Freakin’ scabs.

Alternative take: Piracy is, at worst, morally neutral, and does not have a significant adverse effect on the profits of the people who produce media.

Calm down.

It’s so cute!

Paying for her cab fare home sounds reasonably polite.

I agree, human.

I append “site:Reddit.com” (I know, I know) to basically every search I perform. It’s the only reliable way at this point to see things written genuinely by real people.

To be honest, I would be really tempted to do this if I could afford it and guarantee that it would kickstart a YouTube career.

How would that possibly work?

Pay $44 billion for a brand

Literally destroy the brand

This is more baffling than accidentally destroying the brand, like he’s been doing.

We oughtta arrest the people who pave roads because human traffickers use them to commit crimes.

I don’t mean evidence for their political convictions, I mean that they chose .ml specifically because it could stand for Marx and Lenin.

This sounds like a really dumb rumor. Do you have evidence?

Do you believe it’s the only thing that’s worked so far, or the only thing that could ever possibly work?

For all of the benefits and blessings that capitalism has given us, there are several things people need to realize:

1. When we talk about all the good that capitalism has done for us, that’s a vanishingly small us. There are literally billions of people in the world today who are languishing in poverty that makes first-world poverty look downright lavish. Then there are those first-world impoverished, who doubtlessly do live lives of fruitless toil and abject misery. And now think about the people in centuries past – the serfs, the slaves, the child laborers… The fact that capitalism has managed to give some comfort to some of us in some countries in the past century does not negate the immense, incalculable suffering it took to get here. And as I said, very many people today, even in modernized nations, are suffering immeasurably still.

2. Capitalism has overstayed its welcome regarding global crises like climate change. The profit motive seems not to be working at all, let alone with the appropriate urgency, toward the goal of saving us from the consequences of climate change. The scientific consensus largely appears to be that we’re too late to sidestep a cataclysm, but this is still not enough to prompt world leaders (i.e. the rich and powerful) to step up their game.

3. On a more high-minded level, capitalism is inherently repugnant because the people at the top can only enrich themselves by skimming off of the rightful earnings of the ones at the bottom. This is unavoidable; how could the CEO get so rich if 100% of the laborers’ value was given to them? This goes beyond the natural reality that labor is required to survive. The issue here is that rather than having organized our economy around people laboring together for their own mutual benefit, we’ve organized our world such that the vast majority of us labor for the benefit of the few elites who only deign to pass on a pittance once the laborers become too uppity. People who oppose capitalism do not oppose labor; they oppose the way our global society has decided to distribute its results.

4. Capitalism, at least in its cutthroat, largely unrestrained, American fashion, is by no means the only option we have. European countries demonstrate that capitalism can be moderated to work better for the masses, and there is no reason to believe even they’ve gone as far as they can. People love to jeer at communism for its many failures in implementation without seeming to realize that, as expressed above, countless people all over the world are currently suffering and starving and languishing under capitalism too.

You make some very good points that I hadn’t really thought of, honestly. It seems like I didn’t consider the full implications of my position. I still like to tend toward leaving things up, but I agree with you now that that probably has to have its limits somewhere.

Thank you!

I am of the belief that banning users or deleting posts, even inflammatory ones, harms free speech and hinders open communication. If you feel a user is “harassing” you (insofar as that’s even possible, given you can freely ignore their comments), attempting to have the user banned just pushes the community toward becoming an echo clamber. I say this because people are very, very bad at distinguishing harassment from mere heated disagreement in the first place.

That does seem like a more reasonable way to think about it.

What if they never wanted to transition in the first place?