Stanard

I think I agree with direct action being more effective. The question is at what cost? In modern society, at least in the US, theft and other direct actions are crimes seemingly punishable by death on sight. The sheer number of news articles involving thieves being shot, especially if they're running, deeply saddens me. To me, non-violent crimes warrant non-violent solutions. But then to me it's arguable whether stealing groceries should even be a crime. Desperation will drive people to a life of crime 9 times out of 10 and who can blame them if there are no other resources available? I honestly don't know what the solution to any of this is if there even is a perfect or near perfect solution. I'm all for not letting perfection get in the way of progress (in theory at least. In practice I'm personally a bit of a neurotic perfectionist and it prevents me from getting anything done), but I hate loss of life. And unfortunately even peaceful protest seems to turn violent when a few people do something to "justify" the use of weapons banned in warfare (tear gas) and worse, deadly force. I recognize that this is likely the cost of progress, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

I do still have some vague hope in democracy, and wish more good-hearted people could be elected. But I also recognize that those that most deserve positions of power are the least likely to seek positions of power. Let alone what their chances would be to actually be granted said positions by those already in power. To be honest I feel the cards are heavily stacked against the people, and have been for some time. And all of the ways I can envision getting out of the situation, quite frankly, suck ass for one reason or another. But ultimately the answer will likely have to suck, will probably involve violence (which I hate), and will take some time. But it may be better in the long run I guess, but I don't particularly want to be the one to pull the metaphorical trigger. And I definitely don't want to be the one to pull the not-so-metaphorical trigger..

First, and I don't mean to be pedantic, I'm sure you know this but just want to clarify, putting absolutes on things like saying no one buys something is almost always false. Very few people comparatively sure, but when it comes to capitalist greed these differences matter. Anyway..

Sure they'll miss a fiscal year or two here and there. But in the case of iPhones, I can assure you that if Apple calculated that the iPhone was going to continue to not sell well and would hurt their profits to continue manufacturing, I probably wouldn't be able to hit the button on a stopwatch fast enough to measure how quickly they would shut down manufacturing. Keep in mind that there are indirect costs/profits involved in many things. e.g. The value of user data gathered by phones is absolutely accounted for, goes into profit calculations, and is probably worth more to the right people than you'd think. Apple is one of the richest, most profitable companies in the world despite releasing what we would consider to be flops several times over the years. Apple released a video game console (the Pippin) in 1996 to compete with the OG PlayStation. They brought it to the US in '97 and pulled the plug the same year. The PlayStation released in '94 and sold well through the release of the PS2 in 2000 for comparison. A colossal flop from Apple that was nixed in merely a year.

A perfect example of the indirect profits that a product can accrue is when Google was initially getting into the tablet OS market some years back (around 2011 I think is when this specific "deal" was in place). They purposely sold the first Nexus tablet at cost/at a loss, paired with a "free" gift card for the Play store; on the condition that you had to add other payment info to your Play store account. A common tactic that other online vendors use because the statistics show that you are much more likely to spend money once you've already added and saved a payment method. Google didn't require people to actually use the added payment info, and as far as I'm aware they didn't even require you to keep the payment info saved for future purposes. They only required that you save your debit/credit card in order to use your "free" Play store credit. All because the biggest hurdle to getting people to spend online is/was getting them to give their debit/credit card info to the payment vendor. They correctly predicted that when offered store credit, consumers would not only give Google their payment card info, but also not bother deleting said payment info after they added the credit from the Play store gift card. Whatever the reasons may be, whether it be because you don't trust a website, it's more convenient to buy elsewhere, etc. and whatever the store may be, once you've added payment info you are statistically unlikely to subsequently remove that info and more likely to purchase there again in the future. Gotta love it.. but alas even my bitter ass is not immune from these tactics.

