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. 4,795 posts (4,800 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 308 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Caineach wrote:

And I have a right to think this is oversensitivity, that you don't have the right to dictate how I should dress and act, and I don't have an obligation to give a s#&+ about your personal hangups.

I think safe spaces are b&*!#*$~. Usually, I find them to be one of the most uncomfortable places out there, because they encourage people to not be themselves and be overly focused on not potentially offending anyone. The real world doesn't work like that. We aren't mind readers.

You have that right but that doesn't entail the right not to be called racist for doing so. If the culture decides you're in the wrong and shames you that isn't violating any of your rights. The vast majority of people will tell you that dressing as a nazi isn't okay and will in some way shame or exclude you from activities because of that. That's their right because your right to free speech doesn't include a right to be heard or have people put up with your racist b#%#$&+@.

Entirely true, except that part where you called me a racist. If you want to do that, at least point out something I've said that is racist.

I still don't think dressing as a nazi at gencon is intately inappropriate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Caineach wrote:

Lots of wargaming is WWII themed. Should the people playing axis not be able to dress for their role as general? It is a really common thing in the wargaming community, and in fact some tournaments give out prizes for it.

Frequently people demoing games will dress to advertise their games. As above, there are a lot of WWII themed games. Last time I was at Gencon I demoed one that was Nazi Zombies vs the US.

Nazis are villians in a lot of anime and video games. Lost of people cosplay villians. Should people not be able to dress as their favorite characters?

LARPs have a whole bunch of settings, and people often dress their characters. Should people cast as nazis in larps set in the 1940s not be able to dress the part?

Those are just a few possible reasons I can think of for someone wanting to dress the role in the past 5 minutes. The fact of the matter is, you have no context for why he was dressed like that. Any blanket statement about it being inappropriate I think is entirely unfounded.

That's only okay if I can wear a "kill whitey" shirt and carry a gun to all of the same locations because I can come up with an excuse when questioned. The problem isn't lack of a reason the problem is that you're ignoring that it essentially make some people not welcome at a location because you want to dress as a nazi. Or hell if I dressed as a Spanish Catholic penitent in America I'd be harassed for hate speech because the KKK stole our outfits. I understand that though and deal with the fact that even if it's a part of my culture to do something that I'm still obligated to consider how it makes others feel and that it makes some people feel endangered. Unless going to the area had the explicit assumption of seeing nazis (play involving nazis etc) you should avoid adding nazis to it in the same way that you shouldn't parade around with an assault rifle in a mall just because the law allows it. You're making people feel unsafe and unwelcome because you're selfish.

And I have a right to think this is oversensitivity, that you don't have the right to dictate how I should dress and act, and I don't have an obligation to give a s+*+ about your personal hangups.

I think safe spaces are b+#~*%$%. Usually, I find them to be one of the most uncomfortable places out there, because they encourage people to not be themselves and be overly focused on not potentially offending anyone. The real world doesn't work like that. We aren't mind readers.


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

Having been several times to GenCon, I'm going to have to say that A.A. George's article is right on the money. The number of nonwhite attendees is still vastly outnumbered by the nonwhite cleaning and service staff. And if you walk around with a shirt that say "Kill Whitey" you're not gong to get the assumptions usually afforded to someone walking around in full SS Nazi gear.

It's still a heavily white and importantly, heavily MALE hobby. And it shows.

Uh...I don't think a single person here, and certainly not Larry Correia, would argue that Gencon isn't mostly white, or even mostly male. It's both. The argument is with the claim that this is because the Con and the hobby are racist.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Caineach.

It is... it can't help being racist, because the people that founded the hobby like most of us grew up in a racist culture with certain preconceptions for norms. You can't really argue that it somehow is magically "race/culture neutral." I will say that even though I'm nominally "white", I've always felt out of place at GenCon due to my North Jersey boy origins. The MidWest culture is unavoidably different. And I've found the locals to be comparatively intolerant, compared to what I'm used to.

Its comments like these that make liberal ideas die before they hit the masses.


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

Having been several times to GenCon, I'm going to have to say that A.A. George's article is right on the money. The number of nonwhite attendees is still vastly outnumbered by the nonwhite cleaning and service staff. And if you walk around with a shirt that say "Kill Whitey" you're not gong to get the assumptions usually afforded to someone walking around in full SS Nazi gear.

It's still a heavily white and importantly, heavily MALE hobby. And it shows.

No one is arguing that.

George's article argues that the reason for it is racism (that he fails to actually show) and that it is a problem, and then proposes fairly impotent potential solutions after first insulting everyone at the con multiple times. That is what people are arguing about.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kittyburger wrote:
JurgenV wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:


Indeed. Correia's best buds with Theodore "Vox Day" Beale, who is a virulent racist, sexist, and homophobe (I'm fairly sure trans people Don't Exist in Beale's world). Your friends inform who you are, and Beale's a LOT of information. Even without Beale, there's plenty of sexist, homophobic and transphobic commentary from Correia out there.

Correia's been dismissive a lot of women's science fiction, of LGBT science fiction, of science fiction of people of color, of non-American science fiction (lumping all of them together as "message fiction" - ignoring the fact that all fiction is supposed to send a message), so the pattern is pretty well-established showing him to be a pretty big flaming bigot regardless of any use or nonuse of slurs.

None of this actually gets at the specific Tor Books blog post vs response post by Corriea, though. You don't like some of his other positions, statements, and associations... but what about the topic at hand?
I don't know. Once you realize that the headline here is "Bigot attacks blog post on racism", there really isn't much more to say.

Yep.

Correia has a pattern of bigotry and of denying the impact of bigotry when reported by other people.

I'm amused by the fact that calling out a pattern of actual behavior by the man in question is being called "character assassination." "Character assassination" would be if the claimed pattern of behavior were false - it isn't.

The point is show that he IS wrong if you disagree instead of saying well he is a bad guy so he must be wrong. Disprove his point not attack his person.

Jim Hines on Correia's dismissive take on nonbinary gender in fiction (note that the post Jim Hines takes apart is entirely similar in nature to the one in question, ignoring the substantive criticism being offered).

If you look in...

I see no bigotry there, like you tell me I will find. I actually see a very consistent message of do whatever the f@%* you want, but the most important thing is to make your story fun. Because if you don't make your story fun then no one will bother reading it.

Quote:

But the important thing there is STORY. Not the cause of the day. STORY.

Because readers buy STORIES they enjoy and when readers buy our stuff, authors GET PAID.
Quote:

So if humans having 5 or 6 sexes in the future is part of your story, write it. If it isn’t part of the story, why would you waste words on it? Oh, that’s right, because MESSAGE.

ProTip: Focusing on message rather than story is a wonderful way for writers to continue working at Starbucks for the rest of their lives.

Quote:
Not that you can’t get a cause into your story, as long as you do it with skill. But the minute you destroy the default just to destroy the default, congratulations, you just annoyed the s&!! out of the reader. You want to slip in a message and not annoy your customers, that takes skill, so until you have developed your skills, don’t beat people over the head with your personal hang ups.

He is antagonistic, but there is not evidence that that is towards people of different sexual orientations or genders but, instead, authors who give bad advice to would-be authors. The article that spawned it was bad advice, and your posted fisking is a terrible response.


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

On the topic of discrimination in gaming...it is there. Go no further than Woman and the objectification of them in many gaming materials (though it can be funny to some...not so much to others, there's a reason the chainmail bikini is brought up in many instances for stereotypes).

I have no idea how it is at GenCon, but I do know that there are minorities that feel uncomfortable in many settings where they cannot find those of the same race.

There can be many situations where someone of one race does not feel safe in areas where they are the only member of that race.

In gaming there should be questions as to why minorities do not seem to be as equally represented as Whites (if this is really the case, I don't know, has there actually ever been a survey to this effect?).

It's been around for 40 years now...which is more than long enough to have equal representation of minorities...what about gaming makes it so that they are not equally represented?

Saying it's poverty or money is equal to being racist...IMO. There are plenty of minorities which are just as well off as anyone else.

Why are there not more represented in game companies?

Look at Washington State for example, there are plenty of People of Color as someone is using the term (to tell the truth, I basically never use the term, but since we are using it here for a broad genus of race and whites...I'll use it) which are mostly Asian and Native American in Washington. There are also African Americans, but not as high a concentration as found in the South and East of the US.

Where are these representatives in the gaming companies...and if they are there, why don't we see more photos of them in the photos of the game companies?

It's one thing to draw minorities and others (for more inclusivity, LGBT) in your art, it's another to actually walk the walk and include them in your company, your promotion, and show them in the forefront of your company.

