Chase

I dig Persona - but the only game I've played so far is the new mobile game that has come out. Dx2 or whatever. I guess that's filthy casual level, but... I can make like Captain America say that I understand some references.

No problem PIM, I may have a personal preference one way or the other myself in some of those races, but I think people being aware of their options and their civic duties is more important than me getting what I want. --- Couple of things to watch for. The Second Year of the Woman? Once upon a time, in 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas was accused of sexually assaulting professor Anita Hill during his confirmation process - after which he was successfully confirmed to the bench. Following that year, in the 1992 elections, many, many, many more women than ever before were elected into major offices across the country, including some of the major congresswomen that are still in Washington hard at work today. That story should sound familiar - because the Justice Brett Kavanaugh hearings in the not very distant past featured what may be a similar omen. Justice Kavanaugh was accused - primarily - by another professor, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford - of a sexual assault that had happened years prior to the nomination. The result was the same, despite being nearly thirty years apart from the Thomas hearings. Judge Kavanaugh was sworn in as Justice Kavanaugh. The confirmation was just as brutal a moment for America as Thomas' hearing was, and with the backdrop of President Trump's low approval among women coupled with the #MeToo movement, many Democratic Senate and House hopefuls identify as women, as well as a few Republican women who are also testing the waters. If Democrats make significant gains, it will most likely be because women spearheaded the takeover effort. The "M" and "I" Words: Republican candidates have a couple of issues that are not policy related that they can lean on to fire up their base. "Mob rule" - Mainstream media has a tendency to lean leftward when it comes to American political spin - with the exception of Fox News. (the best way to tell, is to watch what was once not even a political messaging effort a majority of the time - late night television.) The MSM recently has tried to combat a conservative messaging angle the Republican Party and FNC have been labeling liberal candidates and voters as recently - Mobs. A Republican talking head would point to the recent Kavanaugh riots that led to banging on the doors of the Supreme Court as Kavanaugh was being sworn in, the Anti-Facism (Antifa) group that was in the streets attacking drivers in Portland, Oregon following a police shooting, ricin being sent to the Pentagon and the White House with the intent to harm Trump and his Cabinet members, and Senator Ted Cruz (Texas) and his wife being forced out of a restaurant by protestors who were upset about his eventual vote to confirm the newest Supreme Court Justice as examples of mob action - and then point to figures such as former Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, Former Attorney General Eric Holder, Senator Cory Booker (New Jersey), and Congresswoman Maxine Waters (California) as Democratic leaders who have said things like "You can't be civil" with Republicans, or riffing on former First Lady Michelle Obama's "If they go low, we go high" doctrine with an alternative message (If they go low, we kick them.), or encouraging forming a crowd and telling members of the Trump Administration that they are not welcome when they are spotted in public. A Democratic strategist - or a MSM show host? They would respond with "That's the sound of democracy" if they were being open for discussion. If it seemed they were threatened by the suggestion that the protesting has gone too far, they would respond with "Don't call it a mob." - which plays into a Democratic tendency to be offended by something many Americans would not consider initially offensive and is really an example of too much political correctness. "Impeachment" - A slew of Democratic candidates/congressmen have been aloof when it comes to the prospect of impeaching President Trump - and more recently Justice Brett Kavanaugh - with many leaving the door open if the party can recapture a majority in one of/both the bodies of Congress. Trump has seized on this and used the threat of impeachment as a threat to his own voters - saying that if they win, the impeachment of himself and his justice would result in the undoing of everything the President has been able to accomplish so far. You haven't seen Democrats unify to come out for the prospect of impeaching either, but there are a few, such as liberal upstart Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York) who have been vocal about it as an issue to fire up their own bases.

If I recall, Victoria uses a Litten at the start of the game now (this may have changed AGAIN since the last time I was playing, so bear with me and don't buy completely into my response if you know better) Litten eventually evolves into Incineroar, whose "tertiary" typing would absolutely be fighting (if tertiary typing was a thing), even if it is Fire/Dark. The Heel Pokemon is based off of the "bad guy" in wrestling, and Fighting type moves such as Double Kick and Cross Chop are found in its learnset. Cain also started diversifying as early as when he rescues Oshawott. Your rivals may have certain affinities, but they have not so much been monotype trainers. In a way, they are a lot like people who just use their favorite Pokemon rather than those who build their teams for synergy or to a certain set of rules.

...so you're really going to finish the bloody game before I get to the point everyone else is huh... ...now I'm angry.

Oooh, it feels good to be back. The first order of business here is to link your voter registration deadlines - some of you may have already missed them but extending circumstances such as Hurricane Michael in the southeast may allow you to register after the deadline so that you can vote in this year's midterm elections. You can find your state's registration date here: The second order of business is to tell you what "midterm elections" are - Midterms, as they are in school when you take major tests, are the "major tests" faced by incumbent legislators in Congress two years after a Presidential Election, as well as their challengers. The difference between a midterm election and a presidential election is that the current President of the United States does not have to face voters this cycle, which leaves only affected Congress-folks. So....sorry if you are already chomping at the bit to knock off President Trump. You only have to keep that enthusiasm for two years... and as President Obama once said. Don't boo. Vote. Even this cycle. If you have been living under a rock - here's what's really important on the ballot this November: 1. The Trump Referendum. Basically, if you believe that President Trump's policies have been mostly helpful for America, that he has been true to his word about going after said policies, and you would like to see him continue to enact said policies - you will want to make sure to elect as many Republicans on your ballot as you can. Currently, the Presidency and Congress are both in Republican control. Don't like Trump or the GOP? Your goal would probably be to try and elect all of the Democrats on your ballot. Hate Trump but like your Republican congressmen? This bullet-point isn't going to be a major decision for you. 2. "It's the economy, Stupid." - James Carville Currently, the stock market under the Trump Presidency has been two things. Disturbingly variable, and yet mostly very positive. Jobs reports have been promising. Your vote here depends on how you view these results, either as the result of the Trump administration's aggressive tariff wars and protectionism, or as a carry-over effect of the Obama administration. Pro-Trumpers should vote Republican, Pro-Obama voters will be voting Democratic to prevent what may be an inevitable major recession or out of the belief that 44 is getting his credit taken away by 45. 3. Republicans v. the Affordable Care Act One of the biggest objective failures of the Trump administration and the Republican Party to date was having to eat the late John McCain's "No" vote on repealing and replacing "Obamacare", officially known as the "Affordable Care Act". However, they have been able to knock out the individual mandate that was the most disliked part of the legislation, which required citizens to pay a penalty if they did not own healthcare for themselves. If killing the individual mandate was enough for you - vote Republican. If too much of the bill remains alive in your opinion - you will probably need to vote for a Republican, especially if you have a moderate Republican or any Democrat on your ballot defending a seat. If you are afraid Republicans will continue to go after the bill and axe something like say... coverage for pre-existing conditions - you might want to consider voting Democratic. If protecting Obama's biggest legislative achievement matters to you as a voter, get out there and vote Democratic. 4. The Image of America Vague title aside, this is the home for all of your identity-related politics. If you are a full-throated conservative, a religious person already in the United States, an entrepreneur, or an agricultural expert - you will probably want to consider voting Republican. If you are concerned with women's rights, rights for minorities, live in cities, college towns, or the suburbs, support worker's unions, or consider yourself a blue-blooded liberal, you will want to vote for Democrats. 5. The Future What may finally become a ballot-box issue for liberals this year is the matter of the dominant ideas found throughout the American Judiciary. With Justice Brett Kavanaugh being successfully sworn in, The Supreme Court of the United States sits at a solid 5-4 conservative majority (the Chief Justice John Roberts, who previously votes reliably in the favor of conservatives, is now the center justice), with President Trump successfully confirming him and colleague Justice Neil Gorsuch before voters have had a chance to have their say on his nominations. Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (otherwise known as the Notorious RBG) is 85 years old, and her liberal colleague Stephen Breyer is 80. A Trump Presidency with two more years of a Senate Majority in his favor could (not likely given how RBG can do more push ups than me at 85...) potentially give conservative voters a 7-2 majority on the court, almost certainly endangering decisions such as Roe v. Wade (abortion available in all 50 states) and Obergefell v. Hodges (homosexual right to marry in all 50 states) Liberals need to vote for Democratic Senate hopefuls in order to cause disruption with the "advice and consent" process and protect any liberal rulings from helpless minority defenses. MY Predictions: Democrats retake the House of Representatives Republicans look very different depending on districts that are up for grabs. Suburban Republicans are typically college educated white people who are less likely to approve of President Trump - and this will hurt Republicans who have to lean on him in those districts. The House congressional map doesn't favor Republicans in large part due to a two-year-long "Resistance"-charged enthusiasm gap and because most of their fights will be in the suburbs while losing more seats the Democrats this cycle. Republicans hold onto the Senate Democrats have to play defense more than they would like here. With the Kavanaugh debacle closing the enthusiasm gap by awakening the Republican base, Democrats have to hope they can win something like both Tennessee and Texas as well as hold onto all of their current seats. I don't see that happening, especially now that Heidi Heitkamp voted "No" on Kavanaugh in deep red North Dakota...when she was already down somewhere between 8 and 12 points in her race.

