Andrew R's page

Scott Betts wrote:

I acknowledge your point, but that's not what we're discussing right now. Andrew R seems convinced that Obama promised that he wouldn't do this (prosecute leaks of sensitive information), when in fact he promised nothing of the sort, because that would have been insane.

Just to make sure: Citizen R. is this what you are convinced of?

Im convinced he promised the most transparent administration and instead is harassing the press and assassinating citizens.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Andrew R wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

So much for the transparency we were promised.

Can't have the media seeing what he is up to after all

Are you under the impression that this was the sort of government transparency we were promised?

If so, could you show us links to the President promising that this sort of thing would be more transparent?

Bonus question! Do you think a self-styled conservative President would have been more transparent about this, given the history of federal right-wing governance?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment

Are you under the impression that the Transparency and Open Government directive you linked to promises us that leaks of information pertaining to sensitive matters of national security would not be prosecuted?

I genuinely want to know if you thought that would be the case. Nowhere in that link does the President promise anything of the sort, so if you got the impression that "open government" essentially meant, "We're just gonna declassify everything," I want to know where you got that impression from. Did you really think that's what this meant?

You know what I think? I think you don't care. I think you just picked a really lazy attack on the President's credibility because you can't find a better one. You thought to yourself, "Ooh, here's some ammo!" and went for it, even though you knew your criticism didn't have any basis in reality, because you don't give half a damn about the truth.

HE created the standard i hold him to. Kinda like the sanctity of marriage crowd get extra points for being an ass when they are caught cheating. Obama's administration has done quite a bit wrong and they are pissy about getting caught

Andrew R wrote:

So much for the transparency we were promised.

Can't have the media seeing what he is up to after all

Are you under the impression that this was the sort of government transparency we were promised?

If so, could you show us links to the President promising that this sort of thing would be more transparent?

Bonus question! Do you think a self-styled conservative President would have been more transparent about this, given the history of federal right-wing governance?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment

I do not know that raw intelligence is so so much lower but we are getting lazy with machines to remember and increasingly think for us. We are fed opinions instead of being taught to question. Idiocracy is coming

So much for the transparency we were promised.
Can't have the media seeing what he is up to after all

the goblin doesn't care what the topic is

This thread is just proof of why we need more parties or none. It is all just a game of "but your side did...." instead of ever dealing with any problems

Andrew R wrote:

ciretose wrote:

One side of my family is from West Virginia. They announced we are having a "Redneck Family Reunion".

If you don't know them, and you call them a redneck, they will likely kick your ass.

So yes.

And if they had a fit over someone simply saying redneck under any circumstance simply for being the wrong color it would be the same. The word being said is really the issue not who they are saying it to.

No.

Calling someone a redneck, hick, white trash etc...is a personal insult that dehumanized them, in the same way calling someone a jackass, retard, etc...dehumanizes them.

You are functionally saying "You are less than a fully valuable member of humanity, as you are just a (insert insult here)"

Which is why you probably get upset when people say they think you are racist.

Which is why there was so much commentary on you putting "THEY" in caps, as it implies "THEY" are not "you" and you have inherently greater value.

What would the basis of that greater value that allows "you" to be separate from "THEY"...

Not at all. i am a mason, i have brothers of every color and every nationality. all are equally my brother. YOu are right in that conversation they are black and i am not, but that has NO bearing on the value of either. People are basically the same and that is why i want us to move beyond petty obsessions over words and outright attempt to keep racial divisions going.

One side of my family is from West Virginia. They announced we are having a "Redneck Family Reunion".

If you don't know them, and you call them a redneck, they will likely kick your ass.

So yes.

And if they had a fit over someone simply saying redneck under any circumstance simply for being the wrong color it would be the same. The word being said is really the issue not who they are saying it to.

Andrew R wrote:

if you are ok with it being said by one be ok with it being said by all.

Like hell. Mrs Gersen can jump my bones as she pleases. Some skank in a bar tries it, and I dump her on the floor. This shouldn't be that hard to understand.

