Bear Ribs
Well-known member
-
The Sietch will be brought offline for HPG systems maintenance tomorrow (Thursday, 2 May 2024). Please remain calm and do not start any interstellar wars while ComStar is busy. May the Peace of Blake be with you. Precentor Dune
Five minutes of hate news
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
Some plug-ins are available for that.
There's an extension which adds them back.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
Generally, Capitalism following the pink dollar is part of how the LGBTs won. Normalizing it to the extent that its basically the same as Lockheed Martin having a float in a St Patrick's day parade by making LGBT a political nothing burger (which it was about 5 years ago) was the goal. The issue is that the LGBT organizations didn't want to be a nothing burger like the NAACP now is, and the activists had nothing of substance to move onto. And so they kept pushing the envelope until it finally bit back.
Basically, there's always been an activist class of people (aka the npc's/current thing (tm) supporters), but for decades they've had actual policy complaints, whether that was segregation, the draft, abortion, gay rights (marriage + discrimination + legal transition for adults) or etc. The issue is they will always be protesting, no matter what. So after the activist class won the last civil rights battle excluding guns (I'd say that would be Obergefell, others would say Bostock), what is there left to do?
And so they do countless other stupid shit, like black lives matter, freaking out about Trump, Covid, the trans stupidity, etc. Basically I support the current thing (tm). Integration was once the current thing (tm). But it lasted until it won. Why? Because there was always a group of people who actually gave a shit about it as they were constantly affected. This was true for the draft and gay rights and women in the workplace, etc. It was the activist class/npc'ers PLUS other people with deep thoughts and convictions about how to deal with an actual problem that affected them. The activist class relied on these people to direct them to solve actual problems, and thus they arguably fulfilled a socially useful function. But now there are almost no distinct groups of people in the US with laws oppressing them that are also at least center left.
Basically, you have sheep with no shepherd, and they'll never have a shepherd again. So they just go and follow the sheep in front of them off a ledge.
mrttao
Well-known member
No, just really really no.
We don't have capitalism, we haven't for decades.
We have privilaged aristocracy being allowed to print infinite money, who use said infinite money to buy up all the economy. Everything is ruled top down by umbrella megacorporations who semi-secretely own all the other corporations using said infinite printed money.
And this lets a select few individuals dictate everything.
Especially considering the death grip they have over the mainstream media. Thanks to nasty tricks like broadcasting licenses.
Every time a company goes LGBT they lose massive amount of money. It does not matter, because money is a non issue for them. A few more people get converted to their cult, and that made it worthwhile
Too little,too late.They could not rule alone,and nobody would agree to coalition.Just like with Kinfederacja in Poland.
People could vote for sensible parties,but only effect would be that fake Right/CDU and PIS in Poland/ could not be openly leftist.
First, yes, what we have isn't strict lassiez-faire capitalism, and I wish it was. But its capitalist elements (of which there are a significant amount) is what I'm talking about.
In the 60s-80s, this involved bars/lodging/bathhouses that either allowed or were centered on gay clientele. This is capitalism at work
In the 90's/early 2000's, you had the pink dollar. Companies would effectively extend marital benefits to domestic partners before partnerships were even legally a thing. There was some subtle nods in advertising to gays. For example, Subaru noted that a large subsection of there customer base was lesbians, for example, and so reached out to them in subtle ways with ads:
How an Ad Campaign Made Lesbians Fall in Love with Subaru - Priceonomics
It's a popular stereotype that lesbians drive Subarus. What's less well known is that Subaru cultivated that image—and made history in the process.
priceonomics.com
Straight guys liked lesbians (no duh), so you'd have sweeps week girl on girl kisses, etc.
This is very different than what is now happening with ESG scores and the like. Some companies did reach out to gays to capture a niche market and turn a profit, very similarly to a company targeting the black community by running a black sitcom. That is bottom-up capitalism, how it's supposed to work. What's happening now is that woke people in charge of index funds and asset management are violating their fiduciary duties to their clients by demanding wokeness for investment. This is top down, and reeks of socialism.
mrttao
Well-known member
Literal communism has "capitalism elements", such as money, banks, and property.
Socialism is literally "capitalism, but the govt also redistributes a bunch of money (on paper to the poor. in practice to their friends and family)"
I am not even talking about hands off capitalism here. Well regulated capitalism is fine. But to call literal socialism and communism "capitalism" because they contain "elements" of capitalism (like money) is just ridiculous.
This is honestly reaching.In the 60s-80s, this involved bars/lodging/bathhouses that either allowed or were centered on gay clientele. This is capitalism at work
In the 90's/early 2000's, you had the pink dollar. Companies would effectively extend marital benefits to domestic partners before partnerships were even legally a thing. There was some subtle nods in advertising to gays. For example, Subaru noted that a large subsection of there customer base was lesbians, for example, and so reached out to them in subtle ways with ads:
Straight guys liked lesbians (no duh), so you'd have sweeps week girl on girl kisses, etc.How an Ad Campaign Made Lesbians Fall in Love with Subaru - Priceonomics
It's a popular stereotype that lesbians drive Subarus. What's less well known is that Subaru cultivated that image—and made history in the process.
