I see, thanks!
Hmm, sounds plausible, thanks!
What is this? Seriously
Ah, that's what you mean
I thought of concentrating a solution (as in dissolved substance)
They then proceed to talk about the hearing in the Netherlands. So, in any case there is a chance Greenpeace will ultimately win.
Of...yourself?
What the hell do you concentrate in there :D
The entry point is about women, who previously primarily filled the role of housewives, entering the workforce. Since then, the share of people going to work practically doubled, but the working hours did not decrease, so capitalists got twice as much labor, and as it became harder and harder to lead a family on a single income, they essentially just exploited that extra labor for free.
At this point, this is just a neverending panic circlejerk. Things are bad, sure, but everyone here knows that already - could it be time to spread the word elsewhere, where it could make an impact instead of being one of, like, half Lemmy posts saying the absolute same thing?
You know full well you're not alone here, and your question is purely rhetorical to use the off-topic community to slid in the same thing again.
The concept of property is arbitrary to begin with. It just signifies the risk of violence applied to you should you, the non-owner, possess or destroy it.
In case of Teslas, they are used to enrich the already richest man on Earth at the expense of others. Mind you, those are cars of the dealership, they were not sold yet, so essentially, it is Musk's property.
And most on the left wouldn't be able to find a violin small enough to signify how much they care of the property of billionaires. Private property is not universally sacred, it's the feature of capitalist thinking.
Rheostat, my dudes