In today's news...

[noman]

That's about accurate, yeah
Don't forget that for over 20 years now the fat cats have been getting bailed out whenever their bets went wrong. They probably expected another bailout this time

And also there's lawsuits going against them for market manipulation now, since they tried to force people to sell and refused to let people buy. Kind of goes against the free market which they have codified with laws
Laws that they thought would be for their protection

Robinhood will probably get a slap on the wrist, but I don't expect anything will change.

 

[noman]

Is there any of the moderators, because I can not answer a new topic?
Maybe I'm doing something wrong?
Please help.
Yours faithfully.

You are probably trying to reply to a locked thread.

 

[Ninja_Named_Bob]

They're upset because the system they benefited from got turned on them. Not only that, but they were going to kill two companies that, while I'm personally indifferent to myself, probably had millions of employees who would be out of work. These jackasses were going to ruin lives for their own benefit. They're surprised that a bunch of "thugs" on reddit decided that was no bueno? And, rather than eating their humble pie and learning some common fucking decency, they then tried to force the real heroes to sell while preventing others from buying in?

I won't be surprised if their defence in this class-action is "B-but they're not even financial experts!"

 

[super_slicer]

You must be registered to see the links

Oh, this is nice

You must be registered to see the links

.
I love mask-off year.

 

[MrMe]

You'll have your election meddled with,
and you'll be happy.

 

[XSI]

Oh look, it's exactly what I've been saying for years about all western countries
Turns out it's not just some weird conspiracy theory, it's an actual conspiracy and they're just admitting it

But that's not going to convince the people who kept calling it 'insane' anyway. They prefer to just shut out reality and pretend it's all good

 

[noman]

Oh look, it's exactly what I've been saying for years about all western countries
Turns out it's not just some weird conspiracy theory, it's an actual conspiracy and they're just admitting it

But that's not going to convince the people who kept calling it 'insane' anyway. They prefer to just shut out reality and pretend it's all good

I am a bit lost here. The Time article posted by slicer talked about efforts to ensure the 2020 election would be fair and uncorrupt. It used the word consipiracy sarcastically. So what conspiracy are you talking about here? A conspiracy to ensure a fair election?

 

[XSI]

Conspiracy between activists who are supposedly for the working/common people and big business, promoting big business' interests over the workers' interests by controlling information flow and propaganda to make it seem like big business is helpful to them

I don't really blame big business for doing it, it's the rational thing to do for them. But the activists betray people over and over, and the people just keep falling for it

 

[Ninja_Named_Bob]

Conspiracy between activists who are supposedly for the working/common people and big business, promoting big business' interests over the workers' interests by controlling information flow and propaganda to make it seem like big business is helpful to them

I see you've never come across the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." It's a fairly common one, difficult to falsely attribute, etc. It would apply here. Nobody liked Trump. His supporters are usually hard-pressed to come up with positive qualities for the man. He was a would-be tyrant now facing a second impeachment trial in which, (and I shit you not) his defence is "well, I didn't lose the election, and I'm still the president." If that isn't a tell-tale sign of someone either delusional or desperate (or both), then I don't know what to tell you.

It would make sense that two groups of people generally on opposing sides would unify their forces to ensure that some shithead didn't screw up the system that everyone both benefits from, and suffers under. We'll fix democracy when we save it, and all that.

I don't really blame big business for doing it, it's the rational thing to do for them. But the activists betray people over and over, and the people just keep falling for it

Gonna big oof you on that. I forgot, who was it who stormed the capitol? Who was it who had tear gas fired on peaceful protesters just so he could cross a street to a church he wasn't welcome at, all for a photo op? Who was it that filed suits against Georgia and other states because they didn't like the election results?

If you're gonna argue in bad faith, I gotta call it out.

 

[XSI]

I see you've never come across the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." It's a fairly common one, difficult to falsely attribute, etc. It would apply here. Nobody liked Trump. His supporters are usually hard-pressed to come up with positive qualities for the man. He was a would-be tyrant now facing a second impeachment trial in which, (and I shit you not) his defence is "well, I didn't lose the election, and I'm still the president." If that isn't a tell-tale sign of someone either delusional or desperate (or both), then I don't know what to tell you.

It would make sense that two groups of people generally on opposing sides would unify their forces to ensure that some shithead didn't screw up the system that everyone both benefits from, and suffers under. We'll fix democracy when we save it, and all that.



Gonna big oof you on that. I forgot, who was it who stormed the capitol? Who was it who had tear gas fired on peaceful protesters just so he could cross a street to a church he wasn't welcome at, all for a photo op? Who was it that filed suits against Georgia and other states because they didn't like the election results?

