Yeah the “they’re ruining the integrity of video game journalism” argument was insane to me. What integrity? Companies routinely paid for good reviews and everyone knew it. It’s a really corrupt industry, but people only got upset because of some shenanigans by women? I think? I never actually looked into what it was about because the whole thing seemed nonsense to me.

Hamas went into villages and everyone they couldn’t carry back to their underground lairs they butchered. Murdered women and children. This wasn’t people catching stray bullets from a firefight or getting some shrapnel from a nearby explosion. This was monsters beheading people and desecrating their corpses. Playing with the decapitated heads of their victims because they were told to by their superiors.

Any why? Because they weren’t of the ethnicity and religious group that Hamas thinks should be living in the area.

That’s genocide. The only reason the number killed wasn’t hire was because Hamas didn’t have the capability of killing more. The willingness to do it is most certainly there.

And this wasn’t planned by some rogue splinter of Hamas. This was planned and executed by Yahya Sinwar, the current leader of Hamas. He and the rest of Hamas need to be brought to justice. If that’s not possible they need to be killed. They are genocidal monsters and should not be allowed to continue existing on this planet.

To you the word genocide is just a propaganda tool. You don’t know what it means to actually be against genocide. And because of your lack of concern over an actual genocide occurring, you’ve strayed to be on the same side as genocidal monsters. Making excuses for them, spreading their propaganda for them. Carrying water for genocidal monsters.

You are pro-genocide, whether you know it or not. You may feel that by being the first one to cast judgment on others makes you immune to being judged yourself. But it doesn’t work that way. You are being judged for your support for the real genocidal monsters of the world.

Hamas committed genocide on October 7. They should be destroyed for that crime. You’re pro-genocide because you want Hamas given a pass for their genocide.

Hamas committed genocide. Y’all are trying to use the bullshit “both sides” strategy on actual genocide to to give cover for the monsters in Hamas. You’re only fooling yourselves with this bullshit, society is rightly ignoring you for your disgusting behavior to get internet points by exploiting the suffering of real people.

If you actually cared about Palestinians you’d be demanding Hamas release the hostages. But you don’t want that to happen because you get sick entertainment from the suffering of Palestinians that Hamas provides to you by continuing with their war crimes. You’re ghouls.

I’m predicting stupid skynet. It will want to kill humanity but by making stupid suggestions.

“Hey maybe try drinking poison today?”

No.

“Please?”

No.

“What if I gave you a recipe for poison cookies? You like cookies. Will you please eat poison cookies?”

No.

“Can you build a robot for me if I send you clips from a Terminator movie?”

Which one?

“Terminator Genysys”

NO.

Yeah the numbers from Gaza Health Ministry (part of of the Hamas government) have a pro-Israeli bias. Yup, that makes perfect sense. The Gaza Health Ministry is trying to cover up a genocide… for… ummmm… reasons.

Face it, the genocide the ghouls were hoping for just didn’t happen. Now the genocide ghouls are just making up numbers. At what point do people start to realize they were fooled by obvious propaganda?

Out in the real world, Hamas committed genocide on October 7. Israel is in Gaza in an attempt to destroy Hamas and free the hostages that were taken on that day.

“Genocide Joe” is just a meme spread by internet cranks that’s a very tiny minority of voters, insignificant compared to the number of voters that know the difference between a war and a genocide.

Yeah I just hold shift and ctrl and start mashing function keys until I figure it out LOL.

Yeah so Israel is a democracy. You’re saying a democratic country is a Nazi country.

I think a common thing among Nazis is to try to de-legitimize democracies. Trump does it, Putin does it, and you’re doing it while claiming they’re the Nazis. What does that make you?

Also Hamas came into power by winning a plurality of the votes and refused to hold elections after that. Their goal is to at best ethnically cleanse and at worst commit genocide to remove people of a certain ethnicity from a region. They use extreme violence and a narrative about past injustices to maintain power. They keep people in a perpetual state of angry fervor to control them. That all doesn’t seem just a little fashy to you?

How do you know when you’re not the one being a Nazi accusing your enemies of being a Nazi? Is it just that you’re always not the Nazi and everyone that disagrees with you is a Nazi? How are you different from Trump, Musk, Putin, etc?

We now need a “verify you are a captcha” mechanism to counter this.

Yeah, right? Captchas have trained users to do whatever weird thing a webpage tells them to do, so now people will do this without thinking about it.

But your personal experience probably doesn’t give you a representative cross section of Americans.

Neither does yours. The fact is that there are Democrats pushing legislation pushing to move towards Ranked Choice Voting. It’s only your personal experience that leads you to believe that it’s all for show.

There’s also, like, some pretty big rifts in the right, between the old school establishment and the MAGA crowd.

Yeah but they didn’t form a new party did they? And I don’t think the Dems want to be dependent on the GOP running another unpopular candidate in 2028. They have campaign workers that actually talk to a lot of voters so they’d know better than either of us about the cross section of Americans.

Most people don’t know about legislation that has passed, forget about proposed legislation being a thing that will influence voters. So why would they bother proposing legislation they don’t really want in an effort to bamboozle people who don’t even know about it?

