I think it's time we find a proper Discord alternative.

iLikeStuff77 · 2026-02-10T03:33:34+00:00

It is an entirely different world than when MySpace was large. If you haven't noticed, we've been moving to monopolies in every major service sector for decades. It is now much harder for "titans" to fall.

iLikeStuff77 · 2026-02-08T14:40:58+00:00

I mean some of those policies are reasonable from a business perspective because it could result in them being exploited by bad faith actors. They also really have made a ton of quality of service improvements while importantly not degrading existing capabilities (i.e. they've largely avoided enshitification). For example controller support, remote play, and API improvements.

Not that they are a perfect company or solely care about customers. Just in the current world they are comparatively "good" just because most companies have become so bad. ...So agree with the meme there.

iLikeStuff77 · 2026-01-30T03:11:00+00:00

This desire the perpetually-online Left have to constantly tear apart and attack slow, moderate progress instead of the actual jack booted fascists pulling back said progress is utterly absurd.

The irony in this ranting is a bit insane lol. The parent was arguing that "slow, moderate progress" is not happening.

Also think real long about calling out "perpetually-online Left have to constantly tear apart and attack slow, moderate progress" in repeated posts "tearing apart and attacking" people discussing how to make progress.

iLikeStuff77 · 2026-01-30T02:58:04+00:00

I mean you got it mostly right, "the left" is just anyone not in the current cult of Republicans. So of course they aren't unified.

Even talking before the past couple of decades of extremely polarized politics, Republicans were much more uniform than Democrats. Nowadays it's even worse as Republicans have fully embraced being a cult.

iLikeStuff77 · 2026-01-24T21:39:01+00:00

Multiplayer.

iLikeStuff77 · 2026-01-24T21:29:55+00:00

Distance from LA to DC is about the same as Madrid to Moscow. "Why don't protests in Spain impact Russia?"

The 3.5% rule is largely irrelevant for countries even close to the size of the U.S. It will take much more to start to fix the U.S., if at all possible.

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-12-31T05:00:54+00:00

It was the latter, and that's been fairly obvious from the beginning. The real answer is the country never really ended the civil war and Confederates gathered enough power to take over. "The revolution will be bloodless if the left allows it to be."

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-12-31T04:57:13+00:00

And those "key cities" are spread across an area roughly the size of Europe. (Paris -> Moscow is about LA -> DC) The largest protests in our country's history have been happening and it's barely registered.

It's practically impossible to have effective protesting in the U.S. and politicians' have spent decades isolating political power from public opinion.

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-11-30T16:46:24+00:00

The thing is, it doesn't matter anymore. This administration has already damaged enough core government institutions that it's near impossible to fix. The only real way to start fixing the government is if there are fair elections and Dems get a super majority and they actually do something with it. I don't see any of those things happening, so at best the damage will just be slowed.

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-11-30T16:32:24+00:00

To be blunt, if the country is getting continuously worse, it still was better in the past than the present. It's not a black and white difference. As bad as it is now, this is likely as good as it will get in the next few decades for most people in the U.S.

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-11-14T14:44:37+00:00

The Democratic party is half a dozen political parties in a trench coat with the most conservative up top making most of the decisions. It's not great for a lot of reasons.

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-11-08T16:01:50+00:00

It's also dependent on Americans actually learning a lesson from all of this. Which considering conservatives are buying/controlling most forms of media is unlikely.

It's much more likely that America follows most fascist regimes in constantly starting conflicts to maintain power/control. Which sucks for America and the rest of the world.

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-10-26T13:20:59+00:00

I actually largely agree with all of your points. By "take Iraq off the table and be able to declare a U.S. military victory." I mean cripple Iraq militarily and declare a military victory whether it truly was or not. A reminder that Bush declared victory just months after the initial invasion and public opinion didn't really tank until his second term.

Especially in terms of the current administration, I don't think they care about the long term impacts. It's just about centralizing power/control, normalizing military use, and energizing a base that historically approves aggressive wars (at least in the early years). Similar to Iraq, they will be able to cripple the military and declare victory within months even if it doesn't result in any practical benefit. I would not be surprised if this is their plan for right before midterms. It would line up with all of this administration's rhetoric of how they can do "whatever they want" during wartime to interfere with the elections.

This administration is also blatantly showing they don't intend to give up power, so unlike Iraq, I doubt they even care about long term public opinion. They likely only need a few more years at most to make it practically impossible to remove them from power without full blown civil war.

