I think it's sort of a matter of perspective. You may feel like having an easier mode degrades the experience, but for others it makes the game enjoyable/playable to them.

Do you have the same perspective on people that like the sandbox style of the sims games and so would use cheat codes for infinite money? It certainly alters the experience in a way that is different from the intentions of the devs, and to you may degrade the experience of the game, but for other people it elevates the game, and makes it more interesting or fun for them.

A similar argument could be made about the modding scene. Although it's community driven rather than done by the actual devs of the games, allowing people to mod the game to customize their experience with quality of life mods, or mods that make the game easier/harder allows people to tweak the game more to their tastes and what they're looking for in a game.

You might say that if a game isn't appealing to someone they should just play another game. But if the game is very close to the experience they are looking for, but there are a few hangups that are a deal breaker for them, why force them to look for the perfect unicorn game instead of acknowledging that allowing players to cater the game to their own tastes is better. Having an easy mode does nothing to harm you, or your experience of the game, you can still play at your desired difficulty. And it only opens the game up for other people to enjoy.

You can't make a blind person see a painting. But you can put a braille placard in front of it with a description of the painting. Or have audio tours that describe the paintings. And to you, that may degrade the art, but for someone who otherwise wouldn't be able to experience it at all, it allows them to at least share somewhat in the experience that everyone else in the exhibit is having.

If the brain worms tell RFK Jr. That psychedelics are actually a cancer cure, then legislation could be put forth to legalize psychedelics. But rather than allowing recreational use, or using them for a medical purpose based on scientific fact such as use in conjunction with therapy to treat depression, it could be legalized as prescribed medication for cancer. This has the drawbacks of not allowing access to people that could actually benefit from it, as well as now being used as a snake oil cure for something completely unrelated that will prevent people from getting other more effective treatment.

I think the implications here is that the reasons it gets legalized can have an impact on the specifics of the policy. Which would mean that they wouldn't agree with the policy beyond the legalization itself.

What about Joe Biden made him sufficiently left while Kamala Harris wasn't?

-Joe Biden wasn't campaigning to finish building Trump's wall. Or saying that actually it was a good idea to build the wall and the only problems were just that Trump said Mexico was going to pay for it and that he didn't finish the job.

-Joe Biden wasn't campaigning on being pro-fracking. And bragging about how he was the tie breaking vote for the IRA, which leased new land for fracking. (I understand there was more to this act, but Harris points to it as a way to show she supports fracking)

-At the time the genocide in Gaza hadn't ramped up and gotten as much publicity as has now, so we didn't get to hear Joe Biden's stance on it.

-Joe Biden wasn't calling to ensure America has the "strongest most lethal fighting force in the world".

-Joe Biden didn't align himself with the Cheneys.

You see that 10 million more Democrats voted for Biden, but stayed home for Harris and you believe the problem is with the people and not the candidate? Now granted, racism and sexism played a role in this for sure. But to attribute that much of a difference just to that? Most of the people that are deeply racist and sexist are already voting for Trump because he supports those ideas. And from what I've seen, the Republican voters stayed pretty consistent from last election. It was mainly a dip in Democratic voters. If the problem is with the voters and not just that Harris was an incredibly weak candidate, then why do you believe that many more people voted last election?

I watched this video when it came out and I disagree with the findings in it, because to me it seems less to indicate that people reject logic because of political affiliations, and more people are critical of studies that contradict prior knowledge.

People interpreting results on the skin cream have absolutely no frame of reference. There isn't a brand name associated with the skin cream that might have some kind of recognition for people to have prior knowledge. The study that they are presented with is the first time they are seeing anything about this skin cream.

People weighing in on gun control, have a lot of prior knowledge on the topic. Now whether all this knowledge is based on facts or data is obviously questionable. But regardless they have prior experience with the topic. So naturally you are going to be critical of a study showing you results that directly contradict your prior knowledge. Also from the video it doesn't seem clear that they are asking them to specifically treat it like math problem and make judgements based on the study alone. They are asked whether they think gun control is effective. And while obviously they have the infographic right in front of them, most people are not going to base their judgements solely on that data alone.

To put it another way, what if the study was based on something non-political, like say whether smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day improves or worsened lung capacity over the course of a decade? I think most people would be heavily critical of the study that shows smoking improved lung capacity even if the data they are presented reflects that. And I don't think it would be because they are simply rejecting logic and numeracy based on affiliations. It's because they have prior information and knowledge that directly contradicts the singular study that is presented to them.

