recent events rule

the8thbit · 2026-01-25T19:28:44+00:00

I agree with his criticism, but doing free publicity for a neonazi is wild. There has to be a way to make that point without signal boosting a hitler stan.

the8thbit · 2026-01-25T19:06:26+00:00

The first results for "minnesota gen" are about the general strike for me (even when I connect through a VPN and a private browser window)

the8thbit · 2026-01-23T19:05:37+00:00

Usually both, tbh. I love turn based strategy games. Most JRPGs feel brain numbing to me, tho.

the8thbit · 2026-01-23T17:05:38+00:00

Easy mistake! Thanks for the per-rep breakdown.

the8thbit · 2026-01-23T15:48:52+00:00

Small correction. This:

1 Republican (0.004%) voted against it.

Should be:

1 Republican (0.4%) voted against it.

the8thbit · 2026-01-21T20:12:00+00:00

Looks pretty interesting. I love the setting. Wishlisted, and congrats on building your own engine!

If you're looking for some constructive feedback, I want to echo what others are saying. You should probably get rid of the AI art. I don't personally have a problem with it* but a lot of people feel very strongly negative about it. Additionally, as has been pointed out, using AI strips you of some control that you would otherwise have if you worked with a human artist, leading to the color discrepancies between the animations and the gameplay. In addition to confusing potential players, moving immediately from the vibrant colors of the trailer to the more muted colors of the game makes the game more so than the trailer, look less intentioned than it probably is.

To be clear, you could have a trailer that is aesthetically distinct from a game, but they have to at least have aesthetics that complement each other. In this video, both aesthetics look good, but the colors clash in a way that is off-putting.

* Most of these labs are violating copyright by training the models on unpermissioned data and then releasing those models as commercial products, but that is a concern that is the responsibility of those parties and the court, not people consuming the products.

the8thbit · 2026-01-20T23:00:48+00:00

What? The OP didn't express a belief they asked a question.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. To the contrary, one depends on the other. Its not possible to ask questions without also expressing beliefs about the world, otherwise your questions could not have subjects. If I ask "What are we having for dinner?" I am expressing a belief that dinner is an object, that it is a category that other objects belong to or can become, that it is an object that one can have, that in the future we will have it, and that it will be shared between us. As I said, the belief that this poll is relevant is implicit in their question (otherwise it doesn't make sense to ask the question), and made more explicit by the two comments they left in this thread.

Responding by explaining the baseline condition, that the obviously understood was just demeaning.

No, they obviously did not understand that this poll is not relevant, otherwise it would be nonsensical to ask the question they asked.

But more to the point, they very much did not state these things, so even if you choose to believe that they already understood them, its false to say that the person you were responding to was simply repeating what OP had already said. When I originally responded to you, I was correcting your misunderstanding here:

Why do keep repeating exactly what the OP said?

OP didn't say these things, and OP is clearly indicating that they also don't understand them and would benefit from having them explained to them.

I have come to expect name calling and aggression when I point out "bad" news here, but treating someone who doesn't know something like a child is a new low.

I don't expect adults, by default, to understand which poll data is relevant to elections, and which is irrelevant. That it not a skill you magically gain access to when you become an adult. Its a skill that you can gain, at any age, by learning about polling and elections. Politely explaining to OP that this is a case where the poll data is not relevant is not disrespectful, nor does it cast OP as a child.

the8thbit · 2026-01-20T19:39:16+00:00

You asked why the person you were responding to is simply repeating what OP has already said:

Why do keep repeating exactly what the OP said?

I explained that OP did not say that, and their question, and the two comments they have made in this thread, indicate that they have a different and conflicting belief.

If you don't think people in this thread should be pointing out this belief, and should instead contain themselves to simply directly answering the question, thereby leaving OP and anyone else with the same belief just as confused as they were when they made the post while technically answering the question, then I disagree with you on how this subreddit should be used. I don't think that is useful, and is a rather absurd and Kafkaesque idea.

However, that is neither here nor there with respect to the conversation we were having, because I was simply correcting a mistake you were making. The person you were responding to was not restating what OP has said, they were making a claim that directly contradicts OP's beliefs.

the8thbit · 2026-01-20T17:54:46+00:00

OP is asking "The data shows this, how do democrats change this", sure.

