Fundamentally this gift is replacing something that has sentimental value to OP. That’s not usually a desirable gift. If someone got you a gift that replaced your favorite [thing] in a way that replaces it you wouldn’t want it either.

Cheerfully accepting a gift you don’t like is dishonest. Other replies have great honest and tactful ways to accept or reject a gift you don’t like. Op’s approach was hurtful to their partner which isn’t great.

Returning a gift is normal, that’s why stores issue gift receipts. However, it is a situation that requires tact since it’s easy to hurt someone if done poorly.

In the long term, it should be easy for you and your partner to do something special for each other where no one has to fake enjoyment. In OP’s case, effort spent communicating now will bring a lot of enjoyment in the future and save a lot of pain.

Nobody is a bad person here and both of your feelings are valid.

As others pointed out, your partner likely put significant effort into the gift and is hurt that the effort was in vain. Compounding that is the fact that you didn’t seem to acknowledge their effort or treat their hurt as valid.

Your hurt is valid. You got given something you don’t want and now you feel pressured to accept it to appease your partner. It’s in certain ways worse than getting nothing.

The situation sucks and you’ll both be hurt regardless of how you resolve it.

It’s probably going to be very important for you two to work out gifts or gift giving occasions. What do you like to do, for yourself or with your partner. Maybe the answer to that question can be part of the solution.

For the time being you have a few options. You can keep the gift like the others have said, maybe as a backup. Or you can return it. I suggest that if you return it you spend the money on something you both enjoy, maybe a nice date to sooth the hurt.

Let your partner know that you appreciate the effort that went into this gift. Let them know that you know you’re a hard person to buy for, especially because you’re not very consumerist which means that the things typically for sale won’t appeal to you. Let them know that it’s important for you that you’re both able to express love towards each other and that you want to make sure that the next time your partner expends significant effort for you that they’re able to create a situation which is rewarding for the both of you.

Then sort out what you’re going to do with this gift. Maybe explain your feelings about using the old device and how the new one can’t do that for you.

Then make a plan to work out the line term goal of how you’ll give each other gifts/experiences in the future. And actually do it. It might be a lot of work, but it will probably create a lot of joy in your relationship in the long run where there might have been even more pain.

There are always people defending these creeps who seek out the youngest most vulnerable sexual partners they can legally fuck. You don’t realise that in saying “he didn’t know she was 17” you’re claiming this behaviour is otherwise okay.

An old man, fucking an 18 year old is like a fast food boss paying his employees minimum wage: if you could legally get away with less you would. Finding these creeps “accidentally” fucking children is like the manager “accidentally” entering fewer hours on your timesheet every week. You have to be a real dope to believe it was an accident.

Even if the Senate Republicans vote for the bill, the house Republicans can just choose not to have a vote because the speaker chooses which bills are voted on.

I love how far Americans have come as a society. 50-50 gender representation wow. Oppressing the poor and crushing the middle class no longer has a glass ceiling!

Enjoy being a rape culture supporter I guess

Sounds like Uber and Lyft should stop hiring drivers who sexually harass customers.

When I said “bone fide” I meant that attraction isn’t a choice. In the case of an Uber driver gender preference is a choice.

Based on your “customer preference” logic could I also say my preference is race based because I found a similar statistic? Would that justify Uber allowing race selection?

We have laws that protect people from discrimination on protected grounds (race, gender, sexual orientation, age etc…) not because there are no legitimate statistical reasons for people to have a preference, but because the damage to society caused by discrimination based on characteristics you can’t change about yourself far exceeds these benefits.

The gender you’re attracted to isn’t a choice or a “preference”.

Gender is a bone fide job requirement for strippers. That’s not the case for taxi drivers.

She’s wearing leather pants so she reminds him of a couch.

People ARE assholes like that, but they will take nice public transit if it’s convenient. Especially if you want to have a drink or two going out or to a friend’s house.

Sometimes if it’s really convenient people take it instead of driving in rush hour which helps everyone!

