Same reason so many white people aren’t interested in minority rights, or rich people aren’t interested in poor people’s rights: it doesn’t directly benefit them and at some level they understand many of their privileges require an underclass to support them. Giving women the tools, voices, and rights to contribute equally takes away men’s control of women and access to free labour.

For instance, Wang Jingyu, a dissident who fled China after being targeted for social media posts and was granted asylum in the Netherlands, claimed he had been threatened and sent harassing messages by the Rotterdam station to make him return to China, with his parents who remained in China being targeted.[6][12] Wang was later found to have fabricated the threats.[13]

According to Yale legal scholar and China expert Jeremy Daum, the report contained several factual and context errors.[17] Safeguard Defenders subsequently published a revised report which it said corrected some of the mistakes Daum had indicated.[18]

I just really feel like you haven’t actually read the article, or at least applied any critical thought to it. The article doesn’t contain even allegations of kidnapping and imprisonment, just harassment, and, well, I think the quote speaks for itself. This is what people mean when they say your sinophobia isn’t actually based in any evidence, just fear mongering.

Bad aren’t going to get rid of it anymore than badder are - they benefit too much from it. Your only hope of getting it passed is if a third party comes in and threatens to take over using that same system, as is happening in the UK.

we can’t let perfect be the enemy of good…

Don’t worry, America isn’t close to either, your choices are bad and badder and by continuing to engage with the system you condone making society worse.

Ah, you’re a debate bro. ESH.

On c/shittymoviedetails? I can’t imagine anyone would stoop so low.

And do you?

Yes.

OP didn’t say he hasn’t had any musical training when that comment was made.

You’re just being a sophist - OP hasn’t used those specific words to make that specific comment but he made plenty of comments across the thread, not just in that one specific reply, about his understanding of music that contain those sentiments.

I would’ve been offended when someone made that remark to me as well, even if I didn’t play the piano.

If you’re offended by being called out for not knowing what you’re talking about maybe you shouldn’t talk about things you don’t understand.

That is true

OP seems to think it’s just a simple statement too. If they were an accomplished musician being told they can’t make a beat to save their life then sure, it would be an insult, but as OP readily admits across the thread they really do have no experience with or knowledge of music.

It’s usually added onto house insurance in the UK - they cover stuff happening at home by default, then you have to pay extra to cover accidents or theft from somewhere other than your house.

I watched it, but honestly it’s still far, far too much for just the Hobbit. 4 hours, I think? I’m pretty sure I could just read the book in that time.

up to the standard that we expect from good music.

“Art is paintings of horses”-ass statement. Good music is a gestalt, not a simple sum of its parts. There are plenty of technically skilled musicians who make shit music, and plenty of shit musicians that make good music. There are musicians of dubious ability who make great shit music, or possibly shit great music, but either way do it with a purpose that elevates it above just being noise. There is no standard to be held to because art is not standardised - look at how The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, or Wire changed the face of music with art that was initially critically panned. Look at how the hip-hop and punk scenes dragged people who had never touched an instrument before into the limelight.

It is entirely possible for a theoretical person to recognise quality without liking it, but you don’t understand what makes music good, so you personally are not able to.

I don’t know about best but I sure as hell remember it: When I was 13 I was at a wedding and an very drunk old man gave me some sage advice completely unprompted - “when you have sex don’t fuck her in the ass, you’ll get poop everywhere”.

Unpopular, yes, but also an objectively wrong use of objectively. Subjectively you find that music enjoyable, but objectively it’s a statistical average of the bog standard crap you can find on on basically any radio station. Nobody can stop you from enjoying that, but don’t think it makes your personal taste anything other than statistically average.

So if I say I have a pet gamer does that mean gamers are normally pets? If I say I have pet giraffe does that mean giraffes are normally pets? No, obviously not, because that’s not how language works.

Ah, you’re a world of imagination type. Sorry, I operate in real world effects, not in theoretical constructs that are totally different except for in what they actually do.

I think it would be completely fine to block manosphere influencers, antivaxers, holocaust deniers and white supremacists from entering like that so I have to agree that stopping pro-Palestinian activists is also fine.

One of these is not like the others - grow some fucking morals.

Barbie is kinda lib and a bit shallow in it’s feminism but it’s also a lot of fun if you can get over that. I haven’t watched Oppenheimer and don’t care to.

Because it’s not particularly encouraged by the game. Like you can, they give you the tools, but theres a bunch of stuff you can get earlier with perfect parrying, or is gated behind it entirely, so you feel like you should be doing it.
Personally I found a mod to make the parry and dodge windows a little longer so I could reliably hit them, after which it became much less frustrating.

How dare you, middle mouse is the only acceptable keybind for grenades. Side is for melee.

PF2e relies a lot more on tactical decisions than 5e, so I’m not certain how well the mod works depending on the other systems it has to lean on - missing mechanics can wildly unbalance the maths due to the assumptions it’s built on.

Assuming it is fully implemented though, flanking, feinting, or another way of applying off-guard to an enemy would increase that 65% chance to 75%. Intimidating the enemy can push it up to 80 or 85%. Maybe have an ally aid the attack and get up to 95%. Crits also change gameplay quite a bit due to the 10 over/under conditions. A 65% chance to hit contains a 15% chance to crit, 75% a 25% chance, 85% a 35% chance, so the additional misses get balanced out by the additional crits beyond 5e’s static 5% chance. A single character generally doesn’t have enough actions to apply everything themselves though, so you have to coordinate actions across the whole team to be effective rather than each member being an individual powerhouse.