I believe she would have been marginally better than Biden but, as you continuously refuse to acknowledge because it completely defeats the point you are trying to make, that is not what we’re discussing here. Trump is indisputably going to be worse than either of them and that’s what you have chosen to support through inaction. You can talk in circles around that fact as much as you like but it won’t change reality.

Even if you disagree with that characterization you can’t dispute the fact that you’ve at least helped shut the door on the potential for improvement.

And yet accelerated genocide is the option that was chosen.

Look, I get the argument you’re making. The problem is that it hinges entirely on accepting a premise that isn’t based in reality. Progress, specifically as it relates to harm reduction, doesn’t happen instantaneously. It never has. You take the wins you can get and then push for the next step. You can be mad about that, and I would argue that we all should be, but it’s not going to change the way things work. In this case you’ve let idealism get in the way of actual tangible improvement. Even if you disagree with that characterization you can’t dispute the fact that you’ve at least helped shut the door on the potential for improvement. If you can find a way to rationalize that in your head to make you feel like the good guy then I understand why you would want to take that path, but do you honestly believe the people of Gaza take solace in the fact that you had good intentions? I’d wager they don’t give a shit how you frame this in your mind. They’re just thinking about what a Trump presidency means for the future of this conflict and that isn’t good by any stretch of the imagination.

I find it odd when someone says Trump is this or Trump is that as if he’s consistent on anything. His absurd narcissism is the only consistent thing about him. You can bet your ass he would drag us into a war if it would stroke his ego in some way.

That is what makes him so uniquely dangerous. He has no ideology to speak of. His focus shifts back and forth so often that trying to predict exactly what he’s going to do is impossible. You can say with certainty that he won’t be motivated by any sort of desire for the public good but that’s about as specific as you can get until he starts doing something.

You laugh, but we’re getting closer and closer to this every day

Like so many world issues, without a meaningful enforcement mechanism this is a pointless question to ask. Not to mention the added layer of irony in threatening to take military action to force a lower level of military activity.

I’ve got a pair of these that I like. They do the job as described. They’re not great at anything else but I like them for laying in bed.

Europe is going to be a shitshow in the coming decades no matter what direction voters are trending. We’re all talking about this as if it’s primarily a political issue and it just isn’t. Climate change is already fucking our shit up and that’s going to get exponentially worse. Desperate people don’t care about imaginary lines on a map.

We can’t even deal with a comparatively small amount of migrants without backsliding into the same kind of fascism that our grandparents had to invent nuclear bombs to subdue 80 years ago. There’s no way we’re going to deal with what’s coming in a rational way.

You realize the average video gamer is like 40 right?

They are implying that when faced with the choice of paying €30 for a couple of pints or smoking free weed that many will choose the latter which will impact alcohol sales in bars to a significant degree.

In my experience weed can be a gateway drug when you have to buy it from a drug dealer. As an analogy, lots of people end up buying something other than what they went into Target to buy.

Clearly against the spirit of the law but not the letter. I like your style.

The only thing I’m convinced of is the fact that you’re talking like a Russian psy-ops agent. You may not be one but at minimum you’re doing their work for them.

It would also evaporate pretty much instantly

The second one for sure. The first is the regular pronunciation.

Pop-sickles vs Pop-see-kleez in case that helps

I don’t know what you guys are talking about. It seems to me there’s always been this many political posts here. Maybe there’s been a slight uptick for the election but it’s not much different than it has been for the entire year I’ve been around.

I don’t think anything of the sort. I found that I didn’t enjoy my time on the platform so I don’t use it anymore. That simple evaluation had more to do with my decision to stop using it than any moral issues I could cite, of which there are many.

Photography is capturing something real in the physical world. Even if the action can be boiled down to “push a button” the photographer needs to have at least some presence where the real event is taking place.

AI art is not a depiction of a real event and requires no physical presence. It’s also not being brought to life by the person taking credit for it. That’s not to say AI generated images can’t be cool or useful but I don’t think they are art. If your definition of art is loose enough to apply to AI generated images then the I think the artist credit should belong to the AI itself or the team that wrote the software, not the person typing in prompts.

Well they’re violently protecting their illegal mining operations so violence is certainly part of the equation. Violence isn’t usually profitable on its own though. It’s part of a larger plan to exploit some situation or resource.