And to an extent, I agree that adding barriers to disaster victims is entirely unnecessary and counterproductive; I simply meant to point out that it’s not discrimination to expect people of virtually all stripes to be able to handle email access, at least in America. I’ve worked with people who have all varieties of disabilities. Only in extreme cases is it reasonable to expect a person to not be able to handle basic instructions that can help them circumvent technological barriers. If the blind can do it, what are we really talking about here? In my experience, it’s 9/10 times the lack of will, and that is probably the toughest barrier of them all.
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 301
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 301
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
I help elderly clients too and I’m aware of all those problems. We get them aides that can facilitate their shortcomings when it comes to technology. Solutions are available; all it takes is the will to enact them. People here are being very pessimistic about what’s possible.
I can’t attest to that area’s WiFi access but if it’s as bead as you say, and what I’ve heard about people stubbornly continuing to live there is true too, then they have only themselves to blame. I’ve been poor and I know plenty of other people who’ve been broke at some point in their lives. There are always options in a nation as rich as America. They’re not always good ones, but you can chain them together into something better.
Source: my job experience.
You’re the one making shit up, man.
Name a reason your grandfather can’t afford what I’m talking about. Housing subsidies exist. Disability exists. Social security exists. Free phones exist. Hell, you exist. I help hundreds of people a week get access to benefits that are free to them, which help them live. It’s not a luxurious life, to be sure. But it’s a lot better than most poor people from other countries. And we all pay for it with our taxes. The real crime is that it should be paid for many times over with corporate taxes, for which there are loopholes.
In America, even the poorest person can afford a device with cellular or WiFi access. I’m not contesting that society discriminates against the poor or non-Whites, but I don’t see the discrimination here. Anyone can have access to email.
People who chew with their mouths open should be fucking euthanized.
Obviously, I don’t actually think that, but as a misophonic person who was brought up right, it drives me fucking insane when people do this.
I would argue that instead of wishing for impairment to cope with the overstimulation, you just wish for the part of your brain that handles sensory input to be able to handle your normal sensory load without issue.
Not having any feeling in your legs, but not being paraplegic, so you could legit accidentally walk outside without any pants on.
Dishwashing liquid? That’s just good bedhead.
Well, technically, good bedhead is something much more satisfying, but I hope y’all get my drift.
- JumpNSFW Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Yes, but one choice makes you a pussy. /s
Be kinder to my younger brother.
To do the quote thing, just put a '>' before every paragraph you want to quote.
Firstly, I disagree about communism needing to have only 1 political party
I mean, it's pretty integral to communism. This is how it's always been done. If you're going to have the means of production controlled by the state, you can't have multiple states vying for control of it. Again, point me to a communist state that doesn't do this.
I would also disagree about it requiring a government run economy
I honestly don't know what you're talking about when you refer to "communism" then. Communism is defined by the fact that the government runs the economy. In Capitalism, private entities control the means of production; in Communism, the government does. That's the whole point.
Really, I was more so using this as an example of the difference between an economic system and a government system, not saying they were the same.
I think you're falsely assuming there's a barrier between a governmental system and an economic system. These are always linked. Capitalism and Communism describe the relationship governments and economies should have with one another.
I do agree that this is a common perception in the west, it just isn’t true. I am a communist, I don’t like or support the USSR or the CCP, I have never met another communist in person that supports either. These people obviously do exist, they just aren’t nearly as common as most people assume.
Then can you point to an actual example of a stable Communist nation that you support? Again, I argue that those that exist have all become dictatorships. You have the burden of bridging theory to real-world example. Communism sounds great on paper; it just consistently fails in implementation.
the difference is that communism has no money or similar system, and socialism, like you said, has government funded systems such as health care, education, etc.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Communism absolutely has a monetary system. The difference is that Socialism is a transition system between Capitalism and a true "stateless" Communist country, which is a flat-out fantasy. Socialism is a mediation ground, in which the government funds certain public institutions that are deemed essential for everyone. Real Communist countries never move past this model; and the most they achieve is an authoritarian state that controls it in limbo. The end goal of Communism has never (and will never) be achieved.
I agree that the US hasen’t always fully succeeded in stopping communism, but it(or another government) has always succeeded in greatly harming communist countries.
So what? Communist countries have clearly overcome U.S. interference. The USSR, China, North Korea, Laos, etc, have all survived U.S. interference and achieved their aims as far as establishing a Communist state is concerned. And look at the results.
