薔薇語

As a point of order, why did E1 Wells vanish when Eddie killed himself?  Eddie was Thawne's ancestor.  If Thawne never existed, he would not have offed E1 Wells, who would have proceeded onwards.  Of course, if Thawne did not take over E1 Wells, Flash should not exist yet anyway.  Time Travel tends to fall apart when looked at too closely.

Superman character to GM:  Yeah, ummm, can I switch to playing the green Martian guy?
GM:  What?  Why?
Character:  Fire seems much less common.

All I know is that if I were playing Superman at this point, I'd be telling the GM that I'm not getting enough points for my susceptibility and vulnerability complications

And the two sh*theads who shot the rancher get a paid vacation while their buddies at the department play CYA for them. Just lovely.

PatternGhost, in response to the mall shooting: those were two very different situation. In the case of the mall shooting, the guy had a gun. It was known - not suspected. The man also had the gun drawn and ready - not stuffed away somewhere. So, even on the face of it it is inappropriate to compare the two instances. 
 
Cops are taking a "Shoot first and never question" stance when it comes to these incidents. Too many people give police too wide a berth when it comes to murdering us. A cop is suppose to de-escalate a situation, not escalate it. And always resorting to maximum force to achieve a goal is what is leading to us having so many death by cop situations. 

Worse yet, cops think they are above the law. Be it cops who steal personal photos of naked (semi-naked) women. Sexually harass and rape people. Gun down little children. Or the countless other incidents. And those are only the major ones. We still have police using their powers to steal from us (legally!!), harass exes, drink and drive, etc.
 
The whole system is messed up. And too many of us are still gong to defend to the death absolutely any cop just because he wears a badge. That is sick. It is like a cow defending the butcher who is about to kill him. 
 
La Rose. 

I agree that it did feel like it was a bit rushed in parts. Two episodes to get to know our potential  Firestorm halves would have been nice. But yeah, it was good. I loved the Killer Shark bit (And given Special effects cost can understand why it was brief) .
 
What's really interesting is that I think they've made it so Wally West will be Iris' half brother. He's on his way

I'm in agreement with Markdoc on this, the arguments in this article are rubbish.  Yes, you can't be the ideal specimen of masculinity but really you can't be the ideal specimen of any abstract concept from the ideal catholic to the ideal doctor to the ideal teacher to the ideal feminist (Laci Green of MTV's Braless has nice piece on how becoming a better feminist is the work of a lifetime which I can link to if you like).  This is not surprising because human beings aren't abstract concepts and therefore we can't epitomize them.  However, contrary to the writer's assertions this is not something that most people lose much sleep over.  Men know that can't be the ideal specimen specimen of masculinity and are generally okay with this as long as they feel they doing a reasonable job being men.
 
Where you see a lot of anxiety about masculinity is in males that suspect that they aren't measuring up as men.  This is most common in young males, because of course they aren't measuring up as men; they are still just boys.  However, having the concept masculinity points them in the direction that society expects them to go and this can be very helpful.  People like clear expectations.  In recent decades, though, as lifestyles have changed so the the duties and responsibilities of men.  Concepts of masculinity have shifted in response to changing needs and expectations, but still they have lagged behind the pace of social change.  This has led to a certain amount of navel gazing concerning what it means to be a man in the modern age.  Nonetheless, calling masculinity an anxiety disorder is a gross mischaracterization.  The vast majority of males in time take up the responsibilities of manhood and find peace with their own sense of masculinity.
 
Of course finding peace with the concepts of masculinity and femininity is a harder row to hoe for the queer.  Therefore I can sympathize with the author's rejection of concept of masculinity as it was never likely to be a good fit for him.  It is a very good thing that the mental health community has finally pulled their collective heads far enough out of their rumps to stop classifying queerness as a mental disorder.  That doesn't mean that now is the time make a mental disorder out of traditional masculinity or femininity.   

