Wtf is my alcoholic gambling addict brother supposed to do? Pull himself up by his personal responsibility and yeet his phone, tv, and internet into the sun?
Because those things are full of fucking predatory gambling app advertisements.
Tried watching sports center for the first time in years. Used to be they'd cover all the football games then all the baseball games then all the golf that happened etc.
Now it's just jumping around from random game to random game as the hosts go through their bets, all of which are stupid parlays that they'd never make money on if they weren't getting paid to natively advertise it.
Instead of talking about if one teams strong offense is gonna be enough to overcome another teams defense that's been really hot lately it's a discussion about if some random player is going to get more or less than 4 3 pointers during odd numbered minutes of the 4th quarter.
I don't want a state to tell me what I can and can't do with my personal life as long as I'm not doing harm to anyone else.
Here's why this take is wrong. Gambling is never a "I'm not doing harm to anyone else" situation. Gambling is always a material relationship between 2 people or more people. You may feel like gambling is a personal situation because of alienation, but it is not. If you are playing a slot machine for example, you are in a material relationship with the slot machine owner. In this situation, the slot machine owner has a power advantage over you and is exploiting you. In cases of sportsbetting or card games, you are doing material transfers between people over arbitrary terms and the casino owner is always taking a cut. Gambling is always harming someone else. If you win at gambling, it is because you harmed someone else. If you lose at gambling, then it is because someone else harmed you.
To go further into why into why gambling is an exploitative relationship. Gambling is a transfer of unearned value. Money is a representation of value. Value comes from performing labor. When you are a proletarian and sell your labor, you are receiving money (a material representation of value) in exchange for your labor, usually the money you receive is worth less than the value of labor you performed. When you gamble, you are not doing any labor (you are not producing anything) but you are potentially receiving money. You receive money from speculation. In selling your labor, you receive value equal or less than the value you produce with labor. In gambling, you receive value for producing no value. This is the same reason why the bourgeoisie is a parasitic class, because they extract value without producing value.
What's absurd to me is that it's not like you couldn't bet on sports before, you just had to have some buddies at work, or a sibling who or something who was interested.
That doesn't allow for the quantity of gambling necessary to immiserate people en masse though.
Which also contributed to it draining income from the community.
If you and your brother in law trade the same 20 bucks back and forth over a few years of 2 person bets then all you did was make the game more exciting. If you did the same but gave a quarter of that to the US government to buy bombs and tanks for the local police department then you could be hundreds or thousands in the hole each after a few years.
My views put me somewhere between a Marxist-Leninist and Libertarian Socialist. I want the masses to own the means of production, and a state that enables people more than it restricts them. Longer reasoning coming.
No, I mean you sound like you are a member of the Libertarian Party in the US.
There is no Marxist-Leninist party in the world that wants completely uncontrolled vices, what the fuck?
Like casinos/lotteries/now sports betting are some of the most predatory forms of capitalism known to man, you aren't even a socialist if you want them deregulated.
That's not true at all. I'm to the left of everyone in my community except maybe the 2 Ultras I know.
that wants completely uncontrolled vices
That's a gross misrepresentation of where I stand.
Someone mentioned a father of three becoming a gambling addict. Of course I don't support that, and frankly I expect better of folks here than to jump into arguments like that. In that particular case I want the state to intervene for child endangerment leaning towards child abuse.
But just because some people become addicted to a thing, and a few people ruin their lives over the thing, doesn't mean the government should force all of us to avoid the thing. For every addict or idiot who blows up their account and has to sell their home, there's millions of people who are enjoying gambling for what it is supposed to be: entertainment. Most people are putting $20 in on their bets or slots or whatever and not expecting to win anything but get some fun out of the deal.
Someone else explained how gambling is exploitative. Yes it is! So is everything under Capitalism! Cheap immigrant labor was exploited so a grocer can profit off selling me the tomatoes they picked. The supply chain of Funko Pops is probably some Dickensian nightmare of injection molds and chemical compounds that makes Flint, MI water look safe to drink. I am typing this on a device that probably contains metals mined by kids in the congo. There's NO ethical consumption under Capitalism! Why would I single out one type of consumption when the whole damn system is rotten?
I also don't support banning the sale of Funko Pops, produce, cars, or laptop computers.
Capitalism is essentially a world-wide open-air prison. You can't escape it, you can't opt out, and if you try to fight it you get punished or killed. Borders are the walls and the "free market" is the prison guard. You have to conform to survive. There's no option to not work, to not gamble your money for "retirement", to gamble with your health, and to make a million little decisions that you wouldn't take if you weren't coerced to participate in this system. This system is bullshit. I want to destroy it
As a member of the LGBT community, I really don't want the state to have any more power over me. It's the right wing that wants to regulate what people do with their lives, whether that's telling women they can't control their own bodies, telling drag queens they can't be near kids, telling trans people in general they can't exist, telling me I can't marry another human with a penis, etc. I'm not in favor of a state like this because my entire life has been under a "nanny" state that restricts everything I do.
It baffles me that as leftists we claim to want to liberate the masses, and then turn around and get very paternal about a few specific things like gambling, drugs, etc. I would think us of all people would understand wanting to be left alone! I want to be left alone! I want a state that leaves people alone!
Maybe a state where the people have complete control will be different, but I do NOT ever want to allow unelected bureaucrats to have power over my body, my family, and my friends' lives the way the U.S. has control over those right now.
But just because some people become addicted to a thing, and a few people ruin their lives over the thing,
It's not a few we're talking about the systemic robbery of the working class by Draft Kings and their ilk
doesn't mean the government should force all of us to avoid the thing.
For every addict or idiot who blows up their account and has to sell their home, there's millions of people who are enjoying gambling for what it is supposed to be: entertainment.
Millions!? Are you fucking kidding me, where did this ratio come from?
There's NO ethical consumption under Capitalism! Why would I single out one type of consumption when the whole damn system is rotten?
Capitalism is bad everywhere so nothing is worse than anything else. I can actually do whatever the fuck I want. Since jaywalking is also a crime it makes no sense to jail someone longer for murder. Everything is flat! Tomatoes and the fucking Mafia are equal! I'm on a smart phone so I'm as bad as the goddamn Sackler family who should be allowed to keep up their drug operation because everything is equally bad!
"nanny" state
you sound like my racist uncle
baffles me that as leftists
"leftist" is a wobbly meaningless word that lets radlibs pretend to be revolutionary. Hexbear is a communist community. Communist communist communist. I'm a commie.
we claim to want to liberate the masses, and then turn around and get very paternal about a few specific things like gambling, drugs, etc.
I'm extremely pro laws and rules and restrictions if they're in the interest of the working class. Banning sports betting apps is clearly in the interest of the working class.
I would think us of all people would understand wanting to be left alone! I want to be left alone! I want a state that leaves people alone!
I don't share your sentiment and think you should change your display name to Ron Paul.
Maybe a state where the people have complete control will be different, but I do NOT ever want to allow unelected bureaucrats to have power over my body, my family, and my friends' lives the way the U.S. has control over those right now.
Did one of your friends or family members found DraftKings or something?
Banning sports betting apps is clearly in the interest of the working class.
No, it's your personal opinion of what the working class wants. We need to operate in reality, and the reality is demand is there for all of these betting apps and millions of people to be using them every day.
I don't do it personally, it's not for me, but that's not the point. A good communist should go to the masses and build a program based on what they want, not what you think they want
That some people would buy something does not mean the proletariat as a bloc supports it. Very many people think sports gambling on this digital industrial scale is absolutely fucked, and from a democratic standpoint, if the majority believe that, the thing to do is ban it. Moreover, even among the 19% of Americans who use these apps (and not all of them are devotees, mind), a meaningful portion of them are there because of advertising glamorizing the apps, and a fair portion are still there because they are addicts, i.e. it's not a choice being made freely. It seems like an obvious measure to present the options of banning or re-legalizing it with a discussion on things like gambling addiction.
As an aside, I am once again asking you to read Mao: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_2.htm#g9 . Once workers are given power, it is entirely possible for them to take action against the gambling that has troubled their community under the dictatorship of the owning class.
Based on limited information, I don't like all of the measures described there, but I think it's unquestionably superior to the previous state of things because what is lost were some cultural affectations and hobbies, and what was gained was freedom from both psychological and chemical addictions, along with food security, safety from banditry, lower rent, political representation, etc.
Someone mentioned a father of three becoming a gambling addict. Of course I don't support that, and frankly I expect better of folks here than to jump into arguments like that. In that particular case I want the state to intervene for child endangerment leaning towards child abuse.
Just want to point out that you don't want the state to have power over you by banning your gambling treats, but you are fine with the state having the power to take away the children of gambling addicts.
One other point: I think pushing to ban things like gambling or alcohol is BAD political strategy! I want a working class movement to overthrow the current U.S. system. We need this movement badly. The last thing the movement needs is to split or fracture because some people want to be nosy about how other people choose to spend their after-bills money. The fact is the left isn't growing at the rate it needs to, and we should take a long look at why. I don't believe any tendency has the complete picture. Try something different.
It's not politically consistent to say on one hand we should liberate the workers from the chains of capitalism, but then turn around and go, "no smoking, no drinking, no casinos, no gacha mechanics in video games, etc." Right-wingers take away peoples' choices. You win people over by protecting their treats, protecting their choices, and trusting them to live authentic lives. Even if that means doing things you personally don't approve of! If you're not hurting someone else and you are taking care of yourself, go blow that $50 on slots! Go buy that $300 Funko, or blow that money on a new XboxStation 6, whatever. Have fun, I don't care!
One last thing: Where does the "vice" label come from anyway? Why are some activities labeled "vices" and others are not? I have a feeling there's a religious component behind this. I hate that religion has made so many people poke and prod into other people's personal lives. It's none of your business what's in my pants, or how I dress, or what I want to do in my free time. I'm sick and tired of Christians and other religious types always trying to force their lifestyle on me! Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone.
Why ban gambling when you can just create conditions where its not possible to ruin your life by gambling. Like can't gamble away your house if its community managed. Cannot impoverish 'your' kids if they're not dependent on a nuclear family.
What the fuck would people be gambling in this hypothetical society? M&M? I don't think the government current breaks up retirees player poker for pennies in their spare time.
Your close to understanding then. Gambling exists because of capitalism just as Engle's outlined about prostitution. You can't ban capitalism you can't ban gambling you can't ban prostitution you can only create the conditions in which it doesn't exist.
Well that's not totally true you can ban these things but only in the contest of expanding enforcement mechanisms.
Obviously it's not just his problem. However, that would hold the same if it was to fuel his drinking habit, but we don't propose banning alcohol because of that, right?
But like, why don't we extend that to drugs and alcohol though? No commericial sale, but you can make it and share with friends and family.
After all, no communist should be siding with Coors or Phillip Morris.
Quite frankly all of it could be banned and it wouldn't affect me, so I don't have a personal stake. I'm just intrigued by how people square the differences between vices.
Allowing it, is, and this isn't conjecture, it's an observable fact, sucking money out of the working class (obviously worsening their living conditions in the process) and giving it to some of the worst predators that capitalism has to offer.
Saying that that should be allowed is callous disregard for the well being of the poor and something I'd expect from a liberal, not someone calling themselves a communist.
Allowing it, is, and this isn't conjecture, it's an observable fact, sucking money out of the working class (obviously worsening their living conditions in the process) and giving it to some of the worst predators that capitalism has to offer.
Again, can the same not be said of the alcohol and cigarette industries? I work with people in recovery at my job and people really go through some shit because of drugs.
trauma, abuse
It's part of what destroyed my parent's marriage and why they lost the house to the bank. When I was 10 my dad showed up for visitation and tried to get me in the car with him while he was drunk behind the wheel.
But for whatever reason, we don't see prohibition as the solution to that. So I'm asking why this is different and I'm getting precious few answers that don't arbitrarily moralize.
One: cigarettes should be banned
Two: I'm ambivalent about alcohol because it's been part of human culture basically since human culture has existed, it feels almost like cultural erasure to ban it- nonetheless alcoholism needs to be treated more seriously in this country, there is almost no treatment available and the barrier to purchase is non-existent.
Three: alcohol is clearly different because Smirnoff doesn't make deadly poisonous bad batches of vodka on the regular, and if you ban it outright ,then people making it in their bathtubs will.
Small scale, illegal but irrepressible sports betting between friends is less harmful, small scale, illegal but irrepressible alcohol production is incredibly dangerous.
First I want to apologize if I got a little rude in my previous comment—I was just getting off work so the issue of drugs and alcohol was front of mind. Ultimately I want to understand what you and everyone else is saying, and me getting snippy gets in the way of that and isn't good for anyone.
No arguments on the cigarettes!
I'm ambivalent about alcohol because it's been part of human culture basically since human culture has existed, it feels almost like cultural erasure to ban it
We could say the same for gambling too though, right? It's about as old and has similar cultural effects.
Fun fact, you can't actually make vodka or any distilled spirits in a bathtub, which I didn't know before I looked it up. You need some kind of still or still-like instrument to distill it, otherwise you just have a bunch gross tasting "wash" and that barrier to entry means very few people would end up doing it. Homebrew of beer, wine, mead, and other such "softer" alcohol is actually pretty safe all things considered, which I didn't really know either. All academic because I don't think it's a good idea at the end of the day, but I found it interesting at least.
I question the irrepressability of gambling being limited to the small scale. Unlike alcohol production which has a pretty big physical footprint, a pretty big gambling operation could just go through encrypted channels and stuff to keep it stealthy.
Also, I was thinking about currently still illegal gambling stuff like dogfighting or cockfighting. Isn't it possible that people could get pushed to more harmful types of gambling like that if it gets pushed underground?
We could say the same for gambling too though, right? It's about as old and has similar cultural effects.
Personal betting is thousands of years old. Gigantic billionaire dollar smart phone betting companies are extremely recent.
You will never convince people to quit betting their buddies 10 bucks over whose favorite team will score more points this weekend. You absolutely can, and if you as a government care about your citizens at all, must, stop DraftKings from taking all the rent money out of a poor family's bank account.
that barrier to entry means very few people would end up doing it.
Enough people would do it and distribute it, that it would drive up deaths and injuries significantly
I question the irrepressability of gambling being limited to the small scale. Unlike alcohol production which has a pretty big physical footprint, a pretty big gambling operation could just go through encrypted channels and stuff to keep it stealthy.
One: the barrier to entry would reduce the societal impact a lot
Two: you could still work to shut these places down, it would just be more work.
Also, I was thinking about currently still illegal gambling stuff like dogfighting or cockfighting. Isn't it possible that people could get pushed to more harmful types of gambling like that if it gets pushed underground?
I doubt it.
First of all it was illegal half a decade ago.
Do you have reason to believe that dogfighting has dropped specifically in the last 6 years?
Per the ASPCA it's been on the decline since the 90s (when, remember, all this app casino shit that has been normalized enough in SIX YEARS that multiple posters in this communist instance are defending it, was illegal), but has been on the rise again "in recent years" due to the internet making it easier to organize, so if anything it's gotten more common along with sports betting.
Furthermore, in the Citations Needed ep they mentioned that gambling constantly desensitizes gamblers to the risk and they start making riskier, higher stakes bets over time. If anything, willingness to do riskier bets is going to make these people more likely to go to a dogfight, not less.
Obivously they didn't have megacorps back in the day, but developed, institutional betting has been around since Rome where it was commonplace for pretty much everyone to do it at arenas.
I looked more into moonshine and distillation, and I actually think the more dangerous part of it is the equipment itself rather than the methanol in foreshots. I'm still skeptical that more people would have alcohol-based negative health outcomes in a prohibition scenario compared to the current one. Apparently death and illness from alcohol dropped pretty significantly during prohibition.
That makes sense about the dogfighting, I really don't know much about it but was curious regardless.
It's you that is arbitrarily moralizing by putting a bunch of different things into a single idealist category and demanding they all be treated the same way. They are different issues that require different solutions. Demanding that we can't fix one thing unless we fix all things simultaneously in the same exact manner is a weird bit to do and kind of betrays a lack of knowledge of materialism and scientific socialism.
I don't think I'd say I'm demanding that they be fixed simultaneously. I'm saying that it's weird people don't hold these things to a similar standard and I find the reasoning behind it to be fairly spurious. I'd push back on "single idealist category" because I feel like it's pretty simple delineation. They're both activities that generally aren't good for you that people still partake in because they're fun. Dopamine hit in exchange for negative long term outcomes.
(Slightly edited this because I wasn't happy with how combative I was being)
Alcohol is a good that lots of people enjoy and use responsibly, and is deeply entrenched in human history and culture. It's not going anywhere. It will exist under communism, although it will cease to exist as a commodity. Those who cannot use it responsibly and begin to exhibit anti-social tendencies with it should have mandatory rehabilitation.
Gambling, at an industry and not personal level, has no utility and is purely a system of cons to exploit the poor of their money and transfer wealth. It will not exist under communism except at a small scale between individuals. If there's no money anymore and labor vouchers are non-exchangeable and tied to the person then gambling will pretty much stop making any sense outside of moneyless bets for bragging privileges.
Tobacco/nicotine should be phased out as an industry as well, but this has to be treated with care due to the physical component of the addiction. Probably a gradual raising of the smoking age until it is eradicated in newer generations. Hobbyists and small scale tobacco growing/use should still be permitted at an individual level, but obviously the tobacco industry itself should be mostly wiped out.
Gambling is also something that lots of people enjoy and use responsibly, and is also deeply entrenched in human history and culture. The oldest recorded gambling record or instrument is within spitting distance of the oldest recorded alcohol on a civilizational scale. Entire polities exist and have existed predicated on gambling.
People gamble for fun and often with zero money involved. Have you seen Twitch prop bets before? It's monopoly money but people still get into it and it's certainly not small scale between individuals.
I'm really having a hard time seeing a meaningful distinction or justification for banning one and not the other here that doesn't depend on individual mores.
Idealism is causing you to group all of "vices" together into a single idealistic category, which you believe should all be treated the same. This is platonism basically. Each individual "vice" will need to be treated differently based on the material ways in which it interacts with and effects human society. There's no point shoving them all in the same box and demanding they all be treated the same. They aren't people, they don't deserve equality.
People don't propose banning alcohol because a previous attempt to ban alcohol led to failure. The problem is that some people are extrapolating a single attempt to ban alcohol into some general law about how prohibition will always be doomed to failure. An easy counterexample is when the PRC banned opium. During the Century of Humiliation, huge swaths of the population were addicted to opium, so when the CPC seized power and proclaimed the People's Republic of China, they banned opium because they saw opium as a social vice wrought by Western imperialists. And when opium was banned, the percentage of the population that were addicted to opium plummeted to the point where opium addiction ceased to be a social vice.
