mozz

Dude

Forget 2 divisions, are we gonna forget about the whole Ribbentrop thing entirely, or what

"How Democracies Die" goes into quite a bit of detail about this -- basically, it is impossible to run a system purely by making the right laws, because the system is made of people. The laws can say whatever you want. If the people start to betray them, the system will fold.

In practice (so says the book) every single democratic government depends on a structure of norms, and violation of norms and laws goes hand in hand to form the eventual collapse into fascism when it happens.

They also say that resistance from the establishment conservatives (that the fascists are trying to invade and co-opt from within) is generally the key factor that can prevent a fascist takeover. Which is pretty fuckin worrying when you look at the modern Republicans.

Your #1 challenge and task as a DM is to stay ahead of the players.

Fighting everyone you meet? Guess what you're in a survival adventure now hiding in the hills because the whole king's guard is scouring the hills trying to TPK the party after they killed the shopkeep.

OH I BET YOU'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO GO TO THE SHOP, WOULD YOU NOT

It's okay, there is an orcish caravan coming through. They want to fight you, but maybe with some skillful rolls you can talk them into doing a little trading through the 1-2 of them that speak common, at least get some food and heal potions and crossbow bolts. You can get kitted out at least well enough to make it a few weeks' journey in any direction and hope the heat dies down before you all get killed.

OH YOU FOUND A DUNGEON ON THE WAY, LET'S DO SOME FUCKIN FIGHTING

WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T WANT TO GO IN THE DUNGEON, I THOUGHT YOU LOOOOOVED FIGHTING YOU FUCKIN COMPULSIVE FIGHTING PEOPLE

Guarantee when they get to the next continent for their fresh start (if they make it without the TPK) they will be more amenable to being nice to the NPCs. Or, maybe not, maybe they will have enjoyed the whole process and we get to do the whole thing again, which is also fine and also pretty funny tbh.

I'm going to be blunt. I was registered as third party (green party or libertarian) for many years of my life, I've done various activism things in and out of electoral politics. You are inventing a reason and supporting theoretical framework for why I support Biden in this election that is mostly imaginary, just invented out of general theories and thin air, and lecturing me at length about how my own internal politics work (which isn't how they work), and also about "the way" to do effective protest (which, sure, is fine, but is also in my opinion not the only way or guaranteed to be applicable and the perfect solution to every possible political / cultural situation.)

From time to time, you tell me something about my own thinking that is so wrong that I can point to some clear counterexample, but it hasn't changed in any respect the main thrust of you explaining to me what my thinking is. I can say, look, I posted an article from Nader about how to withhold votes from Biden to get needed political outcomes; look, I showed support for slrpnk even though the general consensus there is largely just anti-voting-in-general, because I feel like they're generally working for good and authentic about their beliefs, and so that is fine.

But no, none of that matters. You've already figured out what I believe, and you'll tell me about it at length, whatever I have to say about it.

If you want to have a back and forth where the things you say are open to critique, and where you're open to listening to me explaining my own views and the reasons for them instead of you breaking them down to me based on some general political theory that applies very little to my own thinking, then sure. But if you're committed to this conduct and to lecturing -- if the whole model is, you are right and I am wrong and you explain and I listen and say "yes sir" to your theories, which are above critique because they are already right -- then there's not a lot of point in us talking.

Until I read the comments I 100% assumed that he assaulted this girl to some level and she hit him in the head real hard like maybe with some sort of object.

I have no idea whether it was that, or whether he was just too embarrassed to get out of bed for 2 days because of being an autist or something, but the fact that he sought real medical care for it afterwards still kinda biases me towards the first interpretation.

So according to his autobiography, when Lenny Bruce was young and poor and struggling, he bought himself a priest's outfit and went around soliciting donations for some charity cause.

He said it was a great gig. He would walk around during the day, all these housewives and widows would invite him inside and he'd sit down and they'd make him tea and snacks and hang out with him, hanging on his every word, and then they'd give him lots of money. He sent like 50% of it to the charity cause and kept 50% to live on.

Eventually, the cops figured it out, and he got arrested. This was in the middle of him doing the charity thing, so he was still dressed as the priest, and this army of angered housewives came out of their houses to try to defend him against the forces of evil that were trying to arrest him, and he had to kind of calm them down and say it was okay, and then the cops took him away.

In the end, he was able to prove that he was actually sending along a big chunk of the money to the supposed cause he was fundraising for, actually much higher than the percentage that was sent along from most working charities. So nothing about it was fraudulent. It's not illegal to wear a priest's clothes and he wasn't lying about the charity part, and so they just shrugged and let him go. I think he stopped doing it, though, because he didn't want to create some kind of crazy blowback if the housewives all got wind that he wasn't really a priest.

Panic does fucked up things to your decision process.

Also, he's almost certainly dead even if nothing after that happened to kill him. Having any large amount of your skin burned that badly is generally a fatal wound, because with the skin destroyed your body can't protect against infection, and even if he had access to top-tier medical care it couldn't completely eliminate the giant opening that's been created for all kinds of stuff to get inside him now. And, it's incredibly painful the whole time you're dying.

