Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Hezzilreen the Cunning

BigDTBone's page

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber. 2,104 posts (2,121 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 2 wishlists. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
But it's nothing like the systemic discrimination people of color face.

So he's just not "not white" enough. How much "not white" should he be before you accept his story? How much "not white" does someone have to be before they don't have "white privilege?" How much "not white" does someone have to be to fit your narrative of systemic discrimination as oppressed and not oppressor?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Genetics - it depends if the gene that determines skin colour is recessive or not. For aboriginal Australians it is, that is why you have white blond blue eyed Aboriginals in Australia.

That is why you can't tell a person what race they are based on skin colour.

You can't, but neither can the bigots. If you're really African-American, but somehow you look like a Nordic white guy, you're not going to experience the same kind of discrimination that African-Americans who look black do.

Now in some extreme cases bigots who find out you're really African-American will hate you anyway, but you still won't get the casual everyday stuff.

Race, as it applies to racism/privilege/discrimination/prejudice/whatever you want to call it, is largely perceived race, not actual race.

Not that actual race really means much biologically. Race is a social construct, but it's a hell of a powerful social construct.

Racism in the blind


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Telling somebody your skin is not dark or light enough to be X race is racial vilification - it doesn't matter about the persons politics.

I will say it once more denying somebody's cultural heritage based on skin tone is Racial Vilification.

Mecha poet, thejeff, GWL, and EnterisShadow, maybe you should have think about your approach to this as Scott has pointed out where you engaged in questionable arguments to prove your point. Tainting your arguments for everybody else.

I never said his skin wasn't dark enough to be X race. I did say that since he claims to only have found out he was legally considered Latino around 2009, I doubt it really played any role in his experiences. I doubt anyone discriminated against him because he was a person of color, when he didn't even know he could be classified as such. He is apparently the child of immigrants and that is it's own experience with it's own problems, but it's not the same the experience that many people of color face.
How is it that someone can benefit from racism without being aware of it, but someone couldn't suffer from it without being aware of it?

In theory he could, but it would seem to require monumental levels of self-delusion. Generally white people benefit from racism without being aware of it because they see they live in a primarily white world and don't see the discrimination holding back other people because it doesn't happen to them. Not only is it more likely that you'll notice discrimination applied to you, it also means that other people can identify him on a glance as fitting a category he's never even noticed he belongs in.

Not at all. He could have been turned down for a job or a loan because his qualifications were on the edge, but the way his hair waved reminded the hiring manager/loan officer of a Portuguese guy that he didn't care for, so the guy didn't go to bat for him like he may have for a regular white guy.

That's just one off the top of my head. That's the point here, it's insidious. Even you are trying to deny it exists now that it doesn't line up with your narrative.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
So a predominantly white institution gets to determine who is what ethnicity, you do know you are using institutionalised racism to say somebody doesn't qualify as a race because of their skin colour....

Well...seeing Hispanics were a part of that institution with all it's privileges waaaay far back, while Chinese and African Americans in the past were subject to being kept from voting, marrying, owning land, and many of the other things that they are still trying to gain equality about today...

I'm not quite so sure what to make of it. They are a RECOGNIZED MINORITY....

But they are a white minority.

You do realize that the reason white Hispanics and Latinos are considered white is that they have European backgrounds. They are from German, French, Spain, Portugal, and other European nations and have the same ethinicity as Whites everywhere else.

IF they are of color, as you would, such as being a European who actually married someone from the Americas (such as a Native American) which probably can be reflected in their skin tone, they can do that if they so wish. They can also select an African Ancestry.

Claiming that Latino makes you a PoC would be the same as claiming you are from Australia and that makes you a PoC as everyone in Australia is not white and there are no whites in Australia. (I know this isn't true, just stating a parallel of what this Correia is trying to claim).

Latin America has a LOT of diversity out there, which is probably why it's impossible to define someone's race simply because of what location their ancestry hails from. This is why they can further specify what they are...which apparently according to the census bureau, a majority select white. If they are not white, they can ALSO claim that in addition to the Hispanic minority status.

If he is a PoC, he should state why he is a PoC instead of using something that doesn't fall in the definition (or are we going

Which I don't think he actually said. Hispanic is a broad category. Check your census forms, you get to pick both Hispanic or not and a race. So if you're identified as Hispanic and white, you often get treated as white. This would, for example, be someone who's parents or grandparents came from Spain (or in some versions of the definition Portugal). Chicano is a more specific term, being essentially Mexican-American. They may self identify as white, but they don't get treated as white. Race and prejudice are complicated.

Bolded for your pleasure. Admittedly the Laguna Pueblos don't apply to his second point.

Edit: YOU should go talk to some people in Brownsville and ask them about being "Mexican-American." I can't describe to you the number of folks who have literally lived in that area for HUNDREDS of years. They aren't Mexican, their families aren't from Mexico. Their ties to that land predate the United States. Not the claim the US makes to the land, BUT THE UNITED STATES ITSELF! Their ties to the land predate Texas. Now, in 2014, people who have lived in that area for hundreds of years get stopped and asked to prove their citizenship. They are NOT Mexican-American. They identify as Chicano. They aren't white, they don't identify as white, they DO identify as Hispanic. They certainly don't benefit from "white privilege."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Telling somebody your skin is not dark or light enough to be X race is racial vilification - it doesn't matter about the persons politics.

I will say it once more denying somebody's cultural heritage based on skin tone is Racial Vilification.

Mecha poet, thejeff, GWL, and EnterisShadow, maybe you should have think about your approach to this as Scott has pointed out where you engaged in questionable arguments to prove your point. Tainting your arguments for everybody else.

I never said his skin wasn't dark enough to be X race. I did say that since he claims to only have found out he was legally considered Latino around 2009, I doubt it really played any role in his experiences. I doubt anyone discriminated against him because he was a person of color, when he didn't even know he could be classified as such. He is apparently the child of immigrants and that is it's own experience with it's own problems, but it's not the same the experience that many people of color face.

