![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://startrek.website/pictrs/image/ccbc1d32-aa21-4d26-bb28-42e63bd83083.png)
Exactly. In some way the software is a lock that ensure the property of the machine stays to the company that built it.
Exactly. In some way the software is a lock that ensure the property of the machine stays to the company that built it.
You’re all true until allocating scarce resources. These days economy is how to make scarce something that isn’t in order to profit from it. See copyrights and patents. In our society a replicator would be the property of a company and you would need to pay it to be allowed to use it.
The government in 1700 didn’t have as strong of a grasp on the military as it does now. And the police kind of didn’t exist in this time. The biggest inventions of the 20th century are mass surveillance, repression, and propaganda. An armed force being able to go from one side of the country to the other in a few hours is also a strength for government stability.
I would like for Russia to fail miserably, but HERE I’m afraid it’s not as stupid as it could. Ukraine is notoriously low on ammunitions, so extending the active front line can deplete those supplies faster. I would expect Russia to try to deplete those supplies in order to force the front line where a shortage appears first. And they need to do it before the supplies come from the US, which is already starting to come. So it’s basically a window of opportunity.
If they concentrated on one place only, the Ukrainian supplies would last much longer.
I expect the massive Russian offensive to slow down in June once the US supply lines are established again.
But maybe I’m wrong. If Russia continues to push hard like this through June and after, I’ll be wrong. Unless they try to really push through western supplies themselves. That would be insane but possible I guess.
I know plenty of small businesses. I know none that keep to one person and aren’t disguised employees.
But then, if there are two persons in your business, who’s the boss? And if there’s none, congrats, it’s a cooperative!
Employment is something workers won in the early 20th century. Ask yourself why they fought for it maybe. Then come back with your arrogance.
Small businesses grow, that’s how capitalism works. When OP talks about empowering individuals, that’s liberal ideology. When talking about how self-employment is better for society, that’s liberal ideology.
Wrong. A company can be a cooperative or state owned.
Being self employed though means you are the only one to support the risks of your activity and it leaves you a pray from bigger businesses.
But liberal propaganda did its job and you’re probably indoctrinated with individualism and liberalism.
And that’s even worse.
Being self employed means you support all the risks of your activity, without any mutualisation or support from society or partners. That’s a distopia.
The problem with what you’re saying is that either you’re employed without any if the benefits of employment, or you are a capitalist.
In either way you lose.
On the other hand a company can be a cooperative or state owned.
But in the US you hate the state, you are indoctrinated with individualism and you hate socialism. So it’s a lost cause.
This simply means you’re either a liberal or a fascist.
It’s simple really : the US left is liberal, thus it is not truly the left.
Self employment is very much not something you should seek. Self employment means the worker support all the risk. That’s a boon for the capitalists. Why do you think uber and stuff are so successful?
Self-employment is detrimental to people. Because it has the workers support all the risks. It’s not the solution.
Sure, so tankies are everywhere on lemmy, and I’m probably one apparently, but no definition will be given…
I asked you about tankies, not fascists.
Going on a witch hunt against tankies and calling tankies everyone who disagree with you is not really showing you under a good light. As you said, referring to people as tankies want only and haphazardly will make you called a fascists, because only the fascists are hunting down tankies with definitions known to them only.
Again, throughout history the leftists are the first to fight and to be hunted down by the fascists. And as a matter of fact, the fight and the hunt has started in the western world.
Sure, Russia and China are fascists countries and bad in many ways. But USA and Europe are turning fascist too. That is what concerns me. And turning fascist in order to fight Russia or China is just stupid.
And what definition of tankie is used here? I’ve been called a tankie several times on this thread and on lemmy while I discovered this word here on lemmy.
Are you concerned you might be a fascist or are you trying to disregard and disqualify me based on whtt I consider a fascist?
My point is that here there is a witch hunt against supposed tankies whyle fascists are welcome. Considering the political climate in western countries, do you think fascism or tankism will be more prevalent? Why is the fight against tankies so much more prevalent on lemmy.world then?
When people support a genocide I tend to consider them fascists. When they consider leftists to be extremist of fascist, they are usually fascist themselves. When they promote authoritarianism, intolerance, xenophobia,… When people talk about wokes or wokism, they’re usually fascists. When they support US imperialism.
Most fascists blind themselves though, and the propaganda picture anyone against the fascists as fascists.
The biggest lie to picture the left as fascist simply because they don’t support liberalism. Leftists have always been the first victims of fascism. That should give you a hint.
It’s funny how you picture this authoritarianism, and then this very thread is exactly about that : either you defederate from hexbear or you defederate from lemmy.world is the request here.
I’ve seen far far more fascists on lemmy than I’ve seen tankies BTW.
So you know maybe it’s lemmy.world that turned fascist and not lemmy.ml. Just food for thought here.
I feel like external pressure is only half the problem. It is important but IMO the role model is also a problem. Non toxic masculinity is often describe in the negative of the toxic masculinity : you’re good when you are not toxic, not when you are something positive.
In some way it is less restrictive, but in other way it is missing the model.
The other side of this coin is the corruption of the ideal that lead to nihilism. Toxic masculinity corrupts ideals. Violence is strength. Protecting is necessarily the destruction of the threat. Independence is power. Smart is manipulation and deception. Everything is to be seen through a lens of domination and power. And that is the core of the problem.
Instead, a model is to be seen with any quality, but through another lens. Strength can help the weak. Smart can disarm an explosive situation. Power is to be shared and used wisely. Basically, a model opposite to the toxic masculinity can be many things with all the qualities of the virility, but the difference is that they will be used and targeted differently. And for many people, it is to be learnt through a model.
This is a core problem because for many people, if you tell them to drop the toxic behaviour, there will be nothing left to aim for, nothing for them to transform into.
And this goes back to the social validation you’re talking about. Going from toxic to positive requires a transformation so that the qualities someone has can be positive instead of negative, but as qualities they can still be praised and admired.