Reading

Send it Here!

No we are just close allies with countries who will

Quantum computing. It might be a real thing but it’ll go through a grift phase first.

Another one will be environmental carbon capture, like pulling carbon out of the atmosphere. This one would be easier to fake but might not get traction for longer since the ideological superstructure in our society is already built up so that it is hard for a political crisis to emerge due to global climate concerns. Even though climate change is worsening, and whole cities are being destroyed by hurricanes, the debate is still pretty stabilized. However since this grift will end up being sold as a commercial solution to a political problem, the grift will probably come from a larger player like Lockheed or Boeing, which would necessitate investing in the most evil companies in existence. Still you never know, Tesla stayed afloat for years without making a working product by selling carbon credits issued by the government to other car companies, so you might be able to bootstrap this one

Scientific research indicates we see colors pretty damn similarly, with edge cases for colorblindness and also people who are more color sensitive.

One way this can be studied is by studying the metamerism of different colors by different observers. Metamerism is the study of how colors change given different light sources.

There are other objective qualities that give hints that we have similar ways of experiencing colors. You mention that colors are nothing more than our brain assigning “color” to frequency of light – but light is itself just a frequency of electromagnetic radiation, namely the frequencies that make up the bulk of the radiation emitted by the sun.

So to a normal observer without colorblindness, there are more variants of colors of green than any other color. Green is of course situated in the very center of the roygbiv spectrum, it is the “most visible” color. The colors with the least amount of variations are red and violet, which are situated at the edges. Frequencies above violet or below red become invisible making up infrared and ultraviolet radiation.

Where we get tricked up, and I used to have identical suspicions as you did, is that we consider color to be purely subjective, because we aren’t taught to unify subjectivity and objectivity into a united whole. Color isn’t completely imagined, there are certain surfaces that absorb and reflect certain frequencies of EM radiation just as the structures in our brain that process this ocular input are more or less similar. Things that are subjective aren’t usually associated with being “real” the same way that objectively “real” things that exist out in the phenomenal world are. However, color is socially real, we can almost all identify colors that are the same and colors which are different. Since the set of colors which are “red” are fewer than the set of colors which are “green” then there is no way that what I experience as red is the same as what you experience as green. Artists use colors to convey emotion and are able to achieve this with many many different observers. Warm colors are warm, and cool colors are cool. There may be different levels of sensitivity but in my experience this can be somewhat trained into an observer though no doubt there are outliers who have a unique sensitivity to color differences.

So there are objective factors which align with subjective factors let’s say 90% of the time, which strongly supports the idea that we experience color more or less the same way. The trouble is not that subjectivity and objectivity are irreconcilable, in fact it is when we fail to reconcile them that our troubles begin. In my opinion, this is a huge problem that creates all kinds of issues when we try to relate to each other; it may be the most prominent philosophical problem of our age. Luckily it is fairly easily remedied with a slight change in the way we think about subject and object. Its useful to separate them sometimes but we need to be able to reunify them, which just takes practice in my experience.

There’s a rare disease that turns peoples faces into demon faces called prosopometamorphopsia that can be partially relieved by observing things under different colored light.

Jimmy Eat USA

This is the wrong question in my opinion. What is being corrupted? One’s morals and ethics? The purity of the human soul? What is the nature of the corruption? Any time we start thinking about “purity” and “corruption” we are moving in dangerous ontological territory.

What is money? Well, it is a stand in for value. Then what is value? Where does it come from? Value comes from exchanging commodities in the marketplace. These commodities are created with human labor power, in other words, value is the crystalized time+energy that it takes on average to produce commodities. New value is created when a commodity costs less to produce than it can be sold for in the market.

In our current historical mode of production, capitalism, the labor that is used to mass produce a commodity is socialized, which means instead of a single craftsperson creating a commodity from start to finish, the production process is broken down and simplified so that it takes many workers to mass produce commodities, each worker specializing in their part of the production process, with the assistance of machines to speed up or simplify this process in order to be more productive.

In contrast, even though the production process has been socialized for the first time in human history, which was in it’s time a progressive if cruel human advancement, the fruits of that production are privatized meaning that goods become the private property of the legal “owner” of the productive apparatus, who can sell those commodities to market for more than they paid to produce them, producing profit from the perspective of the capitalist, or surplus value from the perspective of the workers.

