Talking to someone who justifies this kinda shit is always a trip. They'll say that people who aren't earning a living wage just need to work harder and pick up a marketable skill to improve their situation. But you can simultaneously get them to agree that many of these low wage "unskilled" jobs need to exist for society to continue functioning, so which fucking is it?
The answer is that the capitalist parasites and their horde of boot lickers believe it's totally acceptable for there to exist an underclass of human beings born to work until their bodies give out for the enrichment of their superior employer.
They can't afford to live a dignified life doing the shit I need them to do? That's fine, just toss 'em into the hole when they stop working and replace them with the next generation.
Honestly man, I'm getting real sick and tired of pretending to be above violent retribution when it comes to these people. My blood fucking boils each and every time I need to look my boss in the eye and pretend to smile as they say farcical shit like "we're all a family here" or "let us know if there's anything you need" while paying me exactly the minimum wage and hiring the exact number of employees it takes for them to avoid giving any of us enough hours to qualify for benefits.
Anyway, Stalin had the right idea with gulags, and we should bring those back. Thanks for coming to my TED talk
lmao this lemmitors comparing Hexbear users to 4channers shit never gets old. When you liberals meet someone far to your left it must really break your brain for you to lump us in with fascists.
You know what I almost never see referred to as edgy out of hand? People who don't want to fully abolish the US prison system, which to this day kills far more people far more often than the Soviet gulag system did shortly after the end of WW2. And that's really strange considering the US prison system is designed from the ground up to maintain a pool of slave labor by incarcerating racial minorities on bullshit drug offenses. Personally, I'd much rather prison be used to keep dangerous reactionaries from causing trouble while they're being reeducated.
Look mate I don't live in USA, I have nothing to do with USA. I was commenting on your stupid ass glorification of forced labor camps in soviet shithole
And you clearly don't seem to have problem with US prison system, only that wrong people are sent there. You're as full of shit as the people you think you're criticizing. You'd rather be yelling at people not loving your dear dictators than actually trying to do anything good for the world.
Don't worry, you may not live in the US, but you're definitely an American in spirit.
And you clearly don't seem to have problem with US prison system, only that wrong people are sent there. You're as full of shit as the people you think you're criticizing
Soviet Union: Sequesters fascists and counter-revolutionaries for reeducation after Nazi Germany murdered millions of people while invading the USSR with the express purpose of genocide.
The US: Uses drug prohibition as a bullshit excuse to systematically arrests racial minorities in their millions in order to continue enslavement after the abolition of chattel slavery. The conditions are so brutal that the death rate for modern US prison inmates exceeds that of the Soviet gulag system just a decade into recovering from the devastation wrought by WW2.
Lemmitor turbolib: Wow, these are morally equivalent. If you replace the words "fascist comprador looking to resume the brutalization of the working class" with the words "black people" then you tankies are starting to look an awful lot like 4channers!
I'll spell it out for you a little clearer, since you don't seem capable of understanding it on your own.
Your entire attitude fucking screams "I have nothing good going on in my life, so I've adopted an extreme viewpoint that easily allows me to feel superior to others".
You see this shit on all sides of the political spectrum. An example you're likely familiar with and hate would be fanatical/fundamentalist Christians. Nothing truly going right with their life, so they adopt a belief system that gives them an outlet for their hate/anger/frustration where they don't have to feel bad about it because they are targeting the "bad guys".
Someone who was in a good place in life wouldn't be posting shit online calling for putting people in fucking gulags.
You can use all the excuses and mental gymanstics you want, but at the end of the day, you've adopted an idealogy where extreme actions are justified and right to take against your "enemy", and where anyone even slightly advocating for you to slow your roll is instantly redefined as an "enemy".
You just did that. You start spouting shit about Americans, and when the guy said he wasn't one you just said that he effectively was one anyway and kept down the path you were already on. That's absurd.
Anyway, your entire defense for your statements here is that your bad guys are the real bad guys. That's the beginning and end of it. That type of self righteousness is something to be feared, not something to be championed because you've "found the right target".
Please note, I've not made any statement on whether you're wrong or right in your targeting. That's a separate discussion.
It has been demonstrated time and time again in historical record the world over, that the fervor of people like you can and will be abused, and shifted towards wider and wider classifications of "targets".
Anyway, I hope your life situation improves enough someday that you no longer find the need to be a self-righteous asshat on the internet calling for people's torture. I'm blocking you, so I won't be around to see it.
People who have been fucked over by the system often adopt a position to advocate for radical system change? Wooah, very insightful. If you care about people who are negatively affected by modern systems, then that makes their opinion and lived experience more important, not less.
