Again, my point isn’t that poor people are happy or happier than the wealthy. My point is that our system doesn’t even beneft those who are (supposed to be) in charge. They think it does, but it’s more like an addiction that controls and destroys them.

Nah, there is definitely a truth to this. I grew up in a working class family who moved into a wealthier region at some point and I would never trade places with people who grew up wealthy. Pretty much all wealthy people are constantly unhappy, are obsessed with control to the point where they alienate their families, they are constantly scared of losing their control, status and wealth, constantly paranoid towards everything and everyone and often engage in self-destructive behaviour.

Of course, not having enough money sucks, it generates stress and restricts autonomy. But a similar thing happens at a certain level of wealth.

they only moved back because refunds started happening,

Kind of, but refunds only started happening because steam allowed it. And steam only allowed it because there was enough of a shitstom.

Negative reviews by themselves don’t do much, you are right about that, but they do kinda show a community’s mood (especially to other gamers in the community).

they had made their money already

Helldivers is a game that has a lot more monetizing potential than just the initial sales.

If all people would immediately reward them with a positive review after backpedaling, then their learned lesson would be “just try it out, worst case we can backpedal”. By leaving up a negative review, they might realize that they should not even try it if they want to keep the goodwill.

They are always going to have this mindset, companies will never “learn it”, they will always try to push anti-consumer bullshit onto consumers if they think it benefits them and if they think they can get away with it.

They don’t care about goodwill, they care about numbers. It’s a business.

I will leave my negative review standing, although I also have other points of criticism.

And that’s perfectly fine, people can leave whatever review they want to leave. But I think for the people who specifically changed their review or left a negative review specifically to protest this specific issue, it makes sense that they change it back to an actual review of the game to signal that their actions have an impact.

It’s not about trust, of course they don’t deserve trust. It’s about showing them that players have influence when it comes to their bottom line and that they can’t just get away with anything they want to do without it hurting their main objective.

In other words, be nice to the community and they are going to be nice to you. Be shitty to the community and they are going to be so shitty towards you that it hurts your profits. That’s the only motivation that makes them go back on something that they want to do.

If they think that people are going to behave negatively towards them and review bomb their games regardless of how they act, they will just keep acting however they want.

Which shoudn’t be that surprising, this was the norm in many places until relatively recently. Women, people of color and poor people were never really meant to participate in the “democratic process” (at least as far as conservatives are concerned). The only reason why they were eventually allowed was because they fought for it and eventually, people in power got too scared not to give in a little bit until we are where we are today.

Maybe I’m too pessimistic, but to me, it’s surprising that there aren’t more conservatives with this view. Because the conservatives who support (basic) women’s rights are essentially saying “you violent lefties were right and correct in the past for fighting what you believe was right, but whatever you are doing right now goes too far for some reason”…

I think it shows that people yearn for power and control over others just look at all the karens, the reddit mods (you know which kind), the trolls, supporters of certain parties and so on.

I think that’s way too generalized. “The internet” paints a very distorted picture picture. First, the absolut vast majority of people online are lurkers, so you don’t see what they think or do at all. “Nuanced takes” barely exist because people just blast whatever is on their mind right now into the void that is then interpreted by millions of differently biased people.

The mods, trolls, etc. are the fringe of the fringe, often the types of people who have no real life, who cannot really fit into society and who have to find other ways to get attention/validation.

Mods aren’t some kind of villanous power hungry monsters, they are socially untalented nerds who want to do something that feels important, but who often feel unthanked, underappreciated and feel as if everything they do is wrong no matter what they do and who have to deal with the worst of the worst on the internet constantly. And then they are expected to have a discussion about every second decision they make because somebody feels that their comment was not interpreted the way it was intended and cries censurship if the discussion is blocked.

Given that it is somehow expected that moderation often happens without compensation (even though it is essential to a community), I’m suprised it even works as well as it does. If people in general were as powerhungry as you seem to make it out to be, people would kill for the chance to become a mod. In reality, the absolute vast majority of people doesn’t even think about it, which means the job is left those who probably having human interactions in the first place.

I guess they imagine that extremist regimes will provide them with that power

Most don’t think too much about that stuff (or anything really) in the first place. Many “right wingers” aren’t like the disturbed “true believers” you see at rallys or stuff like that, for many it’s just the community aspect they crave and the rest is no mostly larping.

Absolutely, this is a good thing. The only reason why I mention it is so that people remember to keep up the pressure and don’t just start to blindly trust Biden to “do the right thing” all by himself. Biden needs “encouragement” and if he doesn’t get it from the unions, he will get it from some industry lobby.

Just remember, this isn’t Biden having a change of mind necessarily, this is more about Biden answering to pressure. The reason why Biden behaves like this is mostly because the UAW has witheld their endorsment for him, saying that “Biden has to pick a side, either the working class, or the billionaires”, that “he has to earn his endorsment” and that “they expect actions, not just words”.

I guess he’s trying to redeem himself

I mean that’s one way to put it, but at the end of the day, he isn’t some manga anti-hero, he is a politician and politicians want to be elected.

I am pretty sure this is about the UAW’s change of attitude that puts immense pressure on Biden, especially that they are withholding their endorsment for Biden until he “earned it”. And of course Trump is also trying to suck up to the unions, so Biden has to step up his game.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/09/17/uaw-auto-strike-joe-biden-union/70884657007/

This is less about Biden coming to his senses, at the end of the day, Biden does what is politically viable and smart for him. Sure, maybe he has become more progressive, but I think this has more to do with the UAW new militant approach.

And one important thing, which puts a lot of pressure on Biden, is that the UAW has recently always endorsed the democrats, but they now have withheld endorsment for Biden until “he has earned it” and “prooves his solidarity with the working class, not the billionaire class”.

And Trump is also trying to pander to the union, so Biden is in a lot of pressure to gain the union’s endorsment.

Temporararily is the keywprd here…

It’s similar to commercials and ads. Everyone thinks they are not affected by such things, but pretty much everyone is affected by them on a subconscious level. Why would companies such as coca cola spend millions of dollars on advertisements? After all, virtually everyone already knows what coca cola is.

Shock sites always had trouble with the law, which is why most of them have shut down by now and most social media sites remove it. Watching/consuming it is one thing, publicly and openly sharing/promoting it without effectively restricting access to minors will always bring legal issues and legal attacks… And even when the legal charges are fought successfully, it’s still a major pain in the ass most people don’t want to deal with… And then you also have to find ISP’s and hosters who are willing to host this kind of material.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten.com#Legal_disputes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestgore.com#Corruption_of_morals_charge

https://www.dw.com/de/gewaltvideos-im-netz-was-strafrechtlich-erlaubt-ist/a-49871305

https://www.skppsc.ch/de/gewaltvideos-und-illegale-pornografie-auf-smartphones/

She called her “a little b*tch”.

I don’t think there is any “brigading” going on here… Just to be clear what brigading actually is:

On reddit, there was a time when there were coordinated and organised efforts to “invade” another communities. For example, there were threads on 4Chan where users linked to subreddits or posts with the aim of having a bunch of users post similar stuff at the same time.

There was also brigading within reddit when one sub would make a post where they coordinate users to post specific comments in specific threads or post similar stuff in a specific subreddit.

As far as I can tell, that’s not what is happening here… There is no coordinated group effort here, it’s just that the vast majority of users on lemmy are not conservatives.

Rechtsextremisten und Nazis sind in Deutschland ganz normal. Wieder.

Rassismus, sexismus, homophobie, Fremdenfeindlichkeit, etc. waren schon immer zu einem grossen Grad “normal”… Nicht nur in Deutschland, sondern weltweit. Da hat sich nicht allzuviel geändert und wenn, dann eher in die Richtung der Akzeptanz…

Ist jetzt wieder Definitionssache, aber das sind ja auch nicht nur Eigenschaften von Nazis. Das zieht sich durch die ganze Gesellschaft und lauert oftmals auch auf subtileren Ebenen.

Darum nochmals die Frage: Woher kommt der Erfolg der AFD? Wieso hatte die NPD nie so einen Erfolg? Was hat sich geändert? Das muss man doch anschauen, um die Lage anzupacken… Einfach zu sagen “Rechstextremismus ist halt wieder normal” bringt doch nichts…

Ich finde, dass “sich nicht mit den Positionen auseinandersetzen” kein Argument gegen den persönlichen Rechtsextremismus der Wähler ist.

