• 1 Post
  • 313 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 1st, 2023

help-circle
  • I can see it now. Grey pigtail braids cascade down the slumping, geriatric shoulders of Steven Bannon’s porcine form, skirts swishing, while he attempts to seduce the aging pedophiles on the island. Time and time again he fails. The men look at him with disgust. “Oh no. They all think I’m ugly. Daddy Epstein will never make me a model now”, he thinks to himself, tears welling up in his dead, rheumy eyes.


  • Most folks in the south are good, honest, hard-working people - but the levels of propaganda aimed at keeping them ignorant and blaming minorities for systemic issues are hard to overstate. That coupled with a crumbling education system, poverty, and voter suppression is what keeps the south voting against the best interests of the majority of people.

    The average Southern voter is just trying to do the right thing with the information they have access to. Doesn’t make them any less wrong, but it does make the situation more morally complex.

    It always makes me sad when I see people in Left spaces saying things like “it serves them right” etc etc when disasters occur. Sure, the majority of voters may have voted for policies that caused these things, but they are ignorant and have been lied to their whole lives. Not to mention all the folks who have been disenfranchised by the system.

    Edit: for those responding: most. Most people. Like 40% of people don’t vote. And another 25+% vote Dem. Of the remaining 30-35% that decide elections for Republicans, most of those are extremely misled, either thinking Dems are to blame for Rep policies that harm them, that Dem policies will make it impossible for them to make a living, etc. etc. A subset of those 30-35% are just outright evil and either want to throw everyone under the bus for a few tax breaks or are just rascists/bigots. But, that is not most people. Note, I don’t lime the Democrats, but their policies are significantly less harmful than Rep policies. If you actually talk to people in the South, you would understand that. Some are out-and-out ghouls, but most people are miseducated, poor, and have been told who to blame by the powers that be.





  • Idk about MMA, but afaik his kickboxing record was pretty good, but essentially he was an average/slightly above average pro who had a massively padded record - he mainly fought people who were ranked far lower than him, won some low to mid level titles and didn’t take actual fair matchups or compete in tournaments that you’d expect actual highly ranked pros would compete in.

    So, he was a perfectly adequate kickboxer and could beat a lot of pro kickboxers in lower divisions but nowhere near “best in the world” / “olympic level” or whatever else he claims


  • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlThe tragedy of the commons
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    I think it’s a refutation of unregulated production & resource distribution in general.

    In socialism, distribution would be handled by the state or locality, by the producers themselves, by a work coupon system, with money (a la market socialism), or theoretically in a sort of free-for-all all where people just request what they need. Only the last one is really implicated in a tragedy of the commons type scenario, with the money and work coupon systems potentially causing a smaller degree of that sort of an issue (as there would be less inequality, so less possibility of overproduction due to demand). Producers would, in that case, be encouraged to produce more to fill the increased demand, but there wouldn’t be a profit motive for doing so, and so a consumer-side tragedy of the commons is less likely. Also, producers’ access to resources would theoretically be more tightly regulated than in capitalism, but that isn’t necessarily the case.

    In capitalism, distribution is dictated by the money system obviously and due the massive inequality there is a big disparity among people’s buying power - but more importantly companies consume the vast majority of resources and are encouraged to grow infinitely in a world of finite resources - creating demand where it doesn’t naturally exist to squeeze more profit out of folks’ savings, make them take on debt, or cause them to deprioritize other purchases.

    In capitalism, people are not encouraged to consume infinitely more because it is not possible. You only have so many needs and so much income as an individual. The market invents new needs with advertising and such (you need makeup, you need the newest smartphone with ten cameras, you need glasses that let facebook spy on you), but consumers’ buying power is limited. People can’t really cause a market-wide tragedy of the commons, only companies can because they have the vast majority of the access to resources and the ability and motive (profit motive) to acquire them.

    Tragedy of the commons, or some iteration of it, seems inevitable under capitalism, but is mitigated or eliminated under socialism




  • Bro, it’s the original Lemmy instance. It does not matter what instance you’re on. I have two accounts with the same name one on dbzero and one on ml - feel free to peruse.

    You didn’t give me anything to respond to except for: “MAGA and Marxist-Leninism are equally incoherent” - and you gave nothing to substantiate that point, ergo it is a “braindead take” because it required no thought. If you want it to not be a braindead take, then make an argument rather than an unfounded (and probably uninformed) statement.