

I wouldnt want to pay for a musician I dont listen to.
I disagree, and here is why.
The difference is between entertainment value and artistic value. There are a lot of art (music, film, writing, games, etc) that I think are important to exist for the betterment of humanity, but are too emotionally heavy to enjoy recreationally, or too niche for most people to engage with it; and yet, I believe are important that they exist. I want to support quality art that falls into those categories, even if I never consume them, because if I don’t, then one day when someone does come up with an idea that would be relevant to my niche, they are less likely to make it.
I don’t want a game’s ability to maximize engagement to be what determines how valuable it is, which is equivalent to saying, I don’t want the games I put my money toward to only be the games that I engage with. If you agree with the first half, then you must agree with the second half.






Let’s be clear, getting rid of trump doesn’t stop anything. If anything, they WANT someone to target trump, because that gives them justification to be more tyrannical. What you are advocating for is called a Civil War, and if we started one now, Trump would win.
Like all countries, we have a system of government in place. When it comes to removing the president (executive branch) over objectionable behaviour, we have a process: it falls on the judicial and legislative branches to conclude that the behaviour was objectionable and that the president should be forcibly removed (a process in the system called impeachment). Trying to remove the president using means outside this system is literally saying, “the system doesn’t work, we need to throw it out, take matters into our own hands, and start from scratch”, i.e. a civil war.
For now we continue to try to take steps within the system, but it is now abundantly clear to most Americans that the Republicans in Congress have been colluding to allow the president to do whatever objectionable thing he wants. SCOTUS seems to be doing something similar. Unfortunately, that is their prerogative in the system we have.
If a group of states said, “that’s it, we’re done, the system doesn’t work, we don’t acknowledge you as the president, and we’re going to try to stop you” then within the system, it is the job of the US military to put a stop to that. Their job within the system is to ensure the system keeps working as the law dictates. And the US military is the most funded military in the world, so the rebellion would lose almost instantly.
This fall will be the real decider because of midterms. Trump is polling very poorly. A record number of Republican congress-people have announced they will not seek reelection. Democrats are winning in red states for the first time in close to a century. Trump is desperately trying to rig elections, and there’s a possibility he’ll attempt to cancel elections entirely. The result will be one of two things:
Ideally it’s option 1, but there’s a very real chance it’s option 2, in which case the US military is obligated to stop him. If they don’t, then we will cross the bridge you’re describing, and it won’t be pretty.