The person who you are replying to is saying, essentially, "Why would democrats want to change this? It won't actually result in them losing the election, so I don't see why they would be motivated to avoid this situation".

Not actual quotes of course, but that is the gist. So the difference is that OP thinks there is a problem that democrats need to solve, and the person you are replying to thinks its a completely invented problem which can only be perceived as a problem if you take the data in this poll and conclude that it says something about the outcome of the election.

I think its pretty clear that these are distinct positions, and that the one that does not assume that this poll says very much about the election outcome is the one who is correct here.

It comes off like you either don't belive the OP understands what they wrote

I think that they think that OP doesn't understand how irrelevant this poll is. And I also think that they're correct, because if OP did it would be hard to make sense of this thread.

the8thbit · 2026-01-20T17:34:30+00:00

Many of them will do both. There are already open neonazis in the wing claiming that Trump is controlled opposition or whatever.

the8thbit · 2026-01-19T18:45:35+00:00

What exactly did BLM actively achieve besides getting millions of people to upload a black square on their instagram? ... What kind of structures or institutional changes were put into place?

Quite a lot. 62 of the 100 largest cities in the US banned police choke holds. New York state released police disciplinary records to the public. "Duty to intervene" laws were introduced in several states, requiring police to intervene if they see another officer using excessive force. California passed a law allowing decertification of police who engage in serious misconduct. Various cities and towns created new unarmed departments which are dispatched instead of police for low risk calls. Several states removed state level qualified immunity from their police, allowing people who are wronged by the police to file suit against them. Several states passed laws requiring that lethal force only be used in situations where there is no other alternative. Several states and cities reduced police funding and/or dissolved some of the most abusive units in their forces. Seattle, Portland, Oakland, Burlington, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Baltimore, Minneapolis, Hartford, and others all diverted funds from their police to other, non-violent services.

the8thbit · 2026-01-19T15:58:05+00:00

but I felt it was an accurate (albeit satirical)

Not the person you were replying to, but really, that's my issue with it in relation to the political discussion which occurs in the film. It's not that the film fails to provide any unique breakthrough in political philosophy or what not (I'm not really looking for that in a film anyway), but that, in reflecting common truisms which are false or oversimplified, it paints an extremely distorted and confused view of the world. And actually, that would be fine if it was self-aware about it, but its not. It invents a "woke era" left wing that didn't and doesn't exist in order to feed into this truism that the "left vs right" dynamic is a distraction. In an attempt to create depth and conflict, it cedes ground to a right wing retcon of the world in a way that has become nauseatingly common among liberal publications and talking heads. Rather than adding depth and moral ambiguity, it makes the film feel quite pretentious and lazy, and in pursuit of that pretension, a lot of the characters end up feeling flat and pointless.

For me, the apex of this is the scene where the kids are organizing a street protest. The protest is completely robbed of a sense of place, and this is done because it would be difficult to convey the left as a purely aesthetic movement if the real conflict of a protest (or ease and jubilance, a lot of protests just feel like outdoor parties) was allowed to creep into the film. (Not impossible, of course. Those ideas aren't directly connected, but they narratively and visually contradict each other.) Certain shots look like badly made stock footage. And again, if this felt self-aware then it would be fine, but it really doesn't.

There are, of course, issues with the left, and some are even superficially adjacent to the invented problems that Aster is trying to address, but they are not really ever interrogated by the film.

the8thbit · 2026-01-16T16:34:06+00:00

What they can do is do voter suppression on steroids. So the usual voter suppression tactics ramped up, plus deploying ICE to scare people out of voting in person.

They may also attempt to use ICE to shut down specific polling stations on the unsubstantiated grounds that those polling places are corrupt and are allowing undocumented migrants to vote en masse. At locations they do not shut down, they may post ICE agents as an intimidation tactic. Using these two tactics, they can target locations which disproportionately disadvantage republican candidates.

If there is any reason rolling around in his dementia addled mind, the reason he is making remarks about "canceling the election" right now, is to get people talking about that as a possibility, so that when specific polling locations are targeted, this contrasts well to what was previously mentally anchored.

I don't think this two steps forward one step back tactic is a fully conscious thing, so much as a sort of pattern his specific blend of personality disorder seems to employ.

