Ew, and I said uncensored. Meaning the guy next to epstein and/or the one with the big smile. Thanks!

Bottom: Do you know who those uncensored people are? And (not saying I doubt it but) do you have the supporting evidence that the money is for a girl?

Literal grooming

Good video, way too quiet

No because it still moves through all(at least most) the frames to get to where the audio is in the timeline

Realistic Capitalist

N

How / how often do you trim your nails?

You are well beyond “most basic”, and also I disagree. Over-attention to detail is a very easy way to make nothing happen at all, which is currently killing people. I’m not the person who’s going to map out a detailed plan to get to that society, nor do I think an internet comment section is the place to do that. Especially when what we’re talking about is global revolution which absolutely necessitates broad engagement with many many people who don’t know all the details and really don’t need to. This is a very appropriate context to be talking in broad strokes. And if you want to wait for some perfect plan with every detail in exactly the right place, you’ll be waiting until the heat death of the universe.

You claim to want the same outcomes as me, but your method of naysaying and picking at every detail will mostly lead to people disengaging with the conversation entirely. That’s actively harmful to the movement’s progress.

We have to decide we want to do it before we can figure out how to do it. If we allow the current trend to continue, we’ll never get the opportunity to try out any of those alternatives. There is a definitive plan to live in a stateless classless moneyless society, it’s called socialism. It has an express goal of moving beyond a moneyed system. Focusing on how long and complicated the path could be is a great way to keep people disinterested in making any change whatsoever. I’m not saying you need to hide that part of it, but the way to inspire change is by keeping focus on what the goal is, and making it seem like it’s possible because it is.

Also it’s very easy to just say “____ is extremely vulnerable to corruption” to dismiss the whole idea, but you’re also just doing the same generalization I did but in a negative direction. Well money is extremely vulnerable to corruption and we have more evidence of that than most any other system.

Again, context matters. If someone reads an internet comment that says “humans have the ability to fly” and proceeds to jump off a building, that’s on them. Doesn’t change the veracity of the statement. If you would like to question how the statement was true, hopefully the commenter would be willing to elaborate with some examples (like how I sent you a list of economic theories that don’t involve money). The people who thought that humans could fly went to work inventing things to make it true. The people who didn’t think that were eventually proven wrong.

Also again, a full economic theory is way too complicated to get into the details in this context. I can say that my favorite theory is a library economy, but I would rather those logistics be discussed in a time and place with people that were positioned to make it happen.

But yes, I do believe that money is the biggest problem. I think it leads to more corruption than most other frameworks for resource allocation.

Words are how we communicate ideas, and words are messy and can mean different things in different cultures and contexts (and a lot of times people use them incorrectly). Semantics matter in science and academia when you’re trying to be precise for the historical record so things don’t get misinterpreted by people who usually don’t have the ability to ask you what you mean by “has the ability” or “humanity”. A very broad statement I might add. Too broad of a statement for most academic literature.

An early step in the process of ending our reliance on money is broadly accepting that it isn’t a necessity. I never claimed that that kind of global shift would happen overnight, and I don’t find it useful to use that kind of prescription to undermine the concept unless your goal is solely to undermine the concept.

I disagree with a few points you bring up, but beyond those, it sounds like your biggest problem with my statement is in the semantics. I don’t find that to be very useful when obviously the logistics of such a system are complicated enough to warrant a whole doctorate degree. Comments on social media between strangers with no verifiable education isn’t really the place to harp on precise wording and definitions. I think it’s possible for humanity to coordinate without money. Is that better? Or do you still disagree?

Not that huge of a claim, especially when now is so chaotic and dysfunctional. Here’s a nonexhaustive list of moneyless economies (obviously with varying degrees of feasibility)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-monetary_economy

~edit: wording~

While you’re correct that there are no examples of such a society*, that isn’t because money is crucial to development. It’s because the time of technological breakthroughs happened in a global capitalist economy. Just because that’s the way history played out doesn’t mean that was the only way it could’ve. Money didn’t invent those things, people did. They had the time and resources to make that stuff happen. And yes, they got those resources via a moneyed economy, but that doesn’t mean those same people couldn’t have gotten the same time and resources had they existed within say a library economy.

Taking money out of the picture would also take bills out of the picture. And humanity absolutely has the ability to coordinate action without money at least as well (if not better) than how it is now, the only difference is it would be harder for individuals to be the sole coordinator. Money, and who has it, is our current central organizer and will continue to burn the planet if we fail to take away its power.

If we decide money no longer matters it’d be petty easy to eliminate them all. If we continue to let money run our lives then it’ll continue to be pretty easy for the people with money to keep all their power.

I’d love to have a music theory comm. Like discussing some passages and analyzing things beyond the basics

I’m already subbed to a few comms but I’d take recommendations on what I should be following