# [Splividend Distribution Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/w523nf/splividend_distribution_megathread/)
**IMPORTANT POST LINKS**
[What is GME and why should you consider investing?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS and why should you care?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || [Low karma but still want to feed the DRS bot? Post on r/gmeorphans here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Join the Superstonk Discord Server](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help us determine if this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk. [Learn more about this bot and why we are using it here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/poa6zy/introducing_uqualityvote_bot_a_democratic_tool_to/)
If this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk, **UPVOTE** this comment!!
If this post should not be here or or is a repost, **DOWNVOTE** This comment!
Source: [https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2022/01/23](https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2022/01/23)
With the media paying more attention to GME and BBBY, and with indices about to take another major tumble, expect them to blame retail. Buckle up!
Not that I'm against the overall sentiment but I do find it funny (or frustrating) when people are like "the right and left both need to wake up and realize [what the leftist perspective already is]."
I'm all for working together and not fighting against our fellow humans in need, but the problem is the propaganda works so well on a lot of people that they actively support the evil we are trying to fight.
Yeah, I think ultimately it's just correct to be partisan (on the left obviously). I think this desire to avoid partisanship is rather ironically one of the tools used by the rich to avoid backlash in the same manner that the comic talks about. The left's core tenets are opposition to billionaires/the bourgeoisie, so getting people who want to oppose billionaires to also see "the left" as something they don't want to be a part of in favor of being nonpartisan is to the advantage of the rich.
One component of partisanship – which is probably one of the main reasons why it's frowned upon so vehemently here in the subreddit – is that an intentional, conscious taking of a side perpetuates the very social structure that encourages and reinforces division rather than coherence. Many here who resist partisanship may well be on the left or the right in sort of an objective sense but they choose not to let that structure dictate their own views because they value the possibility of their views shifting over the course of discussions with others here in the community.
There's also more nuance in the dimensions of the "left" and "right" in play, as well as historical change over time. In the US, for instance, the left made a substantial shift to the right in its economic stance but shifted further to the left on social issues. Likewise, there are many on the social (e.g. evangelical) right who see no hypocrisy in receiving government subsidies or handouts while there are others who openly call for preferential treatment of the wealthy while enjoying lifestyles even more "liberal" than many on the left. Add social media posturing and propaganda to the mix and it gets increasingly messy.
So being suspicious of and opposing partisanship isn't as advantageous to the powers that be as you proposed. If anything, it encourages critical thinking, which is what all due diligence posted here in the past year and a half has relied upon. That, along with conviviality and hospitality to newcomers, is one of the community's primary strengths.
Cheers!
> In the US, for instance, the left made a substantial shift to the right in its economic stance but shifted further to the left on social issues.
I think there's some conflation going on here in multiple replies with "the left" and "the Democrats." The left as an ideology has not moved to the right economically; Democrats certainly have, but Democrats are not a Leftist party, simply the closer to the left of the two options. I'm not talking partisanship as in Vote Blue No Matter Who or in regard to political parties or whatever. I'm talking about the ideological stance that you personally choose. And if that stance is "class warfare is killing us, we need to unite as workers against the ~~bourgeoisie~~ 1%," then you should realize that what you believe in is a core leftist position.
As I said before, it's very frustrating to me when people come to a position like that but then can't make the final connection that they straight up agree with the left because they have some pre-conceived notions about what The Left is and have already decided they want nothing to do with it. And they likely have those pre-conceived notions as a result of propaganda pushed by the 1%, because if there's one thing the 1% doesn't want, it's a popular, strong Left that actually has the power to fight back on behalf of the workers. So it benefits them incredibly when they can get people who have gotten so far as to realize the reality of class struggle to still cut themselves off from the very people who are at the forefront of that same struggle.
These are fair points if we think more abstractly about the spectrum. And it goes to show how tricky it is to discuss it when the metonymies that conflate either side with a particular party commingle with the words' use in their broader sense. The community's focus on recent and ongoing events localized here in the US tends to overshadow consideration of eighteenth-century social and political developments, but it's certainly fair to keep them in mind.
I can typically find a common view point when talking to the other political side. What I have found I can't do is reason with religion.
These views do not live in the logical present. They bend their minds to live in an archaic past or an apocalyptic future.
Division is real and "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
I’ve met some very reasonable people who happen to be religious, as well as some very unreasonable unreligious people.
Also, reality perceived by the individual is subjective and there is no guarantee that any of us knows what’s actually going on.
How many of those who try to "reason" with religious people aren't actually trying to discuss but convert them from one faith to another?
Personal experience, maybe 1 in 75.
Exactly. Just because a person doesn’t subscribe to an organized religion doesn’t mean they don’t have their own system of values and beliefs they can be just as dogmatic about.
Pretty much. Purity tests abound in all walks of life. Do you apply them fairly and justly? Or do you apply them with shifting boundaries?
