Haven't read the books, only seen a couple of the movies and I doubt I've even seen them in order. Have no idea who Cho Chang might be, etc.

But it's pretty rare to find an author/writer who can portray a character in a non-stereotypical believable manner when it's a nationality, culture, gender, etc different than theirs.

You'll notice a lot of American characters are based on the "cowboy" attitude when it's set elsewhere in the world. Doctor Who has a bit of this at times.

And male writers who do female characters in books, I often find they spend a lot of time thinking about the lead male character, love, hate, etc. If the lead is a "bad guy" the female is usually very subservient, and if the lead is a "nice guy" the female is "an equal" which they go to great lengths to make clear.

Female writers who do male character perspectives spend a lot of time either belittling the lead female character, being a potential love interest, or are "nice guys" who the female lead has no interest in but they obviously keep trying.

They main character tends to be a similar nationality and race as the author...or values similar to what would be standard for their upbringing. And they often pick hair colors they have.......and similar backgrounds to theirs if it's a more modern book. Lawyer, doctor, martial arts, military, areas they grew up in and or live in, etc.

I mean at this point, I find it funny that as soon as XYZ nationality or "age group" person dies in The Walking Dead they find a replacement usually before 2-3 episodes pass. Killed off annoying old dude who had two "daughter like figures", find a new annoying old dude who has two daughters...situation.

So.... given Rowling's popularity....she's probably doing a bit more than the common author/writers are to keep people interested...because the stuff I wrote above is like 75% of the authors. I'm sure a lot of Chinese writers aren't producing a lot of white guy main character books.....probably should make that black guy instead because they can get offended.

Nice way to start the evening. My wife and I met Victor and the rest of the Flecktones a couple of years ago. Very nice guys. A treat to see them play.

Gee....what a NICE guy.

Rodman says he hopes this shows that we can co-exist with each other...

How far is he removed from his situation? Kim Jong Un as good as murdered his uncle for power just a few weeks ago. Kim Jong Un is holding as many of his own people in concentration camps as the Nazi's did and with no better conditions. His country is the largest example of slavery existent today.

We DO NOT WANT to co-exist with the monsters that would rule in this way. I do not care if the man is really nice to you personally and to the friends and family loyal to him(at least until they 'betray' him like his uncle). He is at the same time, that nice guy to those he cares about, and cruel slave driver of the North Korean majority at the same time.

Note, even this relatively moderate Repub can't actually bring himself to say he needs to help the poor. Instead he says they have to change the message.

How sad is that. Others in his party say, "You're poor, screw you."

But he has a heart, he says, "You're poor, and I'm not going to do anything to help you, but you have my sympathy."

Aww, isn't he a nice guy?

@VoodooV

Well, I could see your point if there was any sort of allusion in the video to how women are portrayed in the media/culture. But there isn't any that I can notice. And on top of that the title implies all women are like this--it doesn't matter what the creators believe in real life, it's the title they chose for the video.

I suppose this video struck a nerve with me because back in my single days I used to do a lot of clubbing (2-3 times a week most weeks) and I always went with a group of friends, mostly female. While some of those female friends were single, they just wanted to go and have a few drinks and dance--they weren't looking to make a "love connection."

Of course, guys don't know that and so of course they're going to make an approach, but some of them (admittedly usually fueled by too much alcohol) just wouldn't take a hint. Like the supposedly "nice" guy in this video, even after being politely told that the woman has no interest in them would come back and try again. And yeah, my female friends would find that shit creepy! Because, in general, the guys approaching them are physically bigger and stronger than them and the ones that don't take the hint (again fueled by the alcohol) tend to stand way too close. In a dark club, it can be very intimidating, especially if the female in question gets separated from her friends (ie she's coming back from the dance floor or the restroom) and has a guy who isn't taking a hint pressing up on her.

So basically, based on my personal experience, I don't find the premise of the video funny. I don't empathize with the "nice" guy because the awkward pickup line and inability to take a hint remind me of the guys my friends used to have to put up with. And also because I find the whole "he's a stalker but it's okay because he's cute" thing so incredibly implausible and demeaning to women, as its implied all women are like this. I suppose if the title were "Asshole Girls" I'd find this video somewhat more funny because the character in question basically then becomes a victim of her own assholish-ness (and not "women's assholish-ness" as a whole) by willingly throwing herself into the arms of her stalker.

Everyone who hates George W. for the actions of his administration doesn't really understand how government works. George hardly knew any of the policies let alone decided on them. I was a great protester of his administration full of bastards and even I would have a beer with George W.

He seems like a perfectly nice guy, and I wanna hear what God's been up to.

I presume you mean the very last line, not the stuff I learned in the class. About women getting blotto drunk.

That last sentence can be unpacked into a book length essay. I just cut to the chase -- given this rape culture we live in, where nice guys don't speak up and shame the bad guys, where men and women both slut shame women while giving a pass to the men who commit actual crimes -- given that starting point, it is a foolish person who gets blotto drunk.

It is a stupid thing to do regardless of your gender.

It is also a foolish person who walks into a high poverty area at midnight, alone, with twenty dollar bills stapled to their clothes and wads of bills clutched in their hands. That is a gender neutral statement.

And lo, the "stunning inferiority complex that fears education and intellect in the 21st century" rears it's ugly head....

You really are disconnected from reality aren't you? Hell, you're not even connected with what you're currently watching/reading.

This explicitly does not say that democrats are nice guys.
It doesn't even say that republicans are bad guys.
Hell, the main character even outlines what he perceives to be the positive fundamental tenets of Republicanism, and then derides how those philosophies have been hijacked by a lunatic fringe.

Now, I don't agree with those philosophies or those who espouse them, but I can at least have a rational debate with them.

The tea party on the other hand? Put it this way... when he had that rant about how they were the "american taliban", for most of the world that wasn't controversial. Most of us just nodded and went, "yep, they're completely deranged nutters".

Kind of defines 'smarmy', doesn't it? What beautifully written propaganda.

Democrats, as we all know, are nice guys who will stop and help you fix your flat tire and inadvertently set your car on fire.

Reagan, Bush et al were certainly not nice guys, but try to keep a sense of perspective. They are not in anyway comparable to Hitler, Stalin or Genghis Khan.

If you're going to make statements like that, you need to back up your argument with some facts.

The alternative, as far as I am familiar with the counterargument to this viewpoint, would have been to loosen the requirement of "unconditional surrender" of Japan, and possibly to demonstrate the bomb by dropping it on an unpopulated area. Inviting Japanese scientists to a staging ground for a controlled demonstration was also on the books.

Now, assuming the US top brass were convinced Japan was not going to surrender, the argument presented here is quite valid. Bombing a live target certainly had the most shock value, and the bombs were likely in quite limited supply. (I confess, I don't know how many there were at the time.) A continued conventional war would have been horrendous.

But... Were the Japanese really unwilling to surrender, and if so, why? According to what I've read... Well, let me just quote the story, I've seen this in a number of texts:

"At the conclusion of the conference, Roosevelt and Churchill held a press conference. Roosevelt said that he and Churchill…

…were determined to accept nothing less than the unconditional surrender of Germany, Japan, and Italy…

Churchill said later that he was surprised by this statement. Churchill adds that he was told by Harry Hopkins that the President said to him:

…then suddenly the Press Conference was on, and Winston and I had had no time to prepare for it; and the thought popped into my mind that they had called Grant “Old Unconditional Surrender,” and the next thing I knew I had said it."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/04/jonathan-goodwin/roosevelt-demands-unconditionalsurrender/

It was Jonathan Glover who I first read giving this account of events, but I don't remember what his source was. The argument he and others make, though, is that the Japanese did signal their willingness to surrender, but were not willing to do so unconditionally. This is because they feared the emperor might have been deposed and put to trial, which was simply unthinkable to them. If this is true, then dropping the bombs may have been unnecessary and even before the bombs, the war effort in the Pacific could have been ended through diplomatic means.

All this does leave one with some disconcerting questions. Would Allied leaders really have refused to reconsider their demands of Japan simply due to prestige and the need to show resolve? Was there no diplomatic backchannel? Certainly the fog of war must have played a part in the decisions made. I haven't been able to find a source beyond hearsay for what, exactly, the Japanese diplomatic position on surrender was. Considering this debate still goes on, no such source is likely to surface.

What stands out here, to me, as the saddest thing is: it seems countless lives were lost for lack of solid information and communication between enemies. Had Japan and the Allies been able to negotiate further, had the allies dared show their nuclear hand, had they made it possible for the emperor (while not a nice guy by any means) to be protected, how many lives could have been saved? Unfortunately, no-one has the benefit of hindsight when it's most needed.

I can't help but think of the Cuban missile crisis - what would have happened, had a similar failure to communicate occurred at that time? It was very close...

I assume you've heard of "Editing" right? This is what happens with sources that have an agenda, which this one comes from. It's edited to show the worst and to absolve the person who's making the case.

The fantasy world feminists are living in? I don't know where that comes from but I live in a world where most (90%) of violence against women is committed by men. Women aren't paid the same for the same jobs. We've never had a woman president. Ya know things like that, stuff that might seem pretty fucked up.

Here's a story for you, I was raised by my father, and he was a nice guy. Where was my mother you ask? Oh she was murdered when I was 2 by a guy who saw her, and decided he wanted her, and killed her.

I could have left race out lawdeelaws, but it wouldn't have made my point as well concerning the nature of the private enterprise (legal system, law enforcement) used to increase that enterprise's scope and control over the people rather than the equitable and righteous treatment of the same. Fuck a traffic ticket, and thanks for the one the nice guy that hands em to me, and goddamn the bulk of 'em who, as I've stated before on threads having to do with brutality, cops-gone-wild, etc., CAN NOT HELP being corrupted by a broken, corrupt, out-of-control system of law in the United States. If you are a cop in the realm of the now well-intent be-damned, you will eventually compromise societal morality and humanity towards fellow man, period.

SO yeah, forget what I mentioned about the man's melanin levels, he's a point of light in pile of dogshit.

Please forgive my incivility, a recent encounter with blue has me quite stirred.... @lawdeelaws, didn't you mention somewhere before that you were a member or former member of a fraternal order of law-sorts?

Hardly skillful....Deano?? Got my back on this one, right?

He's an enigma. Black cop in a traditionally "whites only" good-ol' boys club. A tenured motorcycle patrolman who found his niche like a 30-year-veteran bus driver would. Make the rounds, do my job, get my pension, don't make waves.

If it's a healthy survival skill you're speaking of, he's full of it and seems a genuinely nice guy. He's still a member a broken, infected, and hopefully terminal club.