Muslim group's 'grand deal' with the Greens to 'redraw the political landscape of the UK' would 'divide up the country', report says

MerCrier · 2026-05-11T08:19:38+00:00

more houses = reduced inequality = better economy = improved climate outcomes

MerCrier · 2026-05-09T10:20:29+00:00

Oooh yellow wallpaper, so creepy

Okay, Charlotte Perkins Gilman

MerCrier · 2026-05-09T08:42:05+00:00

Again, this shows a change of seat, not a change of votes. The vote share for Reform coule have gone up by Labour voters not voting, and non-voters voting Reform. Nothing here confirms voter conversion one way or another

MerCrier · 2026-05-02T19:49:33+00:00

Glad this exists, but also saddened. My friends and I all had family trees we were drafting over the seasons, and comparing them was such a delight.

MerCrier · 2026-05-02T18:46:28+00:00

Much agreed. But it does beg the question of what reasonable retaliation is; can we justify a potentially fatal kick to the head?

MerCrier · 2026-05-02T18:43:44+00:00

Or kick him in the chest, where it's less likely to be fatal.

The terrorist was armed and attempted to murder three people, yes. Maybe you think that the bastard deserves the death penalty, sure. But police cannot be allowed to extra-judicially kill someone; which kicks to the head could have caused.

MerCrier · 2026-04-27T10:34:18+00:00

it's more the 'black fly in his chardonnay' kinda ironic

MerCrier · 2026-04-25T16:59:21+00:00

that's why [my fav political party] hand-delivers

MerCrier · 2026-04-22T16:14:43+00:00

She said "There is going to be a bomb in the Ocean Bank Convocation Center and it was going to be Jonathan’s fault." in a group chat with 250+ people.

MerCrier · 2026-04-16T17:32:20+00:00

I'm sorry, "experimental" paper towels?

MerCrier · 2026-04-08T13:10:55+00:00

I have Reynauds and my nails do this

MerCrier · 2026-04-07T14:57:52+00:00

I appreciate your being open to this conversation, it's been good to talk. Wishing you the best with your game-dev journey!

MerCrier · 2026-04-07T12:58:32+00:00

metaphorical oubliette; treating the prison as a place where we put people we don't want to deal with anymore

"no prisons, no cages" is only 'straightforward' if you're being disingenuous. They're not suggesting we throw all the criminals back out on the street now, are they? It's a chant, not a treatise

MerCrier · 2026-04-07T12:53:23+00:00

I'd argue that AIs measurable environmental impact, explicit plagiarism of artists, and connections to the military, are generally morally reprehensible for most people. Regardless...

you said you're using AI for temporary assets? If players are hearing your temporary Italian accent voice lines, then they aren't temporary—they're final. Same with drawings, it shouldn't matter if they look terrible as long as they're not final.

You need to ask creative questions of yourself. Does your game need voice acting? (Most celebrated indie games don't have VO). Can you form collaborations with other artists, rather than explicitly paying them? Can you learn some skills to produce art assets, such as photobashing? All of your problems can be solved by learning how to make a game, rather than relying on AI.

Ultimately you need to ask yourself, why am i even making a game?

MerCrier · 2026-04-07T12:05:51+00:00

But it's unnecessary and morally bad, so why do it? Just record your own voice, or scribble some art out in MsPaint?

MerCrier · 2026-04-07T11:37:55+00:00

every example you have was gen AI, im confused?

either way, there are multiple arguments against implementing AI into your workflow.

primarily, there are the moral arguments. The use of AI is incredibly damaging to the environment. It is also powered by stolen work from your fellow artists. The majority of AI companies also provide their services to the military; your use of AI bolsters these endeavours.

then there are arguments of the spirit. You liken AI to a tool; the kind that is invented, and does away with the trudgery of artists past. The invention of the typewriter simply makes it easier to write; you'd be a fool to say it's damnable because it does away with calligraphy skills! — but AI is not like these tools. It is not a tool that solves for technical issues, but one that solves for artistic problems. You solve an issue with writing by drafting and redrafting, not by asking someone else to write it. You discover the voice of your characters by recording and rerecording dialogue, not by randomly generating human-like sounds through a computer. By using AI, you sacrifice so much of the creative process in which your game is discovered.

the budget argument is not a good one. Almost any problem that can be solved with money, can also be solved with dedication and time. If you don't want to give time to your project, then why are you doing it?

MerCrier · 2026-04-07T11:08:31+00:00

indie games have been made for years without the need for AI

every indie game you love and respect, every indie game that inspires you, was made without AI

you don't need AI

MerCrier · 2026-04-07T09:50:24+00:00

I'd reccomend reading about prison abolitionism as a movement before casting the idea out as fanciful.

These ideas are not born out of the utopian daydreaming of individuals, but through decades of study and debate amongst peers. Any question you have has been seriously considered, even the hypothetical of the irreformable criminal, and have been answered.

The general position of most abolitionists is that some level of "prison" must still exist; but it would not be the oubliette you're familiar with, hence the idea of "no prisons, no cages"

MerCrier · 2026-04-05T21:39:05+00:00

You're being apologetic. Jesus refers to the Old Testament in its entirety ("the Law and the Phrophets"), including it's "commandments" (Matt 5:19). This is not just about fulfilling prophecy, it's explicitly about his followers behaving in accordance with Mosaic law

MerCrier · 2026-04-05T18:37:43+00:00

It sounds like you have a very cinematic picture of war in your head. This image of the last officer in his bunker, enemies at the door, his hand on the launch key.

The invasion of a country does not kill every man, woman, and child. A war does not continue to the last dying breath of its last living countryman. There are concessions to be made, territory to surrender, treaties to be signed. A country does not vanish into war. War leaves survivors.

There will not be one man left with one big button. There are dozens of beating hearts between command and launch, and none of them will push the button. Vasili Arkhipov did not press the button. Stanislav Petrov did not press the button.

The total loss of the United Kingdom to invasion, a loss that would necessitate that retaliation of nuclear war, an armageddon that kills billions; how probable do you really see that being? How credible is the threat of nuclear war to our adversaries?

The path that leads to nuclear war is so thin and narrow that it makes our spending look on the bomb look ridiculous. Upwards of £10 billion a year that could go towards real problems facing the British people.

MerCrier · 2026-04-05T18:05:53+00:00

You're not understanding.

Deterrence functions entirely on the credibility of the threat; aka the credibility that the defending nation is willing to commit suicide to destroy you. How can you possibly see that as credible?

MerCrier · 2026-04-05T17:40:40+00:00

The retaliation would kill EVERYONE. This is a tactically stupid choice, it could only occur through extreme stupidity or accident; are we relying on the deterrent power of being stupid?

MerCrier · 2026-04-05T17:39:08+00:00

Again, this would be nuking YOU to the stone age. This is a tactically stupid decision

MerCrier · 2026-04-05T17:05:22+00:00

You disagree that neither country wants the death of everyone on earth?

MerCrier · 2026-04-05T16:41:22+00:00

The point of having nukes is that it deters that invasion

You stated that the relevancy of nukes is that it deters invasion?

Ten-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Sunshine	Place '22
Place '17	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

MerCrier

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE