And that’s great. Ideally there would be more people with that mindset of helping others. As I mentioned this isn’t blind color voting. You either support gay and trans rights, or you support Republicans. You support teachers and the poor, or you support Republicans. Take color out if the equation and take voting at its merits like it should be. It just so happens that all of the worst shit is Republican, so it’s easy to know who to vote for if you have good ideals, which it sounds like you do.

If you want to help the most people possible, then it behooves you to vote blue, or do some spot research right before heading to the polls, which will ultimate lead you to the same conclusion.

Getting metaphorically punched in the mouth or metaphorically getting shot in the face. Neither are actual events, they are metaphors used to illustrate that one side is clearly worse than the other. I never said anyone deserves to get shot in the face. What I said that you quoted is that if you do nothing, you are choosing to support the worst option.

This isn’t a colored sides thing. It’s bad vs less bad. There is no third choice. If you choose nothing in means you’ve chosen bad because of the way a two party FPtP voting system works.

Most of us want peace. One way that you can help is voting for the least bad option, because either the bad or least bad is going to take power. There are obviously many other things you can do to help others like volunteering and donating. The most significant act though is helping prevent awful from being in power, because their actions will outweigh any individual efforts you are capable of.

Do you know what a metaphor is?

Not at all, I never said anything about any violence being justified. I’m saying that not participating hurts others, not just you. I don’t want anyone hurt, but there are two choices in the US general election, and one is always worse than the other for everyone but the wealthy.

Getting shot or punched was a metaphor. The point being that red is bad, blue is less bad, and choosing neither directly benefits the red. So long as there are racists, bigots, and other people that just hate demographics for no reason, the world won’t be a place of peace. In all of history it never has been. We can get closer to peace by voting for people that aren’t pedophiles and war mongers. Not participating in that effort is a choice you can make, you’re and adult, and you have enough of the facts to make a semi informed choice. Nobody can make you, we can just help educate you on the pros and cons of these choices.

A choice to not participate is a choice to get shot in the face and to get others shot in the face as well. If you’re okay with that, then that’s on you and really tells what you stand for. It’s not just a self choice, it’s a selfish choice that directly hurts others.

All you really need to know is every red candidate is objectively a worse person and worse for America and the world than any blue candidate. That’s not to say that the blues are particularly good, but if you have the choice of getting punch in the mouth or shot in the face, you choose to live another day.

Probably that too, but specifically the ability to spin up a private space to communicate with people for things like video games. Anyone that’s using it as their means of customer service is an idiot.

Apparently I struck a chord with my post, so I’m curious what is better than discord, and free that made my statement controversial?

Also, I don’t see locking data from search engines as a bad thing. The fediverse isn’t search engine searchable either and Google, bing, etc, don’t natively have the right to index private data.

It’s the best at what it does, but had been getting shitty in the way you described. However, it’s free and they have to support it somehow. I’ll put up with the nitro pushing and understand that’s my cost of doing business. If they go public, I’ll probably actively start looking for an alternative, because that always kills a product and it will for sure mean “AI” will be forced into it.