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

Caineach's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 4,837 posts (4,842 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
yellowdingo wrote:
Yellowdingo rates Guardians of the Galaxy: (8/10) finally saw it on DVD. If it lacked that one thing to get it to nine out of ten, it lacked that moment where green ninja girl gamora is listening to peter's music tape while fighting and her in-combat prowess doubles.

Personally, I thought it was missing the scene where Gamora watched Dirty Dancing.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Who wants to put money in the pot that the mid-season takes place 1-2 years later and we find out all about how he came back to life next season in a bunch of flashbacks? =)

Not taking that bet.

edit: but now that I think about it, it is probably a good one because they probably want to keep Flash and Arrow at roughly the same time, and they wont do a 2 year gap in Flash right now.

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I can't imagine that they will go more than 1 episode without their star. In a comic, maybe, but not in a CW show.

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergurg wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Also, look at what Fergurg is actually writing. They're clearly and over the top victim blaming, and both claiming that if you resist you should be shot and then accusing a black guy that teaches their kids basically the same thing of "hating everyone not of their own race".

Wrong again. Yes, if a person is resisting arrest, the police need to stop it from happening. If a person tries to grab the cop's gun, that is grounds for stopping him. The cop does not have an obligation to not protect his life.

And as for accusing the black guy, I quoted what he said, He said he HATED this country and its countrymen. I asked him why he chooses to stay, given his HATRED (caps were also his).

And as for victim-blaming, is it your opinion that a person making an assertion of being a victim should be believed at all times? Because asking questions about these things is often how the truth comes out (e.g. Duke University, Rolling Stone). And if a person making an accusation should be automatically believed, would it not make sense to extend that expectation to white cops or Hispanic neighborhood watchmen who say, "He attacked me."?

Because they killed the people who can protest their story.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:

I do not deny that there are awful cops in the force. It'd be really freaking blind and stupid of me to say that.

Sadly, awful people are present in every field of work in the world. Sadly, awful cops are capable of doing far greater harm than awful members of other professions. To the point where if even only 1% of the cops were corrupt and/or poorly trained, it can have devastating consequences (And it's obviously more than 1%). I just don't think they are the majority.

I'm sure every police force in the word has at least one awful policy or practice. Same can be said about pretty much every organization in the world. Like it or not every organization has its policies dictated by humans, and humans are flawed.

BTW, by community, I meant "city" or "state", not neighborhood. In literally every big city where I've ever been cops usually work away from their neighborhood, both to prevent them going easy on people they know and to avoid retaliation by criminals they arrested.

Still, living on the other side of the city, or even in a different city, while certainly providing completely different backgrounds and life experiences, is still being part of the same community. And the time the cop spends on the area where he works is time spent being part of that community, for better or worse...

If you live in city/country/state/nation/whatever that has, say, a serious problem with racism/xenophobia/homophobia/whatever, expect those to be common among police officers as well. Like every other human on Earth, cops are influenced by the people surrounding them.

I'm not absolving the police of all guilt. Believe me, I know what harm dirty cops can do. What I'm saying is that honest cops are more common than dirty ones. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's my honest impression of the situation....

In my experience, inner city cops live in suburbia as far away from city life as they can get. You can't deal with a community by treating every part of a large area the same. Communities can be as small as a block, and you can have vastly different ones across the street from each other.

Star Voter 2013

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:

IME with the police from 3 different nations, (including Brazil, which is not exactly known for it's amazing police force and safe streets), most police officers are actually honest people doing their work, usually legitimately trying to protect and serve the community.

As is the case with any other organization, though, it has bad apples. A$#%#%%s will be a@@~@$@s, no matter their job. And if those a*!%%*@s are in a position of power, they'll abuse it. It doesn't matter if it's the power of carrying loaded arms and beating up people or the power to write and approve bad laws.

Additionally, police officers don't grow on police trees. They most likely come from the communities where they work. The police (much like government) reflects the society that it works for. In a place where racism is common, expect lots of racist cops. In a place where corruption runs rampant, expect corrupt cops.

I know the quality of police forces varies wildly from place to place, but I tend to at least show police officers some respect and give them the benefit of doubt. Their job is often dangerous and underpaid, and to make things worse, the communities they protect often see them with bad eyes...

