Gray

How a person reacts to being asked about the version of these things most close to them is telling. If they get defensive and deny the event happened, I would hesitate to trust their opinion on other things. Clearly that person bases their opinions on what they want to be true rather than reality. That's the kind of person whose ideology would likely lead to another event to be ashamed of. If, on the other hand, they admit it was a horrible thing and agree that people should be educated on it and that steps should be taken to prevent it from ever happening again, then I'm more likely to take their opinion seriously and believe that they can be part of the conversations we need to happen to create a better world.

If the contractual details of malt distribution were going to affect the quality of beers you were getting then you absolutely would care. Unity's pay scheme will lead to studios shutting down if there isn't pushback. Studios switching to a different engine like Godot will make their games feel different for better or for worse and efforts to help fund these alternate engines will help tip the scale towards that being "for better".

But most importantly of all, this is a company using toxic and predatory practices. Regardless of the industry (yes, malt distributors too), if we don't push back against toxic business practices, then companies in many different industries will see avenues they can take advantage of to make extra money. These ideas don't hang in isolation. If Unity's scheme works, other businesses will learn from it. This is the reality of capitalism. Whatever methods can turn a profit without generating negative attention will be employed. It's in the hands of consumers, competing businesses, and the government to keep those toxic practices in check. I mean, why the fuck are we on Lemmy? Ultimately Reddit's actions are not going to affect the majority of users on their platform. Most of us came here to protest shitty business practices.

No worries. You're right that it's absurd that we need to fight so much for our government to protect us from blatant corporate for-profit schemes. There was a time when even the US government at least did us the honor of pretending to not take bribes like this. The Intuit tax return money machine is such an obviously fixable problem. All my 20-something friends in the US know that this problem only exists because of lobbying. It's disgusting to watch elected representatives become so comfortable with their positions that they feel safe enacting policies that hurt their constituents like this.

For context, the reason I'm hating on Intuit and H&R Block and encouraging people to use FreeTaxUSA is because the first two are the main culprits behind the extensive lobbying that has led to the US government continuing to require people to file their own taxes rather than modernizing and making this process free and easy. My "gushing" is in pursuit of changing the broken system you're pointing out.

I know City-Data Forums is still pretty active. I've used it a lot when deciding on places to move. I'm also a bit of an urban design nerd and there's a lot of fascinating discussion I come across there.

Fuck Intuit and H&R Block, all my homies use FreeTaxUSA.

US history proves otherwise. Real change has been made in the labor sector without "revolution". And on that front I will even concede that it took more than just voting to change labor laws. It took a concerted effort against the capitalist class itself with strikes and other resistance efforts. But it worked and things changed and it didn't require overthrowing the government and destabilizing everything.

But voting would absolutely work too. At the end of the day, the people in charge are where they are because they were voted into their positions. Wealthy elites do not make up the majority of America. An angry populace would have the power to capsize their machine. "Voting doesn't matter" as a position will only lose you ground. The "revolution" you speak of is pointless if you don't have the majority of politically involved people behind you. At that point it's not a "revolution". It's an "unpopular coup". We see in the way people vote that the problem is that the voting populace has not been convinced by the stances of the left. Before any revolution would be an ethically sound idea, we should be seeing numbers that suggest that the majority of people are on board with radical change. And by the time that happens, those people would have the power to effect that change through voting. If the wealthy elites used underhanded tactics to suppress voting when the majority is clearly in favor of a certain change, then and only then does revolution become the ethical imperative.

In summary, don't bother suggesting revolution if the majority of people aren't behind you on it. Instead focus that energy on convincing people that radical change is necessary. Use the system to your advantage. Only when that fails through corrupt means does revolution become necessary.

The right wing understood this so much 3-4 decades ago and they have reaped the benefits of that understanding so thoroughly that people on the left have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off, calling for things like revolution. No, the playbook is simple. Use every advantage you can within the system. Fight for the SCOTUS and don't be afraid to politicize it in opposition to the right wing fascists. Find wedge issues that you can call the other side on. Take control of the narrative. Be aware of your demographics and create a unifying message that brings the disparate groups together.

What you just said though contradicts itself. At the end of the day voting en masse for reform is "a mass movement". Things won't change when these politicians feel comfortable. Voting against them and being vocal about this as an issue will scare them. Voting absolutely works and all this rhetoric around "voting can't fix this" is exactly how we end up with this bullshit. Boomers learned decades ago how effective voting can be at changing everything and they have consistently turned out and shaped society around their needs as a result. If young people could get this through their heads then shit would actually change. Especially since millennials and gen z now make up the majority of the voting age population in the US.

A lot of people here mentioning scientology's history of litigation and taking down the IRS and while that's true, I also think it's worth mentioning Waco. After the Waco seige the government lost a LOT of interest in going anywhere near cults. It's just a giant mess that nobody wants to put their ass on the line to deal with. When you're dealing with fanatics you never know what crazy shit is going to go down. As long as they aren't hurting people outside of their cult itself, many politicians would sooner keep away from them and avoid having something backfire. That's not to say that they're right to think that way. It's just the truth. Everything changed after Waco. Before Waco, the government was actually trying to do more about cults. The Jonestown massacre involved a sitting congressman getting gunned down. All the IRS shit with the scientologists went down before Waco too. IMO, Waco is the most important turning point to look at to understand why the government won't touch cults anymore.

What I don't like about this argument is it feels like the government trying to pass off their own responsibility to someone else. Like, if guns are so dangerous in purpose that manufacturers should be fined for shootings, then government officials should just be regulating gun ownership to begin with. Like, imagine if instead of criminalizing tobacco because of its dangerous health effects, the government said that anytime a person is caught smoking it tobacco companies get fined. At that point you may as well just outlaw the company itself. Which is fine. I have no problem outlawing gun manufacturing. But this is just an unnecessarily roundabout way of doing that. What are we actually accomplishing if we allow people to be shot and then take action and milk money out of the situation? A responsible government isn't trying to point fingers after a tragedy like a mass shooting and they certainly aren't trying to make money off of it. No, a good government takes the necessary direct steps to prevent those tragedies from happening again, especially if it's a common occurrence. No need to dance around a solution instead of tackling it head on.

100% agreed on all your points. I think a lot about government structure and what structures lead to the most efficient and ethical governments. To some degree there isn't a "perfect system" that will keep the fascists out and prevent the suppression of minorities. At least not a system that allows for healthy change. People will always be persuaded by those ideas unfortunately. Our biggest job is to fight these issues at the ballot box.

With that said, there are some major thinngs we can do systemically to prevent people like Trump from making it to the head of government. The biggest one would be ranked choice voting or one of the other alternative voting methods. Those systems tend to make fringe candidates unlikely to win.

The other big and interesting question I've had specifically in my move to Canada is deciphering whether a parliamentary system is fundamentally better or worse than a presidential system in these regards. On the one hand, a presidential system can turn a presidential election into a cult of personality. On the other hand, parliamentary systems by design always hand executive power to the majority party in their legislature. That means split government isn't an option in a parliamentary system (unless the majority is formed by two or more parties). I thought moving to Canada that I would find the parliamentary system better, but I've honestly started to change my mind on it. I think not directly electing the executive here just means people do it through their single vote for a representative. As a result, the representitive as a concept is valued less. Beyond that, people have less direct control over the executive and people like Trudeau have less incentive to represent the nation as a whole. I think I prefer America's system with a separate election for each position of government. If a country is divided then maybe it's not bad for its government to also be divided. I appreciated having a Democratic house when Trump was president. It felt safer to have more views represented. This is in contrast to say, Ontario, where once the conservatives won, they had full control of both the provincial legislature and the premiership together, allowing them to get involved in all sorts of nasty business. If the government had been divided, Ford would not have been able to do things like invoke the Notwithstanding Clause.

My brain is powered by memes. Memory? More like memery.