all 62 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 127 points 8 months ago (16 children)

I don't mind being governed. I mind being governed by shareholders. Regulation isn't oppression. Exploitation is.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    I agree that things would be better without shareholders, but wouldn't government corruption still be a problem? For example, shareholders aren't profiting from mass deportation or tariffs. These sort of abuses would still happen without shareholders because they aren't motivated by profit, they're motivated by racism and nationalism. The way I see it, we need to get rid of all coercive hierarchies, government included.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago

    Good news! You're about to learn about for-profit prisons and how racism is very profitable for shareholders, especially in how it suppresses wages and keeps poor people fighting other poor people instead of forming unions...

    Maybe not right now tho. I'm done poo.... Uhm I'm about to do something other than googling "prison industrial complex" and "how racism effects unionizing"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Government doesn't have to be a hierarchy. Direct democracy would have been impossible in the past, but is very much doable in this day and age. But otherwise yeah, I agree.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Direct democracy would be less hierarchical than what we have currently, but it's still a hierarchy of the majority over the minority. So long as government exists, the decisions of the majority will be violently enforced upon the minority.

    Unless of course you're referring to direct democracy without law enforcement, but I wouldn't exactly call that a government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    Maybe you should reread what I wrote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (6 children)

    You don't think that regulation won't be exploited? It's how the safety and environmental regulations drove all car manufacturing into 3 companies here in the USA. Bigger companies pushed for the regulations because they could withstand the change to force their competition out of the market.

    One OS monopoly in my lifetime was already bad enough, I'll pass on having another.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (5 children)

    That again sounds like exploitation rather than regulation. That is exactly what I'm referring to when I say governed by shareholders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (4 children)

    Doesn't change the fact that exploitation is being done by the hand of regulation.

    This story popped up in my feed: https://lemmy.world/post/43568135

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    My guy. Again this is literally exactly what I'm talking about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    And I'm telling you that this is done via regulation and not just naturally and isolated by corporations alone. Regulation is exploitation in practice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    The examples you've given are of a regulatory system that has been captured by private interests. These are the interests that need regulation, they have turned on its face a system that is meant to protect the people from them and are using it to protect themselves from consequences of their own exploitation. Regulation isn’t exploitation by default. Exploitation happens when regulation is written in ways that entrench incumbents or erode civil liberties. The solution is not to get rid of all regulation, it’s regulation that constrains power rather than concentrating it. Your examples are a symptom of what is wrong with the current system, not a demonstration of its function.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    The examples you've given are of a regulatory system that has been captured by private interests.

    All regulatory systems are captured by some interest whether it be private corporations to families to ideological groups.

    These are the interests that need regulation, they have turned on its face a system that is meant to protect the people from them and are using it to protect themselves from consequences of their own exploitation. Regulation isn’t exploitation by default.

    Hard disagree. Regulation by it's design is meant to change something and with that change something will be made to have a disadvantage.

    Exploitation happens when regulation is written in ways that entrench incumbents or erode civil liberties.

    That's what regulations do.

    The solution is not to get rid of all regulation,

    It is the only fair thing to do, all other options are about trying to create equity and usually failing at best and making it worse.

    it’s regulation that constrains power rather than concentrating it.

    Not in practice. This isn't a recent history thing either.

    Your examples are a symptom of what is wrong with the current system, not a demonstration of its function.

    Ignoring reality doesn't make thing right though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 8 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 52 points 8 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago
    [–] 21 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    "shipped lovingly from our warehouse in LA"^*

    ^* ^Made ^in ^China

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Everything is made in China, especially the things that made in the US.

    It’s also funny to think that China is making products that are illegal in China.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Fine. But companies shouldn't try to deceive customers with a bullshit "Designed in the US"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    I like the motto,

    but... the image...

    Better if it didn't have a huge blade and an angry malevolent facial expression.

    Y'know, maybe something that speaks more to the likes of mutual aid, rather than to agent-provocateurism.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    This is begging for a distro...

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    graphine would be adorable with a legally distinct robot wielding a knife

    wait.... I have a idea

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 7 points 8 months ago

    β€œIf it ain’t black and white kick scratch and bite!” β€”Bender

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago

    Can I get this on a t-shirt?

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago

    I live in a democracy. I AM the government.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    This is why they say, "never turn your back on a penguin".

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    Pound for pound the penguin is the fiercest creature on the planet.

    Source: Zoo Tycoon

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    The Linux Hacker.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    He should really be using a machete with a fully molded handle. And a forged blade rather than that stamped nonsense.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    How can you tell the blade is stamped rather than forged from an embroidery?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    It has a full tang. You can tell by the rivet at the bottom of the handle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I don’t understand any of this but it’s wonderful.

    Actually I understand a fair bit from context clues but please go on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    A full tang blade is one where the metal of the blade extends all the way through the handle. Often, full-tang knives have "scales" instead of one-piece handles, where the two sides of the handle are riveted on and you can see the metal of the knife tang all the way around. Full tang knives are usually stronger than partial tang knives because the steel of the blade is stronger than the material used for the rest of the handle. A partial tang knife shouldn't have a rivet at the back of the handle (because it wouldn't actually be attaching anything); if it does, it's because it's trying to imitate a full tang to fool you.

    Also, the difference between a stamped knife and a forged one is that a stamped blade is of uniform thickness except where the cutting edge is ground down to a point, whereas a forged knife is more of a wedge through its entire width and can have a thicker (stronger) spine, as well as a bolster to make it more comfortable to handle. (Some better-made stamped knives are stamped from a tapered sheet of steel so that they've got some of the "thicker spine" benefit, but they definitely never have a bolster integral with the blade.)

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

    Have wondered if I should learn to make badges for stuff like this

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    I approve of this message.

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

    You mean by the user? There's already a king of OS that is ungovernable by the user.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    My government is neel gompa

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago