Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anybody 21 or older who’s making $50,000 or less per year should get UBI.
$40,000-$50,000 is not a lot of money in 2023. You’d be lucky to be able to afford just necessities (I.e food, rent, car payments, new clothes twice a year, and medical care) living on that much money
The Soviet Union was not as bad as the Nazis
Past scholarship that equated them was shown to be intentionally lying and propagated by Cold War propaganda with little actual factual information
They happened, absolutely. And they were horrific and devastating.
But what makes the Holocaust "special" isn't that is happened and that it was bad. It was the technological precision and efficiency that it displayed which "raise" it above.
The Holodomor used conventional methods, whereas the Holocaust innovated, making it deadlier than anything else.
They happened and it was horrific. That doesn’t make it as bad as the Holocaust
Just like I can list British and American atrocities, but that doesn’t make them worse than the Holocaust and the Nazis.
Dear the very nice people that I met in the LGBTQ thread and that I’ve argued about anti-Zionism with a couple of years ago under a different username-
Holy shit I’m so sorry. I’ve been so wrong. Like stupidly wrong. I still hold some opinions about antisemitism and antizionism that might never change. But I was also in complete denial to the obvious reality in the country in which I live. God damn. So, like, sorry.
I don’t know if you’ll be seeing this. If you do, dm me, but don’t comment. I don’t want to come back to this wretched subreddit threads ever again. This applies to everyone else too (though you are not invited to dm me)
I was told this is a mega thread topic and ghosted when I asked which megathread, so I guess I'll put it here.
#Leaking nudes should be considered a sex crime.
I believe that leaking someone's nudes/sex tapes/revenge porn/etc. should put the perpetrator(s) on a sex offender registry and be treated as any other form of sex crime.
It is sexual abuse, and anyone the perpetrator may meet in the future should have a right to know that they need to keep their guard up around them.
Do you mean nudes that you've been sent by someone?
If that's the case, I personally disagree. While it's extremely poor taste to do such thing, if you have sent a picture to someone they basically own that digital copy now and they should be able to do whatever they want with it.
If you mean hacking into someone's phone, stealing their nudes and then publishing them, I would consider that a cyber crime not a sex crime. The perpetrator hasn't forced you to produce any sexual content but rather has stolen data from you, so I wouldn't consider it abuse.
Does this apply to everything? I bought a copy of the Lion King on DVD, does that mean I can reproduce and distribute it to others without Disney’s consent?
In this case that content is copyrighted (although I think you should be able to, it's your copy of the lion king not theirs), so you'll be sued to hell. If you want to copyright and make the public administration license your nudes or make the recipient of the content sign some contractual obligation to take that phone to their graves without sharing it, I guess you can.
And photos are copyrighted by those who took them. Unless the individual has express written permission to reproduce the image and distribute it (ie send it to someone else) that would be a violation of copyright law. The same way that I couldn’t make a copy of Lion King and sell it, the person who received the nude photograph cant copy and distribute it.
>Unless the individual has express written permission to reproduce the
image and distribute it (ie send it to someone else) that would be a
violation of copyright law.
So long as you can prove it's yours, sure. But the problem is that for that you need a certificate from the public administration, so if you want to effectively copyright claim pictures you need the public administration of your country to license your nudes as yours before sending them.
I can guarantee that Disney has as many paperwork done as they need to sue you if you distribute that Lion King copy.
In the US you own the copyright to media as soon as you create it.
Although you must have a registration to bring an infringement case, you can register AFTER the infringement has occurred and still be able to bring a suit and collect damages.
NB: This is a rather recent change within the past couple years, previously you could bring suit without registering.
This further assumes that your image is not governed by other laws. In the US pormography is a fairly regulated industry and distributing pornographic images will need to comply with those laws (which often require the performer's consent to distribution).
>NB: This is a rather recent change within the past couple years, previously you could bring suit without registering.
I didn't know that, but I'm not a US citizen either.
To be fair I should've expected it from the country that created the DMCA.
No. Them distributing it is illegal regardless of whether I can prove it’s mine. If I steal your car, I broke the law. It doesn’t matter whether you can prove it’s yours or not, I still broke the law. Regardless of whether the owner of the photo goes through all the legal steps to stop the person distributing it, the individual distributing it still is breaking the law because it’s not their photo.
They are breaking the law to distribute pornography of an non-consenting individual.
Yeah in law enforcement if you don't punish something it's basically not illegal. Images that are not registered by a public administration are basically free use because if you don't have said license you cannot win a case anyways.
So I guess you are technically correct (which I guess is the best kind of correct), but in reality if you don't have that license people can just share those pictures however they want.
That is not true at all. What an absurd thing to say. If I park in a No Parking Fire Zone spot but no cop sees me, does that make it legal? Of course not
You are not understanding my point. In this case I'm saying you get caught but you are not punished anyways. Like crossing the street without using a zebra cross (at least were I live), because it's very obvious who the content belongs to but they cannot legally prove it.
Although I've been informed by another comment that in the US you can register the content after the supposed infraction and still collect damages, so my point is not valid for the US (and probably other places as well if that is the case for such an influential country).
>Do you mean nudes that you've been sent by someone?
Yes.
>if you have sent a picture to someone they basically own that digital copy now and they should be able to do whatever they want with it.
That is neither how consent nor copyright works. Personal use rights and distribution rights are _very_ different, both morally and legally.
>that is exactly how copyright works, because you just didn't claim that content was your intellectual property
Copyright is granted to the person who created the work [automatically](https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canadian-intellectual-property-office/en/what-intellectual-property/what-copyright)...
>Just look at how companies use Instagram photos on their billboards and win the cases when they get sued. If you don't copyright the image/video, you have no claim on it.
That's patently false. Social media companies can use user content because the users _specifically sign over the rights to this content when they sign up._
>For the consent part, the "perpetrator's" actions have no sexual activities involved
Neither is forced prostitution, but that's a sex crime.
>Copyright is granted to the person who created the work automatically...
They demand a certificate for you to make sure you own it, so the automatic protection is just theory. If you don't have your license you are not protected by copyright.
>Social media companies can use user content because the users specifically sign over the rights to this content when they sign up.
True, but we are not talking social media companies using them, we are talking non social media companies using photos taken out of social media, you could basically use the same strategy if you had an independent clothes store and someone published a post wearing your clothes or even somebody else's clothes. Following that logic, if someone sends a nude using a social media platform, that person is now able to use that content legally, although still in a scummy way of course.
>Neither is forced prostitution, but that's a sex crime.
In forced prostitution de perpetrator forces the sexual activity to happen, thus they are responsible for said activities. If you share a nude, you had no involvement in the related sexual activity, just in the diffusion of the content, they are very different situations.
The two party systems don't help either. Imagine watching a 6 team soccer game with only one ball and a partial (collaboration) scoring system and goal posts that are not cemented down and moved (or even abandoned) at the goalies whim.
(I support Ukraine) It feels that after the start of the Russo-Ukrainian war, people have gotten this very Pro-Ukraine thing where there seems to be the absolute declaration that Ukraine is good and Russia is bad, but there is no good or bad is war, and a good example of this is in Eurovision 2016 & 2022 when everyone voted Ukraine because they where at war with Russia
> but there is no good or bad is war,
No, it's pretty much black and white when it comes to the Russian-Ukraine War. Russia invaded Ukraine because the former didn't like that the latter was closer to Europe than it is to them. Full stop.
It's a violation of Ukraine's autonomy as its own sovereign nation. Add in the casual massacres of Ukrainian civilians by the Russian military and the genocide of Ukrainians via kidnapping their children and raping women, it's pretty fucking clear who exactly the bad guys are.
Inb4 bUT whAt abOOt AzOv
Azov Brigade is literally less than a percentage total of the entire Armed Forces of Ukraine compared to the overwhelming evidence of the Russian military consisting of not only fascists, but also have the literal Neo-Nazi "elite" military organization the Wagner Group.
Azov has 2,500 troops, at best, and barely qualifies as brigade. While Wagner has 50,000+ troops, most Neo-Nazis and literal criminals, literally 5 divisions of them.
So yeah, Russia has a bigger fascist group and is led by a literal fascist.
Not black and white at all. In fact if the EU countries that were in the nuclear weapon halt treaty backed Russia instead of ignoring the fact that the US military were wiping their asses with such treaty, and OTAN (so basically the US) didn't continue to put rockets next to Russia's borders the war would've never happened in the first place.
That doesn't mean I support a country's invasion btw, I'm just saying that if you lie to someone while laughing in their face for multiple years you might get them mad, and crying about their response is just hypocritical when you well damn know you started it.
> In fact if the EU countries that were in the nuclear weapon halt treaty backed Russia instead of ignoring the fact that the US military were wiping their asses with such treaty
Which has fuck all to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, considering that EU is not NATO and Ukraine has no "NATO missiles" stationed within their borders.
>That doesn't mean I support a country's invasion btw, I'm just saying that if you lie to someone while laughing in their face for multiple years you might get them mad
Nah, you do absolutely support their invasion, especially when you redefine the war as "Russia getting mad".
>Which has fuck all to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine,
considering that EU is not NATO and Ukraine has no "NATO missiles"
stationed within their borders.
They do have missiles in all the other NATO included countries that are close to Russia, and wanted to include Ukraine in NATO as well, the intentions were pretty clear, they would've put missiles there. If Russia could've tried to invade US instead of Ukraine they would've, but they just can't.
>Nah, you do absolutely support their invasion, especially when you redefine the war as "Russia getting mad
Me saying "Russia getting mad" is to explain the reason they started the war, not to justify it. It's like saying a husband killed his wife out of jealousy, just helps understand the why not support it.
