luciferofastora

Hey, don't apologise or defend yourself for loving something! I'm pretty sure you'll find plenty of people sharing your enthusiasm, if not about this game then about others. Loving something is wonderful and I hope you have tons more fun with it 😊

Actually, it would be OOP.suck(ddplf.getBalls())

So ~80 hours for a completionist run? That's decent

Recursion is its own reward

An introduction to which topic?

Yeah, well, some of us aren't willing to give up just yet. Some of us are willing to reach for that slim chance that there is a way out. Some of us are trying to make things better, but like all political activism that has to follow some strategic approach.

I didn't hear many people complain about "both sides endorse genocide" until this election. Up to the primaries, pressuring your party to be anti-genocide is good and reasonable, and after the election is done, when the new government is being formed, pressuring it to be anti-genocide is critical, but right now, the strategic thing is to focus on things this election can change.

That sudden upsurge of "both sides" rhetoric particularly in leftist spaces is concerning. Whether out of ignorance of how funding works, defeatism like yours or genuinely bad actors seeking to manipulate the election, it sabotages that pragmatic effort to keep the fascist out of office and buy time for more direct measures like protests, petitions, whatever else you want.

"Both sides bad" may be true, but right now, it's not helpful for leftist efforts.

Will anything make a difference to Israel being allowed to continue state terrorism and war against civilians?

Only one way to find out: Trying. But mathematically, drawing votes away from the non-Trump candidate increases the risk of another Trump presidency, and that carries the risk of further curtailing options.

The killing of innocents is not less important just because of political convenience.

...and which innocents do you actually have a chance to protect?

On a pragmatic level, what is your suggested course of action?

Yes, saying that killing innocents is wrong is 'vapid'.

No. Refusing to vote or voting third party is. At best, it will make no difference.

Protesting against the Genocide is right and important, but I'm railing against the people intent on dragging this topic to the public right before an election. The only people it will affect are left-leaning voters, and drawing them away from the non-Trump option sabotages that option.

Save the protest until the election is done, then hold the government (not just Harris; allocation of funding is a parliamentary decision and the President's veto can't do much but delay it and lock up government) accountable.

To be clear, Genocide is bad, what's happening in Gaza is Genocide, the US regime is complicit and all of this is fucked up. But the immediate priority should be unity to keep things from escalating beyond democratic control.

I'm not telling anyone to not vote for whoever they think has the highest chance of minimizing harm

And anyone who explicitly decides voting for Harris/Walz explicitly decides they are fine with genocide irrespective of Trump.

Was that not your comment? Equating "you vote for Harris" with "you don't care about genocide" does sound like you're trying to influence people away from voting Harris.

My argument is that harm reduction ≠ endorsement of genocide. Voting for a block of policies doesn't mean you're fine with all the policies, just that you think it's the most strategic option for your convictions. Not voting leaves the choice up to everyone.

Unless you think voting will make no difference at all for anything, even the chance of slowing catastrophe and buying time for other measures is valuable.

Because on this point we agree:

voting blue is a just a short term strategy to prevent orange man from getting in and fucking shit up

This election isn't the only measure to take, and it requires no waiting. You can still protest and riot and everything else - none of that conflicts with also voting. It's not either or.

What MLK complains about are the people that only vote to stall and never do. I'm pretty sure he'd have been in favour of voting and taking action.

What else do you propose? What do you think would be the strategic choice?

Israel doesn't currently have sanctions pending against them that the Finnish government has a vested interest to enforce.

They should, don't get me wrong, but I don't believe Linus' decision is rooted in politics - they'd have to vet each contribution anyway.

The willingness to be responsible for consequences does factor in. If you round the corner and crash into someone, you probably didn't intend to, but whether you'll be an ass about it and yell at the other person or whether you'll apologise and check they're alright makes a difference.

In a perfect-information-setting, intent equals result: If I know what my actions will cause and continue to carry them out, the difference between "primary objective" and "accepted side-effect" becomes academic. But in most cases, we don't have perfect information.

I feel like the intent-approach better accounts for the blind spots and unknowns. I'll try to construct two examples to illustrate my reeasoning. Consider them moral dilemmas, as in: arguing around them "out of the box" misses the point.

Ex. 1:
A person is trying to dislodge a stone from their shoe, and in doing so leans on a transformator box to shake it out. You see them leaning on a trafo and shaking and suspect that they might be under electric shock, so you try to save them by grabbing a nearby piece of wood and knocking them away from the box. They lose balance, fall over and get a concussion.
Are you to blame for their concussion, because you knocked them over without need, despite your (misplaced) intention to save them?

Ex. 2:
You try to kill someone by shooting them with a handgun. The bullet misses all critical organs, they're rushed to a hospital and in the process of scanning for bullet fragments to remove, a cancer in the earliest stages is discovered and subsequently removed. The rest of the treatment goes without complications and they make a speedy and full recovery.
Does that make you their saviour, despite your intent to kill them?

In both cases, missing information and unpredictable variables are at play. In the first, you didn't know they weren't actually in danger and couldn't predict they'd get hurt so badly. In the second, you probably didn't know about the tumor and couldn't predict that your shot would fail to kill them. In both cases, I'd argue that it's your intent that matters for moral judgement, while the outcome is due to (bad) "luck" in the sense of "circumstances beyond human control coinciding". You aren't responsible for the concussion, nor are you to credit with saving that life.