They offer reputation. Career advancement is highly dependent on publication history and impact. Getting into a prestigious publication means your work will more likely be read and cited. Because highly reputable journals can charge high publication fees (because it’s in such high demand), they get to set the industry norm, which other less reputable journals/publishers get to follow. It does cost money to develop and maintain that reputation for rigour and impact (i.e. good science). But yeah it’s exploitative AF. There are attempts for less profit-motivated publications… But making those rigorous while still being democratic is hard

Gotta love how the more “Applied” a field is, the more “Impure” it is.

Looking at it a different way, that would be like a photographer taking a photo of the sandwich and proclaiming “I’m an artist” or a director telling a chef what to make, telling a cinematographer/camera operator how to shoot it, and an editor how to cut it to create a short film of a sandwich and proclaiming “I’m an artist”. Art can be made from a series of creative and purposeful decisions that result in a piece of expression. It might not be good art, it might not be effortful art, it might even be unethically made art, but it’s not not-art.

“Don’t we try to categorize everything though”

That sounds like a you problem :P

Enter constructivist relativism

It’s not about whether or not the meme is dismissive of philosophy. It’s that the writer clearly doesn’t understand the basics of these fields and the kinds of questions they ask/answer, including science. Heck metaphysics isn’t even a separate field, it’s a sub-field of philosophy.

This framing makes it seem like Biden is going against the majority congressional sentiment, but he is not. The US congress, overall, is supportive of sending military support to Israel, as evidenced by their passing bills other aid bills, which is a slower process.

How would you describe the media is treating it and how should the media be treating presidents who share such imagery regardless of party?

I think it’s one thing for a private citizen to do this, but it would be another thing for a sitting/former president running for election to do the same

I would too. Unfortunately I’m pretty sure most places that check even half those boxes still fail in the market. You often have to drag consumers kicking and screaming towards something more equitable and less exploitative, even when they’re the ones being exploited.

Because they are reacting to living under the oppressive structures of late capitalism. Having been raised in a capitalist world, they naturally overemphasize economic systems and their alternatives and make assumptions about government.

So when they communism theyusually mean communism + some equitable government or just they mean socialist democracy.

Funnily enough, you live pretty well in China these days if you’re a good little capitalist.

Yeah well there’s cooking as in purely functional preparation of nutrients, and then there’s cooking as in a process of caring for others by creating a worthwhile experience of food that is needed, engaging, and delicious. The downside is this experience usually has a time limit dependent on time and others’ availability (eating hot food together). It’s sad for such effort to go to waste. The alternative extreme to this kind of nurturing is abandoning the idea that family time over meals is worthwhile and just shitting out nutrient bricks so the children don’t starve. I don’t think anyone really wins in the long run with that.

That’s not an insult, it’s a specific form of trolling/harassment called sealioning.

Yeah you have it the other way around. The shed comes with the land, which is desirable. Imagine how much a completely undeveloped acre in/right next to a major city would go for? Location location location

Is this a shitpost because blue actually represents the Quebecois who view themselves as oppressed the way they oppressed Indigenous People, for whom orange/yellow/black/red/white are more representative colours?

Right, that’s a legal argument. Part of presenting a case is to argue what is the legal issue/crime at hand and what circumstances/information is relevant. It’s the defense council’s job to make the argument you just made, not the prosecutor’s and it’s the judge’s job to make judgements about what information the jury should consider in making their decision. It’s the prosecutor’s literal job to make arguments that benefit their side, within their code of conduct and court rules. I don’t know if it’s a very good or convincing approach by the prosecution, I’m not a lawyer.

I certainly don’t condone what the YouTuber was doing, but I’m curious what alternative action/approach you’d prefer to see from the prosecutor in this context? What would it look like?

I’m not saying ubereats’ rates aren’t outrageous, but if you make a certain amount of money and are busy, it’s still worth the time saving. There are enough of those people to keep it going. Plus the ridiculous rate incentivized consumers towards their subscription model. But yeah I barely eat out or order in these days and definitely more healthy.

I see, I think there are a couple things to clarify. Causally, you can view it as the political system of decision-making determines the economic system, so keeping capitalism is a political decision made through a political system such as democracy or theocracy with downstream political consequences, e.g. property has high capital value, which affects citizens.

You may also be conflating decisions that carry a political quality with decisions made by a political system. Or conflating systems that carry political qualities such as economic systems and education systems with political systems proper, which are system for instituting decisions that govern societies. For example, the market may “decide” that asbestos is the best insulation, however, the market does not set political policy about insulation. It is up to the political system (e.g. democratic parliament or dictator) to decide whether or not to pass policy about limiting asbestos insulation, not capitalism. This distinction is also present in your own argument. Like you said, the market (capitalism) doesn’t create and enforce property law, it’s the state (political system) that creates the law and is responsible for enforcing it.

-EDIT- Okay I think I see the semantic disagreement. What others are emphasizing is that the economy is political in nature and therefore it is a political system. What I understand for the term “Political System” is more narrow to be more narrowly “system of government”. I certainly agree that the economy is political in nature. And honestly, I’m not married to my definition of political system. What I cared more about is drawing the distinction between “system of government” and “systems that are political in nature”. The only reason why I’d disagree is that by the latter definition, any system of social structure such as religions, education systems, human transportation systems, communication systems, language systems etc. Are also political systems because they’re political in nature. So the term “political system” may be too broad as to be useful.

Thanks for this, I like the pragmatic view that those with economic power select those who obtain political power. I certainly don’t think they’re independent. The economic system influences the political system for sure, but categorically/formally we’re still talking about two distinct systems, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about a separate political structure

Can you elaborate on how capitalism is a meaningful political system?