In that light, why are minorities under represented. We know that the players of Video games(which have been less at the forefront than RPGs themselves) there is a good representation of everyone...even in CRPGs.

Obviously people other than the White/European enjoy RPGs, and in great numbers (Japan seems to be equal to the US even in appeal of CRPGs, as does Korea)...what is it then about the TTRPG that is causing the exclusion of minorities? (IF this is actually the case...as I said, I know of no studies that really address this).

I think that actually SHOULD be a question asked rather than having people like Mr. Correia attack and belittle such questions from arising or looking at it and trying to figure out what's happening. Instead he uses the typical racist dismissals that you see in every other end of the spectrum of US politics...and that type of racism is offensive, and very evil in many ways towards many minorities.

Seriously, social dynamics and the way ideas spread.

Gaming started as a middle class white hobby, and still is middle class. Most of its popularity is from word of mouth. The people involved spread it to their friends. Since friend circles are racially segregated because of economic segregation that led to geographic and cultural segregation, it mostly spread to other white people. 40 years later, the predominant advertising is still through friend circles, and those friend circles are still racially segregated.


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


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

black guy resisting arrest after a strong arm robbery, taunting and then rushing the attempted arresting officer who has a gun drawn over 20 paces away = stupid.

Hell, anyone doing that is stupid. Stupid is color blind.

The problem is that its also so stupid that it strains credibility.

Come on BNW, everyone knows that black teenage males are all so dumb, violent and hopped up on cheap cigarillos and rap music that they'll snap and turn into foaming berserker animals at the least excuse.

Just ask the Fergusson Police.

[/sarcasm]

How about Louisiana, where someone with their hand cuffed behind their back can shoot themselves in the chest after being searched for weapons and narcotics.


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


Go slow. Be nice and respectful and eventually the man will give you want you want. Go slow. Don't ask for too much. Don't let him know you're hurt and angry.

Except that isn't what my argument at all. I said you have to make them care. Mass protests make people care, if for no other reason than they want you to shut up. Whiny articles on social justice sites don't. Tor is mostly a circle jerk for people to talk to others who already agree with them and for their opponents to occasionally stumble upon and start a flame war.

Gamers, in my experience, are a receptive group for arguments of disenfranchisement, so you don't have to start with forcibly getting people's attention. You have to focus on making arguments that they will listen to. you have to make them understand the things bothering you, and if you can propose solutions that they can actually help bring about. That is why the Tor article is junk. It starts with a receptive audience and spends the first half driving them away with accusations and then proposes solutions that are honestly fairly laughable and contradictory.
for example:
Hire people of color and make them prominent but don't use them in advertising and don't hire a token minority.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
He is basically calling all the white people at the con slave masters

This is where I lose it. How do you get that out of the post?

original article wrote:
It was a surreal experience and it felt like I had stepped into an ugly part of a bygone era, one in which whites were waited upon by minority servants.

If the minorities were servants, the whites are masters. It is passive-aggressive and makes pretty much everyone who doesn't agree with him roll their eyes and tune out the rest of his article. Because if he is going to open with crap, why bother reading the rest.

You can call it a rhetorical flourish and not part of his argument if you want, but it is the very first point he makes after describing what Gencon is. He follows it up with an accusation that the gaming community actively excludes people of color

original article wrote:
Gaming has a race problem. For all its creativity and imagination, for all its acceptance of those who find it hard to be themselves in mainstream society, gaming has made little room for people of color.

emphasis added

Quote:


If some white people are going to be that sensitive, how can they ever be reached?

By not starting with an accusation that they are actively excluding people. You lose everyone who disagrees with that statement before you can possibly get them to understand the actual problems.

You want to see someone do this well:
Ted Talk Danger of a Single Story


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
EntrerisShadow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'm going to suggest that if he didn't discover he was Latino until probably 2009, it's probably not a real major part of his life experience. The cynical part of me suggests he might just be using it as a dig at liberals who might challenge him.

Ding, ding, ding.

Of course, he didn't discover he was Latino, anyway. I know that's your point, but I REALLY want this clarified, because this really cuts to the core of why this guy, and his article, are really terrible. He's as white as he ever was - but now he gets to use an obvious error by the DOL to glibly steal that term with no regard for how people who actually ARE Latino are treated.