It's certainly not an easy job. Especially in the communities that most desperately need an effective police force.

A. As mentioned above, they often don't live in the communities they work and prefer to have a relatively long commute to avoid running into people they have arrested. This is more true the likely more urban an area is.

B. Aren't recruited from communities which have grown to distrust the police, like minority ones, because people don't grow up to aspire to be their enemy. By actively discriminating against a community, you reduce the number of people from that community interested in being recruited.

At this point, I more or less assume a cop is scum on a power trip and deal with them like any other bully, unless they give me the rare cause to think something else.

Also, cops are not underpaid. They are some of the best paid civil servants. The communities see them in a bad light because they take care of their own by not actually having any accountability for their abuses. They are reaping what they sowed with policies like Broken Windows and Stop and Frisk.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
And we may be causing earthquakes, so who knows.

TRUE :)

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:

You did in fact say exactly what you say you did, but you did so in such a fashion as to draw exactly this kind of response, which lets you attack the climate change side of the debate.

He did not alter your words, he misread a poorly phrased post. Intentionally or not, this kind of thing is a habit with your posts.

It might have been poorly worded, but I do not accept that the meaning of it wasn't clear. I know my posts tend to be poorly worded, so I am trying to avoid long-form stating of what I have to say and allowing for even poorer wording to get involved.

I had stated earlier in my post "Humanity also isn't responsible for all of the planet's climatic changes." That does absolve humanity of 100% responsibility in wording... but at the same time, makes it clear that humanity is responsible for climatic change. My last sentence was both to make it clear I wasn't challenging that humanity has an undeniably major effect.

And despite being given an opening to attack climate change, I did not single it out any more than I did the deniers.

I figured it out because I've debated with you before and I know to double read everything and look for the out clauses. I did read it and think "Someone will misread this as denial". And then he did.

You also said in that post "Beyond humanity creating the technology that was affected? Nope. It's one of several climatic events that would have happened no matter what humanity did with the environment." Which is far more emphatic than we have any right to be. There is no such thing as "climatic events that would have happened no matter what humanity did with the environment" since we started messing with the environment. Or at least no way to tell the which ones are which. Climate is too chaotic for that.

That line, and the following bit about changes we weren't responsible for also set up an expectation for the following one to be read as a denialist viewpoint.

To be fair, we can tell a couple. Volcanoes FTW :)

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

NY Times article on cops not able to produce informants in NYC. I think my favorite line is

Quote:
Afterward, the District Court judge, Dora L. Irizarry, said the officers’ testimony “was just incredible, and I say ‘incredible’ as a matter of law."

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Here is an blog post I like. Many police officers buy into the core idea of broken windows, that low level offenses left prosecuted will lead to more low level offenses until they are normalized and higher level offenses become justifiable because it seems like no one cares. If you apply that to police officers though, how can they justify not looking into accusations against other police officers and yet say that lack of investigation into offenses does not lead to higher incidents of offense?

Star Voter 2013

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Cop breaks woman's eye socket while she is handcuffed in the back of his car, not charged. So apparently, even after you have restrained the suspect you can beat them on video and be found not at fault for anything.

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
If a criminal is fleeing, shoot to kill.
I should hope not.

Not for the least because the Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional in the 1980s

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

GreyWolfLord, I can only assume you have no idea what grand juries are for or how they work based off of your statements. Not to mention that many of your statements are not backed up by the actual evidence.

Why would the only witness brought before a grand jury ever be the defendant? That makes literally no sense. Since defendants being brought before a grand jury is an anomaly, and his testimony was more or less unchallenged by anything resembling a reasonably competent prosecutor, one can reasonably assume in this case they wanted to let him walk. You say yourself that there are glaring holes, not to mention his various stories don't line up, but the prosecutor never pressed him on these.

They could have gone with any of the eye witnesses that said Brown had his hands up, had them testify, and with the physical evidence provided gotten an indictment. That is of course if the prosecutor actually wanted to proceed with a case, which he was clearly biased against ever doing in the first place.

The only indication that Brown touched the officer's weapon is from Wilson's testimony, since they didn't take finger prints of the gun. Not to mention that they didn't follow the proper chain of evidence for the gun.

