Henroid
-
Content count
2215 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Henroid
-
-
She's trying to become president of the United States and touts herself as an ally of the LGBT community, so you're goddamn right I have that expectation of her.
-
And she did not know because she does not have to.
What.
-
I've seen a lot of people make this complaint about Clinton. But I remember what reporting on the Clintons was like in the 90s, and I think that family's paranoid relationship to the media, and how they present themselves is kind of justified? Because total nothings frequently got blown up out of proportion. And this is all the worse for Hillary who has been a prominent woman in the media eye and she is just not allowed to act human at all, anything will be interpreted by the media in the most negative light possible.
So it drives me a little nuts when people are overly harsh on Clinton about this kind of stuff. Bernie Sanders gets to play the guy with integrity, but he's also a white dude from the state of Vermont, and that gives him an enormous amount of privilege that Hillary lacks. And I'm not saying this to try and get anyone to change their mind about which candidate they are supporting, but on this count at least I really don't think it is fair to turn Hillary into this villain because the decks are pretty stacked.
1) Total nothings getting blown out of proportion happens to all people of celebrity. Clinton is not alone in facing that kind of BS.
2) Not allowed to act human? In what sense? Are we talking about mistakes made? Because misrepresenting what happened in the 80s RE: AIDS/HIV is not "human error," that's actually fucked up.
Clinton has flaws and any time I bring them up I get met with bullshit about how it doesn't matter or don't see them get addressed. So it drives me a little nuts to see that kind of excusing going on. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people - men and women, straight, bi, gay, poly, mono, etc - that are critical of Clinton based on her character and career. If there's a deck stacked, it's in Hillary's favor, because she has brand name recognition in the United States.
As I mentioned before, I grew up viewing the Clintons as heroes, but one day I realized my only citation for that was a surplus in the country's budget. When I look back on the policies they enacted and promoted, the Clintons were a TERROR on people.
-
Henroid, the core assumption you seem to be making is that if a decision someone else makes makes no sense to you it is therefore definitely the result of their flawed reasoning, rather than differing belief systems or flawed reasoning on your part. Do you not see how this seems condescending?
The subject at hand is the presidency of the country I reside in, and by extension the government of the country I reside in. If we were talking about most anything else, whatever, people are different and that's fine. However, we're talking about a situation that will impact millions of lives to great effect. President Barack Obama ran a campaign based on issues people wanted resolved at home, rather than a campaign of keeping things as they are or regressing them or making the nation a warmongering state. Bernie Sanders is campaigning on the same thing. Hillary Clinton says she is campaigning in the same fashion, but unfortunately has a record of harming the impoverished in the country and taking an excessive amount of money from people who desire that to continue. It's not in question that politicians get bought by corporations or other wealthy interests. We see it all the time when NRA funded politicians responds to mass murders or killing sprees with "guns aren't the problem!" Or when John McCain writes a bill to kill net neutrality and names it "the Internet Freedom Act," but he takes money from the telecoms (AT&T most predominate of them in his case).
So yeah. When people throw support behind Clinton, who openly operates in that way, I'm confused and disturbed and angry. And that's the precise count of chances I give people to justify it to me in a way that even I can go, "Alright, no argument there" (which I guess is the part that makes me an asshole). I've seen precisely one argument to defend her that I did not have a problem with (pertaining to a speech she gave about LGBT people having just as much right to, well, rights as anyone else). Nothing else is clear to me. My viewpoint is that support of Clinton is about getting a woman into the office of the presidency. Yes, that would be a tremendous stride, but at what cost should we do this? It's a shallow, hallow symbolism people are wanting. Elizabeth Warren would not only accomplish that symbolism, but she actually fights for what's wanted in this country and has a career track of doing so. So why isn't she being elevated? Or called on to run?
As much as I want to see our country break its trend of only men as president, I have to weigh that against other problems I see going on. Clinton gives me no reason to trust she will resolve those issues, and there's evidence she will actually push us further into the hole. Anything she has going on that I actually support, Sanders supports as well and has been from either the start of the campaign or - even better - the start of his career as a politician. Sanders not only talks about what the issues are, but he has a plan to tackle them. Any questions about funding for those plans have answers and have the whole time. The "impossibility" of his plan is only as much as people forget that most of the congress is up for election and a good portion of the senate is. You change those seats out with Sanders supporters, and suddenly his "impossible" plans become a reality.
