Nobody claimed that Biden was a perfect president or even a particularly good one. And Harris was certainly deeply flawed in her positions in many ways. But saying that those two are no different from Trump is like saying that a plumber who just stands there and watch your pipes leak is the same as a plumber who bashes them open and floods your house, because neither of them actually fixed the leak. Obviously one is way worse.

Yeah, everyone knows that if a moderate like Kamala Harris or Joe Biden had won the election, they’d still be sending anyone who vaguely looks like an immigrant to a Salvadoran concentration camp, throwing dissidents in jail, crashing the economy by levying tariffs on every other country in the world, letting insurrectionists out of prison, turning federal law enforcement agencies into secret police, persecuting and calling for the extermination of LGBTQ people, accepting bribes to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in gifts from authoritarian regimes, abandoning Ukraine and Gaza by cozying up to strongmen like Netanyahu and Putin, letting organised labour be crushed into oblivion by refusing to enforce federal labour law, appointing unqualified morons into Cabinet, and dismantling every consumer protection agency in the US.

Yeah, these are all things that Harris or Biden would have done.

While you can say that the ship of state, or more Americanly, the car of state, doesn’t tend to move forward when moderates or conservatives are in charge, the reason is because moderates don’t know how to release the handbrake or shift the car out of neutral while conservatives stole the catalytic converter, drained the engine oil, and insist that refueling the car is DEI.

Firstly this is surprisingly high-quality coverage. I’ve never heard of this website but I’m pretty impressed.

Secondly, regarding the lawsuit in general, I think that patent and intellectual property law regarding game mechanics and software processes in general are badly in need of reform. There doesn’t seem to have been significant legislative action to address this in any major economy that I know of. The number of bullshit parents being filed, unclear and vague rules as to how copyright/patent law works with respect to software, AI, and game mechanics, is really leading to a lawsuit culture where the only way to find out what the bounds of the law are is to spend millions of dollars on lawyers to litigate it in court, when really, legislatures should be actively writing new and clearer rules to deal with these issues before people need to sue each other to find out.

The Internet of 2025 is just way too different and complex to operate using the copyright rules of the 1990s.

If I were in writing the rules, there’d be separate categories of intellectual property for software libraries, game mechanics, fictional characters, and so on, with clear definitions on what is and is not considered fair use of these sorts of intellectual property. It should not be possible to copyright the design of a widely-used software API or game mechanic. And any such protection on those things should be comparatively short in duration (not more than a decade) so that others can eventually re-implement the design, and probably do so better than the original inventor.

It must be a coincidence that all of the things on that list would be to the minor detriment of the wealth of billionaires and trillion-dollar companies if they were implemented

Yet another irreplaceable natural landmark destroyed by idiot hooliganism. There is nothing the courts can do that will ever bring that tree back.

Edit: Apparently the tree sprouted from its stump.

“Classmates warn Heimrich Himmler he risks enabling descent ‘into fascism’”

Average Internet forum experience—saying something true but downvoted because it was said opposition to a popular view

I do not disagree with you on the reasons why women have fewer children. I think there is also a significant cultural shift in the number of children women were supposed to have. In pre-industrual Europe, women were expected to be quickly married and then have lots of children with their husband. Women today can enjoy long careers and fulfilling lives without marriage or a family while such options were not available to women of the past.

In the past, people had several children because most would die before adulthood. The 20th century population boom is because better sanitation and healthcare reduced child mortality but it takes at least one generation for women to adapt and have fewer children.

Somalia does not have a functioning state apparatus to enforce any of its laws in most of the country

Nooo not the billionaires!

I’m pretty sure Somalia does not have paid maternity leave

Entered the kitchen, complained about it being too hot

Ever since the untimely death of CentOS I feel like Debian and its spin-off Ubuntu have been pulling double their weight in server applications.

Governments are always offering weird wacky incentives for women to have children, when the solution is usually patently obvious: you can increase fertility by making it easy and affordable to have children. Stipends for food, paid maternity/paternity leave, free childcare services, affordable housing, and a good economy with an abundance of high-paying jobs.

I mean… there’s a reason the baby boom happened in the 50s! But no, that would be socialism!!

