that it holds that social practices are created from social practice and not inherited from immutable law, enabling criticism of the underlying machinations of society without being hindered by the argument that such machinations are an inherited and instinctual product of nature and thus unalterable.
“it will never work in practice” says the person using the internet who can drive down the paved road to the community credit union, or indeed one of the banks that was bailed out by the government before going to the library, posting a letter, and then goes to work the next day in which they are required to be efficient in their job in order to make sure other people’s work isn’t affected, and must not break the law while at work, laws created to preserve the health and wellbeing of society, themselves and their colleagues, meanwhile while at work their trash is collected and sent to a public refuse center, spends the weekend at the local state park, which is subject to pollution laws, and indeed even has the temerity to vote in a democracy and is allowed to participate in the stock market without owning a business or a warehouse of goods, experiences freedom of movement across a union of states (one might even call them United States, and one formed as a socialist revolt against Monarchism and the capitalist imposed taxes without representation, and later held a civil war around the socialist ideal of abolitionism).
They may even express sentiments such as “food waste is bad”, “pollution is bad”, “I enjoy watching TV, reading books, listening to music, and/or participating in sports” and “I can change careers and do something different to what the family business is”.
All of which are socialist ideas that clearly don’t work in real life.
why can we only critique “full on” socialism? (what does that even mean) and yet capitalism with democratic-socialistic elements is treated as if it’s “full on” capitalism?
that is one very strict definition of socialism, which is not a monolith. Nor is there any agreed Purity test of what is or is not socialism
… with that in mind - following your roads example still
if roads are paid for, described, prescribed and constructed / maintained by private companies as you say - why is the government involved at all? Isn’t it more accurate to say the government owns all roads (in the US- due to eminant domain- all land) and contracts private companies to build them
companies only exist by the express permission of and after registration by the government, and we can argue who holds the most soft power, but the fact is if you fuck up bad enough the government will disband your company for you
the existence of a market does not mean socialism is not happening: in reality, the “profit incentive” of capitalism is also tempered by the social contract of socialism. In my post I was careful to give examples of the social contract that outway pure profit incentives (ie you can’t build a factory in a national park)
I would say the process of agreeing to do something in exchange for money is neither (/unknowably) capitalist or socialist (or neither or both) without further context.
it was a joke, there is no need to take it seriously. I have no real interest in discussing how closely aligned to any given real political view points fictional characters from a 20 year old movie are.
sometimes I do look at women - even attractive women - and see a man’s face in a moment of contextual disassociation. And vice versa. And I think about how maybe men and women don’t really look facially that dissimilar, there’s just a lot of context that affects our perception.
I am terminally bisexual though so maybe thats part of it.
Sure but also, ive then been driving the thing for nearly 20 years by that point, there are other considerations: safety developments / code, electronics, interior materials, rust, cabling/tubing that it might just be better / more comfortable / nicer to replace.
obviously what you vaguely describe has been around since 1945.
That home assistant devices are constantly listening and feeding back marketing data on every conversation is patent and disproven nonsense.
they have done packet sniffing investigations, they have disassembled the devices, they have run meters on the electrical charges… everything in every way you can imagine.
But even if you just think about it for a second - processing a live audio feed at a rate of 1 second per second indefinitely and correlating that data via voice recognition to your Google profile all to… make your ad personalizations… worse? more inaccurate?
like what the hell is the perceived benefit? That my wife says, “oh my dad found my old barbie house!” while at my neighbors house and my neighbor gets served barbie ads? Why would Google want that?
what specifically? vaccines cause autism/monkeypox, the democrats drink baby blood, trump won the last/next election, Putin is good because he’s only killing Nazis in Ukraine, forest fires are caused by Jewish space lasers, LGBTQ+ folks are grooming children and Bill Gates wants to put microchips in your brain?
Like — what are you saying, some misinformation is good?
German Art (lemmy.zip)
Or eye flutter (lemmy.world)
11,144 Episodes and Counting (media.kbin.social)
We are proud of you (lemmy.world)
What do you like about socialism?
Yes Ash Tyler, I can hear you! (startrek.website)
Accessibility text: Character Clem Fandango from Toast of London saying, “Hello Burnham, this is Ash Tyler, can you hear me?”
What's your automatic vacuum's name? (lemmy.world)
I saw a couple of fun ones somewhere else, and it got me interested. My mom calls her’s: Mr de Vries...
Yummy Mummy (lemmy.world)
No take backs? (lemmy.ca)
Well thanks Dad (lemmy.world)
Happy Christian Pride Month! (lemmy.ml)
Love and support (startrek.website)
Headphones are a crutch (startrek.website)
Lies, deception! (startrek.website)
Trig (lemmy.world)