Spudlyman

(he/him) Mostly I tweet about anime trash. I speedrun Spyro sometimes. Love Live is important. µ'sic forever

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

A T T A C K A N D D E T H R O N E G O D

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

@chroniko__o lavender I think

[adef @adefgames]

A few years ago I ran this poll, but I'd like to do it again now that I have a bit more of a following.

When you quickly spin an analog stick on a controller (e.g. for a spin jump in Mario, a spin-slash in Zelda),

Do you rotate the stick:

[🍔楠田亜衣奈🍔 @kusudaaina]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY ╭*(๑˘ᴗ˘๑)*╮

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

@Touyarokii Lickitung because he’s just a goofy guy

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

I was on the fence about going, but I’m glad I went to the Kiara / Ina duo live.

On Day 2 I finally started to feel the gravity of the event, and how much it meant to both of them. It really was such a special live show. I’m so grateful I didn’t miss it!
#TakoTori1stConcert

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

@JustSurreal_ So this is a DLC with generic classroom history lessons about things that you and I also learned about in history classes like 20 years ago. That this optional DLC is “shoving politics down people’s throats” by just featuring extremely basic civil rights history is absurd imo

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

@JustSurreal_ The only thing that’s new is they added it as a free and optional DLC on non-education Minecraft. Kids will very likely not be rushing to play it because it’s built to be a class lesson supplement, so it’s probably pretty boring lol

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

In case you didn't know, UNBEATABLE is a really good game

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ It'll be a No True Scotsman situation. No system is good enough to disprove fraud (since you can't prove something doesn't exist) so they'll just find a new place to point and say "the invisible fraud that we can't see is *there* now!" and they'll reject the next election results

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ every single state could implement massive voter ID restrictions and it would change nothing.

The goal isn't actually Fixing Voting. The goal is Increasing Distrust in Elections. So the goalposts would just move, and they'd find another direction to manufacture distrust.

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ Yeah, I also think it's sorta meaningless for another reason. I don't think any push for stricter voter ID is *actually* a push for voter ID. It's just a deliberately planted preemptive seed of doubt on the election process to legitimize future rejections of election results.

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ The *only* reason to do voter ID first,then "we promise the next step is make IDs easier" is to weaken democrats in the next election.

You said voter ID first would be good because it would provide an incentive. imo it would be a republican incentive to never implement easy ID.

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ If the goal is actually strengthening democracy, the answer is extremely simple. Make it so all citizens can easily acquire a photo ID that's not tied to driving. *Then* require voter ID. Easy.

It will not happen that way because the goal isn't strengthening democracy.

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ The reason I think easier IDs needs to come first is because then it doesn't really change the status quo (except for this boogeyman "fraud prevention") at any point in the system. Voter ID first incentivizes the party that is *in power* to stop easier IDs from ever happening lol

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ I don't believe that's true. Starting with voter IDs places a strong incentive for *dems* to push for easier IDs, and for the other party to push for more difficult IDs.

It creates a status quo where one party is benefitting and the other party has to fight to get out of it.

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ IMO If the push for strict ID laws in specific states was in Good Faith the conversation would *start* w/ easier IDs. Do that first, and voter ID second, and you have zero time where one party is disproportionately impacted. There's no reason to start w/ stricter ID requirements.

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ So when the boogeyman is "voter fraud" but it is invisible despite the fact that it should be easy to spot, and the fix would hurt one side in the short term but later we can "discuss making IDs easier to get to fix it, we promise" you understand why that seems suspicious, right?

[Spudlyman @Spudlyman]

@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ There were multiple court cases with massive claims of fraud and ample opportunity to find evidence. Every vote is attached to a name and a signature and usually an address. Large scale fraud would show up as massive deviations from census data / population records, etc