top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 67 points 4 months ago (11 children)

Hypocrisy is a core component of the capitalist machine.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 4 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. Politics is the means by which capitalist policies and systems are created and maintained.

    The US political system could just as easily create and enforce (more) socialist systems and policies, but it doesn't because it's been captured by corporate and foreign interests.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    How is an economic system different from a political system? You're making a pointless argument.

    "Why is capitalism not communism? Because it's not communism"

    Why would foreign interests go against socialism? They are the same people as you, why would they be treated differently?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

    Unlike the communistic system where the political leaders use the system to enrich themselves?

    Obviously both are purely economic ideas that can't exist in their ideologicsl state in reality. It's fair to say that capitalism scales better than communism. Everyone is communistic within a family, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" fits perfectly within the realm of family. Private ownership according to your contribution works very well in the realm of society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    Unlike the communistic system where the political leaders use the system to enrich themselves?

    An actually communist system would not have leaders that could enrich themselves, because communism entails the absence of private property. (including money, owning means of production that aren't directly from solely your own efforts, etc)

    I wouldn't call myself a communist, but even I know this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago*

    They said "communistic" when they likely meant "socialist". People who haven't read leftist theory run socialism and communism together. We should educate them on the difference between socialism (i.e., a transitionary stage) and communism (i.e., a classless/moneyless/stateless society).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Unlike the communistic system where the political leaders use the system to enrich themselves

    Historically untrue of many socialist leaders. Ho Chi Minh mended his own clothes. Vladimir Lenin was practically ascetic.

    Obviously both are purely economic ideas that can’t exist in their ideologicsl [sic] state in reality.

    Capitalism is an economic system that produces commodities: goods that are made to be useful but can not be used until they are bought/sold. Under capitalism, the capitalist owns the means with which to produce commodities and so takes the finished products and ultimately the resulting profits as their private property. The capitalist also makes all the decisions on how workers spend their labor time. On the other hand, the workers, the people that labored to create the commodity, are given a fraction of the value they produce in the form of wages. Capitalism exists here and now, any definition of capitalism to the contrary is idealist.

    It’s fair to say that capitalism scales better than communism.

    We have examples of socialist states scaling just fine. Perhaps we could have seen the true potential of socialism (and eventually communism) as an economic model; but countries that reject capitalism faced economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, assassination attempts, and retaliatory wars (e.g., Cuba, Vietnam, USSR, Chile [Salvador Allende], etc.)

    Private ownership according to your contribution works very well in the realm of society.

    You can keep your house and toothbrush under socialism: this is your personal property. The goal of socialism is to turn the private ownership of the means to produce all the things we want/need into public property that the workers own. This is necessary for us to stop producing goods for private profit and start producing them for direct consumption.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 58 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Meanwhile 99% of America would be fired, lose their benefits and be unplugged because they are dead anyway

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 131 points 4 months ago (56 children)

    Or he's getting none because he's dead

  • source
  • hideshow 56 child comments
  • [–] 72 points 4 months ago (52 children)

    He's not dead.
    Comatose, non-responsive, vegetable? Probably.
    But the hospotal isn't going to keep a rotting corpse for a month.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 52 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 4 months ago*

    Shit, it's Kentucky hospital too...

    They're not exactly the best at making that whole "alive or dead" call.

    Natasha Miller says she was getting ready to do her job preserving donated organs for transplantation when the nurses wheeled the donor into the operating room.

    She quickly realized something wasn't right. Though the donor had been declared dead, he seemed to her very much alive.

    "He was moving around — kind of thrashing. Like, moving, thrashing around on the bed," Miller told NPR in an interview. "And then when we went over there, you could see he had tears coming down. He was crying visibly."

    The donor's condition alarmed everyone in the operating room at Baptist Health hospital in Richmond, Ky., including the two doctors, who refused to participate in the organ retrieval, she says.

    "The procuring surgeon, he was like, 'I'm out of it. I don't want to have anything to do with it,' " Miller says. "It was very chaotic. Everyone was just very upset."

    Miller says she overheard the case coordinator at the hospital for her employer, Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates (KODA), call her supervisor for advice.

    "So the coordinator calls the supervisor at the time. And she was saying that he was telling her that she needed to 'find another doctor to do it' – that, 'We were going to do this case. She needs to find someone else,' " Miller says. "And she's like, 'There is no one else.' She's crying — the coordinator — because she's getting yelled at."

    https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/10/16/nx-s1-5113976/organ-transplantion-mistake-brain-dead-surgery-still-alive

    I guess we should be surprised Mitch isn't an organ donor tho...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 47 points 4 months ago (38 children)

    Disagree. They made a corpse deliver a baby against the family’s wishes. The people in charge are pure evil

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [+] -25 points 4 months ago (37 children)

    That's not physically possable.
    I think you have a different idea what corpse is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 4 months ago* (29 children)
  • [+] -13 points 4 months ago* (26 children)

    Good, bad, fascist, whatever, doesn't matter, to a disagreement on nomenclature. A biologically functioning body with a working ATP cycle, isn't a corpse. Ethics and morality are irrelevant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago (25 children)

    brain dead is considered dead.

    no matter if cells still have atp.

    it's a corpse.

    there's no biological definition for human death. besides a vague "is it curable"

    death used to be cardiac death, but we figured out how to save people who had cardiac death, so we move the goalpost to brain death.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    It's literally not a corpse, it's a brain-dead person / body.

    You started this debate with Steve by using sensationalizing language, and I'm here to provide definitions and lay this discussion to rest:

    https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/brain-dead?q=Braindead

    https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/corpse?q=Corpse

    We can all agree that what they've done is horrible, there's no need to distort language to make a point.

    A corpse can not carry a pregnancy, a brain-dead body apparently can if assisted.

    I'll see myself out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (20 children)

    If brain dead is dead bacteria are dead.

    A brain dead body isn't a person, but that doesn't make it a corpse. All the biological functions continue. The ATP cycle continues. The body takes in nutrients and uses them to maintain their normal biological functions. Corpses don't do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (19 children)

    that isn't biology, it's philosophy.

    we don't have a good definition of What's alive either

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (18 children)

    Actually we do have a pretty solid biological definition for life.

    That which takes in nutrients, processes them to support itself, and expells waste products. Anything that dose those things is life. That's why viruses aren't considered alive. They don't do those things.

    The person part you're right, is more philosophical. I only mention it because it seems to better fit what people are calling "dead" in this case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (17 children)

    OK, spores aren't alive. dissecated watebears aren't alive

    the highschool definition isnt used by biologists because it's oversimplified and doesn't hold up to the diversity of life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (16 children)

    All of that is true.
    None if it refutes anything I'm saying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (15 children)

    the things I mentioned have no metabolism, don't absorb nutrients, and don't excrete.

    by your definition they are dead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (13 children)

    which takes in nutrients, processes them to support itself, and expells waste products.

    Is fire alive? it takes in nutrients (Hydro carbons+oxygens), reacts them to support itself, and expells waste products (CO2+water), in fact, that's the same input and output as many organisms. Is fire a living organisms?

    you missed growth (also fire)

    and reproduction (also fire, but also problematic as it means a single rabbit isn't alive but a couple are)

    BTW, not an appeal to authority, just a notice that I might know what I'm talking about. I have a PhD in biology.

    there are more interesting candidates for life definition, Dawkins considered that maybe the question is a waste of time and what matters is the genetic unit, "living things" are just things that spread genetic material.

    Others theories are based on chaos theory, thermodynamic cascades,matter/energy waves...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (12 children)

    Fire can be thought of as alive, in a sense. I'd hesitate to say it isn't. But realy, it's more accurately a chain reaction. Fire isn't a 'thing', it's not a system of repeatitively interacting parts. That said, I have no problem extending the label "Life" to non-biological systems. A machine that can maintain and repair itself is certainly alive.

    Reproduction also isn't necessary. DNA or other form of heritable instructions aren't necessary. Muels and Ligers are genetic dead ends, but very much alive themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (11 children)

    fire, isn't alive. it isn't biologically.

    and we aren't a thing, we replace our matter constantly, hence the matter wave idea.

    The point is that basically every definition will fail in some edge cases.

    and it ends up being more about philosophy than biology,

    the whole point is that there's no biological definition for life. we have one for medical context (brain dead, but mostly depending if it can be reversed, as soon as/if we figure how to resuscitate a brain dead person, we will have another threshold for the definition).

    I think there's a really good infinite monkey cage episode about this, one of their best episodes, I think it's "what is death" from series 8. not 100% sure. but it's a great listen anyways

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (11 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (10 children)

    there, you're getting too philosophical and abstract.

    fire isn't alive, isn't cannot evolve, no evolution... and you're definitely failing biology.

    point is that the highschool definition is bs, no biologist uses it, yet you're stubbornly stick to it like a contrarian.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (9 children)

    Again. Alive isn't biological.

