IMO, a big issue is that in many capitalist countries, fixing homelessness by simply providing homes for those without, even very modest, small homes, isn’t going to solve the problems that made those people homeless to begin with.
To my best understanding of all available data, nobody chooses to be homeless. It’s not like they go out one day, buy a tent, pick a spot on the sidewalk and say “I’m going to live here now”. It’s usually a combination of bad choices, and circumstances that caused them to become homeless to begin with and a mix of abandonment, lack of caring, drug addiction, and mental issues, that keeps them there.
Bringing homes to the homeless in capitalist countries just converts the homeless into people who live in subsidised slums, with all the issues that come with that.
The homeless also need a variety of other civil services, like drug rehab/addition counselling, mental health services, psychiatric help, medical services, and social supports, like social groups, to help build community among the people who are struggling.
All while the homeless are incapable of paying the bill. Given the conservative mindset, they’re “at the bottom” for a reason. They didn’t try hard enough, or work enough, or whatever, which landed them squarely at the absolute bottom of the capitalist ladder. To help them up, is asking everyone above them to stop, or lean down or go down to pick them up, sacrificing their hard earned “position” on that ladder so that people they don’t know can have a chance.
In the same way, it increases the competition for where you are and want to go on the capitalist ladder, making it more difficult for them to climb up to “where they belong”.
I don’t subscribe to that thought process, but understanding it is important to know what we’re up against if we want to impose changes that make a real difference to those that are homeless and struggling. I’m certainly in favor of it.
I have absolutely no idea what a “chutes day” is 😅 but I’m a dirty foreigner with a native language that’s not even in the same family as English, please have mercy
Well, I know I am far smarter than a few family members. My brother told me he would never get vaccinated for covid, because it has cancer in it, which is not true.
Overall I would say I am average, or slightly above average iq. Not saying I am a genius.
And you’re so much better than them because you’re not 🤷
It couldn’t possibly be you’re the one actually acting that way
You’re the stupid, oversensitive failure with the inferiority complex taking out your emotions on innocent people who have literally done nothing to you but of course you’re the victim here and not them
I don’t know much about the club and was not expressing my opinion on them (because I have none). I just guessed what whas is the reason someone picked on them
They care more about appearing smart to others to feel better about themselves, seems like low wisdom to me. High wisdom is realising that all that posturing makes no sense.
The way I see it, they are no different from people who spend money to show off and appear even richer than they actually are; posting pictures of themselves in fancy card, private jets, and other things like that. There are many deca-millionaires and billionaires who buy bigger and bigger yachts and jets for that posturing, even modifying their yacht to be longer so it will be registered as a longer yacht even though it’s the same useable space…
IQ test isn’t nearly as valuable as they make it to be in reality, and I guarantee that many of that club’s members prepared and trained specifically for that test, which makes them appear smarter than they actually are to the people who care about IQ scores. Moreover, this gives them the incentive to believe that IQ scores matter a lot more, because it inflates their self-worth.
Nah. You automatically made huge assumptions about the people who joined that group with no understanding of who they are or what they actually stand for because you never researched it or even cared to Google it. And you did that because you, as an anti-intellectual, are one of those people who talk shit about people more intelligent than you to make yourself sound smart.
Did you know 12% of them are Zoomers, for instance? As in teens? Did you even consider some of them would be kids or teens or did that just slip your mind in the middle of you taking out your anger, jealousy and inadequacies on them?
But as usual, as some dumbass anti-intellectualist bigot, you project your own flaws and failings onto a group you want to marginalize to make yourself feel better.
Shut the fuck up and go crack open a book, you worthless, arrogant, vapid, vicious little clod.
You miss my point. It takes a certain type of person to be on the fediverse or to even have heard of it in the first place. I just expect someone like that to know how to block ads especially on webpages.
I feel this is it but surely there are other apps following this model. I’m assuming they are probably the biggest but definitely not the only ones doing it. For good* ad-free software that is being actively developed and will get used probably every day for years, $100 seems more than fair to me. Beats paying a subscription indefinitely imo. I paid for the Plex lifetime pass for similar reasons and that was worth every penny.
*Good is subjective, just because you wouldn’t pay doesn’t mean others won’t.
Im sure the browsers and source webpages in the apps have ads. But my interpretation was that people are seeing ads on the Lemmy site itself in these free apps.
I would pay if it were more a more affordable price.
I haven’t browsed apps in ages so idk if it’s still common, but I remember lots of apps having a lite version and a paid version. Lite version has ads and a sometimes couple less features. Full version ad-free and potential extra features.
I liked that. Let me decide if I enjoyed the app enough to pay for the better version.
