Dan Shay

That was a fun one. I loved the team-up you could do between a scout with a targeting laser, and a heavy with a mortar.

We hate him, too.

Literally laughed out loud at this. Well played.

Oh yeah, and supremely modable.

I really enjoyed both Battletech and their Shadowrun games.

Did you play the Harebrained Schemes games?

Side note:

Dersh remains an insufferable self-important fucking asshole.

Watching the video of him force debate on these people instead of just fucking off already is astounding. I'm surprised nobody's just decked him by now.

Ain't gonna be cheap. Lego gets *pricey.*

The model here basically seems to be "How do I justify my own shitty behavior or the shitty behavior of those I idolize? I know! I'll just say Jesus did it, so it's not merely ok, but divine to be shitty!"

It's also a terrific starting point if you want to bring newbies into 1e and want (1) a cheaper entry point than buying a vintage 1e PHB, and (2) a more easily understood explanation of the rules with good organization.

OSRIC is basically a "restatement" of 1e. It essentially rewrites the High Gygaxian prose to be more down to earth plain language. It reorganizes some aspects, and then tries to tighten up and clarify language from the 1e PHB that was ambiguous or unclear.

What a dork.

I liked Mamy & Teathan, but their 2nd album was just too out there for me.

Yeah, we've agreed here in the past: we need new people in office, up and down the line. We have to change the culture of the party if we want to actually get anything positive done.

The GOP won't back away from its efforts until it is forced to, or until it comes to bite them in the ass and they recognize that Dems *will* fight. Right now, there's no cost to them for breaking the rules, and only upside to doing so.

You wanna stop a bully, knock his fucking teeth in.

Unless and until we get rid of them or blunt their impact, there's no way to effectively rein this in OTHER than going full nuclear.

We should also recognize that the GOP shredding the social contract means we should not continue to play by it, and should instead give as good as we get.

I'm in favor of blue states gerrymandering the fuck out of things, if only to force the confrontation and hopefully then lead to "non-proliferation" laws.

But the real problem here is that SCOTUS was taken over by GOP shills who are fine with anti-democratic, minoritarian rule.

I'm "anti-AI-the-way-techbro-dorks-talk-about-it" or "anti-AI-as-panacea/universal-tool".

I'm AI-neutral-to-maybe-positive-but-let's-roll-it-out-gradually-to-minimize-problems-in-implementation for specific, tailored uses. I see its potential in some applications, and loathe it in others.

Pfft. This is skull-drill erasure. Gotta let them demons out!

Journalism-as-stenography is a huge part of the problem right now.

But the first instinct in your response was...to look to the Constitution for the appropriate method, and then caution as to why it might not be so good of an idea.

Our thoughts are captured by the past, but we don't have to leave them mired there.

See, this is actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

There is no reason we have to do a convention the way the Constitution currently requires. And we certainly don't have to give elements that want to impose minoritarian, anti-democratic, fascist rule a seat at the bargaining table.

8\I think the more we actively engage with the thought experiment of "But what if you could remake it completely? What would you keep, what would you ditch, what would you keep in a modified form?" the easier it becomes to imagine reform and what it'd look like.

7\As a result, I think we as a people do not *really* grapple with the notion of "Well, suppose you could make up a whole new government. What would that look like, and why would you do it that way?" But, again *we could just do that.*

6\But in the end, it's just words on paper that we chose to abide by, and we could choose another set of words on paper *just like the Founders did in 1787* when they scrapped the Articles of Confederation.

5\We don't think of the Constitution as a social contract dreamed up by flawed humans who owned people as chattel. Instead we think of it as our governmental Decalogue, handed down by marble demigods, or at least the Prophets of Government.

4\Nobody talks about ending "life tenure" for Fed. judges (which, I argue, does not actually even exist in the first place), nor about something like ignoring Roberts-era precedent altogether in the interests of delivering actual justice. We could do that as well.

3\For example, nobody talks seriously about a Senate that *solely* serves as the "appointment advice/consent" body, and otherwise plays no legislative role, to say nothing of a monocameral system. But we could do that.

2\Re: a constitutional reformation, I actually think that's more possible, but it's difficult to envision because of who currently holds the reins of power in both parties. Too much thought about re-formation cannot envision a future any different from today and is mired in the past.

1\I think a territorial war a la the ACW is less likely. I think any actual civil war would likely be more about cells vs. government, and that would cut both ways. (E.g., in TX, there are plenty of Dems with guns, if it came to that)

It could end up being more like the KS/MO Border War.

The nuclear block really is a hell of a design. Trolls thrive on engagement, but that can come from sources other than the target (e.g., people white knighting or brigading). Nuclear block ends *all* of it. Just reduces the whole thing to ash.