    You're very hung up on only biological things being alive. Which is strange when you yourself said biology has not good definition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (8 children)

    Biology is the study is life.

    If it is alive, it is under the purview of Biology.

    what you're doing, is trying to fit anything that fits the Highschool definition as alive. and you end up with chemistry rather than life.

    You are very hunged up on highschool oversimplifications.

    if fire is alive, would using a lighter count as abiogenesis?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

    there's no biological definition for life.

    Biology is the study of life.

    Do you see how that doesn't work?

    Biologists called themselves "The Study of Life", some 200 years ago. They did so with very little knowledge, and lots of ambition. Also known as hubris.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (6 children)

    And fire is clearly chemistry and not biology.

    We just study life and don't bother with the definition, its a "you know it when you see it" kind of thing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

    its a “you know it when you see it” kind of thing

    I'm not sure you're a good advocate for the sciences.

    I also think you might have reading comprehension issues. I did explain, I think four times, how fire isn't technically alive, but in certain circumstances it can be a useful analogy. I don't know why you keep banging on that drum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    'how fire isn’t technically alive'

    Why not?

    It fits all the high school definition?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    I explained that.
    See. You didn't actually read what I wrote. You're not good at this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    you just said it can be considered alive, but then you say isn't

    my point is simple, ask anyone with a biology degree,. that highschool definition is oversimplified and not useful. there is no working definition of life

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    You really don't know how to read do you?

    But really, it’s more accurately a chain reaction. Fire isn’t a ‘thing’, it’s not a system of repetitively interacting parts.

    Fire is not a thing, because it is not a system of reusable parts that interact with each other multiple times. It’s better described as a chemical chain reaction. Every molecule is used exactly once.

    I never mentioned high school. I never took biology in high school. I took physics instead. I gave you my specific definition. You thought it sounded like something you remember from high school, and ignored what I actually said.

    That which takes in nutrients, processes them to support itself, and expels waste products.

    Fire doesn't actually support itself. Each flame is gone in an instant, unique to the molecule it came from.
    But is creates the illusion of continuity, which can make life a useful analogy for it sometimes.

    If you still don't understand. I don't know how better I can explain it for you. I've already given you too much credit. I'm done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Fire 100% supports itself, each flame dies but that is like saying each of your proteins get denatured and recycled, the carbon you eat eventually turns into CO2, all your matter changes at some point.

    That which takes in nutrients, processes them to support itself, and expels waste products. It is not a good definition of life, as it also excludes spores or many creatures in stasis, where they have absolutely no metabolism, wont take nutrients, process them or expel anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    If brain death is dead, single cell organisms are dead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    We’re not single called organisms

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Of course not. But the definition of death you gave, doesn't distinguish between forms of life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    The conversation is about human death. The question is at what point is a human being considered dead. If cellular function is brought into it, then a rotting corpse is teeming with bacterial life.

    You are right that biological functions of the human body can continue well past the point that someone would be broadly considered dead. I just think that a lack of brain function is a good classification of when to consider that someone has died.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago* (3 children)

    They will if they're getting leaned on politically, but you are right in that he's not sitting in a bed, they'll just shove him into the morge if they have one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Nothing political about it...

    He can be "alive" like Terry Schiavo

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

    And they can likely keep him like that for years, because it's machines doing all the work.

    No one can pressure the hospital to do anything, as long as the checks keep clearing, they'll keep the machines running.

    What can (and is) being done, is the Governor requesting proof that McConnell is capable of fulfilling his duties from McConnell's office

    They want to stall till August 4th, because if McConnell is declared incompetent before then, it triggers a special election which allows Maise to run as an independent after losing the Republican primary.

    On 8/4/26 they can say McConnell is incompetent to hold office, and the normal election will happen which Maise can't run in.

    This entire show is because Trump doesn't want Maise to run, because if he does a Dem will likely win and if not it'll be Maise.

    But Beshar (KY governor) asking for Mitch's status is what prompted all the Republicans to spend 20 minutes talking at his unresponsive body over a phone. That's why they reacted

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    Every hospital has a morgue. They deal with too many dead people daily, they aren't going to be moving them out every time someone dies.

    Besides, they won't leave bodies sitting in beds they could use for living, paying, patients.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    They aren't going to let him rot. That isn't connected to the possibility of him ever regaining consciousness whether a replacement is called for.

    I don't think anyone here thinks he's literally just sitting out on a hospital bed flat lined.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Keep pushing back. Don't let these disingenuous, self-righteous Lemmy users skate by without addressing the actual argument.

