Pay them to care more?

I hope you’re right. But the ideas of ancaps are going to do the exact opposite of preventing corruption and budget misuse. In fact it’s going to make it much easier. Since the amount of money that the government receives through taxation is not going to go down much, while many programs are being dismantled and privatised. Just textbook neoliberal stuff, the government is going to have to spend more money on privatised infrastructure while social programs, healthcare and education are squeezed. Or worse, privatised and only available when profitable.

Privatisation doesn’t get rid of corruption or budget misuse. It does place it outside of democratic control. If its the rules that need to be changed, there is absolutely no need for ancap ideology. If the rules aren’t helping now, dismantling the government isn’t going to change anything. They either need to be changed or enforced.

Anyway, I think it’s very predictable what policies he will steer towards and since there is an economical crisis, finding support for big austerity measures, isn’t going to be difficult, I assume.

It’s a reference to an attitude that is prevalent in conspiracy fantasy circles. It’s a deflection of ownership of ideas to lend them more credibility, it’s not actually about researching anything. There is no discussion about research conclusions or facts. there is discussion, but it’s the exact opposite of research, it looks like, what questions give the right answers and how to connect the conclusions to the data. What they mean by saying ‘research’ isn’t what it actually means. Conspiracy fantasy wants you to stumble upon coincidences to lure you into their worldview.

It’s the only way I can listen to music in my car. I could upgrade, but I don’t need to because I have the jack.

Fuck you. Use a reputable source.

Tankie gaslighting in action.

Sounds like a lot of work

It’s going to open a tab in the browser while closing the app. That’s more trouble than I wanted.

In order to make the break light visibly stand out from the light bar that goes across the back of the car, they turn off two sections of the bar on the left and right of the centre, leaving a portion of the light bar lighted in the centre.

Normally car manufacturers treat the light bar as a running light, and they add a seperate ‘third’ brakelight. Clearly at Tesla they didn’t want to alter the design, and this weird solution fits the wording of the government mandate. It doesn’t fit the spirit, but they got away with it.

And it’s ironic because in every other bit of safety, like crash protection, rollover protection. Tesla is a leader in the market, their cars are incredibly safe. Tesla really cares about you when you bought a car, they don’t really care about safety in general. Sums up Musks attitude.

There is less light during braking instead of more, or brighter.

Skirting awfully close to a nazi boycott! Luckily the nazis will probably understand it was freeze peach. They know as no other what it means to disavow.

Musk is playing 3d checkers and saves free speech once again.

While sure, there is leverage, but it’s not like Spotify is being arbitrary about their content. I can listen to obscure stuff, and I do. Also don’t forget that big artists are often big for a reason and it’s usually not for a lack of talent, taste just varies but certainly there always is a market for ‘pop music’.

And we’re the pawns

Look I share the same frustrations. And true change can only come from political actions. Laws, oversight, fines, taxation, enforcement… Leaving change to the market isn’t a solution to anything. We can’t consume our way out of this problem.

But that’s also not the point of our conversation, I’m trying to make clear that as a consumer you still bare responsibility over what you consume.

The problem is when people throw their hands up and just ‘get what they need’ mindlessly. That’s also a choice.

When we can make choices that are clearly better and more ethical, we should. So it is on us to do the best we can, within the system we find ourselves in. We should strive for systemic (political) change outside of consumption, as well. One doesn’t get nullified by the other.

Okay but this also doesn’t absolve you from your responsibility. At some point you’re going to make a decision about where your personal boundaries in weighing your options are. And if you’re not driving and eating (a lot) less animal products you’re further ahead of the curve than others. But deciding when you find things unsustainable, it is still another decision.

Most people don’t feel or don’t see a positive difference from their choice. So they let go of their responsibilities because of it. If there is no positive impact it doesn’t matter what they do, is their thinking.

While when you look in the supermarket now compared to ten years ago… Meat substitutes, vegan products, plant milks are abundant. So, things are changing, the choices people make are influential. It just isn’t immediate. But even within capitalism the market is responding to changes, from the personal choices of people like you and me. It’s slow and tedious, but things change.

Yes as an overarching critique that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. My problem is that this doesn’t absolve us from our responsibility. If choice A leaves trails of chemicals behind but costs less than B that leaves purity behind. I can definitely critique people who choose to get A.

Mainly because the other option is to choose to not consume. For example veganism doesn’t apply to what you’re saying. It’s a conscious decision based on ethical values. The same thing can be true for people who don’t use cars.

And even if there is a choice between lesser evils, it’s still a choice of consequence.

deleted by creator

That’s a mischaracterization of what it means to argue from ideology. They only have to accept the idea that ownership of the means of production means ownership of the pollution from the means of production.

Which is a. Very common and b. The only explanation through which this research makes sense without attributing malice.

You are the person to set in motion the apparatus necessary to accomplish the task that you wanted to be accomplished.

Yes you live in this late stage capitalist hellscape with the rest of us, but that doesn’t absolve you from being critical and making the best decisions in it.

Okay so you rather think they were doing it on purpose than doing from ideology. I have a bit more regard for people I guess