Fuck you morning people and normalizing waking up early in the morning to the point where sleeping until we’re rested is lazy and staying up “late” is irresponsible. We adapted to your schedule using the aids we have available and now you shame us as addicts for doing what we had to do to accommodate your morning hegemony. I say, how dare you sir! /Half-joking

No. Rent and mortgage are two different things. One is a fee for service and one is a loan.

If your home that you own doubles in market value and you decide to sell it, you pay off the mortgage (loan) and keep the profit (capital gain). If you are renting and the home is sold, you gain nothing.

If your home that you own burns down, you still owe the bank the money you borrowed for purchase (mortgage). If you are renting the home that burned down, you don’t owe anybody money. There is to service to pay a fee for anymore.

Like sure, fuck capitalism. But we don’t need to misrepresent how these systems work.

Not defending Subway overall, the price increases are nuts. However that experience of yours is definitely an individual franchise problem, not a “corporate culture” problem.

Looking at it a different way, that would be like a photographer taking a photo of the sandwich and proclaiming “I’m an artist” or a director telling a chef what to make, telling a cinematographer/camera operator how to shoot it, and an editor how to cut it to create a short film of a sandwich and proclaiming “I’m an artist”. Art can be made from a series of creative and purposeful decisions that result in a piece of expression. It might not be good art, it might not be effortful art, it might even be unethically made art, but it’s not not-art.

“Don’t we try to categorize everything though”

That sounds like a you problem :P

Enter constructivist relativism

“Lmao no sympathy for anyone who buys expensive shoes”

^this you?

When you mature as a human being, whatever age that may be, you develop kindness through a willingness to understand and empathize with perspectives that conflict with your own. That doesn’t necessarily mean you have to accept it for yourself. For many people, clothing is not simply a means of pragmatic function. It’s also a source of self-expression, joy, and beauty. Now for me, $600 for a pair of sneakers is exorbitant and ridiculous no matter who designed it. But it’s not a product for me. And if someone with the means feels great buying and wearing them, I don’t see the harm. I don’t usually pay more than I have to for footwear, but I would pay a premium for certain kitchen tools I use all the time if I like the design, enjoy looking at it, and feel good using it. What I do sympathize with and would like to see reduced in harm is the consumerist culture that pressures people with less means into feeling like they have to have such things for fulfillment.

The comic is not implying that every single time a woman says no to man, that man will do something bad. It is saying that often when a woman wants to say no to a man, they have to do an internal calculation to answer questions like “Can I trust this man to respond okay to a No? How likely will they say something rude, or escalate to harassment? What do I do if he gets physically persistent? Is he going to get pissed off if I say no and come after me when I leave?”

Usually the answer is “he’s probably fine”, but women do have to go through the calculation much more than men typically. And that’s kinda fucked up.

The comic is saying “just say no” ignores/dismisses the non-negligible risk of just saying no.

Yeah, fuck the media. Instead, you should try talking to the women close to you about their experiences turning men down. Some might have no issues and think nothing of it, some might have good reason to be calculating. Don’t take it from me.

Exactly, you should stop listening to media and start listening to the experiences of women close to you instead.

Yeah that’s a bit of a strawman. The only people “putting politics on a pedestal” are human characatures, like people who’s whole identity is worshipping Trump are to conservatives or “alpha males” to men.

Anyway I already gave my take on politics being a property more than a lens.

I think I’ve lost your meaning of shit/ty. It sounds like everything is shit. Life is shit, you’re born, you suffer, you die shitty, etc. Which sounds edgy but doesn’t really mean anything. What do you mean by shit/ty?

And at this point totally fair to call it here on this thread. It’s just my gut reaction to your response.

I feel like you’re splitting hairs, like saying all the shit parts of democracy are politics and all the not shit parts are somehow not politics. Democracy IS a part of politics. How about this, if you are to play devil’s advocate for yourself, try listing 3 examples of how politics is good rather than evil.

My view is a bit different though. I see it more as an inherent property or process of society, like mass is to matter or spatial distribution of a flock of birds.

Huh, yeah we’re probably in closer agreement that initially appeared. Some earlier bits in your other comments came across more “anti-politics”

I’m not saying ubereats’ rates aren’t outrageous, but if you make a certain amount of money and are busy, it’s still worth the time saving. There are enough of those people to keep it going. Plus the ridiculous rate incentivized consumers towards their subscription model. But yeah I barely eat out or order in these days and definitely more healthy.

I see what you’re saying in terms of idealism/naivete vs pragmatism. However I also get the sense that what you mean by government and politics is a bit different from what the left usually means. I’d be interested to understand what you mean by “politics” and “government”.

A couple follow-up questions that might help clarify the distinctions

1. does a society make choices between better and worse practice of politics/government?
2. what would a world that doesn’t need government look like if you were to imagine it?

The only part is disagree with is that the left encourages not participating in politics. I’m pretty sure a pillar of the left is encouraging informed participation in politics. Unless you mean punk/commie ideas of rejecting the establishment in favour of revolution? That’s still participation in politics.

I would say the greater achievement of right wing grifters is the connotation that “politics” is inherently bad and shameful, as implied by your comment as well.

I see, I think there are a couple things to clarify. Causally, you can view it as the political system of decision-making determines the economic system, so keeping capitalism is a political decision made through a political system such as democracy or theocracy with downstream political consequences, e.g. property has high capital value, which affects citizens.

You may also be conflating decisions that carry a political quality with decisions made by a political system. Or conflating systems that carry political qualities such as economic systems and education systems with political systems proper, which are system for instituting decisions that govern societies. For example, the market may “decide” that asbestos is the best insulation, however, the market does not set political policy about insulation. It is up to the political system (e.g. democratic parliament or dictator) to decide whether or not to pass policy about limiting asbestos insulation, not capitalism. This distinction is also present in your own argument. Like you said, the market (capitalism) doesn’t create and enforce property law, it’s the state (political system) that creates the law and is responsible for enforcing it.

-EDIT- Okay I think I see the semantic disagreement. What others are emphasizing is that the economy is political in nature and therefore it is a political system. What I understand for the term “Political System” is more narrow to be more narrowly “system of government”. I certainly agree that the economy is political in nature. And honestly, I’m not married to my definition of political system. What I cared more about is drawing the distinction between “system of government” and “systems that are political in nature”. The only reason why I’d disagree is that by the latter definition, any system of social structure such as religions, education systems, human transportation systems, communication systems, language systems etc. Are also political systems because they’re political in nature. So the term “political system” may be too broad as to be useful.

Thanks for this, I like the pragmatic view that those with economic power select those who obtain political power. I certainly don’t think they’re independent. The economic system influences the political system for sure, but categorically/formally we’re still talking about two distinct systems, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about a separate political structure

Can you elaborate on how capitalism is a meaningful political system?