Conservatives do well because their ideology is compatible with the interests of capital. No party that is a serious challenge to those interests can win any notable power through elections in the US.

As far as the idea of focusing on local races: If your main concern is immediate and substantial action on climate, what good would winning a local race do for you? Yeah maybe it would be easier to get a left wing candidate on a school board or whatever, but that's because it holds no meaningful power.

Not that I think they have any particular chance of success at the national level. I've just found that "local races" argument... most charitably put, confusing, less charitably: bad faith or willfully missing the point.

It's just what you do when your side doesn't have a justifiable platform on it's own merit: See: All the people who keep telling us to ignore all the bad stuff corporate dems do because Trump would be worse.

IF you could actually run on things people liked, you'd talk about that and perhaps only call out your opponent's opposition to the things you support or show how they might be lying about claims that they want similar things.

But when your core platform is "let rich people keep doing what they want," you have to find ways to deflect from that.

It’ll be one of those photos from a ride at a theme park where everyone is screaming in terror.

One of us always tells lies. One of us only tells the truth.

The trains were just keeping with the metaphor of the OP. (Although we do need much better trains too.)

Acting like the only thing wrong is train schedules is really reductive. People who insist on voting as THE prime form of political participation will often say that not voting for a lesser evil is a privileged position because you're not going to be impacted by the stuff the other party will do. But I'd argue there is an inherent privilege to being someone who won't be materially impacted by US imperialism.

We've all been conditioned to view the violence the government inflicts on the rest of the world as normal. Maybe you don't agree with it, but only as much as you don't agree with, say, tax policy. It's an abstract thing. We're removed from the constant horror it represents. We'd like it if it wasn't happening, but we don't have to think about it most of the time and will clearly not do anything about it any time soon if everyone left of Hitler's position is "vote for the Hitler that's only going to do the bad stuff to other people."

In general I take issue with people framing this as protecting democracy from fascism. The US is not a democracy.

• For starters, a constitutional democracy shouldn't be able to end through a simple vote that doesn't even include most of the country. If voting in fascists is an acceptable outcome of the system, it's not a good system.

• From the ground up, the US was built to be as anti-democratic as possible while still technically having voting. Obviously it started with only land owning white men being allowed to vote. It's expanded slowly over the years, but it STILL explicitly disenfranchises people such as prisoners. The electoral college, gerrymandered congressional districts, and the longer, staggered term limits in the senate, and the lifetime term limit for supreme court justices are all mechanisms which were explicitly designed to filter out the will of the masses from influencing government. To bring in a personal example: I live in NY. My vote doesn't matter. I don't say that as an excuse for not voting because I know I won't have an effect of the election. I say that because I don't even get a vote! Even if there was a candidate I cared about, just because of where I was born I can have zero influence on their election into government.

• Finally, I'd argue that an imperialist country is definitionally not a democracy. The core principle of democracy is that the government rules over only those who have consented to it. An imperialist state such as the US takes actions all around the world in other sovereign countries that have major influences on people who never consented to be subjects of US power. An Iraqi who's house got bombed didn't get a chance to vote against Bush. A person in Latin America didn't get a vote on the US invalidating the vote in their country with a coup. Cubans, Vietnamese, etc. didn't get to vote on the US making sure they couldn't trade with the rest of the world.

As a related point to the last point: This is why I think it's philosophically wrong to vote for candidates who don't represent you in the US elections. In a democracy you are still considered to have "consented" to being governed even by an opposition party you didn't vote for because you consented to the process. By voting you are saying that you agree that this is the way we will choose our government and that you will abide by the results even if you don't get the outcome you want. That's fine if the process was truly democratic and you can live with any of the outcomes even if you'd prefer something different. But if all outcomes are systematically unacceptable to you and the process itself is flawed, then still casting your vote within that framework is consent to the government and the process that produced it. When you go vote, there's no box for "I'm only voting for this person because they're technically better than the other one. I'm not actually ok with them." You simply vote for Harris and the implicit choice of "I will not try to enact change in any other way."

If you think Trump represents the rise of fascism and the end of democracy, then you shouldn't be willing to abide by the results of the election anyway. But could you imagine any of the people telling you to vote against fascism taking up arms to storm the capital to protect that democracy and it's people? Could you even imagine those people symbolically supporting leftists if they did this? I can't. Because they didn't do shit last time. Because they spent years talking about the right wing coup attempt in terms of it being treason rather than it being a problem because they're fascists. Because civility and rules are more important than anything else to these people. If Trump won, the day after the election the same people who said it'd be the end of democracy will be saying "We'll get em' in 2-4 years."

