I can do nothing about that perception.

From the last link in my previous post:

I meant “ally” for the purposes of the survey: the category for people “who were either ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ comfortable in all situations.” That standard is laughably low for actual LGBTQ allyship.

Where you see smugness I see aggravation.

Or that others are playing by the same rules, at least.

The one “misstep” that seems best-supported to me was that the Clinton campaign appeared to assume that there wouldn’t be much change in turnout between 2012 and 2016. This influenced how they spent their time (why campaign somewhere if no one will vote there anyway?) which served to reinforce the right’s message the…

“Detached supporter” is the term used for people whose comfort level fluctuated between scenarios (e.g. comfortable with LGBTQ teacher but uncomfortable with LGBTQ doctor). So if you don’t care about any of the scenarios, I think you would be categorized as an “ally”.

I have read the book and the problem I had with it is not so much that any of the advice is bad (it all seemed pretty innocuous to me) but that it’s presented as a solution to problems caused by patriarchy. It very much reads as “I know the game is rigged but you just have to play harder”.

The quote in the article is not a poll question; it appears to be a simplified explanation of the survey’s methodology. It may be that the survey uses “people who are exploring or questioning their sexual orientation” in place of “LGBTQ” or “queer” or “gay” to try to get a more honest response since there are likely…

It’s been a long time since I read them so I will defer to you about Jon considering the risk in the books. In the show though, there is a difference between knowing your decision will be unpopular and considering that it might lead to your murder. Part of being a leader is having the ability to cause others to follow…

The bitterness with which long-time Clinton supporters hold Sanders and his ilk is fascinating.
I have no issue with Sanders as a congressman. I don’t think he would have been a good president but I voted for him in the primary and would have voted for him had he been nominated. The only issues I have are with…

Jon absolutely made the ethically right call by letting the Free Folk south of the Wall. But he didn’t die for doing the right thing: he died because he didn’t recognize the threat of his own men was until it was too late. Same with Ned: he died because he wanted to believe that doing the “right” thing would somehow…

I think the “bad campaign”criticism comes from two camps. One camp is trying to figure out how Clinton lost to Trump and certainly some of that is due to the Clinton campaign. So “bad campaign” is shorthand for “Clinton’s campaign made some critical missteps that contributed to her ultimate loss”. The other camp…

I just dislike the Ned-and-Jon-type “good to the point of stupid” kind of “hero”. You should not be rewarded for sticking to a code if the code is idiotic. Jon doesn’t deserve to rule. Granted, Jon did die for his code but I think it remains to be seen if he learned anything from that.

You can’t pay penance before you sin so Drogo’s and Rhaego’s deaths can only really be penance for Dany’s “sin” of being a naive teenager. Furthermore, everyone else died for their “sins”; someone else dying, even if it’s a tragic loss for her, isn’t really Dany paying.

I will be interested to see what Jon is like now that he’s been ressurected. It was a bigger thing in the books that coming back to life (understandably) fundementally changes your personality.

Oh man. On the one hand I want Dany to die but on the other hand I don’t want Angsty McBroodypants to do it...

From the all-knowing Wikipedia:

Voting for a woman because she’s a woman makes you a bad feminist

Some of them are matronymic though, so it isn’t strictly accurate to call them patronymic.