You even admit that the user may be targeting the right people, so your point is what? That violence is unjustifiable? That strongly believing in a cause leads to disaster? They're not true points, but they'd be much better starting points for constructive discussion, so you can just say whatever you actually mean.
People making such pretentious, word-salad arguments as yours should not be throwing around the term 'self-righteous asshat'.
I have nothing good going on in my life, so I’ve adopted an extreme viewpoint
Correct. Oppressed peoples tend to support "radical" movements that would improve their lives, and this is a stupid comment for trying to make that sound like a bad thing.
God are you people so fucking stupid, just a bunch of unwarranted self importance and navel gazing nonsense all crammed into a skull cavity the size of a thimble.
Your entire attitude fucking screams "I have nothing good going on in my life, so I've adopted an extreme viewpoint...".
You mean to tell me that people who are chewed up and shat out by the current order are willing to take drastic measures and radically change the world!??! surprised-pika
Honestly dude if I lost a debate as hard as you did I wouldn't be spouting this psychobabble diarrhea
"you believe in stuff and that's bad cause I don't believe in anything" is never the place you want to be in a discussion, you basically admitted you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about and because your opponent does that somehow makes them mentally ill???? jesse-wtf
So are only people who are "in a good place" in their lives capable of having "extreme" political beliefs? How do you justify who is in a "good place" and who isn't? Do you think it could ever be related to political or economic forces? Or are "extreme" political ideologies all universally forbidden? How do you qualify what is "extreme"? Are people who are not in "a good place" only able to have conservative positions that maintain status quo or are they only able to be apolitical? How do you think maintaining status quo or not having any political beliefs would help their "life situation [improve] enough" if there is no change to their politico-economic reality which directly impacts their life situation? If one is in a "good place" what kinds of political beliefs would they typically exhibit or are they allowed to have?
Your entire attitude fucking screams "I have no real political analysis but suffer from a great sense of narcissism that leads me to a false sense of intelligence which makes me think I can paternalistically psychologize others' entire lives without knowing them so that I can justify sharing my ignorant opinions that communicate that I believe I have a better life than others do and that makes me a superior person" so that gives me hope you won't be able to help yourself from responding further. Also happy to pay you with Hexbear gold for a similar psychological analysis and thorough breakdown of my political potential if it saves me a trip to the therapist, kind stranger. Thanks.
You'd rather be yelling at people not loving your dear dictators than actually trying to do anything good for the world.
You were the one who scolded them for being "edgy"; so weird how you immediately switch things up when anyone could simply scroll up and see what really happened. And Stalin, the famous dictator who attempted to resign four separate times and who the CIA admitted was not in total control of the USSR.
This is where the idea of "personal responsibility" is useful for liberals. Flatly admitting that they want a desperate underclass is too mask off for them to feel like good people so they invent a way of blaming individual victims rather than the economic system.
The poor has a theoretical opportunity to pull themselves up by the bootstraps so when they don't do that it's really their own fault. Of course that theoretical opportunity doesn't translate into actual opportunity for most people but that's fine, as there's enough window dressing of meritocracy to make the opportunity look real if you are careful not to go into too much detail.
This is also the reason why liberals hate discussing real-world examples. Their logic only works in abstract thought experiments where they get to control the variables. Saying that everyone has the opportunity to succeed is a lot easier than saying that Bob, who has a set of very concrete and undeniable material conditions, has the opportunity succeed.
I mean if you think about it, the default of humanity is to die of thirst assuming we were to do nothing so 'earning a living' is just a realistic expectation for any society.
If able, you should provide enough to society to make it worth meeting your basic needs. They give you food, water, shelter, you give them back enough to compensate them for that effort.
At its root, this is what cash should be, a measure of what society owes you. You make other people's lives X much better, and they do the same for you.
We should really be trying harder to get cash to meet this goal. A person making 60k a year for 45 years is $2.7 million dollars. You can buy a person's lifetime of effort for $2.7 million.
Bill Gates is worth $131 billion. That's the lifetime effort of 48,500 people. He hasn't improved our lives that much. Something is clearly out of sorts. There's nothing one person can do to deserve the lifetime effort of a thousand people.
It doesn't matter. One person can't put forth 48k lifetimes worth of effort, and they don't deserve that much in return.
I promise the dude hasn't worked harder than the combined efforts of 48 thousand people.
We can reward talent, and we can reward effort. But no combination of those two is as ridiculous as our reward structure. Our reward structure is flawed because people with money make the rules, and their primary rule is that people with money should have more money.
What you are saying is true, but there is not a better option for how the economy works that doesnt end really bad. I dont like bill gates, but the idea that he cant have what he has doesnt end well.
The federal tax receipts/gdp were pretty much the same as they are right now in the 50s and 60s. Just because the tax rate was high doesnt mean people pay that much.