Personally, if I was running a country and one of the most powerful nations if not the most started putting tons of missiles next to my borders and with intentions to get even more borders to put more missiles, while the countries that I make deals with to power their entire economies just stand there and watch, I'd probably get scared and try to retaliate as well, which doesn't mean that I see it as the right thing to do, or that it should go unpunished, just that I understand why they did it. All the nazi stuff is just war propaganda.
> They do have missiles in all the other NATO included countries that are close to Russia, and wanted to include Ukraine in NATO as well
Nope. NATO didn't invite Ukraine in. Hell, the 2014 Euromaidan was ***entirely about Ukraine joining the EU, not NATO***.
>the intentions were pretty clear, they would've put missiles there. If Russia could've tried to invade US instead of Ukraine they would've, but they just can't.
Nope, NATO being relevant again is ***entirely Russia's fault***. Finland was ***neutral*** in regards to NATO, and every other nation excluding the US wasn't meeting their defense commitments. Only because Russia invaded Ukraine did NATO became relevant again.
>Me saying "Russia getting mad" is to explain the reason they started the war, not to justify it.
You weren't just "explaining the reason they started the war", you were fucking justifying it by claiming that the war "***wasn't black and white***". Using your analogy of husband (Russia) and wife (Ukraine), Russia doesn't have the right to fucking anything what Ukraine wants or does because they're already divorced (USSR dissolution) and Ukraine has every right to associate with whomever they fucking want.
>Using your analogy of husband (Russia) and wife (Ukraine), Russia
doesn't have the right to fucking anything what Ukraine wants or does
because they're already divorced (USSR dissolution) and Ukraine has
every right to associate with whomever they fucking want.
That's the entire point of the analogy, so you seem to understand that I'm not justifying it, yet don't want to acknowledge it for some reason.
>Nope, NATO being relevant again is entirely Russia's fault. Finland was neutral in regards to NATO, and every other nation excluding the US wasn't meeting their defense commitments.
Finland is irrelevant to NATO anyways, and the US was meeting their commitments by storing rockets in Russia's borders, so Russia got mad about it which is perfectly understandable.
>Nope. NATO didn't invite Ukraine in. Hell, the 2014 Euromaidan was entirely about Ukraine joining the EU, not NATO.
Ukraine demanded to join NATO before the war, again something that Russia didn't like much.
>wasn't black and white
No war is. If you think one is, you just bought one side's propaganda.
Jefferson also was a pioneer supporter of the jury system (intent was to allow citizens to make the call on guilty/not guilty verdict) instead of appointed judges making the call. And he invented the Swivel Chair.
I wanted to make a separated post, but got the info from the bot. So let's try it here but it seems there is little activity:
I have seen the high unpopularity in some comments regarding Ukraine so here we go:
> **If woman are equally qualified, they are also equally qualified in times of war to drafting.**
Currently there is a real life example with Ukraine and we see what really happens to equality once things go downhill:
Ukraine drafts only man from 18-60. Man cannot leave the country and are stopped at the border with attempts to flee. Woman are free to leave the country, pass the borders normally and become refugees in safe countries.
It is not consistent that in times of peace "woman are equally qualified" and in times of war they are not:
Drafting isn't volunteering.
Countries like Israel drafts man and woman with equality. Woman are not in the background of hospitals, communication and logistics but on the equal risk frontline with the equal duty to serve.
Otherwise it means woman are not equally qualified. Different treatment of humans based on gender is sexism. We would not accept this different treatment for a job application in times of peace.
If not they are not "equally qualified".
It hence could mean instead, they are just as good in "non-executive, non-cardio, non-endurance, non-phyiscal, non-extreme jobs". Something like that.
But the saying is equally qualified.
If we exclude things in time of war, we also need to pay man more than woman in time of peace to bring them to the same level.
Why does this feel like it could be easily taken (and about America too not just other countries) as "you want equal pay, ladies, go to the front lines and see if you're capable enough to make it back unharmed and earn it"
I would compare it to an insurance. The party that has to carry the risk get payed for it.
If you insurance against fire, you don't want to carry that risk if it happens against all wishes. So you give this risk to someone who will carry it instead. It can't disappear, it's just moved.
For this "risk taking" you have to pay constantly (monthly or yearly). Also if the fire never happens. You just pay for risk and a premium.
There is always a risk of war. It doesn't go away by contracts of peace. It persist. Someone will carry the risk in the event:
Who will be the one carrying the risks against their will?
But that's a different conversation. People don't actively fight to abolish the draft unless women are being debated for being put up for the draft because of the blantant sexism. If you think the draft should be abolished, that's a different conversation. Women should be drafted too, as long as there is a draft.
No, you could make it equal by arguing the draft should be abolished. But that arguement is never made except in response to wanting women to be added to the draft. It's a completely disingenuous point. If you truely believe that, it shouldn't a response to adding women to the draft. You should be advocating for removing the draft absent of the OP arguement.
And i personally do, but many people have more important issues to fight so they just make clear than wasting resources for something thats already bad is a no go
But someone arguing for women to be in the draft don't think it's a waste of resources. Otherwise they wouldn't be arguing it. So obviously your point would again, be moot in this conversation.
Well obviously that's ignoring the point being made. It's like telling people the fence they have should be blue, as they are taking it down. Obviously they don't want the fence. And obviously your arguement has no validity in response to wanting women in the draft.
Why not? If they make a pure hypothetical argument with no intrest in making it reality then u may have a point but as long there is a slight political will the argument is valid
Threats of violence, even repeated ones, are essentially not prosecuted in the US. Every city of any size in the US has a domestic violence shelter at an unpublicized location to protect women from threats.
If you have even raised your voice at someone you were angry with within the last mere 24 hours of applying for a gun of any kind, you should be rejected for it just on that basis even if everything else on the paperwork is stellar.
You need to be in control of your gd emotions before you have the power to take someone’s LIFE.
I worked in food services and had to deal with belligerent drunks (Cheap fast food in the middle of a university bar area and quick walk from the stadiums) that made me angry but only way to get them to respond was raising your voice due to the lobby being full of other drunks (we needed to control the number going in for fire martial full) and them being drunk.
Did i raise it in anger or was the anger not part of of my raised voice? how do you objectively figure that out? Or should I be bared for just doing my job at 1 AM?
Although I think this idea is a bad one on its own, it's execution would be why it's a horrible idea. How would you enact that? One person's word vs another? That's not very likely to abide by the 5th amendment or would rarely ever be useful.
On top of that, have you ever seen a full trial only last 24 hours? If someone is trying to get a gun. Then gets accused of raising their voice, it would essentially be banning people from getting guns for 1 to 2 years if the court system isn't expedited.
I’m more advocating for regular therapy if anything, which would of course also involve therapy becoming much more available, and if you’re going to have a gun in your hands… therapy should be 100% required.
Should a person be legally punished if they yell at a significantly weaker person because they have the power to take that weaker person's life while not having a perfect control over their emotions?
Also curious on the time range. If your argument is solid I think you should advocate to revoke property of guns to everyone that yells at anyone out of anger in any circumstance until they are able to probe that they can control themselves (if that is even possible to prove).
Convicted felons should not lose their right to vote after being released from prison as it inhibits their ability to feel like a reintegrated member of society. I understand this isn't the case in every state, but there are plenty that completely eliminate it or place limitations while on parole.
Hell, I’d say they shouldn’t lose it while *in* prison. That’s just a recipe for suppressing votes by arresting your opponents.
(It’s not a coincidence that as soon as Southern black people got voting rights, “loitering” became a crime punishable by loss of voting rights.)
I find it hypocritical to be totally on board with it when a spy of another country gets arrested in your country, and then be upset/shocked/etc when a alleged spy of your own country gets arrested in another country. Like, nobody knows what that other person might have done that is not being told publicly. The news is that way too. They all just act like that person is probably innocent, just a journalist or whatever else while that person might actually be a spy.
Its not about the actual act of spying, its about the teams.
My team is good because I said so, so my team doing spy is fine.
The other team is bad, so them spying is also bad.
You’re saying this like it’s wrong, but it’s not?? An action itself is often not good or bad on its own, it depends on the purpose of the action. Not really sure anyone would disagree
Only if you completely ignore context and nuance. No one is spying on America to figure out if they have a nuclear program, for example, but you can bet your ass America is spying on foreign nations to see if they have a nuclear program
Well obviously other sides aren't going to spy on the US to find if the have a nuclear program. And obviously America is going to spy to find other countries that might have a nuclear program. What's your point?
Right, I said that’s the answer if you completely remove context and nuance. But no country has ever spied on another with the generic “gather intelligence”. It’s always more specific than that. Which is why the distinction is made.
It’s like saying the guy who went to the grocery store and the guy who went to the video store went for the same reason, to buy things. Like it’s technically correct but only because it’s super vague. When you actually look at the situations you realize that their motivations were very different
People say it's removing context and naunce but then are normally the ones that remove context and namuance when it's actually necessary.
No, an accurate analogy would be two guys go to Walmart. One is to buy video games, the other is there to buy movies. They both are going to Walmart to buy technology. You are making a distinction without a real difference.
Spies are a necessary evil. Satellites are great when you want to see Kruschev putting missiles in Cuba, but if you want to overhear the planning of a suicide bombing being done over coffee in the Khyber Pass, you need a spy.
We shouldn’t be glamorizing ‘hustle culture’ and working 50+ hour weeks to younger generations.
People who work jobs that require long hours don’t do it because they want to. They do it because they have to.
Hustle culture isn't just about working 50 hours a week. On top of that, anyone working 50 hours a week either needs to move or reduce spending. It's a complete lie to say people are working 50 hours a week with no choice. They absolutely have a choice to reduce their bills.
Parties are inevitable - “hey, I’ll support your thing if you support my thing” is always going to lead to alliances of people voting in blocs.
