Totally agree. I meant they’d turn HBO into slop as well. They just wanted them for their back catalogue

Tubi is Fox…But I’m talking about major players tho. There’s lots of others like the BBC group of channels etc

Forgot about Apple, sorry. I always comment off the top of my head because I’m lazy. I even just watched the new Pluribus ep.

Well, yeah…they couldn’t afford to, because of all the other consolidations that came before this one: other “losses” in the streaming wars have been Fox, MGM, Discovery, etc

…but I think that losing HBO, who did at one time really push the others to up their game to compete with Game of Thrones etc, really bookmarks a place in time where the quality is going to drop off a cliff. Netflix hasn’t made an interesting series since early when Stranger Things/Narcos/Ozark were fighting in the streaming wars. They’re going to be even more motivated to produce easy clickbait slop going forward because it’s pretty much just Amazon as competition now - since Disney and Paramount mostly put out “niche” stuff.

Like…what the hell is that new Game of Thrones comedy thing they teased right before this happened? That has to have been produced to be Netflix-friendly.

Indeed. They’re not really treated as people: all protections, no consequences.

*better than people.

Actual people suffer repercussions from crimes, including penalties that inhibit their ability to earn money - while corporations have a layer of protection real people don’t have that makes it generally illegal to prevent them from making money. Corporations, even when they commit murder (corporate or human) face the equivalent of misdemeanours, simple fines, or are expected to punish themselves.

I think begins.

This signals the “streaming wars” are beginning to wrap up. Soon everybody will buy each other out and we’re either going to be served Disney slop or Netflix Slop.

I guess this the beginning of the end of the streaming wars. It was fun while it lasted.

Soon all the cutting edge series’ will be replaced by the low effort high “engagement” slop that Netflix produces.

Harpers’ culture war posturing wasn’t policy. He was bad, but no worse than Justin - who’s trade and corporate policy was to the right of Harper. Justin, of course, was a culture war liberal with his gender equal cabinet etc

Oh? Not McKenzie King who brought in UI and the Baby Bonus? Not Diefenbaker who mass-funded hospitals? Not Pierre that brought in the Charter of Righrs on Freedoms? EtcEtc. Justin governed right of centre…a boiler plate neoliberal just like Harper was. Pardon me, but you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.

I liked it, although I wish they picked an actor that’s a little less desperate to be in everything, lol.

But…immediately deflating the cliffhanger from last week was a slick move. I think all the people who wanted this to be a sci-fi invasion thriller must have moved on, by now…:)

I think I tried 3 and 4?

Seem like he’s a typical academic. I get it…you prefer to muddy the waters and shoot the messenger then engage with the content. Alternate view to…something you didn’t read? I assure you it doesn’t “demonize socialism”…it just chronicles events according to disclosure/a “data dump” of declassified files. It’s not ideological…it’s for eggheads who don’t want to read thousands of documents. When I read it it just helped me understand the playing field better.

The problems with the USSR weren’t with socialism, you’re missing my message. They were with capitalists corrupting it from within. There’s certainly an argument to be made that too much control was allocated to regional bureaucrats - when targeted positive/idealistic authoritarianism was more appropriate while socialism was in its infancy. But this in the context of just Russia, because I don’t agree with the expansion that created the USSR: my opinion is it created an unmanageably large state with too many “distracting” regional issues that were ripe for capitalists to exploit. Those faithful to the cause were simply stretched too thin and they couldn’t deliver a meaningful improvement to enough people, largely because the guilty regional bureaucrats weren’t loyal to the cause and they created systematic exploitation of the people they were tasked to help. Obviously I’m being unrealistic…just trying to get closer to 20/20 hindsight.

You’re arguing that the conservatives are worse…I agree with that.

I’m arguing that the Liberals acting like conservatives makes the conservatives tack even further to the right, and we slide and slide into late stage capitalist hell.

Trudeau was to the right of Mulroney and on-par with Harper…you’re just cold-trippin’. He’s not even in the too 10 most-leftist. Now it sounds like I’m listening to conservative propaganda. Totally nuts. Conservative Icon Diefenbaker was more socialist than Trudeau Jr…as was Trudeau Sr, and Pearson, and MacKenzie King, etcetcetc

Dental care was an NDP policy…let’s not rewrite history and forget we literally had a snap election because Trudeau initially didn’t want to pass it.

That’s a ridiculous way to frame a public university employee…but I’m just going to declare an impasse and drop it if we can’t agree on facts.

Talk about virtue signalling and purity testing, yikes. Still, thank you for the conversation, I will admit I’m a little amused at you trying to “out socialist” me, but I don’t feel I need to list my credentials in return…I’m comfortable with how militantly virulent I am on the subject of socialism ;)

Like I said: put two leftists together, and they’ll find a way to argue. I’ve been guilty of it too…it is what it is.

I mean…Fallout isn’t a great game. It’s too “Rockstar”/console driven in my mind. Looks absolutely amazing, but the some of the bewilderingly rigid character mechanics completely break immersion for me.

I gave you evidence…and you ignored it. I can provide additional evidence beyond ‘54, if you acknowledge those archives.

You believe Marxism allows for the billionaire and political classes in China that control the means of production? Bold.

You don’t “own” Marxism, btw. Most Marxists I know at least acknowledge and criticize the very large problems in the USSR and China. I mean…I also could be considered a Marxist…but I consider myself a post-Marxist because he’s been improved on. I also think we can do better than Marx the man as a foundation - don’t get me started on Lenin, lol. The weird thing is I like Stalin (but Che all the way).

This isn’t zero sum: I’m not saying either is all bad because they have kleptocrats and billionaires. We haven’t even broached the topic of what I think about the USSR and China as a whole (because you’re so hung up on denying their systematic problems in favour of focusing on the positives?) in contrast to what we see in the western democracies (for example) you’re typing as if i condemn them and I prefer the USA, or something…not a thing.

The USSR absolutely had oligarchs, don’t be absurd. I’m not strictly talking about the Politburo…who stole plenty and took the fall, I’m talking about the oligarchs - who didn’t blink into existence out of the ashes of the USSR - but rather came to be because of what they amassed at the expense of the people during the USRR. The savvy middle managers, the smugglers, the entire KGB. The Art of the Bribe is an excellent book that methodically outlinines how these proto-oligarchs came to be and how they destroyed and corrupted socialism. Telling me about the idealistic version of the USSR isn’t interesting…I’m more interested in reality.

Meh…save the “Marx wasn’t an egalitarian” stuff for the people who aren’t socialists. There absolutely was a very large wealth and power class in the USSR as there is in China now…both would be abhorrent to Marx. There’s a difference between being somewhat better off because you work harder and/or are responsible for administering a novel concept…and literally never working because you have so much power and influence you don’t need to: those people were lousy in the USSR, and exist to a lesser extent in China.

It’s an apples and oranges conversation because it can be argued that the Chinese billionaires hurt their people less than the oligarchs/kleptocrats did in the USSR…but you first must acknowledge they exist - if you want to move past the mass intentions of their systems and have the conversation about how the classes in communism were/are bad and why.

The reason I prefer Cuba isn’t because their system is a superior application of socialism…but rather because Cuba is so small and their rich people tend to be more enmeshed in the population and steal less/have less to steal.

I’m not saying all this because I don’t like socialism and dismiss The USSR and China as failures out of hand - quite the contrary - I’m saying it because socialism is a project that we need to achieve and we have to learn from what’s been done/being tried to achieve it.

Yeah…I just don’t see either state like you do. Both states feature(d) too many wealthy/powerful people for me to consider them entirely socialist. They’re both hybrids…like every state. The USSR heavily featured oligarchs who stole from the people, and who worked against the peoples’ interest on a mass scale. China features a party system that does the same, to a lesser degree.

I think Cuba is a pretty good example of what I’d like to see in a socialist state, minus the ongoing American “meddling”. I wish they didn’t have to rely on tourism to survive, tho…don’t like the classes it creates. Would be much better if they could trade efficiently.

I think you’re an idealist :)

Contrary to Marxism? I think you misread what I’ve said. I think Marx was a visionary, and I’d like to live in his world…I think I’m just more practical than you are.

I think maybe we can agree that we’re talking about different thing re libertarianism. But I will say…show me one of these supposed small business owners, and I’ll show you an employee or a liar that’s speaking on behalf of shadowy wealth. I look at American libertarianism as a well funded and organized appendage of the fascist movement that functions to validate and control poor people who might turn against their coalition.

Yes, I predicted we’d have a different view of the world…like I said…two leftists can always be trusted to radically disagree about everything. I look at early reunification Germany as a “victory” for the moderation of capitalism…but I will agree that the fascists put what they needed to in place to destroy the socialists that the “liberals” accepted, at first.

I’ll never agree that Russia was socialist…nor will I agree that China is. They had/have very heavy socialist elements…but Russia was ultimately an oligarchical kleptocracy and China is a weird hybrid that celebrates capitlmalism at the party level…and uses socialism to control the masses. If I were to view a state as a socialist success…I’d need to see the party/power apparatus less entrenched, and the leaders of the day living like the people. I believe that Latin American socialism could have been great…had it not been perpetually obfuscated and corrupted by the US.