purchasers have legitimate moral and legal grounds to demand that they be informed that they are buying a license, or renting, the game; they are not owning a functional copy of the game outright.
I’m pretty sure that’s already the case, if you read the ToS of most games.
Not that it makes this any better.
Even assuming Biden actually deported legal immigrants like Trump is doing (which I haven’t found any proof of anywhere), just the simple fact that they were identifiable meant that we wouldn’t have the copycat phenomenon of people pretending to be ICE doing robberies and kidnappings in broad daylight. That’s already harm reduction.
And anyways no, I still don’t believe that documented and legal immigrants without a criminal record were being deported under Biden and the “clarity” was the only difference. That’s a big claim to make without a source.
Are you really trying to argue that what’s happening now was already happening under Biden? That ICE was already pulling up in unmarked vans and disappearing people with no criminal records, but people were fine with it “because blue team”?
Come on.
So how is “defense of the status quo instead of mass deporting” not “harm reduction”?
So if Harris won she would’ve deported all those people to El Salvador without due process?
Consistently electing Democrats will force Republicans to become “less of a threat”, which will force Democrats to have an actual platform since “the other guy” getting elected isn’t as scary anymore. It’s all about shifting the window.
The path to fixing the system through voting exists, it’s just not viable as long as people keep staying home because “they don’t like either candidate”.
And if people can’t move their asses to do something as simple as voting, I really doubt they have what it takes to actually do “something else” resulting in concrete changes.
They’re not aiming for “moderates” at this point, they’re straight-up aiming for right-wingers. Right-wingers who have a working brain, and when given the choice between a right-wing party and literal fascism, they’ll vote the former. People who like Liz Cheney, basically.
Oh no, FPTP works very well, for the two main parties. That’s why neither ever bothered to change it. You’re strong-armed into voting for the lesser evil because if you don’t, everything just keeps getting worse.
This way you can build a party on a cult of personality revolving on a cartoon villain and get votes, because cults strengthen participation, and another party that is allowed to do literally anything as long as they’re “not as bad as” the other. It’s absolutely perfect for rich people in power who only care about their own benefits.
And the worst thing is, people keep falling for it. They think they’re giving some sort of comeuppance to the Dems by not voting, but the reality is they don’t care that much if they win or not. They’re rich, they can survive four more years of Trump as long as they don’t oppose him too much.
Hell, at this point the worst thing you can do to the DNC (besides actually voting for progressives in primaries) is getting them elected, multiple times in a row, so many that the Overton Window shifts and they’ll be forced to actually act as a leftist party because Republicans won’t be able to fash their way into power if they want to get elected.
This is unironically how FPTP systems work. You ALWAYS have to vote for the lesser evil, because if you don’t and the bigger one wins, the other one will shift even more to the right since they know actual voters lean more towards them.
Splitting a party in a FPTP system is the best way to ensure the opposing one keeps winning.
The choices are two: you either get a violent revolution started or you keep voting for the Dems. Anything else ranges from useless to deleterious.
Well the post body does include an abc7 video report. But thanks for additional sources.
Didn’t work for me either. Another commenter’s mirror worked for me, but if that doesn’t work either here’s a YouTube one.
I’m not sure if I would call it a “non-nazi platform”, but here’s Youtube
Exactly. Men are in general much more isolated than women and their friendships are, on average, less deep. And that’s an endemic issue of the entire society, amplified both by toxic masculinity and toxic feminism.
Reducing all of that to “ofc you get no bitches if you’re a nazi, serves you right lmao” is just disingenuous.
No, this post implies that “male loneliness” is a thing only because most men are “douches”. And that’s just a blatant misrepresentation of reality which requires a deep misandry to believe even for a second.
What if, hear me out because it might be a crazy thought, it’s not just the hateful men that are affected? You think nazis are the only ones experiencing male loneliness?
Yup, all of this is true and it’s sad how people with influence fail to understand this.
You talked about 17-22 yo, which definitely feel negatively about people lecturing them on what they feel is an irresistible primal instinct, but another big issue is that, in the digital era, even younger kids are exposed to that. Older teenagers may feel like something they did is seen as terribly wrong and be angry at that, but there’s younger ones that probably can only think “…what did I even do? Why is everyone angry at me just because I’m a boy?”.
And guess who comes in to give them “answers” when they’re in that confused and vulnerable state? Yup, Tate & friends. Really, they’ve figured everything about how to make as many people as possible fall in their rabbithole to profit from them, and we’re doing nothing to stop them. Even Tate was arrested only because he did some heinous shit to people “working” with him AND boasted about that, otherwise he’d still be around. We need some serious regulations on social media algorithms, but I doubt we’re ever gonna see those in our lifetimes considering who’s in power.
Bears don’t “tend to avoid” any more than people do. There’s dangerous people that would assault you, and there’s species of bears (i.e. Polar Bears) that would definitely attack you on sight.
But the whole thing is not about the technicality. The videos were very clearly framed with emphasis on the gender of the human, they got extremely viral and millions of young males saw women saying stuff like “at least the bear would kill me instantly”. How do you think they felt, as kids that probably never even had a relationship before? You think that “helped them understand the women’s point of view” like they said was the purpose of the video, or brought them in the opposite direction, making them feel like they’re some different species, impossible to relate with, planting a seed that will only grow through the indoctrination of all the online toxic masculinity gurus?
Enough with the “Men vs. Women”, especially online where young kids will see them without any context of why is that happening. Both sexes need to do their best to stop prejudices towards the other inside their groups, and only then we can have a serious and understanding conversation. Of course that’s hard to do between algorithms and bad actors, but there’s really nothing else we can do at this point, since the large majority of both camps is entrenched in their opinion and will only listen to people of their own gender.
I don’t know if there’s any other freak sorting their Lemmy homepage to Top Monthly who just found this post, but I’d advise to edit it to let people know that even if the site lists more than 1M signatures the actually valid ones might be less, so signing even now is still a good idea, as the creator said.