EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
I know what you're here for. What's his bias? Politically I at least like to think of myself as a true moderate, maybe (in US context) slightly naturally right-leaning but currently politically left-leaning if I had to be more specific.
User ID: 1043
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1yr ago
History repeats itself and echoes frequently. People would be less stuck in presentism and "This is the greatest crisis in history!" if they read more history.
Yes! I want to scream literally every single time I see someone say “this is the most divided we have ever been” without a qualifier, as if the entire fucking civil war didn’t happen…
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1yr ago
The other thing people aren’t aware of is large amounts of the money announced as raised isn’t going to the direct election fund. Even in the article that talks about 3.7 million raised between under 50 people. That doesn’t quite happen, it would be illegal. What happens is you cut a bundle check: you can give the individual max to the campaign, then again to the “primary” campaign, and then once again to each and every state DNC party. This means a single individual can give a total of a hundred thousand+ (forget the exact math), but crucially, only the ~5k or so is directly controlled by Biden-Harris.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
Great thoughts and great read. A lot of work! My initial two reactions to the decision were basically, 1) the whole thing about official acts not being able to be used as evidence just seems so... flagrantly stupid? Despite the rest seeming reasonable. I viewed this as an explicit help-Trump flag rather than a genuine desire to get at the law. And after thinking about it a little more and reading the arguments, 2) yeah, under this majority arrangement, bribes for pardons is... almost bulletproof legal, or de facto absolutely non-prosecutable, which is absolutely batshit crazy. I mean, I'm sure they felt that pardons were enough of a 'different topic' that maybe they didn't want to touch that hot potato, but it seems strange to discuss the whole issue of presidential criminality without talking about it. And it's even more aggravating that bribes for pardons is most likely to occur at the end of a President's term, when impeachment basically is not on the table anymore, at least according to a number of arguments we heard back around Trump's impeachment.
I'm impressed by Barrett in her time on the court so far. Not knowing how the Court decisions work exactly, are judges allowed to hew directly to Barrett's view, since without her there is no majority opinion?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
To me it's encouraging that, I think, most regular people don't feel either of these ways. They mostly call it like they see it.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
I hope Biden survives long enough to see himself become disgraced and cursed by Democrats if he actually hangs on long enough to lose.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
I mean, the other thing we have to add is that if Kamala were put on top the of the ticket, she would be free. She could run however she wanted. That wasn't even something she had the liberty of doing back in the primaries. I think people should never underestimate what a freed politician is capable of. Look at Trump, after all! He didn't give a damn about most politicians and it worked out. Harris could do the same.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
I mean it depends on who you're listening to. AFAIK virtually all of the actual pollsters, rather than politicians (or anchors) who make use of polls, have said that the polling is absolutely dreadful for Biden, and that was true to some extent even before the debate. Second-hand poll users are free to make arguments about how weak the polling is, but that does not make it what the primary sources are saying, so to speak.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
Most people are fairly law-abiding and reasonable. Especially when it comes to elections, we aren't in the midst of Gilded age party machine shenanigans. Regular people are fairly likely to give ballots to a trusted family member to drop off, and that's fine. Some ballot harvesting laws make this illegal, which is dumb. They are already less-likely to give these ballots to some partisan (or non-partisan) rando to drop off. That's a strong natural disinclination. I'd argue there's already a strong disincentive for abuse in place due to that alone. And if states pass laws making this kind of non-casual ballot harvesting illegal, as is their right, I think it would be very effective. Really, our model for abuse is that organized groups do organized bad things to ballots. So it's not only unlikely, but also easily preventable. Some states might also want to codify some sort of official or semi-official ballot harvester, and I think that would be a bad idea, but it's not a flagrantly bad idea, depending on implementation.
