Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Innersloth have been scrambling to handle the influx of cheaters and hackers that have hit the game since its sudden surge in popularity earlier this year. This week, however, the deception game was hit by a massive attack from a single source – a source that claims to have hit over 1.5 million games (cheers, Eurogamer).
From about Thursday onwards, the game’s subreddit was busy with mentions of an “Eris Loris”. It seems public games were overwhelmed with a hack that caused players to be stranded in a void, before flooding text chat with spam adverts for Loris’ Discord and You Tube channels. The message threatened players that it would hack their devices or blow up their phones if they didn’t subscribe to Loris’ feeds. Finally, just to wrap up the shitshow, many messages ended with the phrase “TRUMP 2020”.
At the very least, it didn’t seem too hard to track down the attacker. Speaking to Kotaku, Loris explained that the massive spam attack was basically done for the bants.
“I was curious to see what would happen, and personally I found it funny,” Loris explained. “The anger and hatred is the part that makes it funny. If you care about a game and are willing to go and spam dislike some random dude on the internet because you can’t play it for 3 minutes, it’s stupid.”
Loris told both Eurogamer and Kotaku that he considers himself a Trump supporter, so you could maybe claim there’s a thin vein of political activism at work. And while the developers have since moved to counter the hack, Loris claims that Innersloth’s latest hotfixes have had no effect on his operation. That they’re a tiny, 3-person indie studio dealing with the sudden explosion of an old game isn’t causing Loris to shed any tears, either.
“Among Us may be a small developer team, but that’s not my fault. The game is at a scale bigger than most [triple-A] games. There is nothing stopping them from getting more developers, so the ‘it’s 3 people’ reasoning means nothing to me.”
Innersloth warned Among Us players of the attack through Twitter in the wee hours of Friday morning, with an emergency server update going live shortly after. While reports of Loris attacks appear to have slowed, the devs’ account hasn’t tweeted since that warning. For the time being, it’s probably best to heed their advice and stick to private games with people you know.
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Oct 24th 2020 at 7:13:09 PM
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyWhere are you getting this from? According to the Texas Tribune
, "it's impossible to tell which party is leading in early vote turnout. Texans don't have the option to align with a particular party when they register to vote."
@nova: The same article you linked said the Texas early vote as of Thursday is 31% registered Republicans, 26% registered Democrats. The rest are independents. So we can't know the total distribution of the vote, but the numbers we do have suggest Republicans have an edge.
The article just meant you can’t register as a party member at the polls, so all the above party members would have been people who were already members before they voted.
Edited by Galadriel on Oct 24th 2020 at 1:24:46 PM
![]()
What's kinda ironic is that alt-right gamers love to claim that "the left" is coming after their video games.
And then some Trumpet tries to sabotage an incredibly popular multiplayer game.
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Oct 24th 2020 at 7:24:35 PM
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyEven ignoring the politics of that little stunt, I can't think of a faster way to make yourself look like a wanker than to say anything to the effect of 'it was just a prank, brah'. :V
Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Oct 24th 2020 at 6:29:25 PM
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Ahh, I think we were using slightly different measures of party registration, which is where I got confused.
From what I can tell, there is no official party registration in Texas the way there is in other states, but you do become "affiliated" with a political party if you vote in their primary elections. What I think this guy did is go through old voter rolls to line up primary voters in previous years with 2020 early voters and determined the proportion that had previously voted as Republicans/Democrats.
That doesn't mean the remaining 39% are necessarily Independents, though (lots of people vote in the general but not in primaries), and it is worth pointing out that Democrats have historically seen much lower primary turnout in Texas, which could be contributing to the gap. I'm probably being a nitpicky here as I do agree with your main point that we shouldn't be counting chickens, though, with the current numbers in Texas.
Edited by nova92 on Oct 24th 2020 at 10:46:59 AM
![]()
![]()
That feels like it's overselling him; to me, he just comes off as your average teenage edgelord. The sort of person most likely to share 'we live in a society'-tier Joker memes without irony, or can actually read Atlas Shrugged without falling asleep. :V
Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Oct 24th 2020 at 6:48:32 PM
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!Regarding Republicans and wealth: it's complicated.
