Anonymous #1 1d

Their economic system is

0

Anonymous #2 1d

You googled the wrong thing

14

Anonymous #4 1d

Yet Ohio can’t manage it.

10

Anonymous #5 1d

no shit because they aren’t a sovereign nation and have different leaders calling the shots. i meant solely from a population size if that wasn’t clear… when i said size 🤷‍♀️

-3

Anonymous #4 1d

A lot more is run at the state level than you seem to understand.

8

Anonymous #5 1d

all i said was that ohio wasn’t a country which is factual. and that running a country that size would be a lot easier than one the size of the us

3

Anonymous #4 1d

That’s not what you said nor was that your point. Don’t deflect now that you’re being called out.

11

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #1 1d

They are economically more socialist but they do it with free market capitalism Which will toss you through a loop if you don’t actually understand what capitalism is and what socialism seeks to accomplish

14

Anonymous #3 1d

No they are one of the Nordic countries who use something called “The Nordic Model” which is where free market capitalism meets the social equity parts of socialism It’s not an insane thing to think about, the US has weaker versions of the same systems.

6

Anonymous #3 1d

not my fault you can’t infer key points i’m not here to hold your hand. a country that’s the size of a small state would be easy as fuck to set up for success. that is objectively true

-1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #3 1d

and you live by that

-2

Anonymous #4 1d

I bet your skull could bust through a metal building.

-1

Anonymous #3 1d

this is you though

-1

Anonymous #4 1d

I’m strong. You’re just a Neanderthal.

-1

Anonymous #3 1d

a neanderthal whose more well versed in geopolitical feasibility per capita than you, undoubtedly. you must have taken a high dive into a low well at some point strongman

-1

Anonymous #4 1d

Yet you’re clearly not aware that Norway has a higher GDP per capita than the US? You’re cosplaying having a brain. Geopolitical feasibility per capita is not a thing lmfao.

-1

Anonymous #3 1d

dude it’s literally because they have a smaller population are you that stupid? i’m just gonna turn of notifications because you are frying my brain with this cyclical bs

-1

Anonymous #4 1d

You’re dismissing an entire economic system purely because of one factor without acknowledging there are other countries in the world the same size of not smaller without the same level of success. Byee 🤭

-1

Anonymous #4 1d

If they have a smaller population then they have a smaller labor force as well?

8

Anonymous #6 1d

a smaller, much more dense pop is marginally easier to set up sustainable systems for and urbanize for efficiency in capital focused regions like the Netherlands. They dont have to deal with the same systemic issues/disparities we do with our size and the region has been colonized/settled for way longer than north america. Dont get me wrong we are beyond flawed, but comparing outcomes to smaller nations without qualitative data is not realistic.

0

Anonymous #4 1d

Norway my b, same same but different

0

Anonymous #4 23h

I understand your point, but I think there’s more to it. Norway is roughly the size of New Mexico and has twice the population. It’s not “just the size” or the fact that it’s well established in the region because their economy was terrible prior to creating the Nordic System. It’s just frustrating to hear someone say “it’s not possible here” because of “systemic issues” when we are literally talking about a system that has proven to work…

3

Anonymous #3 23h

i get that, but we already rely too heavily on corps who will just move more of their production/jobs to the philippines or wherever else like when the affordable care act initially rolled out. maybe bankruptcy would be best followed by some reform. But yeah again just completely different sample sizes as far as what works elsewhere. I don’t think the china route would be ideal though they are already buying up more and more of our farms by the day so could be inevitable

2

Anonymous #4 23h

That’s fair. It’s complicated. That’s my main point I guess lmao.

4

Anonymous #3 22h

Undoubtedly! Luckily a lot of my kin between Alabama and Chi have kept land i the family over the years so I feel like a more individual/frontier infrastructure with social democracy provided on Corporate maintained areas would be kinda cool/innovative albeit entirely late stage & dystopian. probably closer to the precipice than we think which is bizarre.

2

Anonymous #4 21h

That’s sick, land is always a godsend. I wish it were easier to be self sufficient. Just centralizing the power grid would save Americans billions of dollars. “Public utilities” are still purchased by the state through private companies which is fucked in my opinion.

10

Anonymous #4 11h

You really take "inevitable" with no further questions huh? I absolutely hate that you mention colonialism and then in the next breath you brag about "owning" land. That's disgusting. This planet belongs to all of the life it supports. DECOLONIZE YOUR THINKING NOW.

-1

Anonymous #7 9h

I believe I said it “could be inevitable” so plenty of room for questions. You find owning land disgusting? Interesting. I wasn’t critiquing colonization just stating that it happened in those regions. What are you hoping for out of this engagement exactly? Maybe you need to consider your own thinking because you sound super programmed with someone else’s amped up & bitter rhetoric from tik tok.

1

Anonymous #4 9h

No shit you weren’t “critiquing” coloniality. Your mind is clearly colonized. The fact that you see no problem with owning things that don’t belong to you privately is the most telling sign. Focus on your own thinking first. My “bitter rhetoric” came from years of studying anthropology in university. What’s your excuse?

-1

Comment Deleted

0

appeal to popularity fallacy

-1

Coloniality is an ongoing structure that is baked into our institutions and causes present day harm. And 200 years is incredibly short in comparison to human history. Yeshua was murdered and prophecized much longer ago and that cosmic injustice is still causing spiritual imprisonment to this day. Until we see through the illusion of separation, to the oneness of all life, we will continue to kill each other, our planet, ourself. A system worshipping its own architecture is the demiurge at work.

-1

It’s time for the human race to wake up out of this nightmare. Stop fighting it so hard

-1

Comment Deleted

0

A level higher than you apparently

-1

Anonymous #7 9h

Clearly

1

Anonymous #3 9h

You’ll do everything but try to understand my point. Strawmen are much easier to take down than real positions.

0

Anonymous #3 9h

Are you going to call me a neanderthal too?

-1

Anonymous #3 9h

Any more ad hominems?

-1

Anonymous #3 9h

That’s what I thought. Keep making a fool of yourself.

-1

Comment Deleted

0

are you just saying that as an excuse to keep living in ignorance or do you actually want me to connect the dots for you?

-1

Comment Deleted

0

“Colonized mind” isn’t an insult, it’s a description. Quijano’s whole argument is that colonialism didn’t just steal land, it installed a worldview where dividing the earth into owned parcels became the default assumption instead of one historically specific system among many. You calling that “programmed” rhetoric is exactly the reflex that makes it invisible.

-1

Locke’s labor theory of property is literally the doctrine used to justify colonization. Land not fenced or farmed European-style got labeled “unimproved” and therefore unowned, which made seizing it look like homesteading instead of theft. Private property as we define it wasn’t neutral background, it was the legal tool that made dispossession look lawful.

-1

Anonymous #7 9h

Nah, it’s all bought and paid for whether you acknowledge it or not. Thats the point of this place. Take your own advice and focus on your own thinking because there’s more than one way to navigate life. If you want to spend your time spewing vainly abstract rhetoric about spirituality and oneness more power to you.. Kinda hypocritical that you would spend money on institutional learning with that mindset but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter.

1

And again your appeal to popularity is not a rebuttal, that’s just describing how successful the export was. Ubiquity isn’t proof a system is natural or good, it’s proof of how thoroughly one framework got globalized through conquest and then normalized as common sense. That’s the whole point.

-1

And I never said Jesus drafted property law. The point was about disparity as the mechanism, not the theology. Ownership only has value if some people are excluded from what’s owned. A right to property is simultaneously a right to lock others out, that’s not a metaphor, that’s the actual structure.

-1

Anonymous #4 9h

Studying a system critically isn’t the same as endorsing it. That’s like saying you can’t critique capitalism if you’ve ever used money. Understanding coloniality requires engaging with the institutions that produced and still reproduce it, that’s not hypocrisy, that’s just method. “It’s all bought and paid for so nothing matters” isn’t an argument, it’s just cynicism dressed up as depth.

-1

Anonymous #4 9h

Oh but you don’t understand that academia is a colonial institution huh?

-1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #4 9h

The downvotes, ad hominems, and non sequiturs tell me everything I need to know. You and #3 were at each other’s throats and now look how quickly you are on the same side…

0

Look at you rationalizing lol

0

Comment Deleted

0

Enclosure is the mechanism by which private property gets made real. The Enclosure Acts didn’t just restrict access, they converted commons into the exclusive, transferable ownership model that colonial law then exported wholesale. So they’re not the same word, but one is how the other gets built and scaled. That’s the actual claim, not that Locke invented land.

0

These are ad hominem fallacies. Cope harder.

0

Asking me not to point out flaws in your argumentation is crazy

0

Comment Deleted

0

Are you dodging my point AGAIN?

0

You will do everything but have good faith

0

Comment Deleted

0

You said #4 has a thick skull. That’s textbook ad hominem

0

Still waiting for you to address my actual point instead of dancing around

0

Comment Deleted

0

And since it’s hard for you to understand, I’ll make it simple with no jargon: being a dick doesn’t make you right.

0

I don’t care about your argument. I care that you think ownership is inherently valid as a social construct

1

Comment Deleted

0

That’s a strawman. Not my argument. How can you choose to be a dick and the be proud of it??

1

I’m so serious.

1

Comment Deleted

0

That says more about you and your complaceny than it does about my knowledge. If hearing historical and sociological facts is insufferable to you, then you are the problem.

1

Should I verbally berate you because your ignorance pisses me off? NO. I brought substance and good faith instead. You chose to take it personally.

0

You also said “it’s not law”… Does that mean you hold regard for this country’s governance? Do you understand where law comes from? It’s not innate.

1

Comment Deleted

0

I hope you are really annoyed right now. I’m surprised that I was able to piss you off so easily. I guess it doesn’t take much when your coping mechanism is ignorance.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Just because you didn’t try to understand doesn’t mean I didn’t explain clearly and accurately. “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” -Leo Tolstoy

1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

You have done much less than “have a conversation” don’t flatter yourself. You are just saying this shit because you are a flagrant bully and you want to feel justified in that

1

Read that quote again.

1

Is it actually stupid or are you just saying that because you don’t want to understand?

1

Says the one who thinks coloniality is inevitable

1

Comment Deleted

0

I can’t unbrainwash you. You’ll just have to suffer alone when this old world has fully crumbled. It’s on you now.

1

Comment Deleted

0

I’m literally not talking about anything that you or #4 were arguing about. Half of that was just insults anyway. The world doesn’t revolve around you

1

Everything sounds like nonsense when you don’t try to understand anything

1

Comment Deleted

0

Make me

1

I hope you realize you are wasting your own time

1

Anonymous #7 8h

Oh I did long ago.

0

You could have had a thoughtful discussion with me and learned something new but instead you felt the need to call my position “tik tok rhetoric”. That’s entirely on you.

1

Anonymous #3 8h

Are you sure? Either you’re lying to look better or you actually just don’t have any self control lol

1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #3 8h

You are such a fan if you willingly let me waste your time

1

oh that’s right. You were the one who had even less substance

1

You will do everything to validate your ignorance

1

Anonymous #3 8h

you also deleted half of your comments?? you are such a pathetic loser

1

Comment Deleted

0

you need serious help

1

Anonymous #7 8h

Actual question. Are you schizophrenic?

0

Anonymous #7 7h

you’re not critiquing you’re spewing delusional garbage. Please find some people to socialize with it seems like you’d benefit from that.

5

Anonymous #7 7h

chatgpt has entered the chat.

5

Anonymous #4 7h

Do not engage it. Trust me. They don’t have a conversation, they just call your argument various logical fallacies and misconstrue your words.

1

Anonymous #3 6h

What a convenient label to use as justification for ignoring me

0

Anonymous #4 6h

you both think private ownership of land is inevitable/chill/whatever. History begs to differ. Cope harder.

0

Anonymous #7 5h

seems more like you’re trying to cope with modernity and what has been historically happening as society continues on this course. it’s not for everyone i get it. if you like anthro you can probably just live out of a tent and nomad it around different sites or whatever you see as the alternative. I’ve read some cool travel books/atlases by people who do that.

1

Anonymous #4 5h

I never said land ownership isn’t established or dominant. I said it isn’t natural or inevitable. There’s a difference, asswipe. Just because I refuse to treat the status quo as the ceiling of human imagination doesn’t make me a nomad. Believe whatever helps you sleep though.

1

Anonymous #4 5h

I don't want to live in a tent, I want YOU to stop contributing your energy to murder of earth.

0

Anonymous #7 5h

I just want to play football and teach not sure how that contributes to murder anymore than simply existing does. I wasn’t even trying to be rude lol you’re so tilted. Wait so you just want to rent your whole life then? I’d respect the nomad life more I think

1

Anonymous #4 5h

WELL YOU’RE BEING A TOTAL FUCKING DICK DUDE RENTAL HOUSING WOULDN’T EXIST WITHOUT PRIVATE OWNERSHIP DUMBASS THAT’S WHOLE FUCKING PROBLEM. Do you seriously think skating by on your privilege while turning a blind eye to the suffering our infrastructure is causing doesn’t make you complicit? You wouldn’t know respect if it your life depended on it.

1

Anonymous #3 5h

Bro shut up. You deleted all of your dumbass comments. That’s like grabbing my arm, and hitting me with it and then going “why are you hitting yourself?”

0

Anonymous #4 5h

I would love to live in a structure that I don’t have to rent but unfortunately pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is a myth and the people who escape poverty develop survivorship bias and underestimate the amount of help they need to build wealth. The whole thing with capitalism is that it’s easier to make money when you already have money and that’s the core mechanism of class consolidation!!! It’s a very bad deal for the people who don’t get born lucky.

1

Anonymous #7 5h

*needed

1

Anonymous #4 5h

If this is something that is of no concern to you, perhaps it’s because you’ve never been forced to be concerned. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

0

Anonymous #4 5h

If you aren’t breaking a sweat, that’s means someone like me is breaking it for you. Snap THE FUCK out of it and pick up some fucking slack, asshole.

0

Anonymous #7 5h

How colonialist of you to want to own land as you put it.

1

Anonymous #4 5h

I said “live in a structure that I don’t have to rent.” That doesn’t mean ownership. Don’t pin your narrow imagination on me.

0

Anonymous #4 5h

I was referring to the buy-in cost of escaping capitalism 🤦

0

Anonymous #7 4h

Ahhh so like a squatter, you want squatters rights. Man I still feel like you’d do well in a tent, I have a good feeling about it. If you get to pin your delusions on me and spam my feed then I get to try to navigate them it’s very simple. You can stop responding anytime. It seems like you don’t know what you want with all of these contradictions and ungrounded/scattered thoughts and I truly hope you can figure it out. It’s easy to get lost out there even when you have needed support 🫶🏽

6

Anonymous #7 3h

How do you keep other people out of your structure though? Is it like a polycule?

1