Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)JI
Posts
0
Comments
957
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • It's not a productive discourse though. They draw the ire of everyone doing something so senseless, and that in turn causes damage to the progress of their cause because people don't want to support them.

    An anecdotal example is that I agree with some of their sentiments but I will never support them because they do stupid ineffectual nonsense like this. Take your protests to the places that control these issues. Not a fucking art gallery.

  • I've never liked this guy, he just always felt like a smarmy asshole each time I tried to watch him and he shilled Apple stuff way too hard for my liking. Blocked his channel and several channels that collabed with him and was mostly able to ignore his existence. Doing something shitty like this kinda adds confirmation to my perceptions of him. What an out of touch douche move.

  • Ehhh food preparation more than cooking. You're just assembling things. I'm a pro at a good sandwich if I do say so myself. Sometimes I have to cook to make that happen. But a basic sandwich...nah, no cooking involved.

  • If she's not a defender of Putin, it should be as easy to say a flat, unequivocated, non-politicked yes as she did with Netenyahu. The fact that she won't do it is deserving of suspicion and critique.

    A simple example of similar behavior would be if someone asked Biden or Trump or any other candidate, "Will you work to build better infrastructure in the country?" And they replied, "Well...in so many words, yes."

    It's a non answer. It lacks commitment to the affirmation. If your first language is english and you aren't autistic this kind of hedging behavior is very apparent. They are giving you the answer you are looking for but they are also trying to hide that they are not being 100% truthful in their assertion. It is a very common tactic in English used in lieu of an outright lie in order to generate a gap of potential misunderstanding that can be later abused to twist the narrative.

    In the above example at the end of their term when somone presses them about their inaction on infrastructure development and says, "You said you would." They can warp it around with, "I never directly said i would do anything." Or they might have done some entirely symbolic effort that had an obvious zero chance of being effective and then immediately gave up because they had no intention of a true effort, no true commitment.

    It's the type of shitty behavior that disillusions people to politics. It's half-truths and an unmitigated lack of candor and blatantly obvious obfuscation. Every politician does it. Most people do it to some degree. It's very easy to read through though and that's why the interviewer was so persistent in seeking a direct answer.

  • That's not how any of that works. The only reason people consider 3rd party votes throw aways is because 3rd party absolutely with 100% confidence will not win the federal election right now. America isn't primed to allow that to happen at this stage and level. They need to take local elections first and build up the movement getting enough backing to make the federal level even close to possible.

    And whether voting for 3rd party is throwing a vote to one of the other two parties comes down to which one the voter would have voted for had a 3rd party not been an option. If they would've voted for the democratic candidate, but instead chose to vote for a 3rd party that has 0% chance of winning, then yeah, it hurts the democratic platforms chances. If they would have voted republican, but chose to vote for a 3rd party with 0% chance of winning the it hurts the repiblican platforms chance. Therefore green party votes are considered mostly detrimental to democratic platforms because their voters are more left leaning in nature. Few would vote republican when no 3rd party option presented itself.

    The idea that voting democratic or republican is throwing away a vote from green to their competitor isn't functional since the party has zero chance of winning, even if the fence sitters joined them. If they were competitive on federal level you would have a point though.

  • I avoid Nintendo too. They are way too litigious and imo actively hate their fans. There are too many instances of fans that make something out of love and for free, that nintendo comes up and sues the pants off of. Also they never put their games on sale which is just a dick move.

    They are becoming the gaming version of Disney to me. They try to look squeaky clean and family friendly, but are actually a really horrible and sad group of people that are losing the ability to innovate and only really "win" by suing everything into the ground and being greedier than the next guy.

  • I echo a lot of the sentiments expressed by others about avoiding games from bad publishers or games employing milking practices, avoiding multiplayer and toxic people, overly hard games, and many other points already stated.

    My two things that are different are that I enjoy hard games so long as the reset is instant or near instant. Like Katana Zero and Hotl8ne Miami. Without that I don't want any part of a hard game. I get it, I died, let me try again already. So fuck games with long reset times.

    And more unusual is I really don't like most isometric games but especially clicky isometrics. If I can't wander freely with WASD, fuck it, I'm out. Not going to sit here going clickclickclickclickclickclick just to go half a screen and open a chest. Fucking hate overly clicky shit like that with a passion. I also dont like how up is more like diagonal up and left is diagonal up etc. It's just annoying. My only exceptional has been project zomboid.