It's worth keeping in mind that the "market" for a particular player can actually be incredibly small depending on their interests. In the most extreme example, a player might be a fan specifically of a single IP or series of games. Call of duty is one good example because there really are a lot of people who are like this. Video game IPs are a government granted monopoly on a small scale, and the word monopoly is not there for no reason, there is only one place to get CoD if you are a fan of CoD. Predictably, these companies follow the OA's suggested strategy very closely!
It is a valid concern as to why companies don't do this already. In the face of the legal requirements the initiative is attempting to establish, however, the IP problem would be pretty easily resolved, as companies that sold their server libraries/services with a prohibition on redistribution would either need to change those licenses, or lose customers who want to be able to sell in Europe.
How so? Or, more specifically, what method of action are you predicting will produce those outcomes?
From my observation, smaller studios are vastly more likely than larger ones to already be in compliance with this initiative's requests: It's not the giant, AAA games that are having community servers or peer-to-peer networking. Companies that are doing that already have to change nothing to be in compliance.
Studios that have private, monopolized backends merely need to release their server binaries at the end of life. That's not a significant expense, either (you already have access to file distribution in order to distribute your client in the first place). Assuming that the studio is paying directly for file distribution (not the case for most), and that the server binaries are 100 GB (an obscene over-estimate), and that every single user downloads the server files, you're looking at a couple of cents or so a user. Which again, smaller studios don't pay for file distribution, that's coming out of the platform fees that you're already paying.
The only hard and fast, "this might cost us money" position I can point to is the large studios that release franchises lose the ability to use cutting off people's access to previous games in a series as a motivator to purchase newer ones in the series. And that's an ability exclusively available to massive studios that put out entire franchises of games.
That does happen a lot. They get licenses to use but not distribute software for example. Servers are hard so it makes sense they'd want to buy rather than build.
It's the same reason most games aren't open sourced when their commercial viability ends: lots of third party software with no public source.
This didn't happen because redhat/ibm/microsoft took control of the project and decided they wanted to kill it. They have said this directly on social media that this is their explicit goal so it's not as if this is a conspiracy of some sort, it's just their publicly stated goal. They then deliberately stopped merging changes and left it to rot until the contributors got frustrated enough to fork it.
Now a massive gamergate-esque coordinated character assassination campaign against the creator of xlibre is ongoing even from publications that have many previous articles praising the same contributor at length. Corporate control of open source is very dangerous to the ecosystem as they also fund the "journalists" writing these articles who are willing to defend every decision they make.
Why would Microsoft want to kill X? It kept back the Linux desktop.
> Now a massive gamergate-esque coordinated character assassination campaign against the creator of xlibre is ongoing even from publications that have many previous articles praising the same contributor at length
Half the drama is the Xlibre guy involving politics
the xlibre guy said "no dei" in a fork that is separating from a company embroiled in racist discrimination lawsuits for using DEI to hurt real people.
Is that really involving politics? In a way it is, sure, but again, unlike red hat, IBM and friends, he has pledged not to discriminate against contributors on the basis of politics. Red hat and IBM openly continue to discriminate against contributors and employees on not only the basis of politics but skin color as well. They wield their CoC like a cudgel to get rid of anyone they don't like with no semblance of fair enforcement. It's a series of struggle sessions, man.
So, if you're accusing him of being political, but you're not accusing red hat of being political, you're probably not really accusing him of being political, you're probably just either woefully misinformed or outright racist.
Can you explain why you think someone who pledges not to discriminate against people for politics (while forking from a corp that does, it's not just a random comment, it's part of the reason a fork is needed) is more political than a company that actively discriminates against people for politics and also their skin color?
He invoked controversial right-wing populist slogans in the project README. Yes, that is involving politics, and doing so in a way that is guaranteed to put a lot of people off.
He can be political even in ways people finds offensive, and still have people prepared to still engage with his projects, but he can't do that within the project and expect people to ignore it. It's his choice. He appears to have chosen to double down on being controversial and driving people away from the project.