If you're gonna argue in bad faith, I gotta call it out.

The enemy of your enemy is still your enemy if he still hates you and actively works to hurt you. Just because he also hates a third party does not suddenly mean you should help him and give him power.
I'm not here to defend Trump. Trump is an uncharismatic idiot who had a great chance and instead played golf for four years while the people that hoped he would finally help just got fucked more. But the solution there isn't to just give power right back to big banks, businesses and the people who caused the circumstances that allowed Trump to take power to begin with. They're not going to help, they're just going to see it and go "What we're doing works. So lets just do it harder!"

It does not make sense to throw away any chance of a victory just so one of your multiple enemies has a defeat. Reality is more complex than that, and this is just playing multiple sides to ensure that they are always too weak to make a proper attempt at taking out those in power. When you're given the choice between spending your resources and powerbase so your enemy wins, or building your resources and powerbase so that YOU might win later, the only correct choice is to maintain and expand your powerbase and resources so that you can solve the problem. Helping your enemy with a third party is only reasonable if that third party is strong enough that you could not possibly hope to ever defeat them without help, or if your enemy expends more resources and power to get it done.

Lets see then-
Who stormed the capitol? Both sides, different times. Multiple times throughout history.
Tear gas on peaceful protestors? Both sides once more, different times and places.
Doing some photo op and lawsuits? That's the third party, Trump. He's an idiot more concerned with his own looks and image than with his voters. I'm not disputing that.

What I am disputing is that the left is doing things good for the common people. They are not. They're just supporting the groups who got the common people in bad conditions to begin with(Big business, banks, hedge funds, etc).
Four years in which they could have organized and gotten a charismatic figure to be their figurehead. Four years in which they could have defined good policy and tried to push that through. Four years in which they instead just cried about how mean Trump was. And that's not even counting the many years before this in which the situation was shit and they could have tried to organize. From before the WTC went down and after when any resistance to military intervention was seen as 'helping the terrorists'. From the economic crash that globally forced many families out of their homes. From the movements to occupy wall street(And similar global movements), they've had plenty of time to organize and work on fixing shit and making the world better for the common people.

But no, instead this one fluke of some fat orange guy getting elected is good enough to become best friends with the very people who continuously fuck over the working classes. Expending massive amounts of goodwill and resources to try to not get someone who will help into office, but the big business candidate.
I know it sucks to hear you've been played, but once again, this is not even a US only issue. This has happened throughout Europe as well.

Most established left is a controlled opposition that will never address the problem, because they're literally in a conspiracy with their enemy and they are admitting it. They have been long before this, and as long as people keep buying into this shit, they will keep doing it.
Maybe instead of saying I'm 'arguing in bad faith' you should look at how the left is used and then discarded over and over. Never making any progress and never winning any major victories except on issues that hold no value to the rich. Or more commonly, issues that the rich support.

This isn't new. And if the same thing keeps happening, the same result keeps happening. The rich just keep getting richer while the poor are told to go eat dirt or die in a gutter somewhere.

Edit: Bleh. Now I just threw out a big wall of text. I expect nobody to read this
Edit2: I guess I'll summ it up as "Big business/banks/corporate has taken over the left AND right of politics and is playing them against eachother to stay in power."
I can explain how they did it too, but none of that matters because they did so by convincing both sides that the sides they're playing have come to the idea that corporate/banking groups are good and helpful without propaganda. And the most effective propaganda is the type that you can't tell is propaganda.

 

[Tenma]

Mostly this, democracy dies in the dark is common saying. Well, over the past century democracy has become increasingly opaque. We won't see democracy swallowed by a force of darkness like an invasion. No, democracy will die as a shadow of its former self. Hollowed, stagnant, and just used as a term to shield the kleptocracy. Really, the process is inevitable for all prosperous nations, a few of the powerful rich cling onto their wealth and will drag down everyone to ensure their own investments and possessions are protected.

I had sickening thought the other day, if a feudal lord treated their serfs as poorly as todays society treats our poor. They'd be called out on that behavior and yet today, the poor are left to die. Just on their own accordance.

 

[super_slicer]

Bu bu bu but CNN said ORANGE MAN BAD, we have to sell out and abandon all our values so we can enslave the working class to our neoglobalist megacorp overlords!

 

[noman]

Conspiracy between activists who are supposedly for the working/common people and big business, promoting big business' interests over the workers' interests by controlling information flow and propaganda to make it seem like big business is helpful to them

I don't really blame big business for doing it, it's the rational thing to do for them. But the activists betray people over and over, and the people just keep falling for it

I have gotten so jaded that I don't even see this as conspiracy any more. To me it's just how this imperfect world works. Media is always bias and controlled by big business. Politicians can only raise to the top if they cater to the interest of big business. The only thing the common man and woman can do is to hope that one of the big business' interest aligns with theirs.

 

[Ninja_Named_Bob]

The enemy of your enemy is still your enemy if he still hates you and actively works to hurt you. Just because he also hates a third party does not suddenly mean you should help him and give him power.
I'm not here to defend Trump. Trump is an uncharismatic idiot who had a great chance and instead played golf for four years while the people that hoped he would finally help just got fucked more. But the solution there isn't to just give power right back to big banks, businesses and the people who caused the circumstances that allowed Trump to take power to begin with. They're not going to help, they're just going to see it and go "What we're doing works. So lets just do it harder!"

Sun Tzu cringes at your lack of battle strategy. If two diametrically-opposed forces work to prevent a more harmful force from retaining power, then both forces come out weaker. Who is weaker than who in that situation depends on the strategies used and allies gained. Right now, the upper crust is suffering a few more hits than those activists who worked against them. Look at the GME situation, or how businesses are now turning away from Trump. Those same businesses risk major losses if we are to believe that Trump's supporter base is as large as is claimed. That's a shot in the nuts to these big businesses. Will it happen soon? Doubtful. But, the winds of change have begun to blow.

It does not make sense to throw away any chance of a victory just so one of your multiple enemies has a defeat. Reality is more complex than that, and this is just playing multiple sides to ensure that they are always too weak to make a proper attempt at taking out those in power. When you're given the choice between spending your resources and powerbase so your enemy wins, or building your resources and powerbase so that YOU might win later, the only correct choice is to maintain and expand your powerbase and resources so that you can solve the problem. Helping your enemy with a third party is only reasonable if that third party is strong enough that you could not possibly hope to ever defeat them without help, or if your enemy expends more resources and power to get it done.

Yeah, you can't just dismiss it as victories or losses. There is strategy in a temporary alliance to undermine a larger threat. It also makes no sense in terms of strategy to ignore the larger threat in favor of striking down your enemy who might just do the same and disregard that same threat to continue waging war on you. Trump's supporters are a legitimate threat, significant enough to stage a coup and take control of a major government building. Only boredom and the threat of an armed response prevented them from occupying for more than a few hours. There were also somewhere around 60,000 marines denied permission to go to DC on the basis that their political history might influence their willingness to protect the incoming administration from domestic terrorists. You can't exactly make plans to build your forces when you can't be certain who is an enemy and who isn't. It's better to side with the enemy you know and let them take the bulk of the hits rather than run around willy-nilly trying to call traitor on everyone who doesn't immediately salute.

Lets see then-
Who stormed the capitol? Both sides, different times. Multiple times throughout history.
Tear gas on peaceful protestors? Both sides once more, different times and places.
Doing some photo op and lawsuits? That's the third party, Trump. He's an idiot more concerned with his own looks and image than with his voters. I'm not disputing that.

"Peaceful protesters" hardly qualify as "storming." Out of here with that "both sides" shit. Also, when were the Trump supporters suppoedly "peaceful?" When they were chanting "Hang Mike Pence?" Maybe when they were making off with confidential documents from Nancy Pelosi's office? Or smashing furniture and shit? Maybe when they were setting up the gallows to hang elected representatives from? Ah, man. All that peace.

As opposed to a few dissidents among thousands of protesters who stood in place, chanting for justice for victims of racial discrimination by law enforcement. That same law enforcement who helped those Trump supporters storm the capitol building. You wanna say "both sides?" At least be informed, first.

What I am disputing is that the left is doing things good for the common people. They are not. They're just supporting the groups who got the common people in bad conditions to begin with(Big business, banks, hedge funds, etc).

Show me a conservative in the last twenty years who has worked for the betterment of his fellow man. Obama worked to nationalize a health care plan that helped everyone, not just the rich. He worked to improve immigration so the pathway was a lot less turbulent and full of issues that either exploited, or outright denied those in need. At every step, Republican's rejected his proposals. Why? Because it didn't put money in their pockets. That's it.

If you want to say Liberals are just as bad, that's your poorly-formed opinion. You're still wrong.

Four years in which they could have organized and gotten a charismatic figure to be their figurehead. Four years in which they could have defined good policy and tried to push that through. Four years in which they instead just cried about how mean Trump was. And that's not even counting the many years before this in which the situation was shit and they could have tried to organize. From before the WTC went down and after when any resistance to military intervention was seen as 'helping the terrorists'. From the economic crash that globally forced many families out of their homes. From the movements to occupy wall street(And similar global movements), they've had plenty of time to organize and work on fixing shit and making the world better for the common people.

