I always read it as being about defying the law (backed by divine enforcement):

His father commanded him to “… fulfill [his] duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for [his] brother”, which implies that this was considered a legitimate obligation. His transgression, then, was that he pulled out “to keep from providing offspring for his brother”, actively refusing to fulfill that obligation. In that reading, it’s a tale about obeying the orders and customs of your elders.

Of course, these don’t have to be exclusive: “These norms exist for a reason, so you should damn well obey them.”

That’s what I was getting at.

I try to avoid dropping the term (precisely because of the misconceptions involved) and personally am not a fan of the heavy-handed “here’s a block of information for you to absorb” approach that has long deterred me from looking into it. I just can’t easily work up the energy, attention span and time to commit to longer reading or video series.

Hence, my attempt is to “sow” the rough ideas in a format I personally found more digestible. We all know the “didn’t read the article” phenomenon, so I try to sum it up in a shorter comment rather than expecting people to click through to some treatise where the table of contents for Section A already spans three mobile screens, the third paragraph of the introduction to it (not even A.1 yet) metions five sections (A-E), dubs them just the “first part” and strikes a very much academic tone.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good source to read up on the theory, but not what I’d consider an approachable FAQ for curious laypeople.

I’m doubling down on the point made by the previous comment: Capitalism as a system enables that aggregation of power.

I’m not sure what you mean by “advance”. If you mean self-improvement or improving living conditions, that doesn’t have to come with a detriment to others. We can lift each other up. Life isn’t a zero-sum game, if technological advancement is focused on increasing our productivity in order to generate overall prosperity and leisure to pursue fulfilment rather than maximising unsustainable profit and pushing most of us to pursue subsistence while a few become ever more obscenely powerful.

If you mean advancement in a hierarchy of power, then that’s exactly the issue I’m criticising: self-interest instead of solidarity, sabotaging quality of life by pushing us into a rat race of having to do better than others.

Any ideology or system that justifies and fosters self-interest over solidarity will lead to a concentration of power. If someone, whether by a stroke of luck or by intentional manipulation, can end up having and holding more power than others, cumulative probability will make it a question of time until such a someone succeeds in using that power to amass more.

Even bad people can be useful! Even if only as a bad example.

Karaoke is kinda like improv comedy: You need an easy, quick setup, then a punchline that’s also easily understood, but not too crude. High-brow comedy has a place, but a low-brow club generally isn’t it.

For Karaoke, the song is the setup, so ideally you’ll pick a well-known one, while the punchline is the mediocre singing. Singing well is like telling an anecdote: interesting, for the right audience, but not what people go to Karaoke for. Take too long to get to the funny part and the anticipation is gone. Sing too poorly and it becomes unpleasant rather than funny.

You can be good at Karaoke as a form of entertainment without strictly being an actual good singer, if you nail that balance and deliver it well.

I don’t think the name argument holds water. Just look at the Department of Justice lately. It just happens to be true in this case.

This looks like an AI summary of the wordnik collection of definitions put forth by a bunch of different sources:
https://wordnik.com/words/defenestration

At the time of writing, these definitions do seem to be in there.

meANALSEX

Subtle as a pounding

I was just highlighting the juxtaposition in length and depth between the two comments by dropping a dumb meme one level deeper.

I know, I get the meme. I just took it as inspiration for another wordy, serious comment, which I now realise continued the trend. I suppose the apt follow-up would have been some even shorter quip like “OK Boomer”. Instead, you had to make a serious reply of your own and break the chain. Thanks, Obama.

I genuinely value your post.

And I value your genuine response and explanation. We hope together.

Absurdist humour is one of my coping mechanisms for exactly these kinds of topics

That I can get behind. When confronted with the absurdity of our great ambitions and worries in face of our own insignificance, what else can we do but make memes?

What better way to bear dark times than to make light of them?

When life is serious enough, you don’t need to be.

Live. Laugh. Shitpost.

I get the meme, but it’s kinda dumb. This is a website where you’re free to just not read my comment, if you don’t wanna engage with the topic, not a captive audience like a retail employee.

Because limited liability corporations were created to avert liability from individuals. His firm is liable, but no single individual within it.

Not even the ones making the executive decisions, despite their near-monarchic power. I guess since they’re appointed by a board of directors, it’s something like an electoral monarchy, except the board isn’t democratically elected so it’s a plutocracy by proxy. The ultimate culprit would be - and this is a chorus you’ve probably heard a thousand times on here - the shareholders, and going after them is hard. Particularly when the shareholders are themselves corporations…

But the CEO is the pin focusing shareholder intent down into decisions and ultimately action. If they were effectively held responsible for their decisions, it would at least provide some counterbalance to the shareholders’ demands. It could also solve the “shareholders are corporations” issue, since you could make the CEOs of those companies liable for demanding illegal measures from companies they control.

Of course, such a drastic change would be hard to actually push through, as things stand, since it would inhibit (illegal) profit and growth and “the economy” is a sacred cow. It’s still worth pushing for, in my opinion, but building awareness and support takes patience and tact to avoid pushing people into political apathy.

The alternative I could see (and would prefer, but suspect to be even less attainable) is to dismantle the stock and capital system entirely. What you’d replace it with is a whole separate debate I won’t cover in this comment. Drastic systemic change is difficult to plan and enact, and building and maintaining the new system is difficult in the face of insecurities, old habits, unforeseen challenges that it may not yet have developed effective ways to deal with and generally all the growing pains that come with new things.

They’re not mutually exclusive, and the first may be a step on the road to the second. Either way, public support is key, and that is rarely won quickly.

She did:

https://lemmy.world/comment/22818782

Not quite. One makes me hungry, the other makes me vomit.

I can’t even write a two-sentence comment in 30s without overthinking. I do like to use formatting, but that doesn’t make it quicker…

I’ll stand, thank you.

What should he care about the desalinators? He’s not the one going without water.

But maybe Bibi will tell him to cut it out? Unless he’s hoping the catastrophe will galvanise his supporters further.

Another reason geriatric grifters shouldn’t hold office, but reason has long since been evicted from the halls of the mighty.

Better make the best of the time they last then

I doubt those changes would be PRed, merged, updated in my distro and somehow automatically pushed to my system in the blink of an eye. This isn’t Microslop we’re talking about who can force-push intransparent “fuck your settings” at the drop of a hat, and I’m certainly going to be much more wary of upcoming updates now. This isn’t my point of objection (yet - mandatory entry would be), but definitely a point of caution.

If they stick to malicious “here, you can ask for a date, but we can’t guarantee which date, if any, you’ll get” compliance, that isn’t perfect, but it’ll be good enough to make a joke out of tracking the date at all.

Besides, just this change being minor would be no reason not to keep pushing back against the law and airing our discontent about the direction they’re heading in, because the direction is definitely concerning.