Listened to the first season a while back, I genuinely had one (1) note/dispute, for a series spanning nearly 11 hours on the Iraq invasion. They brought receipts, sources, archived media snippets, and a lot of context that mainstream media still glosses over with 9/11 remembrance justifications.

Very listenable, add it to your queue if you remotely enjoy geopolitics

We can thank Steve for the leaps and bounds that happened in the early 90’s with CGI - tl;dr he was a brilliant animator who snuck in under the radar at ILM and was given run of the animation department because he/his working partner literally invented many of the cutting edge animation techniques, from scratch.

Dude has a tragic story (personality disorder & alcoholism) that led to him being uncredited and blacklisted, pretty well captured in a biopic, worth the hour-ish watch imo.

• The Abyss, 1991 - Academy Award for Visual Effects
• Terminator 2, 1991 - Liquid Metal for T-1000
• Jurassic Park, 1993 - work featured throughout, with the highlight of the T-Rex’s movement and skeletal modeling
• The Mask, 1994 - Nominated for Academy Award for Visual Effect

I don’t understand where or how or why vigilante murder is even brought up here? Who said or implied anything about murder.

The original post is literally about a vigilante murdering the UHC CEO and another company seemingly changing policy afterwards, with OP attaching a comment about ‘not saying it’s good, but maybe violence does work’. You brought solidarity in out of nowhere, and implied it was parallel to sectarianism/tribalism.

That is why I called you out as being obtuse, a vigilante murder is the only reason this comment thread exists - it was there from the very beginning.

I’m merely specifying the easily missed core of solidarity which is that a background of legitimacy is required to have these soup kitchens and co-op farms. The state and it’s “violence” of set rules and consequences must exist as a background before the space can be opened up for these examples you use.

You never mentioned legitimacy - I inferred it. That’s called reading comprehension, not strawmaning. Which is why I posted that legal is not inherently moral. Because enforcing laws, not persuasion or incentives to prompt compliance, ultimately requires a state actor to force that law on another person. And if that person still says “no” then that state actor is empowered to use violence to either make that person submit and follow that law, be arrested, or ultimately killed if they continue to resist. A law prohibiting rape or murder is different than anti-vagrancy laws or occupational licensing - but the enforcement is facsimile if met with resistance.

Quite hilarious to call me the obtuse and myopic one here, when my whole cornerstone from the start has basically been a suggestion to step back and think about what Solidarity means and how it is effectively sustained before we rush in to believing we can so easily make such harsh distinctions between legality and morality or state vs tribalist violence.

This is a good explanation. Your initial comment was half-baked and didn’t expound on what you were trying to say, which is why challenged what I inferred your thrust to be. I’m not foolish enough to believe that we can all live in 100% peaceful coexistence, nightly drum circles, and unlimited cooperation and mutual respect. Because there’s always some asshole who doesn’t want to help or respect autonomy, and becomes the aggressor in order to steal/subjugate/dominate/etc. But my thrust was that the social contract is broken, when a company can essentially renege on a financial contract (heath insurance) arbitrarily and capriciously, and faces no legal repercussions. Because lobbying. Because “business friendly” legal environment where the one with the most money almost wins by default, if there even is a legal challenge.

Please don’t triple strawman me here

I genuinely don’t think you understand what that means, or are confusing presumptive argument for it. It you feel misrepresented and I am straw manning - explain in further detail. Like you just did now, instead of a snarky “u iz strawman winnar”. We never got to that part of the debate initially because you got huffy and left a drive-by comment at the first challenge.

You’re trying hard to be obtuse, or super myopic if you don’t see the through line from state violence, to consent of the governed to accept laws (and the violence required to enforce them) - hence my comment that legality is not morality, and the inference that lobbying has broken that trust and consent by legalizing policies like UHC’s that are not unique to that one company.

You brought solidarity into this, which is distinct from tribalist/sectarian violence like you’re alluding to. Soup kitchens, community legal defense funds, or cooperative farms are examples of solidarity. Not vigilante murder.

Why?

You, your boss, the executive board, hell the country and the planet even, is completely irrelevant to the ghouls who only see profit. Everyone is replaceable.

Externalities are not a cost feature of capitalism, and when the government fails to prevent the most egregious excesses of the ‘line must go up, forever exponentially’ money chasers, everyone pays the price for their greed.

Communities poisoned because freight trains “need to be umpteen cars long to be profitable” whilst demanding priority treatment on taxpayer funded infrastructure.

Over $60 billion in taxpayer handouts to corporations in the last ten years alone, often with no or weak strings attached, and a legislature that refuses to enforce the clauses and responsibilities that secured those subsidies. Collect payout, ‘restructure and reincorporate’ and poof - there isn’t a company by that name anymore, our contract is void but they keep the money.

