This is actually an older news story, and it does appear as though she recovered from this before her death.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/14389544
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024
8 points (100.0% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9744 readers
1414 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
capitalism is terrorism
Go move to Cuba then.
true, at least she wouldn't be in jail for the crime of not being able to work with 93
True. Go move then. Or any other non capitalist country.
No? Maybe those are worse than capitalism and we should try to fix it instead of calling everyone terrorists? Ok then.
nah, corporations are literally evil, as in no morals evil
Fire is also no morals evil. Corporations are tools. Dangerous but powerful tools. You use them poorly and you end up with corporations murdering union leaders and poisoning communities. You don't use them at all and you end up with breadlines and authoritarianism.
nah, fire is just the propagation of exothermic reactions.
Corporations require intent, they are designed to literally strip any moral consideration from their actions.
PS: about that breadlines and authoritarianism, the US has had plenty of breadlines, and still does to this day, also authoritarians love corporations, after all corporations are inherently authoritarian.
Corporations don't do moral consideration by their nature, just like fire. You can say it was "by design" for corporations and coincidence for fire, but that is a distinction without difference. Irrelevant for the argument.
And funnily enough, having many authoritarians in a system surprisingly results in much less authoritarian system than having just one. That is why the 3 branches of government are split and it is why I don't know of any true democracy that is not capitalistic. The authoritarians keep each other in check.
you do realize that corporations aren't some law of nature? corporations are a social construct in the most literal meaning of the phrase.
secondly, you must think the HRE must have been some free paradise by your understanding, also I don't know of any fascist system that that wasn't capitalist, but I do know plenty of pre-capitalist democratic societies
Again, distinction without a difference.
And you may want a refresher on your ancient democracies ;) Which one did not have a separate class of landowners (owning the only relevant means of production back then)? Also, just comparing agrarian societies to modern economic systems is childish. I am much better of living under "tyrannical capitalists" today than in any of those societies.
I would wager to argue that one being, entirely a concept only existing in human thinking. The other being an exothermic reaction following the laws of nature is quite a distinction here.
unless you are going to concede that we could just trust bust fire, can i sue fire for the damages on my house? what exactly is the fiscal return on the primary product of fire?
as for:
You confuse the achievements of modernism with capitalism, it wasn't capitalism the stopped famines in most of the world, it was a crazed Jewish-German nationalist with the backing of a local monarch
also, most of the Greek democracies had all not enslaved male citizens enfranchised, with the woman's vote in most the world being a consequence of socialist campaigning
What are you even talking about?
You confuse using a hands crank with operating a nuclear powerplant. It is not about what created the modern industrial society. It is about whether an elected committee would be able to run it and average people be able to oversee it. Which they wouldn't. People that dedicate their entire lives to studying management and economics are barely able to.
ok, really, REALLY simply put:
Fire, is generally an exothermic reaction, straight up chemistry/physics forces, there is nothing you can do that will change these functions.
a Corporation is NOT based on any natural laws, a Corporation does not exist outside the cognitive, it is not a real thing, it is an idea, there is no corporate matter in the universe.
in other words, Corporations, unlike fire, can be whatever we want them to be.
because corporations can be anything, anything bad they do is an Inherent moral question, and unironically you defend corporations with the idea of "just following orders"
You can redefine the word corporation just as you can redefine the word fire.
But corporations are groups of people (and some other stuff). They way they behave is not governed by what is written in a law-book or dictionary, but by the complex interactions of people and environments.
You can try to regulate them with laws like you can try regulate a fire by building a fireplace, but that control is always going to be far from perfect.
Of course, that certainly does not mean you shouldn't try, you must try just like with fire. But you need to be smart about it. It becomes more difficult as the corporations and the economy becomes larger.
There are ways to control forest fires, but the most effective is often a counterintuitive one. Control burns. You set even more stuff on fire. Capitalism is in a way a similar technique. You allow some resources to be wasted by the wealthy but the result of complex interactions between people is economic growth and better living standards even for the common people. Or you mess it up and the fire gets bigger, its not easy to regulate corporations.
Communism is in my opinion like a fireplace. It may work really well if you keep the system small and simple. But it falls apart as you add scale and complexity.
there is a lot of waffling about there, all for you to admit that you think "i was just following orders" was a valid excuse for the holocaust.
and then the idiotic "Communism is like a fire place", you may think your comparisons sagely and wise, but they only serve to show how little you actually know, or have thought about any of this, for example, like I said before, do not equate capitalism with the advances of modernity, the standard of living started to improve a long time before capitalism was a thing, ironically capitalism strives to reduce the standard of living.
PS: it's very easy to legislate corporations, that's why they hate the EU so much.
I think you need to re-read the comment a few times because I have no idea who was talking about taking orders or holocaust.
As for my comparison, I made it as simplifies as I am possibly able to yet you still very obviously don't understand if you think I am talking about advances of modernity.
Ahe logic of corporations being some non-moral entities, like fire, is the same logic that the Nazis used at the Nuremberg trials when they uttered the famous line of just following orders. The idea being that they were not responsible for the shit they did, as it was just a function of how the Nazis worked.
And yes, it is perfectly apt to call out flaws in your argument by using other, well known examples of the same theory being applied.