As for fidget spinners, I suspect the sheer excess supply from people trying to cash in on the craze has basically cemented them as a permanent item on shelves. I remember reading stories of "normal" people that bought literal warehouses full of the things because during the height of the fidget frenzy the markup on them was insane. And then other people presumably bought up that excess supply for pennies on the dollar when the trend was dying. The capitalists that initially jumped on the profit train when spinners were trending were either successful and took their profits and left the bag holders, or were bag holders that accepted their losses by selling in bulk to someone willing to try selling them.

That went a bit longer than I intended.. In short, even flops and niche items that don't sell very well can still be profitable. I would advise against doubting the ability of greedy people/corporations to extract every possible fraction of a cent in their pursuit of profit.

Wow. Just.. wow. I'm not going to respond to everything because frankly, I don't feel like debating this and worse yet, you're absolutely right that I don't fully understand the situation, the rules of engagement, the legal/militaristic terms, etc. But I do have a few things I'd like to say, not that I think it will make a lick of difference for you.

First and foremost is that just because something is legally allowed, whether it's in war or in peace, does not make it morally okay. I recognize that you seem to be thinking of this from a purely militaristic point of view. I've never tried to argue that they're breaking international law or anything like that. I am fighting this from the perspective of someone with half a shred of empathy, but it seems you've come unarmed.

As far as the refugee camp goes, it only counts if civilians seek refuge on some flat unbuilt land and pitch tents? If that were the case I can all but guarantee you would still excuse it so what difference does it make? Again, arguing from the perspective of an empathetic person, to me a refugee camp is anywhere that people seek refuge. I don't care about legal definitions or military rules of engagement, I care about people. But it apparently wouldn't matter if civilians were seeking refuge in tents in the middle of nowhere, as long as "Intel suggests" Hamas activity in the newly erected campground you'd justify the bombing the exact same by your logic.

As far as leveling entire sections of the city, I suggest looking for the publicly released satellite images of Gaza from before and after this most recent conflict. Not that it matters to you because "this is not abhorrent within the context of military conflict." But, you can probably guess from my first points that I couldn't give two flying fucks about what is seen as okay in "the context of military conflict". It's a tragedy and should be abhorrent in any fucking context. The loss of life alone is terrible enough, not to mention the damage to the Earth when all of that has to be rebuilt. Justifying this in any way shape or form is nothing less than evil. Full stop.

Time and conflicts have proven time and time again that killing innocent people in the name of fighting terrorism breeds terrorists. If you critically think for a moment (and based on your militaristic view I'm not sure you can) it only makes sense. If you kill someone's family, if you take away all they have to live for, they have no further reason not to seek revenge. But I guess that doesn't matter because it seems like you're ok justifying what amounts to an endless game of whack-a-mole; you smack one down and wait for the next to pop up.

Once more I ask you to try to put yourself in their shoes. Play devil's advocate with yourself for a while. You never did tell me what you think should be done about the terrorists in your home town. If you live in an urbanized area they almost certainly exist. Do your precious rules of engagement still apply? And more importantly, outside the context of the almighty law, are you okay with it? Or would you feel upset (or anything really) if the military leveled your loved ones' block in the name of fighting terrorism? Would you still be happy if they bombed your innocent family because "Justice was served"?

The fully sovereign Palestinian state you're referring to should be in neighboring Egypt according to Israel if the articles I saw last night are to be believed. I suppose passing what you seem to view as unwanted pests off on the neighbor is a solution though?

Or perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that you label all Palestinians as "the enemy" that you shouldn't give preparation time to unless it furthers your political goals? Ugh just typing that makes me physically ill. Fuck political goals. These aren't some theoretical unknown life forms we're talking about. These are living, breathing people getting caught in the crossfire. These are kids that belong in school, families, people that are trying to go about their day and greet their family at the end of it. They and myself don't give a rats ass about these made up political goals.

From the bottom of my heart, and please take this to the black hole where your heart should be: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on for justifying unnecessary loss of life because it lines up better with political goals.

Finally, again I reiterate that I am not an authority on this or any military conflict. I am apparently more of an authority on empathy though, so take that for what it's worth.