We have yet another example in a giant pile of examples of something leading to failure when the USians did it but leading to success when the Chinese did it. This is "China good US bad" trumping "prohibition will never work." Instead of clinging on the false idea that prohibition never works, we ought to analyze why the CPC was successful in eradicating opium addiction while the US failed in its attempt at banning alcohol.
I do think that the substances have important differences on top of the competency gap between countries.
One of these is made from one plant, often imported. The other can be made by anyone with a waterproof container and literally any plant.
The one that's easier to make is also ingrained in society as a way to form bonds with ones fellows by letting your guard down in a social environment, while the other basically removed you from society so the number and type of person who's going to resist the prohibition is very different.
Yes, there's that aspect as well. Alcohol is just a byproduct of a biological process. Banning alcohol is on par with banning plants or banning compost. Likewise, banning marijuana is a fool's errant because cannabis is a hardy plant that's easy to grow. It's like trying to ban an invasive species. Once you move to stuff like cocaine or heroin, it becomes easier to target them because they are synthetic products that have chemical precursors. You don't even have to ban the actual drug but instead target the precursors required to manufacture the drug. This would be ideal because it targets drug production instead of personal use.
And I just suddenly remembered that there are some people who say that Prohibition wasn't even done to curb alcoholism as a social vice but to prevent workers from organizing. The idea is that workers fraternize in bars and pubs after work, which would lead to a degree of class consciousness and organizing, so by banning alcohol, it was a way of destroying a third space for workers to fraternize with one another. Browsing the Wikipedia article on Prohibition shows that rich people were largely unaffected by Prohibition because they quickly hoarded large quantities of alcohol in preparation for Prohibition and had the means and land necessary to set up their own personal production of alcohol.
I'd never heard that angle before—outside of general "morals" stuff the only other lens I've seen was newly enfranchised women trying to stop their abusive husbands from getting ridiculously drunk all the time
America did have a large problem with alcoholism at the time and needed some sort of intervention. The problem is with how it was implemented, with the feds deliberately poisoning batches of alcohol to trace where it went and mobs gaining control of everything. There was a way to get help for the huge portion of society that were antisocial violent and abusive drunkards without throwing them in jails or driving them into the arms of the mob.
"Everyone person should have the right to make a bad deal for themselves" is the logic of the Lochner court decisions. They said the government shouldn't stop anyone who chooses to work in a hazardous workplace, or sign a contract that says you won't join a union or choose to put their 12 year old children to work in mines.
Our laws have to protect people, otherwise we're just doing libertarianism.
Our laws should protect people from doing harm to others. I couldn't care less if someone wants to smoke themselves to death. I care a lot if that person is near me blowing second-hand smoke at my face!
I think we have a fundamental disagreement with the way society should be. I want to protect people from predatory companies and won't elevate the individual rights of people to gamble over the welfare of all.
Not all harm in our society is simple one-on-one "I swing my arm and strike your face" harm. We live in a complex social order where all actions taken interact with the broader world. There are a lot of behaviors that don't cause direct immediate harm to others but cause a degrading effect on society at large when enough people are doing it.
oh ok lets get rid of labor laws, since I signed a contract agreeing to the risk of harm for the money. It's all part of the voluntary exchange and I don't want no nanny state government telling me I can't sell myself into contract slavery! It's my body!
I don't want a government telling me who I can marry, what bathroom I have to use, whether I can own a gun, whether I can drink or not, etc. You people aren't listening to what I'm saying. I was very clear that I want government to stop people from harming others.
You can keep missing the point and post about "muh voluntary contract" but that's not at all the same thing. Of course those should be outlawed... they cause harm to people. I want to get rid of Capitalism completely, but I'm not a fucking prude who is going into a UAW meeting telling people they can't blow $5 on DraftKings this Sunday.
I couldn't care less if someone wants to smoke themselves to death.
do you really truly believe this? would you say this about your parents or loved ones if they were smoking a pack a day and had emphysema and lung cancer? You wouldn't stage any kind of intervention to try and get them to quit and get them help? If they kept smoking, you wouldn't take their cigarettes away from them?
I extend the care that I feel towards my immediate loved ones to society at large. I am deeply saddened by deaths of despair, of millions of people killing themselves slowly with alcohol, tobacco and opiates. I don't think it's right to let them die without trying to help, just like I don't think it would be right to let someone you notice struggling to swim drown right next to you. We have obligations to love and help each other, and I would never let a loved one drink themselves to death if I could help it, so why would I let my fellow humanity do it just because I don't personally know them?
Libertarianism, individualism and voluntarism that you espouse completely ignores human interconnectivity and our obligations and duties. It pretends there is no obligation or duty to society.
and at the very least, until they are fully phased out, could be subjected to harm reduction measures (eg mandatory riboflavin supplementation in all alcoholic drinks, severe limits on advertisement of gambling apps, time spent gambling, elimination of gambling-adjacent features in children's games among others)
are you even a socialist? if you can't reduce social ills what is even the point of your ideology? some half-baked individualist "i can do nothing all day"?
You live in a society asshole, existing around other humans necessitates regulations on "how you live your life". If you don't like it you can go Ted Kaczynski off to Idaho if you want.
You are elevating an abstract ideal of personal choice above the reality of people suffering.
The purpose of something is what it does. If it's a Skinner box that keeps people perpetually indulgent, addled, and even violent, it is a clear net negative, and doesn't need to exist. There are other things, maybe even with shiny lights and tokens involved, that people can get their fix on.
I'm not saying it should be fully prohibited and prevented; just kept outside the domain of business. People can do it if they want to, but no one's allowed to make a buck off it. In other words, a commercial ban.
Removed by mod
Wtf is my alcoholic gambling addict brother supposed to do? Pull himself up by his personal responsibility and yeet his phone, tv, and internet into the sun?
Because those things are full of fucking predatory gambling app advertisements.
Heaven forbid someone likes sports and tries to stop gambling too considering every ad break during sports games is for a betting app
Hell I've seen them plastered over subways and other places, so even touching grass won't help
Gambling delenda est
Gambling seriously ruined sports too.
