I’m this close to just quitting society and becoming Amish or something. Technology is just getting worse and worse. Maybe I could be Amish but instead of being locked in the 1800s I just stay in like 2007 when technology was fun

Nah keep one in the chamber so you don’t have to worry about it and get another shell in the tube.

$2m is nothing to someone like Epstein. The private jet they’re flying in cost $61m, for example

I wouldn’t call pre-capitalist society “thriving on mutual cooperation” and neither would Marx. It was different, yeah, but ultimately still exploitative for most people. Consider that Tsarist Russia was still largely pre-capitalist (in the transition to being a capitalist economy) and that this fact led to a lot of debate among socialist and communist thinkers during the leadup to the Russian Revolution because Marx himself believed that Capitalism was a necessary stepping stone to Communism. But yet, people still felt conditions were bad enough that they revolted, killed everyone in charge, and instituted socialism. Even going back to the bronze age shit was pretty brutal. Read about how kings dealt with disobedience back then and it would make anyone today seem like a saint.

Is it just Americans? My understanding that most mainstream platforms were full of this bullshit.

The joke only makes sense if you don’t have the actual facts or any desire to actually learn the

I don’t understand memes like this that seem to be made by and for people who can’t use Google to find basic information

Overtime can easily make up for lower base pay, as long as you like working more. Idk how it is in your country but good pay increases are also way easier to get in corporate jobs than government ones in the US. Another thing to consider- non salary benefits. In the US these are a big deal, not sure about your country. This would include retirement fund contributions, health insurance (probably not as big of a deal outside the US), dental/vision insurance, and any other perks of being an employee of the government. In the US these are usually a lot better for government jobs than most corporate jobs, but salary is lower. If you’re not nearing retirement age, I’d recommend it but with the caveat that my experience is only in the US which has a really messed up system.

Colorism, the favoritism towards lighter skinned people against darker skinned people, has a long history in India, and is still very much a problem today.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200818-colourism-in-india-the-people-fighting-light-skin-bias

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8932098/

https://www.stearthinktank.com/post/colorism-in-indian-society

Game developers hire economists and psychologists to run experiments on the precise ways they need to design their games to make people feel like they need skins and other cosmetics and spend money on them. The games are designed to nudge people into associating having good skins with being good at the game and having the default skins with being bad at the game, and to make people want the new skins and feel bad for not having them. Furthermore, they don’t really make money on the average person who either doesn’t spend money on loot crates or maybe spends a bit of money every now and then- the real money makers are a tiny percentage of players who have some bizarre compulsion to spend absurd amounts of money on this stuff. These are known as “whales” and a lot of them have legitimate psychological issues that cause them to be like this or they’re like Saudi nobility who just have absurd amounts of money and don’t give a shit about blowing it on fake video game stuff.

There is a difference between “more people” and “as many people as reddit”

Why would we want it to be? More people is what ruins websites. A big part of why reddit sucks is the large number of idiots.

The views of the US Libertarian Party are essentially summarized by “taxes and regulations are bad” with few other guiding principles. As a party, it is largely separated from any sort of political theory (even libertarian political theory), and sort of relies on a politically disenaged and uninformed populous who vote for the people promising lower taxes and legal weed without really understanding that the Libertarian Party’s approach to “taxes and regulations are bad” are primarily in favor of large corporations rather than individuals. They posture themselves as a true alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties when practically they want most of the same stuff Republicans want for the most part, with token acceptance of progressive social ideas.

Libertarianism more broadly is an ideology that believes that individual rights are the most important thing to creating a better society. This can be left wing (extending individual rights to include things like the ability to use land and other natural resources without being limited by property ownership) or right wing (believing that the right of the individual includes the right to accumulate wealth and power through accumulation of capital), and the distinction primarily depends on the approach to ownership and property. Libertarianism differs from Anarchism in that libertarians believe that a state is required for maintaining and guaranteeing individual rights through the use of laws and courts, and defending those rights from external threats via military action.

All in all, my personal view is that libertarianism, along with anarchism and other “min-archist” movements, is unable to answer the question of “how do you prevent someone from accumulating material and social power and using that power to enforce their will upon others?” For many libertarians the answer seems to be that social norms in a libertarian society would prevent people from doing this and that they would be able to withstand external attacks from groups that do not hold their views. I do not believe this, and I think that human nature means that some people will always want to gain control over others through whatever means they can, and that only a government can effectively combat these tendencies. Social norms are powerful and are a required part of a functioning democracy, but ultimately the law, backed by the ability to apply the use of force in a way agreed upon by the public, is what allows the weak to resist domination from the strong.

The views of the US Libertarian Party are essentially summarized by “taxes and regulations are bad” with few other guiding principles. As a party, it is largely separated from any sort of political theory (even libertarian political theory), and sort of relies on a politically disenaged and uninformed populous who vote for the people promising lower taxes and legal weed without really understanding that the Libertarian Party’s approach to “taxes and regulations are bad” are primarily in favor of large corporations rather than individuals. They posture themselves as a true alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties when practically they want most of the same stuff Republicans want for the most part, with token acceptance of progressive social ideas.

Libertarianism more broadly is an ideology that believes that individual rights are the most important thing to creating a better society. This can be left wing (extending individual rights to include things like the ability to use land and other natural resources without being limited by property ownership) or right wing (believing that the right of the individual includes the right to accumulate wealth and power through accumulation of capital), and the distinction primarily depends on the approach to ownership and property. Libertarianism differs from Anarchism in that libertarians believe that a state is required for maintaining and guaranteeing individual rights through the use of laws and courts, and defending those rights from external threats via military action.

All in all, my personal view is that libertarianism, along with anarchism and other “min-archist” movements, is unable to answer the question of “how do you prevent someone from accumulating material and social power and using that power to enforce their will upon others?” For many libertarians the answer seems to be that social norms in a libertarian society would prevent people from doing this and that they would be able to withstand external attacks from groups that do not hold their views. I do not believe this, and I think that human nature means that some people will always want to gain control over others through whatever means they can, and that only a government can effectively combat these tendencies. Social norms are powerful and are a required part of a functioning democracy, but ultimately the law, backed by the ability to apply the use of force in a way agreed upon by the public, is what allows the weak to resist domination from the strong.

Good luck on your next painting project. If you make things, areas become very important.

There’s a weird anti-intellectual contingent on Lemmy. I saw a dude the other day who was going on about how debt was the ultimate evil and then when questioned on it said that the entire study of economics was a conspiracy to make people want debt. Now there are kooky people on all platforms but this guy was getting upvoted a decent amount. I have also been downvoted a few times for pointing out flat out inaccuracies people have said about various religions and their beliefs because “religion bad” outweighs all logic.

Y’all is completely fine to use. It was a mistake for English to lose its distinction between second person singular and plural. Either we accept the word “y’all” or we go back to saying thou and thee, either way we can’t just keep on awkwardly dancing around not having a distinction between second person plural and singular.

Realistically- how often do you actually go through and take care of these items, and how important was it really if it could sit on the list while hundreds of other things pile up?

Homie if you have over 200 items on a checklist you aren’t doing half that shit.

Then use bookmarks. We shouldn’t design around people using products completely incorrectly.