I can't really tell what your argument is here. Are you arguing that people substitute social media interactions for real life connection? And that they get enough from social media to not think vulnerability is worth it?

I guess I can agree to that in some general way for novices to social media (people like me in 2007 or young kids now), but in my generation I've observed people valuing it less as we age. Once you mature, if you mature, you can judge your own lack of fulfillment from hours spent on social media.

To quote (emphasis mine):

"I discovered that no one is looking for a meaningful connection or a serious conversation. Everyone wants to catered and be heard, no one wants to listen for just a second."

In no way does the first part of the post make it sound like the commenter is qualifying the statement to only the subset of people they have dated.

I'm happily married, and I know people I would enjoy spending time with if I wasn't. The world doesn't seem bereft of thoughtful, intelligent, generous people to me. To me, it sounds like it's a problem with the commenter.

I'm expecting downvotes for this.

While I agree with you that social media is very harmful to everyone but especially young people, I think we've also socialized an entire generation to pathologize mental distress instead of teaching them resiliency.

I don't think they need to be shown any particular courtesy since they closed by bashing 'many many many girls' as superficial.

Yea, honestly, as a feminist, I think this is reasonable and healthy. How many long term relationships really result from drunken hookups? It's just an exercise in risky behavior with a complete stranger when your judgement is impaired.

Exactly. Hence the name distinguishing it as the "American" one.... People (Americans?) are so dumb.

Putting it on personal mobile devices allows it 1) to be more easily exfiltrared to their foreign affiliates, and 2) allows them to get around FOIA. I'm sure most of their actions are being carried out in a similar manner.

Even if we ever do wrest power from them, we will have to go along without ever knowing everything they have broken.

I think my husband and I learned to parent from Daniel Tiger.

I got the circumstances wrong, the temporary halt was because he didn't want the weapons used on civilians in Rafah.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-pentagon-holds-briefing-after-biden-announces-plan-to-withhold-weapons-delivery-to-israel

And also it caused a Republican shit storm: https://mccormick.house.gov/media/in-the-news/daily-caller-exclusive-more-100-lawmakers-slam-biden-withholding-weapons-israel

Looks like they did threaten to withhold military aid in the fall over the flow of humanitarian aid, but that didn't happen.

I think Biden allowed genocide to proceed apace in Gaza. Full stop. This is just an attempt to answer your question about what would have been better under Kamala, presuming she would have been Biden 2.0:

Biden heavily pressured Netanyahu to open to border with Egypt to let aid in, even temporarily withholding military support to get him to do it. Additionally, Biden made an effort, however ineffectual, to airdrop aid and build a temporary dock to bring in aid on ships. Biden rolled over for Netanyahu, but there was at least the semblance that he was bothered by the civilian toll and attempted to lessen civilian suffering.

It's because our two party system (and our education system ...) doesn't allow you to have nuance or more than one or two issues that you vote on.

Criticizing Obama for drone strikes only ends up enabling the turn-the-middle-East-into-a-glass-parking-lot people (to bring back 2010 talking points). Similarly, to point out that Biden wasn't nearly tough enough on Netanyahu (he tried to grow a couple vertebrae of a backbone approximately twice) only ends up enabling the "Remember the Abraham Accords? Trump/Kushner a jew-whisperer!" argument.

As an American, I can't disagree. The best outcome is just to get groped against your will for 20 min like Macron.