Dr.Device

Daveed Diggs is Jewish.  His mom is Jewish and by tradition it passes in matrilineal fashion. 

I really wanted William Jackson Harper for Reed and Kristen Bell for Sue. Their chemistry was great in The Good Place. Sadly, they wasted WJH in Quantumania. 
 
I worry that if this rumor pans out it means that, given the choice of Driver, they'll be leaning into being a jerk being a big part of Reed's character. Which, to be fair, he has been in big chunks of the comics, but at other times he hasn't been, and I'd rather see that Reed. I could see Harper playing a Reed that occasionally comes off as a jerk, but mainly through frustration at other people just not understanding things that to him seem obvious. That, and occasionally just from lack of social skills.
 
I agree that Ben being Jewish is an important, if background, part of his character. Since being black doesn't preclude being Jewish, I'll reserve judgement there. 
 
Margot Robbie is an excellent actress, so I have no worries there, and I know nothing about the guy they've picked for Johnny (I've already forgotten the name).

I really wanted William Jackson Harper for Reed and Kristen Bell for Sue. Their chemistry was great in The Good Place. Sadly, they wasted WJH in Quantumania. 
 
I worry that if this rumor pans out it means that, given the choice of Driver, they'll be leaning into being a jerk being a big part of Reed's character. Which, to be fair, he has been in big chunks of the comics, but at other times he hasn't been, and I'd rather see that Reed. I could see Harper playing a Reed that occasionally comes off as a jerk, but mainly through frustration at other people just not understanding things that to him seem obvious. That, and occasionally just from lack of social skills.
 
I agree that Ben being Jewish is an important, if background, part of his character. Since being black doesn't preclude being Jewish, I'll reserve judgement there. 
 
Margot Robbie is an excellent actress, so I have no worries there, and I know nothing about the guy they've picked for Johnny (I've already forgotten the name).

I really wanted William Jackson Harper for Reed and Kristen Bell for Sue. Their chemistry was great in The Good Place. Sadly, they wasted WJH in Quantumania. 
 
I worry that if this rumor pans out it means that, given the choice of Driver, they'll be leaning into being a jerk being a big part of Reed's character. Which, to be fair, he has been in big chunks of the comics, but at other times he hasn't been, and I'd rather see that Reed. I could see Harper playing a Reed that occasionally comes off as a jerk, but mainly through frustration at other people just not understanding things that to him seem obvious. That, and occasionally just from lack of social skills.
 
I agree that Ben being Jewish is an important, if background, part of his character. Since being black doesn't preclude being Jewish, I'll reserve judgement there. 
 
Margot Robbie is an excellent actress, so I have no worries there, and I know nothing about the guy they've picked for Johnny (I've already forgotten the name).

I read the story before commenting. The phrase "blood on your hands," when it is true (and it is), is not "inflammatory". The flames were lit by those who are passing those laws that are going to kill children. If speaking the truth violates their rules of decorum, then their rules of decorum are garbage and should be ignored.
 
 
No, I'm not going to start form the premise that the phrase "blood on your hands" was over the top. It was part of a passionately made, true statement about the effects of this bill once it becomes law. Children will die. Many others will suffer needless trauma. The people passing these laws are reprehensible, and would rather silence the truth than face it. As for it violating the rules of decorum, I'd have to see their version of those rules to know if that's the case. If that phrase is specifically called out, then, sure, those rules were violated.
 
And what should the speaker do about it? Do you honestly think the rules of decorum aren't violated regularly by his own caucus? Do you think he would have applied the rules symmetrically? Members of his caucus intentionally misgendered her. They were not censured.
 
 
Tone policing always serves those in power. It is a much used method to quash dissent and silence minorities. 

I read the story before commenting. The phrase "blood on your hands," when it is true (and it is), is not "inflammatory". The flames were lit by those who are passing those laws that are going to kill children. If speaking the truth violates their rules of decorum, then their rules of decorum are garbage and should be ignored.
 
