Basic income, nationalized health care, public housing, free education. Would solve a lot of problems.

Enforce existing tax laws. Increase penalties for cheating on taxes. Tax unrealized gains. Break up monopolies.

The problems facing work class men are mostly downstream from all of these things.

There may be some small amount of nuance. Like if she says a hard no vs a not now, or if time has passed and circumstances changed significantly maybe.

But I'm confident that far more often than not, being repeatedly asked out after having said no is upsetting and may be a sign of danger. Is this person who isn't accepting no on a date going to not accept no on sex, on me having friends, on other things?

Also, big norm breach, the person who said no could change their mind and reach out on their own.

We should build and fund more public housing.

Unfortunately, a large chunk of the country doesn't believe the government can or should do anything, so I guess that's a difficult pitch to make.

As I understand it, people mostly change their mind (and thus behavior) for two reasons.

The first is in-group beliefs. If someone sees other people in their in-group believing a thing or behaving in a way, they're more likely to adopt that. Possibly the people who play audio in public, their friends and peers are the same way. But if you also might be in one of their groups, like a college kid to another college kid, or a junior professional to another, talking to them might make a difference. But if you're like a 59 year rich old white guy, telling a 16 year old non-white poorer kid is unlikely to land, because they probably see you as outgroup.

The other thing that changes minds is horrible trauma. Like, if you smashed their head into the bus window, took their phone and transferred all their money (via venmo or whatever), then tossed the phone out the window, they might change their mind about being a public irritant. Maybe. They might also take some other lesson instead. But either way you'd go to jail for several crimes, so probably don't do that.

They might be a literal child, as implied by their name.

Some romance tropes.

People doing creepy things and it being portrayed as romantic. Like stalking, or not taking no for an answer.

Love triangles. I spend a lot of time with polyamorous people, and would like to see more representation. and not like "a cishet monogamous person's idea". But even if you are monogamous, you can date different people for a bit before going all in on someone.

such as whether or not you should block people who disagree with you.

I don't think anyone was making the argument to block everyone who disagrees with you. If someone wants to do a social intrigue game in DND I'm going to think that's not the best tool for the job, but I'm not going to block them.

If someone's like "women shouldn't be allowed to vote" then that's a whole different kind of disagreement.

My point is that you can’t arrive at what is right without knowing what is wrong and you can’t know what is wrong if you block everyone who disagrees with you.

I don't know if that's true? I don't need to see every variation of racist argument to identify racism is bad. You don't need to know the full set of possibilities to pick a good one. Like, you probably have reasonable interactions with dogs on the street and never considered going on all fours and aggressively pissing and howling before.

The fastest way to an echo chamber is to ignore everyone who disagrees with you.

This isn't about the entire set of people who disagree.

It is a waste of time to engage some kinds of people. They are not acting in good faith.

There's a Sartre quote about it

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

Car crashed into the supermarket I worked at in high school. Low speed, low damage.

It's nearly impossible to do anything good when you have a major conservative party set on doing bad.

You could have a position of "We should provide food to all children so they can learn without being distracted by hunger" and people would be like "that's communism i'd rather those kids starve"

I'm outside so I'm not sure how to evaluate "the room". My phone is the most immediate at hand (pun intended) useful thing right now though.

There was a (fiction) book I was called "all the birds in the sky". I really liked it. Highly recommend.

One of the plot threads is a rich tech bro character that's like "the world is doomed we need to abandon it for somewhere else. Better pour tons of resources into this sci-fi sounding project". And I'm just screaming at the book "use that money for housing and transport and clean energy you absolute donkey".

There are a lot of well understood things we could be doing to make the world better, but they're difficult for idiotic political reasons. Racism, nimbyism, emotional immaturity, etc.

There are other RPGs that may scratch slightly different itches, if the fantasy + combat + resource management parts of DND don't really appeal.

I really like Fate. it's a lot more focused on story and is overall a lighter system. it does ask more from the players though.

I also really liked pillars 2, and am sad they're not making a third one.

This pains me.

One time in a tabletop DND game, the party wiped over bad rolls. It was partly my fault for over tuning the fight, but also bad luck. The party had a potion that was like "you can make an extra full attack this turn, all your hits do an extra 1d10, and you're hasted. Afterwards, you are paralyzed for 1d4+1 turns".

Fighter drinks it and proceeded to miss like 6 attacks in a row. I think he needed to roll above like 13 and just couldn't do it.

This is also why I prefer games that give players more tools to tell the dice to fuck off, like fate points in Fate or willpower in CofD.

I think of my cat as a lovable, kind of stupid, little brother. He usually wants to be involved in whatever I'm doing , follows me around the apartment, and so on. But also sometimes he just decides to do something ridiculous like climb into the dresser and get stuck.

I'm not sure how he thinks of me exactly. Seems affectionate!

"do not naturally possess" implies that trans folks possess the ability to double jump, but through unnatural means.

I have a somewhat bad memory of playing DND as like a 13 year old. We were a mess. There was a cliff, a waterfall, and rope. Someone tied rope around himself and wanted to go down. There was a lot of cross talk and the guy with the rope around said he was going down.

The DM was like "no one is holding the other end of the rope"

"What?"

One by one they went through what everyone else had said they were doing. Searching the cave rocks for secrets. Keeping watch at entrance. Fighting over who got the magic stick. Etc.

Player went over the cliff.

It was decided that the character would wash up downstream with 0 HP and would live, so long as we could get to him in a reasonable time. Lessons were learned, sort of.

Oh gosh I looked at the hand and think I lost 2d4 sanity points.

Targeted ads should be illegal.

Contextual ads are a compromise I would accept. That is, you can buy ads based on the page content, but not the viewer details. So if I'm looking at a website about bikes, you can have bike ads on there. You don't need to know I'm a xx year old living in zip code 10001. That's how ads worked for like decades (centuries?). It's fine.