Yeah, kinda like that time Brian Thompson got shot, and the next day United Healthcare ceased to exist.
Not saying that the general point of corporations doing more harm than people is wrong. Just that if you think that the corporation is just one person, I've got a bridge to sell you.
United Healthcare's stock is down 60% since the incident. United Healthcares board and new CEOs lowered the rejection rate of patients out of fear as well. Say what you want about the morality of what was done. The efficacy speaks for itself
So, UHC stock was up around 600, dropped to a bit over 200, and is lately around 300. So like ¾ of the drop is still there in linear terms, or something like ⅔ in logarithmic terms.
Repeated use of the same drug will bring marginal gains.
Companies will evolve to create lower cost (lower impact) figureheads.
Cruelty works best when it is used all at once.
Operant conditioning, as stated by EldritchFeminity above, is better applied in a case where you have higher levels of control over the subject's environment.
If you do want to continue doing so slowly, then you need to accompany this with other operations...
like using the shock period to gather opinions into a voice gives a clear-ish indication to what behaviour caused the event and what change in behaviour would prevent further repetition.
One might think that it is something very obvious and everyone knows the difference between what they are doing vs what they should be doing, but sometimes just saying it out loud makes a big difference.
This is one methodology where an authority would excel at. And this particular methodology would horribly fail with a non-authority.
But any authority needs to be trustworthy, which requires consistency. And considering how all pre-established authorities are collectively deciding to fall towards inconsistency, I see authorities failing and hence, the methods that work with authority.
Yup. After 9/11 for a while it seemed every week or two the news would report that "The leader of Al Qaeda" had just been killed or captured. Not a false statement, yet it happened again the next week.
I just want to say that the idea that we could develop a crowdsourced bounty system on the dark web using cryptocurrency would be illegal and I would never publicly support it.
The way in which Luigi was arrested is part of their safety checks. A way to motivate working class to turn people in, without paying them. I generally thought reward money worked.
I learned it did not work from a podcast that no longer exists. Michael Bazzel’s OSINT podcast talked about it within the context of people who used OSINT to find people on wanted lists and how reward money collection actually works. (Podcast doesn’t exist any more, the copies of the casts went away with the podcast.). Sadly, there’s no replacement for this type of news and info condensed down into one place. It’s also a niche area of information, not followed by many.
Those McDonald's workers were not paid for turning Luigi in. But they thought they would be.
Even so, look at the bigger picture. How many Luigi’s have there been since 1981?
Most people avoid confrontation, spending most of their days sitting in a chair or lying down, and thinking/hoping/wishing a white knight is going to rescue them from their situation. It’s one reason why so many people exist in bad relationships (1 or a chain of them). Because they think that other person is going to rescue them from their sad days of avoiding confrontation while sitting in a chair or lying down, most of the day for most of their days. Hoping. But never doing. Thinking about doing. Maybe spouting off on the internet about doing. But never doing.
See making the call to tip off the cops makes you eligible for the reward. If you called the correct tip/reward phone number. So that's the first road block.
Even then, you aren't automatically getting the reward. No. There are still hoops to jump through.
As a note these additional hoops also apply when there isn't a specific phone number.
According to the FBI's website, I'd link but I'm on my phone, someone (an agent, a prosecutor, etc) has to put your name forward in a nomination package.
This is then reviewed by the FBI and other agencies, it's kind of vague.
Anyway these agencies decide if you get a reward and what percentage.
And none of this can start until after a conviction is secured.
A lot if time, as one example, it’s conditional on conviction. So not only do they have to cat h the guy they have to win in court. That’s not money in exchange for the tip itself.
Looks like it was back in March 2022 so still a little while before Thompson's final claim denial. Show notes are available but it's not saying much more than what you get from the title of the episode:
EPISODE 254-OSINT+Fugitives=Rewards
This week I release the previously-canceled show about finding fugitives with OSINT and collecting large rewards.
Yeah, kinda like that time Brian Thompson got shot, and the next day United Healthcare ceased to exist.
Their HP definitely went down. And, anecdotally, I heard from a pharmacist friend that they were approving claims like nobody's business for the next day or so
Kemp is alive and governing Georgia as far as I know but I'm happy to be corrected if that's wrong. You may be thinking of Brian Thompson who involuntarily resigned his position as the CEO of UnitedHealthcare on a NYC sidewalk.
That'd probably make a more uh, substantial material impact on their bottom line.
Oh, they keep doing evil shit with a new board?
... repeat.
Or, I guess you can just either ... well, either try to run away and hide, pray to the normalcy bias gods that one of these days the legal systems they own will do something against them, or just resign yourself to a kind of smug, self defeating moral solace in being doomed, but being right while being doomed.
Yep, I am smug, hence the smug description of being smug.
Meta-smugness.
You're assuming that I do not count myself amongst being smug.
I do.
Its also not the only of those 3 things I do, see my other comment where you decided to give a pretty good, though mostly off topic explanation of Nietzche vs Schopenhauer, totally missing the part wherr I established being smug is not the only thing that I do.
I prefer Schopenhauer's Will to Life which Nietzsche plagiarized during his psychotic ramblings.
If Nietzsche was right about the Will to Power being the essence of life, then fascism would be justified. What is fascism besides an exercise in Will to Power devoid of empathy? Hitler loved Nietzsche. He corrupted a lot of the things Nietzsche said. Nietzsche wasn't inherently fascist, and actually abhorred authority. But his Will to Power rhetoric did lend itself to the development of fascist ideology.
Life isn't merely some competition between rivaling species of plants that will overwhelm the other if the other doesn't overwhelm them first. That's what happens when there's an imbalance in an ecosystem, such as with the introduction of non-native plants. If that were perfectly fine as an analogy for human society and behavior, then what argument could be made against colonization and ethnic cleansing? The same argument would justify capitalistic exploitation, extractive industry, "infinite growth," and zero-sum economic systems.
To be clear, those things are evil, but that's why I don't believe in the Will to Power. (True that Nietzsche didn't mean it that way, because he personally was anti-authority, but he failed to consider what it would mean for an authoritarian figure with the intention and capability to enforce an evil Will to Power).
But in a balanced ecosystem, life isn't a zero-sum game. Lots of species symbiotically work together to maintain the balance, a sort of ecological homeostasis. On the species level, even predator-prey relations are symbiotic (without wolves, deer overpopulate and overconsume, then they starve and experience population collapse).
So that's why I favor Will-to-Life over Will-to-Power.
There's also Will-to-Good, which sounds great on the surface, but "Good" is hard to define, so it's mostly useless and can lend itself to corruption and perversity just as easily.
Okay, you can't just mention a desire to be an agent of your own will to power and expect me not to discuss the differences between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer...
The phrase "will to power" has an origin, and it was coined by Nietzsche as an adaptation of Schopenhauer's "will to life."
In my view, power is a means to an end and not an inherent good worth pursuing for its own sake. Life, on the other hand, is an end in itself and is an inherent good worth pursuing for its own sake.
It makes sense to ask "Why do you want power?" But if you ask "Why do you want to live," it seems kinda pointless like asking the wrong question.
This is because living is the reason for everything else that we do: work, get paid, buy food, eat. We fight for better systems because they're more conducive to life. We might sacrifice our own lives for an ideal that makes life possible or better for others, presumably people we care about, and even then, life is the goal, just not for ourselves.
A will to power requires further justification. A will to life does not.
There is also a societal dependance on some of the status quo. The bigger issue is how hard they actively resist the change. A lot of places still rely on trucking at a minimum to fill the groccery store with food wrapped in plastic, most of which is powered or made by fossil fuels. We need to electrify and diversifying but they cling to oil and have way too much power in governmental decisions to prevent or reverse any reduction in dependance for their products.
Operant conditioning, also called instrumental conditioning, is a learning process in which voluntary behaviors are modified by association with the addition (or removal) of reward or aversive stimuli. The frequency or duration of the behavior may increase through reinforcement or decrease through punishment or extinction.
Within a week of the killing, BCBS backed out on some of their upcoming bullshit and United Heathcare's pre-authorization rejection rate has decreased dramatically in the aftermath.
Thimpson's death (at the hands of someone whose identity we'll never know for sure) was objectively good for the insured.
But there isn't a "demand" at least not as much as years ago. We are trying to switch to renewables but the oil execs keep killing the renewable progress. The horse fucker in the white house won't let us move on. He kills wind and solar and forces the coal plants to stay open.
There's a whole party where resistance to green tech is one of the items of faith, hundreds of millions of people. Not just a handful of oil execs. (And yknow, the millions who still use gasoline in their cars etc.)
Edit: That's not to mention all those who like to fly places.
You could argue it, but at the same time no one prevents you from going to AliExpress and buying cheap solar. The fact that US decided not to invest, does not mean solar on global scale is doomed. Rest of the world is doing pretty well
I honestly have to wonder at what point people will collectively say "why the hell are we letting them do this" ? Not sure what happens after that, but it seems like it must have to happen at some point, right? Right?