How is it that someone can benefit from racism without being aware of it, but someone couldn't suffer from it without being aware of it?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
So a predominantly white institution gets to determine who is what ethnicity, you do know you are using institutionalised racism to say somebody doesn't qualify as a race because of their skin colour....

Well...seeing Hispanics were a part of that institution with all it's privileges waaaay far back, while Chinese and African Americans in the past were subject to being kept from voting, marrying, owning land, and many of the other things that they are still trying to gain equality about today...

I'm not quite so sure what to make of it. They are a RECOGNIZED MINORITY....

But they are a white minority.

You do realize that the reason white Hispanics and Latinos are considered white is that they have European backgrounds. They are from German, French, Spain, Portugal, and other European nations and have the same ethinicity as Whites everywhere else.

IF they are of color, as you would, such as being a European who actually married someone from the Americas (such as a Native American) which probably can be reflected in their skin tone, they can do that if they so wish. They can also select an African Ancestry.

Claiming that Latino makes you a PoC would be the same as claiming you are from Australia and that makes you a PoC as everyone in Australia is not white and there are no whites in Australia. (I know this isn't true, just stating a parallel of what this Correia is trying to claim).

Latin America has a LOT of diversity out there, which is probably why it's impossible to define someone's race simply because of what location their ancestry hails from. This is why they can further specify what they are...which apparently according to the census bureau, a majority select white. If they are not white, they can ALSO claim that in addition to the Hispanic minority status.

If he is a PoC, he should state why he is a PoC instead of using something that doesn't fall in the definition (or are we going to start saying everyone in Britain is Non-White now, or...

Saying that Hispanics enjoy "white privilege" is basically saying that you have no idea what you are talking about in the larger picture of Chicano/American history. Why don't you take a trip to Brownsville some time and just look around? Then blindfold yourself and ask 8 random people how long their families have been there and if they ever felt like law enforcement profiled them. I'll bet you $1,000 that 4 of them say "longer than it's been the United States," and "yes."

Then go visit Albuquerque, get something to eat with green chilies on it (because seriously, you are in Albuquerque), and then hop on I40 and go west out to the Laguna Pueblo reservation and ask those folks how they feel about being called "white." Actually, don't do that, because you would actually die. Instead ask them the same questions you asked the random people in Brownsville. Same $1,000 bet.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

@thejeff

Sorry for no quote, posting from phone and the quote cut off :p

Well, I apologize for misreading your position. I thought you were more interested in defending the term than defending the concept. I was wrong.

For what it's worth, my experience is quite different from yours in that most people I know recognize an opportunity gap and general social discrimination but really find the idea that owe something for what they have to be distasteful. (I know this from other conversations, generally about how economic opportunity in the US helped us get where we are. That topic did not go well.)

So, it doesn't matter that they are wrong about the benefit they derive from the color of their skin, all that matters is they won't respond to that conversation.

BUT, that doesn't mean that those guys aren't a prime resource to effect positive change. Now, I'm not concerned about these guys, because I know them personally and I can help them to make better choices (as an aside, usually against poor advice. That's why I mentioned the whole background check thing. The guy who owns the best place in town to get high quality cuts of lumber was convinced by his attorney that he should do background checks on all of his employees. His wanted ads all said "must have clean criminal record." After years and years of badgering him, I finally convinced him to hire the brother of one of my employees who had just gotten out of the clink a few months back. The guy was so thankful to have a job that he worked his ass off for him. Today, that guy is his yard manager and the owner no longer have the line about clean records.) but it is guys like them all across America that will need to shown how to make a difference. Telling people to do the right thing against the advice of their attorney is hard. Telling a stranger to do the right thing against the advice of their attorney is near impossible. Telling someone to do the right thing against the advice of their attorney by calling them privileged/racist? That's a non-starter.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
do you believe that if you use a longsword wielded with two hands that you could use armor spikes?
No, but I believe I can use overhand chop with a longsword. Are you saying you believe that a character can overhand chop with a bow under normal conditions?

No, I've already said so.

chesspwn wrote:
Overhand chop needs a two-handed weapon, bows used as intended are not two-handed weapons.

Now if I had known we were going off of your house-rules my story would have been different. I thought we were following rules put out by Paizo. But under yours I have no idea how it would work, you're probably right in everything.

Now with Paizo rules you can not overhand chop with a longsword.

But this was good. I now know you're working off your own rules, thus making your argument make a lot more sense.

Now, explain the difference between Two-handed weapons, A weapons you wield in two hands, and bows.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
do you believe that if you use a longsword wielded with two hands that you could use armor spikes?

No, but I believe I can use overhand chop with a longsword. Are you saying you believe that a character can overhand chop with a bow under normal conditions?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

The issue is that some people have a flat tire on their car. The issue isn't how some people have tires that aren't flat.

By describing an issue with flat tires as "non-flat tire privilege" you (1) skew the issue away from the actual problem, (2) lose credibility with people who's tires aren't flat.

All right, so what I'm getting here is:

The problem is that institutionalized racism is bad for non-whites. It has nothing to do with how white people don't suffer from institutionalized racism.

The whole point is that it's all relative and comparative.

1. White privilege doesn't distract from the problem, because it's descriptive of the problem: white people have their skin color treated as the default (see: "flesh-colored" Band-Aids), their names treated as "normal," their natural hair is never considered "unprofessional." They aren't disproportionately pulled over by cops, illegally searched by cops, brutally murdered by cops and vigilantes. White privilege is a term that explains the racial disparity that is the problem. You can't talk about racism without talking about the people that aren't affected by that racism in even close to the same way.

2. Glad to know that you don't find me credible for using a term that I've explained several times and provided helpful explanatory links to. Unless you're just talking about some other "people whose tires aren't flat" and not yourself????

Yea... I'm not talking about me here. I'm talking about pragmatically what needs to be done to fix it.

Thejeff wants to roll his eyes and circle jerk and not actually get anything done. I'm talking about the actual real steps that must take place to start seeing real progress.