"t really does not matter how they define harassment as long as they define it the same way for both "male" and "female" bots"
 
Yes, yes it really does matter. And despite my comment above about how definitions matter, you seem to be willfully ignoring that point. 

When we are discussing this topic, a topic that has been highlighted in the last few years, it is very important to keep in mind what things are being counted. A violent threat, akin to those that we have seen promulgate the internet with individuals like Anita are wholly distinct from "feeling horny". And to liken the two as somehow being the same is to severely distort the image that is trying to be conveyed. 

The common notion of the harassment endured is one of violent aggression towards women entering the online world. One in which individuals like Anita receive real and credible threats of violence on a regular basis. That is the image that is being pushed and is claimed to be gendered. It is on this point that the critics of this assumed gendered violence raise the question: is it gendered? Is the violence or threat of violence woman receive online in keeping with the violence or threat of violence men receive? This is the ignored point that the supporters of the common message need to deal with. And by obfuscating it away by including extraneous amounts of non-comparable information, the message gets diluted and the integrity of that side gets drawn into question. 

---
 
Now, having my intellectual honesty called into question by you, Ranxerox, is not quite kosher. But since you seem to be screaming at the wind for me to address this point of yours, allow me to. 
 
 
Bots with female names received, to a higher degree than male named bots, messages of a sexual and or threatening nature. Looking at your link I do not see any source for the original data, so I can hardly confirm what they were including in those messages, so I have to make a good deal of assumptions based on less words than an average tweet on twitter.  It would seem that any message that could be construed to have a sexual or suggested tone to it was taken to be part of that 'Sexually explicit or threatening" group. The fact that no examples of the "threatening" messages were given gives me pause. And the fact that this group also engaged in practice of intermingling the two is also gives me pause. I would wager that the messages rising to "threatening" status were far more infrequent than those of a sexual nature. And it is the desire to see those numbers highlighted and compared that gets shouted down by your side, Ranxerox. 
 
 
So why is it that messages of a sexual nature must be taken differently than those of a violent nature (really? I need to explain this?)? Well, at the most basic level, everyone who has lived a few days as an adult most anywhere knows that one of the key distinctions between men and women is the classic "predator : prey" analogy. Be it due to purely cultural reinforcement or purely biological need, or a mix of the two, Men feel the need to pursue sexual congress while women feel no particular need (or so the trope goes). The roll of 'gatekeeper' has afforded women the ability to not need to be forward with their explicit sexual desires / requests. 

To put this into more context, when we look at a bar or nightclub, I would expect that the proportion of men initiating first contact with the goal of developing some layer of intimacy to be easily in that 25x range. Indeed, I would be surprised if it wasn't. Think back to your own personal history when dealing with the opposite sex. How often do you think men have felt  pressure to initiate first contact versus women? Think back to the number of occasions you have actually seen women initiate first contact. Without doubt it does happen, but the proportions will heavily skew in one direction. Now take that bar context and reduce it to simple Chat-Room interactions. Seeing more men initiate any conversation between opposite sexes and for those initiations to have a sexual component is not out of the realm of reason. Indeed, I would say it is to be completely expected. 

So, I feel lumping in my innocuous but sexually charge phrase of "Hey, Beautiful! How you doin'?" with threatening statements such as "I will kill you" is completely ignoring the reality of human interaction. One must not forget the context in which we live and operate when looking at things. This is something the advocate of the gendered nature of online activity seem to conveniently forget. 
 
--

Now setting aside that petty squabble you want to have, lets get back to the real issue: Is online violence gendered?

Do women experience more semi-credible and/or credible threats of violence or suffer from more committed acts of violence than their male counterparts? 

I do not know the answer to that question. It could easily be the case that the issue is truly gendered. It could be as night and day as some would seem to claim it to be. But before committing myself to accepting that truth, I would like to actually see some hard evidence. And not ill designed and over inclusive wastes of time. 
 
Foreign Orchid. 



