Do you want to round up to the nearest dollar for a donation so we can have a bigger tax write-off and gain profit rather than us just paying our employees contracted drivers better?
They absolutely write it off. They just don’t make money off it. They say they made a dollar and then donated that dollar so they are asking not to be traced on it. It’s no different than if you sent the charity your $0.57 directly. You can even still write off what you donated. The only notable difference is that the company can say they donated to charity. And some do provide additional funds.
If they made money off of the donations then why wouldn’t every single company just ask you to donate to charity? Because they don’t and it costs money to take in donations. Often, companies that do it do it for the perceived goodwill. Good PR.
If I make $100 selling stuff, you give me $1 to donate, and I donate that dollar. I’d tell the IRS I made $101 and donated $1 to charity. Getting that $1 written off. Effectively telling them I made $100 in profit. If I didn’t get any donations I’d say, hey I made $100 in profit. Where is the part where they profit off the dollar? They can’t donate to themselves.
This is why you can also tell the IRS that you donated money, because you did.
It’s the best way to think about it because if you’re always doing the calculation in your head you still always think in Fahrenheit first. Just get the feeling for Celcius instead of trying to shoehorn a worse system in (as a user of said worse system myself).
I understand and appreciate your joke, but is it really? And I imagine that the bones and skin would melt first, right? Idk. I’ve never considered that someone could melt from the inside.
Not literally, no, but it can be very difficult to concentrate on anything else when you’re suffering under immense heat and a lack of concentration can lead to a figurative brain meltdown.
That being said, the brain is mostly fluid, fat and electric connections so it would DEFINITELY melt long before your bones.
Would have to be around 50-60°C for the 60% of it that’s fat to hypothetically melt if exposed directly to the heat rather than protected by the skull and cooled down by the blood, but that’s nothing compared to the 1670°C melting point of human bones.
Btw, I hope you’re happy with this reply since my Google search history looks rather grisly now 😂
Texas is Hell though. Anyone who’s been there understands this. From the heat to the guns to the people, it’s far and away the least desirable or interesting place I’ve been to. Austin wasn’t terrible though.
Don’t Texans just stay in air-conditioned buildings and vehicles all the time? I just saw a YouTube video where a guy in Texas was complaining that his air conditioning setup wouldn’t get the temperature below 76°F, which I found odd since I set the thermostat on my AC to 26°C (which is nearly 79°F.)
Yeah that’s absolutely a thing all over warm weather states in America. It drives me crazy that I try to acclimate to the higher heat and just end up inside with 68° air conditioner settings. Absolutely freezing my ass off. But the reality is that is more middle/ upper class living. If you’re doing manual labor or living in poverty, you know what the heat is actually like.
It doesn’t fit into the rhyme, but -10°C is the point where just wearing a coat isn’t enough. You need to either start limiting the time you spend outside or put some serious thought into the protective clothing you wear beyond just throwing a coat on as you go out the door.
I had a water bottle in my car when it was around -11 °C, and when I tried to drink it, the supercooled water instantly froze solid, which was startling, but hardly surprising.
More like 30° I’m melted into the pavement, 20° warm but good, 10° is near perfect, 0° starts getting cols, -10° put on a jacket, -20° and below put on a good jacket.
Don’t feel dumb man, trying to make yours rhyme is fun actually. I like that you added other temps. That’s how I learned it in America as a kid and remembered it, because it rhymes.
You want to get their interest, but as this might be one of those deal breaker questions, you should get it out of the way early. There’s no shame in breaking up from an incompatibility in attraction or sexual preference, but there should be some shame at sticking with it expecting another person to change for you.
Not really. Even old fashioned farmers boil their milk. Almost all milk contains dangerous bacteria regardless of what the safety standards are; this is because things like e.coli are natural for cows but harmful to us humans. Like imagine defending a practice that can literally kill you or give you life long digestive problems.
Fun fact, e. Coli is a family of bacteria, most of them are harmless to humans. They are even a part of many diet supplements.
Also I don’t know where you live and what your food standards are, but here in Europe you can drink raw milk quite safely and there are plenty of raw milk products like cheese. It’s literally a non issue.
Have you actually talked to a microbiologist about this? It’s not safe at all.
E.coli might have some harmless strains, but you have no guarantee which strain is present. It’s also not the only dangerous pathogen found in milk. Did I mention raw milk is often contaminated with bacteria from cow poo?
Just because something is fine for a calf doesn’t mean it’s fine for you and vice versa.
Edit: oh yeah and I live in England. We have decent food safety standards here and that’s why raw milk isn’t sold at supermarkets.
Raw milk is not sold at supermarkets because its shelf life is like one day. But you can buy raw milk directly from farmers or even from the Borough Market.
It’s already infected with the bad bacteria, and is a great growth medium for them. Also not everything you buy has bad bacteria or only has bad bacteria on the outside. Like you wouldn’t expect fresh fruit to have bacteria inside it because it’s a living thing with the ability to defend itself. Cooking food kills most bacteria too; that’s why pasteurizing things works.
Raw milk is known to be a major health risk, why would you just ignore it? Like you wouldn’t eat raw chicken so why milk?
The movie didn’t came out on Netflix until 2017 and there are exacly two ipads that could fit that description. So while possible sadly not very likely. Especially Netflix supporting an about 3yr old version of their app seems to high of a sceurity risk to me.
Sadly I have no solid proof but Netflix did continue supporting the Original iPad (on iOS 5.1.1) using the old client for quite a while
Edit# NVM there it is, actual proof lmao vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=DVAZbsVvQqE it’s towards the end of the video but yea, the old client did continue to work in 2019
Instagram still supportes android 2.2 version of their app (at least they did back in 2020 when I last checked, I was able to log in and use most features of the app on my zte racer)… so…
Also, I could be wrong, but it looks like they cut off some pixels from the right side of the MJ art so it fit better. Look at the “25”. No way they would cut it off like that on purpose.