Before Reddit went down in a fire, I paid premium even though I already had adblocker and no need for the premium features. And I would do the same for YouTube now, if it wasn’t so high priced.
I am consciously learning now what I think I subconsciously already knew. If I value something enough, pay for it. And I DO value YouTube’s videos. The current cost is just a bit uncomfortably steep for a monthly subscription fee.
If you think about it, it is completely absurd, why anyone assumes the right to ‘own’ a piece of land. Or even more land than the other guy. Someone must have been the person to first come up with the idea of ownership, but it is and was never based on anything other than an idea, and we should question it.
After all inheritance of landownership is a major cornerstone of our unjust and exploitative society.
Every generation, people want to try new things and it’s nice. But landownership can and has been and good thing in a way that just going back to “anarchy” wouldn’t work. E.g. creation of ghettos, who gets to farm the best land, etc.
So then the suggestions are that the land are owned and “managed” by the state apparatus. Now we have a few famines in history to show us how gaining favor in a political system is not the best way to manage the land.
I’m open to better suggestions but just shitting on land ownership seems easy and unproductive.
If someone owns a house, they kinda have to own at the very least some land around it. I just don’t really see any other way for that to work. Would be interesting to hear how that could work otherwise.
There’s a thing called leasehold whereby you own the building and lease the land usually for 99 years after which it returns to the freeholder. It’s one of the reasons that the US embassy in London moved from Mayfair to Nine Elms. It was the only US embassy in the world that the US government didn’t own, the freehold belongs to the Grosvenor family (i.e. Lord Grosvenor). When the US tried to buy the freehold the Grosvenor family refused but agreed to a 999 year lease in exchange for the return of 12000 acres of Florida that was confiscated from them after the Revolutionary War - yes, they’ve been landowners for a very long time! I think the US made sure to buy the freehold of the new site at Nine Elms (they sold the remainder of the 999 year lease in Mayfair for an undisclosed sum) 😀
They grew enough potatoes to feed the population in spite of the blight losses. However said taters fetched a higher price abroad. So fuck the poor, I guess.
Also they would have had a higher diversity of crops if not for landlords. Landlords were extorting farmers and the only way the farmers could pay the bills was with the vegetable that had the highest margin. Farmers were forced to switch from other crops to growing potatoes by their landlords.
The blight affected all of Europe, yet only Ireland had severe famine because while the French government bought food for their citizens, the English government publicly declared the invisible hand of the free market would fix the famine.
Similarly the Ukraine famine was crop failure due to bad weather conditions that affected all of Eastern Europe. The crop failure wasn’t caused by the Soviets. Yet only Ukrainians died because the Soviets shipped Ukrainian food to Moscow in the same way Irish died because of free markets shipping Irish food to London. (Yes, Ireland was still a net exporter of food during the famine.)
When natural disasters occured it’s, “Millions died because of communism.” Yet when millions die under the free market it’s only the natural disaster and not capitalism.
I’m pretty sure the Native Americans didn’t believe in land ownership, at least not individual land ownership, more of a communal version, and it worked out well for them. They had huge societies, vast trade networks, and were able to feed themselves fine. It requires a different, non-capitalist, non-Western mindset, but it can work.
Define for the class what you think anarchy means, and, wait one minute, you think ghettos are created by people not recognizing private land ownership?
There’s quite a lot of thought missing from your definition of anarchy, including, ya know, all of the ideas on how to make that work, and the assumption by most that it wouldn’t be an immediate process, and for someone that knows how ghettos are created, you sure used it as a criticism of an idea that would make them literally impossible, while doubling down on insisting that the thing creating ghettos can solve the ghettos if you… Do it more, and harder?
I don’t actually believe in the dissolution of private property, at least in regards to individual land ownership. I just take issue with people stating their opinions as facts, especially when they’re just flat out wrong.
Which is rather part of the problem, as a lot of modern anarchists don’t believe in the dissolution of the state, at least as a deliberate policy, thus the idea that Marxists and anarchists are ultimately working towards the same goal (communism) and disagreeing on the methods to achieve it.
Yeah i was referring to the dissolution of property rights when referring to anarchy. It was more colloquial than the actual system. Yes I didn’t copy the wiki for anarchy because it was irrelevant.
Not sure where you took the opinion as facts thing but okay…
People like the idea of the stability ownership offers. You can’t be kicked out of your house or off your land you own because your income dropped out lost a job. How would you suggest this stability is maintained?
Unfortunately land will fall into disrepair if someone doesn’t actually own it. They have no incentive to invest in its upkeep if it can just be taken away at any moment. There’s a reason rental buildings have a reputation for being unkempt, the renters don’t want to pay for the upkeep since it’s not theirs and the landlords don’t want to pay for the upkeep because they don’t live there.