I felt bad for him too. It's just a horrifying situation to be in.

Call me cynical, but I think maybe it's not going to go to end child hunger even if someone does decide to click yes

I wasn't applying it to Biden. I was applying it to Senate Democrats in particular and Democrats more broadly. I have other criticisms for Biden, and have made it clear multiple times that I approve of how he handled student loans.

Oh shit, I think maybe I did an unfairness then. I have you in my little mental list of people who talk shit on Biden relentlessly but it sounds like maybe I should not -- yeah, general unenthusiasm for Senate Democrats I can pretty fully agree with. Makes sense.

Do you think people should vote for the Democrats?

Yes. Until we have a less shitty option, that remains my position. It was my position last time you asked too.

I for-real do not remember this. I probably wouldn't have written what I did if I had -- yeah, everything you're saying here makes perfect sense.

I will continue to demand better, and you'll keep making veiled accusations.

100% fair and I apologize. Yeah, demanding better sounds great.

I'm famous too hooray

I just don’t think any of these things are happening

Lmao, I mean... Disagree? Look, it's right here even

So to deal with the four bullet points one by one in more detail:

• I am very confident that I never suggested that voting was the only thing that mattered. Someone saying that voting does matter is in no way saying that it's the only thing that matters. I think you will be hard pressed to find even a single comment on Lemmy saying that voting is the only thing that matters.
• I don't think I am discouraging all dissent. I give vocal dissent to the Biden administration on Israel, as does the vast majority on Lemmy. You could maybe say that I'm trying to "enforce support" by presenting my logic in favor of voting for him in general, but I've also posted articles from Ralph Nader explaining how to withhold voting in order to put pressure on Democrats to produce better outcomes and said that I think that's a good thing to do. My main objection to the "I'll never vote for Biden" viewpoint is that it enables a 10 times worse outcome and does nothing to create the better-than-Biden outcome that you seem like you're claiming you want -- but I am not demanding that people support Biden or else. I think we both want better outcomes than Biden, and we are holding a discussion about how we could get them.
• I do discourage dissemination of coverage that is unflattering to Biden, if I think it's dishonest -- but the issue is the dishonesty, not the unflattering. When it seems honest (e.g. when it pertains to Israel) I encourage it, I post it myself, again as does the majority on Lemmy.
• I don't launch any crusade (even accepting that framing for typing a comment on the internet) against anyone who's insufficiently emphatic. If someone's actively hostile to the idea of voting in this election, then yes I'll disagree with them sometimes strongly and explain why, but that is allowed, yes? Almost everyone on the internet will sometimes "launch a crusade" against viewpoints they disagree with, by that definition.

I get what you're saying in breaking down that paragraph of mine, and I can respond to what you're saying about it if you want me to, but I feel like I need to point out that in my eyes not a single one of those bullet points is in it, or anywhere near it.

You said earlier "Most people who share my perspective have long since stopped trying to argue anything in good faith at all with centrists." I'm gonna be honest, I have reached that same point with a lot of the lemmy.ml hivemind, and this is why. You are wildly mischaracterizing what I actually think, to the point where you're saying things I strongly disagree with (e.g. voting is the only thing that matters, any dissent against Biden is forbidden) and then attributing them to me.

The conversation I would like to have with you is, we need better outcomes than Biden, how do we get there. It is frustrating and pointless to have to over and over again have that much more productive conversation be recast as, I am supporting Biden no matter what and squashing any dissent against him and actively hostile to anything better than him, and then for me to have to try to explain that that's not accurate and be lectured about the contents of my own mind and my own opinions, and have an extended debate about it where I'm apparently not allowed to the be the authority on what I think and what my opinions are.

Surely that makes sense? Or no?

No, this is based on decades of observing Democrats

This part I actually agree with. Obama did a couple of good things but on the whole the whole Clinton / Pelosi axis is a pile of shit. Of course, that's not a good argument for letting Hitler come to power, but you would actually have a point if you weren't applying this to the guy that did:

• 40% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030
• 15% minimum corporate tax
• Actual labor people in charge of the NLRB for the first time in God knows how long leading to all these union wins
• Hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan forgiveness
• Big wage gains at the bottom end of the scale even when adjusted for massive historic inflation

Etc etc and so on. Biden's actually this radical forward departure from the pretty uninspiring Democratic norm. But sure, the system is still broken; if you're advocating for improving it above Biden that sounds like a great idea. I was just reacting to the absolutely false implication that these particular Democrats are only pretending to make progress. Or, have I got it wrong, were you not trying to say that?

If you want to lie and say I'm telling people to not vote for Democrats

Do you think people should vote for the Democrats? Not "allowed to vote for whoever you want" or whatever -- do you think it's a good idea for them to? What do you think they should be doing to make progress in the country, generally speaking?

But we're never allowed to demand better

Absolutely I think you should demand better. I just don't see that as incompatible with choosing the best available option while you're working for a better option than the ones currently on the table.