Have you considered she may be empathetic to those who don't have the money to easily move to any country on the planet? It's a good thing to be concerned for the welfare of others IMHO.
GoodbyeBlueMonday
0 Post – 101 Comments
Joined 1 years ago
Anyone know if it would it be worth reporting this as Defamatory on Steam? There are options for Legal Violation, Harmful, Fraud, Defamatory...without having played it it's hard to throw it in any of those specific categories, because they mostly have to do with the software itself, though Defamation might work since I'd be surprised if the content doesn't contain defamatory statements (even if they're wrapped in attempted irony for legal wiggle room).
We see the system for what it is, so I'll vote for the slightly less terrible party in the short term and also do the things necessary to change it in the long term.
Is there a Republican who is better than McCarthy?
IMHO the bar has to at least be someone who is not on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Caucus
Also, just about any of the Republicans on this list would be better than McCarthy. The ones who haven't been ousted since, at least. https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/19/politics/house-republicans-january-6-commission/index.html
When folks claimed, in 2015, that no one hated trump before he ran for president (also forgetting he ran a sweaty napkin of a campaign years prior) I always loved playing a couple songs by the Coup.
They had someone pretending to be him rap in one from 1994 (the joke being that he's hated even by other rich assholes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrSk8Um2Sso (lyrics here: https://genius.com/The-coup-pimps-free-stylin-at-the-fortune-500-club-lyrics)
And in a powerful line in a track of their 2001 album: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84bJG5qj96w (lyrics here: https://genius.com/The-coup-ghetto-manifesto-lyrics)
I practice this like a sport, met Donald Trump and he froze up
Standing on his Bentley yelling, "Pimps down, hoes up"
I must be ancient here, because nobody has claimed this is like September 1993 all over again...
There are some damn cool Karen-looking folks out there.
When I was a gawky high schooler, I worked in a pet store. A lady came in demanding a refund for a broken bottle of flea spray. I apologized and took a look at it: turned out she hadn't flipped the little fiddly bit on the end of the nozzle around correctly, so it was actually functional.
She still didn't want it, and demanded a cash refund. Small independent pet store, so we didn't do that for credit card purchases, or ones without a receipt: store credit only, unfortunately. She started to get mad, and I told her she could talk to the manager first thing on Monday. She wasn't having it.
Behold the entrance of a Savior sandwiched between spiky dyed-blond hair and leopard-patterned pants. Summoning the strength of all the Karens out there - but wielding that power for good - she put herself between us. She started by simply telling her to "leave this poor kid alone, he doesn't make the rules", but when it was clear that the lady wasn't going to budge, she advanced on her prey and said "if you're too stupid to figure out how to use a spray bottle you don't deserve a refund anyway".
Wish I could thank her again: it defined the best and worst of working retail.
In addition to what others have said (all those examples are equally misleading IMHO), given that its the 25th Anniversary of Half-Life, a lot of us are primed to hope for news of a new game from Valve.
Is anyone here calling for it to be canceled outright? If it's canceled because people don't want to watch it because they think an actor sucks as a human, that's just the free market, right? If it was a better show/actor, they'll still do alright (look at Tom Cruise or any number of problematic actors).
There's a difference in understanding and supporting, or considering something morally correct.
As another example: I understand why some folks get sucked into gangs. If someone grows up in a crumbling school system, falls through the holes in whatever is left of a social safety net, has no proper familial support, and sees nothing but violence and economic despair day-to-day, joining a gang suddenly becomes a viable path to prosperity. Exceedingly dangerous, but this hypothetical teen can look around and see they're likely to have a shit future regardless, so why not take that chance, right?
So this isn't me saying that I support gang violence, but I can understand why it happens. Which is why my politics are what they are: we don't need to just beat the shit out of gang members in the streets, but give folks support so they don't feel like joining a gang is the only way to survive.
The other poster is (I think) making a similar kind of argument. What the fuck else is some kid in that situation going to grow up to be? Some folks will make it out alright, sure: but on the whole it's a recipe for despair, which often leads to horrific acts. It doesn't make the acts right, but we can understand a little more about the why.
FRIENDLY NOTE: I don't mean this to sound combative, I just want to offer a different (more optimistic) perspective.
What's missing here is the central conceit of Trek: that humanity grew up. We could have a utopia now if people would just stop being greedy little shits, and decided to embrace empathy and forgiveness. There's nothing stopping every single person in a modern conflict from dropping their weapons, but we still want vengeance and punishment. and I'm not saying I'm above that: someone kills someone I love, and I'm going to want blood. On paper I'm against capital punishment, but I know if I was faced with a war on my doorstep, bombs being dropped, my morals may not hold.
In Star Trek, they had WW3/the Eugenics Wars, and after that...humanity finally had enough. Never again, but for all the ills of humanity, in a way.
So very few people in the Trek world would actually complain about working a shit detail, because they're in it for the greater good. We saw in TNG episodes that randos from the 20th century could just waltz around the ship at their leisure, and how lax security is...because people just generally behaved well. Humanity really did bind themselves to a stronger social contract, if that's the right term.
As for needing ships: there seem to be plenty of civilian ships out there, from trading and light exploration to proper science vessels. Not all Starfleet, though the shows have focused on them. So I can only imagine there's plenty of opportunity for non-Starfleet folks to get out there.
Granted, DS9 pushed back on all this a little, as the Maquis are comprised of a lot of Federation members that went feral/colonial and don't hold themselves to the Federation ideals that seem to keep the rest of humanity and others acting in good faith at almost all times. Likewise still plenty of BadMirals out there, and they do show the Tom Paris-es of the world in some kind of prison, so it's not all roses, and could definitely be spun as drops of dystopia in a utopia, but we're also told (and have no reason to doubt) that it's all well-above board, humane, and focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment.
Also, all that said, I do wish it wasn't so hierarchical, but that's my anarchist streak flaring up.
When I say I'm dying to see the new Godzilla movie again (it was excellent, by the way), I'm not literally dying.
That said, I honestly don't know what the Obamas are doing, and they certainly don't need me defending them. I wouldn't rely on what makes it to wikipedia as a source of how much they're trying to improve the world, though. Given the backlash she received for trying to reduce childhood obesity, and the backlash Barack received just for existing, I wouldn't be surprised if they're trying to donate/contribute with as little fanfare as possible to avoid further backlash. Just my opinion, though.
As much as I'll happily rag on the prequels, I think a lot about a line from the Phantom Menace, as said by Yoda: “Fear is the path to the dark side…fear leads to anger…anger leads to hate…hate leads to suffering.”
From the article:
“All the satellites which re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere burn and create tiny alumina particles, which will float in the upper atmosphere for many years,” Takao Doi, a Japanese astronaut and aerospace engineer with Kyoto University, warned recently. “Eventually, it will affect the environment of the Earth.”
This book speaks to it better than I can: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-bullshit-jobs/
Specifically take a look at
Chapter 3: Why Do Those in Bullshit Jobs Regularly Report Themselves Unhappy? (On Spiritual Violence, Part 1)
It’s difficult not to sound overly dramatic or hyperbolic about the situation but it really does feel like the US is uncomfortably close right now to a christofascist state.
To add to this: while it may sound hyperbolic to some folks, for plenty of us we've seen this brewing for decades. White evangelicals and right-wing politics unified in the 1980s in a way that was a clear danger to democracy, and they've only solidified their power since, given how mainstream their views are now.
IMHO Frank Zappa said it best in 1986: he got called out as being hyperbolic, but he clearly saw the writing on the wall. He's of course not the most scholarly source, but damn it Jim I'm a biologist, not a historian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlePLLlfH4Q
There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Mafia.
- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan
Let's not throw in the towel, as dire as things look. It's not over yet. Organize.
Do you get mad at geologists for explaining why volcanoes erupt and kill people?
Some of us are a lot more hesitant about internet-publicly sharing work now, since it'll likely be scraped and used for someone else's profit.
Rational worry or not, I know I just don't post what I've been working on because of that. I know I'm not some artistic genius, but I still don't like my data being hoovered up for any purpose, be they privacy concerns or training models without my explicit consent. Same way when I show my work IRL I wouldn't be happy if someone was dragging around a photocopier, or taking high-res photos of everything I do. Granted, I have the same concerns about even posting comments, but that's had the upside of my posting less.
Initially the CDC didn't know how much asymptomatic spread was going to be a factor: that definitely changes the math on advising everyone to mask up. By July of 2020 they were unequivocal: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0714-americans-to-wear-masks.html
What many of us imagine is that it's bad when either nation does this.
Yes, it is hypocritical for most US politicians to criticize Russia's interference in US elections, but it's not incorrect.
It certainly isn't wrongthink for those of us who have little influence on what alphabet agencies do to complain about it happening just because it's happening elsewhere, too.
Clearly he saw something that the Deep State is trying to hide, and now's the chance to see it for ourselves.
What kind of legislation, though? Loot boxes seem like an easy one to write: gambling is illegal already in a lot of places. When it's just exploitative greed, I'm not sure how it's technically so different from charging exorbitant rates for swag at a baseball game or something. Or charging a few thousand bucks for a purse at some high-end fashion retailer.
To be clear: I loathe the FOMO trends in game development, overpriced skins, micro/macro-transactions, and all the "credit/XP boosters" type bullshit. Turning money into ingame currencies to obfuscate actual prices, the general design of games frontloading fun and then squeezing dollars out of you to feel that same high again....I'm just skeptical that there's anything to do about it from a legal perspective that doesn't apply to most of the rest of the capitalist enterprises out there. Please though, I want to be wrong about this, so any examples of how to curb some of these excesses would be great.
Didn't you just lay out why it is a social problem, though? Men are disproportionately abusing folks because they're disproportionately in power.
Clearly testosterone plays a major role in causing aggressive behavior, and men tend to have more testosterone, but that also isn't a clear-cut division between groups, and folks with lower testosterone can certainly still be aggressive monsters. Oversimplifying the problem isn't going to fix things.
Unfortunately we don't have a great track record in the USA. The president of the confederacy only got a couple years in prison after the Civil War, and lived as a celebrity for a couple decades after that...
Funnily enough, I already noted in my comment that the wordpress site didn't cite as well as I'd like. They do however have a number of sources for many of their claims (I outlined where you can find those, if you're interested).
To try to answer, succinctly (which I'm bad at): looking backward is easier than looking forward. What I mean by that is since you didn't get into the series until 3, it makes sense that you wouldn't have a problem with 3 and 4, since it's harder to see what the series could have been...as pretentious as that sounds.
Where much of the hate comes from (and I think a lot of it is overblown - I'm not trying to justify the behavior of the maniacs out there) is that the overarching progression of the series feels reset. Fallout 1 -> Fallout 2 showed a progression in a *post-*post-apocalyptic world, with society advancing again, to some degree. Shady Sands grew between 1 and 2, and was the foundation of the NCR.
So Fallout 3 at the time was IMHO a disappointment because the setting felt more generic, and like they were just playing the greatest hits from 1 and 2. I get the arguments that the setting in-universe was hit harder, but it still felt weird that it was post-apocalpytic instead of post-post-apocalyptic.
One reason (as always, IMHO) that New Vegas was so popular is that it continued to build on 1 and 2. We saw the NCR had continued to grow, other factions rise in importance, and generally felt less like the bombs had dropped the year prior. It's what a lot of folks hoped Fallout 3 would be, in that sense. That's my own biased view though, so take it with a grain of salt - there's folks who want more humor, only isometric, more complex and branching storylines, etc.
