They’re not “just” misandrist; that is to say, they definitely have good reasons for existing outside of misandry, and I’m glad that they can provide that space for the people who need it. It’s also certainly not inherently misandrist to be queer or woman oriented.

In the case of Lemmy, though, yes, all of the queer and women oriented instances are very clearly also misandrist. Openly and proudly so, in fact. Your comments here are an excellent, though comparatively mild, example of that.

I knew someone from one of the misandry instances would chime in to prove my point, so thanks! ^_^

Bravo! Spoken like a true feminist, the last bastion of gender equality!

You could have listened to me, sympathized, and told me my misandrist experience is valid, but, then again, that’s a privilege reserved for women experiencing misogyny, isn’t it? Wouldn’t be very feminist of you to acknowledge just how widespread misandry is among feminists, eh?

Of course, but with some more equal than others, as my outspoken feminist boss demonstrated earlier this week. She insisted that feminist research into matriarchal societies had proven beyond a doubt that women govern better than men can, and that if we would just replace all men in power with women the US’s problems would practically solve themselves. This was one day after complaining to me about how unreliable her male coworkers were, and how you can really only rely on women when you want something taken care of.

Feminists truly are beacons of equality.

The raging misandry that commonly accompanies it, for one.

You must not have been very good at geometry proofs in high school. Even though yes, both are true at the same time, one can’t know that initially because one leads to the other. Descartes couldn’t conclude that he was thinking until he had concluded that he was doubting.

Came here to say Civ IV

Jokes aside, this is kinda the opposite of Descartes’ point. He was doubting everything, and that included his own existence.

In fact, literally the only thing he could be sure of was that he was doubting, not that he was thinking, which is why it’s so weird to me that everyone leaves off the first part of the idea, since it’s arguably the most important part.

Dubito, ergo cogito. Cogito, ergo sum.

I doubt, therefore I think. I think, therefore I am.

Octopodeez nuts

Yes, all the alumnuses from my college say the same thing as they study their datums about bacteriums.

“You are cutely dead”?

I could not stand The Stand. It was an absolute slog from start to finish.

Being psychologically manipulated into continuing to play a game that I wouldn’t otherwise certainly doesn’t sound very enjoyable and rewarding, but that may just be me.

I avoid achievements specifically because video games are supposed to be enjoyable and rewarding. A game should succeed or fail on its merit alone, not how well it plays the manipulative achievement metagame.

Imo this mindset is everything wrong with video games today.

This is (one of the many reasons) why I disable achievements on all of my games.

In the US throughout the 1900’s the highest income tax brackets were often in the 70%'s, reaching into the 90%'s at times, and we did not see what you are suggesting.

We did not see what I’m suggesting because that’s an income tax, and in order to abolish billionaires we’d need a wealth tax.

Increasing the taxes on Gabe Newell’s profits from owning Valve would not suddenly cause him to lose money, just to gain less money.

Yes, but if you slow the income of a person who is already a billionaire, you get a billionaire who is still getting richer, only more slowly. This does not get rid of billionaires, and everything I’ve been saying was based on your initial comment that Gabe is a billionaire, and billionaires should not exist.

In order to take someone who is already a multibillionaire and make them not a billionaire, you have to take away property that they already own until their net worth falls below a billion dollars. In the case of Gabe, since most of his wealth is tied up in Valve stock, in order to make him not a billionaire you’d need to make him sell some of his stock in Valve, which would dilute his ownership and control over the company.

Do you understand the problem now?

Again, I want to find a sensible way to eliminate billionaires - I’m just not sure how to do so without throwing corporate ownership into chaos. I’d love to hear other recommendations if anyone has any.

1. I don’t think this would solve the problem. Even if all of the outside investors are restricted to less than $1 billion in capital each, pooling their funds would easily be able to outweigh Gabe if he’s subject to the same restriction.

2. If we increase taxes on all companies across the board, the overall appeal of each individual corporation would likely stay about the same. In fact, since Steam is so profitable that might make them more appealing as an investment in a world where corporate taxes are much higher.

3. Corporate taxes are usually on profits, but in order to tax Gabe enough for him to no longer be a billionaire the vast majority of those taxes would have to come out of Gabe’s ownership in Valve. I’m not sure why you don’t think this would be an issue.

4. This seems pretty unrealistic/idealistic. I guess we are already positing an unrealistic world where billionaries are taxed out of existence, so imagining functioning regulation and antitrust suits isn’t that much more of a stretch. Still, that does seem to support my point that without significant other societal change taxing Gabe so much that he’s no longer a billionaire would likely significantly worsen Valve as a company.

I’m certainly not against taxing billionaires out of existence, but I still think that the question of what that would mean for corporate ownership is a difficult/complex one, and I don’t think your answers here really take that complexity into account.

How do we tax Gabe that much without necessarily watering down his share in the company and ensuring that outside investors enshittify it in the process?