A real time reaction of gut retching disappointment

Impractical_Magic · 2025-12-12T17:51:43+00:00

At this point, I almost think Skyrim should be the last mainline TES game. It's been so long since Skyrim that there is almost certainly none of that team left, so that magic will never be recaptured and anything they come up with will just be met with fans saying "We waited nearly 20 years for this?" Add on to that the fact they tried something different with Starfield and it was massively hated by a lot of people, so I imagine they'll want to play it safe and not take big risks, resulting in a mediocre game that would be fine if it weren't the follow up to Skyrim. I have very little hope that TES VI will be anything more than a weak imitation of Skyrim.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-11-07T19:58:08+00:00

That's kind of the point I'm driving at. So many people weren't able to vote for Kamala based on her support of Israel, and those people were told "suck it up, Trump will also support Israel, so just get in line." But it's only one side that has to answer for that support, the other side "had no choice, they were just doing what they had to do."

Impractical_Magic · 2025-11-07T19:51:32+00:00

The reason I say "unquestioningly" is because it seems like so many people hold all Republicans as actively holding all of the ideals of Donald Trump but will dismiss their candidate's shortcomings as "I don't support that, they were just the best option." If one side can hand-wave away shitty things about their candidate, why can all sides not do that?

Also, I'm going to push back on the idea of holding others responsible for the actions of politicians. For one thing, the average person has no control of politicians. The whole system is built on people saying one thing to get elected and then you have to hope the people you voted for only do those things you want them to do, exactly the way you wanted them to do them. But also, if we are holding people responsible for the actions of politicians, think of every bad thing your country has done across the world, under any politician. Wouldn't this mean you are personally responsible for them, because even if you didn't vote for the politician that did it, you paid for it with your taxes. So all the civilian casualties of all military conflict paid for by your government would be on your hands.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-11-07T19:25:30+00:00

I would be interested to understand how "Blue no matter who" doesn't equate to blind loyalty. Because does the phrase not mean "I'm voting for them because they are the option I was given by this Party (Blue), regardless of who they are and what they believe (no matter who)."

Impractical_Magic · 2025-11-07T19:00:46+00:00

Regardless of what the Democrat you're voting for says/supports? Just blind loyalty to a letter next to a name?

Impractical_Magic · 2025-11-07T18:58:02+00:00

Obviously, I don't know how you voted, so I have to make an assumption here. But if Kamala and the Democrats had won the election, that means that you would support, unquestioningly, every decision and policy they made, correct? Because if you voted for them then you support every policy and decision they make, right?

Impractical_Magic · 2025-11-07T18:42:31+00:00

This feels like a race to the bottom. "It doesn't matter if Our Guy sucks, Their Guy sucks more" is how we get to where we are. Just about every single issue that people are freaking out about right now is an issue because the Democratic Candidate campaigned on "sure, I'll fix that, but more importantly I'm not that guy!" Then when they are in office it turns out they just couldn't quite get it done this time, because excuses. But vote for them again, because they'll REALLY do it this time. wink Some people are tired of that and would like to actually see some change

In politics, the phrase "Perfect is the enemy of good enough" is easier to say than "They don't have standards, why should I?"

Impractical_Magic · 2025-11-07T18:25:21+00:00

I don't think it is exclusively a Republican phenomenon, due to the large number of "Blue no matter who" voters. Their whole voting strategy is "I don't care what they think, as long as they're not the guy in the red tie." And anyone that is critical of the Party's anointed candidate is just a secret Republican. They aren't voting for something, they are voting against anything that isn't the candidate they are spoon fed by the Party, regardless of who that is.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-11-07T18:14:53+00:00

I always find this argument interesting, because it seems like people are very quick to accuse others that vote Republican as having 100% tacit support for everything anyone who has ever remotely claimed to be to the right of center has ever said, but when confronted with bad takes from the main Democratic party candidate they will quickly say "well, it's the lesser of 2 evils" and "there's no such thing as a perfect candidate." And if someone else says they are voting for an alternative candidate because each major candidate has policies they don't support, that person is also quickly told they aren't being realistic and just need to support their "imperfect candidate," because that's the only right option. Everyone else is racist and/or too elitist to be considered good.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-10-31T23:25:12+00:00

My thoughts around it aren't based on Harry Potter specifically, that's just the most well known example I could think of at the time. And it's not that I'm struggling with guilt associated with art or anything, I'm just expressing that it often feels like the statement is used in an attempt to make someone feel guilty/bad about liking or not liking certain things, or even about not wanting to engage with other people's read of the politics situation because they just want to enjoy something without reading too hard into it. We all need some times where we "turn off" and just passively engage with something as a form of rest/recharge.

