I grew up southern baptist and it was an all-white church. I think I remember a time when there was 1 black family in attendance because they had just moved here. They didn’t come back for a second time. The southern baptist church split from the northern baptist church over slavery. Guess which side of that issue the southern baptist church was on?

I think the biggest predictor of whether people will vibe with Outer Wilds is how much natural curiosity they have and how self-motivated they are. Outer Wilds doesn’t push players towards any particular objective, it instead tries to give players questions so they go looking for answers. Of course a game that relies so heavily on intrinsic motivation isn’t going to be for everyone, but the thing that makes the game so difficult for some people to get into is the same thing that makes those who do get into it love it so much.

Some non-spoilery advice if you decide to give it another shot:

Use the ship log every loop and read what’s new. Look at the biggest cards in rumor mode and try to find them. There are several “secret” locations in the game that many of the hints point towards which contain information that puts the game’s mystery into perspective and gives players a sense of direction and purpose. In the playthroughs I’ve seen where they didn’t finish it was almost always because they played for a long time without finding any of the “big” secret locations.

Would be very funny, but New York is a Democratic stronghold. It’s very unlikely that Sliwa will gain much if any support he doesn’t already have.

Do you have a source I could look into about this? What I’ve seen so far suggests the call came from inside the house, since the people doing the coup are the same ones who installed Andry Rajoelina in the first place after a previous coup.

We need to be learning from this what happens when you topple a regime without a plan for what comes next. People who do have a plan are going to step in and take advantage, and the people who did all the work will have wasted their efforts making way for another tyrannical regime. It may have worked out (so far) for Nepal, but it’s not common for military leadership to relinquish power after they have it like they did there.

I won’t stand for this coal miner slander, they used to be militant unionists agitating for workers’ rights. They were thoroughly crushed and defeated, but not before making major material gains. Efforts have since been made by those in power to make the Appalachian people forget their history, and all that remains of that movement are traumatized and chronically ill elderly folk.

Another thing that’s happening with people that are “cancelled” is that they immediately get offered to join a group of “cancelled” public figures who bond over being disgusting pariahs and rebuild their careers by grifting to the right. Andrew Callaghan of channel 5 news (also All Gas No Brakes) talks about getting a job offer from InfoWars just a week after the sexual assault allegations against him went public. They anticipated he would respond by rebranding as “anti cancel culture” like so many others rather than admit fault and make a genuine effort to improve.

For those unaware of what happened with Andrew Callaghan, he had a habit of getting drunk and then pressuring/coercing women into having sex. His response was not perfect IMO, but he did confess that he had a problem and sobered up, which is more than can be said of most “victims of cancel culture.”

The military isn’t going to step in and save us unless they feel strongly that the public will support them wholeheartedly, and they aren’t going to feel that way if there isn’t massive and unprecedented civil unrest. That means the onus is on us.

“Jews and Muslims can’t coexist and it’s all the Muslims’ fault, that’s why we have to force Muslims off their land and establish a Jewish ethnostate. We have a right to it anyway because god gave it to us or whatever. How dare they fight back!”

This is your argument, and we are the ones being disingenuous?

You can’t act like Israel was just peacefully minding its own business when Hamas attacked. Israel was founded by ethnic cleansing and had been slowly trying to finish the job for decades by forcing Palestinians into smaller and smaller areas, taking control of their utilities and resources, and depriving them of their rights. Oct. 7th gave Israel an excuse to escalate what they had already been doing.

Ah, yes, because there’s only two options: a two state solution or the complete extermination of the entire Palestinian population. Is it really so difficult to imagine one state with equal rights for all? It’s not going to be easy getting there after all that’s taken place, but it is the only path to justice.

I’m no scientist but I think it would take an absurd and unrealistic amount of these to have any sort of noticeable effect on average wind speeds.

We use social media a bit differently, there’s no need to be rude. Replies on a public forum are a one-to-many communication. I replied to your comment to establish the context, but the question was directed to no one in particular. It was intended to foster discussion.

Question wasn’t directed at you, I was just putting it out there.

Why include ‘humiliated’ as something people should be protected from for expressing their political views? Fascists should absolutely be humiliated when they spew their bile in public. The first amendment is supposed to protect you from state censorship, not social pressure or ostracization.

This is a good thing, don’t get me wrong, but reading this is exhausting. Framing it as Israel “failing to prevent a humanitarian disaster” rather than actively committing genocide is such weasely bullshit.

“Terrorism is when you attempt to deliver food to starving children.”

• Dhar@lemmy.ca

If the public stance was not Democrats being 100% for Israel, then they believed they would have lost the election because of the political PACs and donors flipping to fund the opposition.

They chased the money and they lost. Trump had less funding and he won. Aren’t you interested in asking why?

Another question. If it is possible to win with less funding, why do you consider it a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation?

In hindsight it should be easy to see that they were only damned for what they did (backed a genocide), and would not have been otherwise. Too many people can’t get past their bitterness towards abstainers to consider how this outcome was an unforced error on the part of the DNC, and are seemingly content to repeat the same mistake.

Where’s the lie?

Some people are, it’s called antitheism. I confess when I was an edgy 16yo I was like that, but I had just left a religious cult so don’t judge me too harshly.