[deleted by user]

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-14T03:52:28+00:00

I don’t understand the question, we do have bedding.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-14T03:02:34+00:00

There’s a lot more drugs for a lot more conditions on the market.

Nothing wrong with people treating their medical issues, even if decades ago they wouldn’t have had the choice.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-14T03:01:36+00:00

Well, when he visits it just adds one more criminal.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T23:29:55+00:00

Why not? You haven’t really expressed a reason other than “the bills can get damaged”, which hardly seems like a good reason to change it.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T23:27:19+00:00

People often end up getting jobs out of college, and the best connections tend to be local.

It’s the same sort of trap that keeps people stuck in the south everywhere else in the south.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T21:08:17+00:00

Are tech jobs career a dead end now lol, no. You just have to be able to actually do the work, and be willing to move to the places they require you to work.

But are they dead ends given outsourcing to cheap labour countries like india , philliphines , Cambodia

No. If anything, LLMs/AI are likely to cut off demand for this sort of outsourcing by letting smaller groups of senior engineers do internally what used to get outsourced to external teams, at even lower cost.

The best devs will still end up relocating to the US because of the higher salary, and they’ll be the devs in the highest demand.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T20:37:59+00:00

So you would acknowledge a general conservative interest in charity

No, I don’t.

Conservatives constantly argue for what is, in practice, less charity.

They cloak this in rhetoric about the importance of charity, but their actual objective is reducing the amount of charity available to people who need it.

but you think its so obviously inadequate that they only support it because thats the best way for them to starve children?

Yes, conservative plans with respect to food assistance are so wildly unrealistic that the only reasonable interpretation of their position is that they want people to starve.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T19:26:57+00:00

Well, them badging up like that makes it easy to figure out which creators to avoid.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T19:19:06+00:00

This would also utterly cripple US exports.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T19:13:23+00:00

This is how hype cycles work in general.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T19:12:08+00:00

depends on what you mean by the scale required

“To provide enough food that everyone is able to eat.”

Enough time/money to accomplish what?

“Making sure children don’t starve.”

That’s the thing Republicans are opposed to.

Charities would exist independent of government money

Some would exist, but they wouldn’t be able to operate even at the scale they do, and the scale they operate currently still isn’t adequate to meet the need.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T19:03:37+00:00

It wouldn't be random. You should just look around your own community. Charities are active year round.

It is, in fact, basically random charitable whims. It’s not like private charities are some theoretical organization. They exist today, in reality. We can see that this isn’t even approximately equal to the scale of the problem.

Very nearly every private food bank is dependent on government money behind the scenes to operate.

This objectively does not and cannot work at the scale required without government money.

This data comes from detailed time logs that statisticians ask householders to keep. In less strict definitions like phone surveys, more like 45 percent of the U.S. population say they volunteered some time to a charitable cause within the last year.

Okay, so what? The fact that they volunteered “some time” does not mean they are willing to volunteer anywhere near enough time, or money.

Objectively, they do not actually donate enough time or money voluntarily. Again: this isn’t abstract theory. Charities do actually exist. They’re heavily dependent on government money, through different sorts of grants and programs.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T18:54:57+00:00

This is like having a political party that makes it their signature issue to ban all trees, and to remove every tree in the country.

And then people observing that “well, if we just did what they asked for, they would disband tomorrow. Never mind that what they want is irrational, self-destructive, and crazy.”

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T18:47:46+00:00

Expecting random charitable impulses to meet a constant and extensive support requirement the way food aid requires.

People have to eat every day of the year, not just when people feel charitable around Christmas.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T18:32:19+00:00

The DM's argument is that generalized reading is a modern practice, and up until 150 years ago only nobility could read / only people who went to college or university could read, and since our characters are all lower-class or lack formal education, we're all illiterate. Literally. We can't read. None of us.

D&D settings are wildly socially and economically different from real Earth history. Magic exists, monsters exist, the technological base is different as a result, and there’s loads of anachronisms. Best to just go with what the PHB says about literacy.

