Uruanna

No, it's the exact opposite. "Freedom of speech" is the state not retaliating for things you say. "Is not freedom from consequences" means other people can still cut ties with you for what you say. People who say that aren't saying that the state is allowed to retaliate, that's the opposite from freedom of speech, and the event in OP's post is not freedom of speech. It just sounds like you don't understand what either freedom of speech or freedom of consequence mean.

but the developers of the Switch 2 understand that most people don’t play console games with a handy table nearby and ready to go

at the very least, you gotta wear pants.

So close to understanding how your players play!

Let's not forget he's only saying that because he's not running anymore. He was perfectly happy propping her up above all others in the last 8 years, the same way Trump was propped up, except he won (until last summer when the left came back). Everyone else on the right is mad because they wanted to do the same in the next cycle, as usual - even some on the left are also a bit unsure, probably because they also expected to do the same for themselves after Macron is gone (the left has a much better chance than the right against the far right). Hell, even his current Prime Minister is making barely veiled comments about it - the same guy (among a few others) whose party was also punished for something similar, except on a far, far lesser scale, thus without ineligibility sentencing.

In hindsight, not "bad" I suppose, but when they had the big Ruby reveal, they were definitely making fun of everyone who was freaking out just like Sutekh in interviews and everything.

It's weird because they spent a season playing with Ruby's mom, Susan, Sutekh trying to tell us that important character identity twists are bad, and now here's a new important character that'll have a big identity twist? Really?

Yup pretty much

You're not getting it. Macron does in fact control the legislation.

Sure it's not what the president is supposed to do, there's a prime minister and speaker for that to decide what laws will be voted on in what calendar. Except when Macron forces his pick on both (and straight up ignores when a new national vote says the left wing opposition gets to name the prime minister), forces the voting calendar, forces passing his laws by skipping a vote he knows will fail, etc.

The 5th French Republic has laws like this that give the president some exceptional powers to get over the head of the parliament. And Macron uses those exceptional powers all the time.

So yes, Macron does do all the things you say the president doesn't do. And that's why people are mad at him.

People who defend him claim he's a super genius who invented electric cars and space shuttles straight out of his balls, so it does make sense to call out the fact that he himself didn't create any of these companies and he's not the one doing any of the development, all he has is money, all he does is shout and put his X on other people's things.

He doesn't do things that are supposed to happen, though. He makes sure not to screw up History as he knows it, except he always comes across a little thing that went wrong in his timeline and had a ripple effect of bad consequences, and he fixes them by doing good and creating a good ripple effect. It's never suggested that any of those things are "supposed to happen," just that they did happen in his timeline, and he finds better ways to fix them, without fucking up everything else, and creating a better timeline that is not his original one. The very fact that he risks fucking up big things show that nothing is "supposed to happen." The opening narration mentions he strives to "put right what once went wrong", so it's strongly suggested that, if anything, he's "meant" to do good, which is his own conclusion as the show goes on, somebody set him on this path to do good.

It's never suggested that "putting right what once went wrong" means committing a crime that didn't happen because without this crime, things were supposed to go worse. He fixes bad things by doing good. And, sure, we're never shown that he needs to make sure a crime happens, but that goes against what's suggested most of the time - imagine writing a show remotely hinting that maybe some war crimes that happened are justified or else it would have been worse. When he jumps into someone who's about to do a bad thing, he just doesn't do it and does good instead, the suggestion is that there's no "'supposed to."

The Kennedy episode heavily suggested that he was being influenced by some kind of psychosis from Oswald and he was going crazy himself, unable to stop himself from shooting, and that tracks with other episodes where he was sometimes overwhelmed by traits from his host, rather than having to make sure the crime does happen. He tried to save both Kennedys, and he failed JFK, but he saved Jackie. It's not suggested that JFK "had" to die, it's suggested that he "failed" half of it because the host's influence was too strong.

Personally I don't think men have many things that are worthy of raging about compared to women, but that number is nonzero.

Personally, the things that make women rage usually also make me rage even when the victim is not me. And there are a bunch of things that should make anyone rage.

but an "outsider" earning the highest title a normal person can earn in feudal japan seems very outlandish.

William Adams was specifically known to have been granted the title of samurai by Tokugawa Ieyasu, and that's precisely in the period immediately at the end of the Sengoku where the title of samurai begins to change as a status (in the sense of being more restricted and codified). And there's zero way that "public pressure" would have pushed Oda Nobunaga to change shit about something he decided to like, he's the last guy of that era on which public pressure did anything. No one from Oda's circle would have called him out on that.

Again, a samurai wasn't necessarily "at the top of social order", there are places where ashigaru, the lowest rung on the ladder, were called samurai. It's a misconception.

As for chosing an actual Japanese person from the time - there is a second playable character who is the fictional daughter of one of those famous real people from that time and an actual ninja from Iga. You play as her for the first 10 hours or so before Yasuke even becomes playable (except for the introduction mission). This argument is ridiculous and just plain bad faith.

Not necessarily - not everyone who fought was a samurai, just as not everyone who fought in medieval europe was a knight. However, I do agree that the definition is not entirely strict.

Yes, not necessarily, but that's the thing - the people who claim he couldn't be a samurai because he didn't have such or such are making up requirements that didn't exist at that time. We don't know if he was called one or not because we don't have records about him from the people who might have had something to say.

We do have accounts that Nobunaga was impressed with his strength, made him test fight multiple people in shows of strength, gifted him a sword (which is kind of a big deal), and that he was captured by Akechi (and then freed) when he was trying to defend Nobunaga at Honnouji. He might have been just a bodyguard, yes, but even if he was, we don't know if Nobunaga was calling him a samurai or not, because being a samurai wasn't a rank or a title. Maybe a bodyguard could be called a samurai depending on how important and trusted he was, and Yasuke was trusted by Nobunaga. My point is that the people dismissing the samurai title are doing so based on a wrong premise - and we have no account that could be relevant in proving it right or wrong.

He was doing actual fighting, there are records of this happening, at least one confirmed battle happened in 1582 when nobunaga was betrayed by mitsuhide. There's no doubt about that.

Yeah, that's the one we know about, the Honnouji attack. I mean we don't know if he took active part in large scale battles like the Tenshou Iga war doing more than standing around Nobunaga, which is depicted in the game with him leading charge - but that can be easily counted as creative liberty. Honnouji was a surprise attack on a temple, not a battlefield, so naturally, anyone caught in it would be fighting, especially a bodyguard.

Mori Ranmaru, Oda's other famous ~~fuckboy~~ bodyguard who was also at Honnouji, was a samurai because of his family and was also mostly a close bodyguard, I don't think he's recorded as having actively participated in any battle either. And apparently he didn't even have any land to his name beside his family, either, but he's still clearly called a samurai.