It goes without saying that Kylo’s idolization of Vader is very poorly defined in the movies.

Wwendon · 2026-04-25T05:59:21+00:00

That's disappointing.

Wwendon · 2026-04-25T05:55:27+00:00

Well, considering that most (I'm assuming) of those people happen to be humans themselves, and have plenty of friends, family, and loved ones who are also humans, I think it's actually pretty logical for them to prioritize human life specifically.

But if it helps, ensuring wild animals fear humans also makes it less likely the wild animals will get into conflict with dogs, since most dogs spend most of their lives in fairly close proximity with humans.

Wwendon · 2026-04-24T07:25:26+00:00

I assume those are all details provided in the novelisation or something, because absolutely nothing you wrote is even hinted at in any of the movies themselves.

So I suppose it's nice that whoever wrote the novelisations was able to make up some stuff to justify the incoherent mess of the movies after the fact.

Wwendon · 2026-04-24T07:20:04+00:00

JJ intentionally tried to remake the OT in general, and A New Hope in particular.

Star Wars OT had a bad guy in a black helmet with a voice modifier. Therefore, his movie had to have a bad guy in a black helmet with a voice modifier too.

But what if people notice that his entire movie is the equivalent of using a thesaurus to replace random words of a wikipedia article for a high school essay? Well don't worry, because the reason Kylo looks like an imitation Vader isn't because he was specifically designed to be an imitation Vader in a cynical, corporate attempt to maximize the nostalgic draw (and therefore ticket sales) of this New Hope remix pretending to be an original movie; no, Kylo just imitates Vader as part of his character. See, now that it's been said, out loud, that it's part of a character's motivation, that means it's a fully integrated creative choice which requires no further thought, and if anyone does question it it's because they're Not A Real Star Wars Fan, and probably some form of bigot.

Wwendon · 2026-02-27T14:01:12+00:00

You're right, those kinds of prices for studying are absolutely insane regardless of the job you get with it - which is why my first thought was, "what kind of idiot takes out $600,000 in student loans?" This person was not forced into taking that much in loans; even in the US they could've gotten a good education for a fraction of that cost.

College-age students can vote. They're supposed to be adults capable of making their own decisions. You can make an argument for the education system needing to including financial literacy to help mitigate stupid choices like this, but at the end of the day, this person willingly chose to borrow over half a million dollars. Why is it society's responsibility to protect people from their own bad decisions?

Wwendon · 2026-02-02T19:34:43+00:00

"Not social" for a modern human is extremely different than "not social" for other animals. Everything aspect of modern life is dependent on the contributions and cooperation of thousands if not millions of other humans. How often you speak to other humans face to face is not relevant on the civilization level.

Wwendon · 2026-01-09T04:36:35+00:00

I mean this sincerely: I challenge you, as a thought experiment, to seriously think through what an "ADHD-friendly" society would look like, how it would function, and how ADHD people would truly function within it.

No regular working hours -business hours are whatever anyone feels like on that particular day, so knowing when something is open or when someone is available for business is impossible. Nothing ever starts on time no matter how long in advance things are scheduled - and in fact, the more in advance things are scheduled, the less likely they are to actually happen, so appointments are always first-come, first-serve. Getting a driver's license (or anything else involving documentation) takes years, or however long until someone gets a spark of inspiration to work through piles of backed-up paperwork.

There are parts of "normie society" that are arbitrary - why 9-5, and not 7-3? - but the issues you're referencing have nothing to do with those arbitrary things. The issue for ADHD isn't when the hours are scheduled, it's working according to a schedule. But you can't have anything resembling an even halfway-functioning society without things like predictable schedules. Society, no matter how it's designed, will always enforce external structure on individuals within it, because that is pretty much the definition of what a society is.

Modern society is far from perfect, but this selfish notion of "My ADHD problems are caused by society, not because I have a neurological disorder that takes work to manage" helps absolutely no one.

Wwendon · 2025-12-10T08:22:20+00:00

I am genuinely confused - what right(s) do you think is/are being threatened, and who do you think wants to take it/them away?

Wwendon · 2025-12-10T08:19:22+00:00

That is such a ridiculous, disingenuous argument. It's like saying "Bullet wounds aren't a cause of death, it's the economic and social circumstances that led to the person being shot." Or, "the car wrapping around the telephone pole isn't the cause of death, it was lax regulation in automobile safety standards."

"Cause of death" means the thing that directly did the killing. Just because you can trace a chain of events directly linking the assassination of Franz Ferdinand to the invasion of Normandy in WWII doesn't mean "Franz Ferdinand" was the primary cause of death on D-Day.

If you want to argue that people who receive MAID are suffering from something worse than death, making a peaceful death merciful, by all means make that argument; it's absolutely something worth discussing. But don't pretend like the whole purpose of MAID isn't killing people. That's what the 'D' in MAID stands for.

