Outdated meme, they’re not even using freedom and democracy as covers any more.

Always gonna plug disc sports when threads like this pop up. Ultimate Frisbee is fun and if you live in even a minor city there’s usually a rec league to join. Has the best culture of any sport IMO, full of the chilliest most accepting people who are always looking for more people to join and with rec leagues people will sometimes go out to the bar after to hang out.

Disc golf is also great for meeting people if you’re not as into cardio. Can join tournaments and they’ll usually pair you up with people. Or just go solo to the course and occasionally someone else will offer to let you join their round or if you’re waiting with another solo at a hole you can offer to let them join you.

Both are also very cheap activities, Frisbee you just need cleats and to pay ~$50 for a rec league season. Disc golf is basically free once you get discs.

Yeah, they’re pretty good too, but don’t really see that many of there churches these days.

Also your username is dumb and unoriginal. You aren’t fooling anyone Rick.

the only genuinely honest Christian sect as a whole.

Are you not counting unitarians? Because hands down they’re the best denomination. Only ones I see consistently waving rainbow flags and free Palestine banners.

Yes the Ayatollah massacred his own people, but that sadly is the logical move for an authoritarian regime. Building nukes and making the sanctions that cripple the economy which created the unrest permanent is not the best strategic move, as mentioned above. They want to get a deal done, it’s just trump / neta yahu will take nothing but complete capitulation.

They’re enriching uranium and denying inspectors because the US dropped out of the deal and they’re trying to bring them to the table. If the US is going to impose sanctions and put pressure on them they have to put pressure back on the US . Otherwise the US can just sit back and wait for the regime to collapse under the weight of crippling sanctions.

Under the JCPOA Iran never failed an inspection, it wasn’t until Trump dropped out of the deal that they stopped allowing them in, and if another deal is reached there’s no reason to believe that they’ll violate it.

If you look at the iranian regime as rational actors instead of crazy religious fanatics then all this starts to make sense. They can’t afford to be crazy religious fanatics, they have to make the best strategic moves because their regime is teetering under the weight of both external and internal pressures. The fact they’ve managed to survive this long is a testament to their capabilities. This is not to say their regime is good in a moralistic sense, it’s not, only that it’s good at keeping power.

Yes, and a lot of Iranians support their government, or want a theocracy that’s even more paternalistic. If the regime falls now you’ll most likely see either a military dictatorship take over to suppress the various conflicts and contradictions in the country, or those conflicts flare up into a civil war between theocrats and Democrats similar to Syria. Israel wants the civil war because a military dictator is still probably going to shoot missiles at them, arm Hezbollah and Hamas etc. while a civil war all the missiles are fired within the country.

Israel doesn’t want a unified Iran, whether under a democracy or dictatorship, because Iran is mostly unified under their hatred for Israel due to its various crimes.

1. The video can just be about a problem in the west. The problem is heavily concentrated for both production and consumption in the US, China, Brazil, Indonesia and India. Really poor nations like those in Africa actually can’t afford to do factory farms because it requires a shit ton of antibiotics to keep a concentration of animals like that from dying or killing the farmer tending to them from disease.
2. Poverty is not an excuse for eating meat, there are plenty of dirt poor people in India who are vegetarian. Plant sources of protein, like beans and lentils, are almost always cheaper then animal protein unless the animal protein is heavily subsidized.
3. The fact that a practice makes a product cheap enough for poor people doesn’t excuse the moral implications of that practice. Slavery made it so cotton clothing was cheap enough for poor people, that doesn’t absolve the great sin that was slavery.

So is he arguing that he owns the AI as a slave then and thus has control over the copyright? Because otherwise the AI would “decide” who gets to use the copyright then and it’ll probably just say yes like these things do for everything else.

Trump is torn between the neoconservatives like Rubio, formally bolton etc, and Israel that want regime change and his own unwillingness to go full troops on the ground. The neocons successfully get trump to blow up Obama era deals designed to keep the peace by catering to Trump’s ego telling him he can get a better deal than Obama, in reality they don’t want a deal and want to escalate but this is the best they can get.

So trump goes to the negotiating table only to find out that Obama’s deal is the best he can get. Frustrated and unwilling to admit Obama was just as good a negotiator as him he begins to blame the leaders for their intransigence. The longer this goes on the dumber he looks for blowing up the original deal and not being able to get a new one, all the while Iran is enriching more uranium to try and push the US to accept the old deal.

Then Venezuela happens and he comes up with a new plan, if you can’t change the deal you can at least change the negotiating team. He can take out the leader, use them as a scapegoat for the long stalled negotiations, sign the same deal and call it a win. Maduro repeatedly said he was willing to play ball with Trump but it would be on similar grounds to the Obama era deal but trump couldn’t go back to the US and say he re-imoosed all these sanctions for nothing, so he took out Maduro, got a reason to declare victory and went home.

My guess is he’s trying to do the same here, say all the issues with negotiations were because of the Ayatollah, sign a new version of the same deal with Trump branding like the USMCA , declare victory and head home.

Is Israel gaining something that I’m not seeing? Destabilization the main goal?

Yes, Israel doesn’t want regime change because they know hatred for Israel is so broad that it will survive a regime change, especially one triggered by a war of aggression started by them. They want to turn Iran into the next Syria and get them to turn all of their ire inwards instead of at them.

By doing this Israel wants a more friendly government.

Israel knows there will never be a friendly government to them in Iran, Israel knows that hatred for Israel is broad and will survive a regime change, especially one triggered by a war of aggression from Israel. They’re hoping to turn Iran into the next Syria, keep them fighting amongst themselves so they can’t turn their ire towards them.

