167
submitted 1 day ago by git@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 6 points 9 hours ago

Of all the bad shit Temer (who came to power after Dilma's coup) did in Brazil, legalizing sports betting without any kind of regulation is probably the worst.

Any economic gain Brazil had after COVID have been funneled out to those sites. Can only hope Lula do something about it soon.

[-] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 57 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I didn't expect a struggle session or treat defending in a thread about international corporate-scale fucking sports gambling.

What is even left to be leftist about if someone is totally fine with ever-growing sports gambling conglomerates destroying the livelihoods (and even the lives) of individuals and everyone around them while performing one of the most direct poor-to-rich wealth transfers there is?

[-] imogen_underscore@hexbear.net 35 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

it's driving me nuts lol. sorry to debatelord but clearly people learned that drug prohibition doesn't work (true) and are drawing a complete false equivalency here.

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 16 hours ago

Also drug prohibition did worked in socialism so there is yet another layer of liberal-churned grey matter on it.

[-] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 5 points 7 hours ago

I had actually never even thought of drug prohibition in socialist countries. Fuck my life, maybe the problem isn't drug prohibition, and it's bourgeois governments fucking again... Do you have any interesting read on this?

I swear, mate, every time I read your comments you're unfathomably based, thank you for that

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Thank you.

The thing about drugs needs to be really expanded on other similar things - tobacco, alcohol, gambling etc. Sure all those are as old as humanity in this or that form, but you can notice in history, wherever those become a systemic problem, there's always a ruling class organising, promoting and profiting from those.

As a Pole, great example of this is alcohol. Up till maybe XVII-XVIII century it wasn't even a problem for most society, because only richer people were able to afford strong alcohol like wine*, peasants and burghers drank beer that had more common with the ancient beer than modern one - that it was very weak but also dense and caloric. Then, during the XVII-XVIII centuries, in the age where nobility was experimenting with myriad ways of exploiting peasants, propination privilege was born. Nobles were forcing peasants to trade only with them, and that include beer, so of course peasants get forbidden for making their own beer, but had to buy from the noble, so quality dropped like stone (there are sources saying it was so disgusting people were afraid to drink it) and price increased, also it was sold obligatory, every peasant had to buy. Then the vodka made from grains appeared and it allowed for even more profits, also nobles started to pay peasants** in vodka. This of course caused immediate epidemic of alcoholism that got way worse when cities get under similar boot, and it was so bad in XIX century that it got enshrined in culture. (all this was very similar in Russia)

This is very important point, because it explains how hard is to get rid of it. Every Polish state, from II RP, through PRL to current Poland tries to do something with it, and, as many opinions here would tell, failed, but it's only when having binary look at this. You can't just eradicate plague so entrenched, but even the mere act of state stopping promoting alcohol did a lot to contain the issue. Though you can argue, and you would be right, that all three of those states did promote alcohol by owning or allowing for selling, advertising etc. But then you could notice that after 100 years the issue is much less severe than it was in 1918. There was also some half measures, both in form of antialcohol educational and administrative campaigns in PRL, which did had their effects or even partial prohibition efforts. Last one is pretty interesting, it was prohibition fo selling alcohol before 1PM, which seems superficial but it greatly reduced the most dangerous (and common then) aspect of alcoholism, people getting drunk in work. And this also after a time got into culture and regulations so now drinking in work is very rare (even though the partial prohibition was abolished long ago, arguing that it fulfilled its role).

The similar is with drugs and gambling, there was not much problem with those in socialism, even though PRL did the usual forms of state gambling like lotteries, because there was not much supply, not much promotion and not even much demand. All three increased with liberalisation and increased cultural penetration from the west, to explode when the socialism was destroyed. You probably did saw the horror reports from Russian transformation, Polish was not as horrible but still bad, and it was absolutely clear that all those drugs that suddenly flooded our streets weren't just conjured from thin air. No, all of this is part of the class war.

*Yes it might sound weird right now, but wine was considered strong alcohol for most of history (and it was usually even weaker than most modern wines) - for example ancient Greeks watered it down so much that getting drunk took them hours of pretty fast drinking, and Gauls shocked entire Mediterranean world by drinking unwatered wine (and they soon learned to water it down so medieval and later French were also often watering it heavily). Of course stronger alcohols like brandy was known, but it was expensive and rare. Vodka appeared on a noticeable scale around XVII century (and it was expensive and real shit, it was falsified with everything from pepper through gunpowder to sulphuric acid). Only mass and incredibly cheap destilation methods invented during the industrial revolution cause strong alcohols to spread like crazy.