I’m not religious, but I do feel like writing something like this is comparable to selling your soul to the devil. The person who wrote this abandoned their humanity for capitalists and they should be ashamed.
If they had the capacity to feel shame, I don’t think they would have penned that article. Disgusts me how quickly people abandon humanity for a few schillings
Lmao what the fucking hell. I hope that guy was let go by whatever college he “teaches” at. I put teaches in quotations because I hope they are drug testing that fucker. He took some flaka or something.
It’s more akin to the swastika. It was in use before Nazis started using it. But if you see someone showing one these days, there is a much higher chance that they are signaling their hate. The Gadsden flag is used pervasively on the far right and with white nationalists. There are certainly people who fly it that are not in those categories but it has definitely been co-opted by hate groups.
Unfortunately. I had a license plate of it because I liked it and it was yellow, which is my favorite color.
Then I finally broke free of the brainwashing required to be right wing and it had to go. I had to go to a plate that was only half yellow, but if rather do that than be lumped with them.
Personally, the cunts that would lump me in with white supremacists because I have a Don’t Tread On Me license plate aren’t worth the effort to appease. They’d have to be brainwashed themselves.
I’ve never equated libertarians with white supremacists. When I think of libertarians I think of 22 year old techbros (old enough to have money but too young or sheltered to have experienced hardship that adulthood brings) who wanna smoke weed and think the fire department should be a PaaS startup. I get mine and what do you mean it’s not realistic dude
I would recommend looking more into it. Libertarianism at its actual fundamental, and not the heavily skewed incorrectly labeled types being seen here, is about freedom of the individual from oppression of tyranny and inefficient bureaucracy. The ability to live your life without determined rules set forth by a governing body that has long forgotten the plight of the common man.
You can even take two seconds to look at Wikipedia for the aggregated definition and see it’s about liberty and personal autonomy. Often you’ll hear, I don’t agree with what you say but I’ll die for your right to say it. Libertarians don’t have to personally accept what you do, but they fundamentally believe the state should not interfere with it.
This is why rule of law and cosmopolitanism are such fundamental values, as if the state is not allowed encroachments on personal liberty, it’s left to the citizenry to use the free market of ideas in determining what is acceptable or not.
Ancaps are an entirely different breed and are extremist in their views. Conflating them is like conflating a Tankie with a Social Democrat.
Can normal people who just don’t like being tread on not have anything?
As far as I’m aware, the Gadsden flag has it’s origins as a warning against the British when the American colonies started to get their shit together and become ungovernable. It seems like it might be a good time to start flying it again just about worldwide.
They’re not gonna voluntarily give it back, so why not just take it like they did? Let’s say they start flying rainbow flags, should the LGBT community just give up the rainbow flag? I’ve noticed a trend where the alt-right widely adopts a symbol and the left just kinda… let’s them have it. Why? I don’t get it. If you don’t want them to have a symbol, then don’t allow them to become the exclusive users of it.
I’ve been saying this for years. What happens is they let their leftist friends bully them into not using it for fear of appearing right wing, and the right wing wins it. Honestly if the right ever figures out they have this power it’ll be…interesting…
What exactly do they win? What do left people lose? It’s not like the LGBT movement is the rainbow flag. It’s just a symbol, and if it weren’t there’d be another one. This whole fighting for a thing makes sense only if there weren’t infinite equivalent alternatives.
But to be fair it’s really hard to co-opt the symbol of a wholly opposed group.
Young people indoctrinated to socially pressure their peers into following a strict moral code. The parallels are so on-the-nose that it’s almost funny.
That’s basically what happened with the word “libertarian”. It originally was short for libertarian socialist. (Edit: clarity)
We’ve been surrendering words to the right for at least a century and it hasn’t gone well. Every time the public decides a right wing idea is trash, the right rebrands the idea.
They’re coming for “anarchist” next with monarchism rebranded as “anarcho”-capitalism.
I think I’ve seen both “Come and take it” and “don’t tread on me” on pride flags; that could be a way to reclaim both symbols. Put 'em on flags that already represent things contrary to the alt-right.
I don’t know if you’re aware, but we had our arses handed to us at the Eureka stockade. Anyone who didn’t die was hung. You guys eventually won, whereas we were trapped into eternal service to the crown, which we still for some reason don’t want to step away from. I wouldn’t fly the stockade flag.
don’t know if you’re aware, but we had our arses handed to us at the Eureka stockade. Anyone who didn’t die was hung.
That is utterly untrue. Nobody was hung, they were acquitted. And while they certainly lost the shooting part when they ran out of ammo, they won public opinion and legal changes ( unfair/unjust treatment and taxes was the core issue)
“The fighting left at least 27 dead and many injured, most of the casualties being rebels”
“Open rebellion broke out on November 29, 1854, as a crowd of some 10,000 swore allegiance to the Eureka Flag.”
“A group of 13 captured rebels (not including Lalor, who was in hiding) was put on trial for high treason in Melbourne, but mass public support led to their acquittal.”
Noting of the 10,000, only a thousand fronted to fight, and half those deserted to go get drunk during the night
“After the oath swearing ceremony, about 1,000 rebels marched in double file from Bakery Hill to the Eureka”
“Lalor was in charge, but large numbers of the men were constantly going out of the Stockade, and as the majority got drunk, they never came back … The 500 or 600 from Creswick had nothing to eat, and they, too, went down to the Main Road that night … Lalor seeing that none would be left if things went on, he gave orders to shoot any man who left.”
The actually fighting force was a few hundred in the end.
They did reasonably well until they ran out of ammo given they picked a really shit spot
"For at least 10 minutes, the rebels offered stiff resistance, with ranged fire coming from the Eureka Stockade garrison such that Thomas’s best formation, the 40th regiment, wavered and had to be rallied. Blake says this is “stark evidence of the effectiveness of the defender’s fire.”
