Keep pushing back. Don’t let these disingenuous, self-righteous Lemmy users skate by without addressing the actual argument.

For the record, I don’t support the Republican Party, MAGA, or Mitch McConnell.

I just find this kind of rhetoric frustrating because it gets reflexively upvoted. It gives people the warm feeling that they’re standing up to oppression without requiring them to engage with whether the claim is actually true. It’s more about reinforcing the group’s narrative than critically examining the argument.

Disagree. They made a corpse deliver a baby against the family’s wishes. The people in charge are pure evil

deleted by creator

They could lie about him being there

Shit, it’s Kentucky hospital too…

They’re not exactly the best at making that whole “alive or dead” call.

Natasha Miller says she was getting ready to do her job preserving donated organs for transplantation when the nurses wheeled the donor into the operating room.

She quickly realized something wasn’t right. Though the donor had been declared dead, he seemed to her very much alive.

“He was moving around — kind of thrashing. Like, moving, thrashing around on the bed,” Miller told NPR in an interview. “And then when we went over there, you could see he had tears coming down. He was crying visibly.”

The donor’s condition alarmed everyone in the operating room at Baptist Health hospital in Richmond, Ky., including the two doctors, who refused to participate in the organ retrieval, she says.

"The procuring surgeon, he was like, ‘I’m out of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it,’ " Miller says. “It was very chaotic. Everyone was just very upset.”

Miller says she overheard the case coordinator at the hospital for her employer, Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates (KODA), call her supervisor for advice.

"So the coordinator calls the supervisor at the time. And she was saying that he was telling her that she needed to ‘find another doctor to do it’ – that, ‘We were going to do this case. She needs to find someone else,’ " Miller says. “And she’s like, ‘There is no one else.’ She’s crying — the coordinator — because she’s getting yelled at.”

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/10/16/nx-s1-5113976/organ-transplantion-mistake-brain-dead-surgery-still-alive

I guess we should be surprised Mitch isn’t an organ donor tho…

They will if they’re getting leaned on politically, but you are right in that he’s not sitting in a bed, they’ll just shove him into the morge if they have one.

They aren’t going to let him rot. That isn’t connected to the possibility of him ever regaining consciousness whether a replacement is called for.

I don’t think anyone here thinks he’s literally just sitting out on a hospital bed flat lined.

They believe everything is zero-sum

Well, they’re right about that. The Earth, and all the resources on it, are finite. The more any one person owns, the less everyone else can own. Now, I would agree that the Earth’s resources are abundant, and that there’s more than enough for everyone on Earth (at our current population level, at least) to not only survive but thrive. But, because the Earth’s resources are finite, it’s not possible for any one person to own an infinite amount of resources, let alone for that person to own infinite resources and there still be resources leftover for everyone else.

I think for a lot of those kinds of people it’s pathological. For example, I remember reading in Careless People (a memoir by a former Facebook/Meta employee) about some of the things the author witnessed about Mark Zuckerberg made it seem like he only wanted to do things because no one else could, not because he personally derived any enjoyment out of it. I’ve seen this personally with philanthropists too. They don’t actually like the disadvantaged kids they’re helping (I’m talking literal racists), but they like the idea that they’re the only ones that these kids can turn to. Basically I’m saying I don’t think they believe life is zero-sum, but they have a pathological need to create zero-sum circumstances where they are the “winners” and the rest of us losers.

Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. Politics is the means by which capitalist policies and systems are created and maintained.

The US political system could just as easily create and enforce (more) socialist systems and policies, but it doesn’t because it’s been captured by corporate and foreign interests.

Capitalist machine

Unlike the communistic system where the political leaders use the system to enrich themselves

Historically untrue of many communist leaders. Ho Chi Minh mended his own clothes. Vladimir Lenin was practically ascetic.

Obviously both are purely economic ideas that can’t exist in their ideologicsl [sic] state in reality.

Capitalism is an economic system that produces commodities: goods that are made to be useful but can not be used until they are bought/sold. Under capitalism, the capitalist owns the means with which to produce commodities and so takes the finished products and ultimately the resulting profits as their private property. The capitalist also makes all the decisions on how workers spend their labor time. On the other hand, the workers, the people that labored to create the commodity, are given a fraction of the value they produce in the form of wages. Capitalism exists here and now, any definition of capitalism to the contrary is idealist.

It’s fair to say that capitalism scales better than communism.

We have examples of socialist states scaling just fine. Perhaps we could have seen the true potential of socialism (and eventually communism) as an economic model; but countries that reject capitalism faced economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, assassination attempts, and retaliatory wars (e.g., Cuba, Vietnam, USSR, Chile [Salvador Allende], etc.)

Private ownership according to your contribution works very well in the realm of society.

You can keep your house and toothbrush under socialism: this is your personal property. The goal of socialism is to turn the private ownership of the means to produce all the things we want/need into public property that the workers own. This is necessary for us to stop producing goods for private profit and start producing them for direct consumption.

Unlike the communistic system where the political leaders use the system to enrich themselves?

An actually communist system would not have leaders that could enrich themselves, because communism entails the absence of private property. (including money, owning means of production that aren’t directly from solely your own efforts, etc)

I wouldn’t call myself a communist, but even I know this.