Aber mir geht es nicht darum zu diskutieren, ob wir AFD Wähler nun als Rechtsextreme bezeichnen sollen oder nicht. Ich finde es gibt durchaus gute Argument Menschen, welche eine Rechtsextreme Partei wählen, als Rechtsextrem zu bezeichnen…

Mir geht es darum herauszufinden, wie die AFD gestoppt werden kann… Das ist doch letztendlich das Wichtigste an der ganzen Sache… Und ein Phenomen welches man unbedingt beachten muss ist dass die AFD Wähler anlocken kann, welche traditionell nicht in die klassische Neo-Nazi Szene passen.

Wenn man also sagt “Alle AFD Wähler sind Rechtsextrem” dann finde ich durchaus, dass diese Aussage nicht per se falsch ist. Das Problem an der Aussage ist mehr, dass sie andeutet, dass alle AFD Wähler den gleichen Hintergrund und die gleiche Motive haben, wieso sie AFD wählen.

Und ja, wer dann diese Partei wählt, wissend, dass es eine Nazipartei ist und hoffend, dass es ihm unter Nazis besser geht als aktuell ist dann schlichtweg auch rechtsextrem.

Wie gesagt, es gibt Menschen die AFD wählen und diesen “Nazi Narritiv” komplett ablehnen. Klar wissen die, dass Menschen die AFD als Nazipartei identifizieren, aber “das sind die Linken und rivale Politiker, die den Erfolg der AFD stoppen wollen und somit die AFD anschwärzen”.

Unterschätze niemals die Fähigkeit des Menschen, sich selbst zu belügen und eine komplett erfundene Realität aufzubauen.

Entweder wir gestehen ihnen die Verantwortung zu

Natürlich gestehen wir ihnen die Verwantwortung zu… Es geht mir nicht darum, irgendjemand als unschuldig darzustellen… Aber nochmals, es geht doch darum, den Erfolg der AFD aufzuhalten… Und dafür muss man zuerst herausfinden, wieso Wähler zur AFD wandern… Klar kann man sagen “weil sie rassistisch sind” und nochmals, das ist ja nicht unwahr… Aber da muss man doch etwas genauer hinschauen, ist ja nicht so als ob Rassismus vor 20 Jahren kein Thema war…

Und es ist ja kein Zufall, dass gerade in den Gebieten mit hohen Wahlergebnissen für die AfD rechtsextreme Überfälle besonders häufig sind.

Natürlich ist es kein Zufall, die AFD ist ja eine Rechtsextreme Partei…

Und wer dann nicht eins und eins zusammenzählt, dem muss man es dann nochmal deutlich sagen, wer und was er ist.

Wie bereits erwähnt, du unterschätzt die Fähigkeit des Menschen, die Realität zu verdrängen und sich einfach eine angenehmere Realität aufzubauen. Und glaubst du ernsthaft dass AFD Wähler als Nazis zu bezeichnen sie zur Vernunft bringt?

Das sieht man z.B. auch im Jugendstrafrecht, wo es wichtig ist Straftätern frühzeitig klarzumachen was ihre Taten über sie und ihren Platz in der Gesellschaft aussagen. Der Samthandschuh hringt da nichts

Ja und das macht man, indem man sie als Nazis bezeichnet? Ernsthaft? Ist das deine Idee von “Hart durchgreifen”?

But I’d think recovering nazis are frequently “people who say some anti-semitic stuff sometimes.”

Sure, or racist stuff. But antisemitism, racism and sexism are unfortunately not just limited to nazis, there are plenty of other people who say anti semitic, racist, homophobic and sexist stuff.

And I don’t like it when people call all racists nazis because in my view, a Nazi is a specific and extreme version of racist. And of course all forms of racism are bad, but some are way way worse than others.

Probably neither:

“I think the way she referred to a fellow member was probably not the way we expect our members to refer to other fellow, especially female, members,” Harris told Politico, referring to Greene’s profane exchange with Boebert.

“I think the straw that broke the camel’s back was publicly saying things about another member in terms that no one should.”