That is an act happening to a person, not a spoken word. no real comparison there

Andrew R wrote:

meatrace wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Exactly what _crime_ are you talking about?

Fraud.

You mean the exact fraud none of them were found to commit yet liberal groups were not even looked at even if they commit the exact "offense" you claim these are?

First off, your accusatory demeanor does not serve you.

Second, the facts are quite different; the IRS did indeed target liberal political groups, just not to the same degree. I suspect this is a function of how many conservative political groups cropped up when the dam broke post-Citizens United and how transparently fraudulent they are/were.

Third, and most importantly, I've said time and again (in this very thread) that regardless of political affiliation, non charitable groups ought not be able to gain 501(c)4 tax-exempt status. I'd think you would be agreeing with me. I'm not even sure why this assertion is in contest; it's the law.

You are being accusatory, claim fraud with no proof because they are conservative groups seemingly.

No groups should be tax free or all should. political or otherwise.

Andrew R wrote:

Any thing but equal is racist, and you all seem to support that.

"Racist" is a bit of a red herring in this context. It's about oppression vs. empowerment. Kind of like the white rural kids all bragging how "country" they are, and how "redneck" -- but that's a LOT different from a black guy (or a city folk) calling them "inbred crackers" or "white trash," don't you think?

So, white kids call themselves derogatory names out of pride, but it's not OK for the black kids to call them derogatory names out of hatred. Same deal with the "N" word being contested here. That's equal.

And, guess what? When I'm at a wine bar with my gay friend [name redacted], and make fun of him by threatening to order a rosé ("You guys love pink, right?") I can get away with it because he knows full freaking well I've got his back -- I've proved it before. He sees it's me and he KNOWS it. Someone else comes up and makes a similar remark, to be nasty, and he decides to act on it? He knows I'm with him all the way.

You want to call a black man the "N" word, and have it be OK? You've got to prove in first. There's an admission standard that you're not meeting. And you need to meet it for every individual, for real, and not just make one b~&$$+$$ claim of equality. Until you do, quit whining about it.

Not at all. if you are ok with it being said by one be ok with it being said by all. and yes how a word is said can matter, i can call someone "Bob" in the wrong tone enough they know it to be an insult but if the very word bob makes them scream then it is their problem not mine.

bugleyman wrote:

Exactly what _crime_ are you talking about?

Fraud.

You mean the exact fraud none of them were found to commit yet liberal groups were not even looked at even if they commit the exact "offense" you claim these are?

Citizen Betts, I notice that you, too, found the capitalized "THEY" a bit telling.

Emphasizing that if they find it ok why not for anyone else? racism, they are as bad as what they gripe about. Any thing but equal is racist, and you all seem to support that.

Kryzbyn wrote:

Seems a bit wonky.

Who do social welfare groups get to hide who their donors are when no other tax exempt group can?

I would think you'd have an appreciation for this.

A lot of people who give to charities only want to see good work done, they don't want any recognition or credit to themselves. For it to be a truly selfless act it needs to be anonymous.

501(c)4s are supposed to be the specific exception for charitable groups to qualify for so that their donors can maintain anonymity.

Unfortunately, the ability to keep your donors hidden has become a goal for the ultra-rich who are trying to rig the system. And have thus, the last bastion for charity has been co-opted for political gamesmanship.

Very true, but on ALL levels of our politics.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Who broke the law? As I understand it, the IRS applied extra scrutiny, demanded more extensive documentation, but didn't actually deny anyone.
If these groups were breaking the law, shouldn't they have been denied?

Filing as a social welfare organization when you are in fact a political organization is breaking the law.

Apparently the irs was afraid of being labeled as partisan and so took no action to actually enforce that law. Crazy notion huh? ... that not actually acting on it would be a shield or something. Even the mere THOUGHT of doing your job raises too much of a specter of big brother...

So your claim here is that all these organizations were breaking the law by filing as social welfare groups, despite the agency in charge deciding they were?

