this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2025
565 points (97.2% liked)

196

16813 readers
2219 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
565
rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 18 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) by hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
 

Guys, at this rate I don't think the revolution's going to happen anytime soon.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DrCake@lemmy.world 98 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

I swear you could introduce UBI and someone somewhere would complain about it not being left enough.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 13 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I mean it depends on the context of how UBI is going to get paid for. If it is funded by a wealth tax then I am on board. But that's not how the powerful proponents of UBI say it should be funded. Andrew Yang would have us take it out of Social Security to pay for it but you don't hear him say we should uncap Social Security contributions.

Also, I think rent caps or something need to be introduced as well. I worry about landlords just assuming you have an extra 2,000 on you and then taking it.

But implemented with the right protections, I would love UBI.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 49 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Someone somewhere would because UBI is the capitalist techbro idea of a social safety net; it's a band-aid that doesn't address the underlying problems in a similar way to how the ACA helps but in reality is a very center-right idea that doesn't address the underlying hypercapitalist healthcare system.

[–] mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml 60 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Well there yah go, we didn’t even need to introduce it and it’s already not left enough.

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

It was cooked up by Milton Friedman, one of the grandfathers of American free market libertarianism.

The whole impetus of UBI was to eliminate traditional social services because, it is argued, there's no way that a government institution could be as efficient or effective as a free market.

And make no mistake, even modern proponents of UBI such as Andrew Yang propose funding it by hollowing out existing social services.

Like, yeah, UBI is better than having literally no social support at all, but the fact that its seen as this ultra-leftist idea, to the point that we apparently can't even conceive of how it could possibly "not be left enough", is an indication of how far right mainstream politics has shifted.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 14 hours ago
[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 5 points 17 hours ago (6 children)

UBI is only surface-level leftist, it's distributing some of the wealth while leaving the important parts - property - untouched.

So yes, I and many others would complain about UBI. I've long held it's an untenable bandage slapped on the gaping hemorrhage that is capitalism.

[–] laserm@lemmy.world 15 points 12 hours ago

The irony writing itself.

[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 39 points 16 hours ago

It's certainly not enough, but I'd still prefer it over nothing. I'll gladly take a miniscule win.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 35 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

If you know anything about first aid you know that slapping a bandage on is the first step to actually helping the patient.

[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 18 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

"The real problem with this stab wound is it damaged their liver. Putting a bandage over the wound isn't going to solve that, what they really need is surgery!"

"We're twenty miles away from a hospital, we need to stop the bleeding or they'll die before we get them to a doctor."

"A bandage isn't going to save them. Only a surgeon will."

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

That's under the assumption that you're actually getting them to a doctor and not just slapping the bandaid on and calling it a day.

[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

And I would argue that in either case, stopping the bleeding is still the immediate goal.

[–] Denjin@lemmings.world 10 points 13 hours ago

You literally just engaged in what the OP was talking about, and here am I joining in as well.

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 23 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

And that is the issue. Ada is bleeding to death, and Bob is giving them a rudimentary bandage to staunch the bleeding. You could:

  • Let Bob do their thing, and go get an ambulance.

  • Complain to Bob that this will only slow down the bleeding. What Ada needs is to be in a hospital. Keep yelling at Bob for his shitty bandage.

[–] HelloHotel@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

We are all afraid that Jake will convince the doctor to refuse surgery claimimg the problem is fixed now. He goes on to convince Ada and the world that she is healed and asking for surgery makes no sense.

I dont know if Jake will be effective at creating regressions nor if we can fight him off effectively.

Okay, but yell at Jake then.

What you're saying is that the bleeding is good. The more people bleed, the more they'll need "a real solution." This is just accelerationism.

[–] Forester@pawb.social 14 points 16 hours ago

You know what the most important thing for proper triage is : my personal feelings /s

[–] Taalnazi@lemmy.world 18 points 16 hours ago

I mean, if it introduces people to surface-level leftist ideas and gets them onboard, they then can be drawn further to the normal - the left wing ideas. Which would be good.

I agree with you though that it's only a bandage.