Because the average American and European feels their convenient lifestyle is more important than the life of the planet. They'll talk the talk about the environment, but they won't walk the wall with their votes or actions.
I was recently at a kind of convention on the topic of "how to build a sustainable society". There were two ~40 yr old ladies in the row in front of me.
One got out this super shiny copper flask. The lady next to her was like "oh that looks nice!" and they start talking about it. The lady that got it out said something about copper, its health impacts blabla and how she got it last week from Amazon.
And I'm just sitting there, holding it together, almost laughing out of frustration, about this whole situation.
Like, maybe she did actually need a bottle to hydrate herself outside, but...
Please do not put Europeans in the same pot with US Americans. These days are altogether over but for the topic of fighting climate change things were different for quite a while.
I would say anyone who is above 70% renewables is potentially on track. But you need to take heating and cars into consideration for usage, as well as the carbon impacts of imports and various industries... So really,
The problem its not just some rich guys they are just the hitmen. Its PetroStates that are behind them. Its not about money at this point its about power and a house of cards those states put in place completely propped up by oil. As in if they stop oil their Nation collapses and they dragged from into the streets and eliminated.
I said nothing of the sort. But I ask once again: If we execute these 90 people, will that make us stop burning oil? Is it at least a helpful step down the path of stopping to burn oil?
If not, then please just don't act as though these 90 people are all we have to overcome to save the planet.
Of course something will happen. If the bosses or big corporations would be killed constantly, the next in line would be thinking about changing things. Just remember Luigi.
Soon you are ready to realise that no, they are sock puppets of what is essentially a giant demonic entity that is Immortal and Controls human and replaces these humans when they misbehave or malfunction
I call it Mammon and it lives inside the minds of every capitalist. Every worker who believes in markets, in states, in police, in corporations. We must kill the capitalist in the heads of every worker.
From Wikipedia "Mammon (Aramaic: מָמוֹנָא, māmōnā) in the New Testament is commonly thought to mean money, material wealth, or any entity that promises wealth, and is associated with the greedy pursuit of gain."
More or less the same thing, I reckon, but Mammon sounds cooler, so I'll defer to your's.
Had a few seconds where I thought "Wired" was referring to the tech magazine and wondered what "Tired" is, who would choose name for their magazine or whatever?
Still wrong, it's capitalism. Without them, there would be different people in the same position. Hate the game, not the player. Well, hate the game and the player but don't expect change from exchanging the player
Important to note that those people would be acutely aware of how vulnerable said position is. People act differently when they're reminded of their own mortality.
They aren't talking about expecting change. They are talking about demanding change at gunpoint, and honestly I can't say I'm entirely opposed.
These people are completely unaffected by the law or any other form of consequences. They have removed our capability to peacefully take action, but the less-peaceful option is always there and there are legions more of us.
Nope, since the industrial revolution we had capitalism, communism, feudalism and a bunch of others, and they all destroyed the environment. Norilsk was a nightmare well before the wall went up. London had unbreathable air a century before that.
Sure, but before that was feudalism, or similar systems where the state owned the means of production with no competition besides foreign powers and sometimes the church. Capitalism doesn't give much power to workers, but it's definitely more than serfdom.
any socialist society will be inherently disadvantaged by the fact that the global hegemon, the USA, is hellbent on destroying them. so, given that, maybe the soviet union? china? they certainly aren't perfect, soviet union especially, but any future socialist project can (and should) learn from their successes and mistakes
By that definition, Roman Empire? Which lasted pretty damn long, by similar methods. Imperialism. A government that has at least a veneer of responsibility to the populace.
I mean there's big differences, but more similarities imo.
I'm pretty sure what most people are referring to here is unfettered capitalism. It's not an on/off switch, you can have certain aspects of one thing combined with the other.
If you want actual examples, almost all societies before 1800 we're not capitalist. Feudal society wasn't capitalist, neither was Roman society. Hunter gather society by most accounts was a form of primitive communism, and that is the vast majority of human history.
You're going to need a narrow definition of company for that definition to not be very broad, as Wikipedia defines company as:
A company is a legal entity representing an association of legal persons with a shared objective, such as generating profit or benefiting society.
So basically a company can be any group of people, separated from the state but still recognized by it. So is a commune a company then? If everything was controlled by communes would that be capitalist?
It's better to use a more specific definition, again from wikipedia:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and its use for the purpose of obtaining profit.[1][2] This socioeconomic system has developed historically in several stages, and is defined by a number of constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.
While all of these existed in Roman civilization, concentrated in the big cities such as Rome, the majority of the economy was slaves and peasants working the land to feed themselves while being forced to give a portion to landlords as rent and to the government as taxes, much like most agricultural civilizations. This sort of economy does not revolve around profit ie. Buying something, paying someone to improve it, and selling it for more on an open market so you can buy more and sell that and on and on... That is possible in Rome and there are capitalists, but that's not the main mode of production in the economy so the economy isn't capitalist. Just like there are communes in the US but the US isn't communist.
I don't need that narrow definition, as the definition I'm using is "...private individuals OR companies", so no companies are required.
Are companies necessary with capitalism? Not per the definition. They CAN be a part of it.
There were TONS of "profit-motivated" Romans throughout their economy. I think that the definition you used from Wikipedia means that Rome was capitalist, as private property, profit motive, competitive markets, commodification, and wage labor were all a part of Roman civilization, and not a small part.
Centurions could own land and were paid a wage, etc. All existed under Rome.
Thanks for your answer, I am very familiar with Rome and at least I know where you're coming from. In spite of your initial comment, I've read quite a bit about pre-1800s civilization. Perhaps more than you regarding Rome, as revealed by your response.
We need regulated capitalism. I don't mind working for money. Most lemmys would like to smoke weed all day and not do shit. World dont work like that kids.
Capitalism with regulation and taxation of billionaires. Welfare state for the sick and elderly. Why is this so hard? We don't need communism.
Cooperatives are the best answer. Capitalists will argue they should outcompete traditional firms in the market. If they're supposed to be better they'd win, right? But the thing is they're only better for most people.. and not the few richest that benefit the most from the current capitalist system. And everyone's too damn brainwashed to understand private ownership of the means of production is the root cause of so many problems. But let's just regulate capitalism.
If cooperatives goal is to provide for its members and community while a traditional firms goal is profit maximization, regulation fixes nothing.
Okay how do you stop the capitalist who run our government and all of our economic production from getting rid of that welfare once their profits dry up? They own the military and all of its assets btw.
The treats they gave us have been a concession from the start. They were given because we put up enough of a fight that the capitalists worried not giving them to us would be worse. They will take them away if we don't keep that fight, and its implicit threat, going. I don't want all of our future generations for the rest of time to have to keep up that fight.
Cheaper is not the same as more profitable. It's an important distinction. You can't own and control the sun and charge people to harvest the energy. Monopolizing and gatekeeping are the end goals of capital owners.
Unless you think the Chinese market is more free. They're producing solar panels like crazy.
Let's take a famous adage of "teach a man to fish" and attempt to demonstrate these two business strategies. Let's bend this metaphor to the point of breaking. Fish are the analog for energy.
Business model #1: (solar panels)
You make fishing poles so that people can fish on the lake for themselves. After you sell someone a pole, you no longer have that person paying you more money unless they break it. It's a fairly straightforward business that allows people to get their own food.
Business model #2: (oil)
You own the lake, you own the boats and fishing poles. You pay people a wage to fish, that are yours too. You pay people to sell your fish, you build infrastructure to wall off the lake. You pay guards a wage to protect your lake from people that want "free fish". If people want food, you have leverage over people through ownership of all the assets and lake. You can raise prices when you want. As your fish business is successful you buy up all the lakes around and get a monopoly. Maybe you intentionally don't merge with 1 or 2 other companies to prevent government regulation against monopolies and effectively raise prices in unison (it's called price leadership). A freer market will just make this control worse and more pronounced. A new fuedalism will emerge of a few kings and serfs that own nothing and rent from people that own.
It's more expensive, less efficient, less egalitarian, but it will be more profitable because you own it.
OK. Oil is only profitable for a select few people now. Why don't we rise up in arms to change production and seize the means of production now? More people have incentive to now than not (most people are not oil billionaires), why doesn't it change?
Coercion through state violence, a propaganda apparatus telling you the only way to structure society is through capitalism, and treats to sedate the masses from revolting against their living conditions.
A magic nebulous "more free" market doesn't change that.
Something to remember about the Forbes List: the most terrible people of all, aren't even on it. There is a level of wealth that floats above mere billionaires, for which there almost isn't even a category. Forbes knows not to mention these families in the context of some tawdry popularity contest among nouveau riche Techno Trash. They are mostly centuries old multi-generational wealth like monarchies, the Rothschilds, sheikhs, organized crime families, dictators, etc.