Look, I'm a small business owner. I sell business cards to car dealers for an insane amount of markup. My company prospects, sells, designs, prints, cuts, and ships these cards. That's a bunch of jobs. Very few of those jobs require my employees to deal with customer information. That means that I don't run background checks for 90% of my employees.

I don't do it because (1) I don't care what you did in the past, and (2) I don't want to discourage people from applying who are willing to work hard and need the job.

Aside from that, I actively recruit from minority neighborhoods. How did I make this decision? I joined the chamber of commerce and showed up to meetings and talked to people. I met some folks who were members of the local black chamber of commerce. I asked them, "I've got jobs to give hard workers, where can I find them?" They have me a list of churches (not just Christian ones either.)

I'm not saying this for you to pat me on the back. I don't give a flip what you think of me. I'm saying this to point out that progress is possible so long as we can convince other "BigDTBone's" out there to take purposeful positive actions. If we want that to happen then a certain amount of pragmatism is required. I'll tell you that most of the other business owners I know are open to making a positive purposeful change but don't know how or where to begin, but at the same time most of them will tune you out if you start using terms like "white privilege." Small business owners (particularly 1st generation business owners) generally had to work incredibly hard, insane hours, risk financial ruin, and lost their significant others and families in the building of that business. Most of the ones I know did all of that after using the GI bill to get through college. These people are not open to the idea that something in life was "handed" to them and while I know that you aren't saying that, it sounds like that to the uninitiated.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Kittyburger wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.
Not really. He laughed it off as "everything is racist" and then jumped to the dictionary definition and said basically Using this, there isn't any racism at GenCon, so George is making stuff up. Unlike Larry, he's "a mind reading Social Justice Warrior, constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."
Yeah. Because that definition is honestly comical.

And we circle back around.

I'm getting the feeling that your actual problem with talking about white privilege and whatever-you-want-to-call-it-but-certainly-not-racism isn't that you worry that the terms will turn off those not up on the jargon, but that you don't think they exist.

Cause, while I wouldn't use the exact phrasing George quoted, I think it really is talking about a real thing.

The issue is that some people have a flat tire on their car. The issue isn't how some people have tires that aren't flat.

By describing an issue with flat tires as "non-flat tire privilege" you (1) skew the issue away from the actual problem, (2) lose credibility with people who's tires aren't flat.

Correia dismisses discussion of actual incidents of sexism by women, discussion of actual incidents of racism by people of color, actual incidents of gender identity and sexual orientation bias by LGBTQIA+ people (notice a running theme here?). It's almost like he refuses to see - not just being not directly affected by but...

I'm not sure how that is responding to my post, but for what it's worth it doesn't matter to me if one jack-hole with a loud horn shows the world that he's an idiot. I'm far more concerned with the actions of faceless (though presumably white) HR managers of Fortune 500 companies, small business owners across America, casting directors, police officers, finance and loan officers, school admissions directors, college professors, and retail managers.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
graystone wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Description: You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is too unwieldy to use while you are mounted.
Now are those metaphorical hands, real hands or some other kind of hands they haven't told us about?
Bows need two real hands and use up both metaphorical hands. So if you used 1 metaphorical hand you couldn't use the other metaphorical hand to use two hands to use a bow.

How do you know they use the metaphorical hands? Where is it stated or what mechanical benefit can you point to to imply it?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
I can find no reason, that additional unwritten rules exist, to further contradict RAW, and have the Bow count as a two-handed weapon, solely for the unwritten restriction, regarding two-weapon fighting.

I can find no raw why humans don't have 12 arms either. The fact is that the game doesn't describe in minute detail how every day mundane objects work, nor does it need to. You are a human with bilateral symmetry: you know how many arms you have. A bow is not such an obscure device that you don't know how to fire one and you know its done with two hands.

Description: You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is too unwieldy to use while you are mounted.

If you are trying to finagle some mechanical advantage out of the difference between a two handed weapon and a weapon that it takes two hands to use then stop. You are finagling, not reading.

BBT isn't finagling. BBT is rightly continuing to press the absurdity that is the TWF/THW FAQ and the subsequent "explanation" by SKR that created more questions than it answered.

If you believe my statement to be erroneous then explain, without finagling, why a two-handed fighter can or cannot use the overhand chop ability with a bow.

a Two-handed fighter can maybe use overhand chop with a bow as an improved weapon.

Overhand chop needs a two-handed weapon, bows used as intended are not two-handed weapons. They are weapons that need two hands to wield. The FAQ you all are so upset about talks about how if you wield a weapon with two hands you don't have an off-hand to use. If you believe this is incorrect then do you believe that if you use a longsword wielded with two hands that you could use armor spikes?

Now who's finagling?

Either (a) bows are not two-handed weapons and do not consume your off hand attack; is true

Or (b) bows are two-handed weapons and you get to use overhand chop with them under normal conditions

You can't pick and choose from those options without "finagling."


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Scribbling Rambler wrote:

Kickstarter really only helps if money is the issue, and every indication is that the issue is just workload.

And before anyone says "hire more people", realize that there are open job postings.

Not to suggest that I know about Paizo's specific hiring strategies, but there is a big difference between hanging the proverbial "now hiring" sign and aggressively recruiting targeted candidates to fill a particular role in your company.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.
Not really. He laughed it off as "everything is racist" and then jumped to the dictionary definition and said basically Using this, there isn't any racism at GenCon, so George is making stuff up. Unlike Larry, he's "a mind reading Social Justice Warrior, constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."
Yeah. Because that definition is honestly comical.

And we circle back around.

I'm getting the feeling that your actual problem with talking about white privilege and whatever-you-want-to-call-it-but-certainly-not-racism isn't that you worry that the terms will turn off those not up on the jargon, but that you don't think they exist.

Cause, while I wouldn't use the exact phrasing George quoted, I think it really is talking about a real thing.

The issue is that some people have a flat tire on their car. The issue isn't how some people have tires that aren't flat.

