That is over 10 years at 4h a day every single day.

Well, could just have started the game, then went to get the doorbell, got hit by a car on his porch and was in a coma for a year before he could get back to close the game.

My point is that Gaza should have no impact on your voting decision at all because not voting, voting Democrats and voting Republicans will get you the same outcome there, which would also be the outcome you got from literally any other US administration or potential administration (as in candidate that lost) in the entire history of Israel’s existence.

Which leaves all the other potential considerations. Trust in the Democratic party can certainly be one of those but don’t pretend not voting makes you morally better on the Gaza issue itself. That whole “inaction makes me better” mindset when action and inaction have literally the same outcome needs to die because it is literally not true.

I mean judging by the comments people get when they say it is too stressful it could also be considered too relaxing. They always claim everything is optional and that somehow makes the game relaxing but even if I try to do just one of the things I could do the energy and slow walking and passing out mechanics still make it about as relaxing as getting something done in another game while some PvP griefers keep sniping my character randomly in the middle of tasks. At that rate not playing the game is infinitely more relaxing than playing it and just not doing anything at all.

It really isn’t for everyone. I tried it and hated every minute of it, super-stressful and tedious and returned it (one of only a handful of games in my Steam collection of a few hundred) because it was advertised as relaxing when it is anything but.

Not voting to absolve yourself from moral responsibility for the outcome is a fallacy though. Many people do believe that inaction somehow makes them less responsible but that just isn’t the case. Inaction isn’t the magical option, you still have to live with the outcome and you still have all the same opportunity costs as with any choice on the ballot.

If you think you aren’t responsible for the events in Israel and Palestine because you didn’t vote for either candidate you are just deluding yourself.

That is more along the lines of high government official protection at special events they attend in other countries though, not a standard practice at normal sports games.

But plenty of people cannot stomach voting for poisoning the townspeople in the first place.

But they are not doing anything against that by abstaining from voting. They are still giving their consent to the poisoning, just by doing nothing instead of doing something, that is literally the only difference.

My whole point is that the “inaction is better than action” bias when evaluating options is bizarre to me.

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_bias seems to be the term used for the phenomenon.

I was specifically talking about changing the election system, not just getting elected.

The enemy in fascism is always all powerful and inferior at the same time.

I don’t think it is quite that simple. It is more like part of each party is controlled by that interest but there are also people who genuinely try to achieve something matching their own world view, some of those good, some bad.

Yeah, that is a very weird position to hold, the status quo is shit for me but I don’t want change. Not disagreeing with you though that it is that way.

I really don’t understand this whole Palestine argument. You have the choice between two candidates who both have very similar positions on the issue in a country that has historically never held any other position on it, regardless of who was in power and somehow you make that the one deciding issue for this election even though it literally makes no difference on the issue who you vote for in the election.

I think the problem isn’t the cities, it is the rural bits in between that won’t want to give up their excess power per vote in the current system.

Which rights are they talking about here?

But it’s not so straightforward when your vote is support for something you can’t stomach. Can you understand how that is difficult for people?

No, I honestly can’t understand that. That whole mindset that doing nothing is somehow more in line with your morals than doing something even though both can have equally bad outcomes is incredibly bizarre to me and reminds me of stupid moral exercises like the trolley problem.

The main reason not to worry too much about Trump staying in office after this term is that his health makes it very unlikely that he will survive significantly longer than this term based on age alone. Or in other words even as a dictator for life he wouldn’t last much longer than roughly one term. The real question is what kind of damage he can do to the system within that time.

I don’t think Hillary Clinton was rejected primarily because she was a woman but primarily because she was about as establishment as it gets in an election that was shaping up early on as an anti-establishment election.

I would love to see some new form of having arguments that prevent all that going in circles with the same arguments reappearing again and again. Possibly even one where it matters less if you don’t think of just the correct way of phrasing it in the moment because the arguments can be refined in place and extra info like evidence added later, something like a wiki with a graph of common political arguments.

Somehow I feel the form of our public discourse, both within the various camps and in greater society, is in large part to blame for the state our political systems are in today. Sound-bites, tweets, short videos at best, headlines. Nuance is required for a lot of modern problems and it just isn’t there.

The “both parties are the same” thing is one of the most successful right-wing talking points ever, just after “conservative parties are more fiscally responsible”.