Yeah, this is what it is. This article isn’t saying that investments don’t constitute passive income, they’re saying that the way financial advice industry has started using “passive income” as a buzz word is, at best, stretching the truth and, at worst, an outright lie.

I totally get what you are saying, and I don’t disagree with you about horrible downstream effects of RvW decision, but this isn’t that imo

You have, actually. You’ve signed a waiver for every single prescription medication you ever received - at the pharmacy, when you picked it up.

There are power dynamics at play here, to be fair. I’m not entirely interested in the conversation of whether or not “manipulated” is the right word, but I do think it’s fair to consider the ways in which someone who is rich, famous, and sexualized/glamourized in media has over someone who is only 23.

It didn’t seem to me (from the cards we could see) that it was positioning the CIS as the dark side. It was positioning Sith (and Grievous) as the dark side. And I do think that’s fair?

Yeah, but the article is really specific about this. Vulcans, Wookies, etc. are all distinct species. It isn’t the same concept of bioessentialism - you’re talking about biological constructions of their bodies in a different way. The article questions why WotC hasn’t made this change, since it’s such low hanging…

Yo, logic boy, at least use logic right.

There actually are some really solid EU stories about this kind of thing already. I’m not sure there’s anything about a full tie squadron, but plenty of stories about former ace tie fighters defecting.

I don’t think Eternals was the worst Marvel film by a LONG shot.

Thor clearly suffers from him trying to live up to Ragnarok. I’m very comfortable with Taika stepping into a new film context.

I literally do not care - the minute people who felt connected as fans of someone’s work starts haranguing (at best - the worst has been far more disgusting) the loved ones of the departed because they feel put out for not being top of mind?

It’s legitimately only confusing to see other sites put up articles first if you’re utterly bereft of empathy (or just downright refusing to apply it in this situation).

Hey, asshole, his comment wasn’t a place for you to “Um, actually” his fucking grief. Let them be.

Hey, asshole, his comment wasn’t a place for you to “Um, actually” his fucking grief. Let them be.

I get what you’re saying (and I know you said you were done talking about it, so I understand if you don’t respond), but I Just want to offer this:

Maybe just tossing something short up felt horribly dismissive and disrespectful to their friend and colleague?

Or maybe they cared about their friend immensely and the idea of just tossing up his picture with nothing else felt deeply disrespectful to their entire history with that person.

Luke, on his twitter, says it better than I can (the whole thread is here, and I 10000% think people should read it, but here’s one tweet):

I know that if *I* was asked to stop and write something about the passing of my friend/colleague just days after it happened I would tell my boss to go fuck themselves.

Maybe it’s brutally painful for people who have worked alongside him for years to have to wrap their head around the death of their friend and colleague in order to pump out an article for a news cycle?