It has been a long time since I have posted about United States politics - so long in fact, that I feel like I've actually drifted a little to the left on several issues as a result of what Trumpism has done to what was once "conservatism". MAYBE I'll touch on those areas in this thread, maybe not. It just depends on where the discussion is going and what I actually end up putting in this opening post. I just ask for civility here - because it is my firm belief that people CAN discuss governance without losing their mind. It is okay to feel for people - and I expect some of the more direct responses to stem from the heart. I just ask that you don't weaponize your feelings. People voted the way they did for reasons that may or may not be antagonistic - and it's unbecoming to antagonize those people when you don't understand their position. --- Last year, Justice Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court, supplying President Trump with his first notable "victory" in the political arena by fulfilling a promise to voters who may not have cared as much about his direct immigration rhetoric and were put off by his personal life decisions. For evangelicals and conservatives who did not like the President almost as much as they didn't like his opponent, the matter of filling the late Justice Anthony Scalia's seat on the bench with another conservative Justice became their boiling point - and with good reason. Supreme Court Justices are appointed to the highest court in the land for life. This means that generations of legal interpretation hinge on these appointments. These "iffy" voter blocs wanted to make sure the Court remained ideologically conservative and feared the kinds of decisions that would be made by Justices appointed by a President Hillary Clinton. For Trump, Gorsuch, and his newest appointee Judge Brett Kavanaugh as of last night, are the tokens of his legacy that will last beyond his occupation of the White House. --- Two weeks ago, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced retirement. Unlike the arch-conservative Scalia, Kennedy was the centrist member of the Supreme Court, and his swing votes were critical in decisions that protected rights such as abortion and same-sex marriage. While his presence was important to conservatives as to what one would identify the ideology of the court in general, liberals always believed they had a chance with Kennedy on the bench. If Judge Kavanaugh is to be confirmed, the new "center" of the court would belong to Chief Justice John Roberts, who dissented with Kennedy and the liberal wing of the court in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case which effectively legalized same-sex marriages nationwide. On abortion, he would be leaned on to protect the Roe v. Wade ruling as precedent - and he had written for the Bush administration that he believed the case was decided incorrectly. Early prognostication indicates that while he may not outright overturn Roe, he could be comfortable crippling it bit by bit. Chief Justice Roberts' most notorious break from the conservative wing of the court - even against Justice Kennedy - was ruling with the liberal Justices that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional in bulk and that the individual mandate was an acceptable tax. --- Kavanaugh, as a nominee, is not a likely "Trump" kinda guy, but that just may be what Trump finds impressive about him. He graduated from an Ivy League university (Yale), clerked for Justice Kennedy, and was highly involved legal matters for the Bush administration. He has decided in various cases and written many important documents. From a purely credential standpoint, Kavanaugh is just as appropriate for the Supreme Court as Gorsuch was. He wasn't the "ideal" pick for conservatives despite falling on the spectrum close to Gorsuch and Justice Samuel Alito. In an abortion case involving a Jane Doe who illegally migrated to the United States in search of an abortion, Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion loosely mentioned the "government's interest in protecting fetal life" and instead focused more on the Trump administration's claim that it was more important to find a sponsor the girl, then 17, that can help her make the decision, effectively leaving abortion on the table. He was a part of a three judge panel that ceded the decision to the full court. One of the judges ruled in favor of the Trump administration due to the belief that foreigners do not have constitutional rights, meaning that Roe didn't apply. The other ruled in favor of Jane Doe and ruled that the administration was being unconstitutional in denying her the right to an abortion. The full court ruled in favor of Jane Doe - and while Kavanaugh did dissent, conservatives felt that he was overly cautious in his ruling. Conservatives also take exception with a former interpretation that Obamacare's individual mandate was a tax - an idea Chief Justice Roberts would later use in his majority opinion saving most of the Affordable Care Act from the legal chopping block, much to conservatives' chagrin. There are two things about Kavanaugh that make his confirmation prospects dicey. The first is that Kavanaugh has a very long paper trail, which could potentially bog down Senators as they review his work very close to November, when the midterm elections take place. If Kavanaugh's documents aren't thoroughly reviewed by that time, he could cause universal "Nay" votes from Democrats on those grounds, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would need to whip all of his Republican votes in order to confirm Kavanaugh in time before he potentially loses control of the Senate. A Democratic Senate would be pressured (and may even be willing) to vote down Kavanaugh and force President Trump to pick a much more moderate Justice, which would keep the court as it is today and would be a let-down for Republican voters. Due to Arizona Senator John McCain taking time off to treat cancer, and the Democratic Party picking up a Senate seat in deep-red Alabama, the Senate is effectively 50/50, with 50 Republicans and 49 Democrats. That is a razor thin margin of error. The other thing is a Kavanaugh writing that expresses the support for delaying criminal investigations for sitting presidents until after their term has ended. Judge Kavanaugh did ensure that he wasn't exempting Presidents from the full extent of the law, but the reality of the matter is that it is a very unfortunate thing to have on record when President Trump is the person who nominated you. If he confirms what he said and stands by it, he risks losing all Democratic support in the chamber and perhaps the more centrist or libertarian minded Republicans, and thus won't get confirmed. However, walking away from that statement also could draw ire from President Trump, who may have a personal interest in picking judges that are friendly to him as opposed to inquisitive. Presidents -do- have the right to withdraw court nominations. --- Here are the key votes in the Senate to watch. Republicans Rand Paul - Kentucky: Senator Paul is regarded as the most libertarian minded conservative in the Senate, and while he hasn't voiced opposition to Judge Kavanaugh, the nominee has a few documented authoritarian positions that may make him a target for Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in a pinch and are somewhat likely to draw questions from the Freshman Kentuckian. The aforementioned policy on sitting presidents above is one, while he also ruled in favor of the National Security Agency in a few cases regarding call logs, something which Paul has been vocal about in the past. Expected vote: Yes. Susan Collins - Maine: Senator Collins is a pro-choice Republican Senator in a state that is very moderate and has mixed opinions about various issues. She will be the center of a bunch of activist groups from both conservative and liberal circles. Following the nomination of Kavanaugh, she expressed comfort with his credentials and may be warming up to the nominee, but the pressure from the left in her state and a potentially grueling document review process makes my faith in her going along with him at this point shaky. Expected Vote: No. Lisa Murkowski - Alaska: Alaska is a bit more conservative than Maine, but Senator Murkowski is probably really good friends with Senator Collins, as yet another female pro-choice Republican who is going to see a bit more attention than she may want from the entire country. While I think it may be safer to assume Murkowski and Collins vote the same way, I do think Murkowski is more likely to vote in favor of Judge Kavanaugh because the liberal pressure would be proportionally less from her own state. Expected Vote: Yes. Democrats Doug Jones - Alabama: That.....That still feels very weird to type. Senator Jones was able to win a special election against Roy Moore, a far-right conservative that also carried sexual misconduct allegations involving minors. That's about the perfect storm a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate in Alabama could hope for. Unlike the rest of the Democrats that will be listed, Senator Jones will not have to face voters in his state until 2020, but for every Hillary Clinton voter in Alabama, there were nearly two Donald Trump voters. Trump also carried a higher percentage of votes than Mitt Romney did in 2012, meaning that the state has actually become more Republican from 2012 to 2016. Jones would provide his presumably favored Republican challenger ammunition by not voting in favor of Judge Kavanaugh, especially among the morality voters that voted Democrat in his special election. Just how much of a Democrat are you allowed to be when you have to represent mostly conservative voters? Expected Vote: Yes. Heidi Heitkamp - North Dakota: Senator Heitkamp is a moderate Democratic Senator from a largely conservative state that votes due to agricultural concerns. Trump also won this state handily, by 32 percentage points. Concerning President Trump's first Supreme Court Justice, Senator Heitkamp voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch along with Republicans - largely due to being up for re-election in November. It will be interesting to see how her challenger House Rep. Kevin Cramer pushes her during the coming months. North Dakota is another state that has drifted to the right from an already conservative position. Expect Vote: Yes. Joe Manchin - West Virginia: Every. Single. County.... in West Virginia went to Donald Trump, who won the state by 42 percentage points. However, Senator Manchin remains pretty popular. He has had no trouble working with President Trump despite being a member of the Democratic Party, and his loyalty is shaping up to potentially have him retain his seat. What that means though, is that he will likely vote for Kavanaugh as he did for Gorsuch. He has been the most "Democrat in Name Only" in the Senate because of the hands-off approach Senator Schumer has had with his red-state senators. Expected Vote: Yes. Joe Donnelly - Indiana: Indiana was one of those states that absolutely could have been lost from the Republican column. In 2008 the Hoosier State went to Barack Obama. However, the state tends to be trending to the right. Donnelly was another Democratic Senator who voted for Gorsuch last year, and is up for re-election in November. Expected Vote: Yes. Claire McCaskill - Missouri: In a shining ray of hope for Democrats, Senator McCaskill did not vote for Justice Gorsuch last year, despite being up for re-election in a Trump state. That sets her apart from the last three Senators because it means she's not really beholden to Republicans in Washington on consistancy when she casts her vote. Missouri however, has been running away from the Democrats and she is in one of the most hotly contested Senate battles this year against the GOP nominee Atty. Gen. Josh Hawley. Expected Vote: No Jon Tester - Montana: Senator Tester is in the same boat as Senator McCaskill. He is a Democrat that did not vote in favor of Justice Gorsuch while up for re-election this year. He, like McCaskill, seems to be out of touch with his state's political trajectory, but he also doesn't have to sweat as much as McCaskill as the state's senior senator and is slightly favored to win. I expect that he votes with the party again. Expected Vote: No. --- Result: Justice Kavanaugh is confirmed.

