webadict @ webadict @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

273

Joined

2 yr. ago

The problem with that thinking is the President is the Commander-in-Chief. He can tell the military to do anything, and anything he tells them to do is protected, because that power is EXPLICITLY written out in the Constitution, and thus is an official act.

Additionally, he could just hire literal hitmen and pardon them of any crimes. Official act. Fucking brownshirts are gonna be back.

You are making a silly argument that is flawed. The Witcher includes sexual themes because the book it is based on also includes these themes.

BG3 includes optional romantic themes because the game it is based on can include optional romantic themes. The game is about your involvement in the story, about how you navigate the world and its people because it attempts to mimic DnD. You can do a lot of "I seduce the dragon" and BG3 was designed to be fairly accomodating to a variety of tables.

To suggest the game would be better if it contained no romance when you haven't played it is... bizarre? Especially with it being optional. But, that is perhaps the epitome of my argument. A lot of content in BG3 is optional. To remove any of it would be to make a game about options lesser.

I think romance is included in a lot of stories because it is a very common component in life. We have so many experiences around love, and exploring that in a fictional environment at the same time we do battle against demons is fun for many people.

TTRPGs cater to you choosing your own story. To remove the romance from this story is to say that some choices in this story cannot be made.

Also, there's mods to remove the romance. It would be a loss to have them gone at the onset.

I get it. I think defending yourself against that is probably a lost cause, though, even if that feels bad not to.

As for being an authority, personally, I see that. I think you made a statement and people, reasonably or not, assumed you know something more than they do. You post a lot, so why wouldn't you know a lot?

I disagree on pretty much every point, but I personally don't see the problem you're having with the game. If you don't like the nudity, that is optional (as in, there is an option for it.) If you're complaining about the romance, that's like an entire genre of stories. Heck, softcore porn is also a genre of stories that is exceptionally popular. So, why would removing it for you make up for the loss of potential customers that were gained from it being there, especially since you bought it with it there anyway? Idk, seems like you disproved your own point.

I think you're getting attacked because this post is an accusation, first and foremost. It definitely doesn't feel like it is positive or productive.

Your issue is that you have already come to a conclusion, and your issues aren't issues to anyone but you. Give me an example of someone saying Hamas is literally fighting with rocks as an actual answer.

The biggest mistake a lot of people make is being born poor.

Google it, sea lion.

Fuck off, sea lion.

Their data is adjusted for family size. Family size has been consistently shrinking since the 1960s, which, if you adjust their graph, will lead to overall decrease in wages throughout time. It is a meaningless method of transformation to get data that supports a false narrative.

Why did you not point out that their data is transformed when I did?

Repeat same talking point.

The things you say are useless, especially since these are adjusted by household size. Do one that isn't.

If he's so smart, why is he dead?

Is it actually incorrect? I don't think it's necessarily wrong, but it just sounds bizarre or Shakespearean if you use it when it's not an auxiliary verb.

"I've no need for that." is a perfectly cromulent sentence.

That's not really a good answer though. Those are policies put in place long before Biden became president, but not only that, you haven't proposed an alternative. Your current solution is "Don't vote for Biden" but the outcome is that you either get Biden, a continuation of the status quo at worst, or you get Trump, a continuation of the status quo AT BEST. You can pretend you live in a world where you get a third party candidate, but you don't.

Which leaves you in an unfortinate bind, since that makes you a fascist by your own definition. You are trying to push a solution that would make the situation at best the same, and at worst, much, much worse. As you said:

Any president not acting to dismantle that is fascist

I assume you would never take an action that would support a fascist. So, how can you argue that in a First-Past-The-Post voting system (and one that defaults to state legislatures if no majority is made), voting for a third party is a viable solution?

I think you can't if you are against fascism. You can post links to antifascist movements, organizations, or steps to take, but the American election system is too fucked to argue against the two big parties unless you are ever the optimist, but I don't think you are if you argue both parties are fascist.

Imagine posting your definition for fascism instead of nothing relevant.

Please list the descriptors that show Joe Biden is a fascist, because I'm looking at Umberto Eco's and I see... maybe 1, if you reach a bit: "appeal to the middle class"

You probably fall under at least 4 though.

It's a 10 day old account, they are 100% a bad faith actor, and you know this because they don't acknowledge any of the ways to push for better treatment of Palestinian civilians. They are using them as a prop to tell people to not vote for Joe Biden (which is its own brand of fucked up privileged), even though Joe Biden is pretty famous for being bullied into better positions. Voting against fascists is, indeed, the right move, and Joe Biden might be a centrist liberal, but he isn't a fucking fascist.

Why does it matter if you're not a Republican if you espouse their talking points? Does it make you special that you're not a Republican?

Sorry that you're either too angry or too dumb to have gleamed that insight. It offered commentary on your logic, that being that you don't know or don't care about the inconsistencies, both of which mean debating you is pointless because you're either an idiot or a bad actor, so why bother?

Well, that's a non sequitur.