Michael

In this case, your assessment is fair - user is harsh, name-calls, and does talk down to the person they were responding to/the reader. I got lost in the chain.

Regardless, accusations of purity testing come up more than enough online for my liking and it isn’t always in response to righteous condescension, as you aptly described the user’s behavior in this example.

deleted by creator

Awesome job. How are you intending the final experience to be - singleplayer or multiplayer like HOI4? Just curious, no need to promise anything.

It should be able to be wiped clean, and not ever be published to the internet without safeguards to prevent AI-scraping/people search websites/etc. from picking it up. These websites (and other sources of the information) should block anybody without a legitimate and reasonable need to know that information about the person arrested (and access should be logged) - it’s also not newsworthy to systematically report on arrests that are e.g. victimless and not tied to a notable event (as newspapers tend to do).

If one wants their arrest record to be completely public, that should be a right upon arrest.

As it stands, permanent and public arrest records prevent one from restoring their reputation and absolutely impairs their ability to function in our discriminatory society - where arrest records and criminal history are heavily weighted against applicants.

Foregoing sharing personal information with the wrong crowd is likely imperative, but it’s probably best to find ways out of unstructured servile relationships i.e. workplaces with any hint of drama, disorganization, or lack of focus.

If you don’t feel welcomed and supported, if the hierarchy is oppressive, if your peers are seemingly jealous or readily find fault in you, if you are insulted - start looking for another job. Or never stop looking for jobs until you’re sure you’re safe… or just work remote.

I’ve had my fair share of similarly unbelievable circumstances - and what I’ve learned is to not mess around with anything with a hint of instability and also to avoid being in close proximity to potentially volatile individuals - unless I’m absolutely sure I’m safe and that the individuals are harmless.

It really doesn’t matter if you talk or don’t talk - if people see you as condescending, if they dislike you intensely for no apparent reason, if they are on drugs or are experiencing psychosis, if somebody misinforms them about you, etc. it’s within the realm of possibility that something undesirable happens.

…but don’t be afraid to engage with people you feel you can trust - give it time if you have to, but past undesirable circumstances shouldn’t take away from your life and range of experience. And worrying that the worst possible scenario will unfold all the time is also very paralyzing and limiting in my experience - there has to be a better and bolder way forward, that also does not delve into naivety.

[Hakeem Jeffries] also, as the Blue Rose memo suggested is effective, cast the federal takeover as a “distraction” from Trump’s unpopular policies.

The future of our country is at stake…and this is our leadership?

Did you put Fetterman on the grill like this? Or did you blindly listen to establishment voices telling you how progressive he is, while ignoring his actions as mayor?

Just as “libertarian” as Peter Thiel.

“There’s no expectation of privacy in public.”

There’s no expectation of privacy anywhere. This has all been taken way too far.

Corporations have been already making profiles of various types for a while now in the form of adtech, social media, data brokers, people search websites, credit scores, devices and services that harvest sensitive and intimate data (e.g. mobile phone apps, watching habits from smart TVs, driving data from cars).

Our society has been set up for mass surveillance in a thousand different ways as a form of social control and dominance by those who wield power.

It’s time people realize that privacy is a right instead of normalizing abuses of consent.

I am arguing that the DNC and its candidates are still at the behest of billionaires and corporations even with Ken’s proposed finance reforms.

The Democrats can make themselves seem squeaky clean, but they aren’t and it is obvious.

There will continue to be strong pushes towards preferred candidates. The Super PACs will do most of the heavy lifting.

The DNC can brand themselves as neutral, but they aren’t.

The whole system is broken. If spoiling has been an issue for decades, perhaps we needed election reform a long time ago.

No, instead we only pass blame to people who want progress. Enough.

I think reddit wants the site to devolve even further into groupthink and echo chambers.

Moderation has always been heavy-handed over there, now it’ll be lazy and even more discriminatory. I didn’t think that was possible, but here we are.

Says it can’t on my end. Do you have to be logged in/have access to paid features?

Related watch for those interested in learning more: https://youtu.be/7f_V9zZNzTY

From the article you linked:

Mr. Martin’s proposal notably does not attempt to address the role of super PACs or direct-but-limited contributions from corporations like those the D.N.C. accepts.

Big caveat.

They have raised nothing truly significant by their own merit and the billionaires/etc. will be back - they will need their money to win. There is no visible shift left or to socialist policies. Support your assertions, Ken Martin and the DNC have already been arguably very hostile to a leading progressive in the DNC, no matter how you spin it. I provided receipts - the time for the DNC to enforce neutrality would’ve been during the court case where they were called out for rigging the primary against Bernie, not after Hogg got elected as Vice Chair with publicly visible positive intentions and goals. If literally everything has changed in 2 months, enlighten me.

Just because the DNC and Ken Martin are seen as hopeless by large donors now doesn’t represent a significant shift. Americans also don’t see the DNC/Democratic Party very favorably, according to recent polls. If small donors are flocking to the DNC more than they have in the past, it’s because of Trump and what is left of democracy at stake.

Even on Ken’s Wikipedia regarding his position as DNC chair put it this way:

Martin’s first months as DNC chair have been described as chaotic and plagued by infighting. Under his leadership, the party has seen a significant drop in donations.

Infighting against progressives is clearly what they are referring to.

You’re asserting he’s garnering more small donations because there is a shift left. I am arguing that it’s because people are more politically active.

If the DNC’s fundraising situation has changed, it’s not due to any policy forbidding billionaires and large donors. The DNC has lost the confidence of their major donors, according to Politico two days ago. They have raised very, very little in comparison to the GOP.

Talking down to me is not evidence that the DNC has changed significantly. When it comes down to it, they need their large donors because they refuse to shift left to compel small donors to fund them.

Even if the DNC is branding itself as friendly to progressives, those progressives will be absolutely crushed when a primary or election occurs. We need campaign finance reform to move forward as a society and to have a semblance of representation and democracy.

Again, I could give less than a fuck about the DNC’s complexity as an organization. It is not nurturing progressives. Evidence is needed to support that assertion. The DNC will be back to taking primarily large donations before long, and so will the candidates that win the primaries (if there is any challenge posed by progressives at all).