No. Competition in gaming is good because it’s often exclusive. You have only so much money, so you only buy the titles you find more appealing and you don’t buy every other game.
And what ends up happening is that the other games you found somewhat appealing and still want to play actually get pushed over to be bought during steam sales.
But the fact that fact that movies/tv streaming is a monthly subscription to have access to all of them (for that distributor) means that you will likely watch them all.
So if people want to watch all the shows they like what they end up doing is 1 of 2 things:
1- Subscribe Netflix for a few months, watch the Netflix shows they want to see. Then unsubscribe Netflix and subscribe Amazon for a few months and watch those shows, etc.
2- Pirate those movies/shows.
I’m just saying that the fact that competition in this specific medium has evolved to create multiple distribution platforms is actually bad for the customer, where you have to either spend a lot more than reasonable if you want to watch everything legitimately, or you have to dance around your subscriptions (or pirate them).
The fact that Steam has had barely any competition has actually been a good thing for players. Mostly because they didn’t abuse their dominating position, but that moral positioning is part of why they haven’t had competition as well.
It’s not an easy issue to analyze (I’m sure Kulze will write a novel about it ), but in this specific case, having multiple streaming platforms with exclusive content is actually detrimental to the customer.
It’s only awful because of something else… exclusive contracts. You can only see ‘xyz’ here… and nowhere else.
Imagine it different.
If you make a series or movie companies are not allowed to make exclusive contracts. They’re only allowed to present it on their platform, for the same price as everyone else… and hence actively compete in functionality and quality rather then potential content.
Then the competition aspect is upheld again. If you provide a platform which is functional identical to Steam for example - to shift back to a more relatable thing - and companies ‘only’ have to shift over 20% of their income rather then 30%… and the customer is treated identical in every way… then the 20% company will win.
If it’s better customer service then the customer service company will win, even with identical income.
And if you let the companies personally decide which percentile they’re willing to be taken away then suddenly you have the distributors deciding if it’s viable enough for player influx rather then allowing to throw every pile of garbage onto a platform then you also create automatic quality control of content.
You create crap? Better be ready to fork over a ton so we list you.
You create marvels? Let us put it up for a miniscule amount since our platform will profit from the engagement.
Platforms then actually have to put in effort to be prevalent instead of being simply Steam and not screwing up doing the same.
Oh, there is a term?
Yeah, it derailed extra quick and extra extreme, shows the weight of the initial argument a bit
Yep, and I framed it in a specific way to compare only specific aspects and generate a metric based on those aspects rather then the - obvious - ‘talked to death’ ones which are… once more… obvious.
And once again misapproriated. I stated the business side back then, numbers game. Not the moral one… which even then is argumentable if saving half is better then loosing all.
The are in the category of ‘slaves’ and hence the segment of ‘worst off’ people.
Roughly 10-20% total population, which is somewhat equivalent in percentage of ‘poverty rate’ individuals for example in the US.
So in terms of ‘slice of cake’ amount they are comparable as they’re the ‘lowest rungs in society’ respectively and hence we can make direct connections for specific metrics.
Just because you don’t like that any metric can in itself rather then looking at the whole can provide uncomfortable results doesn’t mean the don’t exist. You’re right with the majority of metrics used after all… but it’s not universal for all of em.
So if we take the totality into consideration… as mentioned a bazillion times now… obviously it was magnitudes beyond end more awful in roman times. But when we take the other metrics away piece by piece we find quite interesting concepts which are a necessity to understand the whole and be able to draw comparisons to modern times in different ways.
If you wanna be nitpicky then we have to take into consideration the premise of the existence of the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ which most nations are bound to.
In Article 4 it states:
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Slavery is defined as the ownership over the person, as a good.
The modern term ‘wage-slave’ is the terminology provided for financial compulsion for survival under poor conditions.
This concept is that work that is dangerous or physically taxing is not done because of incentives but left as the last possible option before individual financial collapse. Which does uphold in many many areas in modern times and a large slew of segments.
They are awful paid but awful work conditions. Some countries more then others.
The differentiation between old-school ‘slave’ and modern ‘wage-slave’ (which is compliant with the lack of Ownership in Article 4) are the following:
Ownership as Property.
Freedom of Choice… which is a ‘non existent’ choice. A slave has no legal right to leave. A Wage slave does but cannot because of financial repercussions.
Hence the only modern difference is ‘ownership as property’.
So that leaves definition-wise only ‘Ownership as Property’. Which is an actual defining difference despite the loss of every other defining matter in modern times existing in most first-world countries.
Now it gets ‘fun’ though. The US has the 13th Amendment which defines that involuntary service is allowed as punishment for a crime.
This removes the compulsion and hence ‘ownership’ factor. You have no legal right to deny anymore, which is the definition for ‘Ownership as Property’, not only taking away free will but instead compulsatory action under the threat of physical of psychological force. - Magnitude is of no matter here for the premise, it is though obviously for the severty in practice, which nobody sane argues about. (I think I’ll need to save this last sentence as people cannot differentiate between examples and real outcomes).
Now we could’ve another definition which makes it different actually. Which would be payment for done work. Which yes… a prisoner in the US receives, roughly 40 cents per hour.
Then in that metric we cannot take roman household slaves as the definition of being ‘slaves’ since they often actually earned money to then pay for their own freedom.
So that is also not possible.
Hence functionally the US prison system for example is ‘modern-day slavery’ which is breaking the 4th article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
So we could say ‘Ever wondered how being a slave would be in modern society? Go into prison for a while and see!’
Yeah, which happens though because it limits the spread of supply. If you as a company have to go to a ‘general supplier’ rather then general suppliers having a flat rate mandated to them so everyone can go everywhere and they have to accept you then that becomes a detriment.
Otherwise not as it’s ‘one and the same’ and only relevant for customer reach and customer service quality while still managing to uphold profit.
This obviously only works for any non-essential good as doing the same with food for example would be a disaster
Actually yes!
Competition in gaming is so harsh because all the other companies trying to make platforms failed utterly and steam is not exploitative on their own free will.
In a optimal world governments would mandate the minimum working standard for a Platform like Steam to enforce the lack of possible exploitation as quick as new ways of exploiting things pop up. Without limiting functionality. But that’s not done.
So we have to clasp our hands together and pray to almighty Gaben to stay nice and friendly to us… their customers, or use GoG when available as the only other ‘ethical platform’ in the whole sector.
But in a fantasy land which we wish for we would’ve a proper government already having worked out how to enforce the deliver of quality products in every segment while enforcing competition by providing the customer with more and everyone being reasonably paid along the way.
Or none…
Yar har fiddle dee dee… being a pirate is alright to be!
