They wanted people to feel that way. They explicitly stated they wanted people to feel defeated.

“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” he said. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can’t do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so.

“We want to put them in trauma.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/video-donald-trump-russ-vought-center-renewing-america-maga

Ooh. Nice. I never mess with ally betrayals because I honestly don’t think I have the chops for it. Very hard to do, so I totally get how you wanted to give them a proper send off. I’m sure the players enjoyed their swift revenge though!

Does the process of getting to the BBEG not involve unraveling their plans? Like, shouldn’t the party to a certain extent know their goal(s) before deciding to go after them? And then particulars are divulged as they uncover the threads tying the BBEG to all his henchpeople as they defeat them. And then they understand the steps of the BBEG plan as they track down the items needed to stop them? I’m sure there are some minor things not 100% spelled out, but what did you really want your party to know that they didn’t already?

I looked it up and France is 20 as the most common with generally up to 25. Spain is 20 average with 25-30 and max of 40. Italy, Germany and even the UK are in that range with UK being the longest now with 31-32 capping out at 40 generally. 50 is not normal for comparable countries. Are you suggesting that in your country 50 is normal?

I went to the linked account page and it seems like just a consistent quirk in the artist’s style. I imagine it’d be difficult to get AI to do that as consistently as it seems. Additionally, he posted the following regarding AI accusations: https://newsie.social/@royaards/115490549503341601

I understand not wanting anyone to go hungry just on principle, but can I ask about the general sentiment regarding the troops there? Are they viewed positively? I don’t think I’d take kindly to a group of foreign military personnel around my city, even if they were from an allied country.

I don’t understand why someone would just not vote rather than vote for what I assume is the opposing party? It’s one thing to withhold a vote it’s another to vote for someone actively working against the people you presumably voted for last election.

Also, very strange the other guy would vote for a “bad person” over a possible antisemite. Almost like he doesn’t care about anyone else because potentially maybe Mamdani might be an antisemite (though he’s obviously not), so who cares about Cuomos proven terrible behavior. I know most people are not as left as I am, but these people cannot actually believe they are left of center.

Naïveté is the joy and sometimes the pain of youth. I am legitimately glad to hear at least some kids are still reveling in it. The world is a terrible place sometimes and I hope that the youngest are spared that knowledge at least for some time. You’re still relatively young, so don’t beat yourself up over it. If you have the time and ability, getting involved locally, not even necessarily politically, just volunteering somewhere that makes an impact, can be really healing. It’s a great way to build community with amazing people and feel like you’re helping the world get to the place you believed it was, or believe it should be. Best of luck navigating through these trying times. May we all make it out the other side, and may the path through be short.

The idea he deserves it for facilitating “peace in the Middle East” even if this does stick is ridiculous. We helped fund and arm a genocide. Forcing the people being genocided to finally acquiesce to the genociders we supported is a wild way to interpret him as deserving of a Nobel peace prize.

This MLK quote says it all: “True peace is not merely the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice”. If the US had sided with the nazis and helped them “establish peace” by keeping all the territories they held and allowing them to continue their policy of concentration camps, is that also deserving of a Nobel peace prize? He is personally responsible for a huge rise in fascism, the decline of a democracy, and fomenting violence and hate which have already lead to deaths. Nothing he does for the rest of his life can change his impact to something positive and I would hope the committee, which I don’t even take seriously considering their previous picks, can see that.

Actually, the public blames whoever they want, per usual. People like when their party holds out for things they like, and people dislike when the other party holds out for things the don’t like. People believe what they want, when they want, please see someone asking why Obama wasn’t helping more during 9/11 (technically unrelated but my favorite example of people just willing to hate on a dem while just being so verifiably wrong): https://youtube.com/shorts/4v5Yoo9xLyw

Same as people not liking congress, but often liking THEIR congressperson. People don’t care about the facts. Though I believe there’s no real winning move for Dems at the moment. They have completely failed as a party and as an opposition party and if this is where they push back it will result in bad outcomes for their constituents, but they won’t be able to justify those bad outcomes with any actual results.

At a certain point it’s the government that’s hurting people and causing chaos.

Pete is the most seemingly manufactured dem politician at the moment, and that’s saying a lot considering he’s competing against people like Harris. If he can’t seem authentic it doesn’t matter what interviews he does. I don’t know him, I don’t know if he is authentic, but people do not perceive him to be. Pete would be another disaster for the party.

I just called my Democratic Congresspeople. I told them that if they’re not willing to stand up against performative fascism, then they’re obviously not willing to stand up to any aspect of fascism. I told them that if the people representing me were going to help enact these policies that they might as well not simultaneously erode the vision of my party. I informed them that I would not be voting for them in the future unless I saw an immediate and significant change. I don’t need a fascist with a D next to their name. I need a democratic representative and if that’s not what they are they do not have my vote. I’ve called previously, but I’ve never felt as though I understood enough of the larger implications and politicking to say “you’ve lost my vote”, just express my disappointment, but this is so performative that I know it didn’t matter. It’s just propaganda and they helped pass it.

https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member

I really don’t think it’s progressive politics is my point. This cohort does not seem to care about politics judging by their inability to see how Bernie and Trump are opposed politically. Bernie also told people to vote for Clinton which these people didn’t, so obviously they’re not following him for his policies or because they listen to his advice. They care about optics and whatever their skewed sense of good optics suggests is what they follow. They like “outsiders” or some other superficial thing. Progressives often fit the bill, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to dilute ourselves into thinking that it’s the content rather than the individual candidate that is having this effect.

Direct quote from your link: “By every estimate, Obama-Trump—voters who had previously voted for Barack Obama but voted for Trump in 2016—vastly outnumber Sanders-to-Trump voters, accounting for about 14% of Trump’s total vote.”

The X-Trump pipeline rhetoric is never brought up outside of sanders and does not take into account sanders took supporters from the GOP to begin with. It’s not shocking some people take inconsistent political action. What is shocking is that people are accepting the idea of there being a “pipeline”. It’s like when they write whole articles on 5 tweets and people eat it up. This is not a real concern and per your link Obama voters are more susceptible. It’s not a relevant point except that exciting candidates get a certain amount of people excited regardless of what side they are on.

I made a similar claim recently. I guess we could go back as the beginning of time, imperialism, the framing of the constitution, manifest destiny, reconstruction, Nixon, Regan, etc. But Gore just felt so recent. So close. Like such an inflection point. Think of what the Supreme Court could look like. It really is just these small changes that turn the tides of history. I know tensions were high, but I think of Franz Ferdinand and how maybe things would’ve played out just the same if he was not assassinated, but there’s this huge unexplored possibility space where things were different. Makes me sad to think people make these decisions and will never see or understand the true consequences of them. I wonder if they saw the destruction of WW1, the holocaust, WW2, the nuclear bombs, the destruction in Gaza and war in Ukraine, if they would maybe make some different choices. I know the 2000 Supreme Court wouldn’t, but it’s nice to think maybe someone would.

There wasn’t really a Bernie-Trump pipeline in the first place. There were articles about how more Bernie primary supporters backed Clinton than Clinton primary supporters backed Obama. Additionally, many people interested in Bernie were GOP to Bernie to begin with.

Bernie to Clinton info below is likely higher since it’s 2 months before the comparable Obama numbers. I can’t find the article I’m thinking of with a direct comparison but it had the same findings after the general iirc.

Bernie to Clinton 85% https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/12/sanders-supporters-clinton-vote-survey

Clinton to Obama 81% https://news.gallup.com/poll/109957/obama-gains-among-former-clinton-supporters.aspx

Similar info about the Bernie/clinton divide: https://acbc89.medium.com/more-sanders-voters-backed-clinton-than-her-own-supporters-backed-obama-c5dc37658fe5

I’m not suggesting they should be rated. Just pointing out that society already expects companies to make accommodations for children so that’s not a great argument. This is not asking for ID or anything. Just asking to select general age group when setting up the device. I’m not saying I support that, I just don’t think most people would call that a “punishment”. Your first comment indicated you thought companies had no responsibility to protect children but current laws and society seem to suggest otherwise. I don’t think yours is a good argument against what is happening and it is unlikely to convince others to your side. Judging by your usage of “spawning” it seems like you probably aren’t aiming to seem well reasoned, so it’s unlikely my statements are relevant to your aims anyway.

If phones were somehow rated M for mature or something and parents had to be with their child for purchase and there was similar messaging as to with smoking or drinking or video game violence PSAs, I think we’d be in a different place. I bought my own phones with my own money as a kid, not as young as 13, but definitely underage. If my parents thought it was going to lead to the kind of harm people are positing kids are being exposed to now, they would not have allowed much less accompanied me to get one if that was required.

If they’re doing this because they think unrestricted phone access is as harmful as they think violent games or alcohol or smoking are, then it makes sense they want to similarly restrict phone access for children. Phones don’t have as robust a child protection infrastructure as a lot of parents want, or the way to implement it currently is too difficult for parents to understand. I’m not saying this needs to be done, or makes sense, but companies regularly are expected to comply with child protection laws. That’s why no matter what, certain medications come with child resistant packaging. They don’t care if you have a child or if there’s any way a child could get access, they assume it and add that protection in. I don’t think pharmacists or doctors are giving kids drugs directly, and yet the childproof caps are still a thing we all have to deal with. You initially suggested that companies are not responsible for child safety, but obviously they have been previously. These are compromises we make as a society. I’m not saying they are good, just that it’s already a thing.