Unity has temporarily closed its offices in San Francisco and Austin, Texas and canceled a town hall meeting after receiving death threats. The company made the call as a precaution against possible retribution after it announced a contentious change to its business model this week.
I was pointing out that this particular business model they’re introducing could literally cause the creator of a game to go broke trying to pay it depending on the popularity of their product. That’s broken. And Unity should have known it was broken.
Yeah, agreed.
Rioting causes a lot of collateral damage to people and places that are not involved. Historically though, the elite create systems where violence slowly but surely becomes the only avenue for change. I’m not saying this is one of them. I am saying this is capitalism and the reason everything is the way it is in the world right now. Rich people wanting to get richer at the expense of poor people.
Yeah, 100% agreed. That’s why I keep talking about real economic injustice and how I feel about it, even though I think applying those tools to this specific situation is way unnecessary.
If your whole rant is about the death threats I think you missed the point. Because I wasn’t making a point about the death threats.
I think you may be the exception then. We’re talking under a headline about death threats, and the reason I was a little salty about it was that it seems like there are a bunch of people here who genuinely think death threats are a good response to this situation, and to me that’s pretty nutty.
If I’m reading this message from you right, we’re pretty much in agreement: This is a sorta shitty situation, and sometimes genuine economic injustice demands radical solutions, but at the end of the day this is a pretty minor issue.
I will say this though. I’d rather have death threats that no one follows through with that are “credible” and change a company’s behaviour than have to riot in the streets.
You do realize that this is exactly how these MAGA hard-core faithfuls think, right? “Well if you’re going to run your bakery / social media company / election in a way I don’t like, I’ll threaten to kill you, because at the end of the day if you change your behavior that’s justified”? You kinda lost me again with this one.
Some are, yes (the Oathkeepers and etc). A lot of them aren’t, though – they’re just making death threats that are “credible” to change someone’s behavior, and a lot of them actually use that exact logic that this is a better way than rising up and having actual violence (with the implication that that’s what’ll happen if the threats don’t change the behavior). But that’s all good with you, right?
I’m just trying to be a jerk about it, I’m just taking you at face value about the things you’re supporting. If that’s offensive, I think you should stop supporting them.
Here’s a question. Do you think the rest that showed up on Jan 6th were just taken in by mob mentality, or?
I have to wonder about the difference here too. If what you’re saying is true, civil rights movements across the world have been little more than people who felt that they were justified to commit acts of violence because that’s the only way to change a behaviour they felt was detrimentally affecting them. And what you’re saying is that’s wrong. But chances are it has a direct effect on your freedoms that you enjoy today. So who’s wrong here? The realist who knows that they may someday be driven to violence because their livelihood or rights are endangered.or infringed, or the person who wants to pretend we live in a world where we can effect change only through non violent means?
And keep in mind that while this particular example of capitalist greed and overreach does not affect rights and freedoms, it is part of a systemic problem that on the whole is detrimentally effecting rights and freedoms as well as people’s ability to live. Because capitalism is all about keeping a class of poor people poor to exploit profits.
I’m also not convinced the threats are that credible. I think that’s a sympathy play. Them trying to be the victim.
Force Protection is used all over the world by governments and militaries literally daily. It is definitely something that humans have been doing for the entirety of their history. And what you’re saying is that you have a sliding scale for what you feel is warranted and what is not. Not that you don’t think that threats should be used. Just that death threats is too far.
Here’s a question. Do you think the rest that showed up on Jan 6th were just taken in by mob mentality, or?
I think people had all kinds of individual intentions and mentalities, but the bulk of the crowd was convinced that American democracy was being overthrown in broad daylight in front of their eyes. They thought that because they’d been systematically lied to in very crafted and calculated ways and weren’t equipped with, or didn’t want to use, the tools that would have let them figure out the truth. That’s what makes the whole thing so incredibly dangerous – it’s actually pretty reasonable to go to literal war if you think American democracy is ending. The problem is that there’s a huge chunk of the country that thinks that, when it’s not true (or… well… not in the way that they think 🥲). And so, lo and behold, they’re steadily becoming more and more willing to go to war.
(And this also gets back to the tactical aspect that I keep coming back to – How Democracies Die has a great breakdown of how to behave in a collapsing democracy, and one of the things that they found through their research is that “cheating” to fight back against the emergent fascist movement that is cheating to steal their power often makes things worse. It accelerates that abandonment of democratic norms and hastens the collapse. In that case, there are a lot of situations where the best thing is to fight back within the system, even when your opponents are going outside the system so you have to fight an uphill battle, to maintain the democracy in the long run.)