> why you think someone who pledges not to discriminate against people for politics
The "no DEI" bit is a common "slogan" from people who by many are seen to want to ignore discrimination and pretend it isn't a problem, often because they are seen as quite happy for discrimination to continue. As such, to a lot of people when someone makes a claim like that adjacent to claiming not to want to discriminate, it rings hollow, and in fact often signals to them that the person using that language is likely to either be a racist or is fine with racists.
You don't need to agree with those views. You're free to find that interpretation ridiculous or offensive. But when you try to defend this project, you ought to at least understand that this is how it gets interpreted by a lot of people, and this is why the project is mired in controversy, and will remain mired in controversy as long as the project presents itself in this way.
If his intent seriously is to genuinely not discriminate, then his choice of working is exceedingly poor and shows a lack of understanding of the politics involved.
He has now had plenty of opportunity to read reactions to it, and has still chosen to leave that language in place. To me, that is strongly negative signal - either he doesn't care about the reaction, or is being stubborn and willing to push people away, or he's fine with people seeing him that way. Either way, it's not going to do anything good for this project.
> The "no DEI" bit is a common "slogan" from people who by many are seen to want to ignore discrimination and pretend it isn't a problem, often because they are seen as quite happy for discrimination to continue. As such, to a lot of people when someone makes a claim like that adjacent to claiming not to want to discriminate, it rings hollow, and in fact often signals to them that the person using that language is likely to either be a racist or is fine with racists.
This very accurately describes the pro-dei faction, i'm not sure why you'd associate that with the anti-dei faction. You know, active lawsuits and real individual examples of people being harmed by ongoing discrimination are pretty solid evidence. In the end there's only people who are for prejudiced discrimination and people against prejudiced discrimination. I don't care which flavor you have but right now the truth is Xlibre is against it and red hat is for it. Anything else simply isn't aligned with reality.
I guess it just comes down to there being a lot of insane racist people in tech right now who view any opposition to their provable-in-the-courts racism as working against their broader ideological goals and therefore a valid target for attacks on every front. Very odd and unhealthy for open source. Hopefully these people get some of their own medicine.
It's irrelevant whether we agree on which faction the characteristics applies to. All that is relevant is that bringing this up in the README and elsewhere the way that he has is seen that way and seen as highly political and offensive by a lot of people.
He has chosen to make this into a political project that pushes away a lot of people who see his language as indicative of a dicriminatory attitudes rather than one focused on the technical merits.
That's his choice. I for one won't get involved with a project like that, and clearly that is the case for a lot of other people too.
> Now a massive gamergate-esque coordinated character assassination campaign against the creator of xlibre
Sigh. People repeating absolutely batshit things people say right back to them is not character assassination.
If you want to talk about anti-woke this Make X11 Great Again that then go for it. But you sound crazy. Okay? You sound like there's something wrong with you. So when people are off-put by this super weird and unnecessary politicization that's your problem.
It is not cancel culture. If you don't want to be accountable for the things you've said then I don't know what to tell you. That's not compatible with our current reality, so until inter-dimensional travel is invented, you're gonna be in for a rough ride.
It absolutely is character assassination in the context of what's been happening. News sites that have praised the xlibre author for countless articles are suddenly doing a 180 because the people who pay their bills are the same people running wayland and embroiled in anti discrimination lawsuits for abusing DEI to hurt people.
That you care more about "make x11 great again" more than red hat and IBM perpetrating actual cases of racist discrimination tells me a lot about you. You're either in an echo chamber and do not have all the information or are deliberately choosing to ignore it. Either way you aren't in the morally just position you think you are.
It's not about being morally just, it's about taking accountability for the things you say.
Everyone is allowed to say off-putting things. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that making politically-charged statements might make people a bit weary of your project. That's his prerogative - but, it's not character assassination to repeat words back to people. I'm very tired of pretending it is. I find it incredibly immature when people want to play victim for being portrayed how they themselves seemingly want to be portrayed. You want to be politically charged? Bon apetite.
