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.
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.
That’s not only a search engine problem in itself - websites also got worse in general to appeal to googles algorithm. Which means that other search engines would show similar crap, unfortunately.
I remember in the early days of the internet Alta Vista search worked quite well. It was easy to find what you wanted, and find new things relevant to your interests - and so it became very popular. Unfortunately, Alta Vista only worked well if people made their websites in good faith. It was searching meta-tags and text on the page; and so when greedy people wanted to get more traffic on their website, they found it easy to exploit Alta Vista’s search. As more and more people started exploiting the system, the search got worse and worse.
I remember the day I switched to using Google. I was searching for some C programming stuff on Alta Vista with technical words - and the results had more porn sites than programming sites. Like, wtf. Obviously that search doesn’t work anymore. It stopped working because arseholes were exploiting it.
And now, pretty much the same thing is happening to Google. Their algorithm worked better for longer than what Alta Vista was doing, but it seems that self-interested people have kind of cracked the system, and now the results are mostly just junk instead of useful stuff. (Note, I stopped using Google several years ago. I’ve been using Duck Duck Go. But you’re right that the problem is more widespread than just Google.)
Yep the whole Internet feels like a dying mall. There are still some places I go for specific needs, but I’d say my casual browsing of any kind just keeps getting smaller.
I legitimately switched back to local teletext as my main news source. No SEO bullshit, no ads, the articles are succinct and written by humans (for now).
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.
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.
Lmao idk if “most” even holds up in fiction. Even the “good” cops in fiction tend to perform illegal searches, abuse suspects, break the law in countless ways to get the bad guys. How many times have we seen the “good guys” stymied by their inability to search a home but one turns to the other and sarcastically says “oh I think I heard someone scream for help lol” kicks down the door?
Sometimes they have a conscience but I’d call very few fictional cops “good”
I’m pretty sure they shoot innocents a lot less. But I’m in it for the entertainment, not because they follow the law.
Interestingly, in Elementary they call out your issue of always finding probable cause to enter a home. They end up in court over it. It’s still basically hand waved off with them asking if they are being called liars and if they have proof. But they aren’t even cops, they are consultants, so I’m not sure probable cause even applies. Seems more likely they shouldn’t be able to do shit unless they suspicion of imminent danger.
That’s “okay”, though, because we, the viewers, often know that the suspect is guilty. The cops still come off as good (and smart, with good intuition as well) because we know for certain that they’re doing the “right” thing.
As a society, we don’t want to teach people that it is EVER acceptable for the authorities to break rules/laws. They already have power. Why should they go free after breaking the rules meant to control their reach? At the least, they should get charged and go to trial by jury. Ideally, those juries should then convict in all but the most benign cases.
I remember at least a couple old shows had the good old ‘sheriff’ or whatever break some rule and then had to pay for it. And they did, and good guys accept that despite meaning well, they had done wrong and should have followed the law.
If you ask society at large to accept that breaking the rules is ok THIS time because this time is special and our guy is working for Team Good, then our society starts to allow that in all kinds of stupid real-life situations and you end up with criminal cops, politicians, and all manner of officials. Worse, you might end up with random citizens who think it is ok to break the law just because their leader tells them to.
You nailed it. That’s why I put “okay” in quotes. Those laws exist for a reason, and lionizing cops who break the law only teaches the public to accept that lawbreakers are okay if they’re on Team Good.
Unfortunately, what the government calls “good” and what you and I call “good” are often different things.
This is why I loved the Nero Wolfe tv show so much; they taught valuable lessons (like don’t let a cop in without a warrant and be wary of the FBI) and the cops were much more realistic, even if still more or less good guys.
Fictional cops rarely have any ethics. Quite famously, they ignore people civil rights or liberties when they “know” that person is guilty.
It’s like the male lead of a shitty romance novel acting super creepy, abusive, and rapey, but it’s okay because it’s fiction and they always luck out and the woman is into it.
Which is why most cop shows function as authoritarian propaganda. They show an idealist fairy tale version that nonetheless creates this aspirational image of cops in mainstream culture. It gives cover to the true cop culture. Just like villains in movies are always just a bad apple that is corrupt and once eliminated all is well, when in real world the rules of the system is what breeds corruption. It’s not meant to be, but it acts as authoritarian propaganda.
I love cop shows, they are my guilty pleasure, but one needs to be aware that this is fairy tale.
Which is why most cop shows function as authoritarian propaganda.
Exactly!! I mean why else do you think Law & Order:SVU has been on the air for like fucking 30 seasons? Its not because of Ice-T’s incredible acting ability, thats for sure…
I had this as a bumper sticker on my electric car Chevy Volt a few years ago. Hehe. I got a lot of laughs and comments about it when pumping gas, or parking.
Edited for clarity about why I would need gas for an electric car.
The engine only helps to power the drive train in mountain mode. Otherwise it charges the battery, which drives the electric motor. The Volt is a pretty awesome car. I would still be driving it if I didn’t need something more rugged, or could afford two separate vehicles. But I loved owning it. I even took it on a long distance trip over the mountains and it did great! I barely had to put gas in the thing unless it was freezing outside and I had a lot of driving to do that day, or for long-distance trips. The first year I owned it I only put gas in it twice, and the gas tank is only 9 gallons.
They still have to inform you, right? Like with some banner at the edge of the page telling that they use cookies, just no need for a popup asking you to accept or decline.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.