green

Common sense is not a "gotcha", its common sense. I don't know why everyone thinks this a win/lose thing.

You can find many mass killings from capitalist regimes too, its just a very pointless thing to bring up. Nazis do not care how you trade your goods. You have Capitalist-Nazis, Communist-Nazis, and Anarcho-Nazis. They are all Nazis and are not welcome.

Equating a Communist to a Nazi is total horseshit. You can also equate a Capitalist to a Nazi. Or an alien to a Nazi. But its a completely bad faith and ridiculous claim. Convo ends here - done engaging.

Small town suburbia is viable, but most suburbs (at least that I know of) are not small town - they are urban sprawl. Most of the cost is from strained infrastructure, usually due to overextending a city, which is likely not present in your town. I still would not recommend small town suburbia due to points 2 and 3, but it works.

I will note that most US suburbs are insolvent; I cannot speak for Australia. This is part of the reason why a lot of cities have genuinely abysmal infrastructure, because they cannot afford upkeep. Also keep in mind that due to point 2, property costs in the city rise because expansion becomes way more expensive because you have to tear apart suburbia.

I believe housing choice is a good thing. The problem is that suburbia almost always takes away housing choice for everyone else.

1. Suburbia is not cost viable.

Notice how suburbs are almost always built around cities and almost never on their own. There is a reason for this; they are heavily subsidized by the city and its infrastructure - eventually killing off the city due to extreme maintenance costs and uncooperative tax base (NIMBYs). This is a parasitic relationship, fullstop.

2. Suburbia is not recyclable.

It is extremely difficult to reuse suburban infrastructure for non-suburban purposes. This effectively eliminates scarce land until a patron spends 10x removing what it costs to install (not happening). This is why suburbs are often just abandoned instead of repurposed (see any rust-belt suburb).

3. Space should not come at the cost of the future.

To navigate suburbia (only viable by car) is to put massive strain on the human body and environment. We were built to walk. If you do not, you will become fat and die (see America). Cars pollute the air to no end, and "third places" can never truly be established - killing communities.

Wanting space is fine, but people should find a way to do it sustainably without harming themselves and everyone around them.

You are confused about what point you are trying to make. Capitalists have killed billions. So have nazis. Nazis aren’t welcome because of that. Neither should capitalists. You launching into a tirade about communism is changing the subject and actually strawmanning.

If you cannot see the point after this, it's beyond saving.

I never said it wasn't the truth, I said it was a bad faith argument. You're bringing up the death-toll from Communism to call them Nazi-equivalents while ignoring the significantly higher death-toll from Capitalism. This is the textbook definition of deflection.

The actual reality is that, no matter what economic system you follow, if you want to kill and oppress people; you will kill and oppress people. Nazis are very clear that they want to kill and oppress people.

There are people that romanticize Communism, I do not (as I've said, it's not a good system). I can still see that Communism is not calling for the death of others for social stability, even if Mao/Stalin/Putin/Xi themselves are.

Communism is not a good economic model, but "communism has killed millions" is such a bad faith argument. First off, Capitalism has killed BILLIONS (see the automobile industry and military industrial complex) but I have yet to see anyone talk about this. I also don't see you putting capitalist on the same level as Nazis

At a certain point, we have to be real about what's going on. People acting in bad faith, no matter their affiliation, need to be outcast. Trying to tow some imaginary line is a complete waste of time

I obviously cannot tell you what to do, but I ask that you rethink this decision. Jokes are jokes until they aren't (see sigma male culture). People will unblock the sub for memes until the forum is hijacked by actual propagandists and poisons the well.

I genuinely believe satire (including memes) was one of the worst things to come from humanity. Because most people on this space-rock are dumb-as-rocks, and cannot tell the difference between a joke and an idea. So your spicy meme becomes their thesis paper.

"Right of center views" currently means lies, propaganda, and reality denial. I do not consider myself a leftist (though I do agree with leftists on a lot of things) nor a communist, but there is absolutely nothing of value the current right offers.

