The sims has a family tree. It’s possible that if they also made their grandparents/aunts/uncles/cousins/half siblings they’d want that to be reflected in game how they’re related. Also, your sims can have memories, so maybe they’d want their sim dad to have the memory of falling in love with their sim mom. Those are often autogenerated if you make two married sims, but I forget the specifics for the sims 3.

Why and how what? Why and how Trump? Yes, I’ve asked, but it’s not sensible. The other commenter seems to have had similar experiences where the answer is tautological or not grounded in reality. Trump is going to “get rid of the deep state”. How/why? More nonsensical stuff. It’s a cult at a certain point and you can’t logic someone out of something they didn’t logic themselves into. I am willing to engage with them but it’s hard to not write them off as bad people if they were willing to go against logic and against helping people. The article itself points out these people are voting against things they say they want. That’s not logical unless they want other things more, and the thing they want more than a progressive tax rate is some nonexistent vibe they want to achieve.

I can answer for both sides but they’re unwilling to see that their how and why is flawed.

Thanks for sharing. I was just recently suggesting that populism from the left has the power to retake the culture, but the Dems are not taking advantage of that. Hopefully our conversations prove somewhat helpful in the grand scheme of things. I am seeing some movement from them, but not enough to feel like it’s been worthwhile. Keep up the fight.

I think I need help with this, because I also interact with some “low information” (I don’t like that term) voters, who agree with me on a lot of policy. I struggle to extend the grace I need to because it makes me even more upset. At least fascists and racists have a real reason to vote for this. I’m having a convo with someone and they’re ostensibly pro choice and pro gay rights, and they still voted Trump. When I ask about why they voted for him if Rs are historically anti those things it’s because Trump is just “better for America”. I try to reason and kindly ask questions etc and I hope I make some inroads, but internally I just dislike them as people. How am I supposed to square that? They care so little about their purported positions they don’t actually care if they happen, so long as some other nebulous concept of America becoming great happens. It upsets me and I can’t help but think they’re just bad people who don’t actually care about others, they’re just too stupid to realize that. They know conceptually gay marriage is ok, they just don’t actually believe it so are willing to throw it away for vibes? I don’t know, sounds like being a bad person with extra steps.

Vibes based voting is stupid, but vibes over policy means you care more about vibes than policy, so how much do they really care about the policy? Also, what kind of person are you that you get good vibes from Trump?

I go back and forth with myself about this so much, but there’s always a part that believes no matter how “low information” you are, you have seen or heard Trump do some heinous stuff that you are willing to overlook even though you don’t know his actual policy stance. That’s at least been my experience with low information voters. I wish there was just a magical phrase someone could say that would make me understand that not all Trump voters are bad people, but I’ve yet to come across it. Truly looking for more insight on this if anyone is willing to share.

I think there’s a big generational gap and people just don’t understand how younger gens integrated technology into their lives. Plenty of millennials have “online friends” and their boomer parents would have told them that’s extremely dangerous. Some of it undoubtedly was, but online friend groups are a real thing. I think the same is true of location sharing.

I have family who are older who share it and it’s helpful to know that they’re safe without having to bother them whenever I worry. I also have younger people in my life and they use it for scheduling purposes with each other. “Oh X is still at practice so can’t help with this right now I should reach out to Y who is at home”. Kids these days are just more interconnected and that is probably more ok than we think it is. There are definitely some problems with it, but it’s just new and different. Kids will bully or create drama about whatever, so it may cause some rifts, but if it wasn’t that it would’ve been something else.

What you said was pretty clear to me at least. I have that user tagged as a misogynist so it’s not unusual that they’d go out of their way to defend incels for no reason.

For what it’s worth, it’s unlikely that the incel in question would have the location of both those people in the first place. Generally, location sharing is done among friend groups and not entire peer groups, so it’s unlikely the crush and the person they were seeing would have both shared their location with this other person unless they were all close, which is not the case in my experience.

There’s a handful of accounts I see repeatedly going to bat for centrist (or extreme right or antiwest) positions and they universally have thousands or tens of thousands of comments in less than a year or two. I will sometimes still engage because it’s important people don’t think it was just left at their comment, but they are clearly not average people. They are either astroturfing or some kind of unwell sycophants. No one posts that much regularly brown nosing to people who actively do not care about you. The platform I use allows tagging of users. I’ve found that helpful so I at least can recognize them without having to remember their names. I try not to bring too much attention to the fact I’m aware of who is likely engaging in bad faith because it encourages them to change tactics, but I’m sure they know their tells already, but we are not at the point where enough average Lemmy users care or notice. Once more people start to notice hopefully we see them shut down more often. You’re not alone in noticing this.

Two were not in attendance and one was in attendance the day prior and today (the day after). With their votes it would’ve passed, or at least forced some maneuvering out of more Rs. I think it’s important to note that.

I didn’t have “should’ve” anywhere in my comment. I think you’re responding to the wrong person.

Did you respond to the correct comment? I don’t see how your comment follows from the one above.

Damn, if only the Dems had the presidency at some point, potentially between his death and now.

I don’t think there a list that says “This is all the bad people I did bad things for”, but if there was it should’ve been released already, and if there’s not then this is just theater. They’re entitled to theatre, but I’m not really sure what your comment is supposed to imply. Is it implying “look the dems want it released!”, because this is the weakest attempt at doing that imaginable. If they wanted it released they had years to figure it out and it would’ve prevented maga from using it as a rallying point.

Unless it’d be outsourced to a party planner, I can’t imagine doing this. It’s definitely culture dependent, but part of some core party memories were having seen parents jump through hoops to make the day special. Did they drive to the other end of town to get the special cake you like even though they could have gotten some other cake? Did they remember the specific shade of green you said was your favorite? Did they remember to use your nickname on the cake instead of your full name? I know not all families operate like that, but I had a friend whose mom always decorated their cake. She didn’t like doing it, and it was never good, but her mother always did hers and she wanted to keep the tradition alive. It was always so sweet and funny and looking back definitely some of the best parts of their parties. This is obviously very specific, but if you do throw parties for your kids, I struggle to see how you wouldn’t want to at least make them feel like you put in the effort.

Yea, it helps if they’re not two faced or scummy to begin with so that their private events aren’t them admitting to lying about their beliefs etc too. See Romney for a great example of exactly the issue, but honestly it’s just a quiet part out loud thing. We all know these are the conversations they’re having regardless of how much they pay for the plate.

I didn’t take them out of context. He admitted he thinks there are some great candidates that we should support but doesn’t have the courage to back the one needing it most, or alternatively he doesn’t support him. I didn’t imply he dissed mamdani, just that he’s a coward for not talking about one of the most watched races in the country at the moment. The DNC is actively not supporting the winner of a dem primary. Pointing that out is not “whingeing”. I’m also not saying he’s mean. He’s either a coward or doesn’t care. Possibly both.

I also didn’t say she didn’t have a chance, I’m saying to a certain extent it doesn’t matter (though I always tell people to vote at the bare minimum). What are the dems in congress doing to stop Trump right now? Oh, that’s right, at best nothing, and at worst voting for his policies. The same old Dems with the same old policies are not going to stop Trump.

You are clearly having a different conversation than anyone else here because no one was attacking you unless your name is Obama. If you want to be indignant, be so at your faves who apparently can’t get anyone to like their policies enough to start a grassroots movement, or better yet at the people pushing this country to the right. Leftist are running candidates and raising money and supporting them getting things done, and if you actually cared about that you’d have something to say about the fact that Dems aren’t supporting mamdani instead of acting like pointing this out is somehow a dis.

I was definitely using them mockingly here, but I think he actually did want universal healthcare. Congress fucked us over bad. The ACA is unfortunately a huge step up from what a lot of people had. Plenty still fall through the cracks, but the ACA was largely an improvement for people, especially after the federal penalty was removed so people were no longer fined.

Honestly, I don’t care too much about this kind of private fundraising. Do I wish we had a system that was different, yes, but he’s not actually running for anything. He’s getting money for the party in general. If people wanna pay X to have dinner with Obama, I’m pretty indifferent about it. It’s like a rent party for people who have no community, no solidarity, and no sense. I wish they would donate directly to candidates that need the support because I don’t trust the DNC to make any decisions, but they probably would not be donating to the people I want anyway.

I think town halls are important though and if a candidate only has time for fundraising and not to listen to their constituents then that’s a problem. Unfortunately these kind of fundraising events are the way a lot of Dems get funding since they don’t actually inspire people with their platform.

I did read the article. I even quoted it. That absolutely does not address the fact that pouring money into races (which he said needs to be done in the article) is useless if the candidates don’t actually help people. The NJ race features a 53 year old who’s been an office holder since 2018. She’s part of the “New Democrat” caucus who are pro business centrists.

He’s calling for more of the same. He’s not asking for “hope” or “change”. I mentioned NY because that is an example of what the future of the party should actually look like.

"You have great candidates running races right now. Support those candidates,”

So he called out Cuomo by name? No? Who’s the coward really? He’s out there telling Dems/lefties to get shot in the face by “riot gear” his and his VPs admins put in the hands of police, and he can’t even grow enough of a spine to tell Dems to honor their own primaries. What a disgrace. Apparently the protesters and activists are the ones he thinks need to toughen up, because he clearly doesn’t think any specific politicians need to.

I just saw a post that mentioned how disabled is one of the only minority groups you can become a member of at any time. It’s a good reminder that a lot of people in dire straits may have been in a different position prior to that. I know someone with two kids who got cancer. They didn’t have any family and they were unable to continue working. Their life changed completely due to no fault of their own. People get laid off, or their kids get sick and they have increased medical costs AND increased parental duties. I know a nurse who was making good money and was in an accident and became partially paralyzed. She’s still willing to work but is not able to get the tools or rehab needed to get to a position to do that. You might be able to argue that they should have all planned better, but no one has the buffer needed for so many things. Some people who were planning on being stay at homes take their kids somewhere safe knowing they can’t provide for them in order to shield them from abuse.

I know your comment was about people who have kids while not being able to afford them, I just think it’s important to point out that not all parents who are struggling started out that way. That’s not to mention the issues of access to sex ed, preventative measures, or social pressures. It’s important to remember that very few people actually want to raise kids in environments where they’re not provided for.

My point is that it’s not helpful to tell Good Samaritans they’re responsible for the people they couldn’t help. We don’t generally do that as a society. So if you think it was a given that people in Gaza were going to get hurt either way, blaming Harris voters for genocide on her term would also not be helpful (unless they’re saying they’re pro genocide). If you want people to vote for harm reduction, you can’t blame them when the candidate fails to do everything right, especially if they were vocally against that specific policy.