RDU Neil

I was about to say that. heh.
 
Seriously, it is less about whether you buy into Quill losing it like that for me... it is about sloppy/lazy writing. When the big plot of 10 years worth of movies hinges on the lamest hack maneuver of "have the hero do something stupid" in order to move the villain along... that is just lame. I've written this before, but it galls me from a creative POV, and especially when the Russo brothers have been so smart in the past with character motivations and plot connections... and this was just bad. It also makes the villain seem 'less' as well removing all pathos for the viewer. "Really? That trope? What garbage!" and the rest of the movie is undermined.

All points well made, and many of them addressed right in the body of the article. What I'd like to ask you about is this... "And sometimes we fall hard."   Yes... true... but as white male (as I am) I have been much better off insulated from the damage of that fall, compared non-white males. That is the, in my own opinion, the biggest part of "white privilege." In that even when things get bad... they aren't nearly as bad for me. Trump is horrible, but I'm taking the smallest brunt of what he is doing compared to others. 
 
People like us have the privilege of being secure enough to look out over the decades, and see progress, and "tsk tsk, it isn't perfect, but we have to keep trying." But those people whose very survival is challenged every day?? If I was a black man, or basically anything other than a cis-gendered white male, I'd be ready to burn it ALL down because there is no slow and steady progress for me if I'm going to get gunned down, or imprisoned, or deported, or have my rights taken away TODAY!
 
And when someone uses the idea of privilege to make me feel like I have to shut up... well, at what point is freedom of speech dependent on some people shutting up and listening? The social contract isn't just everyone shouting at once... but everyone getting their turn to be EQUALLY HEARD! Sometimes I do have to shut up, so others can be heard.

And it isn't pleasant, is it? It hurts, and enrages, doesn't it?
 
Welcome to the rest of the world.
 
Now, I can decide to be petty and vicious in my hurt and run off to the white supremacists... and I can blame that on the SJWs or whatever... or I can accept that sometimes my role in society is to shut up and give other people a chance to speak, to allow them the power I've always had to be heard.
 
Most importantly, it is up to me to accept responsibility and not fall into the trap of blaming the oppressed for the violent petulance of the oppressor. 
 
"She didn't sleep with me, so I had to kill her and a bunch of other people."
 
"She shouldn't have worn skimpy shorts, or I wouldn't have raped her."
 
"They shouldn't have told me to shut up, so I had to go get my gun and burning crosses!"
 
 
How I react when challenged, when forced off my privileged pedestal, is actually the ultimate testament of character... and I'm certainly not going to tell people much worse off than I am that they are to blame for the surge in white supremacy.

...also he's not technically a human being.  

All points well made, and many of them addressed right in the body of the article. What I'd like to ask you about is this... "And sometimes we fall hard."   Yes... true... but as white male (as I am) I have been much better off insulated from the damage of that fall, compared non-white males. That is the, in my own opinion, the biggest part of "white privilege." In that even when things get bad... they aren't nearly as bad for me. Trump is horrible, but I'm taking the smallest brunt of what he is doing compared to others. 
 
People like us have the privilege of being secure enough to look out over the decades, and see progress, and "tsk tsk, it isn't perfect, but we have to keep trying." But those people whose very survival is challenged every day?? If I was a black man, or basically anything other than a cis-gendered white male, I'd be ready to burn it ALL down because there is no slow and steady progress for me if I'm going to get gunned down, or imprisoned, or deported, or have my rights taken away TODAY!
 
And when someone uses the idea of privilege to make me feel like I have to shut up... well, at what point is freedom of speech dependent on some people shutting up and listening? The social contract isn't just everyone shouting at once... but everyone getting their turn to be EQUALLY HEARD! Sometimes I do have to shut up, so others can be heard.

And it isn't pleasant, is it? It hurts, and enrages, doesn't it?
 
Welcome to the rest of the world.
 
Now, I can decide to be petty and vicious in my hurt and run off to the white supremacists... and I can blame that on the SJWs or whatever... or I can accept that sometimes my role in society is to shut up and give other people a chance to speak, to allow them the power I've always had to be heard.
 
