[-] dx1@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago

Rescue partition?

[-] dx1@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

From a governmental/political office? Whose political stances dictate the actions of government officers? The fuck are you talking about

[-] dx1@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah, responding to someone else! Fuck sake

[-] dx1@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

Go bother someone else.

[-] dx1@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

My description wasn't "wealthy hoard money, empire make money." And I didn't say anything about anyone else's work. Honestly, I don't know what ax you have to grind here, but I really don't care. I assume you think you're arguing against someone who's trying to say it's the "natural and best way" and all that, but you're not, I'm literally just saying that these kinds of structures have occurred for millennia and seem to recur alongside broader imperial structures.

[-] dx1@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Seems like your comment only seeks to discredit and not address the issue. Waste of time to go down this path. My claim's simply "something like this did in fact exist a lot longer ago than only a few hundred years back", which is just a fact.

[-] dx1@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Well, notice how you're using the word "tend". Religious ideas only come from attempts to derive explanations for what we experience. The latter is the basically intrinsic part of human nature, the former isn't. I'm talking about what is an absolute, unchangeable part of human nature, versus what's variable and just "something that humans do sometimes".

[-] dx1@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Anyone ever commenting "human nature" should be forced to explain how: (a) some behavior is an inevitable result of brain physiology, and, (b) why examples of people who don't exhibit that behavior exist. The absence of those explanations disprove like 95%+ of "human nature" arguments. Like, "oh, religion is human nature, we must believe in a higher power because we crave meaning" - which part of the brain mandates that thought, and why do atheists and agnostics exist then?

[-] dx1@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Greed isn't inescapably "human nature", but results from it under some basic conditions. The nature of enjoyment and suffering means the pursuit of enjoyment and avoidance of suffering as a biological imperative. Desperation, lack of cultural/learned empathy, cultural normalization of disparity, etc., can quickly allow unchecked greed. The same thing, with different conditions, can be said for... not sure there's a single word for it, but behavior motivated by empathy promoting equality and sharing and so on. The conditions actually kind of close to being the inverse of those for greed - some combination of not having desperation, having cultural/learned empathy, cultural normalization of economic equality, etc. Both types of thinking are just basically pro-social or anti-social thought with regard to material/economic gain, depending on what influences individual thinking.

[-] dx1@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Definitions of "capitalism" are variable but I think it's totally inaccurate to say that it's only existed for a few hundred years. You look at ancient Roman/Greek society, they have privately owned businesses with shareholder type structures. One of the key influences on Western legal systems today (something hinted at by half our legal terms being in Latin). Something similar about the economic structure can be said about many historical empires, older than a few hundred years. Where does the line get drawn on what's "capitalism" or "capitalism-like" vs. what's not. The basic idea of monopolizing control over production etc. in order to privately benefit, is not particularly hard for people to arrive at. Heck, it goes hand in hand with "empire", because when you have a structure based on elevating a huge number of people against a huge number of other people, it's not a stretch to have the same structure occurring within the society, because you already have one type of inequality normalized.

[-] dx1@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Anti LOCAL labor, a crucial distinction. Not even "anti", really just decreasing their relative position, putting aside whether or not that position is already above others.

So, a policy to enforce that raises the rights of one nationality above another. What do we call that? "National" "socialism"?

You understand the idea of an empire pillaging the world and then trying to restrict access to the spoils?

[-] dx1@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago

Illusion of being emphatic from a principled stance.

26
submitted 9 months ago by dx1@lemmy.ml to c/shitposting@lemmy.ml
view more: next ›

dx1

joined 10 months ago