• 0 Posts
  • 4 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 21st, 2023

help-circle
  • That’s kind of the point. We live in a system that is supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty”. Not because people who commit crimes should get away with them, but because the opposite system would be completely untenable. How exactly is he supposed to prove that he is innocent? I don’t care how sure anyone is that he did it. Prove it, or by our legal standard, he must be considered innocent.

    If you want to live in a society where accusation is tantamount to fact, you’re going to regret it as soon as anyone says anything about you.



  • PolarPerspective@discuss.onlinetoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldgrrr
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    I saw a lot of progressives turning into free market libertarians as soon as social media started censoring right wing opinions. Suddenly all I could see was “They’re a private company, they can do what they want!”

    It reaffirmed my belief that a healthy portion of either side doesn’t actually have any principles. They just care that their side is winning and the other is losing.

    I’m a moderate that a lot of people confuse for a conservative, and I say nail big business to a wall. I think the Microsoft-Activision deal should be declined just on the nature of the size of each business, not because it meets some arbitrary standard of anti-competitive behavior. Businesses as big as Microsoft do not need even bigger market coverage through owning more production houses. The whole point of the anticompetitive corrections is to avoid these giant conglomerates that have their hands in everything.

    Microsoft already owns video game production houses. They produce one of the most popular home consoles in the world. They own a lot of the ecosystem that most people use on a daily basis on their pcs, namely Windows OS, Outlook, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and more.

    Why does one company need to have a bigger market share than this?


  • I agree with you overall, I just have a different solution. I don’t think command economies work in practice. Demand economies are better because businesses aren’t usually too big to fail, so they collapse when they aren’t providing the products or services that are in demand.

    My solution is populism with a demand economy. For all of his many, many faults, I believe Trump had the right strategy to lift up the working class. Bring back value to local labor by putting tariffs on foreign goods, that way local production becomes more profitable. Reduce (not eliminate) immigration to increase the value of promoting local workers.

    Imagine a world where we weren’t draining India for doctors, and instead we were forced to invest in our own populations. How much better could the lives of our citizens be if big business and government had to worry about how successful and happy our local populations are?

    From a social perspective, I think reduced immigration combined with integration initiatives would go a long way. We need to find ways to get people together and communicating. I know for a fact that exposure to people with differing beliefs is the best way to de-escalate radicals. I’ve sat down with so many conservatives over the years and ended up tempering their opinions, just through casual conversation. We need that kind of humanizing discussion to be commonplace. It’s not healthy to just expect hard left mainstream media and terms of service to censor ideas out of existence. We need to heal through open and good faith discussion.

    I believe your goals are the right ones. I just don’t believe the communist economic system is the right way to achieve them.