That rather than being too partisan by selecting these groups for scrutiny, they were actually being too soft on conservative groups by giving them the status in the end? That's going to take some proving. It's not going to work well as a defense, without a lot more evidence than we've seen so far.

especially when the IRS has it in there own documents that the groups were targeted solely by conservative leaning names alone. Not the content. not the goals of the group. the names alone.

Irontruth wrote:

I understand the point he's trying to make. Unfortunately, he can't separate what he wants his point to be from my point. They are directly linked and he can't just wish them to be separate.

A white person who uses the word n~&$%+ is (perhaps unintentionally) invoking the history behind it.

You're talking to Andrew.

I understand the point he's trying to make as well.
We've been through this before.

It's that actual racism is a thing of the past and all claims of it now are just tools for minorities to attack whites with. Racism against whites is the only racism that matters today.

Not at all, i simply believe in true equality where we are all held to one standard.ONE. I find the creation of what is ok for the white man and what is ok for the black man to be inherently racist. You see me as racist for demanding one standard. i see you as racist for wanting to make people separated by race

If I understand him right, he's only upset about it being okay for black people to use the word while it isn't for white people to do so, Irontruth. I would say there is a point to his argument, in that it isn't a good thing either to be seen as part of an ethnic group only instead of as a person, or to single out a specific group for negative treatment. Furthermore, I doubt Andrew is old enough that he can be said to have any direct responsibility for either slavery or dignity-removing laws.

That said, I consider it a pretty small matter to avoid such a word. There are worse things to complain about regarding freedom of speech.

Exactly. if that word is so terrible why do THEY use it so often?

I am a second generation immigrant, my family has barely been here long enough to notice the civil rights movement let alone be here for the slavery.

Is it wrong? probably. is it FAR more wrong to let one side do it to favor your side while trying to attack the other side for doing the same? hell yes it is

Just to clarify, you think white people should be angry they can't call black people n$*!++s.

If it is ok for people of other colors to do so, yes. If it is only the fact that he is white that make it wrong YES

bugleyman wrote:

meatrace wrote:

The tea party groups are OBVIOUSLY political and not social welfare groups.

Then they (and every other group fitting the criteria) should be denied tax-exempt status. But the process shouldn't treat groups differently simply based on name. Which, if I"m not mistaken, is basically what happened. Everyone should be evaluated in the same way using the same criteria.

In other words, don't judge a book by its cover. :)

Its even less sinister than that.

The tea party groups CAN be political and be tax exempt. The reason that they're so big on filing under the exact exemption they did (540-c i think) is that way they don't have to disclose their donors.

So all the IRS agents were trying to do is catch people cheating the system to hide a massive amount of astroturfing from shadowy billionaires trying to sway an election without getting caught: you know, their jobs.

Thats bull and i'd hope you are smart enough to know it. they targeted one side and let the other slide doing the exact same stuff. If the they walked in to scrutinize every liberal office would you be pleased? Or is it just your stupid hatred of republicans talking here

Andrew R wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

A white man calls a black man a n@$#!!.

Who would be in the wrong for getting angry over this?

Context. Does he say it out of the blue? Was he called a honky first?

The context is that both are from the US and it's taking place in the US.

Do you think a white man should ever get angry over not being allow to call black people n*@++$s?

That is no context at all.

Yes a white man has every right to get angry if he is not allowed to use a word because of his race, but is completely ok for another to say it fifteen times per sentence.

PFS has partially charged wands as part of the loot so i guess paizo wants it to be an option. still pure cheese in a build war, as are all one shot items.

I always thought that the word was always thought as offensive but forgivable if the speaker is black. Kind of like calling yourself a fat ba$tared or something, you get a pass for referring to yourself that way, but if someone else called you that it would be insulting. More so if they were thin.

And that is racist. "He can do it because he is the right color" would be reacted to with violence if it were more permissive to a white man.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

But all other things aside the AP thing is the biggest offense on the list and oddly quiet. why has the media, you know the victim and all, not blown this to coast to coast common knowledge that the offense has happened? WHY are they staying relatively quiet?

