You know, I think a good rule of thumb is if someone finds humiliation “funny”, they’re generally kind of an asshole. Even if everyone is in on the “joke”, it’s revealing of a certain kind of mindset.

Or people without any media literacy are more likely to vote for conservatives…

“…The Economist reported 462,000 and 728,000 Russian soldiers were out of action by mid-June”

https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-army-lost-70k-soldiers-ukraine-war-uk-defense-ministry/

Now that’s both killed and wounded, and based on analysis of leaked docs from US DoD. How much is any of it true? Probably will know in 50 years or so, but whatever the exact number is, it’s likely more than they’ve lost in all military actions combined since WWII.

I don’t disagree with any of that, but again that context wasn’t obvious in your original post.

Also, those anti-democratic tendencies are inherent in all large organizations. And yes, it takes constant pressure to limit it, but that pressure needs to have a laser-like focus to be effective - otherwise bureaucracy and inertia win. That said, I’ve been involved in politics for almost 40 years, and the cliquish, insular, shambling monstrosity of the DNC is a mess - but it’s still actually better run and more open than any nationwide Democratic or GOP political committee in this country’s history. I mean the bar is on the floor in that regards, but progress and success are possible if done smartly.

Then help me understand - how do you feel that sharing this without the correct context was constructive?

Then my only advice would be to try and share in ways that are constructive rather than the opposite.

You could have just admitted it was a mistake without the grandstanding. All Democrats criticize the Democratic Party - it’s like a requirement, and it doesn’t make you special.

Criticism is our strength, though it’s often viewed as a weakness by others. But that criticism needs to be grounded in facts and reality, or else it undercuts the actual germane and real criticisms that need to be discussed and acted on.

If your post was in error, as you said, delete it and post something constructive. Maybe even link to the same thing, note the age of the link, but ask what needs to be done to make sure this doesn’t happen again. That might actually be a useful discussion. Otherwise you’re just throwing metaphorical molotovs and doing unintended damage.

I simply outlined the only two possible motivations for the post that I could think of and gave OP a prompt to explain if it was simply a mistake on their part. Did I miss a motivation that explains the context of the post?

This statement was from 23 July and has been overcome by events. Harris is the nominee. The only reasons to share this 3 weeks after it was published is to either pretend that there is dissent on the left about who should be the nominee, or it was a simple mistake and you didn’t see the date. Which is it?

Just curious as why not Portal 2? That’s honestly one of my “chicken soup” comfort food games - Portal 1 is great but to me, Portal 2 is so much more.