We can thank Steve for the leaps and bounds that happened in the early 90’s with CGI - tl;dr he was a brilliant animator who snuck in under the radar at ILM and was given run of the animation department because he/his working partner literally invented many of the cutting edge animation techniques, from scratch.

Dude has a tragic story (personality disorder & alcoholism) that led to him being uncredited and blacklisted, pretty well captured in a biopic, worth the hour-ish watch imo.

• The Abyss, 1991 - Academy Award for Visual Effects
• Terminator 2, 1991 - Liquid Metal for T-1000
• Jurassic Park, 1993 - work featured throughout, with the highlight of the T-Rex’s movement and skeletal modeling
• The Mask, 1994 - Nominated for Academy Award for Visual Effect

I don’t understand where or how or why vigilante murder is even brought up here? Who said or implied anything about murder.

The original post is literally about a vigilante murdering the UHC CEO and another company seemingly changing policy afterwards, with OP attaching a comment about ‘not saying it’s good, but maybe violence does work’. You brought solidarity in out of nowhere, and implied it was parallel to sectarianism/tribalism.

That is why I called you out as being obtuse, a vigilante murder is the only reason this comment thread exists - it was there from the very beginning.

I’m merely specifying the easily missed core of solidarity which is that a background of legitimacy is required to have these soup kitchens and co-op farms. The state and it’s “violence” of set rules and consequences must exist as a background before the space can be opened up for these examples you use.

You never mentioned legitimacy - I inferred it. That’s called reading comprehension, not strawmaning. Which is why I posted that legal is not inherently moral. Because enforcing laws, not persuasion or incentives to prompt compliance, ultimately requires a state actor to force that law on another person. And if that person still says “no” then that state actor is empowered to use violence to either make that person submit and follow that law, be arrested, or ultimately killed if they continue to resist. A law prohibiting rape or murder is different than anti-vagrancy laws or occupational licensing - but the enforcement is facsimile if met with resistance.

Quite hilarious to call me the obtuse and myopic one here, when my whole cornerstone from the start has basically been a suggestion to step back and think about what Solidarity means and how it is effectively sustained before we rush in to believing we can so easily make such harsh distinctions between legality and morality or state vs tribalist violence.

This is a good explanation. Your initial comment was half-baked and didn’t expound on what you were trying to say, which is why challenged what I inferred your thrust to be. I’m not foolish enough to believe that we can all live in 100% peaceful coexistence, nightly drum circles, and unlimited cooperation and mutual respect. Because there’s always some asshole who doesn’t want to help or respect autonomy, and becomes the aggressor in order to steal/subjugate/dominate/etc. But my thrust was that the social contract is broken, when a company can essentially renege on a financial contract (heath insurance) arbitrarily and capriciously, and faces no legal repercussions. Because lobbying. Because “business friendly” legal environment where the one with the most money almost wins by default, if there even is a legal challenge.

Please don’t triple strawman me here

I genuinely don’t think you understand what that means, or are confusing presumptive argument for it. It you feel misrepresented and I am straw manning - explain in further detail. Like you just did now, instead of a snarky “u iz strawman winnar”. We never got to that part of the debate initially because you got huffy and left a drive-by comment at the first challenge.

You’re trying hard to be obtuse, or super myopic if you don’t see the through line from state violence, to consent of the governed to accept laws (and the violence required to enforce them) - hence my comment that legality is not morality, and the inference that lobbying has broken that trust and consent by legalizing policies like UHC’s that are not unique to that one company.

You brought solidarity into this, which is distinct from tribalist/sectarian violence like you’re alluding to. Soup kitchens, community legal defense funds, or cooperative farms are examples of solidarity. Not vigilante murder.

Why?

You, your boss, the executive board, hell the country and the planet even, is completely irrelevant to the ghouls who only see profit. Everyone is replaceable.

Externalities are not a cost feature of capitalism, and when the government fails to prevent the most egregious excesses of the ‘line must go up, forever exponentially’ money chasers, everyone pays the price for their greed.

Communities poisoned because freight trains “need to be umpteen cars long to be profitable” whilst demanding priority treatment on taxpayer funded infrastructure.

Over $60 billion in taxpayer handouts to corporations in the last ten years alone, often with no or weak strings attached, and a legislature that refuses to enforce the clauses and responsibilities that secured those subsidies. Collect payout, ‘restructure and reincorporate’ and poof - there isn’t a company by that name anymore, our contract is void but they keep the money.

Public sector employees driven to destitution by crippling low pay, while Congress voted themselves $174,000 per year rocketing themselves into the top 9% of all earners, whilst we pay for 72% of their healthcare insurance premiums.

Yeah, because nobody else speaks up for those who’d be railroaded through court otherwise. You don’t ’see them speak up’ because those same people’s voice get lost in the crowd of everyone else’s outrage/support.

It’s trite but true, failure to defend the fringes leaves a smaller and smaller pool of resistance/solidarity:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

So just because it’s sprinkled with the magic fairy dust of ‘government’ it’s immediately moral and good violence?

Here’s a freebie thought experiment I had to pay a PoliSci professor for; if tomorrow the democratically elected government passed a law that from today forward, all babies with blue eyes will be euthanized at birth, is that legal?

Yes. 100% legal. And 100% morally bankrupt.

Consent of the governed is the bedrock of civil society - the ghouls that run big business seem to have forgotten/don’t care that legality does not equal morality.

j. Non-permissive environment: An environment in which friendly forces anticipate obstructions to, or interference with, operations.

Corpo executives and billionaires about to find out that no matter the snitch line reward money they put up, people magically didn’t see anything.

Policing requires a degree of consent from the public, you’ll be turning away search party volunteers for a child kidnapping, but I don’t see a line of people ready to narc on shoplifting or drug possession.

Karmic justice sure - aside from the kid who got roped into taking that voyage by his dad. Billionaires hubris treats the world as their plaything, and find out that nature doesn’t care about your net worth

Now look, there’s only two - maybe three - social events where stuffing my face to the gills with deviled eggs is semi acceptable.

I made my peace with the cholesterol, and I’ll pay the next-day toll every time that platter gets brought out.

One Lemmy gold for you, thank you kind stranger!

Fucking van drivers man, they know ZERO CHILL

Yes. Going from thinking “yeah, that’s a tree ofc” to talking like a paid shill to everyone I know “I CAN SEE EACH LEAF!!! ITS LIKE I’M SEEING IN HD”

Lawful neutral cuz in 6mo when some “controller” punches three buttons to run a report and asks “Hey why’d you do that?” THEN I’ll have documentation. And a job.

Make ticket, receive assistance. Fight me on that and I’ll add you to my email inbox’s ruleset - I am now an LLM, and will gentle-tone you to death via faux misunderstandings

My favorite is when you finally relent, answer the phone and they’re hyper distracted, trying to ‘fit in’ a phone call during their day

“Oh, hi Mark”

“Hey do yo- hold on” sounds of keys, phone put down, grocery bags rustling

“…”

Like bruh. You called me, because you felt this warranted 1:1 attention for a conversation. I didn’t sign up for your organic ‘hold music’ via foley session.

By rejecting materialism and embracing anti-materialism you are freed from the shackles of the physical constructs around us, able to shape and bend your environment- even from a long distance.

The individual practice is relatively new, starting in the mid 1910s but it blossomed and has ardent support in multiple nations with different styles expressed. Russians lean towards simplicity and utilitarianism, the American practice trends avant-garde, while the Chinese largely iterate on existing foundations.

Until we achieve a revolutionary advancement in science, anti-materialism is here to stay, and not just because of knee-jerk Luddite sentiment, but because of the unique effects it has on our world and others.

AI for the heavy lifting, some poor overworked freelancer overseas fixes issues and refines, and then maybe, mayyyybe a domestic review team of senior coders for pen/security testing.

!remindme 2030

While it may have begun that way (and may still be the overwhelming use case, idk the breakdown) devs are using it for FOSS releases, and that’s where the ‘less literate’ crowd enters. Sourceforge was very simple to use, and had a consistent layout. GitHub wasn’t meat to be a SF replacement, but here we are having this discussion

It’s a naked dog whistle, and I’m not sure why the corpo press didn’t see right through it. It’s not the 1950s with ‘obscenity’ trials, the speech that is controversial nowadays is hate speech.

The state of Twitter nowadays confirms exactly the kind of people Musk was thinking about when he said that.

Man these comments are fun. The patricians defending the (admittedly) bad UI/UX as the skill-hurdle it is, while the rest are finding inventive ways to rephrase “gib button plz”

Think globally, act locally

I don’t think you’re evil, but this attitude is part of the problem that enables terrible people to get away with horrific acts. “Why didn’t the Germans stop the holocaust?” can be explained a lot of ways, but complicity and silence feature throughout the answers, along with the ghouls who encouraged it

For a while I did exactly as you are doing. I was super involved in tracking and witnessing police abuses and misconduct, watching the drip-drip-drip while the country sat idle - and you’re right, it’s super depressing to see an obvious issue and be unable to change it. I did step away for a while when it got overwhelming, but me ignoring a problem, simply permits those abuses to continue without criticism or exposure.

I have the social, geographic and ethnic privilege to not be routinely affected negatively by the issues in the world, but I refuse to turn that to mute complicity