Wimopy

Ah oops, I meant to say "in the headline". I agree, his tweets were disgusting and I think they should've been highlighted more from the get-go. I just dislike that the headline as it is makes it seem as if the SNP possibly overreacted or reacted in a pro-Israel way. Feels like it's misleading by omission.

Would've been nice if they added the little tidbit in the headline that said Gaza posts were specifically denying what is happening in Gaza is genocide.

John Mason stripped of SNP party whip after 'unacceptable' posts claiming events in Gaza 'not genocide'

Maybe remove the unacceptable quote if that's too long. And suddenly some might not go in with the idea that maybe it was because he made a pro-Palestine post.

I mean if you know John Mason you probably wouldn't assume that, but I think it's healthier for journalists to presume you don't know all the MPs and MSPs.

*: edited to add that the info should've been added in the headline

Jesus fucking Christ people. Yes, this is an unfortunate decision from Switzerland. You dislike it, fair. Calling the entire country and/or everyone who lives there monsters, a disease, etc though is insane.

Can we maybe not use fascist rhetorics like blanket demonising and dehumanising statements about entities we don't like?

I've also said this before and I'll say it again: names of suspects and even convicted criminals should not be shared unless necessary*. That just makes no sense for rehabilitation as it opens people up for judgement in a court of opinion. Justice is the job of the justice systems and should not generally involve the wider public.

Could there be issues with the judgement or other events where the only way to achieve justice is via the press? Sure, probably, but I don't think the default should be that if I google the name of someone I can find if they or someone with a similar name (and god forbid, appearance) were involved in a crime.

*: unless necessary here can cover cases like trying to find an individual on the run, or when their previous crime is meant to exclude them from specific lines of work, although even that should be on a need-to-know basis imo, not public info.

I'll just add that Fidesz (the right wing governing party) started out centrist in 1990. In 2010 they'd moved towards the right, but in a lot people's minds they were one of the big, reasonable parties since the end of Soviet control. And also just in general "the opposition".

The social democratic governing party also was inept and admitted as such (see Őszöd sleech).

So what happened was the left side of the spectrum lost all support, and what in many people's minds was the centrist or centre-right opposition picked it all up. Just over half the votes gave them a supermajority and from that point they gradually attained complete control over all institutions as a result.

Labour, LibDem, Green together also would have a majority, and hopefully people would vote tactically for Labour if all the right wing votes would go to one party as well, though you never know. So I'm not sure I agree with that part of the analysis.

Otherwise: yeah, it's at least as, probably more, accurate to say Tories lost, as it is to say Labour won.

By the way the votes fell, 38% seem to have voted Tory or Reform. Ignoring how people would vote differently if the system were to change, that to me implies proportional voting would still see the right wing lose. Not nearly as much as they did now, but perhaps more securely.

I just hope Labour will think of this similarly and actually do something to make sure we get a system where that 38% doesn't overcome the rest and leads to a Tory or even Reform government.

Yeah, I don't think that coalition situation is likely to happen. Under FPTP, it's too risky for the voters to try manufacture.

That said, if their popularity massively tanks and polls show they'd lose big, I could see Labour introducing it just before the next election. It would be a huge boost to their popularity.

I think the main issue I have, and likely many others too, is how strongly it is phrased. If he thinks he'll die in the next 5 or 10 years... fine, I guess? But that's unlikely, and with how things have shifted just in the past 25 years, making a statement like this seems arrogant.

Is that overanalysing a one line answer to a question? Probably, but that's what a politician gets and the effect of modern media.

Not to mention how the population and especially Labour supporters have turned pro-EU so he'll likely alienate that part of his base. Strong stances are seen as better, but I really feel sometimes he should take a softer approach.

Can't say much about the game/DLC personally as I haven't played it yet, but what you're looking at seems the be the premium bundle, which is a separate listing. The normal DLC listing is at 63%, mixed.

A common negative review complaint also seems to be performance issues, so it's not really just the difficulty.

Man, Veilguard is being covered a lot.

Honestly, this sounds potentially good or even great.

Two things though:

• They should have shown it in the gameplay trailer, instead of making claims in articles.
• Not in a mainline Dragon Age game.

Maybe it could've been a good combat-focused fantasy game with linear missions instead of being forced to include some lame dialogue wheel and pretending it'll appeal to Dragon Age fans.

My impression from the trailer was that the combat lacks any weight. The player character floated all over, the attacks looked like they didn't even make contact, and the enemies seemed to be on the spongy side. That makes it look and feel bland. If that is the case the reaction won't be great even from players who like action games.

And yeah, I think making this the first Dragon Age game after so long is a mistake. People will expect a game that follows on with same or similar gameplay. This feels like a spin-off game. That's not inherently bad, but you do want mainline games to also release to keep the main fan base happy. Right now it'll just be judged compared to mainline expectations and will obviously not meet most of those.

So I guess Kingdoms of Amalur-style combat but it doesn't look fun or challenging. Story seems like it apparently jumps off of Inquisition which is fair but I could never be bothered to really play or care for that much.

How they got to this from "serious dark fantasy RPG" I don't know. I can see the obvious Mass Effect influences, but other than the cutscene conversations it feels weaker than even Andromeda.