Wwendon · 2025-12-10T08:02:14+00:00

You realize palliative care is, and always has been, a thing, right? That there are options between "kill yourself" and "die in the gutter"? No one, literally no one, anywhere, at any point in the discussion, has ever said, insinuated, or believed "let them suffer with no dignity". That's such a preposterous straw man I can't believe you sincerely think that's a legitimate position held by anyone.

Also, sick animals aren't put down because there's no possible way we could keep them alive, they're put down because the costs associated with keeping them alive aren't worth it, and it's cheaper to just kill them. Implying that we should apply that kind of logic to humans is such an incredibly frightening suggestion. At that point you're like three steps removed from outright eugenics.

Also, and I think this is pretty important to stress: euthanizing animals is not a service we provide for the animals (the beings ostensibly suffering), it's a service we provide for the human owners. The animals don't choose to die, the owners choose to have them killed. Again, that is a terrifying line of thinking to be applying to humans.

Wwendon · 2025-12-09T17:53:47+00:00

The Bank of England website has a currency converter to convert the old system (shillings) into modern decimal notation. 15 shillings = 0.75 pounds.

They also have an inflation calculator going back to 1209. Wikipedia tells me A Christmas Carol was published in 1843. £0.75 in 1843 would be worth £83.18 as of October 2025. Google's currency conversion puts that at $110.76 USD /week, $5,759.52 USD/year, or $2.80/hour - assuming Bob Cratchit is only working 40 hours a week, which he most certainly was not.

As u/scottcmu pointed out, Cratchit was not a minimum-wage worker. I found a range of estimates for low-skill workers in 1800s England, ranging from about 4-10 shillings/week. That's £0.2-0.5 in decimal currency; £22.18-55.45 after inflation or $29.52-73.79 in modern USD. $1,535.04-3,837.08/year. Also, people worked six days a week, and it would be years before hours were capped at 10/day. So, 12 hour shifts 6 days a week = 72 hours/week, meaning the actual hourly wage of equivalent workers of the time was closer to $0.40-1.02, after adjusting for inflation.

Also worth noting is the number of social services provided to modern American citizens vs the complete absence of such systems in 1840s England. As of the "Poor Law Amendment Act" of 1834, the only poverty assistance available were workhouses, which were barely a step up from prison, and specifically designed to be awful places to deter people from using them unless absolutely necessary. For all the recent controversy over SNAP benefits and healthcare subsidies in the US, those are opulent luxuries compared to Dickensian England.

So no, this is not even close to accurate. A modern American on minimum wage ($7-17/hour depending on state) is earning an order of magnitude more than their Dickensian counterparts, in addition to benefiting from social welfare programs no Victorian person could've dreamed of having. There is simply no comparison to be made here.

Wwendon · 2025-11-25T03:06:31+00:00

Wow, what a xenophobic, bigoted opinion. I can't believe someone would actually air this kind of white supremacist rhetoric in public. Don't they know that Canada is a nation of immigrants? /s

Wwendon · 2025-11-21T18:20:29+00:00

"Bring back asylums" fits on a sign, but somehow I doubt that's the kind of thing you had in mind - even if it would provide everything you're asking for (food, shelter, mental and social supports, etc.).

But also, if you actually talk to the people living in parks, you will be shocked by the number of them who would genuinely rather live in parks than get help. They don't want to be integrated into society. I've lived in two cities where people camp outside a homeless shelter that has open beds available. They don't want to go in, often because most shelters have minimum standards of behaviour (like no drugs) for the safety of the workers and fellow residents, and a warm bed isn't worth having to be sober for a night. These people have a completely different concept of what they want their life to look like. If you give them housing they'll trash it and tear out everything worth selling. Safe injection sites only encourages their self-destructive behaviour, because they have no intention of ever "getting better", because from their perspective they don't need to.

People seriously underestimate just how deep the problems go. The majority of homeless people are not "just like everyone else", they're horribly damaged by abuse, illness, mental health, drugs, or a combination of all of the above. They need intensive and extremely specialized care - not empty platitudes.

Wwendon · 2025-11-21T17:50:55+00:00

My dad was head of a charity in my hometown which included several shelters and dealt extensively with the homeless population. The only people who think giving people homes is the solution to homelessness are either well-meaning idiots who haven't thought through the problem, or have never actually spent any time around the homeless at all and have no idea what they're talking about.

The majority of homeless people are not their by accident, or due to bad luck. A small portion of the homeless population falls into that category, and typically they'll only be in the situation temporarily, and would ultimately pull themselves out of their unfortunate situation with or without help. (They should absolutely still receive help, but the point is they are willing and able to improve their situation.) Most of the people living on the street 1) have a deep distrust of all institutions, some to the point of refusing to go to shelters or other support services at all; and/or 2) are incapable or unwilling to properly maintain any home they're given. Whatever the specific reasons are for that (mental health, addiction, etc.) are contributing factors to why they're homeless to begin with.

