> Meanwhile in the UK during the war, American GIs complained that a bar was serving black soliders, so the bar responding by kicking out the white soliders.

True, but a bit misleading. That's how they treated guest black people who were going to leave. Those black persons (and other minorities) that immigrated later to stay were badly treated. Not as badly as the US treated black people, certainly, but not treated well.

> Especially on vitals such as food, transportation, and housing.

Food? Food is a much smaller portion of income today than it was in the 1930s. Even after recent inflation. Clothing is much cheaper, too. Housing and medical care have certainly gotten more expensive over the long-term (though they continue to get fancier, too), but not food.

Here is a 2014 article that references income spend on food. I can point you to a 1941 publication with estimates on percent on income spent by category for 1935-1936, too.

> What's most impressive is how Santa can apparently shit through his pants, considering how he didn't have to take them down.

He's a Sim.

> The lore episodes are pretty shit once it became obvious they had no overarching plan after like season 2

Sadly true. Occasionally I get my hopes up for a show, but very rarely does it actually pan out in such a way that all the characters' previous actions make any sort sense. I quit X-Files well before it ended. I did actually go to the movie, though - I actually thought it might answer some questions for once. It was a real disappointment.

And there are too often too many episodes with "shocking" twists or events that are never followed through on, don't have appropriate follow up, don't make sense with prior events, etc.

I really do sometimes these days favor "episodic" tv where there is no over-reaching story they are trying to tie to together, no finish-line. Sure, characters can grow and change over time, but at least you can follow what's going on if you miss and episode, and you don't have to tear your hair out every season finale because because the "big event" just invalidated or ignored half the prior season.

Also, episodic shows are much easier for casual rewatching, when you don't want to rewatch an entire season. Though, of course, some people don't like to rewatch shows and there's some business reasons to avoid that, too.

> At the a macro level land is a finite resource no matter what. It's a complex subject and our statements are definitely not mutually exclusive.

Eventually, yes. Now, no. There's plenty of housing available in places no one wants to live (Detroit a few years ago being a great example) and lots and lots of land available in rural areas (with few jobs), if people wanted to build there. The high prices are in desirable areas, and that's because of more people in those areas, not more people on earth. And more density would absolutely bring down the housing prices there (at least in the short term - the issue would be if lower prices increased demand/caused more people moved there).

It's very much an area of population and available housing in localized areas, not global landmass v global population at this point.

> Housing appreciates in value because there are more people year to year but the earth doesn't make more land year to year

I disagree - building and zoning regulations is the biggie in the United States. People who own houses do not want their houses to go down in value (or even remain the same). They do not want 10-story apartments in their neighborhood. They do not want 2-story apartments in their neighborhood. They do not want smaller lots and smaller houses in their neighborhood. And they are the ones with the ability to control local zoning laws.

Also, of course, they don't also don't want denser housing because they don't want increased traffic. But many people really don't want the neighborhood "going down hill" by having pretty much anyone with significantly less income than themselves living there.

Also, increasing urbanization means there's more demand in small area of space (while the rural areas away from everything have lower demand).

> Where are you getting the idea that someone thinks that the issue is resolved overnight? I’ve never heard of anyone making such a claim. Yet you keep making a point to bring it up sarcastically.

I have, more than once, heard someone say "slavery ended more than hundred years ago" or "that was 30/40 years ago" (in regards to Civil Rights act) and therefore it was completely over and not a cause for today's economic disparity and that black people faced no more difficulty than white people and these were all just excuses.

Consider yourself lucky that you didn't grow up around anyone of that sort.

> I’d be interested in know how good this person’s Chinese is while they make fun of others’ English. Don’t make fun.

I'm going to have to go with those that say it still makes sense to consult a professional. This is like making fun of people who have woefully wrong Chinese words tattooed on themselves. That it's less permanent is balanced out by it being in a professional, rather than personal, context.

But we do have to remember that an armistice is a "pause" - they didn't know fighting would not start back up. So there's sense in wanting to be a better strategic position when/if fighting resumes.