**For their grain usually, not for labour, at this point serfdom was so far going that a peasant family was obligated to unpaid work even 32 workdays per week. Even totally landless and destitute peasants were obligated to work 4-5 days per week.

Finally, i'm currently reading excellent book about serfdom and generally condition of peasants in Poland, i might write a short review after i finish.

[-] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 3 points 5 hours ago

Thanks for the detailed comment, and I'd love to read your little review on the book when you're done.

Thinking about it, you make a very compelling point. How do we pretend to try and fight gambling, while allowing literal private companies to profit from it. I didn't think about the complexity and price of alcohol distillation up until the industrial revolution, and it's interesting to know that for most of history, distilled drinks weren't a thing for the vast majority of the population. Honestly, good for them. Low alcohol content beers are much much harder to get alcoholic on, than hard liquor. I lived in Germany for a while, and I was horrified at a common practice in supermarkets: next to every cashier, they have a little shelf full of little booze bottles and cigarette packs. How is that fucking legal, it's extremely obviously targeted to addicts, and it's honestly shameful that people in Germany don't fight to forbid that.

About wine being considered high alcohol content, I did know that too, reading some historic novels about the second punic war (the trilogy of Scipio, by a Spanish writer called Santiago Posteguillo) and about Julia Domna (also by Posteguillo), it was clear thay Romans considered drinking wine without watering down to be a thing for barbarians. Funnily enough, in contemporary Spain, a very popular summer drink is "tinto de verano", which is a mixture of wine with a slightly sweet soda water called "gaseosa", so I guess we still run with it at least partially (many people do drink wine with meals).

All in all, yeah, I'll definitely dedicate some time and possibly research to looking into prohibition of certain addictions such as some drugs or gambling in socialist countries... Interesting shit. Thanks again mate, always a pleasure to see you around

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 5 hours ago

I lived in Germany for a while, and I was horrified at a common practice in supermarkets: next to every cashier, they have a little shelf full of little booze bottles and cigarette packs.

Same in Poland, and all the cheap fruit wines, commonly called "brainscrambler" or "brainfucker" - on a sidenote, Janusz Palikot, one of most notable Polish liberal succdem politicians (though now he's sidelined) made a fortune producing and selling them.

[-] newerAccountWhoDis@hexbear.net 6 points 12 hours ago

Also drug prohibition did worked in socialism

Did it?

"Sergei Lebedev, the Chairman of the Association of Independent Advocates in Leningrad at the time, argued that the steady escalation of criminal penalties for drug use was 'indicative of the Soviet authorities' resignation to their complete inability to solve drug problems in a constructive and humane way'." (Wikipedia).

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Yes it did. Increase was involved with growing liberalisation of USSR and allowing more and more culture from the west. This do happen when you have imperialist powers and capitalist class using and promoting drugs against working class. You can compare to what happened in all socialist states after system change. Better would be looking at modern China and hundreds of millions of opium addicts in it. Wait, there aren't hundreds of millions opium addicts there now, i wonder what happened after 1949, surely Mao just didn't forbid them their fun?

[-] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 26 points 1 day ago

There's a consistency at its core: "making something illegal doesn't make it impossible, therefore nothing should be illegal, especially if it's a treat I like." smuglord

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] GnastyGnuts@hexbear.net 27 points 1 day ago

I forget the exact stats on it, but gambling addiction is especially destructive to people's lives even compared with other major addictions. Also, on a petty treat-fiend note, it has made sports so much fucking shittier.

[-] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 18 points 1 day ago

Also, on a petty treat-fiend note, it has made sports so much fucking shittier.

Any restrictions on the treats whatsover is wrong and bad because Prohibition and everything can be compared to Prohibition so regulations bad in general. I am very leftist. smuglord

[-] operacion_ogro@hexbear.net 47 points 1 day ago
[-] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 29 points 1 day ago

Lmao, I just started listening to this and they immediately compare it to legalizing heroin and giving control of the heroin industry to tobacco companies, with the implication that that would obviously be incredibly bad.

Turns out half the people in this thread think that that's a great idea actually.

[-] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 10 points 20 hours ago

It's a lot less than half, judging by the upvotes. Still, didn't expect this to be controversial at all.

[-] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 9 points 20 hours ago

Yeah, that was a bit of an exaggeration, I think I was just shocked a bit by how much pushback "giant particularly evil capitalist enterprise bad" got

[-] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 7 points 18 hours ago

I got a lot of shit for talking about treatbrain before, but I am going to keep talking about it because that shit stops any attempt to improve society somewhat before it can even start.

See how much mass rejection there was for covid restrictions once treats felt too inconvenient to access? That reactive effect could doom us all, nonjokingly.