They aren't on the list, but they hold the real wealth, and more importantly, the real power. Everything else is an illusion of their making.
My understanding of it is that its not really some conspiracy to hide the top wealth; the forbes lists are all opt- in. They reach out to a bunch of Uber wealthy, people, and those who want in send back bios and stats for them to rank and publish.
At least that's the way it was explained to me. I dated an heiress for a while, and at one point her dad told me hed only ever had his name on the list for one year, and that was as part of the 'debut campaign' for his second wife.
Of you look ar the list it makes sense. It's mostly the new rich, people still seaking validation and status from their wealth, the sociopaths and a lot of the tech bilionaires like elon and zuckerberg who treat it like a competition, and people who benefit from the name recognition and status perception for their company, like all the fashion and design company owners using it to help associate their brands with luxury, and the investment banker types like Bloomberg, ken griffin, etc, who use it to show success of their companies and get other rich people to invest with them.
It’s a reminder that large problems are often tied to concentrated power. Holding systems accountable while still pushing for collective change is probably the most constructive path forward.
I'm just saying the aim isn't the most effective. Shooting someone's foot certainly will hamper someone, but the pain will go away eventually. Gotta aim for a more lethal part of the body
100% this, and not an explicitly violent revolution, either. We need to build alternative power structures to replace our heirarchical society. Simply replacing our elites using violence would end up with a new set of elites who are very provably willing to use violence against their enemies. IMO this is one of the major reasons that marxism-leninism has historically yielded authoritarian states, e.g. the USSR.
I think this is a bit overly optimistic, the ruling class own like 99% of every industry, not just fossil fuels. We can't just wait for history to take its course, we need to start building a worker-led movement to replace our exploitative heirarchical society, that's how we can make the ruling class obsolete. We need to get our shit together and actually do a lot of work to achieve this.
Valid. We could be efficient, and use one bullet each, or we could go for mayhem. Mayhem creates better historical photos that are more effective in warning future dipshits. That does require lots of ammo.
There are many bankers and investment funds' CEOs and owners we probably don't know the names of that are also funding the end of the world because of profit
that feels, for some reason, profound.
I mean, sure let it be 200 or 400, 1000. It's still a rounding error compared to all of humanity.
maybe that is why there is a period of prosperity after large wars.
The losing side being wiped out reduces that number by half and everyone can breathe a bit more freely.
Those people never die in the wars. The reason there are periods of prosperity after wars is because when many young adults have died, labour has more bargaining power.
There also tend to be periods of great prosperity following plagues, due to inheritances and what not. But capitalism has made sure to rinse you of every past penny to prevent generational wealth from being passed down to the poors.... So that didn't happen after COVID
Ps. Fuck magnum pi and kurt browning for scamming seniors out of their homes and into reverse mortgages
I like how the post is about the bus load of rich people that do the most polluting and we started blaming each other. Focus people. Our cars do pollute, but nowhere near as much as a these rich bastards.
Much more, in fact. I did the math a while ago and just plastic straws cover private jets for about a week. Moving half the US traffic from cars to public transport would do marvels for CO2 levels, more than outright banning private jets.
Most people can't afford to move so if you live in the desert then you're stuck in the desert even if the living cost would be lower somewhere else post initial moving cost, doubly so if its the only place near your job.
On one hand, yes, sure, fuck those people, 100%. On the other hand, remember that those people are encouraged and most likely exist only because of disinformation propaganda campaigns designed, promoted and delivered by the same bus load of people. So, you know, perspective.
Exactly. People love to pretend they aren't part of the problem as they keep their houses at 70 throughout 100° heat, roll car while driving their cars, and order boat loads of temu junk.
They literally conspired to make the entire country not only dependent on their products, but did so knowing the harm those products caused to both the people and environment. The majority of the blame rests there and pretending that any amount of "personal responsibility" needs to be addressed is just so fucking stupid and self-defeating that it practically borders on sabotage. Let's get mired in blaming each other for our own minuscule, largely involuntary contribution while they keep filling their pockets with our blood.
you're right dude, the snowflake has all the agency here. not the storm that created it, nor the wind that blows it around. if only it would melt itself then the energy consumed by phase transition would cool the earth in an imperceptibly small way, bringing us that much further away from global warming catastrophe. really, it's the snowflakes' fault for selfishly getting frozen in the first place.
Our own minuscule largely involuntary contributions sum up to 20 million barrels of oil per day (in the US) 10 million per day (in the EU) and 17 million (in China).
If you think paper straws and electric cars are going to save the environment you’re part of the fucking problem. It’s not enough, and it was never going to be. They knew it wouldn’t be when they came up with these things which is why these are the measures that are allowed to be taken. Laws and subsidies that would actually help are instead lobbied out of viability. So we’re left with electric car subsidies making Elon Musk the richest asshole in history and paper straws making everyone hate environmentalism while we still hurtle toward annihilation.
How was solar a con? It produced energy, as intended. It's gotten gradually even better at producing energy through better photovotaics, batteries, molten salt concentrated solar, and kinetic batteries (pumping water uphill during the day, running electro-hydralic power generation at night). But it was never a lie.
Plastic was never recyclable. It's been burned in the open air in China and Indoneisa ab initio.
You can argue that glass, cardboard, and aluminum can be effectively recycled, but in the context of climate change and fossil fuels, we are taking about petroleum-based plastics. There are too many different kinds of plastic and the cost of recycling versus the cost of new material meant recycling was a chimera from the beginning.
Australia’s national resource recovery rate in 2022–23 was 66%. This comprised 63% recycling, 0.2% waste reuse and 3% energy recovery, mostly associated with the use of landfill gas for generating electricity. In 2016–17, the resource recovery rate was 61%
For clarity, the resource recovery rate is the proportion of generated waste that is allocated to waste reuse, recycling or energy recovery.
Should I be worried that my initial response to this is "Hmm, so we might be able to improve the world with a serendipitously timed anthrax outbreak at the next WEF summit?"
Depends on the instance. For example: I can say, "we should all get together and murder these people for what they have done to us" and I would likely only get banned from this community or the instance that hosts it. My home instance simply wouldn't care
Everyone who is into "we keep using oil no matter what, shut the fuck up" gets scared and guess what - controllable. Tactic sounds familiar? That's because it should
Every revolutionary thinks their utopia is only a few decapitations away, and when those don't work they move onto the next couple until your Stalin and executing kulaks who own a bit more land than their neighbors.
The reality is that a large chunk of normal people benefit from the current system and will fight to keep their cars, meat, AC, 401k evaluations etc. The largest shareholder, the ones who really control these companies, of any of these oil companies is vanguard which your current retirement plan is probably in. And that's just the minority of oil that's extracted by private companies, most is extracted by state owned corporations, and although most of that usually goes to corruption and war, a lot of it goes into welfare for some of the poorest people in the world. A lot more people rely on fossil fuels than just a handful of billionaires.
Knowing their names doesn't matter, you cannot make things illegal for specific people nor would that help. You have to write and pass legislature to make it stop, and that's why we're at a fucking standstill on everything: a large majority don't believe in legislature as a basic concept or solution.
Y'all still pay those people money for hamburgers and chicken nuggets you don't need. Eat a nice homemade vegan sandwich and spend the money on a video game. Video games cause a lot less pollution than meat and they're way more fun.
I don't think the post is about fast food chains. I'm saying fast food chains burn a whole lot of oil making your hamburgers. No more oil mining companies, no more cheap hamburgers.
There are a whole lot of people, millions of them, who want change, but who would riot at the steps necessary to achieve that change. It's like the Trump voters who get deported by ICE. "This isn't what I voted for". There are millions of people who want net zero carbon emissions, but they still want to drive an SUV to McDonald's for chicken nuggets.
I don't drive an SUV. I don't eat chicken nuggets. I'm ready for net zero. I hope you are too.
You're imagining our alternate oil free world after a few decades of no oil. A few decades of no oil and we'd all be much happier and our lives would be more convenient. But I'm talking about one year from now if the communists win the revolution and blow up all the oil refineries. We'd have to cut back on a lot of luxuries until we find the time and labour to retool the economy for the renewable order. It would be hard work.
And no, I have no interest in winning the revolution and keeping the oil refineries until we make the transition. We need net zero yesterday. I'm not gambling away the lives of future generations for a few years of ease right now. That's selfish.
Yes, if we just shoot the CEOs, the customers will magically stop wanting fast fashion, fast food, waste amounts of cheap meat, cheap and new electronics every year....
I don't disagree that it would have a positive effect, but I hate the overly reductive takes on systems being completely disconnected from the people. We need to realize that our (western) life style is simply not sustainable, capitalism or not. That requires serious changes for everyone, not just the "rich".
Cool, and the people that wanted to thing they produced at the price they produced it at? They'll just chill and completely change their ways? Your people riot and kill people, what makes you think the "other" group wouldn't too?
Any policy change has to be accepted and lived by the people, at the end of the day.
To be clear, we can do both eating the rich AND educating about and changing our negative consumptive habits.
230 Comments
testfactor@lemmy.world · 148 pts · 185d
Yeah, kinda like that time Brian Thompson got shot, and the next day United Healthcare ceased to exist.
Not saying that the general point of corporations doing more harm than people is wrong. Just that if you think that the corporation is just one person, I've got a bridge to sell you.
voidsignal@lemmy.world · 83 pts · 185d
if that continues to happen, trust me, eventually none of these fuckers will be left in line.
saltesc@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 185d
AuroraZzz@lemmy.world · 65 pts · 185d
United Healthcare's stock is down 60% since the incident. United Healthcares board and new CEOs lowered the rejection rate of patients out of fear as well. Say what you want about the morality of what was done. The efficacy speaks for itself
AppleTea@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 185d
The efficacy lasted for all of a month before returning to where it had been before.
MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip · 33 pts · 185d
So, UHC stock was up around 600, dropped to a bit over 200, and is lately around 300. So like ¾ of the drop is still there in linear terms, or something like ⅔ in logarithmic terms.
AppleTea@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 184d
That's true, and my bad for implying otherwise.
But I also think much more critically, they're back to denying coverage exactly the way they were before Thompson died.
MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 184d
I have no knowledge to refute that latter point, and I am inclined to think it is very likely true.
daannii@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 185d
Well then we just need to stagger the killings in intervals to keep them in check. Simple solution.
ulterno@programming.dev · 1 pts · 183d
tl;dr Find a better method.
Repeated use of the same drug will bring marginal gains.
Companies will evolve to create lower cost (lower impact) figureheads.
Cruelty works best when it is used all at once.
Operant conditioning, as stated by EldritchFeminity above, is better applied in a case where you have higher levels of control over the subject's environment.
If you do want to continue doing so slowly, then you need to accompany this with other operations...
like using the shock period to gather opinions into a voice gives a clear-ish indication to what behaviour caused the event and what change in behaviour would prevent further repetition.
One might think that it is something very obvious and everyone knows the difference between what they are doing vs what they should be doing, but sometimes just saying it out loud makes a big difference.
This is one methodology where an authority would excel at. And this particular methodology would horribly fail with a non-authority.
But any authority needs to be trustworthy, which requires consistency. And considering how all pre-established authorities are collectively deciding to fall towards inconsistency, I see authorities failing and hence, the methods that work with authority.
Cruel@programming.dev · 3 pts · 184d
The stock drop would be expected, but is there any credible source that denial rate dropped?
ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 185d
They seemed pretty mortal to me yeah, idk why anyone would say otherwise
Jyek@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 184d
Then maybe the treatment needs more than a single dose.
davidgro@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 185d
Yup. After 9/11 for a while it seemed every week or two the news would report that "The leader of Al Qaeda" had just been killed or captured. Not a false statement, yet it happened again the next week.
meejle@piefed.world · 5 pts · 185d
Maybe we should assign these fuckers playing cards like Bush did 👀
bearboiblake@pawb.social · 8 pts · 185d
I just want to say that the idea that we could develop a crowdsourced bounty system on the dark web using cryptocurrency would be illegal and I would never publicly support it.
Zephorah@discuss.online · 14 pts · 185d
The way in which Luigi was arrested is part of their safety checks. A way to motivate working class to turn people in, without paying them. I generally thought reward money worked.
I learned it did not work from a podcast that no longer exists. Michael Bazzel’s OSINT podcast talked about it within the context of people who used OSINT to find people on wanted lists and how reward money collection actually works. (Podcast doesn’t exist any more, the copies of the casts went away with the podcast.). Sadly, there’s no replacement for this type of news and info condensed down into one place. It’s also a niche area of information, not followed by many.
Those McDonald's workers were not paid for turning Luigi in. But they thought they would be.
Even so, look at the bigger picture. How many Luigi’s have there been since 1981?
Most people avoid confrontation, spending most of their days sitting in a chair or lying down, and thinking/hoping/wishing a white knight is going to rescue them from their situation. It’s one reason why so many people exist in bad relationships (1 or a chain of them). Because they think that other person is going to rescue them from their sad days of avoiding confrontation while sitting in a chair or lying down, most of the day for most of their days. Hoping. But never doing. Thinking about doing. Maybe spouting off on the internet about doing. But never doing.
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz · 8 pts · 185d
How does it actually work?
chaogomu@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 185d
Generally? It doesn't.
See making the call to tip off the cops makes you eligible for the reward. If you called the correct tip/reward phone number. So that's the first road block.
Even then, you aren't automatically getting the reward. No. There are still hoops to jump through.
As a note these additional hoops also apply when there isn't a specific phone number.
According to the FBI's website, I'd link but I'm on my phone, someone (an agent, a prosecutor, etc) has to put your name forward in a nomination package.
This is then reviewed by the FBI and other agencies, it's kind of vague.
Anyway these agencies decide if you get a reward and what percentage.
And none of this can start until after a conviction is secured.
Zephorah@discuss.online · 1 pts · 185d
A lot if time, as one example, it’s conditional on conviction. So not only do they have to cat h the guy they have to win in court. That’s not money in exchange for the tip itself.
Midnight1938@reddthat.com · 4 pts · 185d
Wait, holup
Didnt bazzel stop doing podcasts way before luigi happened? Or are you talking about an old episode
betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 185d
Looks like it was back in March 2022 so still a little while before Thompson's final claim denial. Show notes are available but it's not saying much more than what you get from the title of the episode:
Zephorah@discuss.online · 1 pts · 185d
He did his Irish Goodbye before Luigi. I’m saying, the high potential for not getting reward money was known prior.
GalacticSushi@piefed.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 185d
Their HP definitely went down. And, anecdotally, I heard from a pharmacist friend that they were approving claims like nobody's business for the next day or so
betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 185d
Kemp is alive and governing Georgia as far as I know but I'm happy to be corrected if that's wrong. You may be thinking of Brian Thompson who involuntarily resigned his position as the CEO of UnitedHealthcare on a NYC sidewalk.
testfactor@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 185d
Ah damn, you right. Should have Googled it. Too many Brian's in the news, lol. Got the wires crossed.
Editing to fix.
betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 185d
You did have my hopes up for a moment.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 185d
... So kill the entire board.
That'd probably make a more uh, substantial material impact on their bottom line.
Oh, they keep doing evil shit with a new board?
... repeat.
Or, I guess you can just either ... well, either try to run away and hide, pray to the normalcy bias gods that one of these days the legal systems they own will do something against them, or just resign yourself to a kind of smug, self defeating moral solace in being doomed, but being right while being doomed.
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 185d
Maybe find an economic system not dependant on exploitation? There's gotta be one out there somewhere
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 185d
Sure would be cool if anyone had any realistic plans for achieving such a thing.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 185d
Which one of those things are you doing?
betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 185d
That's a fed question.
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 185d
It would be if the answer weren't so obvious
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 185d
You act like they're doing any of it besides the smug moral solace
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 185d
No I don't.
I'm capable of being honest, and judging myself by thr same standards I judge others.
You just assumed that I'm not.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 185d
I didn't "assume" that, it was indicated by the smugness of your keyboard warrior "just do such-and-such, or succumb to doomerism" argument.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 185d
No, you're not getting it:
Yep, I am smug, hence the smug description of being smug.
Meta-smugness.
You're assuming that I do not count myself amongst being smug.
I do.
Its also not the only of those 3 things I do, see my other comment where you decided to give a pretty good, though mostly off topic explanation of Nietzche vs Schopenhauer, totally missing the part wherr I established being smug is not the only thing that I do.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 185d
At the moment, a bit of the first, and a bit of the third.
Its hard to be an agent of one's own will to power when one is seriously crippled.
So mostly what I am doing is physical therapy so that I can get back to being a more effective agent of my own will.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 185d
I prefer Schopenhauer's Will to Life which Nietzsche plagiarized during his psychotic ramblings.
If Nietzsche was right about the Will to Power being the essence of life, then fascism would be justified. What is fascism besides an exercise in Will to Power devoid of empathy? Hitler loved Nietzsche. He corrupted a lot of the things Nietzsche said. Nietzsche wasn't inherently fascist, and actually abhorred authority. But his Will to Power rhetoric did lend itself to the development of fascist ideology.
Life isn't merely some competition between rivaling species of plants that will overwhelm the other if the other doesn't overwhelm them first. That's what happens when there's an imbalance in an ecosystem, such as with the introduction of non-native plants. If that were perfectly fine as an analogy for human society and behavior, then what argument could be made against colonization and ethnic cleansing? The same argument would justify capitalistic exploitation, extractive industry, "infinite growth," and zero-sum economic systems.
