all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 61 points 7 months ago (4 children)

I agree. Tue people who voted for this shit love capitalism and deserve every bit of it.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Europes just as capitalist, but with better safety nets so people don’t turn against it.

    How come Spain was the only one to condemn the US while every other European government condemned Iran? How come you all sell weapons to Israel so they can commit genocide.

    The west is all horrible, my country included.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    The west is all horrible, my country included.

    Same for Australia, our Green politicians condemned it but alas they're a small minoroty.

    to be fair its the voters, when faced with a choice, they inevitably let the nation and the world down.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    That's a non sequitur and false equivalence: opposing or supporting both Iran or Israel have little to do with capitalism as a way to govern and tend to be more rooted in self interests. Iran has capitalism as does Israel, now that most kibutzs are in name only it no longer has small scale communism to any real extent either.

    I am not sure what you are responding to as it has been deleted but that really stood out. And as for the last sentiment I can thing of no government or organization that once big and powerful enough hasn't committed atrocities all the way up to genocide, be it the East India trading companies of the Dutch and British, the many empires through history (including the USSR and US), and all organizations that insulate themselves from criticism and their customers/employees (in the case of companies) or citizens/people (in the case of governments). The west is only notable today compare to most other nations by having more open reporting on what government decisions are being made and their negative impacts leading to more criticism that or more authoritarian regimes. This is typified by the reporting on the Spanish flu during world war 1 where the flu may well have originated in the US and was brought to the trenches killing millions but was reported on openly in the Spanish press while both the Entente and Tripple alliance supressed that news in their respective presses, leading to spain during that time being more representative or the wants of its people than the US, France, the UK, and Italy on the Entente side or Germany, Austria, and Turkey on the other (russia having bowed out by that point to start their civil war).

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -26 points 7 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] 59 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    Nah, Dean Norris has seemed pretty cool everywhere I've seen him. He's an actor who naturally looks like a CHUD, so he gets cast to play cops and military dudes and things like that, but like 90% of his social media posts are trolling Andrew Tate-type morons and other right wing jerks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 7 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 28 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    Reading the image is a bit like whiplash. But it doesn't read like capitalist support. If people love capitalism, then they shouldn't be complaining about the kakistocracy or false scarcity it always produces and thrives on. And if they want to complain about the knock on effects of capitalism, they should criticize it too. But all stated in the fascistic and bullying Style that Fox News viewers lap up and ador. All while being subversive.

    Of course it's always possible it's so dumb and lacking self-awareness that it goes so far around the other way and almost seems deep and cryptic.

  • source
  • parent
  • 50 comments in c/fuckcars@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 237 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Hank! No! You can't criticize capitalism! That's WOKE Hank! Don't do it! Hank!!!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 153 points 7 months ago (14 children)

    But... I don't love capitalism. Capitalism fuckin' sucks.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    Is there actually a free market somewhere, or is it massive money printing followed by bailouts for the rich everywhere in the world?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    There can't be a free market with a monopoly on violence by definition of the word "monopoly," yet a free market requires the enforcement of basic rules ("no stealing" being the most obvious). Conclusion: "Free market" is a contradiction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    First point doesn't hold together. You're relying on the reader conflating senses of "free".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    How so? Under state governance businesses are forced to pay a certain entity for security (policing) and other services through taxes on pain of loss of property. This is a monopoly on essential services enforced by violence, basically the most anti-free market thing ever.

    Okay devil's advocate over, serious argument here: The monopoly on violence, by definition, comes with the ability to make and enforce various rules for the operation of the market. This is tax codes, zoning laws, labor laws, tariffs, environment protection laws, IP law, etc. The ideal of the perfect free market requires that these rules to be minimalist and "fair," but that's impossible to achieve because nobody can objectively decide which rules are necessary and fair and which are not. Therefore it's always going to be possible to argue that such and such isn't a true free market because this or that rule stifles competition, ultimately tying back into the point that a true free market can't be subject to arbitrary rules and therefore is incompatible with the monopoly on violence. The two senses of "free" are identical here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    I still think that you are being overly literal for an argument ("There is no such thing as a free market") that doesn't actually get you anywhere. If free markets don't exist, then personal freedom doesn't exist for the exact same reasons. But to get there, you have to rely on the idea that "you can argue" without examining whether those arguments have any merit. Nobody takes "free" to mean "absolute freedom". It's always relative. This is a silly semantic argu... oh. This is silly. Damn it. Why didn't anyone stop me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    I still think that you are being overly literal for an argument ("There is no such thing as a free market") that doesn't actually get you anywhere.

    It does. Whenever you criticize capitalism or the free market, you invariably get a bunch of "free market enthusiasts" arguing that the problem is too much regulation and too little free market. Any time the "free market" produces brutally exploitative living conditions and colluding oligopolies, the claim is always the same: "This is corporatism, not capitalism. Government interference in the market did this. We should make the market freer." This is the idea behind the comment I was originally replying to, and my argument is a response to it. Since a free market is the capitalism equivalent of a unicorn, "this isn't a true free market" type arguments are basically all No True Scotsman fallacies. I'm shutting down a common counterargument to criticism of capitalism.

    If free markets don't exist, then personal freedom doesn't exist for the exact same reasons.

    Yeah true; both "true" free markets and "complete" (only constrained by the Harm Rule) personal freedom are models with varying degrees of accuracy depending on the situation. Thinking of a situation as described by a free market is like ignoring air resistance; it's not a useless abstraction, but ultimately it's still an abstraction and should be treated as such.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    SMAE! I guess we have to not STFU, since...checks ntoes...breaking bad actor says so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 106 points 7 months ago (14 children)

    Which is funny, his character would be MAGA af.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 7 months ago (13 children)

    Would he? He was up against a neo-Nazi group who was working with Walt until his dying breath.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    Definitely would have voted for trump in 2016 though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    right but consider his stance on mexicans and drug addicts. not much of empath

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    I can't remember him saying anything against Mexicans, did he? I know He loved his partner?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    Tbf he wasn't aware of the Neo-Nazi group until 

    Spoilerthey arrived to gun him and his partner down.

    That isn't to say he'd knowingly be allied with outright Neo-Nazis, but it doesn't mean his character wouldn't be a MAGA fascist.

    Also, the only reason he got into conflict with the Neo-Nazis was because of Walter and the meth. Hank was DEA, his only real concern was arresting the makers of the blue meth.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 7 months ago*
    [–] 35 points 7 months ago

    Faux news thinks this is an endorsement of higher gas prices 🙄

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 7 months ago

    No wonder Uncle Jack killed him. He's based.

  • source
  • americans complaining about gas prices will never be not funny

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 7 months ago

    He's not wrong.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 7 months ago

    I didn't take Hank for a comrade. 🫡

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 7 months ago
    [–] 19 points 7 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    I've seen him in a couple films outside ‘BB’, and both were also cop roles. Apparently it's a known thing with him:

    Throughout his career, he has amassed over 154 credits across film and television, including over 40 law enforcement roles.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago
    [–] 12 points 7 months ago

    But...but...my freedom..

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Not sure if a dig against capitalism, or just STFU slaves!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I’m with you, I can’t really comprehend the underlying message of this.

    I’m leaning towards him being pro-war because this is the price they must pay to maintain American capitalism, but then other commenters seem to have read it differently

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago

    Well he also said "Our prices are rising because of Putin’s actions,” “There isn’t enough supply. And the bottom line is if we want lower gas prices we need to have more oil supply right now.”

    So still could be read either way of: support the oil war efforts or this is how fairmarket works

  • source
  • parent