Andrew R wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

Oh, to answer an earlier thing Meatrace, getting offended is basically just being angry. It just happens that years past, the word(s) might cow an individual into submissiveness, as they reasserted the reality of their situation. Now as people are gaining some measure of empowerment, instead of being submissive, they get angry that someone is trying to make them submissive.

Imus calling them nappy-headed ho's was verbally trying to put those women "in their place", because he didn't approve of their appearance. I figure we all agree it's offensive, but as I see it, that is the "why" it's offensive. He tried to devalue them as women and as basketball players, because they didn't fit his conception of beauty, or 'polite' appearance.

Going back to that short example I made, your reply about the black guy punching out the white guy, the black guy is basically rejecting the submissive nature being assigned to him, by using violence to assert his own dominance. I personally don't agree with that method, but that has more to do with me not wanting to promote violence.

So you are saying we may never state any form of disapproval and if we do we deserve attack?

I don't know. Are you capable of disapproving without using racist or sexist insults? That would be a start. You could try avoiding other insults not directly related to what you disapprove of too.

Ok how about this, if i say i do not find the broad nose of many african attractive is that an evil racist thing? Would people take it that way anyhow? Isn't the real question here who is allowed to voice an opinion?

After all the N word is only considered offensive if the speaker is not dark enough. and THAT is truly racist.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Andrew R wrote:

You mean like democrat attacks on Bush over 9-11 and the following wars?

The downing street memos and other evidence provide a pretty clear picture that the knew there were no WMD's, and that there was at worst, absolutely no rush to do anything. People told them that in advance.

Uh huh and what about all of the ones talking about how he should have stopped it and that after the first plane it was all his fault for not acting fast enough to stop the rest. Also define WMD, iraq was known to have access to so many chemical/biological weapons it is not funny.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just to get this out there, I am a conservative (I hesitate to say Republican). I think all three of these are huge deals. None of which do I want to see Obama impeached for. After all, we elected hi, and any impeachment is a black stain on history for America, and heaven knows he have plenty without impeachment.

Benghazi is a big deal because Obama would rather see four Americans die than proclaim the unspoken but unavoidable fact that the Middle East is still a tumultuous place, filled with radical ideology and a mentality of revenge for slights hundreds, even thousands of years old. The motives for this hesitance however, are hazy at best. Some would like to say that it's because elections were near and Obama wanted to appear to be a strong leader, but I'd like to give him a little more credit than that.

The tax thing is a big deal because a flaky "charity" (I don't have the numbers with me, put they raised quite a hefty sum and donated only a small fraction of it) run by Obama's half-brother, Malik Obama, became tax-exempt within weeks of applying, while conservative groups, such as those associated with the tea-party group, had to wait several months or even a few years to gain the same status. Any real crime? No, but suspicious none-the-less.

The AP scandal, I'll admit, I don't know much about. I just haven't taken the time to research it. As such, I can't comment on it.

Just my two copper-pieces. Please don't tar and feather me.

Not only that but the harassment of MUCH more frequent checks. Imagine if the police where mostly one group and they searched members of another different group at much higher frequency yet never found proof of wrongdoing how people would react..oh wait....

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Skeletal Steve wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

What exactly do you want a CIA team to do to stop a riot?

We also don't exactly like admitting we have CIA teams in hostile foreign countries. You have to consider the possibility of leading the locals back to the CIA compound too, getting everyone there killed as well.

Rioters tend not to bring mortars and employ bracketing tactics to drop them right onto the roof of the CIA Annex. Just saying.

And do you fault people for making a decision with the information they had in the fog of war or do you fault people for not having the information you have with the benefit of hindsight?

You mean like democrat attacks on Bush over 9-11 and the following wars?

Oh, to answer an earlier thing Meatrace, getting offended is basically just being angry. It just happens that years past, the word(s) might cow an individual into submissiveness, as they reasserted the reality of their situation. Now as people are gaining some measure of empowerment, instead of being submissive, they get angry that someone is trying to make them submissive.

Imus calling them nappy-headed ho's was verbally trying to put those women "in their place", because he didn't approve of their appearance. I figure we all agree it's offensive, but as I see it, that is the "why" it's offensive. He tried to devalue them as women and as basketball players, because they didn't fit his conception of beauty, or 'polite' appearance.