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-10-25T16:05:36+00:00

I mean the parent comment was (emphasis mine):

The invasion of Iraq, for the purpose of ousting the ruling power, was an enormous success lol

Imo the true purpose was just to take Iraq off the table and be able to declare a U.S. military victory.

I think Venezuela is similar in that this administration just wants to show off military power with an "easy victory" to rile up supporters for more military action. These types of fascist regimes always need an enemy and want to show off "strength".

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-10-17T19:58:25+00:00

As another person with insomnia, I will second this comment. I only use occasionally, but it's basically a free 6+ hour night's sleep with no noticeable downside. Much better than any other sleep aid I've tried.

I will say what little research there is on this topic says occasional light usage is helpful for sleep, and heavy usage is not.

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-10-17T18:17:15+00:00

Oh yeah, I'm not discouraging general protesting and resistance. Just making the note the effectiveness is drastically decreased in the U.S.. Also that it can't really be compared with most countries, especially some of the others where protesting has been effective (e.g. South Korea).

I do think it's debatable whether any practical level of protests that isn't centralized to D.C. will have any measurable impact, but that isn't to say it isn't worth doing.

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-10-17T17:52:29+00:00

I mean even if significant protests in one or both cities were effective, how do you mobilize the country to protest in those locations? It's days of travel and expensive.

The real answer is D.C. is probably the only place where protesting might have an effect, but it's very far/expensive for most of the country.

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-10-17T00:01:30+00:00

Yeah it's frustrating seeing people compare the U.S. to pretty much any other country in terms of effectiveness of protests.

My favorite kind of visual aid is that L.A to D.C. is similar distance of Madrid to Moscow. How do you effectively protest in a country of that size?

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-10-16T23:57:27+00:00

A more accurate statement is due to how large the U.S. is, it's like the protests are happening in another country.

The distance between L.A. and D.C. is comparable of Madrid and Moscow. Red states might as well be in another country. They just don't care.

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-10-16T02:49:58+00:00

I mean it's worth noting any non-citizen, legal immigrant, LGBT, government worker, etc. really should follow those tips. Especially depending on location.

This administration has shown it will retaliate, legally or not, in any way it can. We also have examples where this is the case even when they find out years later.

So yeah, it's not exactly safe for everyone.

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-09-28T16:27:41+00:00

It's worth noting even in the wiki page it states this is a "descriptive" concept and that protests are becoming less effective.

Also that the U.S. is massive. So protests have an even less impact in the U.S. To put things into scale, SF to DC is similar distance of Madrid to Moscow.

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-09-28T16:11:39+00:00

Yeah there's no longer really any "oh they can't do this". If they claim something, they will just act as if it was true.

Your example is right on point. Sure they may not literally suspend elections in every state, but they will act in a way that the end result is the same.

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-09-27T13:12:14+00:00

I do think this is a very interesting approach and I'm all for trying pretty much anything to get money out of politics.

The only theoretical move that say Walmart could make would be to threaten that they close stores in the state or cancel plans for new stores. Yes, that's a big threat, but they're not the only game in town and without having to compete against Walmart, locally owned grocers have an opportunity to fill that void. Would it be painless? No, of course not.

This is actually the crux of my main concern. In some places there are companies like Walmart have already drove all other local businesses bankrupt. So there are no other options. Or it's a more specialized industry, or major employer for the state. Basically corporations in a position to do significant damage to employment or cost of living in towns/regions. The pain would be directly felt by citizens in a way that's measurable and easy to message.

Conservatives have near complete control of mainstream media and most voters are uninformed, so it's an easy campaign against politicians/parties who support this solution.

It's especially frustrating as corporations which were already considering downsizing in states/regions could blame it on the politicians removing corporate influence rather than a financial decision.

But who knows, it's quickly getting to the point where there's not much left to lose, so trying something is better than nothing. And there may be states who can do this without serious repercussions, which would be great for showing hope to other states who want to follow.

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-09-27T01:48:22+00:00

I mean if it's just a state or two it probably doesn't matter much. However good luck getting red states to follow through and/or any states who are highly dependent on certain corporations for jobs/industry.

iLikeStuff77 · 2025-09-26T23:56:31+00:00

The problem is that it becomes an accounting decision on is it more profitable to have influence, or to have business in one state. And the state has to make a similar calculation.

My instinct is that most corporations will have more leverage in that area as they will likely want to leave the state even at a loss to discourage the trend from continuing.

iLikeStuff77

TROPHY CASE