Burn it all down

amazing

I keep hearing about infected monkeys. Did something happen in the news?

There’s no utility in defining it the way

I ready described such utility in how it opposes our shallow images of “cApiTaLisM” (and meritocracy etc). Capitalism as instantiated doesn’t match our descriptions of it. Human greed is the constant engine. Liberalism emerged from that emergent environment, and in some ways helps maintain aspects of those systems. But corporations will never actually support any ideology, whether that ideology supports or opposes “capitalism.” Corporations (or rather the humans whose greed is their engine) will, at best, stab us in the eyes and ears with ANY fractured ideological images that gets them some near-term increase in power or profits.

It isn’t socialist in any way

Doesn’t matter. All my descriptions match reality. And these are the terms we use to refer to these aspects of reality. Corporate socialism is very real, even if it isn’t socialism. Get used to it because it’s a fixture of our society.

If corporations trampled on capitalism, they would erase themselves.

Nobody in any board room will ever care about that large-scale erasure. They will each act in support of their career and their shareholders’ profits. Destroying the environment may ultimately erase all corporations. They don’t care. They cannot care. They are an algorithm for increasing profits. Larger ideological values are irrelevant. So-called capitalism (to the extent that it even exists) is a product of all this high-concept greedy animal behavior, not the cause.

That’s not what socialism is to begin with

But that’s what corporate socialism is

“Liberalism” has always generally been that which affirms capitalism

That’s one function of it (in context) but that’s not the definition. That’s not “what it is.” Also, these corporations would trample capitalism itself to gain more power.

socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy.

I’m not talking about socialism, I’m talking about corporate socialism, which is not a form of socialism. It’s a term which demonstrates how anti-liberal and anti-meritocratic and even anti-capitalist the top-down government-corporate control network is.

If nobody ever coined that term then everything would still be exactly the same.

Corporate socialism is when the government gives them our tax dollars to totalize top-down control. That’s not liberalism, that’s just power. They’ll trample “liberalism” to make a dollar.

They support liberalism

No they don’t. They only support making money and cornering markets for themselves. They’ll take corporate socialism and using the law to crush opinions. The idea that they “support” anything ideological is utterly wrong.

Anticipating somebody’s response:

Exactly. You just described liberalism.

No I didn’t. Corporations have no ideology. It’s pure warfare and there are no rules or values beyond making money for themselves, not on any larger societal scale. They’re just algorithms for increasing profit.

to distract from them trampling over workers rights.

100% yes

They support identity politics to keep people at each others’ throats (divide and conquer by identity) while cloaking themselves in empty rhetoric (nominal “support”) that makes them look moral but accomplishes nothing beyond identity-division.

who cares?

Sounds like a relatively normal dude. It’s foolish to care about “red-flag language”, especially if you’re also saying “he didn’t really say anything to terrible.”

What’s the top right image from?

People definitely made fun of Johnny Depp as a native American.

kidnapping them in the street at gunpoint like a common thug isn’t really work

Kidnapping sounds like a lot of work. Sounds exhausting.

This applies to “teens” until they have to get jobs and do what they’re told or else be homeless.

I’m not actually sure that’s true.

Free speech is chaotic specifically because it allows chaotic speech. So free speech being chaotic doesn’t depend on the speaker’s opinions. A particular instance of speech being chaotic depends on the speaker’s opinion. But free speech is chaotic because it’s all about allowing a chaos of speech.

What depends on my opinions?