I meant politicians will abuse the intention of these policies to gain favor from poor white voters, and that nation state actors will cause polarization by highlighting the growing discontent in various ways.

Okay, so about immigration I’ll just make this point, from another thread:

So, let’s say a democratic country favors pro-choice policies, but then has an influx of immigrants who are anti-abortion, and now that population is greater. That’s a change of values because the population shifted to a majority opinion which favors a different view point. If a country has an idealized view of how it wants to be, then I think it’s fair to expect immigrants to integrate and assimilate. I don’t think that has anything to do with xenophobia or not excluding different cultures, as long as the core values of a country are maintained. For example, if a country wants to maintain a democratic socialist society, and a greater population of capitalists immigrate to it, then I think that socialist society would want to restrict immigration as well.

The above point is to demonstrate how democracies are fragile, and that not all immigration policies are necessarily xenophobic or racist.

So interesting thing to note from history, in many cases western people or nations pulled ahead by betraying non-western allies or peoples. The prosperity of the current globalist, neoliberal world is built on multicultural alliances.

Basically people like this are signaling to anyone who’s paying attention and has been keeping score of historical record “DONT TRUST US, WE WILL BETRAY YOU!!”. There’s just not enough economic activity in the western nations to uphold their current levels of activity and productivity without multicultural alliances, so this is an interesting turn.

Power is an interesting concept because a lot of it is assumed on the part of those who claim it, and those who relinquish it often don’t even realize the cards they hold because they’re gaslit into believing the lies of their opponents. What a shitty and annoying world, and here I was hoping for a Star Trek future in my lifetime.

Lastly, the whole “white supremacy” thing doesn’t make sense when there are people of Persian descent who are more Aryan than many white Europeans, so that’s a huge lol.

But the point is that masculinity [and femininity] is programmed throughout the core development of the brain. Unless there’s a motivation to question it that developed neuron architecture only gets reinforced. By the time you’re able to question it you’re so set in the concrete it takes years or decades of struggle to unlearn the worst traits. When you unlearn them it’s a threat to people who haven’t had to question it.

Except for children with autism, I’d say. My mom couldn’t get me to be girly or feminine while I was growing up, I just did what made sense, sometimes that was a girly or feminine thing and other times not.

Maybe the patriarchy is an allistic people problem lol.

Not everyone wants to live in some EU places because those areas are too densely packed. Vienna has been voted the most livable city many years in a row, but most residential areas I saw were filled with apartments, condos or townhomes.

Tank Girl, it got shit reviews when it came out, but has grown a cult following since then, https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/tank_girl

I am also partial to Dude Where’s My Car

I have a different exposure to feminist movies, so I guess I use that as a barometer. I think older movies with the same themes as Barbie were already highly successful in providing a nuanced commentary on gender power and equality in society, and the role of women, sometimes chosen and otherwise. So that’s Legally Blonde, Persepolis, Wild (w/ Reese Witherspoon), Mystic Pizza, Bridget Jones Diary, and Waitress and some others I am definitely forgetting.

Most people are incapable of admitting they like comfort food, but they shouldn’t get to pretend that that’s exactly what it is, doing so just degrades the quality of the arts.

Barbie movie, it just didn’t have any interesting message or pov that isn’t already repeated on a weekly basis in the NYT articles

Edit lol don’t read my comment if you’re too sensitive and easily butt hurt, but it answers the question in the title 🤷‍♀️

I don’t understand, can you give some examples?

Why should an owner share profits equally if they’re responsible for most of the startup push?

Great point, I’ll take that into consideration

I am sorry, but what does bought out mean? The person running it simply didn’t have to sell. If you’re saying “money was too tempting”, then isn’t that an inherent flaw in any Marxist Leninist theory in practice? So let’s say, the business wasn’t run by someone who cared enough about others and got greedy, so why not start one where you pick the right people? If you can’t do that, then why should any state ever cede over production to workers? How would we ensure greed doesn’t take over then?

I don’t know, it seems the whole argument seems to boil down to “there’s not enough time, money or skill”. I guess my question is why do ML theorists think workers can organize enough to run a state when they can’t organize enough to run a business?

People upvoting this have no idea, VCs aren’t the only way to fund a business

Idk, people are doing it already. Seems like this isn’t really a good reason.

You’re right it’s hard, that’s the same pressure as normal business creation. I mean, look at the fediverse. Making something like this didn’t happen overnight, and there’s a lot of talent and vision which made it happen.

I think to start, someone could build a profit-sharing version of TikTok, FB, Zoom, Amazon or Etsy etc.

This doesn’t make sense, there are people already doing this and making millions, at least.

Can you please cite some examples? What does that even mean?

These are great points, and looking at some of the other responses I get the sense that it’s a time and skills issue. So, what exactly do communists and socialists imagine will happen when “workers seize the means of production”?

I don’t want to discourage anyone from pursuing these ideas, I think at least in the U.S. it might be cool to have a consultancy or non-profit which helps connect such founders and provides them with education, training and startup resources.

Edit oh and some of the other points are that one wouldn’t get rich doing this. So what? I’ve already seen people look down on wealth accumulation, so I think it’s fair to say that the motives for someone who’d start such a business venture are different, which is valid and reasonable.

Secondly, I don’t think market forces will impact such businesses because if you’re creating communities around them, then people will choose what they know and trust.