And from what I've been reading, that seems about the level this guy is on. Reading over a few more of his articles it seems like he takes every suggestion that sci-fi writers and fans consider other races, genders, or sexualities as evil thought police insisting we're not allowed to write about straight, white males any more.

Convenient how he used that opportunity to mock it, but then uses it in this article, without so much as an allusion to the irregularity, to lend credence to his point. It just makes an already rubbish article that much worse.

And my God, how people are eager to defend him and attack the tor.com writer. The fact alone that so much more scrutiny has been heaped upon the minority person - and that they have so far been the only one to face any allegations of actual racism in this thread - is so very, very telling. Sad, but very telling.

Of course, the fact that the Tor article is a piece of s~&+, fails to back up any of its assertions, and uses poor reasoning to reach bad conclusions can't be a reason people don't like it. Nope, it has to be racism.


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

This is disappointing. I will still be running with the original.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:

I really want to post more here, but I gotta sleep. I just want to know, how do the new posters in this thread feel about this statement?

A.A. George wrote:


"I’ve been told time and again by gamers, “I don’t see race” as if they were doing me a kindness. This is not enlightenment or progressiveness. It is ignorance. If you do not see race, you do not see me. You do not see my identity, my ethnicity, my history, my people. What you are telling me, when you say “I do not see race,” is that you see everything as the normal default of society: white. In the absence of race and ethnicity, it is only the majority that remains. I am erased."
I personally found it offensive for reasons stated on page 1. Do you find this statement acceptable? Why?

I don't find it offensive at all.

Too often (usually) well-meaning white people say, "I don't see race" as confirmation that they're not at all racist. But it is a rather ignorant thing to say for precisely the reasons he's pointing out. What he's saying is that it is used as a way to be able to ignore other cultures and experiences because, to you, there is no difference.

There's a reason Stephen Colbert mocks the "I don't see race" line in his conservative-pundit guise. It is a dismissive thing to say. (And too often used to justify ignoring very real racial disparities in hiring, education, and our criminal justice system.) To respect a person is to respect the whole person - that includes understanding how their experience differs from yours due to not being a member of the dominant culture. The statistics do not lie - being black in America is very different from being white. (Also being gay, Latino/a, a woman, or non-Christian, but one thing at a time.)

DeadManWalking wrote:
He, uh, never claimed it was factual. And, much as I'm actually a strong advocate of working to destroy subconscious and cultural prejudices (which are a serious problem), a lot of people who go on about them come come
...

I've encountered quite a few SJW. One lambasted her social circle at college and ended up quitting the school because hir friends argued that the NY legislature taking a few extra days to hammer out details on marriage equality to prevent lawsuits was a good thing (requirements that specify religious groups cannot be forced to perform marriages). Ze has now joined a likeminded group in the Boston area who all are equally rediculous in their views. One I've actually argued with that there are no physical differences between men and women.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:

The latter, Larry Correia.

As far as I can tell, his "arguments" are mostly "well I don't feel the same way as you about racial issues, so you're WRONG!"

He seems very angry about how one person wrote an article about feeling underrepresented in their hobby. He's dismissive and inflammatory. Also, as a rule, I don't trust anyone who argues with "dictionary definitions" (especially with complicated and nuanced issues like race and racism), and unironically uses the term "Social Justice Warrior."

One person wrote an article highly critical of Gencon without any evidence to back up his position other than I felt buthurt growing up and these people don't understand my pain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hama wrote:
He shouldn't fall, I agree, but, however, he should have legal ramifications, because, instead of going to the city guard with evidence, he committed vigilante justice (murder), and most guards take a dim view to that.

Vigilante justice isn't against the Paladin code. In most cases, it is explicitly what the Paladin should be doing.


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

You all do know that Evil Racist Cop isn't the majority of cops, right? And Evil, Racist DA? And Evil, Racist Jury and Judge?

I get it that there are some. But you do get that it isn't most of them, right?
Or are we to the point that all cops are Evil Racist Cop? Because that's what is being implied.

Prick cop on a power trip accounts for every cop I have ever interacted with.