The reason for a grand jury is to see if you have enough evidence to make a case - not to see if that case will hold up. That there may be contradictory evidence is irrelevant - that is up to a trial jury to determine the validity of different conflicting sources.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Love some of the excuses for bad police work in the case. I particularly like no photos of the scene because the camera batteries were dead.

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:

He wasn't indicted due to his testimony. If it was just his testimony, he would have been indicted.

The biggest reason were the supposed witnesses themselves. Many of them had to be lying.

Why?

Because their testimonies all conflict and sometimes say the opposite things. One states Brown Ran away, while another says he was walking towards and then collapsing towards. One says Browns hands never got above shoulder level, whilst another said that he had his hands raised above his head.

Even a poor defense attorney could get his client off with witnesses that conflict that terribly with each other. The stories conflict so badly, that none of them are considered truly reliable.

You can't get a conviction off of witnesses that contradict each other so radically!

Point blank.

If they indicted and charged, they'd have lost. The supposed witnesses did the case in themselves. There probably were some good witnesses, but the ones that had something to burn, something to try to push...who thought they were all that by trying to say something that wasn't true...they were the true downfall of the opportunity to indict.

Without reliable witnesses and a story that cohesively comes from them...it then falls to physical evidence.

That showed Brown's blood in the vehicle consistent with a struggle and shooting. It showed Brown's blood on the actual weapon as if Brown had his hands on it. The angle of the shots from the evidence presented corroborated that it was probably done in the manner that was stated by Wilson (and supposedly some other witnesses that refused to come out public due to fear that they would have retaliation done to them).

However, that doesn't mean Wilson was innocent, it simply means because a bunch of false witnesses botched this Grand Jury up so badly with their false testimonies, there was NOTHING to go on EXCEPT the physical evidence.

They more effectively botched the Grand Jury investigation up than anything a prosecutor or anyone else could. The made it...

Funny thing, if the prosecutor wanted to go to trial, he wouldn't need to present more than 1 witness. The fact that he knowingly presented multiple witnesses that had conflicting statements indicates he did not in fact want a trial. And it is the responsibility of a trial jury to determine the veracity of statements, not a grand jury.

Federally, there were over 160,000 cases brought before grand juries last year. 11 of them did not get an indictment. Attorneys have a saying, "You can indict a ham sandwich."

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Limeylongears wrote:

Based on my experiences of online dating, the following appear to be essentials for the modern Britlander woman:

1) Full set of teeth (tick!)
2) Job (tick!)
3) Not living with parents (tick!)
4) Not being 'only after one thing' (Jam? the ability to leap tall buildings at a single bound? A functional national rail transport system? Tick, anyway - I can play the long game...)
5) Following on from point 4, not sending strange women pictures of your dinkle (tick...)
6) Not posting photos of : you with your kids (interesting...), yourself draped over a sports car, yourself cuddling a smacked-up tiger, you with no top on flexing your pecs (tick!)
7) Not being a hopelessly immature mid-30s nerdish man-child (ti... er, er, MOVING ON!)

Of course, American/Serbian/German women may differ completely. IDK.

My experience with online dating has driven me to prefer sending out job resumes. At least there when they don't respond I can pretend it is because I don't have the qualifications they are looking for.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Kretzer wrote:

Okay...I saw this movie on Sat. I have to say I think Nolan is getting too caught up in his own cleverness.

The Sound was awful...there was scenes where I could not make out the dialogue due to the 'background' music being really too loud.

The plot was both overly 'complex' and predictable. There was really no need half the nonsense in this movie. Somebody should sit Nolan down and explain to him the benefits of KISS. I mean it was could have been a really great movie about Relativity and exploration...instead a little of that and a bunch of silliness. I am referring to...

** spoiler omitted **

I mean I though the acting was great (the bits I could hear), the special effects, even the basic idea of the movie to be great, I loved the design and personalities of the robots, etc. There is a lot of good in this movie but it tried to get clever...and that is when it falls flat for me.

I would save my money and the three hours plus of my life and if I wanted to check a good sci-fi story dealing with Relativity look up a novel called The Forever War.

I think the sound was off in your theater because the music was fine in mine, and I usually have issues with volume.

