The question about how to do it effectively is about how the West can secularize a foreign country - it can’t just be taken over, and the US’ past efforts to control foreign cultures hasn’t gone so well.

I’ve seen a lot of people arguing that Dany should get the throne because she’s worked so hard for it, but I don’t think those people have really thought that through. This isn’t a prize, just a title to make her feel good, it’s a position of considerable power in which slight decisions could elevate or decimate many…

Well it’s not about starting from immigration and finding a rationalization later, it’s just that we have this situation where rejecting immigration will create more terrorists - NIMBY will cost lives. Secularizing their countries would benefit both them and us, but how do you do that effectively? Muslims being…

Not sure about that CIA idea, I mean who knows, but it definitely wouldn’t have to be the case. Their main goal isn’t to destroy the west, it’s to gain more members, but that’s hard to do if all the local Muslims are immigrating to get away from them. Other takeaways from the piece were that the terrorists are…

Shortly after the Paris massacre, there was a piece on a British news site (been so long I can’t remember which one) that did a deep, objective dive into why these attacks were happening. The conclusion was that the primary reason terrorists were attacking the secular world was not to damage non-Muslims, but as a…

Unfortunately many people have that opinion unsarcastically.

But paradoxes would be an issue for most, if not all of the other characters’ endings as well, so that’s really not what this is about.

Yeah, negative reaction to Jax’s ending is fundamentally idiotic. First, if you look at other character endings, most of them are primarily selfish, often with horrific consequences. The point of these endings is a little “what if this character won”, for which it makes sense to focus on that character. Jax’s is…

*espessially considering from the part—> especially considering the part

I’m no weed advocate, but it’s disappointing how dumb a lot of people are about it. It’s both far less dangerous and addictive than alcohol, so logically no sensible person could be against weed and okay with alcohol, yet so many are. A lot of that has to do with a history of political racist association that just…

Ha, nice, a tonberry overreactive counterattack. Projection, really, given the harshly negative emotional tone of your comments. Be sure to reply with more projection and baseless interpretations, I want to see how deep you’ll dig your hole.

Because it is very often used when something could be done and people don’t. It’s basically saying “I’m going to tell God to do something about this, which means I don’t have to.” Also it’s ridiculous in the context of believing in God: an omniscient, omnipotent being being influenced by requests? The presumption is…

I am 0% butthurt. I’m not personally offended by this as I am white (and Canadian) so the history of racism isn’t personal for me. And you’re right that it could have been worse, but that doesn’t mean it’s nothing. It’s just that people are upset that others are offended by this, and logically it doesn’t make sense to…

Well, he was “involved” in the casino business, which, after all its real managers died in a helicopter accident, failed in record time. So I wouldn’t put any stock in his involvement equating to even the slightest bit of competence.

Telling people they can’t be offended by something makes no sense. You can make an argument of why they shouldn’t be, you may be 100% logically correct, you may even change some people’s minds, but believing that people can’t have a reaction you didn’t suggests you might want to explore how developed your sense of…

I’m just surprised Jaime would recognize a kid he last saw before his head turned into a Vicks cough drop.

It’s kind of similar to the uncanny valley: adding detail to a component but not getting 100% there draws attention to the disparities, whereas otherwise that component would have been ignored.

It seems weird to me that not having a personal connection to slavery condones blackface; the context of the act is more relevant than the context of the actor. I get how she may not see there being any issue, but all that really says is that Lithuanians won’t be offended.

Ha, I’m actually Canadian, but I see your point; we are inundated with American media but it must be less so elsewhere.

Counterpoint: White Chicks. Skin tone is not the only component of ethnicity, so simply coloring your face may actually detract from the similarity to the character being portrayed, not enhance it.