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

I have to agree with Kirth. Cap 1 was pretty non-memorable for me. I didn't remember Bucky's death scene or the mad scientist until the flashbacks in WS. In the first movie, my reaction to Bucky's death was a "oh no, main character's friend dies predictably to develop main character," and I promptly didn't give a s~!+ at Cap's predictable reaction. I could tell you Red Skull was the villian, but honestly don't remember anything about his plot other than has tessaract and evil nazi, and the tessaract is only important because of its ties in with Avengers. I remember thinking the skin over Red Skull was done well, but only after it was mentioned a few posts ago. Cap 1 was an easily forgettable film.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
SAMAS wrote:

No, not even them. Remember, we're talking about people, not just powersets.

You don't monitor anybody who doesn't give you an actual reason to. By which I mean something they actually do or are caught planning. Not just because of something they might do.

That kind of stuff tends to breed...

Nice in sentiment, but not really something I would be behind in real life.

In comics, I LIKE secret IDs and the tropes that make comic heroes what they are...

In real life, if there is a threat, I would want it monitored. You don't round them up in camps based on things they 'could' do... but if you know they can kill with a thought and just let them be till AFTER they accidentally murder people... then that's the governments fault. It's like handing a toddler a machine gun and saying we're going to wait till he gives us a reason to take it away...

What do you think about Prof X? Sitting in his chair, monitoring all new mutants that show up and then trying to draft them into his school for training?

That's pretty much immoral monitoring... but since he's not 'government' he's seen as the good guy?

Frankly they would be such a unique and special subset of people with unique and specialized needs... they SHOULD be looked for. There should be all sorts of programs set up to make sure they CAN live ordinary and simple lives.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. The government would be doing exactly what Professor X has been doing for mutants since the earliest issues of the X-Man. Monitoring for their appearance. Trying to recruit and train them. Stopping the ones who get out of line - which would include the vigilantes.

They'd be doing it on a larger scale and more effectively, that's all.
Of course, in the comic book world that's better left to individuals since they can be trusted while the government can't, but mostly because that makes for better stories.

I would absolutely love to see a story that follows a mutant-accepting civilian police force dealing with everyday things, like high school students suddenly realizing they can kill everyone they know by not closing their eyes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Y'know, I really have to assume that many of you are simply playing Devil's Advocate here, because otherwise..

You do understand that you're stating that it would be perfectly acceptable for a Chaotic Evil Antipaladin to worship Irori under your twisted logic that being used here, right?

Paladins are Lawful AND Good. Neither of these two things are less important than the other. Asmodeus is antithetical to the cause of Good, breaks the Associates clause in the Paladin class, and stands in direct defiance of the Paladin class being called the 'Champions of Law AND Good.'

Yeah, so? What is your point?

1. No one expects anti-paladins to be entirely sane.
2. The diety they worship does not need to be the one granting him powers.
3. It is more likely for an anti-paladin to do his work in the name of a good god than the reverse, since it would sow discord.


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

Going from 15 to 20 point buy isn't that big a deal. You basically get a +1 modifier in a primary stat or +2 modifiers to other stats. You probably wont notice that difference in the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
zauriel56 wrote:
I disagree with the stance of the business but not the ruling. Why should rights be infringed upon because they own a business?

Why should an employer be able to pay his employees less because he is religious?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Squeakmaan wrote:
No, seriously many jobs do. VoIP calls from my home were a required part of my lab tech job, my boss lived in Japan, I worked in Virginia. In any kind of STEM job it's essentially a non-stated job requirement.

I can't even apply for a job in my field without high speed internet,


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

This is why I think all rating systems should be destroyed.


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

Apparently, there is now effort to make a law to go around the SCOTUS decision

I hope they succeed.

They won't. At least not in this session. If the Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House, then it's likely in the next session.

So Vote.

I don't think they'll necessarily end up staying in office. There's a lot of people burned by Obamacare who may be willing to toss women's healthcare under the bus just to be rid of the program. Including a surprising number of women, from what I've seen.

You may want to check where your getting your figures. Current front page of the HuPo (so admittedly massively biased) - more than 3/4 of Republicans who have enrolled in Obamacare are in favor of their new coverage.


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

So, some other thoughts on ways these could be useful. For instance, in pay parking lots:
determine how long a car has been there (pay parking lots would like this, as would short term parking in business areas)
identify poorly parked people and develop a response (redraw lines to accommodate, send a parking official to ticket, send a tow truck) - also helps with large/nonstandard vehicles
determine if anyone is loitering and develop a response (send a security guard to do a sweep, turn lights on)
direct cars to the nearest parking space

There are certainly others.

1 to 50 of 308 << 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.