As for your comparison, I have pointed out that it's shit because corporations aren't some inherent force of nature and are entirely dictated both by society though the legislative process, and by the people committing the actions.
Fire exists outside human preview, no human "created" fire, fire has always been a thing because it's a natural force, meanwhile, Corporations didn't exist until English and Dutch traders pooled money and resources in the 1600s
Omg, you are so hung up on fire being natural phenomena. Fine, replace fire with nuclear rods. They are man made, they are dangerous. You can make them not radioactive but then they are useless and arguably no longer nuclear rods.
And who said the individuals in a corporation should enjoy some sort of immunity for following orders (or even giving them)? If employees break the law, prosecute them. Stop injecting nonsense into the conversation.
ya, one would think that in terms of morality, one being entirely a construct of humans, and the other being a natural phenomenon, there is a bit of a difference to be had
again, radiation is a natural force, the nuclear rod doesn't do anything by its self. now one CAN talk about the uses of said nuclear rod, and THAT has moral implications, you know like how a bomb is amoral, but the army using it is very much morally culpable (unless of course you think the German army of 1933-1945 isn't evil), because both armies and corporations are the same thing, a human construct.
so the Nazis weren't the problem, just the individuals, ok.
if you don't dump this toxic sludge in the middle of this town, your children will starve (yes, this is a thing that really happened), material circumstances exist, and any corporation not leveraging these material circumstances is lying or bankrupt (hence corporations are evil)
You do realize you are the one implying the Nazi soldiers aren't evil, because the individual soldiers were threatened into serving:
So are people who are threatened into evil evil themselves? Make up your mind.
Either way, it is not relevant for my argument.
The way a group of individuals pursuing their goals interact with each other is a law of nature just as much as radiation. We just call a specific type of such group a corporation, just like we call a specific arrangement of fissile material a nuclear fuel rod.
Sure, you can "make" a corporation not be greedy by for example turning it into a non-profit. But you can't do it without making unintentional undesirable changes, namely stopping them from being efficient in creating value. Just like you can "make" a nuclear fuel rod less radioactive, but not without damaging its usefulness as fuel. Because you can't change the laws of how individual actions in a group create a complex system.
that only works if you have some hard-line stance against seeing the world as anything but purely individualistic, in fact no I propose the opposite, even those who did not themselves commit the gassings at Auschwitz were guilty of these killings, because, turns out after years and years of research, No man is an island unto himself.
but it isn't, to assume as such is to assert your ignorance on such a profound scale, not just in the legal sense but also in the Historical and Societal. How we organize, and interact as a society is completely and totally alien to those who lived but three generations before us, to claim it is a natural constant on the level of radioactive decay or exothermic reactions is beyond delusional.
Fundamentally, you can't comprehend why a corporation is a moral entity because you don't understand the difference between a concept and a rock.
It is your reading comprehension that is woefully lacking I am afraid. Repeatedly refusing to understand what I am saying in favor of your own interpretation. Let me try one last time to explain.
Imagine you have two particles interacting with each other through a collision. This is governed by Newtons laws. Add one more particle and it is the same. However, add 10^24 more particles and we are no longer talking about Newtons laws, but about laws of thermodynamics. In a sense, the laws of thermodynamics are not real, the particles are still governed by Newtons laws. They are just a result of statistical approximations, a human construct if you will. But you cannot change these laws, because they are the results of said Newtons laws.
In the same way, it is possible to change a Persons behavior, by modifying the environment the live in. This can include laws, law enforcement, taxes and many other things.
However, the behavior of a corporation is a statistical result of Persons comprising it. You can not change it in any other way than to change behavior of People. The (statistical) laws of how behavior of many individuals combine into a complex system, such as a corporation is what is unchangeable. These are the laws of nature.
Let us take your example of an army. What is an army? In a simplified view, it is an organization where individuals are armed, trained, organized into units with hierarchical structure in order to execute combat and other operations as ordered by national leadership. As a concept, the US army and the German army of said era have no meaningful difference in the form of organization they are.
The two meaningful differences are:
So you can't turn the evil army of Germany into the righteous army of the Allies by changing what an army is. You have to either replace the orders it follows or the individuals that comprise it or both.
You can also stop the German army from being evil by having it not arm its members with weapons and instead train with musical instruments, but what you have then is not an army, but a marching band.
Equally, a corporations behavior is partly dictated by the laws it operates under and whether and how the People comprising it follow said laws.
like I said, you can not comprehend the most fundamental difference between an idea/concept and a literal rock
Well, you are a lost cause. Have a nice day
no, but you have shown you need to have a lack of brains to be a Libertarian
🤣 You are a clown 🤡 Me Libertarian 🤣
Move to the bottom of a ditch.
Ahh, nice, cordial Lemmy interaction in the morning
Lemmy has the most death threats per user of any social media I've ever used. It's kind of crazy. I guess that's why user numbers keep trending down. Monthly active users are down 21% on July last year.
Yeah I have to say the political environment here is getting more and more exhausting as time goes on. Lemmy is developing a 4chan-esque reputation that will keep it from ever really taking off.
Kind of a bummer.
“Lemmy is politically hostile”
receives downvotes, insults, and death theats
Yeah…..
You don't even know what a threat is.