To be clear, those things are evil, but that's why I don't believe in the Will to Power. (True that Nietzsche didn't mean it that way, because he personally was anti-authority, but he failed to consider what it would mean for an authoritarian figure with the intention and capability to enforce an evil Will to Power).
But in a balanced ecosystem, life isn't a zero-sum game. Lots of species symbiotically work together to maintain the balance, a sort of ecological homeostasis. On the species level, even predator-prey relations are symbiotic (without wolves, deer overpopulate and overconsume, then they starve and experience population collapse).
So that's why I favor Will-to-Life over Will-to-Power.
There's also Will-to-Good, which sounds great on the surface, but "Good" is hard to define, so it's mostly useless and can lend itself to corruption and perversity just as easily.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 185d
... Ok.
I didn't mean to get into a philosophy argument, I meant to indicate my capacity to act in the world.
Bring crippled significantly hampers that, when it comes to most kinds of physical actions.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 184d
Okay, you can't just mention a desire to be an agent of your own will to power and expect me not to discuss the differences between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer...
The phrase "will to power" has an origin, and it was coined by Nietzsche as an adaptation of Schopenhauer's "will to life."
In my view, power is a means to an end and not an inherent good worth pursuing for its own sake. Life, on the other hand, is an end in itself and is an inherent good worth pursuing for its own sake.
It makes sense to ask "Why do you want power?" But if you ask "Why do you want to live," it seems kinda pointless like asking the wrong question.
This is because living is the reason for everything else that we do: work, get paid, buy food, eat. We fight for better systems because they're more conducive to life. We might sacrifice our own lives for an ideal that makes life possible or better for others, presumably people we care about, and even then, life is the goal, just not for ourselves.
A will to power requires further justification. A will to life does not.
FireRetardant@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 185d
There is also a societal dependance on some of the status quo. The bigger issue is how hard they actively resist the change. A lot of places still rely on trucking at a minimum to fill the groccery store with food wrapped in plastic, most of which is powered or made by fossil fuels. We need to electrify and diversifying but they cling to oil and have way too much power in governmental decisions to prevent or reverse any reduction in dependance for their products.
not_IO@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 185d
the post is about who is doing it, who is responsible,
it's supposed to make the problem less abstract
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 184d
Operant Conditioning
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 184d
Within a week of the killing, BCBS backed out on some of their upcoming bullshit and United Heathcare's pre-authorization rejection rate has decreased dramatically in the aftermath.
Thimpson's death (at the hands of someone whose identity we'll never know for sure) was objectively good for the insured.
REDACTED@infosec.pub · 43 pts · 185d
So you're saying me taking out some replaceable oil execs is going to make people have less demand for oil and everything that comes from it?
ThePantser@sh.itjust.works · 22 pts · 185d
But there isn't a "demand" at least not as much as years ago. We are trying to switch to renewables but the oil execs keep killing the renewable progress. The horse fucker in the white house won't let us move on. He kills wind and solar and forces the coal plants to stay open.
MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca · 9 pts · 185d
And that horse fucker won more votes than Kamala.
There's a whole party where resistance to green tech is one of the items of faith, hundreds of millions of people. Not just a handful of oil execs. (And yknow, the millions who still use gasoline in their cars etc.)
Edit: That's not to mention all those who like to fly places.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 185d
People keep curling out small humans, so oil-derived fertiliser is the only thing preventing a famine that would kill billions.
REDACTED@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 185d
You could argue it, but at the same time no one prevents you from going to AliExpress and buying cheap solar. The fact that US decided not to invest, does not mean solar on global scale is doomed. Rest of the world is doing pretty well
artifex@piefed.social · 34 pts · 185d
I honestly have to wonder at what point people will collectively say "why the hell are we letting them do this" ? Not sure what happens after that, but it seems like it must have to happen at some point, right? Right?
Zephorah@discuss.online · 17 pts · 185d
Never underestimate the power of inertia. Some people live their entire lives on it.
SyrupSplashin@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 185d
Because the people in positions to do something about it get paid by the evil doers to make sure business is as usual
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 185d
Because the average American and European feels their convenient lifestyle is more important than the life of the planet. They'll talk the talk about the environment, but they won't walk the wall with their votes or actions.
Azzu@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 185d
I was recently at a kind of convention on the topic of "how to build a sustainable society". There were two ~40 yr old ladies in the row in front of me.
One got out this super shiny copper flask. The lady next to her was like "oh that looks nice!" and they start talking about it. The lady that got it out said something about copper, its health impacts blabla and how she got it last week from Amazon.
And I'm just sitting there, holding it together, almost laughing out of frustration, about this whole situation.
Like, maybe she did actually need a bottle to hydrate herself outside, but...
monkeyFromTheLake@programming.dev · 1 pts · 185d
Please do not put Europeans in the same pot with US Americans. These days are altogether over but for the topic of fighting climate change things were different for quite a while.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 183d
You are. Don't pretend you aren't, on climate issues. You're doing more than the usa, yes, but no where even close to enough.
monkeyFromTheLake@programming.dev · 1 pts · 183d
If so then we are all in the same pot. Who is doing enough or more than that?
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 183d
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-renewable-energy-by-country-in-2022/
I would say anyone who is above 70% renewables is potentially on track. But you need to take heating and cars into consideration for usage, as well as the carbon impacts of imports and various industries... So really,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Including this information, maybe some random small African nations.
monkeyFromTheLake@programming.dev · 1 pts · 183d
Exactly.
agentTeiko@piefed.social · 1 pts · 185d
The problem its not just some rich guys they are just the hitmen. Its PetroStates that are behind them. Its not about money at this point its about power and a house of cards those states put in place completely propped up by oil. As in if they stop oil their Nation collapses and they dragged from into the streets and eliminated.
Don_alForno@feddit.org · 33 pts · 185d
I said nothing of the sort. But I ask once again: If we execute these 90 people, will that make us stop burning oil? Is it at least a helpful step down the path of stopping to burn oil?
If not, then please just don't act as though these 90 people are all we have to overcome to save the planet.
DirtSona@feddit.org · 24 pts · 185d
Of course something will happen. If the bosses or big corporations would be killed constantly, the next in line would be thinking about changing things. Just remember Luigi.
https://factually.co/fact-checks/health/luigi-mangione-healthcare-accessibility-impact-288343
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 185d
It costs 7.5% of GDP to halt climate change.
But each 12.5% of GDP is lost per +1°C
The problem is that the people who need to pay are not the people who will be most affected.
KeenFlame@feddit.nu · 10 pts · 185d
Soon you are ready to realise that no, they are sock puppets of what is essentially a giant demonic entity that is Immortal and Controls human and replaces these humans when they misbehave or malfunction
Almacca@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 185d
And it's name is Greed.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 7 pts · 185d
I call it Mammon and it lives inside the minds of every capitalist. Every worker who believes in markets, in states, in police, in corporations. We must kill the capitalist in the heads of every worker.
Almacca@aussie.zone · 7 pts · 185d
From Wikipedia "Mammon (Aramaic: מָמוֹנָא, māmōnā) in the New Testament is commonly thought to mean money, material wealth, or any entity that promises wealth, and is associated with the greedy pursuit of gain."
More or less the same thing, I reckon, but Mammon sounds cooler, so I'll defer to your's.
Jaysyn@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 185d
I specifically refer to megachurches and "prosperity" Christians as Mammonites.
GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 185d
M137@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 185d
Had a few seconds where I thought "Wired" was referring to the tech magazine and wondered what "Tired" is, who would choose name for their magazine or whatever?
bearboiblake@pawb.social · 16 pts · 185d
TIRED: A magazine for millenials and Gen X
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 21 pts · 185d
Still wrong, it's capitalism. Without them, there would be different people in the same position. Hate the game, not the player. Well, hate the game and the player but don't expect change from exchanging the player
GalacticSushi@piefed.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 185d
Important to note that those people would be acutely aware of how vulnerable said position is. People act differently when they're reminded of their own mortality.
ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 185d
They aren't talking about expecting change. They are talking about demanding change at gunpoint, and honestly I can't say I'm entirely opposed.
These people are completely unaffected by the law or any other form of consequences. They have removed our capability to peacefully take action, but the less-peaceful option is always there and there are legions more of us.
Tja@programming.dev · -1 pts · 185d
Yes, the Soviet union and China ran/run on unicorn powder and butterflies. Surely capitalism and those 90 guys are the problem.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 185d
Me criticizing one thing doesn't mean you get to pick another thing I supposedly like
Tja@programming.dev · 1 pts · 185d
No, I'm just pointing out that all economic systems we tried so far destroy the environment, it's not specifically capitalisms fault.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 185d
For some people, history ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall which is already laughable. For you, history started with its building.
Tja@programming.dev · 1 pts · 185d
Nope, since the industrial revolution we had capitalism, communism, feudalism and a bunch of others, and they all destroyed the environment. Norilsk was a nightmare well before the wall went up. London had unbreathable air a century before that.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 184d
So history started with the industrial revolution, I see.
