• UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        2 years ago

        Some of the most fucked up liberal logic is when some billionaire is nakedly greedy it is seen as “pure” because “gotta please the shareholders” but if a protestor wears brand-name shoes that’s seen as a moral failing for the protestor’s message. very-intelligent

      • Balefirex [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        2 years ago

        Capitalist ideology in general, Žižek maintains, consists precisely in the overvaluing of belief – in the sense of inner subjective attitude – at the expense of the beliefs we exhibit and externalize in our behavior. So long as we believe (in our hearts) that capitalism is bad, we are free to continue to participate in capitalist exchange.

        Capitalist Realism chapter 2

      • CliffordBigRedDog [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        but they’re not even applying this moral standard consistently, considering how these libs are all pro-capital and already think that financial incentive should govern all of industry

      • raven [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I think they do the flip side of this too, where (AES country) tries to provide (good thing) but failed or was only partially successful then they suck and are bad and killed 100 million.

        Then you have good strong (Capitalist country) doesn’t give a fuck about providing (good thing) and so when they fail to provide it that’s okay. It’s your fault for not getting it for yourself! blob-no-thoughts

        • ClimateChangeAnxiety@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          where (AES country) tries to provide (good thing) but failed or was only partially successful then they suck and are bad and killed 100 million.

          For example: stalin-comical-spoon

      • envis10n [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        2 years ago

        Nuance is for losers.

        There are so many aspects of China that are awesome. There are also quite a few things that I don’t agree with or like. How hard is it to understand you can agree AND disagree at the same time?

        The anti-china propaganda and other similar bullshit doesn’t help either. Hard for someone without that understanding to get over the hurdle of “bad thing” to support any good things.

        I’m high AF and had a lot of trouble writing this. To summarize, if you believe China did a good then you can praise that. Even if you also believe they did a bad.

    • RyanGosling [none/use name]@hexbear.netBannedBanned from community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s funny because this is what liberals believe in. Several times when you bring up how capitalists will fuck up “improvements” over their profit motive, they’ll reduce your concerns to “wow so some people make money, and that’s bad to commies.” I’m assuming this guy is a liberal because that sub is just conservatives and liberals circle jerking about how much they hate Chinese people