    For the record, I don't support the Republican Party, MAGA, or Mitch McConnell.

    I just find this kind of rhetoric frustrating because it gets reflexively upvoted. It gives people the warm feeling that they're standing up to oppression without requiring them to engage with whether the claim is actually true. It's more about reinforcing the group's narrative than critically examining the argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Clearly their problem isn't with good wages or quality healthcare, it's the "universal" part they have a problem with. And I don't think it's necessarily because they want some people to go without (although that could be the case for at least some of them), it's just that they realize that for everyone to have enough, they have to have less, and that's unacceptable to them.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    They believe everything is zero-sum, so they have to be getting less of others are getting more.

    The reality is that they don't actually have to have less of these things for everyone to have more. It just has to be done more efficiently, something the current system is terrible at by design so there can be 5 unnecessary middlemen taking their cut.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    I think for a lot of those kinds of people it's pathological. For example, I remember reading in Careless People (a memoir by a former Facebook/Meta employee) about some of the things the author witnessed about Mark Zuckerberg made it seem like he only wanted to do things because no one else could, not because he personally derived any enjoyment out of it. I've seen this personally with philanthropists too. They don't actually like the disadvantaged kids they're helping (I'm talking literal racists), but they like the idea that they're the only ones that these kids can turn to. Basically I'm saying I don't think they believe life is zero-sum, but they have a pathological need to create zero-sum circumstances where they are the "winners" and the rest of us losers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    They believe everything is zero-sum

    Well, they're right about that. The Earth, and all the resources on it, are finite. The more any one person owns, the less everyone else can own. Now, I would agree that the Earth's resources are abundant, and that there's more than enough for everyone on Earth (at our current population level, at least) to not only survive but thrive. But, because the Earth's resources are finite, it's not possible for any one person to own an infinite amount of resources, let alone for that person to own infinite resources and there still be resources leftover for everyone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • They want to have healthcare tied to your job. It gives the owning class control. In other nations we can change jobs for whatever reason and still get healthcare. If they treat us like shit we can quit and not have to worry about medical bills. People label it as corporate feudalism for a reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Even though if you didn't tell them about the part they're missing, they wouldn't realize because it's so little of the whole. But they have to have every damn cent they can grab.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 4 months ago

    The American people should sue if we’re paying for his benefits. They can keep a corpse alive but deny us for every medical procedure

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Considering no one knows what hospital he's in. There is absolutely no way that all the RNs, CNAs, APPs, and MD involved that NOTHING would have leaked. HIPAA doesn't do anything about an unknown anonymous tip.

    With all that said. He is absolutely being kept at the house of someone involved in the cover up. Either alive or dead. Most likely dead. Watch for news on August 3rd that he suddenly died.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Help me understand. Why August 3rd?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago

    I’m sick of this tyranny

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago

    Socialism for me, not for thee. Politicians who vote against social services are more than happy to receive them themselves. You see the same with military members. They are provided so many services from the state they are more than happy to receive but will vote every single time to decrease social services for others.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    it's called "rules for thee, not for me" for a reason

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago

    Idea's true but can't help but push back on this "middle class" as an existing group. There is no such thing just the bourgeois and the proletariat.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    In my experience in my own country as well as living in other countries (none of which the US, but I believe it equally applies), leftwing policies (such as universal schooling and worker rights) built the middle class and the Neoliberals (which are generally the two major parties in a country) have been destroying it since Reagan's days.

    For me this was especially obvious in the UK were almost every single pro-people thing (National Health Service, Social Security, Public Housing) dated back to the years of Labour Party government immediatelly after WWII and every single one of then had been under attack in some way since Thatcher's day, including during governments of New Labour (the Labour party after the Neoliberal faction took it over, most obviously with Tony Blair whom Thatcher called "my greatest achievement").

    I think the UK is especially applicable here because it's the country in Europe that, at least for the last 2 or 3 decades most apes the US (in the bad things, rather than good things).

    All this to say that I don't expect ANY American politician who has managed to hold to power for so long as Mitch Mcconnell to be anything else than a middle class destroying Neoliberal, no matter what political party they come from.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago*

    And against privacy.
    Also pretty sure he did more than just voting.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago*

    He's just pining for the white hoods.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    I hope he’s suffering.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    Is why conservatives love Ayn Rand. Rail against it then die taking advantage of it.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago

    working class

    Fixed that for you.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Note that he doesn't need any of these things even if he is alive.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›