To add to this: if the opposition party consistently shows up to vote, the dominant party gets nervous, and has to focus on the chance of losing. Not showing up means they've truly won.
It also shows the opposition party that they can and should invest the time in supporting that area, because there's people who haven't given up yet.
Also, the president isn't the only person on the ballot, and small races are where more radical third parties actually have a shot!
This could be the cover for a cyberpunk Far Cry 7
Oligarchic fits, and isn't mutually exclusive with being a capitalist. IMHO it seems like that's an inevitable outcome in capitalist economies if safeguards aren't instituted. Also I certainly don't think oligarchies are restricted to capitalist economies, either. It just seems like it would be the natural goal of amassing capital: rig the system in your favor.
Also I don't want you making up definitions, I just assumed you had another one in mind when trying to define what most modern corporations aren't.
What are they, if not capitalist?
It seems obvious that in a capitalist system those with capital will benefit if they use that capital to gain political power. Regulatory capture is just good business, right? It's the same reason capitalist enterprises will just buy up competition - they don't want competition, they want profit. It's a lot easier to win the game if you can cripple your opponents.
Until we make and are are able to enforce stronger laws protecting us little people, corporations will tend to wield power to keep squeezing us, because it's (unfortunately) perfectly legal (though obviously, at least IMHO, perfectly immoral).
Plenty of folks do worry about the possibility of being sued though, so getting rid of a chilling effect is good. Not everyone wants to even deal with the legal struggle or anxiety that would come with that, so it's good. It gives workers more rights, which is good.
I think I'm confused though about your second paragraph: do you mean that companies only enforce these things on big names, who have money to defend themselves anyway? If so, seems like there'd definitely be a chilling effect for anyone making less, unless they're willing to take a chance.
They didn't say it was, they were using what's called a metaphor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
Not everyone can participate in active resistance.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/24645
...as if Ukrainians don't have the capacity to think for themselves. Putin/Russian wouldn't give actual security guarantees on their end. It would also have required changing the constitution. Also after seeing the horrors of the war, they weren't ready to just roll over.
Thanks for your best wishes! I'm lucky enough that the hour it takes a year to vote doesn't get in the way of the direct action I participate in the rest of the year.
Mutual aid isn't mutually exclusive with voting.
You just don’t realize how good we have it here, even if it means we have to work hard sometimes and get up early and spend five days a work working for someone else. That’s an opportunity millions of other humans can only dream of having.
Do you ever reflect on the fact that "we" have it good "here" because other people are suffering?
We are incredibly fortunate, but it comes at a serious cost. The cheap electronics and clothing and tchotchkes we drown ourselves in is made on the backs of folks less fortunate (not to mention the biosphere as a whole). We didn't sign up to be on the side of exploitation, and we don't want to live in ignorance of what supports our way of life.
Agreed. They depressed me as a kid, and they depress me now. Absolutely exploiting the most impoverished among us. Vimes' Boot Theory holds there IMHO: https://terrypratchett.com/explore-discworld/sam-vimes-boots-theory-of-socio-economic-unfairness/
We don't disagree: there's a short-sightedness that causes folks to say things like "once the boomers die out, things will be great". There are systemic issues that gauze the greed and fear and violence, and the folks that get swept up in these movements are in large part products of their environment, as we all are.
So we need to change the environment, but otherwise well-meaning folks don't want it to change because they benefit from it, even when they are vaguely aware that there are monsters out there that keep it that way. I'd like to think there's more liberals/moderates who would be allies against fascism if this kind of thing can be communicated in a way that doesn't alienate folks, but I'm also sympathetic to arguments that fiery language is necessary to rattle people out of comfort zones... So in sum, thanks for the good discussion.
Hunter S. Thompson reflected on the problems with Objective Journalism throughout his career: summarized well in a section of his obituary for Nixon.