Bamboodpanda

AI-generated art is an incredible tool for art design. I used to spend countless hours sifting through Google images, trying to piece together mood boards or find references for very specific concepts. Now, with AI, I can quickly generate visuals that capture the exact mood, style, or design I'm aiming for, saving both time and effort.

However, I view AI art as a starting point, not the final product. Once I’ve developed a clear visual direction, I hand these concepts over to a skilled artist to bring the idea to life with depth, creativity, and a human touch that AI simply can’t replicate. AI streamlines the creative process, but it doesn’t replace the artistry and nuance that only human creators can deliver.

My bad for not being more clear. I didn’t mean to imply that more parties are automatically a good thing. What I meant is that ranked choice voting actually incentivizes candidates to adopt broader, more inclusive positions that reflect the unique views of voters in their district or state. It encourages collaboration and reduces division because candidates need to appeal beyond their base to win second- and third-choice votes. Just adding a third party alone doesn’t fix anything, but RCV actively reshapes how campaigns are run and how candidates engage with voters. That’s something only RCV can accomplish.

Ranked choice voting is designed to reduce the spoiler effect and allow voters to support third-party and independent candidates without fear of "wasting" their vote. While it doesn't automatically create new parties, it can encourage their growth by making the political system more accessible. By implementing RCV first, the political environment becomes more open to alternative parties gaining traction and competing more fairly over time.

I'm short, by it's nature, RCV creates alternatives.

You're right that proportional representation (PR) would better reflect diverse political views, but RCV can still be a step toward breaking the two-party dominance. It lowers the barrier for third-party and independent candidates by reducing the "spoiler effect" and encouraging broader support. Ideally, combining RCV with multi-winner districts or systems like Sequential Proportional Approval Voting would create a more representative democracy.

Ranked choice voting still works with two parties by letting voters rank multiple candidates within those parties or include third-party/independent options. It helps ensure the winner has broader support, reduces "lesser of two evils" voting, and encourages more positive campaigning, especially in primaries.

We don't need a third party. We need ranked choice voting.

Into the Breach released on netflix when its game feature launched. Its one of the best games I have ever played.

Oooooo I didn't know this! I'm gonna give it a try tonight!

I will share my personal favorites:

Faster Than Light, Into the Breach, Inscryption (don't look up anything just buy and play it)

I hear where you’re coming from, and I agree that “trust no one” has its place when it comes to questioning authority, especially in systems that have historically abused power, like politics or religion. But I think there's an important distinction between blind trust and informed trust.

When I say “look at the evidence,” I mean fostering a mindset where we evaluate claims critically, whether they come from an authority figure, a journalist, or a random Redditor. It’s not about blindly trusting anyone—it’s about examining the quality of their evidence and reasoning. Science and journalism, at their best, aren’t about “trust me, bro”; they’re about transparency, peer review, and reproducibility.

I get why you’d connect my point to political party loyalty or abuse cover-ups, but I think that actually supports what I’m saying. Those cases happen when people don’t question authority or demand evidence. Blind loyalty, whether to a priest, a politician, or even a favorite conspiracy theory, is the problem. Critical thinking is what prevents us from falling into that trap.

It’s not “trust no one” in the absolute sense—it’s more like “trust, but verify.” If the evidence holds up, great. If not, we should keep asking questions.

That’s a lazy and inaccurate take. The Chinese Civil War wasn’t some simplistic ‘capitalists vs. communists’ fight. The KMT was corrupt but not purely capitalist, and the CCP’s victory came from exploiting peasant dissatisfaction and the KMT’s failures, not some inherent ideological supremacy. Comparing the KMT to the Confederacy is absurd—they weren’t separatists but nationalists fighting for control of all China. If you’re going to push historical narratives, at least try for accuracy instead of ideological grandstanding.

I get why memes like this are popular—they’re funny and make you think. But honestly, I think they can be a bit dangerous too. Sure, some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true, but way more often than not, they’re just nonsense.

The problem with stuff like this is that it makes it seem like most conspiracy theories are worth taking seriously, which can lead to some real issues. People start distrusting everything—governments, science, journalists—even when there’s no good reason to. It can also give way too much credibility to wild ideas that just aren’t backed up by facts.

Healthy skepticism is important, but it needs to come with critical thinking. Just saying, "What if it's true?" doesn’t really help—it just feeds into the chaos. I feel like we need more “let’s look at the evidence” and less “trust no one.”