u/CSachen

I've been a consistent Democratic voter for 12 years, and I'm sick of the useful idiots who keep fucking up Democratic chances of winning.

There was a self-described moderate on Reddit who started a post asking what he should flair as his political views on his profile. After some questioning, it became clear he was a moderate, who would probably be more aligned with the Democrats than the Republicans:

• Thinking that both Israel and Hamas are both guilty of bad acts and that American should put more diplomatic pressure to create separate sovereign states, one Jewish and one Palestinian.
• Supporting LGBT rights broadly, with exceptions on womens' sports
• Abortion access up to 24 weeks, and then adding restrictions in the absence of health risks.
• Support more border security, deporting illegals with a criminal record, but offer path to amnesty for law-abiders, while expanding the visa program.

80% of from self-flaired "liberal" Redditors called them a hardcore Republican. When the guy tried to defend moderate views of pulling from multiple sides, he got flamed as a mysogynist and that "both-sidesism" is the same as supporting pdfs in the WH.

While grassroots volunteers are working hard to pursuade Independents, undecideds, and former Republicans into the Democratic tent, these other people keep trying to gatekeep and keep them out, "no no no, you are a fasicst, you don't belong in our tent, you belong with MAGA".

Why? Why do you keep hurting every chance of kicking Trump out of office?

You know, classic games where progress was persistent and simulated server-side. And you play by navigating the pages and menus on the website.

I've always want to build a multi-player browser-based simulation game, but wondering if that style is too dated. Cause they aren't fun if there isn't a minimum number of players.

I'm 36 and never been in a relationship. When I was younger, I assumed this sort of thing only happened to terrible men, like zero self-care, unshaved uncut hair, grossly overweight, like the South Park World of Warcraft guy. Or hateful and abusive losers. But here I am, an average guy who's very much single.

I originally thought that love was supposed to happen organically. That a nice lady would be get on the same wavelength, and I'd ask her out, and we'd go on a date. I asked a lot of girls out, but none of them resulted in any dates.

After COVID, I got more intentional. I signed up for dating apps, I shed the couch-potato belly and got in great shape, I replaced all the free T-shirts I got with clean basic Uniqlo shirts that hug my biceps, I joined running clubs, I registered for group language classes, I went to board game cafe meetups, I paid for singles mixer events. My closest friends think I'm a wild guy for going out to DJ events in the middle of the night and raving into the morning. My friends are all married, they met their partner in undergrad or on an online app. Don't know anyone who met someone just out and about. So I don't have anyone to suggest ideas.

The last few years have been like spinning wheels in the mud. I meet plenty of people, but I'm not making it to dating. When I someone at an event (or I match with someone online), we talk and exchange contacts, then I invite them out, and they decline repeatedly, or they don't reply, or they leave DMs on delivered and unopened. The closest I got was planning and reserving a date spot with someone on Bumble, but they didn't show up and unmatched when I asked if they wanted to reschedule.

I have no physical relationship experience, like zero kissing or anything, so I'm self-aware that I can be wrong when I think a woman is into me when they're not. Declining a date that you aren't attracted makes sense. Not to toot my own horn, but I'd date me. Thanks to running club I'm super fit, I'm inclusive and friendly, and I'm full of fun trivia so I can keep a conversation going. My weaknesses include being near-sighted, so I need to wear glasses or contacts.

I recently watched The Economist interview with Musk that ended up with him calling the editor-in-chief Zanny Minton Beddoes and her staff as members of the Lunatic Left. After the interview, Musk blasted her as a "woke NPC traitor to the West".

Personally, I've thought The Economist was a mainstream right-of-center publication. I don't mean that pejoratively. They're articles are high quality and more than 50% of the time, I agree what they're saying. I'd even describe myself as right-of-center.

We're talking about a publication that regularly rails against socialism, running many pieces attacking wealth taxes, rent control, industrial nationalization, debt-fueled spending. They literally just ran a quite scathing opinion piece last month criticizing UK Green Party and New York's mayor Zohran Mamdani, while lamenting Gen-Z for falling for zany leftist politics over the empirical policy of abundance.

This all seems unapologetically right-wing. Sure, they also advocate for some left-wing ideas like universal healthcare and education, estate taxes, and land-value taxes. But they're UK-based, so most of those left-wing policies are really just centrist.

Has the goalpost really moved this far? One of the leading anti-socialist business publications is now considered too far lunatic left-wing?

So I'm 36 and never been in a relationship. When I was younger, I thought this sort of thing only happened to awful guys, like zero-grooming: unshaved facial hair, grossly overweight, doesn't take showers. Or guys who were hateful and abusive. But here I am, an average guy who's very much single.

I originally thought that love was supposed to happen organically. That a nice lady would be get on the save wavelength, and I'd ask her out, and we'd go on a date. I did plenty of asking, but no dates happened.