No. Clearly the solution is to continue to abandon anyone outside the US because they don't matter. /s

But more directly: HOW are you going to work on it? Who is gonna do that? The capitalist/imperialist who you've pledged your vote to unconditionally?

...and you'll be doing so with someone who is slightly more likely to be concerned with their image, and hence slightly more likely to listen.

Why would they be concerned with their image if people are going to vote for them anyway? We have a candidate who supports literal genocide and that's not bad enough for people to do something. What exactly, precisely, practically, is the mechanism for holding a politician accountable when you will always vote for them and won't take any actions outside the electoral system?

We're here because people keep supporting a broken system. We keep getting elections with gerrymandering and candidates that don't represent people because people are unwilling to take action outside of them or even exercise that power in its most basic form. Even if you maintain that things are genuinely good when Democrats win (we'll circle back on that one), it's such a brittle system. Any progress that has been made can be wiped out every few years due to elections which have been gerrymandered to create the 50/50 coin-flip when the actual population doesn't support the right at nearly that rate. Plus, because of the messed up process of supreme court appointments, we sometimes lose rights even when Democrats are in office because of a fundamentally undemocratic institution. You could argue that's all the more reason to have voted against Republicans in the past and why we should vote against them now, but once again: In a system that is supposedly based on constitutional protections, why are our rights contingent on the random time an old judge kicks the bucket? Or the supposedly illegal actions of a president?

Because there's nothing to actually stop any of it. Rights are hard to establish and enforce and really easy to be taken away or ignored. Republicans will "break the rules" and then Democrats will decide to be bound by not only the rules their "opponents" won't follow, but by the new rules that come out of their actions. If you truly believe your opponents are fascists, and you're genuinely opposed to that, then nothing should be off the table for resisting them. At the tamest end of things the least they could have tried to do would be to break the power of the court or anti-majoritarian rules in the legislature. But again, if rules don't matter to fascists, you should be willing to go way further than that to stop them. Instead, the "#resistance" under Trump largely consisted of tweets, protest signs, and a call to vote differently in 2-4 years while simultaneously questioning if we'd even have an election to vote in. If Trump wins are liberals going to get out there and do something about it? Are they going to storm the capital to boot out the fascists? Fight cops and feds from taking away minorities? No. That's way too "uncivil" for them. We're just gonna have to vote harder next time!

And if only all we had to talk about were the trains being on time!

Circling back to how things are under Democrats: Sure, maybe they're a bit nicer to minorities publicly, but we still get:

• An ever expanding military, police, and surveillance state. Bush might have started the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and enacted the Patriot act, but Obama continued the wars, including the torture and indefinite detention he said he'd end. We also learned about the NSA's mass surveillance program under Obama and when confronted with the public outcry about an assault on our fundamental rights or the war crimes being committed by the military, he chose to go after whistleblowers instead of doing anything about it. Since then has ANY president or major presidential candidate even talked about the NSA or given any indication that they'd cut back on surveillance or imperialism? In my lifetime over 3 Democratic and 2 Republican administrations, the military budget has tripped. And of course support for Israel's genocide has continued with little more than hand wringing and empty promises.

• Anti-immigration policies continued under Obama and Biden. Biden in particular continued the detention centers and even allowed for the wall to keep being built.

• Climate legislation that isn't good enough to meet the existential threat posed by the problem. Far from being "something is better than nothing," these compromise positions obstruct efforts to implement the necessary changes. Plus whatever "advancements" are put in place tend to be fairly temporary in nature. A regulation can be easily overturned by a future administration or court. It's a lot harder to go around destroying public transportation and clean energy infrastructure after it's already been built. We are facing a global crisis and the system is going to get us all killed eventually, and poorer countries even sooner.

There are a lot of people who are hurt by US capitalism and imperialism even under Democratic administrations. It's a decision to not value those people. And it's not even like they're always different people. The surveillance state hurts everyone, but in particular it makes it easier for the government to target undesirable groups like immigrants, LGBT people, or say, women who want to get an abortion. There are certainly LGBT people, disable people, women, PoCs, etc amongst those the US has bombed, sanctioned, or caused to live in chaos after a coup. Lack of adequate healthcare means that accessing abortions or gender affirming care harder even if they are completely legal.

But don't worry, just vote for the Democrat then push them to the left! By... uh... holding up signs? Making tweets? You definitely need to unconditionally vote for them again next time, so you can't pressure them that way.

It's ok, next election we'll talk about ~the trains~ the military, surveillance state, healthcare, the environment, etc.

4 years later: "THIS election is super important. We'll talk about the trains in another 4 years."

