I did not say that

But you did. Not in so many words, but you said it.

I made the simple point that cheating is not okay, that there should be consequences for cheating. You brought up abuse victims. I said abuse victims should leave their abuser rather than cheating on them. And you said I have no sympathy for them.
The logical conclusion from your statement, is that you think abuse victims cheating on their abuser is okay. And that me saying they should leave their abuser rather than cheating on them is without empathy.

If I'm understanding the situation wrong, can you clarify your position a little? Are you or are you not trying to say that it is somehow okay for abuse victims to cheat on their abuser? And if you think that is okay, why?

I have a ton of empathy for abuse victims.
Having something shitty done to you, doesn't mean it's okay for you to be shitty.
Cheating is not okay, even if your spouse is abusive. Leaving an abusive spouse is a valid reaction. Cheating is not.

And from a legal perspective, the second we open up the can of worms of 'This person is shitty there for it's okay to be shitty to them' you create a slippery slope that could easily be used by shitty people against good people.

An awful lot of regulations are written in blood. I am not suggesting we relax any of them. I'm talking about the endless supply of permits and forms and local government licenses and that sort of thing. There is an awful lot of regulation that does absolutely nothing to increase safety, it's just bureaucracy. We could get rid of all that without impacting safety.

In that scenario, the spouse doing the parenting who isn't a narcissist should divorce the narcissist. Or keep their pants on until the divorce happens.

'somehow that leads to cheating' No it does not 'somehow' lead to anything.

Either the person is in control of their actions, in which case they should have the self-control to postpone sex at least until divorce process begins, or they are not in control of their actions and are helpless to prevent themselves from sleeping with the other person, in which case they are not the paragon of virtue you paint them to be. They may well be a better parent than the narcissist, which is why I don't say custody should be automatic. I am only saying that infidelity should be strongly considered in custody decisions.

Yeah but throw some batteries on that solar, which you really should do anyway, and you're good to go. IMHO the batteries are what really makes self-sufficiency possible. With a good size solar array and a good size battery, you can be not only a net exporter but more or less an always exporter, rarely if ever taking power from the grid.

Run on sunshine during the day and stored sunshine at night. Unfortunately a lot of places it's not legal to have a house with no grid connection, even if one isn't necessary.

Absolutely 100% Right now having solar panels on your house is 'branded' as some sort of green save the planet thing.

Putting enough panels that your house can go totally off-grid with a little cutback and usage, that's as independent as you get. Save money too.

Yes absolutely this. Cheating should not be a crime you go to jail for.
But it should have consequences. I think a good way to go is a law that unless there is a prenup that specifically deals with cheating, and unless it was an agreed to open relationship or there was otherwise permission to cheat, a cheater is ineligible for alimony and must be considered morally suspect for the question of child custody.

create an out-group so they can control the in-group

That's not just the media. It's basically everyone in power. Media, politics, government, corporations... Everyone.

It applies to the Democrats too. Especially in the 2016 election, they managed to successfully make Republicans the out-group. But I believe that was hugely damaging to the country, it created a lot more division when what is really needed is unity to focus on the issues that most people can agree on.

Because here's the cold truth- there is a body of policies that probably 80% of Americans would agree on. Things like efficient government, ending government corruption, reducing corporate control over government and elections, reducing income inequality, etc.
To quote Dylan Ratigan's famous rant, the United States is being extracted. And I think most people would like to stop that extraction.
But no major candidate stands for that. Bernie did, but the DNC iced him out because their wealthy corporate donors didn't want Bernie.

And that in my opinion is why Trump won. Harris certainly didn't push any major message of radical reform, just a bunch of the usual 'help the middle class' talk. Trump may be terrifying, but he does push a message of radical reform and changing the system.
To write that off and say half the country is racist or misogynist is to avoid learning from this situation.

This is largely accurate unfortunately. A good example is Apple. They tried to make a high-end desktop computer manufactured in the US. To do this they needed a specific type of screw. In the area near their factory, they only found one machine shop that could make the screw and they could guarantee an output of 50 screws per day after a 3 week lead time to tool up. And that was the final offer.

When they finally moved to China, they submitted the same request. Multiple vendors appeared offering thousands of screws per day and if they wanted to place a bigger order the company would set up a new factory just to produce those screws and could output tens or hundreds of thousands per day depending on requirements.

Another example is the iPhone and Gorilla Glass. There were a few Chinese companies in the running to manufacture the glass panel that would go on top of the phone. The one that got the contract, in anticipation of getting the contract, had already purchased the machine to form the glass and had samples ready for inspection at the contract signing.

We have allowed our business climate to become so bogged down in red tape and liability and lawyers and insurance, that most American companies are simply unable to execute at the same speed as China when it comes to manufacturing.

I would absolutely love to get more manufacturing back in the US. But the process of outsourcing is not going to get unwound overnight. It took two decades to move everything to China, even if the whole country agreed that was a mistake it would take another two decades to bring it back. Because as the Apple screws demonstrate, it's not just about the factory that produces the widget. It's about everything that goes into that factory, the companies that make the parts and the screws and the plastic. When you deal with China, they are all right there and they are all ready to go. Same can't be said for the US.