-
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/02/26/3753739/prri-black-homophobia-myth/
It's easy to pin homophobia on southern Black Christians, but the numbers aren't there. "voting against their own self interests" is a load of shit. Just because they value things that you don't doesn't make them dumb. Religion is important to people, and it gets to be important to people. Maybe talk about the systematic disenfranchisement of the south via the gutting of the VRA rather than saying that southern voters don't even know what's best for them or what they should actually want.
We're not just talking about differing values. We're talking about things like Clinton actively gutting welfare programs that people in the south particularly depend on (not of their own fault; reminder that this is a matter of oppression) but somehow still garnering their support. It makes no logical sense to be hurt by a politician and throw your support by them.
Mind you, financially hurting those in poverty - like myself - is different than hurting the wealthy financially. When a multi-millionaire makes less millions of dollars, they are still millionaires and don't have to worry about housing or food or power or transportation. For people like me, any slap we take financially hurts tremendously. If someone did that to me, you can be sure as shit I wouldn't support them.
-
I've got no butt in this butt-basket, but it's true that there's no graceful way to say "uneducated" or even the less-extreme "under-educated" without it sounding like you're calling someone stupid. Ignorant holds a negative connotation as well, because people often use it in an accusatory tone, like "that person doesn't even try to learn!", even though all it really means is "lacks knowledge".
In all fairness I did use the word "stupid" in a much earlier post, but I was speaking about a different demographic altogether. I'm not here or arguing out of hostility. I'm not gonna tell people not to be angry (I have a huge issue with people that do that to others), but if they're going to be mad at me, make sure it's for the right reasons and not misunderstandings or - worse - putting words in my mouth.
-
Are we denying that the government of the south (and federal level Republicans) are constantly giving the shaft to education all of a sudden?
Edit - I think some of you are misunderstanding that I'm pointing out that people are a victim of being denied a proper education (and the consequences of that). Pointing that out is not advocacy that it should continue or is a good thing. I refuse to be labeled a bad guy for saying people in an unfortunate position are being taken advantage of.
-
If you try to please everyone in politics you get nowhere, just like in social situations.
Giving corporations tax breaks for outsourcing jobs out of America isn't a "compromise." Saying that black people must be "brought to heel" isn't a compromise. Just to list a couple flaws there. I'm not sure the word "compromise" is the one you're looking for.
-
Fishing! I was doing it wrong
:fart: :fart: :fart:I had somehow wrongly internalized that I needed to tap the button, which was really freaking hard to control the green bar. Holding it works much better.
I at first thought that you had to click to reel the fish in aside from clicking to keep the green bar over the fish icon. Then I realized how silly I was being.
-
One more thing before bed. There's two ways to be critical of candidates running.
The first is being critical of things they do or say. Like factually.
The second is being critical based on supposition. The what-ifs, the "will it work"s, etc.
I'm critical of Hillary Clinton in both ways. When I bring up programs and policies she's worked for in her past, or allegiances she's declared or still maintains, or stupid shit she's said, I'm being critical on factual things. When I talk about her being a political Trojan horse that's baiting Democratic / liberal voters, that's supposition. I will gladly refer to it as that because hey, there's a chance she'll prove me wrong. But I don't trust her enough to give her the chance. So I do what I can to point her history out and ask people why they would think she's suddenly going to be different.
-
People who depend on assistance programs who vote to destroy those assistance programs are an example of what I mean about people voting against themselves. They do so being mislead by whatever politician sold them on the idea that it's for their own good somehow. The motivator is misleading rhetoric or promises. John Oliver talked about one of the angles of this in an episode of his show (I forget which one), focused on people being sold the idea that they may some day magically be one of the wealthy so they must support destroying the estate tax (one of the things in place to prevent the crushing of the economy and furthering the income gap).
People well-off financially willing to vote for people or on policies that increase their tax share is not the same thing by a long shot. The motivator there is way different than what I'm talking about and thus is not part of what I'm talking about.
