I mean if you're talking about this version of capitalism, sure. But capitalism is more than one thing. These monolithic ideas that you are either capitalist or socialist or something else really downgrades the debate.

I have no love for what we have today. But there's a version of capitalism I could live with - it's just a far cry from what we have.

These overly simplistic memes don't do any favors, in my opinion. Saying if you believe in capitalism you are right wing is more alienating than galvanizing, and it reduces so many concepts down to such basic ones that there's no real meaning left.

It doesn't even seem current proof lol

I think concern is placed on the wrong end, at least in terms of criticality.

I am less concerned about "maximums" right now. I know that's going to set off all kinds of alarm bells right now, but bear with me.

The two are intertwined for sure, but I'm mostly concerned with "minimums". If we had a society with Universal Basic Income, housing and Healthcare for everyone, and people had a safety net to pursue their passions, then I'm far less concerned about if someone has a billion dollars.

Again, they are both part of the same problem, but it's the focus. If billionaires were no longer allowed, and the money was re distributed amount people with 9 figure net worth already, it doesn't solve anything.

So yeah if people have the mobility to move from jobs, housing and Healthcare taken care of, and their basic needs met, I think it solves a lot of labor exploitation right away.

From there we can continue the debate, but I'm more concerned about taking care of everyone who is closer to the floor then worrying about the ceiling. I think there are capitalist ways that continue to reward actual breakthroughs and risks rather than the exploitation we have now.

Got it, apologies on the typo and subsequent misunderstanding.

I think we're both after the same thing - I guess I'm just trying to get the safety net before attacking the "top" of what is reasonable.

And I'm kind of OK with a nearly infinite top... As long as the tax rate makes sense. If you're at a 95% tax rate (and loopholes aren't rampant... Lot of ifs here) then go nuts. You'll be supplying a good life for many people, by force, as a result of good taxes and public policy.

Yes, the disparity is the problem. But it needs to actually be spread out. Things like universal health care do that inherently if they properly raise taxes on the rich.

Redistributing wealth from the top 0.1% to the top 1% doesn't accomplish anything meaningful.

And yes, paying for it will come from taxing the rich. None of that has to do with capitalism exclusively.

I feel like we're after the same thing but you're more interested in attacking my idea than building something together or proposing something different. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but your questions are quite loaded and you didn't offer anything of substance yourself. The only thing you didn't deflect back to me was saying "the disparity is the problem", and that is precisely the point I was making. I'm specifically pointing out that it's about the full disparity.

Yeah this has since been deleted because he didn't agree to that caption at all. Dude was just trying to be nice and take a picture.

You can dislike his last stand up special, but I don't think any part of it could be misconstrued to the point where he was saying there are only two genders or trans people don't exist.

I think these hard line stances do more harm than good.

My wife and I are active in not supporting any new things, but to talk about how you think it's morally wrong to even talk about the franchise is going to alienate a ton of people.

I feel fine talking about it, and the memories I had with it. Because everyone I surround myself with is completely aligned that Harry Potter was meaningful when we were kids and also JK Rowling is a complete fucking asshat.

This sort of purity testing has got to stop. If mentioning the name of Harry Potter marks someone as a transphobe who is equally as bad as politicians actively stripping them of their rights... The movement will never build a coalition.

Saying that financially supporting JK Rowling is actively harming the trans community is a reasonable argument. Saying that talking about Harry Potter, even if you note that JK Rowling sucks, makes you an outright transphobe is not reasonable to me.

I cried a lot watching this. Jon just laid it all out there. Tough to do. Really important for people to see. Never a bad reminder that vulnerability makes you strong, not weak.

For sure... But $0 a month isn't going to buy much protein either

Adding thousands of levels for 1 whale is unlikely to be profitable. That's a lot of development cost for content that likely won't be seen. Pointing to other games by the same studio is a much better idea if you can get them to make the transition.