YES

Today, I want to talk about five units that I think are some of the best bargain units to use with significant longevity, inspired by pulling the first one on this list in a good nature. "Bargain" units typically are pulled at 3-4 stars. While there are many who can be made effective fighters with low investment, there are some units who are worth giving up either your arm or your leg for for various reasons. Here, I'll open up by talking about the Weapon Refinery and how it has changed the game for these units. Before it had been introduced, you had units that simply were too outdated or outclassed to see any light of day in today's metagame. This was such an epidemic that it even affected Lords (or main characters) quite heavily (Marth, Alm, Roy, Chrom, and Male Corrin come to mind)... With the Refinery, many a new weapon has been introduced, and many new effects have become refineable on some of the series' most recognizable instruments of war. The Refinery also allows common weapons, such as Slaying weapons or Wo Dao effect weapons, to be refined in order to provide forgotten units (or already pretty good units) with stat boosts and customization options. Let's go. --- Lilina: Delightful Noble (Fire Emblem Binding Blade, Red Tome, Infantry, Available at 3-4 star rarity) (watch this space)

Oh, we're doing User's Greatest Hits now? --- Tharja: Dark Shadow (Fire Emblem Awakening, Red Tome, Infantry, Available at 3-4* rarity) Gray: Wry Comrade (Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia, Sword, Infantry, 5* Exclusive) Sonya: Vengeful Mage (Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia, Green Tome, Infantry, 5* Exclusive)

After a bit of a hiatus due to studies and house-sitting and ultimately procrastination, I'm here to talk about three unique flying colorless units in order of what I deem to be the most easy to obtain. All three of these units are new, and are unopposed in their categories. They all share the same position in that either by pegasus or through the delicious teleportation method of levitation due to high concentrated amounts of evil they are flying units and usually are weak to arrows while also receiving buffs from Flier Emblem. Flier Emblem is a very interesting offensive Arena core to run because there are lots of units that are terrifying in the offense department. --- Hinoka (Wings of Fate): Blue Sky Warrior (Fire Emblem Fates, Bow, Flier, 5* Exclusive on the Wings of Fate and subsequent banners (that means not on the Cooldown banner with Ayra or prior)) Robin: Empty Vessal Kagero: Spring Ninja (work in progress, library is closing soon)

“1v1, pot up son, dm, no safe” “But that isn’t any of my business” “what’s that?” “FIRE EMBLEM! HEROES!” ... It has begun.

