testfactor

Look, rawstory is a rag, no question. But they literally embedded the video of the sermon. Literally a video of the events in question.

You can hardly argue they're misrepresenting things when you can literally see the thing yourself.

Like, what better source than the actual video of the event could you possibly want?

There isn't, because the source is his ass.

This was a pastor in Indiana during a sermon that was live-streamed on Facebook. So, like, funded by a PAC in what way exactly?

No PAC is mentioned in the article at all, much less a Chick-fil-A backed one. And this isn't even tied to anything that would require any funding anyway.

I'm no Chick-fil-A apologist, but like, the idea that this is some secretive super-PAC that Chick-fil-A is using to fund pastors calling for the death of gay people is some Q-Anon level nonsense.

Are you a vegan by chance?

I feel like that's the next big moral shift. People lionize dogs and cats, and harming one makes you literally Hitler. But there's not a lick of difference between a dog and a cow.

I think that an objective ethicist would absolutely say veganism is the only moral choice, and that anyone who isn't a vegan is knowingly participating in unimaginable cruelty.

But in our current context, only a small fraction of people care. Including a lot of people who look down on people of the past for not being as amazingly moral as they are.

I do think the situation is more complicated than Lemmy would have you believe.

Both Iran and Hamas have been geopolitical issues for a long time. And it's worth remembering that all of this was kicked off by a large scale terrorist attack perpetrated by Hamas.

It's also worth noting that Iran is a Russian puppet, and Europe obviously has some "neighbor problems" with Russia at the moment, so there's a sort of baked in desire to oppose their vassal states.

And, while I think everyone would agree that the loss of civilian life is terrible, there is a huge amount of misinformation that makes it hard to be sure what's going on. Hamas does have a long history of screwing over the civilian Palestinian population to further it's political goals, and so people are willing to give Israel a little more credence than they deserve when they claim things like "Hamas was hiding in that hospital" or "we're blocking aid because Hamas is hoarding it all to drive up tensions" or "it was Hamas who shot those civilians," because it actually wouldn't be the first time any of that had credibly happened. Something of a boy-cried-wolf scenario.

Add into that genuine desire to combat real anti-Semitism that's been a fallout of this whole situation (a problem that hits pretty close to home in Europe due to events of the past century), and you can see why some people might be a bit over-eager to support Israel in this conflict.

It's worth noting there are no good guys here. Israel is obviously in the wrong, and are committing horrible atrocities. I think that much is plain on its face. But Hamas and Iran have both had "the destruction of the state of Israel" as stated policy goals for the past 80 years. The reason Israel has the Iron Dome is because they've been getting missiles lobbed at them non-stop for decades.

And when there are no good guys, people tend to just align themselves with who they like more, or who they owe more to.

Just because it's generally possible for the bladder to rupture before the muscles give out, it's certainly not impossible. A myriad of conditions or even just genetics can lead to a physically weaker bladder.

I think it's a bit bold to say that absolutely 100%, no exceptions, that the muscles will always fail first. Even if that's true 99.99% of the time, there's just far to much variance in human bodies to rule it out, I would think.

Sorry, iirc this conversation started with the question about what does free trade look like in a non-capitalistic system, and you pointed to mercantilism. You then seemed to say that the main difference between capitalism and mercantilism is the complexity of the marketplace. Which, if true, seems like a poor example of free trade without capitalism, as they're largely the same system.

But I do understand your point. When trade is controlled by the state (a la mercantilism), I don't know that I'd call it free trade, but, really, I'm not too hung up on this point, as I think the real blurring of the line is on the micro vs macro scale. You can have local free trade without large scale free trade (e.g I can sell leather goods, but not be involved in the import and export of animal products which remains the purview of the "government"). I might argue that this is localized capitalism in a non-capitalist system, but typically when we talk about capitalism we are talking about governmental economic organization.

I also really feel like this breakdown is due to trying to map this into the modern economy. Does the definition of the "means of production" breaks down in a service economy like the US? The amount of total jobs involved in any part of cloth production (or other manufacturing sector jobs) is a minority. What does "seizing the means of production" look like when what's being "produced" are services not goods?

I think, if nothing else, it makes it hard to distinguish the "leather worker" from the "animal products exporter" as those are only different in scale not kind when there is no immutable aspect of nature or industry under control. The difference between my local burger joint and McDonalds is of scale, not kind, so how do I seize the means of production from one and not the other?

Can you provide a source for that definition of capitalism?

Genuinely asking, as it's not the definition I have historically heard, and while I can find things that argue that what you are saying is an inevitable byproduct of unregulated capitalism, I can't find anywhere that says those problems are a requirement for a system to be called capitalism.