So Nr 2 for many by now.
You’re welcome!
Yep, and that’s good! Commonly! With Exception A, B, C, D with subcondition Z, Y, X,… Like everything.
I know. But I was replying to that specific example you gave regarding movies/tv streaming platforms, which is a sort of outlier in this regard because of how their business model evolved.
In the case of LE, if falls into the gaming sector which I said was currently healthy(ish).
Yes. It was the same issue we had at the height of the console wars. That’s been shifting lately with exclusive IPs like Halo being available in other platforms now, and most games eventually also becoming available on PC.
I actually disagree with this. It should be the customer that is the judge of the quality of the content, not the distributor. That easily creates situations where the distributor will censor something for whatever petty reason they might have.
We currently already have that quality control in Steam. If a game is crap, it gets bad reviews and no one buys it, even for cheap.
Yes, but you forgot that romans also had slaves for other stuff than simple house slaves. Like slaves in mines. Or gladiators where, sure, the top dozen were treated like royalty, but the bottom hundreds were forced to fight for the enjoyment of the masters and had a very short life expectancy.
So I would say that, even comparing to roman slaves, we’re much better off today. Unless you lucked out on where you were a slave, but you can also luck out on where you work and have fantastic working conditions.
That’s disingenuous. You can’t pick a category, select only the highest percentile of them and present them in place of the lower one.
That’s like discussing if current worker conditions are fine or not and you saying that workers in company X have excellent conditions, they even get offered a car and an apartment, so workers everywhere are fine.
A small section of roman slaves were respected and had decent living conditions. That was not the norm, that was the exception.
House slaves weren’t the “lowest rungs in society”. There were other slaves that were lower than them, namely the ones that worked the mines as in my previous example.
They can, though. And many do. They leave for other companies, they even leave for other countries, in search of better conditions. So this is blatantly false.
You even have people that disconnect from society and go live in a farm and try to become self suficient.
So you can. Whether you will or, most important, if you want, is another issue.
There is a difference between being punished for a crime and being punished for being near a slaver.
If I break some property, then I’m punished by having to fix that property (which is usually done these days by paying fines simply, but used to simply be your own work). This is not slavery. This is a consequence of your actions.
The slave didn’t actually do anything that would cause him to be a slave, other than simply existing (or very often being born to slave parents).
Also, like you like to point out in so many threads, you are certainly aware that the EU doesn’t allow this. We all know that the US laws towards the workers are heavily flawed and lean heavily towards the rich “job creators”. It’s an exception for the so called “civilized countries”.
What do you compare here? The Slavic slave situation was far worse then the roman or american ever was if you compare population counts. To top this up the biggest slave situation is today in Africa if I remember the numbers correctly. So today slavery is still a big issue.
Non the less what absofuckinglutely stupid copair to make anyway.
On to the topic and the OP. Why should EHG let LE die? give me one good reason? people still buying into their dissapointments and playernumbers look valid each season. So what did you smoke? Do you think a company wont milk the last cent out of their prodct and left it some dignity? Tell your dealer not to sell you the bad stuff anymore.
Absolutely so! We still got several issues in the whole ‘line towards customer’ but it’s by far better.
It’s actually the exact same situation as the book-price binding in Austria.
It was introduced from the government as a measure of ensuring cultural goods aren’t lost, to keep competition going and to allow a widespread availability to books.
Basically you as a writer got to find a publisher which things your book is well enough written to make a profit (or at least not a loss). The publisher can set the price as they want again.
Then books need to be listed in the ISBN directory and from there sellers can order at the fixed price.
Hence the competition is severalfold.
First off… quality control through publishers. A badly written book can either be paid for individually if the publisher isn’t willing to provide the funds… or won’t get published at all if you cannot provide the funds and the publisher isn’t on the same page of potential sales.
Then we got the enforcement of service. The publisher doesn’t care who gets their books… they just want to sell as many books as possible.
And then it’s the shops with the customer service. Since everyone can buy every book and it all costs the same (the minimum binding price which no shop raises commonly) it’s solely about having a good setup catered to the respective target audience… or being large enough to list nigh everything.
Makes it so the fields don’t interfere with each other as you always got very easily made competition and it cannot be enforced that you can skimp out on customer service and quality by simply barring access.
Absolutely, farmers, miners, gladiators.
Obviously nowadays all better.
And as stated… we have to take into consideration the existence of the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, which enforces governments - mostly at least - to act to a specific standard or become the target of everyone other major power. ‘Holy Crusades’ haven’t ended, they’re now just based on the premise of ‘morals’ instead and a huge risk. Every country tries to validate their military actions under the scope of ‘doing right’ in one way or another. And it’s always the moral highpoint allowing them to act… while the actual action commonly happens for the reason of procuring resources.
But here I’m not comparing the total standard of life to each other. I’m actively trying to compare the ‘percentile representation of the total citizenship’ to each other, and how they’re nowadays positioned.
Imagine for a moment you are a actual modern slave, only Article 4 of it being ‘excempt from existence’ for the example.
So, you still have to be trated at human standards, which means your offspring is free, which means you cannot be treated differently based on any individual distinction. You have the right to life (not liberty in this case, falls into the excemption) and security as a person. You aren’t allowed to be tortured or treated in cruel, inhuman or degrading ways or punishments. You’re a full person under the law, just beholden to the orders of another… and so on and so forth.
You are owned. It has no meaning. You’re not allowed to deny tasks which are reasonable… but there is a reasonable level of tasks set under law.
Now take this is the societal basis level of action unlike back in roman times. Where slavery was societal accepted. It was law of the jungle purely, still is today, just economical as we’ve enforced those limitation nigh universally onto ourselves as the risks to be on the other side of it wasn’t worth it. Simple as that.
So if you remove the risks then you still cannot be hurt, cannot be physically or emotionally punished and hence your only reason for action is incentives.
Which means any action made out of necessity rather then incentive is actively below the standard of what under the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ would be acceptable.
Just a shame that the declaration isn’t upheld in several places… because if every society would universally uphold them properly we wouldn’t even need to fear terms like ‘slavery’ as under those terms you would still have the right to interact with people, to marry someone, to leave the country and come back… but you wouldn’t have any right beyond ‘basic human decency’, hence any incentive beyond your basic state would be barred from you, unless you follow reasonable demands… which would only be followed if so wanted anyway given you got a right to life, a right to food/water, clothing, housing and medical care as well as social services necessary to uphold it.
In a proper following of the declaration there is no possible coercen as the sanctity of action and thought isn’t possible to be touched.
