stems, roots, bulbs). They’re fruit.
But that’s not mutually exclusive with vegetables. Vegetable is not a botanical designation. Whether it’s a vegetable or not depends on how it’s typically used in cooking. Cucumbers, zuccini, and green beans all fall into the same category of being both.
Why is this shit always communist vs capitalist, like we’ve only got 2 answers avaliable. You fuckers never set foot in a communist country and worship this shit
Fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens? Don’t really think showing a picture of some buildings is enough to prove that they actually solved any issues. They may have solved those issues for some who were lucky enough to get an apartment, but don’t be a hexbear and pretend they housed everyone.
And no, I don’t want a response with a link about hurr duer capitalism bad, yeah I know, but I live in capitalism so I already know that.
I’m still confused and alarmed that the only alternative brought up is communism, not socialism. So far as I know, the core difference is transfer of power - one is peaceful, one is violent.
So in communism, your home might be six feet underground because “It is necessary to achieve the revolution, comrade.” Absolutely zero chance of a leader that wants the best for their people, apparently.
Real socialism leads to communism. I want to call what I am advocating for as cultural marxism, but unfortunately that term has antisemitic connotations, while also perfectly encapsulating the gradual shift in the publics perception of Marxist ideology I am advocating for with memes such as this. I am not advocating for a violent revolution, but I wont deny the fact that when the powers that be make a peaceful revolution impossible, a violent revolution is inevitable.
You’re also taking a snapshot of the most regulated industry in the US. Building high rises is illegal in huge swaths of urban areas. Before we say the free market isn’t providing an answer cab we actually try it? I’m talking removing exclusionary zoning, speeding up the permit process and reducing the power of local action committees, and reforming the broken heritage process that’s used by rich people to keep their areas from densifying.
Nationalise essential needs and create State corporations, let capitalism have fun with non essentials. If don’t care if private producers make wine or funky clothing or big houses, the government should make sure everyone has food to eat, basic clothes to wear and a place to live.
On that last part, buildings with 8 living units or more should be ran by a non profit State corporation, charge people based on the cost of maintenance and the salaries required, send a check if people were charged too much at the end of the year.
You left out, healthcare, education, higher education, and Internet access. While we are covering basic human rights, let’s make sure we cover all the basic human rights.
Outside of internet access these things are already nationalised in first world countries (I know exactly what’s implied by what I’m saying). I didn’t feel the need to enumerate every single thing.
State corporations are private companies whose profit go to the government instead of an owner or investors. The place in North America that has the cheapest electricity is Quebec and that’s because it’s a State corporation producing it, it still makes billions in profit that is then reinvested by the government.
So no, free markets isn’t necessary. Heck, the free market is what makes it so the US government is the one that spends the most per capita for healthcare even if it only covers part of the population.
Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. There sre many, many forms, such as Anarcho-Syndicalism, Marxism-Leninism, Democratic Socialism, Market Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Left Communism, and more.
Communism is a more specific form of Socialism, by which you have achieved a Stateless, Classless, moneyless society. Many Communist ideologies are transitional towards Communism, such as the USSR’s Marxism-Leninism or China’s Dengism and Maoism.
Whether by reform or Revolution, the form doesn’t change.
Holy shit. That makes so much sense as to why I hated those books as a kid. Thanks for that insight. I knew something wasn’t working properly in Earthsea.
The problem is that a leader who wants the best for their people isn’t sufficient to actually achieve that. What you need is for everyone to be making decisions about what’s best.
It’s simple… If you convince the communists that the capitalists are trying to destroy them, (and vice versa), they fight each other, distracting them from the real enemy: the 1% with enough money to directly influence the folk that make the rules that keep them in the 1% club. We’re fighting culture wars so we won’t fight class wars, my friend.
The 1% exist in every form of government, my friend. Billionaire capitalists == Russian Oligarchs. The name changes based on the audience, but the idea is money influences politics. The folk with the most money to do so are the 1% who actually rule, not the interchangeable talking heads who take their money to live a comfortable life acting as the mouthpiece (or scapegoat) for that group.
Couple things: tiered income would likely exist in early stages of Communism, and certainly in almost all forms of Socialism. Marx makes it exceptionally clear that both intense and skilled labor are represented as condensed unskilled labor.
Either way, there are examples of anti-capitalism. Chiapas and Rojava are more Libertarian Socialist. There’s also countries like Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, who appear to be attempting to reject Capitalism still and still operating on some basis of Marxism-Leninism Socialism. China relies on Capitalism as their dominant mode of production, but claims to be Socialist by 2050, though that remains to be seen.
The nations you think of as “Communist” are typically Communist in ideology, but are building towards it through Socialism. Just as Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so to do Marxists believe Capitalism is a necessary stage before Socialism, which is a necessary stage before Communism.
Exactly! This is exactly what I’m saying. The 1% is still the 1% calling the shots… No matter where they are or what you want to call the type of government they influence.
Yes, so you’re proving the Communists and Socialists in this thread correct. Across all Capitalist systems, the bourgeoisie are still the ones calling the shots. Therefore, a better system would be a more decentralized, worker owned system, perhaps along the lines of Socialism or Anarchism, to reach an eventual state of Communism in the far future.
What exactly do you take issue with Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism here? You appear to be advocating for a more top-down system like Capitalism, than a bottom-up system. Your argument appears to uphold your criticism.
Oh! I see. No…I’m only saying the minute you start talking any “-isms”, you trigger feelings of tribalism that exist in all of humanity. We want to be on the “good team”. No one wants to be on the bad team, and that feeling is what the Uber wealthy uses to keep us busy. Debating all of the “-isms” is the problem. Let’s figure out how to take care of the masses so basic human needs are met, allowing humanity to prosper, and figure out what the hell to call it later. Otherwise, we just quibble over semantics and nothing gets done.
