mechoman444
@mechoman444@lemmy.world
I am live.
- Comment on They eliminated cashiers and keep the profits. NY Democrats are fighting back. 5 hours ago:
I’m not arguing my own dissertation here. And I’m definitely not doing an MLA format on a Lemmy comment.
But feel free to actually verify the information on your own if you want to take up your time doing that.
For the record, I did actual research for the information stated above but you don’t have to take my word for it.
- Comment on They eliminated cashiers and keep the profits. NY Democrats are fighting back. 1 day ago:
That “$300 billion” number is just completely made up. The math doesn’t even remotely work.
The entire US grocery industry does somewhere around $1 trillion in revenue per year. For self-checkout to save $300 billion, that would mean roughly a third of every dollar spent on groceries was going directly to cashier wages. That is obviously not how grocery stores operate. Total labor costs for a store are only a fraction of their expenses.
And the idea that self-checkout was some massive money-saving miracle ignores the other side of the equation. Those systems cost a lot upfront, require maintenance, and they increase losses from theft, missed scans, and mistakes. A machine replacing a cashier doesn’t magically eliminate costs; it just moves them somewhere else.
There is a reason companies like Walmart, Target, and Dollar General have started putting limits on self-checkout or bringing back more staffed lanes. If self-checkout was saving them hundreds of billions, they wouldn’t be walking it back. They would be installing them everywhere they could.
This is the kind of post that hurts any community built around open discussion and critical thinking. A sensational claim gets repeated because it supports a certain viewpoint, while nobody stops to ask if it is actually true. The truth should matter regardless of whether it supports corporations, consumers, or anyone else. Being intellectually honest means checking the facts first, not just accepting information because it confirms what we already believe.
- Comment on The Dangers of Socialism they warned us about... 2 days ago:
You keep dancing around this idea that there is some definition of communism contained in a manifesto.
I provided you with the official dictionary definition of communism, and you dismissed it as “the back of a cereal box.”
You still have not engaged with anything I have actually said or provided any meaningful response to the points I raised. Instead, you continue to act as though the answer must exist somewhere in a document that you have not actually identified.
My question was mostly rhetorical because idiots generally do not know they are idiots. There is no way for someone to answer a question about their own inability to recognize their mistakes. And since you immediately assumed I was simply calling you a name, that reaction seems to confirm the very point I was making.
- Comment on The Dangers of Socialism they warned us about... 3 days ago:
It was the Marian Webster dictionary. I provided you a link to it.
Let me ask you a question. Are you some kind of idiot?
- Comment on The Dangers of Socialism they warned us about... 3 days ago:
- Comment on The Dangers of Socialism they warned us about... 3 days ago:
Okay, so I’ll say this: if you don’t indicate exactly which manifesto you’re talking about in a way that’s clear, I will not continue this conversation.
As for your second point, I’ve already addressed it. None of the manifestos actually define the term communism—not one of them, including what I can only assume you mean by “the big one,” which I assume is The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx.
Are you intentionally being facetious, or are you simply unwilling to specify which manifesto you’re referring to?
Sir, you’re not the only person who’s read it. I’ve read it too. In fact, after looking up the other manifestos last night, I read portions of those as well.
Reading something and comprehending it are two very different things.
And yes, I am in fact implying exactly what you’re thinking.
- Comment on The Dangers of Socialism they warned us about... 3 days ago:
I’m not relying on academic jargon in my responses. I’m simply correcting statements that are objectively incorrect.
A very common trend on this platform is that people attribute everything good a government does to socialism and everything bad to capitalism. They use these terms colloquially, often repeating misconceptions they’ve picked up here or elsewhere, even when those claims are objectively wrong.
That’s where I come in. I find myself correcting the same errors over and over again.
Then someone like you comes along and immediately starts throwing around terms like authoritarianism, dictatorship, capitalism, socialism, and communism, as though they settle the issue. But that has nothing to do with the point I’m making. I’m simply saying that universal healthcare is not inherently a feature of a socialist economy. Any government, regardless of its economic system, can establish a public healthcare program. Providing public services is one of the basic functions of government.
It seems like you’re trying to have a very particular kind of conversation, one where both participants already agree about how terrible capitalism is or how much they dislike the United States, and the discussion becomes little more than mutual validation disguised as debate.
I’m doing something different. I’m telling you that you’re wrong. Even when some of the individual facts you mention are true, you’re using them sophistically to push a broader narrative. And when I say “you,” I mean that in the royal sense, not necessarily you personally, although some of what you’ve written does fit that pattern.
