Ah yes, the real problem is the person calling you out on your BS. What an honest and productive conversation I’m missing out on!

lol Funny how no one else seems to be voting anywhere else in this thread anymore, except minutes after your comment. It’s embarrassing that you’re doubling down. Sociopathic behavior.

It is pointless arguing with someone so devoted to winning an internet debate. Can’t reason with that.

You got 3 upvotes within minutes after you posted on a 2 day old post? And I got 3 downvotes at the same time? You’re pathetic.

You’re changing the subject. My claim was about 2020, not 2024. This year, yes, Biden’s candidacy is inevitable. It is almost unheard of to challenge an incumbent president, and Democrats want to avoid an intra-party fight. When Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter in 1980, it was a disaster that damaged the party for a long time.

I agree with you that Biden is a weak candidate and there are better candidates. But you made the extreme claim that elections don’t matter, that we have no choice, that shadowy elites choose all the candidates, and other silly conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories don’t become justified just because you’re apathetic and angry. I’m not sure how you think you’re being rebellious. When you don’t vote, that’s not rebellion. No one cares. You don’t matter, politically.

That’s not what you said in the comment I responded to. You claimed that Nader could have won if progressives had voted for him instead of Gore, but there aren’t enough progressive votes.

Voting in a FPTP two party system is a coordination game, one where it is mathematically impossible for third parties to win. Pretending otherwise is sadly delusional.

It’s like you’re trying to decide which building to buy as a group to start co-op housing. Almost everyone prefers building A, but you prefer building B. If you all don’t compromise, then there is not enough money and you’re all homeless. In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either don’t believe in democracy, or you’re happy with things never getting better.

If you think Biden’s candidacy was inevitable, you were asleep during the primaries. Here’s the simple obvious explanation: Biden never lost his nationwide polling lead, not once, during the whole race. Are the polls part of the conspiracy too?

The craziest thing about your conspiracy theory is that it’s flatly contradicted by Trump, who was clearly NOT the establishment choice in 2016. Establishment politicians and media pushed Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, John Kasich, anyone but Trump. They all criticized or downplayed Trump non-stop (for good reason)… and yet he won.

Well, how’s the fight coming?

I’m living through one of the biggest shifts left in politics in a generation. The left/center-left coalition has been surprisingly dominant. Mid-terms, special elections, etc. We keep winning. It’s not perfect, but it’s the right direction. But we need to keep winning elections for a long time for durable change.

At what point do you consider the fight won?

Never. Politics is a continual process, not a destination. If we get complacent, progress dies.

Do you envision some point in the future where Republicans no longer hold office and the country is some utopia of pure Democratic leadership?

No. That’s not even the point. Republicans used to be the progressive party (that’s why they use the color red). Parties don’t matter as much as ideas. The point isn’t for “my team” to win. If Republicans continue losing for a decade, then they will be forced to shift left, just as Dems shifted right after Reagan with Clinton.

I’ve read your comment a few times but I’m having a genuinely hard time parsing your point.

The person I’m responding to was saying that Nader could have won if progressives voted for him instead of Gore. I pointed out that presidential candidates need a broad coalition of voters to get enough votes, not just far left progressives.

You seem to be making a totally different argument. You claim that if Nader was the only choice, then Democratic leaning moderates would have voted for him.

I don’t mean to be rude, but what is the point of this thought experiment? Nader wasn’t the only choice. Moreover, US politics in 2000 was significantly less polarized: MANY Gore voters would have definitely voted for Bush, who campaigned under “compassionate conservatism” and was seen as a moderate, over the farthest left candidate, Nader.

If Sanders had won the nomination, I think he would have kicked ass against Trump, but Sanders sadly lost. I’m trying to understand your last line: are you asking if I would blame HRC supporters for refusing to vote for Sanders in the general and allowing a fascist corrupt dictator in? Uh, yes. Obviously I would blame them. That precisely aligns with everything I’ve said.

What are you even talking about with your first paragraph? The result of elections aren’t predictable. In fact, they’re less predictable than ever. And what’s with “choice” in quotes: are you an election truther? That’s more of a right wing conspiracy.

That’s a pathetic cowardly take on the Overton window. What even is your point? “Let’s give up because nothing matters”? Fuck that. I’m fighting.

It’s also empirically untrue: I don’t know how you haven’t noticed that the US is going through the biggest labor movement in a generation. In the last 3 years, Dems have passed one of the most progressive agendas in a generation.

It really doesn’t go both ways. The winning presidential candidate needs to get the most votes, and most US voters are not progressive. They’re moderate, or indifferent.

I don’t know how you could say that about HRC and Sanders. That’s not even a hypothetical: they literally had a head to head match where, to my huge disappointment, HRC won. Protesting HRC helped elect Trump, and obviously that hasn’t been good for progressive interests or democracy.

Yes, progressives who stay at home for the general election do not understand US democracy. The US has a 2 party FPTP system, not proportional representation. Unlike multi-party parliamentary systems, we usually have to vote for a compromise, not our top choice. If you don’t vote, you don’t “send a message”, you simply forfeit your political power. If Republicans win, and keep winning, then that’s a signal for Democrats to shift right, to try to win back the median voter.

I hate the argumentative strategy of criticizing candidates for being political “losers”. Rightwingers do that all the time. By that logic, progressives also had “loser candidates”, since many fail in the primaries. I personally don’t think Sanders, for example, was a “loser”, even if he lost in the primary.

I’m not sure what you mean.

Also, many progressives stayed home or voted for the Green Party. Not that it is more the fault of progressives than SCOTUS, but blame aside, it’s a cautionary tale.

If anyone wants an actual answer: iPhone has an option to “Save to Files” that lets you select a folder to save to just like on a desktop OS. I’ve personally never lost a file when I do this.

But that’s not what you wrote. You claimed that it doesn’t show new information because you can see the favicon and title. It does show new information.

When I shop online, I have many tabs from the same site open. The tab title is the store name + the item name, so the item name never fits. A bunch of identical ebay icons is way worse than this.

It’s not objectively better or worse. Some people will prefer it and some people won’t.

This was my thought as well. A lot of these games are never made, even when the ads do very well (as evidenced by the ad continuing for years). Someone actually made the bait game for real, in recognition of the fact that the games have been advertised for many years and never made.

Even if OP’s explanation is sometimes correct, it doesn’t seem typically correct. In fact, it seems like a rare edge case, at best.

This is also how I read it. I actually really appreciate attacking the idea of “white as default”. It’s kind of like how some gamers think representing anything besides the “default” demographic is “political”.

I think this is the more revealing excerpt:

This is the defining irony of white film-making. The more oblivious your film is to matters of race, the whiter it plays. Because whiteness is often exactly that: the freedom not to see race, even when it’s right there in front of you.

Basically, being aware of whiteness makes for less racist movies. There’s nothing wrong with white movies, but it’s wrong when white movies pretend they’re not white, but universal and default. The article concludes:

Instead, our twofold expectation should be this: 1) The industry affords more film-makers of colour the same creative freedoms and commercial opportunities that are now afforded white film-makers, and 2) That the film culture – including the film-makers themselves – develop the confidence, insight and language to discuss and dethrone white cinema.

This does not sound like racist dog-whistling or white supremacy to me.

I agree, it’s definitely not just house size. But still, I’m not sure that your one data point anecdote is very meaningful. Desirable areas were more expensive in the 1950s too.

Yes that’s the point. We’re wealthier and more productive now and can consume some of that extra wealth. I am pointing out that we’re not comparing like for like.