So by modern ‘standards’ (as they aren’t upheld sadly) we could say that unless you break the Declaration from your side by attacking the sanctity of someone else you’re hence mandated to receive everything needed for basing living and hence work is solely a incentive you have a right but no need to.
But since we need infrastructure to not collapse it cannot be upheld. It’s a fairy-tale, but the core premises of it have been proven to be beneficial for society universally and hence every reduction of them is ‘living below human decency’.
It doesn’t matter if you state ‘but nowadays it’s so much better!’. Yeah… obviously, people aren’t starving in troves during winter for example. But given the societal standards we’ve pushed onto ourselves we’re absolutely doing ‘modern-day slavery’ equivalency in several forms.
Would be shit if in thousands of years humanity hadn’t improved their situation in any way, we would be a genetical failure in that case always at risk of dieing out like ten-thousands of species every year currently do.
I didn’t? 10-20% (hence at most 20%) of the total population was estimated as slaved (regionally higher obviously). Hence 80% were non-slaves (including former slaves). From those 20% we have a 25% ‘household slaves’ number. Which represents hence 5% of the total population.
That I compared to modern times. For example the US has over 10% officially living in poverty, and that’s without taking dark-number estimations into account.
Hence in terms of total population slaves in the roman empire were numerically not only roughly equivalent… they were socially also at the same position on the total ladder.
That’s the comparison. Where is it disingenious?
Yeah, but if you take the 20 people worst-off from every company rather then ‘a random worker’ then you can absolutely compare which one was better in which specific metric.
And in terms of ‘increasing living standards through the lifetime’ for example the modern US citizen is worse-off then the roman slave.
Mind you! The stipulation is important: It doesn’t take into account any severty of individual action, just the metric of ‘improvement chance’.
Obviously a roman slave wouldn’t be able to achieve modern living standards. Neither ammendities we have nowadays existed, nor medical care was equivalent, nor food quality, hygiene or whatever.
The point solely is on ‘improvment of conditions’ because that’s a thriving factor for psychological health. (Suicide rates basically, which were obviously high there.)
But we can depict a picture from comparing minimum baseline percentile of former and now existing count of citizens. We can do the same with how far apart from the lowest rungs the percentile of the ones most well off were as well.
The difference between low-end and top-end of society usually depicts back then and nowadays how well off people are at an absolute comparative state in a respective area.
Since in modern times we’ve basically (with mentioned exceptions sadly) removed physical and psychological punishment as a viable option we need to - for a comparison - remove those aspects and work with the comparable remaining aspects.
Which in our case is economical standing, which the comparison is supposed to showcase. Not the atrocities.
And economically it was sadly more likely to improve your standing in the old roman empire as a slave then it is nowadays as a ‘wage slave’… which in theory is a position which is forbidden to have to achieve ‘basic human rights’ standards even.
Percentile-wise they were. Best-case 2,5% of total percentile, worst-case 5% (10-20% total population).
Poverty-line people in the US are officially over 10% (hence identical with the best-case scenario of slave-percentile in the roman empire and worst-case immense dark-numbers not taken into account leading towards 20% as well).
Just because you can’t feed yourself and your family but have found a place to not freeze to death at least doesn’t mean the you’re ‘well off’.
Because if being a ‘household slave’ is not bad enough to fall into the category of ‘slave’ we’re arising at an issue… which level of ‘my life is only shit’ do we need to pass to specifically allow comparison if we take away the respective differences in overall society between timeframes?
The ‘beaten to death’ aspect obviously is a given, very shit. So if that were the ‘worst off’ contenders in life quality then we would need to compare them to homeless people nowadays for example. As nowadays the least chance of recovery and improving life is in the that portion of society. Lack of access to institutions. No medical access, no address and hence no job. No address and hence no easy ability for ID, no ID and hence no easy ability for getting a address… hard to get out of. It’s commonly ‘hopelessness’ for the terms of economical position.
That would be the equivalent of the ‘miner or farmer slave’ in the roman times. No options for improvement and hence ultimately only misery.
But we have vastly more percentile which are worse off and surprisingly quickly getting ‘better off’ as we go upwards… kinda like a homeless in a shelter. A homeless which has access to a post box. A homeless which has access to clean clothes and a post-box allowing for job interviews. Up to ‘a family at the poverty line’ which is the comparison of ‘a greek intellectual which is a slave but highly praised and well trated’.
If we wanna take the bad atrocious sides we also need to take the counterside. Some slaves in the roman empire were better treated in slavery then a myriad of free people are today.
Just because a system opens the possibility of atrocities doesn’t mean they were a universal necessity. No system works this way.
Otherwise we would have to say ‘we always have to compare the worst possible outcome’ which would make Steam as a platform suddenly bad because it has the option to treat the customers atrocious… despite not doing it.
So was for a portion of slaves the option of slavery.
Around 20% of the total amount of ruman slaves were acquired outside of war. Meaning they were slaves coming from ‘consequence of action’.
You’ve just basically stated that ‘as long as it’s through my own actions slavery is acceptable’ as there is no actual difference between it. Just how these individuals are treated nowadays.
In practicality the function is still slavery, just without the ‘beat to death’ part.
A prisoner is a modern slave, you loose basic human rights.
So:
Is also not universally true.
The concept of ‘voluntary slavery’ (or self-enslavement) existed and was a regular practice.
It was done out of greed (sharing of buying price actually, yes…), settling debts or simply to escape poverty (food, shelter) you could sell yourself away.
You were legally a slave, and as such a slave you could also be killed by your master without legal repercussion.
Actually the EU does allow it to a degree
For example in Austria every able inmate is enforced to do work.
Some part of the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ is still removed, which makes you being treated as ‘below human rights standards’.
Your right of movement is after all removed, which is deemed a basic human right.
So basically ‘don’t pay parking fees and you can loose your human rights’. Literally.
The majority of things for ignoring the order for reasonable work though is the removal of inventives.
The usage of the payment you receive, which has to uphold business standards.
The reduction of sentencing time.
The removal of freedom (Freigänger called in Austria, being on ‘parole’).
But now tell me who is better off:
A person in prison, getting 3 meals a day, hot water, a bed a roof and even social ammendities like owning a personal TV are common, getting provided with a job (they might lack before actually) and fully remunerated for the worktime while also getting financial help, clothing and travel expenses after their time is over.
Or…
A person who isn’t able to find a job. Cannot pay for their rent and is getting mandated to go to interviews at their personal expense before being refunded for it, for companies which aren’t actually as catered as it’s for prison inmates and actively risking to be out of a home, out of a TV, out of food.
And now tell me besides being beaten to do it (as I’m depicting it as a overall evolution of society, one of the few)… how does it functionally differ from slavery?