I don’t know if that’s simply your comfort zone or what you’re ultimately hope to achieve. The United States is objectively doing many things badly; that’s not what we’re debating. My goal isn’t to defend capitalism. It’s to inform people about what socialism actually is, rather than allowing the term to be used as a catch-all label for any government program or policy.
- Comment on The Dangers of Socialism they warned us about... 3 days ago:
You’re going to have to be more specific. Are you talking about The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels? There isn’t just one “manifesto.” There are numerous political manifestos written by communist parties and movements throughout history.
And even if you are referring to Marx’s The Communist Manifesto, why would you expect it to explicitly define the word “communism”? Marx and Engels largely assumed their audience already understood the term. The pamphlet’s purpose was to advocate for and describe the philosophy, goals, and program of the communist movement, not to serve as a dictionary.
There are countless other manifestos as well: manifestos from the Communist Party of India, the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Communist Party of China, and many others. Beyond those, there are works like the Futurist Manifesto, the Fascist Manifesto, the SCUM Manifesto, and the Cluetrain Manifesto. Many of these discuss communism, socialism, or related political ideas.
So when you keep saying “the manifesto,” which one are you actually talking about?
- Comment on The Dangers of Socialism they warned us about... 3 days ago:
This is a very typical style of response I get whenever I make statements concerning socialism and communism. The conversation immediately veers into a condemnation of capitalism without actually addressing the point that was being made.
The issue is that people constantly conflate different economic and political concepts. Criticizing problems within modern capitalism does not somehow prove that socialism or communism are the solution, nor does it address the historical record of governments that have implemented those systems. Additionally, the United States today is not a pure free-market capitalist system; it is a mixed economy with significant government involvement, and many would argue that increasing corporate influence has created elements of a corporatocracy. Critiquing that reality is a separate discussion from whether socialism or communism has historically produced the outcomes its proponents claim.
The Soviet Union under Stalin resulted in forced collectivization, political purges, labor camps, and millions of deaths. Mao’s China implemented policies like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, which led to widespread famine, persecution, and the deaths of tens of millions. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge attempted to create an agrarian communist society and carried out a genocide against its own population. North Korea developed into one of the most authoritarian states in modern history under a communist government. Venezuela’s economic collapse occurred under a government that described itself as socialist, though the causes and degree of responsibility are debated. Cuba’s communist government has maintained political repression and restricted political freedoms for decades.
None of this means capitalism is perfect or immune from corruption, inequality, or abuses of power. Every system requires competent institutions, accountability, and safeguards against the concentration of power. But pointing out flaws in capitalism does not erase the historical outcomes of socialist and communist governments.
The original point remains: healthcare and other public services are not inherently socialist. A government providing a service does not automatically change the underlying economic system. Socialism and capitalism primarily refer to ownership and control of economic resources, not simply whether a government funds or provides certain programs.
A capitalist democracy can have universal healthcare. A socialist state can be authoritarian. These are separate concepts, and confusing them prevents any meaningful discussion about economics or political systems.
- Comment on The Dangers of Socialism they warned us about... 3 days ago:
By Karl Marx?
I have literally provided you with a definition.
- Comment on The Dangers of Socialism they warned us about... 4 days ago:
Historically, every self-described socialist state has been authoritarian to one degree or another. China is the closest modern exception, but much of its economic growth came after it embraced market reforms and allowed significant private enterprise—features associated with capitalism.
Also, healthcare has nothing to do with whether a country is socialist or capitalist. Universal or government-funded healthcare isn’t inherently socialist. It’s simply a public policy that can exist under democracies, monarchies, capitalist economies, mixed economies, and even authoritarian states. Conflating public healthcare with socialism is a basic category error.
- Comment on The Dangers of Socialism they warned us about... 4 days ago:
It is in fact not.
a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
It is a system government. Although the concept of communism is extremely complex. Ideally, it would be a classless society based on shared and equal equity.
Socialism is part of it of course, but one can exist without the other.
- Comment on The Dangers of Socialism they warned us about... 4 days ago:
O man.
You realize the most successful countries on Earth are Democratic capitalists right?
- Comment on The Dangers of Socialism they warned us about... 4 days ago:
Here we go again. This is what happens when people don’t understand the difference between an economic system and a system of government.
Capitalism and socialism are economic models. Democracy, authoritarianism, dictatorship, and communism are systems of government. They are not interchangeable, nor are they mutually exclusive.
You can have democratic capitalism, authoritarian capitalism, democratic socialism, and authoritarian socialism. History has provided examples of every combination.
Mass surveillance, censorship, political corruption, police abuse, and restrictions on protest are all functions of how a government exercises power. They are not inherent features of capitalism or socialism.
