in an hour or two you get a great game of “the floor is lava” too

I mean, it was inarguably violence, and that violence seems to have a political motive (since changing or reforming the healthcare system is considered a political issue), and there is an element of using fear to further that end (since he would obviously have known that he cannot realistically change everything by himself or even just shoot every health insurance CEO, but shooting one while featuring a catchy phrase to make it clear the motive was being fed up with the health system, potentially makes all the other such CEOs and people in similar positions afraid that the next guy to try this might go after them next, and that more might be inspired seeing the shooting). Id argue that it does technically fit the term. People are just so used to that term being used alongside causes that they have no agreement with that they think it can never apply to a good one, or consider if it can ever be justified.

I mean, sure, its addictive and unhealthy. But, the people suffering from it are the people that take it in the first place, so, banning personal possession and use is effectively punishing the victims, adding more suffering which may drive some to seek more drugs to get through. And if you instead ban production and distribution, you simply create a perfect niche for organized crime to appear to do those things, which creates worse problems than the drugs themselves. If such drugs dont force those involved with them to hide, at least it is possible to put some regulations on them, and more easily monitor and intervene in their use.

Pff, car users dont need society to get around, everyone knows road and bridge and fuel infrastructure are natural parts of the word that are just there on their own already! /s

To be fair on them (not that there’s much reason to give them that courtesy), most of the Trump supporters I encounter at my work and such seem to truly believe that a sizable majority of people in the country agrees with them and that everyone else is either some kind of hostile elite or a crazy fringe. If they really do believe something like that, then this is kinda self-consistent of them, since they would therefore believe that they cant lose a fair election, and therefore that them losing is evidence of cheating even if they don’t have clear evidence of how, but them winning would be evidence that, if there is any, it at least isn’t enough to change the outcome.

“Murder is murder” is a tautology that doesn’t actually mean anything useful

money is a proxy for resources, is the thing, having someone “own” everything includes owning all the money, at which point you end up with the same issue. Ownership is meaningless without a system to enforce that, because one person cant prevent everyone else from using “their” stuff on their own, and systems require buy in from a large fraction of the population to function, which requires giving enough people a reason to participate. Automation doesnt really solve this, it increases the total amount that can be produced, meaning you can hold a higher fraction of the total because the smaller fraction left can be “enough” to keep the system running, but some tasks exist that require a significant degree of intelligence and thinking to do, meaning you must either have humans do them, or have machines that are smart and self aware enough that them finding ways around restrictive programming becomes an issue.

I dont think Mars has anything to do with some plan by the rich to escape tbh. Early space colonies by nature would be cramped, form-follows function places to live, and the rich tend to like a lot of comforts. It seems to me more likely that they would send other people to colonize mars as a vanity project, or for resource extraction, or just because they personally like the concept and have enough money to push for it to be done, than that very many of them would personally go there. They might suggest that it could be a way to escape climate change or such in order to try to prompt others to buy in, but that notion falls flat on its face when one considers that even if we burned every scrap of coal in the ground, every drop of oil, and then fired off every nuclear weapon, it would still be easier to build a settlement on earth than one on mars. If you have the resources and the technology to build a mars colony, “the planet burning” is no longer much of a threat to your survival anyway.

EDIT: I guess I should clarify that Im not trying to say that I dont think wealth inequality is an issue, I think its one of the biggest issues we have, I just think this narrative I sometimes see of “The rich all have a long term plot to kill everyone and then fly off into space” looks to me like conspiratorial thinking that overestimates the rich and misunderstands their motives, which I feel is a negative thing, because it makes the solution seem less like “replace or transition the system into one that naturally tends to a more equitable distribution of resources” and more like “These specific guys are the villains, kill/imprison them and it’ll fix everything, and also mistrust automation and space development because they further their plans”. The second of those I think would even if successfully implemented, just result in a new generation of rich people naturally arising later on as wealth begets wealth, while neglecting technologies that I feel are vital for increasing the sum total of human prosperity.

Realistically, if a couple rich people ever obtain all the money, they no longer have any, because money only has the trait of being money and not merely some piece of metal or paper or information or whatever else when it is used as a medium of exchange, and if almost nobody actually has any, then exchanging it on a meaningful scale is no longer possible.

Under this scenario, one must imagine that people would eventually start growing food and making things on land that they do not “own” and trading it amongst themselves, until some new thing that people actually have access to becomes money. Even hiring security to prevent that ceases to be possible, because paying that security means giving some of that money to someone else, and even if you do that, if theyre the only people getting paid it, then no economic base exists to support things like grocery stores that accept that money anymore, making those security people gain nothing from accepting it and thus have no incentive to do that work for you anymore. For the rich to stay rich, they must leave at least enough money (and resources) in common circulation for the economic system that maintains their power to continue to have relevance.

And if I refuse?

Does cutting fabric not dull the blades? It seems like a lot of fabrics should be tougher to cut through than paper?

These days I’d say Henry Ford, which Id argue is even worse.

Assuming that these settings are a universal part of lemmy and not instance specific, I click my name in the top right corner, select settings from the dropdown, and then there is a page with 2 tabs, one saying settings and a second that I can switch to called “blocks”. In the blocks tab, I can view and add to lists of blocked users, communities, and instances. Just go to the instances drop down, and search “lemmy.ml” and click the option that appears to add it to the block list.

honestly, I eventually got fed up enough and instance blocked .ml on my account a couple weeks ago, and Ive barely noticed a difference. It was the bulk of lemmy right after it started to get some migration from Reddit, but it isnt nearly as essential these days already

Hey now, they don’t want to bring back everything from the 50s… Suggest bringing back the tax rates from those days, especially for the upper end of the income scale, and they’ll look at you like you’re crazy.

wait, what? does it download as some proprietary format and not a normal video file then?

I cant really take the people that act as apologists for Russia seriously as real leftists. Like, forget the failings of the Soviet Union at implementing communism for a moment, Russia doesnt even play lip service to it. It is literally just as much a capitalist state as a place like the US, it is just as much an example of a country benefiting from the legacy of European colonial empires as countries like the US, UK, and France (and even still retains most of its old empire), and it is certainly imperialist, because it is actively seeking to conquer the territory of other peoples by military force, right now. You would think that an actual communist should hate it, for taking one of the most prominent examples of a communist revolution, implementing the ideas so badly as to discredit them in the eyes of much of the world, and then ultimately betraying that revolution outright and slipping back into autocratic capitalism again. It is perhaps one of the least leftist countries on the planet right now. And yet, somehow it has convinced a significant chunk of those that count themselves among the left that it can do no wrong. I could sort of understand it from people living in Russia itself, criticism of one’s own country can be hard sometimes, but so many of its defenders seem to be Americans who take “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” way past the point where it ceases to be reasonable.

Technically, you still can determine what is behind the door and therefore win, because this is a universe where doors cant be opened and not “a universe where doors cannot be destroyed or circumvented by cutting a hole in the adjacent wall”

Would it really be (serious question, as I dont know a whole lot about legal matters)? My limited understanding was that perjury is lying under oath, and sarcasm, while it does involve saying untrue statements, isnt considered lying in everyday speech because what it actually communicates is the opposite of the literal meaning of the words. Since laws deal with humans and not computers, my assumption would be that it probably works in such a way as to depend on what message a person is actually communicating rather than the precise syntax by which they communicate it?

With an attitude like that, something tells me that pirate won’t be getting any booty

I wasn’t, to be clear, advocating for them, just pointing out that they were one of those things tech bros keep suggesting over and over again. I don’t suspect they’re something to really worry about, because I don’t really expect the economics of them to work out.