Tja@programming.dev · 1 pts · 184d
Environment destruction did at scale.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 185d
What's your best, longest-lived example of a society without capitalism? Do you have any?
By capitalism, I mean
"private individuals or companies that own and control businesses and property", the simplest definition of capitalism
hobovision@mander.xyz · 15 pts · 185d
Capitalism was literally invented in the last few hundred years.
KombatWombat@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 184d
Sure, but before that was feudalism, or similar systems where the state owned the means of production with no competition besides foreign powers and sometimes the church. Capitalism doesn't give much power to workers, but it's definitely more than serfdom.
carotte@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 185d
any socialist society will be inherently disadvantaged by the fact that the global hegemon, the USA, is hellbent on destroying them. so, given that, maybe the soviet union? china? they certainly aren't perfect, soviet union especially, but any future socialist project can (and should) learn from their successes and mistakes
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 185d
Bad definition of Capitalism. This existed in Feudal states. Simple definitions are rarely the ones to use.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 183d
Then provide your preferred definition of capitalism and answer?
Using your preferred definition of capitalism, what is the best, longest-lived example of a society without capitalism?
This is an honest question... I can't think of any nation that has existed without it, so I asked.
MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 185d
You have mercantilism and other forms of private business without capitalism. A yeoman making something and selling it isn't capitalism.
Your definition is intentionally bad because you do in fact have to separate capitalism from just the very generic concept of private enterprise.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 185d
That's not the simplest definition because it's not the definition of capitalism at all. You can have property ownership without capitalism.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 185d
Collective ownership is very common (no pun intended) global and throughout history
lectricleopard@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 185d
By that definition, Roman Empire? Which lasted pretty damn long, by similar methods. Imperialism. A government that has at least a veneer of responsibility to the populace.
I mean there's big differences, but more similarities imo.
mastertigurius@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 185d
I'm pretty sure what most people are referring to here is unfettered capitalism. It's not an on/off switch, you can have certain aspects of one thing combined with the other.
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 184d
Tell me you've never studied history pre-1800 without telling me you've never studied history pre-1800.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 183d
Tell me you don't have a clue without telling me you don't have a clue
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 183d
If you want actual examples, almost all societies before 1800 we're not capitalist. Feudal society wasn't capitalist, neither was Roman society. Hunter gather society by most accounts was a form of primitive communism, and that is the vast majority of human history.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 182d
Rome wasn't capitalist?
What definition of capitalism are you using? They seemed very capitalist to me.
(I am using standard simple definition of "an economic system where private individuals or companies own and control businesses and property")
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 182d
You're going to need a narrow definition of company for that definition to not be very broad, as Wikipedia defines company as:
So basically a company can be any group of people, separated from the state but still recognized by it. So is a commune a company then? If everything was controlled by communes would that be capitalist?
It's better to use a more specific definition, again from wikipedia:
While all of these existed in Roman civilization, concentrated in the big cities such as Rome, the majority of the economy was slaves and peasants working the land to feed themselves while being forced to give a portion to landlords as rent and to the government as taxes, much like most agricultural civilizations. This sort of economy does not revolve around profit ie. Buying something, paying someone to improve it, and selling it for more on an open market so you can buy more and sell that and on and on... That is possible in Rome and there are capitalists, but that's not the main mode of production in the economy so the economy isn't capitalist. Just like there are communes in the US but the US isn't communist.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 181d
I don't need that narrow definition, as the definition I'm using is "...private individuals OR companies", so no companies are required.
Are companies necessary with capitalism? Not per the definition. They CAN be a part of it.
There were TONS of "profit-motivated" Romans throughout their economy. I think that the definition you used from Wikipedia means that Rome was capitalist, as private property, profit motive, competitive markets, commodification, and wage labor were all a part of Roman civilization, and not a small part.
Centurions could own land and were paid a wage, etc. All existed under Rome.
Thanks for your answer, I am very familiar with Rome and at least I know where you're coming from. In spite of your initial comment, I've read quite a bit about pre-1800s civilization. Perhaps more than you regarding Rome, as revealed by your response.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 185d
No one ever does.
We need regulated capitalism. I don't mind working for money. Most lemmys would like to smoke weed all day and not do shit. World dont work like that kids.
Capitalism with regulation and taxation of billionaires. Welfare state for the sick and elderly. Why is this so hard? We don't need communism.
save_the_humans@leminal.space · 4 pts · 185d
Cooperatives are the best answer. Capitalists will argue they should outcompete traditional firms in the market. If they're supposed to be better they'd win, right? But the thing is they're only better for most people.. and not the few richest that benefit the most from the current capitalist system. And everyone's too damn brainwashed to understand private ownership of the means of production is the root cause of so many problems. But let's just regulate capitalism.
If cooperatives goal is to provide for its members and community while a traditional firms goal is profit maximization, regulation fixes nothing.
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 185d
Okay how do you stop the capitalist who run our government and all of our economic production from getting rid of that welfare once their profits dry up? They own the military and all of its assets btw.
The treats they gave us have been a concession from the start. They were given because we put up enough of a fight that the capitalists worried not giving them to us would be worse. They will take them away if we don't keep that fight, and its implicit threat, going. I don't want all of our future generations for the rest of time to have to keep up that fight.
NewDark@lemmings.world · 20 pts · 185d
Kind of. It's the system they operate under, capitalism.
Get rid of those specific people and you would have others people take their place.
However, not to say that it isn't worthwhile to also bust out the guillotines
GalacticSushi@piefed.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 185d
If you bust out the guillotine, the people who replace them will behave as if they've seen what happens when the guillotines get busted out.
crmsnbleyd@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 185d
Renewables+nuclear is cheaper and in a truly free market would beat out oil
NewDark@lemmings.world · 2 pts · 185d
Cheaper is not the same as more profitable. It's an important distinction. You can't own and control the sun and charge people to harvest the energy. Monopolizing and gatekeeping are the end goals of capital owners.
Unless you think the Chinese market is more free. They're producing solar panels like crazy.
crmsnbleyd@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 185d
Oil is only profitable for the people producing oil, which is not most people
NewDark@lemmings.world · 1 pts · 185d
That's... the point
crmsnbleyd@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 184d
Then? More people have the incentive to break from this than not
NewDark@lemmings.world · 1 pts · 183d
Let's take a famous adage of "teach a man to fish" and attempt to demonstrate these two business strategies. Let's bend this metaphor to the point of breaking. Fish are the analog for energy.
Business model #1: (solar panels) You make fishing poles so that people can fish on the lake for themselves. After you sell someone a pole, you no longer have that person paying you more money unless they break it. It's a fairly straightforward business that allows people to get their own food.
Business model #2: (oil) You own the lake, you own the boats and fishing poles. You pay people a wage to fish, that are yours too. You pay people to sell your fish, you build infrastructure to wall off the lake. You pay guards a wage to protect your lake from people that want "free fish". If people want food, you have leverage over people through ownership of all the assets and lake. You can raise prices when you want. As your fish business is successful you buy up all the lakes around and get a monopoly. Maybe you intentionally don't merge with 1 or 2 other companies to prevent government regulation against monopolies and effectively raise prices in unison (it's called price leadership). A freer market will just make this control worse and more pronounced. A new fuedalism will emerge of a few kings and serfs that own nothing and rent from people that own.
It's more expensive, less efficient, less egalitarian, but it will be more profitable because you own it.
NewDark@lemmings.world · 1 pts · 183d
OK. Oil is only profitable for a select few people now. Why don't we rise up in arms to change production and seize the means of production now? More people have incentive to now than not (most people are not oil billionaires), why doesn't it change?
Coercion through state violence, a propaganda apparatus telling you the only way to structure society is through capitalism, and treats to sedate the masses from revolting against their living conditions.
A magic nebulous "more free" market doesn't change that.
crmsnbleyd@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 182d
One path requires a break from capitalism through a mass revolution and the other doesn't
DirtSona@feddit.org · 1 pts · 185d
Would you say the health industry is exactly the same after Luigi?
NewDark@lemmings.world · 1 pts · 185d
Exactly? Of course not
Almost exactly? Yes
DirtSona@feddit.org · 1 pts · 184d
So if one death changes at least a little bit. Can't you believe that 100 deaths might change something?
Fedizen@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 185d
If only there was like a deck of cards with their faces on it.
stray@pawb.social · 17 pts · 185d
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/
Sometimes I like to gaze lovingly into their faces while writing their names in my diary.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 12 pts · 185d
Something to remember about the Forbes List: the most terrible people of all, aren't even on it. There is a level of wealth that floats above mere billionaires, for which there almost isn't even a category. Forbes knows not to mention these families in the context of some tawdry popularity contest among nouveau riche Techno Trash. They are mostly centuries old multi-generational wealth like monarchies, the Rothschilds, sheikhs, organized crime families, dictators, etc.
