docAvid

Emacs Magit is so much better than the CLI, and I don't say that lightly. And it's available on Linux.

I barely know Vim, I'm an Emacs guy. Every time I pair with a colleague using an IDE, I find myself having to exercise great restraint, and not complain about how slow and fussy everything they do is. When I've worked with skilled vimmers, I have to admit that they invoke the deep magic nearly as efficiently as I do. Hotkeys? Pshaw, child's play.

Democrats have pretty much been the same since Clinton, not really drifting right. Yes, Democratic centrism enables Republican extremism, but the neoliberal agenda of Democrats, regarding domestic economics and foreign affairs, has stayed pretty constant, while they have actually improved on social issues. Clinton or Obama would not have handled Israel's recent actions differently, they might even have done worse. On domestic issues, Biden is probably the most progressive president since LBJ. Now, granted, that's really a condemnation of American politics since then, more than it is praise of Biden - but still, we are finally moving in the right direction again, at least, and it's important to acknowledge that, if we want it to continue.

STAR is ridiculously bad, it just has good marketing. It favors the preferences of voters who pick extremes, ranking everybody either a 1 or a 5 - likely the least informed and thoughtful voters - over voters who carefully weigh whether a candidate deserves 3 or 4 stars. Ranked choice is simple and effective, takes more granular voter preference into account, and provides runoff for each virtual round, rather than just the last. It also has a simple variant that works equally well for multi-seat elections.

I'm nearly fifty, now. Why am I disillusioned by capitalism? Because the illusion is thin and flimsy. I really hope the disillusionment of millennials isn't just because they don't have a good enough retirement plan, or anything else that can be easily fixed. I hope that they are waking up to realize that giving unelected, unaccountable, private owners of capital control over the production and distribution of goods, services, and information, is an extremist, antidemocratic idea, that is driving the global climate crisis, and the slide toward fascism.

Our democracy is deeply broken, but it is a democracy. If we lost it, you'd just get the batshit insane party candidate put directly in, and they could do whatever they wanted.

To confirm and expand on what others are saying: a general strike is not protected, and any union that endorses one will lose their recognition. How can you get that many people to risk their jobs, with no organizing union that can even legally participate?

If you can get that many people that dedicated to your cause, it would be a whole lot easier to just get them to vote in a primary.

Why? Because they're well attested by multiple sources.

That's an entirely different criterion, though. I honestly don't even know how to respond to this non-sequitur.

For the same reason you're doing it now?

You mean to say these "enemies" would have doubted that Jesus existed because they heard that there is some historical debate on the matter, and that there may not be any good evidence to support the claim, looked into it, agreed, and found it to be an interesting topic to debate on the Internet? That seems really unlikely to me.

Look at it this way: if I told you that a guy I know claims that his buddy Frank, who died ten years ago, had made certain religious and political statements, which I agree with, and you found those statements to be blasphemous and offensive, would you argue back with "well, uh, how do we know this Frank guy even existed? Huh?!" Or would you take his existence as a fairly trivial given, and argue against the actual statements he allegedly made?

It's honestly bizarre to me that anybody would imagine this "enemies" argument has any weight at all. That's not how people work.

The closest thing we have to a first-hand account of the life of Jesus is the Gospel of Mark, a book of uncertain authorship

the followers of Jesus likely would've been illiterate, and likely so would've Jesus himself, and the first gospel was likely only written after decades of "playing telephone"

I don't mean no first-hand in-depth account, that's some serious goal-post moving. If anybody even remotely describable as a historic Jesus existed, that dude made waves. He would have been a public figure, of great interest, and some contemporary would have probably at least written down something about him that would have survived to the historical record.

Evidence of belief is not evidence of existence

True, but it is usually the first step towards finding something that does exist

Is it? When has that happened? I think the first step towards finding something that exists is observing it, or observing its tangible effects that cannot be explained in other, simpler ways.

Jewish writers like Philo of Alexandria believed he existed and apparently had reason to believe he existed since him and all of his contemporaries never thought to question Jesus's existence

Again, why would they? Would you, honestly, in their place?

Is that a broadly accepted historical criteria, or just one of the many made-up ones used by biblical historians? Why would the "enemies" themselves have any reason to think that some dude a lot of people talk about isn't even real? In a world with no photography, no printing press, no telegraph? How, was there not one single first-hand account? Evidence of belief is not evidence of existence. If it were, we'd have to acknowledge the historical reality of God, Satan, Zeus, Thor, and Bigfoot. At least there are contemporary first-hand claims from people who say they saw Bigfoot.

the core ideas of religion are just about universal

Even just within Christianity, in the modern world, there are radical differences in the core ideas between sects. Across all religions, throughout history, the differences dwarf that.

It's the details and names that vary

It's not (see above), but if it were: the details count toward this as well. Just saying "meh, ignore the details" is cheating to get the answer you want.

You could describe religion as a connectedness to, and humbleness before the mystery of, the universe

How many religious people have you actually met, friend? I have known some whose views roughly fit that description, but most do not. In fact, I'd suggest that you could describe science that way. Religious people start with the belief, the box they want to put the universe in, and then insist that it must be, and attempt to adjust the facts to match their views - this is the farthest thing from humbleness before the mystery of the universe. Science tells us to put our preconceptions and expectations aside, and observe how the universe really functions - if we see facts that don't match our current understanding, we adjust our understanding.

Yes, I completely agree, so far as I can without looking up your post and comment history to confirm that you do what you are saying here you do, but taking your word for that. Good faith criticism isn't what Pan_Ziemniak seemed to be describing.

Two things can be happening. People with a legitimate moral concern, such as myself, don't actively act against that concern by helping elect a candidate who would make that concern even worse. There are ways to express our anger and sorrow about Biden's handling of this without supporting Trump.