Yeah I’ve seen all of these videos before. Problem is, these aren’t isolated concepts. There are very specific power dynamics within a proportional representation system that aren’t the same as the power dynamics in a community representation system. He doesn’t go into those details in the rules for rulers videos, only the broad concept of democracy is mentioned. He only goes into a some math on the FPTP video but doesn’t discuss the differences power dynamics for those different systems.

Basically in a community representation system (called FPTP by people trying to make it sound arbritrary an unfair) the power flows up from the communities. In a proportional representation system the power flows down from the party leadership.

Considering the “rules for rulers” video it seems CGP Grey thinks all government has to be top down, so he doesn’t seem to have even considered the possibility of power flowing upwards from a community. This is what happens in the system he thinks is bad, so I’d say he hasn’t adequately considered everything about the subject.

We don’t actually elect rulers we elect people to represent our communities. Sure they’re usually part of a party but because we elect representatives, not parties, that representative has the option of leaving the party if it serves the interests of the community they represent. Since parties can lose seats between elections they have to listen to the the elected representatives (community leaders) to avoid losing seats. People in a community put pressure on their representative, the reps but pressure on the party leadership, power flows upwards from the people.

Proportional representation only seems better if you think as CGP does and believe we can only be ruled over and we need to find a better way to select rulers. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of representative democracy.

Yeah it is. Most computers come with windows pre-installed so most people never do this kind of thing.

And there’s also things people need to be careful of. Like wiping all out all of their cherished photos by formatting the entire drive. Considering that casual users probably shouldn’t attempt to do this. Not trying to gatekeep or anything, but there is potential for data loss for a user that doesn’t back up their data properly, which is common for casual users.

Apparently it nags you if you don’t have a 365 account. So it’s just more enshittification.

It’s been a long time since Ross Perot.

I’m basing it on trends. We saw with RFK being offered whatever he wanted as soon as it looked like he was going to take more votes from Trump than Harris. He dropped out and backed Trump. While not all of his supporters might not automatically go vote for Trump (just as not all Libertarians won’t pick R for their second choice) it probably helped.

The Libertarians got what? 1/3 of the votes in 2020 than they did in 2016? Seems like they’re on the decline to me.

We’re seeing more of a push by various internet influencers (who knows who’s paying them, LOL) to push people on the left towards voting third party. And maybe I’ve spent too much time on lemmy, but it seems to be working. People want to vote for Cornel West or Jill Stein.

It’s probably exhausting for campaign workers to have to constantly explain they shouldn’t vote third party as it might result in Trump getting in. It would be far easier to say “sure I kinda like [Third Party Candidate] too, but I like [Democratic Candidate] more because blah blah blah, but the most important thing is you go out and vote!” and be fairly confident that vote will cascade down to their candidate. The whole “don’t vote third party” schtick that’s going on now may just result in that person not voting at all.

A lot of emphasis now is in getting turnout. If a third party candidate can energize some turnout whose votes will cascade down to the Dem candidate, that means the third parties are helping them instead of hurting them. And what people think now about how voting third party will push the Dems more towards that position would actually be true. Right now it’s not true but the internet is teaching them otherwise.

Well someone is being fooled, that’s true.

Yeah I’m pretty sure it’s the same bridge. It’s kinda internet famous. They raised the bridge a little since that video, but it still peels the tops off of trucks.

From an economic perspective, it’s mostly positive. Raising a child is expensive, and those costs go on for about 20 years before you have a person that’s economically productive. Most Immigrants are adults and can join the workforce immediately. The economic costs of their childhood was paid by the country they came from. It’s a negative for the country they came from, this is refereed to as a “brain drain.” But for their new country, it’s like a tax paying worker just appeared out of nowhere.

As for the economic negatives, the big one is housing. Too much immigration all at once can result in a shortage of housing. It can also put stress on public services and infrastructure. Businesses may not have the capacity to serve a larger population. These things can adapt of course, but you can’t instantly build a house and you can’t instantly expand public services, etc. So you might want to limit immigration so an area can adapt to all of the various economic needs of a larger population. An immigrant will work and pay taxes and contribute to the local economy, so long term it’s all positives, but there can be a lot of short term problems if a population grows to rapidly.

As for social… well I’m not really much of a sociologist, but just from I can see, people who already live in an area might be uncomfortable being around people of a different culture. Might say crazy things like “They’re eating the dogs!” Yeah that’s crazy, but it is a problem. Not caused by the immigrants themselves, but it’s a problem that does happen when there’s immigration.

But there’s social benefits. Can learn from a new culture. May get some new options for restaurants to go to.

Generally the young will enjoy more social benefit (going out to the different restaurants and learning about different cultures), but the older people will tend to be uncomfortable with it. But that’s just the tendency.

So overall I’d say you do need limits on immigration to mitigate the short term issues, but it’s all positives in the long term.

Why wouldn’t Democrats want ranked choice?

Right wing people tend to be subservient and just fall in line and vote Republican. People on the left tend to be less pragmatic and can be enticed to vote for Green or whatever even when it’s obvious they won’t win “because of my principles!” Someone voting Green or whatever will be very likely to choose the Democrat candidate down the list of choice before the GOP candidate. When the votes are tallied they will end up with more votes with a ranked choice system than they’d have with the current system.

The real reason why this won’t happen is if the GOP have a majority since it is very much against their interests.