I dunno if that would be being allergic to strawberries so much, since most of these services have options for only seeing women if you're also a women. The gay dating market in general seems much healthier, ime. It's more as though you were drowning in strawberries, and then maybe one out of a twenty or twenty-five wasn't rotten at the face, or, maybe one in twenty wasn't a clone of the same five or six kinds of strawberries that you keep seeing. It's ultimately the same problem for both sexes, though. An overabundance, and a lack of real ability to distinguish between everything because of both a glut and a drought of overly flattened data leads to a kind of processed apathy out of sheer volume. Then, neglect leads to desperation, and then for some, to resentment, and so on and so forth. What I really don't understand is that for mostly purely cultural reasons there's such a massive and self-reinforcing disparity, it's kind of insane. There has to be a further underlying cause there than just like, 20 or 25% of men are desperate freaks and that sort of plunges everything into a downward spiral where everyone is sort of putting on this elaborate game of lying to each other because of a couple bad actors. Makes it kind of impossible to deal with any of this if you're autistic, to be honest.
I feel like if I told you to go and read a book on socialism, and how it functions, and what some theoretical structures for it would be, that would be kind of useless and repetitive, since you've probably gotten that before, it's a pretty popular response. But I think that would probably be the best solution for your confusion here, any given book you decide to pick up or get recommended on the subject will probably be able to inform you better than some random person's re-translation of the book.
If you have gotten that response before, then I gotta ask, along with everyone else that would've gotten that recommendation and then not done so, why you'd still be talking about a topic that you're not willing to invest like, I dunno, 7-8 total hours in. Probably could've read das kapital, and taken notes on it, and then shot those notes at a professor or other talking head online or even just some other random commenter, and then probably been done with it in the amount of time you've spent talking about that shit on lemmy. And that's probably the most dense and fundamental book on the subject if we're not getting into weird french postmodern bullshit.
Random half-baked schmucks from all walks and different schools of socialism and communism are going to present you with a litany of different explanations as to what the system actually entails, that they're probably half-remembering and then regurgitating from youtube videos, or whatever random collection of academic works they've gone in for. That's obviously not the best way to learn about the system, or really to learn about anything. Means that you'll get weirdass definitions like:
to capitalism but if private ownership of capital isn’t a thing anymore.
Which sounds pretty much completely incoherent at its face. I have no conception of what that would look like, because the ownership of capital is a foundational enough belief in capitalism to be what the system is named after. It's like socialism but without any socialized stuff, or communism without communal ownership.
Like, I've never heard of socialism entailing that you buying a product a company sells entitles you to shares in that company. You're not a worker at said company, that doesn't really make any sense. You also later on talk about "schizo" capital (?), shit about where money comes from (you can answer this one in capitalism, as well. Also, money =/= capital), and the economic calculation problem, which, I dunno man. I'm not going to say so much that that shit's made up, but it's not really a big problem, and it's also a problem that capitalism still basically has to reckon with at a fundamental level, it just ignores it and then decides to crash every decade or so, so that the market can "prune" itself or whatever bullshit. Go hit the paul cockshott vape pen, or go read the book about walmart or whatever.
Also just like. I dunno, maybe we don't need 15 brands of peanut butter at the supermarket which are superficially different but fundamentally the same. Maybe we can get away with just having chunky and just having smooth. Maybe the measure of an efficient economic system isn't that there's shelves full of a range of insubstantially different products and then also that 30-40% of the food is wasted, maybe there's a better measure of "efficiency" there. You can't assume that the decision making choices of people in the market are 100% rational, maybe by assuming that they're rational we just leave the corporate propaganda apparatus totally unacknowledged, which is exactly where that apparatus likes to be. You can't assume that there aren't externalized costs that aren't factored into the initial price, like how suburbia is subsidized, like how climate change is happening. You can't assume that there's no monopolies, which are just going to sit on top of a singular element of the chain, do all the calculations completely internal to themselves, not communicate that with anyone else, and then effectively be a centrally planned authoritarian state for that particular sector of the economy which they and they alone control completely.
Most of all, I think that you can't assume that the government isn't totally conscious of all of these flaws, and have decided to ignore them at the behest of corporate donors. The can gets kicked down the street.
I mean, I dunno. It's been the "future of the internet" since the 90's, but nobody can solve the fundamental problems with such systems existing in the actual real material world, so we just get hit with an ever dwindling supply of larger and larger social media monopolies. Same as it ever was.
It's fucking so obvious that it boggles my mind that people are still gunning for him and buttigieg and shapiro. They are all power-hungry neoliberal freaks, I don't understand how this is really in contention at this point. Basically the only thing she can do on the campaign trail is talk, and appoint a rather meaningless VP slot to show her allegiance to some kind of politics that actually gets people out and voting. If she chooses some moderate scumbag because they're in a swing state, that's like the fastest way for her to piss away all the good will she's built up so far. It's crazy, I don't understand it.
