jjjalljs @ jjjalljs @ttrpg.network

Posts

8

Comments

4,375

Joined

2 yr. ago

I've been happy with Bandcamp, though they got sold so they're no longer independent.

But the model is you can stream for free however many times the artist has it set to, and then you're expected to buy it. Once you buy it, its yours DRM-free forever.

So if you buy an album or two a month, it costs similar to a subscription but you build up a library. After a while, you might find there are months you don't buy anything, but just listen to what you already bought.

And agian, what are government moderators?

Oh, sorry. I meant the moderators of lemmy.world. If you say anything too spicy, your comment gets removed

I meant more generally, so democrats can win elections and then win votes. It's something they should have been doing for the past decade. Look at how the democratic party is treating Zohran for an example of how not to do it.

In my imagination there are increasingly desperate actions they could do to stop the bill from proceeding. Pull the fire alarm. Start a fire. Cover all the chairs with honey. I don't know. I feel like if it looked like a portal to hell was about to open I would break a lot of norms and rules to stop it

You said that most laws require intent.

I said that strict liability exists. This was admittedly, a nitpick.

You did an on sequitur about how the US has a police problem, and said "These aren’t normal laws in other countries fyi.". I took that to imply the concept of strict liability doesn't exist in other laws, but maybe you meant something else. Maybe you meant it's not common?

I then pointed out that the concept originated in Britain. You said "If it originated there, why doesn’t Canada have it lmfao.", which is factually incorrect as far as I can tell. Canada has a concept of strict liability.

You then said,

Not for sex offenders like pissing in public, of course it exists in other areas of law, but those aren’t applicable to all other areas.

Ignoring what feels like a moving goal post, maybe this reveals where we diverged. Maybe you thought I was saying all laws are strict liability? I wasn't.

The most famous example of strict liability is statutory rape. This is off topic from guys pissing in a parking lot (though I wouldn't be surprised if ICE goons do other crimes). https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/statutory-rape.html

As most statutory rape laws appear as "strict liability" offenses, this limits the amount of legal defenses available to someone accused.

The link I provided was a wikipedia article is clearly not an exhaustive answer of all things on the topic. If you do click through to the criminal article, it does mention a case. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)

Anyway, this is a pointless, unpleasant, argument.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. My point was strict liability exists. Also the most famous instance of strict liability is sex crimes, I'm told.

A 30 second search revealed that Canada has some strict liability laws.

It's hard to believe that any level of watching fox news would make a healthy decent person okay with literal concentration camps

The idea originated in Britain, per Wikipedia. This isn't a uniquely American problem

You can make an argument that we shouldn't have inherited Britain's legal system, but that's a pretty big argument

I think that's the "only Democrats have agency" thing that comes up. When Republicans are horrible shits people are just like yeah they're horrible but like you don't blame the bear for doing bear stuff. But everyone else is held to normal human standards

Usually when you make a deal with the devil you get something.

Most (proper laws) laws require intent.

Some laws are "strict liability". I think some sex crimes are, for example

Remove some Republicans from office via the 14th amendment.

Lead protests. Not just parades but actual disruptive protests

Back left wing candidates

Use any and all procedural tricks to delay things.

other stuff that moderators don't like

Why can't they ever be corrupt in a way that's good for the environmental? Have a conflict of interest that leads to more trains or solar or something.

In session 0 we set a quorum. "We play if there are at least 2 of 4 players here," for example.

During a session, if some players don't make it, we'll decide on the spot what to do. This is typically either "They take care of some of their own business" or "we play them by committee". Rarely, it's "the GM plays them."

In a recent game of mine, one of the PCs bailed. His character backstory said he owned a small business, and since the session started in a low tension scene, we said he had to go take care of that.

In a game where we picked up in the middle of a fight, we decided to play the wizard by committee. It was a little slower than normal, but it worked. After the fight was over, they didn't do much other than a few committee approved skill checks. I wouldn't typically make big story decisions or put the character in serious danger when the player was absent.

It's also important to set attendance rules. Are you okay with people showing up whenever? Or do you want to set an expectation that people will be there every week barring emergencies? Those are two different, valid, modes. For a game that's trying to have an arc, and not just monster of the week or a dungeon crawl, having players frequently missing can be disruptive. I typically bring that up in session 0, and say that if someone repeatedly misses sessions it might not be the game for them at this time.

So many places seem to be run by idiots, if your metrics are other than "personal enrichment".

Like, one of my old jobs, the CEO laid off almost everyone and is now banging hard on the "return to office" drum. Like, my guy, how is making people do a 2 hour commute going to help? It's a small company, he knows most of the people live that far away. And then they go into the office, and they end up doing these like hour+ long lunches. Or they leave early for drinks.

It's fucking stupid. It's the CEO driving with his emotions. He wants to feel like a big business man with an office, and he wants to have fun socializing. Idiot. Fun guy to hang out with, but he's making pants on head stupid business decisions. And there's nothing any of us can do about it.

I said in another thread but I've been unemployed for a while now. Even jobs I'm referred to my old coworkers aren't giving me interviews. If capital wants me to spend money, they have to pay me money first. Until then, fuck them.

Yeah I don't know what the solution is. Just killing all your ideological opponents probably isn't it.

Preventing the concentration of wealth and power and investing heavily in education would probably help

Some of those people (or their children) are still having breakdowns because a black person is in the same store :(

I think a lot of us have picked up, been taught, this idea that like "the past had bad stuff but it's over now, and everyone's better, and everyone who was fighting for bad things realized the errors of their ways and repented".

You have to remember it's not about facts, it's about feelings. As I always say, we're all susceptible to that to some extent, but the republicans have it bad.