Because President's Day is for buying stuff. Clearly what we need is to allow stores to set up in polling places to get it to be a holiday. /s

I played through the game long after it had been patched up. I enjoyed it enough. When Phantom Liberty released I went back to start a new save to play it and after playing through the different character background introductory bit I realized it just wasn’t going to be that different of an experience the second time around. So I just loaded up my endgame save for the DLC. I had fun with that, but going around with a maxed out character blowing everything up with a shotgun definitely trivialized things.

Not a niche game, but: day (????) of waiting for Sony to put Bloodborne on PC.

Also, this is a bit of a tangent, but I really wish Nintendo would start putting some of their games on PC. Not even so that I can play them, I do have a switch, but because there are quite a few of them that just don’t do well on console, either performance-wise or in terms of UX. For example, I’ve been playing the new Zelda game. The game’s core mechanic involves scrolling through a MASSIVE list of objects to find what you’re looking for and the best solution the game has for this is a handful of sorting options that only get you so far when there are just this many things. Without changing any of the gameplay, you could make the experience soooo much better by:

• Letting you use a mouse on the menu.
• Adding a basic search filter.
• Letting you hotkey some echoes.

Some games just deserve better treatment than what they got from the limitations of their original platforms.

Little known fact that dogs have a very unhealthy work culture. He didn’t even think it would be an option to go out before the work was done.

Yeah I think you're right to some extent. It's definitely harder to get invested in the ones with no or less VA. However, I think there's also something to be said for the tutorials/starts of these games. The Larian games I've played had relatively punchy tutorials that lead into a nice amount of structured freedom very early into the experience. Disco Elsyium also gets you into the the thick of things without much explicit tutorializing because it's so mechanic light your "tutorial" ends up just being gradual introduction to your main characters, the setting, and the case, which is what you're here for anyway.

The other CRPGs have hit me with the double whammy of tutorials that lead me by the nose for way too long while also just dumping paragraphs of exposition on me that have almost nothing to do with the immediate characters or plot.

EDIT: Thinking about it a bit more: While you don't need all the voice acting and cinematic to make good, dramatic, character focused story bits, I think the converse is true: It would have been a waste to get all these great VAs only to have them stand around and dryly deliver exposition. So it kind of had to be very character focused if it was going to work and be worth the effort.

Imagine how much worse the start of BG3 would be if you run into Laezel and you just stop for like 5 minutes while you exhaust all her dialgogue options so she can explain the entire history of the Gith and the Ilithid. Even fully voice acted that would have killed the pacing.

The funny thing for me with CRPGs: DOS2 was the first one I played and I really liked it. Followed up again with BG 3 when that came out. Since then I’ve tried a bunch of other CRPGs and… I don’t think I actually like CRPGs. I just like Larian. The one exception is Disco Elysium, but that’s so far removed from most others of the genre because it has no combat.

But aren't people carbon based? We should just compost them instead.

I feel like at different times either the Klingon or Romulans kind of stand in for the Soviets. Certainly TNG onward the Klingons shift in their representation and the Romulans stay as that analogue to a secretive geopolitical rival that they maintain an uneasy peace with.

Yeah I guess. Although I guess the question is how much energy does warp drive use or how much energy does the engine output given some amount of dilithium or whatever? No real way to know since it's sci-fi. As far as I know the only physics we have on this is that paper that showed you'd need negative energy to make warp happen. Which is obviously not super helpful for figuring out what it would be in the hypothetical world of Star Trek where they found some way to make it physically possible.

I just imagine that their energy production has to be absolutely insane for warp travel to not only be feasible, but a fairly common thing more akin to launching a boat than a NASA mission.

Yeah this feels like a critique from someone who’s never watched Star Trek.

The bit about the food is pretty funny. Like sure, a few times people have mentioned liking some non-replicated food better, but in general it seems like it’s about as good as the real thing and you can get ANYTHING you want anywhere you have a replicator without needing the skills of a chef.

Then there’s Voyager where the crew prefers to use their limited replicator rations rather than eat the slop Neelix makes lol. Actually, that’s something that never made sense to me: Why were they so limited on replicator usage? Doesn’t it just convert energy into matter from the reactor powerful enough to power a warp drive? In general I find it kind of silly when they turn off the lights and stuff to “conserve power” when there’s trouble. Like the lights are drawing any meaningful amount of power compared to warping the fabric of time and space.

Mine is that in Star Trek, at least all the computers advanced enough to be used on a starship are actually sentient. At some point you have enough self aware hologram programs and rogue AIs that you should start to wonder if they’re actually anomalous.