Most importantly, it is up to me to accept responsibility and not fall into the trap of blaming the oppressed for the violent petulance of the oppressor. 
 
"She didn't sleep with me, so I had to kill her and a bunch of other people."
 
"She shouldn't have worn skimpy shorts, or I wouldn't have raped her."
 
"They shouldn't have told me to shut up, so I had to go get my gun and burning crosses!"
 
 
How I react when challenged, when forced off my privileged pedestal, is actually the ultimate testament of character... and I'm certainly not going to tell people much worse off than I am that they are to blame for the surge in white supremacy.

I kinda do, and I don't. I have the full run of the original Shang-Chi, from the Marvel Special Edition #15, on. Those comics, coming to them later, in the '80s as the series was wrapping up, and going back and getting the full collection... they were so formative... and so "of their time."
 
It was Pulp "yellow peril" re-envisioned through Cold War/James Bond and the Hippy movement/'70s counter culture and Bruce Lee (as noted above). It upended the white savior trope with a Chinese main character, and added  a dash of modern costumes/code names (mostly with the villains). 
 
Most importantly, it told a full character arc. Shang Chi never wanted to be involved in those "games of deceit and death" but he fought reluctantly, until, at the end, he defeated his father and walked off to become a fisherman.
 
Perfection.
 
There is no need to return to him, bring him, unaged, into the 21st century, where he is just an action guy amongst action guys.
 
 

If I might add my two cents, you could treat the coverage the armor provides for AoE attacks like the Mighty Protectors does.
 
Protection that is considered Light Coverage provides only 1/4 of its defenses towards AoEs & Heavy Coverage providing 1/2.
 
Barring that, give fractional defense based on the percentage coverage the armor gives. 

I may be a little late to the party here but my take on this would to construct Trauma Plates a little different than Soft Body Armor.  You see Soft Body Armor prevents penetration of the bullet but does not completely remove the Kinetic Energy.  As a result it actually makes perfect sense that Stun Damage gets through as there will be significant trauma to the tissue and perhaps organs beneath the armor.  This means that creating Soft Body Armor using Resistant Protection works.  On the other hand if using hard trauma plates (either ceramic or steel) the Kinetic Energy is effectively stopped if the round does not penetrate the plate (well realistically it isn't completely stopped but the chance of internal injury is far less).
 
I would suggest creating Trauma Plates using Barrier instead of Resistant Protection.  This way if the BODY damage does not get past the DEF/BODY of the plate it will do no STUN either.  This requires a bit of hand-waving with regard to RAW interpretation of Barrier.  Since it isn't really a full coverage Barrier shooting through it isn't required for example.
 
I have also incorporated a Sectional Defense Limitation in addition to Requires A Roll.  This means that when I create a Bullet Resistant Vest it would cover specific areas but since it doesn't fully cover them it also requires a roll to determine if the shot hit an area that wasn't covered within that area. 
 
Here is a quick example of my write up of a Level IV Ceramic Trauma Plate using Barrier.
 
Real Cost: 13   Trauma Plates: Barrier 6 PD/6 ED, 3 BODY (up to 1m long, 1m tall, and 1/2m thick), Hardened (+1/4), Persistent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (48 Active Points); Sectional Defenses (Covers Locations 10-12; 36.57% Coverage) (-1), OIF (-1/2), Ablative BODY Only (-1/2), Half Mass (-1/2), Requires A Roll (14- roll; -1/4), Real Armor (-1/4)     Of course your mileage may vary...
 
Tom

The Armor power works fine in regard to Stun. Kevlar disperses energy from a blow. Certainly not all of it, but let's assume that you build your game armor to protect against a certain level of attack. Let's say you want to have a vest that protects from shots up to a magnum caliber handgun. According to the weapon chart on page 332 of 5th Edition (Not revised), a .44 Magnum does 2d6 damage. Kevlar is listed as 9 Defense. (pg 334)
 
So, what happens when some fool (the owner of Second Chance) shoots himself point blank in a Kevlar vest with a .44 Magnum? Not much, really. He feels it and takes a lot of bruising, but doesn't get knocked out or knocked down from it. This is a stunt he's done on video many times to promote his product. It may be on YouTube, even. So, I'm going to say that we're looking for some Stun getting through and allow for minor Body damage on a high roll. I'll say the Second Chance guy has for the sake of argument 4 PD. Let's see what the official write ups give us:
 
Average of 2d6K: 7 Body, 14 Stun (3.5 average roll, minus 1, drop the fraction). Our guy takes 0 Body, 1Stun. It may be a bit too much protection. Even a couch potato would take only 3 Stun from this.
 
