Yeah and I mean, I don’t see anyone saying he didn’t do a lot of good things over the past 4 years. Those are also the same points he kept repeating ad nauseam in this interview, but the problem is, that’s not the issue on everyone’s mind right now, and that’s not what really matters here.

What matters is, is he physically and mentally fit to continue doing that for another 4 years? And unfortunately, even if the answer is a firm ‘Yes’, he still needs to demonstrate that it’s the case, and convince all of his potential voters that it’s the case, which re-stating past successes is not doing.

Pretty sure they were simply referring to Biden’s repeated insistence that if “the Lord Almighty” came down and told him to step down, he would do so.

This is really hard to watch. He keeps dodging the questions, and he really comes across like he just has no awareness of what’s actually going on in his own country.

George keeps asking very pointed questions like “Do you think you have the mental capacity to do this job for another four years?” and Biden just keeps re-stating things he’s done for the last 4 years. George asks the titular “Would you have an independent analysis done, etc.”, and Biden keeps dodging the question with, “I have that evaluation every day [because I make difficult decisions]”.

He doesn’t seem to comprehend that he is likely to lose this election if he doesn’t change peoples’ minds about his mental fitness, and when offered the opportunity to prove that he’s not suffering from mental decline, he brushes it off. He says he’s going to keep running because he knows what’s best for the country, as if he thinks it’s a foregone conclusion that if he runs, he’ll win.

He just keeps going back to how much Trump lies, and how awful Trump is, rather than trying to address the concern that he’s not fit to oppose Trump.

Edit: Best Biden moment in the whole thing. “Sure [I’ve had time to challenge Trump], but I’ve also been doing a whole lot of other things, like wars around the world[…]”

Where’s the NSFW tag?

Where do you work that that’s NSFW?

The problem with cosmetic microtransactions is that it gives the creators a monetary incentive to make sure nothing you can earn in the game is as appealing as the microtransaction items, or that their availability (in cases where you can earn the same items in-game) are low enough that you’ll never reasonably earn what you want.

You can say ‘Cosmetics don’t matter!’ but the astronomical sales of cosmetic items pretty much proves that to the majority of players, that is not the case.

They also often intentionally create game mechanics specifically to ensure that players who aren’t paying see the better-looking players who did pay.

We saw this recently with Ruth Bater Ginsberg, too, unfortunately - she could have chosen to step down when Obama was president and secured a democrat nominee in the SCOTUS for 50+ years, but she didn’t, and now look where we are.

no special benefits or privileges based on him being […] wealthy

That’s unfortunately simply not the world we live in.

I mean, to play devil’s advocate, it’s their job. He’s their client, they’re supposed to work in their client’s best interest, and as long as they’re not breaking any laws to do it, they’re doing what they’re being paid to do.

I think it more comes down to the judge needing to put a stop to the bad-faith arguments; if the judge is accepting them, why wouldn’t they keep making them?

This is the stupidest timeline. I hope in 30-50 years’ time, this is all explained in history textbooks as the catalyst for why the entire system was re-written from the ground up to root out and prevent corruption and cronyism, but I’m not holding my breath.

They call him a “tech whiz” and “computer genius”, but what did he do to earn that designation, really? He made websites? Is the bar really that low?

my owl language.

Is ‘my owl language’ the language you’re learning using Duolingo? Or is it a typo and you meant ‘my own language’? It’s interesting because normally I’d assume the latter, but in the context of this thread, the former makes some weird sense.

It’s 10% of users using Steam Input, not all steam users.

Valve mentioned that daily controller use has jumped to 15% from around 5% since 2018, and that around 42% of these sessions use Steam Input.

Did you play Dark Messiah of Might and Magic? This looks very reminiscent of that; the trailer looked very similar in style, lots of focus on the first-person animations, physics manipulation (e.g. kicking enemies off cliffs), the same sort of combat style.

It played more or less exactly like it looked, and for its time, it was fantastic - truly innovative and fresh feeling. With that in mind, I really hope that’s what they’re using as inspiration here, and that they capture that same game feel.

Not trying to dredge this all up again or restart this conversation, but I thought you might like to know… I went and watched some of the videos and read some of the accounts you’ve referenced (none of which I’d seen previously), and I can safely say that you’ve at least in part changed my view on this insofar as it applies to his intentions that day. Thanks for taking the time to discuss it.

I am 100% confident that American policy on Israel will also shift thanks to progressive voices. And it will not require a progressive majority.

I’d love to be proven wrong, but I don’t believe this will happen while Biden is president. Not to say I’m not going to vote for him - I’m not that stupid, but he’s made it pretty clear that he will stand with Israel more or less no matter what they do.

I do worry that he’s upsetting a lot of people to the point that they won’t vote for him, though, and that’s scary to me. He comes across as very weak when he capitulates to Israel this hard. He’s repeatedly said, “This is the line, don’t cross it!”, then when they do, he moves the line. If he loses to Trump in November, I’ll have a hard time not blaming Israel and his policies in dealing with them for that loss.

I don’t think you really have a lot of choices to be honest.

Therein lies the problem. We don’t have a lot of choices. Voting for new, progressive candidates feels great and it’s nice to pat ourselves on the back and think we’re making a difference, but the fact of the matter is that voting for a candidate who has no realistic path to winning is only even a realistic option when the candidate with the ‘D’ next to their name is all but guaranteed to win. And yeah, I’d really love to be able to make a statement by splitting the leftist vote between the democratic candidate and a progressive one; I’d really love to tell the democrats to get fucked and vote for a progressive third-party for every seat, but right now is far from the time for that, especially in states where those races are actually close. The last thing we need is to pack the House and Senate with republicans who win something like 40/30/30 because we couldn’t unify behind someone who actually had a chance of winning.