I mean, talk that puts something of hers at stake, theoretically (hardline "we must support israel" voters, which I don't think really exist in the democratic party, israeli funding, military industrial complex funding, etc.), is talk that is, in and of itself, an action. It could still be a lie, sure, but then it's a lie that she's gonna get called out on later and then that's politically damaging, at least theoretically, especially because it ostracizes her from both the hardline group that wants to support israel and it ostracizes her from the people that actually wanted to do that. Most politicians won't lie so handily unless they're real pieces of shit, or unless they think people will just forget. Most politicians will instead try to waffle and weasel and say that oh well I tried to do that guys but it was just too hard! I tried but I couldn't do it! They try to save face. Taking a hard stance, making a strong commitment, that ensure that you're sacrificing your ability to save face later on to your voter base, which indicates that you might actually do something.
I just mean that I don't think they were a good faith interlocutor. Probably if I were to put a specific explanation on it, I'd say that they are probably tired of having the same argument over and over again and being corrected repetitively, to the point where they're not genuinely engaging anymore, I've seen that a lot. Especially with how quickly they backed out but also still left a comment. I dunno if that level of bad faith would be considered trolling in the strictest sense, but I would probably still classify it as such.
I believe they are what is known as a "low effort troll"
I mean we do have a pretty good indication of a quite large impending factor which may cause a lot of them to collapse in the coming years, and which could collectively be attributed to them pretty well, especially within the last 50 years.
I mean I would just get rid of the GOP if that were a viable option. and probably also the political system in which we live, as a whole.
I do think more realistically though the only point I'm making is that it's a kind of insanity to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome, without understanding why they're able to poison pill anything and everything and roll back any advancements as soon as they feel that the public pressure has let up enough. There's a deeper issue there beyond just the lack of public housing, an issue that causes that lack of public housing in the first place, and simply building massive amounts of public housing, even if we were able to do that, which would be quite a feat, and something I would be happy about, even that would be a temporary solution, as we've seen.
So if we can elect like, any old fuck now, can't we just go even older and elect the corpse of mao or something? cause that's kinda the only way I see rent, and rent specifically, becoming a non-issue in the near future. This is like one of the main issues which is directly symptomatic of capitalism, and which keeps capitalism as a system directly propped up. I don't really see any long term solution to it that doesn't involve a lot of no longer having capitalism. Other capitalist countries still have this problem. It's only like, china and the former soviet union and apparently barcelona with superblocks which are still gonna be subject to market demands and rates, it's only those countries which are going to be constructing such an excess of housing that a good amount of it can remain empty, which is also the case here as well but with the caveat that we still have massive amounts of homelessness and the empty housing is basically just to increase demand on top of straight up not having enough housing even were we to construct mass housing projects.
I dunno, this is a pretty good encapsulation of why we are specifically incredibly fucked and how this incrementalism isn't going to work at all to address our current issues. We're cooked, lads. Get the titanic band to start playing the song or whatever.
Probably people would just start needing to host their own video content and share it amongst themselves, like in the old internet
You eliminate the rural area with 5 minute drives between homes. Japan has a much higher population density more generally, granted, and they do occasionally get older, offset, single homes that are miles from anything else. But they also have extremely rural villages with maybe 2000 people that are still about as rural as you can get and still go in for farming. Many other places (I would say, basically all of them?) do this as well, and not all of them have high population density. I think, almost definitionally, the land use I'm proposing has a higher pop density, but the style of development generally, you'd be hard pressed not to classify it as rural.
The solution here is to orient the land use radially. Also probably to use less land generally, but that's a separate issue. Most land use in america looks like having 20 different farms, that are each like 3 or 4 miles across, sometimes with multiple plots, with each house being positioned as far away from the other houses as possible, usually somewhere along the edge of a plot, and then running roads out to each of them, sometimes dirt roads, sometimes paved, usually some combination of the two for higher use vs lower use vs private.
Instead of that, you do what people have been doing for centuries. You clump the 20 different houses together in one contiguous strip that's placed along some sort of rail line or higher traffic road, and then you disconnect all the plots of land from the particular houses. Ownership doesn't necessarily have to correlate with one plot of land vs another. Then you gain all of the benefits that entails, and if everything is laid out sensibly, then you're only about 3 miles from your specific plot. Utilities become cheaper to maintain, emergencies like fires, medical problems, natural disasters, become much easier to deal with, you can start building some actual infrastructure, like, say, a rail line.
That becomes much easier to justify if you only gotta send that shit to like one concentration of 20 or 30 or houses instead of sending it to those 20 or 30 houses individually, most especially if that line is just passing through before heading somewhere else, which should generally be the case. Maintenance of that rail line also becomes less problematic compared to that of a road if we're considering that this rural area is probably mostly going to be farmland that demands larger industrial equipment shipments, and is going to be shipping back and forth things like grain, bulk goods which would do much better to be shipped by train compared to most other forms of transit. Slap that together with a multi-daily passenger rail line that passes through it as a stop and you're pretty much set.