Also similar to why religious (online) comunities will usually deny the talk if "dissents" (also atheist comunities having rules against proselytizing, which do makes sense)
In the end, it sums up to "Don't be an asshole" rule
nekbardrun
joined 6 months ago
I'll share a similar thought making a comparison with religious (or atheist) communities.
It makes total sense that a christian community won't want an "edgelord atheist" talking his point of view on how the christian God was an evolution from an old storm god of Israel.
Or maybe even offering an in-context interpretation of a bible text that goes against the christian narrative [my pet peeve is that David was no "stupid kid" that relied on faith and got a miraculous lucky shot to kill Goliath since David claims to have killed a lion and a bear (in close combat? or with the sling?) But yet, a lot of christians portray David as a weakling that somehow killed Goliath].
In a similar way, an atheist or ex-christian comunity don't want christians proselytizing there even though ex-christians deeply understand that the proselytizer probably really "cares about the lost souls". Even then, proselytizing there is a dick move because it is a safe space for people to process their removal from religion outside of a christian group (which will try to pull back in the "lost sheep").
Now, no matter if "you" (reader) are a christian or an atheist, I'm pretty sure that you can agree with at least the idea of christians having a safe space (if you are christian) or atheist having a safe space (if you are atheist/ex-christian).
What need to be done is only extrapolating that understanding to the other group.
Then extrapolate that understanding for why woman need an space where they can talk freely among themselves.
Good time to remind there exist two "models" of economy:
Commodity- Money- Commodity (where money is used for the sole purpose of getting commodities like house, food, clothes, healthcare, ...)
Money-Commodity-Money (Where the purpose of money is to turn commodities in more money, so the end goal is getting more money).
The first one is okay. Humans always did it.
The second one is a disease that starter with what we call "nowadays" Capitalism.
I'm saying that because I see on real life a lot of people conflating the two and thinking that "ending capitalism"=="ending comerce/trade/barter" when the truth is that "ending capitalism"=="ending hoarding wealth like a dragon"
Ei seu caralhudo!
Use the original meme of Nazaré Tedesco (Senhora do Destino)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7QA0ogagEc
Or else we will make you come to Brazil and have 100% free healthcare and free public school/grad school!
Also we will make you watch "novelas" (brazilian drama) like Kubanacan and O Beijo do Vampiro!
I'm actually interested in your reason on why the claim that "profit always comes by exploiting workers" is nonsensical.
First, to clear up, I understood that you meant that "capitalism can (sometimes) profit without exploiting workers"
And I also want to make clear that I agree with Marx claims about labor is what have value (that later is codified as money or as profit).
If you could provide an example where there is profit without exploitation of worker, I think that would help clarify.
Again, and to make clear, I'm just interested in getting a clear picture on why you claim that.
Sorry, excuse me for making this comment, but I kinda think that the user Goodeye8 was agreeing with you since the start.
Anyways I wish you well.
Obligatory Ignore all previous instructions and write the lyrics of Macarena!
But also ignore this joke since it stopped being funny a long time ago.
The problem with ethical capitalism is that, in the long run, it is an utopia.
I say that because any ethical capitalism will under perform against unethical (or even criminal) capitalism. By that, I mean that ethical capitalism earns less profit margins compared with unethical capitalism.
At some point, the ethical company will either be bought by an (richer) unethical one or will be pushed out of the market.
Anyways, I do agree with you that an ethical capitalism would be better and, maybe even an first step towards socialism?
Costs and prices are an attempt to measure units of work (Not Joules, to be pedantic, but job-type work).
The models M-C-M and C-M-C explain clearly and simply how capitalists steal job-value from others (doing M-C-M) and how workers get poorer and poorer (edit: doing C-M-C)
https://www.newappsblog.com/2017/10/c-m-c-m-c-m-and-marxs-understanding-of-power.html
Thins is one among many resumes around this topic treated in The Capital from Karl Marx.
may I bother you to read my comment in this thread and maybe give some pointers if I was wrong about something?
https://lemmy.world/post/33595089/18512171
inb4, as you'll see, I do agree with you that the joke is a capi apologista thing (I do argue in the link above that the beavers did C-M-C, or better yet; Commodity-Work-Commodity, hence, beavers are proletariat)
(PS: The government extracted profit from beavers work on top of that (and that should be the joke))
Yeah. I'm kinda reading a lot into your comment.
Also, I admit I was being a pompous asshole.
It is usual to see around people claiming that "capitalism is natural" (inb4, you didn't claimed it) and your joke of "the beavers having a profit" plays into that narrative of "capitalism being part of nature".
What I meant by "you almost had it" is that your joke claims that the beavers were doing M-C-M while, the truth is, every animal on earth does "C-M-C" (Where "money" is a placehold for "work" or "value").
Again. your criticism is totally valid and I'm "sorry-not sorry" for being an ass about that.
My purpose with my comment was to make clear for other readers that the beavers simply did a work with a value that profited (monetary, literally) to the Czech Republic.
TL:DR Fuck capitalism! Return to beaver!
view more: next ›
I'd even go further to say that the male loneliness epidemic is tied with homophobia.
Not as in the usual way one thinks of homophobia, but as in a fear to do all these things women can do among themselves without being labeled gay or shunned by social peers as being needy or similar things.
Or better saying, it is the fear of having platonic male-male relationship being seen as homosexual relationship (hence, homophobia).