You can’t assume from people voting for one of the only two parties that can win an election

The survey says 80%… that is enough to get any party to win. Hell, if you dare to dream high enough, that number is high enough to completely set the current government to the side, deny their legitimacy, and make a new governmental system - like one which is not a “first-past-the-post system”.

The argument of “only two parties that can win” is nonsensical in this context, no offense.

Either way, the US is not the only country in the world, and it’s not the only example the other user gave. Even if we ignore the US, how do you justify this in other countries that don’t have a first-past-the-post system? Like I said in another comment:

Survey’s also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up.

People don’t like that, and it affects how they vote.

For example if we do something relatively small like ending beef subsidies here in the US, then ground beef will double or triple in price, and people will naturally consume much less.

And you think people will be okay with that and just let it happen? A politician does that and not only are they not elected again, they might have protests and even riots on their hands. You can’t post c/vegan without non vegans showing up and being disruptive. Which begs the question: why would politicians ever do it when they know this?

You can’t have systemic change if people aren’t willing to change their lives in the first place. People often say they want this or that, but don’t actually stop to think what that requires. Survey’s also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up. What do people think carbon taxes will do? Well, the answer is they don’t really think about it; they just think “tax for company to help climate”, and that’s where it stops.

If you want systemic change, then you also need to acknowledge and raise awareness to the need to take accountability and change our own lifestyles, otherwise that systemic change will never work. Going around saying we could all “change our lifestyles and it wouldn’t matter” and that “what we need is systemic change” in response to people talking about taking personal accountability, does, ironically, very little to bring about that needed systemic change; or at least that’s my perspective.

Linux and Android handles .webp just fine tho

I can’t speak for all distros and DEs, and I also don’t do many image related things, but I’m using Linux Mint Cinnamon and the default desktop background manager doesn’t support .webp. Sometimes I see a cool image that I want to use and I have to convert it; other times, when I notice it’s .webp, I just give up on that image.

Mint’s default wallpaper manager doesn’t, and Discord doesn’t let me pick a .webp as an avatar. Those seem like 2 pretty big ones that don’t work.

I’ve also run into other less common examples over time, but those are more random spread out things and I don’t remember what they are.

Happy for Georgia, still pissed about the reffing.

I’m not usually one to complain about refs or (un)called fouls, but this game is ridiculous.

Ronaldo gets his shirt obviously yanked and held for several second in penalty area? Yellow for Ronaldo, because he complained. No VAR.

Holding in the middle of the field against Georgia? Yellow for Portugal.

Light foot touch against Georgia in Portugal’s penalty box? VAR; pen for Georgia.

At the end of the day it’s a just game and it’s meant to be fun, but this just takes away all the fun from the game.

Yes, you are a liar. You said “ruined” but still have not provided an example of something they have ruined. And after being called out on it, you proceed to use personal insults. Not only are you a liar, you are also incredibly immature.

Well, he does imply he has a guilty conscience; he’s just also saying he can live with it.

I think they mean if you’re a woman (trans or cis), it can be terrifying to meet with people. At least that’s how I interpreted it.

Edit: Perhaps they are also talking about non-binary people, which is why they chose the words “not male presenting”.

The fact that most comments here seem to be talking about stone henge says otherwise. If not for what happened to stone henge recently, people might not have paid this much attention to this.

It’s an older game, but I would say Dragon Age: Origins (the DLCs/complete edition make it even better).

There are fewer companions and most of them are human IIRC, but overall I think they are better fleshed out and more interesting. I liked them all more than most BG3 companions, perhaps in part because they aren’t all nymphomaniac bisexuals who try to jump in your pants as soon as you look them in the eye and say “hello”.

The story is perhaps a bit more grounded than in BG3, but I overall liked it more and though the overall world and cast of characters were more interesting. You even get a unique starting area depending on your race/class! And even though BG3 is perhaps larger in terms of actual map area, but in DA:O you explore so much more of the world and go through so many different areas with different societies/kingdoms that it ends up feeling bigger and richer in lore, IMO.

Other than that, I would maybe also add Planescape: Torment(*), Fallout: New Vegas, Disco Elysium.

^{Yes, I am aware I am a basic bitch.}

(*) Disclaimer for Planescape: Torment; the last third or so of the game was made by a different team, and you can definitely tell, but it’s worth getting through to the ending.

EDIT:

I forgot to mention this, but it might be important to some people: regarding combat, in DA:O it’s just ok, in P:T and FNV it’s just there to get you through the story, and Disco Elysium doesn’t even really have combat. BG3 has by far the best combat, so if that’s something that is important to you, then it’s worth to keep that in mind.

🤦‍♂️ Off course, after all that this is how we score.

Watching Portugal play is always so frustrating. It doesn’t matter how good you are if you can’t score; all the other teams need is one good chance and we are immediately in hot water.

Damn, that sucks. One of the Turkish players fell on his face though, which was funny.

I was just thinking to myself “why would you shoot from there with so many teammates around”, and then it just went in.

Perhaps not very patient gamer, but I think I’ll give Another Crab’s Treasure a go.

It’s very hard for me to feel motivated to play new games nowadays, but that one did spike my interest - seems more fun than Elden Ring tbh, which kinda feels like a generic souls-like - and it’s got great reviews and isn’t too expensive, so I think I’ll try it out.

Mind if I ask what you are basing this on? Because the experience I’m having in my country tells me that would probably just reinforce the status quo, and then the far-right would have a huge increase.

In my country the center-“left” soc-dems (who have been leaning more and more liberal) were in power since 2014, with a majority on the left; in 2022 that party got a majority of votes, and the rest of the left loss a lot of votes, but the right was still in minority. This has essentially resulted in them being able to keep doing whatever they want and what they’ve always done and not keep their promises because they know a bunch of people always vote for them anyway because “it’s them or the right wins!”. Then in late 2023 there was a corruption scandal that resulted in us having new elections early this year where the far right saw unprecedented growth, the “center”-right party won the elections, and there is now a majority right in parliament. At no point during these 10 years did our country turn further left; the right certainly didn’t.

My point is, based on that, I would guess that having liberals (who are the ones in charge of the Dems) in power so long with a majority would just result in them consolidating power, the rest of the left to be pushed out, and eventually for the far right to see a renewed growth.

The real solution would either be for everyone to vote for a new different left-wing party (if we’re already talking about convincing “everyone” to vote for Dems, why not dream a little higher?), or turn to mutual aid and grassroots movements. And a party that wins elections will almost certainly never want to change the electoral system because they benefit from it the most; again, the best hope for that might be getting behind one party whose mission purpose is exactly to turn away from a 2 party system.

I’ve read actual literature on this

Sure, yet all you could do was copy past the wiki sources. You sound very well read!

I’ll make simpler so you can understand - hell, I’ll even play the wiki game with you!

Socialism :

Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.

Here are all the sources for that according to the wiki:

Interesting, uh?

Wiki says Soc-Dem = Socialism

Wiki says all parties that have governed my country are Soc-Dems

Wiki says Socialism = socialy owning the means of production, opposed to private ownership

In my countrie most companies are privatly owned, and the government has actually privatized previous national companies

MFW the Wiki just contradicted it self

It’s almost like you have to use critical thinking and can’t just take things you read on Wikipedia at face value!

I’d say thanks for the laughs as well, but arguing with extremely ignorant but simultaneously extremely arrogant people is anything but fun.

Now, quit acting like you’ve ever read anything other than the Wiki, and go to your local library to pick up a book. I’ma ignore you from now on, because there’s clearly nothing left to be gained for this conversation.

ou have this idiotic notion that all socialism is somehow government-planned economies

Imagine saying I don’t understand what I’m reading, and then accusing me of having “this idiotic notion that all socialism is somehow government-planned economies” when I never came close to saying that. I’m a Libertarian Socialist, jackass. Please go be disappointed at yourself.

Sounds like you don’t even know the basics of what capitalism and socialism are. Do people in your country work for private companies? Do the people who own them make all executive decisions, reap profits, and pay (as little as they can) for other people to actually work? Are people able to use capital to buy into those companies and be in charge and reap the profits? Then that isn’t a socialist country. Having social welfare and regulations doesn’t make it a socialist country.

You are arguing that “socialism”- something that has always stood in opposition to everything I just mentioned - can be used to describe a country that operates like a capitalist country because an article on Wikipedia has one sentence that says so.

Here are literary references to back up the statement in economical theory literature that social democracy is indeed a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism:

Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.

You literally just copied those from the previously linked Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is your source, I don’t believe you’ve read a single word from any of those works - nay, from any of those people. My sources: Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, The Conquest of Bread, and others, but above all, the real fucking world I live in. Edit: oh, and I guess I’ll also add the others parts from that same Wikipedia article, the ones I quoted previously and you ignored.

Maybe keep reading:

By the post-World War II period and its economic consensus and expansion, most social democrats in Europe had abandoned their ideological connection to orthodox Marxism. They shifted their emphasis toward social policy reform as a compromise between capitalism to socialism.[108]

In Britain, the social democratic Gaitskellites emphasized the goals of personal liberty, social welfare, and social equality.[111] The Gaitskellites were part of a political consensus between the Labour and Conservative parties, famously dubbed Butskellism.

You can also look at European countries which are social democracies, and you will see they are all capitalist countries. Here, also from wiki. I can tell you here in Portugal we have 2 parties which, according to the wiki, are also Social Democratic parties, and they are also the only two parties who have ever been in power. I can tell you first hand, I live in a capitalist system. According to the wiki, the UK’s Labour Party “is a political party in the United Kingdom that has been described as being an alliance of social democrats, democratic socialists and trade unionists”, do they seem socialist to you? And before you claim that they are because “they also have democratic socialists”, that would mean that by transitive property, USA’s Dem party is a socialist party. I guess the USA is socialist after all!