By describing an issue with flat tires as "non-flat tire privilege" you (1) skew the issue away from the actual problem, (2) lose credibility with people who's tires aren't flat.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
I can find no reason, that additional unwritten rules exist, to further contradict RAW, and have the Bow count as a two-handed weapon, solely for the unwritten restriction, regarding two-weapon fighting.

I can find no raw why humans don't have 12 arms either. The fact is that the game doesn't describe in minute detail how every day mundane objects work, nor does it need to. You are a human with bilateral symmetry: you know how many arms you have. A bow is not such an obscure device that you don't know how to fire one and you know its done with two hands.

Description: You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is too unwieldy to use while you are mounted.

If you are trying to finagle some mechanical advantage out of the difference between a two handed weapon and a weapon that it takes two hands to use then stop. You are finagling, not reading.

BBT isn't finagling. BBT is rightly continuing to press the absurdity that is the TWF/THW FAQ and the subsequent "explanation" by SKR that created more questions than it answered.

If you believe my statement to be erroneous then explain, without finagling, why a two-handed fighter can or cannot use the overhand chop ability with a bow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

In other words: systematic, institutional racism. That we whites benefit from even if we don't actively participate in it.

But that's even more of a non-starter than talking about privilege is.

Because apparently some people's minds just shut down when they hear the R-word.

Pretty much, so the question becomes, do you want to do something about it or just b@&~# about how fuct up it is? One of those requires pragmatism which may taste bad, and one will give you the warm fuzzy without doing a damn bit of good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

If we stop using the word 'privilege' and use a different word, then pretty soon THAT word will become the emotionally charged one that Caineach and those coming from the same position will be advising us not to use because it turns people off.

To hell with that. The reason people become uncomfortable with being told they bear a share of responsibility for a state of racial, gender, or similar inequality in society, insofar as they benefit from it in ways that minorities cannot, is because they are scared, subconsciously, that their privileges are going to be taken away. White people are scared of having more trouble getting jobs because they don't have a built in advantage over everyone else when being hired. Men are scared of having a harder time getting laid because they have to acquire enthusiastic consent before having sex with a woman. Christians are scared of having their children being taught that other religions, and nonreligiousness are the legal and logical equals of Christianity, because it may make it harder to keep their children in the faith when they know that there are other options.

These are not conscious fears, but they are one of the reasons why people get defensive and upset when you discuss their privileges.

I think you're going a bit far with the insinuation that every white person, every male, or every Christian who is made uncomfortable by being told that they are personally and offensively racist is harboring subconscious fears of losing privileges they are not even conscious of enjoying.

I think there are plenty of people who are consciously afraid of those things. And there may be some who are subconsciously afraid of those things. But that every single white person, male, or Christian who objects to being accused of being part of the problem is subconsciously trying to avoid losing out is going a few steps too far.

I'm going to be blunt: You need white people on your side. You need men on your...

It seems to me that part of the issue some take with the word "privilege" lies in the idea that one "enjoys" it. There in lies the rub, whites don't enjoys white privilege. In fact, whites aren't even aware of white privilege unless they are actively thinking about it.

"Gosh, I sure am enjoying the fact that the cops didn't pull me over for being white just now!" "Yep! High-five White Brother!"

"Yea! I just got a new job, sure am glad I'm white!"

These things don't occur to white people.

So, the second part of that issue comes in with the idea of "fixing" white privilege. The problem with that is the definition is completely backwards. It doesn't make any sense to fix white privilege.

"Randy, you're fired."

"What? Why?"

"We had to fix white privilege, and well... you're basically the whitest guy here."

So, what really needs to be fixed isn't "white privilege" because "white privilege" isn't really a thing. What absolutely is real is that non-white people get s%*% dumped on them somewhere between constant and "OMG, you just shot me in the face while I was surrendering." THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.

And this is the really f@!!ed up part. Yes, it really will take getting white people motivated about the issue to get it fixed, and yes, that means it will have to be sold to them. And yes, that means terms like "white privilege" which are really bad descriptors to begin with are going to have to be removed from the conversation before it starts to make true progress. Because, the average white person is going to tune you out if you tell them, "You are privileged because the system isn't constantly taking a dump on you. In fact, your privileged non-dump-covered self is part of the problem."

It's a non-starter. Instead, we should be focused on the "how to stop the system from dumping on non-whites" issue; granted that isn't as catchy as "white privilege."


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Okay, I think I see the problem here. I'm not using the Two Handed weapon FAQ and applying it to Bows, I'm using the Vestigial Arms and Two Weapon Fighting FAQ here. I agree by RAW, that you could use a two handed weapon and armor spikes. Then they decided to change that afterwards. That doesn't change the fact that in the vestigial arms discovery it states you do not gain an additional attack or action. Kinda vague what that really means, which is why they made the FAQ that brings out the concept of two hands, no matter how many hands you have.

I think it is easier to look at if it is broken down. You are a human with 4 limbs. You have a BAB of +6. You can hold two bows and use each once in the same round with the attacks granted from BAB.

Or, if you want, you could kick, kick. Or you could kick, kick, kick. Or you could bow, kick. Or you could bow, kick, kick. I don't think anyone here could reasonably deny any of these.

It follows that you would be able to bow, bow, bow.

It's very reasonable to deny bow, bow, bow. With only two hands can you bow x3? No. So when you grow two more hands you also cannot bow x3. Because that's what the rule is.

So for a regular human with +6 BAB, you say it is ok to use one attack to use the bow and one to kick?

What about a regular human who uses one attack to bow and their off-attack to kick?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Razal-Thule wrote:
If the person in question was born with 4 arms i guess i could see them using 2 bows to fire at once or close enough to it. But if you just happened to gain 2 new arms i would say NO. They said in midevil England they started training long bowmen from childhood so think how long it would take to learn to master using 2 bows at once. So just gaining 2 new arms shouldn't let you use 2 bows.

Right, because after someone magically grows two new arms the immersion-breaking issue is that they use 2 bows.

...

...

...

yea....


