You’re rockstar. Are you going to give up on all steam sales for all your games, or your shitty launcher?

I’m just hoping we can sort things out before it gets as bad as Nazi Germany was. Maybe I’m being overly optimistic, but having a defeatist attitude certainly won’t help our chances.

Honestly we were screwed long before now, but yes. Its going to be a slow decline into fascism until we collectively wise up. I do think there’s a real possibility of that happening, but its going to take a lot of work.

Gross to me that multiple comments here are ignoring this reality. Crimes committed by men against women in situations like that are so common that women aren’t protecting themselves unless they consider every unfamiliar man a potential threat.

Obviously women can also commit crimes against men, but its so much less common that I don’t have to take precautions to protect myself against them.

As a man it kind of sucks when you are assumed to be dangerous even when you aren’t, but you need to get over it. Its not worth it for women to compromise their safety, and assume you to not be a threat just to make you feel better.

You mean women are also capable of committing crimes? I’m gonna need some more sources for an outlandish take like that.

Taiwan is only strategically important to the us because it manufactures those chips. Trump’s goal is to increase production in the us, so we aren’t forced to intervene when mainland China comes for them.

I’ve seen boomers complain about a lot of things, but young people’s propensity for addiction is not one of them.

I wish it was considered normal for games like this to die out. Trying to maintain your audience with new content every few months is unsustainable. Ideally these games would release with the content the designers intended, no more and no less, and they would slowly lose their less dedicated players.

That way the more dedicated players aren’t frustrated by having to keep up with a rapidly changing game, and can just get better in peace. I would guess this wouldn’t be profitable for a free to play game with micro-transactions. But, I have a crazy idea. Just charge for the game up front.

No, because Facebook is not explicitly designed for the sole purpose of illegal transactions. Very clear difference.

I think its slightly dishonest to frame this as him simply “creating a website”. He created a marketplace to sell drugs on, I just don’t understand the sympathy. I feel bad for low level drug dealers in jail, this guy not so much.

I would agree it could’ve been handled differently, same with every other aspect of the war on drugs. But celebrating this guy is a step too far for me.

Why are people in support of this guy?

Your argument is one you see very often among those that espouse the lost cause narrative.

I will admit to misinterpreting a speech, but do not accuse me of that. Thinking Lincoln was not necessarily against slavery does not mean I am pro slavery.

I was unaware Lincoln held such strong abolitionist beliefs, he isn’t lying that he was quiet about it for a long time. Rereading the quote, it does seem clear he is carefully trying to avoid mentioning his actual attitudes on the subject while negotiating with the south.

I clearly haven’t done enough research into that part of Lincoln’s life. I apologize for acting like I have, that quote seemed very much like it was said by someone indifferent to slavery. And the initial use of abolitionism as a tool to help the north in the civil war lined up with that interpretation.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. " – Abraham Lincoln

He literally could not have possibly been more clear about this.

Presidential pardons apply only to federal crimes, and he does not have the power to deschedule anything. He has the power to ask the dea to request the scheduling be reconsidered.

He was the best possible man to be president at that time, my point really is just that the president alone cannot make massive changes like that. I probably could have worded that better.

Lincoln kind of ended slavery, but only in a territory he was at war with. He never actually did anything through standard political means. In fact he wasn’t even opposed to slavery, he just used abolition to help preserve the union. The true end of slavery in america occurred with a constitutional amendment.

He doesn’t have a chance to do anything because he is the president, not a majority of congress.

Because people receiving the death penalty theoretically did something wrong, and fetuses did not. I’m neither against abortion nor pro death penalty, and I don’t really see a contradiction there.

I don’t have a strongly held belief regarding the existence of any gods.

The strongly held belief I’m referring to isn’t a belief in a god or lack thereof, its a belief that religion is a net negative for society.

I’m surprised you’re not aware of this.

To say I’m not aware of this is again to argue in bad faith. I have mentioned myself that religious indoctrination of course still exists, and is a problem.

As for the assessment of benefits, there’s a great deal of research into what people do with their lives and why.

Yes there is research into how religion affects society, but it isn’t very useful for this purpose for multiple reasons. There is no instance of a society without religion, so the difference between a religious and non-religious society can’t be studied. There can be no consensus on what is beneficial and what isn’t, as morality itself isn’t objective.

There is not and there never will be definitive evidence as to whether or not religion is beneficial for society.

There is nothing to suggest we need religion for any of the benefits that religious people say they obtain from it,

There is also nothing to suggest the opposite, because this can’t really be determined. You would have to so create a set of all the benefits religious people claim to get, which in and of itself would be a monumental task. Then, you would have to demonstrate that nonreligious people can achieve all of the exact same benefits.

This is why I’ve come to the conclusion that this argument is pointless, and neither of us know anything beyond our personal experience.

I stand by what I said and painting it as absolutes is arguing in bad faith.

This I agree with. Looking back, you were more careful than I thought you were to specify you were not talking in absolutes.

I will however double down that you are still making a fundamental assumption that your option is the correct one, and you make it more clear by arguing that all benefits of religion are possible without religion. If all benefits of religion can be attained without risking the detriment, then religion is the worse option by far.

However, thinking of this made me realize I’m just making the opposite assumption. Just like you, I’ve constructed a strongly held belief about religion based on my life experiences, which are entirely anecdotal and effectively meaningless.

How would you even get evidence that most people are manipulated into becoming religious? How would you get evidence that most people don’t? How would you get evidence that religion does or doesn’t benefit people? How would you even define benefit in the first place?

This argument is meaningless.