Also /u/Cylinsier on Reddit. A bullshit aritst.

  • 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle

  • Headline is very biased, source video is opinion piece from an unreliable right wing source. Here’s a neutral reporting on this story:

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/gonzalo-lira-red-pill-dating-coach-who-is-accused-of-shilling-for-putin-is-arrested-in-ukraine

    There is no reliable evidence that he is being tortured in any capacity. He is charged with violating several wartime laws and it appears he attempted to out the locations of Ukrainian soldiers as well as international journalists to hostile Russian invasion forces, implicitly making it easier to target them.

    OP’s account appears to be associated with or wants people to believe it is associated with Project Veritas. Project Veritas has a long, very well established pattern of dishonest reporting including editing videos to make it appear as if people have said or done things they didn’t do as well as lying about the identities of their “agents” and behaving erratically or unethically in an attempt to elicit secretly recorded responses from their targets which can then be edited to appear incriminating of whatever illicit activity they will then be accused of. Project Veritas is not a credible source of fact-based reporting and if OP is not associated with them, it should still be a red flag that they want people to think they are.


  • This is all about delegitimizing the impeachment process itself. Trump getting impeached twice was historically relevant because it stood as tangible evidence of him being one of the worst presidents in history and easily the worst of the last 50 years. The Republican narrative remains that those impeachments were politically motivated and not based on any valid legal or ethical concerns. So now they’re going to do what they accused Democrats of doing and deliberately make a mockery of impeachment.

    The point of this isn’t to actually punish anyone in the Biden administration. It’s an inconvenience at worst and they know it. The point is to make impeachment a joke. Something one party in Congress does to the other in the White House as a regular and inconsequential thing, just part of the theater of it all. This retroactively defangs Trump’s impeachments in the eyes of people on both sides who aren’t dialed into politics and really only pay attention every 4 years and skim the occasional headline. It also preemptively reduces the gravity of any future impeachments of Republican Presidents because impeachment becomes routine and therefore mundane to the average person.

    Basically the Republicans don’t like checks and balances that require them to behave like civilized, functional adults doing their jobs, so they’re just going to smear their shit on those checks and balances until the voters no longer take them seriously and forget they ever had any real meaning. And it will work too.




  • The issue is the consumer who is most likely to consider buying a console doesn’t want to have to worry about waiting months for a port and then another several months for performance to be fixed, nor do they want to pay for a very expensive gaming PC and then regular hardware upgrades to play new games. As I was saying to someone else, Sony isn’t really competing for PC gamers. They’re two different markets and Sony knows this which is why they do release a lot of their games to PC eventually. But for people who want to play Sony games when they are relatively new and active, either to experience the story with others and avoid eventual spoilers, or to play in an active online community that may not last, waiting for a functional PC release isn’t worth it, especially at the higher cost it brings to have a decent one compared to a console.


  • The thing is I don’t think Sony cares about peeling PC gamers away anymore for exactly the reasons you said; they just release most of their games to PC eventually anyway. But PC gamers and console gamers are not the same market. There are certainly people who play both, but I rarely play PC games anymore because my whole gaming setup is centered around the couch with family now. I simply don’t have time to also park myself in front of a PC and game that way as well, and as far as purpose built PCs that connect to a TV go, well, none of those bring the same features for the same cost the way the PS5 does. Pretty much the only PC gaming I do now is on Steam Deck and those games are chosen for playability on the go. So you’re not really comparing Sony exclusivity to PC at that point, you’re comparing it to Xbox. And between the two Sony wins on exclusives so far this generation.


  • Obviously it varies from person to person but Sony exclusives would be the main reason most people want to be in the PlayStation ecosystem. As others have said even when those exclusives do eventually reach PC, the ports are usually lackluster at best and unplayable at worst. So why upgrade to the 5 if you have a 4? For me the difference in load times alone justified early adoption. Probably not everyone can justify the cost and hassle just for faster loading of their PS4 library, but as someone whose time is at a premium and who still tries to play a lot of games often, I have probably saved countless precious hours of time and therefore played far more of my gaming library in the same time frame just be being on the 5.



  • Given that the studios have now openly admitted their plan is just to wait the writers out, actors need to step up and throw their weight in on the writers’ side. Because its not that easy to replace quality writing with AI just yet. But we’ve had the tech to replace quality acting with CG and text-to-voice for years already. So actors aren’t even doing this for the writers, they’re doing it for themselves because they’re next. They cost way more to employ but are easier to replace with existing tech.

    Edit: I realize this strike isn’t about the writers but rather the actors own collective bargaining, but my point that they’re all in on this together and being threatened by the same emerging technologies stands.


