unapologetically

He did apologize

Our leaders are a mix of three different parties because not all German people have the same opinions.

Yes, our leaders are a compromise between left-leaning voters and right-leaning voters. Respecting more people’s votes makes the country more democratic, not less.

If your question is about whether the people have free choice or if they can only choose one of the six parties currently in the Bundestag, the answer is the former. Little story:

Under Merkel, all German parties moved to be more migrant-friendly, until even Merkel’s conservative party (the most right wing party at the time) was largely okay with migration.

However, there are many anti-migration voters in Germany. So what did they do? Did they say “oh, we only have these five options, guess there’s no way I can vote against migration”? No, they founded a new party, the AfD, to be anti migration. This party quickly got into the Bundestag and rose to be a major party now.

Upon seeing the popularity of anti-migration policies, some of the other parties now shift torwards more anti-migration policies, too.

The German people have plenty of choice, and if a popular topic is ever not represented by the popular parties, it can quickly be made represented again.

(The reason I was assuming USA btw, is because another comment mentioned America. Also the USA is an easy example of a less democratic democracy.)

How is the German democracy hardly democratic?

Because abolishing democracy is not an available option? Is that what a system needs to be considered democratic?

I understand why USAmericans think of their system as hardly democratic, but that’s not the only type of democracy that exists.

Those powerful individuals, however, were chosen by the citizens. (Assuming the system you’re talking about is a democracy.)

I assumed that it was given that I exclude the example (with the implication of it not usually being the case for people considering suicide).

no social life

I struggle to imagine a scenario where you actually have no chance of rebuilding a social life. What are you, a lighthouse keeper living far from any city and getting your groceries airdropped?

You may not be in a situation where rebuilding a social life is trivial, but 50 years is enough time to learn how to find friends even in sub-optimal situations (e.g. at a grocery store). It is enough time to weed through different people until you find some that match you.

Even looking at anecdotes (“We met on WoW”)

You seem to be focusing your points on the lonelyness crisis, which is a real issue. Spending a decade without a social life is terrible, and I understand why someone who arrives at this point may consider their future to be hopeless.

But while it may be understandable that a person considers suicide in this situation, it is not a rational (as in: long-term optimal) decision. A person in this situation may be exhausted, may be at or past a breaking point where they do no longer find the strength to keep on trying, and make the decision to commit suicide.

This decision derives from a temporary, emotionally charged state. (I consider fatique an emotion here.)

The rational (as in: long-term optimal) decision would be to keep trying. To keep going on until it just so happens that you exchange a few words with a stranger. Until it just so happens that you get to build foundational social skills, easing the possibility to approach others. Until it just so happens that you get an opportunity to talk to someone, and get to know them. Or maybe one day, out of a wind of confidence (or desperation) you approach just the right person. Or maybe that person approaches you. Or maybe you take to more unusual manners of getting to know people, that you find to work for you.

And once you found a start, you can build off it. You can extend your social circle, find a partner, start a family, and live happily ever after.

Quit the bs, I’ve been trying for a decade and it doesn’t work

You have many years to go, and once you find a ledge to stand on, they will all be worth it.

There is no “rational” reasoning that leads to the conclusion that you’ll never be happy (unless you’re in an actively harmful situation, such as a torture prison or with an extreme chronic disease).

You cannot tell whether you’ll be happy, you cannot know who you’ll be ten years in the future.

Claiming that you won’t ever be happy simply because you haven’t been happy so far is short sighted and narrow minded.

Suicide is always unreasonable.

Are you implying that creating porn is unethical?

Art bros when they accidentally discredit all photographers

it’s usually a “he”

Why add this pointless sexism

It doesn’t matter if a drug is prescribed sometimes. Both amphetamines and opioids are prescribed sometimes. But watch out kids - the amphetamines and opioids sold by the nice guy at the street corner are very bad. If you got marijuana prescribed - that’s cool, take it as prescribed. If you didn’t get it prescribed - it’s a drug like any other.

Alcohol is also bad.

Restraining order against whom? An unknown person using throwaway phone numbers?

Oh I certainly do give people shit for taking prescription drugs without a prescriptionn.

Watch me criticize current Israeli behaviour as well as past German behaviour (as a German)

This is my medicine bro, I need it for my condition of not being stoned

Tl;dr: They use proper workflows for building the OS.

No Idea why they advertise this on their end-customer facing sites.

Source: https://universal-blue.org/

we’re doing better than basically every other 1st world country

You must have a very unusual definition of first world.

Why not?

perfect is the enemy of good

If you think the political message isn’t core to that movie then, well, you’re one of the dipshits being discussed

No need to be rude.

I didn’t watch fight club. I have no idea what it’s about. If it is intended to educate people on political issues, great. If it is intended to entertain and only discusses political issues subtly in the background, great. If it is intended to entertain, but fails at doing so because of presenting a political message in a manner that hinders entertainment, not great.

said by people who only know of this because today we talk about that message

So what you’re saying is that those games didn’t shove their message down people’s throat while modern games do? That while they did have a political message, they didn’t make it core to the experience and presented it in a way that allowed people who only wanted to play to completely ignore it?

You are validating the above comment’s point.