So, it's because of Wall Street, not slave labor or CCP subsidies? Sure.

And yet Apple and Steam got good scores for small, highly-integrated devices, while dishwashers (a large mechanical appliance) are at the bottom.

If you don't consider bathroom breaks to be entertainment, you're doing something wrong in there.

Your average truck stop is 5-18 acres, and that's mostly parking.

So, you're intentionally conflating the "sanctity of individual life and dignity" with conflicts between individuals? Are you saying that criticizing one person is the same as criticizing all people? That's objectively idiotic and you should be ashamed.

Well, some animal husbandry maybe but it sure isn't good for crops.

I don't know. They probably would have faced about as much push back for changing the plot as they did for keeping it. Sticking with the established storyline makes sense to me, even if it wasn't very good. But I never played the games and only watched the first season.

No, that was Yar's Revenge. A game truly deserving of a film/TV adaptation. Greatest videogame plot ever.

Forgive me my failings. Or don't. I'll forgive, love and pray for you either way ;)

Well, those are a lot of half-truths, omissions, and biased frames. You assume that the South remained as racist as it had been when your buddies were in charge. I live in Georgia. You are mistaken. You think the GOP used "coded language" to tell racists that it was okay to be racist. Funny that only Democrats can decode that. Republicans don't hear it that way. They were also against segregation, so to say that they used code to hide their support for it is... unsound. Republicans saw peaceful protests against segregation (which they were already against and the first President to do anything about it was... a Republican) being responded to with attack dogs and firehoses. Now, I wasn't alive for that, but my parents described their horror when they saw it.

Oh, and yes, Democrats have always been the party of racism. When FDR bragged about having tons of friends in the KKK, what was that? Yeah, he got black votes, but he was giving away free money. He got tons of votes. Blacks knew he hated them, but he was already making them dependent on his party. Truman didn't like them either. Eisenhower knew better and had to call out the National Guard to stop Democrats from keeping schools segregated.

No, the only change is in how Democrats use their racism. Now, it's "the GOP is so racist you have to vote for us". It's all just a way to keep blacks down. Democrats run almost every major city and every major city's education system. Do their policies educate black children? No, the numbers show that is not the case. Do black people do better in places run by Democrats? Only if they join the party and then work for the government. Maxine Waters is rich as hell now, but are the people she represents any better off for her corruption?

Basically, you're seeing the aftermath of decades of paid loyalty, internalized oppression, and corruption, and mistaking it for a sign that Democrats must not be racist.

But the number one reason Democrats are the party of racism is that they are the ones who keep using it as a wedge issue. Republicans don't talk about race, they don't want it to be an issue because it shouldn't be one. Democrats need it to be an issue because they don't know how to use anything else. Democrats actively want to treat people differently on the basis of their race. That's racist. They seem to think that black people need white people to help them. That's racist. They treat black people like they can't think for themselves, and that's racist.

Yeah, but think how much fun it will be when we're the type 2 civilization!

No, you absolutely are defending Hamas. You're repeating their talking points without even knowing it.

The "refugees" in Gaza did not flee war, they started one and lost. And while you can say that Gaza exists as it does because of the creation of Israel, that's like saying a murderer is in prison because someone they hated wouldn't stop being alive. Which is really the problem. They hate Jews and don't want them to exist. The Jews got a nation, and they don't want it to exist. They won't accept any situation in which Isreal continues to exist, which they regularly demonstrate.

And you are utterly, pathetically, wrong about "from the river to the sea". They aren't talking about a change in government; they're talking about ethnic cleansing and everyone knows it. Hamas lied to you about what it means, and you believed them. I won't speculate as to why.

I never suggested they operated in the same way. I had hoped to communicate my point that part of the problem is that each side expects the other to operate as it does.

I also remember an instance where people thought they had their science right, and rather than admit that it was wrong in the face of clear evidence, they let millions of people die. Turns out that wheat simply will not grow in Siberia.
Marxism maintains the pretense of being "scientific history" that accurately predicts the future. Yet even though it failed to do so, or do anything other than cause the deaths of tens of millions of people (including those I just mentioned) and some of the most horrific events in human history, it still exists, and people still insist it's good.
So, are you sure that mass murder is an example of a difference? Or is it that when people have their beliefs challenged, they often react poorly, regardless of what sort of belief it is?

And with that, we aren't talking about science or religion anymore, just human frailty. Give humans any thing and some will use it for good, some for evil, and if you're lucky, one or two might even recognize which is which.

Forgive me a minor typo. I didn't notice until I had already hit submit.

Though I can't help but notice your response is a bit hostile. Amusing, given that to which you respond.

Oh, I'm sorry, I meant in the context of your bit about truth and accuracy, where you seem to be saying that - and I'm going to reverse how you used the words - a thing can be true, but not accurate without some necessary context. Hmm, I don't like the terms in that order either. Let's drop it in favor of "misleading". A statement can be true, but misleading without the necessary context.

As for the news industry being crap, I can't argue there.