No. He is bad and he should feel bad. He was sad because his evil plans didn’t work out the way he had hoped. He is alone because he abuses the people around him because he considers himself a superior being for whom others are just play things.

His backstory of abuse goes a way to explain why he is the way he is, but it does not excuse it.

Another reason to use Logitech mice: ease of repair. Apart from skates covering the screws on the underside, Logitech does not use glue to keep it’s mice together. And due to their popularity, replacement parts (including the battery btw) are widely available even for older models.

“We totally would have saved the climate if you had only paid us enough.” Bitch, please.

The trillions the oil industry has earned over the years were not enough?
You had enough money, you had the knowledge of the problem and what you could do to fix it and you had enough time to change your strategy from lieing and denying.

The only thing you didn’t have was the will to give up a single cent to help clean up the damage you have done.

Imagine what could have been done with half of the 52 trillion the oil and gas industry earned in the last 50 years (that’s without coal, even). Imagine how far we could have developed renewable energy sources. What we could have achieved with carbon capture. What could be done today if the fossil industries propaganda hadn’t turned climate change into a question of political opinions.

Fuck that guy. He and his ilk created this mess and they got fat of it. He doesn’t get to shift blame.

Yes.

“credible reports” (but low confidence) of some employees of UNRWA participating in the attack. No evidence at all that UNRWA had partnered with Hamas or supported the attacks.

What that means is “somebody said that some people that work for UNRWA also participated in the attacks but we have found no proof either way.”

Being a democracy has nothing to do with committing war crimes.

They both approximate perfect representation close enough. If the difference between one government or the other comes down to variations that are basically explained by the weather being good or bad on voting day, you can’t really claim that the government isn’t representative.

Just because it didn’t represent YOUR opinion, it doesn’t make it less representative. A truly representative government will make decisions that align with 10% of the population 10% of the time. So if 10% of the population want to bomb Canada a perfectly representative government will make it happen every 40 years or so.

Don’t actually tear down church buildings though.

Many of them are beautiful and even if the morals of the Organisation(s) that built them are, to put it mildly, “outdated”, it is still a huge part of our cultural history.

Use the spaces to open “sexual health centers” (like Planned Parenthood on steroids), libraries, and in like 1 or 2 per continent you could create memorial centers to keep alive the memories of the suffering created by organized, doctrinal religion.

Moving past a phase of our cultural development has to include remembering that phase. The church buildings turned to useful purpose will be powerful monuments.

Because a Nation (and I know this sounds crazy) is not a person. You can do many things a country can’t and vice versa.

For example, you can make a rule that in your house black people do not get sweet foods. It’s a dick move but not illegal. A country is not allowed to make a law that says black people can’t eat sweet foods, because that would be racist discrimination (which is illegal for the government to do in most countries).

Another example: You can poop (like you did when posting that question). A country does not have a digestive tract and in fact does not eat and can therefore not poop.

As a Berliner, it doesn’t match my memory either. I don’t have historical data other than my own shitty memory, but I remember vaguely getting upset at Döner prices during the Pandemic being above 3,50€ (so in 2020).

It gets better. He resold one of the paintings in question for a profit of 320 million$. He is suing because his speculative profit wasn’t big enough.

Shit or get off the pot.

Huh. Cool stuff. Today I tee-totally learned something new.

For me it was kind of the opposite. I care less about getting shit faced and more about flavours. Getting buzzed is just a pleasant side effect.

Fair enough I can see that.

Also beverages when hosting a party. No need to buy name brand when store brand is half the cost and will get drank the same anyway.

People will drink it, but they may also remember. I have a cousin at whose house I turn tea-totaller, because the beer & wine they offer at parties is literally the cheapest stuff available and it’s fucking horrible.

Presumably there is a way to challenge this decision in court. And tbh I like this way of handling it better. Trump does not meet the basic requirements of being a president, which are:

• Must be over 35. ✔️
• Must be born in the USA. ✔️
• Must not be an insurrectionist. ❌

If a 32 year old was frontrunner to become the candidate for either party, you wouldn’t expect a court proceeding to disqualify them. Same here.

Specifically for Ukraine there is also the fact that, when your country is under attack, nationalists are the first ones to sign up to fight the invaders. It’s like their whole thing. And the intersection in the Venn diagram of Nazis and nationalists is usually almost a circle.

There is no issue with the source other than it not the new york times or the washington post or the bbc

1. NYT, WP or BBC are also suspect sources, especially when it comes to the Palestine conflict. You will not find me saying anything else.
2. Issues with the source you cited (that don’t involve it’s Hezbollah affiliation):
   • It’s not the primary source (that appears to be the Haaretz article, but I can’t confirm that, since that is paywalled)
   • It gets the name of one of the parties involved in the conflict wrong (it consistently refers to the IDF as IOF (replacing “Defense” with “Occupation”). I get why they do it (the IDF claims to “defend” an area that they are actually occupying), but that’s not how you do journalism. Nobody thinks that North Korea is a democratic republic, but any news article about it will still refer to it as “DPRK - Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea”. Because that’s its name.

So pointing out that the source you posted is biased and potentially unreliable is fine. You citing another source (even one cited in the article itself) is completely par for the course. Hell, now I really would like to know, why you chose to post a secondary source when you had the primary source avaiable to you?

Isn’t that how discourse is supposed to work though? If there are issues with the credibility of a source, it’s fine to point those out. And then you respond with a different source to which the criticism does not apply.

Where is the issue?