If what you’re saying is true, civil rights movements across the world have been little more than people who felt that they were justified to commit acts of violence because that’s the only way to change a behaviour they felt was detrimentally affecting them. And what you’re saying is that’s wrong.
So, I don’t actually think violence is never justified. In some other comment in this thread, I broke down some different scenarios from history where a body of people resorted to different types of resolutions when their rights were being “legally” trampled and what I thought of each one (just from my personal POV). I talked about the labor movement having violent confrontations with police and private security when their economic freedoms were being denied (more accurately, they fought back when attacked with violence). To me I think that was 100% fine.
So one other example that comes to mind is that early night of the BLM protests, when they took over the 3rd precinct and burned it down. This might sound surprising since I have a mostly “pro police” viewpoint, but I actually think that was pretty justified. There’s a severe injustice (you’re killing us in the streets without consequences), it’s been known for a while, we tried nonviolent means of addressing it (peaceful protest, going through the courts), it cannot just remain unaddressed, and it seems like we’re out of options. Okay, fuck it man, if that’s what’s up, then let’s go.
So here’s the distinction: I definitely think there are individual departments that commit genuine atrocities and get away with it. I strongly disagree with the the “that’s every US cop” narrative, but it does happen. And so the distinction is that this was a genuine war crime, and that’s the precinct that did it. It’s hard for me to say people in that precinct should hold a rally within their designated area to chant about how it’s wrong and then go home and hope it doesn’t happen again. I can guarantee that that event changed the calculus of a lot of police and police leadership nationwide in a way that peaceful protest will not.
(Edit: Side note, burning down the precinct was also clearly a crime, and I think they wound up sending someone to prison for 4 years for it. That side of it to me is justified also. If it’s so big an emergency that you claim the right to upend other people’s lives to make things change, it needs to be so big an emergency that it’s okay to upend your own life as a result of making things change. Trying to apply it in one direction but not the other – as a lot of the January 6th people did – is pure, selfish, deluded, dangerous bullshit.)
And keep in mind that while this particular example of capitalist greed and overreach does not affect rights and freedoms, it is part of a systemic problem that on the whole is detrimentally effecting rights and freedoms as well as people’s ability to live. Because capitalism is all about keeping a class of poor people poor to exploit profits.
Yeah, I agree with all that. That’s why I’m being a little careful not to say that this is all just a silly overreaction to a software company’s pricing. But at the same time… I think people should think about what they genuinely want and how to get there. Sending death threats to the Unity offices is, I think, going to:
Maybe scare some individual people that work at Unity
Maybe change the pricing, although I think the fundamental idiocy of the pricing change is more likely to do that honestly
Maybe get you arrested for a felony
Do jack shit to address the underlying economic factors
… and, crucially, it’s going to add one little iota in favor of the idea that if something’s happening that you don’t like, you need to make threats of serious violence unconstrained by a justice framework or a long-term plan. That’s a pretty popular idea right now, mostly from the conservative side, and I don’t think it needs more people to sign onto it.
Yeah, agreed.
Yeah, 100% agreed. That’s why I keep talking about real economic injustice and how I feel about it, even though I think applying those tools to this specific situation is way unnecessary.
I think you may be the exception then. We’re talking under a headline about death threats, and the reason I was a little salty about it was that it seems like there are a bunch of people here who genuinely think death threats are a good response to this situation, and to me that’s pretty nutty.
If I’m reading this message from you right, we’re pretty much in agreement: This is a sorta shitty situation, and sometimes genuine economic injustice demands radical solutions, but at the end of the day this is a pretty minor issue.
You do realize that this is exactly how these MAGA hard-core faithfuls think, right? “Well if you’re going to run your bakery / social media company / election in a way I don’t like, I’ll threaten to kill you, because at the end of the day if you change your behavior that’s justified”? You kinda lost me again with this one.
I don’t agree with the Maga statement. Mostly because from what I have seen they actually are frothing at the mouth for violence.
Some are, yes (the Oathkeepers and etc). A lot of them aren’t, though – they’re just making death threats that are “credible” to change someone’s behavior, and a lot of them actually use that exact logic that this is a better way than rising up and having actual violence (with the implication that that’s what’ll happen if the threats don’t change the behavior). But that’s all good with you, right?
I’m just trying to be a jerk about it, I’m just taking you at face value about the things you’re supporting. If that’s offensive, I think you should stop supporting them.
Here’s a question. Do you think the rest that showed up on Jan 6th were just taken in by mob mentality, or?