Once they ran out of ammo they were quickly over run
You guys eventually won,
Who ? Are you calling me a seppo ? I’m an Aussie mate.
whereas we were trapped into eternal service to the crown, which we still for some reason don’t want to step away from.
So campaign for a republic, Johnny Howard may have managed to kick the can down the road but nobody likes wingnut, support is rising.
Alright. This has changed my entire understanding of that flag. I am now and evermore to be known as “The Fist of Eureka” and I will fly only the flag of the stockade.
Please accept this as humble apologies for being incorrect on the internet twice in one day.
You may initially dismiss this as loud noise that you need to close immediately, but I encourage you to persevere with The Legend of Borry through to the end at least once.
The word idiot had its origin in not being elected to the senate or alike and yet you seem to be an idiot when you argue with origins instead of usage by white supremacists.
While the answer to this is “yes,” some white supremecists are also drinking coke, and the two things are equally as relevant to white supremecy. “White Supremecy” is frankly antithetical to libertarianism, whether you’re right (individualist) libertarian or left (collectivist) libertarian. It’d be like if Goldman Sachs stuck a hammer and sickle on their logo or if the proud boys hung up drei pfeile flags, it wouldn’t suddenly make those symbols of capitalism or whatever the fuck the ptoud boys are, they’d just be “wrong,” “stupid,” “intentionally misrepresenting themselves to manipulate you or temper perceptions with a label that doesn’t actually apply to them,” and labels are simply a tool for control btw. This concept also applies to the Gadsden flag, or any other myriad of appropriated symbols.
Do you label yourself as libertarian or something like that? This post and the other one hint at it: lemmygrad.ml/comment/1115631
Is in your eyes the problem the “corporatism” of capitalism? If yes it would be funny that a person that ate that propaganda is defending fascists, since you would be carrying water for fascists.
Look at those flags: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#/media/File:Charlottesville_'Unite_the_Right'_Rally_(35780274914)_crop.jpg
1 Nazi flag per 2 Gadsen “Tread on me” flags and per 3 confederate flags.
Meanwhile when you search for “tread on me” flag usa 2020 you will get a vast majority of right wing white supremacists posing with that flag and little else.
They can have whatever they want, but you’ll have to forgive people for thinking that you align with people who display the same symbols as you.
I assume anyone flying a swastika is antisemitic, when to be fair, they might just be a fan of the Nazi stance on affordable housing and infrastructure.
If you have a problem with symbols you identify with being co-opted by people you don’t, take it up with the people you disagree with who took your symbol, not the people who also disagree with them.
Actually, I think that the opposite of a bad example. If I see you flying that flag, I’m not going to assume your an enthusiast of finish WW1 aviation.
I chose the swastika specifically because some other people used the symbol at some point and had it ruined for them. That’s a thing that happens to symbols, they get associated with shitty stuff and you stop showing the symbol, convince people to drop the objectionable meaning, or accept that people will think you endorse the shitty one.
I assume anyone flying a swastika is antisemitic, when to be fair, they might just be a fan of the Nazi stance on affordable housing and infrastructure.
Or they’re Hindu and it’s got nothing to do with Nazis at all.
Yes, that’s sorta why I picked that example. It’s a symbol that’s been used in other contexts and is almost entirely associated with a specific negative use case.
If you see a guy walking around with a swastika arm band, do you really think "oh, look at that man showing pride in his Hindu beliefs”?
I don’t think it was ever actually co-opted. I think people saw some bearded redneck wear it as a cape in a picture above an article a couple times and then the Internet left decided it was a Nazi symbol.
The Confederate flag has a 100% legitimate argument for being a symbol of hate. The Gadsden Flag is a part of our nation’s founding ideal.
Fascism is simply the conclusion of capitalism. Antifa is a bunch of socialists because socialism is the only cure. Anticomm and Fascism have so much overlap as movements because they’re the same movement. Even in the historical context of the first rise of fascism, who took the reins of power was people promising the capital holders they’d protect them from those scary laborers. And do you know what we don’t talk about enough in America? We don’t talk enough about why fascism didn’t take hold here. Its because in the 1920s the capital holders had seen what would happen in America if they tried to do a fascism: the coal miners rose up in violent revolt. We had what legitimately qualified as a civil war in West Virginia with the labor movement. It’s one of only two times american citizens on home soil have been bombed by an air force.
My concern is this: we don’t have enough people in this country right now who love their brethren enough to stand against fascism. I ask everyone to do this: look at the Black Lives Matter movement. Realize what the African American communities right next to you are doing to resist the police brutality they experience, the fascism they are already experiencing and resisting. Join them. Link arms with them. The reality is the antifascist movement in America is nothing new. How we prevent fascism from rising is we make sure the violent weirdos know we are many and they are few. Make sure they know they don’t have the man power to take over
Even checked Capitalism results in fascism, as Capitalism is entirely unsustainable and eventually results in the crisis that enables the rise of fascism.
Maybe so. Maybe capitalism can never remain checked because the temptation to acquire more wealth will always end up winning. You’d like to think that people are better than that, buuuuut…
I mean we do have a pretty good indication of a quite large impending factor which may cause a lot of them to collapse in the coming years, and which could collectively be attributed to them pretty well, especially within the last 50 years.
That is an interesting argument, but where is the proof? Economics is a very murky “science” as it is, a broad statement such as “capitalism is inherently unstable” needs some healthy data backing it up.
The same argument could be made about communism, as an economic system it doesn’t have the best track record.
Socialism seems to have a pretty good track record. But even in socialism there are issues, especially around ensuring a steady supply of kids coming through, once population starts falling the cracks start appearing.
That is an interesting argument, but where is the proof? Economics is a very murky “science” as it is, a broad statement such as “capitalism is inherently unstable” needs some healthy data backing it up.