And this is ignoring the fact that while the statistic they use to measure the effectiveness for the cream is very tangible and direct. Either the rash improves or it worsens. And you can make direct comparisons with the control groups. In the gun control study you are comparing different sets of cities, ones that have gun control laws and ones that don't. You aren't comparing the same set of cities before and after gun control. So already this is a poor study. Then to make matters worse the statistic they use to measure the effectiveness is "crime worsened" and "crime improved". Not crime committed with firearms. Or even just violent crimes. Just crimes. And in cities where gun control laws have been implemented, crime is naturally going to go up because there is a new law for people to break. Anybody who isn't following the gun control laws in that city are committing a crime whereas people in the cities without those laws are doing the exact same thing, but it's just not counted towards "crime" because it hasn't been outlawed.

That's exactly the reason that people didn't vote.

There's no civilization in sight.

Your options are

1. drink the pond water and get dysentery. Struggle to find help while you are slowed down by your illness and shit yourself to death.

2. drink the bucket of shit. Same problem just much quicker

3. drink the camel piss. It's sterile, (edit: I stand corrected) and provides some hydration

4. just fucking give up because all these choices are dire and no matter what you're probably going to die because there is no sign of civilization or rescue, or another clean source of water, or things getting remotely better for you.

And you're yelling at people for not happily slurping up the pond water and subjecting themselves to dysentery. Some people are going to have the fortitude to do whatever it takes for survival. And some people in that situation just give up.

People didn't vote because of apathy, and no hope that things will get better in the future. Yes Harris is better than Trump. But she's still a step in the wrong direction. Just because it wasn't a running long jump towards doom doesn't mean it's not making progress in the same direction. You want people to vote for you? Inspire your fucking voter base. Give them something to rally behind. Make them excited. Give them hope. Give them a reason to stand in line for hours to vote after working an 8 hour day. Have strong policies that inspire confidence in your capabilities. Don't make a large part of your campaign 'at least I'm better than the other person'. That's your selling point? Not how good you are. Just how less bad you are.

Let's preface with the fact I voted for Harris, and understand where you're coming from with lesser evil voting.

But the other half of your argument is that with the way that Harris was tacking to the right to try to gain moderate voters, the choice was between voting between fascism now and fascism later down the line.

But if we vote for fascism later then we have time to distance ourselves from fascism.

By sitting at home happy that you did your job and 'defeated' fascism, until the next election where your choice is again fascism now and fascism a little less later down the line?

As the Dems keep drifting further and further right. At what point do you put your foot down and demand actual progressive policies? And how do you get those demands to actually be listened to when the party knows you'll vote for them because "at least we're not as bad as the other guys. What choice do you have?" Supporting her is a message to the Democratic party that their strategy of slowly becoming more conservative wins elections. And this is the reason that I was very conflicted about voting for her, but just held my nose and did it for the greater good.

The average US citizen is not going to sit down and parse through 80 pages of policy. Why the fuck didn't she promote it in interviews? Every speech and interview I have seen she just skirts around questions and gives vague answers, very frequently repeating herself almost verbatim. It really didn't inspire confidence. And I say this as someone who voted for her.

I 100% agree with you on everything in this comment. My only point is that regardless of how badly trump wants to finish the job, Harris certainly doesn't seem to want to stop it. And as such, she isn't free from criticism. Moreover she needs to hear more criticism to push her into walking back her support of Israel "defending itself" by retaliating in a wildly disproportionate fashion. And the key time to do it was in the lead up to the election, because if she felt like enough people were upset about it that it could cost her the election, it had a higher chance of making a difference.

It's possible to believe Trump is an evil piece of shit, but also that Harris needs to improve. Just because she's the better choice doesn't mean she's perfect.

This really cuts to the core of the issue. Why would they need to listen to what people are saying if they've already won the election? To bolster their chances of being re-elected? But then the next election will most likely be a repeat. Vote for me or else the fascists win. Then we elect them, even though they state while they are running that they plan to do [x]. We make a big fuss to tell them we don't want them to do [x]. They follow through with what they clearly stated while campaigning. And then next election it's the same thing again. The only bargaining chip we really have as the American people is our vote.

If the situation is really that dire. (And I absolutely believe it is) And American democracy as a whole is at stake, who is really the one to blame? The people holding steadfastly to their beliefs and saying that they don't feel comfortable/ good voting for someone who is saying they will continue to support genocide? Or the person that sees people saying that and points the finger at them as the problem instead of hearing them out and changing your policy to gain their votes? I understand that also poses the risk of losing votes, but do you really want the votes of people thirsting for genocide?

All of this being said I do completely understand that this is the choice that we've been stuck with, and that things will be massively worse if Trump does get elected. I'm voting for Harris, but I can't say that I really blame people who feel like they can't in good conscience. And I hate seeing everyone telling them to just shut up, vote Harris and worry about it after.

This looks amazing! Especially love the kitchen, workshop, and clean up areas. It's great to give people a space to do things they don't necessarily have the equipment or means to on their own. Which reminds me I should see if there are any publicly available workshops in my area.