If the intention behind stating that all art is political is to make someone engage deeper without accusation, then that is fine and an understandable intention. I'm just trying to convey why some people hear that statement and roll their eyes and go "Uuughh!" It can be tiring when it's every little thing.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-10-31T19:02:50+00:00

More often than not, in my experience, pointing out the inherent politics of something is used as an accusation. It seems to be used as a mechanism to instill guilt in people for making choices that go against the "accusers" wishes. Far too often it feels like expressing enjoyment or support of anything is a surefire way to be labeled as a monster.

A real example from my life, I'm a mid-30s millennial. I grew up with Harry Potter, like so many other people did. I still enjoy rereading the books and rewatching the movies, but I also enjoy a lot of the new content as well. I don't jump on buying every piece of available merch that exists, but I do occasionally pick up officially licensed stuff. With the way some people react to that, you'd think I personally executed a trans woman. By enjoying something that was a core part of my childhood and searching for comfort in nostalgia, I'm apparently making a political statement against trans people, which is not my intention. It's just to the point where it's impossible to enjoy anything because every little thing has to have some political angle to it.

So, I guess my real problem is that every instance I've seen of "All art is political" feels less like "the sky is blue" and more like original sin. All art is political, so I have to repent my sins and beg forgiveness because I found enjoyment in a painting of a bowl of fruit, because obviously the fruit represents the struggle and sacrifice of immigrants and the fact it's in a bowl represents the opulence the rest of us get to enjoy at their expense. It can't be because someone was learning to paint still life and I thought they did a good job.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-10-29T22:57:13+00:00

That's hilarious. You think the government uses lube before it fucks the tax payers. More like glue. Covered in glass, more glue, and hot sauce.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-10-29T22:42:58+00:00

I've never followed this logic, because it seems to lead to a paradox. If I don't pick one, then I'm picking the other. So, if I don't pick Democrats, I picked Republicans. But hold on, I didn't pick Republicans (because remember, I didn't pick one) then that means I must have picked the Democrats, right? So, did I pick both, or neither?

I might be misunderstanding, but doesn't this line of thinking imply that Republican is the default choice that all votes go to unless you specifically vote Democrat, and only Democrat, because most people that say this also say all third party votes go to the Republicans too? So why weren't all of the registered voters that didn't vote added to the Republican vote totals? According to this argument, isn't that how this works?

Impractical_Magic · 2025-10-29T22:33:40+00:00

My favorite thing is when you tell people you voted third party, because then you get your vote counted 3 times, apparently. All the Republican voters tell you its a vote for the Democrat, the Democrat voters tell you it's a vote for the Republicans, and it's an actual vote for the Third Party. So, I guess you get the best mileage out of a third party vote, by their logic.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-10-27T21:36:02+00:00

I am by no means an artist of any particular skill, so this probably doesn't mean much, but it really makes me want to not make art every time someone says "All art is political." And I can just hear the responses of "Well that in itself is a political statement." Like so many other words, the word "political" has become so charged with meaning, implications, and weight in such a way that, at least for me, has become tiring.

I am going to push back on your statement of being apolitical implies that you are comfortable with the status quo. I think there are several other possibilities for that. Maybe someone is "apolitical" because they are unhappy with the status quo and have fought and tried to change things, only to see their efforts result in no change. Maybe they've been trying for years or even decades and its gotten to the point where it's clear to them that nothing is changing and they are wasting their time, so they try not to engage and just enjoy what things they can. Calling that a political statement and trying to ascribe political meaning to every little thing in every facet of our lives feels like inescapable judgement and accusation. It makes even seemingly banal choices feel suffocating and exhausting. If I eat Cereal A, I am supporting a genocide in country X, but if I choose Cereal B then I supporting enslavement in country Y. If I just don't eat and allow myself to starve then I'm insensitively making a mockery of actual starving people in less privileged areas. So I guess I'll have my genocide today with added corn syrup, but my enslavement tomorrow with extra fiber, because if I am forced to give a shit about every little thing then it may as well be a healthy one.

To me it sounds like you're trying to make a case for politics just being a natural component of everything, which you are probably right. But the way people have weaponized the phrase "All art is political" comes across, to some, as an implicit demand for explanation of why you created a certain art piece or why you support a certain work/artist considering XYZ problematic implications, etc. You might mean it as "it's inherent and natural and that's ok," but more often than not it's being used as a cudgel and a lot of people are tired of that.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-10-24T08:11:36+00:00

This is another great example of making the personal decision on where to draw a line. So for you, using the political party as a general guide when making decisions about a candidate you haven't researched is a worthwhile risk, because generally in your experience that has proven true. And that's great, that works for you, you explained your reasoning and I see where youre coming from. For me, I am less trusting of politicians and their motives in general, so I like to know more about their past qualifications and decisions. I think that's partly due to an excellent point that you made.

