damnedfurry

Wow, you're a sharp one, nothing gets past you.

Times New Roman
oversees

Surely you can do better than this

Most of them have a national ID that everybody gets, not the complex mix of IDs that the US has.

That's true, but then on the state level, such could be implemented alongside that type of law, within a given state, and then that state would be set up 'equivalently', right?

Those two things should go hand in hand, ideally within the same legislation, I'd think.

Don't more developed countries have voter ID laws than not? It's interesting to see that this is one metric where 'everyone else does this except the US' is not used as an argument for the change that would align the US with the rest.

the windows help “[add] privacy in the toilet facility”

?????

Played it with my SO, reached a certain scene that completely warped the tone of the game (I'm guessing you know which one I mean), and neither of us really have had the urge to play since.

Also, both parents are kinda unlikable as characters imo, lol.

You have no idea what prompted the emotions, you just happily assume whatever will give you the excuse to express your misandry.

I'd bet anything that if you read one of the many accounts of women getting genuinely angry at their SOs, even striking them (which is way worse than striking an inanimate object, by the way), based on what they dreamt the guy did, you wouldn't be blaming her "fragile femininity".

For all we know, guy had just received some horrible/devastating news.

The assumptions leading to both the 'framing' act and the gleeful posting of it on social media are just a manifestation of thinly-veiled misandry.

It's a character flaw to idolize anyone.

Fact: On all of the video there is of him preceding Rosenbaum's attack, no one is reacting in a way that indicates that they feel provoked by his armed presence.
Fact: You're imbuing this magical inherent provocation based on literally nothing. It's what you want to be true, so that you can rationalize your baseless narrative.

I would certainly consider roaming the streets openly wielding a firearm to fall under a reasonable definition of “provocation”.

Who cares what you would consider provocation? The fact is no one there on that day felt provoked by it. No one reacted negatively to his arrival while obviously visibly armed, nor his walking around visibly armed, for hours, while he handed out water bottle and gave first aid to people. And why is it that the first person to react negatively to him was a maniac who pissed because the dumpster fire he set was extinguished? His rage had literally nothing to do with Rittenhouse's weapon.

If the mere existence of the gun was so provocative, explain why no one there gave a shit about it. Reconcile your assertion with the facts, if you can.

It is unreasonable to expect a person on the street to distinguish between an active shooter and a “good guy with a gun”.

That's not really relevant, because Huber and Grosskreutz's actions are completely nonsensical regardless of whether they assessed Rittenhouse as one or the other accurately. They both decided to try and kill Rittenhouse, and he prevented them from doing so, absolutely justified in defending his life against two more attempted murders, after already being forced to do so once, with Rosenbaum.

Not to mention that Rittenhouse was moving TOWARD the police line to report what had just happened with Rosenbaum, verbally announcing that he was doing so, when the other two decided they wanted to kill him instead.