Whatever. I'm not arguing thought crimes. I can't prove what was in her head, and neither can you. And I can't trust you to be objective about it either.
You think that Kamala Harris, a person who has access to experts, advisors and the best quality of data, understood back in 2020 that fracking was bad and destroying our planet. But in 2024, when we had even more evidence on that, she suddenly changed her mind about it and thought it should not be banned. Do you really think that is even believable? On which basis? What evidence changed for the better for fracking?
And if said leftist understands the economy they'd ease up on the fracking ban crusade because a damaged economy harms people too. Another fantastical choice that can't be accomplished by ignoring context. There's no virtue in unrealistic adherance to an emotional crusade despite the fact that it'll absolutely fail.
That is another claim you cannot back up, you just choose to believe it without doing the research. The same really goes for most other things you push forward. You take an easy option to deny any discussion by just claiming a thing you heard other people say about a matter. And I think that is a problem if you want to get closer to the truth.
Why? Are you an American exceptionalist that thinks all US citizens are aliens unlike any other human on earth? Finland had a huge homelessness problem, so do other countries, including drugs, including mental health issues. Other countries, let me tell you, have big urban areas too with a huge homeless population. Even if you think the US has some places which are significantly worse, it also has many places which are better. Finland is a country of 5 million people with a capital of 600.000 people, as big as Boston. It cannot be compared with New York, but it can be compared with most places in the US.
So what is your reason here why something that works very, very well in another place cannot, with some adjustments, be done in the US? Its not like addiction is not a thing in Europe.
All this means is we're at an impass. You've got a source that focuses on non-American statistics. I've got American statistics from a right-wing source. You have an ideological need to ignore my source, and I have a logical need to ignore yours.
No, you have a rightwing thinktank that is funded by a tech billionaire and campaigns against homeless people with the help of prager U and that uses the worst possible framing to discredit housing first policies in the US. Housing first policies work in many places of the world, including the US. it is just that Finland followed that strategy with the highest ambition and as such is the best example of what this policy can achieve.
When your response to said source is just "They're right-wing so I can't trust them", that's not a damning response to my ability to do research. You haven't refuted any of it, you've dismissed it. Which is fine.
And I'm really starting to think you people don't understand why bias is considered a bad thing, because you attack bias from other people and ignore your own. Bias is bad for everyone, not just your political opponents. Dismissing rightwing information because it's rightwing is still bias. You're not right because you can morally justify ignoring information from a particular source, because your indignation doesn't determine truth.
It is. I offered you to talk about any singular point you want from this sham of an article. You have chosen not to take that offer up.
It is definitely a bad show for your will to research if you dig out the first biased source you find after 5 min of googling and base your entire opinion on that and your own personal bias that it doesnt work.
I mean, what is next? Will you bring forward some alex jones videos and ask me to debunk claims about homeless people actually being lizards?
Feel free to make your own points and back them up, but please dont just copypasta bullshit you didnt research yourself properly. Or at least limit it to one point at a time and not some copypasta.
...what do you think universally applicable means? It means it can be applied anywhere. And your evidence that it can work anywhere... is the fact that it worked somewhere?
Subsidized Housing offered permanently for some people. How many homeless people do you think there is? And how many is "some"? How many millions do you think that "some" amount would come to?
This is absolutely fucking insane if you're saying what I think you're saying. If you think there should be no conditions that determine whether a person should be trusted with housing or not, then I'm done taking you seriously on this topic.
And as for cost effectiveness, your source says that it's found mixed evidence on that. It says it several times actually. Hmmm.
I don't think you know what virtue signaling means, but I did Google first. Seems way too simplified to avoid addressing the fact that housing can be far more affordable, if not guaranteed, regardless of mental health.
I don't think you know what virtue signaling means, but I did Google first. Seems way too simplified to avoid addressing the fact that housing can be far more affordable, if not guaranteed, regardless of mental health.
This is how they're gonna do it. Shift the culture. By buying up all the things that have cultural significance to people and warping them into rightwing anti-woke caricatures.
Yes, having politicians be chosen democratically is good even when you don't get what you want, because it was accomplished fairly and honestly. It will lead to bad things. A lot of bad things. But no one ever said democracy was perfect. What do you want me to do, storm the capital?
You think that Kamala Harris, a person who has access to experts, advisors and the best quality of data, understood back in 2020 that fracking was bad and destroying our planet. But in 2024, when we had even more evidence on that, she suddenly changed her mind about it and thought it should not be banned. Do you really think that is even believable? On which basis? What evidence changed for the better for fracking?
1000% yes, because she didn't change her mind based on the danger it causes to the environment, she changed her mind because of the danger it causes to the economy. It's incredibly believable. It's infinitely more believable when you consider she did so to distance herself from those that are further left, to appeal to centrists and conservatives.
That is another claim you cannot back up, you just choose to believe it without doing the research. The same really goes for most other things you push forward. You take an easy option to deny any discussion by just claiming a thing you heard other people say about a matter. And I think that is a problem if you want to get closer to the truth.
This coming from someone that won't even listen to an argument based on who it came from? You're in no position to talk, because the only facts you accept are ones that come from people you're emotionally driven by. At least I can acquire facts without allowing my bias to determine what's real for me.
Why? Are you an American exceptionalist that thinks all US citizens are aliens unlike any other human on earth? Finland had a huge homelessness problem, so do other countries, including drugs, including mental health issues. Other countries, let me tell you, have big urban areas too with a huge homeless population. Even if you think the US has some places which are significantly worse, it also has many places which are better. Finland is a country of 5 million people with a capital of 600.000 people, as big as Boston. It cannot be compared with New York, but it can be compared with most places in the US.
No, it's literally because America isn't Finland. There's no such thing as a one size fits all homelessness correction policy because of the things causing the homelessness in different areas aren't all the same things. And when it comes to the environments where these people find themselves homeless, depending on the structure of society certain things are possible while others just aren't. By structure I mean economy, politics, culture, welfare system (this is the big one), race relations, amount and response to crime, and maybe even international relations.
So what is your reason here why something that works very, very well in another place cannot, with some adjustments, be done in the US? Its not like addiction is not a thing in Europe.
No, you have a rightwing thinktank that is funded by a tech billionaire and campaigns against homeless people with the help of prager U and that uses the worst possible framing to discredit housing first policies in the US. Housing first policies work in many places of the world, including the US. it is just that Finland followed that strategy with the highest ambition and as such is the best example of what this policy can achieve.
No I didn't. I gave you my stipulations. Meet them or move on.
It is definitely a bad show for your will to research if you dig out the first biased source you find after 5 min of googling and base your entire opinion on that and your own personal bias that it doesnt work.
I mean, what is next? Will you bring forward some alex jones videos and ask me to debunk claims about homeless people actually being lizards?
Feel free to make your own points and back them up, but please dont just copypasta bullshit you didnt research yourself properly. Or at least limit it to one point at a time and not some copypasta.
You're in no position whatsoever to determine what someone else is allowed to do when providing evidence for their claims. Until you've got the integrity to deal with facts as presented, instead of facts based on where they came from, you're not serious about what you're advocating for.
It's not the people that is the problem, it's everything around them. It's why I listed those things earlier.
economy: Both are mixed economy that includes the free market, but Finland has the Nordic welfare state model. America has a command economy.
politics: Both are democracies but Finland has no electoral college so it's exclusively popular vote
culture: Even in their cities Finns are the "better to be seen but not heard" humble types that don't want to disrupt anyone's chill. America is much more in your face and assertive, at least in cities. The kindness to other people required to fix homelessness just isn't found in America in huge numbers.
welfare system: Ain't shit free in America.
race relations: Brace yourself, because I'm about to use another right-wing talking point: Finland is a homogenous white society. It's also super fucking racist.
Finland remains one of the most racist countries in Europe. Finnish society has an issue with structural racism, which must be dismantled.
www.amnesty.fi
.
America is too, so we finally found a 1-to-1 comparison of Finland and America, but it works for me and not for you. Finland is fine devoting so much of it's resources to housing Finns because they're their racial brethren. True Finns. Who the FUCK do you think wants to spend money to put black people in permanent housing in America? Nobody, that's who. Especially not Republicans, they already think we're freeloaders.
amount and response to crime: America has tons of crime. Finland does not. This is the same for like all the Nordic nations. You could argue that the reason that the homeless in Finland aren't committing violent crimes is because they're being provided for by the government, and you might be right, but that started with a culture of kindness from the beginning. Introducing this level of care in America is just asking for exploitation of governmental resources as well as of the naivety of good-intentioned people (Leftists).
international relations: Finland is fine taking in Ukrainians, but they're less fine taking in brown immigrants, go figure. But that's still better than immigration policy in America.
So yeah. So much about what makes America America is antithetical to what makes Finland Finland. So what works in Finland isn't guaranteed to work in America, and is almost guaranteed not to.
Context matters. Think critically, not emotionally.
I don't think you know what virtue signaling means, but I did Google first. Seems way too simplified to avoid addressing the fact that housing can be far more affordable, if not guaranteed, regardless of mental health.
So you are telling me you googled this, read that nearly half of the homeless population has mental health problems and that the number is even higher if you consider addiction to alcohol or drug abuse and your reaction to what I said is ask if i got it from trump?
So if we got rid of poverty, then fewer people would have drug issues and mental health issues? Not to mention, hopefully also ending homelessness?
Poverty is still the problem and the root cause of homelessness. Mental illness may play some part, but people who have been struggling for a while or live in high cost of living areas tend to lose their homes if their financial situations change out of nowhere.
So you are telling me you googled this, read that nearly half of the homeless population has mental health problems and that the number is even higher if you consider addiction to alcohol or drug abuse and your reaction to what I said is ask if i got it from trump?
The sources I've seen did not mention if these homeless people became mentally ill after becoming homeless or before, and if it was due to poverty or not.
This is how they're gonna do it. Shift the culture. By buying up all the things that have cultural significance to people and warping them into rightwing anti-woke caricatures.
His argument is that DnD is trying to appeal to more people, and that's the reason it's not good, because of corporate decisions to acquire a larger fanbase (that is NOT DnD's problem right now). He also argued about what the characters look like, which is a dumb argument to make, because in DnD you get to design your own characters, with your own art, your own figurines, your own headcanon if you want. The vast majority of it is theatre of mind, so it only looks the way you think it looks (when I play it's always just fucking anime lmfao).
So if the way DnD looks is upsetting him, despite the fact that it only looks the way you imagine it to look... what's his real problem with the look of it?
Even worse, he introduces us to 5e compatible books he made himself, designed the way he wanted. This is a big part of the DnD community: making your own campaigns with custom lore, spells, monsters, worlds, etc. So why can't he just keep doing that? Why does he need Elon Musk of all people to stop WoTC from trying to appeal to more people?
DnD doesn't stop being DnD no matter what style of art is used for it. And I know that's not his true problem, because if you look at any modern DnD content you'll see that they all are high-quality fantasy designs that look like something you'd find on a Magic: The Gathering booster pack.
I guess if you're not familiar with DnD you wouldn't know, but I am. So I know.
So if we got rid of poverty, then fewer people would have drug issues and mental health issues? Not to mention, hopefully also ending homelessness?
Poverty is still the problem and the root cause of homelessness. Mental illness may play some part, but people who have been struggling for a while or live in high cost of living areas tend to lose their homes if their financial situations change out of nowhere.