They aren't on the list, but they hold the real wealth, and more importantly, the real power. Everything else is an illusion of their making.
axexrx@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 185d
My understanding of it is that its not really some conspiracy to hide the top wealth; the forbes lists are all opt- in. They reach out to a bunch of Uber wealthy, people, and those who want in send back bios and stats for them to rank and publish.
At least that's the way it was explained to me. I dated an heiress for a while, and at one point her dad told me hed only ever had his name on the list for one year, and that was as part of the 'debut campaign' for his second wife.
Of you look ar the list it makes sense. It's mostly the new rich, people still seaking validation and status from their wealth, the sociopaths and a lot of the tech bilionaires like elon and zuckerberg who treat it like a competition, and people who benefit from the name recognition and status perception for their company, like all the fashion and design company owners using it to help associate their brands with luxury, and the investment banker types like Bloomberg, ken griffin, etc, who use it to show success of their companies and get other rich people to invest with them.
StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 184d
So, vampires. They're vampires.
SnoringEarthworm@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 185d
That page 404 errors for me. Here's an alt:
https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/
alejandra@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 184d
It’s a reminder that large problems are often tied to concentrated power. Holding systems accountable while still pushing for collective change is probably the most constructive path forward.
bearboiblake@pawb.social · 15 pts · 185d
Imagine if we just locked all the doors and firebombed Davos. Could save humanity in one day of work.
edit: for legal reasons I wish to clarify this is a joke
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 185d
edit: for legal reasons I wish to clarify this is a joke
Sure {wink!} 😉
Fedizen@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 185d
This is good joke! Very funny that nobody has killed these people! L O L
dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 15 pts · 184d
They'll find new executives, bud. Executives are just the lackeys for shareholders and the board of directors. A new one will grow for each one lost.
CADmonkey@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 184d
Giving up hasn't worked yet.
dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 184d
I'm just saying the aim isn't the most effective. Shooting someone's foot certainly will hamper someone, but the pain will go away eventually. Gotta aim for a more lethal part of the body
HasturInYellow@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 184d
Ok so not 90 people. But more like 2,000. Still a rounding error that is willfully exterminating the rest.
S0ck@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 184d
And?
Make them find new ones. And new ones after that. And after that.
Eventually that well will dry up.
Redvenom@retrolemmy.com · 11 pts · 185d
someone needs to mangione them
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 185d
thethrilloftime69@feddit.online · 10 pts · 185d
While killing them would be progress, the real need is a revolution.
bearboiblake@pawb.social · 20 pts · 185d
100% this, and not an explicitly violent revolution, either. We need to build alternative power structures to replace our heirarchical society. Simply replacing our elites using violence would end up with a new set of elites who are very provably willing to use violence against their enemies. IMO this is one of the major reasons that marxism-leninism has historically yielded authoritarian states, e.g. the USSR.
lefaucet@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 185d
Their real death will be through obsoletion.
lefaucet@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 185d
Which I should clarify is already here. They just don't want us to think that yet cause they invested in a bunch isht that is now obsolete.
It's all ducken obsolete them fossil fuels is. Don't get me wrong, a tank of clean propane is dandy for a Sunday grill, but solar's where it at
bearboiblake@pawb.social · 5 pts · 185d
I think this is a bit overly optimistic, the ruling class own like 99% of every industry, not just fossil fuels. We can't just wait for history to take its course, we need to start building a worker-led movement to replace our exploitative heirarchical society, that's how we can make the ruling class obsolete. We need to get our shit together and actually do a lot of work to achieve this.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 9 pts · 185d
Fewer than a single box of ammo.
ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 185d
Depends on the caliber
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 185d
Valid. We could be efficient, and use one bullet each, or we could go for mayhem. Mayhem creates better historical photos that are more effective in warning future dipshits. That does require lots of ammo.
scutiger@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 184d
That's not efficient. You gotta line them up for real efficiency.
Amberskin@europe.pub · 3 pts · 185d
Never underestimate the psychological impact of the look and sound of a guillotine.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 184d
There is something to be said for the sun glinting off the blade.
TronBronson@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 184d
It’s a real crowd pleaser.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 184d
A box is typically between 20 and 50 rounds.
Less than a case though.
sepi@piefed.social · 9 pts · 185d
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 185d
Ok, but can we put AI in it somehow?
Jax@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 184d
Yes I'm sure the corporations beneath these people will simply evaporate and everything will go perfectly fine.
architect@thelemmy.club · 6 pts · 184d
If you took out certain key people you would absolutely change the course of history. Probably a certain 5-10. Maybe less. Who? No idea.
Butterpaderp@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 184d
Hell, look at all the shit epstein was involved with and think about how much better the world would be if he was baby hitler'd
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 185d
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/
ICastFist@programming.dev · 6 pts · 185d
There are many bankers and investment funds' CEOs and owners we probably don't know the names of that are also funding the end of the world because of profit
mavu@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 184d
that feels, for some reason, profound.
I mean, sure let it be 200 or 400, 1000. It's still a rounding error compared to all of humanity.
maybe that is why there is a period of prosperity after large wars. The losing side being wiped out reduces that number by half and everyone can breathe a bit more freely.
porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml · 25 pts · 184d
Those people never die in the wars. The reason there are periods of prosperity after wars is because when many young adults have died, labour has more bargaining power.
mavu@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 184d
damn. somehow my version, which is pretty dark, is still not that dark.
zebidiah@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 184d
There also tend to be periods of great prosperity following plagues, due to inheritances and what not. But capitalism has made sure to rinse you of every past penny to prevent generational wealth from being passed down to the poors.... So that didn't happen after COVID
Ps. Fuck magnum pi and kurt browning for scamming seniors out of their homes and into reverse mortgages
Soup@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 184d
Wait what did Magnum PI do? We’re not talking about the mustachioed investigator, right?
Tja@programming.dev · 6 pts · 185d
Say the Americans who consume 3x the energy of other developed nations.
"Jeff bezos forced me to live in the desert and run AC 10 months of the year"
"Bill Gates made me drive my car to get groceries"
"Bring back plastic straws"
"Roll coal, baby!"
UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 185d
I like how the post is about the bus load of rich people that do the most polluting and we started blaming each other. Focus people. Our cars do pollute, but nowhere near as much as a these rich bastards.
Tja@programming.dev · 5 pts · 185d
Much more, in fact. I did the math a while ago and just plastic straws cover private jets for about a week. Moving half the US traffic from cars to public transport would do marvels for CO2 levels, more than outright banning private jets.
CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 185d
To be fair on those:
dustyData@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 185d
On one hand, yes, sure, fuck those people, 100%. On the other hand, remember that those people are encouraged and most likely exist only because of disinformation propaganda campaigns designed, promoted and delivered by the same bus load of people. So, you know, perspective.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 185d
Exactly. People love to pretend they aren't part of the problem as they keep their houses at 70 throughout 100° heat, roll car while driving their cars, and order boat loads of temu junk.
underisk@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 185d
Lick those oil exec boots just a little harder and I'm sure they'll send you an invite to the pedo party.
happyfullfridge@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 185d
nobody said oil executives are somehow blameless or ok, it's just funny to shift literally all blame away from you
underisk@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 185d
They literally conspired to make the entire country not only dependent on their products, but did so knowing the harm those products caused to both the people and environment. The majority of the blame rests there and pretending that any amount of "personal responsibility" needs to be addressed is just so fucking stupid and self-defeating that it practically borders on sabotage. Let's get mired in blaming each other for our own minuscule, largely involuntary contribution while they keep filling their pockets with our blood.
plyth@feddit.org · 2 pts · 185d
Said the snowflake in the blizzard.
You have part of the power. If you are willing to coordinate there will be enough power to change all relevant things.
underisk@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 185d
you're right dude, the snowflake has all the agency here. not the storm that created it, nor the wind that blows it around. if only it would melt itself then the energy consumed by phase transition would cool the earth in an imperceptibly small way, bringing us that much further away from global warming catastrophe. really, it's the snowflakes' fault for selfishly getting frozen in the first place.
plyth@feddit.org · 0 pts · 184d
Then you are one ray of light that helped to create the pressure difference that caused the storm.
You have free will. You have the power to make change a bit bigger.
Tja@programming.dev · 1 pts · 185d
Our own minuscule largely involuntary contributions sum up to 20 million barrels of oil per day (in the US) 10 million per day (in the EU) and 17 million (in China).
I don't think Musk alone is consuming that...
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 185d
OP is pointing out that most Americans are licking oil exec boots.
Do you have a car with an internal combustion engine? Bootlicker.
underisk@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 185d
If you think paper straws and electric cars are going to save the environment you’re part of the fucking problem. It’s not enough, and it was never going to be. They knew it wouldn’t be when they came up with these things which is why these are the measures that are allowed to be taken. Laws and subsidies that would actually help are instead lobbied out of viability. So we’re left with electric car subsidies making Elon Musk the richest asshole in history and paper straws making everyone hate environmentalism while we still hurtle toward annihilation.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 185d
Oil execs are rich, but they aren't consuming 20 million barrels of oil per day by themselves.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 0 pts · 185d
What?
