I am what the Americans consider VERY far left (A centrist by European standards), and I, for the most part, agree with the idea that the issue is not one of access to firearms necessarily, but of a cultural problem
But what’s the cultural problem? Could it be the gun fetishization we have (perpetuated by conservatives)? Perhaps its roots go in further back, to our founding as a nation built on a violent rebellion. Maybe it’s even further back then that, developed from a puritan heritage
I agree it’s a cultural issue, but where we’re gonna disagree is that the culture that promotes this degree of gun violence is one that loves guns so much it absolutely refuses to try and take any steps to fix the issue. The people who love guns the most, who want that shit on all their media, is conservatives
Besides that, I’d call America a uniquely desperate place. We are taught to believe this country is great and incredible and can do no wrong, but for all its affluence, everything is expensive as shit, we are always just a missed paycheck away from homelessness, medical issues, psychological problems. The cultural issue here is that America doesn’t care about its people; It cares about its companies. Most conservatives would probably side with the working man over the business suit, but it is the Republican party that overwhelmingly supports the rights of big businesses over the actual working people. I’ve seen the country described as a 3rd world country wearing a Gucci belt. The cultural problem is in this dissonance of swearing we’re in a good spot when we’re actually not
Furthermore, you don’t actually know what leftists want in regards to gun control, since you’ve likely heard a lot of it from right-leaning sources. The idea that we want some “abolish all guns” thing is a strawman. I believe that people should be able to own guns. I believe that other countries have gun ownership, and like their guns, and don’t have the issues we have. We vary quite a bit from people who want stricter stuff, to people who want lighter stuff. People who say ex-cons shouldn’t have guns, to people saying you can’t take away rights from criminals because it incentivizes political jailing (If you don’t want your opposition to own guns, arrest them). I personally believe that gun ownership should be relatively lax in terms of what you can get, but that they should have very stringent requirements
Really, the complicated web of cultural issues would require a whole book in order to cover, so I’d just leave it at that. A complicated tapestry of religious, historical, and sociological factors that contribute to our peculiar brand of gun violence, and this course must change. “Copycatism” doesn’t just exist in a vacuum. We cannot stay the course–we cannot conserve the course. We must alter American culture fundamentally, and that is exactly what conservativism inherently and necessarily opposes
My issue is that Disney should then not have its own streaming platform, and that, yeah, Netflix shouldn’t make its own shows
Now as for the videogame comparison, I’ve heard it before, but developing for different consoles is not the same. Making a game for switch hardware, and for xbox hardware requires multiple versions of the game. You don’t film multiple versions of a movie for different platforms. It’s part of why I don’t think all games should be available on all platforms. I believe that they shouldn’t have to be on all platforms, and that it should be up to developers which consoles to make games for, but yeah, that means that there are gonna be exclusivity deals. Would be nice to avoid, so that if Fromsoft decides to make BB2, they have the free reign to make it for PC, but my point is that game development is more complicated than movie streaming
Anyway, yeah, I think Disney+ can go fuck itself right back from the muck it crawled out of, and that Netflix has to stop making its own stuff (Or allow competitors to use it)
I mean, yeah. If I can watch Cartoon Network regardless of my cable provider, then I’m choosing them based on how well they provide for me that cable. They do good work, get reliable cables, fix outages quickly, are affordable, fucking great
This is rooted in the early days of cinema, in which theaters were also owned by the studios, and so would only show the stuff the studio produced. Was gonna go into it in my comment, but decided against it to keep it short. Another commenter also mentioned it, and that’s pretty much what I’m proposing. I’m suggesting specifically that they have to show everything in order to also avoid exclusivity deals. Part of that, though, would also be to just not let Netflix produce its own content, but if it didn’t, you’d be able to watch it on amazon anyway
A streaming service’s product is the service of streaming stuff to you. It’s not a studio. Studios make those products. The streaming services give you a platform to watch them. Their product is their website
Well my point is they wouldn’t be subscribed to all the services. They’d pick one. You wanna watch “Show A”. None of these platforms are allowed to have exclusivity rights to it. So do you choose Netflix? Hulu? Amazon? It’s up to you, since you don’t have to choose only the one that has it. Now your decision to give money to Netflix, for example, is based on the fact that the service they’re providing–UI, ease of access, streaming speed–instead of them being the only ones who have “Show A”
I’m monogamous myself, but personally know two different polyamorous relationships. 1 is pretty damn good, and the other is rife with drama. Besides that, I tangentially know of others, and all of those are rough, though since I’m hearing of these from mutual friends and acquaintances, I could just be getting the juicy drama and none of the good parts. Could very well be that my info on those are bad
It does seem to mirror the general expectation, though, that most are unstable, and I wouldn’t call it surprising. Relationships are complicated, and anything that has more moving parts is going to be more complicated. I’m not trying to suggest here that monogamy is the way to go by any means–different people have different wants and needs, and some people are just good for polyamory. I just think that a working arrangement like this is tough to pull off
Besides, this gets asked a lot about polyamorous relationships, but there are so many fucked heteronormative relationships, and you never see the argument that monogamy is wrong, so yeah. Just whatever makes you happy
Yeah, I just think the poly relationship has more places where things can go wrong. In a monogamous one, you need to two people who like each other and are compatible. In a poly, even with only 3 people, you need A and B to be compatible, A and C, and C and B. Adding one extra person into the mix complicates the relationship 3-fold depending on the nature of those relationships. They don’t all have to be in a relationship with one another, but you’re still adding more avenues for drama and collapse in one relationship, not to mention how one relationship could impact the other. If A is having drama with C, the frustration of that failing connection could also impact their relationship with B. I think it’s easier to fail not by any sort of moral failing of polyamorous people, only that the nature of those relationships is inherently less stable through its myriad of moving parts
But there is for sure an element of bias, where heteronormativity gets a pass for being the standard