That’s not all, probably not even the main one. It’s a major cost of living crisis and impoverishment of average people while companies and the richest get richer. Neither the Ds nor the Rs want to do anything against it, they get their money from there.

The people kinda understand this. But they’re not intelligent enough to distinguish “actually changing the system” with “just saying they’re gonna change the system”, like Trump does. Trump is always talking about uprooting the deep state and bringing an “average person”(white middle/lower class) perspective to politics, and people just gobble it up and believe it because he’s kinda good at talking with conviction.

Of course the misogyny and racism is part of it and an extra, but it’s not the main reason at all. For some people it is, of course.

When/how does Worf say/imply Risa is impure?

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?

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.

One thing that people didn’t mention yet: this is the behavior that made him (stay) a billionaire. You don’t get to be one by being nice and non-exploitative.

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.

I’m pretty sure the trials of death in super mario maker wins.

Over 4000 hours over 7 years just to beat one level.

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.

Almost all celebrities get to where they are specifically not because they are amazing people. It requires a special kind of mindset to pursue fame and status to such an extent.

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.

Funny how you made exactly the comment the article predicted within itself xD