What should happen to Palestinians if Israel is chosen? What should happen to Israelis if Palestine is chosen?

Most of Israel’s weapons come from the US. It’s very well possible for the US congress/government to say “no more weapons if you use them for agression”.

It’s naive to think the US is a democracy. It’s mostly an oligarchy with a few democratic features. The only choice is to vote Harris, but she is only barely less right-wing than Trump, from a European perspective. She will continue the oligarchy.

The only hope there is, is that all the people in the US start to understand they don’t have a democracy. The vote for D needs to become overwhelming. Then, R will die out and an alternative choice on the further left side may emerge as a serious contender. Then, this further left choice needs to become overwhelming.

Eventually, this will lead to real change.

Why this must work like this is because the US’ democratic system only supports 2 parties with its first-past-the-post system. Until a reform of this voting system takes place, towards a ranked choice style system, there can’t be good representation. While any organization into a limited number of parties inherently means that almost no one will be represented perfectly, the less parties there are, the more the average divergence of reprentation there will be. 2 is just an unbelievably small number of opinion groupings to choose from, much too little to get anywhere near good representation.

It’s not a democracy if the choices available don’t work for the common person, which they both don’t. Democracy means that what the majority says, goes. Which is clearly not what’s happening, because the majority wants to get rid of billionaires and do something about climate change and so on and so on.

Of course, but I’m talking about what was literally said. The further reasons, like you describe, are easy to deduce as well, but I was just responding to the comment that didn’t seem to understand anything, neither the overt nor the covert reasons.

I’m confused how you don’t see the logic. It says right there.

He claims that the lost “potential population” from teen parents will cost the state revenue and political representation.

A person pays taxes. Less people = less tax income. More people = more tax income.

It’s entirely idiotic, but it’s not hard to understand?

It feels to me like you don’t hate progress, but you hate late stage capitalism.

If progress happened without it being forced on you, without you “having” to adapt to not “fall behind”, when all your needs were provided for without having to compete to satisfy them…

Would you really mind progress that much?

Maybe because the whole “blue light in displays” has no real effect on our sleep

I’m sorry if this is not what you want to hear, but I’ll give my perspective anyway.

Why do you care about getting “back in your industry/career”? Yeah you did it previously, but is it really what makes you happy?

When you have goals, you always think “once I reach this, everything will be better”. In my experience and with everyone I ever talked with, this was never the lasting case. Reaching some nice goal gave satisfaction for days or sometimes even weeks or months, but never longer. Then it was back to dissatisfaction and another goal.

The common path frequently described out of depression is getting back into the groove of setting goals, following them, not being satisfied, setting another goal, repeat. This is not how I got out of my depression and also not a good life.

I don’t think it’s important that you reach your goal of getting back in your industry or whatever. I think it’s important that you’re fine with not reaching it. I think it’s important to recognize that you can be happy and satisfied right where you are, exactly with what you have.

I got answers and engagement from communities that seemed dead on Lemmy due to lack of users. You should just try to ask your questions… One answer that truly helps is already enough usually, you don’t actually need 100 users upvoting the same answer or 12 different answers where only 1 is good. For many things, low engagement is already sufficient.

But I haven’t been trying hard at all…

There’s definitely a balance to be struck, and it depends on the table. I would only do this on a table where the rules are actually just guidelines.

For many others, a world needs to make sense internally. It doesn’t need to make real-world sense, but within the world with its different reality, things kinda need to be consistent. For example, if it is easily possible for a wizard to circumvent your will save by asking a trick question, the whole world would look completely different. Almost everyone who interacts with any kind of wizard would be extremely guarded around giving consent for anything since it might just be a ploy to remove their resistances.

A resourceful/logical player would now try to trick an NPC into agreeing first, and well, if it doesn’t work, you can still cast the spell normally, nothing lost. You could ask them to stop, or they could recognize themselves that doing it like that wouldn’t be fun, but if you act in the world you usually always try to make the best decisions. If you artificially limit that in a fourth-wall-breaking way, the game actually starts to lose its appeal.

If you allow stuff like this all the time, eventually the alternate reality of your characters will just become a random clown show. Problem solving will just be about who comes up with the most ridiculous thing that makes everyone laugh about its absurdity. There will be no logic or rational thought involved anymore, it’ll be no simulation anymore, just a sandbox. Which again, might be fine for certain tables, but many want to be able to immerse themselves in a different world that they can accept as at least possible, which is the actual fun for them.

So no, you aren’t necessarily “not fun” if you don’t allow this as a DM. You’re just playing a different kind of game with a different kind of fun.

It has been my experience. Google Play has no way to communicate back that a rating has been made, so all apps I know just assume you rated and never bother you again.

Maybe you’re just using really sketchy apps, but for me it worked every time.

Most “far right” people are exactly the kind that made the comment you reply to. I have a “friend” that became exactly like this.

Defense lawyers are supposed to try everything they can to defend their client, no matter how little sense it makes. It is theoretically possible for an admission of guilt to be false.

It’s up to the judge to understand their arguments are worthless and rule accordingly.

That’s how this is supposed to work.

It depends entirely on the maturity of the parties involved, it’s not really an “older/younger” thing.

But generally, the less mature you are, the more a relationship is selfish, i.e. you want to be in a relationship for your personal advantage, i.e. “i get sex when I have a girlfriend”. The more mature you get, the more relationships go into the direction of “I want to make the other person happy”. You still get your sex or whatever other advantage of course, but it’s much more fulfilling if you can actually give the other person what they need, and temporarily losing your personal benefit of the relationship doesn’t cause immediate breakups.

They don’t really. They are often learned the hard way, because no one attempts to explain them or just acts like they know but doesn’t really.

No one said at all that AI used “reason” to talk people out of a conspiracy theory. In fact I would assume it’s incredibly unlikely since AI in general is not reasonable.

It’s relatively reasonable to expect a person to lie, it’s a bit less reasonable to expect two people to lie, it’s even less reasonable to expect someone to lie in a professional context where their livelihood depends on them not being discovered to be lying.

It makes a certain sense when you look at it that way from an employer’s perspective.

Of course, like you probably understand, it doesn’t make any sense after all, because in the end if you go to a doctor and lie about being sick (symptoms), the doctor is neither lying nor professionally liable and the whole thing is just an additional hurdle to go through.

But that hurdle is also part of the point to reduce the convenience of lying. And I’m absolutely sure that this additional hurdle has prevented someone somewhere from calling in sick while they aren’t.

Again of course, that likely hasn’t resulted in more work being done, because obviously the employee had a reason to lie about being sick. But whatever, I’ll stop now.

What to do with it is to act understanding and empathetic with people like that instead of standoffish and hostile. You still insist on the better way of doing things, but there’s no actual need to attack anyone that doesn’t support the better way of doing things, even if their reasons aren’t rational or even morally questionable/bad. It only serves to further entrench them in their positions, while the opposite might have a chance to happen in a more cooperative approach.