"repeat words back to people" isn't the problem here though anyways, it's dishonest to pretend that's what matters here. not the mass bans, censorship, one sided articles, misinformational misinterpretations, zero acknowledgement about faces, and the insane double standards where on one side you have a guy who is "political" by saying he's anti dei and welcomes everyone of various politics and identities, and on the other hand you have the DEI corporation currently embroiled in multiple lawsuits for discriminating against real people not just based on politics but their skin color. It's an insane double standard.
> one side you have a guy who is "political" by saying he's anti dei and welcomes everyone of various politics and identities
Yes, being anti-woke and pro-Trump is political. I'm sorry, it just very obviously is. It's not a double standard because it's the same standard.
Just like DEI might piss some people off, being a Trumpie might piss some people off. If you think that making anti-woke claims or MAGA references is apolitical I don't know what to tell you. Because it is, and I was under the impression everyone on Earth should be in a agreement on that.
DEI doesn't just "piss some people off", it's outright illegal discrimination and red hat's concequences are currently working their way through the court systems. This strange equivocation from things that are clearly on completely different levels is tiresome.
If you personally are one of these people who think hurting people with racial discrimination is on the same level as typing "Together we'll make X great again!" then you are likely very deep in ideological capture. Everyone regardless of political alignment who is a decent person should be able to see that one of these matters and the other does not.
You're applying a deeply partisan interpretation of DEI to imply a very specific set of policies that are not anywhere close to universally supported by proponents of DEI. That is the problem.
If you can't see why this gets interpreted as an extremist stance by a lot of people, then that is part of the problem.
As long as those statements are in the README, it's like a giant flashing red light that the project is toxic and extremely political and pushing an agenda seen as extreme right by a lot of people.
People are free to run their projects whichever way they want, but words have consequences, and we can see in this very threat how that wording is derailing this projects chances of being considered on its technical merits.
That specific set of policies is being specifically implemented by IBM/Red hat. It's not exactly a small niche company, and it is very obviously directly related to the situation and the need to fork. It's also not a partisan interpretation, it's the only objective legal interpretation. Objective truth exists despite your efforts to pretend otherwise. Yes, there are stupid ignorant people who will see the words "DEI bad" interpret it wrongly. But it doesn't make them correct.
> News sites that have praised the xlibre author for countless articles are suddenly doing a 180
Which news sites praised the xlibre author for posting anti-vaxx stuff the the linux kernel mailing list and now shun him for posting other conspiracy theories in xlibre's README?
He stated everyone was welcome regardless of their race or politics. This is only a strongly political stance if you contrast it with Red Hat, whose extremist, racist and illegal discriminatory policies they implemented under the banner of DEI now has them in hot water with 3x workplace discrimination lawsuits. Honestly i don't understand how people can call xlibre political but abide by red hat's active evil.
You left out that he contrasted this with DEI. That is a strongly political stance that to a lot of us is extreme. You're not convincing anyone here. If anything being defended with rants like this is likely to make people even more unwilling to consider this project. I certainly won't touch a project that attracts this kind of defence.
I directly mentioned DEI, obviously i didn't leave it out.
If you support red hat's DEI program then you are defending systematic discrimination on the basis of race and other immutable characteristics. This is an ultimately indefensible position, and one that will come back to bite you. There is nothing extreme about this position unless you are a racist extremist yourself.
You are as a human being morally bankrupt if you're willing to touch a company with multiple active discrimination lawsuits that has shown zero remorse or policy changes, but are pretending that someone mentioning DEI is a real problem (the tool which was used to implement that illegal discrimination, which he personally had to deal with.) People have an inalienable right to defend themselves in every case.
This is false, he we the sole person submitting large amounts of code for about a year and was widely praised, until he forked and red hat went nuclear on his account for opposing their corporate goals, he was not kicked out for bad changes or anything of the sort. Trying to revise history on this is malicious.
The people like OA are spreading misinformation because the developer stated everyone was welcome to contribute and would oppose excessive politics. Keep in mind red hat is currently getting sued 3x over for blatantly racist policies which they used to ban other contributors and forced on their managers, they are evil people.
This is pretty stupid, especially this will affect the smarter people who don't even make social media profiles to begin with! They'll get accused of lying for not having one, but they're really just smart enough to stay off facebook and twitter..
