• 0 Posts
  • 54 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 22nd, 2023

help-circle


  • More like a symptom of a broken broad economic system. In all forms of capitalism, it is a given that much wealth accumulates in the few. It’s a system where resources are distributed based on capital, and capital is a resource, and it’s a system where those with more capital have more voting power both economy-wise and politics-wise. There is no such thing as a capitalist economy that has even wealth distribution long-term, it was quite plainly a system created for the sole purpose of keeping those with power in power – this isn’t an exaggeration, the guys who basically created/popularized modern capitalism and are the basis for all the writings and philosophy of the “founders of capitalism” were post-french revolution aristocrats who wished to push a system where they could keep their power instead of having it taken while also not having their heads chopped off.

    Even with the best taxation capitalism can offer, there is no solution to the capitalist problem. It’s a system that requires there to be suffering underclasses and carefree upperclasses. It requires an immoral social hierarchy to exist. The systems that reduce the damage of this innately bad hierarchy while still maintaining it (welfare corporatism, for example) are incredibly unstable over the long-term and inevitably result in a populace that want to tear it down. The people who receive the most benefits from welfare & social safety in a capitalist society are often the ones that are the quickest to tear it down (them, and the elite) and guide us back to right-wing feudalism.

    Billionaires might maybe go away if we “properly” tax, but there is only so much you can do to patch up a fundamentally broken system. The countries with the most wealth equality and highest wealth taxes also happen to be countries with a ton of megacorporations and/or billionaires… Switzerland, Scandinavian countries, Finland, Germany, Australia all have the highest wealth equality while all being on the top 15 for billionaires per capita excluding extremely small nations. Plus those countries have a tendency for alt-right movements to pop up, a few even more by proportion than the US…

    TL;DR capitalism bad socialism good eat the rich




  • Yeah I was about to say. Like Scandinavia has a high standard of living, but it’s still capitalist/corporatist as fuck, still has a lot of the problems of right-wing and even far-right ideologies, and is 100% not ideal and probably not sustainable in the modern world (especially considering their welfare capitalism ended up getting people elected into office who are trying to dismantle the social protections and laws that make the countries successful in the first place). Welfare capitalism isn’t a good middle ground because it’s extremely likely to drift back towards regular old capitalism.







  • What if they decide, only those who were born with a vagina at birth, are women and we want only those to be part of our organization?

    I mean it’d be like barring someone for having only one kidney, or barring people who have an extra toe, or barring people who are a certain skin color. It’s a seemingly random thought pattern and generally makes you a dick. Discrimination based on organs/body parts is wrong. What if they decide that having a big nose makes you not a woman? What if they decide having big ears or short legs or being too tall makes you not a woman? Better yet, what if a trans woman gets a uterus transplant and now has a uterus? Is that when they change the rules to still somehow exclude trans women? Because that’s what usually happens.

    Trans women still face the discrimination that women face, many of the same problems that many women face, and identify as women, so they shouldn’t be excluded from a safe space for their group on the basis of one of their organs not being typical. When you get to the point of going out of your way to remove trans women who have already been accepted into the community, established themselves in the community, and fit in with the community, where other members of the community interacted with them like they would any other woman and viewed and accepted them as women, you’re not concerned about “women”, you’re concerned about your own personal insecurities and taking it out on others. That’s the point where you’re just trying to pick the specific criteria that excludes the group that you don’t like.

    Plus many cis women have no uterus, some weren’t even born with a uterus, so you’re excluding a large portion of the people you’re claiming to provide a safe space for.


  • I define female as one who has a uterus…

    And that’s where you and literally anyone with any medical knowledge whatsoever disagree. There are plenty of people who are assigned as girls at birth who have no uterus – sex characteristics are far too complex for just a binary “boy/girl” label, and it’s not as simple as “no uterus = boy, uterus = girl”. sometimes, a baby can be labelled as any gender and it’s up to the parent to decide which. What a “woman” is is pretty arbitrary and the only accurate classification is entirely dependent on what the person identifies as.

    And that’s just not even considering the fact that hysterectomies exist, meaning a lot of generically cis women also don’t have uteruses.



  • With my very poor Russian, I’m pretty sure he says “ja jebu dolbojob” mockingly in Russian (meaning “I’m a fucking dumbass”), then I think the next might be “tupa mov vaflja, ce pizda” (“this cunt is as dumb as a waffle”) in Ukrainian, but I don’t know.

    Edit: Upon re-listening I think it actually says “tupa mavpa bljad’, ce pizda” (“stupid fucking monkey, this cunt”). I like what I misheard more though :)




  • Well IIRC, for America, the funding money amount for Ukraine is usually just an estimate of the worth of already manufactured goods, mainly of weapons that we have stored that we weren’t gonna use in the first place, and only a small portion of the dollar amount is stuff like clothes, food, etc. which would be seen as an actual cost to the US. We have sent Bradleys and M1 Abrams (and some European countries sent Leopard 2A4s? and Leclercs I think), but I’m pretty sure they weren’t in use by the military and weren’t planned to be upgraded for use any time soon (but I’m just guessing, I can’t Google it rn, I may just be completely wrong on that).