AD 30 was the beginning of the papacy of Peter the Apostle, which according to the Catholic Church, was its first pope. Catholic teachings state that Peter’s successors form an unbroken line of Church leaders from AD 30 to the present day, though historic evidence is somewhat incomplete. This is the canonical start date of the Catholic Church as an organisation. “Christianity”, broadly speaking, is just a label affixed to anyone who identifies themselves as a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church names Jesus Christ as its founder. If you accept this claim, then you could definitely say that it was a political organisation as well as a religious one from the beginning, as Jesus was notoriously put to death by the Roman state for political reasons. The Jewish Sanhedrin which had condemned Jesus for claiming to be the Messiah had no legal authority in Roman Judea; legally speaking, Jesus was put to death on the orders of Pontius Pilate (prefect of Judea) for sedition and for being “King of the Jews”. The legal veracity of this charge is questionable, of course, and Jesus famously preached for his followers to “render unto [the Emperor] the things that are [the Emperor’s]”, i.e. to respect the state and the laws, but the Roman Empire wasn’t known for being an egalitarian state with strong rule of law.

In my experience, Catholics tend to be pretty moderate, since the Catholic Church is strictly hierarchical and all dogma originates from the Vatican. The size of the Church, it seems, has a moderating effect on its dogma since they have to appeal to such a large group of followers, and the views of its members tend to average out with a bias towards conservatism (because the Church is so unbelievably old that the inertia of 15th or 10th century doctrine still holds sway).

Protestants, meanwhile, span the whole political spectrum since the label is pretty broad in general. There are plenty of Protestant churches in my area that espouse very liberal and accepting social views, and probably at least a dozen will even marry same-sex couples, something notoriously disapproved of by the Catholic Church and many other denominations. But there are also many, much louder, Protestant churches that are basically full MAGA.

The Catholic Church has been a political institution for almost its entire existence. It is probably the *oldest * political institution in Europe, having existed since AD 30 according to its own history (though as you get further back in time, history starts turning into legend and mythology; it’s really not clear where that line is).

During the Middle Ages, you could very well be burnt at the stake for heresy or be sent to die in the Crusades, upon the orders of the pope. And for over a millennium, the Church directly ruled over a pretty sizeable piece of territory in central Italy.

I believe I saw someone say on Tumblr that if you enjoy having rights then you should advocate the strongest for criminals enjoying rights as well, because otherwise, the Government can always just take your rights away by labelling you a criminal.

Or, as has been trendy lately, a Salvadoran gang member.

If the question is asking about Trump, Orban, Putin, or your other favourite dimwitted world leader, it’s because these people usually don’t actually want to fuck everything up. They want to make their country (or their notion of the groups of people they regard as their country) prosperous and glorious. But they’re just unable to take in the fact that their policies and leadership are actually leading them further away from this goal. It really is just a deadly combination of incompetence and inability to self-criticise.

In the case of Trump, who is a pre-eminent example of this, he really does think that tariffs will make the US richer. He is a moron, of course, but that’s what he thinks. He doesn’t “know” that tariffs will damage the American economy and America’s international reputation, because he doesn’t grasp the concept at all. Anyone who has observed his thinking for any period of time after he got into politics can observe that it is very feelings-driven and not very fact-based. And a lot of his government’s policy is also ego-driven, which explains why it is seemingly always falling for Russian propaganda and why he wants to be on good terms with Putin. Though Putin is no universal genius either, one thing that he is very good at, as a result of his KGB training, is manipulating others to get what he wants. It certainly does help Putin a lot that Trump is pretty easily manipulated. And as for Trump’s comments about wanting to take over Canada, take over Greenland, take over Panama, &c. &c., most non-US observers describe that as clear evidence of his mental decline. J. J. McCullough, a Canadian political commentator, described it as being “obvious” that Trump is “losing it”.

And ironically, since Joe Biden’s mental competence was called into question in the last US election, while Biden’s senility manifests mostly in the form of stutters, speech blunders, and random mostly-inert goofiness, Trump’s senility seems to manifest in a desire to take over the world and become God-emperor of Mankind, which is objectively more dangerous for a world leader.