starman2112 @ starman2112 @sh.itjust.works

He/Him

---

Read more

Posts

10

Comments

4,149

Joined

2 yr. ago

you think Harris/Biden would have meant less genocide.

...than trump. Less genocide than Trump. Who is presently committing a genocide against the Latino population in the US.

Wait, did PirateSoftware rant about wokeness, or are you confusing him with fellow failed game dev Grummz?

Homo sapiens are actually heterosexual on average :(

You are pretending Biden/Harris were promising less genocide, which is wishful thinking on your part.

Nope. I feel like we're looking at this from two different perspectives. Comparing 2025 to 2024, there was always going to be more genocide. Comparing the two potential 2025s (the one in which Trump wins and the one in which Harris wins), one of them has more genocide than the other, and one of them has less genocide than the other.

Maybe if I put it this way it'll make more sense: a smaller increase in deaths is preferable to a larger increase in deaths. Of course, a reduction in deaths would be preferable to both, but that option wasn't available.

Republicans are much better at long term thinking than liberals

I don't disagree. Unlike you though, I don't support the Republicans killing us in the short run

"Both options sell weapons to Israel so I'm not going to cast a vote for either of them. Oh no, why is abortion illegal? Why are trans people not allowed to legally update their gender? Why does ICE have a bigger budget than the Marines? Why are they deporting US citizens? Why did they cut the already barebones healthcare we have? Why are they bringing fucking asbestos back? Why is the Secretary of Health and Human Services in favor of spreading bird flu and against vaccines? Why are they actively deciding to give our kids cavities? Why has the Supreme Court decided that the president can violate the constitution? Why have they demolished every scientific institution in the country?"

A red line is saying, "no, fuck this. There are some things you just can't excuse. Both of these people belong in jail. I will not vote for either of them, as neither of these people are going to help. I'm voting for someone else and looking towards the next election."

So it's the "extricating yourself from moral dilemmas" kind of broken. The option you wanted wasn't on the ballot, so the entire world can burn for all you care. I don't want more people dead, and that's EXACTLY THE SAME as wanting all the disabled people and jews dead. I'd call you a clown but you're not even funny

"They all thought they were being good people, and so do you, which makes you evil like them" is such a weird take

Maybe the earliest I've ever figured out the end phrase. Soon as I saw "cloned," I started solving it from the bottom up

    
[Bracket City]
July 5, 2025

https://www.theatlantic.com/games/bracket-city/

☠️ hard mode!

Rank: 🔮 (Puppet Master)
🎹 Total Keystrokes: 64
🎯 Minimum Required: 64

Total Score: 100.0
🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪

  

🎶Sell drugs, run guns, nail sluts, and fuck the law🎶

No genocide > less genocide > more genocide. No genocide was not on the ballot; the choices were less and more. Reread the last sentence of the comment you replied to. I guess you're right though, the Democrats could have started a genocide against the American Latino population. I guess there's no way to know which option was less harmful

I have no problem talking about the real situation. One of the parties is in favor of less genocide, one of the parties is in favor of more genocide, and non voters don't care whether we get less or more genocide.

Of course it would be better for everyone we could have elected a third party, but the choice was between Harris (sells weapons to Israel) and Trump (sells more weapons to Israel and also starts a genocide here in America), and non voters didn't care which side won. In the absence of the option you want, you have to make the best available choice.

Define "red line" for me. It really seems like you think that less suffering and more suffering are morally equivalent, which indicates a defective moral compass incapable of understanding magnitude. Either that, or you have a defective moral compass that allows you to extricate yourself from moral dilemmas by saying that, because you can't pick the option you wish you had, you're somehow justified in not picking the best available option.

In your little Hitler analogy, you think it's morally superior to let 60,000 more Jews die just to say "well, I'd prefer if we didn't kill any," and you're saying I have a broken moral compass. Please tell me if I'm wrong. I would genuinely prefer to know that you understand that it is a worse thing when more people die

"Less suffering is preferable to more suffering" indicates a functioning moral compass

Yes that's the point. Both choices lead to the same place the only difference is how fast we get there.

~the person who replied to this comment one hour before you did

I'm aware of this. Trump's are worse.

I guess that's the fundamental moral disconnect I'm running into. To me, it's unthinkable to shut down my moral faculties at any point. 1,000,001 senseless deaths is objectively worse than 1,000,000 senseless deaths.

Onion rings > tots > sweet potato > everything else

And fuck ketchup, combine one part mayonnaise and one part BBQ sauce to dip that shit in

Trump immigration policy is just Biden's turned up a notch, but with a lot of performative cruelty thrown in

So what you're saying is it's not just Biden's turned up a notch, he's doing it differently and much, much worse. The idea that, because both of them are immigration policies that include deportation, they must be the same thing is infantile

One of them is in favor of deporting all of the Latinos, but really it's the same policy lmao