• venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    You don’t deserve to be alive in this kingdom, but the catch is there is nowhere to live that is not owned.

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I dont belong on this planet. That’s why I have to rent space until I mercifully pass away. Giving birth is child abuse and the most selfish act possible.

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Giving birth is child abuse and the most selfish act possible.

      Hard disagree. 🤷‍♂️ Surely depends on who you are and your means of providing for the child, both materialistically and emotionally. That’s just my opinion.

      • pipi1234@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        In some countries you are a disease away of financial bankruptcy. Good luck being able to 100% guarantee a living.

        Furthermore, this is the first generation that is worse off than the previous one, and its a trend that seems will continue.

        In the lucky event of being part of the select 3% that has financial security, no luxury can shield you from the pain the rest of the people is suffering.

        Maybe I’m a pessimist, but introducing a child into this roulette is not the kindest if you think about it.

        • Victor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          In some countries you are a disease away of financial bankruptcy. Good luck being able to 100% guarantee a living.

          Yup, but far from everywhere.

          Furthermore, this is the first generation that is worse off than the previous one

          Strong doubt 🤨 Which generation are we talking about? Lots of wars and plagues and stuff in history have made a generation of people worse off than their parents. That obviously didn’t stop us from procreating.

          Maybe I’m a pessimist, but introducing a child into this roulette is not the kindest if you think about it.

          Definitely are, or maybe more accurately a perspectivist, if that’s a thing. There are lots of countries and societies where bringing children up is not a “roulette” or “child abuse”. Everyone I know has good means and nothing but love for their children, in spite of (sometimes harsh) difficulties.

          And we are more emotionally aware of ourselves and our children in this generation than ever before. For the first time, a generation of parents are raising themselves and their children simultaneously. It’s very emotionally and mentally taxing but it’s a very good step in the right direction. We are listening to our kids and understanding their needs.

          Have a good day, try not to generalize a (personal?) bad situation. ❤️

          • pipi1234@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            While I agree with most of what you said, I cannot disregard how a swift change in politics can be introduced to satisfy the wims of the billonaires. We have recent and astounding examples (USA). Sadly I don’t trust humanity anymore. I don’t have a choice but to try to live my life the best I can, but I won’t force anyone else into existence.

            Have a good one you too my friend!

            • Victor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              I on the other hand also agree with you now, that a swift change in politics can definitely upend an entire nation and affect several generations to come.

              But when we have children, we go into it with a lot of risk. The child might be born with disorders, develop crippling phobias, be bullied, get cancer. We never know what might happen. I might get run over by a car on my way to work tomorrow. But I can’t live my life thinking “what if” all the time. We have to keep going and have to keep fighting for a better life. Or work to maintain a good life we might already have.

              Or at least that’s a drive that a lot of humans have. It’s in the nature of the majority of people I would guess. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here, because our ancestors would’ve already cut the chain. Life is fuckin’ hard, quite frankly. And if that drive wouldn’t be there, it wouldn’t be worth it. 😅 Sharing it with people you love is what makes it worthwhile IMO.

              Thanks for a good talk 😊

    • triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I semi agree with you, but the focus on “giving birth” vs “impregnation” seems misogynistic as fuck, especially with how much easier (cost, recovery time, risk of complications) vasectomies are than hysterectomies or even tying fallopian tubes.

  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    Thank you. I have been saying this for years (more than a decade now).

    Feminism fought for the independence of women from abusive husbands/partners, by making them earn their own money, so they can be free. I would not say that the majority of the population feels particularly free today, because the economic situation strangles them. There is a new dependency created in stead of the old one: The dependency from the employer. Especially with at-will employment, a manager or higher-up can fire you at any moment, which can cause homelessness and despair. These are not good things that we want to have.

    The logical consequence of fighting for freedom and equality is to fight for economic equality: People should be able to eat and sleep in peace, without having to worry about their circumstances tomorrow. “Equality” does not mean that everybody has the same amount, but that everybody has the chances they need to succeed in life.

    We need a universal basic income, or any equivalent of it such as handouts in various forms.

    • Spectre@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Or, hear me out, we create a socialist government that make food, water and housing human rights and that works towards a communist world where everyone gets what they need and give what they can.

