It might be anecdotal but this honestly just seems like a Republican Establishment thing. I peruse conservative talking spheres both online and off because of my location and extended family, for the most part everyone just agrees that if someone committed a crime they should be punished regardless of the side of the aisle.

That being said, it doesn’t invalidate any statements made here about the possible motivations for this newest publicity stunt. I think the majority of people are just tired of hearing about “this side bad” and just want the government to get their shit together and actually legislate to help the working class.

Had to look it up for curiosity’s sake.

In order to get fully set up, you will need to pay a $100.00 fee for each product you wish to distribute on Steam (the “Steam Direct Fee”)… This fee is not refundable, but will be recoupable in the payment made after your product has at least $1,000.00 Adjusted Gross Revenue for Steam Store and in-app purchases. Steamworks Partner Program

While not free, seems to be no overhead for the length of stay on Steam that I can see. Another site includes some more description which might add to the cost though

The cost to put a game on Steam depends on the type of game, the development budget [1], and the business model. To get a game onto Steam, developers need to pay a one-time registration fee of $100. After that, they will need to pay a 30% royalty fee. Additionally, developers may need to pay for marketing and other costs associated with the release of their game. source

Regardless, it’s just another unfortunate case of physical copies/backups>subscriptions or “licensing/rent” deals.

That’s, an interesting website. The name was a red flag for me, the article format is excellent though and I wish more websites would adopt this style of presenting information. I’ve gone through about 10 articles from what seems to be the main active author (David Demos), very neutral and non-descriptive language being used throughout. The premise of the site is using fertility and population reproductive stats coupled with policies to distinguish social-economical standings and impactful progressive legislature. It’s definitely a niche view and I believe leaves out nuances that are important for determining “quality” of a society, but I agree that better child/elder care services, paid leave, eliminating gender pay gap, reproductive assistance, etc can be good indicators of economical advancements.

I just keep wondering though if there is a dog whistle I’m missing out on. They’re very careful with not defining “family unit” (from what I’ve seen), as some conservatives and religious organizations don’t recognize all the various types. If I’m not mistaken, a lot of the policies they’re advocating as positive includes all family types including non-child ones (such as prolonging lifespan, elder care like mentioned before, etc). It would be fascinating to see an exit poll style survey from different demographics and what they personally interpret from the articles though. I guess “bravo”? would be in order for the site, these types of subject matter can boil down to polarization in a heart beat but they’re walking the tight rope well.

As for the article itself, it’s refreshing to see Michigan using policies from a fellow state that has proven and verified net positives they can correctly point towards when bad actors try to claim “whataboutism”. If you haven’t checked out the article I would highly suggest it as it’s basically already a TL;DR and anything else I can say about it is probably more condensed in the actual writing than what I could spell out here.

Could you provide me with some sources for context on the statements you have made?

the red wave didn’t happen because a bunch of Republicans died from COVID and youth voters mobilized in big numbers

Biden has made some moves to help progressive causes, and there has been a lot of success on local and state levels

the old guard is shuffling off slowly but surely

I am not disputing your claims, I purely wish to be able to absorb the information you have presented with fact checked sources to confirm the viewpoint so that I can better my stance on the current state of politics.

1. those of us paying attention, and have a basic grasp on history, know
2. incredibly ignorant and short-sighted
3. isn’t a fucking game, and it’s not a joke
4. throwing away votes on Cornell fucking West
5. get with reality
6. take responsibility for ushering in the end of our Republic

These are the types of conversations that are non-productive and show you have nothing meaningful to add without belittling or insulting others with opposing opinions (which I will not engage with for my own sanity if the same rhetoric is used in a reply). If you wish to converse about actual policies or facts with references/sources, then I’m here for that. I will address the only two points you made in your 150+ word reply from this point on.

What about Florida means I should remove my free will of choice to protect my free will of choice? Because a southern conservative state is passing conservative policies? What is the next presidential run of Biden going to do about the Florida microcosm in which you have evoked as reasoning? Here are some references in which I see the battle inside of Florida to continue at the state and local level,

• DeSantis Crony SHREDDED By FED UP Florida College Parent

• Ron DeSantis booed at memorial for victims of Florida mass shooting
• At New College of Florida, a ‘ridiculously high’ number of faculty are gone(quiting)
• Ron DeSantis’ Approval Rating Has Collapsed
• DeSantis fatigue grows among Florida Republicans as 2024 campaign falters
• Opponents hold ‘day without immigrants’ in Florida to protest new restrictions
• Florida Insurance Crisis Explained: Why Multiple Insurers Are Leaving State
• Disney Files Another Suit Against DeSantis’ Board Seeking Damages From Feud While Gov. Tries To ‘Move On’

I think we view the microcosm of Florida differently, one of fear and one of hopefulness.

