advertising them somewhere else, Tumblr, throwaway eBay listings, Spotify playlists,... here.

You missed a great opportunity to have 'here' be a link to an emulator.

Nintendo goes on to claim that this subreddit has played a central role in fostering Switch piracy,

Piracy has been long ago defined to be a service problem. Nintendo should be suing themselves. I hope the lawyers eat it all up.

I know, right? You can just get something else he's interested in. Like OP, maybe the kid likes antiquities, you could get him some from Benito Mussolini's 12000 piece collection in the Colonial Museum. Or maybe he likes art, you could buy him one of Hitler's paintings.

I'm just gonna keep your initial claim here for visibility

Vigilante justice is always wrong

Now, where did I claim that it's never wrong? Because that's what you seem to argue. You won't find such a claim from me though, because I agree with your implied point, which is more like "vigilante justice is usually wrong because an emotional mob doesn't weigh facts or proportional response, it just acts based on feeling". So yeah, that one seems great. But not ALWAYS wrong though.

I'll just give another example, since you gave one as well. Kid1 gets his bike stolen by kid2. He sees it happening and while he doesn't know the thief personally, he (with his parents help) contacts the police and provides a very detailed description of the bike and a decent visual description of the thief. Because this isn't really a top prio case, nothing happens for about 6 months. Then kid1 sees kid2 riding the bike around town, and he lucks into kid2 parking it in front of a small shop and going inside. Kid1 walks up to the bike, makes sure it's his, and rides off into the sunset with it.

So I ask - was it really always wrong for me to go and get my bike back?

He said that even after he couldn't get an erection, he would still imagine killing and having sex with people because it made him feel alive.

"I know exactly what you mean. You know what's better? When they're old and lonely and can't fight back or don't have anyone who'll believe them. I once shoved a kitchen knife in a 90 year old's ass cause he wouldn't stop whining when I fucked him. He loosened up real good after that."

Worst case scenario, you creeped out an old man with a bad sense of humor. Best case scenario, for the last days of his life a twisted psycho murderer who's been hiding his true nature behind good deeds gets to feel a tinge of fear whenever he's not sure he locked his door.

Vigilante justice is always wrong.

You keep saying this, but I don't understand why. Hear me out.

So, vigilante justice is justice outside the legal system. If you say it is always wrong, you implicitly say that the legal system is the only way to resolve things. In an ideal society, I would grant you that. But you're aware that even our laws today are imperfect, let alone the laws from tens or hundreds of years ago. So how can you stand by that claim? Surely if we allow for the system to be imperfect, it must mean that vigilante justice is sometimes the only possible way to achieve justice, and therefore right?

Aside from this: even if the system was perfect, laws are society's convention. They are not natural, they are man-made. That means man can also change them (and we do, constantly - parliament/congress/senate/whatever form it takes). But even if they weren't in constant change and they would reach a stability - is it still not the case that society must agree to obey them? If you give me hammurabi's code and tell me to live my life by it, I may agree and do it or I may think you're a fool and not do it. Same here - just because a vocal minority has decided the law that should govern everyone (even if that law is just and fair and impartial and righteous and by all means perfect) - it doesn't guarantee that it will be followed by the majority. So there will be situations where each of us will be a vigilante, outside the system of laws imposed by a third party. Is that really ALWAYS wrong to do? Because I can personally think of very many situations where it's not wrong.

So a country's internal politics don't matter unless they fall to Russia - that's what you said, right?

But wouldn't you agree that the country's internal politics are what decides if it falls to Russia or not? If education is not a subject they invest in, if its population isn't happy with the status quo, if they exhibit corruption, if their healthcare system is so bad that the middle class emigrates and leaves behind only the oligarchs and the poor, if their justice system doesn't work and they don't feel safe... All these internal politics have a huge impact on if a country can be influenced by Russia or any other nefarious agent.

I don't get what you're saying. You keep saying "yeah but we don't care about X", while X seems to be the direct cause of some of your problems that you DO care about. Are you trying to say Romania should take care of its shit internally so we don't have to deal with it, and not let it grow to the point where it's a problem for the rest of the EU?

Does this election not matter?

Briefly? No.

1. This is the first round of elections. It's not a FPTP system. Yes, he has a good shot at winning. But now he has to earn the votes which went to the "third party", so to speak. Which is difficult for both of the current candidates.

2. Romania's president has limited power and responsibilities. He's there as a a dignitary and usually handles foreign affairs more than internal ones. He's also powerless - the government and the parliament are where the power is.

3. Both these people are corrupt fucks. There is no winning this election. Yes, one's worse than the other. I'd struggle to say which, although the pro-russian seems to be just a tad more evil.

4. Human nature. Sure, the guy is pro Russia. Great. But how much time will he have to actually bring Romania closer to Russia if he has to split that time between trying to get the country out of NATO and trying to steal enough to retire comfortably? He won't get anything done, he's too greedy for it.

Edit: Seems like the number 2 spot in the election may be taken by a less corrupt candidate than initially thought - this invalidates my 3rd point a bit. I stand by the rest though.

Any employer hiring based on who you know is an employer you don't want to work for.

And I mean sure, if you're in fashion or politics, it matters who you know. But if not, you're at the mercy of recruiters and overworked people from your field who have seen literally hundreds of others who can do better.