I think most commenters here are missing the point.

There is a more extreme reaction to transgender people as opposed to gay or lesbian people, because of issues like sports and bathrooms. And that hits at people's sense of injustice. For example if you have a young daughter, a lot of people will hate the idea of a person with a penis going into the women's room and being around their little girl. Or if that daughter grows up and joins a sports team, the idea of somebody who is hormonally male and thus naturally more muscular competing against your daughter is unpleasant.

Put differently, I think a lot of people we now classify as 'transphobic' don't actually have much problem with trans people themselves. Rather, with how the efforts to ensure trans people receive the full treatment of their chosen gender can affect the rest of society.

For me personally, I don't know what the answer is. I generally don't care which bathroom you use as long as you wash your hands. I have no problem with anyone presenting themselves to the world as whatever they wish, if it makes you happier than by all means. At the same time though, I don't think it's transphobic to point out that somebody who is largely or entirely biologically male will have a natural competitive advantage in the field of sports.
So while I certainly don't want to exclude anybody, I think there is at least a little justification for restricting some women's sports to those who are genetically female.

The dude is a giant shit stain and an embarrassment on society.
That said, he might actually have a point with this suit.

If I'm understanding the situation correctly, you have a situation where his website and media platform are up for auction to pay the huge judgment against him.

Ordinarily that would be fairly simple, various interested parties submit bids for whatever is on the block, and whoever bids highest gets it.

But it seems like in this case a significant portion of the 'money' from the 'winning bid' came from families who would receive that money agreeing to forfeit it as part of this particular bid. So the bid was 'we will pay XYZ in cash and defendants ABC will forfeit their claims if we win'. And furthermore, there is a claim of collusion between the winning plaintiffs and the auctioneer. That is of course a huge ethical issue.
One could, without in any way supporting Jones, make the argument that due process is not being followed here and the auctioneer is not maintaining impartiality.

Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no love for the guy. But as much as I dislike him and the awful effect he has on our country, the judicial process must stay neutral. That is the difference between a fair trial and a witch hunt. If it truly was the case that the auctioneer was not neutral, and acted with the goal of ensuring Jones did not maintain any control over InfoWars, then he has an excellent chance of winning this lawsuit and at the very least having a new auction process for his media empire.

Taiwan is one country I have absolutely no problem selling weapons to. They need as big a stick as they can get to maintain independence from China.

Quantity isn't everything

That right there hits the nail on the head. There is a certain critical mass, an activity level that makes satisfy most discussion needs for most users. It's a tiny fraction of the total traffic of a place like Reddit or Twitter.
But if we have that, and keep the quality level up, we can succeed.

Success to me doesn't mean killing Reddit and Twitter. It means creating a place where smart people can come and find enough content and discussion that they don't need Reddit and Twitter.

If she was actually using that message, which I never heard, no wonder she lost. People don't want the absence of something, they want radical change. They want a country that works for the middle class rather than just for the 1%. That's why Obama's message resonated. And that's why Trump's message resonates. He at least acknowledges that shit's broken and he promises to fix it. He may be the wrong person to fix it and he may have no interest in fixing it, but his message at least acknowledges that there is a serious problem.

Harris had some policies, but not a real underlying message. She could have made a message like 'bring back the American dream' and that might have gotten her a win. Obama's message was 'yes we can'. Trump's message is 'make America great again'. You need a theme message like that, if you only talk positions you get lost in the noise of our shitty media.

I. Do. Not. Care. About. The. Tech.

Exactly. The tech doesn't matter. Tech only exists in service of the gameplay, and (introduced with HL1), the story (previous to HL1 the 'story' of most games was just a quick blurb on why there's monsters and why you have to shoot them).

Gamers DGAF about new tech. Gamers wanted to be told a story. We LOVED the story.

Valve could've used the existing engine, built NOTHING AT ALL NEW, and just finished the story with existing assets and we'd all have been over the moon happy.

In a sense, you're right. And there's a bit of magic involved. If you cut a certain special rock into slices, engrave runes on one side of it, and inject lightning, the rock starts to think. I don't see how you can describe that as anything other than magic.

This is exactly it. A lot of people are struggling. They see less jobs, less pay, meanwhile the rich get richer. They see a system that benefits everybody except them. So Trump comes along and says he's going to fuck up the system. That sounds pretty good. And if he can make a decent excuse that he's been fucked by the system too, people are willing to overlook a lot.

Plus, let's not forget Harris had very little real message. Obama had a message- hope, change, yes we can. Hillary was as status quo as you can get, and people wants to reform. Kamala's message was basically 'I'm not Trump' but unfortunately that's not good enough to get you elected. Especially not when, before Biden dropped out and she got anointed, she was polling in the single digits.

Once again, you're looking at steak. Obviously sizzle doesn't keep you alive. But someone desperate for meat is going to follow the smoke and fire and sizzle in the hope that there is steak at the bottom of it.

So far that solution seems to be to ignore it as a problem and continue the policies that created it. Dems are a little better on unions, but neither one is addressing the systemic problem.