Bear Ribs
Well-known member
how do you see the dislikes?
how do you see the dislikes?
Some plug-ins are available for that.how do you see the dislikes?
There's an extension which adds them back.how do you see the dislikes?
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.this might interest you to a degree. It would be interesting on your thread of history of LGBT to see how we got to the point that Lockheed Martin is sponsoring LGBT agendas.
No, just really really no.Generally, Capitalism following the pink dollar is part of how the LGBTs won.
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.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
Literal communism has "capitalism elements", such as money, banks, and property.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.
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.priceonomics.com
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.
No, it doesn't. Literal communism tries to do away with all of that. Do you even know what you are talking about?Literal communism has "capitalism elements", such as money, banks, and property.
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.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.
Yes, it is. Gay organizing literally started with capitalism, being business centered.This is honestly reaching.
Small businesses here and there by gays for gays is really not "Gays won via capitalism".
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.Subtle hidden nods towards lesbians that the public doesn't even notice isn't that either.
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.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.
Since the invention of communism, not one single communist country ever did away with it.No, it doesn't. Literal communism tries to do away with all of that. Do you even know what you are talking about?
What you call "perfect" is actually "impossible".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).
The ultimate enemy of communism is "The Bourgeoisie" also known as "the middle class".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.
Judging from what is happening in America right now, that seems about right.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"
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.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?
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.What you call "perfect" is actually "impossible".
A self contradicting fantasy.