EnderMB

Deep down, I'm hoping that she turns out to be Sasha Baron Cohen's most elaborate character yet.

A lot of people see it as needlessly dragging a conflict on, but NATO (probably) knows what it's doing, and has had plans for scenarios like this for years. Russian escalation in the region isn't exactly new, and it's the sort of campaign that NATO as a group will define its legitimacy on.

I'm sure that if both sides wanted to hurt the other they'd do so, NATO especially so - but to both sides it's ultimately a game. NATO will flirt with weapons, and Russia will throw citizens at the problem and use grief/loss to restore the "fatherland". It's why I don't see an end to the conflict for as long as Putin is in power.

I don't disagree that reform is needed, but I do disagree that voting for a third candidate is useless, purely on the basis that they work elsewhere. My point is that America isn't special, and a party that won't necessarily win can affect policy without ever truly seeing power.

You...clearly misunderstood my initial post, and that's really funny.

My point isn't that you shouldn't care if they win or not. That's absolutely ridiculous. My point is that you shouldn't choose to vote for someone purely because they have a chance of winning, over someone that aligns better with your political views.

Sometimes I can't believe this app is free...

That's the argument, no?

I don't give a fuck if America has more than "two" parties, but either one of two things is true:

• Americans are more aligned with the two parties than people would like to believe.
• Many people won't vote for a third candidate because they feel that their vote would be "wasted", because it wouldn't contribute to one of the "likely" parties to win.

If I had to guess, the former is probably more true than people on social media and the left would like to believe.

It's honestly a little embarrassing to see Lemmy struggle so much with this kind of thing. Even Reddit was never this bad...

That's not what I mean. What I mean is that people won't vote for a candidate they agree with because they're not going to win.

That should be painfully obvious. Similar sentiments are obvious on Reddit, Twitter, even Mastodon. Why is Lemmy so tone-deaf and blinded when it comes to opposing opinions?

Aside from all of the praise that BG3 gets, I haven't played a linear story-bssed game with such length and depth for YEARS! I got to around 70 hours of game time in my first play through, and I wasn't remotely bored, ever. For any major game to achieve this almost seemed impossible in this generation.

Genuinely one of the best episodes of any show I've ever watched.

Ok?

Because Lemmy isn't a US-only social network?

My only fear with the indie gaming industry is that many of them are starting to embrace the churn culture that has led AAA gaming down a dark path.

I would love an app like Blind that allows developers on a game to anonymously call out the grinding culture of game development, alongside practices like firing before launch and removing credits from workers. Review games solely on how the dev treated the workers, and we might see some cool corrections between good games and good culture.