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.

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.

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.

Except there’s no clear cut definition of a samurai like that in that period. The class definition wasn’t that strict for most of Japan’s history, including the sengoku period - even ashigaru were considered samurai in some places.

Yasuke was a professional warrior (almost certainly more than just a regular ashigaru) who fought as a retainer of the Oda clan, that’s a samurai. And we’re pretty sure he did actual fighting, we just don’t know if he was in full armor and everything.

The daimyo is the one who owns the land and gives it to his retainers as he wants, samurais don’t automatically own land by definition.

Is it because they keep breaking shells?

I’m looking forward to Greenpeace telling the judge to go fuck themselves be more respectful and not pay squat. Any day now.

The bull that fathered the Minotaur was not Zeus, it was a gift by Poseidon who expected king Minos to sacrifice the bull to Poseidon. The king kept the gift and sacrificed another bull, Poseidon got pissed and had the king’s wife screw the bull, giving birth to the Minotaur.

You are correct, the bull that sired the Minotaur was not Zeus, and Europe was not the mother. That’s a different bull-queen pair.

No one has said anything about any of that, you are making up this argument out of nothing, no one has tried to define what a man or a woman is - except you, actually. You are moving the discussion and muddying what is even being argued about, so you can pretend I’m a conservative for some reason and the doctor is as bad as an anti-vaxxer. Even though you’re the one who tried to declare what a man or a woman is, when that wasn’t the subject at all. You are projecting.

Has y = man

No y = woman

No. You are conflating chromosoms, gender, sex. The PhD is telling you that you are wrong. You are claiming that you know better than them. The whole meme is about you, you have Dunning-Kruger, they have a PhD.

??? No one said it determines your gender. We’re telling you that it happens. Obviously there are XY people who grow up to be cis men, trans women, but also cis women, and surely trans men as well, or anything inbetween, with any form of gender expression you can think of. You’re the only one making this all up for some reason.

That there are men (xy) with female parts

This is your misunderstanding right there. XY is not automatically a man. You are the one making the claim that chromosoms define if you are a man or a woman, and the PhD and the other guy are telling you that there are people born with XY who are cis women with female genitalia. You are wrong.

they talk about xx becoming xy

No, they are saying no such thing. They are telling you that there are people born with XY but who have female genitalia and grow up to be cis women. No one told you that some XY people changed to XX, or XX to XY. This does not happen. This is not what the PhD said, and this is not what the other guy explained to you. You are wrong. And you keep claiming that everybody else is wrong, without ever questioning your own understanding.

That’s okay, it’s only the cost of, what, a couple eggs?

… And you still don’t understand it, and you assume that everyone else is wrong even after it was explained to you. That quote is correct and it does not contradict what the PhD said. In fact, it illustrates exactly what they said.

You’re the only one here claiming that the PhD is equating gender, sex, genitalia. The PhD says no such thing. The person the PhD is responding to is the one trying to equate gender, sex, genitalia, chromosoms, reducing it to “there are only two sexes, male or female.” The PhD is telling that person that they are wrong, and chromosoms do not determine what comes out in the end. The PhD is correct an you are misreading them, and it has already been explained to you that the PhD is saying, verbatim, that chromosoms do not determine gender or even the sex. If you think that contradicts the PhD, you are still misunderstanding and assuming that the one who’s wrong must be the PhD and certainly not you. But you really really want to say that the PhD is equating gender and sex, or that the explanation that was given to you is contradicting what the PhD is saying. At this point, you’re just trying to obfuscate what the PhD is claiming and what you are defending, and somehow the PhD is the one who’s wrong and as bad as anti-vaxxers.

Once again: the PhD is correct, you misunderstand what they said, someone explained to you what the PhD was saying, and that explanation is not contradicting what the PhD said. The PhD and the explanation are both correct and they are saying the same thing. You keep trying to pretend that you know better than the PhD and the PhD must be anti science somehow, instead of wondering if you’re not completely missing the entire discussion. The only way you are going is trying to devaluate science.

Or the thought the phd must have meant something else

But sure the phd is wrong if he meant that; just like those anti-vax doctors and anti-abortion doctors

The PhD is not wrong. The PhD meant what they said, but it is not what you think they meant or said. The mistake is yours, and you still insist that maybe it’s the PhD who’s wrong and meant something else they didn’t say - even after somebody else correctly explained what the PhD said and meant, to which you wrongly responded “that’s not what the PhD claims.”

And yet, when someone explained to you what the PhD said and meant, your response was:

So not what the phd claims

And just now you were still comparing them to anti-vaxx doctors “if they meant that”, when they clearly didn’t mean that, and you were already told what they meant. You’re still pretending that maybe they said something wrong. They didn’t.

It’s crazy how you’re still insisting that “the PhD is wrong if he meant that”’ rather than figure out that no, what you think they meant is not what they meant, it is not what they said, you are the one misunderstanding what they said. It has to be the PhD’s fault, certainly not yours.