I agree and said as much when I touched on this. Again, this isn't a fundamental issue with money, it's an issue with the way it's allowed to be used, distributed and manipulated.
Money isn't broken, our world and laws regarding it are.
Well that would be nice if everyone was on board. But even if the people that hate him don't turn up, the people that love him will. That would be enough for him.
People stopping believing in religion doesn't affect much. People stopping believing in money would collapse countries/the world. That alone will keep people believing in it. At the end of the day I can really take money and get real food with it, no matter how fake you claim it is.
Fundamentally money is just fancy IOUs. You trade bread for eggs. One day the neighbour broke all their eggs so they give you an IOU. You don't really need more eggs at that time so you give another person the egg token for some milk. He can then go get eggs.
That's all money is. Transferable, universal IOUs. And if you think about it, there doesn't need to be a limit to the amount of IOUs in existence. Yes, it's all built on trust and promises, that the egg farmer will honour the token and give you the eggs, but the IOU is just a concept, nothing needs to physically exist for the IOU to be valuable beyond the idea it will be followed through on.
So to me, it doesn't matter if money is "imaginary", because that's kind of the point. The only reason we ever had something backing it was to ensure the person could actually follow through with the IOU they gave out. Because if the chicken farmer gives IOUs out en masse so that they can get a bunch of stuff from their neighbours immediately, they're gonna have a problem if everyone comes to claim them at once.
But if you're happy to accept the idea he can eventually make good on it in some way, and the people of the village all agree to it, there's no reason he can't do this and give out the eggs over time. The fact it's built on trust doesn't automatically make it not real.
That said, there's definitely valid concern about how speculative bubbles and extreme wealth concentration can distort the system. But that's a problem with how the IOUs are distributed and manipulated, not with the idea of money itself.
And honestly when we look at the scale of the world today, what's the alternative? You want to go back to trading? How is that going to work for obtaining a TV, smartphone, internet? A variety of foods? Etc etc etc. I'm interested what alternatives could exist for a global or even national market.
Devils advocate: If we can say ACAB because even the "good" ones are complicit via not stepping in to stop the bad ones and letting the bad situations happen, why is this equivalent situation different?
Yes! The tree lights up green if you're pregnant and red if you're not. It can flash between them while you're waiting, and sometimes it will randomly hold just a tiny bit longer to keep suspense high.
Women are human beings that should have autonomy to do as they please.
This is 100% true, for anyone (obviously excepting it doesn't infringe on others, such as murder for example), but also its okay for people to have boundaries and for you to compromise within those boundaries, assuming you want to be with the person more than you care about the boundary they have.
Now whether such a thing should be a boundary is another question, but if it's normal to, for example, not want your partner to cheat and have that as a boundary, we can at least agree its okay for boundaries to exist at all within a relationship, and that it isn't necessarily infringing on your autonomy as a person for your partner to have them.
There are however definitely boundaries that should be considered a red flag, and for many people this may be one of them. That's fine, and it's fully your choice to decide whether you accept a boundary, just as some people may only want an open relationship, and so "no 'cheating' of any form" would be a boundary they wouldn't accept, despite being common.
And they're not "yours" or anybody else's but their own selves.
It could always play it if you reminded it of the board state every move. Not well, but at least generally legally. And while I know elites can play chess blind, the average person can't, so it was always kind of harsh to hold it to that standard and criticise it not being able to remember more than 5 moves when most people can't do that themselves.
Besides that, it was never designed to play chess. It would be like insulting Watson the Jeopardy bot for losing against the Atari chess bot, it's not what it was designed to do.
I'd argue random online leftists criticizing non perfection is exactly why Trump won.
This isn't to say we should turn a blind eye to or ignore the valid criticisms, and I get that people think that's exactly what you're saying if argue in this direction. It's just, wouldn't it be better if people were currently protesting and petitioning for Harris to do something about the issues they didn't like her stance on, rather than protesting essentially illegal deportations in their own country?
I feel like it's kinda missing the forest for the trees.
Exactly. I'm so tired of watching the left destroy themselves from the inside. Progress is slow. The right are clearly masters of playing the long game, they've been building to current events for decades. They're happy to take the 10% wins bit by bit. They're happy to make sacrifices for their progress.
Meanwhile the left demands nothing but perfection, and constantly cannibalises itself for not being perfect and revolutionising the world day 1.
You don't have to suddenly love the guy, rewrite history, or swear loyalty. You just have to know when someone's actually helping and not get in the way.
The right wins because they fight together. Business conservatives, evangelicals, fascists, libertarians. They might hate each other behind the scenes, but they march in line, and they'll eat burnt toast with a smile if it gets them closer to running the kitchen.
Fine I deleted it. But it worked so whatever don't need opinions now anyway. I was just asking for advice, it's not like I was trying to pass it off as my own comment or something.
Exactly what I thought. If their intent is to kill you they aren't going to mess around while you ask several times threatening to call the police.