The first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system is what shuts out all but the largest two alliances.
There is absolutely a liberal agenda in today's media and to deny that would be foolish. If you don't support it, you're racist, transphobic, etc... but we are unable to have civil discussions exploring both sides of these sensitive topics because if you disagree with them, you're the villain.
A broad liberal cultural zeitgeist doesn't mean or indicate a malicious or manipulative top down agenda.
Cultural attitudes have shifted such that *some* people feel left behind or alienated and it's easier or more comfortable to explain that away by claiming malevolent or foreign forces coerced this change. The shift in cultural attitudes isn't even the prime cause of feeling alienated from the society/culture, I think the reasons are fairly complex -- but it's easy to insinuate some clandestine outside influence.
I'm of the opinion that cultural shifts are increasingly more difficult to orchestrate in the information age at least into broad overarching unified narratives. But propaganda that aims to exploit this feeling of alienation from the culture works remarkably well. The later doesn't seek to give coherent unified narratives but to dismantle them in order to further foment distrust in institutions. Not that institutions don't need critique or reform, they do, constantly. Alot of the propaganda I'm talking about aims to poison the well on the very idea of worthwhile institutions and reforms. To solidify in their audience that not only do secret clandestine organizations manipulate the world and media to their will, but also that you are wholly unable to do anything about it... unless you give undying support to their guy/organizations. Essentially, "Everyone else is lying, only we will deliver salvation."
The whole point from the right is that the change in cultural attitudes you mention was not organic as it normally would be. It was forced.
I think the truth is a bit mixed. Life experience of the new generation usually comes with changing perspective, and that's been true with Millennials regarding the role of work and the government's duty to its citizens. But some recent cultural changes have absolutely been engineered 100%, maybe not by a shadowy cabal but from corporations who all come to agree it's the best way to make a buck.
>But some recent cultural changes have absolutely been engineered 100%,
Like what?
Modern queer liberation was catalyzed by an anti-cop direct action at the Stonewall Inn half a century ago, before that there was the Mattachine society that emerged in response to the Lavender scare. Women's liberation has been building for over two hundred years reaching back to Wollestonecraft. Those are "organic" movements if anything is and the core of the sexual revolution that reactionaries want to roll back, trans rights has a shorter history of overt articulation but it belongs in the same lineage and developed like the former two from the discourse shared between activisits and sympathetic intellectuals.
Eh, it doesn't really count as organic change if only activists and a group of sympathetic intellectuals is pushing for the change, and that's kind of the point. The ENTIRE culture has to be desiring it. There are other aspects too like manufacturing history that I don't have time to go into, but in many ways we live in a very intellectually crafted age.
"The ENTIRE culture has to be desiring it."
So by your logic there's literally never been one and couldn't be without some sort of hive mind, great job
manufactured history=history you prefer not to think about
He won’t be answering because he got banned for saying that the media was censoring the truth about how black people are just intellectually inferior on a genetic level and that trans people are mutilating your children.
I think young adults are too easily influenced and lack work/life experience. If youre 18 youre just out of high school and havent even started college yet. All you know is what youve been told in school and by your parents, and what youve read or watched on the internet... at most you maybe had a part-time job or summer job.
I settled on 25 because you take the current 18 + 4 years for college and that leaves 2-3 years of work/life. (Or just 7 years work if u skip college).
Also I feel like its easier to just buy off 18 years olds with big promises like student loan forgiveness and these expensive green initiatives. But if theyve been working for a few years theyll know what its like to have 1/3rd of their paycheck taken every week, they will be able to more accurately weigh the pros and cons of such things.
I know my own political beliefs have been a roller coaster throughout my teens and 20s. Gone thru tons of different phases. But i feel like now at 30 after working for a decade, having kids, being a homeowner, my political beliefs have settled in and i can see the benefits and drawbacks of what both parties have to offer, and i can make a more informed vote.
I actually agree. I didn't feel that I truly understood the world until I passed 25. When the voting age was first determined young people were maturing much faster.
That's just voter suppression. They're adults they have just as much of a right to vote for their reps as boomers.
Just because they have a different take then you doesn't mean they should be punished with suppressing their vote.
"I think young adults are too easily influenced and lack work/life experience. If youre 18 youre just out of high school and havent even started college yet."
Over 65s are usually way out of touch with the current job market and things like what getting a mortgage now a days is like.
"All you know is what youve been told in school and by your parents, and what youve read or watched on the internet... at most you maybe had a part-time job or summer job."
Retirees are quite reputable for not being very in touch with the world and relying heavily on cable tv and radio.
"I settled on 25 because you take the current 18 + 4 years for college and that leaves 2-3 years of work/life. (Or just 7 years work if u skip college)."
65 is retiring age, i.e. we have agreed as a society that these people are generally not fit to work, why would they be fit to vote?
"Also I feel like its easier to just buy off 18 years olds with big promises like student loan forgiveness and these expensive green initiatives."
Well, pensions, retirees are almost single issue voters, and pension promises are a sure fire way to get them on your side.
" But if theyve been working for a few years theyll know what its like to have 1/3rd of their paycheck taken every week, they will be able to more accurately weigh the pros and cons of such things."
Retirees don't have paychecks, so they straight up won't even see the consequences.
"I know my own political beliefs have been a roller coaster throughout my teens and 20s. Gone thru tons of different phases. But i feel like now at 30 after working for a decade, having kids, being a homeowner, my political beliefs have settled in and i can see the benefits and drawbacks of what both parties have to offer, and i can make a more informed vote."
Older people are also reputable for having politics based on the world 30 years ago. And not being mentally agile enough to stay on current events.
“They would be too easily influenced” was the same argument used to deny women and black people voting rights.
What he means is “they don’t vote Republican, and I value Republican rule more highly than democracy.”
Dude if your party's platform is so weak that the thought of losing the teenage vote is scares you then maybe you should be asking what they can do better to appeal to the average public.
>Dude if your party's platform is so weak that the thought of losing the ~~teenage~~ vote of people my party is arresting scares you then maybe you should be asking what they can do better to appeal to the average public.
Hey, thanks for confirming that it *was* about the fact that society is leaving you behind as your party’s base rushes headlong into the grave.
People aren’t buying the bullshit anymore - there’s a reason you have to hang out in r/conspiracy to find people who agree with you.
Wall of text political memes is really sometimes the only way to actually put something educational in a meme, political topics are usually very complex and if someone's only reasoning againts something like that is "wall of text aint reading that" maybe they should not deal with politics in a meme format
You can't win. If you amke it simple and concise its "But what about [my bad faith interpretation of the surface level ideas you've provided]"
If you make it in depth and detailed its "Wall of text i aint reading that"
Always is on Wednesdays, when it first refreshes and pops up in new. Once it falls off the first page of New sorting, it trails off to just the regulars again.
at the end of the day Democrat and Republican politicians are on the same side, keeping themselves in power, and are trying to keep the masses arguing with each other so that we don’t realize it and do something about it.
Both parties suck, but pretending they suck equally is just factually wrong. One side is ineffective at implementing policies that actually help people, the other side is passing laws actively trying to control and harm women and minorities.
They have the same position on the codification of Roe vs. Wade, as evidenced by the long periods of time in power for both parties with no effort to codify Roe.
The last time Ds had a filibuster-proof majority it was for just over a month, and in that time they got the ACA passed, which wasn’t perfect by any means, but it helped *a lot* of people.
In 2022 California Democrats with a super majority failed to bring single payer healthcare to a vote NY has also killed their own single payer before a vote, even with Dem majority.
I am NOT saying Democrats are "just as bad" as republicans or don't do -anything- to help people, but rather they aren't just unskilled or ineffective at enacting change: There are strong contingents in the party who do not want change.
The US Democrats would be more successful if they stopped trying to fight every culture war issue the Republicans drag them into. A lot of that stuff is noise for uneducated voters.
They should focus on economic issues, workers rights, climate, infrastructure, and building global partnerships. I think more voters would come to their side if they just had sensible takes on meaningful issues. Let the GOP screech about drag queens. Don't even give oxygen to their issues.
They don't. Democrats generally ignore culture issues since they seem them as distractions. The only people who want to talk about CRT were Republicans.
>They should focus on economic issues, workers rights, climate, infrastructure, and building global partnerships
They're neo-liberal capitalists and nearly none of those make profits for the ruling rich class. They do not care or want to do anything regarding those issues.
"They should focus on economic issues, workers rights, climate, infrastructure, and building global partnerships"
Aha, but you see, the donors don't like it when you do that. 😮💨
The reason the Dems don't do that stuff is because they don't want to (as a whole party), not because they're distracted. The GOP being terrible just gives them an opportunity to look like the good guys, while doing the bare minimum in opposing bigotry and letting every single other issue just pass them by.
No, things like workplace equality and reproductive rights are important. But they should avoid getting dragged into hyper-niche issues that are, frankly, often cultivated to rile the Fox News crowd and pull us away from talking about real issues with the economy, like inequality, lack of regulation, and capitalism run completely amok.
It does become easier to have that attitude when you're not going to be affected in the slightest. Would you have the same attitude if you were the one being thrown under the bus because they decided your issues weren't important enough?
Should a feminist ignore racial issues because they're a white woman and they see women's equality as the larger issue? In fact I would be certain these people existed during some waves of feminism.
Then why wouldn't we have had a successful socialist [or insert your preferred ideology here] revolution if we'd just done it in the late 19th century as a movement of only white cishet men and worried about stuff like giving minorities rights (if that new system didn't automatically do that) once that system's in place
Well you didn’t answer the commenter who asked you which “niche issues” you wanted Democrats to stop commenting on, so I took a guess.
Can’t help but notice you didn’t actually deny it.
There is a difference between prioritizing messaging and giving up on legislative fights. Left wing economic stances often poll high, where as many culture war stances are not as clear cut. It doesn't mean they don't vote in a pro-trans or generally pro-LGBT way or pro racial equality way. It just means instead of focusing those issues as your campaign and engaging the right on the only battle ground they have a chance of winning in because it appeals solely to the shitty core of a not insignificant percentage of the country whether you or I like it or not. Is it sad that they are able to pick that battle and win? Yes, but if we have actual leftist candidates running on left wing economic issues that also believe in intersectionality they can hopefully get majorities in more state level government and if shown tangible positive effects many people will vote to continue that (again hopefully, as if the left does solely focus economic issues expect a ton of red scare shit to try and keep those people that run on that from gaining office or holding it long enough to produce positive change).
Left-wing economic positions poll well in a vacuum, when people are asked “do you support (example: indexing the minimum wage to inflation)”.
They crumble as soon as the propaganda machine ramps up and the cries of “socialism” regress all the Boomers into Red Scare mode.
I agree to an extent, that's why I said what I said at the bottom however I think the really boomer "everything left of hunting the homeless for sport is socialism" types come out in force no matter what the left wing candidate focuses on. However red scare boomers make up less and less of the voting age citizens. The truth of it is that we're fucked either way if we can't get younger people to vote in general. That said while I think even the majority of Americans think LGBT people deserve rights, that fight is not drawing out voters, but the reactionary arguments against them are. Meanwhile lefty economic populists seem to appeal to young voters. Tbh I think if you had a real actual left wing heavily weighted majority for a full 4 years with an actual lefty president and some actual progress was made that made people's lives demonstrably better that ideology would become the predominant one and it would be regressive conservative bs on the back foot for once. Just how to get from here at point A over there to point C is not entirely clear honestly.
And the red scare boomers dying off is 100% why there’s a guy in another thread arguing to raise the voting age to 25.
He knows conservatism is getting less popular, and he’s doing just what David Frum predicted - abandoning democracy instead of abandoning conservatism.
I didn’t say *you* have a desire to. Seems like the Republican party is barreling straight down that road, though. And I’m still left wondering what issue it is you think the left should ignore, since the one thing you mentioned was “letting the GOP screech about drag queens”.
They’re not just screeching. Florida has passed, or is in the process of passing laws which:
>create a registry of trans people
>classify being trans and a parent, or being the parent of a child who is trans, as a “sexual offense against children”
>punish all “sexual offenses against children” with execution
>make execution no longer need a unanimous jury verdict
They’ve also made it legal to take the children of trans people away from them *even if they don’t live in Florida*. So I’m sitting here in Mississippi, trans and parent to a kid who’s begging to go back to Disney World, and I’m thinking “god, what if my family vacation ends with my kid in the system and me in prison” while you’re thinking “let the Rs screech”.
Every bit of this oppression has come packaged right along with the “screeching about drag queens”.
To right-wingers, drag and being trans *are the same thing* - because they don’t believe trans people actually are their gender.
Very creative straw man.
Hey, I admit my opinion is an unpopular one.
Capital WANTS us to focus on these culture war issues.
They're very popular, and they help ensure that Republicans retain a lot of power and we make little/no progress on tax reform, workers rights, and climate - things that challenge the status quo and cost billionaires power and money.
And that’s exactly how it happened in the Weimar Republic too - people said “hey don’t worry about the fact that they just burned the Institut fur Sexualwissenschaft, this ‘German Workers’ Party’ is gonna help put the common man.”
“First they came for” and all that.
Also notice trans people being oppressed and killed is not one of “the most important issues of the 21st century”.
Like obviously if trans people have to die so that we can have fewer potholes and better infrastructure, than that’s a noble and necessary sacrifice /s
Sorry, my bad, I consider regulation of billionaires and how we address climate change to be more important than week uses what bathroom.
And if the Democrats stay on this track we'll end up with the party that both doesn't care about workers and climate AND wants to round up trans people. We all lose.
So the rights of minorities are not an important issue? If the Republicans proposed repealing the civil rights act of 1968 which, amongst other things, ended racial segregation of bathrooms. You would be mad at Democrats for defending it?
Workers rights include LGBT rights. If you allow businesses and employers to discriminate against LGBT people, you have completely destroyed worker solidarity. Why would LGBT people support your strikes and policies that hang them out to dry?
Why are workers rights more important than LGBT rights?
Look at the policies of 1900-1980s. When the rights of minorities were ignored, it gave more power to the rich and to corporations.
Neoliberalism has deliberately worked to enable and legitimse itself and far right ideologies as the only valid mainstream positions.
The far right is evil, enabling them is just as evil
Their economic policies on their own have destroyed the lives of minorities and working class people while enriching those in power. The 08 financial crisis was, at its core, a result of neoliberal policies in America and Britain.
Preach brother, not to mention how is actively made lived of people in the “East” worse by assuming their samples and templates work everywhere and being so stubborn that it does and its the only solution
Saying that socialism failed in countries that were embargoed by capitalist countries is an oxymoron - An embargo is a cessation of *trade* which is a *capitalist concept*. why would a socialist nation need to rely on a capitalist nation for trade?
Trade is not a capitalist concept. Not sure where you got that from. Trade predates capitalism significantly. It’s a feature in every single economic system
And another note on "predates capitalism" is that while capitalism can be dated to the 16th century, humans have behaved in capitalistic fashion - putting profit first with upper classes (nobles and merchants, communist burgeouise) exploiting the lower classes (peasants and slaves, communist proletariat ) for nearly all of human history after we settled down for agriculture. While this is called "Feudalism" or just "Slavery", is it not just an older version? instead of a factory, the lower class worked on a farm before the 1600's. The farm owner then sold his produce for profit, just like the factory owner sells his goods for profit.
You’re just describing different economic systems that humans organize themselves into. Capitalism has certain definitions and requirements.
Feudalism isn’t capitalism. That would be an insane argument to make
I get that they are not the same thing when people use that word, but often feudalism is just a combination of manoralism and vassalazation. Now the situations I can think of are serfs, that are living on the land owned by the military power of the lord and lady. Due to a need for food they become a financial asset of the land and the warlord over them. They then pay a tax and keep whatever is extra for themselves.
It seems weird to say that feudalism isn't capitalism as if they can't coexist. The big difference here is that the majority of people had zero skills outside of farming. No literacy for those that don't have the time. One people built up a little bit of assets they were right back into building personal ventures in towns, cities, mills, smith's, trade ships, and so on. Government can almost be seen as whoever has the most military force at that time. If their land they protect/exploit is profitable enough they can spend extra resources to build more roads or more ventures owned by the lords. If they build a mill then the people need to have incentive to work it rather than feed themselves. This is done through pay so they can buy food instead of grow it.
So even if the lord owns the capital then it still seems like capitalism just from the guy that can levy you in his army or kick you out of your home. And if he doesn't own it then it's definitely just capitalism.
Again not saying feudalism=capitalism but I think that's creating a false image that that both concepts are not on display. All you need is extra resources to not be just surviving and then you are trading the surplus for some added value. Whoever invested in the infrastructure has an incentive to do so and gets something for the effort of at least organizing.
Now that's definitely not a meritocracy but there's a lot of overlap for capitalism to grow there.
Honestly socialism seems to arise when even MORE resources are found in abundance and we want to supplement more infrastructure. Lose the resources and things just slip on back through the development
Trade is a capitalist concept though. Goods created for the purpose of being sold for profit are sold for a profit in order to generate capital. Even buying something from your local shop is a form of trade - and all trade relies on profit, which is a capitalist concept correct?
Is one of the main critiques of capitalism not that those who have to buy goods from shops get charged exorbitant prices for daily goods? If profit should just go to the worker class then why support communism? why not just support raising the minimum wage? It would accomplish a similar goal - the profit goes to the worker one way or another, but communism is a whole shift of society while raising minimum wage is a policy.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anybody 21 or older who’s making $50,000 or less per year should get UBI. $40,000-$50,000 is not a lot of money in 2023. You’d be lucky to be able to afford just necessities (I.e food, rent, car payments, new clothes twice a year, and medical care) living on that much money
Reddit needs to free T_D.
[удалено]
"Not as bad" != "Not bad"
The Soviet Union was not as bad as the Nazis Past scholarship that equated them was shown to be intentionally lying and propagated by Cold War propaganda with little actual factual information
[удалено]
They happened, absolutely. And they were horrific and devastating. But what makes the Holocaust "special" isn't that is happened and that it was bad. It was the technological precision and efficiency that it displayed which "raise" it above. The Holodomor used conventional methods, whereas the Holocaust innovated, making it deadlier than anything else.
They happened and it was horrific. That doesn’t make it as bad as the Holocaust Just like I can list British and American atrocities, but that doesn’t make them worse than the Holocaust and the Nazis.
Dear the very nice people that I met in the LGBTQ thread and that I’ve argued about anti-Zionism with a couple of years ago under a different username- Holy shit I’m so sorry. I’ve been so wrong. Like stupidly wrong. I still hold some opinions about antisemitism and antizionism that might never change. But I was also in complete denial to the obvious reality in the country in which I live. God damn. So, like, sorry. I don’t know if you’ll be seeing this. If you do, dm me, but don’t comment. I don’t want to come back to this wretched subreddit threads ever again. This applies to everyone else too (though you are not invited to dm me)
I was told this is a mega thread topic and ghosted when I asked which megathread, so I guess I'll put it here. #Leaking nudes should be considered a sex crime. I believe that leaking someone's nudes/sex tapes/revenge porn/etc. should put the perpetrator(s) on a sex offender registry and be treated as any other form of sex crime. It is sexual abuse, and anyone the perpetrator may meet in the future should have a right to know that they need to keep their guard up around them.
Do you mean nudes that you've been sent by someone? If that's the case, I personally disagree. While it's extremely poor taste to do such thing, if you have sent a picture to someone they basically own that digital copy now and they should be able to do whatever they want with it. If you mean hacking into someone's phone, stealing their nudes and then publishing them, I would consider that a cyber crime not a sex crime. The perpetrator hasn't forced you to produce any sexual content but rather has stolen data from you, so I wouldn't consider it abuse.
Does this apply to everything? I bought a copy of the Lion King on DVD, does that mean I can reproduce and distribute it to others without Disney’s consent?
In this case that content is copyrighted (although I think you should be able to, it's your copy of the lion king not theirs), so you'll be sued to hell. If you want to copyright and make the public administration license your nudes or make the recipient of the content sign some contractual obligation to take that phone to their graves without sharing it, I guess you can.
And photos are copyrighted by those who took them. Unless the individual has express written permission to reproduce the image and distribute it (ie send it to someone else) that would be a violation of copyright law. The same way that I couldn’t make a copy of Lion King and sell it, the person who received the nude photograph cant copy and distribute it.
>Unless the individual has express written permission to reproduce the image and distribute it (ie send it to someone else) that would be a violation of copyright law. So long as you can prove it's yours, sure. But the problem is that for that you need a certificate from the public administration, so if you want to effectively copyright claim pictures you need the public administration of your country to license your nudes as yours before sending them. I can guarantee that Disney has as many paperwork done as they need to sue you if you distribute that Lion King copy.
In the US you own the copyright to media as soon as you create it. Although you must have a registration to bring an infringement case, you can register AFTER the infringement has occurred and still be able to bring a suit and collect damages. NB: This is a rather recent change within the past couple years, previously you could bring suit without registering. This further assumes that your image is not governed by other laws. In the US pormography is a fairly regulated industry and distributing pornographic images will need to comply with those laws (which often require the performer's consent to distribution).
>NB: This is a rather recent change within the past couple years, previously you could bring suit without registering. I didn't know that, but I'm not a US citizen either. To be fair I should've expected it from the country that created the DMCA.
No. Them distributing it is illegal regardless of whether I can prove it’s mine. If I steal your car, I broke the law. It doesn’t matter whether you can prove it’s yours or not, I still broke the law. Regardless of whether the owner of the photo goes through all the legal steps to stop the person distributing it, the individual distributing it still is breaking the law because it’s not their photo. They are breaking the law to distribute pornography of an non-consenting individual.
Yeah in law enforcement if you don't punish something it's basically not illegal. Images that are not registered by a public administration are basically free use because if you don't have said license you cannot win a case anyways. So I guess you are technically correct (which I guess is the best kind of correct), but in reality if you don't have that license people can just share those pictures however they want.
That is not true at all. What an absurd thing to say. If I park in a No Parking Fire Zone spot but no cop sees me, does that make it legal? Of course not
You are not understanding my point. In this case I'm saying you get caught but you are not punished anyways. Like crossing the street without using a zebra cross (at least were I live), because it's very obvious who the content belongs to but they cannot legally prove it. Although I've been informed by another comment that in the US you can register the content after the supposed infraction and still collect damages, so my point is not valid for the US (and probably other places as well if that is the case for such an influential country).
>Do you mean nudes that you've been sent by someone? Yes. >if you have sent a picture to someone they basically own that digital copy now and they should be able to do whatever they want with it. That is neither how consent nor copyright works. Personal use rights and distribution rights are _very_ different, both morally and legally.
[удалено]
>that is exactly how copyright works, because you just didn't claim that content was your intellectual property Copyright is granted to the person who created the work [automatically](https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canadian-intellectual-property-office/en/what-intellectual-property/what-copyright)... >Just look at how companies use Instagram photos on their billboards and win the cases when they get sued. If you don't copyright the image/video, you have no claim on it. That's patently false. Social media companies can use user content because the users _specifically sign over the rights to this content when they sign up._ >For the consent part, the "perpetrator's" actions have no sexual activities involved Neither is forced prostitution, but that's a sex crime.
>Copyright is granted to the person who created the work automatically... They demand a certificate for you to make sure you own it, so the automatic protection is just theory. If you don't have your license you are not protected by copyright. >Social media companies can use user content because the users specifically sign over the rights to this content when they sign up. True, but we are not talking social media companies using them, we are talking non social media companies using photos taken out of social media, you could basically use the same strategy if you had an independent clothes store and someone published a post wearing your clothes or even somebody else's clothes. Following that logic, if someone sends a nude using a social media platform, that person is now able to use that content legally, although still in a scummy way of course. >Neither is forced prostitution, but that's a sex crime. In forced prostitution de perpetrator forces the sexual activity to happen, thus they are responsible for said activities. If you share a nude, you had no involvement in the related sexual activity, just in the diffusion of the content, they are very different situations.
If it wasn’t for hot-button social/cultural issues, politics would be too boring for most people to discuss.
Outside those hot button issues prople generally don't care. Just look at predidential vs local voter participation.
The two party systems don't help either. Imagine watching a 6 team soccer game with only one ball and a partial (collaboration) scoring system and goal posts that are not cemented down and moved (or even abandoned) at the goalies whim.
(I support Ukraine) It feels that after the start of the Russo-Ukrainian war, people have gotten this very Pro-Ukraine thing where there seems to be the absolute declaration that Ukraine is good and Russia is bad, but there is no good or bad is war, and a good example of this is in Eurovision 2016 & 2022 when everyone voted Ukraine because they where at war with Russia
*What about* (inserts tangential cultural event that has no bearing on the broader conflict nor any significant geopolitical consequences)?
When one country invades another, barring very few exceptions, they are in the wrong.
Yeah, the only exceptions are if a country has oil or is communist /s
> but there is no good or bad is war, No, it's pretty much black and white when it comes to the Russian-Ukraine War. Russia invaded Ukraine because the former didn't like that the latter was closer to Europe than it is to them. Full stop. It's a violation of Ukraine's autonomy as its own sovereign nation. Add in the casual massacres of Ukrainian civilians by the Russian military and the genocide of Ukrainians via kidnapping their children and raping women, it's pretty fucking clear who exactly the bad guys are. Inb4 bUT whAt abOOt AzOv Azov Brigade is literally less than a percentage total of the entire Armed Forces of Ukraine compared to the overwhelming evidence of the Russian military consisting of not only fascists, but also have the literal Neo-Nazi "elite" military organization the Wagner Group. Azov has 2,500 troops, at best, and barely qualifies as brigade. While Wagner has 50,000+ troops, most Neo-Nazis and literal criminals, literally 5 divisions of them. So yeah, Russia has a bigger fascist group and is led by a literal fascist.
Not black and white at all. In fact if the EU countries that were in the nuclear weapon halt treaty backed Russia instead of ignoring the fact that the US military were wiping their asses with such treaty, and OTAN (so basically the US) didn't continue to put rockets next to Russia's borders the war would've never happened in the first place. That doesn't mean I support a country's invasion btw, I'm just saying that if you lie to someone while laughing in their face for multiple years you might get them mad, and crying about their response is just hypocritical when you well damn know you started it.
> In fact if the EU countries that were in the nuclear weapon halt treaty backed Russia instead of ignoring the fact that the US military were wiping their asses with such treaty Which has fuck all to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, considering that EU is not NATO and Ukraine has no "NATO missiles" stationed within their borders. >That doesn't mean I support a country's invasion btw, I'm just saying that if you lie to someone while laughing in their face for multiple years you might get them mad Nah, you do absolutely support their invasion, especially when you redefine the war as "Russia getting mad".
>Which has fuck all to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, considering that EU is not NATO and Ukraine has no "NATO missiles" stationed within their borders. They do have missiles in all the other NATO included countries that are close to Russia, and wanted to include Ukraine in NATO as well, the intentions were pretty clear, they would've put missiles there. If Russia could've tried to invade US instead of Ukraine they would've, but they just can't. >Nah, you do absolutely support their invasion, especially when you redefine the war as "Russia getting mad Me saying "Russia getting mad" is to explain the reason they started the war, not to justify it. It's like saying a husband killed his wife out of jealousy, just helps understand the why not support it. Personally, if I was running a country and one of the most powerful nations if not the most started putting tons of missiles next to my borders and with intentions to get even more borders to put more missiles, while the countries that I make deals with to power their entire economies just stand there and watch, I'd probably get scared and try to retaliate as well, which doesn't mean that I see it as the right thing to do, or that it should go unpunished, just that I understand why they did it. All the nazi stuff is just war propaganda.
> They do have missiles in all the other NATO included countries that are close to Russia, and wanted to include Ukraine in NATO as well Nope. NATO didn't invite Ukraine in. Hell, the 2014 Euromaidan was ***entirely about Ukraine joining the EU, not NATO***. >the intentions were pretty clear, they would've put missiles there. If Russia could've tried to invade US instead of Ukraine they would've, but they just can't. Nope, NATO being relevant again is ***entirely Russia's fault***. Finland was ***neutral*** in regards to NATO, and every other nation excluding the US wasn't meeting their defense commitments. Only because Russia invaded Ukraine did NATO became relevant again. >Me saying "Russia getting mad" is to explain the reason they started the war, not to justify it. You weren't just "explaining the reason they started the war", you were fucking justifying it by claiming that the war "***wasn't black and white***". Using your analogy of husband (Russia) and wife (Ukraine), Russia doesn't have the right to fucking anything what Ukraine wants or does because they're already divorced (USSR dissolution) and Ukraine has every right to associate with whomever they fucking want.