“Republicans surpass Democrats in terms of their voter registration numbers recently for the first time in state history…Democrats sort of gave up on Florida this cycle and chose to spend their money elsewhere. And, you know, you can argue whether or not that was a correct strategy, but they did obviously have victories elsewhere. But their margins in Florida were just - the losses are so gigantic, in part because the Democratic candidates there received very little support from national donors and really faced a massive fundraising disadvantage. So they weren’t really able to get their message out there.” (npr-2022)

So a state that the democratic party purposefully didn’t fight to support is now our fear to continue supporting the democratic party?

“Republicans focused on the ultimate goal,” said Fernand Amandi, a Miami-based Democratic pollster who helped former President Barack Obama win the state in 2008 and 2012. “They thought things out in 10-year cycles. They built a permanent campaign apparatus. They started recruiting candidates to run for local office and springboarding them into higher office. They registered voters and managed the margins.” (the hill)

Please explain to me how I’m suppose to “get” Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). Do you know of it’s history and/or any legislation brought forth by the one party we are allowed to vote for? We’re coming up on near 200 years after the civil war, how many states have RCV currently in main elections and how was that achieved? 2, only 2 states both with ballot initiatives from other sources and not introduced by the Democratic party. One from Alaska which was heavily funded by outside the state (source) and another in Maine which the Democratic Governor refused to sign,

On September 6, 2019, Governor Janet Mills allowed the bill to become law without her signature, which delayed it from taking effect until after the 2020 presidential primaries in March (source). A “people’s veto” in 2018, approved by voters, rejected parts of the new law that sought to delay RCV’s implementation until 2022. (source).

RCV has been pushed in spite of the democratic parties antics, but their the only way to achieve this option? Have you noticed that all of this discourse has nothing to do with Cornel West in which you’ve already used profanity with his name as a means to disenfranchise with no true reasoning? You’re being strangled and are asking them to please continue while begging them to save you.

Sanders said he agrees it “certainly is not” the best economy the U.S. could create, he called on progressives to coalesce around Biden… I think we’ve got to bring the entire progressive community to defeat Trump or whoever the Republican nominee will be, [and] support Biden

(bold by me)

This is just kinda sad and heart breaking. I just don’t get it, with this rhetoric there is never an end and it’s for a candidate who’s not even that great of a choice for the people. Now it’s not even “Trump” that’s the reasoning, just…anyone who’s the republican nominee?

“Where I disagree with my good friend, Cornel West, is I think in these really very difficult times, where there is a real question whether democracy is going to remain in the United States of America.

This is a guy who fought in the civil rights era, he above anyone else should know Democracy will always be threatened.

Democracy is a system of government and form of liberalism in which state power is vested in the people, or the general population of a state based on principles of liberty and free will. source

How is true Democracy being upheld if you’re voting under duress with fear mongering threatening to take the very thing that’s being stolen when told this is the only path forward? The republican party is a shit show right now. The red wave scare that never happened in 2022, the front-runner nominee indicted under multiple charges, the completely abysmal performance of the republican debate, in-fighting between their zealous factions, on and on we must not look at the reality of what’s happening before us. We must simply check-mark the D box without looking into anything and all will be saved.

Could you elaborate further on what you’re saying? I’ve read the article, seems like standard security clearance stuff for sensitize material. Musk didn’t become a citizen of the US till 2002 if what I’m reading is correct and I don’t think they have a problem hiring staff from outside of the US.

I’ve just recently ran into a new company advertising besides slot lights and it made the movie unwatchable. Slot lights will usually throw in 2-3 ad breaks which really annoy me because the audio levels are always pumped way up and it breaks the immersion in the narrative, followed with scattered smaller banner ads littered throughout the run time.

This new company slapped a huge banner ad that takes up 1/3 of the screen that’s present during the entire run time. Just insane when it comes to marketing because I can’t even remember the company and made me switch off. VPN + torrent will be a blessing when I can find better versions and get off these streaming sites that just carry them.

I don’t know about upholding time honored traditions, seems contradictory and subjective to me when your later stance includes an example of the Quran (another time honored tradition you don’t agree with). I don’t agree with making it illegal for anyone to attend school so it seems like a double edge sword that’s based solely on a personal morality which is hard to codify for an entire population.

