limonfiesta

Doubling down on misinterpreting my words is pretty wild yo.

I said nothing of the sort.

I said fuck the Washington Post and fuck anyone who writes for them, but most of all fuck their crocodile tears.

They are explicitly a mouthpiece for the billionaire class and vocally anti-working class, which means they support the same system that they are now receiving some blowback from.

This is a leopard’s ate my face situation, and one doesn’t have to hate freedom of the press, or whatever else you’re accusing me of, to recognize and acknowledge that.

Fuck the Washington Post and fuck anyone who writes for them.

You don’t get to be an oligarch’s mouthpiece hell-bent on destroying the working class, and then get self-righteous when you get hit with some blowback from the same shitty government that your masters support and enable.

The answer to this problem can be piracy, but there’s also just rotating your subscription churn.

Sign up for HBO for a month, go to cancel, and take the next 6 months half off offer.

Cancel HBO after the discount period, and then sign up for Netflix for 2 months, then cancel and go to back to HBO, or pick any other streamer you want, but only pay for one at a time.

The Pitt

Slow Horses

IT: Welcome to Derry

The Expanse

Murderbot

Dept Q

And that’s just a handful of (mostly) recent shows off the top of my head.

But if you want more targeted recommendations, tell us what types of shows or genres you’re most interested in.

Will Trent had an amazing premiere, but has been diminishing returns ever since.

deleted by creator

Pick your poison.

The Ellisons will eventually fail at Paramount because the culture is largely against their brand of politics, and WB, HBO, etc. could have survived long enough to have be sold off once that happens.

Netflix is going to destroy a load-bearing structure of Hollywood for the sake of streaming slop.

But it’s all speculation anyways, and none of it matters, since they opted for your choice of poison, not mine.

I can’t tell if New Labour is as bad as the Democrats yet, but boy do they also seem determined to serve the interests of the Epstein class, at the direct and immediate expense of everyone else.

I’ve never rooted for Comcast in my life, but even I know that they were best of a very bad bunch who had any chance at winning this bidding process.

There was NO good outcome from this sale, but Netflix is the worst possibility.

Say what you will about the Ellisons, they aren’t actively trying to destroy cinema (just pervert it), nor are they running the biggest slop machine in existence, but Netflix is, on both accounts.

This isn’t saying I think it would have been good if Paramount won, just less bad than Netflix, as at least HBO would have probably survived.

It’s called used car salesman chic.

Super size me baby

Just because I’m pointing out just some of the deeply unjust and inherent flaws in your proposal, doesn’t mean it’s spin.

You realize that you’re not making these arguments on a libertarian forum, right?

The vast majority of us here are left wing and not inherently opposed to the concept of government or regulation, yet the vast majority of us here seem very much opposed to your ideas.

Just some food for thought.

Yes, all adults.

Unless you’re proposing that these people on your offender lists are only allowed to date other offenders.

You are saying that person B is not allowed to date person A, even if both adults consent to enter a relationship, because one of those parties can be sent to jail for the crime of entering into a private consensual adult relationship.

Ergo, you have removed the ability of both parties to have a mutually consensual relationship of their choosing.

You haven’t even left the confines of Lemmy, and you’re already running headfirst into unintended consequences.

Every one of your replies simply adds rhetorical flair to my assertion that you are proposing the government should have regulatory power over the rights of adults to engage in private consensual relationships, which would be handled by the criminal legal system.

The state has different obligations to protect children than they do adults. Which is why we have things like drinking age laws and legal concepts such as in loco parentis.

You are completely removing the agency of adults to make their own choices, and instead, inserting the government into those relationships, under the penalty of incarceration and government sanctioned violence, for the crime of having an unauthorized interpersonal consensual relationship between two adults.

And that’s only taking your proposal at face value and ignoring the plethora of unintended consequences, such as perverse political incentives and privatization.

they should be disallowed from participating in a close, intimate relationship

The legal mechanisms required to enforce that would be some form of government permission and approval structure, such as licensing.

No amount of rhetorical flourish can get away from what they are essentially presenting, which is requiring government permission for interpersonal relationships.

How would the government track an individuals approval for personal private relationships?

How would the government enforce penalties on private citizens who engaged in an unauthorized private relationships?

And then we get to some fun questions, like what happens if the government privatizes the relationship approval system that OP is proposing?

Plenty of people that commit certain crimes have conditions for re-entering society in whole and I don’t think what I’m suggesting is unreasonable.

You are suggesting government issued licenses/permission for private people to engage in private relationships.

You could have just said yes.

Are you proposing that people should have to obtain a government-issued licenses for private interpersonal relationships?