You're quick to point fingers, as if Republican's weren't the problem. As I said before, at every attempt to push some good policies forward, Obama faced push-back. Even when the ACA (Affordable Care Act) was basically a shell of its former (and much more better) self, Republican's chose to give him the middle finger instead. Why? Immigration reform, same thing. Republican's don't like when it's not their idea, and they doubly hate things that hurt their paycheck. Imagine how much they would have lost in wages from *gasp* allowing decent healthcare coverage for everyone? The horror!

Conservatism bases its entire ideaology on a meritocracy, where those who are poor and/or weak are that way because they lack the drive. It never accounts for the unexpected, but simply tells anyone who is found lacking that their problems are their own fault. And then, when it comes back to bite them, they're quick to spout whataboutism and blame someone else. Just as you and Slicer are doing now. "B-but the librruls are just as bad!" C'mon, man. Don't be the entire circus.

But no, instead this one fluke of some fat orange guy getting elected is good enough to become best friends with the very people who continuously fuck over the working classes. Expending massive amounts of goodwill and resources to try to not get someone who will help into office, but the big business candidate.
I know it sucks to hear you've been played, but once again, this is not even a US only issue. This has happened throughout Europe as well.]/quote]

You must be registered to see the links

In fact, let's paint that entire paragraph over with it.

Also, nice projection. Conservatives got fucked by a big, orange dumbass and the moment he's tossed out with the trash, you try and turn it on the "other side." Bud, nobody was mad that Trump was elected. I was a supporter, once upon a time. The thing is, when you stop looking for excuses and start living in reality, you realize the issue wasn't the doofus. It was that he represented big business in politics. He was the physical embodiment of it. And the "left" hated what he represented, because it meant that, for four years, there would be no promises kept. The battle would be waged with ground being lost at every turn.

Nobody got played this time around. Heck, I would argue that the big businesses got played hard by the left, since now they have to incur the wrath of their would-be consumers.

Most established left is a controlled opposition that will never address the problem, because they're literally in a conspiracy with their enemy and they are admitting it. They have been long before this, and as long as people keep buying into this shit, they will keep doing it.
Maybe instead of saying I'm 'arguing in bad faith' you should look at how the left is used and then discarded over and over. Never making any progress and never winning any major victories except on issues that hold no value to the rich. Or more commonly, issues that the rich support.

I feel like you don't know what "ironic" means. That, or you're grasping at anything to push a narrative based entirely in fantasy. Either way, that's a bad mindset. It's a desperate mind reaching to point at any insignificant thing and scream "SEE? I TOLD YOU!" You're acting like a nut about to send himself to the loony bin. I suggest calming down.

I don't care if "the left" or "the right" are used. Conservatives use and get used more often than a prostitute in Hell's Kitchen, and have less to show for it. Liberals are often better-educated and thusly more capable of using their own skepticism effectively. Do I think both sides are so easily categorized? Not really. But, given their individual track records, I have more faith in a Democrat to do the right thing and not get fucked (without needing the support of the majority) than a Republican. I think you're arguing in "bad faith" because you're projecting all the whines you're currently experiencing onto the other side. You want to be mad, but you don't want to acknowledge that you're mad for your own reasons. It's gotta be someone else, right?

Mostly this, democracy dies in the dark is common saying. Well, over the past century democracy has become increasingly opaque. We won't see democracy swallowed by a force of darkness like an invasion. No, democracy will die as a shadow of its former self. Hollowed, stagnant, and just used as a term to shield the kleptocracy. Really, the process is inevitable for all prosperous nations, a few of the powerful rich cling onto their wealth and will drag down everyone to ensure their own investments and possessions are protected.

I had sickening thought the other day, if a feudal lord treated their serfs as poorly as todays society treats our poor. They'd be called out on that behavior and yet today, the poor are left to die. Just on their own accordance.

You must be registered to see the links

The quote basically addresses that people, when they feel sufficiently threatened by a force, will surrender all their freedoms for the illusion of safety. They'll do so gleefully, believing a moment of hardship will give way to many more of freedom and peace. We're also currently in the death throes of capitalism. It happens to all economic systems. The initial stages of functionality and implementation work, until they stop. The problem isn't the system itself, but people. People are shit at sustaining good ideas and systems without letting their monkey brains overwhelm their reason.

You're joking about serfs and lords, right? Shall I recommend any of the thousands of feudal systems which saw the disenfranchiseed "lower class" treated much worse than they are today? Maybe some trans-Atlantic Slave trade? Or any incarnation of the Roman Empire?