Going back to that short example I made, your reply about the black guy punching out the white guy, the black guy is basically rejecting the submissive nature being assigned to him, by using violence to assert his own dominance. I personally don't agree with that method, but that has more to do with me not wanting to promote violence.

So you are saying we may never state any form of disapproval and if we do we deserve attack?

A white man calls a black man a n@$#!!.

Who would be in the wrong for getting angry over this?

Context. Does he say it out of the blue? Was he called a honky first?

Guy Humual wrote:

Suggesting that it could have been used as a complement seems like a bad argument to me.

No, I'm saying it CAN be used complimentary. It was used descriptively. Like if he said that I was a tall person. I'm tall. Why would I take offense?

Then again look at the way fat guys get talked to. I am sick of being referred to as "big man" and all of the stuff like "boss" "chief" etc that i never see a smaller person called.but it is not worth fighting really and the people talking that way have no idea that some of us might get tired of it.

Proof that offense is a choice and subjective,

Black person says the n-word, it is taken as a greeting,
white person says n-word, it is taken as greatly offensive.

Sometimes offensive things need to change, sometimes the offended need to change, sometimes both need to change, sometimes people need to ignore it.

It is wise to know which to apply to a particular incident.

And i have seen a white person attacked for remarking that it was offensive to hear THEM use that word. turn the colors around and the sensitivity crowd would want the whites hung for saying it. But how DARE someone not dark enough have an opinion about the word

thejeff wrote:

And by "rewards" we sometimes mean "not getting lynched".

I love that this discussion seems to have come down to how bad it is to get offended and we should just all "man up" and not let the other guy have power over you, while just giving the problem behavior a pass.
If no one gets offended, if no one reacts, the behavior won't change. Any particular response might not change anything, but over time it can. And has.

No, by rewards he means positive attention. If you cry wolf about something being offensive you're lauded as some hero of decency whereas the offender is decried as, at best, a boorish lout, at worst a fascist a-hole.

I think one of the problems is that we all have these private definitions of what is offensive, maybe because offense is subjective but whatever. The point is that, when you hear us talking about people needing to just shut up, you're thinking about someone saying something genuinely hurtful or harassing or an atrocious racial slur or something. About 1% of things people "take offense" at are that clear cut.

What I think about are the things that I've said that have made people freak the crap out about my language. Which are saying words like penis, or the f-word in public. People freak the s#@$ out over mundane stuff every damn day, and you seem to be saying it's not okay for us to be bothered by that. We should let ourselves be meekly bullied into not saying any even slightly off-color words or phrases.

That and the reward of getting the person punished. i think some of these supposed white knights just flat out get off on causing ruin to people.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well the problem is that after Hook Mountain Massacre was released there was a massive outcry (including, IIRC, the aforementioned phone calls) and ever since Paizo got tamer with their publications. Sure there are some elements here and there, but nothing ever again got close to the walls to balls gross-out gore level of Grauls.

I'm not arguing that gore for gore's sake is something that should appear in every AP, but the occasional shock and awe to remind the players why monsters are monsters and why evil is Evil, that's something I'd love to see more.

Very true, evil needs to mean something for good to

Several middle aged women so less of the crazy guy humor, although they bring it in themselves some times. Little to no mention of sexual violence, sex most often a joke.

...

You have that entirely wrong. i WANT to open floodgate. i do not want to let us get hung up on this and not go farther

Andrew R wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

What "focus"? The only "focus" I can see is that recently we found out who is the homosexual iconic. That's about as much "focus" as that we recently found out what the real fate of Baba Yaga's daughters is. Or where the Elves really come from. Or what's the next AP.

Count the pages of "homosexuality in golarion" now how many treads combined talk about any other major facet of character like race or religion. do the combined THREADS compare well to the PAGES on gay characters?