Marx makes his case for it in Capital, specifically Volume 3, Chapter 13-15, though it’s easier to digest Wage Labor and Capital and Value, Price and Profit. Essentially, competition forces prices lower, and automation and increased production lower the price floor. Automation is pursued because it temporarily allows you to outcompete, until other firms can produce at the same price, forcing prices to match at a new floor. This continues. It’s more like gravity than an invisible hand, there do exist ways to push back against it, but the overall trend is negative, as the Rate of Profit falls to 0.
The same argument could be made about communism, as an economic system it doesn’t have the best track record.
It can’t, because Communism abolishes this system. Communism has a good track record when properly put into historical context and is definitely the correct goal to pursue.
Socialism seems to have a pretty good track record. But even in socialism there are issues, especially around ensuring a steady supply of kids coming through, once population starts falling the cracks start appearing.
Socialism is just the precursor to Communism. The USSR, Cuba, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, etc. are/were all Socialist, building towards Communism, I don’t see why you say Communism has a bad track record but Socialism has a good track record, that seems contradictory. Further still, I don’t see what birth rates have to do with anything.
I’d say that Marxism at least is fatally flawed. The idea that you start a Communist society by gathering all power to a central council is the issue. Once power is obtained it’s never willingly dispersed. This has been the fate of existing all communist governments
This is a fundamental and critical misunderstanding of what Communism is, and what Marx refers to as a State. Marx makes himself clear in Critique of the Gotha Programme, but the State for Marx isn’t just “government.” Marx was vehemontly anti-Anarchist, not out of principle disagreements, but on a practical and rational basis.
For Marx, the State is the element of government by which class society sustains and protects itself. Ie, private property rights, and the police that protect it. Communism would have a government, its own police, and its own structures and administration through central planning. The State whithering away, as Marx puts it, is the slow lack of retaining the former elements of class society. For example, we no longer have Streetlamp Lighters, as streetlamps are electric now. This wasn’t because they were targeted and eliminated, but simply fell out of favor with the progression of society.
Once power is obtained it’s never willingly dispersed. This has been the fate of existing all communist governments
This right here is the crux of your misunderstanding. Carrying over from the whithering away elaboration from my last paragraph, the government is not supposed to intentionally collapse itself, it’s supposed to remain a democratic worker government, and continue to be built up over time.
Different AES states have seen their own issues, but none of them have been due to “not willingly giving up power,” which is a fundamental misconception of how these AES States function, or what the Marxist path to Communism truly is.
Believing Marxism to be “fatally flawed” because you completely misunderstood his works to the foundational level is silly though, right? Marxism isn’t literary fiction or anything, where you can apply Death of the Author and write about your own personal meaning from the text, Marx was very clear both in writing and in speeches, and Marxists have studied and built on his original body of work.
You don’t have to take it from me alone, Marxism is extremely thoroughly documented and understood, flexible, adaptable, and widely discussed.
What was the point of your original comment? Just to take a dig at what other people were discussing and then dip when I tried to have a productive discussion with you?
I just mean that I don’t think they were a good faith interlocutor. Probably if I were to put a specific explanation on it, I’d say that they are probably tired of having the same argument over and over again and being corrected repetitively, to the point where they’re not genuinely engaging anymore, I’ve seen that a lot. Especially with how quickly they backed out but also still left a comment. I dunno if that level of bad faith would be considered trolling in the strictest sense, but I would probably still classify it as such.
Sometimes you make a comment about something that seems interesting and then realise you’ve wandered into a enclypoedia convention and have bitten off more than you have the head space to deal with. I probably should have said that instead of what I did say. My apologies
I did try to be thorough, but I guess I overexplained and ended up alienating you, my bad. I do hope you got something from it, I try to clear up misconceptions about Marxism when I see them because he is very misunderstood, especially on instances like Lemmy.world.
Don’t apologise. Totally my fault - I was being a dick. I’ve been on the other side of this kind of interaction with someone doubling down after being called out on being a jerk. I should do better. Thanks for your response
You should never be “happy” with your interpretation. You should always be willing to learn, refine and adjust your interpretation to changing conditions.
What does whither away are things like Private Property Rights and other elements by which Capitalist society maintains itself.
The “whithering away of the State” is one of the most commonly taken out of context aspects of Marxism, most people associate the State with all aspects of Government. Marx does not make that same association, and used the word State as shorthand for the aforementioned Capitalist elements of government.
This is why there’s a big difference between Anarchism and Marxism. Anarchists seek horizontal organization, and Marxists are fine with central planning and endorse it.
What do you mean by contemporary? The theory hasn’t really stagnated, Marxism has grown over time. There are AES states that have Marxism as the core model, but each are in different positions on the global sphere.
While I appreciate that Marx made a case, this is not data or evidence. It seems intuitively true, but that doesn’t really move you closer to real proof.
Essentially, competition forces prices lower, and automation and increased production lower the price floor. Automation is pursued because it temporarily allows you to outcompete, until other firms can produce at the same price, forcing prices to match at a new floor. This continues.
I’m not sure if you are trying to imply automation is a good or bad thing. Looking through history, the industrial revolution was bad for the workers of the time, but in the long run massively improved the living standards of everyone. Automation is a net good in my opinion. Competition is simply an accelerator, this is not really tied to the economic system being used. In capitalist or communist systems, firms that are protected from competition (by what ever means) do not innovate as fast or as effectively (see Intel as a great example of this).
Socialism is just the precursor to Communism.
While this can be true, it is not necessarily true.
I don’t see what birth rates have to do with anything.
As your population ages, the costs to care for them raise at an increasing rate. If you don’t have enough new workers to stabilize the economic base, the burden that an aging population places on the younger generation grows until it becomes untenable.
While I appreciate that Marx made a case, this is not data or evidence. It seems intuitively true, but that doesn’t really move you closer to real proof.
What would count as real proof, if not prices falling due to competition?
