aski3252

defended his going to Epstein's island.

Wait a second, are you just going to drop that without any further elaboration or source?

As far as I was aware, he knew him and he met with him a couple of times. His reaction to getting asked about it wasn't that great, but him "going to Epstein island" is a bit on another level, no?

It’s not going to work

Of course it would, at least for some of them.. You can't seriously believe that people cannot change their minds, especially conservatives, who often only have their views because of living in a bubble.

whose purpose is to convert us from our “ways”

Let them try. Let them actually lay out and present their twisted worldview. And if you don't want to see it or hear about it, fine, block their space. It's much more likely that they will change than it is for a leftist to change because the vast majority of leftists are actually familiar with the right and their believes. The other way around is generally a different story..

Although there are exceptional cases such as Germany's, where large enough companies must assign a percentage of the BoD positions

Codetermination/worker representation is a thing in some countries, but with the exception of Germany, it's not half of the BoD.

I'd probably put Sanders left of plenty of European social-democratic parties

I'm sure there are members of social democratic politicians who are as left wing or even more left wing than Bernie. I think if he was European, he would be in the left wing of a social democratic party. But what many people don't seem to want to realize is that we aren't living in the 70s anymore.. Europe might have some remains of social democratic elements left, but barely..

And it certainly isn't "standard governmental procedure". And I do wish Bernies policies were the norm in Europe, but they simply aren't..

The comment wasn't about whether worker councils are a thing or not, the comment was about Sander's policies being "standard govermental procedure" in Europe.. They aren't.. I wish they were, but they aren't, and I don't understand how denying reality is in any way helpful..

So in Europe, it is standard govermental procedere to transfer 20% ownership of big corporations to employees? It is standard govermental procedere to have 45% of BoD elected by workers? Are you sure about that?

Also, most workers are so deeply alienated because they know that they aren't working for themselves, they are working for someone else. Which is why most people simply stop giving a fuck at some point.

There is so much inefficiency because most who do the actual work don't have much motivation to do a decent job, yet alone think about what they are doing because you simply get punished, or at least don't get any reward, for thinking. And they people who (should) do the thinking often don't have a clue as they live in a bubble.

And of course there is all the bullshit about shipping stuff across the world to do different stuff when it is completely unnecessesary..

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.

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".