Uh, he has a detailed historical view of the forces that caused WW2 and argued that the rest of world powers at the time put germany in a position that was very likely to cause the second world war. woOoOo scary, the only allowed thought pattern is "ww2 germany bad" after all. If you want to debate him on details go ahead, but trying to use this as some kind of cancel-culture fodder is a waste of everyone's brain cells.
Character assassination campaigns like this are so pathetic on so many levels. What you are doing is already worse behavior than what you're trying to accuse him of.
And that you quoted him complaining about the russian developer bans is confusing. Why do you think "not wanting people banned by their country of origin" is a bad thing? What, are you racist?
The only people on character assassination campaigns here are literal Nazi followers rewriting the past trying to depict one of the worst genocide in modern history as an act of "peace." It's legitimate and inevitable that people judge you by your actions, all the more when it comes to what you choose to stand up for. Trying to call that "cancel culture" is just lazy and changes nothing. When someone stands up for Nazis or their defenders and that damages their reputation, that's on them.
Also, trolling LKML doesn't solve racism. Nor does having the Linux project violate sanctions.
Worth noting that denuvo causes a lot of hitching, massive load time increases and overall performance problems. Denuvo marketing dept likes to say this isn't true but you only have to look at the before/after on games with and without it, monster hunter world was a very stark example. I have no doubt denuvo is also massively contributing to the performance problems on Monster Hunter Wilds as well.
I think Denuvo impact on performance is as much exaggerated by gamers as it is downplayed by Denuvo.
I didn't play MH:World on PC but from what I have seen MH:Wilds suffers from piss-poor optimization that is unrelated to the (two!) DRM they have put in. It may be Denuvo, but from what I've seen, it is just the usual laziness that is prevalent in most AAA games today. Instead of spending the performance budget where it matters by having programmers collaborate with artists, they just throw everything at the engine which ends up overwhelmed and in turn throws everything to DLSS and framegen resulting in an ugly mess (but a raytraced ugly mess!) if you don't have the latest overpriced hardware.
And it may be the same problem with Denuvo. Denuvo doesn't have to cause massive performance problems, but developers have to implement it correctly, using license checks sparingly, and certainly not in performance-critical code.
Also note that when the publisher removes Denuvo, it may also come with other performance optimizations, not everything comes from the removal of Denuvo.
I don't think is exaggerated by gamers, if anything it's widely understated. The issue is that denuvo affects the 1% lows and latency much more than the average FPS. But the 1% lows and latency have an outsized effect on player experience, average framerate can be the same but if 1% lows and latency are miserable then you are playing a completely different game.
You are not wrong about the additional failure of AAA to keep their games optimized but the ways denuvo affects performance are particularly insidious.
Not going to take sides on the particular debate, but one could certainly argue that DRM is just a double-edge blade.
The world is less fun with less art and games. And those require money to be made. The cost of securing that or making legitimate purchases cheaper (broadening the legal market) may be the initial online requirement and potential performance impacts.
Again, I'm not saying Denuvo is or is not a net in one way or the other. Just that there is room for gray.
There are plenty of commercial games that make the development costs back without any use of DRM.
Also, art and games don't require money to be made. And I'd also argue that we don't actually need more games since we already have many - getting more is nice but we don't have to throw away our principles for it.
That's an extremely naive take that shows some stark ignorance of the tech and market forces at work.
From a tech standpoint, Denuvo negatively impacting performance has been debunked many times over (see my previous post about that).
On the economical side, you need to realize that whenever you are playing and enjoying a game, it's most likely due to the fact that the previous games sold by that developer have been successful in making money, which was most likely made possible by Denuvo.
In other words, making piracy harder allows the next generation of games to be created.
> On the economical side, you need to realize that whenever you are playing and enjoying a game, it's most likely due to the fact that the previous games sold by that developer have been successful in making money, which was most likely made possible by Denuvo.
>
> In other words, making piracy harder allows the next generation of games to be created.