Today, I want to talk about a couple of the new dragons as well as a few of the easier to obtain dragons already in the game, as Dragon Emblem has been both extraordinarily effective in Arena performance and has been getting blessed by Intelligent Systems as opposed to being nerfed on and off. For general reference, Dragon units are seemingly atypical of the general Heroes mantra that good offense is everything. Fully built, dragons will be able to tank hits from physical units and magic users alike with great consistency. They also will have adaptive damage that targets their opponent's less reliable defense stat. On Player Phase, they attack from 1 range, but will target the resistance stat unless specified in weapon description that they have adaptive damage or their breath has been refined. Their flexible nature makes them by themselves pretty good fits for mixed teams, but with Dragon Emblem buffs they can reach fearsome stats. Unlike dealing with the movement type buffs however, Dragons need very specific counterpicks to be taken down with regularity. Falchion users (as is the case in normal Fire Emblem games) make for decent picks against most of the field, with most dragons being Green at this point as well as the swords having natural effective damage against dragons. The other alternative is the Naga and Divine Naga tomes. Falchion users are limited to the following units: Marth (Shadow Dragon), Alm (Echoes/Gaiden), Chrom and his Exalted Cavalier alternate (Awakening), Lucina and her masked variant (Awakening) - making a total of six specific sword units with Masked Marth being the only freebie and Marth and regular Chrom being the only two easily summonable. The Naga tomes are restricted to two units from Genealogy of the Holy War, Julia, and her mother Deirdre. Both Naga wielders are 5* exclusive. Finally, to illustrate the raw power of dragons, it is not a done deal that Falchion units will prevail (with Alm's Double Lion refinement being the exception) in the case of dragons that are blue, and built correctly, Julia and Deirdre are at risk against any iteration of Tiki, both of which are red units. Thus, there are arena defense teams that are utilizing Dragon buffs and can take care of both of their effective weapon weaknesses. --- Male Kana: Dragon Spawn (Fire Emblem Fates, Blue Dragon, Infantry, Soon to be available in an upcoming Grand Hero Battle) Female Kana: Dragon Princess (Fire Emblem Fates, Green Dragon, Infantry, 5* Exclusive, currently a focus unit on the Wings of Fate banner) Adult Tiki: Naga's Voice (Fire Emblem Awakening, Red Dragon, Infantry, 3-4* availability)

Hey man, Clive is great, what is wrong with you That's some good work, Commander. --- Today, I feel like talking about a few of the worth considering dagger units in the game. Daggers are low might distance attackers that have the added bonus of debuffing their targets after combat. This is pretty much essential, because these units often will not be able to outright kill whoever they are attacking, but they can swing the tide in your favor if you use them ahead of your other units. What's important with making a dagger user work is either A - finding one of the few that can possess a strong physical attack stat or specific niche target they will perform well against, or B - supporting them with heavy hitters that can clean up. Let's start with a freebie, and my favorite dagger (and easily top 5 favorite units) in the game. --- Felicia: Maid Mayhem (Fire Emblem Fates, Dagger, Infantry, Available for free via the Hero Battle rotation) Sothe: Zephyr (Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn, Dagger, Infantry, Summonable at 4-5 star rarity) Saizo: Angry Ninja (Fire Emblem Fates, Dagger, Infantry, Summonable at 3-4 star rarity)

New day, new group to talk about. This time, I'm going to talk about freely available units. Free units often become critical for newer players or players that are adverse to spending money on the game. One of the ways in which Heroes is rather generous for a gacha game is that there are several very usable characters that are obtainable as rewards for certain game modes or challenges. Yesterday, I pointed out that Olivia was a dancer that freemium players had easy access to through the Hero Battle rotation. The next step up from there is the Grand Hero Battle, a series of three battles that are much more difficult than Hero Battles are. The rewards however, are unique to GHBs alone. The other game mode that offers units as rewards is Tempest Trials, which follows a story in which Masked Marth follows a storm that runs through the various Fire Emblem worlds, and is a chain challenge where players must have all four units survive a set number of battles. Tempest Trials gives players less access to merges with their reward units, but does at a certain tier give the player a free unit at 5* rarity, while the best rarity GHB unit one can be rewarded with is 4*, requiring some time investment on the player's end. To specify what unit and movement type, we're going with Lance Cavaliers. There are four of them available. For Free. --- Clive: Idealistic Knight (Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia, Lance, Cavalier, available only during a specified Tempest Trial rerun) Finn: Lance of Legend (Fire Emblem Thracia 776, Lance, Cavalier, only available during specified Tempest Trials reruns. Or in this case, NOW.) Berkut: Prideful Prince (Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia, Lance, Cavalry, Available as a Grand Hero Battle unit) Camus: Sable Knight (Fire Emblem Shadow Dragon, Lance, Cavalry, Available as a Grand Hero Battle unit)

Moderators: I placed this thread in Gaming General because I wanted to open discourse up to people beyond the Fire Emblem group. If that group is the only appropriate place for this thread, I would not mind if it is moved there. I just wanted to let you guys know I wasn't trying to break any forum rules or anything. Thanks for all that you do and I apologize for any inconveniences. --- One of the most active channels on the Reborn Discord server (or...the only active channel I tend to spend any meaningful amount of time in) is the Fire Emblem channel. In that channel there is always one constant matter of discussion. The mobile game Fire Emblem Heroes, a gacha game that is surprisingly generous to free players that allows them to collect and battle with various units from across the entire Fire Emblem franchise. Yes, I am plugging the discord channel and FEH... bite me. In this thread, I want to open up discussion for units that are similar in weapon type, color, and movement type so that one may get the best experience, be it as a free player or one who chooses to spend for their favorite heroes. I'll open the discussion up by starting with the games assortment of Refresher units, or perhaps more affectionately known as dancers and singers. ...because it isn't war if there isn't someone singing a war hymn or dancing furiously to raise morale....what do you mean people who actually fight are more important? --- Olivia: Blushing Beauty (Fire Emblem Awakening, Sword, Infantry, available for free via Hero Battle rotation, summoned at 3*-4*) Azura: Lady of the Lake (Fire Emblem Fates, Lance, Infantry, summoned exclusively at 5*) Ninian: Oracle of Destiny (Fire Emblem Blazing Sword, Blue Breath, Infantry (Dragon), summoned exclusively at 5*) Performing Olivia: Festival Dancer (Dagger, Infantry, only available on designated Legendary banners and Performing banner reruns) Performing Inigo: Indigo Dancer (Fire Emblem Awakening, Green Tome, Infantry, only available on designated Legendary banners and Performing banner reruns) Performing Azura: Lady of Ballads (Axe, Infantry, only available on designated Legendary banners and Performing banner reruns) Performing Shigure: Dark Sky Singer (Fire Emblem Fates, Blue Tome, Infantry, only available on designated Legendary banners and Performing banner reruns) New Year's Azura: Celebratory Spirit (Axe, Flier, only available on designated Legendary banners or New Year's reruns)