[-] Diuretic_Materialism@hexbear.net 5 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I don't really see much "treatbrain" here, I doubt many people here enjoy sports gambling, or gambling in general. I think it's just that, somewhat understandably, the failure of the war on drugs in the US has made most western leftists hyper-libertarian on vice regulation. It's an attitude I've seen a lot even with otherwise smart comrades. Decades of people getting thrown in jail for possessing a small amount of marijuana kinda does that to people.

[-] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 0 points 8 hours ago

I doubt many people here enjoy sports gambling, or gambling in general.

Why doubt it?

Is there some specific inoculation present in the people on Hexbear that makes them less likely to gamble or to become addicted to gambling, particularly from addiction-intended phone apps?

[-] Diuretic_Materialism@hexbear.net 1 points 7 hours ago

I never see people here talk about it. Unlike other "treats". If they were defending it out of personal enjoyment I'd expect people to cite that more rather than argue more from an ideological libertarian point of view.

[-] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I haven't actually seen it talked about, or defended, until this thread. Reading the text of the defending here makes me wonder if it was just a low-profile thing for some users until it got brought up here and needed to be defended with misanthropic statements about not caring about the suffering of others and other such examples of "maybe in deep with gambling apps."

EDIT: I just did a closer read of the poster I was thinking of, and maybe you're right. Maybe it's just some broad-brushed ideological puritanism that absolutely demands "no veggies at dinner, no bedtimes" abolishment of any and all restrictions on anything.

[-] Diuretic_Materialism@hexbear.net 2 points 7 hours ago

There's that one guy, but besides him most people seem to be drawing parallels to drug prohibition. Which again is understandable because the war on drugs has been an utter failure in the US.

[-] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I agree, it has been a failure, but as another poster mentioned, non-Burgerland restrictions on some of the most harmful drugs (as in actually harmful, not some kid with a joint) did have a positive societal effect under socialism.

I suppose the memory of Prohibition (and the ever-vaguer legend of it as it fades further into history) is something some people cling to no matter what, as a sort of indirect American Exceptionalism that implies that if Burgerland failed at it (and how could it not fail considering how easily accessible and everywhere alcohol has always been, and how corrupt the cops were all along) that no restrictions are possible whatsoever, nor should any ever be put in place no matter how harmful the thing in question.

EDIT: The "war on drugs" has technically been a success if one considers it started under Nixon as a means to imprison black people.

[-] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 5 points 11 hours ago

I'm not going to lie, I've been very anti treatbrain rhetoric in the past but I think this thread has broken me of that. I'm genuinely unsure how we got to this point, never expected so many Hexbear to defend DraftKings like this

[-] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I'm genuinely unsure how we got to this point, never expected so many Hexbear to defend DraftKings like this

It's a simple but powerful motivational force: they got theirs. That's all there is to it. The sports betting app went beepbeep, pleasure centers of the brain activated, defensive tendencies engaged if the source of pleasure is criticized.

Many such cases. rust-darkness

EDIT: Or, maybe, it's just some ideological puritanism that requires no restrictions on absolutely any treats because of dae le Prohibition bad.

[-] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 23 points 1 day ago

Oh my God then they started talking about self-identified socialists now having a libertarian streak and thinking restrictions on people's actions by a Nanny State are bad.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net 14 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

It's also ruining sports, the advertising is everywhere and extremely tacky, while contributing to the financial ruin of the poorest in society. If I see another HollywoodBets advert I willredacted-1redacted-2

Specifically, for every $1 spent on betting, households put $2 less into investment accounts. States see big increases in the risk of overdrafting a bank account or maxing out a credit card. These effects are strongest among already precarious households.

Fake society with fake finance. This is terrible.

Looking specifically at online sports gambling, they find that legalization increases the risk that a household goes bankrupt by 25 to 30 percent, and increases debt delinquency. These problems seem to concentrate among young men living in low-income counties—further evidence that those most hurt by sports gambling are the least well-off.

Yeah definitely. I see it all the time with soccer/football.

Matsuzawa and Arnesen extend this, finding that in states where sports betting is legal, the effect is even bigger. They estimate that legal sports betting leads to a roughly 9 percent increase in intimate-partner violence.

...

Legalization isn’t yielding many benefits, either. Tax revenue—one of the major justifications for legalization—has been anemic, with all 38 legal states combined making only about $500 million from it a quarter, less than alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana

Of course, these gambling operations are great at avoiding taxes, setting up their operation to be off shore on official paperwork, in office buildings that don't exist.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Assian_Candor@hexbear.net 87 points 1 day ago

Gambling is perhaps the most egregious example of a naked wealth transfer from the poor to the rich

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
167 points (99.4% liked)

news

23445 readers
687 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS