this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2026
95 points (95.2% liked)

Asklemmy

55310 readers
553 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

We have lost all sense of self preservation. Almost like we the gipity. Which came first the gipity or the ape? I swear chain smoking monkeys driving cars.

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Because the people who own everything want to keep owning everything and because they own everything they have the resources to propagandize the idea that them owning all the things is actually good.

I think a good question worth asking yourself when it comes to evaluating claims made by someone is “Would they still have a reason to say this if it weren’t true?” Would rich people, the politicians whose campaigns were backed by rich people, and media outlets owned by rich people have a reason to support the system which makes them rich even if their claims about it being good for everyone else were not true? Yes.

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 hours ago

Because line needs to go up

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 15 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

You might find Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony interesting.

tl,dr: The ruling class and its institutions influence perception and values. Cultural norms become so ingrained that they become "common sense" and "what's natural".

[–] solidheron@sh.itjust.works 4 points 15 hours ago

My answer is we as a species started doing division of labor and we decided that people who decide how things are run is it's own labor and should be run by that "kind" of person.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 12 points 20 hours ago

Its not, the people working to convince you that it is have an obvious interest in maintaining the status quo, and they're probably not gonna let things get better until and unless there's a gun to their head

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago

It's not a crazy idea. It's the one true, undeniable, self-evident truth that has always been hidden by the greedy and the powerful, and all of the smoke and mirrors they possess.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Because the ruling class ideas are the ruling ideas, they control education, public spaces and media (and also the repression apparatus in case the former is insufficient). It's not about the sense of self preservation, we are not so different than ancient or medieval commoners who found questioning the divine rights of kings to own everything, a crazy idea.

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.

― Karl Marx

[–] horus_son_of_isis@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago
[–] theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 51 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The people who currently own the means of production really really like having control over everything.

[–] the_wizard_of_0Z@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago

🤠 they sure do

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 26 points 1 day ago

Rich people don't want to give anything up.

Assholes don't want their out-group to have anything nice. Even if it means they suffer.

Many people don't know shit about fuck, and they're just trying to get through the week.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 21 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Communism is when we all share a toothbrush

No seriously I had an old woman, good friend of our family, tell me that democratic socialists wanted to make illegals live with us in our houses that we paid for. Like that was their plan, they were going to force homeowners to house migrant families.

What the fuck have they been smoking in this country? That’s not how ANY of this works!

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago

Yeah, what do they think this is? Palestine?

[–] TheWolfOfSouthEnd@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 15 hours ago

This stupid “logic” applies to both countries.

[–] wador@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

My grandfather actually had to share his own house with five other families in Bulgaria in the forties after the revolution.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 6 points 20 hours ago

If he had a house that could fit five families and was occupying it alone then good

[–] anotherspinelessdem@lemmy.ml 7 points 21 hours ago

My great grandpa had to give up all his slaves in Cuba after the Revolution 😢

[–] lietuva@lemmy.world -2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

on paper it sounds legit, but eventually it comes down to who has control of it.

Speaking of USSR, there's going to be responsible person assigned for that place, whether it was collective farm or any manufacutring plant. And everyone who is in that place will have an personal interest in abusing that power. Ordinary workers took whatever they could find to home, it was known that if everything is owned by everyone, therefore it is also mine. I think shared ownership goes against human nature and to live in altruistic and self preserving society would mean to overcome it. When we think of ourselves part of humanity and not part group/nationality/political view or individual maybe we will be one step closer

[–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 9 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

I think shared ownership goes against human nature

I think the vast majority of things are shared. Air, water, soil... roads, schools... your education.... the bathrooms at the supermarket... the murals/sculptures that make your town look less like a shithole...

It's perfectly in line with human nature, actually, to share things. People who amass hoards of wealth and fight for power and control... those are the weirdos.

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 9 points 14 hours ago

How can you say this about industry, but not something already publicly owned, like police, fire departments or military? And yes, yes, I know how well some of those are run, BUT, would they be better under private control? Hell no. In fact, I'm pretty sure they'd be better without the corrupting influence private wealth has on our political system.

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Because more than half of people don’t really understand what the means of production is in the first place.

[–] the_wizard_of_0Z@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It looks like the future is gonna be some people don't even know where babies come from..They lost the ability to know how to grow food. This is the new dark ages

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 5 points 1 day ago

A lot of current people don't know thanks to a lack of public education on the subject.

Not all is lost though. I recall seeing an interview with an American World War 2 veteran describing his understanding of how babies were made prior to getting married as "I recall thinking it had something to do with the belly button." So "we" have been there before.

In case anyone here doesn’t know, babies come from the butt.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 4 points 1 day ago

I do think the terminology resulting from "German translated to English in the late 1800s" does not help.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] the_wizard_of_0Z@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

"AI" shortened version of chat gipity 🤣

[–] Vinylraupe@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

I highkenuinely thought it was an ancient species of ape that came before the monkeys you mentioned.

[–] Ibuthyr@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago

In Germany we say (schett) skibbidy. I kinda like it.

[–] DornerStan@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 day ago

ChatGPT -> GPT -> GiPiTee -> gipity

Bosses did a really great job convincing us otherwise

[–] racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Who's this "public" guy?

[–] furrowsofar@beehaw.org -5 points 1 day ago

We do to the extent you own stock.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Equality gives a feeling of helplessness. There is no hope for a high status person with the knowledge and skills to solve the hard problems.

The more global warming and nuclear threats create uncertainty the more people feel the need to find somebody who resolves their problems. With their power and status symbols billionaires trigger the feeling that they are what we need to create a better world. If we distribute their power it feels like we destroy our only hope.

We could start resolving our problems by ourselves, right here, right now. With digital goods the means of production can be created from nothing. (But) Who dares to say how we should start?