Israel was beset on all sides by people who wanted to destroy it, and it was a big shit show, and they did problematic stuff but that’s what they had to do to stay alive because other nations wouldn’t even acknowledge their right to exist.

This basically describes hamas in Gaza now.

There’s a lot of parallels between Israel during the six day war and hamas during Oct 7. Both were surrounded by hostile country/s who would not recognize their right to exist and had an army ready to attack on their borders and were blockading them, though Israel was only being blockaded on one port. Then they launch a surprise attack on their neighbors. The difference is Israel succeeded and Hamas didn’t.

Ok, then by your definition is communism capitalism then, communism being defined as a system where the workers own the means of production? So a commune, or group of workers, can own businesses and property, and individuals can too if they are an “owner operator” and the only worker for a business, basically being a commune of 1. Because if you’re defining communism as capitalist then that word has lost all meaning.

You’re definition of capitalism seems to be any system that has property, when all systems of human organization have some idea of property, even communism. The way the systems differ is what things can or can’t be property and who / what can own them and for what ends.

For Rome I think you’re making a category error that’s really common in this debate: you’re pointing to the existence of markets, private property, wage payments, and profit-seeking individuals, and then concluding that Rome was capitalist. But the presence of those elements is not the same thing as capitalism as a dominant mode of production.

First, we have to be careful about the sources. What we call “Roman history” was written by literate urban elites—senators, landowners, military officers—about politics, war, and elite economic activity. Naturally, we have documentation about the commercial and financial dealings of those elites. What we largely don’t have are accounts of the daily economic life of the overwhelming majority: subsistence farmers, tenant laborers, and especially slaves.

There were exponentially more people in the Roman world living lives closer to Spartacus than to Pompey, but we know far more about Pompey because people like him were doing the writing. That skews the picture. The economy as experienced by most Romans—agricultural, coercive, local, and oriented around subsistence and tribute—is comparatively underrepresented in elite literary sources.

Second, capitalism isn’t defined by the mere presence of wage labor or profit motive. It’s defined by a system in which production is primarily organized around capital accumulation: owners invest capital, hire wage labor to produce commodities for market exchange, and systematically reinvest profits to expand production. That logic becomes dominant in early modern Europe and fully systemic by the Industrial Revolution.

In Rome, the overwhelming majority of economic output was agricultural. Large estates (latifundia) were worked primarily by slaves. That’s not wage labor organized for profit in a competitive market; it’s coerced labor organized for surplus extraction. The landowner isn’t engaging in capital accumulation through productivity-enhancing investment in hired labor; he is extracting surplus directly through ownership of land and people. That’s a fundamentally different social relation.

Even your centurion example highlights this distinction. Yes, he receives a wage—but he isn’t a wage worker in a capitalist enterprise producing commodities for sale in a market. He is paid by the state to perform military service. States have paid soldiers for thousands of years; that alone does not make a society capitalist.

If that centurion owns land worked by slaves, that also doesn’t make him a capitalist. Owning productive property is not identical to being a capitalist. In a capitalist system, land or capital is typically invested to generate profit through market competition and reinvestment. In Rome, elite landownership was about status and surplus extraction. Slaves were compelled by force to produce agricultural output. The surplus was appropriated directly by the owner. That’s closer to a slave mode of production than to capitalism.

Finally, scale matters. In modern capitalism, the dominant share of production comes from wage labor employed by firms operating for profit in competitive markets. In Rome, the dominant share of production came from agriculture structured around slavery, tenancy, and tribute. Commercial and financial activity certainly existed—but it did not define or structure the system as a whole.

So yes, Rome had markets, private property, profit-seeking individuals, and wage payments. Many premodern societies did. What it did not have was a social system in which capital accumulation through wage labor was the dominant organizing principle of the economy. That’s the key distinction.

No, that works on stuff recommended on my home, but for this, the popular episodes section on the explore tab, there’s no option.

This is mildly infuriating, it’s meant to show things people find offensive or objectionable. If you don’t want to see offensive or objectionable shit block the sub. There’s no way to remove this section on my explore tab, or even down vote or say I don’t want to see episodes like this.

I like money going to the YouTube creators I watch, and don’t want to watch ads and don’t want to have to set up a ton of different patreons to donate directly. Got a solution for that?

Thanks, I’ll give it a try!

The top 50 list is actually why I was there, I like to check it occasionally as I do like pop and some mainstream hip hop. Previously this popular section was just some hip hop podcasts/ videos that I ignored, but at least it was somewhat based on my music so it’s not purely top 50 on the app, idk why it threw this one at me.

This wasn’t on the home page it was on the explore page, where it shows the top 25, new releases, trending etc.

I think my music interests would probably point to me being a guy

Yes, idk who can listen to this for ten hours and whether they have any brain cells before or after.

You’re going to need a narrow definition of company for that definition to not be very broad, as Wikipedia defines company as:

A company is a legal entity representing an association of legal persons with a shared objective, such as generating profit or benefiting society.

So basically a company can be any group of people, separated from the state but still recognized by it. So is a commune a company then? If everything was controlled by communes would that be capitalist?

It’s better to use a more specific definition, again from wikipedia:

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and its use for the purpose of obtaining profit.[1][2] This socioeconomic system has developed historically in several stages, and is defined by a number of constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.

While all of these existed in Roman civilization, concentrated in the big cities such as Rome, the majority of the economy was slaves and peasants working the land to feed themselves while being forced to give a portion to landlords as rent and to the government as taxes, much like most agricultural civilizations. This sort of economy does not revolve around profit ie. Buying something, paying someone to improve it, and selling it for more on an open market so you can buy more and sell that and on and on… That is possible in Rome and there are capitalists, but that’s not the main mode of production in the economy so the economy isn’t capitalist. Just like there are communes in the US but the US isn’t communist.