Not to mention, we only get to vote in 1 state’s elections, and often times there aren’t even any progressive down-ballot candidates on the ballot to vote for.

It won’t stop as long as American voters care much more about gas prices than about human rights. American politicians are willing to sponsor genocide to have some control on oil prices in order to win elections.

Who should we vote for to stop what’s going on? Please, enlighten me.

You may be taking this post slightly too seriously.

Yeah, I suppose I should clarify - that was in response to the objection to paying for pirated content; it’s different from the service provider’s point of view, but from the end user’s point of view, they’re paying for pirated content either way.

Not true–Wisconsin state law allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.

Maybe I’m mis-remembering the details of the case, as this isn’t really something I’ve paid much attention to in the past, I don’t know, 3 years, but I’m fairly certain the person who obtained the gun for him was charged and convicted with some crime; is it a crime to give a gun to a minor but not for the minor to possess one? That doesn’t make a lot of sense. Is it that it’s illegal in Illinois to possess one, but not in Wisconsin? My understanding was that the gun charges against Rittenhouse were dismissed basically on a technicality using language that was written to apply to hunting rifles and was being applied to a rifle clearly not intended for that purpose. Maybe that’s the short-barreled clause? I’m not sure of the specifics.

Seems pretty obvious that is the reason–he’s even on video while at the protest saying exactly that, “for my protection”.

And if one isn’t starting out trying to find fault and looks at his actions objectively in hindsight, one could easily argue that the decision to deliberately put himself at potential risk in order to undo some of the damage and maybe prevent some damage, and help people, is selflessly altruistic.

I don’t know what the local culture is like in Wisconsin, so some of my view might stem from trying to view it through the lens of my local community, but I know I, for one, am immediately on edge when I see someone walking around open-carrying a firearm in a public place. It doesn’t happen frequently, so maybe that’s part of it, but if I attended a protest or demonstration, particularly one that the police are antagonistic to, anyone - no matter what they’re doing - who is carrying a gun like that is, in my mind, making the situation worse just by their presence. If they’re a protester themselves, they’re just inviting police violence and if they’re not a protester, my perception would be that they’re doing it with the intent to intimidate. Maybe that’s an incorrect perception and I am willing to accept that, but I can’t imagine that there weren’t plenty of people there who share that perception.

What it really comes down to (again, in my mind) is that his decision to go there, into the middle of what was already basically a powder keg, carrying an AR-15 was, at the very least, incredibly poor judgement. Even if 90% of protesters saw him as helpful, all it’d take is one who didn’t to cause a problem.

There were people at these protests (speaking nationwide, I can’t speak to the one in Kenosha specifically) who were there just to cause trouble - looting, vandalizing, trying to paint the peaceful protesters in a poor light.

Not really a long way at all (20 miles),

Maybe ‘a long way’ was poor wording but the point I was trying to get at is that he doesn’t live there; it’s not like this was happening in his town.

Well, owners of the Car Source denied accepting Kyle and Dominick Black’s offer to help protect their business, and one of them denied even knowing who Kyle was, and then text exchange between them, with Kyle offering to help out, surfaced, and the other owner literally had his picture taken with Kyle and the rest of his group, in front of the dealership. Kyle was obviously not randomly taking the liberty upon himself to spend time defending that place, nor was he unwanted there.

I was only aware of the first part of this - that they denied knowing or wanting him there, so if the rest of this is true, I will concede this point.

Still, this is beside the point–it doesn’t matter to me if he became, or always was, or whatever, someone with shitty views.

It’s relevant (to me) because he holds views (and did before the protest, as far as I recall) that put him at odds with a lot of the protesters there. I’m not calling him a white supremacist (nor am I calling him not a white supremacist, I really don’t know what his views are on that topic, nor do I really care), and I’m certainly not calling him a serial killer. I think it’s pretty clear from the trial that he isn’t legally guilty. However, I do think he’s morally guilty because he put himself in a situation where, in my view, a reasonable person should have been able to foresee that something like this might happen. Then, afterwards, rather than condemning the glorification of it, he just went along with it, hook, line and sinker.

Honestly, if it hadn’t been for that last bit, I’d probably hold a different view, and…

All the left did was call him a white supremacist serial killer (as you can see, this continues to this day), even after all the facts came out. It’s no surprise he became amicable with the only people who weren’t doing that.

Maybe you’re right, and he’s a product of the circumstances, but he didn’t, and doesn’t (based on his behavior after the fact) seem particularly remorseful for what happened there. He’s going along with (at the very least) the glorification of his actions, and I cannot see him as anything but in the wrong as a result.

I will say that you make some compelling points and maybe my initial stance was too severe - that is to say, maybe he wasn’t literally looking for trouble, but he certainly wasn’t taking what I see as some very basic steps to avoid trouble.

All I’m talking about is what I know about, and that’s the facts of this case, and what we know (or should know, given how many people still get very basic, known facts wrong)–as far as notorious legal cases go, there are few with more hard evidence easily accessible to the public, so even a ‘random’ civilian can have 100% of the facts anyone else does.

The basic facts of the case were pretty widely misrepresented, by news outlets, never mind keyboard warriors on Twitter and Reddit; I don’t think it’s surprising at all that everyone’s perception of the details differ so greatly. The ACLU made a statement basically condemning him post-verdict, for one, and that was pretty widely reported on.