Okay, so Celica is one of the most controversial Lords in the Fire Emblem series. On the one hand, she is easily the epitome of peace, democracy, and finds all fighting regrettable, even if coming from a just vantage point. On the other, she seems to be impressively unintelligent and extremely poor at preserving herself, to the point where she lies to her friends about it as she makes her grim march to what she understands as a personal sacrifice. I'm going to address these points. --- 1. Celica doesn't hold the same faith in man's own ability to thrive as Alm does or the same disdain in Mila as the Zofian commoner class seems to during the events of the story. Before promoting into the known Zofian Princess Anthiese, Celica is a Preistess who grew up in a priory that focused primarily on worshipping the goddess Mila and providing for the increasing number of needy people. Here, we learn two things about Celica's mindset before she even sets off for Mila's Temple on pilgrimage. The first is that Celica holds a devoted hope and faith in Mila to provide for her people, and the second is that people now more than ever are in desperate need of aid. A couple of the priory's attendants will be quick to note that Novis is just as embattled as Zofia's mainland due to the pirate activity in the seas. This is largely important, because it means that whatever Novis is doing to aid those who are coming for help, isn't going to work. It's this context that may convince Celica that humanity is unable to stem the ill tides Zofia is facing and becomes the backdrop of her lack of faith in humanity to preserve themselves. This lack of faith in humanity undercuts the goal of the Deliverance (to free themselves from their opressors and reclaim the kingdom) and later the goal of Emperor Rudolf to protect Valentia from the incoming madness the two draconic deities (Mila, and her brother Duma) would come to harbor. Speaking of the inevitable fall of Gods into mass destruction, this is a Fire Emblem staple among draconic villains of immense power. It would seem many in Valentia are not aware of this however, which also plays into the trust Celica has in Mila. 2. Celica is a peacemaker, not a combatant. Part of what makes Celica's Act 4 and 5 questionable among some is that her Acts 2 and 3 are seen as aggressive and helpful to the continent of Valentia. Here, she's still making her journey to Mila, but along the way she deals with pirates and bandits and ends up resolving half of the human-inflicted blight of Zofia in the same manner Alm is doing with the Deliverance. Allow me to subvert the optics here. Celica is IN CHARACTER when she is making a deal with Jedah to free Mila and help Zofia prosper, and is acting OUT OF CHARACTER when she herself is kicking a bunch of pirate ass and putting an end to crime rings. However, you don't see Act 2 or 3 getting criticized, because those are fun chapters and the player likes to see a strong Lord thrive in combat. It CAN be argued, also, that Celica is fulfilling her role as the heiress to the Zofian throne by ridding Zofia of it's ailments. In doing these things, she's being the ruler she was meant to be and doing more good than Mila ends up doing out of dramatic irony. So, if all of the acts are explainable, how does this result in Celica not being very smart? I feel as if your expectations may be subverted by the first two acts she's playable as an adult, or you may have a personal preference in aggressive Lords like Ephriam, Ike, Alm here, or Hector. 3. Reasonable Faith Is there any other Lord who puts so much stock in a deity as Celica? > It's the reason she leaves the island of Novis. > It's the reason her band of pilgrims invades Rigel. > It's the reason she offers to sacrifice herself. In Celica's eyes and heart, we find that Mila is placed in the pedestal Alm has placed his fellow comrades and human beings in. This plays as an intentional flaw to Celica considering the game's resolution is a unified Valentia under no deity's rule. It also follows the logic of many theists in the real world. Celica sees Mila as the answer to Zofia's ability to recover, and her own life as a small price to pay in her release. Celica takes on the role similar of Jesus' disciples, who died for the spread of the Gospel in shocking consistency for something to be seen as a myth or a legend. She is willing to die for what she believes in. The reason we struggle to see this as logical is because we have knowledge Celica doesn't - the dramatic irony I alluded to earlier that Mila is descending into madness. Instead of appreciating the irony, we credit it as a fault too significant to think it a good aspect of Celica's character.

It's probably the "mascot"-esque Pokemon I like.

I feel as if a tutorial should be optional where it can be. It isn't bad to tell someone how to play the game. It -is- bad to have telling someone how to play the game BE the game.

Sometimes, the best Fire Emblem experiences seem to be gathered from taking in advice from friends... If there's anything that I've learned from my time playing Fire Emblem Heroes last year, is that the Reborn Community has a lot of great friends who really do dig the franchise and provide a lot of handy tips. Here's a place where you can do just that - bring up a unit, share your thoughts on how they can be optimized or what you think should be done to make them enjoyable to play with, and just talk about why that unit is good or not-so-good in general. If this thread takes off - you should have a list of Fire Emblem characters across all games that can be referred to by people who pick up one of the titles themselves. Kicking off this list is a controversial character that I don't really like, but can absolutely respect as a unit. Peri. --- (No, she isn't a Hero at base -or- after heart seal usage...she's a cavalier.) Peri is a young noble girl who serves along with Laslow (or Awakening's Inigo) as Prince Xander's retinue in Fates. She has an incredibly child-like personality in that she's written in a way to where she doesn't truly understand the difference between right and wrong and is often seen fussing about not getting her way. This manifests itself most noticeably in the form of a striking bloodlust, where her servants and any wildlife that are nearby are in serious danger if Peri is bored or upset. Xander employed Peri after a mediocre showing at a jousting tournament, because he was by self-admission attracted to her. Because, Xander is a totally reasonable individual. In comparison to Silas and Xander, Peri is a noticeably faster and more magic-resistant cavalier. She has better weapon ranks than the former, but is eclipsed by the later due to Xander's personal weapon having two range and high might. She also differs from the new knight and the crown prince in that she prefers to use lances as opposed to swords, boasting an impressive C rank in lances at base. She even joins with a Steel Lance. Depending on how much usage you get from Silas prior, Peri has the potential to be the better offensive cavalier in a one-to-one comparison. If Silas isn't close to reaching C rank in swords, Peri probably wins the toss-up from there as she can use Beast Killers to down shapeshifters, pegasus knights, and Vallite/Bandit/Garon's army cavaliers from base. She also can use Killer Lances for a high critical hit chance and Blessed Lances to heal every turn and down Faceless and Stoneborn enemies. Defensively, she is the worst cavalier you pick up despite having the edge against mages unless you have the Hexlock Spear accessible via castle battles or you have gotten lucky and picked one up. The Hexlock Spear accentuates Peri's lean toward magic resistance and definitively establishes her as the physical damage dealer to send after mages. Without the spear, Xander's great physical bulk is too much to go up against and Silas usually turns out fairly balanced with better availability. She shines even less if you are one to use Silas' daughter Sophie. Sophie has the potential to become the best cavalier barring Xander in the game because like her father, her growths are evenly pretty decent across the board. Seigbert, Xander's son, can also get some good resistance, but not if you are playing the game the right way and marrying him to Charlotte. Peri reclasses into a Dark Mage through her heart seal option. It's not a great class for Peri to stay in and she should definitely promote as a Cavalier to either Paladin or Great Knight before considering it. The reason why - is because she can then immediately hop over into the Dark Knight line, where her usage is saved by her sword rank. Through Dark Knight, she can pick up Heartseeker, which lowers her enemies' avoid by 20. Malefic Aura to help her usage in Sorcerer if you want to switch over for the skills, Seal Magic, which is a very good skill for Peri as it hits her opponent for -6 Magic (making her resistance beefier when she fights them), and Lifetaker, which is good for Peri because her kills will not only give her her personal skill stat buffs but also some HP back, which helps improve her survivability by playing aggressively. Sorc, likely at the expense of an Arm's Scroll, gives you Vengeance, which is another good skill for Peri in that any damage she has taken can be used as extra damage - especially if she doesn't have Armored Blow or Lifetaker to beef herself up. I don't see the Arm's Scroll usage as worth it here though. Of her base class, the better class promotion to go is Great Knight. It patches up her poor defense growth wise and gives her access to Luna to deal more damage (increasing her chance to proc her personal) by halving effective Defense/Res (or something like that) along with Armored Blow to reduce physical damage when she initiates combat. Peri has one of the more fun personal skills in the game in Bloodthirst. When Peri kills an enemy, she gets +4 in Strength, Magic, Skill, and Speed. This makes her a very scary enemy phase unit and a good unit for Azura to tail and dance for in order to make use of the boosts. While fun, it may require some strategic setup or relegating Azura to one unit when others may need to be refreshed more than Peri does. All the same, when she pulls the skill off, Peri's usually killing at least two units per round fairly consistently. Recommended Skillset: Bloodthirst, Elbow Room, Heartseeker, Seal Magic, Lifetaker/Vengeance, Armored Blow Recommended Weapon: Hexlock Spear, Javelin, Steel Lance, Iron Sword (if Dark Knight) Recommended Final Class: Great Knight --- Closing thoughts: I personally have a predisposition towards Silas and Sophie, so Peri is a benchwarmer for me. Especially after Xander and his son join the party. This isn't because I can't find a way to use Peri at all though, rather than it being a redundancy issue. In order to use Peri well, you must play her aggressively. Doing so however can be a hilariously carnage-filled experience in your favor and is mighty rewarding. She may not be characterized well, but as a unit, she's pretty good. Solid B grade.

