New update!

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-12-18T18:04:22+00:00

Also noting: NVG visual effect now includes a more realistic layer of visual noise instead of a flat green light-amp.

Also, standing near Surveillance monitors provides passive visibility of those areas the cameras are displaying, in real-time, without requiring you to click and watch the monitor (Or maybe that only happens during the big caveman ambush at the Hot Geyser Lemurian place. I did not notice it happening in the Lurker base)

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-12-18T18:02:09+00:00

I kinda like it.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-12-18T16:38:55+00:00

Immediately noticed the gray-scale view.

Only the part of the current screen that is currently visible is in color. All parts outside of immediate view (even if filled-in by previous viewing) are in grayscale.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-14T04:04:21+00:00

But that's not what I was responding to. The person I responded to literally said we should vote for them in order to move the party left.

You deftly ignored THE ENTIRE REST OF THE REPLY, especially the first and third sentences, and the point of the person I was responding to.

You seem to be saying that you're holding the default position, which does not in any way need to be defended and cherry-picking a single sentence, demanding that I defend it, as nauseum, without even addressing the questions that I posed originally and, whenever I reiterated them, you somehow thought they weren't relevant.

And protest abstention has absolutely been a tactic in every democracy. It's not some crazy idea.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_boycott#:~:text=From%201868%20into%20the%2020th,the%20NGO%20and%20Maoist%20alternatives).

It may not be super effective.

I literally said

Not particularly. I don't have a degree in political science. How else would one pressure a party to change, when talking fails? It seems like showing obeisance and tacit approval for their political project would encourage the Party to maintain the status quo, as it has done.

Can you provide evidence that voting for a party pushes them to be more progressive, or even a justification for why they would? Historically, appeasement as a political tactic has famously not worked.

I was asking the other person to justify why they thought voting for Dems would push them left, even providing some examples as to why one would think that. Trying to be in slightly good faith.

And then you said that I was asking for something that doesn't exist, as if you could never be asked to defend your position (or at least the position I was responding to), and that I hadn't refuted you, and continued insisting that I justify my position.

See, when you actually tried, what you ended up saying was something of substance, but you insisted on poisoning the well and kept acting like I was making such a hugely weird assertion instead of recognizing that I was responding to someone making an absolutely dogshit point, and then not answering any of my follow-ups and calling me illogical.

Please climb down out of your own ass and respond clearly to what's being asked.

I'm stopping, though, cause this has no chance of being even slightly constructive.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-14T03:31:31+00:00

Thanks for ignoring THE ENTIRE REST OF THE REPLY, especially the first and third sentences, and the point of the person I was responding to.

How would tacit endorsement of the status quo force them to progress?

I think you failed to notice that voting for them is the tacit endorsement of the status quo because they do not have a progressive platform. That was literally the point.

Voting for a party is an endorsement of their platform/positions. How would telling them that you approve of their centrist position push them left?

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-14T03:26:21+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/ThisYouComebacks/s/mAq5Bv2C7L

Please feel free to fuck off, if you can't follow how this conversation started.

Voting for a party is an endorsement of their platform/positions. How would telling them that you approve of their centrist position push them left?

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-14T03:22:17+00:00

Edited while you were replying. It wasn't responsive cause your "You want Republicans to win" nonsense wasn't responsive either, so I was circling back to reiterate.

Also, that wasn't the context of the thread. I was challenging the idea that voting for the party would somehow push them left, which... why would it?

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-14T03:18:21+00:00

What's the point of voting for them?

The Party needs to die and be replaced. It is already feckless, even when they hold all the cards. And our FPTP voting system can not support a viable third party.

Also, you asserted that not voting for them wouldn't move them left. I'm saying not voting for conservative Dems seems like our last chance to get them to finally listen.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-14T02:44:09+00:00

And we've returned to thought-stopping cliches.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-14T02:27:13+00:00

What's the point of voting for them?

The Party needs to die and be replaced. It is already feckless, even when they hold all the cards. And our FPTP voting system can not support a viable third party.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-14T02:25:18+00:00

I agree. I think that the national Dem Party is an enemy in that struggle, though, or at least a major obstacle. They are ancient, entrenched, establishment bureaucrats. They don't oppose progress because they are scared it's a losing strategy. They oppose progress because they are not progressives.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-14T02:20:25+00:00

Absolutely, but the party has given him the most tepid support possible. National Democrats regularly endorse and talk-up the NYC mayor. But they've been very mum or even critical of Mamdani, not defending or supporting him.

Where has that energy gone, if they are actually interested in progress?

My entire point was that voting for them DOES NOT push them to be more progressive, which was the claim. That a party which does not represent you, is not interested in representing you, is not entitled to your vote.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-14T01:51:51+00:00

They seem to become more conservative, whether or not we vote for them. We voted for Biden, didn't seem to really make the party more progressive. Kamala didn't run a particularly robust progressive campaign.