Religious motivators for politics will never be okay for me in the USA because our Constitution mandates the absence of religion in government. Any law made to enforce a religious belief is not okay. Laws allowing for religious belief are different, but enforcement? Nope. Never okay. My step-sister isn't outright hateful, but shuns homosexuals or people of different religions. It motivates her voting practice and that disappoints the hell out of me. In her eyes, we are a "Christian Nation." And we are literally not so as mandated by the founders.
As for Gormongous' post, I wanna bounce off it and give an example of the Democratic primary being full of condescension. Specifically religious bias. Something I became aware of in the Nevada primary was the DNC doing nothing to assist Jewish voters in participating. The caucus fell on shabbat, the day of rest. Boiling it down super simply, as my roomies (practicing Jewish folks mind you) explained it, they aren't permitted to do anything unless it is an emergency. The DNC was in a position to either change the day or allow for absentee participation. And they don't. And probably didn't because they likely felt that Jewish voters would side for Bernie Sanders - a Jewish candidate. There was an effort to notify the DNC of this and it was ignored.
-
Oh when you mentioned wine I thought you meant making it in the game. That's what I'm working to make my farm into. A huge wine distillery.
As for trees and their seeds - one of the best ways to get seeds is to actually let some trees survive indefinitely (maybe just plant some in a spot where you can check on them). They will occasionally drop seeds into the ground. They start as little nubs you can just hit directly out of the ground with the axe, pick, or hoe, but if you leave them they will start to grow into shrubs (which won't yield seeds if hit with the scythe). And then into little trees. They won't ever fully mature because two trees cannot directly grow directly next to each other. Alternatively to all this you can chop down the trees anywhere in the game, not just your farm. They will regrow over a long period of time.
The Field Snack thing is a nice boost but don't rely on it for the long term because tree seed farming is a bit of hassle. If you want a cheap free source of energy, the salmon berries grow in the middle of spring for about three days. In fall, just before the midway point for the season, black berries will grow (by then you'll have levels in foraging which affects how many berries you get per bush).
-
Not learning skills like that also seems like an educational issue, though...
also, I dunno if anyone else has this problem, but I can basically never see the images Henroid posts, just something like, in this instance, 'CdsrQ2XWEAIDptt.jpg' -- which is a link, and when I click on it leads to a loading wheel spinning infinitely.
It's a twitter image link. I guess I can link the tweet here as a backup:https://twitter.com/Colleges4Bernie/status/710208939066068993
-
Just got this from one of the many internet-famous people I follow on Twitter. Sanders is still in it, especially when you look at the info in this form.
-
I actually meant to qualify it (with the asterisk) and forgot to. One of my posts afterward I got to it though.
Southern Democrats tend to embody some Republican / conservative views. I know for sure with black dems in the south (important note: my step-family is black and from there and I've met plenty of their extended family / friends from there) include religious bias into their political views, which impacts politics in a number of ways - one of the foremost being views on the LGBT community. Another way southern democrats embody right-wing views is fiscally, though not as strongly as the religious interference, as I like to call it.
I was mean about calling it where the "dumbest voters" are, and I only half take it back. A lot of Republican / conservative constituents are willfully ignorant and actively vote to harm themselves. And attempts to let them know about that or educate them are met with hostility from them. If they won't accept help, then they don't deserve my politeness beyond that.
There's a sad reality at play though where the south has a lot of legit education issues, especially when it comes to education on how the government functions (food for thought; I learned from an interview on the Daily Show like 10 years ago that only half the country has mandated education in highschool to teach students about their government - that is pathetically low). For that part, I apologize, because that isn't the fault of the people being affected by it. They don't know how government works, but they also don't learn skills like how to actually fact check things, or measure issues against one another or weigh evidence - so many life skills. The south needs a lot of help but it's currently under some sick control / brainwashing that will take a couple generations to fix when the tools to fix it can finally be strong-armed in there.
-
Dunno if that's next-president material but I will quickly add that despite Mitch McConnell declaring the senate will be bad employees by not doing their job (btw fire them in November by electing other people) eight senate Republicans have stepped up to say they will started the vetting / confirmation process. But yeah, out of all the "we don't like Obama THIS MUCH" moves, this is the most transparent and nobody - not even Republican constituents - are buying it.
-
Energy problems tend to disappear from the game entirely when you have enough level ups in skills, especially after you increase your energy max once or twice (out of a possible six times, I think).