Tried watching sports center for the first time in years. Used to be they'd cover all the football games then all the baseball games then all the golf that happened etc.
Now it's just jumping around from random game to random game as the hosts go through their bets, all of which are stupid parlays that they'd never make money on if they weren't getting paid to natively advertise it.
Instead of talking about if one teams strong offense is gonna be enough to overcome another teams defense that's been really hot lately it's a discussion about if some random player is going to get more or less than 4 3 pointers during odd numbered minutes of the 4th quarter.
Here's why this take is wrong. Gambling is never a "I'm not doing harm to anyone else" situation. Gambling is always a material relationship between 2 people or more people. You may feel like gambling is a personal situation because of alienation, but it is not. If you are playing a slot machine for example, you are in a material relationship with the slot machine owner. In this situation, the slot machine owner has a power advantage over you and is exploiting you. In cases of sportsbetting or card games, you are doing material transfers between people over arbitrary terms and the casino owner is always taking a cut. Gambling is always harming someone else. If you win at gambling, it is because you harmed someone else. If you lose at gambling, then it is because someone else harmed you.
To go further into why into why gambling is an exploitative relationship. Gambling is a transfer of unearned value. Money is a representation of value. Value comes from performing labor. When you are a proletarian and sell your labor, you are receiving money (a material representation of value) in exchange for your labor, usually the money you receive is worth less than the value of labor you performed. When you gamble, you are not doing any labor (you are not producing anything) but you are potentially receiving money. You receive money from speculation. In selling your labor, you receive value equal or less than the value you produce with labor. In gambling, you receive value for producing no value. This is the same reason why the bourgeoisie is a parasitic class, because they extract value without producing value.
This pretty much answers the thread right here
This sounds like libertarianism
deleted by creator
What's absurd to me is that it's not like you couldn't bet on sports before, you just had to have some buddies at work, or a sibling who or something who was interested.
That doesn't allow for the quantity of gambling necessary to immiserate people en masse though.
Also all that income was untaxed now they cut in the government it's fully legalized.
Which also contributed to it draining income from the community.
If you and your brother in law trade the same 20 bucks back and forth over a few years of 2 person bets then all you did was make the game more exciting. If you did the same but gave a quarter of that to the US government to buy bombs and tanks for the local police department then you could be hundreds or thousands in the hole each after a few years.
My views put me somewhere between a Marxist-Leninist and Libertarian Socialist. I want the masses to own the means of production, and a state that enables people more than it restricts them. Longer reasoning coming.
No, I mean you sound like you are a member of the Libertarian Party in the US.
There is no Marxist-Leninist party in the world that wants completely uncontrolled vices, what the fuck?
Like casinos/lotteries/now sports betting are some of the most predatory forms of capitalism known to man, you aren't even a socialist if you want them deregulated.
You're to the right of a typical Democrat
That's not true at all. I'm to the left of everyone in my community except maybe the 2 Ultras I know.
That's a gross misrepresentation of where I stand.
Someone mentioned a father of three becoming a gambling addict. Of course I don't support that, and frankly I expect better of folks here than to jump into arguments like that. In that particular case I want the state to intervene for child endangerment leaning towards child abuse.
But just because some people become addicted to a thing, and a few people ruin their lives over the thing, doesn't mean the government should force all of us to avoid the thing. For every addict or idiot who blows up their account and has to sell their home, there's millions of people who are enjoying gambling for what it is supposed to be: entertainment. Most people are putting $20 in on their bets or slots or whatever and not expecting to win anything but get some fun out of the deal.
Someone else explained how gambling is exploitative. Yes it is! So is everything under Capitalism! Cheap immigrant labor was exploited so a grocer can profit off selling me the tomatoes they picked. The supply chain of Funko Pops is probably some Dickensian nightmare of injection molds and chemical compounds that makes Flint, MI water look safe to drink. I am typing this on a device that probably contains metals mined by kids in the congo. There's NO ethical consumption under Capitalism! Why would I single out one type of consumption when the whole damn system is rotten?
I also don't support banning the sale of Funko Pops, produce, cars, or laptop computers.
Capitalism is essentially a world-wide open-air prison. You can't escape it, you can't opt out, and if you try to fight it you get punished or killed. Borders are the walls and the "free market" is the prison guard. You have to conform to survive. There's no option to not work, to not gamble your money for "retirement", to gamble with your health, and to make a million little decisions that you wouldn't take if you weren't coerced to participate in this system. This system is bullshit. I want to destroy it
As a member of the LGBT community, I really don't want the state to have any more power over me. It's the right wing that wants to regulate what people do with their lives, whether that's telling women they can't control their own bodies, telling drag queens they can't be near kids, telling trans people in general they can't exist, telling me I can't marry another human with a penis, etc. I'm not in favor of a state like this because my entire life has been under a "nanny" state that restricts everything I do.
It baffles me that as leftists we claim to want to liberate the masses, and then turn around and get very paternal about a few specific things like gambling, drugs, etc. I would think us of all people would understand wanting to be left alone! I want to be left alone! I want a state that leaves people alone!
Maybe a state where the people have complete control will be different, but I do NOT ever want to allow unelected bureaucrats to have power over my body, my family, and my friends' lives the way the U.S. has control over those right now.
It's not a few we're talking about the systemic robbery of the working class by Draft Kings and their ilk
Millions!? Are you fucking kidding me, where did this ratio come from?
Capitalism is bad everywhere so nothing is worse than anything else. I can actually do whatever the fuck I want. Since jaywalking is also a crime it makes no sense to jail someone longer for murder. Everything is flat! Tomatoes and the fucking Mafia are equal! I'm on a smart phone so I'm as bad as the goddamn Sackler family who should be allowed to keep up their drug operation because everything is equally bad!
you sound like my racist uncle
"leftist" is a wobbly meaningless word that lets radlibs pretend to be revolutionary. Hexbear is a communist community. Communist communist communist. I'm a commie.
I'm extremely pro laws and rules and restrictions if they're in the interest of the working class. Banning sports betting apps is clearly in the interest of the working class.
I don't share your sentiment and think you should change your display name to Ron Paul.
Did one of your friends or family members found DraftKings or something?
No, it's your personal opinion of what the working class wants. We need to operate in reality, and the reality is demand is there for all of these betting apps and millions of people to be using them every day.
