zurew

I didn't say there would be the same amount, i just wanted to point out, that the problem wouldn't be solved - just mitigated. The reason why I wanted to point that out, to show you , that that particular problem is not exclusive to capitalism, because earlier you made it sound like, these problems are only related to a capitalist structure and not to the content within that structure. I think its very important to distinguish between structural and not structural problems. Lets say there is a small company where there is 100 people. These people will collectively decide on stuff. Lets say there is a person who know 55 people there and this person has a good relationship with those people. They can do whatever the fuck they want there, because they can vote whatever they want. Different example: This person wouldn't even need to know 50% of the people, he just need to offer some money and basically buy votes and power. Based on what plan would you distribute the money? Lets say there is a business and the profit is 100 million dollars, and lets say there is 10 thousand workers working in that business. I would switch the word capitalism with unregulated markets and competition. Generally speaking I agree with this, but I think there still a lot of room to grow but I agree that it need to be slowed the fuck down and prioritized under human wellbeing and under environmental damage. Also I want to add this here: GDP would still be a good variable to measure improvement with, if it would only measure consciously created goods and services. Looking at it from the big picture, it might, but if we zoom in and get into specific parts, then this wouldn't be true. To be more specific: Lets say there is 2 shoemaking business in a socialist country. 100 people working in business 1 and 100 people working in business 2. People who are working at business 1, I assume they would only have a say and vote that is related to business 1. These people have an interest to collectively be better compared to business 2. So In the big picture, most business 1 people wouldn't give a fuck about business 2 people. They would want to find a way, to outsource and to outsmart business 2 people, to dominate the market which would eventually result in business 2 people earning less money, and getting fucked over and being forced to switch jobs.

It is possible, but not every tier2 is attracted to that.

Probably with higher taxes, but would have to think about it more. It seems that you say, that there is still a market under the socialist system ,that you are talking about, so if there is a market, there will be artificial demand, so it doesn't solve that problem and it seems that problem is not exclusive to capitalism, but that problem is exclusive to having a market. You say there is central planning and then you say there is still a market. I assume that when you say central planning you mean something like people voting collectively on who should get and how much profit and voting on what to do with the collectively owned business in general. Not necessarily, you can still get fucked if we are talking about people who has big networks. People with big networks at a workplace could make it more central and fuck up other people who works there, so how would you make sure that doesn't happen? If there is still a market then there is still demand and competition. Workplaces that have more skilled and smarter people with big networks , those would naturally dominate the whole market, Also how and when would a new business get created? like how would it go down in the real world? Almost every, but again not just the capitalist systems aiming for growth, so to only relate capitalism to gpd growth is misleading, imo. GPD growth would have been a must under any economic system. Imagine if the whole world would have been stuck in the early 20st century. We wouldn't enjoy the comfort and the benefits of anything right now. Every science, The whole medical field (We wouldn't have nowhere near the same capability to deal with diseases and illnesses), no internet etc. Under a system where there is 0% GDP growth, how do you adapt to a growing population? How do you provide a business and jobs for those people? How do you make sure that everyone will have a good enough livelihood? Under a socialist system where there is a market, there would still be a want and aim for GPD growth, because if you want to participate in a market, you have competition and of course you don't want to lose in a competition, especially if your livelihood depend on it. So again, this problem is not exclusive to capitalism either, this is probably exclusive to systems that has a market and an underdeveloped culture. GPD growth is not necessarily bad, because although that metric is not perfect to measure collective wellbeing , but it does create the possibility to make people's lifes better (if we assume a developed culture). So it seems to me, that if I didn't misinterpreted most of your stuff, then that system wouldn't solve the core problems of capitalism, at the very best it would probably mitigate it, but that doesn't necessarily true either. We would probably need empirical data to prove these theories.

The answer is yes, it does lead to artifically created demand, but it can be regulated but I don't think its exclusive to capitalism. Demand of anything could be manipulated by the government as well. How is artifically created demand fades away under your system? I don't think there is any economic system today, where there is a goal to have 0% gpd growth. In a system where there is no market, I think it could be argued that artificialness is much more there, because everything is artificially moderated but by who?

You don't have to overconsume under a capitalist system (there wouldn't be a problem if there wouldn't be artificially created demand). If that part wouldn't be there, then the market would change and adapt as it needs to the culture and to the real demand. I don't know what you mean by socialism, because there is a lot of different versions of it. Do you mean no market at all or do you mean regulated market or do you mean no private ownership or do you mean something different? If people don't consume or consume very littile in any economic system today, that system will fail.

Thats not just capitalism, if there is a company that will automatically optimize for some profit, now how much that company will optimize for profit will depend on how much it is regulated by the government, and of course, it will be based on its development. Yes, because thats how the market is today. This could be modified a little bit with regulations, but this is a very tricky problem. No, but processed food will be unhealthy and cheaper in general. Then it seems you aren't talking about a different economic system, you are talking about regulated capitalism. Overconsumption of food is just one metric to look at. I think in both Japan and China people are working their ass off and are sleeping in metros and overworking in their whole life. I think most of your points are not exclusive to capitalism structurally, because if they would be, then most of these couldn't be solved with regulations or with hybrid systems.