"Voting should be hard" is, like, maybe fine as an idea, but in practice it's extremely vulnerable to various kinds of unethical voter suppression efforts. It's more fair and more just for everybody to simply keep voting on the easy side. Just like how we have a long history of arguments like "only landowners can vote". Some of those arguments were even half-decent! But at the end of the day, a government is by the people, for the people, and so a person is a person and a person should be able to vote. Social contract, and all that. Governments should represent their people, even if we might not want them to. That's just what's fair and natural. And (IMO) desirable, but that's just a bonus.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
I still think it's astonishing that headlines went straight to "Labour wins, what's next" rather than taking a second and steeping in the fact that the Conservatives haven't done this poorly since, uh, ever. It's absolute annihilation out there. They even did better back in 1906! 1906. Let that sink in. Are the Conservatives even doing any introspection, or are they just blithely assuming Labour will muck it up and they'll be back in power before too long?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
Oh, oops, duh. That's a pity. Does it work like that in general, though (say one other joined her instead of the majority)?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
To be totally transparent, I grew up in Oregon which has for many years been almost exclusively vote by mail, and so VBM literally is normal voting for me. I’ve voted in person once in my current state, and that was because I forgot to mail my by-mail ballot on time (plus I was curious about the in person experience).
That is a plausible sounding failure mode but no, I don’t think it’s very common at all. One, there actually aren’t all that many poor community activists. Activism tends to be, contrary to media idealization, roughly correlated to actual voting propensity and roughly proportional to free time. Which happen to both be in short(er) supply in poor neighborhoods.
Finally, many of these activists that do exist are typically fairly well organized and not very ad-hoc. If ballot harvesting is of questionable moral or legal status, it’s highly unlikely to be part of their spiel or to be organized (which would also leave a paper trail). Instead they will say things like “I can help tell you if you have trouble with the instructions”, “let me make it easy by letting you know the deadlines without figuring out the complicated questions”, “here are the nearest drop locations” and “call me if you are confused about anything”. They might do something at most like “at 5pm we’re going to get a bunch of people rides/ all walk over to drop off our ballots, want to come? (Though that would be rare)” I’ve seen one or two door to door scripts in my time plus a few more online and they almost always look like this. If someone digs up a door to door script that actually contained ballot harvesting instructions that might shift my prior a bit, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t happen in any significant way. (And, not to move the goalposts or anything, but a law cracking down would make any vestiges disappear very fast, which I’m not opposed to as long as it doesn’t accidentally criminalize too many of the family casual modes I mentioned)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
Fair point. Not saying it ended precipitously, just was giving a contrasting example, though most numbers I’ve seen do indicate a low rate over recent decades. Worth noting that locale might make a difference. New Jersey, for example, might need some very strong fraud laws in a way that Oregon might not.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
Zooming out just a bit however, don't you think it's actually a good thing we are seeing greater emphasis on examining these non-official but still influential groups and what they actually do to policy within governments? Perhaps not, of course, panicking over it and we need to view it all in context, but isn't this still preferable to ignoring the whole thing as is historically the case? For example, if people had paid more attention to the Federalist Society's influence, they wouldn't have been as "surprised" about some of the actual Supreme Court picks that came out of the Trump years. While it's always tricky and potentially unfair to lump non-official positions in with official ones, the simple fact is that these non-official positions that are nonetheless strongly associated with one of the two major parties, and that's relevant info for a voter.
An analogy would be: you don't just marry a person, you marry their family too (in-laws). Factoring in what their family is like into a marriage decision might feel a little unfair, but it's eminently reasonable, because it's actually pretty hard to ignore the family in practice (and, even beyond that, this is the family that raised your potential spouse, so at least some of their ideas and values will have rubbed off).
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
Voter turnout is highly variable based on the election in question (looking at presidential only here). At least, the under-45 vote is - older voters are more stable in voting propensity. Compare to for example this where if you scroll down a bit you can see that "double haters" of both political parties has gone from 6 to 28% in 30 years. So at least casually, there doesn't seem to be a super strong relationship.
I'd question the premise. There are some setups where feelings just don't matter all that much. If you hate to do laundry, well, you still (usually) wear the same number of clothes and end up doing a similar amount of laundry, to use a trivial example. My guess is that the "politically disillusioned" moniker is too generalized to be useful. After all, you only need to care about one specific race to vote, local politics doesn't fall into neat national lines, and many people consider voting a duty or privilege or habit and not a luxury indulgence dependent on positive vibes. I'd consider that latter attitude about voting being a luxury to be faulty, or at the very least, atypical for most Americans.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
Or, the simpler solution is just to set up approval voting. No need for a jungle primary.
Furthermore, the influence of local activism is really understated. The simple fact is that a lot of political movements depend on a certain "critical mass" being reached in the grassroots before it can go mainstream. Intuitively, this seems to suggest that US politics is not in fact near a breaking point in terms of people sick of the system, despite what the media might have you think.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
If you're unsure how much you will use it, I'd do the same approach as I take to tools. That is, buy the cheapest Harbor Freight equivalent, and then if you use it enough for its flaws to annoy you, get rid of it and buy a fancy for-life quality one.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
Just as an aside, it constantly surprises me how little practical purity there is on doctrine from Catholics, which is odd considering that theoretically and historically shouldn't Catholicism be like, the most purist? Like, there's been a thousand and a halfish years to work this stuff out, and tradition is sort of co-equal with scripture (to my understanding), so you'd think that would imply doctrinal convergence. Or maybe it's more of an implementation problem? Or is it the nature of modern life to actually surface unique moral questions with no clear analogue?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
A pretty remarkable trust exercise and/or intense negotiation, if we're being honest. I can't imagine coordinating so many down-ballot dropouts, not to mention making the call about individual personalities and leaning on them to drop out as well (presumably most everyone who ran, wanted the job).
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
Nylon pot scraper on Amazon. My life is changed. I absolutely hate the Brillo pads and similar products wear out quite quickly. The scraper on the other hand never scratches but is just the right hardness to get rid of a surprising amount of gunk from pans without getting caught in a brush or sponge that would need periodic cleaning. Seriously, incredible purchase. You wouldn't think big deal but, big deal.
Also, and I'm fully aware this is like the stupidest looking thing of all time, this cell phone holder. The metal bit is actually really really bendable, so you can use it as a stand like the tripod things for Zoom calls, etc. but with way more flexibility of where to put it and height as well (works for on top of a desk without a weird too-low angle). You can fold it back on itself and put it on your stomach (better than neck) to watch a video laying down in bed (the holder rotates for easy wide-video too). Sometimes I find myself needing or wanting to film something that requires two hands, so then (and only then) I'll do the neck thing. I have used it while cooking as a stand too, or in a pinch it can also be shaped around an arm rest or chair back (used for a family photo once). It's big and solid, which is actually a plus.
Both of these items I have had at least two friends purchase based on my recommendation and both really like them.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
Why not add a "I don't like this" option to the list that just goes to dev/null? People can get the report out of their system and you also conveniently "lose" these reports so they don't clog the queue
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
The Democrats are not in charge of the situation, Biden is. He has to be the one to make the decision to step down, he can't be forced out. And Biden is echo chambered to an extreme degree, and ego-pilled to a very large degree.
Also, think about a raw pro/cons list. The Democrats have lost elections before and will again. Even an election to Trump himself. They are still here. It's not existential, despite the rhetoric. You know what is existential? Opening the door to an open convention. These kinds of things do create hard feelings beyond "oh man we nominated the wrong guy".