I don't do it personally, it's not for me, but that's not the point. A good communist should go to the masses and build a program based on what they want, not what you think they want
I don't need a libertarian to tell me what a good communist would do.
And I don't need a Republican to tell me what a good Marxist would do
Who do you think the working class consists of?
That some people would buy something does not mean the proletariat as a bloc supports it. Very many people think sports gambling on this digital industrial scale is absolutely fucked, and from a democratic standpoint, if the majority believe that, the thing to do is ban it. Moreover, even among the 19% of Americans who use these apps (and not all of them are devotees, mind), a meaningful portion of them are there because of advertising glamorizing the apps, and a fair portion are still there because they are addicts, i.e. it's not a choice being made freely. It seems like an obvious measure to present the options of banning or re-legalizing it with a discussion on things like gambling addiction.
As an aside, I am once again asking you to read Mao: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_2.htm#g9 . Once workers are given power, it is entirely possible for them to take action against the gambling that has troubled their community under the dictatorship of the owning class.
Based on limited information, I don't like all of the measures described there, but I think it's unquestionably superior to the previous state of things because what is lost were some cultural affectations and hobbies, and what was gained was freedom from both psychological and chemical addictions, along with food security, safety from banditry, lower rent, political representation, etc.
Just want to point out that you don't want the state to have power over you by banning your gambling treats, but you are fine with the state having the power to take away the children of gambling addicts.
One other point: I think pushing to ban things like gambling or alcohol is BAD political strategy! I want a working class movement to overthrow the current U.S. system. We need this movement badly. The last thing the movement needs is to split or fracture because some people want to be nosy about how other people choose to spend their after-bills money. The fact is the left isn't growing at the rate it needs to, and we should take a long look at why. I don't believe any tendency has the complete picture. Try something different.
It's not politically consistent to say on one hand we should liberate the workers from the chains of capitalism, but then turn around and go, "no smoking, no drinking, no casinos, no gacha mechanics in video games, etc." Right-wingers take away peoples' choices. You win people over by protecting their treats, protecting their choices, and trusting them to live authentic lives. Even if that means doing things you personally don't approve of! If you're not hurting someone else and you are taking care of yourself, go blow that $50 on slots! Go buy that $300 Funko, or blow that money on a new XboxStation 6, whatever. Have fun, I don't care!
Casinos and gacha mechanics are the fucking embodiment of capitalism, of course I'd want to liberate people from that
Also smoking and drinking are very bad for your health and it's a state's duty to protect its people from dangers to their health
One last thing: Where does the "vice" label come from anyway? Why are some activities labeled "vices" and others are not? I have a feeling there's a religious component behind this. I hate that religion has made so many people poke and prod into other people's personal lives. It's none of your business what's in my pants, or how I dress, or what I want to do in my free time. I'm sick and tired of Christians and other religious types always trying to force their lifestyle on me! Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone.
deleted by creator
When you combine idealism with materialist communism all you get is a philosophical abomination
Join the club. I've been called an "abomination" all my life :)
deleted by creator
would you like a little help getting up on that cross?
So when a father of 3 with a wife gambles away the house, it's just his problem right?
Why ban gambling when you can just create conditions where its not possible to ruin your life by gambling. Like can't gamble away your house if its community managed. Cannot impoverish 'your' kids if they're not dependent on a nuclear family.
No shit I want a world in which those conditions don't exist, why do you think I'm on this website?
OK well you can't ban gambling without pressing the buton either (see current conditions) Banning things is a ham fishted non solution.
Meeting and guaranteeing peoples basic necessities would render this conversation moot and is easily achievable
Basic necessities include protection from gambling
What the fuck would people be gambling in this hypothetical society? M&M? I don't think the government current breaks up retirees player poker for pennies in their spare time.
Your close to understanding then. Gambling exists because of capitalism just as Engle's outlined about prostitution. You can't ban capitalism you can't ban gambling you can't ban prostitution you can only create the conditions in which it doesn't exist.
Well that's not totally true you can ban these things but only in the contest of expanding enforcement mechanisms.
Obviously it's not just his problem. However, that would hold the same if it was to fuel his drinking habit, but we don't propose banning alcohol because of that, right?
Severe alcoholism with anti-social effects should be banned and rehabilitation for their addiction provided, just like with gambling addicts
Yeah that sounds good. People apparently want sports gambling to be wholly illegal in here, though
No, I want people to make small bets with their friends and family if they feel the need to gamble.
Which could hardly be banned anyways.
No communist should be siding with Draft Kings for God's sake
But like, why don't we extend that to drugs and alcohol though? No commericial sale, but you can make it and share with friends and family.
After all, no communist should be siding with Coors or Phillip Morris.
Quite frankly all of it could be banned and it wouldn't affect me, so I don't have a personal stake. I'm just intrigued by how people square the differences between vices.
Allowing it, is, and this isn't conjecture, it's an observable fact, sucking money out of the working class (obviously worsening their living conditions in the process) and giving it to some of the worst predators that capitalism has to offer.
Saying that that should be allowed is callous disregard for the well being of the poor and something I'd expect from a liberal, not someone calling themselves a communist.
Again, can the same not be said of the alcohol and cigarette industries? I work with people in recovery at my job and people really go through some shit because of drugs.
trauma, abuse
It's part of what destroyed my parent's marriage and why they lost the house to the bank. When I was 10 my dad showed up for visitation and tried to get me in the car with him while he was drunk behind the wheel.
But for whatever reason, we don't see prohibition as the solution to that. So I'm asking why this is different and I'm getting precious few answers that don't arbitrarily moralize.
One: cigarettes should be banned Two: I'm ambivalent about alcohol because it's been part of human culture basically since human culture has existed, it feels almost like cultural erasure to ban it- nonetheless alcoholism needs to be treated more seriously in this country, there is almost no treatment available and the barrier to purchase is non-existent.
Three: alcohol is clearly different because Smirnoff doesn't make deadly poisonous bad batches of vodka on the regular, and if you ban it outright ,then people making it in their bathtubs will.
Small scale, illegal but irrepressible sports betting between friends is less harmful, small scale, illegal but irrepressible alcohol production is incredibly dangerous.
First I want to apologize if I got a little rude in my previous comment—I was just getting off work so the issue of drugs and alcohol was front of mind. Ultimately I want to understand what you and everyone else is saying, and me getting snippy gets in the way of that and isn't good for anyone.