Republicans believe in harsh meritocracy. They believe that people who work the hardest deserve to have wealth, and that people who do not work deserve nothing. They see welfare programs, public healthcare, basic income, etc. as free hand-outs given out to the lazy and undeserving at the expense of the meritorious. And they see taxes, most of all, as the government trampling on the backs of the hard-working people.
But how do you determine who works the hardest? Well, that's the trick.
Republicans believe that wealth is a sign of hard work. If you're rich, it can only be because you worked hard and earned it. And if you work hard, then you deserve to be rich. See the trick there? It's a "meritocracy" in which the wealthy prove their merit by being wealthy and the poor prove their lack of merit by being poor.
If you're rich, you work hard, and if you work hard, you deserve to be rich. So if you're rich, you deserve to be rich, and that's really all it actually boils down to it. But. See. There are exceptions.
Republicans believe that Democrats conspire to make undeserving people wealthy. To a Republican, socialized healthcare and basic income and higher taxes on the rich are all malevolent plots to steal money from the hard-working and boost the lazy and undeserving to the top of the hierarchy pyramid. The wealthy know that they work hard and are the most deserving, and they look out at a world trying to tear them down from their ivory towers, and they believe that it's to put different people in those ivory towers in their place. Democrats want to make people wealthy who don't deserve wealth.
But if wealthy = hard-working = deserving = wealthy, then what's the difference between a wealthy person who deserves to be wealthy and one who doesn't? Well.
Bigotry. Just. Bigotry. All of these ideas of "deserving" and "hard-working" are really just subjective descriptors for how the wealthy see the fundamental fairness of the world. But Republicans also have, in the back of their minds, this image of the most hard-working and deserving class of people. And that's heterosexual white men. They think that straight white men being the most hard-working and deserving is the natural course of the universe; that every other demographic is a fundamentally lesser group blaming them, the rich, for that group's own racial/sexual/gender-driven failings.
"Black people have no work ethic" + "Rich people prove their work ethic by being rich" = "Wanting to raise taxes on the rich is an attempt by lazy black thieves to steal money from honest, hard-working whites."
And they see Democrats as a hate mob seeking to pull them down from their natural course because they're white. Or because they're straight. Or because they're male. They're "just telling it like it is" but that's not very politically correct, so the Democrats want to take away their companies and wealth and give it to undeserving black people and gays and women. Just rip out the natural order and rearrange all the players in the pyramid to look "diverse", and then the nation is ruled by unfit idiots and the whole thing descends into chaos.
To a Republican, the only way this country can run smoothly is if the people most deserving to use wealth have it. And the most deserving are the hardest working, and the hardest working are the ones already wealthy. And the fact that this describes a bunch of old white straight men is not a bug, it's a feature.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Oct 24th 2020 at 10:54:32 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
And that's not even getting into what happens when the system has an opening and allows someone who's not a straight, white, cisgendered male through to success.
Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Oct 24th 2020 at 1:59:43 PM
My musician page![]()
![]()
You see this in a lot of things like court appointments - once Trump came into office the judiciary started to become much more male and white since Obama. The remark I've seen in pointing that out was "well, Liberals are going to call us racist anyway, so might as well not even try, and just focus on qualifications".
Ignoring the arguments of why many of the people being appointed aren't qualified or experienced enough, but also with an implicit assumption that "more white and male" also just happens to line up with "better qualified/experienced/knowledgeable/etc."
Edited by LSBK on Oct 24th 2020 at 1:01:48 PM
For a mild change of pace, a list of issues that divide
within each party, agglomerated by 538 as the questions were asked by different pollsters at different times.
Among Democrats:
- Whether there should be a national mandate to take a coronavirus vaccine if approved by the FDA (47% for and 48% against)
- Whether the Democrats should have picked a more liberal nominee than Biden, judging by their first choice during the primary (31% had Sanders as their first choice and 14% had Warren; 28% had Biden, 10% wanted Buttigieg, 6% wanted Bloomberg, 4% had Klobuchar, 2% Steyer, 4% someone else; those like Harris who dropped out early weren't included in the choices).