Posts like this don’t demonstrate some profound insight into economics. They demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of basic political science. The fact that this kind of meme gets shared uncritically is a good indication of just how widespread that ignorance has become online.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 days ago:
Doing some toilet-bowl Googling, I found that the word “come” has been used as a euphemism for orgasm or ejaculation since at least the 17th century. It wasn’t until the latter part of the 20th century that the alternative spelling “cum” became common, specifically to remove the ambiguity between the sexual meaning and the ordinary verb come. So you were absolutely right to prefer the spelling “cum” for that reason. The spelling was then further popularized through the rise of pornography and erotic media in Western culture.
- Comment on We hate him no matter who he represents. 6 days ago:
Political brain rot is believing people dislike Trump solely because he’s a Republican.
That’s the fundamental problem with American politics. Too many people treat it like team sports: I have to defend my side no matter what.
No, you don’t.
You don’t owe a political party your loyalty. Parties are tools, not identities. If your own side does something wrong, or even something you consider objectively immoral, you should be willing to say so. Blind partisanship isn’t a virtue; it’s the abandonment of independent judgment.
- Comment on Statistically unlikely 6 days ago:
I see the standard assortment of ancient reddit reposts are making their rounds through Lemmy. Good. Gooooood. Soon you will be more powerful than the both of us.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 days ago:
Very interesting thread.
Just a little side note for everyone. Climax. The word you’re looking for is climax. Or orgasm if you want to be totally technical. Not come, or cum. Climax.
Everyone is using some form of cum/come when talking about climax and I think it might be a little confusing for op.
- Comment on #pourcoffeeonyourgrandmachallenge 6 days ago:
@🐓 is this real?
- Comment on Why is AOC a big deal? She just speaks common sense and calls out absurdity. Have we really gone that far off the rails where we don't do it ourselves? 6 days ago:
Have you been watching any political discourse? Literally no one off the Epstein list has been arrested.
- Comment on Two ICE agents in plain clothes punched and tried to handcuff an Australian man at Las Vegas Airport. When they saw they were being filmed, they quickly left. 1 week ago:
You’re arguing a different issue than I am.
First, your hypothetical has very little to do with how federal appellate courts actually function or the kinds of injunctions they issue. If you’re going to discuss the scope of judicial authority, it helps to use examples that reflect how the courts actually operate.
Second, precision is the foundation of legal discussion. The fact that this is the internet doesn’t somehow make factual accuracy or precise language irrelevant. My comment was a narrow factual correction to an incorrect statement about the judiciary. Nothing more.
Third, I’m not interested in taking the conversation where you’re trying to take it. You seem to want a broad, emotionally charged debate about nationwide immigration policy. That’s a perfectly separate discussion, but it isn’t the one I was having.
Finally, I have no issue with emotion. Passion has its place. What it doesn’t do is change how the law works. If the discussion is about the legal authority of federal courts, then the answer depends on legal precision, not rhetorical intensity.
- Comment on Two ICE agents in plain clothes punched and tried to handcuff an Australian man at Las Vegas Airport. When they saw they were being filmed, they quickly left. 1 week ago:
The original comment insinuated that only the Supreme Court has influence over national policy. Once again, that is factually incorrect.
Every federal court has authority within its own jurisdiction. If a federal court rules against an executive policy, that ruling has legal effect within that jurisdiction. Those decisions can also serve as persuasive precedent in other jurisdictions, even though they are not binding outside their circuit.
The difference is that Supreme Court decisions are binding nationwide. That is part of the separation of powers and serves as a check on the executive and legislative branches.
The other examples you’re bringing up are unrelated to what I was actually saying. They don’t address the point I made.
I’m fully aware of the current state of the country and the ways the Supreme Court has shaped policy over the years.
I have no idea what the Jim Crow example was supposed to demonstrate, because it has nothing to do with the point under discussion.
The Supreme Court does not simply make policy on a whim. It decides cases based on the law, including the Constitution, federal statutes, and other applicable legal authority. When those decisions invalidate or uphold executive actions, they can have nationwide policy consequences.
I understand the implications of that. Those consequences can be beneficial or detrimental.
I’m not downplaying the current state of the country. I understand the concerns being raised.
What I corrected was a factually incorrect claim. There was no emotional context, political bias, or ideological argument in my comment. I simply corrected an inaccurate statement.
You’re adding a number of unrelated examples and arguments that don’t address my original point. I understand what you’re trying to say, and on some level I even agree with you. But it still has nothing to do with what I originally said.
- Comment on Three developers' different philosophies on difficulty for their games 1 week ago:
Making a game hard for the sake of making it hard is a cheap way to increase difficulty.