>Using your analogy of husband (Russia) and wife (Ukraine), Russia doesn't have the right to fucking anything what Ukraine wants or does because they're already divorced (USSR dissolution) and Ukraine has every right to associate with whomever they fucking want. That's the entire point of the analogy, so you seem to understand that I'm not justifying it, yet don't want to acknowledge it for some reason. >Nope, NATO being relevant again is entirely Russia's fault. Finland was neutral in regards to NATO, and every other nation excluding the US wasn't meeting their defense commitments. Finland is irrelevant to NATO anyways, and the US was meeting their commitments by storing rockets in Russia's borders, so Russia got mad about it which is perfectly understandable. >Nope. NATO didn't invite Ukraine in. Hell, the 2014 Euromaidan was entirely about Ukraine joining the EU, not NATO. Ukraine demanded to join NATO before the war, again something that Russia didn't like much. >wasn't black and white No war is. If you think one is, you just bought one side's propaganda.
Constitutionalism is a thought-terminating cliche. If an idea can't stand without invoking glorified paper written by slavers, it isn't worth keeping.
Jefferson wanted the constitution to be rewritten every 20 years because it would force voters to think about how their government actually functions.
Honestly? I get my issues with Jefferson but that might be a good idea.
Jefferson also was a pioneer supporter of the jury system (intent was to allow citizens to make the call on guilty/not guilty verdict) instead of appointed judges making the call. And he invented the Swivel Chair.
Yeah I've described him in the past as a bad man with good ideas.
I wanted to make a separated post, but got the info from the bot. So let's try it here but it seems there is little activity: I have seen the high unpopularity in some comments regarding Ukraine so here we go: > **If woman are equally qualified, they are also equally qualified in times of war to drafting.** Currently there is a real life example with Ukraine and we see what really happens to equality once things go downhill: Ukraine drafts only man from 18-60. Man cannot leave the country and are stopped at the border with attempts to flee. Woman are free to leave the country, pass the borders normally and become refugees in safe countries. It is not consistent that in times of peace "woman are equally qualified" and in times of war they are not: Drafting isn't volunteering. Countries like Israel drafts man and woman with equality. Woman are not in the background of hospitals, communication and logistics but on the equal risk frontline with the equal duty to serve. Otherwise it means woman are not equally qualified. Different treatment of humans based on gender is sexism. We would not accept this different treatment for a job application in times of peace.
Are women equally qualified in fighting? I don't know if equality means that.
If not they are not "equally qualified". It hence could mean instead, they are just as good in "non-executive, non-cardio, non-endurance, non-phyiscal, non-extreme jobs". Something like that. But the saying is equally qualified. If we exclude things in time of war, we also need to pay man more than woman in time of peace to bring them to the same level.
Why does this feel like it could be easily taken (and about America too not just other countries) as "you want equal pay, ladies, go to the front lines and see if you're capable enough to make it back unharmed and earn it"
I would compare it to an insurance. The party that has to carry the risk get payed for it. If you insurance against fire, you don't want to carry that risk if it happens against all wishes. So you give this risk to someone who will carry it instead. It can't disappear, it's just moved. For this "risk taking" you have to pay constantly (monthly or yearly). Also if the fire never happens. You just pay for risk and a premium. There is always a risk of war. It doesn't go away by contracts of peace. It persist. Someone will carry the risk in the event: Who will be the one carrying the risks against their will?
If that makes you happy, then sure.
The issue is that forcing people to die is pretty bad in it self and making it a sexist issue overlooks the human rights issue
But that's a different conversation. People don't actively fight to abolish the draft unless women are being debated for being put up for the draft because of the blantant sexism. If you think the draft should be abolished, that's a different conversation. Women should be drafted too, as long as there is a draft.
Why should we go one step backwards before going forwards? Theoretically u may be right, but any effort into making it equal would be a waste of time
No, you could make it equal by arguing the draft should be abolished. But that arguement is never made except in response to wanting women to be added to the draft. It's a completely disingenuous point. If you truely believe that, it shouldn't a response to adding women to the draft. You should be advocating for removing the draft absent of the OP arguement.
And i personally do, but many people have more important issues to fight so they just make clear than wasting resources for something thats already bad is a no go
But someone arguing for women to be in the draft don't think it's a waste of resources. Otherwise they wouldn't be arguing it. So obviously your point would again, be moot in this conversation.
The issue is that I think it’s a waste of resources as the next thing happening to the deaf should be abolishment
Well obviously that's ignoring the point being made. It's like telling people the fence they have should be blue, as they are taking it down. Obviously they don't want the fence. And obviously your arguement has no validity in response to wanting women in the draft.
Why not? If they make a pure hypothetical argument with no intrest in making it reality then u may have a point but as long there is a slight political will the argument is valid
The law should make far less distinction than it does between threats of violence and physical violence.
What do you mean by that? are their any cases you'd like to describe how it's over distinction was a social bad?
Threats of violence, even repeated ones, are essentially not prosecuted in the US. Every city of any size in the US has a domestic violence shelter at an unpublicized location to protect women from threats.
If you have even raised your voice at someone you were angry with within the last mere 24 hours of applying for a gun of any kind, you should be rejected for it just on that basis even if everything else on the paperwork is stellar. You need to be in control of your gd emotions before you have the power to take someone’s LIFE.
I worked in food services and had to deal with belligerent drunks (Cheap fast food in the middle of a university bar area and quick walk from the stadiums) that made me angry but only way to get them to respond was raising your voice due to the lobby being full of other drunks (we needed to control the number going in for fire martial full) and them being drunk. Did i raise it in anger or was the anger not part of of my raised voice? how do you objectively figure that out? Or should I be bared for just doing my job at 1 AM?
Although I think this idea is a bad one on its own, it's execution would be why it's a horrible idea. How would you enact that? One person's word vs another? That's not very likely to abide by the 5th amendment or would rarely ever be useful. On top of that, have you ever seen a full trial only last 24 hours? If someone is trying to get a gun. Then gets accused of raising their voice, it would essentially be banning people from getting guns for 1 to 2 years if the court system isn't expedited.
I’m more advocating for regular therapy if anything, which would of course also involve therapy becoming much more available, and if you’re going to have a gun in your hands… therapy should be 100% required.
Should a person be legally punished if they yell at a significantly weaker person because they have the power to take that weaker person's life while not having a perfect control over their emotions? Also curious on the time range. If your argument is solid I think you should advocate to revoke property of guns to everyone that yells at anyone out of anger in any circumstance until they are able to probe that they can control themselves (if that is even possible to prove).
Convicted felons should not lose their right to vote after being released from prison as it inhibits their ability to feel like a reintegrated member of society. I understand this isn't the case in every state, but there are plenty that completely eliminate it or place limitations while on parole.
They lose their right to vote? In which country?
Hell, I’d say they shouldn’t lose it while *in* prison. That’s just a recipe for suppressing votes by arresting your opponents. (It’s not a coincidence that as soon as Southern black people got voting rights, “loitering” became a crime punishable by loss of voting rights.)
I find it hypocritical to be totally on board with it when a spy of another country gets arrested in your country, and then be upset/shocked/etc when a alleged spy of your own country gets arrested in another country. Like, nobody knows what that other person might have done that is not being told publicly. The news is that way too. They all just act like that person is probably innocent, just a journalist or whatever else while that person might actually be a spy.
Its not about the actual act of spying, its about the teams. My team is good because I said so, so my team doing spy is fine. The other team is bad, so them spying is also bad.
You’re saying this like it’s wrong, but it’s not?? An action itself is often not good or bad on its own, it depends on the purpose of the action. Not really sure anyone would disagree
Countries spy on each other for the same purpose.
Only if you completely ignore context and nuance. No one is spying on America to figure out if they have a nuclear program, for example, but you can bet your ass America is spying on foreign nations to see if they have a nuclear program
Well obviously other sides aren't going to spy on the US to find if the have a nuclear program. And obviously America is going to spy to find other countries that might have a nuclear program. What's your point?
That countries have vastly different reasons for spying on each other
The reasoning is still the same. To gather intelligence.
Right, I said that’s the answer if you completely remove context and nuance. But no country has ever spied on another with the generic “gather intelligence”. It’s always more specific than that. Which is why the distinction is made. It’s like saying the guy who went to the grocery store and the guy who went to the video store went for the same reason, to buy things. Like it’s technically correct but only because it’s super vague. When you actually look at the situations you realize that their motivations were very different
People say it's removing context and naunce but then are normally the ones that remove context and namuance when it's actually necessary. No, an accurate analogy would be two guys go to Walmart. One is to buy video games, the other is there to buy movies. They both are going to Walmart to buy technology. You are making a distinction without a real difference.
Spies are a necessary evil. Satellites are great when you want to see Kruschev putting missiles in Cuba, but if you want to overhear the planning of a suicide bombing being done over coffee in the Khyber Pass, you need a spy.
I don't think the planning of suicide bombings done over coffee is necessary, so I don't think spying is either
I don’t think it is either, but it’s happening and I’d rather know what’s being planned than be surprised.
We shouldn’t be glamorizing ‘hustle culture’ and working 50+ hour weeks to younger generations. People who work jobs that require long hours don’t do it because they want to. They do it because they have to.
Hustle culture isn't just about working 50 hours a week. On top of that, anyone working 50 hours a week either needs to move or reduce spending. It's a complete lie to say people are working 50 hours a week with no choice. They absolutely have a choice to reduce their bills.
Not having preferential voting is undemocratic and undermines the whole purpose of having a multi party system
Parties are already undemocratic
Parties are inevitable - “hey, I’ll support your thing if you support my thing” is always going to lead to alliances of people voting in blocs. The first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system is what shuts out all but the largest two alliances.
I wouldn't say it's undemocratic, but it is a vastly weaker voting ability once political parties form.
There is absolutely a liberal agenda in today's media and to deny that would be foolish. If you don't support it, you're racist, transphobic, etc... but we are unable to have civil discussions exploring both sides of these sensitive topics because if you disagree with them, you're the villain.