Ah, I see what your actual issue is. Your problem is that people enjoy debating sexuality. Well, sorry, no way you're going to thought police people around here, folks like talking about it, folks will talk about it. But that's nothing that Paizo is responsible for, unless your argument is "Paizo should exclude sexuality because including it makes people discuss it and I don't like seeing it discussed".

Good luck with that. Closing your eyes does not make things go away.

Not at all, if anything we should discuss more sexuality than just homosexuality. there are so many more things to human sexuality then just gender after all.

Andrew R wrote:

Tirisfal wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

but if you must have every flavor of the gender/sexual identity golfbag why not insist on every race while we are at it?

You know, I'm not calling you names or anything, but referring to sexual orientation as a "golfbag" is doing wonders to prove that you aren't homophobic.

Gay, lesbian, transgendered (both genders) pre op, post op and no op, bi (both genders), eunuch, physically gender less, mentally genderless (for both physical genders) dross dressers (both genders, gay lesbian and straight, i cannot think of how many more varieties are out there. golfbag takes less space. Especially when after you have included every variation someone will inevitable complain that you left one out or did not use the in fashion name for one or more group.

So you think they should all be represented, but you're ok with referring to them as a "golfbag".

...yeah, I still don't understand your logic.

Think about how many types of "white" there are. do we name them all indevidually every time or just say white? Are japanese, koreans, chinese, etc all the same? no but asian is easier to say. and since this group is so many so varied subgroups that it is so hard to call anything at all without offending some im going with golfbag. especially in conversations that seem to be about token examples. Pull out the token like clubs from a bag after all....

What "focus"? The only "focus" I can see is that recently we found out who is the homosexual iconic. That's about as much "focus" as that we recently found out what the real fate of Baba Yaga's daughters is. Or where the Elves really come from. Or what's the next AP.

Count the pages of "homosexuality in golarion" now how many treads combined talk about any other major facet of character like race or religion. do the combined THREADS compare well to the PAGES on gay characters?

Andrew R wrote:

It is when they are making that the sole defining characteristic. We do not have an iconic character that happens to be gay we have a GAY iconic that happens to be anything else. The iconics religions are nothing compared to the racial and sexuality that are being used to define them. for that matter it is starting to feel more like a party of token X, to say hey look we got x in our game look see.

Really?

How can it be the sole defining characteristic of any iconics when we don't even know which ones are gay? With the exception of Kyra and we only found that out recently.

To the extent the iconics are defined at all, they are defined by things other than their sexual preference.

And how long did it take from her being the cleric to now being known as nothing but the gay iconic?

Andrew R wrote:

but if you must have every flavor of the gender/sexual identity golfbag why not insist on every race while we are at it?

You know, I'm not calling you names or anything, but referring to sexual orientation as a "golfbag" is doing wonders to prove that you aren't homophobic.

Gay, lesbian, transgendered (both genders) pre op, post op and no op, bi (both genders), eunuch, physically gender less, mentally genderless (for both physical genders) dross dressers (both genders, gay lesbian and straight, i cannot think of how many more varieties are out there. golfbag takes less space. Especially when after you have included every variation someone will inevitable complain that you left one out or did not use the in fashion name for one or more group.

Andrew R wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Hey Andrew R, why aren't you offended by the fact that so many iconics are religious? I mean, by your logic one religious person among iconics is enough to cover all those christianislamjewsihwhatever out there, why shove religion down our throats? :)

If a large number of them were of one real religion i might start to wonder what they were pushing, same if the vast bulk were very anti religion. Instead they are a variety. And you may notice but not one is taking on a real life religion....

So, variety in religion is fine, variety in sexual orientation is bad?

It is when they are making that the sole defining characteristic. We do not have an iconic character that happens to be gay we have a GAY iconic that happens to be anything else. The iconics religions are nothing compared to the racial and sexuality that are being used to define them. for that matter it is starting to feel more like a party of token X, to say hey look we got x in our game look see.

Kyra, Valeros, Ezren, Seelah, Imrijka are all heavily influenced by religion. Heck, Valeros is carrying around a holy symbol of his deity, and he's just a Fighter.

And how much focus has been on that and how much has been on a multitude of gay iconics?