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Okay, I think I see the problem here. I'm not using the Two Handed weapon FAQ and applying it to Bows, I'm using the Vestigial Arms and Two Weapon Fighting FAQ here. I agree by RAW, that you could use a two handed weapon and armor spikes. Then they decided to change that afterwards. That doesn't change the fact that in the vestigial arms discovery it states you do not gain an additional attack or action. Kinda vague what that really means, which is why they made the FAQ that brings out the concept of two hands, no matter how many hands you have.

I think it is easier to look at if it is broken down. You are a human with 4 limbs. You have a BAB of +6. You can hold two bows and use each once in the same round with the attacks granted from BAB.

Or, if you want, you could kick, kick. Or you could kick, kick, kick. Or you could bow, kick. Or you could bow, kick, kick. I don't think anyone here could reasonably deny any of these.

It follows that you would be able to bow, bow, bow.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't think the devs would allow TWF'ing with a bow because you are still using both hands to make an attack happen, even if the bow is not a two handed weapon.

I agree that the devs would say no to this. I also believe they would be wrong based on the current rules-language and wrong for limiting non-broken options.

Actually, I also agree that they would say no to this because it is potentially something mildly neat a character could do not using magic (TWF bow/IUS) which is something we just can't have in pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Deighton Thrane wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

A Bow is not a two-handed weapon.

You cannot even begin to use the odd FAQ, based of unwritten rules, focused on two-handed weapons, like the greatsword, and two-weapon fighting, to apply some unwritten restriction, that contradicts RAW, and suddenly make a Bow a two-handed weapon, and deny it's use in two-weapon fighting.

Seriously, you push this, but still say one can't use Rapid Shot with Daggers or Spears, because they are supposedly "not Ranged weapons".

It says right in a bows description that you must use both hands to use it, even if it's not classified as a two handed weapon, you still use both hands to attack with it. And the FAQ doesn't contradict RAW, it's explains it, as the wording is a little vague.

Requiring two-hands to use does not make it a two-handed weapon.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Deighton Thrane wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

A Bow is not a two-handed weapon.

You cannot even begin to use the odd FAQ, based of unwritten rules, focused on two-handed weapons, like the greatsword, and two-weapon fighting, to apply some unwritten restriction, that contradicts RAW, and suddenly make a Bow a two-handed weapon, and deny it's use in two-weapon fighting.

Seriously, you push this, but still say one can't use Rapid Shot with Daggers or Spears, because they are supposedly "not Ranged weapons".

It says right in a bows description that you must use both hands to use it, even if it's not classified as a two handed weapon, you still use both hands to attack with it. And the FAQ doesn't contradict RAW, it's explains it, as the wording is a little vague.

The FAQ directly contradicts RAW, and the FAQ from the previous version of the game that had the exact same language.

The entire reason anyone ever talks about "unwritten RAW" is because that term started getting tossed around by the dev team after the FAQ in acknowledgement of the fact that it was in contradiction to existing precedent but was inline with some meta-rules concept only known to the dev team.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Some people started having it, not knowing what it was.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Morgen wrote:

Instant Enemy should be fine given the minute/level duration. A lot of Ranger spells should be good to cast at the start of a fight or out of combat entirely and so forth. Assuming the ranger isn't roaming about with two weapons constantly drawn of course...

By the rules she'd really need to have an open hand to cast and spells with somatic components for the gesturing really. It is one of the reasons Still Spell exists.

That's actually an interesting idea. Add a "rod of still spell" enchant to one of his melee weapons. +3000gp

I like it!


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Let's forget about Vestigial Arms for a moment.

Now, a player chooses to two-weapon fight, with a Bow, and an Unarmed Strike.

Is there a reason to not accept this?

Nope, that's totally fine too.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

The reason for the "unwritten" rule on THW/TWF is to prevent a player from exceeding the regular 1.5x STR soft-cap on weapon bonus damage during an iterative series. Bows, though used in 2 hands, are only able to use (upto) 1.0x STR mod in bonus damage. Therefore, bows do not use your "off-hand" of effort, though they do use your off-hand of holding.

If you had 2 more hands then you could use your "main" hand of effort, your main hand of holding and one vestigial hand for one bow. Then use your "off-hand" of effort, your off-hand if holding, and one vestigial hand for holding the second bow. The second bow would be limited to .5xSTR mod damage when two-weapon fighting. You would not get the -2 penalty reduction from wielding a light weapon in your "off-hand."

Please share where the unwritten rule of THW/TWF is the 1.5xSTR soft-cap. And that bows get around using two hands to wield using vestigial arms while a THW can't.

Also bows get to add your 1xSTR at up to 1000ft. Often you don't use that much but still, 1xSTR at 80ft is really good if you ask me. A medium sized THW couldn't do any STR at that range, even on a 30ft base speed charge.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pxa3&page=11?Is-this-TWF-combination-legal #537

Thank you for sharing that unwritten rule.

Nothing in there says that just because a bow is 1x str it gets to ignore the rule that wielding a weapon that takes two hands to wield and it not using your off hand. He gave the reason why it's the rule, and also said that "You shouldn't be able to pile on additional attacks per round just because you can think up additional ... body parts to attack with." like a third and forth arm are additional body parts that you're "attacking" with. Since the weapon needs two hands to wield it's used to attack with that weapon.

Your "off-hand" doesn't exist unless you are TWF or using a THW. Bows are not listed on the table under THW, bows are not THW.

It's that simple. I also explained to you why that is the case. If you want to continue to not accept the rules that is fine by me.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
The reference to imaginary hands is even if you had 20 actual hangs, you can only do things counting up to two hands. This is why you can't use a THW and then use armor spikes or kicks as offhand. You've used your "main" and "off" hands making the 1 attack with the THW. Thus the imaginary is how many hand actions you can take and doesn't care about actual number of hands.
Precisely correct. The bow only uses one hand of actions. Otherwise it would get 1.5 x STR mod to damage.

