It's to try and make it seem like it's a social choice, rather than a government induced obligation. If they make it seem like offing yourself AsSiStEd dYiNg is just a totally cool choice that people make, it's no longer the taboo it ultimately should be. And then the government can pretend like it's not killing the people it's supposed to protect, it's "helping them".

I don't disagree. I just don't understand why bring it up in this specific instance when it's clear he's doing this solely to try and save his own ass while still continuing to do the same fucked up shit elsewhere. He's not ceasing to be part of the problem, he's barely even putting on a paper printout mask to hide his true nature.

Seems more like the never helpful "It's bad how you said it". That shit I hear endlessly from women thinking they're being smart, but they're not. "Oh, I totally agree and get what you're saying, but the way it's being delivered is not nice". That kind of, and I'm gonna swear again, shit. I'm not playing tiddly-winks here. It's not a game. We're talking about tyrants. And you're throwing concern towards decorum? It's a non-issue by comparison. Sure, I get still caring about it. No real argument there. But all you're ultimately engaging in is tone policing. You're not helping anyone but trying to wring your hands about the larger issue.

Do you think that in times gone past when people went to war over tyranny that it was fair to bring up things like Ephesians 4:29? Are phrases like "sic semper tyrannis" wholesome and intended to edify others? Because at the end of the day, we're talking about bringing these people down. People talk about things like jail, but at the end of the day that's still bringing violence against them. Does that minister grace?

So where do I draw the line? Because calling for these people to get what they deserve is just as nasty as saying they're a bunch of vile cunts. But that small decorum is going to lead you to turning a blind eye, ignoring that at the end of the day one is actually worse, and yet it's justified due to their own sins and injustices.

Good luck to him. I have low expectations, but that's true of the entire industry these days,

No, I don't want to see ugly women at all.

Depends. I think something like a Frau Engel from Wolfenstein The New Order or Lilith in DmC: Devil May Cry is fine. But that's because they're ugly for a specific purpose of making you dislike those specific characters. Making a modern ugly, where it's more an attempt by the devs to make something "realistic" (even though it's not realistic) isn't the same.

So I'd say ugly's as villains is fine with the proviso that they're actually designed ugly to be ugly, not designed ugly to be "realistic".

Wow. That was super helpful. Thanks for reminding me not to swear in the face of someone shilling for statist authoritarianism. Clearly saying "fuck" was a far bigger issue than someone that would see violence enacted against the innocent.

Potentially. I think Todd understands why people liked Joker, but he didn't like the people that were agreeing with him so he did the sequel out of spite. It's less disconnect with the material and more disconnect with people.

Blade Runner really is the best example that Scott doesn't understand his own films.

There's a big fucking difference between changing paths and being the fucking Prime Minister in charge. He's not a minor person with a new perspective, he's a national leader. That's a very important distinction, and should bring absolute caution to the situation, especially when it's people like Starmer that's STILL fucking up his own country. Or are we forgetting the farmer strikes and the reason for them?

Adamrises is right. He's parroting one fucking point and suddenly he's got some merit? I fully agree that there should be a way back for people, but Starmer isn't trying to change, he's trying to save his ass.

"They pretended it wasn't happening"

"They"

Putting aside the obvious "who is they" crap that the myopic love to focus on, what does Starmer mean by "they"? He's part of it. You don't get to pull the shit he has pulled and then pretend like he isn't part of the same club. You want credibility Starmer? Name names. Lay clear blame. Stop with the fucking obfuscation in paltry sentiments. Start putting heads on spikes, either proverbially or however you want to take that.

To be fair, I think Scott has always been a bit of an idiot that lucked out with his works. Kind of a film equivalent of Alan Moore, where he doesn't actually understand what made his films as good as they were just like Moore doesn't understand what made his comics good.

Prolly needed to be done.

Do you also support general censorship and disarmament of the general public because It's For The Greater Good™? Or do those ends not justify the means?

The issue isn't the government, the issue is parents not being fucking parents. Every time you run to the government to fix these fuckups, you give more and more power and precedent for the government to become as totalitarian as is possible. It is not the governments responsibility to raise people. It's not the governments responsibility to take care of people. It's not the governments responsibility to be a parent.

Fuck off with this endless statist bullshit. Your ends do not justify these means, and it's time to stop avoiding the issues by pretending like you can regulate it away.

With aggressive capital gains taxes, the government here doesn't really care all that much if a handful of teens get a massive inflow of cash that they mostly lucked out on. Either they're going to blow that money on stupid purchases and end up in the same position as everyone else but with a slightly higher acquired standard of living that they can no longer afford, or you'll have the few successes that bring the government more money through taxes.

Wow. That really showed the government who's boss! They either get a poor bugger voting for the uniparty, or they get a tax cow voting for the uniparty.

Ah yes, the ends justify the means.

I'm more than happy to see people use social media less and less, but doing so via the never ending government over-reach (in this case via unilateral Digital ID laws that will follow to enforce this) isn't the win you think it is. But sure, give more power to the government. I look forward to you bitching about how the government has too much power in the next breath.