That's an extremely bold claim. There are many games which are successful and don't use Denuvo. In fact I'm quite sure there are more successful games that don't use Denuvo, then those which use it - so I don't believe that "whenever [I'm] playing and enjoying a game" it was "most likely" created thanks to Denuvo.
And then there are people like me who simply refuse to play any game which uses Denuvo. There are thousands of excellent games out there, why should I waste time on those which treat me as a thief?
> I don't believe that "whenever [I'm] playing and enjoying a game" it was "most likely" created thanks to Denuvo
I never made that claim, please reread what I wrote, but here is my point again.
When you play a game from a publisher, they were able to create it because their previous games sold well. Therefore, anything that allows games to sell well is a positive for the entire gaming community, creators and players.
Denuvo is an important part of this picture, but it's obviously not the only one.
> And then there are people like me who simply refuse to play any game which uses Denuvo. There are thousands of excellent games out there, why should I waste time on those which treat me as a thief?
That's great, and I do that as well. And this is one of the reasons why Denuvo is not anti-user: everyone has the choice to not support it.
It's the truth standpoint. DRM is an overreaching preemptive policing, i.e. by its mere definition it's always aimed against the user, therefore it's always an anti-feature.
Things like fourth amendment exist for a simple reason that overreaching policing skews into being abusive. Police could always argue abusive policing "helps prevent crime" same as copyright maximalists could argue DRM "helps prevent piracy". But both would be invalid due to overreaching nature or such policing.
To put this concept into perspective. DRM runs on your personal device, in your personal digital space, for the benefit of someone who tries to police you, treating you as an a priory criminal. So conceptually it's not any better than what fourth amendment is aimed to prevent.
Excusing such concepts with "market forces" is simply cringe.
> by its mere definition it's always aimed against the user, therefore it's always an anti-feature.
Describing it as "anti user" is theoretically correct but practically incorrect. It's true that it might prevent mods and possible future uses if the servers go down, but in practice, users don't care, as is demonstrated by the fact that games that contain Denuvo routinely sell in the millions and users have no idea it's even there, and they will never know.
Overreaching?
I don't know. Companies put out a product, you're free not to buy it if you don't like it. That's one of the reasons why I call this natural market forces.
> So conceptually it's not any better than what fourth amendment is aimed to prevent.
That's a gross exaggeration. The Fourth amendment is about unreasonable searches by the government, I completely fail to see how willingly buying a digital product from non governmental organizations is connected to Fourth amendment in any rational way.
Again, at the end of the day, nobody forces you to buy that product, hence "natural market forces".
The fact that millions of these games are being bought every month tells me users don't feel that whatever flaws, perceived or real, Denuvo has matters less to them than playing these games.
Policing by some corpo isn't better than policing by the government. The basis of why overreaching policing is bad doesn't depend on it. Compare DRM to someone installing surveillance in your house to preemptively "stop any potential crimes" ... namely, by you. Are you going to be OK with that just because it's some corpo doing it and not the government?
You get the point of why the above is wrong. DRM is wrong exactly for the same reason. The ethical problem with DRM is that it invades your digital privacy based on presumption of guilt.
Whether users care or don't care doesn't really affect the concept. A lot of things in digital space are less tangible for people to care becasue they are clueless, which doesn't mean these things aren't as dangerous and damaging when abused.
And those are fundamental problems, before we even get to bad consequences that you mentioned, like DRM damaging digital preservation, losing access to your purchases and so on, which are bad too, but not on the level the above is bad.
So to sum it up, DRM is always anti user in many senses.
> Are you going to be OK with that just because it's some corpo doing it and not the government?
If I willingly let them in my home and I knew they were going to do that? I don't really have the option to complain, do I?
Your analogy doesn't make sense. People buy the game, Denuvo is clearly advertised on it. They have the option to not buy the game. Period. It's not overreach if I willingly accepted the reach.
> So to sum it up, DRM is always anti user in many senses.
How do you reconcile this claim with the fact that Denuvo games sell by the millions every month?