Yeah, what a shame it was that people had to invest in the longevity and reputation of their business in order to keep paying them out over a hundred years.
To answer this question seriously, Bill Gates has held back computing by stealing other people's work and ideas and using Embrace Extend and Extinguish.
If Bill Gates had no existed, arguably open source computing and hardware would be even more advanced than what we have now. Windows has been a net detriment to society.
I don't think that's a realistic position to take though. If not Bill Gates it would have been someone else trying to capitalize, not a de facto FOSS utopia.
I said this on Reddit and they agreed that you don't deserve to be alive if you're not working, it's really a disease of the mind to believe this shit.
I could see why tho. What happens today is not the same as this ideal probably. You could argue that if your a fit, 20s, healthy, etc. and you just sit home all day, your kinda a waste, but then again siting somewhere else 9-5 is also a waste so.
Eh, I can see why would someone think that. There are things that I disagree with more.
I mean it does make sense if you keep in mind that we traded having to hunt and forage for a system that let's you buy these things indirectly with currency.
You just need to leave out the whole thing of empathy and morality and reduce the whole system to a exchange of goods and services for money.
It’s more like you haven’t earned the right for other people to do the work of keeping you alive.
Human life requires work to sustain. Someone has to do that work. The most fair system is one in which that responsibility falls on the person benefitting from it.
ie, to be alive, you must contribute work. Because your life requires work to maintain.
I'm so torn on this meme because on the one hand I have the same gut reaction of "yeah, but youll die if you don't do jack shit in the woods, you kind of have to be useful to live".
But then I think about our society ...... the billions of dollars going to rich people who do nothing, the millions of people who work in jobs that are useless, or the millions who work jobs that actively harm society, and in that context, the amount and type of work does seem like bullshit. It's not like going into your marketing firm 5/7 days of your life means a farmer gets to work less. People like to comfort themselves with vain thoughts like 'we all just gotta do our partfor the system to work', but that's objectively not true. Lots of parts of our system are objectively bullshit and are excised completely through new laws and legislation and society keeps working fine, in some cases much better.
There is a difference between believing everyone owes a debt to the society and civilization you participate in to support those who cannot support themselves, and not deserving to live if you didn't fit into the rigid hierarchy structures we've built for work. But often these sentiments get mixed together.
I don’t think they do. In our society we don’t really let people die just because they don’t fit in. When there’s someone who can’t take care of their self, we take care of them.
Where are you talking about and comparing to what? Cause I see a lot of people dying in the streets because of mental illness or drug addiction when I take the subway to work. We don't throw them away like ancient Sparta but we definitely don't come close to providing the services they need to the things they need to begin to get off the street. Cause the solution now is put the homeless in prison and that's going just fine right? ...Right?
As a selfish conservative you should already know that they are the exact ones who want to steal every single security net from every citizen whilst simultaneously enabling corporations to destroy unions and create monopolies.
I mean c'mon, you have to know this. It's the core tenet of the traitor supporting party. Thieving, stealing, cheating, and lying are all that the magat traitors have to offer.
I live in reality, and I myself have been given free resources when I’ve been unable to work.
In my country, I have never seen a hungry person who could not obtain food due to lack of fitting in or having money or any requirement other than “oh that person has a stomach and needs food, so let’s feed them”.
That is the reality I see all around me. If you want to call that a “fairy tale”, I challenge you to provide evidence of a person being treated in the way you’re describing. Anywhere other than say a concentration camp or japanese pow camp.
What part of our society is letting people die because they don’t fit in? This is a serious question, because everybody seems to believe what I’m saying is a fairy tale, and yet I see it happening all around me.
How, exactly, are you getting the impression out society is one that doesn’t value the life of people who don’t fit in?
This meme is mainly talking about workers who are worked to death to "earn a living". Capitalists who leech off of workers do not deserve to be alive.
Of course, that's not the case for those who are physically unable to work to the same extent as others. Basically, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
We have more than enough resources for everyone, so long as the working class can control the means of production instead of the capitalists who try to hoard all the wealth.
"Earning a living" doesn't state that people should die if the choose to be a grifter or a thief or some other dishonest person that takes from others and doesn't contribute to society. It just means those people didn't earn their living.
In a functional society everyone should contribute to better the society. "Earning a living" is a statement of pride in contributing to society value equal to or greater than the value you get from it. If someone is making a living through dishonest means so isn't earning a living, it can be something they should be ashamed of
Note that socialist societies have similar expressions like "from each according to their ability to each according to their need". The intent is the same, encourage people to contribute to society. What if I don't contribute according to my ability and just want to take what I need? Does that statement imply I'll be sent to a gulag if I don't contribute according to my ability? OMG socialism says I don't deserve to live!!!
