jwiggler

I watched all of Twin Peaks because I was interested in the hype around David Lynch and wanted to see his most recent work.

This episode made it all worth it.

All the more reason to just be accurate and say "banks were still allowed to deny opening accounts for a woman" rather than say "women couldn't hold bank accounts until 1974," which just isn't true. The truth is still plenty bad, we don't need to pull a Vance card.

I'm conflicted over whether I'm glad or disappointed at his respect for the feds.

On the one hand, I'm disappointed, because like many many others, I identify with his frustration with fat cat CEOs imposing systems of structural violence against us. I wish that had extended to lack of respect for the state, which also imposes and upholds the same systems, and others.

On the other hand, I'm glad because I still think what he allegedly did is wrong and don't necessarily want further ideological alignment with that, even if billionaire CEOs have it coming, and even if I think he should go free.

I think you might misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the only way to attain power is through wealth. Im pushing back against your idea that since an individuals wealth isn't cash, it's not worth accounting for. It may stop making sense to count, but only in the sense that it literally becomes incomprehensible to, and at that point it is long overdue to say it is too much. The vast power those people have is due to their net worth. Because someone else has vast power without the wealth doesn't contradict that fact.

Also I don't really see why you're tying up your freedom with billionaires, as if it is a binary choice between billionaires and personal freedom or no billionaires and tyranny. That's a bit of a strange equivalency you draw. In any case, and in practical terms, you* probably don't even have the freedom to be in the presence of the wealthiest of wealthy, let alone fart in front of them.

*assuming you are not ultra wealthy or somehow related personally to a member of the ultra rich

Edit: in other words, billionaires don't grant you your freedom -- and their freedom to extract capital and accumulate vast amounts of wealth probably has little bearing on your right to your house or personal property. In fact, they are far more equipped to seize things like your land, your data, your means of subsistence, than you are to defend them.

Untill I grew up and realised it’s not money they’ve got, it’s estimated net worth. It’s hard to turn that into cash.

I used to think that, too. But just because its not cash doesn't mean it doesn't still translate to wealth or power. They essentially park their money in investments, liquidate when they need to, but otherwise use their assets to extract further wealth exert further influence.

I like the finals too. It's the best arcade shooter I've played since halo. It's just dumb fun.

Ive been hooked on deadlock recently

This is the only hot take in this whole thread lol

My lukewarm take is that Star Wars has varied so greatly in quality from product-to-product, that any take that categorizes some of it as bad and some of it as good is a lukewarm, standard take.

Debt: The First 5000 Years by David Graeber is a cool book about this whole topic

I listen to NPR often and I enjoy it, but it ultimately has the same problem as other mainstream outlets in that they are beholden to advertisers and, in turn, to extractors of capital. It leans left socially, but as with almost all other major news organizations, it is self-interested and will almost always support neocolonialist US practices. One tiny, not-the-best but temporally relevant example -- they have yet to call what's happening in Gaza genocide.

As someone else mentioned, there is Democracy Now!, they are viewer funded, but that is also supplemented by groups such as the Ford Foundation, which obviously has ties to capital as well. Still, Democracy Now! will give more of an "outside looking in" view of the United States.

I like listening to both NPR and Democracy Now! to hear both the US-centric (capitalist) points vs the a more global (and anti-capitalist) viewpoint.

I don't necessarily agree with the person you responded to, and I could be wrong here but I don't really think Banksy is actually invoking their copyrights, just using it as an idea to criticize private property in general. Similar to how your own "god given copyright" is in itself a criticism. It's more like, "look our property laws that are meant to protect the art-maker mean nothing to big companies. Why should the property laws that are meant protect big companies mean anything to us?"

I get how you could see it as hypocritical, but I think fundamentally Banksy probably isn't advocating for stronger copyright laws here...

You're not wrong that it's illegal or that that is part of Banksy's "gimmick". I agree with you that, legally, what they do is vandalism.

But I'd guess you're getting pushback because you seem to be defending private property, which Banksy and perhaps their more politically-knowledgeable fans, likely view as unjust on the whole.