Dr.Device

Are Endgame spoilers okay in this thread?
 
I'll wrap this in spoiler tags, just in case.
Here's what I'd like to see for a Fantastic Four movie

Supes and Thor are just different characters.  MCU Thor isn't comic book Thor, but I still like the character.  Up to that point, we've had 3 Thor movies and 3 previous Avengers movies to get to know him.  We've also had those clips with Thor and his roommate Darryl, and honestly by Endgame we just really really like Thor.  Then when he's got his chance to undo everything bad, it turns out the villain has beaten them to the punch.  It's the Ozymandius "I did it thirty five minutes ago" moment.
 
And so Thor chops his effing head off.
 
Here's a guy who we've spend 6 movies growing to love, and we completely understand his frustration and despair, and he has a completely human moment and he does what many of us might do in that moment.  He becomes more like Eric Draven in The Crow, or Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven.  It's a completely righteous execution of a completely terrible man.  It's cathartic, and yet it doesn't put anything right.  It's not a great heroic moment, but it is a great heroic failure.  It's an awesome moment in the film.  It's final but in a sense it's also anti-climactic.  We're expecting there to be this great battle where the heroes fix everything, and instead Thor kills him and now there's nothing for the heroes to do except live the rest of their lives in a half-dead world.  Thanos is dead, but the heroes still lost.
 
Superman's neck snap isn't unjustified.  I'm not saying he's a villain for killing Zod, or even that he was wrong.  He had to do it, but the filmmaker didn't give it nearly the same dramatic weight as Thor's decapitation.  They haven't even established that Superman has a code versus killing at that point.  Obviously he doesn't want to kill Zod, but there's no indication that he has anything more than the normal "reluctance to kill" that all of us have (and that we get no points for).  Now again, Thor doesn't have it at all, but they aren't the same character.

I'm going to speculate that you are white, male, heterosexual, cisgendered, nominally Christian, and have a reasonable job. (I apologize if I got any of that wrong.) You don't have to worry about being discriminated against because of your religion, ethnicity, or gender. You are well-fed, clothed, have a roof over your head, and have no more than a theoretical worry about how you're going to pay for these things. Of course things are going pretty well for you.
 
Unfortunately, for people not like you, Trump is making everything worse.

There's debate about everything, including whether or not the Earth is flat, so I don't find the existence of debate meaningful.
 
An individual can be subject to multiple jurisdictions. Almost all of us are. I'm subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the state of Texas, and the city of Austin. If I were in the military I'd also be subject to that jurisdiction. If I travel to England, I'm subject to the jurisdiction of that country, but still subject to the jurisdiction of the US (unless I go through the complex process of renouncing my citizenship). The amendment does not say subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the US. The argument that being subject to another jurisdiction somehow means they aren't subject to US jurisdiction is entirely specious.
 
Besides which, to argue that these children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US is to argue that their parents also are not. If they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then they are not bound by its laws. If that were the case, US law enforcement would have no authority over them. 
 
Children of anyone with diplomatic immunity have always been excluded for exactly that reason. They, in fact, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. That's what diplomatic immunity is.

There's debate about everything, including whether or not the Earth is flat, so I don't find the existence of debate meaningful.
 
An individual can be subject to multiple jurisdictions. Almost all of us are. I'm subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the state of Texas, and the city of Austin. If I were in the military I'd also be subject to that jurisdiction. If I travel to England, I'm subject to the jurisdiction of that country, but still subject to the jurisdiction of the US (unless I go through the complex process of renouncing my citizenship). The amendment does not say subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the US. The argument that being subject to another jurisdiction somehow means they aren't subject to US jurisdiction is entirely specious.
 
Besides which, to argue that these children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US is to argue that their parents also are not. If they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then they are not bound by its laws. If that were the case, US law enforcement would have no authority over them. 
 
Children of anyone with diplomatic immunity have always been excluded for exactly that reason. They, in fact, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. That's what diplomatic immunity is.

There's debate about everything, including whether or not the Earth is flat, so I don't find the existence of debate meaningful.
 
An individual can be subject to multiple jurisdictions. Almost all of us are. I'm subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the state of Texas, and the city of Austin. If I were in the military I'd also be subject to that jurisdiction. If I travel to England, I'm subject to the jurisdiction of that country, but still subject to the jurisdiction of the US (unless I go through the complex process of renouncing my citizenship). The amendment does not say subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the US. The argument that being subject to another jurisdiction somehow means they aren't subject to US jurisdiction is entirely specious.
 
Besides which, to argue that these children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US is to argue that their parents also are not. If they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then they are not bound by its laws. If that were the case, US law enforcement would have no authority over them. 
 
Children of anyone with diplomatic immunity have always been excluded for exactly that reason. They, in fact, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. That's what diplomatic immunity is.

But the law changed with the passage of the 14th amendment, which is quite explicit that those children are citizens.

There's debate about everything, including whether or not the Earth is flat, so I don't find the existence of debate meaningful.
 
An individual can be subject to multiple jurisdictions. Almost all of us are. I'm subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the state of Texas, and the city of Austin. If I were in the military I'd also be subject to that jurisdiction. If I travel to England, I'm subject to the jurisdiction of that country, but still subject to the jurisdiction of the US (unless I go through the complex process of renouncing my citizenship). The amendment does not say subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the US. The argument that being subject to another jurisdiction somehow means they aren't subject to US jurisdiction is entirely specious.
 
Besides which, to argue that these children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US is to argue that their parents also are not. If they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then they are not bound by its laws. If that were the case, US law enforcement would have no authority over them. 
 
Children of anyone with diplomatic immunity have always been excluded for exactly that reason. They, in fact, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. That's what diplomatic immunity is.

There's debate about everything, including whether or not the Earth is flat, so I don't find the existence of debate meaningful.
 
An individual can be subject to multiple jurisdictions. Almost all of us are. I'm subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the state of Texas, and the city of Austin. If I were in the military I'd also be subject to that jurisdiction. If I travel to England, I'm subject to the jurisdiction of that country, but still subject to the jurisdiction of the US (unless I go through the complex process of renouncing my citizenship). The amendment does not say subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the US. The argument that being subject to another jurisdiction somehow means they aren't subject to US jurisdiction is entirely specious.
 
Besides which, to argue that these children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US is to argue that their parents also are not. If they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then they are not bound by its laws. If that were the case, US law enforcement would have no authority over them. 
 
Children of anyone with diplomatic immunity have always been excluded for exactly that reason. They, in fact, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. That's what diplomatic immunity is.

But the law changed with the passage of the 14th amendment, which is quite explicit that those children are citizens.

Confounding variables are the bane of social arguments based on statistical analysis. Do single-parent households cause poverty, incarceration, sexual abuse, etc? Or does poverty cause higher incarceration rates and incidentally make it harder for families to stay together? Or are these all epiphenomena of something else? The correlations do not necessarily show that you can solve these other problems by pressuring parents to stay together.
 
Liberalism is a package deal. Poverty is declining worldwide along with homophobia, institutionalized misogyny, racism, and many other social evils. The connection between free markets and, say, religious tolerance is that it all begins with the liberal assumption that individuals matter more than traditional elites, taboos and social structures. Once you apply this idea in one part of society, it spreads. For instance, women freed from chattel status start their own businesses, increasing the society's net capacity to generate wealth.
 
I will grant you, many contemporary American progressives seem to have forgotten that free markets are a liberal idea -- free people to seek their own benefit instead of locking them into traditional caste occupations, and give them access to property instead of elites locking up all the wealth -- but economic, political and social liberalism do go together and reinforce each other. On this I'll also recommend Acemoglu and Robinson's Why Nations Fail, which discusses this in detail. One of their major arguments is that attempts to combine free markets with social and political restrictions are doomed to fail: Either the authoritarian political system chokes the economy into eventual stagnation and decline, or the wealthier population demands social and political liberalization.
 