I also reiterate that all attacks by Hamas that have taken unnecessary innocent lives is nothing short of tragedy. Absolutely evil.

I also also reiterate that all attacks by Israel that have taken unnecessary innocent lives is nothing short of tragedy. Absolutely evil.

ESH. Politics? Fucking suck. Military? Fucking suck. Anyone and everyone that is okay with innocent people of any nation, culture, skin color, etc. dying? You fucking suck worst of all for enabling all the other shit that fucking sucks. If I had a better mind for politics I'd probably ask you kindly to go find a ditch and swallow a tidepod. But that's not who I am. I love you for the human you all are and view your lives as sacred. But if you justify the deaths of innocent people in the name of political goals, would you kindly go choke on a lifesaver for a bit.

Yours truly,

Stanard

How so? Which industry produces without consumers involved? I'm honestly not trying to be condescending, if you can help me feel less bitter toward the world.. I don't even know what that would feel like anymore. I cannot express how grateful I would be.

I suppose it could be argued that an industry could (and I suppose maybe has) jumpstarted itself from nothing through clever/abusive advertising; the example that comes to mind is perhaps the diamond industry? I'm thinking of De Beers extensive marketing campaigns that implanted diamonds as the only 'real' choice to propose with. But it still takes consumers at the end of the chain for that/any industry to survive. Nobody holds guns to our heads forcing us to buy things. The only industry I can think of that is life or death and simultaneously our only feasible option of survival is the medical industry. But even then, barring external pressures, if people somehow stopped going to hospitals en masse the hospitals would shut down. If people stop buying manufactured medicine, they stop manufacturing medicine.

Just to clarify, I don't think it's right or "fair" for responsibility to fall on consumers. Ideally, elected officials would pass laws that make industries take responsibility for their actions. Even more ideally, greedy people wouldn't be in positions of power. But greedy people will always seek positions of power in their lust for power, and altruistic people will naturally gravitate away from positions of power in their quest to help empower others.

Like I've said though, if you or anyone has any examples to help me change my way of thought I honestly truly welcome it with an open heart. But as far as I can tell, in capitalism the only way meaningful, helpful change happens is when the consumers (the masses) are educated, well informed, and think critically about the choices they make at the checkout. Supply and demand economics is well known, and essentially a solved equation for businesses at this point. If there is demand and profit to be had, someone will supply that demand come hell or high water. I (unfortunately) literally cannot see any other way at this point.

If consumers don't take responsibility, who will? I for one will not be holding my breath for the legal system to take nor force responsibility. And certainly won't hold my breath waiting for capitalists to take responsibility. The only way I can see any current system to budge at all is at the behest of consumers, by force. I am not advocating violence, just simply stating that as far as I'm concerned, asking nicely for a capitalist to stop profiting, or even asking to not profit as much is a fallacy.

If you or anyone has convincing arguments saying otherwise I would really honestly love to hear them because frankly I don't like feeling/thinking this way. It's depressing and helpless feeling and I hate it. But it's what I've seen and grown up with my entire life.

Capitalism doesn't endlessly produce, it produces to meet demand. Sometimes the "demand" can consist of subsidies to the industry with the intention of lowering price to consumers, but with the consequence of potentially creating more waste. I've read about farmers dumping excess product out because subsidies "bought" too much product to fit on shelves (aka consumers didn't buy enough to satisfy the greed for profit). Heaven forbid that excess product help people in need, for that may hurt the bottom line.

You honestly said it best in the first thing you said. .."capitalists that put profit before".. everything else. Pure capitalists, while mostly if not entirely evil, do not pollute for the fun of it. They pollute because of greed. If they aren't profiting from polluting, they'll (try to) find another way to profit. It's all they know, a literal one track mind.

