Yeah, humor doesn’t always come across as it would IRL.
but my larger point is more about figuring out ways to fix what capitalism has broken, and I doubt we can use capitalism to do that.
4 Likes
And again, I agree. But there’s been neither the political willpower nor consumer demand to make the changes to capitalism that are critically needed. Many people, frankly, only care about their short term happiness. The only thing left is to use capitalism to effect changes to capitalism. It’s shit all the way down.
1 Like
Because that’s the ideology that shapes our lives. I think the goal should be to change that ideology… what did Ursula K. LeGuin say, that at one time the divine right of kings seemed inevitable, too, and it changed? If that changed, so can this. That was a structure that had been a part of human civilization since pretty much the beginning of what we think of as civilization. How many actual functioning monarchies are left and how many rule via divine right rather than through some modern fig leaf of a constitutional/legislative order? Even the Saudis have a parliament (although them having Mecca and Medina is still a powerful symbol of their religious justifications).
I think it’s pretty critical at this point that we start making major changes to our global system. We’re really going to kill ourselves off if we don’t, and I’m convinced that we can’t use the system we have to do so. Which I understand is incredibly difficult, nor do I have all the answers to how we do that, but that’s the fundamental reason why we build communities in the first place, to pull on the collective intelligence rather than rely on individuals to fix our problems. Unlike the bullshit that people like Musk or Trump regularly say, they can’t fix our collective problems. It’s just impossible for an individual to do so. They are too big, too complex, too vast for anyone person to just “fix” it. We’re going to have to find the political will to make these changes, or we’ve sentenced future generations to hell.
Wholeheartedly agree.
5 Likes
Given that the traditional role of an analogy is to clarify and simplify, resorting to analogies about porn says a lot about the male psyche.
It wasn’t an analogy. Porn is actually responsible for several important technology adoptions over the last forty years. The primary example being VHS winning out over Betamax, but it was a factor in the adoption of Super 8, blu-ray over HD DVD, etc.
And that’s not saying porn as a technology driver is GOOD. But it has been a factor.
EDIT: And the more I think about it, the more I feel that’s the ultimate example of how capitalism has failed, when porn is driving consumer choice.
1 Like
5 Likes
2 Likes
I think that’s Tang and the pen that can write upside down.
But we may not watch the same movies.
3 Likes
Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. The Consultative Assembly is only an advisory body, and all its members are appointed by the king.
1 Like
So they’re at the Magna Carta stage.
I’m aware it’s an absolute monarchy. It still has modern structures, like an elected body, even if the King has absolute authority. And out of the many governments around the world, I’m guessing that absolute monarchies are in the minority.
So I’d say that my point stands, that what UKLG said about the divine right of kings is true. Other means of legitimizing rule predominant now. 
I disagree. Despite being an absolute monarchy, their means of claiming legitimacy is still more modern than medieval. And they are in the minority for nation-states. I suspect that they are tolerated, in part, because they buy off the Sunni majority and suppress minority groups ruthlessly (which is spilling over to the rest of the region now). They have been shifting to expand the basis of their economy from oil, so this current crisis in the oil industry comes at a delicate time for the House of Saud. It helps that America is their BFF, too, but we’re not looking like things are going well, either. But still… overall, even if the legislative body is advisory, that tells us something about how much things have changed since absolutism was supreme. Power always must justify itself in some way.
4 Likes
The Russians only reached the magna carta stage in 1905. The inevitable progress of history accelerates!
1 Like
3 Likes
BTW, I didn’t delete that comment. Dunno who did, or why.
So you think being passionately concerned about something is “cringey” unless it’s motivated by a personal financial interest?
That’s a… revealing attitude.
(Honestly, if I were attempting to manipulate the stock price to my advantage, I’d be howling along with the rest of the mob here. Social-media outrage over whatever stupid or surprising or rude thing Musk said this time drives down the price for a day or two as all the stock-bots and pearl-clutchers panic over it. Then the stock goes right back up, and usually well past its previous high.
Buy on the dip, sell on the recovery. Basic day-trading.
And it has happened so predictably and so repeatedly that’s it’s a no-brainer if you’ve got the cash flow to make the trades — which I haven’t had lately, doggone it.
Note: I am not a stock analyst, nor do I play one on TV . YMMV.)
note to mr. blank–
as i said in my original reply to that deleted comment which was itself deleted, what that attitude reveals is the sum of all of the previous bitter experience of watching the actions of entrepreneurs and investors in this late stage of capitalism. no more, no less.
4 Likes
I read the legal complaint. It named the attorneys. Duh.
And you don’t have to have anything to do with Elon Musk to know who Quinn Emanuel LLP is. The entire business-litigation world knows who they are.
Or to know that they are very, VERY good at “persuasive briefs on complex subjects”, which is their company specialty.
Clearly, though, only ignorance of any detailed facts aside from click-bait headlines and soundbites entitles one to an opinion around here.
Me, I must be biased, because I know too much. /s
/smh/
In the case of slavishly defending a foot-stomping billionaire who has a meltdown when he doesn’t get his way, yes. There are plenty of things to invest one’s passions in for no money that aren’t as cringe inducing.
I don’t think you’re doing that. It looks more like you got yourself emotionally invested in defending the heroic narrative of the founder of a company you’re financially invested in. Your having money on it makes it slightly less embarrassing than the usual Musk fanbois we see around here.
5 Likes
Fun NASA trivia: Tang was not invented by or for the space program. It was an instant-drink mix, so it was added to the menu, but most of the astronauts disliked it, and seldom chose it as a personal menu item.
The Fisher Space Pen was created by private investmnent, in hopes of selling some to the space program as a promotional tie-in.
Fisher paid for the development of the pen, and only sold a small number of the pens to NASA, at less than full retail price. They made their money back on retail sales.
That was no fun at all.
7 Likes
