s20

I want to go to there…

I install and set up operating systems. It's something I do to my own computer regularly, but I'll cheerfully do for someone else because it's fun.

Linux is my favorite, but I can do Windows, Free/Open/Dragonfly BSD, Haiku, and given time to research others as well. I keep meaning to give NetBSD a shot...

It gives me a focused task with a specific end goal that requires some technical knowledge, but mostly preparation, research, and troubleshooting skills. The activity can sometimes lift me out of a depressive episode for a while.

I recently got into a long, really dumb argument. I used the phrase "lesser of two evils" and what seemed like fifty people (actually two or three) seemed to think that meant I approved of, strenuously endorsed, and would defend the actions of the "lesser evil."

To me, this seemed like a basic misunderstanding of what the phrase meant, so I defined it. Their response to my definition was to say the same sort of thing they'd already said while claiming to totally know what "lesser of two evils" meant.

I lost my cool, and explained what the phrase meant again. One of the folks explained themselves calmly while the others seemed to think I was a congenital idiot because I kept repeating myself.

I don't want this to get any longer, so I'll just say that we were talking past each other. Nobody (well, except fr the one guy who stopped to explain what he meant) was really comprehending what the other person said. So everyone was a dumbass, basically. Story of my life, really.

At least, I think that's what happened. Watch the asshole who called me a liar and an idiot show up here to not explain how I'm a liar and an idiot again.

It absolutely is. Many insults are.

Oh fuck, I'm dying 🤣😂

Klaphat. I need to remember that.

Oh that is fantastic. I need to use that one.

That is elaborate, vulgar, and 100% delightful. I love hearing stuff like this. Cursing in American English is so boring lol

Heya. I'm an American, and I've got to say thank you. I seriously look forward to calling someone a "ball violin" in English, but if fully intend to add klootviool and and klootzak to my day to day swear bank. Those are so satisfying to say!

I can't speak to running Scrivener, but other folks have that covered, so I thought I'd weigh in on your "extra irrelevant info."

If it were me, I'd just give them Fedora. I set up my partner's computer with it and they were fine. They adapted to Gnome like it was nothing, and everything went smoothly.

If you're worried about the UI, you could use some Gnome Extensions to set it up like Windows (dash to dock, Arc Menu, etc.) or set up a KDE, Cinnamon, or XFCE spin to work like Windows.

Mint is an okay choice for beginners, true, but if you're setting it up for them and will be their tech guru, any significant advantage is kinda lost. You're the one who's going to set up the starting packages and the DE and all that, which nowadays is about 90% of the advantage Mint has over Fedora when it comes to beginners. Because of that, since you're tech support, you should just set up what you're most comfortable running support for.

That's just my opinion, though.

Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy?

I don't think it's at all unrelated.

Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed.

It is. That's why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can't support the party's platform anymore, for instance). Also, it's got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it's just a vocal few, but it skeeves me.

Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process

I'm not confident either, but the free market hasn't done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we've had success with regulation.

Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation.

Which brings me back to my point. If:

• My vote isn't going to help further discourse, and …
• Odds are good that even a popular 3rd party option isn't going to be remembered all that well, and…
• If nobody represents my ideas all that well anyway, then…

what's my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn't have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too.

And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change.

So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn't specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn't a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one.

That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that's not on me.

So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I'll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit.

But that's what I was already doing.

Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition.

Okay. But if the people you vote for can only muster 3% of the vote, how does that help?

I get it in local elections, up to and including State legislature, gubernatorial races, and maybe Congress if they can get a good campaign going. That all makes sense because even if they don't win they get enough attention to attract local media and push discussion among others.

But Senators? The President? Ross Perot was an extreme outlier. The last time a 3rd party presidential candidate got more than 50 electoral votes was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive. In the last century, the highest total electoral votes for a 3rd part went to George Wallace in 1968 running as an American Independent. He got 46 out of 538. Rounding up, that's 9%.

Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.

So I'm asking: how does it help. If it helps, I'll try. But from where I'm sitting, it's all hopeless. I don't want to feel this way. So please, for the love of sanity, convince me.