I’m not sure if you are trying to imply automation is a good or bad thing. Looking through history, the industrial revolution was bad for the workers of the time, but in the long run massively improved the living standards of everyone. Automation is a net good in my opinion. Competition is simply an accelerator, this is not really tied to the economic system being used. In capitalist or communist systems, firms that are protected from competition (by what ever means) do not innovate as fast or as effectively (see Intel as a great example of this).
I’m not arguing whether automation is “good or bad,” I am strictly speaking about the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism. Automation is good, but in Capitalism is used to purely benefit Capitalists, as wages stagnate with respect to ever-climbing productivity.
While this can be true, it is not necessarily true.
Why would it not be true? This still doesn’t explain why you stated Communism to have a poor track record, no AES state has yet made it to Communism, as Communism must be achieved globally.
As your population ages, the costs to care for them raise at an increasing rate. If you don’t have enough new workers to stabilize the economic base, the burden that an aging population places on the younger generation grows until it becomes untenable.
Again, this has nothing to do with Socialism or Communism. It seems to be referring to welfare for elderly people, which exists in all systems.
What would count as real proof, if not prices falling due to competition?
That is the problem I was referring to in my original post, “economics is a very murky science”, I come from an engineering and physical sciences point of view. Good economic data is hard to come by, it is always contaminated with chaotic factors that cannot be controlled for. “Proof” may not be possible in economic science.
Why would it not be true?
Because from a logical point of view, there is no necessity to go from socialism to communism. A country could easily decide that socialism is where they wan to stay. When something is necessarily true, not only does it always happen it must happen. That is the point I was trying to make, there is nothing fundamental about socialism forcing that transition from socialism to communism.
Again, this has nothing to do with Socialism or Communism.
I have to disagree with you there, in a capitalist system the burden of care falls on the individual (see the American health care system), whereas in socialism and communism, that burden falls on the state. This is a key economic factor, I’m from NZ and the social healthcare system is really awesome, but as with everything we can see how it could be better.
The system has a capacity, if you want to increase that capacity you have to have the resources to do that. If your population is not growing (stable is not enough) then your health care system is always in danger of not having enough resource. The problem is that the system always need to grow, as we get better at improving the lives of people and increasing lifespan the burden from the elderly increases. The resources used to care for the elderly are finite and use up system capacity.
Even in a capitalist society the system has capacity limits, there is no amount of money that you can throw at it to increase your number of doctors tomorrow. You have X doctors today, this is not easily increased beyond the natural rate (X+new doctors-retiring doctors), all you can do is move the existing ones around.
You can use this argument for a lot of major points of expenditure; education, welfare, transport etc…but healthcare is starkly different between the different economic models.
That is the problem I was referring to in my original post, “economics is a very murky science”, I come from an engineering and physical sciences point of view. Good economic data is hard to come by, it is always contaminated with chaotic factors that cannot be controlled for. “Proof” may not be possible in economic science.
I also come from said POV, as do many on Lemmy. Simply casting doubt in spite of overwhelming evidence of goods getting cheaper and cheaper is not sufficient.
Because from a logical point of view, there is no necessity to go from socialism to communism. A country could easily decide that socialism is where they wan to stay. When something is necessarily true, not only does it always happen it must happen. That is the point I was trying to make, there is nothing fundamental about socialism forcing that transition from socialism to communism.
No, they cannot. Communism is advanced, developed Socialism. In the long, long run, either they move on from Socialism to Communism, or they fall back to Capitalism.
Communism is achieved when the entire globe becomes Socialist, money has been phased out (which becomes a necessity to avoid falling back into Capitalism), all Capitalism has been eradicated, and the previous elements of Capitalist society have fallen by the wayside.
Systems do not stay static, everything is in motion, even if it takes a long time.
I have to disagree with you there, in a capitalist system the burden of care falls on the individual (see the American health care system), whereas in socialism and communism, that burden falls on the state. This is a key economic factor, I’m from NZ and the social healthcare system is really awesome, but as with everything we can see how it could be better.
It also falls on the state in Capitalism.
The system has a capacity, if you want to increase that capacity you have to have the resources to do that. If your population is not growing (stable is not enough) then your health care system is always in danger of not having enough resource. The problem is that the system always need to grow, as we get better at improving the lives of people and increasing lifespan the burden from the elderly increases. The resources used to care for the elderly are finite and use up system capacity.
You can shift resources around as necessary. With replacement, you can still maintain a system.
Even in a capitalist society the system has capacity limits, there is no amount of money that you can throw at it to increase your number of doctors tomorrow. You have X doctors today, this is not easily increased beyond the natural rate (X+new doctors-retiring doctors), all you can do is move the existing ones around.
Generational shifts happen slowly and in full view. You can act accordingly, this is a process that lasts decades.
You can use this argument for a lot of major points of expenditure; education, welfare, transport etc…but healthcare is starkly different between the different economic models.
Generational shifts happen slowly and in full view. You can act accordingly, this is a process that lasts decades.
COVID happened in months, spread like wildfire and put a huge strain on healthcare systems worldwide. No amount of money thrown at the system would have increased capacity.
Which system IS stable? AFAICT every system ever has allowed some people more power than others and those people cleave more power to themselves over time. This appears to be how most empires fall
Good question! The oldest government still in operation appears to be San Marino, a tiny country near Italy, at around 415 years. Considering that even at a small size it’s only been around that long despite civilization being around 6000 years old, I think it’s safe to say we haven’t managed a system that has real staying power yet.
There’s hunter-gatherer tribes that have been more or less stable for over a thousand years. It’s said that the Nez Perce have lived on the Columbia River for 11,500 years.
Yeah, in an article talking about how news stories about crime often show pictures of tents, they pointed out that the photo is of a crime scene, but the crime was not committed by those living in the tents.
Yeah, the idea of a sudden swap is simplistic. The New Deal coalition included white Southerners and a substantial number of Black people and people who were otherwise prone to being sympathetic to Black civil rights. Certain dynamics protected the spot of Dixiecrats, but the contradictions were just too great for the party to hold together forever. It was a simple matter of absorbing the disaffected Dixiecrats.
But I’d rather look at what modern people are doing and saying.
We would too but unfortunately fascists pretend that they’re not fascist by claiming their political party freed the slaves.
This obviously ignores their bigotry and hate for people of color and distaste for women… And well, I digress. Suffice to say that these assholes try to claim they’re not racist despite all the racist bullshit and hate they spread, and they use this claim as proof.
We would love to ignore it but we can’t. Best we can do is inform ourselves.
This is exactly the kind of economy I would expect out of billionaires who are trying to destroy the middle class and bring back Company Towns. This is what 19th century robber-baron capitalism looks like, not the kind you were taught by Elmer Fudd.
Piracy isn’t stealing, primarily since the victim still has the pirated goods and can continue to sell them, but doubly so since people who pay for those goods legitimately don’t own them and are at the complete mercy of the company to continue to access them. History is rife with examples of companies removing access to digitally paid for goods with no explanation or recourse. Look at the recent PlayStation fiasco, or Warner Brothers cancelling Infinity Train and Inside Job (and pulling the completed seasons from streaming services) because they wanted a tax write-off.
Questioning the validity of science and half the global population’s worth of empirical evidence and endangering oneself and others purely to be contrarian, and, more importantly, continuing to support someone who calls immigrants vermin and quotes Mussolini in his campaign speeches goes beyond “having a different opinion”
Questioning the validity of science is precisely how science is done. You form a hypothesis and design an experiment to either prove or disprove it. Reading papers and just believing everything they say, taking for granted that the people who wrote them carried out the experiment(s) exactly as described, didn’t fudge any numbers, and declared all their conflicts of interest and sources of funding accurately and unbiased, isn’t.
Making your own discussion platform because you don’t like the other ones that are available is no worse of an offense than going to a different room. Lemmy literally IS such a place that was created because people didn’t like what was happening on reddit. Basically, what you’re saying is that YOU deserve a safe space because your opinions are valid and correct, and other people don’t because theirs are wrong. I don’t know, man… sounds kinda fascist if you ask me.
Questioning the conclusions that scientists before you have reached is something that is good to do if you have the tools to do your own primary research and publish your own study. If you don’t have the tools to do your own study, looking at the hundreds of papers out there in peer-reviewed journals (peer-reviewed meaning multiple independent teams of scientists did the experiment as described and got the same result the authors did) all showing the same results are about as good as you can get. If you don’t trust Big Science, just look around you. Take for example the question of whether the vaccine is safe to get. A common argument I heard was that people didn’t want to be guinea pigs, which would have been fair were it not for the fact that half the global population had already gotten it and less than 1% had any ill effects. As for whether it protects people from the virus, one need look no further than the endless stories from healthcare workers about the people they kept alive. All of the life threatening cases were from people who hadn’t gotten the shot.
Acting as though the conclusions scientists before you have reached are false because a podcast you follow said they were, without supplying any data to suggest such a thing, is a wholesale rejection of the scientific method.
The person you replied to never said anything about Parler itself, let alone whether platforms that don’t follow the popular consensus should exist. That is unambiguously good. What they said was that the people who run Parler are fascist bootlickers, which, now that Trump has said in as many words that he plans to be a dictator, is true of anyone who still supports him.
Can’t help but notice your response didn’t address the piracy issue. Can I assume we agree on that?
The problem with “big science” is that the ordinary person has no conceivable means by which to verify any of their claims, they have to be taken by faith. And there have been many, many cases in the past where this turned out to be a mistake. Unlike what some people will have you believe, science is never really settled, things that used to be the common consensus have turned out to be wrong many times in the past. What makes you think that nowadays, we’re somehow past all that, just because our methods are more precise than our forefathers’? Why should the knowledge we have now be the end-all-be-all when not too long ago, doctors used to prescribe cigarettes as a treatment for asthma?
Okay, but that’s just an opinion, not scientific consensus. People on Parler think the Fediverse is full of pedophiles, does that give them the right to shut it down?
I don’t care about stealing as long as there’s a legitimate need and it’s not just out of laziness or greed. I used to pirate my games and software when I was too broke to afford them, but once I started earning more money, I gave up on that and started paying for them, even though pirating would have sometimes been easier or more convenient.
So you disagree with the scientific consensus. Cool. Where’s your data to the contrary? When are you publishing your study? Or are you just here to cast doubt on the validity of science as a concept, and use that as a basis to believe whatever a talking head says?
Parler advertises itself towards Trump supporters. I think it’s safe to say there are Trump supporters there. Also, once again, neither I nor the OP said anything at all about Parler itself, only its founders. Where did you get the idea that I think it should be shut down?
I already told you why piracy isn’t stealing. Do you have a response to that?
It’s becoming increasingly obvious you’re not arguing in good faith. I’m going to bed now. You’ll have to pretend to argue with someone else for a while.
Strawman. I didn’t say I disagree with it, I just listed some valid reasons for why people might.
Yeah, okay, I get it, you just hate them. That’s allowed of course. I’m just pointing out that hating them for hating you makes you no better than them.
Of course it’s stealing, your justifications don’t change that. Like I said, I don’t think it’s objectionable when it’s done for legitimate reasons (like if the company removes access for something you already bought and paid for), and forgivable if you’re too broke to afford it, but it’s stealing nevertheless.
It’s fine to disagree with scientific consensus. Even more so when there is not a real consensus.
Going by a recent example where in some cases, it was being mandated for everyone to be vaccinated when possible; later, it was noted that vaccinations weren’t significantly useful for people who had recently had COVID (sorry, too lazy too link. It was just a news anyway and not a res paper). But this pertains to a condition that is currently undergoing change, with new strains coming out every now and then.
