Exactly! I also haven’t bought more than ten items from Walmart in the last fifteen years.

It can cost a little more, and requires patience, but I can think of very few times I’ve actually needed (versus wanted) some item before I could get it not via Amazon or Walmart. Even with the added expense for some individual items I’d wager I’ve spent less overall since it makes impulse purchases easier to avoid.

It’s probably not amounting to much in the way of resisting these mega corps, but it isn’t as difficult as some folks imagine.

Outer Wilds gave me that sensation

We could also achieve universal peace if everyone just threw down their weapons, and no one would go hungry if everyone would stop being greedy. Unfortunately, people aren’t rational, and there’s cultural/social constructs that keep these things from happening.

If we want to change them for the better, we unfortunately have to operate within the constraints we’re faced with. We can change those constraints with hard work, but can’t just act as if those constraints don’t exist. It’s the same way folks pretend that being “color blind” re: racial issues will solve things. Would be great, but sadly plenty of folks are incapable of not being racist, and historical harms mean that we can’t just pretend that perception is the only problem.

Have you tried seeing if any sugary snack give you the same effect? Sounds like the effects of a dip in blood sugar.

The point folks are making is that Stardew was finished on release, it’s just that the developer has the passion and financial ability to continue to improve it.

If it was 1994, maybe the game would have been released on a cartridge and never changed for myriad reasons (publishing rights, being on physical media, etc).

Example: Super Metroid was one of the best games ever made, and was complete when it was released, but you better believe I’d take free updates that further improve on it. There’s always improvements to make, because nothing can really be perfect. Those hypothetical updates wouldn’t retroactively make it an incomplete game. Maybe it’s too a subtle philosophical point

I truly don’t understand your reasoning here. I’m not trying to be antagonistic, I just simply don’t get it. Even if the parties were functionally equivalent, wouldn’t a better treatment of folks domestically be a better option than changing nothing? It seems like functionally abstaining from voting is saying that some kind of protest vote is more important than the treatment of folks who are being demonized by the far right…or more important than people’s access to abortion and proper medical care…or even shitty attempts at combating climate change.

You claim that voting for the Democrats is inflicting genocide on Palestinians to save one’s own skin.

I’m going to say that not voting, or voting for a candidate that has absolutely no chance of winning, is inflicting genocide on Palestinians and folks domestically.

It absolutely pains my bleeding heart that the DNC is so deeply corrupt and shitty, and way too happy to bomb civilians abroad. Absolutely despicable.

The GOP is worse. The GOP is also worse on the domestic front.

Trump has literally said that Israel should “finish the job”. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-criticized-palestinian-insult-debate-with-biden-2024-06-28/

So yeah…it’s morally compromising to vote for the DNC candidates for any number of reasons, but until the way we vote changes in the USA, it’s the least worst option when it comes to voting. It also does not preclude us from trying to change the system outside of voting. It doesn’t stop protesting, or mutual aid or other actions.

TLDR: It’s just the trolley problem, and call me a maniac, but if I can press a button that saves even one life, even if it makes me feel slightly morally complicit in the deaths of others, then shit…I consider it the price of being human in the world we’re shackled to.

For my bills? I do have student debt, but have a job that pays well enough I don’t have to stress about it. I do worry about others that aren’t as fortunate.

And if we can’t afford either, why are you arguing it should be free? If you’re saying you want something that you’re also saying is impossible, why not champion two impossible things?

Good luck trying to articulate your thoughts and positions in the future, because you’ve failed to do so thus far, and I’ve exhausted my patience…so I’m gonna bounce

Making it free for everyone is excellent, specifically because it removes the potential of “the consequences for the choice” of taking out loans.

If you’re operating under the assumption that we can only do one or the other, sure: free going forward is better. I just think that we need to make it retroactively free, too.

You’re not explaining why you think that, beyond wanting to punish people for taking out loans.

Your position is inconsistent, because you’re arguing they shouldn’t have needed to take out those loans.

Again: you’re saying people made mistakes, but I don’t think that’s precisely the case. The majority of student debt isn’t because of people going to incredibly expensive schools for useless majors, you know.

So free University only for majors you deem worthy? Or only for profit minded disciplines? MBAs yes, but art history no?

Besides, economic desperation makes people make poor choices, and I’d wager that most people taking on debt for education don’t consider it a poor choice. Often higher education is key to economic success, but given tumultuous economic conditions in the past decades…things haven’t panned out for everyone, which makes those decisions look worse in hindsight.

You can’t claim everyone with student loan debt has it because they’re a worthless hippie art student. The increase in the number of bachelor’s degrees made it more competitive to get jobs requiring those degrees, meaning people need to get them just to compete…so people wind up shackled with debt.

It’s free to be sympathetic to people who are in a tough situation, even if they bear some responsibility for it. We all do.

But…if you think free public university is a good thing…isn’t not giving loan forgiveness analogous to saying “folks should stay in jail for trumped up marijuana charges until it’s legal Federally”? IMHO people shouldn’t have these loans in the first place.

If we can’t afford loan forgiveness, we can’t afford free public university. We can simultaneously fix the problems of the past while trying to improve things for the future.

Nowhere in my comment did I suggest that, because it would be a silly way to deal with such a big problem. It takes a lot of training to help people in crisis, and a lot of infrastructure to get people on their feet.

It’s not your responsibility alone, it’s not my responsibility alone. If you’d like to discuss any of the points I actually made, great. Otherwise you can try to oversimplify the discussion and I won’t respond anymore

What if the road to becoming “functional” requires, at least in a plurality of cases, help from those that can afford it?

That “free shit” might be what helps them turn their life around. Do you think they have a better chance to improve their station in life if they don’t have access to support from the public?

I wholly reject that it’s somehow dehumanizing to give folks food and shelter during the worst moments in their lives.

Yep: we already saw how his placation of Putin likely led to the invasion of Ukraine, and his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel for sure pumped up Netanyahu and his coalition.

Yeah: gotta be crisis actors, if Alex Jones taught us anything, right?

There’s a podcast called Behind the Bastards, Robert Evans is the host. Podcast about terrible people in history, Evans and guests have left wing politics and “crude” humor…it’s awesome

I don’t think it does much, but any tiny contribution to the fight against climate change is a good for the world, as is any slowing of the erosion of civil rights domestically, gutting of what remains of medicare/medicaid, etc.

I also know a GOP administration will be worse in terms of fighting against leftist movements in the streets, if only slightly. They’re definitely worse re: labor movements overall, again: even if only marginally.

So I’m not going to claim it’s a panacea, or even someone that will have notable effects, but I do think it matters at the margins, so the effort required is usually worth it, IMHO

Voting for the slightly less shit option makes it easier for the things we do in parallel to have a positive impact: direct action doesn’t get slowed down much by voting once a year or so.