It gets even worse if government owns it, it would take 6 months just to get a light bulb changed let alone a new roof or hedges trimmed.
Because they’re paid to do so? We hired a company to build our home, and after it was complete and paid for they held no further claim on it or on the property. Why would they?
I mean, technically displacing the air with that time machine on such a massive time scale is just as likely to result in returning to a civilization of dolphin people as riding a dinosaur would.
Or you shedding some of your microbiome’s bacteria and fungi into the environment and whoops: they outcompeted something “local” and now whole species change.
I honestly don’t think there’d be any way to avoid doing something that could possibly change the future in a dramatic way, because that far back incredibly minute changes could possibly lead to huge differences (because chaos theory), to the level of “a butterfly didn’t flap its wings because I accidentally squashed it with my time machine, and now humanity never happened. Oops.” But any change that means you didn’t ever go on your trip means you have some sort of paradox on your hands, and then it becomes a question of how timelines work
I think you could drastically minimize any impact by doing the time travel in space and merely observing from high orbit, assuming your time machine has no form of exhaust, which if you have a time machine seems like a relatively small engineering challenge by comparison.
You might displace a few atoms in the void, but it’s the safest way one could go about it.
Well, I don’t think time travel backwards in this manner is possible, but if it is, it would have to operate under the laws of thermodynamics which means the energy (and maybe even some of the atoms) that was “transported back in time” would represent a paradox.
The energy and/or some of the atoms in you and the time machine were already somewhere in the past when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Which presents a paradox (and this is probably not even the only paradox), so how does the universe conserve energy in that situation?
Somehow the “original” atoms and energy that became you and the machine would need to be reconciled with the duplicates that suddenly turned up.
So maybe there’s a mysterious process that obliterates energy? What would it be and how would it work? Would that be equivalent to the false vacuum that could fundamentally destroy the universe as we currently know it?
Or maybe there’s nothing to actually stop duplication of energy and atoms and it’s entirely feasible to go back in time. You take the time machine back, see some dinos from space, and you managed to otherwise not change a thing. That means in some dozens of million years, you and that machine will be sent back to exactly the same time and location again because nothing has changed. Bam, now you and that time machine are in triplicate. But, with nothing really changing, the same process will occur again and again. Does it reach a point where there’s so much duplicated energy / matter that something fundamentally different has to happen? Would all those duplicate yous and time machines coalesce into a giant cosmic object that comes crashing down to the Earth like a giant asteroid, thus killing off most dinosaurs and paving the way for human evolution? Hmmm.
Oh yeah, like an observation platform. That’s probably the only way you’d be doing time travel anyhow since it’s also space travel because the Earth now isn’t where the Earth was 200 million years ago; doing an atmospheric re-entry across time when you’re not 100% sure where exactly everything will be sounds like an occupational health hazard and inadvisable at best. Gods fucking help you if anything goes wrong and you violently scatter pieces of your fancy time machine across a few square km of densely populated (by animals including genus Homo) area.
Yes. we are the point that both parties are Nazis’s.
Following this course of sliding right into Nazism we’ll have Adolf Hitler running for the Republicans and a Trump figure running for the Democrats. And then you’re all going to vote for the Trump guy because he’s not the Hitler guy.
this fucking guy again. every single comment is some form of Biden genocide. we get it. we don’t like it either. but we aren’t so stupid that we think trump would be better. he would be so much worse. he would probably be genocide plus fascist.
You’re all sticking your head in the sand pretending that only Trump would do genocide while Biden is actively committing genocide. It’s real time Holocaust denial here.
trying to sound cool isn’t exactly an argument-winning tactic. you have no leg to stand on when the simple fact is that one candidate is FAR worse than the other.
yes the suffering in Gaza is severe. but gazans are not more important than everyone else and there is plenty of evidence to support the claim that trump in power will harm many more people than gazans.
unfortunately your skull is too willfully thick to accept or at least address this obvious point. so why not just resort to more insults if that’s all you got?
Oh right, let’s support Republicans, they are the party of peace!
GTFO with your disingenuous bullshit. Republicans started TWO illegal wars, killed hundreds of thousands DIRECTLY and have supported Israel’s bullshit just as fervently.
Pretending like if Trump was in office he’d be stepping on Israel’s neck to stop is some of the biggest bullshit I’ve read online in a while.
Not to mention they Trump supports Putin a full on dictator currently engaged in ethnic cleansing.
I don’t know if you are a troll or just incredibly ignorant.
memes
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.