 
No, I'm not going to start form the premise that the phrase "blood on your hands" was over the top. It was part of a passionately made, true statement about the effects of this bill once it becomes law. Children will die. Many others will suffer needless trauma. The people passing these laws are reprehensible, and would rather silence the truth than face it. As for it violating the rules of decorum, I'd have to see their version of those rules to know if that's the case. If that phrase is specifically called out, then, sure, those rules were violated.
 
And what should the speaker do about it? Do you honestly think the rules of decorum aren't violated regularly by his own caucus? Do you think he would have applied the rules symmetrically? Members of his caucus intentionally misgendered her. They were not censured.
 
 
Tone policing always serves those in power. It is a much used method to quash dissent and silence minorities. 

Furthermore Ms. Zephyr wasn't just censured, she was banned from the statehouse completely.  It's not surprising--we've all seen the "uppity minorities better learn their place" response to discrimination complaints before.  It's a standard part of the conservative playbook.
 
But we know who the real snowflakes are now.

I read the story before commenting. The phrase "blood on your hands," when it is true (and it is), is not "inflammatory". The flames were lit by those who are passing those laws that are going to kill children. If speaking the truth violates their rules of decorum, then their rules of decorum are garbage and should be ignored.
 
 
No, I'm not going to start form the premise that the phrase "blood on your hands" was over the top. It was part of a passionately made, true statement about the effects of this bill once it becomes law. Children will die. Many others will suffer needless trauma. The people passing these laws are reprehensible, and would rather silence the truth than face it. As for it violating the rules of decorum, I'd have to see their version of those rules to know if that's the case. If that phrase is specifically called out, then, sure, those rules were violated.
 
And what should the speaker do about it? Do you honestly think the rules of decorum aren't violated regularly by his own caucus? Do you think he would have applied the rules symmetrically? Members of his caucus intentionally misgendered her. They were not censured.
 
 
Tone policing always serves those in power. It is a much used method to quash dissent and silence minorities. 

I do empathize with how hard it's getting for progressive, liberal people to keep the lid of decorum on their emotions, when today's regressives so blatantly don't.

I'm curious, which things that she did might have "stretched decorum" to an extent that justifies barring her from doing the job she was elected to do?
 
 

I'm curious, which things that she did might have "stretched decorum" to an extent that justifies barring her from doing the job she was elected to do?
 
 

Ages ago[1] I played in a game where the GM [2] had home-brewed a system heavily inspired by hero. You bought spells or abilities with points like hero, but instead of buying multiple dice for damage powers (or some other effects), the base power started at a d4 damage, and each level increased the damage die up to d12, and (I think) adding another d4 (or higher) if you went past a d12. The system overall was a lot lighter than Hero, but it felt like a complete system. I liked it and would like to have seen it published.
 
[1] As in 25+ years, so my memories of the system may not be (read almost certainly aren't) totally accurate.
[2] Nonie Rider (Quinlan at the time). She co-authored Champions in 3d, and had some other RPG writing credits.

Ages ago[1] I played in a game where the GM [2] had home-brewed a system heavily inspired by hero. You bought spells or abilities with points like hero, but instead of buying multiple dice for damage powers (or some other effects), the base power started at a d4 damage, and each level increased the damage die up to d12, and (I think) adding another d4 (or higher) if you went past a d12. The system overall was a lot lighter than Hero, but it felt like a complete system. I liked it and would like to have seen it published.
 
[1] As in 25+ years, so my memories of the system may not be (read almost certainly aren't) totally accurate.
[2] Nonie Rider (Quinlan at the time). She co-authored Champions in 3d, and had some other RPG writing credits.

Ages ago[1] I played in a game where the GM [2] had home-brewed a system heavily inspired by hero. You bought spells or abilities with points like hero, but instead of buying multiple dice for damage powers (or some other effects), the base power started at a d4 damage, and each level increased the damage die up to d12, and (I think) adding another d4 (or higher) if you went past a d12. The system overall was a lot lighter than Hero, but it felt like a complete system. I liked it and would like to have seen it published.
 
[1] As in 25+ years, so my memories of the system may not be (read almost certainly aren't) totally accurate.
[2] Nonie Rider (Quinlan at the time). She co-authored Champions in 3d, and had some other RPG writing credits.

https://www.vox.com/culture/23652475/trans-issues-in-the-media-healthcare-disinformation

And as Ronin, he's tragically malicious.

NJ gov signs executive order protecting transgender youth health care

How the #$%€&× do you play chess?!
 
Because I think I play it way differently, Sir.   Way, _Way_ differently....
 
 
 

??
 
<Looks again>
 
OH. Sorry, when I clicked on the link, I only saw the fundraiser page come up. I didn't realize there was another page behind it!
 
I'm not going to bother reading that page, because I don't think it actually matters. I take your word for it that most gun owners are rational and responsible. (They included my late brother-in-law, one of the more intelligent and even-tempered people I've known.) But I also take your word for it that a fraction are either profoundly stupid or operating so far beyond the bounds of what I consider rational that persuasion and social pressure will not work.
 
I am not willing to shrug and say, "Well, better that ten massacres take place than one respectable citizen be denied to tools to commit massacres." The crazies must be disarmed. But changing that status quo requires winning elections. Lots of elections, for a long time, until a SCOTUS can be appointed to deliver the results that people like me want. And winning elections requires money. So... fundraising is the core of any plan to curb gun violence. Without it, nothing else can happen.
 
Which is as far as I'll carry the argument, because I'm gagging at my own cynicism. Even after editing out the most jaundiced passages.
 
Dean Shomshak

Again, PG, we keep talking past each other. The issue isn't binary. At no point have I advocated eradicating gun culture. (TBH I wouldn't be sad if that happened, but I know it won't.) But AFAICT most of the "benign" gun users in the US are passively tolerant when it comes to those who aren't, the ones who strut around and posture with their guns in fake army fatigues, put their entire family holding rifles on their Christmas cards, brag about and threaten what they'll do if they get whichever group they hate in their sights. The ones who aren't trained in when not to shoot, don't securely store their weapons, use them to intimidate those they disagree with, want teachers and even children carrying guns into their schools. The ones who are indoctrinating their children with the same attitudes. The majority of them may turn out to be harmless, but that attitude smooths the path for those who are bullied, frightened, frustrated or desperate, to see a gun as a legitimate, acceptable way to get respect, recognition, and redress. The reason there's far less per capita gun violence in my country than yours isn't lack of guns, we have guns. It's that it doesn't occur to most of us that we need or want guns to make us strong or secure.
 
Responsible guns owners like yourself need to stand up and tell the irresponsible ones to back off and shut up, to start acting like adults. You're their peers, the only ones they'll listen to. You have to start organizing yourselves the way the gun liberalization crowd do, and lobby your representatives like they do to change the messaging around guns. If you really are the majority you can exert peer pressure to alter the gun culture to match your own attitude. We've seen that kind of campaign have a substantial impact on collective behaviour time after time in our own lifetimes.

I'm a couple months away from 54 years old.  I am happily heterosexual.  I have never been more well adjusted and wise/knowledgeable about the world, life and people than I am at this moment.
 
Yet, I honestly cannot fathom...I mean I don't have an F-ing clue about why half of humanity has such an obsessive, passionate hatred of homosexuality.
 
No response needed...just felt like sharing.

❤️

He isn't lying.
 
The health insurance provisions are not limited to minors. They refer to the definitions in the prohibitions for care of minor sections as to what constitute "gender clinical interventions," but say nothing about being limited to health insurance coverage for minors.

He isn't lying.
 
The health insurance provisions are not limited to minors. They refer to the definitions in the prohibitions for care of minor sections as to what constitute "gender clinical interventions," but say nothing about being limited to health insurance coverage for minors.

He isn't lying.
 
The health insurance provisions are not limited to minors. They refer to the definitions in the prohibitions for care of minor sections as to what constitute "gender clinical interventions," but say nothing about being limited to health insurance coverage for minors.