 
 
 
 

So, here is an issue I have with people asserting that online harrasment is a gendered issue: what makes the cut? Most studies I have heard of list all unwelcomed experience into the same category. And while I think there is value in that kind of undistinguished macro level research, it isn't getting quite at the issue that people are discussing, or so I think. When others question the veracity of the claim that it is a gendered issue, I think most individuals are wanting to single out credible / semi-credible threats of violence AND actual attempts of violence from what they considered every day trolling. To help highlight this difference, me saying something to the effect of "I hope John Doe gets run over" or "Good Gosh I'd love to 'copulate' with Jane Doe" is substantively different from "I am going to go to John Doe's house Tuesday and slit his throat" or "If I ever get close to Jane Doe, I am going to rape her". 
 
Why do I bring up the above distinction? Because I think it is far too common a practice by supporters of the gendered view to lump both sets together and thus imply the interchangablity of the two sets. I do not personally think and would imagine that most individuals when pressed would also not think that they are interchangable. I was triggered to bring this up because the third line of the article you linked has this gem of a statement "threats and sexually explicit messages". I think most individuals who think the bare claim of the gendered nature of the online treatment of folks would find it puzzling that "Sexually Explicit messages" and "Threats" are lumped together as mutually interchangable ideas. And lets keep in mind that if a 'sexually explicit message' has a threat of violence (i.e., I will rape you!), then it has already risen to the level of "threat" and does not need to be mutually listed as the mutual listing only distorts numbers. 
 
But perhaps I am being too pedantic in my reading. Perhaps the author's intent was to say "threats and threats with a sexual undertone / overtone to them". Since I could easily be engaging in biased reading, it behooves me to check the link they provided. Luckily they did provide an actual link as most places parroting such messages rarely do. So clicking on the link to the University of Maryland, I find that it just takes me to a department homepage and that page is not directly linking me to any study. This is concerning as the source you linked to was trying to bolster their point using some still unidentified study. How am I suppose to confirm the veracity of their claim and the validity of the original study if no link is provided. And the fact that they implied a link to the original source while actually providing none suggests a level of deception on their part that is not acceptable. But again, perhaps I am being too critical. Lets continue forward. 
 
They actually link to WHO@ (Working to Halt Online Abuse) to help bolster their claims. That was nice. And the fact that there are links to actual data sets is nice. But I actually have no knowledge of who this group is and am at least a bit reluctant to take their word as truth. And their data sets suffer from some limitations in who is involved. Thus the ability to draw strong and reliable inferences from their small data sets to the population as a whole is limited at best. But lets at least hear them out on this issue. The article says:
 
In 2007, 61 percent of the individuals reporting online abuse to WHOA were female while 21 percent were male. 2006 followed a similar pattern: 70 percent of those reporting online harassment identified themselves as women. Overall, in the years covering 2000 to 2007, 72.5 percent of the 2,285 individuals reporting cyber harassment were female and 22 percent were male. 70 percent of the victims were between the ages of 18 and 40 and half of them reported having no relationship with their attackers.
 
 
Interesting numbers for sure. But let me take this moment to cue you all into a terribly deceptive trick used to prove points - choosing your data sets and ignoring ones not proving your point. I know this sounds obvious but it is extremely important. If you ever hear of a study that discusses school performance or under performance of any particular group that doesn't cover an entire life chapter (until the end of Primary school, until the end of secondary school, until the end of college) be extremely weary of what is being fed to you. More likely than not, all their strong data gets destroyed in the remaining year or two. For example, you will occasionally hear how students who attend preschool out perform their non-preschool-attending counterparts. And those claiming this who have seen the data and have some desire to be honest will usually add on the caveat of "until third grade" or so. Why? Because after that point, the major differences between pre-school attending students and non-attending students starts to be wiped out. The effects of that extra education have a shelf life of only a few years. So when I see this article use only a portion of the data to prove a point, I am reminded of those statistical tricks. But does this author engage in those kinds of deceptive practices? Let's see. 
 