I also agree a private protest is no protest at all, but it becomes complicated when you’re targeting a religious group’s texts just because bad faith actors are using it for control. Even burning their flag seems weird when it’s not the people of that country making the decisions but by the administration in charge (I’m not sure on what the target for the protest should be then in that case though).

Constitutionally you have to make a decision, I believe this has been debated and somewhat agreed upon though that access to a happy life (access to healthcare and freedom of religion) is more important than the right to “burn shit” as one has been documented and burning is not mentioned in most or any constitutions. Though freedom of expression is, which again becomes complicated when that expression is wished to be expressed through destruction of property (public/private). Again, I don’t have a particular stance on this subject but just pointing out contradictions in the arguments to better understand the ideology behind everyone’s thoughts.

Personally this feels like a contradiction.

They can be arrested or just refused entry if they are known to be connected to extremist groups. They should be screened as any other person traveling to Denmark… bad domestic actors use it as a means to push some other (anti freedom) agenda.

State surveillance measures taken after 9/11 is part of the anti-freedom agenda to me. To effectively screen or establish connection to an extremist groups requires enhanced surveillance for effectiveness and arresting anyone with even a distant connection seems dubious (what type of connection, family, friends, being tricked into going to one meeting, etc). The people defining what an “extremist group” is can also be nefarious if bad actors are in play (think of the anti-communism/socialism scare that is portrayed in the recent Oppenheimer flick).

Plenty of good or interesting points being made by both sides so I appreciate the conversations. I’m not too sure of what the problem is though when the discussion and article mostly revolves around public spaces. Usually there are gathering/event requirements around anything that constitutes pyrotechnics or the use of fire in a performance as that can be a hazard and special precautions need to be followed (fire extinguishers, etc). I’m not too sure about the laws currently on the books of most countries but I doubt many places allow you to just walk up to a street corner and start a fire whether the item you’re burning is your property or not.

I’m also confused on the double standard of what constitutes public or private when it comes to online media. I think this is something that needs to be fleshed out more in this day and age. For instance the article references a current law Denmark has on the books,

The ban is expected to be added to a section of the criminal code that bans public insult of a foreign state, its flag or other symbol.

Is social media/the internet a public space? If so, does posting a video recorded on private property and then uploading it to said online public space nullify the private property? I’ve seen a lot of people use this double standard only when it benefits them. For instance, if you typed out something online that’s considered “free speech” but violates civil law because of it’s context then they are in the wrong. On the flip side, if you record a video of someone having a conversation at a private backyard bbq and upload it, has the person broken a law when they weren’t in “public” during the recording?

The ban above is a great example to use. I, myself, feel like the criminal code goes a little too far with no public insults of a foreign state. How does that work out with the scenario I presented when the video gets released. I’m not sure if the criminal code even touches on the digital aspect of it, or who is at fault (the uploader, the person making the statements, or the hosting site).

Another ironic stance I’m seeing is the freedom/protection of expression being used to allow the public burning of books and condemning those who are against it. There are specific and recognized groups which receive protections under the law from discrimination and targeting of hate speech (the Denmark suggested law also covers bibles so it’s not just a Quran issue). Are we picking and choosing who these protections are allowed for based on our opinion on whether we agree with them or not?

For example if religious text burning is allowed for a public display, are all forms of expression then allowed? Burning a cross in front of an historically African American church, burning a pride flag at a pride march, burning baby dolls in front of an abortion clinic, political rivals, medical clinics that perform care for transitioning, hell even nazis burning disney shit outside of disney world?

If you’re of the belief that all of this should be allowed under the umbrella of freedom of speech/expression, what do you feel should be the governments stance on protection of it’s citizens from harassment in public spaces? Should the government even address these problems, or is it the same as no one should expect privacy in a public space so therefor expect persecution and harassment as well? How does this not effect businesses and organizations from being targeted with hostile forces? I’m reminded of the civil rights era, groups of white nationalists armed and congregating outside of a business to intimidate anyone of color from using the premises or social services. Groups will maintain these tactics and multiply if there is no resistance from a governmental stance, this will only heighten confrontations when opposing groups are formed to combat these scenarios leading to civil unrest, physical harm/altercations, and potentially death of innocent bystanders if something were to escalate.

I am not of any of those targeted groups, not a policy maker, and have an indifferent stance so I’m open to honest debate on everyone’s side. I also feel like the remarks made by OIC needs to be investigated,

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) called on its members to take appropriate action against countries where the Quran was being desecrated.

