LOGIC💣

I would wager a shiny nickel that you’re actually quite cool irl.

Did you make a similar comment to OP, who only spoke negatively of a well-used and well-understood system?

What is OP’s proposed alternative? What’s a realistic plan to get there?

Here’s what OP said in the body of their post.

Most european countries use 2 round elections or proportional representation.

Although I’m not sure when they wrote that. The post was edited, so it’s possible that it wasn’t there when you first saw the post, and didn’t re-check the post before writing this comment.

What is your reason for saying that?

Just saying something negative makes it seem like it’s a bad idea, but that just encourages people not to change at all. A voting system that tries to satisfy the Condorcet criteria will be far better than any FPTP system.

It’s easier to tear down than it is to build up. What’s your proposed alternative?

Nothing in the world would elate me more than having a dbag who looks and acts like that tell me that I’m not a part of his group.

The problem is authoritarianism, whatever path you take there. Maybe there’s a government type that minimizes the odds of a rise of an authoritarian leader, but I don’t know what it would be. If somebody knows, please tell me.

I don’t see how anyone could believe that Trump’s orders for the US military to destroy civilian boats were legal.

They’re non-military targets nowhere near the US who were not doing anything violent at the time. The flimsy excuse to kill them could be used to kill anybody.

I think that there is a time factor and a complication factor. Like the longer the game lasts and the fewer characters available to name, the more people who will name and customize characters.

I wonder how many people completed Skyrim with the name “Prisoner”, though.

How else could he intentionally describe himself incorrectly as poisonous and mean venomous though?

Since the snake did not describe himself as poisonous, I don’t understand the relevance. The grammar is just twisty enough that I could imagine that I’m misunderstanding it, or I could imagine that there’s a typo.

Neither of us would be eaten by the snake, but only because the snake just ate that rat, and it’s not hungry.

If you can remember vulva, then you can remember uvula.

Title text:

A lot of the highway department’s budget goes to adjusting the sign whenever the moon passes directly overhead.

The sign on the left is mounted on a pole that extends 10 ft 6 in above the ground.

The snake wasn’t lying when he said he wasn’t poisonous, so the rat had no reason to correct him. The snake also didn’t mean “venomous”, since we learned that he was saying “poisonous” on purpose. So, the snake’s assertion that he wasn’t poisonous was true, while the rat’s statement that the snake meant “venomous” was a lie.

So, if it works every time, then every time, he’s eating critters who are incorrectly trying to correct someone and say that something true that they said was actually false.

If the rat was only stupid for correcting somebody just to feel the superiority of correcting them, then I think, “Eh, a snake’s got to eat.” But combining that with the rat’s hypocrisy of correcting something true into something false, then I think, “This snake is a fucking hero.”

I made a decision about how to approach this situation. I’m not going to uninvite people and I’m not going to keep my opinions to myself if the topic comes up. But I’m also not going to proactively bring it up.

If politics does come up, then I will mostly ignore them until they inevitably say something super dumb and provably false, or completely immoral, at which point I will say something. I will call them on it, confronting them with things that are extremely difficult to argue against, and I won’t let them change the subject unless they concede or shut up. If they concede or stop responding, then I’ll change the topic to something non-political.

I will not talk about various political subjects, nor will I let them move the goalposts. I will simply argue the dumbest thing they said when they thought it was safe to say something dumb. I will not try to convince them, but I will use the truth to embarrass the shit out of them until they decide it’s just easier to make a truce and agree to keep quiet.

The point is just to take them out of their comfort zone so that they think before they speak for once. I ignore them unless I know I can win. I’m fairly lucky that I only have one MAGA relative who won’t listen to any reason. The rest of them, most of their problem is that they never hear an opposing view, and never thought about what they’re saying. As long as I stick to one point and don’t reject their entire belief system, I can win small battles.

Skandalakis (I can’t believe that’s actually his name) said he appointed himself to the case because every other prosecutor refused the case.

Skandalakis was forced to either appoint himself or let the case be dismissed because there are no prosecutors.

I’m not sure why he asked the judge to dismiss the case. Considering it already got several convictions, it seems ridiculous. Maybe Skandalakis is also corrupt. Maybe he’s scared. Maybe it’s because it’s too hard to prosecute while Trump is president.

Regardless, I’m tired of seeing all of these criminals go unpunished. Everybody who is letting them off is a collaborator.

Sounds something like contempt of court. The judge could order they be arrested and held in jail until she is presented in court.

Good lord. People who pass out in the sauna can get cooked alive, though.

Taking a bath when you’re about pass-out drunk is dangerous. If you still have this habit, you might want to switch to showers.

I think when Musk says “Western Civilization”, he’s thinking about unbridled capitalism where increasingly rich people think they made all of their money themselves, and meanwhile, the poor people who they exploited and stole all of the money from end up living the lives of a slave.

Basically, almost everybody in the 1% has this sort of skewed view of the world, and all of their experiences seem to back that up. If you don’t think that way, then you’ll stop trying to earn money once you have enough. Almost all of Musk’s billionaire peers are going to think the same way.

Then, he sees somebody like MacKenzie Scott, who didn’t start out ultra wealthy, and who didn’t really fit into that group. But because she was married to the sort of lunatic who belongs in that group, she ended up ultra wealthy. She likely doesn’t share the mental problems that the rest of the group have. So, everything she does is going to seem completely incomprehensible to a person who completely lacks self-awareness like Musk.

She’s just giving away money to people who would otherwise be much closer to the ultimate goal of the slave class. To a guy like Musk, that is the same thing as “the decline of Western civilization.” I think all of the top billionaires share a mental illness, and we, as a democracy, have been remiss in our efforts to help them by setting limits on how much wealth they can accrue.

I like boiling things down to their minimums, but if it can really be boiled down to that level, then it doesn’t seem like anything new. Descartes’s famous argument about his own existence was in response to the idea that objective reality can’t be known, wasn’t it? It seems quite similar to me, at least.

This comic is missing the part where the priest invites him to become an altar boy.