And plenty (perhaps most) of people will go "yeah, I am kinda curious", even if they wouldn't have been as crude. But then, so much comedy is about having someone else do the dirty work and experiencing things through them. Perhaps not in a world you consider ideal but we live here.
On being her own character: wasn't she in her previous appearance? I would say that that is where she was established as a character. Here, she's a tool to get the Doctor somewhere with vague reasons in her Diagon Alley ripoff. I hope she's gone after this though. Because she's occupying a very obnoxious space between good (or at least sympathetic) guy and bad guy.She's not positioned as a bad guy so she won't be dealt with in an expedient manner but she's always (well, 2/3 times) causing shit, and then walking away because she's supposed to be one of the characters we feel for. It reminds me of Clara's more obnoxious actions like the Kill the Moon thing or the nearly villainous act of dumping the TARDIS keys.
Is anyone not impressed by Maisie Williams? I feel like her character should work for me, but doesn't. Not shocked at all that she runs around betraying the Doctor every twelfth minute nor do I really feel for her at all.
I didn't mean to imply that every case of conflict could be easily resolved or that there is always a clear ideal. I've just always found the liberal insistence that they are not imposing values because it doesn't count as an imposition under their value system a bit ...I dunno, unhelpful?
Um...how did the Revolution last? Didn't the fight so many wars that it became clear that it was simply unprofitable to impossible to stop?
What is the point of trumpeting one guy standing up if that one guy needed a prince with political and military power and that prince needed an alliance of princes (and some opportunistic powers on top) to kick out the people coming for him?
Because it's always unclear what we're talking about. Muslims? Can clearly adapt. Islam? Clearly has problems but doesn't stop a certain set of Muslims from ignoring it. A certain set of Muslims under a certain interpretation? It's never clear. And I will say that this ambivalence is exploited.
How does that not involve value judgments? It seems to me that it clearly does, based on what an effect is and what effects justify limiting rights. The question is really just which value judgments are more congruent with a certain set of laws or common values.
Sure, if "the end" is hundreds or thousands of years later, and between three to six kingdoms after whoever took the land. Which set of Muslims had the inability to adapt? The ones that got the lands, the ones (not necessarily even culturally similar) that took it or the ones today that we think we know and are imagining will be in their place?
I don't even know what you could say about such a thing. I like little pieces.