> The industry will take whatever steps it needs to protect itself and protect its revenue streams ... It will not lose that revenue stream, no matter what ... Sony is going to take aggressive steps to stop this. We will develop technology that transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source – we will block it at your cable company. We will block it at your phone company. We will block it at your ISP. We will firewall it at your PC ... These strategies are being aggressively pursued because there is simply too much at stake.
Note the repeated usage of "your" which increasingly creeps into user's private digital space. Being in denial about this isn't an excuse for these problems.
A lot of that verbiage is absurd exaggerations and most of these things never became true.
> Being in denial about this isn't an excuse for these problems.
I'm not in denial, I know exactly what Denuvo entails. Whenever I buy a game with Denuvo (which pretty much never happens any more), I know exactly what I'm giving away, and I'm doing so because I'm getting something in return.
Similar situation to someone dropping their business card in a jar at the exit of a restaurant with the hope they'll win a free meal. They give a bit of personal information because they think they'll receive more in return.
You don't get to take away the choice of customers to decide how to manage their information.
As long as everyone is free to make that choice, nobody is getting hurt and the market forces will ultimately land on an equilibrium, like we have today.
They express the intent behind DRM very precisely. I don't see anything about it being an exaggeration. DRM proponents will try to control as much as they can grab. There is no excuse for unethical garbage like that.
I don't understand why there are people always defending denuvo every time it comes up. Are you associated with denuvo directly or indirectly? Are you an ordinary gamer but for some reason post falsities to try to look superior?
First of all, chill out, for someone tooting their own horn, your own perspective is very one dimensional. What's really interesting about the democratic party's position is how they've utterly failed to embrace the popular parts of "left" policy (universal healthcare and etc, basically look at bernie sanders for what policy is actually widely popular on the left). And yet, they embrace incredibly unpopular parts of "extreme left". Being pro-illegal immigration is incredibly stupid and unpopular. DEI discrimination on the basis of race is also incredibly stupid and unpopular. I suppose i could also mention transitions for children. Need i mention free speech? It's a travesty that republicans have become the free speech party, but it's something the left has ceded.
So we're in a situation where the democratic party is utterly failing to actually implement any of the good or popular left policies that would help the masses, even the pretty moderate ones, but is pushing incredibly unpopular extreme left policies that don't actually help the citizenry. In that context it's honestly a very reasonable thing for someone on the right to point to the dems call the party far left. And yet for those of us that want these policies for the people, the dems appear right-leaning. Very odd how this has worked out, but both are true in a way.
I think the reason behind this is mainly due to them being controlled by their corporate donors who dictate focusing on the unpopular policies which are cheaper for the corporations to contend with. Universal healthcare would be a huge blow to corporate control in this country, as right now healthcare is tied to employment and that gives large corporate employers incredibly excessive power.
> And yet, they embrace incredibly unpopular parts of "extreme left". Being pro-illegal immigration is incredibly stupid and unpopular. DEI discrimination on the basis of race is also incredibly stupid and unpopular. I suppose i could also mention transitions for children. Need i mention free speech? It's a travesty that republicans have become the free speech party, but it's something the left has ceded.
You've swallowed a lot of right-wing propaganda about the Democratic Party. Do you really thing Democrats are "pro-illegal immigration"? The rest of these tendentious mischaracterizations take some tedious and likely fruitless effort to debunk, but just think about that phrase. Do you think any party is in favor of illegal immigration? How would that work anyway? Parties try to pass laws. The best you could find is that some party favors immigration policies you would prefer be illegal.
Democrats are against violating laws to deport people here legally or following the legal, prescribed process for adjudicating their status. Republicans are okay with breaking the law to chuck people out of the country. That produces a different result, but "illegal" is on the wrong side of the balance there for your argument.
You're not in a great position to tell Democrats what to say and do if you're clearly ignoring what they say and do and believing the lies other people feed you about them.
> Do you really thing Democrats are "pro-illegal immigration"?
I do. Demonstrably so. The Biden administration admitted between 8-20 million illegal immigrants into the country, depending on the estimate used. Even at the low end, this is the highest ever in the history of the country. More than any other administration. They made all kinds of excuses. They claimed they needed new laws. Trump solved it almost overnight. [https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-enc...] The Democrats lied. They didn't need more laws. They wanted things the way they were. They chose to permit the situation and allow it to devolve like that.
