Don't worry. Rando Calrissian will live forever in manuals for hipster card games, wherever English is spoken.

Would Michael be thrilled about standing guard 24/7? Probably not. Could he do it? Absolutely. He planned to leave anyway, so it's not as if the neighborhood couldn't function without him. Also, he's basically omnipotent. He can just create a chasm around the killswitch or put it on a mountain that Eleanor can't…

Has there been any clarification that "soulmate" has to have a sexual component? Presumably he was also into the girl he slept next to in the flashback. Apparently not his soulmate though.

I think Eleanor is savy enough to consider that the kill-switch might be better guarded next time.

I think that's what Eleanor might be gunning for "….but I'm not the only one…" - and try to appeal to Jiany to expose himself as well and trigger the Spartacus thing. But I'd be really surprised if that's how it plays out…

Eh, I'm starting from a position of being considered fairly chill; I figure I have some way to go before it gets too tiring.

I do think that obliviousness often has its functions (people don't notice things that would be inconvenient to notice). At best, it means the other person just isn't paying any attention to you. Whatever hit you, clearly hasn't hit them. (Yet).

Feelings are fleeting, words are sticky.

Huh I guess you got me there. Well, it has its functions.

Yeah, clearly Glover wasn't going for realism here. That might have been the wishful-thinking part of the whole exercise.

Ha, I'm officially worse than the strawoman version of the humourless white feminist scholar - I wouldn't have been particularly mollified by the "free speech"-argument. (If free speech covers inconsiderate remarks about transgender issues, surely it covers calling you out on that as well).

I agree, because I have already seen a couple of episode and therefore feel like I know the character a little. I think he's over-all pretty sympathetic and this episode hasn't particularly changed that general evaluation.

Not necessarily, that's right. I'm sure that I have my blind spots of empathy as well. I'm not claiming that I'm morally superior. But people will judge you for those blind spots, and I do think they have a right to. And some people do seem to have more blind spots than others, and are generally considered greater…

But the person who's not engaged with Taylor/Kim beef is a different category of person than the person who's not engaged with police shootings.

Look, I'm not asking him to become a trans rights activist. But if the topic is of so little concern to him, why mouth off in the first place? It's not like it would have been hard to predict that the issue might be touchy. What happened to staying in your lane?

And why shouldn't that be read as mere lip service, considering that his careless remarks are bound to contribute to a climate of hostility towards transpeople, that often enough gets them killed?

Obviously. And clearly, that's why people are frustrated, not some general problem with the principal notion of ambivalence. It's not that they don't get the distinction between "I'm racist/sexist/transphobic" and "I just don't mind racism/sexism/transphobia" - it's that this distinction is ultimately useless from…

Batman or Superman? Pepsi or Cola? Taylor or Kim? Wanna feel indifferent? Knock yourself out!

You don't think the particular thing one's feeling "ambivalent" (or rather indifferent, I'd say) about might be bit of a factor too?

To be fair, that still leaves one to find that particular way more or less compelling. Commenter above found it less compelling, you more, and that's fine, no need to agree. Just saying, their point wasn't any less clear than yours.