it feels like old reddit

As someone who exclusively used old.reddit.com, this isn’t actually a bad thing.

Also apps for the mobile experience, and I want to say alexandrite for the desktop experience?

Fair enough. I made a wrong assumption about where you came from and was inappropriately hostile, my apologies. Hope you have a good weekend!

…yeah afaik there’s pretty good evidence that trans folks wouldn’t be culturally eliminated under the Biden administration. Do you disagree with that assumption?

And you’ve misunderstood me. I don’t care that you voted third party. As I mentioned, in some contexts that could be viewed as admirable. I’m not trying to convince you to vote Democrat.

Just don’t puff out your chest about having clean hands when, given the single most pronounced choice we have in determining government for the next cycle, you prioritized trying to maintain a clean conscience over keeping Trump out of the white house.

How about the start of two genocides?

You CAN argue that, but could you look yourself in the mirror and say that’s a good faith argument when you don’t know how I voted for the last 50 years? That’s a good sign that your argument is simply deflection, by making up a strawman you’re hoping to avoid admitting that you had a role in getting trump elected. Your comment here indicates that you know you played a part, but I agree with you, the Democratic party put up a shit candidate and played a much larger part. My heart fell when Kamala indicated no policy changes in Palestine.

However, folks who ignored the effects of fptp voting to vote (or abstain) for the sake of their conscience do not have their hands clean of all of this. In seeking to protest a genocide, they have invited the start of a second genocide on our fellow citizens, as well as accelerated the original genocide they were protesting. These effects could’ve been seen from a million miles away.

It strikes me as privileged to be able to ignore the predictable real world effects of a decision, in the name of maintaining a clean conscience. Sure, maybe in a few voting cycles, the vote made a difference. I hope so, but I don’t think we’ve ever seen it happen historically. However, generally speaking, do not boast that your hands are clean of the trump administrations actions if your decisions (or lack of) in this election made it more likely for him to be elected. They are simply are not.

Oh I didn’t say that.

I just find it amusing when folks claim that their conscience and hands are clean when they played a part in getting trump elected.

It was a decision telling of priorities, and sending a message, or maintaining a clear conscience, was likely deemed more important than the ramifications a trump presidency. That’s why I mentioned the ivory tower - I assumed that you thought you weren’t going to be too affected by a trump presidency? Either that, or you wanted to maintain a clean conscious despite that? The latter is admirable in it’s own way, but i believe less likely when looking at entire populations.

This is prime “enlightened third party voter” meme material right here.

Must be nice in that ivory tower.

Great, and I absolutely love scryfall, but in the name of sustainability, how do they get funded?

Hey but props to them for their swift action.

Iron dome is only effective against dumb rockets and mortars, with minimal range.

Nobody is going to shoot those at the us. What a waste of money.

EDIT: I’ve read the actual executive order. Iron dome is a metaphor, he’s actually covering things like hypersonics too.

deleted by creator

It’s the concepts of a plan.

Next 4 years are going to be a wild ride.

I’m not scientist, but I wonder if the can feels cooler.

Also, I definitely have been pavloved into thinking the sound of a can opening is refreshing.

But you can’t have “everyone” reject war without including warmongering fascists in the category of “everyone”.

Seeing as you acknowledge how difficult that is, are we on the same page about how unrealistic your original solution is?

No it’s not easier than everyone making the right decision for anything else, but it is the right decision.

I’m going to propose something.

The most idealistic, “right” decision, done in the wrong context, is the wrong decision.

For example, let’s say all of Ukraine rejects war. They no longer resist Russia.

Did we save the world? No. That is appeasement, and that didn’t work out to well with Hitler.

Again. Prove the worth and viability of your ideas by encouraging the ones throwing the punches to reign it in first, before applying such lofty and naive ideals to those trying to defend themselves.

EDIT: I’m not going to bother. You believe that all it takes is for everyone in the world to reject war, with no viable plan instead of hand waiving “education will fix things”. Wishful thinking at best, forced indoctrination at worst.

No shit there would be no war if everyone was against war.

Tell you what, you manifest your dream with the Russians first to get the invading forces to be against war and I’ll take you seriously. Until then, the real world will go on, with or without you.

The solution is for everyone to reject war.

Aw shucks, is that all it takes? How’d we overlook that?? We’ll get cracking on that right away.

In the meanwhile it makes sense for a country being invaded to do whatever it can for self preservation, especially in a defensive manner.

Not OP, but I believe this is in reference to the election, and the “both sides”-ing of genocide.

I’ve made NO false assumptions

Article states:

It is one of the largest crisis response programs in the country, with 130 employees.

Your assumption: they have always had 130 employees.

Reality: In FY 21, they had funding for 18 people, in FY 22 they had the funding for 61 people.

That sure does seem like an assumption that turned out to be false.

So when I said “even if you 8x”… I didn’t account that there could be additional workload?

That’s a good point - how did you come up with that number? Also, how did you come up with an acceptable number of diverted calls? Did you compare the value to those of the programs peers?

Taking even your infographic where they claim that they’ve done 3296 calls .

Okay, let’s make sure our homework is done again. How many people do you know we’re employed at this time? Should your analysis be qualified as a worst case value? How many folks do you think should be on call?

Moving goalposts

Lmao, it can say a lot about your approach if real world corrections to the initial values are considered moving goalposts. If your focus is on being “right” in the context of the article regardless of being wrong in the context of real life, I can see that being upsetting.

Here’s the thing. You’re the one asserting that it’s inefficient, so it’s really up to you to make sure your evidence and reasoning is right.

You keep asking for analysis from me, but I don’t need to provide my own analysis to point out the false assumptions you’ve made in yours, resulting in potentially misleading analysis. The correct action to take is to either correct the assumptions, or state that those are assumptions you are making in your analysis.

The fundamental thread behind your analysis is that 130 employees don’t divert enough calls to justify their existence, when in reality you didn’t realize that those calls aren’t the sole responsibility the group has. So how much water does the analysis even hold?

I’m not saying you’re a bad person. I’m saying you’re looking to “offer a more realistic view of what this actually is” before having a full understanding of what it actually is. The acs page linked to the article has a transparency page with regular reports like the one I shared. I’d consider those to be good primary resources. Go ham!