Andrew R wrote:

Tirisfal wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Tirisfal wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Hey Andrew R, why aren't you offended by the fact that so many iconics are religious? I mean, by your logic one religious person among iconics is enough to cover all those christianislamjewsihwhatever out there, why shove religion down our throats? :)

If a large number of them were of one real religion i might start to wonder what they were pushing, same if the vast bulk were very anti religion. Instead they are a variety. And you may notice but not one is taking on a real life religion....

So the iconics should have make-believe sexualities and genders to make you happy?

So they must be all forms of gender/gay combos to make you happy? I want room to go beyond just this one facet of identities.

No, I'm telling you that:

Black =/= hispanic, asian, pacific islander, etc

Just as:

Gay =/= lesbian, bi, transgender

Got it now?

Yet there is no hispanic, pacific islander, etc iconic either so why not include them? and if you can claim gay is different than lesbian then black woman is not the same as black man so they are still excluded....

Because, as a creative choice, Golarion doesn't have all the ethnicties of our world. It has several ethnicities and most of them are represented by iconics (Sajan, Alahazra, Kyra, Feiya, Reiko, Seelah). Look, if you're trying to claim that human iconics are not ethnically diverse, that's just untrue.

but if you must have every flavor of the gender/sexual identity golfbag why not insist on every race while we are at it?

Andrew R wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Hey Andrew R, why aren't you offended by the fact that so many iconics are religious? I mean, by your logic one religious person among iconics is enough to cover all those christianislamjewsihwhatever out there, why shove religion down our throats? :)

If a large number of them were of one real religion i might start to wonder what they were pushing, same if the vast bulk were very anti religion. Instead they are a variety. And you may notice but not one is taking on a real life religion....

So, variety in religion is fine, variety in sexual orientation is bad?

It is when they are making that the sole defining characteristic. We do not have an iconic character that happens to be gay we have a GAY iconic that happens to be anything else. The iconics religions are nothing compared to the racial and sexuality that are being used to define them. for that matter it is starting to feel more like a party of token X, to say hey look we got x in our game look see.

Andrew R wrote:

Tirisfal wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Hey Andrew R, why aren't you offended by the fact that so many iconics are religious? I mean, by your logic one religious person among iconics is enough to cover all those christianislamjewsihwhatever out there, why shove religion down our throats? :)

If a large number of them were of one real religion i might start to wonder what they were pushing, same if the vast bulk were very anti religion. Instead they are a variety. And you may notice but not one is taking on a real life religion....

So the iconics should have make-believe sexualities and genders to make you happy?

So they must be all forms of gender/gay combos to make you happy? I want room to go beyond just this one facet of identities.

No, I'm telling you that:

Black =/= hispanic, asian, pacific islander, etc

Just as:

Gay =/= lesbian, bi, transgender

Got it now?

Yet there is no hispanic, pacific islander, etc iconic either so why not include them? and if you can claim gay is different than lesbian then black woman is not the same as black man so they are still excluded....

I still wonder how these people have not been killed yet.
yet

I HATE Micheal Moore but his big mobile gay dance party he had harassing these kind of people was hilarious beyond words.

Andrew R wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Hey Andrew R, why aren't you offended by the fact that so many iconics are religious? I mean, by your logic one religious person among iconics is enough to cover all those christianislamjewsihwhatever out there, why shove religion down our throats? :)

If a large number of them were of one real religion i might start to wonder what they were pushing, same if the vast bulk were very anti religion. Instead they are a variety. And you may notice but not one is taking on a real life religion....

So the iconics should have make-believe sexualities and genders to make you happy?

So they must be all forms of gender/gay combos to make you happy? I want room to go beyond just this one facet of identities.

Hey Andrew R, why aren't you offended by the fact that so many iconics are religious? I mean, by your logic one religious person among iconics is enough to cover all those christianislamjewsihwhatever out there, why shove religion down our throats? :)

If a large number of them were of one real religion i might start to wonder what they were pushing, same if the vast bulk were very anti religion. Instead they are a variety. And you may notice but not one is taking on a real life religion....