That would be far more provocative.

Yes, but depending on the country that could be (public + illegal) if it lists [what is legally considered] personal sensitive information or accidentally reveals someone’s secret like the Coldplay incident.

It would be fascinating, but IMO unnecessary and unethical.

extreme ironer

I did come across that hobby when I was trying to list examples of productive sports. Yeah, it’s a thing.

I haven’t watched much BBT, so grain of salt, open to being called out for mistakes.

I’d say The IT Crowd was more centered about a workplace, even if many of the jokes are about their romances, hobbies and personal life, and even if BBT had workplace episodes. The central set of IT Crowd is their basement office, the central set of BBT is an apartment. And I don’t think that’s a trivial difference, it changes the kind of humor and how relatable much of it is.

Also, a big gripe about BBT was the laugh track. It’s normal for sitcoms to have canned laughter, IT Crowd had it too, but BBTs is uncomfortable. Like trk said in another reply, “If there was no laugh track you wouldn’t even know jokes are happening.” There are plenty of BBT No Laugh Track edits on YouTube and it highlights how much better it could be without the forced laughter.

Finally, BBT is a lot more US humor than British humor, not to say that as point in itself, but I feel like it makes the BBT feel to me a lot more like “laughing at nerds” despite that being a major factor in BBT. I also feel that Moss is played more wacky and exaggerated than (say) Sheldon, who certainly has strange peculiarities but is played more subtly or realistically, which I feel makes their character more mocking than absurd parody.

(also I just like the theme music much more)

Creating low-effort images for ideas that don’t warrant effort, like silly jokes.

He literally was just some guy.

On one hand, to Europe they were just some guy. True.

On the other, they were the co-founder and CEO of a political influencer operation so influential that the US President and their party are doing all this crap to honor them. Kirk is responsible for radicalizing many people into real violence.

Stop using one car for one person. There is room for at least 5 in total.

Yes, and most cars on the road don’t have that many people in them. Last I checked, the average occupancy of a city car is somewhere between 1 and 2.

That’s why the image says only 177 cars, not 200.

Also, I’d argue that a system requiring enforcement is not the same thing as it being a system of enforcement.

You’re correct. I don’t agree with the original claim that capitalism (itself) is a power structure, nor do I think that power and power structures are inherently bad. But like you said, it’s mostly semantics - my position is that capitalism can’t exist without a power structure of class domination, where the private-property owning class subjugate the rest of society.

As for power structures, these can be surprising flexible. To be clear, I’m not disagreeing with your claim, just exploring assumptions about power structures, like if they’re necessarily hierarchical (anarchists often specify that their objection is to hierarchy, rather than institutions themselves). Consider cases where a militia of citizens, rather than a dominant police force, is used for law enforcement, such as Cherán after they kicked out their corrupt police and cartels. Like jurors in a jury - they have lots of authority and therefore power, but they aren’t a distinct, dominant class.

Do you not need power to enforce personal property?

Absolutely, and further than that, I think it will be necessary for a society with a socialist mode of production* to use power to prevent anyone from forcefully turning public property into private property.

* Unfortunately “a socialist society” is too vague, so enjoy that mouthful.

Anon clearly has never had a job because if somebody wants to fire you they don’t have to come up with the made up reason they can just do it.

some of us internet people live in countries with labor laws.

How is capitalism a monetary policy? I haven’t seen any definition claim that before, can you please explain?

For a standard typical counterexample, Wikipedia’s introduction:

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit.

The power structure is necessary to enforce said private property (not to be confused with personal property!!) and extract profit. It’s not some wild coincidence, it’s the foundation which capitalism is built on.

After years of the GOP attacking regulation, we have an oligarchy.

While the GOP attacking regulation is absolutely a phenomenon, it’s not useful to frame oligarchy as a result of the GOP.

Firstly, we know that oligarchy is not a US-specific problem. Other Western countries are run by oligarchs too, look at who owns their media companies and who has captured the bulk of their politicians. Every time, it’s their own mega-millionaires and billionaires, who capitalism has pushed to operate their profitable businesses for more profit until they become an elite olígos capable of ruling. The only difference in those countries is that workers have usually struggled more successfully against them and lessened their power, but the ruling class are clearly still calling the shots. And of course, we see oligarchy arising outside of the West too, like the obvious case of the Russian Federation.

Another issue is that the Democratic Party in the US haven’t significantly countered them, they’re not innocent of this, they’re simply not as aggressive as the GOP. Capitalist ideology is a shared feature of both parties, and they’re both propped up by rich donors who can lobby and provide high-paying positions to politicians once they retire. I am not saying both parties are the same or equal, but we must understand that they’re both an active part of this situation, and neither has any desire or capability to solve oligarchy.