  • Maybe a hot take here but if you’re going to engage in a war, whether directly or by supporting an ally with money and supplies, you don’t half-ass it. You don’t give your ally just enough bullets and fuel to get into the thick of it but leave them hanging when they need to keep going. Whether or not you support the US aiding Ukraine, you have to understand that once that support is given the strategically correct thing to do is to see it through. From the position that we are already engaged in supporting Ukraine, the continuation of that support with the goal of winning is itself justification enough to match the ante in response to your opponent raising it.

    A number of factors would make that different. For example if we reached a point where our support started to become detrimental to our readiness to defend ourselves (which, despite arguments from the far right to the contrary, we are not remotely close to doing). Or if Ukraine showed a reapted track record of attacking civilians with our munitions. Or if the war was a losing or lost prospect or this was an escalation on Ukraine’s side. But none of those things are the case. Ukraine has not gone out of their way to attack civilians and has in fact fought essentially exclusively a defensive war, they are doing quite well at it and still control their own fates, and Russia escalated to cluster munitions first. This is only a response in kind. With all those factors taken into account, the decision to provide these munitions is justified simply by the fact that they make Ukraine’s odds of winning, and winning sooner, better. If Ukraine starts bombing civilians with them then we can discuss whether or not it was the right thing to do. But their track record so far suggests they have no intention of flipping this to an offensive war. Whatever Russian sites they attack on Russian soil can be assumed to be military targets that pose a direct threat to Ukraine and nothing more until proven otherwise.


  • 20 more years of this SCOTUS in all likelihood. That’s what 4 years of Trump got us, and DeSantis’s nominees for Florida’s SCOTUS make Trump’s nominees look like level headed centrists. Unless we get big Democratic majorities, then maybe there’s a chance at SCOTUS expansion.

    Remember it’s not enough to just vote in the general, participate in your primaries too and encourage your friends and family to do the same for both federal and state/local office. The people who are most eager to right these wrongs quickly and through drastic action are usually the underdogs for their nominations. Removing Republicans in favor of Democrats will help most of the time regardless, but how much it helps depends on which Democrats we are electing. It’s the difference between slowing the bleeding for 2 years and actual meaningful change.

    Biden will sign a new Judicial Act if Congress puts one in front of him so don’t worry about that or how wishy washy he might sound in the meantime. He may be lukewarm on SCOTUS expansion in hypothetical discussion, but when the paper is on his desk, he’ll sign it. But it’s up to us to give him a Congress that would do it and state governments that will sue to put cases back in front of a relegitimized SCOTUS after the fact.



  • The single biggest problem standing between the left and sustained and meaningful control of the federal government is the complete lack of ability of voters to circle around a consensus candidate. There are several valid reasons to be critical of Harris just as there are pretty much every single Democratic Presidential decade basically of my lifetime. But Republicans vote consistently for candidates they dislike or even hate just to beat Democrats. Every single candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2016, 2020, and undoubtedly in 2028 will have some vocal subset of registered Democrat voters telling you exactly why they will never in a million years vote for them. I saw it constantly on Reddit and I don’t see any reason why it won’t continue.

    Until somebody drops the magic “consensus candidate” name that somehow pleases everyone, Democratic voters are always going to be a major hurdle to their own success. And frankly I don’t think that “consensus candidate” name exists. Such is the curse of being the big tent party opposite the GOP. Republicans know they can continue winning elections for at least a little longer thanks to Democratic infighting alone.





  • I think House Republicans are walking a very thin line here. They know rushing ahead with this impeachment or any against Biden risks a backlash in next year’s election because people are mostly smart enough to tell when something is being done legitimately as opposed to being political brinkmanship. As such they have to slow roll this and at least put on the appearance of doing due diligence.

    But secretly even the “cooler heads” like McCarthy (who publicly urged his conference to vote against it) want this and other impeachments against Biden to go through. And it’s not because they even believe he did anything wrong. It’s because they know full well that Trump or DeSantis or whoever the next GOP President might be will be committing many impeachable offenses as a matter of course. And if Democrats control the House then they will submit articles of impeachment. That was certainly damaging to Trump during the previous term and they don’t want it to happen to them again.

    They want to break rules without facing consequences. And the best way to do that is to simply trivialize the act of impeachment itself, to make it a game. Now every President will get impeached a couple times as a matter of course. It’s not an indicator of anything serious anymore, it’s just part of your regularly scheduled political theater. Republicans don’t want to impeach Biden to break the Biden administration. They want to impeach Biden to delegitimize the impeachment process itself.