The end result is comically bizarre and obviously extremely unlikely. The joke/criticism is how disconnected feminists are from the real world with their overly complicated, academic and abstract language, despite the fact that they ostensibly have a goal of influencing ordinary people into being better.

The goal of feminism is gender equality. That is to reduce the authority men have over women (and in some cases vice versa). Part of that may be to influence people toward being kinder and more understanding towards others. But another part of that might be a deeper and more complex understanding of how gender functions in society.

Think about it this way… Just because Einstein’s theory of special relativity is complicated and not well understood by most people doesn’t make the theory of special relativity incorrect. But for some reason in the social sciences you can make the argument that a theory is too complicated and therefore wrong and some people will think that argument makes sense. The theory being complicated is obviously not an argument against the theory of special relativity or Judith Butlers theories on gender.

I do find this skit funny but I think the joke is one layer deeper. I think the joke is something along the lines of this Upton Sinclair quote:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ―Upton Sinclair

That is men benefit from the status quo of gender relations therefore men have a certain subjectivity that we expect from them that resists thinking critically about their own position in gendered hierarchy. Seeing (especially working class) men break from that subjectivity breaks expectations and the result is humor.

it has Jim Crow style laws at best and apartheid at worst.

But you repeat yourself.

Perhaps it could be state funded? It worked for PBS for a time and it still mostly works for the BBC. Why not a browser? A truly independent steward for the open web is important and it doesn’t seem like Google is capable of that.

Oh boy, I can’t wait until we bail out the tech giants because they’re too big to fail.

It’s a bad enough idea we don’t need anymore for the next few centuries.

The reason why subsidies in the US lead to corruption and subsidies in China lead to innovation has nothing to do with how long the industries have been subsidized.

The US subsidizes industries to bailout corporate executives that made bad decisions.

China subsidizes workers who innovate towards ends that we know we need to be working towards as a species. Such as building electric vehicles to address climate change.

Even if the economy worked how you’re suggesting addressing climate change would be a worthy investment. It’s an end that has been obvious that we should be investing in for decades. The US refuses to do it because it would take power out of the hands of the corporate executives who they are busy bailing out.

Well, where do you think the money for subsidies comes from? Taxes.

This is logically incoherent. Money doesn’t exist in nature my dude.

Take out a physical dollar and look at it… what does it say on it? If you do this you will find it says it’s a note from the federal reserve.

Every US dollar in existence was originally spent into the economy by the federal reserve which is managed by the US government. That is a matter of fact. To suggest money comes from taxes is incoherent. Taxes are how the government destroys money not how it creates money.

Now maybe to control inflation we should take money out of the economy through taxes. Especially in places where money is being mismanaged… if we do, the aforementioned corporate executives seem to be at the top of the list of places where large amounts of money is being mismanaged. Given that in the context of the automotive industry China is managing their wealth better than the US.

Yeah, I’m not sure I agree that YouTube wants their platform to shrink. Even if you don’t watch ads you are still giving them your data which they can monetize.

Personally I would be willing to pay for YouTube premium but not under the current terms. 1. If I’m paying for the service they should no longer collect and sell my data. 2. Allow me to have a YouTube-only account not connected to other Google services and 3. The current pricing is a bit high.

They can offer these terms or I’ll continue to use them logged out with Adblock. Or they can continue to enshitify and eventually their platform will start to shrink which will make the data they sell to advertisers less valuable.

In Tennessee there is TennCare but it’s hard to get on to it now.

Then how do you handle the fly paper? You can swallow a bird to handle the spider. No problem. But I know of no solution for fly paper.

Foss licenses are copyleft, they bar individuals from enclosing the commons built by the collective for profit. Anarchism isn’t just letting people do whatever they want. Anarchism means against hierarchy. Having rules that prevent unjustified hierarchies from forming is entirely with in the bounds of anarchism. Including rules that prevent using copyright as a coercive hierarchy.

CSGO - yes. Path of exile - probably, IDK. Destiny 2 - Yes, but you have to install windows. It has 1 usb-c port that you can plug in any pc dock. Other than that it’s a handheld PC with Linux pre-installed and custom UI to launch games with a controller. It can play most windows PC games.

Check protondb.com if you want to know compatibility for a particular game.

Edit: https://www.protondb.com/app/238960

They just released a TestFlight for a native iOS version.

What you’re talking about is a tendency towards monopoly.

The most efficient way to organize industrial capacity is in large centralized productive systems, because it gets the per unit cost low. These ‘economies of scale’ are the best way to offer the lowest prices to the consumer for industrial goods by far.

The problem arises because this creates a centralized power structure. We call the people who control this power structure capitalists. The capitalists use this structure to force unfair labor contracts on their workforce.

The ‘better solution’ is democratic oversight over the centralized productive apparatus. Which can be in the form of regulations from democratic institutions on the centralized productive apparatus; or just as well workers collectively owning the company they work for.

Matt Bruenig has a some really informative videos on how that might look.

https://youtu.be/MmeIGcI60oc

I agree with and get the point of the metaphor. But the leopard metaphor always seemed a bit tortured to me. There’s got to be a cleaner way to communicate that point.