I mildly disagree on the boss fights. I enjoyed them because of the parry mechanic, mainly. I enjoyed the Sekiro-lite (VERY lite) style of unblockable/undodgeable/unparryable tells that you had to read and respond to. I’m a little confused by one of your criticisms though, that it had zero criticisms of the class structure. Is there any reason a story HAS to criticize class structure to be good? I don’t like the story either, but that’s not even on my radar for reasons why.

Explain to me the relevance that an English word came from an Italian man, then. The continent is called North America. That’s what it is called in the language we are conversing in. The word’s origin means nothing. What word should we use instead?

This is why I was asking how far back through etymology do we have to go. I do not give a fuck what the origin of the word “America” was. The continent is called North America in English, which we are speaking. It is the same way I would call my ancestry German rather than Deutsch, because we are not speaking German. The people who were here before the Europeans are native to this land (even though technically they are not native either, since we all came from Africa if you go back far enough, which again, how far back do we need to go?). Hence, Native Americans. They were called “Indians” for a long time out of ignorance and then willful ignorance, but how do we distinguish Indians from India and Indians from America? Hence, American Indians.

The term “Indian” is wrong. Just because Christopher Columbus was stupid and thought he was in India does not make this continent India. I’m also not saying Native American or American Indians are the sole correct terms, but it’s better than a literally wrong one that has a lot of bad history behind it. A black guy who doesn’t mind when his white friends call him “nigga” does not mean that he speaks for all black people. Same thing with “Indian” to describe someone who is indigenous to this land (a land that is decidedly not India). I don’t care if someone wants to be known as Native American, or American Indian, or Indian, or Cherokee, or Navajo, or Sioux, or anything else. But I’m not going to call any person commonly understood to be indigenous to the Americas any but the first two without asking them. Some assume their tribe, the other is both factually wrong and used pejoratively for hundreds of years.

I’m not disregarding wishes. I’ll call any INDIVIDUAL whatever they want to be called. Groups will be referred to by the most accurate and accepted name. Indians are from India and it’s ridiculous to call Native Americans/American Indians that. It’s as ridiculous as calling any black person “African American”, like when the interviewer insisted on that terminology for Idris Elba, a black British man. That’s it. I’m not calling them “Redskins”, for example. I’m using a perfectly respectful and accepted term and not one that may or may not be accepted, depending on who you ask, and not one that is literally incorrect.

Edit: There’s a person directly below this comment whose relatives hate the term “Indian”.

Buuuuuut… you did say “Unless you’re American indian”, so that does imply that you or someone else CAN speak for all of a group. So I’m a bit confused here. I will call you whatever you’d like me to call you, including “Indian” on its own if that’s what you’d prefer to be called (even though that doesn’t make sense to me), but you didn’t actually answer my questions. Let me try again- how is it bigoted to not assume that a group of people would want to be called something that is fundamentally incorrect by definition, has a turbulent history, and is not what most federal programs call them- you yourself say that the benefits go to “American Indians”, not “Indians”.

Thanks for the coloring page, is it one of your favorites?

They actually recently changed that name. They’re the Cleveland Guardians as of 2021.

So you speak for ALL American Indians, then? Do I speak for ALL Germans? Or have I been in the US long enough that I’m no longer German? My grandmother was born in Germany, is that too far? Or is it just skin color, I speak for all whites, no matter the country or culture of origin? I’m curious to the rules here- I shouldn’t speak for American Indians because I’m not one, right? So who can speak for all American Indians and all 547 distinct tribes (federally recognized)? Do you speak for every tribe? If not you, then who? Your phrasing was “Unless you’re American indian”, so… yes? You speak for all 547 tribes and 5.2 million people?

Relating the word “America” to “Amerigo Vespucci” is a HUGE stretch, don’t you think? It’s what the continent is called in English, which we’re speaking right now. How far back through etymology do we have to go?

