thethrilloftime69

The answer as always is capitalism. Literally every terrible thing happening can be linked back to the desire for profit.

Do they even know how science works?

I finally deleted my reddit, Facebook, Instagram. I still get dopamine cravings, but you guys do a pretty good job filling in.

Don’t forget, we have not 1 but 2 corporate interest parties.

Why do guys like this get confirmed anyway? Are all words meaningless?

Most of the Internet is completely broken.

Doctor here. What medication is it? Why did they prescribe it? Do you have kidney problems?

These media failures have existed for the majority of the past 40-50 years. It wasn’t so brazen but they’ve been lying for decades.

I’m old so I’m trying to piece this together. I believe main character vibe means someone has to have to behave like their problems are THE problems of “the story”. And by doing that, they are more successful at competing? Competing at what? Like getting more money?

Idk man, there a million ways to skin a cat. You have to feed yourself and whoever you are responsible for, so you do need to compete in “the marketplace” or whatever. I guess if you’re an influencer, it probably helps to portray “main character” energy. It feeds the illusion that your opinions should matter and therefore your product recommendations matter. But I think for most average people, hustling and birth luck are what help them succeed.

First off, I just want to thank you for your thoughtful response. One of the reasons I continue to use Lemmy or Mastodon is because of the actual thoughtful human beings like yourself.

words evolve over time

Absolutely so we shouldn’t have to stay married to older definitions.

I’m primarily writing this comment because I abhor the idea that an idea – it could be anything, from rocket science to theorrtical mathematics – is perceived as being an arena where everyone is just making up stuff, and if that should lead to people becoming turned off the idea of studying it for themselves, that’s a net-negative. No doubt, some countries, politicians, and agencies want to denigrate or prop up their own definitions, but that just makes it easier to identify fake socialists and “communists in name only”.

Part of my motivation for looking into a more precise definition was the desire to truly understand the debate around socialism. And in order to have a proper debate, we need to be able to explain that we mean by certain terms. I think the modern medias failure to properly define these terms for everyone is an intentional strategy to obscure the conversation around socialism and communism.

The merits and failures of socialism and communism deserve to be comprehensively hashed out in the public mind, and it only serves the status quo that this not happen.

Exactly. The way our society is structured is to prevent having a real conversation. Tho obviously we both know the reason why they don’t want precise definitions floating around in the public consciousness.

Man I actually read Lenin and now this thread is making me question what I know. I guess theres what Marxist philosophers say and what is considered in the modern usage.

Marxists say that communism is the ultimate end point. A stateless classless moneyless society. Something so different from our understanding of society as it is currently conceived. I think Ursula K Le Guin probably best imagined what this might look like in “The Dispossessed” (she calls herself an anarchist, but I think this what Marx himself envisioned). Where the way labor roles are divided up by the needs of the group and the choices of individuals. Socialism is said to be the transition state from capitalist society into a communist one. Where the machinery of capitalism is no longer used for the benefit of individuals and is used for the benefit of all. Marx imagines that a society that uses it’s tools for the good of all will naturally evolve into a communist society.

Then there is the modern usage of the terms which seem to vary based on who invokes the them. For example, Republican politicians will use the term socialism to mean communism and vice versa. Some politicians like Mamdani or Bernie will describe socialism to mean a more humane type of capitalism that has other priorities other than pure profit seeking. Some people use communism to describe an authoritarian system that has no regard for human agency. I’m not an expert on this particular topic, but I think this thread is proof that multiple people will have multiple definitions that most often don’t align with how Marxists describe communism and socialism.

I think part of the problem is the history of the Soviet Union. It billed itself as a communist society, even tho it never really achieved anything described as a stateless classless moneyless society. I think at best it probably achieved a form of socialism(by the Marxist definition). Guy Debord(who is a Marxist philosopher) criticized the Soviet Union for creating a new type of class without intending to do so. So a lot of people today hear the Soviet Union call itself a communist country, and so that’s the popular misconception of communism.

I personally think the lack of consensus around these is an intentional bit of propaganda that makes it easy to demonize these terms because most people who grew up in capitalist centers of power have been fed a steady diet of red scare propaganda for decades. It’s easy to throw these terms around to scare people into not even exploring the academic thought that devised them.

Gracias mi amigo

Anyone help me get past the German paywall?

Yes that’s true. And I don’t mind giving opiates to someone who just had surgery. But I’m not everyone’s doctor.

False I’m a bot. You’re interacting with me!

Doctor here. This is exactly it. The system created a bunch of addicts on a lie and then punishes everyone else for the mistake of lying about how addictive opiates are

I think “Adam Ruins Everything” work Adam Conover counts as edutainment. He examines things in society and then explains why they’re problematic.

Must be nice to work for principles.

Hi doctor here. Bradycardia refers specifically to slow heart rate. Typically less than 60 beats per minute.

Bradycardia is a physiological observation and doesn’t necessarily refer to a specific kind of feeling. Well conditioned athletes can have heart rates in the 40s and will feel completely asymptomatic. Pathological conditions such as heart block can cause slow heart rates and that can manifest as feeling dizzy, light headed or fainting.

As with everything, the answer is more complicated than the question.

There’s other variables at play.

Hey bro be the change you want to see in the world. Help me build the meditation community.

https://vger.to/feddit.online/c/meditation

If you post a thread, I will respond.