Comments by "Sky is really High" (@skyisreallyhigh3333) on "More Perfect Union"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HKim0072 " but tangentially I do have mild concerns about trans people competing in women's sports. I'd like to find a middle ground."
There is no middle ground. Either trans women are women or they are not. There is nothing in the middle of that. If they are women, and they are, then they should be able to compete with other women. Any restriction means they aren't considered women.
Trans women hardly ever win in the sports they compete in. Yet when they do, many people, yourself included, likely assume there was an unfair advantage, meaning, trans women will never be allowed to win if they want to be allowed to compete. What's the point in competing if you have to throw the game to allow a cis-woman to win?
You see, there is no middle ground here, and you wanting to find one adds to the pressure to stop trans women from competing now, which means you are siding with the right. This means you are on the right. I am 100% certain that you dont have a single opinion that would fall on the left.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@blairmonroe8887 Again, humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years.
Landlords have only existed for a few thousand years at most.
I'm not sure how saying landlords shouldn't exist is bad faith. It's what I believe.
I believe no human should be allowed to exploit another human for their own gain.
Please tell me how this is bad faith.
Kings certainly controlled everything, and funnily enough it was originally monarchs that created private property to reward those that were loyal to them, or did a service for they did, like go to war for them. As for Chiefdoms, many times the chief was the poorest person in society because they were expected to give everything away.
In the archeological record there is no evidence for war before about 10,000BC, so no warlords didn't always exist.
In modern times there are still stateless peoples and autonomous villages. These don't have Kings or cheifs or warlords. If people exist in statelessness today don't have rulers, nor the stateless or autonomous villages that have existed over the past 600 years that we have been studying through anthropology and ethnography, it's pretty safe to assume stateless peoples in the past also lived without rulers.
Claiming there must always be rulers completely goes against what modern anthropology teaches us. Claiming they always had leaders or were in a state of war is simply repeating racist myths started by enlightenment Era philosophers who were trying to justify the violent privatization of the world.
I'll recommend you 3 good books.
"The dawn of everything" by David Graber & David Wengrow
"Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy" & "The Prehistory of Ptivate Property" by Grant S. McCall and Karl Widerquist
You mentioned a family owning land for 75 years. Well let's go back far enough and we will find that land being violently stolen from indigenous who has complex forms of communal ownership over the land. Since that land was violently stolen, that brings into question the current ownership over that land.
Can you explain where you got the notion that I want the government to own everything, because there is nowhere that I stated that.
And communism isn't when the government owns property. Governments created private property in the first place.
I want to go back to having everything be communally owned. If you think that means government ownership, it's clear you are not informed enough to have an informed opinion on this.
You're right to private property was created by the violent take over of complex communally owned lands. Saying this isn't true means you only have bothered to read those who you agree with and take everything they say as fact, even though the justifications for private property have been fully debunked by modern anthropology.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dominicgunderson "1. It would be illegal for all registers to include a tipping option. 2. It would be illegal for receipts to mention or refer to tipping"
I'm willing to bet lawyers would argue tipping is a form of speech, and thus its a first amendment right and the law would be thrown out.
"3. It would be illegal for waiters/waitresses to accept tips (and yes, they would be fired for doing so). Of course, people may still tip, but the culture of tipping would be shaken down."
So you want to destroy the well being of servers all because they are fine accepting someone else's cash, which is really a gift. Tips are gifts. This is extremely authoritarian and frankly disgusting.
"Enforcement would be largely unnecessary but could occasionally include inspectors and undercover agents."
This would cost millions upon millions of dollars a year. You want to pay people a full salary with benefits to go out and spend money at food restaurants to maybe stop people handing servers small tips that are nowhere close to the amount we will be paying these officers and agents?
You really think expanding the police state even more is what we need? You really think that's a good use of our limited resources?
"Ultimately, the ban is less about punishing people for offering tips and more about destroying the culture of tipping."
If your plan is to waste a huge amount of our limited resources to force employers to fire servers who accept what really is a gift, and on enforcers of the law, punishment is the point.
Banning something never works and with how the American culture is, if you tried to ban tipping, servers would likely end up seeing more tips.
I hope to god you are never given a position of power because you will be one authoritarian fuck
1
-
1
-
1
-
1