PlzGivHugs

Be respectful but honest. Hopefully you can still be there to support her, but its not your responsibly to hide your sexuality for her, nor would it be right to lead her on when the relationship won't be successful.

Just try to keep in mind that she's likely in a vulnerable place right now, so while you shouldn't lie, try to be gentle. Prehaps emphasize that theres no blame, and make sure she knows you're proud of her.

To try and answer what you're asking genuinely, since I don't see indication that this is bad-faith:

The reason African-Americans and some black people get a "pass" to use it isn't because it isn't offensive. Its because they're expected to have a better understanding of their own oppression than someone who hasn't lived with it, and because it can generally be assumed to not have racist connotations. The word has such heavy history that if someone who isn't black uses it, it is usually (and reasonably) assumed to be racism. Even among those who are black, theres a lot of nuance, with many feeling uncomfortable with saying it, either because the word is so loaded that it can be offensive reguardless, or because they don't feel like they're connected enough to the history to have the "right" to say it (I.E. someone who grew up in a black-majority country might feel this way.)

Making immigration more difficult already benefits the wealthy. Not having birthright citizenship won't change that.

I think you're misinterpreting my intentions. I believe that making immigration and citizenship easier is best. I just also believe that Jus Soli is an ineffective band-aid solution, that doesn little to help the common man.

I'm not informed enough to be very specific in execution, but in my mind, immigration should be extremely generous. Ideally, I'd say it should be effectively unlimited, but I know there are economic considerations that need to be taken into account, such as the rate of housing construction. That said, I don't feel confident enough to outline specifics beyond that. I have nothing against immigrants or immigration.

Its purely citizenship, and the political power it involves specifically that I believe shouldn't be given out based on geographic location at one instant alone. Given that its effectively giving you power to change how the country is run, it should be given to those who are directly affected by how the country is run. Ideally, I'd almost want a system where someone can't be more invested in a different country, although again, I'm not sure about specifics. Prehaps something along the lines of a limit of how much property can be owned outside the country relative to within the country, so regular people qualify easily, but someone can't get citizenship while they own a dozen houses elsewhere. Again, I'm not an expert, and not trying to advocate for a specific solution, just that immigration be made easier and citizenship shouldn't be something you can buy.

Edit: fixed a couple typos.

We don't know for every one for certain, but we have plausable explanations or backgrounds for nearly every cryptid and mythological creature. Usually, the explanation is either a diseased animal, misidentified bones, or someone looking to make money.

So we give up with a half-measure, that helps the rich moreso than the poor without addressing the underlying issue?

This isn't a helpful or sustainable approach. Should we give up on climate change because reducing carbon output is hard, or say, "Well, as long as you don't use coal, its good enough." Of course not. Not to mention that making immigration and/or citizenship more accessible isn't an impossible task at all, esspecially relative to climate change or weath inequality.

In those few, extremely rare cases are enough to fuck up a nation's politics, immigration isn't the problem.

They're rare, but not impossible, esspecially when it comes to the involvement of powerful/rich governments, corporations or individuals. We already have enough of that, no reason to make it easier for effectively no gain.

Its technically doable, but it wouldn't be easy. The problem isn't in making federated user authentication or servers, its just making a game that is flexable enough with powerful enough modding tools to be worth using compared to just making a game from scratch. Thats why, if you think about all the games in the genre, they all have significant limitations to what can be made in them (at least with any amount of polish).

As a simplified example, lets say you want the default mechanics set of your game to be a first person shooter. This means you use 3D graphics, optimized for higher-detail enviroments and include features that would be most useful for that, such as a simple optimized 3D physics system, and tools for making detailed 3D levels.

In this new game, someone wants to make a 2D platformer. What additional tools will they need? A way to lock physics to two dimensions, or possibly even a new physics system entirely, A way to manipulate the camera separate from what the game started with, an orthographic camera, possibly a new lighting system, possibly different optimization techniques, the ability for the modder to replace the player controller and change it's mechanics entirely, and the tools to use all these to make new levels.

By that point, you're half way to making a new game engine, and the modder is 90% of the way to just making a standalone game.

I don't see why voting or having political influence in a country you have no commitment to is a good thing. It seems to me that it just makes it easier to abuse the systems in place without having to live with the consequences.

You're seriously using the guy who was removed for refusing to follow orders (orders to stand down and NOT escalate) half a century ago, to argue NATO's current position on the defense of Taiwan?

The question wasn't about expecting people to be born in the country they wish to live, it was about whether citizenship by jus soli should be an option without conditions.

But why should it be an option if you don't and/or don't intend to live there?

Wouldn't the correct answer in that case just be to make it easier to immigrate and gain citizenship, rather than expecting you to be born there?

I theoretically, I would say I'm generally against it, with the understanding the citizenship is not the same as permission to live/work in the country nor the same as permission to access services.

Citizenship should generally mean that the country is your "home country" rather than place of origin. In that case, citizenship should be given to those who want to commit to participating in and improving the government and culture of the country (if only because thats where they spend most time). Where you were born doesn't relate to this strongly. What matters is how much time you'll spend here in the future, such as if your parents are citizens or permanent residents (meaning you'll likely grow up here) or if you want to move to the country permanently.

Basically, where you're born shouldn't matter. What should is your intent on living in the society you've gained influence in.