I mean absolutely no offense by this, but that’s a load of Utopian bullshit.
People use “-isms” not to divide into tribalism, but to describe methods and structures. If you can identify problems with modern, Capitalist society, calling it “Capitalism” is not meant to divide anyone. Similarly, the various leftist strategies, such as Marxism-Leninism, Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Market Socialism, Anarcho-Syndiclaism, and so forth, are all different proposed ways of tackling the same problems.
How do you propose people move towards a solution if nobody knows what the fuck everyone else is doing?
First…I love this discussion. Thank you for it. It’s what made me love Reddit in the early years, and why I’m so enamored with Lemmy. Secondly…You make an excellent point; one I can’t refute. I don’t know how we move towards a solution without having a way to succinctly describe an ideologic structure. I just hate how partisan the world becomes, and how much the media plays off of it to help the fuckers in charge sell ads, or maintain power, wherever you live and whatever ism you subscribe to. Maybe all I’m doing is just missing the point and muddying the waters…
You’re starting to get it. You should read Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky. He describes the very mechanisms by which the bourgeoisie use the media to control the people into doing their bidding.
You should really read a copy of the Communist Manifesto, i dont think you are muddying the waters, you are merely trying to look through the clouds of sentiment that have been stirred up in front of you your whole life.
Do you think the Russian oligarchs, who by the way pen a FAR larger portion of the Russian economy than their American counterparts, appeared from nowhere after the collapse of the Soviet Union? The Soviets had an extremely wealthy and influential elite
The 1% are the Capitalist and they are trying to defeat the Communists and surpress/continue to exploit the Prolitariat with every tool at their vast disposal. The folks in the comments defending Capitalism are all members of the Prolitariat brainwashed into thinking they are down on their luck Millionaires.
Look… It’s all tribalism, in the end. We can argue semantics, but doing so it’s exactly their point. It keeps us busy with pedantry, while they continue to enjoy their wealth from on high. I am not educated enough to debate the pros and cons of each group, but I am intelligent enough to smell an attempt to distract me from the point. To know there’s some sleight of hand fuckery happening right in front of my face.
Yes you are intelligent, and so close to getting it, the cultural warfare bullshit is all a distraction to keep you from noticing the class warfare being waged against the working class by the 1% who continues to rob value from us to horde weath far beyond our comprehension. I cant recommend Marx’s writings enough, there is so much slight of hand fuxkery going on and it SHOULD rightfully piss you off!
Bruh if I HAD to be right I would still be a devoted Libertarian simping for the free market. I love being proven wrong, its how people and ergo society are supposed to evolve and grow.
What ideology is it, again, that champions working class people to take their power back? It’s certainly not right wing.
If you think the world is fucked because of the greed of the 1%, and you want those people to pay for their crimes through class war, you’re communist.
Lol no, I do not say. No ruling class. No government. That’s communism.
It’s bonkers to me that you talk a big talk about class and class conflict, yet are opposed to left wing politics. Where do you think those terms come from?
What’s even more bonkers is that you seem to think communism has never said anything about the 1%, when that is the biggest problem communists won’t shut up about!
I don’t think you know what projection is. The comment I replied to literally said that the 1% and class are the problem, and that communists are distracted. Couldn’t be more off base.
It’s simple… If you convince the communists that the capitalists are trying to destroy them, (and vice versa), they fight each other, distracting them from the real enemy: the 1% with enough money to directly influence the folk that make the rules that keep them in the 1% club. We’re fighting culture wars so we won’t fight class wars, my friend.
What ideology is it, again, that champions working class people to take their power back?
That sounds like a free market to me. When people have the power to determine their own fate, and how they engage with others for economic coordination.
When everyone has the ability to choose how they engage, that’s called a free market. The economic system based on free markets is called capitalism.
A free market means zero regulation, so I hope you like drinking poison because “ain’t no gubmint telling me how to bottle my soda!”
When people have the power to determine their own fate, and how they engage with others for economic coordination.
This requires kicking capital out of the economy. That would be defeating capitalism.
When everyone has the ability to choose how they engage, that’s called a free market
No, it’s called voluntary participation. Free markets inevitably trend toward monopolies and concentrations of power, because the supply side is not held to any standard.
The economic system based on free markets is called capitalism.
And look where it’s gotten us - with a 1% bleeding the rest dry.
Fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens?
Bruh, centuries of capitalist exploitation of its citizens and treating them like a disposable commodity would like to have a word on the whole 'citizens killed by their own country' topic.
How many thousands or millions of citizens die yearly because they can't afford to live in this fucked up system?
Lmfao not at all, the dude literally said whataboutisms are the only arguments for Communism, so i linked him a copy of Das Kapital. Unfortunately you clearly lack the reading comprehension to consume it.
None? People don’t starve to death in western countries. And where they do the issue is lack of infrastructure. A communist government couldn’t conjure the resources needed to build that out of thin air either.
None? People don’t starve to death in western countries. And where they do the issue is lack of infrastructure.
"This thing doesn't happen, and when it does, it's not the fault of capitalism itself" is a monumentally stupid argument. Especially when talking about the homeless population, which absolutely does have people that starve.
A communist government couldn’t conjure the resources needed to build that out of thin air either.
And the capitalist economy chose not to build it because it wasn't profitable, or after it was built, it was too expensive to be used.
Bullshit it doesn’t happen in the west. 12.8% of US households were considered food insecure in 2022, with 5.1% of that being considered to have VERY low food security(Source). Over 20,000 Americans died of malnutrition in 2022, more than double the number in 2018(Source).
There’s also nearly 30 vacant homes for every 1 homeless person in the US, so there’s plenty of room, too. Nobody needs a 2nd home when over half a million people don’t even have one.
Maybe you should have actually read that article before linking it. It discusses in detail the reasons for malnutrition being an issue, and none of those reasons is being unable to afford food. The problems are typically due to age and diseases.
