How in God’s name do you bankrupt a casino?

Can you imagine needing to pay a licensing fee in order to use the alphabet? Or your telling of Jack up the Beanstalk being subject to copyright?

It probably does, but you’ve got too limit yourself to just one flavor. American antisemites are not gonna get on with Muslim antisemites.

My current big ones are Windsail, Sunless Sea, Sunless Skies, Stardew, and Traveler’s Rest.

Also Star Trek Online, but that’s not Steam.

Appreciate any testing you are able to do.

I’m not in a position to experiment, but I’m following the lead of a friend who is in such a position, and is far more technical than I am.

I’ll ask him about proton. Appreciate the recommend.

Same here. The minute I can be confident than my steam collection will run on Linux, I’m switching over.

Not us. The people in power, and their rabble.

The rabble don’t know what DEI is, only that it’s on the list of things they are told to be against.

Well played. It’s likely just PR bullshit, but frankly, at this point, I’ll take it.

It’s a touchy subject, and I am not great at the human part of conversation. No offence taken.

I’m not arguing in favor of billionaires. Nowhere in this entire thread, nowhere in this entire site, nowhere I have interacted with anyone over the past 18 months or so, have I suggested that terrorizing president musk is the wrong thing to do.

I just think we should call a spade a spade.

Do you think the employees of the dealership felt threatened?

You make some good points.

Back in the late 2000 or early 2010, there was a spate of, let’s say, aggressive vandalism directed at abortion clinics. I cannot help but think that, even though no person was hurt, that it must have been pretty scary for both the employees, and the patients. But would you argue that it’s not terrorism? I’d argue it was. It was a direct effort to use force, I would say violence, in order to cause a political change in practice, if not in fact.

Falsehoods? Like equating municipally owned water towers and privately owned charging stations?

No falsehoods like “property damage isn’t violence against civilians,” when we both know perfectly well it can be.

“False equivalency” seems to be another way of saying that you can’t defend your position without illustrating that you define “violence against civilians” based on how much you like the civilians in question.

I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I’m trying to get people on my side of the political divide to stop supporting their ideas with falsehoods. That is one way the right wing is able to attract a certain kind of adherent. They just have to point to things like this, where we say, and support, a false idea that we demonstrably don’t even believe ourselves.

If our ideas are good, we only need the truth to make them look good.

Why do you think that? Because I’m trying to get us to make a sensible argument rather than a simple, incorrect argument?

It’s quite easy to understand. But you said “Property damage is not violence against civilians.”

Clearly property damage can be violence against civilians.

It is if you’re using the definition provided by the person I’m replying to.

Only if you’re shorting them to further a political goal.

He didn’t say “swasticars.” He said “property.” Property damage can absolutely be violence against civilians.

My audience would be anyone tempted to think that planting a burning cross in the yard of a black family does not count as violence against civilians, because it’s just property damage.

What if I blew up a water tower?

Or burned down every grocery store in the city? (At night, while no-one was there to get hurt)