It’s not a slippery slope thing. Kids don’t belong in a jam factory, period. They’ll have ample time to be wage slaves when they become adults. Fuck those cheap ass capitalist rats for having the gall to replace the labor they’re too cheap to pay with litteral children. And fuck their maggot-brained enablers like the guy you’re replying to.
I have one actually on Firefox mobile, and the ads don’t show up. I still get “advertisement:” with blank space underneath, but nothing shows up. I get ads for their other articles though, and the information density is very very low. You have to scroll for days to read anything. It feels like one of those websites with articles written by LLMs.
I am not, other posters have materially demonstrated that you are incorrect. My comment was advice for you. Take a moment to step back and consider the rational arguments made against you talking out of your ass about things you don’t know about.
And stop with that edgelord attitude. It won’t do you any good out there. You’re not the cold genius you think you are.
Of the fetus/embryo, not of the parents, you freak. You were talking about gene mixes, as if the combination of the two parents was the cause. While it can happen in some cases, there’s a plethora of environmental factors at play here. Stop with the bullshit broscience, you don’t know shit about reproductive science.
To illustrate: if genetic material is altered because the egg/sperm is dipped in overly acidic material, the source genetic material is not the cause of the unviability of the pregnancy.
By raising for the first time the idea of sending troops to Ukraine, the French leader “has taken a further step toward belligerence,” blasted his rival Marine Le Pen, of the far-right Rassemblement National (RN) party. She accused him of “posing an existential risk to 70 million French people, and more particularly to our...
Sir, this is the real world. There has never been a world of Ayn Rands, and there never will be. Ideologies that fail to take reality into account are fatally flawed at the root.
Don’t worry, commies aren’t after your wife. That’s not what the end of “private property” means. First off, wives aren’t property, but even if they were, they’re not the "means of production’ socialists want to seize.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the 1917 revolution was marked by a series of rapes like a lot of conflicts around the globe, but it was never about “stealing” (🤮) the wives of the bourgeoisie.
The reason for leftists to reject your candid ideology is that, in the real world, private hands keep the vast majority of the surplus to themselves and fuck entire societies up because of it. Interestingly, that is why they don’t believe in philanthropy as a mean for rich fucks’ money to trickle down to those in need.
A lot of working class hands are necessary to transform those plans into reality. Capitalists don’t actually do that on their own. Their main contribution here is capital.
They’re parasitic because, in the real world, they transform mostly ill-gotten riches into investments (capital) to extract value from the labor of others, who depart from a part of the value of their labor to fill the pockets of the capitalists to the detriment of the rest of human society.
Of course, like with everything in the real world, exceptions apply. But we need to get away from a system that considers that these kinds of things are virtuous by default. Experience has taught us that capitalism as a structure has been exploitative and against humanity’s interests in an astronomical proportion of times.
Making products can be detrimental to the rest of society (cf. the fast-fashion industry, among other cases), but that is a subject for another time.
As a tech worker myself, it would be untenable to declare that elaborating products period is a detriment to humanity. What I’m criticizing here is the way products are put to market in our world. We can do better, without a parasitic owner class.
I’m currently trying to put my money where my mouth is by working on creating a product in a worker coop setting, which is one of the ways I think we can fix this. There are probably other alternatives, though.
If you study how things work in the real world - and there is a science that studies this, sociology - capitalists only have embryonic plans and capital. They use their capital to materialize their ideas - which, by the way, are not often very original - into tangible things, by hiring people with actual skill. They don’t build or architect factories, offices, not any more than they print books or build houses. Working class people do it for them in exchange for shiny rock.
The case you make for labor being mobile is again rooted in unrealistic ideology. Material conditions prevent most people from being actually free to find satisfying conditions of employment. Again, sociology teaches us how and why.
The main thing I’d like to stress here is that we need to rid ourselves of golden-path ideologies. Things can and will go wrong. Any ideology that fails to satisfiably account for the complexity of the real world is not worth our time.
And I’d argue that Rand libertarianism is - at best - naive in that way.
