Because the electoral college was established with the explicit purpose of giving less populated states an advantage, and that would defeat the point. A lot of my fellow Americans don’t know or don’t want to admit that the electoral college was intentionally undemocratic from the start.

Pantheon.

Really thoughtful and smart sci-fi animation. Don’t want to spoil it so I’ll be vague, it has the most realistic depiction of modern tech and how people interact with it than any other show I’ve seen. Really great commentary on big tech corporations and even a bit of geopolitics. Super ambitious yet it somehow pulls it off.

There is also a scene that still gives me nightmares (not even joking, I still dream about that shit) which is more than any horror movies or shows have done for me. Anyone who has watched it knows exactly what scene I’m talking about.

I believe a large portion of the electorate that vote Democrat are liberals who weren’t fans of Biden but hated Trump, and intended to vote for Biden only to prevent Trump from winning. Kamala would not lose this contingency of voters even if they think Kamala is too progressive, but she would gain new voters who previously felt unrepresented. Only anti-Trump conservatives (a tiny but admittedly growing voting bloc) might jump ship.

Kamala chose to appeal to conservatives to steal votes from Trump and because it gets her more wealthy donors. It’s possibly a winning strategy, but it is not the only one, and this one abandons the progressive voting bloc in favor of conservatives in a time where younger people are trending leftwards. This is a move that will have long-term consequences.

I disagree, I think if she had campaigned as the most progressive Democrat in history that would have sparked a massive wave of new support, but it would have put her campaign up against a lot of wealthy and powerful people. She chose the easy path by cozying up to capital interests, and this strategy gets us nowhere. At best it staves off the worst of the growing fascist movement for a time, but at the same time moves the needle further to the right. I think it’s shortsighted.

Having seen her progressive voting record I wouldn’t have expected her to campaign as a “moderate” and go back on every progressive stance she ever held either. In short, I don’t trust her to be consistent.

Or, hear me out, discard the left-right metaphor for the nonsense that it is and refer to ideologies by their names. There is no left, there are communists/socialists and anarchists. There is no center, there are liberals and conservatives. There is no right, there are fascists and “libertarians.”

The left-right metaphor is a set of training wheels, and by continuing to use them you sabotage your own political understanding.

A rising tide lifts all boats has always struck me as a strange metaphor for them to use. To me that conjures up thoughts of welfare, UBI, irreducible minimums, safety nets, etc. It seems like a great metaphor for the opposite of what they’re using it for.

Narrative-driven games give players the illusion of choice. To me this seems like it would lend itself to being even more effective than traditional propaganda because it’s capable of tricking the player into thinking they came to a conclusion on their own.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Disco Elysium, but it is very effective communist propaganda. Propaganda has a negative connotation but is not inherently bad or dishonest, though it certainly can be.

Which side is the front?

Because they see it as a competition. They want to be the ones to “inherit the earth,” and see other ethnic groups “being fruitful and multiplying” as a threat to their own ethnicity. It’s barely veiled white supremacy supported by warped Christian theology.

I don’t even necessarily disagree that it’s counterproductive, I just don’t think it’s fair to attack someone for using esoteric or unconventional language. Yes, it inconveniences the listener - or in this case the reader - but in this context no one is being forced to engage with OP. By using some Old English letters OP is just having some innocent fun at no one’s expense, which doesn’t warrant the harsh response they’re receiving.

If you were talking to someone and they casually used xe/xey pronouns (or any neopronouns for that matter) to refer to a friend who isn’t there, would you go out of your way to lecture them about what an inconvenience it is to you to have to learn something new?

That didn’t really answer my question.

You’re right, it is. But language shifts in populations in ways that enhance communication. One person using letters pronouns that nobody else uses makes communication of ideas more difficult.

Not only that, but they’re only choosing to use some Middle English letters english pronouns, and not any other rules of Middle English grammar or spelling different types of english pronouns.

They can use whatever language pronouns they want, but if it’s too much effort for people to understand, they’re more likely to be ignored.

Doesn’t sound so reasonable now, does it? If language that mildly inconveniences others is an acceptable way to express your gender identity, then why not also to express yourself creatively?

Thank you for explaining, I’m sorry for being insensitive. I already explained that I meant no disrespect towards AME. I disagree that the point I made has nothing to do with it. AME was at one time esoteric among the general US population, and that is the only way I’m saying that AME and OP’s use of Old English letters are alike.

I vaguely recall you saying you were Jewish in an earlier comment, if you’re actually black then I apologize. If not then perhaps you can try asking someone who is African American if they find what I said “highly offensive.”

You see OP’s use of Old English as worthy of derision, so you interpreted my comparison as belittling towards AME. I don’t share your aversion to esoteric forms of expression, so my comparison is entirely without malice.

You don’t get it, I find it annoying so you should cater to me. STOP HAVING FUN BECAUSE I FEEL EXCLUDED!!!1!1!1

/s

No. Not same deal. One is dialect with slang, which is readable, and which you can just easily look up if you don’t know.

I couldn’t read OP’s post so I looked it up and now I can. All it takes is a little effort, which if you’re not willing to expend you can simply move on.

The other is using letters that even most native English speakers can’t parse.

Sure African American English (which is not just slang, but an entire dialect with a different set of grammatical rules) is common and recognizable to most native English speakers now, but there was a time when it was just as inscrutable to them as OP’s post.

Also, comparing this person’s nonsense to an ethnic group’s way of speaking is highly offensive. I hope you realize that.

I get that you think you’re being progressive by getting offended on others’ behalf, but all you’re really doing is using that ethnic group’s struggle as a rhetorical device to shame me for having a dissenting opinion. I am comparing them because they are alike in a way that is relevant to my point, not because I think they are identical.

The conversation I had with drag before about drag’s reasons for speaking this way shifted my perspective enough that Phlubbadubba’s use of Old English doesn’t bother me the way it probably would have before. I understood drag, but seeing how negatively people are responding to a tiny bit of Old English makes me appreciate drag. Keep it up.

Do you think it’s shitty for black people in America to use African American English dialect on public forums where non-native speakers could see it? Same deal, just different levels of familiarity. Nothing is forcing anyone to engage with this post, but a lot of people seem to feel a strong enough desire to enforce social conformity that they go out of their way to complain about someone doing something different.

Thornies is a pejorative I’ve never seen before, who does that refer to?