I mean I'm with you but don't say a full 10 seconds. That's easily contradicted by the video. You're right on all the other points, but exaggerating the time like that really harms the point you are making.

Yeah... unless you pay Google. Then they hand deliver "promoted" emails which somehow always fill the top few slots in my email. Funny how that works.

Alright... Nuance time. Everyone please stick with me.

I don't like Rodgers, but this is kind of a dumb headline. THIS IS NOT A DEFENSE OF RODGERS. I think what he's saying is that the "pandemic response" was the thing manufactured, not the virus itself. I think people are misreading it, because I don't think I really see how he's saying they manufactured the virus. THIS IS NOT A DEFENSE OF RODGERS. Like the government gave all this money and tried to make people reliant on the government to save them, which has been his whole position with COVID.

It's still flatly wrong. But borderline purposeful misreadings like this only embolden Rodgers and others, because it's inaccurate, and people are attacking something he didn't say. And this gives him more of a platform because people are talking about it again.

If you're going to criticize someone, it's important to be accurate and understand what they're saying, so you can appropriately shut them the fuck up with the right facts.

One more time, THIS IS NOT A DEFENSE OF RODGERS.

To be fair, there's a difference between inherent risk and MURDER. I mean forest logging or working on a oil rig are dangerous, but if someone showed up and shot somebody it's not like you'd be like we'll it was a risky job...

Time for the ol XKCD Little Bobby Tables attack

He might be the right pick. I'm interested to see how he does. I love the other hosts, but a lot of them fall into the format of the show too much. It's like punchy section headlines and clear setups and punchlines. The delivery sounds like a talk show host reading a joke from writers if that makes sense.

Jon Stewart was always a master of weaving it all together. Josh Johnson is much more in that camp. His stand up, which he has a new 30-45 minutes every week, is pretty crazy. While it's more rambling than would work on the Daily Show, he does have a good ability to drive the underlying point home in a very unique way.

Might work, might not, but excited to see him get some at-bats.

The saddest part is that this would amount to the biggest change they've made to Madden in years

This isn't really true in this election. Usual caveats, I'm voting blue and all that.

But likely voter polls favor Biden more than registered voters. There's straight up not a linear regression of people voting to democratic winners like this presents. It's bad statistics.

People who don't pay attention to politics at all are more likely to vote for Trump. I think that makes a lot of sense. People who pay attention aren't as likely to vote for him as people who don't really follow.

I don't like most of the responses here so I'm offer my own. Love is not found it is built.

My wife and I got married young. I'm 34 and I'll be celebrating my 9th anniversary in under a week.

Love is where all those things come together. We have the deepest friendship. We're weird in the same ways and we've basically developed our own brand of humor. I can make my wife laugh literally with a look.

Love is also a commitment to never, ever bail. It's unlike anything else. With friends, you still try to be good company or you wouldn't tell them the deep thoughts. But my wife and I can share anything. We're so intertwined that there's more understanding than judgment. We can say things we don't like about people, about the world, about ourselves. We can be truly vulnerable.

We didn't find love, we built it. From 25 to 34 I'm a phenomenally different person, but we're like two planets oscillating around each other. Our orbit influences the other, and vice versa. We never would have been these people if we weren't together. With most friends I feel like they may have some influence... But in marriage it's just undeniable.

It's a truly unique thing. But I will say I couldn't understand it until I had it. And I still don't. Dating for 4 years wasn't the same as marriage after 1 which wasn't the same as marriage after 5 and that's not the same as it is now after almost 9 years. It's always growing, always deepening, and it's just insanely personal at a very deep level.

I would love to see more intelligent conversation around this topic.

There's absolutely rock solid research that money contributes happiness to a point (I think it's $75k household income per year, but that's likely outdated now).

Beyond that, it's not a key differentiator. People take the second half and generalize it, which is incorrect.

Change the narrative. Once people are paid a fair living wage, incremental happiness comes primarily from other places. But until that point, money absolutely brings happiness.