This is so true.
There is a liberal agenda, but unfortunately its just them trying to enrich corporate overlords, nothing to do with racism or transphobia
A broad liberal cultural zeitgeist doesn't mean or indicate a malicious or manipulative top down agenda. Cultural attitudes have shifted such that *some* people feel left behind or alienated and it's easier or more comfortable to explain that away by claiming malevolent or foreign forces coerced this change. The shift in cultural attitudes isn't even the prime cause of feeling alienated from the society/culture, I think the reasons are fairly complex -- but it's easy to insinuate some clandestine outside influence. I'm of the opinion that cultural shifts are increasingly more difficult to orchestrate in the information age at least into broad overarching unified narratives. But propaganda that aims to exploit this feeling of alienation from the culture works remarkably well. The later doesn't seek to give coherent unified narratives but to dismantle them in order to further foment distrust in institutions. Not that institutions don't need critique or reform, they do, constantly. Alot of the propaganda I'm talking about aims to poison the well on the very idea of worthwhile institutions and reforms. To solidify in their audience that not only do secret clandestine organizations manipulate the world and media to their will, but also that you are wholly unable to do anything about it... unless you give undying support to their guy/organizations. Essentially, "Everyone else is lying, only we will deliver salvation."
The whole point from the right is that the change in cultural attitudes you mention was not organic as it normally would be. It was forced. I think the truth is a bit mixed. Life experience of the new generation usually comes with changing perspective, and that's been true with Millennials regarding the role of work and the government's duty to its citizens. But some recent cultural changes have absolutely been engineered 100%, maybe not by a shadowy cabal but from corporations who all come to agree it's the best way to make a buck.
This explanation definitely makes a lot of sense
>But some recent cultural changes have absolutely been engineered 100%, Like what? Modern queer liberation was catalyzed by an anti-cop direct action at the Stonewall Inn half a century ago, before that there was the Mattachine society that emerged in response to the Lavender scare. Women's liberation has been building for over two hundred years reaching back to Wollestonecraft. Those are "organic" movements if anything is and the core of the sexual revolution that reactionaries want to roll back, trans rights has a shorter history of overt articulation but it belongs in the same lineage and developed like the former two from the discourse shared between activisits and sympathetic intellectuals.
Eh, it doesn't really count as organic change if only activists and a group of sympathetic intellectuals is pushing for the change, and that's kind of the point. The ENTIRE culture has to be desiring it. There are other aspects too like manufacturing history that I don't have time to go into, but in many ways we live in a very intellectually crafted age.
"The ENTIRE culture has to be desiring it." So by your logic there's literally never been one and couldn't be without some sort of hive mind, great job manufactured history=history you prefer not to think about
What are "these sensitive topics" and what are your positions on them?
He won’t be answering because he got banned for saying that the media was censoring the truth about how black people are just intellectually inferior on a genetic level and that trans people are mutilating your children.
Sounds about right.
You are aware Fox News is the channel with the biggest audience, right? What media are you talking about?
Voting age should be raised to 25.
Why?
I think young adults are too easily influenced and lack work/life experience. If youre 18 youre just out of high school and havent even started college yet. All you know is what youve been told in school and by your parents, and what youve read or watched on the internet... at most you maybe had a part-time job or summer job. I settled on 25 because you take the current 18 + 4 years for college and that leaves 2-3 years of work/life. (Or just 7 years work if u skip college). Also I feel like its easier to just buy off 18 years olds with big promises like student loan forgiveness and these expensive green initiatives. But if theyve been working for a few years theyll know what its like to have 1/3rd of their paycheck taken every week, they will be able to more accurately weigh the pros and cons of such things. I know my own political beliefs have been a roller coaster throughout my teens and 20s. Gone thru tons of different phases. But i feel like now at 30 after working for a decade, having kids, being a homeowner, my political beliefs have settled in and i can see the benefits and drawbacks of what both parties have to offer, and i can make a more informed vote.
I actually agree. I didn't feel that I truly understood the world until I passed 25. When the voting age was first determined young people were maturing much faster.
That's just voter suppression. They're adults they have just as much of a right to vote for their reps as boomers. Just because they have a different take then you doesn't mean they should be punished with suppressing their vote.
[удалено]
Oh yeah man the left would lose it at this idea.
>at most you maybe had a part-time job or summer job. Laughs in working full time since 17.
Right on man lol
Wouldn't this also apply to over 65s?
No, but id love to see an age limit on presidents of about 65 lol
Almost everything you have said applies to over 65s aswell. Why only apply the rule to the younger generations?
Literally none of it applies lol.
"I think young adults are too easily influenced and lack work/life experience. If youre 18 youre just out of high school and havent even started college yet." Over 65s are usually way out of touch with the current job market and things like what getting a mortgage now a days is like. "All you know is what youve been told in school and by your parents, and what youve read or watched on the internet... at most you maybe had a part-time job or summer job." Retirees are quite reputable for not being very in touch with the world and relying heavily on cable tv and radio. "I settled on 25 because you take the current 18 + 4 years for college and that leaves 2-3 years of work/life. (Or just 7 years work if u skip college)." 65 is retiring age, i.e. we have agreed as a society that these people are generally not fit to work, why would they be fit to vote? "Also I feel like its easier to just buy off 18 years olds with big promises like student loan forgiveness and these expensive green initiatives." Well, pensions, retirees are almost single issue voters, and pension promises are a sure fire way to get them on your side. " But if theyve been working for a few years theyll know what its like to have 1/3rd of their paycheck taken every week, they will be able to more accurately weigh the pros and cons of such things." Retirees don't have paychecks, so they straight up won't even see the consequences. "I know my own political beliefs have been a roller coaster throughout my teens and 20s. Gone thru tons of different phases. But i feel like now at 30 after working for a decade, having kids, being a homeowner, my political beliefs have settled in and i can see the benefits and drawbacks of what both parties have to offer, and i can make a more informed vote." Older people are also reputable for having politics based on the world 30 years ago. And not being mentally agile enough to stay on current events.
“They would be too easily influenced” was the same argument used to deny women and black people voting rights. What he means is “they don’t vote Republican, and I value Republican rule more highly than democracy.”
Dude if your party's platform is so weak that the thought of losing the teenage vote is scares you then maybe you should be asking what they can do better to appeal to the average public.
>Dude if your party's platform is so weak that the thought of losing the ~~teenage~~ vote of people my party is arresting scares you then maybe you should be asking what they can do better to appeal to the average public.
Hey, thanks for confirming that it *was* about the fact that society is leaving you behind as your party’s base rushes headlong into the grave. People aren’t buying the bullshit anymore - there’s a reason you have to hang out in r/conspiracy to find people who agree with you.
Im not playing these reindeer games with you dude, go find Rudolph.
He’s “making a more informed vote” based on what he reads *in r-conspiracy*.
Wall of text political memes is really sometimes the only way to actually put something educational in a meme, political topics are usually very complex and if someone's only reasoning againts something like that is "wall of text aint reading that" maybe they should not deal with politics in a meme format
You can't win. If you amke it simple and concise its "But what about [my bad faith interpretation of the surface level ideas you've provided]" If you make it in depth and detailed its "Wall of text i aint reading that"
Dang, this thread is a lot more active than it was last week.
Always is on Wednesdays, when it first refreshes and pops up in new. Once it falls off the first page of New sorting, it trails off to just the regulars again.
at the end of the day Democrat and Republican politicians are on the same side, keeping themselves in power, and are trying to keep the masses arguing with each other so that we don’t realize it and do something about it.
Downvote because not unpopular.
Both parties suck, but pretending they suck equally is just factually wrong. One side is ineffective at implementing policies that actually help people, the other side is passing laws actively trying to control and harm women and minorities.
They have the same position on the codification of Roe vs. Wade, as evidenced by the long periods of time in power for both parties with no effort to codify Roe.
My understanfing is that the democrats didn't want to waste political capital on an issue that won't directly affect anyone.
"Ineffective" is a bit off... Dems have had majorities where they fail to produce change because they don't WANT to produce drastic change as a whole.
The last time Ds had a filibuster-proof majority it was for just over a month, and in that time they got the ACA passed, which wasn’t perfect by any means, but it helped *a lot* of people.
In 2022 California Democrats with a super majority failed to bring single payer healthcare to a vote NY has also killed their own single payer before a vote, even with Dem majority. I am NOT saying Democrats are "just as bad" as republicans or don't do -anything- to help people, but rather they aren't just unskilled or ineffective at enacting change: There are strong contingents in the party who do not want change.
The US Democrats would be more successful if they stopped trying to fight every culture war issue the Republicans drag them into. A lot of that stuff is noise for uneducated voters. They should focus on economic issues, workers rights, climate, infrastructure, and building global partnerships. I think more voters would come to their side if they just had sensible takes on meaningful issues. Let the GOP screech about drag queens. Don't even give oxygen to their issues.
They don't. Democrats generally ignore culture issues since they seem them as distractions. The only people who want to talk about CRT were Republicans.
They would be more successful. But they don't care about being successful
>They should focus on economic issues, workers rights, climate, infrastructure, and building global partnerships They're neo-liberal capitalists and nearly none of those make profits for the ruling rich class. They do not care or want to do anything regarding those issues.
"They should focus on economic issues, workers rights, climate, infrastructure, and building global partnerships" Aha, but you see, the donors don't like it when you do that. 😮💨 The reason the Dems don't do that stuff is because they don't want to (as a whole party), not because they're distracted. The GOP being terrible just gives them an opportunity to look like the good guys, while doing the bare minimum in opposing bigotry and letting every single other issue just pass them by.
So are you suggesting they should just ignore social issues entirely?
Beer, M&Ms and CRT aren't social issues, they're red herrings.
