But it’s redundant in that sentence because it began with “at.”

Those are pretty awesome! Thanks, I think I can get a lot of benefit from them.

Fair. I didn’t understand what OP was getting at, so I took them literally. It seemed strange to ignore that white people in the early 20th loved depictions of smiling black people in servant roles.

As for ads targeted at black consumers… now I’m curious. I know there were newspapers targeted at black readers. I wonder if they had ads.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cream_of_Wheat#/media/File%3ACream_of_Wheat_Breakfast_Bell_1918_advertisement.jpg ?

A soon-forgiven liar revealed scene or the suitably mourned and quickly avenged death of a sympathetic character by a villain are not even remotely on the level of the protagonist we’re rooting for causing genocide without remorse or consequences.

Why would the “lying” scene even remotely matter when Tim Allen’s character killed their entire civilization? That’s a much bigger deal than lying about being a space captain! Why would they put him in charge again without even explaining his error?

Wait, what? I don’t remember that being implied at all. That would be incredibly dark for such a light-hearted comedy.

The Thermians were fighting Sarris long before they brought in Tim Allen’s character.

Ah, hm… I guess that makes sense. Bringing people to the office raises the value of surrounding retail, which in turn raises the value of the office. Thanks, that explanation clears it up.

Buying something to create artificial demand usually isn’t a good investment strategy. A “pump-and-dump” can work if you can set off a buying frenzy and sell before it wears off, but it’s not a long-term strategy.

Besides, if that was the plan, leaving the buildings vacant would be just as effective as using them.

Ok, so it’s about responding to local government incentives? I feel like that’s an important piece of the puzzle that’s overlooked when people say it’s about real estate prices.

I see, so the idea is that they’re responding to external pressure from governments and financial institutions? I guess I could see that, though it shouldn’t be hard to prove by pointing to specific policies and loan conditions.

But also, some of these companies own those buildings. If they’re not in use, their value in the market drops.

How does that work? Why would a buyer care if the seller was using the building? If anything, I would think using them would depreciate their value due to wear and tear.

Not to mention that even if one inventor decides not to release their creation, eventually someone else will make something similar.

As an uninvolved party, after reading the thread, I understand that you feel frustrated and misunderstood. But I’m sorry to say that I feel like the failure of reading comprehension was on your part more than theirs.

It seems like the majority of people who responded to you argued that there are not two evils, but two parts to the same whole evil.

No one, that I saw, claimed you were saying that the Democrats were not evil. But the disagreement was that you see the Republicans and Democrats as two evils, while your opponents see them as one.

Whether or not you agree, that seems like a logically coherent belief to hold.

Having skimmed the original paper about the trolley problem, I think what the author was trying to illustrate was the difference between direct and indirect harm.

If you redirect the trolley, you’re not trying to kill the man on the other track. You’re trying to save the five on the first track by directing the trolley away from them. While the other man may die because of this, there’s always the possibility he’ll escape on his own.

Whereas if the judge sentences an innocent man to death, that is choosing to kill him. The innocent man MUST die for the outcome the judge intends. So there’s culpability that doesn’t exist in the trolley scenario.

In one case you’re accepting a bad outcome for one person as a side effect, in the other you’re pursuing it as a necessary step.

I agree. But there were a few moments where the Ferengi were shown not to behave consistently with the principles they espoused.

They shouldn’t have had any problem with (Edit: Rom) forming a union, for instance. After all, what’s wrong with a little collusion and price-fixing between the sellers of labor?

I guess some hypocrisy is to be expected in any society.

Star Trek: Picard has Picard too…

Also not a psychologist, but I would say that’s only true if the fear keeps them from enjoying life

As adults, we design our living spaces to be comfortable to us. We don’t intentionally make them scary so we can overcome.

Mother 3?

Portal?

It’s also kind of a clever subtle call to action. “If you don’t like this ending, you can change it by changing things in the real world.”

I liked that it at least gave a few nods to the idea that living in a patriarchy isn’t necessarily great for all men either. Not all men have power, and even the ones that do aren’t necessarily happier for it and find themselves competing with other men and restricting their own self-expression. That’s a nuance that’s lost in a lot of pop feminist messaging.