Cops are always on the side of fascists, even in blue cities.

Yup. I hope they start something BIG!

Good luck to those two. Unless a significant portion of the military and national guard reject orders they’re just going to get court martialed.

https://youtu.be/TwPLqGkYnBA

Basically if you’re in the army you HAVE TO obey orders. “I was just following orders” is enshrined as a legal defense for everything except overtly criminal acts like genocide, killing babies, etc… even if the order was otherwise illegal. On the other hand, disobeying an order you think might be illegal means you will be arrested and held until a judge decides if the order was legal or not.

The only way this works is if their fellow military members and National guard all refuse to obey these illegal orders to hurt their fellow countrymen.

The Best part is that in Canada we are PAYING EXTRA to keep the homeless miserable. It’s cheaper to house them because living on the streets is a strain on our public health care and justice systems. Yet our Conservatives fight housing the homeless at every turn! I never thought of conservatives as people who like to pay extra taxes towards the homeless but I guess they’re willing to do it as long as it’s making them suffer and not improving their lives.

LMFAO the amount of union cope in this post is WILD.

“I used to work for an non union school and we got fucked by the government. Luckily they sent someone down to convince us this was okay. Then after I left the teachers there realised it’s NOT okay, unionized and immediately got the same better pay that I was told simply wasn’t possible. Now the government is trying to fuck the teachers again including by the tyrannical use of the NWC and the unions are standing up for it but I’m confused, could it be the unions were good all along and the government was bad?!?”

Bro, I’m sorry you were so easily separated from the fair wages you deserved and could have had if you were unionized. We need unions to protect teachers like you, who are willing to give up their fair wages for a sad story. The very same gentleness that likely makes you great with kids is used by the government to exploit you. You need protection from people who are going to fight for what you deserve from a government who has been fucking teachers over from day one.

Edit: in case it helps the reason the teachers union is refusing the agreement isn’t wages, it’s because they want a class size limit. As a teacher you should know what it’s like teaching classes of 35+ kids. The government won’t budge because they don’t care about teachers or kids. They see teachers as overpaid government funded babysitters so parents can go to work, and the more kids they can throw in a class the cheaper it is for them.

This is excellent news. The ends don’t justify the means, just because the person committed crimes doesn’t mean the police can ignore the law to find evidence and arrest them.

The police showed up at an overdose case, and found people with drugs, which is obviously true, people without drugs don’t overdose. The Good Samaritan act prohibits the police from arresting/investigating people on drug charges during an overdose call. As a result of the arrest the police found evidence of other crimes on his person and charged him with those crimes instead. The judges ruled that because the arrest was illegal, all evidence gathered during the arrest was also illegal. This is EXACTLY the role of judges, to reinforce the law and prevent abuses of power.

I literally can’t understand the opposing view because it sounds a lot like “illegally gathered evidence should be admissible in court” which if you know any history at all is a bonkers take.

These businesses are dumb as fuck. The data is in: around 10% of purchases at downtown businesses come from people who drove there. Making streets more welcoming to pedestrians, transit users and cyclists boosts local and small business revenues even when it’s at the cost of being less welcoming to cars.

https://tcat.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Bike-Lanes-On-Street-Parking-and-Business_-A-Study-of-Queen-Street-West-in-Toronto’s-Parkdale-Neighbourhood.pdf

These people just don’t understand the science and data behind who their customers are and how to cater to them.

Where did these cop lawyers find a jury of 12 bootlickers?

At least the judge was based af!

To honestly compare the efficiency of cars you have to consider that the car might weigh 2000kg, but when it’s only transporting a 100kg occupant you have to divide the efficiency by 20. Only when you’re fully utilizing the vehicle to transport many passengers and cargo are you going to approach the efficiency values on the graph. All the vehicles have the same problem, they assume you’re not just trying to get to the destination, but that you also want to bring your mobile living room (with couch and recliners and HVAC system and a storage locker) to the destination as well.

By comparison, walking has the full efficiency since you’re transporting yourself in full to the destination.