Both. If we get better at handling poverty, less people will get mental health and drug issues.
If we get better at treating mental health and drug issues, less people will fall into poverty.
Even if you have a cheap flat, if you stop paying your bills because you are too depressed to open your mail, you are gonna end up homeless eventually.
Germany has a homelessness problem even tho government will pay for your flat + food if you apply for it. So even when the cost of housing is secured, people become homeless or stay homeless even tho they could theoretically take that option.
I am not saying that to downplay the cost of living crisis, but especially in america, drugs and mental health play a huge role.
Yes, having politicians be chosen democratically is good even when you don't get what you want, because it was accomplished fairly and honestly. It will lead to bad things. A lot of bad things. But no one ever said democracy was perfect. What do you want me to do, storm the capital?
What i want you to understand is that democracy is a lot more than "there was a vote" and polit-bots that try to manufacture support by reading polls instead of fighting for what they think is right.
1000% yes, because she didn't change her mind based on the danger it causes to the environment, she changed her mind because of the danger it causes to the economy. It's incredibly believable. It's infinitely more believable when you consider she did so to distance herself from those that are further left, to appeal to centrists and conservatives.
That seems really gullible bordering to naive. It also does not seem honest. You put an actual reason right there: to distance herself from the left. For Kamala Harris, politics is a game in which she cares about her stance only in so far as to what it expresses and what it gains her, not whether it is right or wrong.
This coming from someone that won't even listen to an argument based on who it came from? You're in no position to talk, because the only facts you accept are ones that come from people you're emotionally driven by. At least I can acquire facts without allowing my bias to determine what's real for me.
You can't. What you do is search for things that seem to support your views (so going in fully biased), googling them for 5 min and then slapping a completely copy and paste here without doing your own research or your own thinking. That makes you vulnerable, because you are unable to judge whether a source is trustworthy or not.
Your claim that it doesnt matter what a source comes from as long as the facts are right is a very naive stance, because you are unable to judge whether what the source says is accurate or not. You have zero clue about the topic (whether it is fracking or housing first) because you never looked at different data, different approaches, longer articles, what kind of studies there are and what they support and do not support. You take the first best source as ammunition for an argument and claim that this is a better way to look for the truth than to understand the bias behind sources.
By your logic, a pampleth from a car manufacturer about how great their cars are is just as good of a source as an independend review of the car as long as you are unable to spot where the manufacturer might have lied. But that is not a good idea in practice, because you are unable to spot all lies and halftruths.
That is also not how we do this professionally. In science, it matters whether you are able to publish in a peer reviewed paper. Not all papers are equal. In Journalism, we care a lot about how trustworthy a source is. The same is true for history studies.
Saying that what you delivered there is a good way to read up on the homelessness crisis is like saying some flat earth site is a good way to learn about astrophysics. Just because you cannot spot what might be wrong with the flat earther's words does not mean you should trust it.
No, it's literally because America isn't Finland. There's no such thing as a one size fits all homelessness correction policy because of the things causing the homelessness in different areas aren't all the same things. And when it comes to the environments where these people find themselves homeless, depending on the structure of society certain things are possible while others just aren't. By structure I mean economy, politics, culture, welfare system (this is the big one), race relations, amount and response to crime, and maybe even international relations.
Okay, america is not Finland, so universial healthcare shouldnt be a thing in america? Why did democrats fight for it then?
"It is a different country" is not an argument in itself. When exactly was the Finish model tried in the US? What about it that cannot be corrected failed?
You'd have to present actual concrete points here, not just claims like "It cannot be done because we are less homogenous". That is a claim that would need backing up, because the concept works just fine in areas with many Muslims in Finland. The same goes for your other claims. You cannot just slap headcanon onto a problem as if it is a fact. If you claim it as if it is a fact, you'd need actual evidence for that and that would require you actually researching the topic deeply to understand which common arguments have more and which common arguments have less legitimacy to it. Right now, you are just looking for the first argument that supports you point and choose to believe it. If you ACTUALLY want to think criticially, at least.
Who the FUCK do you think wants to spend money to put black people in permanent housing in America? Nobody, that's who. Especially not Republicans, they already think we're freeloaders
Leftists. That is who actually cares for homeless people and would also be willing to sacrifice serious effort and resources to diminish homelessness and stop poverty. Which brings us back to my original point. When a Liberal like you, Kamala or Newsom talks about "these people", they are nothing more than an opportunity to get voters by making these voters feel better about themselves because "something is done for the homeless". But just as quickly, they betray poor or homeless or otherwise oppressed people once it suits them. Because for them, the end of poverty is not a value they actually pursue, it is a nice to have that creates good optics. And that is the big difference between a liberal and a leftist. That is not the perfect in the way of the good here. That is "i dont fucking care and i will not do it unless it helps my agenda".
Leftists do not just care for white people or for their fellow middle class friends. Their original values are freedom, brotherhood and equality. And they MEAN these values, even when it is hard. Which is why they will similarly be betrayed and shunned aside by Liberals once it suits them, which is why we do well not to trust them farther than we can throw them.
What i want you to understand is that democracy is a lot more than "there was a vote" and polit-bots that try to manufacture support by reading polls instead of fighting for what they think is right.
That seems really gullible bordering to naive. It also does not seem honest. You put an actual reason right there: to distance herself from the left. For Kamala Harris, politics is a game in which she cares about her stance only in so far as to what it expresses and what it gains her, not whether it is right or wrong.
Kamala claimed to be anti-fracking because it would get her votes from the Democrats that were concerned with climate change. Later, she changed her mind to being pro-fracking because of votes she wanted from Democrats who feared how stopping fracking would cause fuel prices to skyrocket, and people were already complaining about gas prices. This choice would also solidify the idea that she's not on the far left.
