Schadrach

It’ll only get way worse. Expect everything to be pay to play… once gaben is gone. They have a monopoly and any leader would think they are too big to fail. No one can just take their games elsewhere… we’re locked in. We’re committed. We can’t escape. They’ve got us by the balls.

Sure you can escape, at least for any future purchases. There are other stores and you can take your business there, and the moment Steam does any serious enshittification under new management post-Gaben those other stores are going to be trying to pull customers from them hard. Likely to EGS or GOG (probably EGS unless GOG makes a big move at that point, like bringing back and expanding GOG Connect).

A couple of years down the road from there and Steam is known as that thing you only use to play older games and exclusives.

but all these white people REPLACED THEM.

See, white replacement in action! /s

Contempt of Congress, the same.thing Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon did. Except executive privilege from Biden is being used to shield him.

Since he unwaveringly supports the Zionist regime because they’re Jews, it seems reasonable to conclude that his support of some ethnicities but not other makes him a racist.

He supports Israel because they’re our only real ally in that region of the world. It almost doesn’t matter what they do, we’ll continue to support them on that alone unless and until we get another significant ally in the Middle East.

I mean if it feeds on them psychically (eating dreams or fear or w/e) then lighter children would mean it could carry more prey at once, making it less about fatphobia and more about efficiency.

So, why do some blue states want to continueusing FPTP voting? Why continue using a voting system favored by Republicans? In states controlled by Democrats, there’s no Republican opposition hindering electoral reform efforts.

FPTP favors whichever party is currently in power in a two party system. Solid blue states don’t want to switch because it makes their hold on power less secure. Same reason as Republicans in red states.

Eh, some of them. You weren’t generally banned for “merely” being right wing. But pre-Elon you generally had to toe the line a lot more to avoid being suspended or banned if you were overtly right wing than if you were liberal or left and now it’s the other way around.

Just like how the blue check started as an “I am a public figure and this account is definitely who I appear to be” mark and that’s it, then it became a mark of who you knew/could bribe at Twitter to move the process along and could be revoked for saying the wrong things on Twitter (for example everyone’s least favorite gay right wing provocateur Milo Yianwhatever had his blue check stripped for saying something too offensive well before he was banned), then post-Elon it became just a subscription service.

There was also a tendency to quietly artificially reduce visibility for a lot of right wing voices or hashtags. For example, female MRA and member of Honey Badger Radio Hannah Wallen literally got a bunch of her fans to do some pretty elaborate testing of her account at one point after her engagement numbers suddenly and mysteriously dropped and it turned out many of her posts were invisible except to people that followed her that she also followed, even to people specifically looking at her feed.

Certain right wing hashtags would have numbers that should definitely have them trending but mysteriously weren’t (or would be for just a few minutes and then suddenly vanish despite gaining popularity in the meantime), certain liberal/left hashtags would be trending despite seemingly not having the numbers for it to be organic, that sort of thing. Because Twitter moderation was curating what was and was not “trending”, literally blacklisting certain topics and bumping up others because of the visibility that being trending would afford.

It was all really, overtly obvious if you watched for it, like how certain accounts would be shadowbanned on Reddit for reasons that were both obvious and not spam-related despite shadowbanning supposedly only being employed as an anti-spam tool, or how certain subs would be allowed to openly ignore certain sitewide rules.

My whole point was it’s an unfair comparison. Imagine you have a political scale that runs from -10 to 10, where -10 is plotting to overthrow the government to establish Handmaid’s Tale meets ethnic cleansing of the “impure” and 10 is plotting to overthrow the government to establish anarcho-communism.

The original image is like comparing a -9 on one issue to a 3 or 4 on an entirely different issue while pretending that both represent the extremes. “Maybe people shouldn’t starve or die of exposure” is not remotely as extreme a position as “exterminate the impure” and also don’t represent views on the same issue making it an apples to oranges.

If you compare views on the same issue, it’s at least a more fair comparison and there are some issues where the differences aren’t that big (aka speech, where seemingly everyone wants to silence at least some of their opposition). Pretty sure I pegged the right wing view on guns dead on, for example.

Occasionally Republicans do something good. Even Trump. Like the FIRST STEP Act, which was good but not as good as it could have been. I also generally supported the Devos Title IX changes.

I mean, that’s my entire list for positive things the GOP did during the Trump admin - it’s not exactly long (being the smallest number of things you could meaningfully call a list) but it’s still slightly more than “never happens” (even if Biden mostly reversed one of them [he basically undid the Devos Title IX changes except for the bits that were just making the results of court cases part of official policy]).

Remember, Democrats cannot achieve anything unless they have the Presidency and a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress, and even then only if they compromise to the right. The Republicans mysteriously only need the presidency or the slimmest of majorities in either house of Congress to push their agenda with no need to compromise.

You really don’t. Because Dems have been selling themselves as essentially “Vote for us because you should be scared shitless the other guy might win.”

When the GOP eventually wins again (please let Trump be dead or imprisoned by then, maybe 2032 at the earliest?) if the country doesn’t immediately descend into Christo-fascist super-Nazism the Dems are going to have to totally reinvent because “vote for us or it’s the end of the world” won’t fly any more if they lose and the world doesn’t end, which means once they lose they are probably going to lose several times in a row until they come up with a better pitch.

Except that’s being utterly disingenuous by picking a left wing view that most folks are going to agree with except the far right and the very most extreme right view that all but the most extreme right are going to oppose.

I mean it would be just as easy to look at left wing vs right wing views on guns: Left wing: No one should have guns unless they have them to resist right wingers, because they might shoot minorities! Right wing: Everyone should have guns, so long as they mostly use them legally because statistically the ones who don’t will shoot more minorities and poors than whites and rich and a majority of those doing the shooting will be minorities, providing a pretense to demonize them for it!

Or speech: Mainstream left: Speech should be controlled to silence my opponents! (Meaning right wingers generally and the far right especially) Mainstream right: Speech should be controlled to silence my opponents! (Meaning LGBTQ+ stuff aimed at minors and left wing protests) Centrists: I literally cannot tell you two apart.

All incidents of gun violence are included if they occurred on school property, from kindergartens through colleges/universities, and at least one person was shot, not including the shooter. School property includes but is not limited to, buildings, fields, parking lots, stadiums and buses. Accidental discharges of firearms are included, as long as at least one person is shot, but not if the sole shooter is law enforcement or school security.

That’s kind of important since that definition doesn’t line up with what most people are thinking about when they hear “school shooting”. To provide an example, let’s say a drug deal goes bad in the parking lot of a football field after hours and someone gets shot - that’s a school shooting. Not as bad as some definitions though, since a street shooting where a stray bullet happens to strike a garage building used to maintenance school buses probably doesn’t count under this definition.

Also, I find it interesting that the rates spiked way the hell up for the Biden admin, like 2021 to present is way higher than before.

Also my state has a really low rate despite having extremely lax gun laws (literally allowing open carry to everyone 18+ who can otherwise legally have a gun and concealed carry to everyone 21+ who can otherwise legally have a gun).

In the context and time it was written, this means something closer to “armed citizenry trained to handle their weapons and how to respond to a threat” and not “restricting weapons to the national guard” or “restricting weapons based on the number of total rounds they can hold” or something like that.

I suspect most of the pro-gun folks wouldn’t be that angry at the idea of requiring range time and local emergency drills as opposed to the usual attempts to restrict 2A.

Are they saying their perfect imaginary being made a mistake? And if “it’s the devil’s work”, is it so weak that it can’t prevent it?

The usual answer to this is that God gave man free will, and he can use that free will to act against God (or else the garden of Eden myth would be impossible) and if you choose to be gay, that’s on you. That being LGBTQ+ is a choice is pretty fundamental to it, and also why they tend to believe in things like conversion therapy - if it’s a choice, you can be taught to choose differently.

I have a stupid question: why does drag reading hour even exist?

Because otherwise the top Google results for “rainbow dildo butt monkey” would be something much more horrifying. And if you do search for that, that story is what every right winger out there is thinking of when you mention drag reading hour.

That would just change how SEO worked, since the old methods would be less optimal. Search engines have to rank results somehow, and whatever that is there’s going to be some way to game it.

TES Online and Legends are the exceptions (and I think only in one expansion for TES Online). For a franchise that’s been around since the early 90s with 5 main series games and multiple spinoffs.

That is basically what right wing twitter says. To them the timing of the case if nothing else screams the use of the courts as a political attack.

I mean they do, insofar as it might be easier to convert someone not voting into someone voting for them than it is to convert someone voting for their opponent.