Landrin201

It's so funny to me that so many people in this thread are like "well technically it also applies to christians wearing crosses! So it isn't discriminatory." I guarantee you that a kid wearing a cross won't get in any trouble for it, they certainly won't be sent home. They'd probably be asked to hide it better and let off by the teacher, if anything at all was said.

These kinds of laws are classic examples of laws that are deliberately targeted at specific groups, but worded in a way which technically makes them apply to everyone, with the intent that enforcement will not target the group it wasn't supposed to.

No, it has Christian roots. I'm Jewish, and I hate the term "Judeo-christian." We do not believe the same things, and we do not share the same history. Christians have been persecuting us for well over a thousand years, they've driven us out of our homes, murdered us en-masse multiple times in multiple different countries in multiple different centuries, and have refused to give us any respect and dignity until after World War 2, when it became politically convenient for them to do so.

Our values are different, our history is different, the only thing we have in common is that the Christians read our bible sometimes when it's convenient for them to cite it to reinforce their intolerance.

Also I'm willing to bet really good money that if a nun wore a habit to a beach, she wouldn't get fined. A muslim woman wearing a burkini would though.

We desperately need laws to regulate these kinds of privacy policies/user agreements. The VAST majority are way too long and complicated for a normal person to actually understand, let alone read. We need to limit what companies can/can't do with them instead of letting them do whatever they want to.

We also need a law that prevents them from changing the terms of service on a product someone has been using, then locking them out of it if they don't agree to the new terms.

The thing is this shit works for right wingers. They genuinely believe that the ADL calling someone an antisemite, or even suggesting they might be, is the same as the government kicking your door down and murdering you because you used "free speech"

Appendices to LOTR*

They legally cannot use the silmarillion

Hard disagree here. I'm a rabid wheel of time fan who has read the books at least 6 times.

Ir would be downright impossible to "stick to the source" for book one (or really, any if them) and have it be good on film. It just wouldn't work on film, there is too much going on. The story would feel like it drags and is being forcefully stretched out, because the book is rather repetitive. That repetition works in a book because you are getting to read the characters inner thoughts, and in paper it adds tension that, for example, Rand and Mat are unsure whether the next place they stay will be full of dark friends.

But after the third time they get chased out by dark friends a TV audience would be like "OK they did this already get on with it." Repetition on TV gets boring FAST.

And the magic system is all kinds of messy in the books. They're diving into it a bit more now, but it's still got Tobe simplified for screen. You can't convey characters thoughts on screen, which basically neuters the whole system. The book is VERY exposition heavy, and that gets boring real quick on screen. Look at the LOTR theatrical VS extended editions. There is a reason that Bilbo talking about Hobbits at the beginning got cut. I like that scene, but it also is too much exposition to drop on the viewer right after the intro, which is also exposition. EOTW is like half exposition, and most of the books are at least a third exposition. That all has to get cut or reworked to be actually fun to watch without being super preachy. It's

Listen to Brandon Sanderson talking about the adaptation of Mistborm he has been working in for ages now. He has said that he had to make big, fundamental changes to the characters and story to make it work on film. He said his first draft was closest to the book, and that it was quite bad.

The biggest fuckup season 1 of the show did was not including the prologue. Idk why they cut it, it's such a good intro. Besides that, I thought they did alright. Season two has been much better so far, and has shown that they really do understand the core of this story and all of the characters in it.

Did you just have a stroke? Because your comment doesn't make any sense at all...

We have nukes in Turkey, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Italy. All of which are within easy first strike distance of Russia. Especially Turkey. And that's just the ones we know of. I have no doubt there are others we haven't told the public about.

Yet when Russia tried to get nukes in Cuba for the same reason, you're claiming it was definitely for a first strike. The Russians said that the nukes in Cuba were not for a first strike, just like NATO does with the nukes in Turkey. Why do you believe NATO and not Russia? Only one side of the cold war had EVER used a nuclear first strike, and it wasn't the Russians...

You know full well that if China were to attempt to establish a military base in Tijuana then the US would invade Mexico within the month. Don't be dense. The last time a geopolitical rival set up a base near the US we invaded, nearly started a nuclear war, and blockade them for 80 years.

The US is the walking embodiment of "rules for thee, but not for me" in international politics

Show me in the screenshot where the doctor referring to a woman as a female in a medical context is.

OH wait, you can't, it's not there. We literally are not talking about that.

Is this the incel brigades talking point? That it's racist to think that using "female" is creepy and dehumanizing?

I have never once heard a non-native speaker make this mistake. Having learned two other languages myself, I find it extremely hard to believe it's a mistake someone would have learned to make, even if they learned to speak English online. Teaching the words "man" and "woman" is literally one of the first lessons in ANY language class. That's true for English classes as well.

I never learned the equivalent of male and female in either of the language classes I have taken. So unless there's a language that has words ONLY for "male" and "female" and no equivalents for "man" and "woman" this talking point is stupid.

Why are you"asking questions" to make the use of "female" seem more acceptable?