Oh, I do for sure. I’ll call people by any name or group or whatever if they ask. But I would never assume that a Native American is perfectly fine being called the equivalent of “a native or inhabitant of India, or a person of Indian descent.” That’s insane to me, and it’s insane to assume that they’d be fine with it. This whole thing is because of the irony of a person who was so clearly trying to defend Native Americans using a label that describes a completely different ethnic group. “No, not THOSE Indians, the other Indians, so named because a monster of a person landed here and thought he was somewhere else”. It’s just hilarious to me.

That’s cool. I prefer to call people from India Indians if that’s alright. If I’d like to refer to a Native American as something else I’ll at least do them the courtesy of saying American Indians so they aren’t referred to as a completely separate ethnic group.

Oh hey pot! I’m kettle, nice to meet you!

The fuck you on about “horse I’m on” lmao, you just did the same exact thing

Isn’t that basically “I can’t be racist, I have black friends”? What if I told you that I’d been told by Native Americans that they DON’T like being called “Indian”? And if they are Indian, what do you call people from India, exactly? You know, Indians?

It’s hilarious that you’re trying to defend Native Americans but call them “Indians”.

What? Where do you work that you get paid for 40 hours while working and clocked in for 32 and also get to be clocked in while you’re not there? I have a fantastic boss and do not let myself get pushed around.

Hell no. I’ve been salaried and I’ve been hourly. I am more than willing to put in a few 50-55 or so hour weeks a year in exchange for being able to come in late or leave early for appointments without trouble, working about 35 hours a week every other week at most, being able to work from home more or less whenever I need to, never getting flagged for not clocking in/out at the right time… the list goes on and on. My salary is for 40 hour weeks, and I hold to that when I need to. But the reality of my job is that when there’s a crisis I need to be there. I’ll take that for all the advantages any day.

Unless you’re salary. A wise man once told me “The longer it takes us to do this, the closer we get to minimum wage.”

I am well, well aware of how shitty the system is, I assure you. But given how you patronized me (“Maybe try to live a little more empathetically”- sincerely, go fuck yourself, you self-righteous prick), I don’t feel like arguing. All I’ll say is this- Leonard Cure’s death is a sad situation that was avoidable with different choices from either party. The officer made mistakes, but given Cure’s erratic behavior (my bet is that toxicology will show that he was high on some sort of stimulant given the strange “Yahweh” answer, the disjointed head and arm movement, aggression, and lack of pain response to the taser, baton, or bullet), combativeness, and noncompliance, I completely understand why the officer defended himself. If this was an “obvious egregious case”, then why is it being discussed here and throughout the internet?

We have no idea if he complied before. Given the fact that his sentence was only so long due to a previous record, it seems more likely that not complying was his usual stance. I don’t know this for sure, obviously, but it does seem more likely. The previous statement is misinformation, I believe. One of the attorneys in the exoneration said that he complied with the original arrest and thought he’d be able to simply explain that he wasn’t the robber, which obviously did not go in his favor. While it definitely helps explain his actions, I still do not believe assaulting an officer is the right path to take, though I do understand it better now.

But there’s such a vast gulf between “complying” and “attempting to kill (or at least cause serious bodily harm to) an officer” that I have a hard time finding the officer at fault here. Why did he flee? Why did he refuse lawful commands? Why did he give his name as “Yahweh” as far as I can hear? Why did he attempt to assault the officer after being tased? What was he planning to do to the officer had he not fired, as the repeated “Yeah bitch” suggested very violent intent to me. These are all valid questions that I hope we get answers to, but it’s unlikely that we will. All any of us can do is watch the video- which is the most direct evidence of the truth- and form our opinions based on that.

I think that’s a reasonable take. It still could have been prevented by Cure simply complying with the orders- the court is the proper place to fight that- and I think the officer was well justified in attempting to arrest, but he should have only used the taser and escalated once backup arrived or he was forced to. I agree that was probably a mistake, but at the same time, with a person that combative and non-compliant, it’s difficult to say for certain.

A black man is dead because he was speeding, evaded the police, resisted arrest, and assaulted the officer.

A cop defended himself.

There you go, I fixed it for you.