Ugh you’re probably right, it’s going to be our generation’s DMC DeLorean. The vehicle itself will age poorly, but slap it in a BTTF reboot in five years and it’ll fit right in

Probably low-hanging fruit here, but Cybertrucks

Tbh there’s lots of stuff in the Barbie movie that I would consider timeless, especially the feminist aspects of it. What parts of the movie do you think applies to the 2020s but doesn’t apply to, say, 1990 or 1960?

EDIT: I may have interpreted this comment too pessimisticly-- this question is about the future, not the past. Maybe, hopefully, societal views on gender will change in the future enough that the Barbie movie will become outdated

Maybe Cory Doctorow?

Porno for Pyros, is that you?

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d3f506e0-ce0d-4121-b644-0b2a384d6fd5.jpeg

Yep! I wouldn’t say it would be “yours” exactly because you would never have actual ownership of the thing while you’re using it, but it would be your right to use it and profit from it so long as you don’t destroy it. A good example would be the way Native Americans viewed land use, following herds of wild animals wherever they went and moving from depleted areas to more fertile ones. This clashed heavily with European and American colonialists, who enforced their views of exclusionary ownership with barbed wire fences and violence.

It’s the idea that because you own something, you’re the only one who is allowed to use it, whether you’re actually actively using it right now or not. You can contrast it with usufructuary rights, which are based on the idea that you only have rights to something while you’re actively using it

That’s pretty fair. It may feel impossible for me today to afford any capital, but if I were somehow able to accumulate enough money I would be legally allowed to own capital. Under monarchy, even if I got that much money, it would be illegal for me to purchase capital as an individual. That’s enough of a distinction to make them different for me, thanks for bringing it up.

Does the exchange of land between kingdoms via wedding dowries/treaties/violence fulfill the definition of a “market for capital”?

I would call monarchism a form of religious capitalism where the ruling class claims divine right as the methods to accumulate capital, rather than using financial means to accumulate capital

I think the simplest way to put it is “an economic system where individuals are allowed to have exclusionary ownership of capital”

Eating one dry is what I imagine biting a vacuum cleaner bag must feel like

Except for Frosted Shredded Mini Wheats, which are glorified food pallets.

The logic I don’t follow is how killing some people and not killing others is in any way an application of equality. They decided that the people they killed were unequal. Like, the logic of your individual points makes sense, but it’s the overall logic of your argument that I can’t follow.

I’m not sure I follow your logic here. What equality was gained by the victims of the Holocaust?

I think my point is obvious enough to be understood without getting bogged down in the pedantry of equity vs equality, but if you want to start that discussion you are welcome to provide some definitions :)

Anyone who works to maximize equality is a good guy and anyone who works to maximize inequality is a bad guy

He looks like he’s two steps in to a drunken lurch towards a bowl of buffalo wings that may or may not be room temperature

https://media.tenor.com/PDHHnjTJPXIAAAAC/scott-pilgrim-how-are-you-doing-that-with-your-mouth.gif