Again, it's not necessary, but it did work. I hope we can resolve the issues in our country democratically, but I'm mentally preparing myself for the violence that will inevitably follow if that doesn't work. If our country falls to fascism, it'll take a real fight to get it back.
Signtist
joined 1 year ago
I mean, our country was founded through a bunch of people getting really uncivil and violent. Sure, it still needed - and still needs - a lot of improvement to be fair for everyone who wasn't part of the "in-group," but the same could be said for most countries at the time ours was founded.
I certainly don't believe that it's necessary to be uncivil and violent to achieve a fair and civil society, but it has shown past success at ridding a country of leaders who don't have the people's best interests at heart.
This is the biggest thing. If he were to actually tell the full truth here, he'd be less successful in getting his message across to the people who listen to him. Full truth is the ultimate goal, but we're so far from it that for half the country it's an impossibly huge leap to go from where they are now to the truth in one bound.
Yeah, that's the family history of inbreeding that I was talking about - if you continuously have children within the family for multiple generations then the risk continues to rise so long as the trend continues. It's generally only the risk of getting 2 copies of some familial recessive condition or other issues that arise from getting identical copies of genetic information from both parents, though, so breaking the chain and having a kid with someone outside of the family removes that risk; even if someone has a family history of inbreeding, it doesn't put their potential children at risk so long as their partner isn't related to them.
Inbreeding generally stops being a notable factor around 4th degree relation between parents. Even first cousins, 3rd degree relatives, only have about a 6% risk of an anomaly at birth when having a child together, compared to the 3% normal rate for all pregnancies. There's likely been a LOT of inbreeding in any one person's family history.
The nice thing is that once a new non-relative is added to the mix, the risks associated with past inbreeding largely go away; you only pass on 1 copy of your genes to your kid, so even if you're personally affected by a family history of inbreeding giving you a bunch of identical copies, if your kid's other parent isn't related to you, their copies should be different from yours, and the kid will have 2 different copies just like anyone else, helping protect them from recessive familial conditions and the like.
Nah, it's referring to the first space by grouping the first and second words, "Pig" and "And," and then referring to the second space by grouping the second and third words, "And" and "Whistle."
"Thank you I came in 30 seconds."
Looks cool, but I worry that they've got so many different enemies pulling in different directions that they won't really get into an interesting story for any of them. The reason I loved Origins was because it really focused on the darkspawn, both in terms of the lore surrounding them, and the effect their invasion has on society. Then the DLC came out and teased that the darkspawn are more than they appear to be, setting up for future games to delve into that even more. It was great, but then the next couple of games came out and didn't seem to have that same feeling of depth, and I lost interest. If the game is just a checklist of different things to kill, I'm not really interested in playing it.
I like to think it's just really long.
I just want them to finish the beta 2D version of Rayman 2. I was so excited when I unlocked the demo for it at the end of Rayman 2, thinking it was a sneak preview for the next game, only be disappointed to learn it was the scrapped initial concept instead...
3D Rayman games are good, but they feel like a completely different series when compared to the bright, colorful world of Rayman 1. The newer 2D ones are closer, but still feel too different.
Correct - every government eventually welcomes corruption that needs to be flushed out, and if it gets too strong of a hold on the country, it may need to be forced out. When the US was founded, it was prosperous for the wealthy and non-wealthy alike, and continued to be prosperous for a while. There were ups and downs, but it slowly got worse for the common citizen as the wealthy used their power to influence the country in their favor over time. It came to a head about 100 years ago, and we were able to get through it nonviolently back then.
It's happening again now, and we might be able to pull through democratically again, but we might not. 100 years ago there was much more of a sense of solidarity against the rich and powerful, but now that we live in a world with a much better understanding of human emotion and motivation, a huge percentage of the country has been thoroughly convinced to fight for their own exploitation by the wealthy. Pair that with all of the war going on right now that we're more aware of than ever given the technology that globally connects us, and we're a lot more divided than we were back then.
I hope that we don't need violence to solve our current political issues - democracy has certainly worked before - but it's always been the backup plan when civility doesn't get the job done.