LovingHippieCat @ LovingHippieCat @lemmy.world

Here's my substack, I write about videogames and have good and bad takes ab

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

361

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm pretty sure that Mike Pence as Governor of Indiana also got rid of HIV information on their sites which lead to a massive increase in HIV cases. So that's something to look forward to country wide now.

Exactly. Which is why framing this as layoffs is incredibly disingenuous. And it seems most games media is framing it as such despite it simply being a pre-production decision.

Here's a question. Is it better for the industry to have studios layoff employees when they finish a project and their other project is in Pre-Production which only requires a small team? Or is it better to assign the people who aren't needed yet, since the Pre-production team is small, to help other teams in a larger parent company? I'd argue the second option is far better. And the second option is what's happening here.

I definitely agree they should be consistent, in other countries the drinking age is 18 like voting. Of course I think banning this shit is BS still though.

"Procedures" to them includes literally all gender affirming care. Therapy? Procedure. Puberty Blockers? Procedure. HRT? Procedure. Social Transition? Procedure. This will only ban federal support but won't actually ban gender affirming care entirely, mainly because that would take an act of congress. This is still bad and hurts all gender specialist doctors that get federal grants, which I have no idea how many of them there are.

The next step is congress banning it for everyone. They did 19 because that's them saying that even when you are old enough to vote and join the military you can't make a decision about your own body. Just a matter of time.

It would have been better for it to just have been banned and be done with it. Move on. Now, we will have the same issue we have with Twitter. People refuse to move on despite how terrible the platform is because they are addicted to it.

If it had been banned, it would have, likely, opened the door for a new social media landscape to take shape. Sure, banning isn't good, but turning into what it's becoming is, arguably, worse.

Ah I misread a bit of what you said. Thanks for the clarification.

Edit: Fixed the dates in the original post

I said almost 2000 years. It lasted from, officially, 476 BCE to 1453 CE, that's 1929 years. Which is almost 2000 years, like I said.

When it comes to the West, the empire officially was made in 27 BCE with the first Emperor. I don't think the republic really counted because all historical articles I can find say it lasted 503 years, not 1000. From 27 BCE to 476 CE.

Also, 753 BCE isn't the Roman empire. It was the founding of Rome itself, meaning the city.

Interesting, so instead of them stealing the actual Roman salute, they stole what they thought the Roman salute was. Sure the Italian fascists used it too, but the Nazis compared what they wanted, a 1000 year Reich, to what Rome had created when they had a massive empire that lasted 500 years for the western empire and almost 1500 for the Eastern years if they include the West and almost 1000 by itself. So they didnt just take it from the Italian Fascists just cause, they did it because they thought it was Roman as well, and associated it with their desire to replicate the Romans.

Thanks for the info!

Edited the years for the Roman empire after being called out for being wrong.

As social media exploded with condemnation of what some were calling a “Sieg Heil,” with some others applauding the world’s richest man’s gesture, there was also some speculation that Musk’s movement was more like that of an Imperial Roman general in the Gladiator mode.

Do people think the Nazis invented their salute? They took it from the Romans. To say it was actually a Roman salute is to also say it was a Nazi salute because they are basically one and the same.

I once did that at Meijer for a switch pro controller, waited 30 minutes only for the person, who was supposed to have the key, just come over and rip the cardboard to get it off the locked hook. We only stayed because we had a Meijer gift card. Insane how long this kind of thing takes.

There were 3 that I found but apparently, when i looked them back up for this comment, two were written by the same person on different news sites so may as well be the same article so you're right, there aren't a many articles about it, although i wouldnt be surprised if more are written over the next few days.

And if they're just copying the IMEU press release then that brings into question where are they getting that 19 million figure? Moves the issue from the news organizations to the IMEU, which is probably worse than just a news org being wrong.

I hadn't even noticed how small that sample size was. 474 is a tiny ass study. This kind of poll should have been conducted with far more participants if it wanted to be taken more seriously. At least 1000. It's an online pollster, so it's not like it'd be impossible to get that many.

I definitely agree with that. We can argue about whether Harris would have benefited from saying she'd stop arms being sent to Israel, but to say it wouldn't have hurt her as well is ignoring how much of the public supports Israel. There's also a lot of people on the left who would have simultaneously said they're glad she supports stopping arms sales to Israel and yet still find some other reason not to vote for her. The decision on which way for the campaign to go on the Palestinian genocide isn't as easy or clear cut as many seem to think.

That's a massive stretch with 0 evidence to support it so is just speculation. Not literally impossible, but multiple new orgs saying 19 million without that evidence is fucking weird.

Fair. But I also never said anything about it invalidating the poll.

Yes yes i do edits: i do want to say though it's not just this one article mentioning the 19 million, each article about this poll has mentioned it.

That's what I'm saying about the 19 million figure. But the articles second paragraph is this

A YouGov poll backed by the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project and released on Wednesday showed that among the 19 million people who voted for President Joe Biden in 2020 but did not vote in 2024, nearly a third named Israel's U.S.-backed war on Gaza as a top reason for staying home.

My point is that that 19 million figure makes no sense/has no evidence to support it and isn't mentioned anywhere in the poll.

Yes an edit: Also that's a good point about the battleground state stats, thanks for pointing it out. I know Gaza had an impact, its just interesting seeing how much of an impact it actually had, which other polls show as much lower. Again, different polls, different methodologies, and different ways of getting the poll participants with Yougov doing purely online polls.

No, I know that, but that still doesn't provide evidence for what the article states, that 19 million people who voted for Biden stayed home. That's my problem because there is no evidence for that figure.

Another article that uses the same poll that says 19 million people who voted for Biden didn't vote despite not having any sources for that number. The Harris and Biden vote difference was under 6 million. 19 million is multiplying that times around 3.

Edit: I also find it interesting that so many of the polls we have had about the reasons people didn't vote for Harris have different reasons. Some say Inflation, this one says Gaza. Just interesting how different polls can be conducted. This one was also backed by the Institute for Middle East Understanding so, while I don't think they necessarily rigged it, I am not surprised that a poll backed by a Middle East organization showed support for Gaza was a deciding reason for a lot of voters. Regardless, Gaza had some impact that can't be disregarded.

Second edit: to be clear, I'm not saying the poll says 19 million, I'm saying the article does with no evidence. I'm keeping the original wording and correcting it in this edit for clarities sake.

Harris got 75 million, Biden got 81million. That's a 6 million difference and there were people who switched to Trump so not all of those 6 million sat out. Them saying 19 million shows they are not the best site to represent this data. I'm not saying I disagree with the data, just that saying 19 million sat out is a terribly way to start.

I'd also be really interested to see a study that both does something like this one, asking non Harris voters what would have convinced them to vote for her, but also if Harris coming out in support of ending support for Israel as long as the genocide continues would have made any of her voters not vote for her. Just to understand what she might have been gaining and losing by changing her position.