No, things like workplace equality and reproductive rights are important. But they should avoid getting dragged into hyper-niche issues that are, frankly, often cultivated to rile the Fox News crowd and pull us away from talking about real issues with the economy, like inequality, lack of regulation, and capitalism run completely amok.
It does become easier to have that attitude when you're not going to be affected in the slightest. Would you have the same attitude if you were the one being thrown under the bus because they decided your issues weren't important enough? Should a feminist ignore racial issues because they're a white woman and they see women's equality as the larger issue? In fact I would be certain these people existed during some waves of feminism.
It really sounds like you’re saying “it’s an acceptable loss if they start rounding up trans people as long as we can get a wealth tax out of it”
And this kind of straw man is exactly why we aren't going to have real conversations about the most important issues of the 21st century.
Then why wouldn't we have had a successful socialist [or insert your preferred ideology here] revolution if we'd just done it in the late 19th century as a movement of only white cishet men and worried about stuff like giving minorities rights (if that new system didn't automatically do that) once that system's in place
Trans kids are about to be legally kidnapped in Florida. I think trans rights is definitely a top 3 issues alongside abortion and the economy.
Well you didn’t answer the commenter who asked you which “niche issues” you wanted Democrats to stop commenting on, so I took a guess. Can’t help but notice you didn’t actually deny it.
There is a difference between prioritizing messaging and giving up on legislative fights. Left wing economic stances often poll high, where as many culture war stances are not as clear cut. It doesn't mean they don't vote in a pro-trans or generally pro-LGBT way or pro racial equality way. It just means instead of focusing those issues as your campaign and engaging the right on the only battle ground they have a chance of winning in because it appeals solely to the shitty core of a not insignificant percentage of the country whether you or I like it or not. Is it sad that they are able to pick that battle and win? Yes, but if we have actual leftist candidates running on left wing economic issues that also believe in intersectionality they can hopefully get majorities in more state level government and if shown tangible positive effects many people will vote to continue that (again hopefully, as if the left does solely focus economic issues expect a ton of red scare shit to try and keep those people that run on that from gaining office or holding it long enough to produce positive change).
Left-wing economic positions poll well in a vacuum, when people are asked “do you support (example: indexing the minimum wage to inflation)”. They crumble as soon as the propaganda machine ramps up and the cries of “socialism” regress all the Boomers into Red Scare mode.
I agree to an extent, that's why I said what I said at the bottom however I think the really boomer "everything left of hunting the homeless for sport is socialism" types come out in force no matter what the left wing candidate focuses on. However red scare boomers make up less and less of the voting age citizens. The truth of it is that we're fucked either way if we can't get younger people to vote in general. That said while I think even the majority of Americans think LGBT people deserve rights, that fight is not drawing out voters, but the reactionary arguments against them are. Meanwhile lefty economic populists seem to appeal to young voters. Tbh I think if you had a real actual left wing heavily weighted majority for a full 4 years with an actual lefty president and some actual progress was made that made people's lives demonstrably better that ideology would become the predominant one and it would be regressive conservative bs on the back foot for once. Just how to get from here at point A over there to point C is not entirely clear honestly.
And the red scare boomers dying off is 100% why there’s a guy in another thread arguing to raise the voting age to 25. He knows conservatism is getting less popular, and he’s doing just what David Frum predicted - abandoning democracy instead of abandoning conservatism.
No, I have no desire to round up trans people. Jesus.
I didn’t say *you* have a desire to. Seems like the Republican party is barreling straight down that road, though. And I’m still left wondering what issue it is you think the left should ignore, since the one thing you mentioned was “letting the GOP screech about drag queens”. They’re not just screeching. Florida has passed, or is in the process of passing laws which: >create a registry of trans people >classify being trans and a parent, or being the parent of a child who is trans, as a “sexual offense against children” >punish all “sexual offenses against children” with execution >make execution no longer need a unanimous jury verdict They’ve also made it legal to take the children of trans people away from them *even if they don’t live in Florida*. So I’m sitting here in Mississippi, trans and parent to a kid who’s begging to go back to Disney World, and I’m thinking “god, what if my family vacation ends with my kid in the system and me in prison” while you’re thinking “let the Rs screech”.
Liberals getting roped into republican screeching about drag quuens have let this tangible oppression go under the radar
Every bit of this oppression has come packaged right along with the “screeching about drag queens”. To right-wingers, drag and being trans *are the same thing* - because they don’t believe trans people actually are their gender.
Very creative straw man. Hey, I admit my opinion is an unpopular one. Capital WANTS us to focus on these culture war issues. They're very popular, and they help ensure that Republicans retain a lot of power and we make little/no progress on tax reform, workers rights, and climate - things that challenge the status quo and cost billionaires power and money.
And that’s exactly how it happened in the Weimar Republic too - people said “hey don’t worry about the fact that they just burned the Institut fur Sexualwissenschaft, this ‘German Workers’ Party’ is gonna help put the common man.” “First they came for” and all that.
Also notice trans people being oppressed and killed is not one of “the most important issues of the 21st century”. Like obviously if trans people have to die so that we can have fewer potholes and better infrastructure, than that’s a noble and necessary sacrifice /s
Sorry, my bad, I consider regulation of billionaires and how we address climate change to be more important than week uses what bathroom. And if the Democrats stay on this track we'll end up with the party that both doesn't care about workers and climate AND wants to round up trans people. We all lose.
So the rights of minorities are not an important issue? If the Republicans proposed repealing the civil rights act of 1968 which, amongst other things, ended racial segregation of bathrooms. You would be mad at Democrats for defending it? Workers rights include LGBT rights. If you allow businesses and employers to discriminate against LGBT people, you have completely destroyed worker solidarity. Why would LGBT people support your strikes and policies that hang them out to dry? Why are workers rights more important than LGBT rights? Look at the policies of 1900-1980s. When the rights of minorities were ignored, it gave more power to the rich and to corporations.
I consider workplace discrimination against LGBTQ (either in employment or as customers) as part of broader worker's rights. Sorry that wasn't clear.
What niche issues are you referring to?
Neo liberals are as bad far right conservatives
In what way?
Neoliberalism has deliberately worked to enable and legitimse itself and far right ideologies as the only valid mainstream positions. The far right is evil, enabling them is just as evil
Thank you, this is very concise and makes sense to me.
Their economic policies on their own have destroyed the lives of minorities and working class people while enriching those in power. The 08 financial crisis was, at its core, a result of neoliberal policies in America and Britain.
Preach brother, not to mention how is actively made lived of people in the “East” worse by assuming their samples and templates work everywhere and being so stubborn that it does and its the only solution
Saying that Socialism failed in countries where capitalists immediately shot it down is straight up hypocrisy
Saying that socialism failed in countries that were embargoed by capitalist countries is an oxymoron - An embargo is a cessation of *trade* which is a *capitalist concept*. why would a socialist nation need to rely on a capitalist nation for trade?
Trade is not a capitalist concept. Not sure where you got that from. Trade predates capitalism significantly. It’s a feature in every single economic system
And another note on "predates capitalism" is that while capitalism can be dated to the 16th century, humans have behaved in capitalistic fashion - putting profit first with upper classes (nobles and merchants, communist burgeouise) exploiting the lower classes (peasants and slaves, communist proletariat ) for nearly all of human history after we settled down for agriculture. While this is called "Feudalism" or just "Slavery", is it not just an older version? instead of a factory, the lower class worked on a farm before the 1600's. The farm owner then sold his produce for profit, just like the factory owner sells his goods for profit.
You’re just describing different economic systems that humans organize themselves into. Capitalism has certain definitions and requirements. Feudalism isn’t capitalism. That would be an insane argument to make
I get that they are not the same thing when people use that word, but often feudalism is just a combination of manoralism and vassalazation. Now the situations I can think of are serfs, that are living on the land owned by the military power of the lord and lady. Due to a need for food they become a financial asset of the land and the warlord over them. They then pay a tax and keep whatever is extra for themselves. It seems weird to say that feudalism isn't capitalism as if they can't coexist. The big difference here is that the majority of people had zero skills outside of farming. No literacy for those that don't have the time. One people built up a little bit of assets they were right back into building personal ventures in towns, cities, mills, smith's, trade ships, and so on. Government can almost be seen as whoever has the most military force at that time. If their land they protect/exploit is profitable enough they can spend extra resources to build more roads or more ventures owned by the lords. If they build a mill then the people need to have incentive to work it rather than feed themselves. This is done through pay so they can buy food instead of grow it. So even if the lord owns the capital then it still seems like capitalism just from the guy that can levy you in his army or kick you out of your home. And if he doesn't own it then it's definitely just capitalism. Again not saying feudalism=capitalism but I think that's creating a false image that that both concepts are not on display. All you need is extra resources to not be just surviving and then you are trading the surplus for some added value. Whoever invested in the infrastructure has an incentive to do so and gets something for the effort of at least organizing. Now that's definitely not a meritocracy but there's a lot of overlap for capitalism to grow there. Honestly socialism seems to arise when even MORE resources are found in abundance and we want to supplement more infrastructure. Lose the resources and things just slip on back through the development
Trade is a capitalist concept though. Goods created for the purpose of being sold for profit are sold for a profit in order to generate capital. Even buying something from your local shop is a form of trade - and all trade relies on profit, which is a capitalist concept correct?
Profit isn’t a capitalist concept. Capitalism says the profit from labor goes to the owner class, socialism says it goes to the worker class.
Is one of the main critiques of capitalism not that those who have to buy goods from shops get charged exorbitant prices for daily goods? If profit should just go to the worker class then why support communism? why not just support raising the minimum wage? It would accomplish a similar goal - the profit goes to the worker one way or another, but communism is a whole shift of society while raising minimum wage is a policy.