That is definitely not to say that their carelessness while chasing profit is okay. It's harmful and evil. But it is largely just that, carelessness. A pure capitalist cares of nothing other than personal gain. And a public corporation in capitalist society must put shareholder profits ahead of all else by law. The only things they must adhere to in pursuit of profit are other laws, and even then only if the penalty for breaking the law hurts profits more than ignoring the law. This is by design, however terrible that design may be. Examples of this are everywhere. Children illegally hired in packing plants, illegal union busting, etc.

Perhaps the most brazen examples are car manufacturers doing cost-benefit analysis on whether to issue a recall on defective cars. Literally teams of experts calculating whether it will be cheaper to recall and fix dangerous defects, or pay out lawsuits when people get hurt/die. Spoiler: they can, have, and do choose to eat the cost of lawsuits when it is calculated to be cheaper than a recall. And yes, if you live in a capitalist society your life has a dollar amount attached to it (roughly $7.5 million as of 2020 according to FEMA). Your social security number may as well be a barcode placed on product.

Sorry, I got a little sidetracked. What I'm ultimately trying to get at is, we as consumers will have to take responsibility for consuming less because industry will do its' best to meet demand as long as it is profitable to do so. I think switching subsidies to alternative, less polluting foods is a great solution because it (in theory) works on multiple fronts.

By not subsidizing the meat & dairy industry, industry will be forced to raise cost to consumers or lose money. A higher cost to consumers means consumers will be more open to alternative options. If the options that are better for the environment are then subsidized to lower cost to consumers they become an attractive option.

Example: If the average meat eating, non-eco minded consumer has the choice between paying $50 for a pound of real meat, or $50 for a pound of meat alternative that tastes identical, they'll choose real meat nearly every time. Now give that same consumer an option of $10 for a pound of meat alternative (whether it tastes identical or not) and the mental math changes considerably. And honestly I doubt the price difference would have to be that drastic to have a noticeable impact on consumer buying habits. Especially when you take into account that people are trending towards being more eco aware.

I'm gonna end this here before I go on ranting all day. /Rant

Tldr; capitalism sucks. Subsidizing meat alternatives seems like a decent idea. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. I hope you all have a wonderful day, and achieve all of your dreams. Please leave me alone :)

This is infuriating. Let me make sure I've got this right:

So, our military personnel "volunteer" to serve, and in doing so are forced to reside at whatever military base in whichever State/country that the higher ups decide. Then the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which allowed for existing abortion bans to go into effect in various states as well as paved the way for other abortion bans to be put into effect. Our military personnel are also bound by the laws of wherever they are stationed. To help alleviate the concerns of our military personnel, President Biden issued a travel reimbursement policy so that our volunteer based military personnel wouldn't have to pay to travel somewhere that they more agree with the laws of, to have a medical procedure performed that is outlawed where they have been forced to reside. Then this chucklefuck Tuberville decides to block any and all military promotions because he essentially thinks that the most regressive state laws should apply to the entire volunteer based military. And then he complains that the military is facing personnel issues? Excuse me but what the fuck? Am I missing something?

I don't think anyone is even forcing states to allow abortions for military personnel, just trying to provide travel reimbursement so that personnel can go to a state that hasn't banned abortions without having to pay the travel costs themselves. Right? Why wouldn't we want that policy? Military personnel don't get to choose where they're stationed (they do sometimes get some say but they don't make the final decision) so why not reimburse them if they're forced to travel for medical reasons?

If he thinks the military is facing personnel issues now, and at least partially because he's interfering, has he even considered the ramifications of taking even more rights away from people that volunteer to serve? I mean, ffs they already give up many of their rights as is. And abortion bans have already proven to be an extremely unpopular policy, with citizens in several Republican states already voting against said bans and in fairly large numbers with large margins to boot.

I legitimately feel like I must be missing something. Can this guy really be this stupid? Or does he actually despise the American people? Is there some pro-life lobbying group ~~bribing~~ donating to him for him to do this?

Do you believe UN reports about the "Hamas aligned side"? Or is that just some big conspiracy?