The challenge shouldn’t come from enemies being damage sponges or the AI having superhuman reaction times. It should come from player skill.
Balatro is one of the best examples of this. The game naturally gets easier as the player learns its systems and gains experience through playing.
Destiny 2 also had excellent skill progression. Say what you want about the game as a whole, but the core gunplay and the mechanics of its three classes rewarded players for improving their own abilities.
Even games like Madden and NBA 2K have, to a lesser extent, systems that reward player skill rather than simply inflating difficulty.
Many older games were made extremely difficult because they were relatively short. The increased difficulty extended playtime and made players feel they were getting more value for the price. That’s one of the reasons games like Ninja Gaiden on the NES earned their reputation for being brutally hard.
As for Soulslike games, they’re simply not my cup of tea. I fully acknowledge that they’re well-made games, and if you enjoy them, that’s great. They’re intentionally designed to be challenging. While the original Dark Souls was developed under a tight schedule and has some rough edges, its high level of difficulty was a deliberate design choice rather than the result of bugs or glitches.
- Comment on 1 week ago:
It’s already scheduled. 😥
- Comment on Can anyone confirm? 1 week ago:
It’s Jacksonville, FL obviously.
- Comment on "Not to brag, but I think we nailed the worst rug option available" 1 week ago:
Piss Catcher 3000.
- Comment on My 98 Oldsmobile 1 week ago:
I’d like to take a moment to dispel some of the claims being made in this comment thread.
Modern cars are significantly more reliable than older cars by virtually every measurable metric. They are unquestionably more difficult to work on, but they also break down far less often.
The safety features on modern vehicles are light-years ahead of anything available in the '80s or '90s. Emissions are also dramatically lower than they were back then.
A lot of people in the comments have already pointed this out.
That said, older cars were undeniably easier to work on in many respects.
- Comment on My 98 Oldsmobile 1 week ago:
I drive electric.
- Comment on Former Valve writer says PlayStation killing physical discs is no conspiracy: "You, the consumer, have made your choice, and the choice is for digital" 1 week ago:
I think we’ve drifted away from your original argument.
Your original comment was making a philosophical case. It appealed to history, Locke’s labor theory, and the moral authority of creators. My response addressed those claims directly.
Your latest reply, however, isn’t really defending that philosophical position. It’s explaining how software licensing currently works under copyright law and why software is treated differently from books or paintings.
I don’t disagree with most of that. Software has long occupied a unique legal category, and EULAs have existed for decades.
But that’s a different argument from the one you originally made. We’ve shifted from “this is the morally correct understanding of ownership” to “this is the current legal framework for software.”
If your point is simply that software has historically been licensed rather than sold outright, then I don’t think we’re actually in much disagreement anymore.
- Comment on Former Valve writer says PlayStation killing physical discs is no conspiracy: "You, the consumer, have made your choice, and the choice is for digital" 1 week ago:
I don’t think the Lockean argument actually gets you where you want it to go.
Locke’s labor theory of property doesn’t just say creators own the fruits of their labor. It also says they have the right to alienate that property, to sell it, transfer it, or give it away. Once that transfer occurs, ownership changes hands. That’s the entire point of property rights.
This is where your comparison to theater performances breaks down.
A performance is inherently ephemeral. Of course you only buy admission. But books, paintings, sculptures, and other tangible works have been bought and sold for centuries. When Rembrandt sold a painting, he didn’t retain the right to dictate who displayed it, resold it, or inherited it. When someone bought a book, the author retained the copyright, but they didn’t retain ownership of that physical copy.
That’s the distinction your argument glosses over.
Physical media didn’t create some bizarre loophole that tricked consumers into believing they owned art. Copyright law has always separated ownership of a copy from ownership of the intellectual property. Buying a novel never meant you owned the copyright. It meant you owned that particular copy.
The “historical anomaly” argument doesn’t really hold either. Technology creating new forms of property isn’t evidence that those forms are somehow illegitimate. Printing presses, photography, automobiles, patents, and even digital storage all changed what could be owned. Calling something a historical anomaly doesn’t make it philosophically suspect.
Where your argument has merit is with services. An MMO, cloud software, or any product that depends on ongoing servers and continuous development is fundamentally different from a finished single-player game or a movie sitting on a disc. Those genuinely require ongoing labor.
But once you start arguing that creators retain moral authority over every copy they’ve sold forever, you’ve left Locke behind. You’re no longer defending property rights, you’re defending perpetual control after the sale. That’s a very different philosophical position, and I don’t think your conclusion follows from your premise.