I do have a problem with all kinds of exploitation, because I try to be ideologically consistent. Even if the exploitation is done by “socialists”. You won’t see me advocating for stalinism under the pretext that it’s nominally socialist.
The problem with Randism is that it’s building a post-hoc folklore around the real-life concept of private property, that acts as a moral justification for exploitation.
There’s no analysis about how concretely private property is accumulated in the real world, and it shows its disconnection from reality quite blatantly.
I’m saying she places too much value on the concept itself and is too quick to dismiss the overwhelming body of evidence showing that it’s an untenable thing to hold as sacred.
I can probably come up with tangible evidence for the fact that the pursuit of profit is not virtuous, but this will require me to do some research to make a strong case. Not something I can do in a middle of a workday, but probably something I can do on the weekend if you’re willing to put up with my busy agenda!
Be careful of simple explanations to complex problems. Just like in maths, models need to be as simple as possible, without becoming simplistic. It’s not just about being right or wrong in theory, the conclusions to these discussions have material impact on the world we live in. Bad motives drive disastrous political choices, sometimes, in one way or another.
We could talk forever about how free will is or isn’t an illusion, but it’s a conversation that could stretch out for days. People much smarter than us have provided smart answers to all those questions. Let’s tackle problems one at a time, and continue the discussion in the other thread!
Oh and btw: I’m not taking credit for the whole concept of worker coops! I just wanted to outline that I want to do my part!
They do have a meaning, yes. And ultraprocessed vegan steaks fulfill the general functions of a steak, so I don’t see what the fuss is all about. There are different kinds of actual meat steaks, and they can’t be used interchangeably. I wouldn’t eat a chicken “steak tartare”, for instance. So differences are allowed as long as the general description matches. And I think we’ll need to agree to disagree, but I have enough imagination to qualify the vegan sewage roll as sausage, because they can be used as substitutes for meat sausages in a meal.
You language prescriptivists are fighting a lost battle anyway. If people call it a steak, it is a steak, the Académie Française be damned. Languages aren’t decided centrally. The language’s speakers collectively make it what it is.
The word “meat” describes physical objects that fulfill a specific function, for which you can find substitutes. Sausage is an oblong object made of a casing filled with protein. Steak designates a (honestly delicious) slab of protein.
Dictionaries haven’t caught up with modern uses of terms like “steak” or “sausage”, but it doesn’t really matter, because they don’t decide language centrally. Their role is to document how language is at a given point in time. And the consensus for the majority is that a steak is meat, but that is not set in stone. Things are changing. A growing proportion of people has started calling vegan sausage vegan sausage. Dictionaries might eventually follow the majority, if that majority ever materializes.
Vegan foods mean, at the very least, that a food contains no animal products. Eggs don’t fit the bill, by any stretch of imagination. It’s a straight-up lie, like saying an American Camembert is an AOP Camembert de Normandie. I don’t think you made a strong case here.
And look, I haven’t adopted all the newspeak myself. I don’t like the word “vegan steak”, because it strays too far from my definition of what steak is. Fake sausage and milk work for me. But my point is that my own stance doesn’t matter. It’s what the majority thinks that matters.
The children yearn for the mines (lemmy.world)
'It was so scary': Trump fans at Missouri Caucus 'literally attacked fellow Republicans' (www.rawstory.com)
Eggs on lent (lemmy.world)
Anon tries to lighten the mood (sh.itjust.works)
After boots on the ground comment, French PM doubles down: 'Putins troops are already in our country', pointing at Le Pen (www.lemonde.fr)
By raising for the first time the idea of sending troops to Ukraine, the French leader “has taken a further step toward belligerence,” blasted his rival Marine Le Pen, of the far-right Rassemblement National (RN) party. She accused him of “posing an existential risk to 70 million French people, and more particularly to our...
It all makes sense now. (lemmy.world)
C++ Moment (lemmy.world)
France bans 'steak' and 'escalope' labels from vegetarian products (www.france24.com)
The French government issued a decree Tuesday banning the term “steak” on the label of vegetarian products, saying it was reserved for meat alone.