That’s actually fair!
Yes, true.
Yeah, but the argument was about first-world countries specifically in comparison. Because it’s usually not done in modern ones and said to have been ‘entirely abolished’ - which you know as well as I do is bollocks to a degree if the effective outcome for the individual only defines itself by someone saying or not saying they’re owned by someone rather then the actionable stuff being coerced into - when we literally have situations in modern society in first world countries where giving up freedom (hence being coerced into action) can lead to a improvement in life quality.
We - sadly - cannot state that freedom equals life quality. Hence we cannot state that the concept of slavery is universally negative as even back in roman days people took slavery above poverty. So freedom was less of value to them then survival obviously.
And as obviously (since some specialists will come again) bein a slave as a outcome of war (the majority of slaves) and hence not at the basis of your own actions defiling the sanctity of human rights (which hence excempts ‘lack of funds’ for essential payments as a viable reason, which you can be imprisoned for) and with the lack of physical and psychological coercion is hence as atrocious as the concept itself is made out to be.
If we would say the concept itself is atrocious then that would demand that conditions below the standard of the framework you would move inside the ‘slavery concept’ would be even more atrocious comparatively.
Which means from the position of upholding human rights themselves a slave in the modern times would’ve a better life then a lot of free workers. It guarantees the majority of human rights to be upheld. While freedom doesn’t guarantee upholding human rights comparatively.
I see that as a major problem for society as a whole actually, the sheer concept of wage-slavery existing - and being a real thing - means conditions are below the reasonable expected modern equivalent position of slavery hence.
So you think that an argument based on a small section of a small section of a thing (certain types of Roman slaves could work off their debt & become free again) is a reasonable argument or reply to a comment about slavery in general?
You just don’t argue in an honest manner & you drown everybody else who attempts to join the conversation & if they don’t reply to your entire post then they’re cherrypicking.
Nope, you can try & revise history all you want, but you’re definitely on the opening-chapters-Scrooge side of this rather than the closing-chapters-Scrooge.
There we go. You’ve got back to your “sack everyone 'cause I think they suck arse” argument.
Yes, but I think even you would accept that not all slaves were house slaves working off a debt? No? Ok then! Lets just treat everyone in a population like one small extreme, how about we apply that to Germany in the 30s/40s? Is that not reasonable?
No, that’s not how it works, you can’t apply the conditions of the top 10-20% to the remaining 80%.
You know the phrase “statistics don’t lie but liars use statistics”? You’re definitely in the scummy-politician section of that.
No mate, you want to be nitpicky, my original statement was about as generic & blanket as it gets. So aaaaaaalllll of the rest of your post is just pointless air (or digits, whatever). I’m not sure why you’re arguing that slavery isn’t bad because a tiny section of it wasn’t.
So I’ll skip the irrelevant piffle.
I don’t know if you’ve forgotten what you wrote, or in German it means something slightly different, but here’s you absolutely stating that because Romans had house slaves, slavery wasn’t all that bad compared to being an arpg developer in the west. Conveniently ignoring the likely 99.999% of all other slaves everywhere (since I was talking about slavery in general). And then, being you, you write War & Peace trying to defend that position.
You didn’t, you took the top 20% (ish) and applied those conditions to every other member of that subset of society.
No, because clearly the vast majority of Roman slaves were worse off than them. Do you think a Roman family who had house slaves would have been happy to swap them for some slaves from the mines? No? Maybe the house slaves were higher up the social pecking order? Do you think a house slave would have been happy to be sent to the mines? No? Maybe the conditions were worse?
I’m confused why I need to explain this. Do you think that slaves were interchangeable commodities because “they were all slaves”??
This alone makes all the difference. Without this, even the roman household slaves were definitely worst off than any worker nowadays, legally.
That’s like saying “there will always be poor people”. Which is obvious (as long as you continue to have a material-based society). But if you compare poor people now with poor people even just 150 years ago, they’re definitely better off.
They have easier access to health, education and food than they did back then. They have a life expectancy of 70+ vs 30 years back then.
If you compare relatively to their society, they’re still at the short end of the stick, just like the poor now are. But in absolute terms they’re miles better these days than they were back then.
Which is what was being compared. Workers today have absolutely a lot better living conditions than at any point in history.
You had to pick the most privileged example of a slave in history and compare with the least privilged type of worker in current times to even make a point.
There were also poor romans that weren’t slaves. You’re not comparing the same things.
Again, this isn’t true. Even as a “wage slave” you have the option to try to improve your conditions. You can switch jobs or even countries. The roman slaves were stuck with whatever master bought them and how he treated them.
Again, disingenuous. You have, according to your own estimates, 10-20% of slaves. You then pick the top percentile of those 10-20% and try to compare them with the low percentile of poor people nowadays.
Roman house slaves weren’t the lowest rungs in society. Mining/farming slaves were. And those had atrocious living conditions and no chance for improvement. They would live and die in the mines and so would their children.
If you compare to the top percentile of poor people, then you also have plenty of improvement choices.
The fact alone that any poor people has the choice to switch jobs to improve their living conditions makes any poor people today miles better than any slave back then.
A regular practice that was still a small percentage of the total population. And let’s not forget that to escape poverty, romans often sold their children to slavery, rather than themselves.
So we’re back to them having done nothing to become slaves other than existing.
You keep trying to compare a very small subclass of privileged slaves, which are definitely an exception throughout history rather than the norm, and then trying to exclude all the extreme conditions they were subjected to, to try to justify some point that doesn’t actually uphold, even as a mental exercize.
You’re basically saying “If we pick this very small subset of privileged people in our data pool and we exclude that they were beaten and we exclude that they were often subjected to sexual and physical abuse and we exclude that they weren’t free to choose and we exclude that their children weren’t free, then they were better off than the modern poor worker, if we exclude that they can actually choose where to work, their children aren’t slaves, etc.”.
You’re picking the best example in history and excluding all the negative aspects of it and comparing it to the worst example in modern times and excluding all the positive aspects of it.
That is not an honest comparison.
Absolutely so. Isn’t it a relevant aspect which changes the premise entirely with the existence or the lack of it?
What am I revising specifically?
Your lack of comprehension ability there is actually baffling.
Here, easy once more:
No people gone = likely company bye bye = all people gone.
Half people gone = company able to survive in less resources = half people still there.
Hard thing to understand, right?
Your virtue signaling is disgusting plainly spoken. You stop arguing about the topic but instead rush into morals and emotions rather then logic.
Yes, and I think even you would accept that hence the comparison to the modern equivalent has exactly the same disparity in positioning included, with a family struggling along the poverty line being a completely different ballpark then a homeless person literally starving and freezing to death on the streets.