Bu bu bu but CNN said ORANGE MAN BAD, we have to sell out and abandon all our values so we can enslave the working class to our neoglobalist megacorp overlords!

@XSI This is what it looks like when you're not just the clown, but the circus. Aspire to be better, friend.

I have gotten so jaded that I don't even see this as conspiracy any more. To me it's just how this imperfect world works. Media is always bias and controlled by big business. Politicians can only raise to the top if they cater to the interest of big business. The only thing the common man and woman can do is to hope that one of the big business' interest aligns with theirs.

It is, and it isn't. There are incidences of people with genuinely-good intentions attaining power. The problem is less to do with their allegiances, and more with the opposition. If the opposition sees policies that would better the living conditions of the masses, but at the cost of the revenue of their lobbyists, they'll stand in the way. Filibuster until the good guys give up. The problem, then, becomes when that same opposition decries the good guys, claiming them to be incompetent and such. The masses get brainwashed into believing lies and spreading the lies. It's a toxic cycle only remedied when a system is taken to its logical extreme and all the toxic elements exposed. If Trump never bungled COVID, if he never got elected, the system would have never been under attack the way it is now.

It's a mixed blessing. If the people work to be better and choose better representatives, the system can survive a while longer. If they cannot, it will collapse and implode unto itself.

 

[XSI]

To prevent this from becoming a huge quote pyramid, I'll only respond to a few things that matter more. Though if you want me to I can respond to everything later.

Sun Tzu is the one who said that if you only react to your enemy, then he dictates your strategy for you. The same shit has happened in multiple countries now. In France Macron ran for the 'left' to oppose the 'greater evil' of the nationalists. The left there at least admits they made mistakes picking that guy and hate his guts.
Continue doing exactly what your enemy wants and it will surely work out eventually. Especially if the 'larger threat' was initially set up by them and somehow also not hurting them much or doing any of the stated goals.
'The enemy you know', as you put it, is taking barely any hits. But the left activists have taken some big ones over the last few years. This is clearly not a good deal for the left and pretending it is just means you're going to be played again and again.

My entire argument hinges on the point that there are multiple sides here, not just left and right. People don't all fit in the same group without issues. The issue is the same most of the right has had for decades- They have been displaced by moneygrubbing elites who see their political party as a way to make more money.
It's not 'republicans' that are the problem with the system and why it's not getting improved. It's those who style themselves to be the elite who have taken over multiple political parties and are using the process to block any attempt to fix it from either side.

This though

Out of here with that "both sides" shit.

If you can not accept that both 'sides' in the US are scum using the same tactics, then you are a hypocrite and your opinion is not worth considering. If you fail to pay attention to anything going on and only take propaganda reports from one side then there is nothing to be gained from further conversation.
A lot of your post appears to not address much the points(Though that could be because you did not understand the argument I made, judging from the parts that do try to address them), just repeating the same things that are largely ungrounded in anything resembling an objective reality (Plus emotional appeals?)

To clarify, my argument is that it is specifically both sides being taken over by the 'elite', known as 'the bourgeoisie' about a century ago. The second part of what I'm saying is that the left of all sides is now a puppet for exactly that group. They react exactly as those pulling the strings want them to react, and when called out about it they defend their actions as if it was all the right choice that they decided to do all on their own

The most successful propaganda is the kind that makes its target think it was all their idea to begin with, and that's exactly what they've been using the last 20-30 years. Ever since psychology and psychoanalysis became commonly used in advertising, so too did it get used in politics to shape people who are unaware of the process into the ideals that suit big business, banking groups, and the wealthy.
Here's a documentary that may be of interest. A bit long at almost 4 hours, but it's from back in 2002 when some experts saw it coming (I'm presently watching this one so it may go off the topic later on)

I don't think we disagree on much ideologically. Just on the methods and current events

 

[Hentaispider]

You must be registered to see the links

 

[noman]

Cop at Beverly Hills plays copyrighted music in an attempt to stop an activist's live stream

You must be registered to see the links

It didn't work, but imo it was fucking brilliant.

 

[XSI]

Clever
But I'm pretty sure copyright checks only hurt the vod afterwards and doesn't shut down the stream

 

[noman]

Clever
But I'm pretty sure copyright checks only hurt the vod afterwards and doesn't shut down the stream

Yes, which is why it didn't work. Nice try, but no dice.

 

[super_slicer]

Odd, seeing as California is a two party consent state. Cop could have just said "I do not consent to your recording me" then arrested them for continuing.