No the bow uses 2 hands to wield. Just like a THW so that uses up your main hand and off hand. You've yet to show the main and off hands only refer to 1.5 x str mod. Or that a bow only uses "one hand of action"

artanthos wrote:
No mention is made regarding limiting characters possessing more than two hands.
But neither of the examples used needed more than two-hands to operate. And the line in vestigial arms says it can't grant more attacks. Which means that if you can't get that many attacks with that weapon with two hands it is extra. Like dual wielding greatswords can't be done by a normal two-handed character, thus vestigial arms can't do it either. Same with bows. Now using 4 different light weapons, can a character with two hands make 4 light weapon attacks? eventually yes, so at the point that the two handed person can is the same time the 4 armed guy can use his 4 different weapons.

The bow is not just like a THW. If it was just like a THW you would get 1.5x STR damage. You would be able to use the THW fighter archetype abilities with it.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pxa3&page=11?Is-this-TWF-combination -legal#537

That same post also says that you can make two melee attacks with twf.

Furthermore he goes on to say that your number of attacks is intended to be limited by "hands."

Edit: Finally, nowhere does he say that the "hands" of an action is implicitly tied with the strength modifier. You'll notice its missing. What he does say is the rule is intended to keep twf from having an inherent damage bonus over two handing.

I'm just trying to help you understand the rules here. I don't need to notice anything. You'll notice that bows aren't listed as two-handed weapons on the weapons table and that ends the FAQ debate right there.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
The reference to imaginary hands is even if you had 20 actual hangs, you can only do things counting up to two hands. This is why you can't use a THW and then use armor spikes or kicks as offhand. You've used your "main" and "off" hands making the 1 attack with the THW. Thus the imaginary is how many hand actions you can take and doesn't care about actual number of hands.
Precisely correct. The bow only uses one hand of actions. Otherwise it would get 1.5 x STR mod to damage.

Incorrect. It uses two hands because its weapon type specifies it and only grants 1x STR regardless. Your hands are not determined by how much damage it deals but the way you wield a weapon.

In this case a projectile can only be wielded in 1 way. As a weapon requiring two hands.

Edit: Once again to Artanthos, that is in reference to the imaginary hands quoted in another FAQ.

What about the "ranged" weapon type requires a weapon to be used in two hands? Bows have that language in their description. The amount of damage is also part of the composite bow description, not from "the way you wield it."

Which, by the way, "the way you wield it" has no meaning for ranged weapons.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

The reason for the "unwritten" rule on THW/TWF is to prevent a player from exceeding the regular 1.5x STR soft-cap on weapon bonus damage during an iterative series. Bows, though used in 2 hands, are only able to use (upto) 1.0x STR mod in bonus damage. Therefore, bows do not use your "off-hand" of effort, though they do use your off-hand of holding.

If you had 2 more hands then you could use your "main" hand of effort, your main hand of holding and one vestigial hand for one bow. Then use your "off-hand" of effort, your off-hand if holding, and one vestigial hand for holding the second bow. The second bow would be limited to .5xSTR mod damage when two-weapon fighting. You would not get the -2 penalty reduction from wielding a light weapon in your "off-hand."

Please share where the unwritten rule of THW/TWF is the 1.5xSTR soft-cap. And that bows get around using two hands to wield using vestigial arms while a THW can't.

Also bows get to add your 1xSTR at up to 1000ft. Often you don't use that much but still, 1xSTR at 80ft is really good if you ask me. A medium sized THW couldn't do any STR at that range, even on a 30ft base speed charge.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pxa3&page=11?Is-this-TWF-combination-legal #537


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
The reference to imaginary hands is even if you had 20 actual hangs, you can only do things counting up to two hands. This is why you can't use a THW and then use armor spikes or kicks as offhand. You've used your "main" and "off" hands making the 1 attack with the THW. Thus the imaginary is how many hand actions you can take and doesn't care about actual number of hands.

Precisely correct. The bow only uses one hand of actions. Otherwise it would get 1.5 x STR mod to damage.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

The reason for the "unwritten" rule on THW/TWF is to prevent a player from exceeding the regular 1.5x STR soft-cap on weapon bonus damage during an iterative series. Bows, though used in 2 hands, are only able to use (upto) 1.0x STR mod in bonus damage. Therefore, bows do not use your "off-hand" of effort, though they do use your off-hand of holding.

If you had 2 more hands then you could use your "main" hand of effort, your main hand of holding and one vestigial hand for one bow. Then use your "off-hand" of effort, your off-hand if holding, and one vestigial hand for holding the second bow. The second bow would be limited to .5xSTR mod damage when two-weapon fighting. You would not get the -2 penalty reduction from wielding a light weapon in your "off-hand."


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Two-weapon fighting doesn't say "must be one- handed or light" it says "if light, reduce penalty by 2." So, you don't get to do that because it isn't light.

You do need 4 arms to use two bows because the bow entry tells you that you need two hands to hold it. That has nothing to do with it being a two-handed weapon.

The fact that you need both hands to fight means that according to the FAQ and the posts on the subject, a bow subsumes your "offhand."

That means the FAQ is directly applicable because vestigial arms do not grant another "offhand." You still only have a single offhand for attacking with, and thus by the FAQ cannot wield another weapon.

The weird original FAQ claimed directly in the thread that each person has a "hand" and an "offhand" that have nothing to do with actual physical hands.

That being said; the bow requires two hands to wield. The greatsword requires two hands to wield. It has already been ruled that things that you cannot duel wield things that take up your offhand because they have already taken up the non physical "offhand." The same would apply for the bow, because as you already stated, it requires the offhand to wield.

No, the "off-hand" is only used when it has the ability to donate +.5 STR bonus to damage in an attack. Bow attacks are capped at 1.0xSTR bonus. The bow in no way uses your "off-hand."

*Note that "off-hand" is different from off-hand. "Off-hand" is a metaphysical representation of effort and is the important factor in two-weapon fighting. Off-hand is your actual hand, and has nothing to do with two-weapon fighting, but it is what you use to hold a bow.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


Bows are not two-handed weapons
blackbloodtroll wrote:


A Bow is not a Two-handed weapon, and you two weapon fight with it, and say, a foot(unarmed strike).

