I think the disconnect here is between objective and subjective meaning. In an infinite multiverse, ‘reality’ isn’t a singular objective truth—it’s a collection of subjective experiences. But that doesn’t erase meaning; it just means meaning is something we assign, not something inherent.

You’re right that if every possible outcome exists, no single timeline is ‘objectively’ special. But in fiction (and arguably in reality), what matters is the perspective we focus on. A story isn’t weakened by the existence of other timelines—it’s strengthened by the fact that, out of infinite possibilities, this particular one is being told. The act of choosing a narrative is what gives it weight.

It’s the difference between nihilism (‘nothing matters, so why care?’) and absurdism (‘nothing matters* inherently, so we get to decide what does’). A multiverse doesn’t have to make things meaningless—it can highlight how rare and significant certain choices are, precisely because most versions of a person might not make them (e.g., Invincible).

I get the sense you’re resistant to this because it feels like it undermines objective meaning. But what if meaning was never objective to begin with?

Ah yes, the galaxy-brain take: ‘Vote count alone determines legitimacy.’ By that logic, the Electoral College is fake news, GOP voter suppression doesn’t matter, and Russia’s 2016 interference was irrelevant because ‘Trump got more votes in the right states.’ But sure, pretend the DNC’s thumb on the scale had zero effect on turnout, messaging, or voter access. Totally normal democracy.

Imagine a kids’ boxcar race where one competitor had:

• A professional engineer for a dad who designed the car
• Custom CNC-machined parts and high-end materials
• A team of adults helping them at every step

Meanwhile, the other kid:

• Built their car alone with basic tools
• Was actively discouraged from getting outside help
• Had race officials constantly changing rules to favor the first kid

Then, when the second kid lost, people said: ‘Well, the first kid just built a faster car, we don’t see a problem here.’

That’s what the 2016 primary was like. The DNC didn’t stuff ballots, but they rigged the game long before voting started. Through media collusion, debate manipulation, and voter suppression. And when sued, their lawyers literally argued, ‘We have no obligation to run a fair primary.’

So yes, Clinton got more votes. AFTER the DNC tilted the scales. Pretending that’s ‘democracy’ is like saying the boxcar race was fair because they allowed to poor kid to participate to begin with.

You’re either incapable of grasping systemic bias or pretending it doesn’t exist to ‘win’ an argument. Either way, I’ve already explained why ‘Clinton got more votes’ doesn’t absolve the DNC’s misconduct. Repeating yourself won’t change that. Have a day.

The DNC didn’t ‘rig’ the primary in the sense of changing vote totals, but they did actively tilt the scales through media collusion (leaked emails showed DNC officials mocking Sanders and strategizing against him), debate scheduling (minimizing exposure), and voter suppression tactics (e.g., purging independents in closed primaries). The lawsuit revealed the DNC’s lawyers openly argued in court that they had no obligation to run a fair process.

That said, yes, Clinton won more votes, but the system was structurally biased from the start. The real question is whether a truly neutral primary would have had a different outcome, given Sanders’ momentum and Clinton’s weaknesses (which absolutely contributed to Trump’s win).

Bernie lost, he wasn’t popular enough. Get over it.

Telling people to ‘get over it’ ignores why this still matters. The DNC’s actions in 2016 (and again in 2020, with the sudden coalescence around Biden after South Carolina) reinforced the perception that the party prioritizes control over democracy. That disillusionment cost them key voters in swing states. Which is how we got Trump.

Wow, that’s an incredibly insightful answer. I suppose I never considered the scale of it. Most are fairly bare bones, but you are right, there are so many users and repeat users that it would scale very poorly.

You’re also right on the social media part of it. There kindof needs to be secondary engagement thing to attract and support the community.

Always felt that dating apps were a little too ?accesible? That is to say that they are exceedingly easily flooded by no or low effort profiles, abandoned and duplicate profiles. Especially by desperate men who are completely undiscerning and undereducated (consent, sex, sexuality, etc…).

I feel like there should be engagement/social/education tiers that grant more access to more features. Like literally give points if you can pass tests on consent, relationships, kink, whatever. Get social points from good engagement and behavior. These don’t show your profile more or less, but like if the medium has NSFW features, forums, criteria/location filtering it gives access to them based on community trust and such. Maybe offer a paid shortcut, but have that declared on their profile somehow.

Could be nice. But I’d also probably have the swiping style app be accessory to a more traditional forum.

I’m just confused as to how there isn’t a dating app that is better.

Lol. Maybe if we couch 911 calls with the fact that the person claimed their an ICE agent to help with the police not killing them on sight.