I mean…
And your comparison is beyond apalling as well for 2 reasons: First, it doesn’t even apply to the premise of the argument. And secondly, it’s another sole version of virtue signaling.
Are you one of those people who thinks we should throw any thought about apalling things out of our mind rather then exploring the whole concept it includes? So we create what we try to avoid again because of ignorance?
Because that’s what it leads to.
What?
First off… 25% were the ‘top ones’ there in that argument, not 10-20%, which was the totality of the lowest rungs.
Secondly, you absolutely can compare any position to another depending on metric used.
In the situation here it’s the position relative to the social ladder at the specific timeframe.
No, that’s not the comparison?
The initial statement was ‘they had better livestyles then modern wage slaves’, which if you take a portion of them (yes, that’s cherry-picking, but I never expected that the inability to see that some absolutely did would cause such a monumental argument) was better off.
Just to reduce it to the most simplistic aspect:
A wage-slave is 100% of the time coerced to take action at the direct risk of wellbeing with immediate effect as any lack of following orders risks direct contract termination and hence the collapse of the financial situation, surprisingly often in totality.
A roman slave on the upper rungs didn’t even have that. They were actually revered for their knowledge and skills and treated accordingly despite being slaves.
So… the highest ‘wage slave’ has hence practically a worse position then the highest actual slave in roman times.
Which is a factually upholding statement.
Obviously those below exist. We also got in our society - sadly - people which are coerced into atrocities because of financial dependence…
As for the ‘realistically comparable to now’ is the position of ‘being a slave’ as the aspect of what defines it, not the atrocities commited under it.
Oh come on… in a historical timeframe you only can take snippets and take examples from that, otherwise it leads automatically ad absurdum.
Or do you wanna tell me that since the overwhelming majority of times humans haven’t used farming and hence we obviously have to not take into consideration the miniscule timeframe since when it started? Hence the start of any modern civilization we know of?
It’s the same type of argument.
If you wanna discuss about a concept then you can take even a singular situation by itself and dismantle how and why specifics of it happened. And since others exist even compare why the specifics didn’t happen for others.
I mean… that’s basic shit.
No, I didn’t try to supply it to every member. The ‘wage slave’ is still the top rungs of the lowest 20% of society actually. It is hence positioned in comparison.
Just because I don’t - for once - write every specific in detail and hence create a novel - for which you also give me flak:
I instead thought the mental capacity was there to not read 250 steps beyond the meaning.
So, the ultimate outcome I see for now related to the interaction between us is:
If I write long you don’t read it as it’s too much.
If I write short you don’t realize the meaning and take it awry to 20 curves beyond the initially intended meaning while dismantling it into details and complaining the whole time.
It’s like with my damn ex, whatever you do it’s wrong.
Yes, and clearly the vast majority of people at the bottom 20% are also worse off then the wage-slave which is at the actual poverty line.
So once more, if taken into modern constriction, hence the universally accepted aspect that ‘physical and mental abuse is not acceptable’ is upheld, what does the concept of it provide comparatively?
Exactly that’s the point
If in purely a hypothetical situation a modern day situation happens were the concept itself of slavery is reintroduced with the modern framework of upholding human rights as a basis then it has obviously also far less negative repercussions. A footnote in history for a curious social scientist in the future rather then a major topic of universal appalment towards the practices which had happened.
It absolutely does make all the difference! Yes!
Yes, absolutely so! Once again, I agree 100% here! Was never for discussion.
The part is that I take the ‘baseline’ of what was the norm back then… take the ‘baseline’ of what is the norm now… and then put them on a equivalency basis for the example.
Hence ‘top rung person back then’ is ‘top rung person now’ and ‘buttom rung person then’ is ‘bottom ring person now’. It removes the differences in Standards to compare it without the ‘chaff’ of what hundreds of years of societal and technological innovation changed.
And from there I compare it, since otherwise it wouldn’t make sense.
And I also compared it specifically with the roman system for a reason. Not only is it comparatively old but it also comes from a first-world country (we could use the transatlantic one for comparison but the british empire produced more casualties through rampant capitalism then all communistic regimes and their atrocities did in history) and it actually showcased that on the upper end it worked societally in absolute different ways then most other ones.
Why? Because unlike most slave situations they didn’t only use it as cheap labor from their war efforts (the majority absolutely was) or criminals but also had the ones intentionally going into it as a measure of life-improvement.
If the argument is ‘slavery was universally bad for every individual’ then this wouldn’t have been possible to happen.
So if it isn’t universally bad for every individual then it means it had to offer something which was valued more then freedom.
Then you’re not a wage-slave by definition.
The term is used very loosely, but the meaning is reliance on the financial income, which means you neither have the ability to take interviews during business times as you already work more then one job (16+ hours for many actually) and you don’t have the money to afford moving.
Not to speak that you cannot simply ‘go to another country’ and live there, that’s very exceptional to do. You first gotta have work and a address in most to even be allowed to stay long-term.
A wage-slave is reliant on the position they’re in with the common outcome being completely financial collapse if even a single job gets removed.
If we have 10-20% slaves.
And we have 10-20% people in poverty.
Isn’t that comparable?
Obviously inside those 10-20% there’s vast differences between people.
From ‘I can barely pay my bills’ person and struggling paycheck to paycheck but only doing a rather untaxing single job (which we can take as the equivalent of the greek scholar slaves in roman times for example in positional comparison)
Down to ‘I cannot acquire my insulin and I’ll painfully die over the next few weeks’ which - sadly - is also existing, which we can see as the lowest of rungs there, completely screwed over.
Just that instead of 75% people being screwed over inside the 20% we ‘luckily’ only got around 40%, and a miniscule amount being in ‘death knocks on the door immediately if I don’t function for a day’ probably less then 1% nowadays.
Which… abundance of goods. Back then people starved. Today food is comparatively easily available, but not getting your insulin still is a death sentence and people are ‘sentenced to death’ in several first world countries despite fairly much abundance of those resources.
If you’re in the bottom earner segment you don’t have this option commonly. As stated… very few manage to do that.
This was actually a direct comparison I made, chance to improve life quality.
Some countries more then others.
If you need a little slip of paper to do a job and you cannot get said slip of paper with extensive time investment and financial investment to then get a better paying job then you have the theoretical choice… but it as well couldn’t exist at all.
It’s a major fallacy in modern times people believe. That notion is sadly a myth.
And I don’t mean it’s impossible, it’s just extremely unlikely as people in that position have so many struggles that their chance to find the information allowing them to break out of it is nigh impossible.
It’s similar to founding a company from the beginning on your own. Your business is more likely to not survive then to even crawl along on its last legs. Companies which are breaking apart left, right and center are at the 20% of the topmost successful businesses in my country for example.
Yes, and that’s also a very fair argument! Agreed!
So as above… we remove the aspect of ‘not out of personal actions’ hence.
Yes, that’s the point to use the specific subset as it provides a different picture of what nigh universally has happened.
Which makes it the reason to be the interesting premise as to why they were different after all. What caused this rather then being the same nigh universally apalling situation otherwise seen?
I specifically said ‘adjusting it to societal changes over time’.
Obviously if you take it 1 to 1 then it wouldn’t even remotely work, not even as a far out-of-scale comparison (which it is).
But society changed.
Technology changed.
Access to basic survival itself changed.
The answer to ‘would you’ve wanted to live in the past or now’ when taking things 1 to 1 is nearly always ‘now’, because you got better overall chances of survival alone compared to every other timeframe in history. And it’s supposed to become better as we progress.
So obviously you gotta remove aspects, it cannot make sense otherwise.
And the first and most obvious one is to remove the base situation of society between times and then trying to apply concepts and seeing what happens. Goes both ways… how benign concepts become actually rather worrying and how atrocious concepts can become rather benign comparably.
But that was actually the whole discussion, before you starting making some weird comparisons no one was making.
The whole discussion was “being an ARPG developer is the worse in human history past present and future”. Which isn’t even true if you compare to the current working force.
It was then said that slaves were worst off. And then you went on a completely side road that didn’t actually bear much consequence into the discussion.
What happened was the equivalent of:
Person A: “Having a cold is the absolute worst”.
Person B: “Having cancer is worse”.
Kulze: "Actually, if we pick the people that had prostate cancer and were middle class and had easy access to health, 99% survived, whereas if we pick the people that are over 90 and have health issues, 20% died of a cold. So having a cold is definitely worse than having cancer.
That was basically what happened here, minus the walls of texts. So I don’t really see the point in perpetuating this discussion at this point.
Not really, as DJ said, you’re taking the conditions that apply to a small section of a population (Roman house slaves, 10%-20%) & saying that because they were better than the remaining 80%-90% that slavery in general wasn’t as bad as people make out. At this point I think you’re just trolling us because there’s no way you can think that that’s a viable argument.
This is the revisionist bit. You never said that. You said that they should all be made redundant.
Who exactly am I supposed to be virtue signalling to? And why is saying that slavery is bad “virtue signalling”? Do you think slavery is actually not too bad?
It is, try reading post #3, that’s your one where you say that Roman slaves had a better lifestyle conpared to modern wage slaves by absolute magnitudes so I shouldn’t be making that argument.
This is a ridiculous thing to say, since arpg developers tend not to be “wage slaves”
I imagine that healthcare, even in the US is better than that available to Roman slaves (even house slaves)
The quality if housing is probably better for an arpg developer compared to a Roman house slave ~2,000 odd years ago
The ability to resign & get a different/better job is substantially better for an arpg developer than a Roman house slave, let alone a Roman non-house slave or any other type of slave in history
Just because the Romans treated a small % of their slaves better than the majority of their slaves, which I think you accept, doesn’t mean that slaves in general (what I was originally commenting about) had similar treatment/conditions.
Seriously mate, has your account been hacked or you’re arguing for a bet or something?
But you’re cherry picking the “best” end of slaves to begin with…
Ok, and what about the vast majority of Roman slaves? Or non-Roman slaves? Because, at the risk of repeating myself, I wasn’t talking about a small niche of slaves, I was talking about slavery in general. Slaves in general wouldn’t have been revered.
And using this to back up a rebuttal to “slavery is worse than being an arpg developer” is picking a few cells from a cherry. Bike-cherry-shedding- picking? Is that a thing?
So you don’t think that the statement “slavery in history is worse than being an arpg developer” is reasonable because a tiny percentage of slaves weren’t treated badly? But that’s not cherry picking?
At least in Germany, if you don’t get a job and play along some basic rules, you don’t end up homeless and starving.
From my own experience, I know it’s possible to get money from the job center in advance if you are struggling financially to cover the travel expense in advance. This requires you to communicate with the job center, though. When my mental health was down so far I couldn’t make calls like this, I asked the court (via a social worker in the mental health clinic) to get a legal representative tasked with helping me with stuff like that.
While there is still a lot of room for improvement, the German system isn’t pure horror, there are a quite some options. The bureaucracy can be a shitty maze to walk, though.
You took it up as that, I never said it. I repeated the same friggin thing now for… I think 4 times total in the Forum? Not my problem anymore.
It’s the premise of a concept not being allowed to be spoken about, even when it’s uncomfortable, solely on the basis that it’s set in comparison to something else irrespectible of outcome.
Which you did.
And the follow-up beyond the first sentence is once again just absolutely nonsensical, you’re inferring things which weren’t said to put yourself into a morally superior position. Hence… virtue signaling.
Which is publicly expressed sentiments intended to demonstrate ones good character/social conscience/moral superiority of a position.
You try to undermine my comparison (which isn’t emotional, can be faulty in several areas or have important aspects not included which are relevant after all) not on a logical premise but by putting yourself in a emotionally superior position.
What the hell else is it?
Depends on where they’re positioned and their respective living situation.
The US has actual troubles in that regard with ‘trailer coders’ existing by now.
Don’t throw it away willy-nilly by stating plainly ‘it cannot be’… cause - sadly again - it can nowadays.
Actually no. Roman Healthcare in comparison was one of the most advanced ones for the time. It’s like comparing the current Sweden healthcare system.
They had the concept of sanitation, used greek medical knowledge and it was literally a core pillar for their success.
The american healthcare system comparably counts as one of the worse ones in ‘developed modern nations’.
The primary reason as to why they rank high is because of their innovations, not because of their ‘customer’ results.
So when put into comparison then a household slave with decent standing had far better access to medical services then a low-rung worker of any kind has today there for example.
Trailer coder… enough said. They exist and become ever more common.
And you compare technology of 2000 years with modern technology again. Common living condition of the respective group compared to common living condition of the modern group… and standing to the relative overall state in society at each time. That’s how you compare.
Which yes, would also be better living hence actually… but that’s skewed since you were in the possession of someone wealthy at that time and hence had a extremely higher likelyhood to life in a good place.
So since it’s skewed by design it’s not a good comparison anyway.
Household slaves had a common ‘resign’ (manumission) age of around 30 years. A timeframe in which several IT-workers nowadays only set foot into the working field (besides private projects).