Okay if a bow doesn't count as a two-handed weapon then is it light or one-handed? This is important for what penalties you take with two-weapon fighting.

Also if it not wielded with two hand the my two handed figher can dual wield them because he qualifies, "You need at least two hands to use a bow." he has two hands so he uses two bows.

Leonardo Trancoso wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
So since using a bow uses 2 hands, vestigial arm wont give you more or let you dual wield bows because you'd be generating extra bow attacks. Using a bow uses 2 hands and using two bows uses 4 hands. thus you'd be making 4 hands worth of attacks which is clearly disallowed. This also fall under this FAQ

The extra 'hand' is not attacking, it is just reloading the bow, the same way it could reload a crosbow, a sling, a gun.

And you can make a similar build with Syntesist Summoner, using limbs evolution, i didn´t see any FAQ for Limbs evolution.

The Sythesist summoner doesn't have the limitation that more arms means no more attacks. The vestigial arm does and that's why it has the limitations.

If the extra hand isn't attacking then let me dual wield a bows with my fighter. Nothing in the bow says I need a free hand, just that I need two hands. Well my two armed fighter has two hands so he'll dual wield his bows. He's not making any extra attacks, he's making as many attacks as the vestigial arm guy. If he can't do it, then you shouldn't because you'd be getting extra attacks. Because if he can't, the yes your "free non-attacking" hand is helping you get extra attacks and is "attacking."

I imagine you're saying you can also dual wield greatswords with vestigial arm? Is that correct? If so, what penalties do you take for dual wielding them?

Also what penalties do you take when you dual wield with...

Two-weapon fighting doesn't say "must be one- handed or light" it says "if light, reduce penalty by 2." So, you don't get to do that because it isn't light.

You do need 4 arms to use two bows because the bow entry tells you that you need two hands to hold it. That has nothing to do with it being a two-handed weapon.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
No, but they require two hands to wield, which is functionally the same thing for the purpose of those 2 FAQs.

No it isn't. The FAQ's are specifically referencing two handed weapons because they grant 1.5x STR bonus to damage. Bows do not.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
Whisperknives wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

The key to understanding Vestigial arm is, "Can I make these attacks without the arm?"

** spoiler omitted **...

That is a little fuzzy though considering that they even specifically say that you can wield a weapon, bomb, and potion at the same time with them.

You just do not get the extra attacks more than normal, it never said what those attacks had to we with.

If he took the two weapon fighting feat, which adds another attack, there is nowhere in there that says what that attack has to be with. also.

"The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine."

His attack routine might be +8/+3 normal and +6/+6/+1/+1 when using two weapons.

If he wanted to use two bows, that does not break any rules. The arms are not adding extra attacks, they are just making his weapon choice bigger.

Same as if I wanted to wield 2 greatswords.

4 attacks is 4 attacks, no extra being made. Just uses a bigger weapon.

On the point of the Two-hand and off hand point, those two faqs are not related.

The extra hands are not making extra attacks, they are helping to make the normal amount of attacks.

The FAQs are related. They are exactly what you're trying to do. You want 2 2-handed weapons. But by using the 2-handed weapon you've used all your hands, you can't off hand anything. 4 2-handed attacks are more than 4 1-handed attacks. 1 two-handed and 1 1-handed is more than 2 1-handed, As per the second FAQ I posted.

You can hold all you want, you can only use a certain amount. You can hold a bomb, sword and potion. But if you wanted to attack you couldn't also drink the potion normally. If you had 2 attacks you could do sword and bomb or sword and sword. If you had 1 attack you'd be two-weapon fighting to use both sword and bomb, but you couldn't chose this option if your sword was a 2-hander.

Also how many bow...

Bows are not two-handed weapons


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Claxon wrote:

No, you cannot wield two two-handed weapons even with vestigial arms, because you only get one primary hand no matter what. Two-handed weapons require a primary hand and an off-hand. Beyond that, vesitigial arms don't grant additional "hands".

*Remember, this goes back to the metaphoirical hands argument that upset a lot of people, but this is still the ruling. You only have one primary and one off hand, regardless of the number of physical arms or hands you have. Making a two handed weapon atatck consumes one of each.

Further, after that FAQ was issued developers continued to comment and basically said that so long as the number of attacks you make with and without vestigial arms was the same that it was a valid attack sequence.

Bows are not 2-handed weapons. They are ranged weapons that you must use two physical hands to hold.

As for metaphysical "hands" of effort, I think you are probably on the right track that the "off- hand" bow would be limited to .5 STR rating.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
LazarX wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

Oh and I forgot to mention, the Warlock does have the advantage for Paizo in that it has mechanics that could easily be transferred to other classes for archetypes (as wel have seen paizo loving to do recently... handing out class features to everybody).

For instance, a Witch gaining the abilit to select invocations in place of hexes.

You forget about the Warlock's major disadvantage.....

It's closed content.

The "warlock class" as it appears in complete arcane in closed content. The word "warlock" is not, nor are the mechanics which govern how the class works. Even if Paizo were worried about stepping on WotC's IP there are certainly ways to replicate the feel of the class that people have continued to clamor for over the past 5 years without calling it "warlock" or calling its primary ability "eldritch blast."

Of course, you have transparently opposed the idea of a Paizo warlock variant for the last 5 years. Even when people point out to you that your talking point on closed content isn't the full-stop issue you are making it out to be.

I didn't think much of the warlock when it first came out in 3.5. It had one trick which it did to death and a package of debuffs. If I wanted a package of debuffs, I'd play a Witch. The Warlock doesn't really fit with the existing classes, most of the other magic classes can be seen as evolutions of classes that closely resemble them. The Warlock is an odd duck with not really much flavor to it.

For what it's worth, I never cared much for the class as a player either. But as a DM I found them to be excellent for quick-stat arcanist NPC's and also useful for newer players who want to branch out into spellcasters but feel overwhelmed by the options of a full caster.

