Marx explains that the primary use of capital is to accumulate more capital. No one who invests money is satisfied with an equal or lesser value in return. Note that this is disanalogous to a direct exchange of goods. If I give you a coat and you give me a chair, we are satisfied with the trade because the use-values are heterogenous even though the exchange-value is homogenous and [if the trade is fair] equivalent. But there is no reason to exchange $100 for $100 because the two are the same. (This is not to say we should go back to the barter system: the point is that capitalist commodity production leads to capital, which leads to an expectation of infinite profits.) Once you have a pile of money, you can either sit on it or you can throw it back into the market in an effort to get more money.

Marx argues that, under capitalism, money itself becomes fetishized, since the owners of private commodity production pursue ever greater profit. More precisely, they pursue more surplus-value to appropriate from the value created by the labor-power they purchase from workers.

Counterpoint: trust in American institutions is at an all-time low. This generation does not believe what they big news organizations tell them. Damn sure don’t believe in politicians anymore.

The live-service model is a bigger problem. Steam isn’t going to randomly remove your purchases; but if you buy a digital game that runs on servers it can be taken away from you regardless of what platform you bought it on.

Damn, we’re sending AI to the shadowrealm lmao

“The 100 most common…”

I’m speaking in generalizations here, but I take your point.

It really doesn’t matter what you say when you argue with people on the internet. No historical evidence, statistics, political theory, or emotional appeal can change someone’s mind.

Without getting into US politics, I think this country is going to have to learn how to resist White supremacy & nationalism the hard way. Things have to get worse before they can get better.

I agree with the PS3 due to the roaster of games.

Plenty of reasons.

1. The person is too young or too old or not attractive for some other such reason.
2. They’re wearing a skirt/dress
3. Don’t want to feel like a perv or make her feel uncomfortable.

I’m not trying to sound puritanical but there are good reasons to look elsewhere.

Many such examples.

Hey gotta let the free market do its thing /s

Can someone explain Gen Z? I don’t understand

What are the stakes here? What do we gain or lose by answering either way?

This setup could be used for anything. Crazy versatility

Blatant corporate capture.

Ideologies that require harming others do not have the right to be promoted.

This will just enforce the status quo. For instance, if the current regime is fascist and requires a revolution in order to overthrow, you have effectively outlawed talk of regime change. To be fair, a fascist regime would do that already, but the fact that a fascist regime would do it is another bad sign for your proposed law.

Maybe we could carve out an exemption for “harming others in self-defense”?