I say this despite a strong pro-replacement bias. If you want free money, maxing out "Yes" is the call. (Sadly)
Since 1660, it was probably performed enough that most theater aficionados would have had occasion to see at least one Shakespeare play performed at least once in their lifetimes. Why 1660? Aside from the irregularity after his death, Cromwell's Puritan dictatorship (10-20 years or so of no theater) actually was pretty effective at shutting down plays until the monarchy's restoration, including Shakespeare. It's also worth nothing that for at least one time period afterward, Shakespearean plays were often performed having been in many cases rewritten or adapted to change some key aspects. For example, there was one era (see: Restoration Comedy) where many of them were given happy endings, which as you may imagine required extensive changes in some cases (like King Lear or Macbeth). Also, you mentioned some of the vulgar jokes the plays contained, this also waxed and waned according to the times. Immediately after the restoration, a lot of theater got very bawdy very quickly, and so afterward there was a bit of a push to field plays that were more socially beneficial or preaching good behavior, and that extended to Shakespearean performance as well (see: Sentimental Comedy). Furthermore there were a few eras where the tragedies were a little, uh, too heavy and others where the comedy wasn't "in style" - so sometimes this meant Shakespeare wasn't performed as often, and other times this meant they would significantly change the jokes. Even beyond this, you have to remember there was still some aspects of theater that, in a pan-European sense, developed differently. Shakespeare wasn't always super duper popular beyond England, though he did get some common play-time (forgive the pun). And within England, there was a long time where "official" plays were only legally allowed to be put on in two or three specific places. This necessarily cut down on the number of Shakespeare that would be even possible to stage, and certainly the less-popular Shakespeare might not show up at all. The typical count is what, like 30+ plays? Every play having been performed at least once within a 50-60 year span might have been possible, but I doubt it. Some of those "least popular" plays are like, actually pretty unpopular, and I imagine that the frequency diminishes pretty fast going backwards in time.
Source: currently taking a history of modern theater course (it's filling a GE requirement). If you have some specific questions I'd be happy to ask my professor for you! We haven't gotten quite that far yet, but I'd imagine the "unbroken chain" is a much more modern thing. Reconstruction of what the originals might have been like wasn't undertaken for at least a century, and was also informed by our historical understanding.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
Now I'm really curious if you've played Dragon Age, and if so, your feelings about the new one that was announced!
I'm not similar in length preference in general, but two recent games I played that didn't take very long (are right in your length wheelhouse) and were just plain fun were Armored Core VI and Hitman. Of the two, the first you would probably really like. You're in a mech, and you blast through some fun levels with everything from a laser sword to shotguns to massive homing missile racks. There's a great mix of disposable baddies that are incredibly satisfying to blow through, and since it's still From Software, there are some satisfying boss fights too. However, they've maximized fun here; when you get to the boss and die, you can start again right at the beginning of the boss fight without replaying the whole level, and you can also swap out your entire build for a different one if you want or are having trouble, provided you have the parts purchased. And even back at base, you can resell parts you don't want for full price! And save build presets. You can be anything from a tank that can barely jump but has massive weapons and shields, to a lightweight super-dodger, to a normal mech that can do a super-jump and fly above everyone. The controls are tight, some of the levels and enemies are unique, you can literally fly. Beat the campaign? There's also an alt-campaign, sort of a Nier Automata-lite, where you can side with the opposite faction on certain missions, with a few more interesting weapon and mech unlocks. The game equally supports spending a whole day getting sucked in, and also spending no more than a single hour or half-hour session just messing around and having fun, which is a rarity. The only downside is that it's expensive, but I pirated it so... (would re-buy if it was just a little cheaper and I wasn't broke). I recommend Armored Core VI to almost everyone.
Hitman is also just fun. There's plenty of cool locations, the mechanics are mostly pretty tight and consistent, there's some "story" assassination methods as well as some things you can plan out yourself, plenty of routes through most locations, I did one today that also contained a murder mystery (!) in the same level. Just some well-designed games. You can pick up the whole modern trilogy for under 30 bucks right now on Steam.
I mean, I sort of have the same argument that I do for dentists - clerks, especially government ones, generally have workday hours at best. Most working people are, uh, also at work at those times. Few people either can or want to leave work just to drop off a ballot. Thus, accessibility to voting to basically a massive portion of the population (plus the ones we kind of want to vote in the first place) is obviously a big deal. Drop boxes neatly solve this issue by allowing consolidation with other errands, often conveniently done before or after work, and without relying on the capricious hours of government employees who keep their own annoying hours more out of selfish desire rather than a true desire to serve the people their job is to serve. This is more understandable for dentists, who really want to get paid more than to help people, but less understandable for government agents, whose entire purpose is to help people, which makes one wonder why they are often so bad at it.
More options
Context Copy link