This creates distinct classes which is where we will interrogate the effect of money on the human spirit. There are the owners of capital, who have commodities to sell at the market and workers who have little or nothing to sell but their labor to the capitalist in a labor market. This can be taken even further: there are large capitalists who own a great deal of capital and exploit many workers, small capitalists who own a small among of capital and exploit a few workers (or maybe they even self-exploit,) intellectual or specialized labor that is able to demand higher value in the labor market, and simple or unspecialized labor who’s labor can be easily replaced. A side effect of this creates another class: the unemployed or marginally employed reserve surplus population which can be used to threaten simple laborers with replacement hence driving down the cost of labor and increasing profits for the capitalist. The larger this reserve population, the lower wages can be made, and vice-versa.

Every atomized member of society is then thrown into competition with each other, with a very real threat of losing their class position, with the possibility of being thrown into the reserve population unable to find meaningful work that can support themselves and their family. A large firm can be gobbled up by a larger firm, and its specialized workers eliminated due to “redundancies”. A specializrd worker can be replaced by another unspecialized worker who has the qualifications to do their job or some technological advancement transforms that role into unspecialized or less-specialized labor.

This competitive drive forces individuals to do whatever they can to maintain or increase their class position. If company A refuses to pollute the rivers for increased profit, but company B is willing to, this makes company B more profitable, forcing company A out of business, or acquired by company B; unless the board of directors of company A (pressured by gains-seeking investors) replaces the individual demurring eco-conscious executives with people who are willing to pollute for profit; unless some outside political force steps in to regulate the entire market, creating the necessity of a governing state to manage the market and resources, lest the whole system collapse into complete anarchy. Individual workers must remain “productive” such that they continue to create profit for their capitalists or risk replacement themselves, although they can always be replaced by technological advancements or monopolizing forces as discussed above. The reserve surplus population competes for their very survival or risks starvation, homelessness and death.

So now we have uncovered the forces that cause the “corruption” of money. There is a whole other thread we could pursue here that shows how this system abstracts things like “polluting a river” into numbers on a balance sheet, hiding these forces from anyone who might observe them, and lending a plausible deniability to anyone who would be responsible and hide the real lives of anyone who would be affected. I’ll call this process objectification, which is a huge topic unto itself.

But in my opinion, what this system corrupts is the natural inclination for most people to cooperate with one another, and work creatively. When i recognizes that another person has subjective experience like me, I’ll become more likely to identify and then help them if they need it, as I can relate my own experience to theirs. Our system creates cooperation through competition, since the drive of all productive relations is to pursue profit, the mechanisms of which I’ve already described. There is a constant objectification of the outside world as a function of this pursuit for profit and others which dehumanizes and keeps us in our little competitive consuming silos.

Tldr: does money corrupt? Yes, but it doesn’t corrupt the individual so much as it corrupts the entire social superstructure that is inherent to a functioning society in which people can thrive and self actualize.

Edit: just one note on “objective fact”. Object/subject duality is only one way to look at things, and in fact separating them out like this is a form of “corruption” in that it hides certain truths and leads to certain conclusions. While this has contributed to the development of many kinds of human scientific and technological advancement, we must also understand that all things concerning humans and their experiences need to be understood by unifying subject and object. Pure objectivity is as incomplete as pure subjectivity and while both are useful to increase our understanding we have to put the pieces back together to see the whole picture.

It is extremely bad

This is extremely brave

Dude Looks Like a Lady by Aerosmith

What they tell you that it is -vs- what it actually is.

The political and economic system hides everything from us so that all we see is the individual and all these fragmented pieces – and our education only reaffirms this viewpoint. It isn’t until you educate yourself as a worker and understand the system from a class perspective (Marx) that you can begin see it in its totality for what it really is.

Yeah I can tell you have some experience in political spaces, most people online lose their cool talking politics, but you’re just firmly stating your position. Which I disagree with, and that’s okay! I disagree with people inside my own orgs all the time, sometimes loudly! The fact is its a very complicated system. And power is deeply entrenched. There’s nothing to be gained for the org that’s too “radical” to engage in mainstream politics, every city has a group or two like this. They can even have very good politics and analysis but you have to be able to build power, and frankly its just easier to talk a big game and collect dues payments or donations.