Then, of course, there are all of the folks I recognize that love the class as a goto player option, and my personal PC choices/preferences should not limit theirs in any way. Nor should yours.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

Oh and I forgot to mention, the Warlock does have the advantage for Paizo in that it has mechanics that could easily be transferred to other classes for archetypes (as wel have seen paizo loving to do recently... handing out class features to everybody).

For instance, a Witch gaining the abilit to select invocations in place of hexes.

You forget about the Warlock's major disadvantage.....

It's closed content.

The "warlock class" as it appears in complete arcane in closed content. The word "warlock" is not, nor are the mechanics which govern how the class works. Even if Paizo were worried about stepping on WotC's IP there are certainly ways to replicate the feel of the class that people have continued to clamor for over the past 5 years without calling it "warlock" or calling its primary ability "eldritch blast."

Of course, you have transparently opposed the idea of a Paizo warlock variant for the last 5 years. Even when people point out to you that your talking point on closed content isn't the full-stop issue you are making it out to be.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Tell you what, you tell me what game you want to play, send me $30 through paypal and have each of your players send me $30 through paypal. Tell me what PDF's you already own.

I'll buy the supplements you need to complete your theme and I'll sort and pack your files and send you a nice buttoned up single file. I'll even host it for you to download.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
memorax wrote:
Gamers don't like buying the same rpg twice with no changes. With apps and the SRD it's going to probably be the first time imo that 0the PFcore is not going to sell as well imo.
I'm not sure we have an example of a selling an RPG twice with no changes. We do have plenty of examples of reselling an RPG with moderate to heavy changes, and from the looks, they tend to do very well. 3.0 -> 3.5, nWoD -> The God Machine, oWoD (which was out of print and no longer supported) -> the 20th Anniversary editions, WotC rereleasing the 1st-3rd Edition core books, which as I understand all sold pretty well. Even Paizo and Pathfinder have rereleased their Core book in what 5 different "printings" editions, and by all accounts their fanbase and sells keep growing exponentially.

The CRB is in its 6th printing. The revisions are a by-product of that, not a cause. The printings 1-5 sold out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

I would be open to a new core book that really aggressively looked at organization, language choices, and ease of access. I would also be open to that book really challenged some of the core assumptions regarding class power curves, scaling class abilities, spell power levels, and skill mechanics.

I think unchained may do some of these things, so that will be a good first look at the future of the game.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
kaboom! wrote:

To Vote, simply *favorite* a post below:

In >THIS< article, Erika Mona says he'll do Pathfinder 2e if the fans ask for it.

"People are always asking us when we're going to do a new edition
of Pathfinder, well, we'll do that when the players want it."

.

POLL: Do You Want A New Edition of Pathfinder (Pathfinder 2e) ?

.

Honestly, unless you're objection is that you don't want to spend more money (which is completely reasonable), then I don't see a reason to say "no."

I mean, we haven't talked about what the new edition is going to be like yet. For right now, a new edition just means the game becomes exactly what I want it to be. So, since I want the game to be exactly what I want it to be, I'll vote yes.

You ignore the possibility that the game is exactly what I want it to be right now.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
You need to stop using the word science.

Sorry, self editing this as there IS discrimination on these boards and I don't really want to give them any more fuel to practice it against me and/or others.

Am about finished with the thread, but wanted to reply.

Why?

I know there are those who don't like the studies done by sociologists, economists and political scientists, but these studies are in many instances USED to promote the further equalization of minorities. They are also used as evidence for reasons to promote programs that promote education equality, job opportunity, and betterment of housing and community for minorities.

Is it that you don't consider economics, political science, or sociology as science?

Actually, I don't want to know that answer, as there are others who have far darker reasons for not wanting to consider the studies as science...so actually...don't answer. Ignorance can be bliss.

Plus, I'm leaving the thread as there are some hot topics, and having been discriminated against many times in my life (as I am part of one of the many minorities out there with race, religion, gender, orientation...etc)...it may hit far to close to home to keep a level head.

I would like to go back on topic though and say, there may be racism, and there may be profiling involved with whats happening in Fergie...

But I also think even if it's going back towards racism in the government and elsewhere...that's rooted in something that's deeper and far more divisive between what the public wants and needs and what their local government is actually doing. I think it's a divide that's been growing for a looong time, and has been brewing for all that time.

The reason you need to stop using "science" to describe your babble, is because you are not linking to articles published in independently published peer-reviewed journals.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Interestly enough Racism IS allowed in the US. It is still socially acceptable.

Think about editorials you have seen. When looking at them, the number that have been focused on mocking those from the Middle East over the past decade is almost innumerable.

The stereotype against those from the Middle East...is shocking.

These are Asians in continent...not African Americans...and because...

Yeah. Let's not go down this derail again. Everybody has it worse than blacks. Racism is so much worse against all the other minorities. Which of course means that any problems black people have are their own fault. Blacks aren't getting harassed and shot by police because of racism, since you think other races face worse racism and yet they're not getting by police as much.

Please don't put words in my mouth. That's not what I stated.

Racism IS worse against the other minorities statistically speaking right now in occurances in media and recordable.

If you are Hispanic or South West Asian, your ability to get a job is much lower than anyone else just about.

Do you have problems with the studies and science?

I already stated I don't know WHY the crime statistics are so bad for African Americans (which could be ONE area where African Americans ARE more persecuted due to race

To say something is totally because of Race may be a cop out. (get it...okay...bad pun).

The situation is probably inherently MORE complex, especially when looking at something like what is occurring in Fergietown.

Right now the focus seems to be on African Americans, but do you think they are the ONLY ones there?

I've seen a few others, even in the protest videos. I'd say there's a more deepseated unrest there and this incident was simply something that lit the fuse on that barrel.

The claims of racism could be part, but I think a more broad brush would be applicable towards a separation of the views of the public and that which are enforced and ruled on...

You need to stop using the word science.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Cloak of the hedge wizard - transmutation


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
... science...

You are going to have to show me an article published in a peer-reviewed journal before you can make that claim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

One who bites the heads off of live chickens.

1 to 50 of 2,104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.