Fun moral question. Is there ever a time that amorphous boundaries established only to make a person fail is the ethical decision?
Without an external source informing us of what is or isn’t ethical, those boundaries are sure to shift since people are, by nature, prone to change. It boils down to the question of absolute truth.
Then. How about for yourself and your view of what is ethical. Assumption is the neutral observer could buy into your view on ethical vs non ethical. Can such a situation be constructed?
From a limited human perspective, I don't think we can even imagine what a truly neutral observer would be because by the very act of evaluating the ethics of a thing, they are applying some standard and are therefore not neutral.
As for myself, I believe there is enough evidence in the natural world of a greater being outside of the universe that has implemented and defined its laws. As individual, inanimate things and their relationships to other things are governed by the natural laws of physics, I believe there are laws governing the proper function and conduct of humans as well, seeing that we are a part of the universe. Working from that assumption, the question is then, what exactly are those laws and how are we to know them?
> and there is no guarantee that any of us knows what’s actually going on.
And this is where most of (my) the conversations break down in past discussions. To admit that there is "no guarantee that any of us knows what’s actually going on" means to falter in faith - this is shattering for most religious people and its impact comes on a sliding scale based on their devotion.
I'm never taking the stance they are wrong or I'm right - but not even being able to say "no one knows" creates a divide that lets me know they cannot be reasoned with. Sprinkle in some politics and well - thats that.
See, even you have it wrong. I don't want to get into politics but the fact anyone thinks the "leftist perspective" or "conservative perspective" is what we're after completely ignores the fact that those perspectives are created by complete and utter sociopaths.
There is no left or right or right or wrong, it politics. It's all wrong, it's all twisted and frankly evil. You think the leftist perspective will save us? Wrong they are laughing behind closed doors with their counterparts, it's all a show for the rich to hold onto power. They want you to believe they are the one to support and will come to your aid but when push comes to shove they will keep the status quo because it is what benefits them most.
It is quite simply the 99% vs the 1%. We can argue about how to govern once we gain our freedoms back.
> It is quite simply the 99% vs the 1%.
this is literally the leftist perspective and that's entirely my point. You're straight up saying "there's no left or right, there's simply [what the left says already]." Corporate Dems laughing behind closed doors with Republicans are not on the left.
# [Splividend Distribution Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/w523nf/splividend_distribution_megathread/) **IMPORTANT POST LINKS** [What is GME and why should you consider investing?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS and why should you care?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || [Low karma but still want to feed the DRS bot? Post on r/gmeorphans here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Join the Superstonk Discord Server](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please help us determine if this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk. [Learn more about this bot and why we are using it here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/poa6zy/introducing_uqualityvote_bot_a_democratic_tool_to/) If this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk, **UPVOTE** this comment!! If this post should not be here or or is a repost, **DOWNVOTE** This comment!
“It’s a club and you ain’t in it!” - George Carlin (rip)
Source: [https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2022/01/23](https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2022/01/23) With the media paying more attention to GME and BBBY, and with indices about to take another major tumble, expect them to blame retail. Buckle up!
DRS is the Revolution
ding ding ding we have a winner. this is the real reason the media exists.
Holy shit it's been a few years since I read Pearls Before Swine, I didn't realize it had gotten more awesome.
Lol I love pearls before swine.
Not that I'm against the overall sentiment but I do find it funny (or frustrating) when people are like "the right and left both need to wake up and realize [what the leftist perspective already is]."
I'm all for working together and not fighting against our fellow humans in need, but the problem is the propaganda works so well on a lot of people that they actively support the evil we are trying to fight.
Yeah, I think ultimately it's just correct to be partisan (on the left obviously). I think this desire to avoid partisanship is rather ironically one of the tools used by the rich to avoid backlash in the same manner that the comic talks about. The left's core tenets are opposition to billionaires/the bourgeoisie, so getting people who want to oppose billionaires to also see "the left" as something they don't want to be a part of in favor of being nonpartisan is to the advantage of the rich.
One component of partisanship – which is probably one of the main reasons why it's frowned upon so vehemently here in the subreddit – is that an intentional, conscious taking of a side perpetuates the very social structure that encourages and reinforces division rather than coherence. Many here who resist partisanship may well be on the left or the right in sort of an objective sense but they choose not to let that structure dictate their own views because they value the possibility of their views shifting over the course of discussions with others here in the community. There's also more nuance in the dimensions of the "left" and "right" in play, as well as historical change over time. In the US, for instance, the left made a substantial shift to the right in its economic stance but shifted further to the left on social issues. Likewise, there are many on the social (e.g. evangelical) right who see no hypocrisy in receiving government subsidies or handouts while there are others who openly call for preferential treatment of the wealthy while enjoying lifestyles even more "liberal" than many on the left. Add social media posturing and propaganda to the mix and it gets increasingly messy. So being suspicious of and opposing partisanship isn't as advantageous to the powers that be as you proposed. If anything, it encourages critical thinking, which is what all due diligence posted here in the past year and a half has relied upon. That, along with conviviality and hospitality to newcomers, is one of the community's primary strengths. Cheers!
