darq

Yes, they have two date systems in common use. It’s only the year that changes though. And there’s no way to confuse the two, usually. If you write “2023” instead of “令5” it’s pretty obvious. I suppose there is a potential for confusion if one just writes a two-digit year though.

It’s not radical at all. It’s just ineffectual, unfortunately.

Yup, it’s a single character from the name of the era, and the era changes every time the emperor does.

Yeah but half the time is actually: EYY/MM/DD. Like this year is 令5/MM/DD.

And some years have two values, 2019 was both 平31, from 01/01 until 04/30, then 令1 from 05/01 onwards.

Even without knowledge of the source of the image, there is no reasonable way a normal person interprets that message as a genuine threat of violence.

Because the picture of the “gayroller 2000” is very obvious satire from the known-satire comic The Oatmeal, originally posted to satirise conservatives’ baseless fears of “the gay agenda”. Seeing a pattern?

On the other hand, there a pattern of hostility, hatred, and violence from conservatives towards LGBT people. This pattern is both historical and contemporary, and currently it is absurdly common for LGBT people to be called “groomers” and be accused of being dangerous to children.

Gay people obviously do not want to run over straight people with a steamroller. On the other hand, the people posting wood chipper memes… Some of them would, and have, followed through.

I quite simply do not believe that for even a second.

Let’s not pretend that you actually give a damn about transgender people. This is just concern trolling.

You still have the problem of misaligned incentives

Not really sure what you mean by that. Socialism leads to better alignment of incentives. If everyone is benefitting from the system, contributions to the system are incentivised.

That is the opposite of capitalism, where the individual tries to gain any advantage they can, even at the expense of everyone else. And broad advances and contributions of work benefit very few people, by design. That leads to lower trust, which further entrenches the idea that the individual has to look out for themselves, and is thus incentivised to game to system.

together with the fact that the only way to mitigate it is through coercion

I reject that premise.

… capitalism is the ideology that lets the 1% be the 1%.

This is like the one fight that isn’t part of the culture war.

Except we aren’t talking about two people, are we? We’re talking about entire populations of people.

And when people have their needs met, they are more able to be productive. And they are more likely to believe in the good of the system that supports them, as they can see the tangible results of that system in their daily life. They can see how their contribution to the system benefits them. Making them more likely to be happy to contribute.

Will some percentage of people under-contribute because of laziness? Sure. But who cares? That percentage is small. And we have the technology to compensate many times over now.

Why the hell do we make society more miserable for everyone, forcing everyone to live under the threat of poverty if they don’t work, just to force this small percentage to work against their will? Not to mention completely screw over anyone who cannot work for reasons beyond their control, because we subject them to this insane level of scrutiny because we’re paranoid that they might just be lazy.

We can choose a cooperative system, or the antagonistic one we currently have, where we are all at each others’ throats because of suspicion that someone might be getting something that they “don’t deserve”.

And yet they still would affect the rate of homelessness.

Open source hardware is so desperately needed. Happy to see positive developments.

(?) No… It makes no difference to me if there was labour involved or not, what matters to me is the value.

Then you should be opposed to landlords. Because rent-seeking extracts profit without producing value.

About the public housing thing, how would that help? Isnt that just everybody (the public) paying for everybody else’s housing? How would that make any difference?

Then housing is built for people to live in, not as an investment vehicle that is expected to generate profit. That brings down the price for everybody.

It also solves other social ills by drastically reducing homelessness.

Exactly, as is the case with any investment.

So you are admitting that comparing it to farming was a stupid thing of you to say. Good. Glad we agree.

So should nobody be able to own any land OR should one not be allowed to rent out one’s land?

Sure. Those are options. Or limited ownership where one may own land they live on, but not additional land. Or make rates and taxes on additional land ownership higher potential rental profits. And then direct public funds into public housing, as well as fixing zoning laws to allow for denser housing.

Im asking for the reason why not having a choice (according to you) would mean, if that was the case, that they dont deserve money.

That’s not my argument.

I don’t thing parasitism is healthy for society. That’s why landlords shouldn’t exist.

The fact that we don’t have a choice was in response to your assertion that people choose to pay landlords.

That isn’t comparable, and you know it.

The farmer produces food. I am paying for the labour involved in creating the food I consume. The farmer works.

The landlord collects my rent because he owns the house. Not because of any labour they do. And you admit that.

I have the impression that with landlords, people are just envious because they dont have to actively do labour even though that doesnt change anything for you…

Extracting profit without working to create value is parasitism.

It does change things for me. It makes living expenses higher.

And I’m not envious of landlords, I don’t think they should exist.

… and because you dont really have a choice, you shouldnt have to give them any money?

In your previous comment you said “You choose to give them money”.

So you know what you are saying is utter horsecrap, and you are deliberately being a disingenuous dickhead.

Yes, people are hating the game. That’s the entire point.

Except there really isn’t a choice. You pay rent or… What? Sleep on the street or in a car? Which is illegal in many places already.

“Just find a cheaper house” isn’t actually an option available to people who you know… Want to have a job. It’s just a glib thought-terminating cliche that doesn’t engage with the actual issue.

It literally is no problem if you already have assets to use as collateral. The problem is that most people don’t.

This is a misunderstanding though. People aren’t complaining about individuals who happen to be landlords being nasty. They’re making a systemic complaint about rent-seeking.

A landlord can be a perfectly polite and pleasant person. They’re still engaging in rent-seeking. And that’s the complaint.