An older example. Old enough to get into our school textbooks. “different tastes on different parts of the tongue”. The text used a kind of language that made readers think that given specific tastes can only be detected at those places, whereas the results from actual science were much more nuanced. Furthermore, the textbooks encouraged the students to “verify” this by trying different tasting objects on their corresponding taste locations, while not hinting them to try any of those in places other than those, which would have easily disproven the statement in the way it was written in the text.
The point here is that you are free to believe what you may, but when your actions significantly and maybe adversely affect others, you have to be careful about what others believe and whether your belief has any concrete proof. e.g. It’s fine if you don’t want to live in the same room with a vaxxer (just live in some other room, or don’t rent a multi-tenant room in the first place), but that doesn’t give you the license to harass that person or their family.
meh
It’s stealing both ways. Whether it’s legal or moral or not, is another discussion. WB stole from the customer. It was legal (they probably had it somewhere in their EULA) and probably immoral (because they knew most customers would not really read it well and those who did, would still probably give them money because they have no other option if they wanted to watch the exclusive). Pirates then stole from WB (in this case it was illegal), but the moral implications change upon perspective. Neither side of the argument is even close to ideal, but sometimes you can’t really condemn yourself for saying “It is what it is” and picking a side.
Do we agree, then, that science should be the foremost authority in decision making, since we seem to agree that there is no better one, and that therefore your previous point was addressing nothing?
I don’t hate them because they hate me. I hate them because they are rooting for a person who calls himself a dictator, and who has a history of making credible threats against the lives and livelihoods of people I care deeply about, to take over the country in which I live. That does not make me a hypocrite.
Only if your science is comfortable with being questioned and doesn’t require banning, unpersoning, or othering people for the sake of achieving consensus.
How many of your loved ones has Trump killed or is directly responsible for? If zero, then how do you know his threats are credible? Politicians make wild promises all the time, especially during election years, and then end up not keeping them. Unless he has personally sent you a letter saying he’ll kill your mom if he gets elected, I’m gonna suggest you’re overreacting just a little bit.
I said that regardless of whether or not legitimate reasons for it may exist in some circumstances, it is still stealing. If that doesn’t look like a counterargument to you, then I don’t know what does.
Well you see, the thing is, Democrats tend to care about people they don’t know personally. It’s this little thing called having empathy and I know it may seem a foreign concept to you. Trump successfully overturned Roe v Wade. Despite not being a woman, or personally knowing any women who need abortions, I care deeply about this issue, and I surmise that if he can overturn the biggest, most untouchable supreme court case we’ve ever had, then whatever he has planned for trans people (a group of which I am also not a part) has a pretty good likelihood of succeeding.
You still have not provided a reason why you think piracy is stealing. It’s not. If I were to set up an inductor under a power line to steal power, I would be depriving the power company of electricity they could have sold to another paying customer without giving them anything in return. When I torrent a TV show, I don’t even put any additional load on Netflix’s servers. Heck, with their current revenue model I don’t even make the show’s producers any less money.
LMAO you serious? Just look at the amount of shit I got for even speaking out in favor of people who question the science.
“Democrats tend to care about people they don’t know personally” – yes, unless they’re Republicans, in which case all empathy goes out the window and blind hatred is allowed to take over. Or if they’re unborn babies in their mother’s wombs, in which case they aren’t even people at all, which means it’s fine to just kill them.
I’m sorry, but that’s stupid. Yes, the producers of the shows that already exist still got paid, but if enough people cancel their subscriptions because they can torrent the content for free, there might not be enough money to produce tomorrow’s shows, and if you enjoy watching their stuff, then you kinda stole from yourself, didn’t you? Not to mention you’re also stealing from the people who ARE paying their subscription because it’s them who helped finance those shows you’re watching. But like I said, if you are literally so broke that every single dollar you have goes to cover food and rent, I can sympathize, because man doesn’t live on bread alone. But if you have the money to spare and you just prefer to spend it on something else, you’re simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Question the science and believe what instead, genius? We are still in 2024 watching 2000 people die every week and all available data say that getting the shot has no adverse effects and reduces both the risk or contracting the disease, and the risk of death if you do, by over 90%. But Joe Rogan told them it had dead babies or microchips or whatever in it and they decide he knows better than big pharma. Even if these people don’t die from the disease they still run the risk of spreading it to someone who wasn’t eligible for the shot who might!
You seriously need to get your memory checked, dude. I’ve told you three times now and given you three different extremely valid reasons why I hate Trump supporters, and you’ve yet to address a single one of them, instead continuing to insist I hate them for no reason. If you’re talking about Democrats and Republicans in general, I’d’ve hoped you of all people would know better than to make sweeping generalizations like that, especially after you told me off for assuming you believed science didn’t work after you provided a list of reasons science didn’t work.
2.1. If republicans cared about reducing the number if abortions, they’d advocate for contraception and comprehensive sex ed – the only things that have ever reliably lowered abortion rates – but those go against their religion, so they prefer to punish women who have sex at all, even in cases of rape, by forcing them to carry to term.
2.2. As for why that’s bad, let’s do a little thought experiment. Suppose there’s a famous classical musician who got in a car crash, and the only way to save him is a new technique has been developed by which if someone is a perfect genetic match, their consciousness can live alongside a “donor” in the same body. This takes a serious toll on the donor’s body to support two lives until the procedure is reversed. Suppose you’re a perfect genetic match to this musician, and since you’re just some guy off the street and this guy is already famous, they saw fit to do this procedure without asking your consent. He’s got a concert coming up next week, and he’ll be going in your body. “Don’t worry,” the doctors say, “he’ll only be there for nine months. That’s when his tour ends, then he’ll be put up for adoption. You can keep him around till then, can’t you?” You’d be pretty pissed, right?
So by not paying for a thing that other people pay for, I am stealing from people who paid to have that thing and now have that thing? Those are some serious mental gymnastics. Also, after cancelling Infinity Train, I’m no longer willing to give Netflix the benefit of the doubt that they will use that money to produce new shows.
