Absolutely not : politicalmemes

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 111 points 10 months ago (3 children)

They think happiness and living well is a zero sum game, meaning that for one person to be happy another has to be miserable.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 40 points 10 months ago

They’re also incredibly terrified at all times and so if they see someone being happier than before their monkey brain says “it’s probably you who’s about to get got!” and they lose their minds.

[+] Redacted@lemmy.world -6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

To be fair that's kind of true under capitalism.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 24 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not really, and especially on a macroeconomic level it's the opposite of the truth.

The happiness described here is not monetary. It's stuff like gay people existing. Your economic status and your queerness shouldn't correlate. So queer people being happy with their lives doesn't take away anything from anyone else.

And on a macroeconomic level, more equal societies produce more growth and thus more wealth for everyone.

[–] Redacted@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

My bad, didn't appreciate it was referring to happiness in terms of social freedoms.

I meant for someone to have a good life without monetary worries on one side of the world it almost necessitates worse conditions elsewhere.

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

American corporatism does not equal capitalism, it's a defunct subset. European social democracies are capitalist countries, too.

[–] Redacted@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I agree but I don't understand what your point is?

Capitalism necessitates inequality in order for profit to be made.

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Why does it necessitate inequality? Don't you "believe" in added value? Inequality may be an outcome (complete equality is hardly possible in reality anyway) but it certainly isn't a prerequisite.

[–] Redacted@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Because workers don't receive what they put into the system in terms of effort. Profit must be made, which makes the workers unequal compared to capitalists that make the profit. Name one billionaire where their pay-to-effort ratio is worth that of say, a cleaner.

I think most "added value" is not worth as much as is made out when contrasted the amount of profit earned by shareholders.

I agree, complete equality is hardly possible but we're talking about vast wealth discrepancies which prop up the global capitalist system.

Genuinely surprised so many seemed to have missed my point here. Not sure if it's because it came across like I was supporting a conservative (I wasn't, just saying that their ideologies will always require some degree of inequality in wealth/happiness) or that there are more neolibrals on this sub than I assumed.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I got you. Capitalist markets require competition. Competition breeds inequality among individuals. Individuals get angry others get more ( money, attention, fame, power). Conservatives want to secure their status in society (hierarchy), and resort to authoritarianism to do it.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Don’t be afraid to learn about the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

Don’t be afraid to learn what a euphemism is.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No, that's what I just described above.

[–] Redacted@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Ok well I guess I disagree then. Look up countries that have experienced the most economic growth recently and they'll generally have fewer workers' rights, longer hours and worse working conditions.

Western countries that have the highest economic growth are either tax havens or have high quantities of fossil fuels. Both of these negatively impact others indirectly.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And that is backwards thinking. The undeveloped countries catch up to more developed countries, but not more. If they get too expensive, another exploited country is needed.

The West had it fastest growth during a time when inequality was relatively low and taxes high - 50s to 70s.

In case you want sources: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00181-021-02152-x

Just search "inequality gdp growth" you can find a lot of sources disagreeing with you.

[–] Redacted@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

If they get too expensive, another exploited country is needed.

That's my point.

Western countries had the fastest growth during those two decades due to a post-war boom. ie. Workers were glad they were no longer being sent to die and the future looked bright.

The study you linked isn't conclusive and even mentions in the abstract that different measures could yield different results.

The results it found might not hold true everywhere because it uses data from places where poverty is very high, meaning that the conclusions may not be as broadly applicable as they might seem at first glance.

This source, which I found searching for "inequality gdp growth", explores that further: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-59858-6_19

There are other issues with it surrounding data quality as there often are with economic studies and as such they shouldn't be held in the same regard as scientific ones.

But more fundamentally, capitalism works by paying workers less than the value of what they produce, thus extracting surplus value from their labour. That is what I was getting at with my original point.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Explain to me how two women kissing causes an unrelated person’s purchasing power to be reduced.

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 6 points 10 months ago

That's a social issue and lies on a separate axis from economic issues. Unfortunately in the US the capitalists refuse to give the voters an economic left option, so we have to settle for a capitalist party that panders to bigots, and a capitalist party that pretends to not be bigoted.

[–] Redacted@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Because they'll spend their free time enjoying each other's company instead of buying things they don't need?!

Apologies, no context was provided so it seems I wrongly assumed it was related to quality of life in general, not social freedoms.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

She’s trying to sell pictures of her kissing another woman and I’m out there giving it away for free /s

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Don’t buy into the lie. Most happiness grows when shared. It’s important to have enough, but no material goods bring nearly as much happiness as the joys of other people

[–] Redacted@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

The key word is "enough". Most people in the world spend the majority of their lives working to make money for someone else in order to put food on the table.

More money means more time available to spend with their loved ones, from which happiness is derived as you say.

[+] banner80@fedia.io 46 points 10 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

Because they’ve been conditioned to think that any type of good governance that prioritizes society is some type of evil, crafted by monsters that must be defeated. And they currently believe that such evil must be defeated by giving dictator powers to a criminal, rapist, treasonous, idiot, demented conman.

I would amend this slightly. There are certainly some that subscribe to what you wrote, but I think a larger percentage of them don't go that extreme, but they do subscribe to the idea of "zero sum" for policy. So if they see any policy that benefits someone that is not themselves, the assume that that policy is taking something from themselves to make that policy happen. The net effect is that unless they see a direct tangible benefit to themselves then whatever policy in question must be defeated or discarded.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

It's a little more complicated than that. I think conservatism is driven by many existential fears that are so strong, denying reality feels safer than facing it.

[–] ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The scariest thing about Conservatives is they are getting pressed against reality and the false narrative they cling to as the only possible explanation of reality.

Their lie is so ridiculous and so obviously 'coming from inside the house' that they will now protect it with everything they are.

The only hope is that they accept a conclusion of 'I was right about everything, just the small detail of who was actually responsible needed a single puzzle piece to confirm'.

[–] lars@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 10 months ago

A lot of Christians are in an abusive relationship with one god that most humans don’t even believe exists. Do, say, children with cancer or natural disasters shake their faith? It seems to strengthen it. Idk.

[–] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 9 points 10 months ago

was the original about beavers?

[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I wanna know what the original said

[–] CallMeButtLove@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not sure if it was the original but I've seen one where instead of conservatives it said "beavers" and instead of "people trying to be happy" it said "flowing water".

[–] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

I've seen that one as well.

[–] flames5123@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

Just a google search of the username and “know what they’re doing” got me this

do beavers even know what they’re doing or do they just see water flowing down a river and think “absolutely not”

Source: https://x.com/socomplikatied/status/1380660959807733762

[–] RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The way the font keeps changing sizes is terrible and yet I'm sure they went through extra effort to make that happen.

[–] PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 10 months ago

The original was about beavers and flowing water.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They absolutely know what they're doing.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 months ago

Let's dispel once and for all with this fiction.

[+] jewbacca117@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

[deleted]

[–] imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Do you think well if I'm not doing this I should be in charge of this... And No one should be doing it

And no one should regulate anything except me

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

Coming to a republic near you if you waste your vote ðis year.

Make your plan and see it þrough.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Misery loves company

Political Memes