Except sometimes "pedophile" actually means "trans person just living." The right claims all trans people are groomers.

It does sound more racist, because it is. Why not Yasuke? Just because he's black? Why any of the other AC protagonists? Why choose a Spartan, a highly unethical culture filled with slavery and abuse? Why choose a Welsh pirate instead of a Caribbean native? These are all pointless questions, because the answer is all the same. That's the story they wanted to tell. Maybe they wanted to highlight the historical outlier at an important time in history. We could speculate on any number of different reasons, but "DEI" doesn't make any damn sense, considering they knew how gamers would react beforehand and even went out of their way to make a statement about it.

They wanted to tell this story. If you want a different one, play a different game. There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing Yasuke as a protagonist. The series has consistently demonstrated that they don't really mind telling the stories of historical outliers, repeatedly. They shouldn't have to specifically avoid (because that is what your argument has shifted to) Yasuke for fears of "DEI." The "anti-woke" are ridiculous.

The system isn't immutable, it just has protected itself very well from any third party breaking the system as it is. We will get a third party, or more, and end things like first past the post and Citizens United much faster by taking over the Dems than by trying to get a third party to have plurality support. It's simply unrealistic to keep bashing our heads on a wall that is more likely to continue to cement the system against us, instead of changing the system in an achievable way.

AOC, Bernie, and a great number of the young Dems are ready to take over the party. There is broad support to kick out the appeasement supporters and change the party to start making changes. The harder we try to gain third party support right now, the more entrenched the current establishment gets. We've seen this happen for decades. The support for ending the two party system and things like Citizens United is bipartisan, but mostly Democrat voters, meaning Republicans will change more and more rules and make the system more and more unfair. We don't have the generations it will take to bring third party support to where it would need to be. That's generations of Republican power subverting the system. We need to change it now.

When they said, "I don't care about your parents," it was an expression of apathy, not animosity. It was them telling you that they agree, and that their point is about the greater system, not that guy's aunt or your parents. You took it personally and got more defensive. Their absolute does hold, because it's in regard to a system. The point isn't that your parents are individually bad people, like you seem to think it is, it's that they're part of a bad system, and regardless of their individual actions, the system is still bad. Fundamentally, you, the other commenters, and I agree. They aren't trying to argue that you're defending landlords in general, the argument is that your defense of your parents excuses them from the system.

A fair and kind cop is still responsible for participating in an evil system, just as your parents are. They may be good people, with good intentions, and treat people well. No one is denying that. It's just entirely besides the point. They're still hoarding property that should be possessed by those that live in them, and housing should be cheaper. Without landlords and real estate conglomerates driving prices high, there should be a surplus of housing. Again, your parents might be good people, but they are participating in an immoral system. Even the best landlord is still a landlord, and while they are nowhere near anyone's first target to fix the system, they're still participating.

The best cop is still a cop, the best billionaire is still a billionaire, and the best landlord is still a landlord. It's nothing personal against them specifically.

As a neutral outside reader, this person does not sound like they are hating on your parents specifically, and you come across as extremely defensive (understandably). Their point seems to be that the existence of a good cop doesn't make the police state tolerable, nor does the existence of a good landlord make the system of people owning other's homes tolerable.

Regardless of how good any landlord is, it would be better for homes to be affordable and owned by those that live in them. In the current system, some areas are unaffordable without renting, but that doesn't make the landlords morally good categorically, it means they're part of the problem that drives prices too high in an area. Owning property to rent artificially drives the price of real estate up. Ideally, renting should be far, far more limited or entirely phased out depending on the specific situation. No one is saying that your parents specifically are evil, but they are part of a larger system that is.

Trolling, intentionally obtuse, or just dumb? Because as we all know, cats never kill anything but pests. Native animals would never become endangered because of domesticated cats. At least put a bell on them or something so they don't kill the wildlife.

The laws are clearly outdated. Drugs for lethal injection frequently fail and cause much more pain and distress. Nitrogen has *no downsides." It's like the fact that it's a gas makes people crazy.

The parent comment doesn't appear to be copaganda, or even have a stance one way or the other. The comment is context, which is important for discussing the issue at hand. Because of the context, we should not be discussing police brutality or excessive use of force in this case, we should be discussing the immorality of a justice system which allows someone to be charged with felony murder in the case of an accomplice.

To clarify, if this group of teens broke into a home and shot the homeowner, that would be a justified charge of felony murder for all the accomplices. However, their friend chose to essentially commit suicide by cops, and the convicted was running away at the time. Again, the parent comment did not make any qualifiers on the actions of the cops or anyone else present, they posted context with which other commenters can frame their discussion. Nowhere in their other comments could I discern a pro-cop stance, reading with an objective eye. Reactionary pointing of fingers just discourages future posters from providing context.

Before you accuse me of copaganda as well, ACAB, systemic racism is a huge problem in the US, and our justice system is rigged against the most vulnerable.

The premise of your previous comment was that regardless of the health effects (ie: if vegan cat food is healthy), the cats didn't consent to it. That argument doesn't make any sense. I don't disagree that cats need proper nutrition, again, I feed my cat meat. I just think your argument based on consent is not well founded and there are better ways to argue your point without making a strange implication about ignoring consent. I don't think forcing a cat to be vegan is okay, unless that diet is properly supplemented with all the nutrients the cat needs, which may or may not be possible. I don't know. Again, I'm not arguing for cats to be fed vegan. I'm arguing against using consent as the angle against veganism, because that opens up a whole can of worms as to hypocrisy. I'm not vegan, and there are perfectly good reasons to be or not be vegan, but animal consent definitely isn't an argument to be made against veganism unless you want to confront the issues with animals just as intelligent as cats, or more, being consumed as food.

I'm vegan with a somewhat differing view on culls, having worked for the EPA and with national parks. I agree that a better solution than culling would be ideal, and that no life wants to be killed or population managed. However, we cull because of our past failings. We wiped out natural predators in many areas that kept a balance, and now, if left unchecked, deer will eat themselves into starvation, and devastate their ecosystem. It would be death on a massive scale if unmanaged, and would even affect humans. I think it's a far smaller crime to kill a few deer and manage populations at safe levels, than to allow the mass starvation of entire ecosystems because of our past destruction of that balance.

Better solutions have been proposed. Ideally, where we can, we reintroduce native predators and protect their populations until they're stable. Is that different from killing for population control? We're introducing animals for the explicit purpose of hunting and killing deer in order to keep a balance. If that's wrong, then should we kill all predators? Of course not, but I digress. Those aren't arguments I think you'd make, and I'm not suggesting you'd agree whatsoever, but those are the perspectives we think about. Many many smart people have tackled this issue, and we have not found a better solution than culling. Sometimes, we've done some of what you suggested, and attempted to reduce fertility rates, though I see the same moral issue there as well. No sentient creature wants to be neutered or drugged to prevent reproduction. However, it's better than hunting in certain circumstances, and something has to be done. This isn't a problem that can be ignored to reduce environmental impacts in other areas. Overpopulation will happen, and it is devastating. I wish there was a simple solution, but we made mistakes when we destroyed the native ecosystem, and now it falls to us to keep it from totally collapsing.

Can you explain why? Some people don't want to have kids. Why should the onus fall on only women with birth control and IUDs? More options for male contraceptives are a good thing.

It's not a Chinese company if I'm understanding correctly. It's a British company run by a Chinese guy. Being from China is not a reason to distrust the product.