All this comes off as is petulant, ignorant, and unimaginative.

It's unimaginative because nobody who spends even half a minute thinking about the consequences of the election could come away believing there would be no little to difference between the two outcomes.

It's ignorant because it displays a lack of understanding about how the FPTP US election system works.

It's petulant because it's akin to demanding the system work for you, rather than you working within the system. You're refusing to participate in a choice that will affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people just because a system that hundreds of millions of people work to produce doesn't function the way you want it to.

These people are harassing children and spewing hate messages. No they're not violent terrorists, but they're closer to that than they are to debaters.

both sides allowed to voice their positions in neutral language

Neutral language? Are you kidding me??

This is not a debate. One side's position is "we want an after school club where we can learn about science and feel accepted." The other side's position is "you are evil and deserve to die." If you give those two positions equal time, you are not being neutral. And there is no "neutral language" for hate speech.

Except karma isn't real, and wishing something isn't putting anything out. It's just a wish. So you're totally safe doing it.

I don't disagree, but...

Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.___ Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post. ___

It's really annoying when the post title is different from the article title.

I literally explained how using your term actually obfuscates the facts more than using the term comfort women. Also, the article describes what the term means, so the claim that obfuscation is going on is really bizarre.

You're not wrong, but does that invalidate his experience? Most of the people he's striking deals with are in that same boat. And as president, he surrounds himself with capable people who understand today's world and help him navigate it. That's what an intelligent, experienced person does.

There's two big reasons Biden is going to be the candidate:

1. Biden has already won an election (3 if you count his time as VP). He's been tried and tested and won. The system will always prefer the candidate who has proven they can win over someone who is untested. Thus, without some extreme circumstances, incumbents always have a huge advantage over newcomers.

2. Biden is an extremely experienced politician. He has more experience than most people in Washington, and is an expert at reaching across the isles and cooperating with other politicians. He knows the game like nobody else and he's damn good at it. A good president has to work with those they agree with and those they disagree with, and Biden can do that.

The age question isn't as serious as you think it is. The president is the leader and the face of the Executive Branch, but he isn't the one doing all the work. There are tons of people around him who share the workload of the actual business of the Office of the President. It's not a one man job.

As to your "when" question, the answer is when they can. We're skating by on razor-thin margins right now, and have been for a long time. When our lawmaking body is split 51 vs 49, and you need 66 or more to pass any meaningful legislation, you need someone who is really good at reaching across the isle. And you also need lawmakers who are willing to compromise. What that means is that voting out the bad fanatics and voting in reasonable people of conscience is as important as ever. While one half of Congress is filled with fundamentalists, nothing will ever get done no matter who is president.

Cool story, bro. Tell it to your buddies in prison.

The difference between Japanese streamers and foreign streamers in Japan is like night and day. When I watch local streamers, they almost always take the time to blur out faces and anything that might even present anything identifiable. It seems almost excessive at times, but there's a very real sense of societal awareness and social obligation not to be a dick. Even the evening news over here blurs out the faces of random passersby when they film on location. Then when I watch foreigners who stream over here, it's rude, in-your-face, talking about you right in front of you (with no regards as to whether or not they speak English). I expect the Japanese people who you see on these shitbag streamers' channels assume that they'll be treated with the same respect and decency that local streamers would use, rather than be immortalized on Youtube without their permission. It really sucks.

It's not about the permission or apologies. It's about being a decent human being. These asshats who spend the time adding text and graphics to their videos could also blur faces and hide identities, but they don't. Fuck them.

It's not empiricism. He's disguising nihilistic cynicism as skepticism.

His argument boils down to he think that we should doubt someone when they tell us their own feelings. He's claiming that if we don't have 100% certainty about something being true, then we have 0% certainty. It's almost a retreat into solipsism, suggesting that because we can't know with perfect certainty, then we have perfect uncertainty.

Doubting that someone who says "I didn't want to be kissed" didn't actually want to be kissed is to outright call them a liar. It's victim blaming. He's just trying to mask that behind a false veneer of skepticism and mental acrobatics because he knows that his position actually sounds appalling when presented straight-forward.

To me, video games are never worth 60 dollars. Ever.

Was a video game worth $40 in 1995? Because if you paid that back then, that's the equivalent to $80 today.

So yea, paying $60 sucks, but game prices haven't kept up with inflation at all. Not to mention the $40 game in 1995 took a dozen guys months to create, while a $60 game today takes 5+ years and hundreds of people.

Are you saying that you can't see any difference between, for example, farting in an elevator vs stabbing a mother's eyes out in front of their children? Or are you just being dishonest and contrarian?