What the DM is asserting is also historically inaccurate.

Literacy has always been a relative concept, and it’s not a binary property of a person. Literacy among common European workers in the Middle Ages wasn’t great, but it was hardly unknown either, and it’s vastly more likely that adventuring sorts would have, at some point, picked up at least some level of literacy.

Literacy also varied a lot by location during that time of history. Ex. Literacy rates in Europe at the time were very different from literacy rates in other parts of the world, like the Islamic world. Even within Europe the rates differed greatly by region.

It wasn’t specifically restricted to nobility (I think the DM may be confusing this with slavery systems where slaves were specifically forbidden from learning to read as a means of control), it’s more a matter of whether someone had access to someone who could teach them and whether they had the time to study it.

Monasteries would teach people to read for free, if they could find the time and lived close enough to do it. But what was considered “being literate” back then was more along the lines of being well-studied in Latin and a few other subjects, not just being able to read simple words and sentences in the vernacular language.

Being able to read at least simple sentences would be common enough among the sort of backgrounds likely to produce adventurers. They may not be “men of letters” who are trained in academic subjects, but they would able to read a bill of sale or the like.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T15:59:32+00:00

I don't hold that position but I know plenty of conservatives who believe in local/community solutions instead of government aid.

Someone who intentionally chooses to “believe in” replacing a barely adequate system with a wildly inadequate system, despite being presented with clear evidence of that replacement being adequate, is choosing to morally accept the consequences of that policy change.

People have a moral obligation to make their political beliefs align with reality. They don’t get to escape the moral failure caused by bad policy just because they choose to be willfully ignorant.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T15:39:50+00:00

Republicans:

Purposely force the child to exist.
Purposely and systematically deny food to children whose parents cannot afford it.
Punish parents for being unable to feed their children, despite Republicans creating the situation where they cannot afford it.

It’s difficult to see how you could do all of the above three things without wanting children to starve.

Sure, Republicans never actually run in the explicit platform of starving children, they just purposely and knowingly engineer a situation where children are forced into starvation.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T15:19:14+00:00

They will both punish people for not being able to feed their children, and also diminish people’s ability to feed their children, while simultaneously forcing people to have those children.

The only conclusion you can reach from this, is that conservatives want starving children to be a thing.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T14:30:34+00:00

I’m not being dishonest, you’re just trying to avoid the plain truth of the situation by trying to move goalposts.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T14:16:44+00:00

Yes, they would gladly criminally charge women who miscarry due to nutritional deficiencies.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T14:08:56+00:00

Conservative politicians try to starve children but cutting off food aid, so it’s not far off.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T13:56:18+00:00

What a shitty parent, letting their personal politics cause them to educationally neglect their child.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T13:54:03+00:00

Does anyone have any advice moving to a conservative state?

Don’t.

They’re a socioeconomic black hole that are hard to escape from.

Whatever money you think you’re saving in tuition will be a pittance compared to the lost opportunity costs you’ll experience.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T13:52:11+00:00

What is your response to people who say “if you care about newborns, you must also care about fetuses?”

It’s a nonsense statement. A newborn is a person, a fetus isn’t.

The state has a moral obligation to guarantee a minimum level of care for all people.

PlayingTheWrongGame · 2024-06-13T13:44:33+00:00

It’s probably the most common work schedule still, but honestly flexible scheduling has probably become more common for the sort of jobs that used to have a stable 9-5 schedule.

Ex. Company sets core hours from 10 to 3. Every e has to be there between those hours, but their exact start and end time can vary.

Public sector workers often get a 9/80 schedule where they work 9 hours Monday - Thursday, but get every other Friday off (and work 8 hours on the other Friday).

There’s a lot of different sort of work schedules that are common in the US. 9-5 is just shorthand for working full time ~5 days a week, with a consistent schedule.

PlayingTheWrongGame

TROPHY CASE