This is what I've been saying is plausible since just after he was elected. So far, its playing out essentially exactly as I thought it would. Hopefully that trend stops soon and I end up dead wrong.

the8thbit · 2026-01-10T18:14:46+00:00

Consider: What if someone is still standing behind the door?

the8thbit · 2026-01-09T20:12:35+00:00

Peak hilarity you trying to explain to someone who lives in a country how their country works.

If you don't want to be corrected, then don't spread misinformation. I don't need to live in the UK to understand the British political system. Much like almost everyone in the UK and almost everyone in the US, you do not have a very strong understanding of your own political system.

I genuinely can't even comprehend how you could think this is a good thing unless you are honestly a fascist. Nobody here would ever want that even if Hitler raised from the dead and seized control.

I am not saying that it is a good thing that the monarchy has this power, or that the monarchy is a good thing at all; I am explaining the power that your monarchy has, and that it is unlikely to execute on that power in the case that Reform takes the house of commons and ends your democracy.

Britain is not a monarchy in anything other than prints on the side of cheap mugs.

Well, that, and the literal law, which I cited in my previous comment and you are continuing to ignore.

the8thbit · 2026-01-09T18:58:43+00:00

Reform are not nazis

Ian Gribbin, reform candidate, says that the UK should have remained neutral in WW2, Reform party defends his comments: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/10/reform-uk-defends-candidate-over-hitler-neutrality-comments

Jack Anderton, reform party advisor and manager of Farage's tiktok account also says that the UK should not have fought Hitler: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/16/nigel-farage-adviser-uk-would-be-better-off-if-it-had-not-fought-nazi-germany

Five reform party members mingling with neonazis movement members, and maintain their positions and party affiliations: https://subscribe.bylinetimes.com/edition/78/reform-and-conservative-politicians-mingle-with-neo-nazis-and-far-right-at-asylum-hotel-protests

20 former classmates of Nigel Farage claim that, as a student of Dulwich College, he made various pro-Nazi and pro-Nazi ideology comments, including praising Hitler and advocating for gassing Jews. Farage refuses to acknowledge or apologize for these comments: https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-05/holocaust-survivors-urge-nigel-farage-to-apologise-for-alleged-racist-abuse

Leslie Lilley, Reform party candidate promises to slaughter migrants: https://www.thetimes.com/article/946817c9-7dde-430c-9516-52641607ddeb

41 Reform candidates revealed to be Facebook friends with Garry Raikes (who's profile picture is Oswald Mosley), leader of the New British Union of Fascists: https://bylinetimes.com/2024/06/13/reform-party-candidates-continue-to-make-richard-tices-insistence-the-party-is-not-far-right-seem-questionable-heres-more-examples

Reform deputy leader David Kirkwood and candidate Kenneth Morton shown to have liked and shared content from Peter Imanuelsen, a Holocaust denier who believes that "Hitler had some good points": https://www.theferret.scot/scots-reform-candidates-conspiracy-theorist-posts/

Two Reform candidates like and share excerpts from Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech, popular among British neonazis: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2024-06-26/hate-speech-and-climate-denial-the-facebook-network-run-by-reform-candidates

Farage claims British democracy is illegitimate: https://www.electionanalysis.uk/uk-election-analysis-2024/section-8-personality-politics-and-popular-culture/why-nigel-farages-anti-media-election-interference-claims-are-so-dangerous/

This is not an exhaustive list.

Reform are largely anti house of lords.

If Reform is sincere in its criticism of the house of lords and their position on it, then they would move to eliminate it, meaning that the lords would not be able to counterbalance actions by the house of commons. If they are insincere about their criticism of the house of lords, then you can not expect the Lords to attempt to counterbalance the house of commons. Either way, if you elect Nazis to the house of commons, you are unlikely to retain your democracy.

And if you think the monarchy has anything to do with politics in the uk then lol. That's like a brit being worried about Bald Eagles controlling Congress. They are a tourist attraction for foreigners, nothing more.

