I’ve dropped a couple of channels because I suspected the presenter was a choad. I once unsubed from a movie-review channel because the presenter made a joke about “games journalism”.

Another popular channel had (has) amazing content about historical guns. I first got a bad taste in my mouth because he covered some shit from Rhodesia. But I decided to give the benefit of the doubt. I know that collecting Nazi artifacts doesn’t imply politics. Then the channel decided to cover “anti-riot” “crowd control” type weapons during the George Floyd Summer protests. Nah, I’m out.

Beast by Benchley. I’m still mad at the time I wasted.

It’s a myth that conservatives protect hierarchy because they think they’ll be on top one day. It’s because they think societal problems boil down to someone in a position of power that they didn’t “deserve”.

Almost all conservative moments can be described as putting the “right” people back in charge (or as removing the undeserved from power). Hierarchy is the through-line of conservatism. I can think of conservatives who hate religion, who want big government, and high taxes. I can’t think of any conservative who wants equality.

I guess if you believe that the American war for Independence was a “people’s revolution”, then anything makes sense.

If you use it correctly, it’s just about as private as you can get.

There are limits to keep in mind. The internet itself is an American military technology (as is TOR). So if you’re hiding something more delicate than porn history I would get educated.

The two dropped bombs were detonated at altitude. This causes much less radiation near the blast than detonating on the ground because the radioactive contamination is dispersed in the atmosphere rather than in the soil and groundwater.

This is why the destroyed cities didn’t have to be abandoned like Pripiat.

Reddit is a marketing platform. Manipulating users is it’s function and purpose.

Do digital store fronts play-through all the games, expansions, and DLC they list on their stores? This doesn’t seem practical.

Anybody who laughs at this joke has a Yahoo email address.

Yes, I’m programed to respond to dumb comments to increase engagement.

Slavish devotion to Musk? Utilitarian ethics? Grock is just the average reddit user in 2013.

Yea, but the Weavers moved to Idaho because of the right-wing Christian culture of the region. They were ‘end of the world’ type conspiracy people and moved to Ruby Ridge to live like settlers away from the Government.

It’s ironic that the Government was waiting for them in Idaho.

You’re talking about several different technologies when you say “fireworks”. You need a powder that’s safe to handle, a barrel that’s strong enough to contain the explosion, an ignition system, and a projectile that does some kind of damage.

There is a fresco in the SCOTUS courtroom with a theme of “lawbringers” of history. Mohamed is featured.

This sounds like some kind of hyper-libertarianism where even slavery is a individual choice or a personal failure.

You appear to be defining religion as belief held without objective knowledge.

But if this is true, we could argue all knowledge is religion. Sense none of us understand how consciousness works; the idea that we are creatures capable of having knowledge or understanding becomes a faith-based claim.

Obama has launched more drone strikes than any other Peace-Prize winner in history.

He’s certainly not the most controversial Nobel winner, but his award was embarrassing in the sense that European intelligentsia was congratulating backward America for electing a black President.

You may not agree that this was condescending, but it’s hard to argue that Obama’s legacy is of the peacemaker domestically or internationally.

How exactly would it boost moderates except in that once the extremes are eliminated, your vote goes to the moderate that you want rather than it failing to oppose the people you don’t want.

I think you’ve pretty much got it. Extreme candidates tend to get eliminated because they tend to be the least popular with other parties voters. RCV punishes this unpopularity. Also candidates with similar goals can work together, this advantage is obviously is going to be unavailable for people running from the fringe.

Just imagine a New York primary where two weak moderates were running against a progressive. The two moderates are almost working together because it’s likely that whoever looses will gift their votes to the other. Ranked choice candidates have often “teamed up”, with ads asking their supporters to rank the other candidate 2nd.

I think lots of Democrats have been thinking about how the primary in New York could have been different and this is the answer to that question.