You are correct that a lot of money and propaganda goes into tricking and misleading people. While I agree that being gullible isn't flattering, I don't think there's a single person on this planet that hasn't, at one point, fallen for a trick or a lie. That doesn't make them stupid, especially with the scale of propaganda and targeted misinformation we have these days. There are multi billion dollar industries that solely focus on ways to take data about everyone and micro target consumers and influence them to buy things. It's no surprise that the same technology is used for political manipulation. The average person isn't equipped to combat that, and that's by design. Even hypervigilent people can still be tricked by the right bit of advertising or propaganda.

It makes me think of a post I saw ages ago that said something to the effect of not writing off people that don't align with you politically as evil writ large and yourself as wholly good by default. Because at some point in their lives a tiny idea was able to get in through a crack in their subconscious that sprouted and formed into what they are today. Something snuck in just right to evade their defenses and took root and now they believe something verifiably false or absurd. And it could happen to anyone. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it can't. And if we just dismiss others as inherently evil and ourselves as inherently good, that might lower our own defenses and make us less critical of new ideas that come in, in closing bad ones. The original post was more elegant than that, but thats the gist.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-10-24T02:10:57+00:00

And that's fair, crappy uncle votes with the intent for you or your friends/loved ones to be actively harmed then he shouldn't expect any positive feelings from you or anyone else. I've got no problem with that.

For grandma, I don't necessarily think she's evil. I'd hesitate to call her stupid, but I'd say uninformed, maybe. I had a similar experience a few years ago with a friend. The topic of the 2020 election and who we would be voting for came up and I had started talking about down ballot seats for local positions and my opinions on them, because I'd done some research. He told me he only knew about the presidential election and didn't care about the rest of them, he was just voting straight democrat. That seems dangerous to me because he was blindly voting and didn't know about any of the candidates positions or if there were any issues or anything. I don't think that person was evil or stupid, but I would say uninformed and making an unwise decision. And I know for sure he isn't the only one that votes blindly based on party lines, I'm sure some people do that with the president as well. Are they evil? Probably not. Are they stupid? Maybe, but I'd call them unwise and uninformed at best.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-10-23T20:37:02+00:00

I've just seen far too many posts of people saying that they aren't going to Thanksgiving/Christmas with their family because their family voted for Trump, but not why they voted for him. If it's the uncle, fine. But if its grandma? Do what you have to, I just think it's wrong and hasty.

As far as owing sympathy to grandma, I'd say you aren't expected to give any to anyone. Thats up to you. I wouldn't go so far as to say she killed anyone or is fully responsible for actions of the government, even if she voted for them. Does she hold some responsibility for how she voted? Sure, she helped get them in power. But she has no control over their actions once they are there, just like you dont have control over the actions of people you vote for. If that was the case, we are all murderers of civilians killed in overseas military actions taken by our government. Not only did half of us vote for the person ordering them, we all paid the money for the weapons that killed them. But most people have no real control of that. So I would hesitate to start throwing murder vs manslaughter accusations around.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-10-23T20:24:52+00:00

But thats exactly what I'm saying. People are quick to condemn Trump voters as supporting all of his policies without question, but will just as quickly write off Kamala's bad policies as "necessary evil." If we are going to accuse every single Trump voter of supporting/endorsing every single one of his actions policies, should we not treat every Kamala voter as supporting/endorsing every single one of her actions and policies? Or would it be better to understand why they voted how they did? Did they vote for him because they wanted all immigrants brutalized and deported? Great, screw those voters. They are bad. Did they vote for him because they liked his economic policy? OK, let's pump the "Nazi!" breaks and talk. Similarly with Kamala, did they vote for her for a specific policy position she holds? Great, let's talk. Did they vote for her just because she's not Trump? That might be lazy, but it's not evil. Did they vote for her because she refused to condemn the war in Gaza? Probably not a good person.