I do agree Lemmy (and Reddit) are echo chambers. The real solution? Go outside. However, you'll likely find most people are very apathetic (and easily fooled) but not necessarily right leaning.

I think we should instead blame consumers and voters. It is our job to hold CEOs and other bad public figures accountable, but we never do

This is a case where I believe history has shown us the answer. A system reliant on humans doing the right thing is not sustainable nor viable, fullstop. Even if we were to corral this together in 10 years it would just break 10 years later (see 1960s-1980s) - which is not worth investing in.

Black Wall Street is a particularly bad example because of how it was both physically and systematically destroyed. They acted in good faith to capitalism and were destroyed by bad faith actors - something that capitalism has no answer for (as stated previously). The Amish are a not a great example either considering their population is reliant on the ebb&flow of large scale capitalism too; they use toiletries, washing machines, etc while still being technologically behind.

There is no "right incentive" in any system not focused on community. That means there currently exists no established economic system that will help us. This is why I said we need smart and practical people working on it; because if not we're going to be in really big trouble this century.

Bringing it back to privacy and tech, we are too poor and weak to afford creating new cornerstones every year. When Proton (and most recently Mozilla) rots, we have no recourse. Shifting chairs on the Titanic (moving from Proton to Tuta) is not a real solution, we need real structural changes.

First off, I am happy that your community is functional and that (at least for now) the capitalist structure works for you.

The core of this issue lies in human-nature and incentive-structure. The thing is, majority of people never act as the ideal in any system. In fact most of the time, due to the often strict guidelines of systems, people act in bad faith. What this means is that any system, at all times, will have significant resistance to existing and will need sufficient guardrails to not fall apart. Why bring this up? Because capitalism has no guardrails.

The "start another business" argument is not viable because (unfortunately) most people do not have the capital nor expertise to compete. An extremely high number of people on Earth do not own businesses, and there is a reason for this.

The "rinse wash and repeat" argument also quickly falls apart because:

1. The very very small population that has capital and expertise shrinks every time we do this
2. The new businesses born are not likely to survive (based on startup failure rates)
3. The more businesses, the harder it is to compete

A significant amount of industries around the world are effective monopolies, there is a reason for this. Low capital pool, low talent pool, high failure rates, and high competition - means that once you make it out of development hell, you are almost always unrivaled and can easily destroy/outlast your competitors.

Since we're here, lets talk about incentive structure. Most people do not have disposable income, those that do are investors. In a system where money is the "goal", the natural result is that the investors will be prioritized. This generally means that the end-user (me and you) are being exploited. Mom and Pop will not save you from the physics of money.

The only thing I've seen "work" is when there is a community of strong moral fiber that refuses to sell out their neighbor. This is why I said I am happy for you, because this is extremely rare.

As for the solution, any answer I give will be bad. This is a complex (not complicated!) issue and requires influential, smart, and rich people to work towards a goal for many years.

That said, I am giving a bad answer anyway. We need a way to "miniaturize" infrastructure, with the end goal being distributed (decentralized) infrastructure. The reason being that we need to decouple the government and monopolies from the market. This is obviously extremely difficult to do, but I think it can be done. We actually have a lot of the tools for this (3d printers, foss, internet, etc) but the direction, knowledge, and polish aren't there.

Proton is a bandage solution to email being hijacked by Google and Microsoft - they used their infrastructure to turn an open protocol (email) into a closed implementation (you cant send email to your buddy without gmail). Proton is a middle ground where they respect us, but are also "in the club". We wouldn't need them if emails could simply be sent from my router to your router (tor has something like this).

The thing confusing me most is why Ukraine would trust any US' "guarantee", when they've been nothing but untrustworthy.

And people's lives are not toys. I get the sentiment behind wanting less people to die. But Trump and Putin do think people's lives are toys, so I can't imagine the outcome of this being beneficial in any way to Ukraine.