Even if you assume that the government actually does have the best of intentions here like a delusional statist would, how many times has the best intentions of the government actually worked out as supposedly intended? This is how the government always grows itself. It identifies a problem, and it doesn't matter if it's actually a problem or a manufactured problem, but it's a problem that the public can fear. And then they use that fear to usher in authoritarian and totalitarian laws. Censorship, disarmament and general regulations are built upon it.

You're so focused on the carrot that you're ignoring the stick that inherently comes with it.

She isn't worth $1 million a year. Really think about how much work Maddow really does. Let's even be generous and suggest she actually gets involved in the research side of things. She does a couple hours of research with a team, and then sits behind a camera for (let's be generous) a couple hours. She also apparently has a podcast. That's it. And she's on 8 figures for that? Meanwhile you have blue collar workers maintaining vital infrastructure that would be doing well to make 6 figures, and incredibly lucky for them to be making 7 figures without some sort of extenuating circumstances.

This is a person that does MAYBE 10 hours of cushy work all within an office setting per week. And that's being generous. That's 520 hours in a year. That's an hourly rate of $1900. And that's being generous at saying she does 10 hours a week. It's probably closer to 7 (and that's still generously assuming she does any of the research that we all know she doesn't do), which would bring her hourly rate to well over $2500.

I am going to say it now: there is not a single person in journalism, alive or dead, who should ever be paid anywhere near that amount of money. Not a single one. I'm even willing to suggest the same of anybody in ANY form of media should get that kind of money outside of maybe through royalties. But none should get a salary like that. Because they're absolutely not worth it.

How coincidental that free-speech-respecting spaces online tend to get invaded by antisemitic fanatics!

Well yes, when every other place on the internet goes out of it's way to curb that discussion, the very few places that DO allow that kind of discussion is going to result in that discussion thriving because it's otherwise censored elsewhere.

This is the issue YOU (and anyone else) as an individual have to face when it comes to places that don't have outright censorship and respect freedom of speech: you actually have to respect and work past what others are saying. The whole point is to be able to have a discussion, not "win" some online argument where you get to see your doctrine come out on top. I'm not a fan of the reee-ing about jews either, but I'm not going to bitch and moan and cry about it in an effort to effectively influence censorship to try and tip those scales so you can "win" an internet forum.

And don't try and weasel out of this support of censorship, because in this case you're throwing in with ghostfox1_ who is actively cheering for the idea of censoring people, saying that he "[wishes] it were the case" regarding the topic of the OP.

I wouldn't go so far as to embrace, I just don't think that a catch-all term is a form of 4D chess. Should we lose our shit over terms like "Westerner" or "First World" since those too are catch-all terms that "erase" cultural identities? Why limit it to countries even? Surely calling someone American would be just as much of an "erasure" to people who are from Florida or Oregon since you could argue they too have unique cultures despite overlap.

This idea of "erasure" is, in my opinion, not significantly different from the idiots that try to endlessly categorise everyone into rigid definitions. I might prefer to be more specific, but I'm not going to sperg out and assume conspiracy over a catch-all. IdPol is IdPol.

I'd say it falls in the same vein as saying asian or middle eastern culture. Yes, it's overly broad and does ultimately conflate different cultures under a singular banner, but I'm also not going to say it's a deliberate fraud so much as it's an easier catch-all term than being overly specific.

Imagine being an unironic statist.

is like yelling at AT&T

Yeah, except AT&T would capitulate instantly and move in lockstep.

You're assuming that the government will play by some imaginary set of "rules". They make the laws and if they want to get you, they will change the laws.

The government will never be neutral. It is always an evil. Some argue a necessary evil that we need to shackle and restrict, but it will always still be an evil.

Yesterday I would have agreed with you. But this is now getting the government involved. Steam can "win" in a court of public opinion simply by ignoring it, and it has worked for them pretty much every single time. Steam can even win a legal dispute. But Steam will cave if their native government wants to punish them. It won't matter if it's unfair. It won't matter if they disagree. They'll cave to remain in business.

Steam is a business. A very big business with a lot of directly involved consumers. But it's not immune to the government. It's not untouchable. I would love to believe that this would radicalise people. But if a nationwide 24/7 curfew enforced by the state didn't radicalise people, I'm sceptical that any one thing can radicalise them.

I don't necessarily disagree, though the standards aren't going to simply be a basic photo, it's going to be proper scanning. And while there are mass scanning options with office-grade printers, it does still take some effort. Personally, I just think the recording is a simpler, easier solution that doesn't impede anyone else nor make addition effort for another. It removes any reason for them to not do the task, while the other idea does at least give them something to bitch about.

You're also not wrong with what's at stake financially so cost shouldn't be as big a concern as it typically is. Sadly though, it will be used to resist legitimate measures to ensure proper vote security.

For the purpose of devil's advocate, I could say that cost could be a factor, since the data entry could be additional work.

That said, I think that Taiwan has a pretty good system, where every vote is held up for the watchers to see and the vote announced to be tallied. There's no reason to not do something similar and adding a camera for both a recording and a livestream is virtually nothing in terms of additional cost.

The instant you refuse to allow public watching of poll counting is the instant you know it's being abused. There is ZERO reason to not allow poll watching to the public, unless you intend to cheat.