alxjrvs

We don't even have to zoom in, to be honest.

What children? What park? The presence of a park pre-supposes a political society that has prioritized parks, the budget to enact those priorities, and the space to do so. Any one of those can spiral into its own political microcosm.

How is that park maintained? Is there a special kids area of the park? Is it "for kids" or is it "The kids area", implying that kids aren't allowed in the rest of the park? Are the children not allowed in the park after a certain time - and who decides that time, and why? Sometimes the park is used for town events, but can get rented out. Who decides that?

Complexity is inherent, from the atoms to the galaxies. Any rejection of that is just plugging your ears, willfully or not.

> Some people hold a point of view that there is something other than democracy serves their agenda better.

Well, since they don't believe in democracy, I suppose they won't be too concerned when their opinions are discarded. What do they want, representation?

I also wonder if it includes the part where mark paraphrases the 14 words.

We're at the "White nationalists have some good points" stage of discourse.

Feels like the kind of headline that would briefly pause in front of the camera to establish how the world got "like this".

I disagree. Capitalism is a very specific, recent invention. You are living out the actual quote. I don't care if its nature - in my estimation, it fucking sucks!

Your argument works just as easily for Kings, Slavery, and every other horrible thing humans have done to one another. Capitalism is not in any way, shape, or form necessary to human existence. It would be like saying that Prime Time TV is "Nature" and worthy of almighty consideration. I pray I get to live to see the end of all of the above in my life time.

I've said my argument about as cleanly as I can! It's a complicated topic, and I encourage you to continue reading about it.

I am going to try to respond to the middle chunk later, because I don't really understand the lines you are drawing and how they map to my argument. In some sense, you are describing "The Market", which is another thing that exists outside of the means of organizing the resources. There are collective systems of governance that answer a lot of these questions, too!

To this, however:

> Separate line of thought (but to the same end), curious what you think: If humans are nature, and humans have capitalism, is capitalism not natural?

I don't care? Cancer is natural, Bifocals aren't. I don't think it's a useful framing on the question. My opinions would be the same on capitalism if it were a plot from the moon-beings of Andromeda IX vs. it being written explicitly written into our DNA. In the context of the quote, it is meant as in "It is not an objective facet of our existence, or something we must endure."

"“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”

> Right now if I step out into the street, I can flag a taxi, I can buy a coffee. In each case these are direct peer to peer transactions, where the price is agreed between us based on what we both want out of the exchange

I agree that we can do this. I do not agree that this is, strictly speaking, capitalism.

Capitalism =/= the exchange of goods, services, and capital.

Capitalism is the system that says the people who own the property constituting the critical infrastructure of an organization - the "Means of Production" - should get to make all the rules. That's it.

If I own a big beef machine that turns cows into hamburgers, it doesn't matter that I need 50 people to run it and 200 people to box and ship and sell the patties, the fact that I am the person who had enough money to buy the big beef machine means that my word is law, period. If I don't like the way they touch my big beef machine, they go away. If they don't like how unsafe the big beef machine is, too bad. Doesn't matter how much I sell the patties for - I decide how much I pay you, and I keep the rest (not exactly peer-to-peer). I own the big beef machine, so my say goes.

I agree with you that trade will exist until the end of time, and has existed since the first time Ook had something that Grog wanted and Grog decided it was too much energy to kill Ook over it.

When I say I am "Anti-capitalist", I mean (among other things) that I do not believe Capitalism specifically is the best (most productive, least ethically repulsive) means by which to engage in trade.

None of these opinions relate to trade or even the concept of capital itself, but rather the means by which we organize it.

To the original quote: It is hard to imagine the end of capitalism, because people believe capitalism is a natural facet of human nature. It is not; it is a big beef machine.

Do you mean trade or mercantilism? Capitalism - a system by which the means of production are privately owned - has only been dominant for the last few hundred years, broadly exacerbated by the industrial revolution (where you could easily point to "Guy who owns the big Machine").

It is, at its most fundamental description, a Top-Down system of governance and ownership (I admit, probably not the way you mean, but it did tickle me).

Dragons hoarding wealth might be emergent human behavior, but, hey, so are brave knights.

IMO, this is the right idea. I've worked on small projects using Jira primarily as a means of ticket management, and I've worked on giant orgs with scrums and groomings and all that.

As far as a tool, it's perfectly fine. A lot of my bad feelings came as a result of wanting it to be simple ("What should I work on next") but it being twisted into a series of incantations and rituals by those looking to bend it for the purposes of more and more intricate views into how we spend every moment of our day.

> what for almost all of human history, is something so far beyond the imagination as to be bordering on the grotesque.

Citation needed

There are whole swaths of still living people who would gladly give up their wombs. Trans men, for example.

Not that there's any amount of polite progress that won't cause insane public discourse when it involves gender.

Damn, it's almost like Gender is largely vibes and any attempt to root it in a strict biological standard is as patently ridiculous as it would be trying to do the same to horoscopes.

Giving birth is already not a precondition of being a woman, as the category "infertile women" exist.

Racist fears of "replacement", mostly.

>You mean that when they send people back to their home countries because they're no longer welcome here?

> I don't like bullies, but when they do the "made you flinch" thing, part of me wants to smirk.

You like bullies, actually - you just don't like thinking you like bullies.

Imagine the organization you are imagining in your head.

Now imagine there is a Super-boss, who is exactly like the "people running the business" (attribution needed), but one level above them.

If the Super Boss were to look at the situation, I think it'd be pretty obvious that the issue would be "The people organizing the company at the highest level" who are responsible for the failures of the company. That may involve over-hiring, which is itself a bad practice that causes unnecessary pain and (personal, financial) suffering, and would be a good cause to fire them for almost crashing my beautiful super-company that I, the Super-boss, super-founded.

You're saying that if we return the Super-boss to the realm of the fictional, then suddenly it isn't the C-suite's fault anymore?

If we're discussing should, then yeah, their heads should be the first to roll. I agree its idealistic to imagine them having the sort of decency this requires, but I agree it should be the case!

Because the marketers oversold it. That is why you are seeing a pushback. I also outright rejected them because 1) they were sold and marketed as end all be all replacements for human thought, and 2) they promised to replace only the parts of my job that I enjoy. Billboards were up in San Francisco telling my "bosses" that I was soon to be replaced, and the loudest and earliest voices told me that the craft I love is dead. Imagine Nascar drivers excitedly discussing how cool it was they wouldn't have to turn left anymore - made me wonder why everyone else was here.

It was, more or less, the same narrative arc as Bitcoin, and was (is) headed for a crash.

That said, I've spent a few weeks with augment, and it is revelatory, certainly. All the marketing - aimed at a suite I have no interest in - managed to convince me it was something it wasn't. It isn't a replacement, any more than a power drill is a replacement for a carpenter.

What it is, is very helpful. "The world's most fully functioning scaffolding script", an upgrade from copilot's "the world's most fully functioning tab-completer". I appreciate it usefulness as a force multiplier, but I am already finding corners and places where I'd just prefer to do it myself. And this is before we get into the craft of it all - I am not excited by the pitch "worse code, faster", but the utility is undeniable in this capitalistic hell planet, and I'm not a huge fan of writing SQL queries anyway, so here we are!

It was a sideways reference to an old line from a detective movie.

I'm trying to say that the emperor is nude, and you are arguing that the threads might be so small as to not see them - or, rather, that the Media said he was naked, so while the president claims that he is wearing clothes, and that might be evidence he is deluded, his open ass in the wind not evidence of his pro-nudity leanings.

(This ignores the fact that he rose from the republican party, one that has been operating in full defiance of open democracy since bush v. gore. Republcans don't want "the will of the people", otherwise they wouldn't push so hard for voter suppression.)

It's a claim so baffling that it makes me assume you aren't operating in good faith.

What about your own lying eyes?

> I don't think it's necessarily evidence of being anti-democracy in his leanings.

This is either willful ignorance or something else.

> Either way, I think a pro-Democracy attitude will oppose growing power of unelected officials, regardless of political leanings.

DOGE is headed by an unelected official, from a party with not a lot of Pro-democracy leanings to spare right now.

Absolutely - there are many who are actively complicit, and I don't mean to give shield for everyone.

Many of them are trapped by work visas.

The same number closets you'd need to build before you've build a house.

I would agree! Let us both continue to trust our eyes.

It was a nazi salute.

Who do you trust, the Party, or your lying eyes?

> I believe he is well-intentioned and a good person

You should read more about the things he says, does, and the way he treats people, especially from those who are close to him. The picture it paints is something I'd consider "cruel, bordering on inhuman" (and thats before the nazi salute.)

Alternatively, I have a lucrative investment opportunity I'd love to get you in on.

Who do you trust, the Party, or your lying eyes?

IMO, this is no more "ironic" than hot chocolate tasting like chocolate. Dude campaigned on open corruption, and is actively taking measures to prevent anyone from stopping him. It stinks.

Dear Leader is never wrong. There is no COVID in ba sing se.

I was trying to address the incoherence of this;

> Y'all really doubling down on this whole "77 million people are white supremacists" huh? > You understand this means that the other 75 million people are actually looking to mutilate children, destroy the concepts of sex and gender, abolish all of the police, and are aggressively racist against white people, right?

You seemed confused and upset that people assumed you believed the things in the latter statement, so I am primarily interested in getting you to understand why I (and a few others, by the looks) thought that.

It is factually true that Donald Trump campaigned on white replacement theory, surrounded himself with people who had ties to white nationalism, and continues to advance causes very important to white and christian nationalists. If you voted for him, you were either uninformed on those topics, informed but didn't care, or informed but agree. By and large, the trump voters I talk to on a daily basis seem to be in the first camp, but willing to defend trump regardless of what he is saying or doing.

It is factually false to suggest that Democrats want to "Mutilate children", or any of the examples you gave. Even the most harsh critic of the police that the democrats have, AOC, unequivocally said that she was against abolishing the police and preferred defunding them and moving their responsibilities to other social services. "Mutilating children" and "Abolish sex and gender" are thought-terminating cliches meant to mis-represent support for trans folk, and "Racist against white people" is a clownshoes bananapants nothing of a racist dogwhistle.

Republicans love to twist and exaggerate, but none of these reflect the policies - either stated or implied through policy - the nature of democratic support. What's more, the democrats have not universally adopted a single person to be the arbiter of their policy, as the GOP has at their last conventions, nor do democrats typically gather with such gusto around a single individual. (as a bernie supporter, I feel like I probably got as much of that as I was going to get, and it was not anywhere near as embarrassingly fawning as what trump receives.)

So, no, they are not equal in the slightest.

If you are prepared to argue that supporting trans kids is mutilating children, or actually saying "Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work." or extending the olive branch to fucking apartheid is not an inherently white supremacist thing to say or do (or that it's not 'all that bad'), then I was misguided, and am comfortable ending the conversation here.

Now, if you want critiques of the democrats? Well, my friend, I have them in store. Perhaps a less absurd, more fitting diss would have been "the other 75 million people are actually looking to ethnically cleanse gaza?" (The republicans want to do that as well, but at least it's a fair diss on the democrats and their actual positions!)