• 0 Posts
  • 43 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle





  • The end result is comically bizarre and obviously extremely unlikely. The joke/criticism is how disconnected feminists are from the real world with their overly complicated, academic and abstract language, despite the fact that they ostensibly have a goal of influencing ordinary people into being better.

    The goal of feminism is gender equality. That is to reduce the authority men have over women (and in some cases vice versa). Part of that may be to influence people toward being kinder and more understanding towards others. But another part of that might be a deeper and more complex understanding of how gender functions in society.

    Think about it this way… Just because Einstein’s theory of special relativity is complicated and not well understood by most people doesn’t make the theory of special relativity incorrect. But for some reason in the social sciences you can make the argument that a theory is too complicated and therefore wrong and some people will think that argument makes sense. The theory being complicated is obviously not an argument against the theory of special relativity or Judith Butlers theories on gender.

    I do find this skit funny but I think the joke is one layer deeper. I think the joke is something along the lines of this Upton Sinclair quote:

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ―Upton Sinclair

    That is men benefit from the status quo of gender relations therefore men have a certain subjectivity that we expect from them that resists thinking critically about their own position in gendered hierarchy. Seeing (especially working class) men break from that subjectivity breaks expectations and the result is humor.


  • It is weird that your comment was removed.

    it’s a fine balance between putting a 20% tariff on literally every import (i believe trump wanted to do this) and putting a 100% tariff on chinese EVs to give the american auto market a leg to stand on.

    Right this is the contradiction I was poking fun at.

    Personally, I prefer the carrot to the stick approach. I think we should do more stuff like the chips act and less stuff like tariffs. This is especially true in the context of technology that aids in the transition to an economy that uses less fossil fuels. The ~$10,000 Chinese EVs would be a pretty massive tool in that arsenal. (Though not as good of a tool as they are in China because of China’s genuinely impressive rail system.) If you want more American made EVs —cool so do I— but we will get there faster with the right industrial policy. The tariffs do little to make that happen.








  • SailorMoss@sh.itjust.workstoMemes@lemmy.mlGet rich quick
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I own a 1080ti and there was recently a massive update to Allan Wake 2 that made it more playable on pascal GPUs. Digital foundry did a video on it: http://youtu.be/t-3PkRbeO8A

    I don’t know of any current game that can’t run at least 1080p30fps on 1080ti. But of course my knowledge is not exhaustive.

    I wouldn’t expect every “next-gen” game to get the same treatment as Alan Wake 2 going forward. But we’re 4 years into the generation and there has probably been less than 10 games that were built to take full advantage of modern console hardware. My 1080ti has got a few more good years in it.




  • But it doesn’t matter because the lesson to take away is that in any system the people with power will modify it to what we have now

    Was the system that the peasantry lived under in the commons the same as what we have now?

    All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

    Ok?

    The quote you just gave is from famous socialist George Orwell from his book Animal Fram. Which is critical of the structures the Soviet Union created.

    But your comment is actually in direct contradiction to Orwell’s actual more nuanced point. His point was not that every system devolves into capitalism… he was himself a socialist who fought along side communists in the Spanish civil war after all. His point is that we need to think critically about the structures we’re creating to ensure they’re serving egalitarian ends. Something I agree with Orwell on.

    The original reason why I commented was because it didn’t seem you were engaging in the same project of critically examining economic structures in the way Orwell was and the way Smith was. Though I would love to be proven wrong.

    I think you should think more critically about what people tell you about Adam Smith and George Orwell.


  • Adam Smith did not ‘invent’ capitalism. No single person can invent an economic system. He made some early observations and normative assertions about a set of economic relations that were forming independent of him.

    So the economic system we had prior to capitalism was feudalism. The common lands that I mentioned were apart of the feudal system. The system of landlords and rent-seeking were and are apart of capitalism. You can just look around… we still have these things. You do understand that right? Unless you’re saying our current system isn’t capitalist.


  • Yes Capitalism is supposed to be pro-worker/anti-rich

    Supposed by whom? The rent-seeking behavior that Smith criticized was largely brought about by enclosure; the process of enclosure was foundational to capitalism.

    Hence my comment about people still paying to live before adoption of capitalism

    This is ahistorical, before enclosure the peasantry had substantial rights to live freely on the common land.

    I suppose it does depend on what is meant by ‘pay to live on this earth’. If you just mean that people have to work to take care of themselves then, sure. But that’s not really what this meme is referring to. If it was then the orangutan would be ‘paying to live on this earth’ as well.