Reminder that the 100 million number comes from the editor’s introduction to the Black Book of Communism, who “was ‘hunting’ for the highest possible number of victims”, and whose introduction was disavowed by three of the other authors.

Three of the book’s main contributors (Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, and Nicolas Werth) publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois’ statements in the introduction and criticized his editorial conduct. Margolin and Werth felt that Courtois was “obsessed” with arriving at a total of 100 million killed, which resulted in “sloppy and biased scholarship”, faulted him for exaggerating death tolls in specific countries, and rejected the comparison between Communism and Nazism. [citations in the Wikipedia article]

Also, a side note: The term they’re looking for is “corporatocracy” or “corporate capitalism”, or sometimes you’ll hear “crony capitalism” (as if these are distortions of capitalism and not inherent trends!). Corporatism is a whole other thing, a class-collaborationist ideology/system based on collective bargaining of groups. It has its own issues, but it’s a separate concept.

But the word “corporatism” is so misused that it’s hardly worth calling wrong anymore…

Other replies have listed a lot of them, and there are plenty more. Lots of webrings for personal sites are still running. Plenty of BBS-style forums too.

The bottom line is, there are plenty of other people who enjoy those aspects of older websites, whether for nostalgic aesthetic reasons or for the benefits of minimalist design. So there are many new sites being made in the same vein of twenty and thirty year old sites. Just like Lemmy is a breath of fresh air for those who are only used to having ads shoved down their throats, old-style sites can be surprisingly relaxing and refreshing.

I don’t think many anti-capitalists suggest abolishing currency entirely.

Why don’t you think that? You’re right that abolishing currency isn’t implied by abolishing capitalism, but plenty of anti-capitalists advocate for eventually abolishing money in any form (I assume that’s what you mean by abolishing currency, although there are other interpretations), and some others advocate to abolish it as soon as possible (I believe, although I can’t prove right now, that many intentional communities/communes have done this).

Communism’s long-term aim is ultimately to create a communist society. That is, a public, stateless, classless, moneyless society - goods are distributed by need rather than for wealth.

We don’t want people filling swimming pools with cheese and diving into it.

I actually had to check to make sure some e-celeb hadn’t done this stunt for content. I don’t think currency is what stops people from doing that, just like how for-profit healthcare systems aren’t what’s keeping people from injuring themselves.

The term of the day is: Artificial scarcity

but this rant happens early in the film, and the rest of the story shows how the network it aired on figured out how to capitalize on the ratings it generated

Absolutely, even when I gave the scene a quick watch before posting this, I thought about comments various writers have made about capital’s ability to subsume critique of capitalism. The contract reading scene in the Ecumenical Liberation Army house really pulls it into the forefront.

Good work reporting bigots. There’s too many of them tolerated in mainstream forums, no need to give them ground here.

I’m not sure exactly what to do as I feel helpless and incompetent to really do as much of a impact.

That’s the paradox with collectives - With these large-scale issues, each of us can’t accomplish much by ourselves. And when support becomes large enough, it may seem like our contribution is tiny and trivial. But we know that they’re nothing without any of us! When one takes a step back, the important impact of small contributions becomes clearer; many of the biggest mass movements of all time started with a reading group or a small band of people.

(as majority protest info are on Instagram/Twitter for some reason which I don’t use any of the two anymore)

I know that feeling, add in Fascebook for my area too. I found that two of the local progressive political organizations near me share the same events they’re supporting (one lists upcoming events on their webpage so I can use an RSS feed to be notified, the other passes around a list at the end of each meeting so that only works IRL), hopefully your area has something like that.

Some examples from the past week:

• Being active and involved in my worker union (we’ve had a few recent wins).
• Attending and promoting rallies and counter-rallies for various causes.
• Cantributing to tactical discussions in political party meetings.
• Small financial donations to various causes (both social and political).
• Reducing my food and plastic waste.

Keep in mind that decentralized and distributed should not be confused for individualist. A group of three people can do a whole lot more than an individual.

I linked Specific Suggestions in another reply, which includes plenty of modern examples.

See also: https://specificsuggestions.com/

The use of the swastika in Europe (and colonies) outside of the Nazi Party and prior German occultism is interesting in hindsight. Before the Nazi Party’s rise in the 1930s and the resulting mainstream international recognition, it was a widely used symbol even in the West.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_use_of_the_swastika_in_the_early_20th_century

But you just gotta laugh when neo-fash think they can get away with the “Buddhism” excuse. Even they know it’s foolish:

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

• Jean-Paul Sartre (1946)^[1]