By then you counted as a citizen but with limited rights, the major downside was expected deferrence to higher standing people even afterwards or getting severe penalties. Besides that they often faced social stigma (classism… racism… you name it you see it, universal concept sadly) and no high public positions - and hence voting power - being allowed to be taken.
This was excluded for people going into it willingly as much as I know, hence when they got through manumission their citizenship was fully reinstated and they weren’t put together with the ‘liberty’ (manumissioned slaves) at the same level.
So in total you’re right.
With the removal of the classism aspect it’s open for discussion which effectively is better, because someone nowadays stopping the education track has very often troubles to ever get back into it again unless they have respective funds available for a long timeframe. Even in socially well developed countries like middle-europe has em.
But yeah, it’s generally worse with that point, you’re right.
Never wanted to say that, and I think by now I stated that several times
Yeah, as explained, because a universal example doesn’t make sense in this area.
I think I’ve made it excessively clear exactly what area I’m arguing about in the several posts prior, as well as to the reasoning for it. In quite some detail.
Didn’t say that. I even stated:
to try and make the position more clear.
Yeah, commonly so, if all goes well.
Having lived a year in Germany actually and knowing the beaurocraty there… it can get very very problematic. I’ve experienced issues myself and I know several people experiencing them, one even currently.
Housing finance being paid wrongly and then not fixed for 1 1/2 years causing severe debt which is then not taken over, only allowing housing to be sustained because of funds from family for the time until resolution.
Lack of information to provide all necessary documents, hence having applications denied outside of the knowledge of the one making the ask, leading to missed appointments because of a lack of funds for transportation.
And much much more. Systems are riddled with issues, but systems to uphold the basic human decency of people aren’t allowed to be. But they are.
But yes, the german system is surprisingly solid despite the shortcomings, I have to agree. Still the situations exist, and they’re not only individual ones, they are regularly happening beyond simple ‘flukes’ to warrant worry.
And yeah… the maze is a mess, especially for those which aren’t able to traverse it easily but do not have mental capacity or experience in traversing those.
You realize that the average life expectancy at the time was under 30 years?
That’s the equivalent of having a life expectancy of 75 years and saying “Yeah, you can retire once you reach 80. It’s great!”.
If you don’t want to apply a universal example, then you don’t pick the top percent of one group and the low percent of another group to compare. You compare the average of each group.
Taking into consideration child mortality rates. Yes.
Without famine (rural only) the common life expectancy was around 60 still.
It’s a common misunderstanding that ‘low life expectancy’ historically means no old people existed. Specifically in well-handled cities with medical and sanitary conditions like the romans had for theirs the expectancy was quite high.
Also a fair way to do it. But I didn’t pick lowest/highest. That’s why the people which - for whatever reason - are at actual risk of death out of the line in modern times… and the far more existing ones back then as well.
For those, there is the option of getting a legal guardian (rechtlicher Betreuer). I had one for about three years when I was at my lowest. Without one, I would have probably crashed completely, either homeless or dead.
If someone hasn’t the mental capacity to ask for help themselves, other people can also ask the court to assign a legal guardian. A judge will look at the case and decide if the person in questions requires this help.
The biggest issue is that many people don’t know how to get help.
What a person has to bring is a general willingness to accept help, as it’s usually very difficult to help someone against their will.
The real bad shit happens not with the German system itself - it happens with criminal employers who severly violate their employees’ rights or within undocumented work, which also falls under the criminal segment. They call it human trafficing and exploitation these days, not slavery.
Lawful jobs in Germany adhere to a maximum of 48 hours per week (also EU law), with usually no more than 8 hours per day. Each day includes legally mandatory rests, with at least 11 hours of rest between two shifts. Four weeks of paid vacation. Paid sick leave for six weeks with the same diagnosis (after which you still get money from the health insurance for up to 18 months). Paid parental leave. Minimum wage these days.
Hard to call it worse than historical slavery, especially if the accounts about Roman slavery were written by Roman slavers. One could think they were a bit biased.
You also said (in addition to the above) that it’s better to fire half the employees than all of them.
But you absolutely have said that they should all be fired.
That’s not virtue signalling. Please google it.
Not virtue signalling, that’s for sure. But
Ok, could it theoretically be an issue? Yes. Do I think EHG are paying their employees at wahe slave levels? No. But I do know you (& I tbf, though I can at least accept that they don’t necessarily occur) enjoy arguing theoreticals.
Good for them, but we’re not talking relative or for their time which I would have thought would have been obvious when comparing slavery to arpg development conditions.
You do know that the Swedish healthcare system is better than the Roman healthcare system?
Awesome, good for you. So which would you rather be, a Roman slave or an arpg developer? Here’s a quote for you which might help you make your mind up - * Unlike Roman Citizens, by law they could be subjected to corporal punishment, sexual exploitation, torture, and summary execution*. I don’t know about you, but I’m not too fond of the idea of being considered property by law & my owner being legally allowed to execute me because they’re having a shitty day.
Yeah, I did, but then you came along & said that slavery wasn’t all that bad (this is a paraphrasing of your comment, fyi) because one small segment wasn’t treated as badly as the vast majority. What’s the term for that? Cherry picking?
Prove it. Otherwise you’re just talking shit. Having googled it, there are lots of fluffy terms, “could hope to obtain freedom”, “The possibility of manumission”, “Slaves could buy their freedom, be freed in their master’s will, or be granted it for loyal service, often around age 30”, they all indicate that it wasn’t guaranteed.
Depends whether you were granted partial or full citizenship.
That would have been the case for citizens as well, or do you think that the higher stratas of Roman society would have put up with shit from those beneath them?
Tiro: Cicero’s secretary, who was highly educated and managed his master’s affairs. Narcissus and Pallas: Served as powerful secretaries to Emperor Claudius, holding immense political power. The Vettii Brothers: Owners of one of the most magnificent houses in Pompeii. Trimalchio: A fictional, exaggerated, but illustrative character in Petronius’ Satyricon, embodying the stereotype of the absurdly wealthy, unrefined, ex-slave. Eurysaces the Baker: A wealthy former slave who built a massive, unique tomb for himself and his wife in Rome.
But the majority of Roman citizens didn’t have voting power, so what’s your point? That citizens were the same as (freed)slaves so slaves had awesome conditions?
You did, it’s post 3.
You really did, Roman house slaves (highest part of their group) versus wage slaves (lowest part of their group).
Don’t forget that Roman slave owners were allowed to execute their property. That’s frowned upon nowadays.
Or that they thought your standing wasn’t worth keeping you around when you slipped and broke the hip that made you useful.