In the west, the main cause of malnutrition isn’t a lack of calories, but a difficulty in access (from availability or price or other factors) to healthy foods with the required nutrition for a healthy life or from an excess of certain nutrients. This is often manifested as conditions such a obesity and type II diabetes. So malnutrition does impact people in the west.
Where is your great communist country ?? Oh wait, it’s not there. It doesn’t exist and it never will. Capitalism works. Not perfect but it works. Your idealized version of communism is great but so is my idealized version of capitalism where everyone has a shot at the American dream!
saying that “people don’t starve to death in western countries” without understanding in the slightest the actual harms of food insecurity and how it leads to death is a very accurate representation of the scientific ignorance and sociopathic lack of empathy that capitalism supporters bring to the table in these kinds of discussions a hundred times out of a hundred
You’re so dense. I’m not advocating or simping got capitalism here. That’s what I’m trying to communicate, but you’re too fucking dense to even see that when I lay it out.
Both are bad. Just because I say these turds who worship an imaginary and propagandized version of communism are dorks doesn’t mean I’m arguing in favor of capitalism. For fucks sake learn to read
You are 100% correct in your assertion, my anti Mario sex toy friend, and I love your passion. I worry that the minute you call someone’s intelligence into question, they’ll take a defensive posture and stop thinking critically. Critical thinking is what we need more than anything else in this world right now. That’s what’s in short supply. It’s why the news is constantly being flooded with new things, and why there are so few media outlets that don’t have a slant. If I can get you outraged at team blue, or team red, or team US, or team THEM, your anger overrides your reason and you stop thinking about who benefits from the distraction provided by us arguing over whatever this new bullshit thing is we’re arguing over. Hopefully that last statement makes sense.
Not to mention all the fascist militaries supported by the US that regularly engaged on mass murders of “communists”. Indonesia, brazil, chile, south korea, south vietnam, etc… Ultimately they dont care, they just want to discredit communism by whatever means possible.
Except there isn’t. we tried that then the capitalists bought the weaker willed politicians and used them to undermine any regulation. Capitalism is a cancer and must be excised as such.
We literally have. Look at the massive literacy, life expectancy, and political rights increases under literally every single communist government compared to what came before them instead of comparing them to some utopian ideal that capitalism compares even less favorably to.
life expectancy, and political rights increases under literally every single communist government
Are you not aware of the massive incarceration, labor camps, starvation, conscription, etc?
Have you read about the Battle of Stalingrad? Do you seriously not know the stories of how life expectancy and political rights were totally and utterly squashed many times by communist governments?
Are you not aware of the massive incarceration, labor camps, starvation, conscription, etc?
Are you aware the gulags never reached the same scale as the current US prison system? Are you aware that under the Soviets and under the CPC previously periodic famines under the previous governments stopped after initial industrialization?
I will leave you with this quote, ironically about a liberal revolution against monarchists
THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
Right. Communism vs capitalism is just more centralization. There are plenty of decentralized options to balance things as too much centralization, no matter the political system leads to corruption.
That is the death of capitalism. That’s capitalism (based on free markets) devolving into oligopoly (based on regulatory capture and tightly-restricted markets).
Capitalism doesn’t last any better than any other institution. It degrades into something else. The thing it degrades into is a centrally-controlled market, similar to what you find in socialism.
Agreed. Whether it is Capatalism, Communism, Socialism, democracy, dictatorship they all have centralizion in them even if their intent is otherwise. We need to support more decentralized services and governance as it balance the poor and returns it to the people. We just need more people to get on board, it it seems like we prefer to give our power to power hungry companies and regimes instead. Not saying we need to have zero centralization as it has its place, but it needs to be kept in check and the only to force to do so is decentralization. But it is all so much more complicated and above the human condition to manage. Hopefully AI will be able to help for better or for worse.
This is not “one or the another” situation, communism is the next qualitative stage in development of society. It solves the primary contradiction that we experience in capitalism, that is socialized production being privatized by individuals, aka capitalists.
You can’t just declare communism by signing a document, because it is a process of development in which small quantitative changes in production (socialism) lead to a qualitative change (communism), thus to achieve the communism stage you have to achieve a certain level of development.
This is why China is considered a communist country by marxists-leninist even though qualitatively it is a capitalist country. They are actively working to develop communism, this can be clearly seen throughout their rhetoric (i.e. “The Governance of China”) and their material results.
The problem with China being that it’s authoritarian, not that it’s capitalist or communist. There’s no choice other than the Communist Party, so when the party is wildly corrupt, you have no recourse at all short of revolution. And we all know what China does to counter-revolutionaries.
And that is a problem to whom? Every single state is authoritarian, the question is whose interests are they protecting.
China is clearly a dictatorship of the proletariat and they use authority to protect the interests of the proletariat. Yes, sometimes their policy is wrong and does harm but ultimately they work to improve their policies, governing is a learning experience after all.
It’s a problem because people don’t feel like stakeholders when they don’t have a say and can’t participate in their system of governance. This in turn means that they aren’t incentivized to willingly participate and have to be forced or indoctrinated, both of which are violations of human rights.
People that want to participate in politics can join the CPC, in fact it has more than 100m official members. Also inside the CPC there are several factions with differents views, so no its not a monolithic entity.
One party where a basic platform is defined and differences are expressed vibrantly on top of that is better than two parties that brand themselves as different but only offer a couple of aesthetic differences and concessions to keep people mad at the opposing party and not the underlying structure
…You’re really saying that one party where you have no functional choice is better than a multi-party system, just because you think that Republicans and Dems are too alike, while ignoriing the plethora of other parties that not only actually exist in the US, but hold office at local and state level?