        • Bael422@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Lolol, lets compare that to capitalism numbers. Don’t forget to compare suffering too, since everyone seems to overlook quality of life, injuries, and slavery, in favor of just one sliver of the many metrics of deaths. So, don’t forget to calculate the indirect deaths caused by capitalism too lol

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Socialism has worked incredibly well in uplifting the lives of the working classes. In countries like Russia and China, life expectancies doubled. The incredible improvements in living conditions, democratization, and orienting society towards satisfying the needs of the many instead of profits for the few resulted in the greatest eradications of poverty in history. Socialism has worked, continues to work, and will increasingly work as time goes on, until it is eventually replaced by communism.

          Fascists and capitalists, slavers and landlords and other leaches were indeed killed and oppressed by the communists. It’s better than the daily genocide and violence of capitalism and imperialism.

        • LobsterJim@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Somebody only read the article title… Give the actual text a look to see it boldly claims the connection to political system is not strongly linked.

        • cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Thats more a government thing than a communist thing.

          You coukd skip the government part and use other organizational systems in a constant experiment to find the full communism faster…

    • cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      If you choose to have a child entirely on purpose in 2025, you’re just a piece of shit, or fanatically devoted to ‘The Revolution’ and think its gonna happen any day now, because you’re delusional¹.

      ¹you had better not use that child as an excuse to stand the fuck down. That child is why you belong at the absolute front of every police encounter, risking your life for their future. If you have a child and are not regularly trying to kill police Nd the wealthy, that child should be taken from you, be ause you do not give a shit about them, they only exist for your own self gratifying natalist bullshit.

  • VoxAliorum@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Deserving to live and surviving are not the same. In the natural condition if you don’t gather or hunt, you have no food. You die. You do not deserve anything.

    Even in society you are not entitled to others working for you. However, in a civilised society we should provide for those incapable to provide for themself due to ethics.

    • Michael@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I think it would incredibly more desirable for society to have a firm social safety net (housing, food, healthcare). We have the technology and means to do so without breaking a sweat.

      If we try it and society stagnates, we can always tweak it to incentivize certain types of work. Myself, I believe society would see vast improvements when people aren’t surviving and living in shambles. I believe many of our current issues would be quickly solved once we are broadly able to slow down and think for a moment.

      Deserving or not deserving doesn’t really factor into the equation. We need to create and build a world worth living in. I want to live in a world where people are more free, healthy, and safe - where work is directly benefiting our communities instead of people being forced to slave in hostile work environments to barely make it.

      • VoxAliorum@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        In general I agree. People should be able to make informed life choices without pressure. However, I don’t think universal basic income is the solution (see below). In Germany we have no public university fees and you can get Bafög; which is a far from ideal conditional income enough to cover housing and food while you study. You have to pay a part back once you are done, but far from all (at most 50%; often less than that). I wouldn’t mind a study UBI.

        I am for social security and social services that allow you to make an informed choice of what you want to do. Beyond that I am for “you have to work”. But I am looking at “work” from an European perspective with all the protection laws in place and not an American perspective.

        The main problem with UBI (Universal Basic Income) is that while tests showed benefits (highly depending on countries), financing UBI is difficult. So far no larger country has completely adapted UBI at least partly due to that reason. Also, no study was long enough to see the “people are less incentivised to work” issue.

        • Michael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Thanks for your response and engagement. I appreciated hearing your perspective as a German/European in contrast to my perspective as an American.

  • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    ITT: guys who probably consider themselves too smart for religion thinking in terms dictated by the church.

    “Deserving” and "undeserving* are made up concepts disconnected from any concrete reality, just shards of Christianity preserved in the amber of American civic religion and exported throughout the capitalist-dominated world. If you talk about who “deserves” this or that, you might as well be talking about who’s holy and who’s a sinner. The truth is, we are just animals who banded together tens of thousands of years ago to help each other survive. Many anthropologists say that society began when we started taking care of those who could no longer contribute as much physically: the old, the sick, the injured. But hey, if you want to be less socially evolved than a bunch of cave-dwelling hunter gatherers, that’s your choice. Just don’t expect the rest of humanity to entertain your rotten ideas about useless eaters, and don’t act surprised when you find yourself put out on the ice.

  • MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    You know, when i originally read this, the way i interpreted it was that he was saying that if you need to earn money to live you don’t deserve to live.

    I much prefer the version that is an indictment of the phrase “earn a living” as implying you don’t deserve to live if you aren’t “working” in the modern sense of earning money at a modern job vs doing what’s necessary to stay alive like all nature’s critters.

    • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      “If you don’t earn money, you don’t deserve to live.”

      This is how I interpreted it and it definitely feels true, that’s how capitalism treats us.

      • MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        For clarification, I initially read it to mean that anybody “poor enough” to have to work to earn money does not deserve to live. I.e., rich people are human, everybody else is subhuman.

        Your interpretation I saw a few moments later, and that the post was criticizing that phrase. Basically, the polar opposite of my first impression.

        • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Ah yes it can be interpreted multiple ways, I see your perspective 1) there are people who don’t need to work in order to earn money, they are the highest class of humans.

          1. Then there are people who have to work to earn money, they are considered pitiful but still essential cogs in our economy,

          2. then there are people who do not earn money and they are the ones who capitalism deems worthless.

  • brownsugga@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    That’s basically the core difference between the 2 political parties in the US currently. One essentially believes humans have a right to be alive, and the other does not. All the other policy differences kind of stem from that.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 month ago

      They don’t actually disagree, though. Both operate under the direct control of the wealthiest in the country, the capitalist class, and work to ensure imperialism persists and that their private owners continue making immense amounts of money.

  • wowwoweowza@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    Can I be the Genx here and just … yeah, we’ve always had to work for survival. Like each and every organism that find a niche. They are all working… even photosynthesis is a kind of activity.

    Good grief.

    All critters have to work. Think about it.

    • DanVctr@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      Maybe… Just maybe… We’ve evolved past being critters and could use our superior brain power to avoid having to work like the animals…

      • wowwoweowza@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Sorry — we’re still animals.

        We are literally the morons destroying the planet and you somehow see yourself as superior to animals that do not destroy the earth? They don’t use plastic or have subscriptions that make fascists rich.

        Listen— I want to be friends with everyone at Lemmy because we all share contempt for the prevailing hegemony… so I’ll tone it down …

        Humans can’t use their superior brainpower to boycott Facebook successfully.

    • cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      But plants kind of live in the real world, and I live in violently enforced fantasy bullshit. Literally the majority of the resources, of that work, goes to maintaining inequality and oppression, not to anyone’s survival.

      Take every penny in advertising policing ‘genAI’ and military budgets. Just the most obvious inarguable ‘this couldn’t possibly be for anything else’, and it’s over half of the minerals work hours and CPU cycles,

      So the amount we have to work is at least twice as much as the actual amount to survive, and the benefits are no more than half as much. And all of it in deeply bullshit conditions, usually in ways that are 90% oppression 10% productivity at best.

      And these are kinda conservative estimates.

      So get peter thiel’s dick out of your mouth before you speak, boot licker. You won’t sound nearly as fucking stupid.

      • wowwoweowza@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Touchy much?

        I’m not the one complaining about the hours per week I work or my compensation… just saying…

        Honestly— we’re just another organism on the planet.

        Separate yourself from the system — a hatchet in the wild… and you’ll find you’ll still have to work. The native Americans had to hunt and build domeciles and make clothes… maybe farm… fish… it’s work all the way down to the first turtle.

        • cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          You put a lot of work into coping with the amount of billionaire dick you suck.

          Admittedly, this is very refined copium, the cognitive dissonance is very smoothe, the choices you’re pretending don’t exist and horrors you need to pretend are inherent are very refined. A+ rhetoric, gotta respect the evil game.

          Still get the billionaire dick out of your mouth before speaking, boot licker.

          • wowwoweowza@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            First: we’re all here because we want to weaken the current corporate hegemony. So… yeah… down with big billionaires. You and I are on the same team. (Unless you don’t get the Orwell reference.)

            So… I just want to get this straight.

            Let’s say it takes X amount of work to support your needs. Your PB&Js and Captain Crunch… whatever it is.

            So… In your world… let’s say you eat for free… whose precious calories get burned in the acquisition of the calories upon which you are sustained?

            • cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              I’m not averse to the idea of doing shit. I’m averse to 99% of the value of everything i do being stolen and given back in the form of thugs who k8dnap my neighbors and gas my friends and might kill me at any second and nobody will care, and will not contribute to that system.

              But it is actually possible to eat for just about free. The precolumbian peoples of north America had actually cultivated a sort of abundance that allowed for very nearly this in some places. Doesn’t work with our current population, and I like building shit¹ so it’s not the utopia I’d choose, but is in fact possible. Shit was basically rock candy mountain. And I’d be okay going shit for other people. I do in fact. It can be fun, when work isn’t made miserable. They didnt choose to be here any more than I did, and in light of tgat they should be allowed the necessities of life.

              I’m not interested in what you have to say about any of this, what with the billionaire dick youre choking on.

              ¹also toilet paper and antibiotics

              • wowwoweowza@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                I’ve tried to remain civil but since your dream job is “going shit for other people,” I agree we don’t have much in common. Yes — that’s a quote.

                Allow me though to ask you to leave your ignorant, toxic, homophobic, ugliness at Reddit where they need people like you to undermine their efforts at community building.

    • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      “Ugh, look at these delusional commies who think that the purpose of human society is to keep each other alive.”

      Judge us by our enemies

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Not an idiot nor an LLM. You’re taking issue with people saying that society should take care of everyone, and saying those who can’t secure food or water deserve to die. Feel free to clarify further, but read literally you are saying disabled people deserve to die, and that those who support social welfare for them are wrong. This is a social Darwinist take.

  • staciagrey@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    You don’t, deserve it. Life is a privilege, everyday you wake up, is one more day to be grateful for.

  • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    1 month ago

    It means by default you have to contribute to the society that you live in. And this is required in order for there to be a functional society to live in. It’s not an arbitrary rule, just a logical requirement.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Not true in capitalism, capitalists don’t contribute but instead serve as elaborate parasites plundering the wealth created by the working classes.

      • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 month ago

        Capitalism is just a way to organize work. Yeah, it’s a plenty unfair one. But we are just using money as a means to trade work for food/products/shelter/services. It ends up driving the society - getting people to make society work, and to enjoy the benefits of it.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Trade isn’t capitalism, though. Capitalism is a mode of production characterized by private ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Capitalists essentially cast money out into the system, siphon the fruits of labor, and then repeat this process endlessly. Everyone does not enjoy the benefits of it, especially not those in the global south that are crushed by imperialism and unequal exchange.

          • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            1 month ago

            Capitalism is a form of trading. It is providing a service / lending resources, for a fee. It’s part of the notion that we use money to buy and sell anything and the economy works because everyone tries to make a buck and implicitly drive efficiency for society. It certainly has got out of whack now and needs some serious regulatory fixes. But for most people, they work to get money to buy what they need and as a result, they provide services, products, etc for others to buy what they need. It goes in a circle, and we end up helping each other. Yes, the rich siphon money off the top, but they don’t really affect the use or need of resources significantly. Their billions are just a number on a computer in a bank somewhere.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              No, you’re confusing trade itself for capitalism, and severely downplaying the immense siphoning of material wealth that goes on, especially at an international scale. Capitalists steal the value created by workers, workers are not on an even playing field with capitalists. They sell the only commodity they can, their labor power, while capitalists leverage their ownership of capital to fix labor prices around subsistence wages.

              Regulation can’t fix capitalism or save it from the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. We need to move onto socialism, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and production and distribution are oriented towards satisfying needs rather than profits.

            • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              1 month ago

              You‘re not even trying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

              Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit. This socioeconomic system has developed historically through several stages and is defined by a number of basic constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.

              • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                1 month ago

                Says ‘you’re not even trying’ then just copies from Wikipedia.
                Maybe try thinking for yourself?

        • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 month ago

          Unless you’re one of the billions capitalism has decided it’s more profitable to slaughter, starve or plunge into a lifetime of poverty making t shirts and truck tires. Then you don’t get to enjoy shit.