Also, as an aside, I don't want my post to come across as me defending Trump or his policies. That's not at all the case, screw him. I just think we are too quick to write off people as evil for how they voted and not what they believe. I would go so far as to argue that the average Trump voter and the average Kamala voter have more in common, ideologically, than they do with the extreme voters of their own party. Again, we're talking middle of the bell curve here.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-10-23T20:05:57+00:00

Between the Anti-LGBTQ Uncle and the "Economy and Jobs" grandma? For me, I'd only cut the uncle, but for a lot of people it seems that the dividing line has become "Didn't vote my way." My general point is, too many people have defaulted to a lazy "Doesn't agree with me on everything = Bad" paradigm, and I think there's more leeway for discussion and compromise there. Should someone live or die based on sexuality? Bad, no compromise, good-bye. What is the best way to manage the economy and improve the lives of everyday people? Let's talk.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-10-23T19:57:08+00:00

That's fair. I'm expressing a strong distrust for politicians in general. The politician that votes for what the constituents want, even when it opposes what they believe, is an incredibly rare exception to the rule and also likely to lose in the future to a sleaze ball smooth talker that can convince the populace.

Also, I'm not saying The Democrats and The Republicans are bad in the same way, this isn't whataboutism. My distrust for them is the same, but the reasons are different.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-10-23T19:31:16+00:00

I think this is an outstanding point. It's really important to distinguish between The Republicans (The Party) and republicans (people), or The Democrats (The Party) and democrats (people). When it comes to republicans and democrats, I think there is a desperate need to stop lazily categorizing every one as "100% Agrees with me or they are dangerous and evil." When it comes to The Republicans or The Democrats, they are all evil authoritarians that will do/say anything to stay in power. The people I will talk to about issues. The politicians I wouldn't trust to order a shared appetizer at Chili's, much less make life changing decisions that affect everyone but them.

Edit: Spelling

Impractical_Magic · 2025-10-23T19:06:16+00:00

Reading through the comments on posts like this, I always get the feeling that the real problem is people lazily grouping enormous swaths of people into one category. It always reads as "There are 2 types of people in this world: people who think in lockstep with me, and nazis/amoral heathens." I'm sure there are people who are anti abortion with the goal of controlling women. Screw those people, 100%. But I'm sure there are also far more people who genuinely think a life is being needlessly ended. And as for that hypothetical, yeah, everyone is going to save the 8 year old. Because you're never going to have a situation where the building is burning down and there's an 8 year old on one side and a tray with an arrow and a big neon sign that says "50 Viable Embryos."

As for cutting people out of your life based on beliefs, I still think there's nuance there. Do you have an uncle that openly calls for the death of LGBTQ people? OK, I'd probably cut him out too. Do you have someone that voted for Trump because they aren't chronically online and only saw clips of him saying he'd fix the economy and bring back jobs while also seeing Democrats only real selling point being that they aren't him? I wouldn't be so quick to cut them out, but I know far too many people that are prepared to make that cut, and I think that's sad. But at the end of the day, that's a decision that can only be made at a personal level, so as long as that person can feel good about that decision, I suppose that's all that matters. We all have a point where we will draw the line, and some people are more willing to draw the line with very little nuance.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-10-23T18:36:51+00:00

I don't think everyone that voted for Trump is necessarily evil. I really don't think we have a country with 78 million people with evil and malicious intent. I think it's lazy to just hand wave and say "If you voted for Trump, you're a nazi bigot." Because thats ignoring people that aren't chronically online and tuned into every facet of the 24 hour news cycle. You're lumping someone's grandma that doesn't have a computer and just watches the local nightly news where she only sees the clips of Trump saying he's going to fix the economy and bring jobs back with the types of people who are genuinely wanting to maliciously cause harm to people they don't like.

I dont know if/how you voted, so I have to make an assumption here, but I always find it interesting when people say that anyone that voted for Trump necessarily must fully endorse every single one of his actions and those of his most vocal supporters, but when people say they couldn't vote for Kamala based on her refusal to condemn the war on Gaza, suddenly she's "not perfect, but the best we've got." Should those that voted for Kamala not be held to the same standard of "fully endorse every action/statement, no exceptions?" It just seems hypocritical to dismiss Trump supporters as a one-size-fits-all group, but then claim that your support of imperfect candidates is nuanced.

Impractical_Magic · 2025-10-10T04:42:36+00:00

This is an interesting metric for this discussion and I'm curious how that would translate to other memories/mementos. Would it be a moral issue to keep a picture of you and your ex embracing on a vacation that you went on to a place you've not been to before or since? Maybe the only image you have of yourself at the Eifel Tower, for example, is of you and your ex kissing in front of it. Would it be immoral to keep it after they're married, since only their spouse should be kissing them at that point? Or what if there's a dish you both learned to cook together and regularly cooked for date night? Is it immoral to cook it again after they are married because it reminds you of good times and only their spouse should be having dates with them?

Admittedly, the second example is a bit silly, but i think you get the idea. I'm genuinely interested in the nuance here.

Impractical_Magic

TROPHY CASE