door5

5 ms·

1.
by door5 7y ago
Piracy is good but fascism is bad. What's the problem here?
2.
by door5 7y ago
Capitalism has certain systemic features, one of them is concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small few. Look at how wealth is concentrated in the U.S., especially over the last 40 years. Unions have eroded, markets have been
3.
by door5 7y ago
Capitalism.
4.
by door5 7y ago
That investment shouldn't be made by individuals, it should be made by society as a whole, ie by increasing taxes so tuition is free. The burden of student debt is not shared equally or fairly.
5.
by door5 7y ago
They would be say that an inheritance tax hurts "family farms" and "family businesses", because they are dishonest about the fact that their policies benefit the power and privilege of a only a tiny minority of the popul
6.
by door5 7y ago
There is not one single way to publicly fund media. Hell you could just leave the whole system as is as provide no strings attached grants or tax credits to all publishers. The point is, there is no technical solution to this, we need polic
7.
by door5 7y ago
> The only way to have free content is if the user is the product being sold. Or we could provide robust public funding, like the BBC > It's what we must accept if we don't want the government to provide the news. Public fu
8.
by door5 7y ago
The U.S. president has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault. He has called women bitches, whores, fat pigs, ugly, etc. Multiple states in the south passed legislation effectively banning abortion, stripping women of their sexual
9.
by door5 7y ago
I didn't frame it as men vs. women. I framed it as challenging patriarchy, which is a system and ideology of male dominance and control.
10.
by door5 7y ago
No, I'm saying the economy rewards the choices men make. Women get paid less because employers pay less in female-dominated fields.
11.
by door5 7y ago
Even if you assume all this research is correct, why are people with certain characteristics or interests that are disproportionately associated with women get rewarded less economically? Also sexism.
12.
by door5 7y ago
It's not sexist to point out that men historically have held disproportionate cultural, social, economic, and political power and continue to do so to this day.
13.
by door5 7y ago
I agree, however I think it's important that we do not use "implicit bias" as a cover. Implicit bias seems very vague and allows people to evade responsibility. I think there's a lot of very explicit bias (in the form of
14.
by door5 7y ago
It isn't, there is an enormous body of evidence demonstrating that the gender pay gap is driven by overt sexism and institutional barriers. This evidence is far more compelling than speculation about height.
15.
by door5 7y ago
Another way in which rigid, patriarchal gender roles hurt men as well as women. Straight men should be far more critical of sexism and misogyny than they are. This attitude is directly tied to oppression against women in the workforce.
16.
by door5 7y ago
There's a ton of overt misogyny and sexism in the U.S., nothing "subconscious" about it.
17.
by door5 7y ago
Socialism is a material struggle, it isn't an idealist Utopia where everything is perfect. It's a process. And most socialist regimes have been in the developing world, which had much less to work with and much weaker infrastructu
18.
by door5 7y ago
This is ahistorical nonsense. The west industrialized hundreds of years ahead of the rest of the world and spent a century and a half plundering the global south. Regardless, China has managed to almost eliminate extreme poverty and hunger
19.
by door5 7y ago
>they are not the reason why there is still actual poverty and malnutrition in the western world. Why is there poverty and malnutrition in the western world if not because of capitalism? Neoliberal capitalism has been the dominant econom
20.
by door5 7y ago
>Then why not focus on the anti-competitive behavior, instead of trying to remake the entire society in your leftist image? because my leftist image is good
21.
by door5 7y ago
We could do this all day, but the fundamental difference here is you look at the normal functioning of capitalism and think it is just and good, while I look at it and see it as highly exploitative, unethical and inhumane. I think concentra
22.
by door5 7y ago
You ignored my point - that the concentration of wealth is an inhibitor of solving poverty, and you failed to explain why you feel the need to defend billionaires' interests when they couldn't care less about yours, unless you&#x2
23.
by door5 7y ago
>Some of us do not believe the leftist alternatives being proposed are better. This does not mean we actually like the status quo. You are knocking down a giant strawman here. I'm trying to be fair here, what alternatives are you de
24.
by door5 7y ago
I would propose that bad branding is a symptom of a deeper problem, that the services were designed by engineers motivated primarily by ideology, which is very unlikely to reach a wide audience outside of engineers and activists
25.
by door5 7y ago
You're talking about one aspect of businesses -- their relationship with their consumers, which generally is not exploitative (although there are obvious exceptions). However, Jeff Bezos's relationship with his employees is exploi
26.
by door5 7y ago
These are two sides of the same coin. Our economy is structured so that wealth is concentrated at the top. This isn't just something that happens, it's a result of specific policy decisions. It went hand in hand with the dismantli
27.
by door5 7y ago
>Sure, spend the $1T or so you would get from all the US billionaires on infrastructure. That's a decent fraction of US federal spending--for one year. Then it's gone. Now what do you do? Again, you're interpreting my mora
28.
by door5 7y ago
First off, Jeff Bezos is not the only billionaire, so your $370 number is off. Second off, there's more that the government can do other than cash payments to individuals, they can invest in infrastructure (like education, housing, pub
29.
by door5 7y ago
I do believe that -- in fact, I have no problem with a relatively modest income and wealth inequality. However, the wealth and income inequality that exists in the United States is far beyond that. In the United States, the top 1% control
30.
by door5 7y ago
The state can build housing then if it's not profitable. Housing is a public good and a right, it should not be a product or investment.

More ›