After COVID, I got more intentional. I signed up for dating apps, I shed the couch-potato body and got in great shape, I joined running clubs, I registered for group language classes, I went to board game cafe meetups, I paid for singles mixer events.

The same pattern keeps happening. I meet someone at an event (or I match with someone online). We talk, and we exchange contacts. Then I invite them out, and they decline repeatedly, or they don't reply, or they never open my DM. I almost went on a date with someone on Bumble, but they didn't show up to the agreed location and later unmatched.

I have no relationship experience, zero physical intimacy, so I'm prone to misjudge when someone is attracted to me when they're not. Declining a date that you aren't attracted makes sense. Not to toot my own horn, but I'd date me. I got a fit bod, I'm inclusive and friendly, and I'm full of fun trivia. Only downside is I wear glasses, but I swapped them for contact lenses this year.

Usually a competitive monopoly still means two companies are competing. Between Apple or Windows, people choose one PC. Between iPhone and Android, people pick phone. Between Advil and Tylenol, people pick one medicine. The products are differentiated, but at the end of the day, you pick one between them.

But in the case of streaming services, the products are so differentiated that many consumers tend to buy from multiple sellers. When Netflix and Disney have separate exclusive content, consumers will just opt to purchase both rather than one or the other. Even if Netflix and Disney compete against each other, it is common for consumers to purchase products that are redundant.

What does economics say about this market? Is the redundancy a negative externality? Or is a positive result of competition among sellers?

I recently learned that cosplay is considered one of the most unattractive hobbies a man can have.

When I published my profile for review, I got a lot of DMs asking if I was gay or that I should delete any photos showing my hobby. Several women even commented that cosplay photos are an instant left-swipe for 99% of women.

I feel like if I delete them, then I'm not really representing who I am, and deleting something that brings me enjoyment in an otherwise mundane life. If I sanitize every idiosyncrasy about me, how am I supposed to stand out?

It feel like that XKCD comic, where people say they want to meet someone who isn't just "i like to eat food, read books, and visit cities", and the moment they're someone shows their quirk, it's like: eww not that.

Lenin was a Marxist so his writings describe a strategy on how to most successfully establish Marxism. But reading the translations for his works, it seems like much of what he wrote can just be applied to tyranny as a whole regardless of whether it is communist or not. It seems like a fascist or any Machevellian tyrant could have used Lenin's works as a playbook to institute dictatorship regardless of whether they believed in Bolshevism or not.

Here are some excerpts with their sources to highlight what I'm talking about. Wherever he writes proleteriat, bourgeoisie, and Bolshevism, you could replace those words with "us", "them", and your preferred ideology. The logical meaning doesn't change.

"What Is To Be Done?"

>I assert: (1) that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organisation of leaders maintaining continuity; (2) that the broader the popular mass drawn spontaneously into the struggle, which forms the basis of the movement and participates in it, the more urgent the need for such an organisation, and the more solid this organisation must be (for it is much easier for all sorts of demagogues to side-track the more backward sections of the masses); (3) that such an organisation must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activity;

"Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party"

>As regards the Duma, the situation is somewhat different. During elections there must be complete unity of action. The Congress has decided: we will all take part in elections, wherever they take place. During elections there must be no criticism of participation in elections. Action by the proletariat must be united.

"The Dual Power"

>The highly remarkable feature of our revolution is that it has brought about a dual power. This fact must be grasped first and foremost: unless it is understood, we cannot advance. We must know how to supplement and amend old “formulas”, for example, those of Bolshevism, for while they have been found to be correct on the whole, their concrete realisation has turned out to be different. Nobody previously thought, or could have thought, of a dual power.

"Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder"

>The more powerful enemy can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and by the most thorough, careful, attentive, skilful and obligatory use of any, even the smallest, rift between the enemies, any conflict of interests among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage of any, even the smallest, opportunity of winning a mass ally, even though this ally is temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional.

"The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky"

>The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained by the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws.

"The State and Revolution"

>The state is a special organization of force: it is an organization of violence for the suppression of some class.

Interest rates represents the cost of money. When people save, money in the bank is abundant and interest rates go down. When people spend, more dollars are being chased and interest rates go up.

Don't these effects cancel out? If governments enact a fiscal policy to stimulate spending like a tax holiday or tax deduction, then they will save less, interest rates will go up, and then borrowers borrow less and spend less.

And if economic growth comes from capital investment driven by borrowing, wouldn't it be more growth-y to encourage people to save rather than spend so the supply of money is available to be borrowed?

Is "don't ask for a number, give your number" actual helpful advice? To be honest, it sounds like advice that is given to men, to help women avoid difficult conversations. When has giving out your number made you seem more attractive than asking for one?

Let's hear it. How often do you receive a number and you reach out? Versus you just delete their contact once they're out of sight?