How is that the fault of capitalism? Under your system, how would you make healthy food more cheaper?

This rule only applies if we are talking about challenges and pressure that you have the necessary capacity and capability to overcome. If you have constant pressure and you have no necessary tools to overcome that pressure, then you will crumble.

Thats fair to say, do you have other sources that you think make good points about the limitations of democracy?

what is restricting you right now under a democratic system ,that you would be able to do under your hypothetical system? How? How would your hypothetical system be better at spreading power broadly? Voting is just a tiny thing to have a very minor influence on others. There are a lot of other ways, and we all have influence on the collective system and on each other, no matter what political system we have. It seems that you have a problem with unwanted influence, and with corruption. None of those things are exclusive to a democractic system, and almost all your criticisms could be applied to other policitical systems as well. If you really want to attack democracy, then you should attack its structure (limitations and problems, that are exclusive to democracy).

I dont know where you want to go with this line of questioning. Of course you can still do bad content using the podcast format, but thats not exclusive to podcasts. Reactionism is just one way to go about it, but there are many other ways to go.(also , i dont think all react content is necessarily bad)

No, its not the same, because you are not reacting in this case, but creating something new on your own.

@rnd Your passive agressive behaviour and your closed mindedness to this topic is stunning. Take a deep breath, and reread what @Ulax said, and then you can realise that he didn't make any big or aggressive claims. Also your accusation of bias is very funny, because your bias is clearly beaming on this one.

I am God. I am not God. Everything what Leo says is true.

Maybe to challenge some of those positions or to try to understand them better or to build a bridge.

Because its a good way to share ideas with a relatively low effort and to make a lot of money (especially if the the site that you use has a time on site businessmodel). - and it seems like more and more people recognize it, also the demand is growing for it. You can have the long podcast format, and then you can make a clip chanel as well, so you can profit a lot from it. I think podcast format is really good, because it has many spontaneous elements to it, and it feels more authentic than other formats.

With all those monsters and beings waiting for you in the corners? That guy is very young and very talented.

Caring about stats is not directly related to being an SJW. You should care about stats if you really care about the facts that you often talk about. So basically, you have a very strong stance on this issue, and a lot of assumptions, but you haven't checked the stats, and you still not open to their view? Nope, you care about a certain set of people, who had a certain lived experience about this issue, and you ignore all the contrary ones. Whats your steelman version of feminism? If you say man-hate, then we don't have much to talk about here, because you don't understand feminism as an ideology at all. If you claim to understand it, then I would be curious about your steelman version of it.

Thats confirmation bias. You are in an echo chamber as well, if you don't care about opinions, that are outside of your paradigm. If you are selecting anti feminist women, of course the picture you will get from them will be totally different from a feminist. You can't understand feminism if you don't know or care about their thoughts and ideology, and arguments. So you are not basing your stance on stats?

what I am suggesting is that your analysis of the facts are not impartial and ideologically motivated (which is not a problem), but you have to be honest here. If you truly believe that feminism has a net negative effect on society, then why wouldn't you be against it? Also, making judgement calls is inherently subjective.

Of course it was a loaded question, because it was about a prescription. The reason why he was asking about a prescription, is because your disagreement is not a fact based disagreement, but a disagreement about the how it should or should not be. You can have the same set of facts and make different prescriptions.

There are women who are masculine, and there are men who are feminine. In other words there are men who are more emotional than women and there are women who are more logical than men. What makes it authentic? Facts that are true for some men and for some women, but again I have to remind you, its not true for all men and women.

If you totally reject this idea, then this contradicts your whole argument againts feminism. In this discussion masculinity and femininity only means a category, where you can find a set of behaviour expressions. Basically, both masculinity and femininity is about a way you act in the world, so they are learnable. I would switch the word men with the word masculine and I would switch the word women with the word feminine. The reason for that, is because it describes our society much better, and it holds less dogma. Yes, I agree, but we are not talking about most men or most women. We are talking about a specific set of man and women (feminists).

Surely this hypothetical mother wanted a dysfunctional man for herself, right? - most of the time it doesn't go this way, at the start everything is good, and after some time the relationship can radically decline and people can change a lot. Depends on how masculine women we are talking about, not all feminists are highly masculine, sure they generally more masculine than other women, however, they are not necessarily highly masculine. But lets assume most of them are highly masculine. They can find themselves feminine men and they can live happily or there are other relationship dynamics as well that could work, the traditional is just one. I don't think feminism entails misandry, again, not all feminist hold the idea, that 'all men are evil' or that men are at fault for everything. Women has the capacity to be masculine just as men. Its natural to have that capacity, so why is it unnatural to explore that part of yourself or to express that part of yourself?