“a single political party system puts a government on the fast track to authoritarianism. Multiple political parties mean there is always an opposition to a government that becomes authoritarian; it’s not a fool-proof defense against it, but way better than with only one party.” I fully agree with you here.
Then it would seem our main point of disagreement is that Communism necessitates a single-party system. Again, I ask you to cite me an example wherein this has not occurred. To me, it seems inherent to the system. If you're going to have a state-run economy, you can't tolerate multiple political parties, because then who controls the means of production? Multiple political parties wound introduce a level of chaos into the economic system that would simply be intolerable. Suddenly, in a swing election, every industry in the country is controlled by a government that has an entirely different agenda than the last? There's no way any business could run under such ephemeral rules.
It seems to me that the problem stems from you thinking communism necessitates authoritarianism.
It doesn't technically necessitate it, it just makes it very likely to happen, due to its insistence on there being only one political party. Communism isn't just an economic system, it's predicated on a government-run economy in a way that most other economic systems aren't.
Someone saying they are a communist would be the same situation as you saying you are a socialist
If they mean socialist, they should say 'socialist.' Most people understand this to mean that you're for things like free education, medical care, etc. When you say you're a communist, at least in the West, you're signifying to others that you either like or support governments like the USSR and CCP. I understand what you're saying about there being some overlap in the terms, but the main distinction to me is that communists believe in a single political party system of government, whereas socialists don't.
Because the US and other countries make such a point of preventing communism from succeeding, it can be frustrating when a lack of successful large scale communism is used as proof that communism can’t work.
While the U.S. has certainly put a lot into preventing communism from spreading, it hasn't always succeeded. I would argue that the communist states that do exist demonstrate its main problem quite clearly: a single political party system puts a government on the fast track to authoritarianism. Multiple political parties mean there is always an opposition to a government that becomes authoritarian; it's not a fool-proof defense against it, but way better than with only one party.
I have tried my very best to not make any assumptions about you, other than the political ideology you stated you had, but if I accidentally did, please tell me. I do not wish to offend you, and rather just want to provide my input on what you have said.
No, you didn't make assumptions, and I appreciate your cordiality.
You made a lot of assumptions about me in your comment. I’m not going to bother with them, because that’s honestly your job to handle.
I don’t equate communism with (democratic) socialism. I consider myself a democratic socialist, and that’s part of the reason I consider myself progressive. The main difference is that democratic socialism makes room for multiple political parties, while communism accommodates only one. This is the essence of tyranny. No progressive should advocate for communism, because communism is another form of authoritarianism: subjugation to state rule.
I have my problems with “woke” culture, just as I do with conservative culture. But most of my problems with woke culture have to do with their rhetoric and means of achieving their goals, rather than the goals themselves. A racially mixed workplace is something I highly value; achieving it by means of affirmative action is not something I support, because I think 50+ years of it have shown that it doesn’t really work. Yes, it has been shown to improve interracial relations in the workplace, but it has also been shown to cause workers to question the competency of coworkers that benefit from it, and make those who don’t feel discriminated against. This is not what it was intended for. It was supposed to counter inherent racist biases in corporate hiring systems. Instead, it’s become a system that is the very least viewed as a loophole for non-white employees. Obviously, not every case is an example of a non-white employee gaining an unfair advantage over a white employee, probably only a small fraction qualify as such, but as a system it has created the perception that Whites are being discriminated against. And its proponents have done virtually nothing to address that. That needs to change. I’m not saying the spirit of affirmative action needs to end, but its implementation need to change.
If and when you respond, I would encourage you to not make assumptions about my stance. I don’t fit into the political boxes neatly.
I’ve seen people advocate for communism here and asked them to name an example of a communist government of a major country that hasn’t devolved quickly into a dictatorship, and let me tell you, the hysteria and rage could power a small city. I’m fairly progressive, I like to think, but it seems like a lot of lemmings have gone so far down the anti-capitalist rabbit hole they’ve literally come out the other side in China and are wearing Mao stickers.
For the same reason liberals bash on Texas all the time: it’s a flagship state for the political brand that’s an easy target due to its size and problems (due to its size).
No, I’m not, and I’m adamantly against it, but those nets are not yet completely dismantled, and the actions of this twat of a president do not disprove my overall point. America still has better safety nets than most countries in the world.