- Whether there should be reparations for slavery (50% for and 49% against)
- Whether religion causes more problems in society than it solves (46% agree with that sentiment, 53% disagree)
Among Republicans:
- Whether they wished Trump's speech and behavior was more like previous presidents (46% did, 53% did not)
- Whether there should be a public health insurance option (45% supported the idea, 47% opposed)
- Whether state and local governments were taking reasonable steps with regards to the pandemic or whether they were unreasonable steps to control people (56% thought they were reasonable, 43% thought they were unreasonable)
- A "$2 trillion plan to increase the use of renewable energy and build energy-efficient infrastructure" (45% in favor, 46% opposed). It's essentially the "mini-Green New Deal" Biden has proposed, but the question had been worded so that neither "Biden" nor "Green New Deal" appeared in it to avoid the reflex gag someone identifying as a Republican would have to anything Democratic.
- Whether they would get a COVID-19 vaccine if approved by the FDA (54% would "probably" or "definitely" get it, 40% "probably" or "definitely" won't)
- Whether Blacks and Hispanics face a lot of discrimination (for Blacks, 52% say they do and 47% say they don't; for Hispanics, it's 45% and 53% respectively)
- Several parts of immigration policy: separating families from children at the border (45% supported, 53% opposed); whether to protect Dreamers (45% supported, 54% opposed); whether to have a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants (48% supported it, 38% say "deport them", 14% would be OK with legal residence but not citizenship)
- Universal basic income (52% supported, 48% opposed)
The article notes that the issues that split Democrats are unpopular overall, while the ones that split Republicans are popular overall.
The damned queen and the relentless knight.Washington Post:
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she'll vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court
Something to think about when considering the ramifications of restructuring the courts during a Democratic trifecta. AP News:
Despite rhetoric, GOP has supported packing state courts
Republican claims that Democrats would expand the U.S. Supreme Court to undercut the conservative majority if they win the presidency and control of Congress has a familiar ring.
It's a tactic the GOP already has employed in recent years with state supreme courts when they have controlled all levers of state political power.
Republican governors in Arizona and Georgia have signed bills passed by GOP-dominated legislatures to expand the number of seats on their states' respective high courts. In Iowa, the Republican governor gained greater leverage over the commission that names judicial nominees.
Some of the court-packing efforts at the state level have come in response to controversial court rulings. In 2007, a Republican state senator in the majority-Republican Florida Legislature proposed and later withdrew a proposal to more than double the number of seats on the state Supreme Court after the court struck down a school voucher bill. The legislation said the court's decision "betrays a lack of respect on the part of the majority for the separation of state powers."
A Republican lawmaker in Iowa's Legislature, then controlled by Democrats, proposed expanding the state's high court in 2009 following a ruling legalizing gay marriage in the state.
That effort was unsuccessful, but conservatives in the now majority GOP Iowa Legislature last year upended the way justices are chosen for the court. Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law legislation that effectively gave her a majority on the commission that names potential judges and justices.
The change had the backing of the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative group in Washington that has spent millions on ads urging Barrett's confirmation.
What's the phrase again? Rules for thee but not for me?
Edited by nova92 on Oct 24th 2020 at 12:28:46 PM
Just a friendly reminder that most of these senators who are voting to confirm will increase their chances of losing their re-election as a result.
And even when Kooky Barney is confirmed, if Democrats win the Senate (which seems increasingly likely) they can expand the courts regardless of Biden's opinion on court-packing.
But first we need to vote Orange Ghetsis out.
Edited by clemont107 on Oct 24th 2020 at 3:52:59 PM
"Wow, no Mega Togekiss in Legends Z-A. Or any non-Froslass new Sinnoh Mega Evolutions. Round of applause, everybody." - Dawn

Edited by Wyldchyld on Oct 24th 2020 at 6:16:36 PM
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.