No arguments on the cigarettes!
We could say the same for gambling too though, right? It's about as old and has similar cultural effects.
Fun fact, you can't actually make vodka or any distilled spirits in a bathtub, which I didn't know before I looked it up. You need some kind of still or still-like instrument to distill it, otherwise you just have a bunch gross tasting "wash" and that barrier to entry means very few people would end up doing it. Homebrew of beer, wine, mead, and other such "softer" alcohol is actually pretty safe all things considered, which I didn't really know either. All academic because I don't think it's a good idea at the end of the day, but I found it interesting at least.
I question the irrepressability of gambling being limited to the small scale. Unlike alcohol production which has a pretty big physical footprint, a pretty big gambling operation could just go through encrypted channels and stuff to keep it stealthy.
Also, I was thinking about currently still illegal gambling stuff like dogfighting or cockfighting. Isn't it possible that people could get pushed to more harmful types of gambling like that if it gets pushed underground?
Personal betting is thousands of years old. Gigantic billionaire dollar smart phone betting companies are extremely recent.
You will never convince people to quit betting their buddies 10 bucks over whose favorite team will score more points this weekend. You absolutely can, and if you as a government care about your citizens at all, must, stop DraftKings from taking all the rent money out of a poor family's bank account.
Enough people would do it and distribute it, that it would drive up deaths and injuries significantly
One: the barrier to entry would reduce the societal impact a lot
Two: you could still work to shut these places down, it would just be more work.
I doubt it.
First of all it was illegal half a decade ago.
Do you have reason to believe that dogfighting has dropped specifically in the last 6 years?
Per the ASPCA it's been on the decline since the 90s (when, remember, all this app casino shit that has been normalized enough in SIX YEARS that multiple posters in this communist instance are defending it, was illegal), but has been on the rise again "in recent years" due to the internet making it easier to organize, so if anything it's gotten more common along with sports betting.
Furthermore, in the Citations Needed ep they mentioned that gambling constantly desensitizes gamblers to the risk and they start making riskier, higher stakes bets over time. If anything, willingness to do riskier bets is going to make these people more likely to go to a dogfight, not less.
Obivously they didn't have megacorps back in the day, but developed, institutional betting has been around since Rome where it was commonplace for pretty much everyone to do it at arenas.
I looked more into moonshine and distillation, and I actually think the more dangerous part of it is the equipment itself rather than the methanol in foreshots. I'm still skeptical that more people would have alcohol-based negative health outcomes in a prohibition scenario compared to the current one. Apparently death and illness from alcohol dropped pretty significantly during prohibition.
That makes sense about the dogfighting, I really don't know much about it but was curious regardless.
It's you that is arbitrarily moralizing by putting a bunch of different things into a single idealist category and demanding they all be treated the same way. They are different issues that require different solutions. Demanding that we can't fix one thing unless we fix all things simultaneously in the same exact manner is a weird bit to do and kind of betrays a lack of knowledge of materialism and scientific socialism.
I don't think I'd say I'm demanding that they be fixed simultaneously. I'm saying that it's weird people don't hold these things to a similar standard and I find the reasoning behind it to be fairly spurious. I'd push back on "single idealist category" because I feel like it's pretty simple delineation. They're both activities that generally aren't good for you that people still partake in because they're fun. Dopamine hit in exchange for negative long term outcomes.
(Slightly edited this because I wasn't happy with how combative I was being)
the gambling "industry" should be destroyed with the hammer of the state
Okay swag, but if that's how it's gonna be then shouldn't alcohol and cigarettes/vapes go right along with it? I sure wouldn't miss them
Alcohol is a good that lots of people enjoy and use responsibly, and is deeply entrenched in human history and culture. It's not going anywhere. It will exist under communism, although it will cease to exist as a commodity. Those who cannot use it responsibly and begin to exhibit anti-social tendencies with it should have mandatory rehabilitation.
Gambling, at an industry and not personal level, has no utility and is purely a system of cons to exploit the poor of their money and transfer wealth. It will not exist under communism except at a small scale between individuals. If there's no money anymore and labor vouchers are non-exchangeable and tied to the person then gambling will pretty much stop making any sense outside of moneyless bets for bragging privileges.
Tobacco/nicotine should be phased out as an industry as well, but this has to be treated with care due to the physical component of the addiction. Probably a gradual raising of the smoking age until it is eradicated in newer generations. Hobbyists and small scale tobacco growing/use should still be permitted at an individual level, but obviously the tobacco industry itself should be mostly wiped out.
Gambling is also something that lots of people enjoy and use responsibly, and is also deeply entrenched in human history and culture. The oldest recorded gambling record or instrument is within spitting distance of the oldest recorded alcohol on a civilizational scale. Entire polities exist and have existed predicated on gambling.
People gamble for fun and often with zero money involved. Have you seen Twitch prop bets before? It's monopoly money but people still get into it and it's certainly not small scale between individuals.
I'm really having a hard time seeing a meaningful distinction or justification for banning one and not the other here that doesn't depend on individual mores.
Idealism is causing you to group all of "vices" together into a single idealistic category, which you believe should all be treated the same. This is platonism basically. Each individual "vice" will need to be treated differently based on the material ways in which it interacts with and effects human society. There's no point shoving them all in the same box and demanding they all be treated the same. They aren't people, they don't deserve equality.
People don't propose banning alcohol because a previous attempt to ban alcohol led to failure. The problem is that some people are extrapolating a single attempt to ban alcohol into some general law about how prohibition will always be doomed to failure. An easy counterexample is when the PRC banned opium. During the Century of Humiliation, huge swaths of the population were addicted to opium, so when the CPC seized power and proclaimed the People's Republic of China, they banned opium because they saw opium as a social vice wrought by Western imperialists. And when opium was banned, the percentage of the population that were addicted to opium plummeted to the point where opium addiction ceased to be a social vice.
We have yet another example in a giant pile of examples of something leading to failure when the USians did it but leading to success when the Chinese did it. This is "China good US bad" trumping "prohibition will never work." Instead of clinging on the false idea that prohibition never works, we ought to analyze why the CPC was successful in eradicating opium addiction while the US failed in its attempt at banning alcohol.
I do think that the substances have important differences on top of the competency gap between countries.