If you still think the vaccine issue was only a matter of not believing the science, you are seriously mistaken. People were upset because Democrats were planning to force everyone to get the shot, regardless of risk factors, and despite it having been developed in record time and with a bunch of the usual safety procedures skipped. That’s not science, that’s forced participation in a scientific experiment, which, BTW, is a violation of the Geneva Convention. People were right to be upset about it regardless of whether it actually worked or not.
You’ve given a great illustration of the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats hate Republicans because they’re Republicans, and then work their way backwards to rationalize their hatred by coming up with some silly thought experiment like you did. Meanwhile, Republicans don’t hate Democrats because they are Democrats, they hate them for what they do, but still secretly hope that one day they’ll realize the error of their ways. Meanwhile, the only secret hope Democrats have for Republicans is that they’ll all drop dead.
I’m sorry you’re a bit slow on the uptake, but I already explained it, I’m not going to repeat myself.
You’ve given a great illustration of the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats hate Republicans because they’re Republicans, and then work their way backwards to rationalize their hatred by coming up with some silly thought experiment like you did. Meanwhile, Republicans don’t hate Democrats because they are Democrats, they hate them for what they do, but still secretly hope that one day they’ll realize the error of their ways.
I didn’t say Republicans. I said Trump supporters. I also gave a laundry list of specific grievances I had with nearly all members of the Republican party, and I thought it was implied that my hatred for them would go away once those grievances did.
Thank you though for this undeniable proof that you are not arguing in good faith. This discussion is over. Good day.
Yeah, sure, not all Republicans support Trump, but I bet you that those who don’t support him are still majority pro-life, so for the sake of this argument, it doesn’t really make a huge difference.
So am I to understand that you would stop hating non-Trump supporting Republicans if they became Democrats, but you still want Trump supporters to drop dead?
Correct. That’s no less reasonable than you stopping hating democrats if they become republicans, which you just said you did. As for why I hate Trump supporters, it is my responsibility as a US citizen to defend the US from fascism. Trump says he plans to be a “day-one dictator.” He quotes Mussolini. He is a fascist. So, by extension, is anyone trying to put him in office.
And there goes another fake news hoax, fueled by blind hatred and deceptively written headlines.
What he actually said was that he would be a dictator ONLY on Day One (Source), but of course that didn’t stop many liberal websites from reporting as if he had said it differently.
Now do you see what I mean about trusting “the science”? It only takes one Google search to debunk your claim, yet you go and present it as fact because you want so desperately for it to be true that you only look at the evidence supporting your claim and don’t even attempt to disprove your hypothesis. The same thing happens with scientific research that’s paid to achieve a certain result.
Licking what boot? The boot of the concept of learning things other people know?
You can learn that from books, too. Or watching YouTube. Plenty of ways to learn that don’t require a classroom setting.
Let me guess. You think vaccines cause autism, right? Because mommy told you otherwise, and mommy scary?
Not as a rule, no. But I’m honestly very uninformed about this topic and currently don’t have a reason to change that.
Let me guess, you enjoy making wild assumptions about people based on minimal evidence and then have imaginary arguments in your head with them which you always win.
If you think youre learning a level of science to challenge published reports via youtube, I completely understand how you became such a luddite. Like. You understand the point of classes is to have someone who knows the subject weed out the trustworthy books and sources from the youtube links, right? Oh what am I saying. Of course you dont.
My guy, you quite literally said no one became great from attending class. Do I need to know any more about you? Youre practically bragging about how stupid you are.
I literally have a Master’s degree, so I’d say I’ve taken my fair share of classes for this lifetime. And I’m guessing you probably don’t have a PhD because in my experience, most people who make it that far have enough humility to understand just how little they understand.
Also, your insults still don’t impress me, but your overreliance on them speaks volumes about your own level of intelligence. Let me guess, your IQ is in the double digits.
Im literally barack obama, and my schooling got me to the white house, so…
And anyone with a degree should be well aware that no one has put stock in that old scam test of IQ for almost 3 decades. But please, mr class sluffer, tell me more about how smart your mommy says you are.
Hate to break it to you sunshine, going “nuh uh” at any science you don’t like cause it clashes with your world view you gained from religion or your Bigoted daddy?
Thanks for your opinion but I didn’t deny any science, all I said is I don’t fault people for questioning it.
Also, your insults are unnecessary and childish and don’t really help your argument. I’ve argued my case respectfully and without name-calling, and I suggest you do the same.
“I don’t have an argument so I’m going to deflect by saying I’M not a science denier I just spend my time defending science deniers. Also anyone who disagrees with me is a childish meanie 😭”
Skepticism is the literal precursor to the acientific method, and that’s where you’re stopping.
Good, so we agree on something then. No skepticism = no science.
You’re basically saying, “Gravity isn’t real because I don’t see proof.”
Strawman. I didn’t say that.
A real scientist would drop an apple, a feather, a bowling ball, and verify it.
Yes, and some of the people in the “anti-science” community ARE doing that. And the rest of them are conducting a self-experiment on what happens if you ignore all the science…
Questioning the validity of science is precisely how science is done These are 2 different statements, pertaining to 2 different actions.
Both the statements are true… err… alright, maybe not the first one as much. You can question the concept of science (which, in a way, boils down to “Question everything”) and still be a scientist.
Questioning the validity of (other’s and your own previous) science is a part of the concept of science.
Questioning the concept of science is more of a philosophical matter and would be valid in a quest for better concepts.
The above two statements are not actually denying each other.
Warner Brothers cancelling Infinity Train and Inside Job (and pulling the completed seasons from streaming services) because they wanted a tax write-off.
WHAT THE FUCK, as if the cancellation wasn’t bad enough, I only now learned they removed Infinity Train from streaming. Fuck you WB
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.