Look, rawstory is a rag, no question. But they literally embedded the video of the sermon. Literally a video of the events in question.

You can hardly argue they're misrepresenting things when you can literally see the thing yourself.

Like, what better source than the actual video of the event could you possibly want?

I do think the situation is more complicated than Lemmy would have you believe.

Both Iran and Hamas have been geopolitical issues for a long time. And it's worth remembering that all of this was kicked off by a large scale terrorist attack perpetrated by Hamas.

It's also worth noting that Iran is a Russian puppet, and Europe obviously has some "neighbor problems" with Russia at the moment, so there's a sort of baked in desire to oppose their vassal states.

And, while I think everyone would agree that the loss of civilian life is terrible, there is a huge amount of misinformation that makes it hard to be sure what's going on. Hamas does have a long history of screwing over the civilian Palestinian population to further it's political goals, and so people are willing to give Israel a little more credence than they deserve when they claim things like "Hamas was hiding in that hospital" or "we're blocking aid because Hamas is hoarding it all to drive up tensions" or "it was Hamas who shot those civilians," because it actually wouldn't be the first time any of that had credibly happened. Something of a boy-cried-wolf scenario.

Add into that genuine desire to combat real anti-Semitism that's been a fallout of this whole situation (a problem that hits pretty close to home in Europe due to events of the past century), and you can see why some people might be a bit over-eager to support Israel in this conflict.

It's worth noting there are no good guys here. Israel is obviously in the wrong, and are committing horrible atrocities. I think that much is plain on its face. But Hamas and Iran have both had "the destruction of the state of Israel" as stated policy goals for the past 80 years. The reason Israel has the Iron Dome is because they've been getting missiles lobbed at them non-stop for decades.

And when there are no good guys, people tend to just align themselves with who they like more, or who they owe more to.

Just because it's generally possible for the bladder to rupture before the muscles give out, it's certainly not impossible. A myriad of conditions or even just genetics can lead to a physically weaker bladder.

I think it's a bit bold to say that absolutely 100%, no exceptions, that the muscles will always fail first. Even if that's true 99.99% of the time, there's just far to much variance in human bodies to rule it out, I would think.

Sorry, iirc this conversation started with the question about what does free trade look like in a non-capitalistic system, and you pointed to mercantilism. You then seemed to say that the main difference between capitalism and mercantilism is the complexity of the marketplace. Which, if true, seems like a poor example of free trade without capitalism, as they're largely the same system.

But I do understand your point. When trade is controlled by the state (a la mercantilism), I don't know that I'd call it free trade, but, really, I'm not too hung up on this point, as I think the real blurring of the line is on the micro vs macro scale. You can have local free trade without large scale free trade (e.g I can sell leather goods, but not be involved in the import and export of animal products which remains the purview of the "government"). I might argue that this is localized capitalism in a non-capitalist system, but typically when we talk about capitalism we are talking about governmental economic organization.

I also really feel like this breakdown is due to trying to map this into the modern economy. Does the definition of the "means of production" breaks down in a service economy like the US? The amount of total jobs involved in any part of cloth production (or other manufacturing sector jobs) is a minority. What does "seizing the means of production" look like when what's being "produced" are services not goods?

I think, if nothing else, it makes it hard to distinguish the "leather worker" from the "animal products exporter" as those are only different in scale not kind when there is no immutable aspect of nature or industry under control. The difference between my local burger joint and McDonalds is of scale, not kind, so how do I seize the means of production from one and not the other?

Can you provide a source for that definition of capitalism?

Genuinely asking, as it's not the definition I have historically heard, and while I can find things that argue that what you are saying is an inevitable byproduct of unregulated capitalism, I can't find anywhere that says those problems are a requirement for a system to be called capitalism.

As far as I can tell, if there is free trade and money/capital is owned and managed by private citizens, then that meets every formal definition of capitalism I have been able to find.

"Late stage capitalism" I think carries the connotations that you have outlined, but not capitalism in general.

I think where I struggle with this conceptually is mapping it onto the US service economy.

We've largely moved away from "owning the means of production" translating to "who has the rights to the copper mines" and more to mean, "who owns big businesses." And since anyone can start a business, and there is no meaningful limit to the number of businesses there are, it feels much more far reaching to say that there should be no "private ownership of businesses" than "someone shouldn't have exclusive rights to all the copper."

I'd also push back on "the workers" not being private ownership, unless you're advocating for a model where any business is required to cut in all employees as part owners?

And I don't know how you legislate running a business "for good" and not "for profit"? That line seems blurry at best, as you need profit to keep the lights on and keep your family fed. Maybe caps on the amount of profit that a business can make as a percentage of revenue? Idk, it seems impossible to make such a system that isn't easy to game.

Fair, though it seems like you're saying that capitalism is just complicated mercantilism, at which point it ceases to be a good example of free trade without capitalism, no?

Though, I do get your overarching point that capitalism has more to do with private ownership of the means of production.

I think though, especially in a service economy like the US, it's hard to define "the means of production" in a way that is distinguishable from generalized private property and enterprise.

See, the trick there is in your first paragraph I feel like. Under mercantilism, trade is under the almost exclusive purview of the government. So I would argue this doesn't really meet the definition of "free trade."

But, to steel man a bit, when "the government" is fairly unstructured, like in a feudal system, the line between government control of trade and "private citizen" control of trade can be a bit blurry. And over time I'm sure it gets messy whether a person is a "government entity" or not.

I do also feel like there's a "difference of scale is difference of kind" problem here. Obviously if you own a copper mine and employ hundreds of people to go down and mine it for you, you own the means of production. But also, if you run a small restaurant in a strip mall and hire a half dozen servers to wait tables, you also own the means of production.

And, to your point, there probably were private innkeepers under mercantilism that took coin in exchange for goods and services. They probably employed people to help work the place. Does that make it capitalism? What if the owner used the money from that inn to build another, then another and another, and eventually had the money to buy a title and become part of the "noble class"? Is it capitalism then? Does a system that allows for that count as a capitalism, or does it need to actively encourage it?

Idk. I think my big issue, at the end of the day, is that the word capitalism doesn't really mean anything. Or, rather, no one can really agree on what it means, and it just turns into a tribalism stand in word for "anyone who disagrees with me on economic policy." But that's so unspecific as to be totally useless. What parts of "capitalism" are you decrying? What would you replace it with? But I feel like any questions are met with anger that you're not bought into the anti-capitalist agenda, even though no two people seem to agree on what that actually means.

So, it isn't the ownership and trade of capital that makes something capitalism, it's when someone is allowed to accumulate too much capital?
What constitutes "enough" capital to push it over the edge into capitalism?

Or is it that you cannot have non-owner workers? That you can't employ additional help without those people buying into the business?

Not trying to be an ass. Just trying to understand the distinction. I genuinely don't know what "all the requirements" necessary to make it capitalism are, and try as I might I am not finding any beyond the literal definition in the dictionary, which doesn't have any.

What is the source for this definition of capitalism? Just trying to figure out if this is, like, the "academic definition" or something. Cause, as you say, what words mean does mean something, which is why we have different words for different things.

I do think it's really easy to redefine words in a "no true Scotsman"-y way, where you redefine a general word to mean "just the versions of that thing I don't like," in order to tribalise it. Which doesn't mean that's what you're doing here. I'm just trying to understand, and I think if we can't agree on what the word capitalism even means, we aren't exactly going to get anywhere. So I'm just trying to figure out what definition of the term you are using and why.

I mean, this feels semantic. The word capitalism is obviously of the modern era, but there are governments and economic systems going back to antiquity that I think meet all of the definitional requirements of "capitalistic."

Really, I just lack a vision of what "free trade but not capitalism" could possibly mean. Could you describe that system for me?

When I try to do so, the result always meets the literal, dictionary definition of capitalism, as listed above.

Genuine question. How do you have free markets without the existence of capital and the pursuit of its accumulation?

The definition of capitalism per the dictionary is:

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

How do you have free trade without people who own things trading them?

Right? It's literally Trader Joe's and Aldi that have handled bags where I live. Every single other store only has handleless bags. It's terrible.

Happy to pay for paper. As I said, I'd gladly pay $1/bag for them if they'd just put effing handles on them.

I do buy paper. That was literally how I started this thread. I'm happy to buy paper bags. I just wish they had handles more often.

Fair on all counts. I don't disagree with you that the situation is bad.

I do think it's somewhat hard to feel it for a lot of people. Partly, as you said, exponential growth is hard for most people to grasp. I also think a lot of older people who have followed climate science over the years are a little jaded too, as climate science has, rightly or not, beat the drum of "imminent global destruction within the next decade" for the past 7+ decades now, and I think people have gotten a bit of a "boy cried wolf" mentality about it.

But one would have to be blind to not see that things are getting noticeably worse, and as you say, exponential growth is a mofo. The jar is half full with one second to midnight, as they say.

But understood on all counts, and definitely no hard feelings on my end either. I tend to see the good in people, even those that make decisions I wouldn't. I think it probably leads to a happier life, but then again, how much of that is choice vs disposition?

And seriously, all that said. I simply cannot stress enough how much better the bags with handles are. And if the earth burns to a crisp because of them, well, was that not a sacrifice worth making?

To be fair, it's probably only been, like, an hour. Just spaced out over 24hrs, lol.

But I think we're talking past each other a bit. The point of me bringing up eating food out of the trash (and sure, donuts count) wasn't to chastise you for not doing it. I'm not trying to call you a hypocrite or something.

My point was more about charity and empathy. It was about viewing the decisions that people wo are "worse than you" (my words not yours) not as people to be looked down upon, but as people to be encouraged.

I think it's tied up in the brinkmanship of your last statement. Will climate issues be a major problem that we'll have to grapple with in the coming century? Absolutely. But allowing that to lead to misanthropy is unhealthy.

I think the issue is that we each have our own internal line of "acceptable participation in the upkeep of the world around us," and they're different.

So, like, if there's a line graph here, it has the following points: 1: not throwing cigarette butts on the ground 2: not using disposable bags 3: eating food out of trash cans.

I've said, existing between points 1 and 2 is my personal level of "acceptable participation," and you have said it's between 2 and 3. Many people exist above point 3, and many exist below point 1.

And someone above point three might approach you and say, "why are you letting perfectly good food go to waste," and hit you with all the stats and figures about how food waste is destroying the earth. And it would be such a tiny change for you to, instead of making or ordering food, just find some in a nearby trashcan. It's all over the place, and super accessible. And it's really dangerous. Freshly thrown away food is pretty much always potable.

But you have chosen that your personal level of "acceptable participation" doesn't require that of you. Should the "above point 3" people judge you for not making that tiny lifestyle change?

And honestly, perhaps they should? You are living below what they have determined is the "minimal acceptable level of social responsibility." You aren't doing your part to help combat a real environmental problem.

But a majority of people have chosen not to eat out of trash cans. Just as a majority of people don't bring reusable bags into the grocery store. And the only difference between those things is where your personal line of "acceptable participation" is.

And yes, there is a "generally societally agreed upon level of participation" which would say that throwing your cigarette butts on the ground is unacceptable. But you know why I know that's the generally agreed upon standard? Because only a minority of people do it. The general societal standard for disposable bags is on the "use them" side.

And sure, would it be beneficial to put in work to shift the Overton window on that issue, sure. Campaign for it. Push the cause. (Which I recognize is kind of what you're doing here). Who knows, maybe I'll pick up some bags and forget them in my car next time I hit the store, only to get mad the stores paper bags don't have handles.

But I think there's a big difference between advocating for a shift in the societal expectation, and investing emotional energy into despairing over the condition of your fellow man. You can recognize that, just because someone is on the other side of an issue than you, doesn't mean they're "bad" or deserve derision. None of us, yourself included, are doing all the "little" things we could be doing to make the world a better place. There's always a higher level of societal participation. But I think my concern here is that your mentality is, "people who chose differently than me are bad," not, "how can I best advocate to help encourage people to improve."

I think that it's a bit of a false equivalent to say that since we can't convince people to use reusable bags, we can't get Jeff Bezos to reduce his.

They're different problem sets. Industrial pollution (or pollution from people with access to industry levels of capital) is something that can be addressed with legislation. It's also something with fairly broad, populist appeal. And it's something that, if addressed might make meaningful and lasting impact.

The "people need to take personal responsibility for recycling" narrative has been largely funded by oil companies and polluting industries as a cover to avoid people realizing that those things make up such a tiny fraction of the overall problem. They work to turn people against each other so that were too busy fighting to address the much bigger environmental issues.

Also, I love straws. If I don't have one the drink gets in my moustache.

Look, it's easy to have the viewpoint that anyone who isn't doing everything you're doing to save the world is a shitty person, and anyone who does more than you is obviously just a try-hard.

Everyone, yourself included, makes "shitty" decisions for convenience sake every day. I assume you buy food from the grocery store instead of foraging through trash cans. I've had friends who did the latter, and called the rest of us shitty if we ever threw anything away.

Just because someone looks at a situation and comes out with a different "worth the effort" assessment than you, doesn't make it "shitty." That's just life man. Are you driving a car instead of a motorcycle? Using toilet paper? Buying food from restaurants instead of eating out of trash cans? These are all decisions you could trivially change in your life today to make the world a little greener. So why aren't you?

But, really, I think our actual disconnect here is that I've not articulated my position well enough. I'm talking paper bags with handles! I mean, if that's not worth a dollar, what is?

I think the "more than I thought it would be" comment was more a reflection on how low I thought it would be than on how high it is. It's still a pretty tiny fraction of the overall problem.

But, like, look. The optimal decision, and the only way to "stop accepting shit" as you put it, is for every single person to drop what they're doing and go live as a hermit in the woods, and never produce or consume another product.

That isn't realistic for the majority of people though. And while I could succumb to self-flagellation as a form of symbolic protest, I think my time and effort is spent participating in the system as it is, and donating to organizations that can make more systematic changes that might ultimately do some good.

Beating yourself (or others) up for "not doing enough" is at best a form of coping with things that are beyond your control, and at worst a form of alienating people who broadly agree with you.

And, to be clear, I didn't say I'd pay a dollar a bag for any old paper bag. I said I'd pay that much for one with handles. Big difference.