It seems to me that you’re at least a progressive, as you are reform minded and that’s great! That basically puts us on the same side of systematic injustice. There might be some issues we couldn’t reconcile but in my experience it doesn’t necessarily mean we couldn’t work together or even end up on the same side of a protest. Despite my polemics, I’m a through and through humanist. But I’m deeply skeptical of parliamentary democracy, not to the degree where I discourage voting, but I’m more concerned with educating workers and regular people than the politicians. I’m proud of the educational work we’ve been able to accomplish in the last year alone; it wasn’t long ago that democratic leaders were calling support for Palestinians a Russian misinformation campaign, now its one of the most pressing issues for the international working class. Not saying “we did that,” but we did our part in boosting the signal and cutting through the noise.

Anyway I very strongly do not believe lobbyists are necessary to democracy and I work to try and create a world where they wouldn’t be (although that’s not exactly the highest on our list of priorities, god knows.) But in the world as it exists today, these structures exist and that’s just a fact. I believe the work I contribute to is a necessary part of a healthy democracy, and you’re a reasonable person who believes that lobbying work is an important part of the system.

Today, the system needs us both to work together and part of that is having lively discussions and educating one another. Maybe some piece of what you said will stay with me or serve as a reminder some time in the future, and maybe the reverse also. We don’t have to be won over to each other’s ideas for them to have an effect. And we got all these other people contributing to the discussion as well. That’s pretty cool to me. So yeah we have a difference of opinion, but we are both coming from a place of education and experience, trying to solve the same problems from different ends of the same dynamic system. At least I hope that’s what’s going on here.

Thanks for the discussion, I appreciate you.

I volunteer with a few (American) political organizations and have connections to politicians and organizations. we have people who we elect democratically who are highly educated, highly motivated, and politically plugged in who talk with politicians all over the world all the time! We are in coalition with an elected politician who is a member of the Irish Daìl, which is like their house of reps, every day we talk with him and ask him questions, and his organization and ours trade information, ideas, articles, book recommendations, you name it. We’ve sent delegates to Cuba to meet with the President, and groups who oppose his government. Weve sent peoole all over the country and the world for political work and ive gotten to have some amazing experiences participating just a little bit in this kind of work. If people won’t talk to us we hold rallys and protests and make them talk to us. Similar to how you described, we pay dues, publish magazines and even participate in national and international debates. Our members have been on tv, podcasts, YouTube, and we are working toward creating our own. And that’s just one of the orgs I’m in, another has members in congress, and its not the GOP or the Dems.

So sorry, no, you’re wrong. Even if there are (purely hypothetical) cases where the system you are describing does work for people, there is no accountability to the people and it really only works to keep professional operators in Washington speaking on behalf of their own interests and the interests of the orgs that pay them. I know good people who are lobbyists, who lobby to do good things. But their position is in no way a political necessity. Grassroots bottom up politics is not only possible its the only way to have real democracy. The top down structures you advocate for only create and reproduce the conditions of exploitation, poverty, immiseration and war. Sorry friend, but I just dont buy it.

i wish that people had as vivid of imagination when thinking of ways to build a mass movement to fix the problems with our deeply dysfunctional “democracy” designed by and for the benefit of the wealthy 1%, as they did when trying to find excuses as to why every single part of said political system is totally irreplaceable and in fact is functioning perfectly within the best system possible.

A better world is possible, but it is up to us to change it.

Lobbyist

“You made me be rude after I insulted you and you called me out on it”

Leave me alone. I’ve wasted enough time on you. You clearly have your mind made up and can’t even comprehend why someone would be skeptical of a company that is driving away its users and advertisers, of which I provided many examples. I wrote several paragraphs supporting my argument, and several sources. You responded in seconds with two sentences. Hopefully you wise up before taking a bath on whatever your investments are. I wish you all the best in life, but this is finished.

Oh for sure, I was just being funny, or at least funny to me. Appears I’m laughing alone as usual

Lemmy: someone should make billionaires disappear

China: disappears billionaires

Lemmy: this is an outrage!

Removed by mod