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 185d
Recycling is a con to make you feel guilty and let Chevron off the hook.
jeffep@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 185d
Solar energy used to be a similar con and look at it now.
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 185d
How was solar a con? It produced energy, as intended. It's gotten gradually even better at producing energy through better photovotaics, batteries, molten salt concentrated solar, and kinetic batteries (pumping water uphill during the day, running electro-hydralic power generation at night). But it was never a lie.
Plastic was never recyclable. It's been burned in the open air in China and Indoneisa ab initio.
You can argue that glass, cardboard, and aluminum can be effectively recycled, but in the context of climate change and fossil fuels, we are taking about petroleum-based plastics. There are too many different kinds of plastic and the cost of recycling versus the cost of new material meant recycling was a chimera from the beginning.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 2 pts · 185d
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/publications/national-waste-resource-recovery-reporting/resource-recovery-waste-material-analysis-2024
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/measuring-what-matters/measuring-what-matters-themes-and-indicators/sustainable/circular-economy
testaccount372920@piefed.zip · 5 pts · 185d
So these ninety or so specific people, is someone keeping a list somewhere?
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 185d
https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/
testaccount372920@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 184d
500 people with over $7.57 billion... Every single one of them could use their money to bring some serious change to the world but choose not to :(
Iron_Lynx@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 184d
Should I be worried that my initial response to this is "Hmm, so we might be able to improve the world with a serendipitously timed anthrax outbreak at the next WEF summit?"
MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 184d
About the response itself? No.
About the situation that made that response understandable? We're way past "worried".
JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 184d
I mean, somebody is going to have to do a little terrorism...
HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 184d
Just a little bit, as a treat.
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 185d
Fired: adventurist action doesn't end the system that created those 90 people
Couldn't come up with much that rhymed with tired but that is probably because I am tired
AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 185d
These people have physical bodies
SyrupSplashin@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 185d
I would get banned on Reddit if I said what I wanted to say about this situation, would I get banned here too?
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 185d
Depends on the instance. For example: I can say, "we should all get together and murder these people for what they have done to us" and I would likely only get banned from this community or the instance that hosts it. My home instance simply wouldn't care
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 185d
These few people / companies destroying the planet: BLAME THE CONSUMER!
The amount of fucking everything up they do in a day is more than I do in a lifetime.
FreddiesLantern@leminal.space · 4 pts · 185d
At what point can we sue them for the many crimes against humanity? The many, many,….
(The oil executives that is just to be clear!)
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 182d
and their customers have nothing to do with it? Does this person just completely not understand what a market is?
foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev · 3 pts · 184d
historians estimate about 200,000 to 300,000 germans were directly involved in the Shoah. many more profited from it.
Don_alForno@feddit.org · 3 pts · 185d
So if we kill 90 oil executives we stop using oil?
crmsnbleyd@sopuli.xyz · 10 pts · 185d
We stop the oil propaganda. Without that, we do gradually stop using oil, because the alternatives are
Don_alForno@feddit.org · 1 pts · 185d
How? Will these 90 people not just be replaced?
daannii@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 185d
We make an example of the previous ones.
AceTKen@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 185d
Oh probably. Luckily it's also pretty easy to make new fire too though.
GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 185d
Shanmugha@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 185d
Everyone who is into "we keep using oil no matter what, shut the fuck up" gets scared and guess what - controllable. Tactic sounds familiar? That's because it should
FreddiesLantern@leminal.space · 4 pts · 185d
I’m so tired of the defeatist mentality in a lot of people. Nothing is gonna change unless we move forward together.
fosho@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 185d
ok but three "literally" is too many.
baltakatei@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 185d
And every year they gather in one specific location in Switzerland called Davos.
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 184d
Every revolutionary thinks their utopia is only a few decapitations away, and when those don't work they move onto the next couple until your Stalin and executing kulaks who own a bit more land than their neighbors.
The reality is that a large chunk of normal people benefit from the current system and will fight to keep their cars, meat, AC, 401k evaluations etc. The largest shareholder, the ones who really control these companies, of any of these oil companies is vanguard which your current retirement plan is probably in. And that's just the minority of oil that's extracted by private companies, most is extracted by state owned corporations, and although most of that usually goes to corruption and war, a lot of it goes into welfare for some of the poorest people in the world. A lot more people rely on fossil fuels than just a handful of billionaires.
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 184d
So call a convention and when they all bus in, 3 RPGs could clear a lot of air
Bytemeister@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 184d
Money like that, you fly in on your own helicopter, so you don't have to ride in the less comfortable helicopter for your entourage.
SuspciousCarrot78@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 184d
otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 185d
Luigi Luigi Luigi...
derAbsender@piefed.social · 2 pts · 185d
We have names?
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 0 pts · 182d
Knowing their names doesn't matter, you cannot make things illegal for specific people nor would that help. You have to write and pass legislature to make it stop, and that's why we're at a fucking standstill on everything: a large majority don't believe in legislature as a basic concept or solution.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 0 pts · 185d
Y'all still pay those people money for hamburgers and chicken nuggets you don't need. Eat a nice homemade vegan sandwich and spend the money on a video game. Video games cause a lot less pollution than meat and they're way more fun.
DirtSona@feddit.org · 3 pts · 185d
Why do you think the post is about fast food chains?
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 1 pts · 185d
I don't think the post is about fast food chains. I'm saying fast food chains burn a whole lot of oil making your hamburgers. No more oil mining companies, no more cheap hamburgers.
There are a whole lot of people, millions of them, who want change, but who would riot at the steps necessary to achieve that change. It's like the Trump voters who get deported by ICE. "This isn't what I voted for". There are millions of people who want net zero carbon emissions, but they still want to drive an SUV to McDonald's for chicken nuggets.
I don't drive an SUV. I don't eat chicken nuggets. I'm ready for net zero. I hope you are too.
DirtSona@feddit.org · 1 pts · 184d
Hmm. I guess in our current system, burgers require oil, yes.
But I don't see why in an alternate oil free world there would be no burgers anymore. (Or at least cheap burgers).
It should be possible to actually get cheaper energy renewable than with oil, which should give the possibility to. Make burgers even cheaper, or?
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 1 pts · 184d
You're imagining our alternate oil free world after a few decades of no oil. A few decades of no oil and we'd all be much happier and our lives would be more convenient. But I'm talking about one year from now if the communists win the revolution and blow up all the oil refineries. We'd have to cut back on a lot of luxuries until we find the time and labour to retool the economy for the renewable order. It would be hard work.
And no, I have no interest in winning the revolution and keeping the oil refineries until we make the transition. We need net zero yesterday. I'm not gambling away the lives of future generations for a few years of ease right now. That's selfish.
DirtSona@feddit.org · 1 pts · 183d
What kind of communists would win a revolution in a year, and where?
Why do you argue against such an unlikely scenario?
inkzombie@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 0 pts · 185d
daannii@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 185d
Majority?
Nah Those that actively want to hurt people from the lgbtq+ is small.
It's still puts the group at a higher risk of identity based hate crimes.
But it's not a majority. Even people who disaprove of it don't actively wish harm on the rainbow people
LemmyShemmy@aussie.zone · 0 pts · 185d
r1veRRR@feddit.org · 0 pts · 183d
Yes, if we just shoot the CEOs, the customers will magically stop wanting fast fashion, fast food, waste amounts of cheap meat, cheap and new electronics every year....
I don't disagree that it would have a positive effect, but I hate the overly reductive takes on systems being completely disconnected from the people. We need to realize that our (western) life style is simply not sustainable, capitalism or not. That requires serious changes for everyone, not just the "rich".
Boozilla@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 183d
Something I think about from time to time: if everyone would boycott TicketMaster for a year, TM would vanish.
It's really not a big ask for people to skip sports and concerts for one year. Buy merch from struggling artists if you're worried about them.
But, this will never happen because of FOMO and selfishness. They'll just bitch about the monopoly while giving them endless money.
The people have massive power if they pull together. But 'fuck you, I got mine' is the primary American motivation.
mirshafie@europe.pub · 1 pts · 183d
TicketMaster is one of those things I know about because apparently Americans fucking hate TicketMaster.
Jarix@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 183d
Keep cutting off the heads of these companies and eventually no one will take the jobs
r1veRRR@feddit.org · 1 pts · 168d
Cool, and the people that wanted to thing they produced at the price they produced it at? They'll just chill and completely change their ways? Your people riot and kill people, what makes you think the "other" group wouldn't too?
Any policy change has to be accepted and lived by the people, at the end of the day.
To be clear, we can do both eating the rich AND educating about and changing our negative consumptive habits.