If this is naive, gullible, or dishonest to you, it's only because you feel like you have to defend... some point that doesn't even help your argument, no matter how bad it makes you look in the process. That's not a worthwhile endeavor.
Okay, america is not Finland, so universial healthcare shouldnt be a thing in america? Why did democrats fight for it then?
"It is a different country" is not an argument in itself. When exactly was the Finish model tried in the US? What about it that cannot be corrected failed?
Never said anything about whether it should be a thing or not. I'm a socdem because I think the Nordic model is the ideal that I wish America would adopt. My claim, which I'm convinced you're deliberately obfuscating now, is that America DOESN'T have that, and that's why attempting things that are reliant on such a system can't work. And I know that "It's a different country" isn't argument enough. That's why I listed to you many of the differences between both countries, all of which would have some effect on homelessness. And you know that. You're just being dishonest. Again.
You'd have to present actual concrete points here, not just claims like "It cannot be done because we are less homogenous". That is a claim that would need backing up, because the concept works just fine in areas with many Muslims in Finland. The same goes for your other claims. You cannot just slap headcanon onto a problem as if it is a fact. If you claim it as if it is a fact, you'd need actual evidence for that and that would require you actually researching the topic deeply to understand which common arguments have more and which common arguments have less legitimacy to it. Right now, you are just looking for the first argument that supports you point and choose to believe it. If you ACTUALLY want to think criticially, at least.
The best part about being right, is that it doesn't require consensus. I don't have to live up to any standard for evidence you provide for me. And I'm glad, because I would never want my standard for evidence to be based on my emotions.
But these questions are connected. I was asking you about your stance that it would be antidemocratic if newsom would not have abandoned his homeless-friendly stance once he saw more voting potential in destroying tents. You thought he was doing the right thing as long as people wanted what he did. But then whatever republicans do, as long as they end up winning, would be fine either. You tried to qualify that by saying Republicans are bad because they lie, but obviously choosing policies just by what is trending is not a truthful stance, either.
Kamala claimed to be anti-fracking because it would get her votes from the Democrats that were concerned with climate change. Later, she changed her mind to being pro-fracking because of votes she wanted from Democrats who feared how stopping fracking would cause fuel prices to skyrocket, and people were already complaining about gas prices. This choice would also solidify the idea that she's not on the far left.
If this is naive, gullible, or dishonest to you, it's only because you feel like you have to defend... some point that doesn't even help your argument, no matter how bad it makes you look in the process. That's not a worthwhile endeavor.
Indeed, Kamala chose her fracking stance just for whether it would grant her power, not for whether it was right or wrong. Its not like the argument of economy was not there when she was for fracking (not that it is a particularly good argument, but still). And that is another showing of the fact that mainstream democrats have no values.
That is what differentiates her from a leftist. A leftist would not just play social justice vs climate justice and then commit to neither. He might see a difficult tradeoff, but that is not what happened here. Kamala framed it as if sane climate goals are reachable while expanding gas use. They are not.
Never said anything about whether it should be a thing or not. I'm a socdem because I think the Nordic model is the ideal that I wish America would adopt. My claim, which I'm convinced you're deliberately obfuscating now, is that America DOESN'T have that, and that's why attempting things that are reliant on such a system can't work. And I know that "It's a different country" isn't argument enough. That's why I listed to you many of the differences between both countries, all of which would have some effect on homelessness. And you know that. You're just being dishonest. Again.
You listed these differences without providing any evidence that these difference are meaningful for the problem at hand. That is about as useful as if i'd write you a long list of similarities (Both Finland and the US have libraries, after all!) and conclude that all policies from one can be adopted unchanged by the other. It is a mirage, not a proper argument.
Nobody said that there would be zero need for regional adjustments. What I am saying (and what we do have a body of evidence for) is that guaranteeing shelter without conditions is the foundation of the best known way to reduce homelessness. And there is no other way to do that which democrats would propose. When you say "perfect in way of the good", then show me the good. Where is it? Taking down tents is not going to reduce homelessness. The truth is, and the thing we originally talked about, that moderate democrats have no plans to actually EVER end homelessness. Is not a goal, not even a longterm goal. They are not going to put in effort. They are not saying "we cannot adopt this policy right now, but we are committing heavily to a necessary step that will enable us to do it later". They are saying "fuck the homeless" in a nicer way than republicans do the second they think it helps them get some votes.
The best part about being right, is that it doesn't require consensus. I don't have to live up to any standard for evidence you provide for me. And I'm glad, because I would never want my standard for evidence to be based on my emotions.
Yeah, but it requires evidence. It is pretty rich you accuse others of going by emotion while you just fantasize your facts the way they suit you. There is a difference between fact, interpretation, opinion and logical conclusion. Most of the time when you talk about facts, you mean something else entirely. When you say Housing first cannot be done in america because america is less homogenous, that is your OPINION. It is an opinion you may see good arguments for, but without evidence for it, these arguments are pretty worthless. It is not different from a climate change denier saying "Well, I dont think climate change exists because the winter was pretty cold". It is something he might find logical, but he just has an opinion that he has an argument (of questionable value) for.
If you wanna talk facts, talk actual facts. If you wanna talk opinions, admit that they are exactly that.
But these questions are connected. I was asking you about your stance that it would be antidemocratic if newsom would not have abandoned his homeless friendly stance once he saw more voting potential in destroying tents. You thought he was doing the right thing as long as people wanted what he did. But then whatever republicans do, as long as they end up winning, would be fine either. You tried to qualify that by saying Republicans are bad because they lie, but obviously choosing policies just by what is trending is not a truthful stance, either.
No I didn't. You asked me if it's right that they won, and I said yes, because they won the right way. I bit the bullet. Democracy isn't only Democracy when the good guys win.
Indeed, Kamala chose her fracking stance just for whether it would grant her power, not for whether it was right or wrong. Its not like the argument of economy was not there when she was for fracking (not that it is a particularly good argument, but still). And that is another showing of the fact that mainstream democrats have no values. It doesnt matter for Kamala, she does what she thinks will give her power.
It is a good argument because it's true. And she could've been the most Left leaning candidate ever, if she didn't win the election it wouldn't matter. And she can't win without appealing to what people want. You're complaining about her not trying to lose harder. It's... you're perpetuating the stereotype right now.
Do you think I think she's a Leftist? Who cares what the difference between a Leftist and a Democrat is? My argument has always been that they're both on the left, just one is further left than the other.
A leftist is not like that. A leftist (or an otherwise honest person) would understand that climate justice and social justice are two sides of the same coin, come up with a plan to tackle climate change while also fighting for social justice. What he would not do is claim that we can reach sane climate targets without a fracking ban. Because we can't.
That's why they're always going to lose in America. Because they're willing to tell people what they SHOULD want, instead of fighting for what they DO want. Failure isn't admirable. Even if you're failing by upholding your personal values. Hell, especially if you're failing by upholding your personal values, because that means you're placing what YOU want above the wishes of the masses. And in the off chance that they hit on a policy people DO want, they can't compromise in order to get it done.
You listed these differences without providing any evidence that these difference are meaningful for the problem at hand. That is about as useful as if i'd write you a long list of similarities (Both Finland and the US have libraries, after all!) and conclude that all policies from one can be adopted unchanged by the other. It is a mirage, not a proper argument.
I'm not dealing with pedantry. If you're incapable of engaging in good faith, then I'm incapable of engaging, period.
Nobody said that there would be zero need for regional adjustments. What I am saying (and what we do have a body of evidence for) is that guaranteeing shelter without conditions is the best known way to reduce homelessness.
When you say "perfect in way of the good", then show me the good. Where is it? Taking down tents is not going to reduce homelessness. The truth is, and the thing we originally talked about, that moderate democrats have no plans to actually EVER end homelessness. Is not a goal, not even a longterm goal. They are not going to put in effort. They are not saying "we cannot adopt this policy right now, but we are committing heavily to a necessary step that will enable us to do it later". They are saying "fuck the homeless" in a nicer way than republicans do the second they think it helps them get some votes.
Today, the Biden-Harris administration will announce the launch of ALL INside, a first-of-its-kind initiative to address unsheltered homelessness across
www.whitehouse.gov
Feels like you would've looked something like this up before speaking so confidently. Did you seriously just memorize the Newsom stuff alone and not look into the actions of Democrats concerning homelessness?
It is a good argument because it's true. And she could've been the most Left leaning candidate ever, if she didn't win the election it wouldn't matter. And she can't win without appealing to what people want. You're complaining about her not trying to lose harder. It's... you're perpetuating the stereotype right now.
There we are again with your opinions.
There is no evidence for Harris doing worse if she had been for a saner climate policy. There is also no evidence that a fracking ba would cost more lives than no fracking ban.
Do you think I think she's a Leftist? Who cares what the difference between a Leftist and a Democrat is? My argument has always been that they're both on the left, just one is further left than the other.
No, I do not think she is a leftist. Nor is she on the left, as these are equivalent. Because people on the left would not completely abandon maingoals of what it means to be left (freedom, equality, fraternity) for some votes. But Mainstream democrats do that, over and over.
These people and people who are on the left are not fighting for the same core beliefs, they are politically very different groups.
That's why they're always going to lose in America. Because they're willing to tell people what they SHOULD want, instead of fighting for what they DO want. Failure isn't admirable. Even if you're failing by upholding your personal values. Hell, especially if you're failing by upholding your personal values, because that means you're placing what YOU want above the wishes of the masses. And in the off chance that they hit on a policy people DO want, they can't compromise in order to get it done.
In most modern elections, what we see over and over is moderates trying to water down popular leftist policies and fail. It really isnt like American Democrats have run a proper left candidate in ages. And I am personally pretty sure that Sanders would have done better than Clinton (but I am not claiming my opinion is a fact).
This is beyond the point the point tho. You can hate what a leftist is for all I care, but it should be sufficiently clear then now that a person on the left and a mainstream democrat are two very different things. Even a moderate who is on the left would not just give up on climate justice if he understands what that even means.
What this plan actually entails is, roughly, to send some help to communities so they can tackle homelessness (both financial and advisory aid) and build affordable housing. That is not a bad idea, there is nothing inherently wrong with it and I am not blasting it. But this is not what we talked about: a longterm plan to eradicate homelessness. Because as we have talked about, that would include much more and go beyond just the federal level (as a lot of this is decided by the states).
We were talking about newsom and how he is obviously different from a person who actually wants to end homelessness. And Newsom, as far as California goes, can call a lot more shots because California will always be governed by Democrats, so they can plan longterm. Newsom still decided to betray the homeless population of his state. That does not mean that everything about the reforms he pushed before was wrong. It just means that he did it because it seemed useful to him, not out of conviction and that it is not relevant to him whether the homelessness ends, as long as he is seen as having tried enough. In the places where democrats comfortably rule since forever, the fight against homelessness gets increasingly weaker and repressions against homeless grow. That is why I said there is no grand plan to end it, there are proposals that sound nice both federally and gubernationally on the one hand, and there are actions that speak louder than words on the other.
Newsom betrayed the homeless by pushing the blame on them instead of himself for problems with his policies. Much like Kamala betrayed the climate movement with no plans of ever actually doing enough about climate change.
I mean, honestly, you put it best yourself a few posts back. You thought nobody wants to spend money on black people getting housing in america. I agree, liberals wouldnt sacrifice a room in a 5 room flat to get a poor person off the street. But leftists do actually care for the poor gay mexican who freezes outside and it is not just a nice to have for them, polically.
So i do not know why it is so hard to see this very significant difference between people who are on the left and people who just think we should be a little nicer to the people freezing.
His argument is that DnD is trying to appeal to more people, and that's the reason it's not good, because of corporate decisions to acquire a larger fanbase (that is NOT DnD's problem right now). He also argued about what the characters look like, which is a dumb argument to make, because in DnD you get to design your own characters, with your own art, your own figurines, your own headcanon if you want. The vast majority of it is theatre of mind, so it only looks the way you think it looks (when I play it's always just fucking anime lmfao).
So if the way DnD looks is upsetting him, despite the fact that it only looks the way you imagine it to look... what's his real problem with the look of it?
Even worse, he introduces us to 5e compatible books he made himself, designed the way he wanted. This is a big part of the DnD community: making your own campaigns with custom lore, spells, monsters, worlds, etc. So why can't he just keep doing that? Why does he need Elon Musk of all people to stop WoTC from trying to appeal to more people?
DnD doesn't stop being DnD no matter what style of art is used for it. And I know that's not his true problem, because if you look at any modern DnD content you'll see that they all are high-quality fantasy designs that look like something you'd find on a Magic: The Gathering booster pack.
I guess if you're not familiar with DnD you wouldn't know, but I am. So I know.
Hmm, I went through the wikipedia article of WotC (digging deeper than seems seems like a chore) and it seems like the company has been screwing over content creators for a while. If I am understanding this right, the company has been sidelining and limiting content creators (changes to open game licenses) while at the same time pushing its own products and campaigns. A consequence of that was the DnD community turning on WotC and subsequently boycotting them. And even more egregiously the company failed to make money from this. This mostly sounds like a marketing failure to me (and disney, this also sounds exactly like disney).
I have some notion of what DnD is like but I have no context whatsoever of what magic the gathering looks like.
If I am understanding this right, the company has been sidelining and limiting content creators (changes to open game licenses) while at the same time pushing its own products and campaigns. A consequence of that was the DnD community turning on WotC and subsequently boycotting them. And even more egregiously the company failed to make money from this. This mostly sounds like a marketing failure to me (and disney, this also sounds exactly like disney).
It looks like DnD stuff. Just high fantasy Tolkien-esque swords and sorcery, with a bit of steampunk thrown in.
EDIT: AND WHADDYA KNOW, my post on his comment section explaining all the shitty things Elon Musk has done was deleted.
DOUBLE EDIT: And here's his response to Musk being a rightwing shithead:
Thank you so much for taking the time to compose this comment. It gives me a lot to think about. Something I tried to convey in this video is that even if Musk is up to no good, I still would want to speak with him, to do my part and try to fight for the sake of our beloved game-that's-more-than-a-game.
So... what's the problem? The company shifted strategies away from its base and aimed to appeal to broader audiences. By all appearances neither the original audience nor the new one the company targeted were interested in the new product hence it failed to make any money (the actual, real issue here). Honestly, the only thing I am getting from that video is "Can we get rid of the corporate BS and let us do what we like?". I'd understand your point if the company's new strategy had actually attracted a larger fanbase and said larger fanbase makes the company money but as far as I can tell not only this didn't happen but the company ended up with no fanbase (or at best a pissed off one).
So... what's the problem? The company shifted strategies away from its base and aimed to appeal to broader audiences. By all appearances neither the original audience nor the new one the company targeted were interested in the new product hence it failed to make any money (the actual, real issue here). Honestly, the only thing I am getting from that video is "Can we get rid of the corporate BS and let us do what we like?". I'd understand your point if the company's new strategy had actually attracted a larger fanbase and said larger fanbase makes the company money but as far as I can tell not only this didn't happen but the company ended up with no fanbase (or at best a pissed off one).
When it comes to finances and people not buying it, that was inevitable thanks to the internet, since the internet boom made homebrew DnD easier. People play DnD on their computers so they don't have to go to their friend's houses, on Discord with automatic dice roll scripts, jpg character avatars, randomly generated (free) maps, homemade character classes, homemade races, homemade lore and rulesets, all on the backbone on the current DnD system that MAYBE one of their friends bought and scanned onto a google doc for his discord server to use. Even if they wanted a more tactile, old-school experience, I've bought a 3d printer to make my own figurines and dice. I drew up maps on cardboard and paper. I created my own DnD-verse for me and my friends.
So the "get rid of corporate BS and let us do what we want" stuff was mainly for content creators. It was a huge hoopla a while back with lots of boycotting. And even with all those complaints, none of those explains his problem with the aesthetic. You know why? It's because he and I both know that since aesthetic is customizable, aesthetic is a dogwhistle for what he's really annoyed by.
He doesn't like seeing black elves. He doesn't like that WotC stopped using real life cultures to model races after. He doesn't like that racial stats were removed from the game. He doesn't like that your character can have a wheelchair. He doesn't like that you can put your pronouns on character sheets now. He doesn't like that you can no longer say "this race is genetically predisposed to anger" or "This race has a lower intelligence than most other races."
And just to prove my point about the aesthetic of DnD not really being a problem, do me a favor and help me with this thought experiment:
Imagine you're creeping ever so cautiously through a foggy swamp, shin deep in acrid water of a putrid green hue. The smell of the sticky muck that you can barely lift your feet from to trudge forward ahead of your band of unlikely heroes would turn your stomach if it wasn't for another more distracting smell. A familiar odor; one your Ranger's trained dire wolf relied on to bring you to this very location. It's the smell of brimstone. At first, you see nothing of primordial birth in the swamp before you. Neither demon, nor succubi. No devils. No hellhounds. The dire wolf growls in anticipation, it's back arched in defiance at an ethereal presence that none of the humanoid members of your troup notice until... CRASH! Lightning strikes in the distance, and now, a flickered image. The water around you is dark crimson, evidently blood. The leafless trees now made of bone, muscle, and sinew instead of deadwood. The low whistle of the wind blowing past is replaced with screams of agony, too many to discern an amount. Just as quickly as your surroundings changed, you're back in the muddy swamp.
The wolve's ears point back and it barks to ready it's master. The Ranger calls out to you "Over there!" before pulling an arrow from their quiver and knocking it, aimed ahead at an increasingly loud bubbling in the water about 5 yards ahead. "To arms!" calls the hulking Orc to your left, their battle axe brandished for combat. Behind you a blue light radiates and the recital of a language you don't recognize is chanted in repetition: your Cleric likely Blessing the party for what will soon be a combat encounter. Before words of encouragement can be spoken, a brutish creature, humanoid in shape, erupts from beneath the surface of the water, the glamour hiding it's true visage finally breaking as you realize you truly have traveled to the lair of an Arch Demon. 10 feet tall, maybe more, with red wings armed with razor sharp black talons at their tips. Tattered holes along the wings of the beast are telltale signs of years of combat it had survived. The horned adversary outstretches it's full wingspan before tossing it's head back and from it's gaping maw of jagged teeth it releases a guttoral yell that causes ripples in the blood pool you stand shin deep in. Flames escape it's mouth into the sky in a violent plume before your foe lowers into a fighting stance, rune-adorned halberd at the ready.
Roll for initiative.
Now, assume for a minute that the book you looked through to learn the rules for this game had a... really bad artstyle you didn't like. Let's assume all the characters looked like The Simpsons. And all the monsters looked like Pokemon. Did that have any effect on the "theatre of mind" you had in your head while placing yourself in this DnD scenario? If not, can you accurately explain why?
When it comes to finances and people not buying it, that was inevitable thanks to the internet, since the internet boom made homebrew DnD easier. People play DnD on their computers so they don't have to go to their friend's houses, on Discord with automatic dice roll scripts, jpg character avatars, randomly generated (free) maps, homemade character classes, homemade races, homemade lore and rulesets, all on the backbone on the current DnD system that MAYBE one of their friends bought and scanned onto a google doc for his discord server to use. Even if they wanted a more tactile, old-school experience, I've bought a 3d printer to make my own figurines and dice. I drew up maps on cardboard and paper. I created my own DnD-verse for me and my friends.
So the "get rid of corporate BS and let us do what we want" stuff was mainly for content creators. It was a huge hoopla a while back with lots of boycotting. And even with all those complaints, none of those explains his problem with the aesthetic. You know why? It's because he and I both know that since aesthetic is customizable, aesthetic is a dogwhistle for what he's really annoyed by.
He doesn't like seeing black elves. He doesn't like that WotC stopped using real life cultures to model races after. He doesn't like that racial stats were removed from the game. He doesn't like that your character can have a wheelchair. He doesn't like that you can put your pronouns on character sheets now. He doesn't like that you can no longer say "this race is genetically predisposed to anger" or "This race has a lower intelligence than most other races."
And just to prove my point about the aesthetic of DnD not really being a problem, do me a favor and help me with this thought experiment:
Imagine you're creeping ever so cautiously through a foggy swamp, shin deep in acrid water of a putrid green hue. The smell of the sticky muck that you can barely lift your feet from to trudge forward ahead of your band of unlikely heroes would turn your stomach if it wasn't for another more distracting smell. A familiar odor; one your Ranger's trained dire wolf relied on to bring you to this very location. It's the smell of brimstone. At first, you see nothing of primordial birth in the swamp before you. Neither demon, nor succubi. No devils. No hellhounds. The dire wolf growls in anticipation, it's back arched in defiance at an ethereal presence that none of the humanoid members of your troup notice until... CRASH! Lightning strikes in the distance, and now, a flickered image. The water around you is dark crimson, evidently blood. The leafless trees now made of bone, muscle, and sinew instead of deadwood. The low whistle of the wind blowing past is replaced with screams of agony, too many to discern an amount. Just as quickly as your surroundings changed, you're back in the muddy swamp.
The wolve's ears point back and it barks to ready it's master. The Ranger calls out to you "Over there!" before pulling an arrow from their quiver and knocking it, aimed ahead at an increasingly loud bubbling in the water about 5 yards ahead. "To arms!" calls the hulking Orc to your left, their battle axe brandished for combat. Behind you a blue light radiates and the recital of a language you don't recognize is chanted in repetition: your Cleric likely Blessing the party for what will soon be a combat encounter. Before words of encouragement can be spoken, a brutish creature, humanoid in shape, erupts from beneath the surface of the water, the glamour hiding it's true visage finally breaking as you realize you truly have traveled to the lair of an Arch Demon. 10 feet tall, maybe more, with red wings armed with razor sharp black talons at their tips. Tattered holes along the wings of the beast are telltale signs of years of combat it had survived. The horned adversary outstretches it's full wingspan before tossing it's head back and from it's gaping maw of jagged teeth it releases a guttoral yell that causes ripples in the blood pool you stand shin deep in. Flames escape it's mouth into the sky in a violent plume before your foe lowers into a fighting stance, rune-adorned halberd at the ready.
Roll for initiative.
Now, assume for a minute that the book you looked through to learn the rules for this game had a... really bad artstyle you didn't like. Let's assume all the characters looked like The Simpsons. And all the monsters looked like Pokemon. Did that have any effect on the "theatre of mind" you had in your head while placing yourself in this DnD scenario? If not, can you accurately explain why?
