tocopherol

How is the definition I posted any different from what you quoted? I said the essence, the core required part that defines it as capitalism, there are other historic aspects but I was saying what the most basic elements of it are. And those are what I believe we should have an issue with, and if you remove that essence, it's not capitalism.

You can own your own stuff with socialism, even a home, that is one of the common misunderstandings of socialism. People want to see a lot of things but dreams cannot always become reality. The fact of the matter is that the state will be co-opted by capitalists and they will remove protections, it's a natural cause and effect of the capitalist system. It might be possible to manage this tendency but requires so many controls that it gets further from the definition of capitalism and may as well begin to be called market socialism or another term.

I'm not trying to convice the average westerner who has essentially zero history and political education. Not everyone needs to be convinced anyway, most people right now have little agency in politics and don't care to.

What does it mean for socialism and capitalism to co-exist in one system?

Any democrat that just comes out and says “capitalism bad” as a blanket statement is going to have a much harder time in the general election.

This is because the entire political establishment is aligned with capitalists, not because there isn't popular agreement with that statement. But I'm not sure if that's true anymore for a Dem politician.

Which "specific components of capitalism" would you say are not objectionable? It's essence is the private ownership of the productive forces of society and the derivation of profit by selling the product. The core of it is objectionable from the view of democracy or egalitarianism.

Soleimani was the commander of the Quds Force, a division of the Iranian military and high-ranking official but he wasn't the leader of Iran.

I don't think it will make a difference in the grand scheme, I don't downvote, of all the issues right now I don't really care about AI very much. But there is a literal material cost to each use of AI and by not using it I am not contributing to that use of energy.

I’m saying we should think of the millions of people who barely survive every fucking day because of inequality and classism.

Yeah, opponents of AI do, it's making that worse for everyone. Plenty of people can barely make ends meet and supplement that income with writing and art gigs. People that can afford better AI services for applying for jobs and writing resumes have an advantage. Companies that can afford the best AI will have an advantage over lower wealth companies. It's inevitable but we can at least try not to prop up the services that are furthering this.

Obviously many of us have it better in the US than most of the world, that doesn't mean we can't complain if it's actively getting worse and harder to live. I can't get enough work, I don't eat enough and struggle to afford rent, my family was homeless in the past. While it's better here and I'm not getting bombed like many people are, it doesn't mean people in the US aren't struggling too. I am sad at the class warfare aspect of AI more than anything, it is being used by the wealthy to increase their power and wealth further, and in my view by using their services we are aiding their goals, even if minimally.

Well yeah but it's funny to call me a neckbeard redditor when they're being an asshole for no reason

I don't disagree, tech continually makes work more efficient thus eliminating jobs, that's a natural trend that won't stop anytime soon. Sometimes the rollout can have avoidable harmful impacts though. Eli Whitney, inventor of the cotton gin, said it was maybe a mistake because with the increased efficiency of cotton harvesting it actually increased slave-labor and the profit for slavers before slavery was abolished.

The solution to the issues arising from it is not banning new tech, but there are only so many things we can do right now to limit the ecological impact, one thing is limiting use of this tech until it can be done with less energy usage. It also right now primarily benefits state-aligned tech companies like OpenAI. I'm not opposed to the development of technology in general.

I don't think it was a prominent feature when I joined, AI imagery in general wasn't quite as popular or sophisticated at the time. And even if I disagree with that point, it's not a deal breaker and db0 is still far better than many other instances.

It's fine if people like it, it just gives me a gross and uncomfortable feeling when I see it and makes me sad that one of the first careers killed by AI could be illustrators.