I'll take the target off your back by saying that Phoenix Mode isn't as bad as everyone will make it out to be. The mode broadens the player base by removing all frustration from the game. While I would never play it personally - it enables players who care about story and shipping to essentially do that and a few may even learn how to be a more efficient tactician in the interim. Dont like the Mode? Don't play it. Permadeath is always going to be an option. Theres nothing wrong with expanding the playerbase and making coin by making the game more accessible. --- Ive got no beef with Avatars, but I like them not serving as Lords. I'd rather them be customizable in primary class -and- secondary class and we spice it up by letting them start getting some Choose-your-own-adventure elements or something as a tactician. The biggest issue with MUs always seems to be wearing too big of a pair of shoes. Bring back personal skills. Personality is cool.

Title speaks for itself. I would want to have a mixture of classic Fire Emblem classes with culture inspired ones. Much like Hoshido's Oriental classes in Fates. The story doesn't need to be Classic Vs. New, but having new classes is pretty fun. I would want a class promotion system similar to Fates where the unit's personality, friends, and romantic partner expand their class tree beyond their base class - using Seals or some other promotion items. I would want some sort of weapon triangle. Echoes was cool, but it's an oddball for a reason. The WT provides the player more control of the situation without utterly breaking the game unless the unit is over-leveled. I do not want Awakening Second Seals. Fates Eternal Seals are fine. The next 'Mila's Turnwheel' mechanic from Echoes needs to be a staple in the franchise. Most players tend to try to beat the game without losing units and will reset over simply leaving a unit they invested time into dead. Towns and Dungeons would be pretty fun if they could be implemented without classic Fire Emblem mechanics and not in a complete Gaiden reboot. Full VA. Please. It's great. However, get your money's worth on your VA and have units support the entire army. The newer FE's do a great job at providing replayability through all the customization and optimization.. more on this later. The better reason for this bullet though, is that various characters seem to bring out more obscure traits to characters in supports when they have many and with characters they would typically be less involved with. I don't mind if quality suffers a bit in writing here (within reason), as supports are not the main character presentation. I'm going to be a tepid supporter of child units. Awakening and Fates did a poor job of making them fit in the narrative (with varying degrees, as Awakening at least tried to make sense of the situation.) The bottom line is, the various skill passing and modifier changing and hair colors all the way to "Scramble" DLC that makes every version of the child different depending on the auxiliary parent is just pretty great for the games value. If it requires making the war last multiple decades in order to make sense, Fire Emblem isn't a stranger to that. If Competitive play is a thing, why not take it to the next level and make it three generations, with the last generation not being so needed in the story, but being the slice-of-life characters we seem to like in the later Fire Emblems: with now absurd skill inheritance options and modifiers and growths that are ripe for competitive min-maxing? Fanservice characters need to be reasonable and I would prefer Intelligent Systems refrain from making them marketing tools. Charlotte in Fates is an excellent example of battle bikini done right. Since promiscuity is a required facet of Charlotte's plan of getting ahead as a person, it would make sense that her armor would be made with alluring men in mind. Camilla, despite being a great character, is the inverse of this. Intelligent Systems, both in Fates' cutscenes and in following titles, have made Camilla more of a promiscuous character for the sake of attracting the players themselves and more importantly, to expand their pockets. The ultimate portrayal however, is Sonya in Echoes. Sonya combines deadly beauty with display of power as a mercenary mage, and she does it without being over the top in the art department.