If argument is that DnD can't be profitable because of the internet then WotC is and similar companies are just irrelevant, there's no fixing this regardless of which audiences they appeal to. This is a very different scenario from the framing that WoTC sidelined content creators and failed to make money out of the wider audiences they catered to.
Wheelchairs? But, um, why? I've never played DnD before but if someone tells me he wants to go on a high fantasy adventure as a diabetic hobbit on a fucking wheelchair I'd probably feel like rolling said character of the nearest high fantasy waterfall. And maybe shave his feet for the lolz.
Isn't the point of having different races that they can have different attributes? This feels a bit like how amazon prime made the egregious mistake of making orcs into people in RoP.
I am not sure of what your point is in that last paragraph. If I buy a book which depicts stuff in the quest then yeah, it's absolutely going to shape how I picture said quest. If I never see it then of course it won't be relevant. I can't unsee stuff anymore than anyone else.
If argument is that DnD can't be profitable because of the internet then WotC is and similar companies are just irrelevant, there's no fixing this regardless of which audiences they appeal to. This is a very different scenario from the framing that WoTC sidelined content creators and failed to make money out of the wider audiences they catered to.
Wheelchairs? But, um, why? I've never played DnD before but if someone tells me he wants to go on a high fantasy adventure as a diabetic hobbit on a fucking wheelchair I'd probably feel like rolling said character of the nearest high fantasy waterfall in the vicinity.
The appeal of DnD is living vicariously through different characters in fantasy settings. But sometimes, you just want to be yourself (that's what I do. All my characters are black, even the elven ones and the one dwarf). Some people just don't want to take away something that's been a huge part of their lives even if it might be detrimental to the character. Or maybe they just want to tell a unique story. I know sometimes players will play a blind character so that they can tell a story of a character that uses spells in unique ways, like Magic Daredevil. Maybe they're a mute character that took a starting feat that allows them to use Telepathy, so now they just talk inside people's heads all eerie-like.
Isn't the point of having different races that they can have different attributes? This feels a bit like how amazon prime made the egregious mistake of making orcs into people in RoP.
Initially. But there are still differences in the races culture-wise, but not something that can be used to promote racism. And the races do get different attributes, just nothing like "Orcs are all dumb" or "Goblins are inherently kleptomaniacs." Which, keep in mind: you can STILL add all this stuff into your own game if you want. As the DM you decide the lore. Same thing with wheelchairs. Or firearms. Or automatons. This is why it makes no damn sense to complain about it.
I am not sure of what your point is in that last paragraph. If I buy a book which depicts stuff in the quest then yeah, it's absolutely going to shape how I picture said quest. If I never see it then of course it won't be relevant. I can't unsee stuff anymore than anyone else.
Hm. That's really unfortunate. I guess DnD really isn't for everyone then. The point was for you to visualize what is happening in the scenario and give it an aesthetic you like inside your head. To fill things in with your mind. Your imagination. You can't unsee something sure, but you can choose what you see in your head (that's why it's called theatre of the mind). You just have to imagine that it looks a certain way. I didn't describe the armor of the characters, their hair color, any scars, any skin tone (admittedly, this is what your fellow players would add to the game, as they decide what their characters look like). I left tons for you to "color" your world with. That's what you were supposed to do. To leave all that in the hands of the artists is... I mean you CAN, it's just... I dunno, I guess there's no ONE WAY to play.
I for one, visualize everything in a Miura-style Berserk-esque aesthetic in my mind when playing DnD.
Sure, so what the hell is Elon Musk gonna do to fix that?
The appeal of DnD is living vicariously through different characters in fantasy settings. But sometimes, you just want to be yourself (that's what I do. All my characters are black, even the elven ones and the one dwarf). Some people just don't want to take away something that's been a huge part of their lives even if it might be detrimental to the character. Or maybe they just want to tell a unique story. I know sometimes players will play a blind character so that they can tell a story of a character that uses spells in unique ways, like Magic Daredevil. Maybe they're a mute character that took a starting feat that allows them to use Telepathy, so now they just talk inside people's heads all eerie-like.
Initially. But there are still differences in the races culture-wise, but not something that can be used to promote racism. And the races do get different attributes, just nothing like "Orcs are all dumb" or "Goblins are inherently kleptomaniacs." Which, keep in mind: you can STILL add all this stuff into your own game if you want. As the DM you decide the lore. Same thing with wheelchairs. Or firearms. Or automatons. This is why it makes no damn sense to complain about it.
Hm. That's really unfortunate. I guess DnD really isn't for everyone then. The point was for you to visualize what is happening in the scenario and give it an aesthetic you like inside your head. To fill things in with your mind. Your imagination. You can't unsee something sure, but you can choose what you see in your head (that's why it's called theatre of the mind). You just have to imagine that it looks a certain way. I didn't describe the armor of the characters, their hair color, any scars, any skin tone (admittedly, this is what your fellow players would add to the game, as they decide what their characters look like). I left tons for you to "color" your world with. That's what you were supposed to do. To leave all that in the hands of the artists is... I mean you CAN, it's just... I dunno, I guess there's no ONE WAY to play.
I for one, visualize everything in a Miura-style Berserk-esque aesthetic in my mind when playing DnD.
Most likely nothing. Best case scenario this is kanye asking zuckerberg for 50 million levels of clownery. Unless this is a business issue and the 0.01% chance of elon buying this materializes.
Hmmm, but isn't this issue about how the parent company or whatever both promotes and develops DnD products along with how it bonds to the DnD community? As you say, anyone can play how they want otherwise.
yeah, I don't care for guns in high fantasy.
I feel like you are trying to have it both ways there. If you have a book with a quest and art but then expect people to outright ignore it if they don't like the art? This is still a product people are buying, if the art sucks then it's reasonable for people to not buy it or otherwise engage with it if they don't like it. If it's free it's a different issue of course.