Anyway, the ‘slaves’ I met were those who enslaved themselves by becoming self-employed. Because then, nobody cares that you barely scrape by, work sixteen hours a day, never go on holiday, can’t afford sick days to recuperate, and pay yourself a wage that would be considered illegally low. Not to mention that you don’t pay anything into any pension fond.
In Germany, being self-employed is called ‘Selbstständig’, and there is the not-a-joke-joke that it’s been a compound of ‘selbst’ (self) and ‘ständig’ (all the time).
For the first: Yes.
That’s not based on wanting them to loose their jobs. That’s based on the quality standards provided towards the customer.
If a business only stays in business because of a few individuals rather then the overall community then that means they failed as a product and should be weeded out for either the next try that might be more successful or another team taking up the void left behind.
The second also! If a company cannot hold their promises then they are universally as a company not trustworthy. Hence that has no place in a proper society. You keep providing what you promised, you can chance the situation for newcomers… but those already having made a contract with you should universally be excempt from negative changes in business model. No company, no matter which sector has a place to exist if they do that. That’s just how severe that is.
Third: Also obviously. Do you wanna now tell me that someone deceiving you doesn’t deserve to loose your business? I mean… that’s a given.
In all 3 cases the loss of jobs is a side-effect of failure, not a direct ask to remove everyone working on the project just cause.
Nope, I said the product and company deserves to fail, and in specific circumstances should fail even.
This is a lengthy process and I’m sure anyone who sees the gradual downfall in their company and isn’t a dimwit will take measures to not be jobless but rather traverse into another company ultimately.
The alternative is upholding every corrupt, every thieving, every lieing and every exploiting company for the sake of the workers. Is that the goal?
Actions have consequences, simplye as that. And as brutal as it sounds it’s also only as brutal as it needs to be.
I mean… with 4k+ housing it’s despite high wages sometimes not easy. A company can pay you well when the surroundings still don’t uphold a decent environment though. It’s a mess in some areas.
There’s even been a wave of laws stating that you’re not allowed to life inside a trailer in some places by now… which makes the whole situation even worse as what the heck should people actually do then?
They’ve been set up in the last years partially under the guise of reducing ‘wild camping’, with the ‘side effect’ of removing trailer habitation. This law also affects private areas though… so even if you got a livable trailer you’re only allowed to use overfilled, booked out camping spaces which cost excessive amounts despite having a completely livable environment at low cost available. Often with the argument of bypassing taxes like water connection, energy bills and so on.
Yeah, but without relativity any comparison to situations before modernization fall short. Hence we can only provide relativity examples. They make no sense. It’s saying ‘universally with very few exceptions we cannot learn from the past as nowadays everything universally is better’. And that’s also not the goal.
Golden middle line, albeit missing that line is common in both directions. I did it with overextending the comparison to specific situations, you did it by not extending the leeway far enough.
Relative or in total?
Yes, which is why I put the stipulation afterwards into it to take into consideration common social laws between the times.
Obviously living back then is worse… duh!
But for that we need to create a neutral baseline and compare it from there in terms of positioning related to that baseline.
As stated, my baseline was solely ‘possibility of improvement of circumstances’. Which is a going metric on how content a society is, or how much unrest happens. People don’t go and protest willy nilly. If you got protests for things happening which don’t affect your citizenship then that means they’re well off. If they start protesting for their own rights then that’s a showcase of something being entirely awry.
And if we address my mentioned stipulation it solely comes down the the foremost guiding aspect for people: Will my family be better off then me despite currently be in a atrocious situation?
The literal reason as to why despite being financially secure nowadays only a fraction of people get kids… it’s chance of upheaval which is missing. There’s even studies that show the higher IQ people have the less prone to have kids they are currently, meaning that the decision of founding a family is based on foresight for the future and comparison of the state they’re in versus the state they can expect their kids to be in.
Yeah, it is to a degree, I agree with you there.
Actually even mentioned it in my last(?) post that I did, for a reason, not to divert but to display specific aspects. The initial scale was out of proportion though from me.
Yeah, they weren’t guaranteed. But ‘many’ household slaves got a so called ‘peculium’ which allowed them to acrue money until they could buy their freedom. If I ask google quickly it states 3 things:
It wasn’t universal.
It was common.
We have no exact census number.
And it makes sense as a peculium provides a incentive which reduces the risk of your investment into a slave to turn out negative, unless they were incompetent, died of illness/accidents or had a idiot as a owner it is to be expected that it was hence widespread.
One sentence especially cought my attention there:
“The peculium was effectively a “legal fiction” allowing slaves to manage personal funds, which in some cases became so common it was considered almost a right, despite slaves having no legal rights.”
It’s a form of partial in this case. Exceptions for full only applied to former full citizens as much as I know, so the self-enslaved ones rather then the enforced ones. Including crimes as enforced ones.
So the total number is small, but it would relate to the example I’ve provided at least to a degree.
[quote=“Llama8, post:37, topic:80363”]
Yeah, again, no [/quote]
They managed for their master, they didn’t hold the position itself with the respective rights. Tiro was not allowed to vote.
The power didn’t come by law, it came from social position being close to people with power. They had no direct control.
But every citizen had the potential chance to get into such a position.
Depending on timeframe there was also a time when every full citizen had voting rights similar to today. Namely voting in the ‘Comitia Centuriata’ for example. It was to elect officials.
The voting power was mostly skewed though even then in favor of powerful, influentual and wealthy families.
Wage slaves are the highest of the 20% worst off citizens actually. Poverty line. Below is homeless, medically impaired and dieing because of a lack of funds, unable to work and so on… also only parts of each.
While household slaves were the highest of the 20% worst off citizens in the roman empire.
I’ve now stated that I think 5 times? It’s enough.
Yeah, works into the 80% of failing companies I mentioned and barely crawling along being a ‘success’ situation comparatively
It’s plainly spoken a mess with how badly you’re prepared for self-employment in middle europe nowadays, causes many creative and inventive things to fail despite providing a nigh universal upside, simply because of the business side being mismanaged.
if speaking from a personal opinion if it were me i sell off LE and run.
EHG are passionate people they dont want LE to die. i respect them for that. a lot of Kickstarter backers keep saying shit like EHG are not upholding their kickstarter promises.
yo bitches.
LE would be dead if EHG didnt sell out to krafton. one of the possible reasons why EHG is hanging on so hard could be because they want to give as much value to the original backers as possible. they could easily have just walked away.
does it suck that it turned out this way? yes it sure does, but EHG is doing their best to salvage this game.
all that said, i really wouldnt mind if EHG released a “2025” offline only version of the game.
), but in this specific case, having multiple streaming platforms with exclusive content is actually detrimental to the customer.