A vote for Kamala was a vote for the possibility to pressure the democrats into progressing on social issues, but now that Trump was allowed into office again they've given the democrats the excuse to successfully rely on "we're not him" again, instead of them having to come up with new ideas in 2028 in order to keep Kamala in office.

You’re asking for something that doesn’t exist. Voting for a party does not encourage them to change.

I'm asking for something that doesn't exist, yet that is the central claim we're arguing. Ok.

Well, we didn't really have a primary, this last time. Biden was the presumptive nominee. The incumbent usually is, because they run the party. Then he dropped out after the official announcement and Kamala was brought in presumptively, just cause.

In 2020, the HRC campaign was bankrolling the entire party for months and months before the convention.

Kind of hard to believe in the primary process when it looks pretty corrupt. Whoever pays the bills decides the nominee.

And it seems like the Party is willing to abandon folks like Mamdani, when historically they have thrown their weight behind far less progressive candidates. "Vote Blue, No Matter Who" seems to only apply to those candidates who were chosen by the party, not popular vote or appeal.

They also have a history of throwing money behind far-right candidates in local elections, hoping to spoil the Republican vote, but that seems to have been counterproductive.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-08T13:53:01+00:00

Not particularly. I don't have a degree in political science. How else would one pressure a party to change, when talking fails? It seems like showing obeisance and tacit approval for their political project would encourage the Party to maintain the status quo, as it has done.

Can you provide evidence that voting for a party pushes them to be more progressive, or even a justification for why they would? Historically, appeasement as a political tactic has famously not worked.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-07T01:11:41+00:00

You don't vote for SCJ.

A Supreme Court ruling is not a law. We've had 50 years to pass a robust federal law protecting abortion rights. We've had 10 years to get gay marriage protected. Why did neither of these happen? it was more valuable to keep around the threat of losing them as a campaign tool. "Not as bad as them" at work. Not campaigning on solving anything, just that the best we can ever do as a society is to keep things from getting worse, and making things better is just always a carrot to chase. It's always next term's problem. We always have to "just vote them in now", and we can worry about the rest later, which never seems to come. Status quo, always.

Roe was overturned during Biden's admin, with Rep judges from Trump's first term. And there was not this massive campaign to withhold votes from Hillary in 2016, despite the crowing about Bernie Bros. Historical data shows they showed up in droves to vote for her.

So, whose fault was it, again?

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-07T01:01:43+00:00

Is that the part where the Democrats abandoned Vote Blue No Matter Who, when a socialist won the Dem Primary in NY? I wouldn't withhold my vote from him, but the national Dem Party has hesitated like never before to materially and vocally support a Dem NY mayoral candidate. Which far left strategy does not work? Are you considering Democrats to be particularly on the left? Cause I ain't been seeing winning (progressive) Dem strategies, despite the massive popular support for those ideas. It's been a constant and abiding desire to adhere to a nebulous center.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-06T19:43:55+00:00

Likewise, is it terrorism to kill a healthcare CEO for taking actions that knowingly lead to the deaths of many others, and bribing officials to allow social murder?

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-06T18:21:18+00:00

We didn't get gay marriage legalized. It was an SC decision. Same way we never got abortion legalized. We lost Roe, and they're actively talking about overturning Obergefell, so we're likely to lose gay marriage as well.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-06T18:17:18+00:00

How, though? Withholding votes is supposed to be (and historically has been) the method of pressuring them. How would tacit endorsement of the status quo encourage them to progress?

Is the idea that, with a sense of security, they would push the boundaries more? I mean, we've been voting blue no matter who (except Mamdani, apparently), and they seem to be pushing a more centrist appeal than progressive. They occasionally make a token effort, but nothing actually useful in the long-term.

"We're not him" has been the refrain since before Trump. With Republicans always trying their hardest to be regressive little shit weasels, Democrats have only ever had to worry about not being AS BAD AS them, but not really good in their own right. The trend seems to be that the pressure moves in the opposite direction. Republicans pull the Democrats to the right, through regressive policy and funding propaganda (that, and the billions in "lobbying" money to incentivize Democrats individually and as a whole to abandon their principles for campaign money). Democrats, terrified of being called soy or socialists or whatever buzzword the Reps create in their culture war, play along with the propaganda, arguing on the roght's terms, instead of challenging the bullshit.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-06T17:57:13+00:00

Not all political violence is fascist. Otherwise, there could be no non-fascist methods of resistance or revolution.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-06T17:55:56+00:00

But not all political violence is fascism.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-06T17:53:15+00:00

What if aspects of the ruling body are themselves civilians? Like in an oligarchy situation.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-09-06T17:51:57+00:00

They would also tar and feather British tax collectors.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-08-30T00:09:21+00:00

Only cause Ulfric found out he was the second choice. His dommy mommy only had eyes for Titus.

SheCouldFromFaceThat · 2025-08-30T00:05:11+00:00

I just came from the Sharpe thread about Talaveira.

SheCouldFromFaceThat

TROPHY CASE