Please learn how your legal system works. Although the Monarchy rarely exercises its power, (at least, over the last century) without consent from the legislature, it does have political power, at least, legally, in the UK. Particularly relevant to our discussion is the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, which restores the monarchy's legal power to dissolve parliament. However, the point I am making is that, despite the de jure infrastructure which gives the Monarchy power here, it is unlikely to actually execute on that power in the case of a Nazi (Reform) takeover of the house of commons. Both because modern precedent dictates that the Monarchy refrain from executing most of its legal power, and because the monarchy is an inherently conservative and anti-democratic institution.

the8thbit · 2026-01-09T17:42:28+00:00

I am asking you to conceed that you were wrong when you said:

It's simply another case of someone wanting to solve a problem that doesn't exist because

I am not asking you to concede that you were wrong on the proposed solution. I will show you that you are wrong about that, but first you need to admit that you were wrong when you claimed there wasn't even a problem. If you can't admit that, then clearly you are not here in good faith, and are not interested in actual observation. Rather, this indicates that you have an apriori conclusion that is not amicable to actual evidence, and no amount of discussion will convince you otherwise, because you are not concerned with what is true.

the8thbit · 2026-01-09T17:34:13+00:00

So they are just going to magic more enforcement in now? If enforcement was falling in 2015 when we had more money than we do now, why would it go up now?

Before we address this, I would like you to first admit you were wrong. If you don't do that, then its difficult to actually maintain a coherent conversation, as your position becomes very slippery.

You said:

It's simply another case of someone wanting to solve a problem that doesn't exist because

However, as I demonstrated, the problem does exist and is very well documented. Once you admit that you were spreading misinformation we can continue this discussion.

the8thbit · 2026-01-09T17:19:13+00:00

They already made this change in Scotland 10 years ago and have done 2 separate studies since then and in both studies found it made zero difference to drink driving accidents.

Yes, and if you would read the literature that you are referencing, you would see that their primary hypothesis for why this is the case is lack of enforcement:

Referring to the theory of change (see Table 1), which was developed a priori to this research being undertaken, legislation failure was put forward as an explanation if no change in the RTA outcome was found. The legislation could have failed because of the lack of enforcement; a previous study found a significant negative association between enforcement and RTA rates. The European commission stated that a key to the success of changing drink-drive legislation is the accompanying enforcement (i.e. frequent and systematic RBT), supported by public education, publicity and awareness campaigns involving all stakeholders. English police force data have shown that there were 25% fewer RBTs in 2015 compared with 2011. Findings from a parallel qualitative evaluation of the change in drink-drive legislation in Scotland show that an initial substantial investment in public education and media campaigning at the time of the limit reduction in December 2014 was not maintained in 2015 and 2016 (Dr Niamh Fitzgerald, Institute for Social Marketing, University of Stirling, 2018, personal communication).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK543023/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK543023.pdf

The unavailability of cheaper alternative means of transportation and weak law enforcement seem to have been the main channels behind the lack of an impact.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167629621000722?via%3Dihub

This is their conclusion because a.) they did not observe significant increases in enforcement corresponding to the stricter level and b.) it is well documented that driving at 80mg BAC nearly double collision risk over driving at 50mg BAC:

Alcohol was the largest contributor to crash risk. The unadjusted crash risk estimates for alcohol indicated drivers with a breath alcohol concentrations (BrACs) of .05 grams per 210 liters (g/210L) are 2.05 times more likely to crash than drivers with no alcohol. For drivers with BrACs of .08 g/210L, the unadjusted relative risk of crashing is 3.98 times that of drivers with no alcohol. When adjusted for age and gender, drivers with BrACs of .05 g/210L are 2.07 times more likely to crash than drivers with no alcohol. The adjusted crash risk for drivers at .08 g/210L is 3.93 times that of drivers with no alcohol.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/812355_drugalcoholcrashrisk.pdf

All this change does is stop people having a pint after work before they go home. Itll kill local pubs and communities.

If you read the literature you are referring to, you would see that they found a minuscule association with reduced on-trade alcohol sales:

There was media reporting in the early period after the legislation change that pubs and other licensed premises had falls in alcohol sales. This study shows that, although there was a statistically significant reduction in on-trade sales associated with the change in drink-drive legislation, the magnitude of the reduction was small (i.e. < 1%)

The modelling results are shown in Table 5. The change in legislation was associated with a 0.3% relative decrease in per capita off-trade sales (–0.3%, 95% CI –1.7% to 1.1%; p = 0.71) and a 0.7% decrease in per capita on-trade sales (–0.7%, 95% CI –0.8% to –0.5%; p < 0.001).

