this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
52 points (94.8% liked)

Asklemmy

44129 readers
362 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cymbal_king 74 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Fossil fuel companies knew about global warming since at least the 1970s. Those companies have used their enormous wealth to reverse trends towards public transit (e.g. Los Angeles used to have street cars...), halt the green energy transition until very recently, and spread misinformation and buy politicians.

Edit: also think about how all of those oil spills, mountain top removal, air and water pollution, cancers, asthma, heart disease that were "necessary for the economy" over the past couple of decades. When instead we could have already had fully sustainable energy systems with similar economic growth. Vote for politicians willing to do something about it.

[–] Taalnazi 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Still is ongoing. And nobody got life imprisonment and all wealth confiscated for this degree of lying, nobody of them got prohibited from calling people who criticised or tackled them "ecofascists"

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Filed as not a bug. That’s capitalism working as intended.

[–] cymbal_king -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

While I agree there are issues with capitalism. I disagree this was capitalism working as intended. If it were, the better/more innovative technology (green/cheap energy) would have surpassed the worse technology (dirty energy reliant on continued investment and extraction) because as we are finally seeing, there is more money to be made with green energy than fossil fuels. Suppression of green energy took active anti-capitalist anti-competitive efforts to preserve the edge of fossil fuels.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

The purpose of a system is what it does. The way that capitalism is advertised to work and the way that it actually works are quite different. To understand how it actually works, one might turn to Marx, Lenin, Sweezy & Baran, and Michael Hudson.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 6 months ago

Private health insurance.

[–] Chainweasel 30 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Catholicism, people still give a percentage of their paychecks to an autocrat of a foreign city state so he can tell them what God wants. You'd figure after 1,400 years people would figure out they were getting scammed.
That's not too say protestant churches aren't guilty of the same things, they just haven't been at it as long.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

What caused the Great Schism built a really fancy building.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] frankenswine 8 points 6 months ago

GNU Guile, of course!?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 months ago

Just gonna go with the original

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago

Religion, no question.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

Getting paid for ownership.

[–] hperrin 8 points 6 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Democracy. the powerful continue to rule, but plebs think they somehow made a difference once in a few years.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

The South Sea Bubble would have worked if they sold it to the French.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Four out of five times I hear someone explain an economic concept like inflation or investment, there's always an instinctive inkling that it wouldn't be ethically workable under normal circumstances. Take the investment part for example. On Shark Tank, the sharks often say things along the lines of giving the entrepreneur a boost in return for a piece of the spoils. That sounds like trade Faustianism. Or the idea that the functionality of money is affected by spiritual adherence but not national population. Or the idea a set standard [of pay] deters crime... which the news plays around with economically but I get "huh what's going on here" reactions for entertaining a follow-up to. It's almost as if the sensitivity is consciously selective.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is as confusing as your downvoted post, which was downvoted for being confusing. You might work on your communication skills.

Actually, looking at the modlog,

  • Trolling
  • trolling and/or LLM output
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

I have a single opinion associated enough with people who act in bad faith that I was thought of as being one. You got a problem with that? That doesn't reflect interactive performance here.

If something I say confuses you, I welcome questions about whichever part does, and I'd be willing to explain myself, as opposed to speaking for all those who gave me the thumbs down, for whatever reason they may have, and applying that as a weight on me.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Fiat money.

Or religion.

Basically the same thing.

[–] NautiNolana 2 points 6 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago