Somehow I think everyone missed your joke...

This will be something of a unhelpful and unpopular answer, by you probably can't.

What would convince you to stop eating meat from factory farms? What would convince you to only buy electronics from completely ethically sourced companies? What would convince you to only eat healthy nutritional food? To exercise regularly? So on and so forth?

There are many good and important, but inconvenient, things to do. But for most folks, the first step is wanting to. If he doesn't, it will be an uphill battle.

Dark humor mfers: "Everything is fair to joke about, race, gender, orientation, disabilities, everything"

Someone: makes joke about dark humor mfers

Dark humor mfers: "Now you've gone too far!"

Nah, man. The scene people whine about is the equivalent of Luke wailing on Vader, getting that sweet, sweet hand vengeance, and then stopping to think about what it all means. In TLJ it’s just compressed into like 3 seconds. In-universe, it’s bad luck. In narrative terms, Ben was in a different point on his character arc.

If it worked for you, more power to you, I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this. But I can't help myself when I see the apologetics for the "Luke ignited his light saber over a bad premonition scene".

It's not just "bad luck", it's bad writing. Luke didn't just "wail on Vader" to get that "sweet hand vengeance". He initially turned himself in believing he could convert his father back to the light. He only attacked after extreme emotional manipulation from one of the most powerful Sith Lords ever, during an active battle to determine the fate of all his friends, all they fought for, and the literal freedom of the Galaxy. That is a far reach from a moment of pure safety where he had a bad premonition and the "threat" was sleeping.

The whole explanation of this scene (and by extension the plot point that the core of the ST hinges on) assumes Luke not only learned nothing from successfully turning Vader back to the light, but actively learned the opposite lesson.

I get that people can change over time, and not always for the better, but this is just hands down terrible character writing. Making such drastic changes in such an iconic character, without spending any time developing those changes, having those changes be directly counter to the lessons the character supposedly learned during his primary arc, and then using this unexplained change as the catalyst to the entire ST is awful writing.

And we are not even touching on his new found love of "THE SACRED TEXTS!", or how he completely gives up and goes hermit mode.

I'll give Rian credit for actually trying to innovate when it was his turn at bat, but his handling of Luke was honestly some of the most egregious examples of not understanding the characters you are writing, and having them pick up the idiot stick just to move the plot forward.

Better to look the fool than open your mouth and prove everyone right

Well, if they only got hard when we were actually hungry, and not just "bored hungry", I assume the market for crunchy snack foods wouldn't be as prominent.

"Middle Period"? That feels awfully optimistic to me.

While I get the point of this post, and don't mean to trivialize anyone's struggles with mental health. I think that this mentality is detrementail to the vast amount of people who suffer from undiagnosed ADHD.

If you feel like you might have ADHD and are considering getting help, don't let posts like this push you away from getting an actual diagnosis.

Yes, a handful of BestBuy employees accepted payments from the FBI to report on CP found on a customers device. So let's all feel good about underpaid workers losing their jobs in this economy.

Sorry Emilio, but when you had a reported $200 million dollars, 500 developers, and 7 years to make a game, you don't get to play the "but its really hard" card when people complain that your game is soulless corporate crap.

You're a professional, act like it.

About the same as Spiderman 2 or Ghost of Tsushima on Windows.

While the headphone issue is problematic, it's a single issue amidst a deluge of ethical and sustainable practices by the company. Including, but not limited to:

Fairphone carefully sources the components in every device, and the workers who put them together have safe and healthy working conditions. Where possible, Fairphone uses recycled materials (plastic, tin solder paste, steel, and nickel alloy), sources Fairtrade gold, and buys cobalt and silver credits to support the improvement of working conditions for miners.

The factories that make the Fairphone pay a living wage to workers. It also employs 100 percent renewable energy. Fairphone invests in projects to reduce CO2 emissions, and to balance bringing a new phone into the world, Fairphone recycles the equivalent amount of e-waste. It has a B Corp certification, which means its claims have been independently vetted, and Fairphone regularly releases impact reports.

(As reported by wired.com)

Absolutely they should get push back on the headphone situation. But calling it "greenwashibg marking bs" is textbook "letting perfect be the enemy of good". Simply put, almost no other company even competes with Fairphone in the field of ethical phone manufacturing.