One of these is made from one plant, often imported. The other can be made by anyone with a waterproof container and literally any plant.
The one that's easier to make is also ingrained in society as a way to form bonds with ones fellows by letting your guard down in a social environment, while the other basically removed you from society so the number and type of person who's going to resist the prohibition is very different.
Yes, there's that aspect as well. Alcohol is just a byproduct of a biological process. Banning alcohol is on par with banning plants or banning compost. Likewise, banning marijuana is a fool's errant because cannabis is a hardy plant that's easy to grow. It's like trying to ban an invasive species. Once you move to stuff like cocaine or heroin, it becomes easier to target them because they are synthetic products that have chemical precursors. You don't even have to ban the actual drug but instead target the precursors required to manufacture the drug. This would be ideal because it targets drug production instead of personal use.
And I just suddenly remembered that there are some people who say that Prohibition wasn't even done to curb alcoholism as a social vice but to prevent workers from organizing. The idea is that workers fraternize in bars and pubs after work, which would lead to a degree of class consciousness and organizing, so by banning alcohol, it was a way of destroying a third space for workers to fraternize with one another. Browsing the Wikipedia article on Prohibition shows that rich people were largely unaffected by Prohibition because they quickly hoarded large quantities of alcohol in preparation for Prohibition and had the means and land necessary to set up their own personal production of alcohol.
I'd never heard that angle before—outside of general "morals" stuff the only other lens I've seen was newly enfranchised women trying to stop their abusive husbands from getting ridiculously drunk all the time
America did have a large problem with alcoholism at the time and needed some sort of intervention. The problem is with how it was implemented, with the feds deliberately poisoning batches of alcohol to trace where it went and mobs gaining control of everything. There was a way to get help for the huge portion of society that were antisocial violent and abusive drunkards without throwing them in jails or driving them into the arms of the mob.
Yeah I was reading more and apparently prohibition did have some good effects with reducing illness and death from alcohol
ok now i'm completely, idealistically invested in prohibition
"Everyone person should have the right to make a bad deal for themselves" is the logic of the Lochner court decisions. They said the government shouldn't stop anyone who chooses to work in a hazardous workplace, or sign a contract that says you won't join a union or choose to put their 12 year old children to work in mines.
Our laws have to protect people, otherwise we're just doing libertarianism.
Our laws should protect people from doing harm to others. I couldn't care less if someone wants to smoke themselves to death. I care a lot if that person is near me blowing second-hand smoke at my face!
I think we have a fundamental disagreement with the way society should be. I want to protect people from predatory companies and won't elevate the individual rights of people to gamble over the welfare of all.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
You don't care
deleted by creator
Who said they want to control everything you do? We're talking about sports gambling
deleted by creator
Not all harm in our society is simple one-on-one "I swing my arm and strike your face" harm. We live in a complex social order where all actions taken interact with the broader world. There are a lot of behaviors that don't cause direct immediate harm to others but cause a degrading effect on society at large when enough people are doing it.
oh ok lets get rid of labor laws, since I signed a contract agreeing to the risk of harm for the money. It's all part of the voluntary exchange and I don't want no nanny state government telling me I can't sell myself into contract slavery! It's my body!
Talk about going to extremes.
I don't want a government telling me who I can marry, what bathroom I have to use, whether I can own a gun, whether I can drink or not, etc. You people aren't listening to what I'm saying. I was very clear that I want government to stop people from harming others.
You can keep missing the point and post about "muh voluntary contract" but that's not at all the same thing. Of course those should be outlawed... they cause harm to people. I want to get rid of Capitalism completely, but I'm not a fucking prude who is going into a UAW meeting telling people they can't blow $5 on DraftKings this Sunday.
Three minutes before this post you said that since people here disagree with you, you're going to kill yourself.
Please, first of all, if that wasn't an empty threat, don't do that over Hexbear.
But also please get some perspective here.
it's following your logic to its ends. If I have the right to drink myself to death then I also have the right to sell my body into slavery right?
do you really truly believe this? would you say this about your parents or loved ones if they were smoking a pack a day and had emphysema and lung cancer? You wouldn't stage any kind of intervention to try and get them to quit and get them help? If they kept smoking, you wouldn't take their cigarettes away from them?
I extend the care that I feel towards my immediate loved ones to society at large. I am deeply saddened by deaths of despair, of millions of people killing themselves slowly with alcohol, tobacco and opiates. I don't think it's right to let them die without trying to help, just like I don't think it would be right to let someone you notice struggling to swim drown right next to you. We have obligations to love and help each other, and I would never let a loved one drink themselves to death if I could help it, so why would I let my fellow humanity do it just because I don't personally know them?
Libertarianism, individualism and voluntarism that you espouse completely ignores human interconnectivity and our obligations and duties. It pretends there is no obligation or duty to society.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
alcohol and gambling are indisputable societal ills and should be phased out in any kind of utopian vision. this is just libertarianism
and at the very least, until they are fully phased out, could be subjected to harm reduction measures (eg mandatory riboflavin supplementation in all alcoholic drinks, severe limits on advertisement of gambling apps, time spent gambling, elimination of gambling-adjacent features in children's games among others)
are you even a socialist? if you can't reduce social ills what is even the point of your ideology? some half-baked individualist "i can do nothing all day"?
When you look at the range of people that gamble, it's not exactly something you ever see "in moderation" very much.
That's not a good reason to ban something.
Yes it is
No, I'm not going to let you tell me how I get to live my life.
Are you doing a bit or are you a weird libertarian?
You live in a society asshole, existing around other humans necessitates regulations on "how you live your life". If you don't like it you can go Ted Kaczynski off to Idaho if you want.
it won't be "me"
it will be the democratic bodies of the working class. And yes, they will get to set rules and regulations and laws you have to follow
deleted by creator
literal "fuck you mom, bedtime is when i say so" ideology
You are elevating an abstract ideal of personal choice above the reality of people suffering.
The purpose of something is what it does. If it's a Skinner box that keeps people perpetually indulgent, addled, and even violent, it is a clear net negative, and doesn't need to exist. There are other things, maybe even with shiny lights and tokens involved, that people can get their fix on.
I'm not saying it should be fully prohibited and prevented; just kept outside the domain of business. People can do it if they want to, but no one's allowed to make a buck off it. In other words, a commercial ban.
deleted by creator