One party with multiple functional approaches that get whittled down through democratic consensus is more democratic than being told to pick between two relatively similar options. There is more of a gap between liberals and Maoists in the CPC, both of which hold power in office, than there are between the democrats and republicans.
friend. You’re so worried about a one party system because you’re thinking of American parties. You know how Mike Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders are both ran under the same party? In a proper single party state there’s more range than that.
People don’t have much recourse in the US either. The two party system just obfuscates that reality. I’d actually argue that because revolution is the only alternative to the communist party in China, the government has to be more responsive to citizen demands than the US.
What does “authoritarian” mean? Shouldn’t we reserve that word for the country with the largest police force, biggest military, and the highest prison population per capita in the world?
fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens
Most of these articles cite the Black Book of Communism, which goes to absurd lengths to inflate the death toll of Communism, for example counting all the millions of nazi and soviet soldiers killed on the eastern front as victims of communism, counting the entire death toll of the Vietnam war, and even counting declining birth rates as deaths due to communism.
Noam Chomsky used the same methodology to argue that, according to Black Book logic, capitalism in India alone, from 1947–1979, could be blamed for more deaths than communism worldwide from 1917–1979.
It’s even worse than that. Most Lemmy commies are aggressive sectarians who cling to a very particular form of the ideology, while rejecting all forms of moderate leftism and Marxist revisionism. It’s extremely obnoxious, and their bizarre, outdated philosophy is a primary reason why people are skeptical of leftist politics.
Electric cars don’t solve every problem with private vehicle ownership but they’re certainly a step in the right direction. Most EVs average an equivalent of more than 100mpg versus most ICEs, which are around 30-40. You can also power an EV with renewable resources. This isn’t possible with ICEs (yes, I know you can power certain diesels with biofuel, but it’s horribly inefficient).
“Buying a new car is worse than keeping an old one” is an incredibly situational phrase that has a million exceptions for so many people.
My frustration comes from the fact that hybrids exist and are not used nearly as enough as they should (all cars should have been mandated as hybrids a decade ago) and this would reduce the downsides of electric car production.
I’m not defending ICEs here, I just think the overall environmental credentials of electric cars at this point in time isn’t as good as hybrids.
I fully expect this to change in the future but I’ve got entire fleets of vehicles which are less than 5 years old being replaced by electric and that makes no sense.
Also cars generally are just a terrible solution to mass transport. We already have the most environmentally friendly option known to man. Bicycles and trains.
Edit: for further information on hybrid vs electric see this analysis:
I’m huge into going green, going mass transit, and everything else, however, most people cannot fit into one worldview, which is why this is more nuanced than your meme suggests.
As an example The Midwest in the states does not have mass transit, so they have to drive. So trains and bikes are out. Hybrid still uses gas, and for the vast majority of them they will be on the freeway, so a hybrid is basically the same as an ICE car anyway, so yeah, I’ll push them into getting EVs if what they’re doing is commuting. However than it gets more nuanced to “is this for roadtrips”, because then maybe hybrid is better.
Which is why again I say it’s a person-to-person basis. For you maybe a hybrid is the only option, but saying EVs are wrong for everyone is a very naive approach.
They say, as I know people in the midwest who commute 1.5 hours each way to the city for their job and then turn around and drive home. I have a friend who lives in a town of no shit, 400 people.
There’s no bus that goes there. It’s 30 miles from the nearest “city” of 15,000, and he works another 20 miles past that.
You can survive without cars
Sure, they’ll just not eat, not work, and not do anything. Dude I’m all for urbanization and adding mass transit, but you’re going to be hard pressed to add rail routes or even bus routes to not just that one town of 400, but all the other thousands of tiny towns. Hell even the town of 15,000 doesn’t have a rail route. Hell even the state capital is missing a rail route. Let alone commuter options.
I’m not saying America is an exception, I’m saying you’re naive for thinking your one opinion will work for everyone, and that the problem is more nuanced then you understand.
That’s why I brought up Cali HSR. It’s been over a decade of planning and building that, and that’s connecting two of the largest cities in the country, and you’re just casually saying “Just build it everywhere”. Like yes we want that too, but the realities of building that would be centuries of work.
China is unmovable by vehicle at all such that their failure of a mass transit system is trying busses on stilts.
Japan is tiny. I mean very tiny minuscule area of land.
Most of EU has no such thing. You are assuming it EU is Germany, France, and Belgium. PS, all the actual Countries (which EU isn't one) in the EU are tiny.
Size is a factor in cost and that is the real reason most Countries have no such thing as viable mass transit for the majority of their citizens. Paving sold cars and cars made corporations lots of money. Mass transit does the opposite and is thus objected to by same corpos.
China has a working HSR system connecting all their major cities. The fact that their population scale is so massive means they also try weird shit to get what they can.
Japan is very narrow but it’s also very long. The actual amount of miles a train much cover from one end to the other is very large.
Yes the EU is not one country (though it is a polity). That should make it harder, not easier to cover it with rail, and yet there’s rail lines connecting all the major cities crossing national borders. Does the “size” counter reset once you cross a line on the map?
It’s not the size, it’s the political organization. You even hint at this when describing how we paved America: the political and economic configuration was aligned to make it happen despite the massive cost. The USA was crisscrossed by passenger rail and street cars, and still is for cargo. We just took a different path later, but it doesn’t actually have to be that way.
Absolutely doesn’t, and we should push them to bring back rail, but that will take a very very long time to build. Even major cities are missing rail links, they would need huge infrastructure to add it there, and then smaller links for the teeny tiny towns. We should do both - invest in good public transit, and also embrace stopgap measures.
We can both say “EVs are the solution for now” and also do things like “No new lanes will be added unless rail is considered first”
Public transit is cheaper and more accessable. It would be quite easy to make it profitable. Private transportation is more expensive both on the production side and infrastructure side. The auto industry did a lot of scummy shit in order to make it profitable. In the US, they bought up and shut down just about every public transport corp in order to force the public to buy cars and force the state to build infrastructure.
If you’re aiming for a huge change anyway (buying new EVs for everyone, installing chargers everywhere) why not consider the other one - adding more transit and bike lanes? It’s not an easy shift either way - but one involves various unknowns and unforeseen difficulties. The other has been put to use across the world already.
Because we have people spread out all across a massive landscape in the USA, it’s not ever likely to be feasible to build public transport to reach everyone. No, we don’t all live in the big cities and we never will.
Personal transportation will always be a necessity for Americans, except for those who choose to live inside large cities that do have public transport. EVs with Sodium ion batteries would vastly improve our emissions and eliminate the problem with sourcing Lithium batteries’ minerals.
What do you mean “not ever likely to build public transport”? That is literally how the West was first settled, and the reason many of those towns exist. We already had train networks, and abandoned them only because of car trendiness.
I’ve read accounts from people who actually live in those small towns - even if they exist a long way from cities, they’re still generally walkable (because of the low traffic volume in the area). Any place where each individual home and store has been spread out such that literally every trip for any purpose necessitates private transport is just forcing its own worst-case scenario and would benefit from a redesign either way. As long as there’s any kind of civic center with a few stores, it becomes reasonably practical to at least have a bus route.
I’ve read accounts from people who actually live in those small towns
Haha, I’ve lived that life for about 80% of 4 decades already in several small towns and out in the woods far from town. Public transport is mostly non-existent, and people live all over the place where there is nothing but a narrow winding road with no sidewalks. It’s generally only the city center where the buildings like courthouses and banks are located that are walkable in the average American small town. Basically there’s no option but cars for these small towns.
When you go on about how they should all be built up into an urban paradise with sidewalks and buses and trains going everywhere, it overlooks the fact that we already don’t keep up the infrastructure that we have well enough. There is no money to just rebuild everything into the version you imagine would be ideal.
That sounds like the most backward design even of a rural area. This is not a dichotomy between cities and towns complete with pedestrian bridges and electric crosswalks, it’s also about planning that amounts past random, long-distance scattering of destinations.
I’m trying to even understand how you claim those towns become unwalkable, since that’s not due to lack of development - it’s a matter of overdevelopment of roads with wide lanes. A small grid of old buildings with dirt between them is perfectly walkable. If someone built those stores 4 miles apart from each other all in different directions, then even for car users that’s a design failure.
If you insist there is no money to develop anything in those towns or re-plan the environment, that’s an unfortunate diagnosis for the area, but that also means EVs won’t work there because of lack of charging infrastructure, and the town will die out since nothing is being maintained. Let’s keep the discussion to just places that at least have enough money to reconsider their 8-lane stroads.
That’s unfortunately the truth in most American rural towns. Take my town and their grocery store. My town back in the day apparently had a great town square, vibrant, very walkable. Over the years it’s become more delapidated due to neglect, and businesses don’t want to open there. Our grocery store left the downtown area so they could build a new one on the outskirts of town. People love it, it’s bright, big, huge even, and of course, plenty of parking. So they think it’s an absolute win. Except it’s not. It was the town’s only grocery store and now rather than having a walkable store from all the houses in town, everyone now gets in their car and drives 2 miles out of town, parks in the massive parking lot, and walks inside.
This is how commercial has all happened in small towns. It’s left the downtown which you’re right, would be very walkable, and has moved outside of town. On top of that, it’s extremely anti-pedestrian, so even if there would be a bus added eventually, it would still require walking 1/4 mile from the bus stop across a parking lot just to get to the entrance of one of the stores.
The entire thing is ridiculous, and you’re right for not understanding it. The only way it makes sense is if everyone is brainwashed into thinking that “it’s better that I get to get into my car, drive 2 miles, and pick up my groceries, put them all in my car, drive 2 miles home, then bring them all inside”
I will say EVs do work there, and it’s not because of charging infrastructure, but because everyone forgets that you can charge your car at home. Most residents are single family homes with 2, 3, hell even 4 car garages. Each space could have a charger, and every home could have solar added. Places like grocery stores can add chargers. In that small town we (for some reason) had 6 gas stations for our 15k people. They could be mandated to add some chargers, but even then, if everyone charged at home it’s like leaving your house on a full tank every day. Very few people seem to think that way.
Transit is by far the superior option, but we’re talking decades, centuries to hook up these small towns. In the short term, EVs will lower our dependence on fossil fuels at least.
My issue with typical hybrids is that they got all the complexity of an ICE powertrain, in addition to all the complexity of an EV powertrain, plus the complexity of merging the two.
Slightly less efficient, but I think I’m more in support of EVs with gas range extenders. Maybe it’s just a question of semantics. But more than that (if we’re gonna keep cars) we need to invest in charging infrastructure. Idk why it sucks so bad, and why gas stations aren’t installing charging stations.
It’s a fair assumption that adding extra systems to the car makes it overall less reliable, but it’s not necessarily true. Electric motors, compared to IC engines, are extremely simple and reliable. The servicing guidelines for the electric drivetrain in my hybrid is essentially “replace the battery if it stops holding enough charge”, there is no schedule for any routine maintenance of those components. Adding the hybrid system also reduces the wear and tear on the conventional drivetrain and brakes. Hybrids can do regenerative braking, which means that (for my vehicle at least) most of the braking down to maybe 10mph is done by regen, which functionally has no wear and tear. The electric motors also assist the ICE at the times where peak wear and stress occur, reducing the load and stress on the motor, and extending it’s lifespan. By adding the hybrid system, the overall reliability and lifespan of the vehicle is increased rather than decreased.
My issue isn’t with adding electric to a gas car. My issue is adding gas to an electric car.
The ICE drive train adds a TON of complexity to an EV. If you’re gonna add ICE to an EV I think that it makes more sense to have a little range-extender generator, which is simple and cheap (because it only needs to run at a single RPM and constant load) which you can just run to add a bit more charge to your battery on long road trips.
But ideally we’d just have better charging infrastructure.
This is often repeated and very damaging misinformation. An EV powered purely by coal is significantly better for the environment than an ICE car over its lifetime. This is because coal fired power plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines due to economies of scale, even after taking into account transmission losses.
It’s more so outdated parroting than deliberate misinformation. A lot of the times I see people trying to back this one up, it’s with Hawkins et al.'s Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles paper. A 2012 study that analyzes emissions based on manufacturing and energy production capabilities of the time doesn’t hold up well over a decade later.
You would think that would be obvious, but ¯_(ツ)_/
Oh today I learned, TBH my information was probably out of date. But this is good to know. Definitely a step in the right direction even if more diversified public transportation options are better
Also, what do you think happens to your car when you replace it with an electric car? Do most people just drive their old cars into the ocean when they upgrade?
“Buying a new car is worse than keeping an old one” is an incredibly situational phrase that has a million exceptions for so many people.
Yeah, but this still holds a lot of water. More often than not people buy a new car to have a new car or even worse they buy one specificcally because they are misguidedly trying to lessen their carbon footprint.
Not sure why you are having trouble finding support or what anal tugging even is, but looking at Americans at least. They get a new car. On average every 6 to 8 years. A decently maintained car will easily last 11-14 years. If you are finding a better explanation that genralizes than what I described to explain this gap I’d love to hear it
After 8 years you’re getting to the point where the average person is gong to start running into problems with their car, especially if they bought used. At that point a person may buy a new car for many reasons not “just because”. But even in your example, it’s a 3 year gap. That could be accounted for by someone commuting more than average or taking long trips and getting more wear and tear.
I can’t even. Where are you getting that data? Unless the average person is driving a bmw they don’t start running into any kind of serious issues until 11-14years. Anything sooner than that is typically easily fixed and much cheaper than buying a new car. I don’t understand why people here don’t realize there is a huge push by advertisers and American culture to buy new cars well before they are needed. People want new cars >> than they need new cars. I’m not fabricating that. Even in a recession yes this mentality remains strong. If that’s important for you go for it I guess and yes of course buy electric or hybrid if you can. If you really want to make a carbon footprint dent though, hold off on buying a new car for a few years and with decent maintenance and minor repairs you will save yourself money and save the environment. Jesus
People don’t run into issues for 11-14 years? You’re assuming everyone is buying a brand new car. You’re entire stance is destroyed by the simple concept of buying used cars.
I’m assuming nothing now other than this sub must be overrun by car salespeople. You all are insufferable. The average age of a used car being bought is 6years old, not 11-14. Also, no one is taking issue with the carbon footprint of buying used cars. That’s not the point of this post. Buying and maintaining a used car is a wonderfully conservative practice. People aren’t buying used electric cars (by and large). The point here the OP is making is that it’s better from a carbon footprint standpoint to not trade up to an electric (typically new car) than to keep an existing ICE car at least until it nears end of life. That is a factually accurate statement that all of you car sales people apparently are upset about.
Just because I wanted to be sure I am not being mistaken for some reason I just googled a couple different search terms for motivations to buy a new car.
None of the results is even close to confirming your ludicrous quote from above.
So again I am baffled by how confidently wrong you keep on posting here.
But by selling there old car more people can affort to buy a newer cars and fade out old cars wich overall is going to decrease carbon emissions because newer cars are on average more fuel efficent.
People aren’t just buying new cars for fun in a recession. The point is people will need to buy a new car at some point. Either because they now need their own car or their old one isn’t viable. At that point, choosing an electric car is a step in the right direction. That’s why this post is stupid, it’s acting like buying an electric car is just a frivolous purchase and not acknowledgeding that when someone needs to buy a car there is a choice to be made.
TLDR: Lots of flowering plants, moss and algae spreading. In March, temperatures near the south pole reached 39 °C above normal for three days in a row, hitting a peak of -10 °C (14 °F). Warm enough for researchers to walk around in shorts and shirtless…In Antarctica. Yeah were fucked.
I find it hilarious that they’re like “It’s 14F! Break out the shorts and T-shirts!” Meanwhile anyone anywhere else (except the Arctic regions) is like “This is pretty fucking cold”.
It likely feels warmer. Antarctica is almost entirely desert. The “dry heat” argument works for cold, too.
I’ve been outside in a t-shirt and jeans in northern Greenland (also polar desert) when it was below freezing and was completely comfortable. I could have hung around out there all day if the day wasn’t four months long. I like the cold and I’ve got extra mass to keep me warm, though.
Maybe at the south pole. There’s little to no snow around where I was in northern Greenland. It gets above freezing up there during the summer and it almost never snows, so what accumulation you do get is actually from snow being blown off the ice cap rather than down from the sky. So it takes a while to build back up in the winter.
I left not too long ago, it’s gotten significantly warmer. Rained every week of summer. I think it hit 60 one day. The tow is closed because the permafrost underneath shifted and the building is cracking in half.
Oh, holy shit. They normally leave the foundation vents open on the buildings in the winter and close them in the spring to make sure the permafrost stays frozen.
One of my coworkers (who loves going to Thule) is a major climate change denier. Wonder how he’ll spin that when we go back in a couple years.
“The tow” isn’t ringing bells - what’s that again?
The tow was (rip) the bar. That’s wild, you can literally see the change happening in real time. If you guys do work on the radar regularly we’ve probably met haha, small world.
Yeah I know what you mean. I’m from the North East US and it gets pretty damn humid here (somehow it’s been more humid than places with a tropical climate like Miami, Florida), which extends into the winter. The high humidity, combined with low temperatures (0-35F, not including wind chill) and moderate winds means a damn cold winter.
I was out in Denver, Colorado a few years ago during the late fall, early winter. They had a freak snowstorm which dropped their temperature from like 65F to 25F over night. I didn’t know what to bring so I brought all my winter gear. I got there and was like “This is nothing!” because the humidity was low. I was outside in jeans and a heavy/double lined hoodie and was fine. Normally in NYC I’d be wearing an Arctic level jacket due to the wind and humidity.
My buddy was in the army and stationed in Fairbanks, Alaska. After being there for a year he came home for Christmas and showed up at my house in shorts, sandals, and a hoodie. It was like 30F, he said it felt like summer to him 😂
Interesting. Can relate having spent most of my life on a southern coast. One summer my parents shipped me to my uncle in Denver for a few weeks. One day we dropped by an air show. It’s summer and it’s hot (mid 90s or so) but you can’t feel it. People passing out was common enough it had an announcement.
Cut to later that day and we are up in the mountains and I’m walking through a snow bank with the same T-shirt and shorts from earlier, perfectly comfortable.
So yeah if it’s dry you can wear about anything… when it’s humid nothing seems to work be it hot or cold. If we are gonna change the climate here are my notes: I’d like 65-68degF and let’s say 45% RH. All day everyday. Make it so!
I’ve found out that I can tolerate humidity a lot more when it’s actually hot vs it being cool and humid. When it’s hot and humid you’re sweating constantly but don’t feel sticky because you’re covered in sweat. If it’s cool and humid you just feel sticky all over because you’re not sweating, so everything just sticks together. I first noticed this when I went out to Denver and didn’t feel gross waking up. I further reinforced it when I went down to Southern Florida this summer where it’s stupid hot and humid outside, but inside it was cool and I woke up feeling fine, since everything down there is built for the heat and humidity.
I had hoped you just missed a decimal point but it seems you did not.
I’ve lived on the coast of Australia most of my life, but I moved a good couple of hundred kilometres inland last year. I’m really looking forward to having waterfront property again pretty soon.
Hell, it’s already too hot for human habitation here most of the year. I might as well enjoy the view before I croak.
These are people who willingly choose to live in Antarctica for entire seasons or even years… Yes, I’m sure the overwintering crew would go out in shorts when it gets up to -10°C. I would lol.
My home state of Oregon mandates a minimum wage of $13.20 in rural areas and $15.45 in the Portland metro area, and it adjusts to inflation. Oregon has been governed by Democrats for years. Thanks to these and other laws, I can go down to a McDonald’s and get a job that pays $16-17 an hour to start in my city. TriMet in Portland is always advertising a $28 starting wage for bus drivers (no CDL) up to $37 after three years. Rent in my city is $800-900 for a one-bedroom flat with excellent free public transit and fair bikeability. Fuel prices are reasonable. We have strong protections for tenants against abusive landlords. Strong anti-discrimination laws. Everyone has paid sick days. No regressive sales tax. Working-class people can afford a roof over their heads and decent food on the table.
Check out the neighbouring state minimum wages.
Washington (Democratic government): $16.28
California (Democratic government): $16.00
Nevada (divided government): $12.00
Idaho (Republican government): $7.25
But yeah, keep harping on about how both parties are the same and that Democrats don’t do more to help the working man.
For what it’s worth, the minimum wage in LA will rise to $17.28 in July of this year. I get that’s still not very high by LA standards, but I stress that progress is better than stagnation.
Yes, and that’s because the progressive and left-wing of the Democratic Party is losing a power struggle against the centrists and neoliberals. If you want to change that, be sure to vote in the party primary elections and to encourage everyone you know to do the same.
Now factor in the cost of living in a “safe” area in those states with those wages. In 2024, it’s not enough.
I agree, clearly, the Democrats are the better option for anyone but the billionaire class. However, I agree more with OP: Democrats can do better and not be so corporatist neo-lib.
I think that’s why it’s important to encourage participation in the primary process. There are the neoliberals mixed in with the social democrats and actual socialists. We should be voting for and supporting the latter in the primaries if we want to influence the party in a leftward direction.
My home state of Oregon mandates a minimum wage of $13.20 in rural areas and $15.45 in the Portland metro area, and it adjusts to inflation.
I was part of that! I was on a team that made a web site that visualized the effect on poverty levels on a county-by-county basis when the minimum wage was at different levels. It made the need for a split minimum wage obvious, since the minimum wage that is necessary for metro areas is inappropriate for rural areas. Rumor has it that the legislature used it in the decision making to some degree.
"Look at how well the democrats allow the capitalists to treat me as they ensure they can continue to exploit my labour for their own profit uninterrupted!!11"
(seriously - start by looking at those companies profit margins for a tip of the iceberg idea of just how much they are making off of your labour before you do a happy dance over a couple of dollars more they're willing to throw your way to keep you from demanding actual freedom)
But yeah, keep harping on about how represented you are in the sham they call electoral politics..
I think OP is just saying that democrats are better than Republicans. We have multiple parties in my country but people vote for tree ones that support capitalism and rich people. We also have people that support a politician that was found guilty of fraud.
Rich people have power so they can do what they want.
Funny meme, doesn’t make me wrong. The comic itself agrees with me.
Funny how people deny the truth when it’s not stated as a joke. Almost like you all aren’t actually processing the message. Democrats are liberals. Democrats are still allowing Republicans to keep your wages down.
What you’ve said is that someone who agrees with you 50-80% of the time is as bad as someone who thinks you are the devil incarnate and doesn’t agree with you at all.
No you utter numpty. What I said is the equivalent of, “if you have a nazi sitting at a table and five people sitting at the table who won’t condemn the nazi, you have six nazis.”
Arguments against electoral democracy by so-called socialists always boil down to “it’s not perfect so why bother”.
