xor

That’s for startup ideas

Sure, but you do still have to actively go and spoil your vote - just staying at home muttering “I showed them” doesn’t count as participating

Well even if you believe political parties shouldn’t exist, you should still participate in your democracy. It’s not like the system goes away if you refuse to participate, so you might as well work within it

Sorry, but vote splitting categorically is a thing. You can say “they won’t do better”, but on a fundamental level that just is how FPTP systems work. I don’t like it, you don’t like it, but here we are.

As a counterpoint, my country had a direct referendum on voting reform a while back. So yes, you absolutely can change a two party system by voting for one of the two parties.

You’re right, the right wing parties will do better

Is that the change you were going for?

The way you get to positive results is through grassroots movements (including within major parties), protest, and voting in a way that gets you as close to a good outcome as possible. Mamdani’s victory is a glowing example of that strategy working.

I think it’s also worth noting that the independent candidate (Cuomo) was not the 3rd party candidate - since Mamdani and Cuomo were the 2 viable candidates, Sliwa’s votes moved to the nearest viable candidate.

Lots of people seem to think that 3rd parties are defined by lack of party nomination

The issue is that voting for third parties doesn’t make third parties viable in first-past-the-post systems. I, for example, would love if my country had a diverse parliament, but I continue to vote for the saner major party in my constituency because if votes are split between them and the party I’d really like to be in power, then neither of them will be.

Tactical voting is the symptom of two party systems, not the cause.

They gained seats, yes, but 4 seats isn’t exactly a landslide. They’re a force in local politics, but at the national level, they’re just really not a major player - at least not yet

I don’t think there’s a valid moral argument for burning anybody alive

Holy shit, you hear someone is so lonely that their only friend is a computer system, and your takeaway is that they deserve to be alone? Have some fucking empathy

Figured what out?

The VAST majority of Muslims are just regular, kind people who don’t murder their families.

There may have been a small uptick overall, but that one is disproportionately insane, I think

I mean, they’re right that it’s not FOSS - the F is free as in available to anybody who may wish to use it, which is incompatible with defining who is allowed

Isn’t near transit stations exactly where you’d want to put high density housing?

I broadly agree, but I think there’s a bit of a “correlation is not causation” effect at play, too

I would expect people who are very career-focused would prioritise socialising less, and also be more willing to do a long commute for a job they are highly invested in. But the reduced socialising wouldn’t necessarily be caused by the commuting (not entirely, at least).

Depends who’s cooking, could just be a great insult

This is a very intense, and worryingly doomer response to someone vaguely mentioning the concept of short selling

Are you saying that because you genuinely believe your statement isn’t an instance of the slippery slope fallacy, or because you want to insult me?

slippery slope fallacy