Yes, it's stupid. But it's so ridiculously commonplace when talking about animals exerting force of any kind, especially "bite force". Even in scientific literature to nat geo. They seem to actually mean force but I have no idea why they use the word pressure. I've seen some supposed experts on tv even interchangeably use words force and pressure in the same sentence.
I hate it.
That interpretation seems more like your own opinion rather than the opinion of those who actually say that. I see little causal relevance between charity and trickle down economics.
You have to think more impartially to understand why these two train of thoughts have little to no intersection. Do you know why these people you're characterizing are saying "people are generous"? Because like you said, greed is simultaneously said. If you get it, you'll see it's not about trickle down.
Additionally the general right wing argument for the structuring society around volunteer charity over forced social care is that volunteer format is enough from the view of the giver, not that they will get enough from the view of the receiver. If that happens to be nothing, they're saying so be it. If that happens to be a lot, that's great. The argument is also about having the option to choose where they help rather than a government body choosing it... Though I don't think individuals could possibly know though to choose well.
I am not making an argument for the right or left. I'm just fixing the polarized viewpoint of the other party.
Communism is against human nature.
Along with every social construct that we make including laws and traditions. We make these rules precisely to counter the human nature in an attempt to create a better society, though not all are by intentional design. What is good for an isolated sole single individual is very different for a whole society and a prosperous society benefits individuals to have different opportunities than a lone actor. For example, a society where you aren't constantly worried about theft allows you to engage in trade more freely and thus able to trade more. The act of limiting personal freedom (nature) to steal, in turn, allowed society to have an increase in ability to trade.
What is closer to human nature is going to be more easily accepted by humans. And free market is closer to nature than communism. That is why it was invented first and what has set place first. If communism is indeed what society as a whole feels is better for society, they will constantly shift towards it. Some may argue similar to Canada or Scandinavian countries. Though I wouldn't define what they're shifting to as communism because countries like Sweden, Denmark, etc. score higher than USA in economic freedom index (free market). But, that discussion would go off course from topic of what is true communism which has no end.
Last 2 panels of the OP's memes refer more greatly to individual actions rather than societal actions. I'm sure certain individuals will help and be charitable. Though as a whole would be obviously less than communism since certain definitions of communism would be a mathematical maximum of reduction of poor due to equalization.
Improbability principle states that the odds are fairly high. Highly unlikely events happen all the time, and as a sum of all the events it becomes a high chance. Among the masses, someone probably watched that episode and someone is going to post about that episode. Both happening together isn't unlikely but highly probable because there are so many individual probabilities combining together due to many actors.
No one who does AI seriously gets AMD. AI market is extremely dominated by Nvidia.
Your lifetime is nearly 80 years. Companies lasting 80 years is ultra rare in history, large behemoths included. I bet you can already name several behemoth IT companies that's already come and gone.
I wouldn't trust even larger behemoths like google and MSFT to last another 80 yrs. It's just too statistically unlikely.
I don't know if steam does this since I have no experience selling on steam, but generally when you sell anything anywhere the sales channels will often demand that you give them the lowest retail price. Most commonly done by ones that give the most exposure since they have that much more power. Failure to do so will result in some penalty (Amazon prevents your offer from being in buy box) or just outright refusal to take your product (such as Walmart).
Additionally, customers complain too when you sell at two different pricing elsewhere. If you're a company that gives virtually no support (like you sell pickles or whatever), you prob don't care. But for things like games, you'll get bombarded with demands that they got ripped off by buying from one place and ask for difference in pricing or submit a refund request. Refunds are more expensive to sellers than not selling at all since you still have to pay transaction/refund fees by payment processors. Or if physical product, cost of shipping as well.
Different sales channels having different pricing isn't really an option. It's not really worth it. You'll get problems left and right.
If you get a fancy expensive knife with super pointy tip, this temptation only increases.
I currently have a setup where both AMD and Nvidia simultaneously run on a single computer with Linux. It wasn't too complicated, only took like 10hrs of troubleshooting to run.
I think feelings and personal beliefs should stay as far as possible from philosophy. Philosophy should never evolve around subjectivity such as feelings; philosophy is an attempt to be as rational and logical as possible in albeit a very subjective world. Much of philosophical arguments are made in same manner as discrete mathematics because of this but with words rather than formulas and rules. Even religious medieval philosophers attempted to be as logical as possible in their approach to explaining religion rather than relying on belief (though often fail despite their best attempts). So the "feeling of unsafe environment" isn't something I see as compatible with any philosophical discussion as a basis of reason. There needs to be an objective as possible pivot.
We see plenty of vastly different feeling of unsafe in social media. Some of which even do so with the intent of not actually feeling unsafe but to garner views and likes. If someone is scared by everything, can we start intolerating everyone else? We don't know where the line can be drawn between being a just society that tolerates freedoms and the one where tolerable can no longer exist.
This is why Popper proposed the entire dilemma. The violence being the pivot of intolerable intolerance isn't his opinion. It is that with violence, tolerable objectively (as much as we can be objective) cannot exist.
Even in your example, you attempt to separate objectivity vs subjectivity in are/is versus believe respectively for the sole correctness of the former. (Even though in my view, proof of what is is going to end up as sum of your beliefs or a cyclic viewpoint.) And then the argument goes back to pivoting in the subjectivity of feelings.
If you rely on subjectivity to draw the line of what's intolerable intolerance, then you will be intolerant of people who you subjectively view as intolerable.
Actually, you are misunderstanding the paradox of tolerance. And I would say it is one of the most frequently misquoted philosophy on discussion forums such as lemmy or reddit.
Popper asserted many times that the intolerable intolerance is violence. "Fists and pistols" as he calls it.
By intolerating at a stage by calling the other as intolerable when we're still quite far from violence such as this case of HR management, you are proposing for an unjust society--is what Popper would say.
Complete communism can't have free market by definition. And complete free market can't have laws to redistribute profits. That is the definition of these words. The theoretical maximum definition obviously differs from actual application as nothing is applied in a complete sense.
Revolutions and socioeconomic systems aren't human nature. Along with all your above examples. My entire point is that there is a difference between individual human nature and the societal nature. Your point of human nature wanting feudalism is opposite of my point. I'm stating that EVERY SINGLE social construct you can imagine or think of is not of the individual nature but the societal one, including feudalism. And that less of construct you require is closer to human nature. More construct required is further away from human nature. That is, communism requires greater management by the society than the free market to exist, and thus is further from human nature. You may choose to define "human nature" differently, but this is how I see it.