AbnormalHumanBeing

As someone whose weeb phase has long gone - I can recommend the manga with very high praise. While the arc you watched is the most popular one, the real genius of the series is, IMO at least, that it builds on that in genuinely creative ways, continuing to explore the characters and developing the world further.

I was originally turned off from the very first chapters when I had a look many years ago, thinking it'd be just another "edgelord" dark fantasy manga - I regret I only picked it up again a long time after that. It is so damn good at doing real, deep character work. I mean, you already knew that from what you watched, but it continues to do so and explore the consequences of what happened in that arc.

So even if manga normally aren't your thing - Berserk is a good manga for both weebs and "usually not my thing"-readers.

I was confused, too, but this is because ProtonDB seemingly groups everyone who uses the flatpack runtime to run stuff as a separate "distro" when it comes to compatibility/troubleshooting/tweaking comparisons.

It's obviously a screenshot from an original Game Boy!

Yupp, the place where you can buy vehicles, including a Star Wars land speeder (in an at first seemingly medieval fantasy setting). Ultima 1 was a gloriously weird "nerd just nerds out uninhibitedly" pioneer game.

Nur wenn man den Wegzug durch die Politik dabei nicht mitbedenkt, und ausschließlich die Opposition zu Einwanderung betrachtet. "Eingeborene" Ostdeutsche verlassen ja auch die Region immer noch, oder ziehen mindestens in die "linkeren" Stadtregionen.

Today's Special Offah!

Yeah, they aren't unbiased, they are more hesitant perhaps than other outlets on the other end of the bias spectrum - but not covering? Covering up? The biggest headline result when I just visited bbc.co.uk was about the starvation campaign.

Their bias can actually be somewhat helpful - it lends legitimacy to what they are reporting on, and makes it harder to claim that it's "just biased pro-palestine pseudo-journalism" or some crap like that.

I don’t believe that people should be forced to “stay in their lane”, but if you’re going to go wading into waters that are not your own, you gotta stay humble.

Yes. And I can even sympathise with that being hard. It's genuinely hard to do so and takes work and emotional stress, people potentially dogpiling on you from both sides doesn't help either. But it sadly is the only way to arrive at something approximating truth. Influencer culture, atomised society and increasing isolation and social media in the context of a "presenting the most interesting you" culture sadly make this even harder. And even without that, there is always, and will always be, the danger of getting caught up in defending a point that is just wrong, because our psyche as humans latched onto it for reasons of identity/ego preservation or otherwise emotional wellbeing. Discourse culture ideally has to account for that with respectful arguing in good faith, even when the other side is wrong. Of course, that is an ideal that cannot always be reached, especially with more fuzzy, non-empirically provable points, or discourse that has very direct and tangible effects on our lives (politics, mainly, which is one reason it can be so draining).

Your perspective is valid as your perspective in the discourse, as long as it can be viewed as authoritative where you can rightfully claim you have knowledge and expertise (and even then, of course, it can be contradicted with proper arguments or newly emerging facts), as well as an outsider estimate where you just have an educated guess. And the latter isn't worthless, but should be distinguished from more confident takes for the sake of discourse. Even just vibes-based perspectives are valid as a part of a discourse, but they have to clearly be able to be put into context and qualified, and have to stomach being superseded.

EDIT: Accidentally posted while still typing and reading, aaah, this is unfinished.

EDIT2: Okay, this is as done as I will do it, I also looked at the clock, and I won`t be awake for long now anyway.

EDIT3: Okay, this one is the last one, I really have to get to bed, because I am also noticing how diving into this is not good for my health. But turns out you can disregard the stuff I wrote below except for the last sentence, and me still thinking the data is more ambivalent narrative-wise. But while I still maintain the language was confusing, I finally noticed an unambivalent line from the survey: "Of the following issues, choose any that played a role in your [vote for presidential candidate/decision to not to vote for president]. Check all that apply." So, yes, this was indeed also non-voters.

I admit, now that I explicitly checked, that is also how I would interpret (from the PDF):

This survey is based on 604 interviews conducted by YouGov on the internet of registered voters who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and not Kamala Harris in 2024.

But it is also just ambivalent enough to create questions when combined with the language of the article: Since both the study and the article seem to be by the same institute, I doubt it's a miscommunication error. The language of the article is repeatedly so specific.

For Biden 2020 Voters Who Cast A Ballot For Someone Besides Harris

29% of voters nationally who voted for Biden in 2020 and cast a ballot for someone besides Kamala Harris

When Biden 2020 voters cast a ballot for someone besides Harris in 2024

And then there are questions in the PDF like:

Next, think back to how you voted in 2024. You will see issues that some say may have impacted their vote. For each of those, please say how you feel about that issue.

That seem to indicate that this indeed only targeted people that did vote.

So, colour me genuinely confused, it seems like such a specific and deliberate usage of language. And I have to admit, it feels weird to me, especially considering the IMEU has an interest in making Gaza the most important topic. Note that the same numbers of the survey could also be used to support different narratives, like: 68% said abortion access was important to them and influenced how they voted in 2024, vs 27% saying the same about violence in Gaza. Or Question 12 vs 13, showing that on a policy difference exclusively on Gaza, the people surveyed would still predominately support the Democrat, and only 8% mention not voting if the Democrat supports Israel unconditionally. So, this also does not fit the narrative neatly.

But if this does indeed represent non-voters as well, and one third of those truly did not vote because of Gaza, yes, that is indeed a large enough group to swing close results in battleground states.

Ah, thank you, my search-fu did not provide me good numbers like that.

However, unless I am misreading them heavily, those numbers don't seem to lay out what you mention. They are exclusively about "Biden 2020 Voters Who Cast A Ballot For Someone Besides Harris". Again - I don't think that group is large enough, because even combined, all the left-of-Democrats third party votes seem to be negligible. That is "29% of voters nationally who voted for Biden in 2020 and cast a ballot for someone besides Kamala Harris in 2024". So, again, if I combine Jill Stein, Cornell West, and Claudia De la Cruz, that is 0.72% of the popular vote. Even with a naive calculation of taking all 29% of those that would then be commies like that, that seems like not enough to put Trump into office, unless highly concentrated in very embattled swing states.

EDIT: OK, I forgot, that means also people voting Trump, not just third party. So the influence could theoretically be more. But I doubt commie agitprop pushed a lot of people to outright voting Trump.

Hmm, maybe, it is always hard to prove an effect like that. Best one could do is exit polling with specific questions of what influenced the decision, and other polls in general. I was interested what polling was available there, most I found was just non-voters as a larger group, which seems to be predominately non-politically engaged and mostly centrist. One article I have found seems to indicate the non-voting Democrats don't really fit the narrative of being swayed by radical left influencers and agitprop either.

I am also unsure how visible those kind of influencers were on mainstream social media, as I am not active there at all. I always had the feeling they were mostly visible in their own bubbles and by people who got angry at them, thus also getting them served by the algorithms. Their effect on motivating people to stay home, I'd be genuinely interested in seeing in polling numbers, but I sadly could not find any polls with questions like "who influenced your decision to not vote".

In general, psychology-wise, I think motivating people to stay home that would have voted otherwise is I believe a much lower effect, than the failure in motivating people to get up and vote, who would have stayed home otherwise. Which was not the responsibility of those commie influencers the way I estimate it. However - I admit there may have been an effect: By inducing fatigue in activists that had to argue with them, taking away time and resources for trying to reach and motivate properly undecided non-voters.

I don't think it does much for gaming, as the video and article also point out, but even if it turns out to just be placebo - my old and creaking PC here feels more responsive than it did with Manjaro, Vanilla Arch and Garuda respectively.