I mean...I don't agree with that completely. Fire > Rat Spirit Ox Spirit is probably cooler than Thunder and Mjolnir, although Mjolnir is a great tome. Sheep, Rabbit, and Monkey Spirit look.....almost exactly the same? All of them have some Indigo-ish, blue, purple color and I can't tell them apart. Dragon Spirit -is- pretty cool. Calamity Gate looks more like a head than a gate. Unless the calamity is that it's hideous looking...then I guess the name kinda works.. Meanwhile, Fimbulvetr is a cool ice tome, Nosferatu is consistent dark magic, Ragnarok and Ginnungagap look extremely dangerous.... --- However, Healing Staves are much better in Hoshido. You did remind me of that. --- After looking at the Hoshido cast, I would argue that Hoshido's non-nobles may not have loveable tropes that jump off the character's person immediately, but that the characters are slightly better written, with the exception of Niles and Charlotte on the other side being excellent personalities and Setsuna being ... hand picked out of nobility to be an unhelpful retainer to Hinoka and a walking meme. (sorry...) Oboro is the daughter of two tailors who served the Hoshidan royal family and both were killed by Nohrians, leaving her with a beyond rational hatred for the entire nation of Nohr that manifests in both a scary facial expression and a really good Personal skill. She also has romantic interest in Takumi. Saizo comes from a long line of ninja (along with his brother Kaze) and was designated as the serious Christmas Knight of this game, while still being totally unique both in class and in character. He upholds a strict honor code that is only backed up with insane levels of verbal savagery. The war - in all three paths - serves as a kind of revenge tour for Saizo, who will always have help from Corrin and their forces (even if sent from Nohr) in killing the man who murdered his father. Orochi was a retainer for Queen Mikoto along with Reina before she was killed - and as a seer, was able to warn the Queen of her impending death. Rather than take measures to avoid being killed, Mikoto sort of embraced the reality and prepared herself to be laid to rest. Orochi comes from a line of nobles who served the Hoshidan royals with their fortune telling, and the entire family was not well-liked because they divined both good and bad futures. She overcomes this stigma by being an incredibly playful adult. Azama is a fantastic love-or-hate unit, but is a gold mine philosophical mind and his sense of humor is pretty great. Despite being an easy-going priest who seems to bend the rules of how a priest should act on the surface, he is quite serious about his duties. Kaze seems like a regularly devoted Hoshidan "retainer" to Corrin - but only because that was likely a role he could really "claim" for himself. He seems to be the incredibly-sexy-yet-oblivious-to-the-fact male character who is more concerned with being helpful and feeling needed than he is in returning the favor to those women. While lacking an A-Support in Birthright is disastrous writing, the story in the support best explains Kaze as a character in this cast. Without Corrin, Kaze legitimately is merely a ninja-for-hire to the Hoshidan royal family. Not all of them are great. Hana is forgettable outside of being a pretty face, Subaki could have been super cool but instead is literally just Man-Cordelia (except he's not actually perfect), Rinkah is a ....stoic?....angry person?.....Both?..... Reina is a....sadist?.....

Really?... Suddenly, I can see you and Mael's side of things a little bit clearer. I certainly can't speak for Catholic doctrine, but the clergy doesn't look like a fit for me in that setting. --- I want to think that in regards to the Presidency making these tough decisions, that it wouldn't be as much of an issue if President Trump doesn't have a reason to be so consistently pro-men in this debate (such as trying to normalize his own case(s) of abusing women by proclaiming the innocence of other abusers.) I want to believe that if Trump was able to take up normal presidential positions with regards to how "great" of a leader Vladimir Putin is or to what degree should we defend neo-nazis that maybe playing devil's advocate here wouldn't be such an issue. Of course, I like to place my faith in my leaders, and use my criticisms not as a bid to usurp those in power by to improve the actions of those in power. leaving all of those boxes unchecked and then having this happen is greatly concerning and understandably begets the kind of response it has gotten. When things get bad enough that I start to counting down for the next election season, it's not because I like the political process (even though I do more than most) but because I've reached the end of my rope. The thing here is, because of this President's approach during the campaign, many of us have gotten to that point before we knew he was actually going to win the election. You propose a grim, but fair view of reality - and one that I see all too clearly. If I didn't ask for advice I would have felt alone in struggling with it. Thank you, all who reply here, for being comforting and providing some wisdom. Evi, what you reminded me of specifically is two things, even if you didn't actually say them yourself. Sometimes the right thing to do isn't something you want to do. Pastors protect their flocks as the shepherds do. When in that frame of mind, I don't feel as conflicted. The challenge will be remembering both things at once should the issue arise. -- Actually, nearly all of those are New Testament passages. A few of them were copied from larger excerpts, but it seems to all stem from the Pauline epistles and tree of influence, as well as the Pastorals written by Jesus' disciples. There are also a few that deal with fathers and sons, and not the relationship of a wife to her husband. I'll have to read some more into these to see if there's some imperial background going on or if this is more like you said, direct exhortation. Technically, all of these places do fall under the Roman Empire - but someone like Peter, the author of Hebrews, or John may have more direct teachings. except in Revelation. John was either on some seriously good drugs there on that island of Patmos or speaking pretty extensively in Imperial code.

@Eviora Clergy, just as their fellow secular members in counseling, are strongly urged to report abuse claims to law enforcement. Confidentiality is never intended solely for the purpose of keeping secrets. It's about providing advice and aid to the person who comes to talk to you. By allowing the abuser to remain in a position where they can continue abuse, the pastor is providing no help to the person confiding in them. Failing to report is unethical in any situation, and is a particularly unloving action that is frowned upon in ministry circles. Often, the best way to help an abuser is to have their abuse revealed. While initial reaction to a pastor (as would be anyone else) informing the authorities would feel like being betrayed, bringing justice to the abuser effectively can put them in a place where they can start anew and move on for the better, where keeping the victim's accusation in the dark leads to no reform for the abuser - which is obviously a bad place for the victim and a failure on the part of the minister. --- I'm down with consistency, and I would be inclined to agree that President Trump did confess to abusive behavior in the Access Hollywood tape - at the very least more so than it being "locker room talk." It's consistently demoralizing watching President Trump use his office to play Devil's Advocate for issues that merely require the status quo (Abuse is wrong and we can't have Mr. Portman do that and represent the United States in such an unbecoming manner) answer to keep the media from postulating that you are a white supremacist sympathizer or that you are fundamentally against women. I also don't dispute how potentially damaging it might have been for women to have watched in early November that man become the President-Elect. If anything though, while I am not a woman and have no idea what's going on in the minds of each individual woman in America, I would contend that women have ROARED since the election. The Women's March gained more coverage than President Trump's actual inauguration and happened pretty much concurrently. The #MeToo movement has made revealing abuse "trendy" and has been used by many people to overcome what may have held them back previously. The Democratic Party is stationed to have an unusually strong Midterm election period behind a largely female pool of political hopefuls... I don't mean to be ignorant of women that are still keeping silent. I just can't speak to how large that number actually is and can only assume that there are indeed still women who are under pressure to keep their stories to themselves. Nevertheless, women have persisted. And if you have any doubts as to how I feel about the situation, I believe that to be the biggest shame of them all - that in a time where so much liberation is taking place regarding this issue, that not everyone is able to be free from the shadow of abuse just yet. --- I believe you have me pegged wrong. Just because my father and my president provide "true" (-ish. President Trump doesn't know what Due Process actually is, but I understand his point) realities regarding men and I have some barriers on my end regarding my choice in profession doesn't mean that I am particularly distraught at all over how men who are facing these severe allegations are treated. I merely wish to fairly acknowledge validity where it is. People -are- falsely accused. That's just as much of a reality as abuse itself. Men -are- over-correcting and harming women inadvertently in their quest to avoid harming women. Abuse -isn't- a purely women's issue. Being a sexual predator, be it as consequence for real action or being falsely convicted of such action, is life damaging. I would never use my position as a counselor to advocate for the feelings of the subject of someone's complaint. If that person has something to say to me, they should come say it to me personally. At that time when someone is claiming abuse, it's the victim's story that matters and that story only. How do I assist you? Here's what I am -obligated- to do with this information, so will you stay here and tell the police what you told me, or would you like me to tell the police myself? Can I refer you to someone I know who has survived and overcome what you are going through? Would you like my wife's number so you can talk to a woman about things you may not feel comfortable telling me as a male? None of those inquiries or any others that may arise would seek to level the playing field. That isn't my job. However, with debate raging and being influential on various people throughout the gender spectrum and outside of it, I want to know how to navigate the fallout in the most fair way possible and in a way the preserves my dignity and ability to effectively provide help to those who approach me with something in this ballpark. That's truly my only motive. If someone is accused of abuse, you're absolutely right in that it isn't my place to find out if they are guilty or innocent. --- I trust I don't have to convince you that it preaches women should be subservient to men. Paul and his psuedo-Pauline associates are oft misunderstood authors, by fundamentalists, to women in the church, to skeptics and opposed nonbelievers alike - and they are castigated by women in the faith the most for narrow interpretation of this passage. What you say isn't incorrect, but it's cherry-picked without supporting context in the manner that you understand it (or seem to prefer using it). It's important to note how much of the supporting context doesn't seem to provide the image that a household is to be a patriarchal unit. The first verse of this section is verse 21, which states that people should submit to one another regardless of gender. Egalitarian Christians point to this opening verse to affirm women's equality in the eyes of the Pauline authors. Men tend to note that "Paul" doesn't ask women to "give herself up" for her husband as he does ask the husband to "give himself up as Christ did" for his wife. Paul draws from Christ's so-called "Golden Rule" regarding how men should love (and by proxy treat) their wives. As themselves. It would be tough to argue that the author of Ephesians is advocating for self harm, so why would he be advocating for abuse? The church in Ephesus had a serious "Roman Empire" sized problem looming over them, just as the rest of the Ephesians at the time. When the author of Ephesians mentions "headship", he is using an analogy to that of the Emperor being the head of his Empire. This may be merely to use a recognizable analogy by those within the Empire's constraints at the time, but it's also perhaps more purposeful in addressing Ephesus' overarching concern (and thus, the reason "Paul" was writing to them) with how to appropriately navigate the Roman world as a Christian. Women in the faith at the time this epistle was written actually had much more sway in comparison to the typical Roman woman. They often owned property, and many were leaders of churches at the time. However, it's this discrepancy between the woman in the church and the woman in the Roman Empire that drew undesirable attention from the Roman authorities. If a woman were seen shouting at a man in the public forum, the authorities could arrest her for causing a scene, and she could be killed. Paul and his associates, mission-focused as ever, would encourage keeping a low profile and not drawing Roman attention to the church - and it may be this type of "controversial" language that can be partially attributed to the survival of Christianity as a major religion. This type of encouragement in a Roman context would then leave room for Paul to say something like this elsewhere: This is Paul's assertion. The equality in oneness of God's church in Christ. In the end, we're all going to end up with the same value and there won't be silly distinctions that can be prone to discrimination or even considered as "superior" to others. What about Jesus? I dunno. He was just that one weird Jew that went around everywhere talking to women on the street in a culture that looked down on men addressing women they weren't married to publicly and viewed said women as property. The Pharisees didn't like it, and even his own disciples were concerned about it. Clearly, Jesus wasn't. In fact, women had the honor of being the first people to discover Jesus was no longer in the tomb. That matters, because if the Gospel writers were going for some "epic story" about Jesus and his disciples they wouldn't skimp on writing a favorable tale at the time by making the men a bunch of saddened defeatists while the women were the ones making the crucial discoveries of the truth of Christ's words. Embarrassing testimony, that also doubles as an elevation of women in itself.

