You’re not everyone. It may come as a shock to you, but there are other people in the world who are different from you, and most of them follow people they admire but don’t know personally.

Wait, you don’t think people are influenced by the views of people they admire? Have you ever met a person?

“People who menstruate” is indeed not an “inclusive” word but one that reduces women to a function of our bodies, at the core it’s a sexist one.

The thing that never ceases to amaze me is these people’s complete inability to examine their own belief systems. Like, if I believed that a blanket abortion ban with no exceptions was a good idea, and then I found out reasons why it was a bad idea, I wouldn’t just carve out exceptions for those exact reasons and no…

Then I have bad news for you, because either you don’t know how casually most people shake hands, or else what you were apparently doing in the 70s was far more unusual than you think it was.

If you didn’t believe anything without proof, you couldn’t function in society. Are you honestly telling me that you disbelieve everything you’re told until someone proves it to you? Do you think that’s skepticism? Because it’s not, it’s paranoia.

That voice could have been coming from anywhere, and in fact I thought it was coming from somewhere else the first time I saw it, which is why I had to watch it twice to understand what happened. The guy in the video never faces the camera and speaks, never looks in the direction of the camera holder, never…

There was never a time in our society when more than a miniscule fraction of a subculture of people where “having sex was as casual as shaking hands”. Not sure where you heard that, but it’s patently absurd.

Got me there.

Like I said, I believe her story, and I’m not personally giving this guy any benefit of the doubt. I’m just saying that nothing in the video is concrete proof that would justify firing the guy without an investigation. I’m not even saying they need to hire investigators and spend months interviewing witnesses. But to…

Where does it say that?

It’s the only reasonable take on it. If you have another, I don’t know what you were watching.

Luke is established in Force Awakens to having “failed” in some way. It’s established that everything that they fought for was ultimately for nothing. His family is torn apart again. And he had already ditched the light saber.

Yes, thank you.

You missed my point. The problem wasn’t that he rejected the lightsaber, or his arc in general. I have no problem with his story arc at all, honestly. It was actually one of the things I liked about the movie.

Yes. It’s perfectly fine for me, as a person with no power or agency or role in this story, to believe strongly that it went down the way the woman says it did, but also to believe that there isn’t enough evidence for a company to fire the guy over it without a cursory investigation. What is hard to reconcile about…

What did he set up? All he did was tear down what came before, with nothing to put in its place. There was no possible version of The Rise of Skywalker that could have followed up successfully on The Last Jedi, because there was nothing left at the end.

To me it wasn’t that Luke shouldn’t be flawed; I was fully expecting him to have turned his back on the Jedi in some fashion, else why would he be in hiding (given that the Jedi no longer needed to fear persecution as under the Empire)? The problem was in the execution. TFA ends with Rey discovering Luke and handing…

I couldn’t have put it better.

I don’t understand the argument that he did new and exciting stuff. I do understand not wanting predictable storytelling, and I definitely agree that he flipped over the table. I just don’t understand how anyone thinks that he actually did anything with it after flipping it over. He didn’t set anything up, he didn’t…