As for the rest of your complaint, I personally liked the fact that they portrayed the scientists as humans with their own philosophies and loved the way they established the world that they were leaving. I got out of the theater and had no idea that the movie was longer than average until I got in my car.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

"Dressing provocatively" to me is a B.S. excuse for poor behavior. I don't care if a woman walks down the street wearing nothing but a g-string and pasties -- people might stare at her, but there's no justification for any kind of commentary or actual harrassment (except maybe by the police in conservative places, which I also oppose, but that's neither here nor there).

It reminds me of Islamist excuses for imposing the Burqua on women: "Well, men are like feral cats, and if easy meat is put in front of them, what do you expect them to do?" Answer: I expect them to act like men, thank you, rather than like feral cats.

So, yeah, don't care what she's wearing. Stare if you have to, but keep your comments to yourself.

In the video in question the woman asks the question "why can't I dress provocatively and not have people react?" or something stupid to that effect. Dressed provocatively is her words for how she is dressed. And she complains about men glancing at her.
Can we link this video so we all at least know what we're talking about?

The street harrassment video I haven't watched all of it, mostly just the takedown video that Lemmy posted of it on page 2

The quote, at ~1:45 "I know the way I dress is provocative, but that doesn't mean that I should have to deal with it."

watching the first video some more, they make some decent points, but have a whole lot of dumb in there too, like equating the various glances and looks with actual sexual assault.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:

"Dressing provocatively" to me is a B.S. excuse for poor behavior. I don't care if a woman walks down the street wearing nothing but a g-string and pasties -- people might stare at her, but there's no justification for any kind of commentary or actual harrassment (except maybe by the police in conservative places, which I also oppose, but that's neither here nor there).

It reminds me of Islamist excuses for imposing the Burqua on women: "Well, men are like feral cats, and if easy meat is put in front of them, what do you expect them to do?" Answer: I expect them to act like men, thank you, rather than like feral cats.

So, yeah, don't care what she's wearing. Stare if you have to, but keep your comments to yourself.

In the video in question the woman asks the question "why can't I dress provocatively and not have people react?" or something stupid to that effect. Dressed provocatively is her words for how she is dressed. And she complains about men glancing at her.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
lorenlord wrote:
Caineach wrote:
lorenlord wrote:

Not MEL's gf.

And the video I saw, the woman was in a skirt and heels. Mustve been a different video. Are there more than one going around?

The one linked to in the opening post is not the one you are thinking of. I did not see the original of the one you saw, but a rebuttal to it, so I know which one you are thinking of. The rebuttal was posted somewhere upthread.
Thank you, Cain, for the clarification. I knew i had seen it somewhere and read about the same girl saying that she dressed provocatively and was complaining about the catcalls.
My first impression of the outfit she was wearing in the one you are thinking of was that she was dressed like a streetwalker.
Regardless, given that we've got other examples, from personal anecdotes to the 100 catcalls video, it seems hard to blame it all on the "girl dressing provocatively".

It's amazing how you put words in people's mouths.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Richard McGuffin wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I think the only viable approach is for the people(men) who aren't actually jerks to not just not participate, but to actively call out the harassment.

TRUTH

Except anyone who does it doesn't care what you think, in my experience.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wrath wrote:


I suspect it's the high standards and excellent training that keeps the police, soldiers and firefighters off the list, not the nature of the job.

In the US, police forces have been known to reject applicants who score too highly on social service exams for being too smart. They argue smart people are more likely to leave the field. My guess is that smarter people are less likely to put up with the corruption.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Love the attitude that when police abuse their powers we should just give in.

Post right above yours. Give in at the moment, as you are in personal danger. Document exactly what happened. Report it and publicize it once you're safe.

Too many people think that "in the moment" confrontation is the best path.

It rarely is.

I'm skeptical of the results of your approach, but I'll add, if you're going to do this: Document it. Record the encounter, audio at least, video if you can do it without further inciting the officer. Or do so if the officer is harassing someone else.

Because if something does go down, it's your word against his and the jury and everyone else in the system will believe him. And the bad cops lie.

Considering that less than 10% of complaints are investigated, I highly doubt the results this would get as well.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:

After posting and deleting several times, I think I'll be "daring" enough to post my experiences with police. Having been stopped at least 30 times as a youth, at least once at gunpoint, I feel that I have ample experience being "stopped for looking the wrong way". On the other hand, I am vanilla white; if you are a minority, you might have experienced extremely different things than me.