And by your own words: "Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime." "Do you remember that refugee camp they hit yesterday?" I'll even concede and say sure, let's assume there were Hamas terrorists hiding in the refugee camp. Let's also assume there was terrorist-supporting infrastructure in the refugee camp. Guess what though. IT WAS STILL A FUCKING REFUGEE CAMP!

Let that sink in extra slow through your thick skull. Read through several times if you must. They knew there were innocent civilians in a refugee camp. They also suspected terrorists in said refugee camp. If you think the best and only option was to bomb that refugee camp, you're wrong and a monster. Or is it that you're simply a racist that thinks that every Palestinian is a terrorist simply for existing on the wrong "side"?

Let's say we find out that there's some terrorists hiding out in your city. Is the only solution to bomb the city? Yourself, your family, and your friends included? Let's say we narrow it down to terrorists hiding on your block. What's your solution? How much "collateral damage" (innocent civilian deaths) is acceptable to root out the terrorism that exists in your home town?

Edit: I would like to add that yes, this is distracting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would also like to add that I recognize that I do not know nearly enough about this conflict to speak with authority on the subject. What I do know enough about though is that not every Palestinian is involved with nor supports Hamas. And not every Israeli is involved with nor supports the IDF. There are many Innocent people that have died, and are continuing to die from both sides of this conflict. And every one of those deaths is a tragedy. I wholeheartedly condemn Hamas' killings of innocent civilians, and I wholeheartedly condemn Israel's killings of innocent civilians. Both sides fucking suck and the people that are truly paying the price are the innocent people dying and losing loved ones. I don't know what the answer is, or even if there is a "right answer". Maybe a special ground operation would have minimized loss of life? I don't know. What I definitely do know is that I will never be okay with the deaths of innocent people.

Idk about OP but I've been ashamed of my country since at least ~~2016~~ ~~2001~~ ~~1990~~ ~~August 6, 1945~~ the 17th century when "we" decided that land settled by Native Americans somehow belonged to us. I wasn't alive for most of that time but I guarantee my country has done shameful things for muuuch longer than 24 days.

For those out of the loop, my understanding is that the speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly (lower house in Wisconsin), Robin Vos (R) has declared that he will not allow any raises for anyone working for the University of Wisconsin system unless and until the UW system gets rid of any and all diversity initiatives. The UW system consists of 13 public universities with campuses across the state, one of which has a cutting edge hospital system, namely UW health in Madison. This has been going on since at least mid September.

This is the same man and party that has/is also (not an exhaustive list):

• Threatening to oust general election commissioner of Wisconsin
• Threaten and create taxpayer funded panels seeking to impeach the newly elected, pro-choice Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz (D) that swapped the majority of the Supreme Court just after Roe v Wade was overturned
• Hand-picked an investigator to investigate the 2020 election, then 14 months later fired said investigator. But not before nearly 1 million dollars was recorded being spent from taxpayer dollars

Great job on stereotyping an entire population of peoples as liars. 👍

And downplaying the loss of innocent lives to boot.

It is "possible" that some were bombed? I guess as long as only some innocent people were bombed everything is ok. After all "many many" were safely uprooted from their homes and evacuated south. Hooray...

I doubt this will sink in but I have to try. There have definitely been innocent lives lost from both sides of this conflict and every one of them is a tragedy. I'm not advocating for either side here because everyone involved in the loss of innocent lives sucks. I don't have a magical solution either so don't bother asking. Innocent people have already, and will continue to die in this conflict. Don't try to make it seem like innocent casualties aren't a big deal.

Preface: I do not know enough of this subject or conflict to speak authoritatively.

If they were told to leave their homes and take a certain path to avoid being bombed, trusted that advice but were bombed on the "safe" path anyway by the very people who told them they would be safe if they took said path, why should they continue to trust whoever told them that?

Furthermore, if there were bombs dropping on and/or around you no matter what you did or who you listened to, simply for existing in the wrong place and at no fault of your own, wouldn't you rather at least be in the "comfort" of your own home?