-
Former Speaker Boehner just said that if the Republican Convention ends up being a Contested Convention (where none of the people running hit the required delegate count) he is going to back the current Speaker, Paul Ryan, for president. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
-
That would be my other hope. That congress is filled with progressives. Because they would at least oppose Clinton on some things.
-
Hope is cool and all but damn Bernie is not gonna win the nomination. Has anyone ever come back from this kind of lead at this point in the race? First time for everything, sure, I get that, but, oof.
Keep in mind that being declared winner doesn't mean all the delegates are won. The delegates are split accordingly with the % of who got what. So in the case of a .2% difference vote for a state, Hillary actually only gets a +1 delegate count (if that) over Sanders for that state.
Again, he's far from out. Clinton has 1,094 and Sanders has 774. That's without superdelegates counted (and they aren't committed until the convention, going with total popular vote) (but as an aside, people like to count them in toward Clinton to make it seem like she's winning by a landslide). There's still 2.5k delegates to win over, with 2.4k being the total needed on the Democratic ticket to get the nomination.
As I proposed before, Clinton is more popular among southern democrats, who tend to have right-wing leanings moreso than east and west coast democrats (edit - my examples of this are religious beliefs, homophobia, and fiscal leanings). The south is done with its primaries - the coasts are coming up and with a ton of delegates at stake and Sanders being more popular there (with the exception of New York), it's not hard to imagine that he sweeps in with a big upset.
-
I'm seeing a Missouri win (with data) for Sanders and an Illinois win (without data) for Clinton.
Edit - Okay now it's being called a sweep for Clinton. Her strong suit - the south, where she and Bill are from and where the country's dumbest voters are* - is over with. The coasts are going to be a different story with a bigger delegate count at stake.
I will say though, if she ends up getting the nomination... I'm going to laugh in the face of all her supporters when she reveals herself as a Trojan Horse of Wall Street / Republican values.
-
I've restarted a couple times. The first after one season, just learning the basics of this particular game's mechanics, and then the other was after year one. Like Bjorn it's an efficiency thing (without min-maxing).
I'd say above all else, the first week or two when you start should be based on farming. Clear enough land to plant seeds, plant them, buy more seeds, clear enough land, plant, etc. Just get that landslide income off hard-worked-on crops, and you'll be able to afford a backpack upgrade fast. The initial inventory size is pitiful.
Actually, scratch that - first thing you should do is chop down wood for 50 pieces, and build a chest ASAP.
-
I meant walking to an activity takes a long time, and is tedious as fuck. I usually do one thing a day.
Build a stable. Hop on your horsey, which you get to name, and ride around going "wheeeeeeee."
-
The game feels really slow, constantly walking the same path wasting a large portion of the day. It annoys me that I cannot press on.
The only time I ran into this feeling was in winter. But even then, if you plan carefully, you can actually still farm.
During any given day, you can:
- fish
- farm crops, which includes watering, tilling the ground
- forage
- chop wood
- mine
- mingle with townsfolk / give gifts
- go to the bar and play an arcade game
- gather things up for the community center bundles
You don't have to squeeze doing everything into a day. I often just handle my watering needs and then pick something to do for the rest of the day. Chopping wood can be a bit of a pain if you run out of trees. The answer is to start a tree farm! Trees will always drop one seed on chopping down. On rare occasions, you'll get a second seed. And more often than not they will drop seeds around them slowly over time, which you can leave in the ground to grow or dig up with a tool to replant elsewhere. Wood doesn't make a ton of money if you find yourself not needing to build things; just 2 gold per block (3 gold if you take that experience route). But it is something to do.
Stardew Valley
in Video Gaming
Posted
I setup my sprinkler system right at the end of fall and didn't see it in full effect. Since then I managed to find enough iridium to start a short section of 5x5 sprinkler-covered plants (anything that grows on wooden supports; so I have walkways setup). I just hit spring of the 2nd year and am ready to see how much of an impact it has. There's 193 crop-planted tiles covered by it. Probably excessive.
I also found a neat shortcut to an income. When you have a steel or gold quality hoe, the beach and quarry can yield 6.5k to 8.5k worth of forageable goods a day (combined). Spent the last two weeks of winter doing that and started spring off able to afford all my crop needs and buy two of each fruit bearing tree comfortably. Still have 30-some thousand money left.