Public sector employees driven to destitution by crippling low pay, while Congress voted themselves $174,000 per year rocketing themselves into the top 9% of all earners, whilst we pay for 72% of their healthcare insurance premiums.

I’m no lawyer, but the legal system calls this “reasonable doubt” and if you are on a jury, you are duty bound to do your best to judge the case on the facts, not vibes.

And the fact is, a grainy photo of two people who may have somewhat similar clothing is not proof, nor mens rea required for a possible murder conviction - who are we to claim to understand the mind of this individual?

The state has a high bar to clear that this anonymous shopper, is the same person they claim, the photo was taken on the same day, that this photo isn’t a forgery/deepfake, that only one set of that particular clothing was ever sold- otherwise it’s hearsay and conjecture.

Yeah, because nobody else speaks up for those who’d be railroaded through court otherwise. You don’t ’see them speak up’ because those same people’s voice get lost in the crowd of everyone else’s outrage/support.

It’s trite but true, failure to defend the fringes leaves a smaller and smaller pool of resistance/solidarity:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

So just because it’s sprinkled with the magic fairy dust of ‘government’ it’s immediately moral and good violence?

Here’s a freebie thought experiment I had to pay a PoliSci professor for; if tomorrow the democratically elected government passed a law that from today forward, all babies with blue eyes will be euthanized at birth, is that legal?

Yes. 100% legal. And 100% morally bankrupt.

Consent of the governed is the bedrock of civil society - the ghouls that run big business seem to have forgotten/don’t care that legality does not equal morality.

Just got PTSD flashbacks from 90s “FMV cutscenes” thanks OP for the reminder of the dark ages lol

j. Non-permissive environment: An environment in which friendly forces anticipate obstructions to, or interference with, operations.

Corpo executives and billionaires about to find out that no matter the snitch line reward money they put up, people magically didn’t see anything.

Policing requires a degree of consent from the public, you’ll be turning away search party volunteers for a child kidnapping, but I don’t see a line of people ready to narc on shoplifting or drug possession.

Karmic justice sure - aside from the kid who got roped into taking that voyage by his dad. Billionaires hubris treats the world as their plaything, and find out that nature doesn’t care about your net worth

Pick any rural county, and you can find a bus load of people who’ve been screwed over or denied care by health insurance. And for those who do not have a specific, personal grudge, healthcare options in the sticks are increasingly geographic monopolies run by a single provider, with a Byzantine network of in/out network insurers.

Someone driving their mother four hours for biweekly dialysis or cancer care because the local provider is not covered is going to be pissed. A parent buying their child because the local provider ‘streamlined’ care while slashing nursing headcount is going to be a lot more than pissed.

“We’ve polled our workforce about our new Dynamic Wages™️initiative, and 100% of remaining employees agree!”

Cool, so you’re an employee owned cooperative now?

Now look, there’s only two - maybe three - social events where stuffing my face to the gills with deviled eggs is semi acceptable.

I made my peace with the cholesterol, and I’ll pay the next-day toll every time that platter gets brought out.

Open to what exactly…?

OPEN TO WHAT!?

One Lemmy gold for you, thank you kind stranger!

Fucking van drivers man, they know ZERO CHILL

This one REALLY throws people off, they rarely have a quip or retort to answer. “Too real” is the most common in my experience

Source: I work in/with electronics manufacturers

Tl; dr - a mix of value engineering and consumer preference. You wanna buy a $3k TV, or a $700 TV? How rock solid does your automatic sprinkler really need to be, compared to a satellite radio in the Sahel?

Per IPC industry standards, there’s three classes of electronic workmanship/quality control used:

• Class 1: It works, just about. Shoddy soldering is okay as long as connectivity is maintained. Passing a QA test may be as simple as “it runs when powered”. This is where most consumer grade stuff lives: calculators, watches, flashlights, etc.
• Class 2: Better built with generally more QA. Testing usually involves actually checking for function and different modes. Generally used only on commercial/civil government stuff like traffic lights, power controllers, heavy machinery - anywhere where reliability and longevity is worth paying more for.
• Class 3: Complete process control and 100% coverage function (and almost always) burn-in/stress test cycles. Top quality and cost, typically only used for military, aerospace, or medical - where stuff failing means people die.

I found a real easy approach to any undesired solicitation - zero contact, no reaction. Works on telemarketers, panhandlers, salespeople etc.

I have no shame about ghosting you publicly when the only thing you’re after is my money. If I’m in the home generator store, sure thing bro talk to me about my home power needs. If I’m walking out the supermarket and you slide around a booth to “help me keep my home safe during unrest” nah fam you can fuck yourself.

Cold open sales is parallel to pick-up “artists” imo. You want the transactional outcome for yourself, and my consent is the only thing you’re concerned about taking care of.