Yeah , it has been impossible trying to make an onflavour Feldon deck . Maybe one day . <| sep |>'.' just wondering when the code will be working my cart is ready to go ! <| sep |> I think the only chance the dragon age crew has is Cole who has some pretty amazing feats in lore . Without Cole bending their minds and stabbing them in the back the SW Inquisition wrecks 1010 . <| sep |> This is the if I ' m not doing anything wrong why do I need to worry about spying ? all over again . <| sep |> if bitcoin gets more popular , yes , the fees will go up . space on the blockchain is valuable . <| sep |> Cultural shaping occurs all the time , and at all levels . You and your family have a culture , you and your friends have a culture if you have a career in some established industry there will be a professional culture there , if you belong to a religion there will be a religious culture . We all find ourselves in geographic and ideological cultures , each with their own explicit and implicit biases about what is common sense , what is worthy of respect , and what is offensive . If you don ' t like the word culture , feel free to pick another word social groups develop n o rmsexpectationsprejudices and tend to bolster these as time goes on . Such shaping is almost always unethically implemented without any interest in the consent of the governed , with a strong nonrepresentative hierarchical authority directing the effort , and through enormously disproportional ' corrective ' force No , such shaping is not almost always unethically implemented . Either that ' s hyperbole , or you are blind to the shaping of the cultures that you agree with and see as natural . Human groups have norms , period . If you belonged to a group that was the minority in larger societal environment that seemed hostile , you would very likely attempt to conserve and defend your group , using , among other tools , language and politics . In fact , your comments thus far have displayed your own attempts at corrective cultural shaping . I ' m not saying that you ' re a bad person for doing this I ' m sure my own style of writing betrays certain biases and sympathies but no one can throw stones here . One example minor to be sure , but clear is the phrase black hole of identity politics . That ' s a piece of rhetoric which is designed to apply corrective force against anyone who might value identity politics . If enough people do similar things , cultural shaping arises . Again , I ' m not arguing that you ' re wrong about which kinds of corrective agendas jeopardize more important values or freedoms . I ' m simply arguing that setting up the debate as corrective forces vs . noncorrective forces is not going to lead to a constructive discussion . In fact , it strikes me as a rhetorical strategy which pits freedom and vitality against restriction and stagnation instead of entering into a real discussion about two sides who both naturally emphasize their own values . Furthermore , in most developed countries , we see harm in more complex terms than just physical harm or direct harm to an individual . This is a falsity , and in my experience a knowing one . That ' s your belief , but it ' s a controversial one , and you never really argued for it . In my experience , focusing on physical or direct individual harm ignores other problems which may end up causing more harm in the aggregate . I ' m not sure why you would dismiss this so casually . A buildup of mild pollutants over a long period of time can cause harm that a single instance of pollution never could . Also , apparently sudden problems in all kinds of systems can actually just be the result of systemic issues which set things up to be disastrous this is certainly true in all kinds of nonsocial systems like weather , geology , and disease transmission , so why wouldn ' t it be true in the vastly complex and collective business of politics and society ? There is the possibility for actual harm arising with a clear direct connection to speech eg . slander , libel , invasion of privacy , but those are obviously not what is being discussed here . Again , what is a common sense distinction to you certain kinds of harm should be avoided , but other kinds of harm don ' t need to be is not something everyone agrees on . In fact , there is a rich philosophical history of debate about this . I could just as easily say that I think slander and libel don ' t harm anyone , because it ' s just words and words can ' t directly harm someone if you start talking about how it can , indirectly , harm them by damaging them financially or whatever , then you ' ve opened the door to a spectrum of indirect harm . There may be a line which can be drawn , but your common sense is not the obvious arbiter of that line .