The upshot is that when anyone seems to be defending Traditional Order, of any sort, I have my doubts. I think the evidence is pretty strong that breaking Traditional Orders usually produces more good than harm.
 
Dean Shomshak
 
 

I'm honestly not that worried about the number of youth raised in single parent homes. 
 
Bunch of other metrics on how we treat children strike me as compelling, aside from an apples to oranges comparison to when women were one step removed from chattel to their husbands due to economic and social pressure. I don't think the idyllic 1950s were all that fantastic for women, actually. 70 years ago was a pretty dark era if one was not a white male, in good health. And the further back you go, objectively the worse it gets. 
 
I'm pretty good with not going back to that, it wasn't a great look for society. YMMV

This car doesn't have seat warmers or a rear camera...
 
...and this car doesn't have WiFi hotspot or a water sensitive windshield...
 
...but this car is juuuust right.
 

As hard as it may be to believe, you are not the universal arbiter of importance. I'm not saying they needed more screen time. I thought Shuri being in the battle made perfect sense, and I don't have a strong opinion on Mantis. If all you're saying is that it wouldn't have made sense to spend more time on them away from the battle, given their place in the story, I have no problem with that. But to just flat say that the characters are unimportant is dismissive of the people out there who do care about those characters. Those characters are important to them, and their view of the movie matters just as much as yours.

They are not important to you. You aren't the only person the movie was made for.
 
And as far as Shuri being combat capable goes, she's a princess in a country where rule can be determined by martial prowess. It's pretty likely that she has extensive combat training.

As hard as it may be to believe, you are not the universal arbiter of importance. I'm not saying they needed more screen time. I thought Shuri being in the battle made perfect sense, and I don't have a strong opinion on Mantis. If all you're saying is that it wouldn't have made sense to spend more time on them away from the battle, given their place in the story, I have no problem with that. But to just flat say that the characters are unimportant is dismissive of the people out there who do care about those characters. Those characters are important to them, and their view of the movie matters just as much as yours.

As hard as it may be to believe, you are not the universal arbiter of importance. I'm not saying they needed more screen time. I thought Shuri being in the battle made perfect sense, and I don't have a strong opinion on Mantis. If all you're saying is that it wouldn't have made sense to spend more time on them away from the battle, given their place in the story, I have no problem with that. But to just flat say that the characters are unimportant is dismissive of the people out there who do care about those characters. Those characters are important to them, and their view of the movie matters just as much as yours.

As hard as it may be to believe, you are not the universal arbiter of importance. I'm not saying they needed more screen time. I thought Shuri being in the battle made perfect sense, and I don't have a strong opinion on Mantis. If all you're saying is that it wouldn't have made sense to spend more time on them away from the battle, given their place in the story, I have no problem with that. But to just flat say that the characters are unimportant is dismissive of the people out there who do care about those characters. Those characters are important to them, and their view of the movie matters just as much as yours.

People keep saying stuff like this, trying to equate the two parties, but I never see any actual coherent point by point comparisons.
 
If it can be done so easily, please show us how. 
 
 

Tony built that gauntlet. I'm sure once he was in physical contact with it, his armor's shifting/reforming capability was up to the task.
 
Also, the movie was great.

Tony built that gauntlet. I'm sure once he was in physical contact with it, his armor's shifting/reforming capability was up to the task.
 
Also, the movie was great.

Tony built that gauntlet. I'm sure once he was in physical contact with it, his armor's shifting/reforming capability was up to the task.
 
Also, the movie was great.

Tony built that gauntlet. I'm sure once he was in physical contact with it, his armor's shifting/reforming capability was up to the task.
 
Also, the movie was great.

Those accusations pre-date his Presidency by many decades. Here's a Vox article on the subject. (Note: Vox leans Left, but the point here is that this isn't a new thing.)