  • Police are people, too. My overwhelming experience: If you treat officers with courtesy and respect, they will reciprocate. I always told the police what I was doing, let them search my bags or car, etc. Because I *knew* that I looked 'suspicious'. I was an upper-middle-class white kid acting out. I guarantee there are half a dozen minority posters on this board who will cite examples of "driving (or shopping) while black" as the reason they got stopped. Yet once you're stopped, the outcome seems predetermined: If you're friendly, polite, and cooperative, they let you go. If you're confrontational and want to argue and demand their badge number, the name of their captain, tell them they have no right to look in your car, etc., you're going to have trouble. You may be morally "right", but you're going to have trouble.
    My friends constantly complained about our "abusive, neo-nazi police force", and how they'd been cuffed, beaten, and/or arrested. And yet every time I was with them, it was *THEY* who started it by being uncooperative and abusive. I was cooperative. I never got cuffed, hit, arrested, or shot. My friends had scars from where police had hit them.
    And you know what? When I was with them when we got arrested, I *never* blamed the police.
    Heck, the one time I was held at gunpoint I was sure my friend was going to get shot right in front of me. And he totally deserved it. Ignoring their orders, keeping his hands in his pockets, hiding what he was doing from them. He did his utmost to force them to shoot an unarmed kid. It was damned scary.
  • Both sides are guilty of escalation. One
...

Love the attitude that when police abuse their powers we should just give in.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
Debate all you want, but you should stay in the realm of reality. Life is not a movie. People try to kill the cops (about 10% chance per officer per year of being assaulted, 2% with a deadly weapon). If there is a reasonable risk that I will be killed, I will do whatever it takes to prevent that. I won't rely on a technique that has the possibility of me not succeeding and getting killed. I will pick the most reliable method of protecting myself.

While I'm not going to debate the merits of various disarming techniques, I'm not comfortable with the "Cop's safety first, at any cost" attitude. It's not even always the best for long-term safety. Increasing militarization and shoot first attitudes might make you safer in the moment, but if they alienate the population and the community you're working in, that leads to a more hostile environment and likely more attacks, which justifies more defensive measures, creating more hostility, etc.

And frankly, despite the anecdotes, policing isn't an extremely dangerous occupation.

More likely to be attacked and injured on the job working retail than as a cop.

Star Voter 2013

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:

I'm generally the odd one out that says diversity is overrated and claiming a need for it should be considered offensive.

Seriously, lets look at this statement some more.

That is hatred. It might be unintended hatred, but it is hatred none the less. Being opposed to diversity is being opposed to people who are different. That's all sorts of bad "isms".

It doesn't matter who is making a call for diversity, they're in a minority or a majority. In fact, people in the majority have a responsibility to make those calls, because it means we recognize that there are problems and they need to be corrected.

And yes, I do shut down. I don't apologize for it. I don't care what arguments people have to back up hatred. It's still hatred.

I hate reporting this stuff, because that just white-washes the issue and makes it seem to disappear, on both sides. People sit in their little bubbles and assume that they're right.

People pointing out patterns of racism/sexism/etc is not offensive. Anyone making such a claim is at worst unknowningly supporting said racism/sexism/etc.

Please counter this and tell my why black people shouldn't be allowed in comics.

And this is why people get turned off by social justice.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was getting the drug dealer no longer living in the house baby getting flashbanged story confused with the no drugs ever in the house cops shoot guy through the wall. In the later story cops used a tip from the guy who stole their car to get the warrant.

These swat team assaults on innocents are hard to keep straight.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Do you mean the incompetence of raiding a house when you have no idea of who or what is in there?

This was a SWAT team. They work with the information they are given. SWAT teams are not meant to investigate, that's what the regular police force is for.

I mean, I know it's hip and edgy to hate the police and all, but please.

Now, we can go into how the regular police force dropped the ball here by not confirming any info, but these particular officers hold no blame here, as everyone seems to assume they do.

The SWAT team, made up of 6 or 7 officers (the department wont say exactly how many) from the local sheriff and police departments. Apparently getting assigned to a special team means you get to ignore the rest of your duties as an officer.