To aid in this I have created a Google Doc spreadsheet with the relevant data that can be found here. The highlight is that the values this person used are accurate on whole and hold up over the whole set, there was an interesting omission from the article: the perps. I found this data quite interesting. It suggests that in the author's established time frame, known male and female perps were in neigh equal proportion. Over the whole of the available data, known male perps were at about 41% and known female perps were at 36%. I would think that this kind of revelation would help open up a new dialogue about 'gendered' harassment. While it is true that a member of a group can be prejudice against that same group, it isn't exactly in keeping with the common belief of online harassment that both men and women are, in largely equal proportion, harassing others. That really goes against the generally held notion that Online harassment is an act that men perform against women. 
 
So, my ending conclusion on this whole issue (the issue raised in the link) is that the link really proves nothing and adds nothing. I think this for a number of reasons:
 
No links to reliable and trust worthy data.
Only provided data is from self selecting individuals and the information is subjective at best
The distinction between harassment and 'threats of violence' is not made clear in any data and that goes to the core issue at hand. 
The data set provided is extremely small. Over the course of 13 years they only garnered just over 4,000 entries.
 
Foreign Orchid. 

This is just introverted gibberish. Change a few pronouns and a few activities and the article could have been written by a woman. In fact, I've read very many, very similar articles that were written by women, except they were about societal pressures to be feminine. Which makes the point, that it isn't about masculinity - or femininity, or even gender roles, for that matter: I've also read similar screeds on being Catholic (or not, in a catholic environment). It's about how we react to social pressure to conform to a specific role (or roles, because we are all expected to assume multiple roles).
 
It's a pity. The author starts out promisingly, writing "Speaking for myself—the only person I can reasonably speak for—being a Man never seemed like an attainable goal, let alone a desirable one. This has something to do with me and who I am, certainly ..." and then goes on to ignore his own starting premise and write as though his own experience is universal. I understand his experience, because it's very similar to my own. But his conclusions and his reactions - even though entirely understandable to me, based on shared experience - are diametrically opposed to my own. So his own experience is not universal. Nor is mine – nor are the experiences of my many geek friends that run the spectrum. They are all equally valid … and only a tiny subset deal with anxiety issues. And it is a pity, because there are a few insightful comments mixed in with the gibberish.
 
So masculinity isn’t an anxiety disorder. He has an anxiety disorder about his masculinity. That’s an issue he’s going to have to solve or learn to accommodate himself. I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic, but locating the real root of a problem is the first step in resolving it. Trying to externalize it, the way he does here is actually only going to deepen his issues, because the world is not going to change to accommodate his personal problem.
 
Cheers, Mark

That child is quite sick and disturbed by the sounds of it. I am glad his friend reported him and that he seems to have been arrested and all is well (ish). 
 
But is this a story of Toxic Masculinity or of a crazy guy? Among the problems I have with the use of the term "Toxic Masculinity" is that it is super broad and suffers from a level of bias that is not really acceptable in supposible  academic work. 
 
We have a boy/guy who wants nude picks of young cheerleaders. He doesn't get them. This inspires him to plot violence. 
 
Certain groups look at this and jump the gun to assume that our culture and male culture in general is reinforcing these behaviors as acceptable. That somehow there is a strong current in our culture that promotes these actions - "The Rape Culture" or "Toxic Masculinity". But they only look at this singular series and ignore or discount all the context in which it occurred.
 
Looking at the context lets notch all of that info into a more complete story:
 
We have a boy/guy who wants nude picks of young cheerleaders. He doesn't get them. This inspires him to plot violence. Confessing to his MALE friend, he is told not to. The boy/guy continues to commit to the idea. The MALE friend then reports him. This report is taken and used to arrest the boy/guy. He is now in custody. 
 
Looking at the more complete story, we can see that the greater number of people are not endorsing or supporting his horrid views of life. His close MALE friend, a friend he felt close enough to to actually announce his murderous intentions instructs him to stop and even reports him to authority. His male friend doesn't seem to endorse violence against women. The authorities don't seem to endorse violence against women and arrest him.
 
Follow all that up with the posting of this story on the net: the extreme majority of people reading this story (male and female) don't endorse his switch to violence. So where exactly is this "culture" of violence. Why are we talking about toxic "masculinity" rather than addressing the specific issues of this boy/guy. While I think it is fair to draw conclusions about why he lusts after certain girls more than others from our culture, I think it takes a particularly strained leap of faith to go from that to 'rape culture'. 
 
All in all, I find this line of reasoning strained beyond acceptability. I find it to be distracting from the issues at hand. 
 
 
Foreign Orchid. 

That child is quite sick and disturbed by the sounds of it. I am glad his friend reported him and that he seems to have been arrested and all is well (ish). 
 
But is this a story of Toxic Masculinity or of a crazy guy? Among the problems I have with the use of the term "Toxic Masculinity" is that it is super broad and suffers from a level of bias that is not really acceptable in supposible  academic work. 
 
We have a boy/guy who wants nude picks of young cheerleaders. He doesn't get them. This inspires him to plot violence. 
 
Certain groups look at this and jump the gun to assume that our culture and male culture in general is reinforcing these behaviors as acceptable. That somehow there is a strong current in our culture that promotes these actions - "The Rape Culture" or "Toxic Masculinity". But they only look at this singular series and ignore or discount all the context in which it occurred.
 
Looking at the context lets notch all of that info into a more complete story:
 
We have a boy/guy who wants nude picks of young cheerleaders. He doesn't get them. This inspires him to plot violence. Confessing to his MALE friend, he is told not to. The boy/guy continues to commit to the idea. The MALE friend then reports him. This report is taken and used to arrest the boy/guy. He is now in custody. 
 
Looking at the more complete story, we can see that the greater number of people are not endorsing or supporting his horrid views of life. His close MALE friend, a friend he felt close enough to to actually announce his murderous intentions instructs him to stop and even reports him to authority. His male friend doesn't seem to endorse violence against women. The authorities don't seem to endorse violence against women and arrest him.
 
Follow all that up with the posting of this story on the net: the extreme majority of people reading this story (male and female) don't endorse his switch to violence. So where exactly is this "culture" of violence. Why are we talking about toxic "masculinity" rather than addressing the specific issues of this boy/guy. While I think it is fair to draw conclusions about why he lusts after certain girls more than others from our culture, I think it takes a particularly strained leap of faith to go from that to 'rape culture'. 
 
All in all, I find this line of reasoning strained beyond acceptability. I find it to be distracting from the issues at hand. 
 
 
Foreign Orchid. 

That child is quite sick and disturbed by the sounds of it. I am glad his friend reported him and that he seems to have been arrested and all is well (ish). 
 
But is this a story of Toxic Masculinity or of a crazy guy? Among the problems I have with the use of the term "Toxic Masculinity" is that it is super broad and suffers from a level of bias that is not really acceptable in supposible  academic work. 
 
We have a boy/guy who wants nude picks of young cheerleaders. He doesn't get them. This inspires him to plot violence. 
 
Certain groups look at this and jump the gun to assume that our culture and male culture in general is reinforcing these behaviors as acceptable. That somehow there is a strong current in our culture that promotes these actions - "The Rape Culture" or "Toxic Masculinity". But they only look at this singular series and ignore or discount all the context in which it occurred.
 
Looking at the context lets notch all of that info into a more complete story:
 
We have a boy/guy who wants nude picks of young cheerleaders. He doesn't get them. This inspires him to plot violence. Confessing to his MALE friend, he is told not to. The boy/guy continues to commit to the idea. The MALE friend then reports him. This report is taken and used to arrest the boy/guy. He is now in custody. 
 
Looking at the more complete story, we can see that the greater number of people are not endorsing or supporting his horrid views of life. His close MALE friend, a friend he felt close enough to to actually announce his murderous intentions instructs him to stop and even reports him to authority. His male friend doesn't seem to endorse violence against women. The authorities don't seem to endorse violence against women and arrest him.
 
Follow all that up with the posting of this story on the net: the extreme majority of people reading this story (male and female) don't endorse his switch to violence. So where exactly is this "culture" of violence. Why are we talking about toxic "masculinity" rather than addressing the specific issues of this boy/guy. While I think it is fair to draw conclusions about why he lusts after certain girls more than others from our culture, I think it takes a particularly strained leap of faith to go from that to 'rape culture'. 
 
All in all, I find this line of reasoning strained beyond acceptability. I find it to be distracting from the issues at hand. 
 
 
Foreign Orchid. 

This column
http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/02/gaming-while-female/
 
References this study
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/WaiYenTang/20130208/186335/Reactions_to_a_womans_voice_in_an_FPS_game.php
 
Which looks like good evidence that in online gaming, gamers presenting as women are about three times as likely to garner negative verbal reactions than gamers presenting as men or presenting ambiguously.
 
The study controlled for skill level; if I'm reading this right, highly skilled women can still expect to get thrice the insults a similarly skilled man will get.
 
edit: they also distinguished "directed negative comments" from "queries" so presumably "What's your number/email/approximate geographic location/etc" are not included in with threats and insults.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
The palindromedary has a Y chromosome and a Y-not? chromosome.
 

I once again find myself reminicing over the sound track to one of my favorite games - and my favorite soundtrack of any game period. 
 
To start off, the intro to the game was amazing visually, musically, and from a story telling perspective. It sets the tone and sense of epicness that will follow. 
 
Please enjoy "Scars of Time" and the title screen sequence to Chrono Cross:
 

 
 
And here is one of my favorite individual pieces from the game: On the Beaches of Dreams
 

 
Lastly, here is one of the few pieces of music from the game that features lyrics: Radical Dreamers
 

 
Japanese and English 
 
幼い手に包んだ　震えてるその光を
ここまでたどってきた　時間の縁のさまよい
 

Clasped in a child's hands, that trembling light
It reaches even to here, lost at the edge of time
   
探し続けてきたよ　名前さえ知らないけれど
ただひとつの想いを　あなたに手渡したくて
 

I have kept searching, although I know not your name
Just this one feeling, I seek to share with you
   
歴史は愛も痛みも　深く抱きとめ
消してゆくけど　私は　覚えている
ずっと
 

Love and Pain are wrapped together so tightly by time (history)
It too will fade, but I will remember
Forever
   
私の胸の奥に　いつからか響いていた
夜露のしずくよりも　かすかな囁きだけど
 

Deep in my heart, echoing out since who knows when
More than the evening dew, though dim whispers
   
凍てつく星の闇へ　紡ぎ折が
遠いあなたの空に　届くように
 

To the darkness of frozen stars, this spun up tale 
To your distant skies, I pray that it reaches
   
Foreign Orchid.

To expand a bit: Tony was the cause and reason for both the problem and the solution. He created Ultron to provide a first line of defence against another alien invasion ('the end game' according to Tony) and owned the role of mad scientist in the co-creation of Vision. He may be portrayed as reckless, but he is also the only one (except maybe Thor) who sees the bigger picture. And near the end of Avengers 1 he literally saw the "bigger picture" as he went through the wormhole. 
 
The attack by Hulk in South Africa could be considered as the moment civil war began. To me that event more than anything showed just how out of control the Avengers can be, not to mention the property damage. The events in Slovaka with the city rising above the clouds is another example. Governments would have taken notice and the need to do something. Presumably the event (if there is one) is the straw that breaks the camels back and is the reason the US Government (presumably other governments as well) writes the Superhero Registration Act. 
 
Throughout the film, Cap is seen to be against Tony's recklessness (the "Yin" to Tony's "Yang"). Steve is really the person Tony wanted to hide Ultron from (Thor also was very annoyed too, but came around), and remember that Steve stopped the upload of Jarvis into Vision before Thor completed the process. Also in the end, Steve referred to the New Avengers facility as "home".
 