Let's say we roll 7 Body, but x3 Stun (a 4 on the die, slightly above average): He takes 0 Body, 8 Stun. That stings, and probably better represents his reaction.
 
Let's say we roll max damage, 12 Body, 60 Stun: Our guy takes 3 Body, 47 stun, and is down for the count. This never happens. (The guy has done this many times over the years.)
 
So, to make the armor align more with reality, we need to go exactly the opposite direction than Cassandra suggests. However, if someone rolls all 6's, I'm fine with the KO on the max end of things. It'd just be up to the GM to describe it. Overall, the weapon damage and armor values (at least in 4th and 5th) seem pretty well thought out to me. I think 6th edition using a fixed Stun multiplier is probably the only thing needed to level things out. What was it set to, x2? So a max 2d6k roll would be 12 Body/24 Stun? If it's x3, then 36 Stun still works.
 
 
 

Or they could just be done with his daddy issues and call it good.

At least he didn't go back in time and have sex with his grandma!
 
"Good NEWS everyone!"

At least he didn't go back in time and have sex with his grandma!
 
"Good NEWS everyone!"

At least he didn't go back in time and have sex with his grandma!
 
"Good NEWS everyone!"

The thing is, free speech is already less than absolute. Sure there's the obvious "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" example, but there are many others, as well.
In a system where you could never be punished for the content of your speech, the following things would all have to be legal.
Blackmail - It's legal for me to say anything I want about someone. And a threat to say something is still just more speech. Extortion - As long as I don't follow through, I've done nothing illegal. Assault (in the sense of threats of bodily harm) - Once again, as long as I don't follow through. Slander & Libel - Well, duh. Perjury - Hey, I can say whatever I want. Incitement to violence - As long as I don't commit the violence myself. Heck, I could lie and tell you whatever I think it would take to get you to beat up some guy I don't like.  If you consider yourself a free speech absolutist, to you think all of these should be legal? If not, then clearly there are limits to free speech. Nazis aren't just telling people that Jews are bad. They are trying to change the system to make it so that Jews can, once again, be rounded up and exterminated. By allowing this "viewpoint" to be treated just like the opposite —Hey, let's not round up and exterminate the Jews and other minorities— we give it credibility. I think that as a civilized society, we can set limits on what is reasonable discourse. You want to advocate for the menadatory separation of the races, fine. That makes you a bad person, but whatever. You want to campaign that I* should be killed? Nope. That's out. It's illegal to try to convince someone to commit murder. Why should it be legal to convince a lot of people to commit genocide?
 
We strive to be a society of rights, that's true. But none of those rights are absolute. The paradox of tolerance is ever present.
 
So, tl;dr if you don't believe all the things on the list above should be legal, then you agree that there is a line where speech can be made illegal. We just disagree with where the line is.
 
*This is not theoretical. I'm trans. There are, in fact, large number of Nazis arguing that that means that I should be killed.

All points well made, and many of them addressed right in the body of the article. What I'd like to ask you about is this... "And sometimes we fall hard."   Yes... true... but as white male (as I am) I have been much better off insulated from the damage of that fall, compared non-white males. That is the, in my own opinion, the biggest part of "white privilege." In that even when things get bad... they aren't nearly as bad for me. Trump is horrible, but I'm taking the smallest brunt of what he is doing compared to others. 
 
People like us have the privilege of being secure enough to look out over the decades, and see progress, and "tsk tsk, it isn't perfect, but we have to keep trying." But those people whose very survival is challenged every day?? If I was a black man, or basically anything other than a cis-gendered white male, I'd be ready to burn it ALL down because there is no slow and steady progress for me if I'm going to get gunned down, or imprisoned, or deported, or have my rights taken away TODAY!
 
And when someone uses the idea of privilege to make me feel like I have to shut up... well, at what point is freedom of speech dependent on some people shutting up and listening? The social contract isn't just everyone shouting at once... but everyone getting their turn to be EQUALLY HEARD! Sometimes I do have to shut up, so others can be heard.

And it isn't pleasant, is it? It hurts, and enrages, doesn't it?
 
Welcome to the rest of the world.
 
Now, I can decide to be petty and vicious in my hurt and run off to the white supremacists... and I can blame that on the SJWs or whatever... or I can accept that sometimes my role in society is to shut up and give other people a chance to speak, to allow them the power I've always had to be heard.
 
Most importantly, it is up to me to accept responsibility and not fall into the trap of blaming the oppressed for the violent petulance of the oppressor. 
 
"She didn't sleep with me, so I had to kill her and a bunch of other people."
 
"She shouldn't have worn skimpy shorts, or I wouldn't have raped her."
 
"They shouldn't have told me to shut up, so I had to go get my gun and burning crosses!"
 
 
How I react when challenged, when forced off my privileged pedestal, is actually the ultimate testament of character... and I'm certainly not going to tell people much worse off than I am that they are to blame for the surge in white supremacy.

Internal debate within the ACLU when different civil liberties come into conflict with each other is not a bug; it is a feature.
 
We live a perilous juncture in American history, where either the thoughtless championing of free speech (I see you, Facebook, Twitter) or the abandoning of free speech could easily plunge our country into fascism. *Gasp! The Horror!*  We may actually have to proceed forward with a nuanced response, and Goddess knows that as a country we are not good at those.
 
So, if the organization, that has spent more time thinking about civil liberties than any other, is passionately debating how best to go forward, that is a good thing.  Maybe all those fine, passionate, committed, legal minds can help us thread the needle between giving our enemies all the communication tools they need to hopelessly divide our country  and sacrificing the very liberties that makes our country special.
 
Right now the ACLU is enjoying huge surge in support, but they are also having to weather a huge surge in commitments.  They are engaged in a 150 lawsuits against the Trump administration, and you know that is going to eat a lot of resources.  Resource allocation is going to remain crucial moving forward.  One of the internal complaints among ACLU staffers was that white supremacist cases seemed to get to jump to the front of the line.  Would it be the death to liberty if Nazis and Klansmen had to enter the back of the queue like everyone else?
 
"The city council has denied has denied out request to march on city hall in protest of the new housing project they are planning for the n*****s and the illegals!"  "That not right.  Your voices have a right to be heard.  We will take you case.  Our next case opening will probably be in 8 months."  "Eight months!  Our march is suppose to be 6 weeks!"  "Well, sorry about that, but we have a huge number of people seeking our help, and I just don't see how we can help you any sooner than that.  Maybe, you can win the case on your own, and if not, well, we will help you with your appeal in 8 months."
 
To me the above conversation, seems perfectly reasonable to me, and if members of the ACLU staff reprioritize how they take cases that might be for the best.  The ACLU has a history of championing the underdog, and white supremacist aren't quite the underdog that they were a couple years ago.  Adapting to changing circumstances is necessary for any organization that wishes to have a future.  Let them talk, let them debate and let them adapt.  Remember that the ACLU doesn't pass laws and isn't proposing outlawing Nazi marches, and I have no doubt that if someone else proposes such a law that the ACLU will speak out.    

All points well made, and many of them addressed right in the body of the article. What I'd like to ask you about is this... "And sometimes we fall hard."   Yes... true... but as white male (as I am) I have been much better off insulated from the damage of that fall, compared non-white males. That is the, in my own opinion, the biggest part of "white privilege." In that even when things get bad... they aren't nearly as bad for me. Trump is horrible, but I'm taking the smallest brunt of what he is doing compared to others. 
 
People like us have the privilege of being secure enough to look out over the decades, and see progress, and "tsk tsk, it isn't perfect, but we have to keep trying." But those people whose very survival is challenged every day?? If I was a black man, or basically anything other than a cis-gendered white male, I'd be ready to burn it ALL down because there is no slow and steady progress for me if I'm going to get gunned down, or imprisoned, or deported, or have my rights taken away TODAY!
 
And when someone uses the idea of privilege to make me feel like I have to shut up... well, at what point is freedom of speech dependent on some people shutting up and listening? The social contract isn't just everyone shouting at once... but everyone getting their turn to be EQUALLY HEARD! Sometimes I do have to shut up, so others can be heard.

And it isn't pleasant, is it? It hurts, and enrages, doesn't it?
 
Welcome to the rest of the world.
 
Now, I can decide to be petty and vicious in my hurt and run off to the white supremacists... and I can blame that on the SJWs or whatever... or I can accept that sometimes my role in society is to shut up and give other people a chance to speak, to allow them the power I've always had to be heard.
 
Most importantly, it is up to me to accept responsibility and not fall into the trap of blaming the oppressed for the violent petulance of the oppressor. 
 
"She didn't sleep with me, so I had to kill her and a bunch of other people."
 
"She shouldn't have worn skimpy shorts, or I wouldn't have raped her."
 
"They shouldn't have told me to shut up, so I had to go get my gun and burning crosses!"
 
 
How I react when challenged, when forced off my privileged pedestal, is actually the ultimate testament of character... and I'm certainly not going to tell people much worse off than I am that they are to blame for the surge in white supremacy.

On paper, of course it is. In practice . . . well, look around. It's becoming blatantly obvious that the people with power have decided that legal protections of ANY kind only apply to the powerful and their servants.
 
I just wish I had some idea of what to DO about it that didn't look like the French Revolution, and that the French Revolution wasn't starting to look reasonable.
 
Editing to add:
 
To clarify: I once swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I stand by that. I do not want a revolution to depose the government and put in a new one; I believe that our laws would give us a perfectly serviceable and just government if they were applied to everyone equally. That's what I want to see; the corrupt and powerful cast down, and a new batch of civil servants put in place, who know that they are there to serve the public and that the law will come after them with sharp, snippy teeth when they use their positions to do wrong to their fellow citizens.
 
I also want to see a society that disallows extreme inequality of income and wealth. Despite what my avatar might lead some to think, I do NOT advocate a society where the "rich" are brought down to the level of the poor. What I want to see is a society where a rising tide really DOES lift all boats; where the lucky and exceptional people of the world are still allowed to excel and profit, but they pull the wealth floor of society up WITH them as they climb.

I'll have to google that.

Done. the state as a whole reported as 87% white according to the 2010 census. Of those, 78% claimed they were neither Hispanic or Latino, African-Americans account for only about 2%.The highest concentration of African-Americans is naturally in Portland, but they still only account for under 6% of Portanders. By contrast, Portland itself is a little over 70% white.
 
I find those statistics rather alarming, actually. Populations that relatively small are virtually guaranteed to be socially and politically marginalized.  Not only is poverty chronic among marginalized populations, but a great deal of effort is being put into keeping them poor and marginalized. In Portland, for example, both the City Council and the County Commission are lily white,and the five City Councilors (including the Mayor) are all upper-middle-class from the prosperous West Side. Portland's charter mandates that all five members be elected At-Large as opposed to representing districts. 

Yes, apparently the movie opens with Diana Prince and Barbara Minerva playing high stakes poker and Diana somehow losing despite having four aces.
 
The rest of the movie is a chase scene with music scored by whoever did Bennie Hill.

(Strikes "Ares" off of short list of Halloween costumes)

" who would win in a fight: Hawkeye or Green Arrow? Aquaman or Sub-Mariner? "
 
AQUAMAN, Kareem! Duh!
 
Why is he trying to provoke me with this?
 

In a more lighthearted news vein... gotta love Kareem making the geeky super-hero references!
 
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/may/31/lebron-james-cleveland-cavaliers-nba-finals?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=276697&subid=24646434&CMP=GT_US_collection

In a more lighthearted news vein... gotta love Kareem making the geeky super-hero references!
 
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/may/31/lebron-james-cleveland-cavaliers-nba-finals?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=276697&subid=24646434&CMP=GT_US_collection

Something to warm the heart. A kid was dangling over a ledge and a guy climbed the front of the building to save him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44275776