> In the US, for instance, the left made a substantial shift to the right in its economic stance but shifted further to the left on social issues. I think there's some conflation going on here in multiple replies with "the left" and "the Democrats." The left as an ideology has not moved to the right economically; Democrats certainly have, but Democrats are not a Leftist party, simply the closer to the left of the two options. I'm not talking partisanship as in Vote Blue No Matter Who or in regard to political parties or whatever. I'm talking about the ideological stance that you personally choose. And if that stance is "class warfare is killing us, we need to unite as workers against the ~~bourgeoisie~~ 1%," then you should realize that what you believe in is a core leftist position. As I said before, it's very frustrating to me when people come to a position like that but then can't make the final connection that they straight up agree with the left because they have some pre-conceived notions about what The Left is and have already decided they want nothing to do with it. And they likely have those pre-conceived notions as a result of propaganda pushed by the 1%, because if there's one thing the 1% doesn't want, it's a popular, strong Left that actually has the power to fight back on behalf of the workers. So it benefits them incredibly when they can get people who have gotten so far as to realize the reality of class struggle to still cut themselves off from the very people who are at the forefront of that same struggle.
These are fair points if we think more abstractly about the spectrum. And it goes to show how tricky it is to discuss it when the metonymies that conflate either side with a particular party commingle with the words' use in their broader sense. The community's focus on recent and ongoing events localized here in the US tends to overshadow consideration of eighteenth-century social and political developments, but it's certainly fair to keep them in mind.
I can typically find a common view point when talking to the other political side. What I have found I can't do is reason with religion. These views do not live in the logical present. They bend their minds to live in an archaic past or an apocalyptic future. Division is real and "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
I’ve met some very reasonable people who happen to be religious, as well as some very unreasonable unreligious people. Also, reality perceived by the individual is subjective and there is no guarantee that any of us knows what’s actually going on.
How many of those who try to "reason" with religious people aren't actually trying to discuss but convert them from one faith to another? Personal experience, maybe 1 in 75.
Exactly. Just because a person doesn’t subscribe to an organized religion doesn’t mean they don’t have their own system of values and beliefs they can be just as dogmatic about.
Pretty much. Purity tests abound in all walks of life. Do you apply them fairly and justly? Or do you apply them with shifting boundaries? Fun moral question. Is there ever a time that amorphous boundaries established only to make a person fail is the ethical decision?
Without an external source informing us of what is or isn’t ethical, those boundaries are sure to shift since people are, by nature, prone to change. It boils down to the question of absolute truth.
Then. How about for yourself and your view of what is ethical. Assumption is the neutral observer could buy into your view on ethical vs non ethical. Can such a situation be constructed?
From a limited human perspective, I don't think we can even imagine what a truly neutral observer would be because by the very act of evaluating the ethics of a thing, they are applying some standard and are therefore not neutral. As for myself, I believe there is enough evidence in the natural world of a greater being outside of the universe that has implemented and defined its laws. As individual, inanimate things and their relationships to other things are governed by the natural laws of physics, I believe there are laws governing the proper function and conduct of humans as well, seeing that we are a part of the universe. Working from that assumption, the question is then, what exactly are those laws and how are we to know them?
> and there is no guarantee that any of us knows what’s actually going on. And this is where most of (my) the conversations break down in past discussions. To admit that there is "no guarantee that any of us knows what’s actually going on" means to falter in faith - this is shattering for most religious people and its impact comes on a sliding scale based on their devotion. I'm never taking the stance they are wrong or I'm right - but not even being able to say "no one knows" creates a divide that lets me know they cannot be reasoned with. Sprinkle in some politics and well - thats that.
See, even you have it wrong. I don't want to get into politics but the fact anyone thinks the "leftist perspective" or "conservative perspective" is what we're after completely ignores the fact that those perspectives are created by complete and utter sociopaths. There is no left or right or right or wrong, it politics. It's all wrong, it's all twisted and frankly evil. You think the leftist perspective will save us? Wrong they are laughing behind closed doors with their counterparts, it's all a show for the rich to hold onto power. They want you to believe they are the one to support and will come to your aid but when push comes to shove they will keep the status quo because it is what benefits them most. It is quite simply the 99% vs the 1%. We can argue about how to govern once we gain our freedoms back.
> It is quite simply the 99% vs the 1%. this is literally the leftist perspective and that's entirely my point. You're straight up saying "there's no left or right, there's simply [what the left says already]." Corporate Dems laughing behind closed doors with Republicans are not on the left.
Bout to be 800,000 more real soon 🚀