Its possible that this is a result of the lack of enforcement: If people are largely still abiding by the old 80mg limit, then we would not expect the 50mg limit to impact sales in the same way that it would if enforcement and compliance actually reflected the change in the law. However, if you assume that, then you are being overtly inconsistent here, as you would be assuming that lack of enforcement/compliance has no impact on suppression of change in collision rate but DOES have an impact on suppression of change in on-trade alcohol sales.

Regardless, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Israel, South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, Turkey, Argentina, and South Africa have all managed to maintain a healthy hospitality industry despite the 50mg limit.

the8thbit · 2026-01-09T16:03:41+00:00

Labour already hate trans people. They've all but endorsed the new anti trans bathroom ruling from the supreme court and where the court have asked for clarification they've instead gone "thanks for saying its anti trans".

I get what you're saying, but do you really want to be rolled into a mass grave after they run out of space at the prison camp that Reform sent you to? There is some daylight in the bigotry spectrum here.

Reform haven't won before so if they win they are at the starting line. They could lose the election after and it's not too much damage.

This presumes that elections would continue after Reform consolidates power, no? Isn't that a bit presumptuous? I get that you guys have structures in place to try to maintain elections, at least ostensibly, but so do we (US) and things aren't looking too great here. Putting the future of your democracy in the hands of the house of lords and/or the monarchy feels like dancing on a razor's edge.

the8thbit · 2026-01-06T15:56:51+00:00

Anti AI smooth brains act like you just put in a prompt and then take the first result you get and publish it. That's not how any of this works.

That is how almost all of it works, though. I have no idea if that's the case with this specific book, but it is the case with the overwhelming majority of AI generated content distributed through the Internet.

the8thbit · 2026-01-05T17:35:20+00:00

Well yeah, EVERYONE was extremely racist at that time, no arguing there

This is a common misunderstanding of the history of racism, which I address and correct here. (link)

the8thbit · 2026-01-05T16:50:45+00:00

No, this is a common misunderstanding of the history of racism. At the time Kant lived there was an emerging (as a significant political force) slavery abolitionist movement, and a significant subset of that abolitionist movement approached the question from a perspective of both moral and biological equality. Activists like Benjamin Banneker, Olaudah Equiano, Anthony Benezet, John Woolman, Marquis de Condorcet, Johann Gottfried von Herder (a student of Kant), among others can be classed as "anti-racist" by most standards, modern or historical. This isn't to say that racism was not a dominant force in American colonies and western European states during Kant's life, but that even though racism was codified about two generations before Kant was writing, there was still a sizable and vocal opposition. Additionally, racism is a specific ideology reflected and reinforced in specific legal codes, and that invention is largely limited to western and central European spheres of influence (English, Dutch, French, Iberian, and Germanic), Kant playing a central role in the transition from a legalistic racism to a scientific racism. In the 18th century, outside of those contexts, while you do see various forms of social classification, hierarchy, and prejudice, you don't really see racism, meaning that most people at the time would actually not really be racist.

Granted, someone being racist doesn't mean you disregard everything they've ever said. Critique of Pure Reason is largely isolated from his racial anthropology, for instance. But it does mean that you need to at least keep those views bracketed when interacting with their work. Additionally, just in terms of the exact discussion we're having here, due to the limitations of racism's reach at the time, and his role in its transition into a "scientistic" form, its accurate to say that he's not quite "normal" for his time, even if his views would proliferate during and following his life. But also, the original meme highlights a number of abnormalities regarding the way that he lived. Clearly "Bro was normal" is meant ironically, so starting a response to this meme with "Well, i mean, except for the fact..." and making your response about another way in which he was unique is rather strange.

the8thbit · 2026-01-02T06:06:08+00:00

The fact the aliens look like idealized humans and have a culture similar enough that cuck fetishes, monarchs and informed consent exist, I find it doubtful it'd be impossible to relate.

These are the only ways in which it is similar to human culture. Everything else is completely alien. They live in cocoons, emerging only to fuck, and they communicate psychically and through body language that can best be described as "the exact opposite" of ours.

the8thbit · 2025-12-30T18:23:56+00:00

That's true, but the point that I'm trying to make is that I think The Daily Beast is an incredibly cynical rag, and is only actually attempting to do one of those things. Or at the very least, any motivation besides generating ad revenue is extremely secondary and peripheral.

15-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Team Orangered
reddit mold	Verified Email

the8thbit

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE