The only reason not to do so is the vanishingly rare chance that democrats turn a red state, which is basically the exact same argument they use to tell people to vote blue no matter who, but more compelling because it's not typical genocidal am*rican politicians they're voting for.

What are they going to do? Tell you they want to vote for a war criminal on principle? The positive political pressure of having a somewhat popular socialist party far outweighs the small chance democrats could have won (and this is even from their perspective, that the democrats winning would fix everything somehow)

I've come to a realization, one which makes me angry that I didn't realize it sooner; Angry at g*mers , and myself . Because it turns out that "gitting gud" is an inherently ableist sentiment... sometimes.

Before you generate the ultimate PPB takedown comment, let me share this story and explain some of my reasoning. I think even people who are pro-"git gud" will agree with me here.

I find myself, shortly (ish) before posting this post, playing Terraria, again, for the first time in a while. I've progressed throughout almost the entirety of the game, with some overwhelming and tricky bosses that I ultimately learned to understand still despite their difficulty. Or so my copium was. In retrospect, I think I got lucky.

Now, Moon Lord , the evil cryptobro brother of Cthulu. Final boss of the vanilla game. I had 1 mod installed but it was entirely irrelevant to this, a rare example of a mod that's actually balanced and I encouraged me to mostly use just vanilla gear. I fight him, equipped with best in class equipment, a prepped arena with heart lanterns, a heart statue, campfires... And, one... two... three... four... six?!? times I tried, all without even properly reaching his second phase. I sort of went through the stages of grief here, propelled by an unyielding resolve to "git gud" and power through, all until the final sixth fight, where my resolve shatters and I furiously begin searching online for why this boss is so much absurdly harder than I remember when I have defeated him before, and whether others also felt so overwhelmed and at the mercy of luck while fighting him. I find others complaining, not about his difficulty, but about the form that difficulty takes. The sheer projectile spam, the overwhelming saturation of different attack patterns and laser beams and summoned enemies all at once. And of course, I find the typical GitGud statements, but I do my best to ignore them. I think about my issues... the overload of... oh it's the autism. And it all comes falling down.

It's taken me YEARS to realize that I have such a frustrating time in so many games, not because I suck at the game, not because I've chosen bad gear, not even because the games even necessarily all that difficult... But because it was built for someone with a greater ability to digest and dispose of sensory information than me. It was made for a fully abled neurotypical audience without any sensory processing issues, and I've been acting as if I am that audience despite knowing full well I'm not, that my sensory bandwidth is absurdly tiny compared to your average person.

So it all makes sense why I suck. But why didn't I realize sooner?

Because of "git gud" culture. No, not the phrase, though it is misused extremely often. But the general assumption that any issue someone may have completing a game is inherently one of motivation or laziness when it comes to practicing a skill, or because of some trivial mistake in analysis (wrong equipment, wrong abilities chosen, wrong character types...), and in the process ignoring the very real ways that people can simply be cut out of a game that might seem very accessible to a layman. And I think this isn't merely rooted in ableism. I mean, it is rooted in ableism, but it's also sourced from a non-holistic view of video games, from a perspective that the actual physical and material state of the person playing is irrelevant to how and what they play. That, then, is the reason why "git gud" and other such statements often feel so hostile and out of place, and are often used in such ableist and inconsiderate ways. It's not because telling "git gud" to someone who is actually enjoying learning the game but feels discouraged to for whatever reason is wrong. It's because g*mere responding "git gud" to every post critical of their game treats reveals their actual belief: That it is impossible for someone to struggle with a game for any reason other than their own inherent, often characterized as moral, failings.

So now I know. I need to stop trying to force myself to play games that simply aren't... designed for me. It sucks, but it makes a lot of sense, and I doubt any game company is going to be making games less overwhelming anytime in the future on my or anyone else's request- The legions of braying g*mer hogs demand that only they, the white cishet neurotypical men, can be allowed to actually enjoy the game.

Is this all just cope? Idk. Maybe a little? But would that even be bad? Maybe, but given how g*mers generally are, I think my theory on their behavior has some merit.

Is there policy on intentional beer throwing at people?