Allow me to check my privilege before going any further with this post... I am a straight, white, cis-male college student who hasn't personally experienced any of the subject matter in this thread. I understand that there may be some things I could say that some may claim I have no place saying so. Knowing this - I am going to attempt to be as delicate (that's not my strong suit) as possible and apologize in advance if any exception is taken. I am not using this post to argue a point anyway. The problem at hand... There has never been a brighter time for women. They are able to pursue the jobs that they couldn't in the past. They are able to hold the same legal protections as men, and to the point I'm addressing, they are more able, thanks to a wave of people coming out and sharing their stories via the #MeToo movement, to open up about times of abuse in their lives and more importantly who the abuser is. This has resulted in closure for many people of all genders (despite the founder possibly intending this to be a women's movement only) and has put away people who were avoiding justice. These things are good and in many cases necessary for recovery to really take place. However, with the #MeToo movement's focus being on revealing abusers just as much as it is on providing women a chance to speak out, it has caused people both close to me and in seats of power to push back rather than rejoice. My president (who may not have any room to talk) is a consistent "defender of men" when abuse is mentioned in close proximity to himself (notably) and his administration. My father is a defense attorney (who, personally, may also not have any room to talk) and deals with the accused for a living, and has become one of the most cynical voices with regards to this movement in my life. It's not at all far-fetched for President Trump and Dad to be right in their claims that people are to be given due process for mere accusations against them. However, today's culture almost demands that we take the opposite approach. That in cases of abuse, the accused is guilty until proven innocent. On top that, men are being exceedingly careful on the opposite side of the spectrum to avoid being suspected of abuse in turn, which leads to unintentional discrimination against women in the workforce. An example of such would be a man refusing to interview a female job applicant until he can safely schedule a time where another female can join him in the room during the interview, causing male applicants to take precedence out of convenience. Then, you have issues where the founder of the #MeToo movement ended up getting #MeToo'd by a male, painting the movement as one borne out hypocrisy. Then you have that same founder taking exception to a transgender person's #MeToo confessional, claiming that it was supposed to be employed for the advancement of women and that her coming-out was more valuable than the transgender person's coming-out...because, one type of group is more important than all people in today's understanding. All of that being said, an accusation of abuse is treated (as I believe it should) as a serious allegation by most fields, and many of the "guilty until innocent" actions taken by members of these fields is done so out of the belief that it prevents further abuse from occurring, not in a manner that proves innocence or guilt. (i.e. getting expelled by a university via violation of Title IX) The issue with seeking justice first and foremost is that it can be seen as downplaying the issue or normalizing abuse incorrectly. At worst, it's outright siding with abusers when such actions truly did take place. Why it matters to me...and why I need your input... I am a Christian Studies major. There is a high likelihood that I end up in a position that is people-oriented and one that may be sought as a confident. A congregation member may seek me, as a pastor - or a youth as a youth pastor - to report an abuse. The current climate around abuse seems to be turbulent, and I do have a tendency to be a cynic. The last thing I want to do in that position is tell someone who is talking to me about abuse that they are wrong or "force" them to provide "evidence" that such abuse is taking place. As I said before, I believe it to be a serious allegation and that all the correct avenues have to be reached. However, I - as a male - do feel spurned by this culture of men being forced on the defensive. A male ministry hopeful often will not get invited for a job interview unless he is married, especially if the desire is to work with youth. While this is sensible in preventing abuse in the church it seems to be a redundant requirement that ignores a calling to celibacy and pre-supposes that single men are too much of a liability in the ministry field. My privilege position may -allow- me to be critical where it's a non-starter for those who have been abused or aren't a male. I understand this. That being said, I would like to see if you guys can offer some pointers on staying on message - that abuse is categorically wrong regardless of who initiates it and any claim should be taken seriously - from any perspective that isn't my own. Thank you all.