Why can't both be true? Sure. Trump tells Netanyahu not to accept the ceasefire. And when Netanyahu says no, rather than doing something to further pressure him, like making the munitions we send them conditional on a ceasefire, he just gives up and sends more bombs.

We've tried nothing and we're all out of options! We asked him nicely to stop and he told us no. :(

To me it seems like less of a double standard and more of a representation of the divide between Americans.

Trump gets plenty of criticism from all around. Including from the same people that are also criticizing Harris. But his voter base is in full support of the stuff he's spewing, and will believe anything he says wholesale. Even if it's crazy, or unsubstantiated, or demonstrable lies.

The people who make legitimate criticisms of Harris are not supportive of trump. But them criticizing Trump will not change Trump. He already has unwavering support from a large number of people. Why would he do anything to gain the support of someone who is willing to call him out on his bullshit and hold him to an actual standard? And it's not going to change the minds of any of his cult-like voters. However they do have hope that by criticizing Harris they might see her actually make changes towards becoming a candidate they wholesale fully support. Not a candidate that they are forced to choose because of the alternative. But a candidate that they actively want to be elected. These criticisms might also be persuasive to other Harris supporters and call them to be vocal and advocate for her to change as well.

So it's less of individuals having double standards and treating the candidates differently, but the two polar opposite standards that the voter bases have.

I understand that we are stuck with these 2 candidates. But is it not still valid to complain that we have to pick between full throttle genocide and a slightly more palatable "restrained" genocide?

I'm not advocating for people not to vote for Harris. But to boil everything down to "said some mean things" is completely reductive. And you're correct that she is not the president yet. But the only indication of what her actions will be when and if she is elected, are the things that she is saying now. And right now we are not seeing much if any pushback against what Israel is doing. She keeps saying that Israel has a right to defend itself. But what Israel is doing right now is going far above and beyond simple self defense. It is a genocide.

One way that people have the power to convince her to change her policy is by being vocal about their dissatisfaction. Presidents need to have personal convictions. They can't just be completely wishy washy. But their role is to be an advocate and representative of the people's interests. This is why they get elected. Because people feel that the candidate they are voting for is in line with their beliefs, and policies and changes they wish to see. So when people are vocal about their dissatisfaction with the policies she is putting forth, it gives her an indication that it is time to take a second look at what people are criticizing her about. To actually listen to what people are saying and potentially change her views. Especially if she wants their votes.

The people that are criticizing Harris on these issues in particular are by and large people who very obviously would not vote for / do not support Trump. A criticism of Harris is not supporting Trump. It is hoping to convince Harris to become a candidate that they can fully support. Someone they truly believe in and want to become president. Not just somebody they vote for because "well at least it's not Trump".

Under the funny and spooky category, one of my favourite movies is Murder Party.

Right. We will be defending Israel from the incoming Iranian ballistic missiles after they kill innocent civilians on a scale larger than they already have been, prompting a response from Iran large enough that the iron dome is not capable of handing it. Which totally doesn't make us participants. We're not directly doing the bloodshed, just enabling it and defending Israel from feeling any consequences.

Genuine question. What do you think should happen with people that have committed violent crimes? If they have no interest in voluntary rehabilitation, imprisonment with the goal of rehabilitation seems to be a better alternative to just letting them roam freely and do as they please. And it seems a lot better than the death penalty. Specifically for reasons like what we're seeing here. You can release someone from prison if evidence comes later that casts doubt on their guilt. It doesn't prevent the harm that has already been caused, but it gives them an opportunity to take back their life. You can't un-execute somebody.

If the prisons are focused on rehabilitation and reintegration instead of just keeping people locked up and treating them like they're not human? Yes. Do I believe prisons in the US are like that? No.

This is such a nothing argument. If all you're talking about is a summary of a book, people have been able to get that long before AI. I can go to a wikipedia entry right now of any book and look at a plot summary. The author does not get paid for me looking at the summary on Wikipedia. There are numerous other sites where you can find summaries of books. And if you're asking an AI for a summary of a specific book by a specific author, what attribution would you like to see? The user already knows the source because they're specifically asking for a summary of that source.

A bigger concern would be the AI reproducing your works and using them in responses.

Not going to pretend to be able to read the minds of Hamas. But it seems like the idea was that taking hostages would give them leverage to negotiate. Because although the Israeli government generally regard Palestinians as subhuman barbarians, surely they wouldn't risk the lives of the hostages by retaliating full force. And it seems in general they were partially right. The general population of Israel is calling for a ceasefire because they are concerned for the safety of the hostages and want their friends and family back. But Netanyahu seems to have very little interest in negotiations.