Edit: I thought it was funny because of how "epic badass" the OP was trying to come across, plus the absurd lengths the commenters went to defend obvious antisocial behavior. Remove your reddit brainworms! The joke is not someone wanting their girlfriend to not be harassed, the joke is Reddit

Honestly screw it, I don't think the OP is really funny anymore, either. They might come across as silly due to being angry but who doesn't? Plus they're vegan, so,

bullying, harassing, or even "criticizing" them is an entirely pointless endeavor that does nothing but make you feel superior to another person. having a "minimum standard" for random matchmaking is OK i guess, but not having that standard met is the developer's fault for not having proper matchmaking, not the random shitty player just trying to play the game.

and it's a game. it fundamentally does not matter if someone is so bad you can't get your +0.2 second record or whatever. it does not matter if you can't win the difficulty you chose. everyone starts somewhere, and in games where different difficulties tend to be almost like entirely different games, this is even more true. if you want a game where you have an 100% chance of everyone involved being at the correct skill level you want, than don't play with explicitly random players. no one cares if you want to feel special because you can win more at some fictional game than other people. I respect skill, but if you think that's a reason to bully people than you should leave every game scene ever to save people from your presence

if a player stumbles into something but doesn't understand it it's the developer's fault 90% of the time. if a player doesn't want to "git gud" it's the developer's fault 90% of the time. every single genuine criticism made about a game's difficulty is inherently valid. every game should have an easy mode. players should default to helping new players rather than dismissing them. learning a game by playing it is always more intuitive than using google or reading blog posts.

Before someone questions me, this is a phenomenon that has been documented. https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2022/05/24/during-general-anaesthesia-1-in-10-people-may-be-conscious-follo.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/12/surgical-patients-may-be-feeling-painand-mostly-forgetting-it/547439/

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190313-what-happens-when-anaesthesia-fails

Forgive me if this is the wrong place to post; c/mutualaid feels like it would draw attention away from people with more urgent issues, and c/mentalhealth is very inactive and rarely anyone ever sees it.

Interesting article, but I don't know if I agree with it. The constant appeals to "rational homo economicus" also make me actively want to disagree with it because I fucking hate economics. In my opinion ads don't prey on our "rational decisions" (which aren't that rational if we're being collectively tricked into them...), but instead our memory, by getting it stuck in our head and thinking of it when we have to think of what brands to purchase. So it isn't association, it's just the result of repetition creating memory.

Extra thoughts: I don't know if I agree with the whole concept that basically all oppression is rational or based on rational self interest. Certainly, a lot of it is, but a lot of it is also completely irrational too, and to imply it's somehow rational would be obscenely offensive to the targets of that prejudice. Are those who (internally, not performatively) experience disgust at seeing gay people "rational"? Are the knee-jerk ableist, lookist, shitty reactions many of us notice in our minds but fight off "rational"? I certainly hope I'm not alone in this...

It seems to me that culture values are very malleable, though our brains by themselves might not be. And by proxy we can be manipulated into so-called "irrational" (though in all actuality so-called rational behavior according to the social norms we internalized) when we internalize these social norms over years of interaction and teaching. People aren't "brainwashed" into loving capitalism, then, but rather they simply grew up in a society that instills the values of "independence, freedom, and responsibility" in them, giving them goals that align with capital over time. Though this doesn't mean they're a lost cause- Cultural values are vague and malleable, so "freedom" can be redefined into basically anything, and even base values can change drastically with exposure to new ideas. I would not be surprised if it is effectively a combination of Pavlovian conditioning and the rational behavior this author seems to believe in. The act of conforming for fitting in and not being alone, eventually internalized as you convince yourself it's what you actually want to do.

https://old.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/1dttr0f/there_are_currently_some_issues_with_xbox_live/

Ever since a commit was made to EasyList, a conflict has begun between UBlock Origin contributers and numerous mod developers that use the Modrinth platform. This is because this commit blocked multiple sponsorship referral banners on mod pages, specifically on the Modrinth website. Modrinth themselves has come out against this change to the EasyList block list and due to UBlock Origin using it by default, this is primarily a conflict between UBlock Origin's main contributors and active mod developers on Modrinth.

Mod developers complaints primarily are that the implementation was commonly breaking their mod pages, leading to important support links for players to be hidden, and that the change negatively affects them monetarily as independent developers. Some mod developers have begun automatically changing their referral links to prevent them from being blocked every time a commit attempts so. Mod developers' are concerned their livelihoods could be ruined by this EasyList change.

UBlock Origin has retorted that the sponsorship affiliate links fit the Easy List definition for an advertisement and therefore they will not make an exception. This is likely because implementing any kind of acceptable ads policy is out of the question for them, as a similar policy is what led to the original UBlock from becoming sub-par and less usable, leading to the UBlock Origin fork.

This primarily raises questions about how or why these mod developers are losing money. The presence of concern implies that their sponsors and affiliates are able to track each individual click or view for their referral links, a practice I am sure most would consider intrusive. We can only hope that this puts enough pressure on these companies and groups to remove tracking from their links.