As far as I can tell, if there is free trade and money/capital is owned and managed by private citizens, then that meets every formal definition of capitalism I have been able to find.

"Late stage capitalism" I think carries the connotations that you have outlined, but not capitalism in general.

I don't think it's possible to have a system without some form of legitimized power, as people will always fill that vacuum. There will be a village elder or judge or peacekeeper or something, as those all fulfill necessary elements to a functioning society, and they will all come with some amount of legitimate authority.

Now, I suppose it might be fair to say that those "legitimate authorities" aren't prescribed by the system, and therefore any corruption that follows is not the fault of the system. That seems a bit squishy to me, as those "legitimate authorities" are a natural outflow of society, and if the system does not have built in controls on those positions it is tacitly approving of any corruption.

But I'll grant there may be a purely semantic argument that the system itself is immune to corruption, in the same way that a starving person doesn't have to worry about food poisoning.

I think where I struggle with this conceptually is mapping it onto the US service economy.

We've largely moved away from "owning the means of production" translating to "who has the rights to the copper mines" and more to mean, "who owns big businesses." And since anyone can start a business, and there is no meaningful limit to the number of businesses there are, it feels much more far reaching to say that there should be no "private ownership of businesses" than "someone shouldn't have exclusive rights to all the copper."

I'd also push back on "the workers" not being private ownership, unless you're advocating for a model where any business is required to cut in all employees as part owners?

And I don't know how you legislate running a business "for good" and not "for profit"? That line seems blurry at best, as you need profit to keep the lights on and keep your family fed. Maybe caps on the amount of profit that a business can make as a percentage of revenue? Idk, it seems impossible to make such a system that isn't easy to game.

Fair, though it seems like you're saying that capitalism is just complicated mercantilism, at which point it ceases to be a good example of free trade without capitalism, no?

Though, I do get your overarching point that capitalism has more to do with private ownership of the means of production.

I think though, especially in a service economy like the US, it's hard to define "the means of production" in a way that is distinguishable from generalized private property and enterprise.

See, the trick there is in your first paragraph I feel like. Under mercantilism, trade is under the almost exclusive purview of the government. So I would argue this doesn't really meet the definition of "free trade."

But, to steel man a bit, when "the government" is fairly unstructured, like in a feudal system, the line between government control of trade and "private citizen" control of trade can be a bit blurry. And over time I'm sure it gets messy whether a person is a "government entity" or not.

I do also feel like there's a "difference of scale is difference of kind" problem here. Obviously if you own a copper mine and employ hundreds of people to go down and mine it for you, you own the means of production. But also, if you run a small restaurant in a strip mall and hire a half dozen servers to wait tables, you also own the means of production.

And, to your point, there probably were private innkeepers under mercantilism that took coin in exchange for goods and services. They probably employed people to help work the place. Does that make it capitalism? What if the owner used the money from that inn to build another, then another and another, and eventually had the money to buy a title and become part of the "noble class"? Is it capitalism then? Does a system that allows for that count as a capitalism, or does it need to actively encourage it?

Idk. I think my big issue, at the end of the day, is that the word capitalism doesn't really mean anything. Or, rather, no one can really agree on what it means, and it just turns into a tribalism stand in word for "anyone who disagrees with me on economic policy." But that's so unspecific as to be totally useless. What parts of "capitalism" are you decrying? What would you replace it with? But I feel like any questions are met with anger that you're not bought into the anti-capitalist agenda, even though no two people seem to agree on what that actually means.

So, it isn't the ownership and trade of capital that makes something capitalism, it's when someone is allowed to accumulate too much capital?
What constitutes "enough" capital to push it over the edge into capitalism?

Or is it that you cannot have non-owner workers? That you can't employ additional help without those people buying into the business?

Not trying to be an ass. Just trying to understand the distinction. I genuinely don't know what "all the requirements" necessary to make it capitalism are, and try as I might I am not finding any beyond the literal definition in the dictionary, which doesn't have any.

What is the source for this definition of capitalism? Just trying to figure out if this is, like, the "academic definition" or something. Cause, as you say, what words mean does mean something, which is why we have different words for different things.

I do think it's really easy to redefine words in a "no true Scotsman"-y way, where you redefine a general word to mean "just the versions of that thing I don't like," in order to tribalise it. Which doesn't mean that's what you're doing here. I'm just trying to understand, and I think if we can't agree on what the word capitalism even means, we aren't exactly going to get anywhere. So I'm just trying to figure out what definition of the term you are using and why.