I have to wonder about the difference here too. If what you’re saying is true, civil rights movements across the world have been little more than people who felt that they were justified to commit acts of violence because that’s the only way to change a behaviour they felt was detrimentally affecting them. And what you’re saying is that’s wrong. But chances are it has a direct effect on your freedoms that you enjoy today. So who’s wrong here? The realist who knows that they may someday be driven to violence because their livelihood or rights are endangered.or infringed, or the person who wants to pretend we live in a world where we can effect change only through non violent means?
And keep in mind that while this particular example of capitalist greed and overreach does not affect rights and freedoms, it is part of a systemic problem that on the whole is detrimentally effecting rights and freedoms as well as people’s ability to live. Because capitalism is all about keeping a class of poor people poor to exploit profits.
I’m also not convinced the threats are that credible. I think that’s a sympathy play. Them trying to be the victim.
Force Protection is used all over the world by governments and militaries literally daily. It is definitely something that humans have been doing for the entirety of their history. And what you’re saying is that you have a sliding scale for what you feel is warranted and what is not. Not that you don’t think that threats should be used. Just that death threats is too far.
I think people had all kinds of individual intentions and mentalities, but the bulk of the crowd was convinced that American democracy was being overthrown in broad daylight in front of their eyes. They thought that because they’d been systematically lied to in very crafted and calculated ways and weren’t equipped with, or didn’t want to use, the tools that would have let them figure out the truth. That’s what makes the whole thing so incredibly dangerous – it’s actually pretty reasonable to go to literal war if you think American democracy is ending. The problem is that there’s a huge chunk of the country that thinks that, when it’s not true (or… well… not in the way that they think 🥲). And so, lo and behold, they’re steadily becoming more and more willing to go to war.
(And this also gets back to the tactical aspect that I keep coming back to – How Democracies Die has a great breakdown of how to behave in a collapsing democracy, and one of the things that they found through their research is that “cheating” to fight back against the emergent fascist movement that is cheating to steal their power often makes things worse. It accelerates that abandonment of democratic norms and hastens the collapse. In that case, there are a lot of situations where the best thing is to fight back within the system, even when your opponents are going outside the system so you have to fight an uphill battle, to maintain the democracy in the long run.)
So, I don’t actually think violence is never justified. In some other comment in this thread, I broke down some different scenarios from history where a body of people resorted to different types of resolutions when their rights were being “legally” trampled and what I thought of each one (just from my personal POV). I talked about the labor movement having violent confrontations with police and private security when their economic freedoms were being denied (more accurately, they fought back when attacked with violence). To me I think that was 100% fine.
So one other example that comes to mind is that early night of the BLM protests, when they took over the 3rd precinct and burned it down. This might sound surprising since I have a mostly “pro police” viewpoint, but I actually think that was pretty justified. There’s a severe injustice (you’re killing us in the streets without consequences), it’s been known for a while, we tried nonviolent means of addressing it (peaceful protest, going through the courts), it cannot just remain unaddressed, and it seems like we’re out of options. Okay, fuck it man, if that’s what’s up, then let’s go.
So here’s the distinction: I definitely think there are individual departments that commit genuine atrocities and get away with it. I strongly disagree with the the “that’s every US cop” narrative, but it does happen. And so the distinction is that this was a genuine war crime, and that’s the precinct that did it. It’s hard for me to say people in that precinct should hold a rally within their designated area to chant about how it’s wrong and then go home and hope it doesn’t happen again. I can guarantee that that event changed the calculus of a lot of police and police leadership nationwide in a way that peaceful protest will not.
(Edit: Side note, burning down the precinct was also clearly a crime, and I think they wound up sending someone to prison for 4 years for it. That side of it to me is justified also. If it’s so big an emergency that you claim the right to upend other people’s lives to make things change, it needs to be so big an emergency that it’s okay to upend your own life as a result of making things change. Trying to apply it in one direction but not the other – as a lot of the January 6th people did – is pure, selfish, deluded, dangerous bullshit.)
Yeah, I agree with all that. That’s why I’m being a little careful not to say that this is all just a silly overreaction to a software company’s pricing. But at the same time… I think people should think about what they genuinely want and how to get there. Sending death threats to the Unity offices is, I think, going to:
… and, crucially, it’s going to add one little iota in favor of the idea that if something’s happening that you don’t like, you need to make threats of serious violence unconstrained by a justice framework or a long-term plan. That’s a pretty popular idea right now, mostly from the conservative side, and I don’t think it needs more people to sign onto it.