Anouleth

Why is that a bother? Axes and Lances are functionally very similar. Diversity of weapon types is not a meaningful goal when those weapon types function the same way. In addition, the fact that only Fighters/Barbarians use axes is a good thing because they're historically a weak class and are stronger when they have uncontested access to strong axes such as the Hero Axe. Part of what makes Lex good is that he's virtually the only unit that can use Axes (except for promoted Lachesis and Arden).

Lances, because Wyverns are already way too strong. Switching Wyverns from Lances to Axes amounted to a straight buff with no associated downsides and no real change in the way they played.

Yeah, it's called "recruiting units throughout the whole game". Plenty of games before Awakening have had useful units join during the midgame, such as Percival or Dean or Sety or Pent or Gerik or Tanith or the Hawkboys or Catria/Palla or the Sable Knights. I get the appeal of children. It's powergaming, getting a little boner over how ridiculously overpowered your units are when they solo the final chapter with a rusty length of pipe while taking zero damage. I don't think it's particularly good gameplay, however.

Really? From a gameplay perspective, I don't think Fates/Awakening children really add that much. Not having child characters doesn't mean the cast needs to be smaller. Ophelia and Soleil could still be in the game, just not be Odin's/Lazward's children.

You haven't even mentioned the horrendously awful media coverage where multiple prominent media sites had fits over an Ammon Bundy impersonator on Twitter.

Actually, there's no such thing as "safe drunk driving"; when you drive, you contribute to air pollution through car exhaust. And air pollution kills people. Lots of people, in the millions, in fact. We can go ahead and say that it's impossible for anyone to drive safely; drunk or otherwise.

And... why? The risk of an armed rebellion successfully toppling the US government is zero. Secondly, I take issue with the claim that "gun control was not meant to stop crime". That's never been true; gun control has always been meant to stop crime. You think the United Kingdom, which hasn't seen a battle on it's territory in over three hundred years, restricted handguns because they thought that there was a risk of armed rebellion? Because you're seriously deluded if you believe that.

As far as I know, nobody has actually been hurt or injured, so I don't know if it really justifies the label of "violent rebellion" just yet. Fort Sumner this ain't. I know everyone here is eager to see some people get killed, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. That's the entire definition of civil disobedience; refusing to follow laws and regulations, whether that's in the form of refusing to pay income taxes, sit-ins, or destroying draft cards (during the Vietnam War, for instance).

Thracia, no frills, no fuss. Dudes give bonuses to each other and that's it. Honorable mention to Genealogy for experimenting with non-standard rewards for building supports.

Regardless of whether or not Rey is a Mary-Sue, there's no doubt she's a weak character and there's no doubt that she has some Sue qualities that don't help. Other points: I also think that after IV and VI, the reveal and then speedy destruction of the Starkiller Base was very underwhelming. When the first Death Star is destroyed, it's cool. When the second Death Star is destroyed, it's also cool. But I found it hard to care about the fate of Starkiller base. Why is it possible for someone to just jump in the Millennium Falcon and fly it away? Shouldn't stealing a ship like that be slightly more difficult? Why is there so little security? Quipping levels are elevated in this instalment, not quite as high as an MCU movie but still dangerous. I think that while this movie is not amazing, it's still good and there's potential for a great VIII on the level of V. IV, which this movie aped, was not that strong either.

I don't think anyone really argues that higher minimum wages would cause prices to rise except indirectly. If stores could raise their prices and get more revenue, they would, regardless of how much they pay their employees; forcing them to pay their employees more doesn't add any extra incentive to raising prices. Rather, the argument is that a higher minimum wage is a disincentive to hiring new workers and might encourage businesses to get rid of some of their minimum wage workers. It might also cause small businesses that are barely profitable to go under. This argument is extremely sound. It's pretty basic in economics that if you force people to pay more for something (in this case labour) they will buy less of it. The only problem is that it's hard to find evidence for it actually working that way in the real world and in fact there is some evidence that seems to show that it has little or no effect on employment, in defiance of what seems to be fairly basic economics.

Not sure why this is news, even back in the 1800s anthropologists categorized Indian and Middle Eastern people under "Caucasoid" along with white Europeans.

I'm saying that they're wasting their time and money. The support conversations are available online, to read, for nothing. I also don't see "character development" as being a worthy goal.

Where are the support systems for FE3, 4, 5, 11 and 12? People who only care about the conversations shouldn't be playing FE anyway. Ideally they'd get rid of the conversations entirely, it's become increasingly clear that they're an unwelcome distraction to the game and don't really serve any kind of purpose. And for that reason I think that the FE10 support system is best.

honestly more excited about bayonetta, we already got anime swordsdudes coming out of our ears but no sexy bondage demons with magic hair

Well, except for setting the Reichstag on fire. And trying to organize a coup. And sending thugs to beat up and harass political opponents. Except for the time when he was actually imprisoned and the Nazi Party banned.

I thought you earlier said that Lenin should have been censored? And now you accept that a hate speech law as narrowly defined as the one you suggest would not have actually criminalized Communists (even though as political movements go, Communism was pretty damned dangerous). And what exactly would a hate speech law have done to stop Hitler? Giving that Hitler was already openly ignoring the law in order to subvert the democratic process, what makes you think that another law would have suddenly solved the huge problems of Weimar Germany? I recall in my own country, a few years back there were scandals surrounding the illegal actions of some tabloid papers in order to gather stories, mainly illegal bribes to the police and voicemail hacking. Huge outcry, cries of "Something Must Be Done", demands for increased regulation of the press. Except that everything that had happened was already against the law, it's just that the police weren't interested in enforcing it! There's a temptation, and it's a terrible one, to create new laws to fix problems when all the tools to fix those problems already exist within the law.

If Hitler had not been able to ban the Communist Party and use paramilitary violence to suppress and intimidate voters, a lot of lives might have been saved too. He seized power only due to the very tactics that you yourself endorse!

Then all calls for state action are "inciting violence", since all state action implicitly carries the threat of force. People don't pay taxes because they want to, it's because the police will come into your home and arrest you if you don't, and if you resist that arrest they could kill you. Does that mean that anyone who wants to raise taxes is inciting violence, because they're implicitly saying that people who don't pay that tax should be arrested and sent to jail? Of course not.

Firstly, that's not what he said. What Trump called for is a ban on all Muslim immigration. That's not the same thing as deporting all existing immigrants. Secondly, how is that an incitement to violence?

Advance Wars.

Because explicitly, they're attempting to create this "safe haven" through no-platforming people who have done nothing other than voice a contradictory opinion. If people want to create tolerant organizations where bullying and discrimination aren't tolerated and Germaine Greer isn't allowed to speak, they're entitled to do so, but what they're not entitled to do is to try and no-platform Germaine Greer and prevent her from speaking anywhere.

This is nothing new; threatening to pack the Supreme Court has been standard tactics since FDR. And Bernie Sanders has committed to nominating Justices that would overturn Citizens United.

There are ways to update an ATB system without completely replacing it with something unrelated. Even looking back to FFX and FFX-2 (which were popular games), they found ways to make turn based and ATB systems fresh and interesting.

Does that mean that Mexicans are bad guys because they traffic narcotics into the United States despite that also being against the law?