People said the same about Kanye’s EVA foam marshmallows
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Like 12 idiots on the Internet who then decided to never shut the fuck up about it.
Godawful clickbait title. YOU’LL NEVER BELIEVE WHY HE WAS ON THE WING OF A PLANE. NUMBER TEN WILL SURPRISE YOU!
This was the EU that felt the most like the original trilogy, and I don’t think they have been matched yet.
That being said, the fact that they’re just bringing Thrawn over doesn’t bode well. Thrawn is cool but that’s not really exclusively what these books are about, and I guarantee Asohka Tano dealing with Thrawn will be less interesting than these books were.
We have way more than enough livestock. Humans should be eating less meat.
Catholicism still a tyrannical hate org and child molestation ring, more at 11. Who would have thought a bunch of people sniffing their own farts thinking they literally know what the supposed omnipotent creator of the universe wants (to be overly concerned about human dongs) would be hard to convince otherwise?
(Sorry, I missed the “Disney” in the title) If it is, I guess I don’t like Star Wars anymore. I haven’t seen Andor but it’s the only one I’m interested in.
I found clone wars and rebels unwatchable and have to imagine most of their fans got into the shows as kids. I didn’t bother with Ahsoka because I don’t like Ahsoka and I actually like the old Thrawn novels they are now trying badly to replace.
The Mandalorian was OK TV for a season but frankly went nowhere. They should have killed him off and followed someone new after a season or two when the show ran it’s course. But making good TV isn’t Disneys motivation, it’s making money, so they will make the Mandalorian chase dark saber after dark saber until people stop watching.
Rogue One was OK but would have been much better with about half the cast so we could actually learn about and give a shit about any of the characters. The entire Tantive IV scene was unneeded and would have worked better as subtext.
Agreed. Capital, states, etc all have issues in the same way. I just think the state can work for the people and I’m not convinced of the alternative. Both libertarians and anarchosyndicalists have some wild basically religious ideas about how everyone will basically just work together and not dick each other over because of… Social norms, I guess? I just have a hard time believing it.
It is, a lot of people just have pseudo mystical beliefs about how people will act when there is no state. They like to imagine everything bad about humans is capitalism/the state/insert Boogeyman, not that the state and laws exist because we tried the alternative and no system at all always does work out to might makes right. A warlord always moves in to fill the power vacuum.
Some people are bastards and any system you create has to be created with the explicit assumptions that people are bastards. Some people just want to believe no one is a bastard or that there are not enough bastards to hurt the reasonable people. I think those people are wildly optimistic, and removing power structures does not remove the temptation to exert power or the ability, only one specific means.
Aren’t you the guy chomping at the bit for China to take Taiwan and Hong Kong over? Like a jingoist might?
Marketing and evangelism are fucking terrible too while we are at it
No, I am proposing that sufficiently large groups of people have some right to self determination, to only be part of nations which they choose to be part of. I’m saying Hong Kong is culturally, philosophically, and historically distinct from the People’s Republic of China at this point, and pretending they’re not is silly. You’re talking as if, like, Singapore doesn’t exist, that if any city state exists that’s somehow an absurdity.
Hong Kong has some shared history with China but not a shared philosophy. That’s why there’s the AND clause there. If you have shared history but not shared philosophy, it’s merely imperialism with a patina of historicity, i.e., “we should own this because we did at one point, regardless of the wishes of the people.” If you have shared philosophy but not shared history it may work out, but don’t be surprised when different cultures within your state react to issues in ways that are informed by their differing histories.
You are effectively saying that you don’t have an issue with colonialism, just that the wrong people were doing it before and now the right people can do it. I’m saying that the people of Hong Kong deserve self-determination if their political will is not represented in the state of the People’s Republic of China, which it will not be.
That people who desire self determination should be able to have it, that they should not be expected to be ruled by whomever is most powerful and happens to be ethnically similar. I think states should be based on a shared history and philosophy rather than ethnically segregating them to suit China.
Removed by mod