Now almost every Democrat representative is resolutely opposed to deporting illegal immigrants. There is simply no other way to interpret this than they are in fact pro illegal immigration.
I'm not the person uncritically examining party propaganda. My information is based on what the democratic party has said and done, nobody else. So, entire post misses the mark very hard for me.
Frankly i think you're exactly the person who is part of the problem here, proudly prejudiced, not very well informed despite thinking you know better than everyone.
> Do you think any party is in favor of illegal immigration? How would that work anyway? Parties try to pass laws. The best you could find is that some party favors immigration policies you would prefer be illegal.
This kind of reads like it's written by AI or something but either way it's irrational on such a fundamental level that i don't really know what to make of it. Obviously a ruling power in a country can be in favor of something illegal and take action to increase illegality on purpose. That's what you are saying trump is doing, so you don't even disagree with yourself. Where did you think the huge numbers of illegal immigrants came from while under democratic leadership, did they materialize independently? No, they promoted illegality.
It wasn't in my post but just in case you aren't an AI, the democratic party is pro illegal immigration for relatively straightforward reasons. their large corporate donors like having a large cheap underclass of workers to exploit and abuse. Illegal immigrants are much less likely to cause problems at work and are likely to work harder because they are at a much higher risk. If you're a CEO you can bet it's better to hire people you know will never unionize, you can exploit easily and won't file any workplace safety complaints. You can even commit wage theft with abandon, what are they going to do about it? There's also other secondary effects like creating a large amount of illegality overloads the courts and generally creates chaos which can be easy to exploit.
I've also seen the argument that the dems hope to swing demographics to secure the vote but i'm not so sure about that one, especially considering how hard legal voting immigrants are swinging against the democratic party for all of my prior mentioned reasons. I feel like if you were actually in touch with the legal immigrant population you would understand this a lot better.
I'm in favor of large scale legal immigration so people get full workplace rights and aren't easy to take advantage of. Duh. Creating an underclass of workers with less rights to keep corpo rat profits rising is bad. The democratic party has done the opposite, this is fact. Not really sure what else there is to say, all your smoke isn't worth much.
And i do think the dem's longer term plan was something stupid like "bring in infinite illegal immigrants to create a problem" and then "we will sell the solution and make them all citizens!" and that went ass up with their own hubris exploding in their face. Either way that's evil shit.
I don't know how my comment gave the impression I'm agitated. I'm far from US so it's just an outsider observation.
In either case, thank you for the insight. It didn't give me any additional insight and while you call it one dimensional, I only see an expansion of the same idea I shared: both sides use culture war to smear each other (and as a lazy cop-out to game the media attention for coverage and votes). Most people have heard of AOC, Bernie, and Elizabeth Warren's. Even Ted Cruz & RFK JR (pre election). Surely when congress is 400+ and senate is 100+ people, those names don't represent ALL of the intricate factions of the two parties?
Yet we all act like they somehow are the representative of the opposite. To me you're just saying the same thing, but relieving any responsibility of the parrots, and putting it solely on corporate and self interested politician.
If those culture wars win votes, I think putting the sole responsibility that way is just an convenient excuse for everyone to play along the system and shout at each other.
I guess to the people shouting at each other, my comment might have come off as "touting my horn". I'm from the outside, I don't have any high horse or stakes in this but I understand the confusion
You seemed overly anxious to ignore what I actually wrote in my previous comment and use as an excuse to force everyone into reading your diatribe about how the media portrays Democrats, even though that's not actually in conflict with anything I wrote. So yes, I think it would be good for you to do some self-reflection before telling others they are living in a bubble. You might not be as objective as you think you are.
the eu set 12mg as an absolute upper limit on what's safe.
I'm curious, do you exercise every day? b6 seems to get flushed out of the body in proportion to how much exercise you get, as it gets released by the muscles and then only partially reabsorbed with each cycle. It's possible what you're taking would cause you nerve damage if you were sedentary.