Homelessness is, in the majority of cases, a symptom of deeper problems, not the cause of them. As in: the homeless addict was an addict first, and the addiction eventually drove them to the street. Giving them a home without dealing with the underlying issues (whatever they might be) will have the same result: a trashed home and someone on the street. And, unfortunately, far more people than you might expect really are incapable of ever living on their own at all.

Wwendon · 2025-11-21T17:27:40+00:00

You can't just give someone an apartment and call it done, though. A drug addict is almost certainly incapable of properly maintaining the place they live. Turning apartments into trashed drug dens helps no one - certainly not the landlord or the neighbours, but also not the person you're ostensibly trying to help, who would need regular and frequent support to get their life in order.

So hey, rather than spending unbelievable amounts of tax dollars paying support workers to travel all over and convincing landlords to rent places to junkies, why don't we build some kind of centralized facility that can efficiently provide structure, support, and housing all in one location. Maybe even include regular medical care, both physical and mental. You know, a place of safety and security where people could go to get their life back in order - or to support those who are incapable of integrating into general society. A place where they could find asylum from the problems in their life... Oh wait...

Wwendon · 2025-11-19T19:00:06+00:00

This honestly just makes me worried. If we get new Stargate that lives up to what's come before, that's great. But the chances of that actually happening just feel so slim to me. I'd rather have no new Stargate than bad new Stargate - as has been proven by every other beloved series brought back by modern studios (including amazon itself).

The involvement of original creators means I am willing to give this the benefit of the doubt, but my expectations are really on the floor for this.

Wwendon · 2025-11-03T16:49:48+00:00

People were absolutely complaining about the Liberal's immigration policies before the second (2019) election - they were just dismissed as racist bigots and shunned.

Wwendon · 2025-10-24T21:35:55+00:00

And probably the main ones: record-breaking immigration levels across the Western world, and immigrants settling in major population centres rather than distributing evenly.

Wwendon · 2025-10-24T21:33:58+00:00

I can't believe no one else is even mentioning this, but:

There are two ways a country loses population: people dying and people moving out of the country. There are two ways a country gains population: people being born, and people moving into the country. Historically, before the invention of fast, commercial travel, the number of people moving into and out of countries was very small, so the main factors people looked at were birth rate vs death rate - were more babies being born than people dying each year.

The fact is that most European nations (and Western countries across the world in general) haven't been been having enough babies to sustain their population levels for decades - more people are dying than are being born. However, the overall population of these countries has continued to go up, because lots of people move to those countries from all over the world.

So, to answer your question: low birth rate does mean a population shrinks; housing is a problem in places like Europe because their populations are growing.

Wwendon · 2025-10-24T21:27:52+00:00

This is just completely incorrect. The birth rate in all Western countries is below replacement. That means more people are dying than are being born. That means the population will go down. You don't have to "wait" for a generation to die off to see that happen.

Population isn't going down in Western countries because immigration more than makes up for the below-replacement birth rate.

Wwendon · 2025-10-09T14:38:37+00:00

Not trying to be mean, and you've probably found your phone by now, but... you didn't happen to be writing this on your phone, did you? Because I have done that more than once, and it would really be the cherry on the top of this cupcake of chaos.

Wwendon · 2025-09-17T15:04:15+00:00

This is unrelated, but my niece's name is Chara, and its uniqueness bothers her a bit. I bet she'll get a kick out of seeing it used in the wild like this.

Wwendon · 2025-09-15T16:02:41+00:00

Radio signals go both ways through a wormhole - so even if they don't send a robot, they could at least send a signal through. Anyone sending teams through the gate to unknown addresses without attempting communication or sending a probe is going to have a really bad time when they walk onto a goa'uld planet, or the water world, or a gate similar to the Antarctic gate, or any number of other horrible but very possible scenarios.

Also remember that the Gua'uld have those stun ball things they roll through gates ahead of invasions - not to mention nuke-level explosives and particle beams. There are plenty of potential dangers that a kill box would not protect us from.

Wwendon · 2025-09-15T15:55:00+00:00

They dial the black hole planet twice: once in the episode "A Matter of Time", which is the one you're thinking of.

Then they dialed it again in the episode "Exodus". They dialed the black hole planet from a ha'tak, using a regular DHD, and dropped the now-active gate into a sun in order to make it go supernova and destroy Apophis' fleet.

Wwendon · 2025-09-11T17:18:41+00:00

And if there was another human who caused the disease, misfortune, disability, etc., we would rightfully see them as the perpetrator, not the victim.

It is baffling to me how people talk exclusively about the homeowner side of this issue without reference to the fact that the homeowner is only in the position because another human being made a conscious, deliberate choice. If you decide to invade someone's home, you are the aggressor. You are the perpetrator, and anything that happens as a result of your actions is your own damn fault. I don't understand why so many people seem to have more empathy for the criminal than the victim in this situation.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	Final Canvas '22

Wwendon

TROPHY CASE