Any group that can be seen as calling for harm to members of that countries population should have legal ramifications in that country, but I’m unsure of what they mean when they say “appropriate action” which is why I said it should be investigated further.

Are there any personal thoughts or insights about the article you wish to share?

Huh, I was forced in my early years to be raised around very conservative and racist individuals so your use of the word and validation for it’s usage feels very much like my childhood experience. To each their own though, the commonality is just interesting to me when I saw your first comment.

I’ll have to take your word on the interviews, I’m open to other perspectives which is why I initiated this dialogue with stating my confusion. I’m still not seeing the connections that I initially confronted. As you stated, the questions are usually answered and administered from top-down (department, district, then principal). I’m not sure on what effectiveness a “skilled” principal could have when the district is not prepared, though I could see a case for an unskilled principal not instituting/following change as instructed.

All of the questions you’ve brought up are valid whether there is a pandemic or not (which is why I specified your pandemic remark). When considering any fairness, edge cases will always be problems that need to be addressed. I agree the situation of overworking was exacerbated during the pandemic but existed long before that as funding and support systems have been slowly dwindled away.

I’m not sure on what the crux of this debate is but I feel like the light has been shifted from “education responsibility” to “pandemic bad/we need X”. I believe education has been getting the short straw for decades and the pandemic was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. A decent principal or administration assessing the health scenarios you presented would not fix the broken system. Schools being all paper based, the overworking of staff, students lack of reliable internet, not having a pre-pandemic plan ready (it’s been known for a long time that it was a problem to arise soon), all of these are problems that needed to be addressed a long time ago. Most early education schools only have one I.T. person and usually doubles their role in another form (teaching classes as well).

I feel like teaching is chaotic as a whole regardless of the situation society faces. Hearing about how the pandemic was the root cause of the problem just sounds disingenuous and completely glosses over the need for distant education to be an effective tool for future students. Teachers should be available to help explain and instruct how to fill out health forms, just like tax forms and other important documentation that should be covered at some point in a students career. Classes should be hybrid, teachers should be familiar and take supplemental training for the new tech they are using. All of this should be countered with support so nothing is “added on” to the workload. Again, these aren’t problems that were cleared up when the pandemic restrictions were lifted. Plenty of teachers are still on the edge of bailing as the system continues to decline.

This is off-topic, but I keep seeing Anglo being used (maybe I just keep running into your comments). Is it suppose to be insulting like in the context of your comment? Is it descriptive? How do you know if someone is an Anglo online? Do you feel like it has any negative connotations being used? Feel free to answer any of the questions or none at all lol, curiosity got the better of me.

I’m not really understanding this comment. Teaching during the pandemic was chaotic, yes. I don’t think a skilled or unskilled principal made the difference for a lot of people (besides some mental support and I’m assuming you’re referring to the position of principal). There were attendance rules for the districts around my area, grades were calculated regularly like before (not sure what you mean by “fair”), and the curriculum was maintained the same so I’m not sure where the ton of extra work was coming from.

This is all anecdotal from my perspective so if you had a school district that failed to properly follow protocol I apologize and sympathize with the situation you were in. I think most of the problem was how we transitioned with such a drastic change. Resources weren’t properly reinvested, proper training support for educators wasn’t given, and the students weren’t prepared in a meaningful way for the shift.

In this day and age of online training though, for future employment, it could’ve been something that better situated students to handle obstacles they may encounter in the future (what school is suppose to prepare us for). Just looking at the stats for online education show more than 1/4 of all students are engaged in a form of distant learning. This is going to be something that only increases over time so we should be better prepared as a society to be flexible with transitions like WFH, etc. (source source)

You:

the US didn’t give a shit about it at all

Response:

the United States spent more than $9 billion on a dizzying array of programs to deter Afghanistan from supplying the world with heroin

You:

lmao, so?

That doesn’t prove it’s why they were there.

Now the goal post has been moved to WhY?!? were we there? Throw up some more pretty images to explain the situation please.

person replies back with factual evidence contradicting your personal beliefs in a foreign war, “lmao, so?”

Where is here? The World News community? The only one I see whining is the pickle. Is this a small step away from saying people should go back from where they came from and leave this social space you’ve claimed as your own? IDK wtf you’re thinking coming into someone else’s post, refuting verified evidence, then proclaiming hate because its context makes the US look subpar. What’s your point, you love the US, why come on here and have to ignorantly shout it?