This is very different than what is now happening with ESG scores and the like. Some companies did reach out to gays to capture a niche market and turn a profit, very similarly to a company targeting the black community by running a black sitcom. That is bottom-up capitalism, how it's supposed to work. What's happening now is that woke people in charge of index funds and asset management are violating their fiduciary duties to their clients by demanding wokeness for investment. This is top down, and reeks of socialism.
Small businesses here and there by gays for gays is really not "Gays won via capitalism".
Subtle hidden nods towards lesbians that the public doesn't even notice isn't that either.
Not to mention that even in the 60s USA was already a socialist country, with special strata of society being endowed with the ability to print money (fractional reserve banking).
In the USA, the federal reserve system was established in 1913. And has been going on and off gold backing until it was finally completely abolished in the 70s.
There should have been a USA mint where all money gets printed by the govt. But instead there are a wide variety of money creation processes, all obfuscated, and mostly created in the hands of private individuals. Those private individuals are the hidden oligarchs of USA, and the ones who own most large corporations. Including all the mainstream media.
No, it doesn't. Literal communism tries to do away with all of that. Do you even know what you are talking about?
Literal perfect communism is the exact opposite of capitalism. Perfect Communism requires no property and total central control of all economic exchanges (which are never trades, btw). Perfect Capitalism is the exact opposite, with no control and everything is property. Between these two lies a spectrum of possibilities, including socialism in practice (i.e. the USSR), other socialist states, The CCP's China, the EU, then the US (cronyism/crony capitalism at the top, to heavily regulated capitalism at the bottom).
What I'm talking about is people acting according to market impulses, which is the essence of capitalism. They did not act this way because of government. So yes, it's quite fine to attribute this to capitalism.
Yes, it is. Gay organizing literally started with capitalism, being business centered.
Yeah, it was. Because eventually there were big enough ones that the public did notice. And anti-gayness basically comes in 2 forms: 1) they don't even exist, and 2) they are disgusting. Being on TV directly addresses the first form, and being normal on TV addresses the 2nd. Uniquely, gays were best served by media representing them. Then idiot theorists thought that representation was the key to all bigotry, and now you have Female Ghostbusters and Black Aragorn, when no, that was a solution that worked for one specific problem that has now been dealt with.
Look, I don't think you understand very well what socialism is. It's how much does the government control the entire economy, from day to day transactions up to inter bank lending. The height of US socialism was the 1940s during WW2, where there was a command economy with ration sheets instead of money. But after FDR, it radically diminished. Most American commerce was largely market based, not price controlled, and not owned by the government. That makes it largely capitalistic. It's not close to good, but it's closer than a lot of shit.
Also, fractional reserve banking is totally in-line with capitalism, and banning it would be commie as fuck (so is the ban on full reserve banking, btw, both should be legal).
Yes, the Fed is bad and socialist. But it's simply a socialist element. America is somewhere between cronyism and capitalism (depending on how big a company is). That's still far from socialism.
Last edited:
mrttao
Well-known member
Since the invention of communism, not one single communist country ever did away with it.
Do you perhaps cleave to the "that wasn't real communism" argument wherein you say that some imaginary never actually implemented system is communism. And every country that calls itself communism is actually "not real communism" because they still have money?
What you call "perfect" is actually "impossible".
A self contradicting fantasy.
Communism is synonymous with elitist socialism/marxism.
The irony is that communism is less about helping out the workers, and more about helping out the government.
The irony is that communism is less about helping out the workers, and more about helping out the government.
TL;DR
Insane leftists excusing black criminals robbing a kid's lemonade stand.
mrttao
Well-known member
The ultimate enemy of communism is "The Bourgeoisie" also known as "the middle class".
> Be upper class
> Make laws the make the poor poorer, and shrinks middle class
> Middle class starts pushing back
> Lead the poor to slaughter the middle class.
> Lol feudalism!
> sorry, "communism"
Judging from what is happening in America right now, that seems about right.
Make everyone into insane poor people, too distracted on someone owning a house, to bother attacking the hyper wealthy.
I mean for fuck sake, ask your average pleb if they know who the Rothchilds are, and they'll give you the fluoride stare.
No. What I'm saying is that literal communism doesn't use money (being moneyless is in fact one of the chief goals of communism). And some communist countries/communities have done away with banks and property. Sure, perfect communism has never been reached in practice, but one can still call something communist if it matches closely enough. Just like I can call the USA largely capitalist despite having a ton of socialist elements.
Yes, it's impossible. And? It's not contradictory. Just because perfection is not attainable doesn't make the definition wrong. And trying to strive towards the unobtainable isn't necessarily a bad thing, if you know that falling short is still an improvement over what exists. This is why striving for a capitalist government/society is good despite likely not getting perfection: even if you fall short, you've improved the world.