Not to mention other articles say the person they were looking for no longer lived in the home

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
I like how everyone is blaming the police instead of the scumbag methheads using their child's playpen to barricade the door.

You mean the children's playpen that was looking out the window (crazy place for it, I know) of the family where no drugs were found?

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Former prosecutor describes grand juries.
Basically, there are 2 types of grand juries. Fergie described one kind. The other kind is what is being used here.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

*selfbackpat*

yeah, we're so cool.

Especially me.

Anyways, my opinion on inclusiveness in media is that it's "amoral", so I guess that's fair. I think it's good and adds a lot of flavor, but I don't automatically assume immorality when there's a movie like Frozen with almost all white people.

Though I do think it's something of a shame that they used so many great elements of Sami culture and still went with an all-white cast. Still, it was a nice touch. And kids' animation overall has a kinda complicated history on non-white or female leads, Not just Disney—Pixar and Dreamworks are also big offenders. In fact, you could argue Disney is one of the best thanks to its very frequent female leads, while Dreamworks only has a few, like "Monsters Vs. Aliens" and the upcoming "Home".

I'm really looking forward to Moana, by the way. Polynesian princess who sails the sea and goes up against gods and is a kickass navigator? HELL YEAH.

Similarly, we have The Last Airbender movie (that I know many of you would like to forget). The source material is highly influenced and stylized by different Asian cultures, but for the casting call they specified everyone had to be white, except for the villains, who are all middle eastern.

Edit to clarify - this is an example of them doing something bad, whitewashing.

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

An interesting poll. Particularly pages 35-37.

Do you consider yourself to be a feminist:
25% yes 75% no

Do you consider feminist an insult:
14% No, 26% Yes, 60% neutral

One dictionary definition of a feminist is someone who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes. As you think about that definition, do you
think of yourself as a feminist or not?
60% yes 40% no

The survey I found linked to from this Huffington Post article on feminism.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Albatoonoe wrote:
That's not what I was getting at, Kobold. "Gay" and "Homosexual" are both different words that homosexuals use. That are actual words to describe this. Social Justice Warrior is a term invented to entirely undermine a good thing. It has no basis in anything. It has no good connotation. If you are going to have a good discourse, ditch the word and say things that are actually descriptive of things. Hell, "the other side of the issue" would be better and more descriptive.

SJW is a term I have heard many progressives use to describe rabid members of their own community. I have even heard people self-identify that way. I encountered it first used by someone using it to positively describe themselves.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
"Privilege" and "Social Justice Warriors" are both negative terms, and both sometimes valid, real, and easy to overlook. I don't see any meaningful difference.

To make them truly equivalent, you'd need to change the latter to be "overenthusiastic advocate of social justice" I think.

But as time wears on, "privilege" is acquiring more and more baggage which threatens its very usefulness.

Privilege started with the baggage. People who have never heard the term start hostile to it.

Personally, I think there is a really simple line between social justice advocates and social justice warriors. If your rhetoric actively turns moderates away from your cause, your a warrior.

Pretty much every person below 25 I have met who actively advocates for a cause goes through a phase of SJW. Most of them grow out of it.

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orthos wrote:

Long story short, IMO at least, Pacific Rim is one of those movies that gets less fun the more you know about how certain things work in real life, unless you're the kind of person who can turn off that "work brain" part of your analytic psyche when it comes time for entertainment.

If MST3K/Rifftrax'ing it up is the way you get the best fun out of it, by all means, have at it.

Just don't be a douche and do so in the theatre, though.

Having watched it with a group of mechanical engineers and physics majors, I can say that it is most likely you. Tons of technically minded people have no issue with giant robots killing giant monsters. The movie did not pretend it was about anything else.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alex Martin wrote:

I think it's interesting how Roy and company have now reached the point where NPC's are considering them to be the big "hero" types.

I know it's been a long run to get there, but having spent so much time having the OOTS get kicked around/ordered around/outgunned it seems curious to see them be looked at in such a way.

To me, the whole airship sequence has become a character building and storyline reset. Not complaining, after the extended Tarquin sequence, I can see it being helpful in setting the next leg of the story. I could see getting an Elan/Haley or Varsuvius vignette before this is done as well.

