• 0 Posts
  • 139 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 5th, 2023

help-circle



  • You’re appealing to definitions as if they matter in real world contexts.

    If I created a group called “the bad people killers” and started killing people would that “by definition” mean everyone I killed was bad?

    Communism may be defined as a wheelbarrow full of monkeys for all that matters, in the real world every self-sufficient communist regime was a shitshow of state capitalism, coercion, censorship, and state violence. All the drawbacks of capitalism and none of the perks.

    That’s what communism, descriptively, is. The day you figure out a way to manifest reality by sheer will alone without having to deal with the real world I will be interested in what something is “by definition”







  • Because they’re correct, you’re just being too literal in your understanding of the statement.

    Will people occasionally work for free? Sure. For friends, family, friends of friends, hell even strangers sometimes, volunteering is a thing, sure.

    Will they work for free reliably and consistently enough that they can be built upon by other people?

    Obviously not, they sometimes don’t even do it for money.

    Society as it is today, with its insane population count and highly specialised workflows, requires an insane amount of logistics that absolutely can’t bear “random cunt #354 decided not to work this month so the boat is without a captain” levels of random disruption without heavy consequences; this is incidentally also why strikes are extremely effective.

    No society that evolved beyond subsistence did so without some obligation to work, whether through monetary incentives or straight up serfdom/slavery; and if subsistence is all you want, I’m sure you can go live in like, some tribal commune on a Pacific island somewhere.





  • My brother in Christ you need to take a break from politics. People are allowed to make wrong assessments and come to wrong conclusions, it’s not a moral question.

    Unless you think the vote was to legitimately attain immoral ends, as in done intentionally to cause people to suffer, for instance, this is a person who mishandled her duty to the country, not a zealot or a monster. Just be chill.



  • It’s the fact that church comes with an actual presupposition that it isn’t optional, while de facto being optional.

    Going to church (in contexts where denomination shopping isn’t a thing at least) means going to a place where a person is not there to validate your particular perspective but instead often to tell you and everyone else in the group to do better, publicly, not because they’re better but because they appeal to higher principles whose correctness is taken for granted buly the congregation.

    See also: the absolute brain lottery winners on the internet bitching that the pope isn’t a real catholic for telling them they’re bad catholics (arguably bad christians in general, definitely bad people) for dehumanising poor people and immigrants legal and illegal.

    I’m far from a catholic (that is, I’m actually a lapsed catholic if you ask the church, but I was never a believer, just born into it) but there just isn’t a space where you’re going to participate, respect the ethics and morals, still fall short of them, be chastised, and be forgiven, that doesn’t involve some religious aspect.




  • It’s not “companies”, it’spublicly traded companies.

    And the answer is quite simple really: the moment you become publicly traded your stock becomes your product, and everything else becomes a means to deliver better stock prices to your investors.

    Not all companies are publicly traded, I patronise privately held companies wherever possible because as a client I’m still at the core of their business strategy, and I’m wary of the alternative.

    At the end of the day, bad strategies result in bad products and services. Vote with your wallet, it’s very possible.


  • nothing but eyecandy

    Not what you initially said.

    I love this game so much and I’ll always defend it against all the eye candy accusations.

    The implication was that being eye candy at all was in itself an accusation it needed defending from, which is where I extrapolated the rest.

    Good if that wasn’t what you meant, but this is an extremely common talking point so I don’t think me coming to that conclusion was unwarranted from the context.