Much as I plan to hold my nose and vote for Harris, I can't help but feel simultaneously bemused and saddened how every time you talk about her actually trying to earn your vote, you receive comment after comment tearing you down as though her terrible policy is fine and that only YOU can stop Trump. As though Harris herself were powerless to change her own platform to appeal more.

Party loyalty is so strong these days entirely too many people forget that candidates have agency. They'd rather shame people or call them bots than consider if it might be more effective for the candidate to actually listen to their own constituency.

I’ve always trusted games published by Annapurna to be something exciting, new, and high quality.

That didn't make them good either, though. Companies like them and Devolver Digital have had a bad habit of, for lack of a better term, using up developers and throwing them to the curb after. You'll notice that a lot of stuff they publish get marketed as though Annapurna made them, which ends up hiding the actual developers behind the curtain, thereby robbing them of fans and thus seriously hurting their long-term prospects.

Why is someone's reluctance to vote for your preferred candidate more upsetting to you than said candidate's choice to platform genocide?

If you're so worried about Trump being elected, maybe you should push for Harris to adopt better policy so people are more comfortable voting for her, rather than shaming people for not wanting to vote for the lesser of two genocides.

Monopolies depend on the government to exist.

I very much disagree but respect a desire to not get into a debate, so I'll leave it there.

I really don’t know what that means

"Your freedom ends at my face" is a saying used often here to contend with right-wing group's insistence on "freedom," often the kind that involves harming others; e.g. free speech absolutism and the "freedom" to spout neo-Nazi rhetoric that advocates for the murder of minorities, or the "freedom" to not get vaccinated and thus worsen a pandemic. A more full version might be "Your freedom to throw a punch ends where my face begins." The idea is that it is fair to restrict a freedom if it supports the freedom of others — you might not trust governments to determine where those lines lie, and that's fair, but that's a separate issue.

stopping supporting anti hamas actions won’t stop the war… it will just lead to more innocent people dying

If you think more innocent people will die if Israel stops bombing Gaza into dust, then you haven't been paying attention to what's happening to Palestinians.

Everything Hamas has done, terrible as it is, pales in comparison to the tragedy and horror inflicted by the IDF.

Not to mention the obscene fees with using it. Crypto is rife with issues.

I think we’re looking at a future where Google ensures we don’t ever have to worry about making such a choice.

I… can’t tell if this is sarcasm?

Honestly? Considering how little the police actually do to help anyone, versus the huge amount of harm they cause, I'm not entirely convinced that "Get rid of all police" wouldn't be a good idea, even if they got replaced with basically nothing. And I've seen a lot of leftists who felt similarly. So "those on the other side" aren't entirely wrong; they just don't understand how incredibly bad police are.

This doesn't mean we should replace the police with literally nothing — obviously things investing in social services and crisis intervention would be great. It's just that I find it hard to do worse than what currently exists.

This implies that how we react to this will have any bearing whatsoever on how the right will treat us. It won't. They will be as mean to us as they can physically manage, regardless of how we act, because they hate us.

You Go High, We Go Low.

I've no love lost for the developers in question. But between the original two PRs and associated comments being from over three years ago, and the "trans woman [being called] 'spam" comment being said about a PR that seems pretty strongly to me to be meant as a sarcastic insult rather than a genuine contribution, I can't help but find it a little unconvincing.

It's not without merit by far. I feel that Kling's blog post not addressing the drama was in poor taste and may indicate a lack of self-improvement regarding the initial fuckup, and saying you want to "avoid alienating people" when closing a PR that aims to improve inclusivity is more than a little pathetic. I also understand not wanting bigots to be able to just bury their past and pretend they were never bigoted. It's just that the fiery response this has gotten still ends up feeling a bit disproportionate given how old the truly insulting issues were. Am I missing something?