Gabu

Is the US socialist because nVidia is a public company, therefore the shares are owned by the public? [...] The ownership of the company is shared, so it must be socialism, right? I’d say no, because it’s not shared evenly.

How did you mess up this badly? A "public company" [sic, the correct term is "publicly traded company"] is a regular private company where the owners are hundreds or even thousands of individuals. A publicly owned company is one where every single citizen owns the company simply by being alive or every single worker owns the company simply by working there.

What if a single individual owns a single “mean” of production, but everything else is owned by the state

I don't even understand what you mean by this...

Modern economies are mixes of socialism and capitalism. The people (through the government) own certain things, and individuals own other things.

No, they're not, and this shows a very serious hole in your knowledge of economic and social systems. While, informally, it's sometimes said to be the case, that's strictly an oversimplification to communicate a different idea. Countries like the US simply use a government-assisted capitalist model. Places like the Nordic countries have a more transitional system, but are ultimately still just capitalist.

There will always be broken people with pathologies like sociopathy or narcissism that wouldn’t agree [...]

And dismissing their way of perceiving the world is a choice which we make, not an objective mandate or imperative. We do it because the benefits to us ("normal people") seem to outweight the loses.

[...] at least if they had the rights and freedoms to express themselves and the education to understand and not be brainwashed

And how do you determine who falls in this category? Again, by a set of parameters which we've chosen.

[...] nonsensical since it destroys meaning itself [...]

Which is a judgement call you've externalized, again not an objective reality. You have chosen to believe that meaning is important, that self-destruction is bad. There's nothing in the universe that inherently holds this as being true. Whether one person or one billion people choose to believe something as true has no bearing on whether or not it is actually true.

You cannot argue for the elimination of meaning without using meaning itself, and after the fact it would have shown that your arguments were meaningless

You needn't argue for the elimination of meaning, because meaning isn't a substance present in reality - it's a value we ascribe to things and thoughts.

The silliest thing is that even YHWH was once but one of the Israelites' many gods. He just slowly ate away at their pantheon until there was nothing left but anger and jealousy.

And who exactly can be trusted as the centralized guide for human morality?

There's beauty in the wings of a butterfly. Will that stop climate change, poverty, war and violence?

They're not entirely wrong... Quite a bit of the division comes from pre-modern events and decisions.

Non sequitur, doesn't even relate remotely to the discussion. At least try to get basic, grade-school level education on philosophy before trying to pretend you know something.

Also greek philosophers: Farts are bits of the soul leaving the body.

lemmy.world really did become a cesspool of rightwing cancer, huh?

The list of governments currently tackling the actually important issues:

And pray-tell, how did you divine this information? Are you a mind reader, by chance? Oh, no, if I'm not mistaken you're just the sort of useful idiot that ignores the fact we're living in a failing society.

"Doomerism" when you live in DoomLand - Hellhole is justified. Only a total, worthless moron would think otherwise.