Why would college students not be getting jobs? It means people with more experience are applying for those same jobs and getting them. And why are people with more experience doing that? Most simple answer is because they're coming off a layoff from their previous job, and their industry isn't hiring as much.

As more and more business outright fail because they're not competitive enough, or downsize to reduce costs, you'll see more and more unemployment in experienced workers. Their availability on the market will mean less jobs for students and college graduates. It doesn't have to be a complicated answer - college grads are just in too much supply and not enough demand these days.

You think that's somehow more likely than:

1. Fucker with full access to your bags while you're nowhere near them looks through your shit

2. When they find a bag full of money, said fucker gets to legally take a percentage by just tipping off the DEA, instead of just robbing you and risking being caught

?

And should end with righteous death, perpetrated on the people on the list.

If you're not aware that Germany and USSR were dividing Europe between themselves and both were just as evil until one of them stabbed the other in the back, you don't know your own country's history. Maybe look into the ribbentrop-molotov pact and how while you were busy fighting England and France, the USSR not only did nothing - they were just as evil, but hiding behind the great German threat. Look into the Katyn massacre, where the NKVD executed thousands of polish prisoners of war in the Katyn forest. Look into how they invaded the Baltic countries and deported/killed ~150000 thousand Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians while international attention was still focused on Germany. Look into how they invaded and annexed Bessarabia and northern Bukovina also ignored because everyone was up in arms about Germany. They were hand-in-hand with Nazi Germany, and the only reason they fought back was because they were attacked by Hitler. Ironically - because IT WAS THE FUCKING RUSSIANS who broke the agreement and annexed more than they had agreed with the nazis, by setting foot into Bukovina. I'm not even gonna get into how I know they went around raping everyone in sight. But you're out here spouting shit like you have any fucking idea what world you live in. What a fucking joke.

You say it's racist to acknowledge a country has a history of war crimes that goes on to this day. I say it's fucking stupid not to. And if you choose to ignore it and instead for some reason bring racism into the equation, you can go get fucked for all I care. You have literally no clue what you're talking about, and I'm done debating war crimes with armchair scientists who have the luxury of a history of being the aggressor, not the agressed.

Oh nice, must've been one of the ones that got away. Most other Russian empire victims are dead, their wives and daughters raped, their homes looted and burned, and USSR engraved into the collective mindset as a destructive evil force.

Unless you're from a country that's suffered a Russian occupation during one of the wars, you don't get to claim knowledge on the subject. And if you had been, you'd know what you wrote is literally true, no shadow of sarcasm about it.

About 100 years ago, russians were considered a backwards, horde of uncivilized asian/mongols in Europe.

About 100 years ago Europe had just faced Russian raping and pillaging in a world War, and they'd soon face it again in the next war. For all intents and purposes, they were a backward horde of uncivilized fucks.

But hey, they are sure proving they're different nowadays, with them raping their way through another war.

"As Black Friday and the holiday buying season approaches, the American public should know that not only is Steam an unsafe place for teens and young adults to purchase and play online games, but also that, absent a change in Valve’s approach to user moderation and the type of behavior that it welcomes on its platform, Steam is playing a clear role in allowing harmful ideologies to spread and take root among the next generation," says Warner

What? What the fuck, democrats?

First off - cool letter bro, I've always wanted to write one but unfortunately we are in the current century. I don't know what kind of a pretentious cuntwaffle you have to be to write a letter at this point in time, but apparently it helps if you're a senator.

Second - really? Valve should moderate user scrrenshots to make sure there are no swastikas? What if I have a swastika tattooed on my face and the pic is a closeup shot? What if my swastika is related to Hinduism, not fascism? Listen, cumstain - if you're not gonna do your job as a government and you'll allow extremist speech by hiding behind your 'freedom of speech' bullshit, don't be surprised when a corporation can't do it either. What, the KKK is too hard to stamp out for the US government, so let's put Valve on the job? A Neonazi fuck just won another presidential campaign, you're telling me your country is against swastikas? Fuck outta here.

And third - I'd really like to know what makes steam "unsafe for teens and young adults". Is valve impregnating kids now? Do they carry measles in their steam decks? Is gaben running with scissors in school hallways? Or is it just that you're an out of touch cunt who last understood technology when horse power involved actual horses?

'Inhale' and 'exhale' also not pictured.

1. Is it next to the 30 big neon signs advertising 4% off expired yoghurt? I must've missed it while I was looking at literally anything else.

2. Is that sign next to the other shitty advertisements trying to get me to buy an overpriced candy bar before I'm out the door? Sucks, I'm not reading any of them. Deal with it.

3. Your store is literally designed to make people get lost and lose track of time. You're welcome to go fuck yourself and take your annoyance out on your corporate overlords instead of the regular people just trying to find the onions.

Exactly this. Imagine the gall of people to complain I don't interact more with their ads. Pricks.

Signs at stores are ads. Email is spam and ads. Menu is ads. Post online is ads. Street signs are ads.

Instruction, caption with answer to question and group handouts aren't ads, but I had ads fatigue from the rest of the shit you've been trying to cram down my neck, so go fuck yourselves and your written words.