Thus to me it seems reasonable that if superhero registration were to occur Steve would be for it, for the reason to stop/hinder the kind of recklessness Tony did with both Ultron & Vision. Ultron was a BIG mistake, yet Vision was a success. Vision is what the Ultron program was envisioned to be. Steve is still very much a "government man", i.e. still part of Avengers, working with SHIELD & US Military figures like Fury, Nat, War Machine & Falcon. Tony would be against registration as he would see it as a way of the government trying to own his technology was he was shown to be against all the way back in Iron Man 2.
 
Thus to simplify my reasoning to the main points:
Steve: "Every time someone tries to win a war before it starts, innocent people die. Every time." Tony sees the big picture, tried to "win" the war before it starts.  Steve still associates with SHIELD & US Military personnel. It is fair that Falcon & War Machine could have resigned their military commissions to be with Avengers full time.  Tony is presumably is funding the New Avengers Facility as the warehouse was owned by his dad.   Thus Steve would be fore registration, as he still believes in law and order, while Tony would be against it, as he see it as another way the Govt trying to own his tech. 

I think it will all come down to the events that precipitate this conflict. The plot synopsis for the Civil War movie sounds substantially different from the comic-book version, so we'll need to see how it shakes out.
 
Yes, Steve Rogers has been given reason to distrust the present-day American government. But he's always wanted to be of service to something greater than himself, and anyone setting themselves above accountability smacks of what he fought a war to stop. Yes, Tony's experiences have led him to develop a "whatever it takes" mentality. But he's been suspicious of and rebellious toward authority all his life, and believes he knows what it takes better than everyone else.

Truely the most powerful force in any comic-verse.
 
Foreign Orchid

If that's so, so is this
 
http://www.newser.com/story/211726/oddly-women-are-more-likely-to-end-a-marriage.html
 
I admit to being surprised that when a non-marital relationship ends, it's just as likely to be the male's decision as the female's. Assuming I can take this study at face value and someone doesn't post several studies contradicting it.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
The palindromedary has a Y Chromosome and a Y-not? Chromosome

It seems I can't get a normal link that would pop up the youtube video directly on my phone now.
 
The above is a video by MovieBob that lays out a list of female game protagonists / headliners that have been long forgot but could be revived now. Watch until the end.
 
 
Foreign Orchid.

The MCU seems to be deliberately snubbing East Asian actors for important roles, as they've already missed out on Yinsen, Mandarin (yes, I know), and now the Ancient One.
 
Reminds me of films such as Legend of Chun-Li, Avatar: The Last Airbender and Dragon Ball Evolution where there seems to be an "anybody but an Asian lead" approach.

I'm not even asking for Marvel to change preexisting Caucasian characters into Asian. All I'm pleading is for Asian characters to be played by Asians. But...I guess that is a lot to ask for in Hollywood.

I read once that the creator of the original Captain wanted to call him "Captain Thunder," but the editor thought that name would be too frightening to children.
 
Would have been a cool-sounding modern rebrand, though.

Yeah but we don't know if it was because the child was black, a boy, or it that was wholely unrelated. And it isn't that we don't know but don't even have reasonable suspicion. And the police who were called didn't respond because it was a black boy but because they were called. The mother of the girl was likely an immigrant given her inability to speak English and thus her personal racial basis, at first glance, wouldn't serve as good indicators for US cultural norms. It is just as likely if not more so, that the root cause was because of the gender difference and the kinds of stereotyping that happens against boys. But even then we are at a stark loss for evidence.
 
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind pointing out racist cops, but I reserve my outrage for casea where I can actually make a case. This doesn't offer us that chance without a strong accusative leap.
 
Foreign Orchid.

I really liked Chiklis as Ben Grimm and the Thing. First he insisted on a costume,not cgi, because he had wanted to play the thing for a long time. Second, i thought he played the man dealing with being a monster but being a hero at heart well.
Evans was excellent.
Alba was given a horrible Sue to work with, which is to bad. Truth is, she needed to be given an action based character, especially after her work on Dark Angel.