Chairchucker

I worded it poorly, I meant he was a black version of Spider-Man. On the second point, now I kinda wanna see black Superman land in 1940 or something...

Anyone been talking about Moon Knight? I'm really enjoying it so far. Feels tonally very different to anything else in the MCU.

Eh, theoretically Kryptonians could have any colour skin, surely. And there seem to be so many different origin stories to every superhero, one more wouldn't really matter. Although personally if I were going to make a black Superman I'd probably just make it another Kryptonian rather than Kal-el. Maybe Kal-el has a son. (with a black Kryptonian, whatever) Maybe some other Kryptonian comes and takes the mantle after Superman gets killed by doomsday or whatever killed him most recently in the comics. I just looked up the Superman wiki page, there's been a few other people called Superman, should've known they'd do that. One of them was his son apparently. Or his clone, either way. They write a bunch of alternate origin stories for some of these dudes.

I suppose that's theoretically possible, (and I'm excited for some of the more diverse heroes we're getting in the MCU now) but established heroes seem to get more attention. Just checked Wikipedia's list of theatrically released live action DC films, for example, and there appears to be 9 Batman movies, 6 Superman movies, a Batman vs Superman movie, and 17 others. When there are slightly more movies starring Batman or Superman than there are DC films not starring either, and of those 17, one prominently features both, (Justice League) and three more star Batman villains, (Catwoman, Jokes and Harley Quinn + Birds of Prey) it's clear that the people with the licenses think different iterations on the established heroes are the way to go.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-open-borders According to this: Liechtenstein Iceland Malta Luxembourg Estonia Latvia Slovenia Lithuania Slovakia Norway Finland Denmark Switzerland Austria Hungary Portugal Sweden Greece Czech Republic Belgium Netherlands Poland Spain Italy France Germany

I know you didn't ask me BUT I actually don't follow comics much, (love the movies though) but I get the impression that for some superheroes, mantles are frequently passed from one character to another. For example, by far the most common Batman has Bruce Wayne as his alter ego (or vice versa, however that works) but others have also donned the cowl, most notably Richard (really, that one's censored?) Grayson. AntMan has been the alter ego of Hank Pym, Scott Lang and Eric O'Grady. Funny you should mention Spider-Man, because as well as Peter Parker, there is a black version of him; his name is Miles Morales. Other Spider-Men (Spider-Mans? Spiders-Man?) appear to include Ben Reilly, (a Parker clone) Mattie Franklin, (she apparently became Spider-woman once Peter Parker came back from retirement) and some alien or something (a member of the Vodu pantheon whatever that means) called Anansi who was supposedly the first ever Spider-Man. People got mad when there was talk of Jane taking over from Thor, but I guess they were ignoring that the title of the God of Thunder had previously been held by a bunch of different other characters, including a frog looking dude called Beta Ray Bill. One of my favourite examples because I like both characters and the TV show bearing the name: both Clint Barton and Kate Bishop are known as Hawkeye. The comics seem to have a long history of weird alternate versions of heroes, baton passing etc, and heck, I think it's neat.

Ron Gilbert has stated MI3 remains canon. Interested to see how that remains consistent with this new one being a follow up to the first two, maybe time travel or multiverse shenanigans?

I'm assuming you don't genuinely think they would do any of those things, and are just using hyperbole. If CRT were taught at schools, (which there is no evidence has ever been a thought, save for the scare tactics of ignorant Republican politicians) I'm not yet convinced that would be a bad thing. Same with open borders, unless you subscribe to Trump's racist 'they're rapists and criminals' nonsense, I just don't see what the issue would be. And, predictably being the Australian that I am, I definitely think gun control is something the US should have a crack at.

I'm still stuck on the desire to extend a copyright being the act of a 'woke' company. All the woke kids trying to hang onto their copyrights these days, bunch of snowflakes. I know, I know, I'm trying to make sense of something said by Boebert, I deserve to be perplexed...

Extremely badass photos of war criminals on this page.

I saw the Disney+ original film Better Nate Than Ever. I liked it, it was kinda fun and cute. Probs not something I'd spend money on seeing, but I didn't mind spending time on it.

America has a third party. They won't matter until they change their election system. Get ranked preference voting and suddenly it won't be a complete waste of time to vote for someone other than the two designated candidates.

I saw a Twitter thread that basically outlined that Russia's war crimes are not a result of 'a few loose cannons' or whatever, but are a deliberate act by a country that was very much hoping to genocide Ukrainians and put all the people in mass graves. Anyway, Russia kinda sucks in general ey.

I just recently finished watching Galavant which is old as heck but still great. Gotta finish watching Agents of SHIELD so I can move on to watching all the Netflix Marvel shows that just came to my streaming platform of choice.

solid platform tbh

Hitler was apparently apparently 5 foot 9, which was well above average back then.

I don't think there's any universe in which I vote for a Republican candidate in the next... ever. The entire party is complicit in Trump's nonsense.

Interestingly, Napoleon was apparently average height for a French dude, but below average for an aristocrat or officer. Apparently they wanted their officers tall so they'd look imposing or whatever back then.

Hmmm. I am torn. On the one hand I would like his approval ratings to be higher so that if he is the eventual Democratic nominee, he would beat the eventual Republican nominee. Especially if that ends up being Trump, as it seems it might. On the other hand, I want his approval ratings to be lower so that he is not the eventual Democratic nominee.

Other sources define it as being any discrimination based on age. And we already do that at younger ages. I'm not convinced this would be all that different. I definitely think there is more of a case for banning politicians over the age of 70 where they are more likely to suffer from dementia or any number of other debilitating mental illnesses, than there is for banning people under the age of 35 from being the President of the USA.

A 12 year old can't be a politician, is that ageist?

Besides, there's plenty of precedent in most societies for age based restrictions on what people can do, it's just they're minimum age requirements, and we tend not to try to replace those with 'cognitive based requirements' or whatever.

I'm just answering your question as to what an 'upper limit' is.

Upper limit as in the highest possible. If you decree, for example, that people have to report to a processing centre at age 65 to be turned into Soylent Green, 65 is the 'upper limit' on being alive in that society. Or for a less morbid example, if you make a law that says the oldest you're allowed to be and still be president is 70, then that's the 'upper limit'.

If you reread what I said, you'll find that what I ACTUALLY said wasn't 'I support age limits' (I'm not entirely sure about my position on this) but 'an upper limit makes more sense than a lower limit of 35'.