Okay, so keep complaining. Your vision of a better tomorrow isn’t going to magically come true if you complain hard enough. You can help make it come true only by participating in the political system we have today. Even if you think it doesn’t work, you have no choice but to participate anyway and hope you are wrong.
This is how I got banned from Hexbear. I told someone “You can either participate in the current system or plot to overthrow it. Are you working with the next Lenin or Mao, or merely fantasizing about it?”
So what about you? What are you doing to build the future you want?
I’m not complaining to complain and I’m not saying don’t vote. What the flying fuck are all these assumptions coming from you?
What I’m saying is the two party system gives you a choice between two enemies. Yet you dumbasses CONSTANTLY pretend that Democrats good just because Republicans bad.
A vote doesn’t, and SHOULD NOT, come with an ass kissing.
I make these assumptions because the type of people who use the type of language that you do and espouse similar views to you tend to also do these other things. It’s called “generalisation”, and although I apologise if I’ve made an incorrect one, it is a part of human thinking and everyone does it, including you.
It is my belief that the terms “good” and “bad” are poor labels and not suitably descriptive, especially for most political ideologies. I can only say that Democrats tend to enact policies that I agree with more while Republicans do not. That is why I say that Democrats are “better”. Whether “better” means “good” is irrelevant. I don’t like the two-party system and I work to change it by circulating ballot initiatives to move us toward proportional and ranked-choice voting. But when we only have two choices, it makes sense to vote and campaign for the one you disagree with least, then criticise and exert political pressure as necessary to nudge them in the right direction. Note that political pressure comes only collectively as a voting bloc, and a voting bloc that doesn’t participate isn’t going to be effective at exerting political pressure and having their demands acceded to. I understand that you vote, but not everyone who thinks the way you do does.
“… and then criticize and exert political pressure as necessary…”
Yes, exactly. and it’d be really fucking nice if people would stop treating me like a Republican for stating the BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS of, “hey guys, the Democrats aren’t your allies, either.”
So pathetic how you claim to support democracy but shit on anyone who criticizes your precious political party and then make juvenile excuses for doing so.
That’s actually better than I thought. People in other states are so used to the dysfunction that they literally don’t believe these things are possible.
Good news doesn’t spread as quickly as bad news and rage bait. “McDonald’s Workers Can Afford Flat on 1/3 of Income” isn’t a good headline but “Families Increasingly Priced Out By Red-Hot Housing Market” does.
So pathetic how you claim to support democracy but shit on anyone who criticizes your precious political party and then make juvenile excuses for doing so.
I don’t. But it’s undeniably true that one party is much better, in my opinion, than the other. They aren’t a perfect party but to equate them with the Republican Party simply because they aren’t doing a perfect (or in many cases, even a good) job is stupid.
Right now, the choices are “bare minimum” or “nothing at all”. These choices are not the same. One is clearly better.
If you would like a more nuanced opinion then read carefully the rest of my comments in this thread. I’m not going to repeat my points for every person who comes along with the same retort and insult thinking they’ve “got” me.
You’re correct, but Lemmy seems to be full of liberal morons who think they’re leftist simply because US conservatives are so far right.
They aren’t leftists. They’re moron incrementalist Liberals who don’t understand how CONSTANTLY capitulating to fascists is in fact NOT progressive. At all.
The problem is, we need caps on profit margins on necessities, and to stop the making of things we need for basic survival investment opportunities.
But that would be difficult to get done. So they go for the low hanging fruit of wages, which never permanently solve anything because they’ll just keep raising prices under this scamflation cycle we’ve been in since COVID.
Or a single House speaker that refuses to even bring it up for a vote. Or or a dipshit that brings it up for vote, then filibusters their own bill (coughMcConnellCough)
The obvious fact that Republicans are much worse doesn’t make it ok for the Democrats to not fight for the things the overwhelming majority of their voters want.
No, one of the two parties makes posts like this to make stupid people say “both sides” whilst said party passes laws to suppress black votes, discriminate against gay folk, and ban abortions.
Quit trying to “both sides”. It’s what stupid people say.
But I’m not saying that. I’m saying that a two-party system is stupid. And I’m saying that as a citizen of a country that has 9 political parties. edit: to make it clear, if I’d be an American, I’d definitely vote for Dems, no question about it.
Republicans aren’t stopping states like NY or CA from passing a living wage. Democrats are stopping that.
So sick of the straw men and blatant gaslighting coming from the democratic party. Anything to excuse why corporations keep getting their way with Dems. Meanwhile it takes 10 fucking years to increase the minimum wage in a blue state.
Minimum wage is not the same thing as a living wage. The minimum wage should be a living wage, but it isn’t.
See: NY. We just got our minimum wage increase and it’s 15-16/hr depending on where you are in NY… That’s what we were fighting for more than ten goddamn years ago. $15-$16/hr is an absolute joke on Long Island and NYC. I finally managed to claw my way up to 60k/year and as a single guy the thought of homeownership on long Island is as fantastical and far-fetched as a unicorn, forget about 15/hr… You can’t even rent most illegal apartments at that income alone.
The conversation needs to be about what constitutes a living wage and how to calculate it at a given time for each area not just blanket minimum wage increases to specific numbers that sound nice to chant like “fight for fifteen.”
Lol getting down voted out of pure tribalism. The complete unwillingness of their base to seriously criticize Democrats is such a massive fucking turn off to voting for them.
Right to work is another BS right wing policy that needs to die. I put in less than two weeks notice, I’m an asshole; company drops me in an instant, business as usual.
Minimum wage and living wage are two very different things. Most Democrats absolutely do not support a living wage, and don’t try to lie to us about how they do.
When will they finally increase it to something plausible, and then appoint some department to review and increase it in line with inflation every year according to XYZ rules.
Seems silly to need acts of congress to increase it every time.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.