killingspark @ killingspark @feddit.org

Posts

0

Comments

181

Joined

12 mo. ago

Sometimes though a judge has decided that it is factually correct to call the leader of a party a fascist because he is one

I think the point is that there should be as little remembrance of the change itself. To anyone, even the government, that doesn't need to know it should look like you had that gender all along

Haja wenn's so isch will I di ned uffhalde

I mean that's completely wrong as far as laws go. Socially that's pretty much true

The problem with this specific law is that it isn't practically enforceable. You'd need to regularly search people entering this zone, which we will certainly not do.

Law's only matter if you can expect them to be enforced. Raising prices is easily enforced (because it would be done via taxes which are checked for correctness already).

Ey, hasch du au a Lizens für des Messerle?

Yeah that "will single out meat prices" got my eyes rolling so hard I might have a knot in my nerves now.

Meat production is one of the main contributors to the climate crisis. We need to produce less of it. I get that campaigning with that message would probably not be popular, but just focussing on groceries would have been enough right?

That's still suggesting they are worth less than other humans based on their opinions

I'm just going to point out that you are the one even bringing communism on the table and I am happy to discuss it. You brought that up as a response to my comment:

I get that being on the winner side is convenient. I am too. I just see that constantly winning seems to lead the world into a pretty bad state overall where, suddenly, noone is a winner anymore.

And all it would take to not get into the disaster scenario would be some redistribution. Doesn’t even mean you can’t be a winner anymore. Just means you get to win less hard.

To which you responded:

I am still not gonna vote for communism and neither socialism. Good luck with that stuff. It’s isolated to niche internet communities for good reasons.

I wasn't arguing that we just use the magic communism bullet to solve our problems. You just think that I am arguing that. I was and am of the opinion that we can improve the situation massively by increasing redistribution of wealth.

Edit: And I like the idea of communism in a theoretical way because I think it can be helpful to think about stuff that probably won't be implemented to get ideas on how the current system could be improved. The idea of distributing economical power more evenly is at core of socialism but it doing that in a moderate way doesnt require a revolution, it can be implemented in our current system. /Edit

Any westoids that never knew communism and think it is amazing can go and remove themselves from the gene pool in my book.

Thinking of people as less valuable to "the genepool" because their opinions differ is the kind of thinking that explains why liberals and fascists are so often political friends.

Communism is a system that lacks any motivation to do the work. There is no award. No gratification of ownership, getting higher on the ladder.

Thus it never works and countries starve.

That is just bullshit that assumes people only work if there is a monetary benefit to be achieved. The most common provided reason is "human nature" which is easily disproven. There are many examples of societies where cooperation without this has worked.

What’s funny is that there are no examples of successful communism and thus all the attempts are proclaimed as ‘no true communism’.

There is a wide range of why communist experiments have failed. Most of the time it is because the revolution was compromised leading to authoritarian communism. I'm just going to hint to you that there are other, more desirable forms of communism. Which of them is "true" communism is not for me to decide.

The reason capitalism works is because it utilizes human greed. It needs boundaries and restraints of course because greed is infinite. We get the cream top achievers make and redistribute it to incentivise bottom ladder to climb.

This meritocratic ideology is what is being used to justify the differences between peoples incomes and way more importantly their wealth. Which is weird because the most common way of achieving wealth today is not by working hard but by inheritance, which has decidedly nothing to do with being a "top achiever".

State protects the vulnerable and minorities and sets boundaries. Upper boundary is the climate one. Lower one is essential necessities one.

The state protects first and foremost the right to ownership, which is not aligned with the desirable goals of protecting minorities and setting boundaries. It is aligned with these goals only so far as it keeps the status quo going, which means maximizing the profits for the few right up to the point where the many do not yet revolt.

And this is the ideal that some countries actually achieved.

I'm going to go ahead and have a laugh right here. What basically every "developed" state on earth has achieved is a system that allows capital to accumulate in the hands of ever few people. This isn't an opinion by the way, this is a straight up fact and has nothing to do with political views.

Unlike ideal of communism that never got even close. So instead of thinking about some utopias let’s just adopt everywhere the tried and true system.

The tried and true system is currently throwing us all in a climate crisis if the IPCC reports are to be believed. Which I think they can be. The tried and true system is accumulating the global wealth in the hands of very few people. The tried and true system is failing to implement a tax system that would actually allow to redistribute this wealth. Instead this tried and true system is forcing nations into a betting war for ever lower taxes on wealth "to keep production in their country" while the companies go around chasing the lowest taxes further fueling this circle.

Is that good reason that there is a minority that profits greatly from capitalism that has a majority convinced that they might once also be part of that winning team even though that believe isn't substantiated by any statistics, but the opposite is very much empirical proven?

I get that being on the winner side is convenient. I am too. I just see that constantly winning seems to lead the world into a pretty bad state overall where, suddenly, noone is a winner anymore.

And all it would take to not get into the disaster scenario would be some redistribution. Doesn't even mean you can't be a winner anymore. Just means you get to win less hard.

If you have mostly passive income to pay for all that you are actively taking the gains produced by the labour of others that are most likely not as comfortable as you. Are you ok with that, or do you at least get why people get frustrated at that?

It's a parks and recreation reference. A character was a very young mayor and ruined the city which involved building an ice skating rink

My opinion as a german probably doesn't really matter, but this guy as well as Kamala are giving me hope again that the world might not have gone completely mad. Also if this works out for you guys I hope the german party system is paying attention.

Hm yeah I think getting subtitles isn't a thing for this kind of content

Go Back to his Minecraft stuff from like 2013. It's great

Pensions 2: electric boogaloo

My mom doesn't crush peopleon accident. Also it's more of a psychological crushing in her case

It also helps that neither dogs nor coyotes are heavy enough to crush you by accident