Well, it is the start of a new book.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, it is pretty crazy there are people arguing that Larry is bigoted for saying that.

That's because some of us don't think that's all he's saying. Though it's kind of hard to get through all the stuff about there being only 2 biological sexes (which pretty much misses the entire point, even though it's true. Because gender<>sex)

He's writing an attack piece on a post which absolutely doesn't say "Write lousy token characters" and the only thing he has to say is "Don't write lousy token characters"?

To steal from Jim Hine's take on it, because he's a professional and says it better than I can.

Quote:

I … actually, I pretty much agree with him here. People read for story, not for checklists or quotas or lectures. I see nothing in MacFarlane’s article to suggest she believes any differently. Calling for authors to be more thoughtful about their craft doesn’t mean you’re telling authors to abandon story for MESSAGE.

But you know, readers also tend to enjoy stories where they can find characters like themselves. Which is easy if you’re a straight white dude, and gets progressively more difficult the further you stray from that default. Maybe if we want to write enjoyable stories, we should try looking beyond the same old default that’s been done again and again throughout the history of the genre.

Yeah, I read that failed attempt at a fisking already. It agrees with every important point of Correia, but still somehow tries to say he is wrong. Not to mention it makes assertions about Correia's stance and writing that are incorrect.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JurgenV wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
HerosBackpack wrote:

I look around me and see at least 5 genders, right here in the present world. That's my world, the one I live in. I'd like to have the same chance of seeing all of those genders just having a great story to tell. Without it being hyperfocused on the gender. "This is Danny, he's bashing orcs with a greatsword." "This is Alex, zie's shooting the orcs with a longbow." "This is Qatz, they're guarding Danny's back as he fights."

Even Paizo, inclusive as they are, doesn't really have much that represents me. I like that they are inclusive, but I'd like to see NPCs and characters like me too....

At a certain point, one has to accept that certain aspects of one's own character put them in so small (and so poorly understood) a niche that representing those certain traits or characteristics in something like a Pathfinder iconic simply isn't feasible. I'm all for Paizo introducing characters that make it clear that there is no stigma attached to one's sexual orientation, but the sexuality/gender/identity spectra are so diverse and so (to be frank) poorly organized in terms of vocabulary and consistency (try getting a room full of genderqueer people to agree on a set of neutral-gendered pronouns like zie/zir) that going for even finer granularity isn't something I see happening in the near future.
Did you know there is a transgendered iconic? She is awesome.
Well written and in no way a token character.

And that is why Paizo can get away with including characters like her. They treat her well, don't harp on the subject of her being transgender, and they focus on making her awesome. It takes skill to make characters like her.

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kittyburger wrote:
Caineach wrote:
HerosBackpack wrote:


Quote:
HerosBackpack wrote:

And intent doesn't necessarily translate onto the page. You are welcome to disagree, or to read it differently, but that is what I get from his blog.

Except that you're not just saying "He's wrong." You're saying "He's racist, sexist, transphobic bigot, and says I have no right to exist." (an almost direct quote from you) That's...a lot to get from one blog posts which, perhaps overly harshly, points out a number of legitimate problems with George's argument.

Two blog posts (the racism one and the gender diversity one linked earlier). In one he said I don't exist and should never be included in books, because that could only be "message fiction" and that is a bad thing. In the other he called me a psychopath for caring about such things as - for example - wanting to use a public bathroom without the risk of being beaten unconscious for it (and yes, in my demographic, that's a real risk, that he blows off as being a humorless "SJW")

And I said he gives that impression. Maybe he didn't mean it, any more than someone who accidentally stands on someone else's foot means to hurt them, but it hurts all the same.

If that is your take away from his blog post on gender in fiction, I think you need reading comprehension lessons. He not once says don't include non-binary characters. He says don't do it unless it fits the character and don't include it just to include it. Because then your writing will suck and no one will bother reading it. And you know what? The guy who fails at fisking his fisk agrees with those points.

If you have to have a "reason" to include anyone who's not a hetero white male, then your story's going to look like a whole lot of pale, boring sausage.

Or you could look at the main characters of the author in question and see that of his novels he only has 1 hetero white male main character, which he brings up preemptively to cut off this comment in both of the linked posts on gender normativity.

1 to 50 of 334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 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.