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

Hitdice's page

3,697 posts (3,957 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,697 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

MMCJawa wrote:
Trump seems to be trying to shift the blame to Democrats for not supporting his act...which is to be expected but I doubt will get much mileage.

Speaking seriously, I think over the next two months, the Trump administration is going to start blaming Congress instead of the Democrats. It's going to get a bit weird, considering how often he mentioned working with Congress during his campaign. Sad thing is, I doubt his base will stop to consider the difference between his campaign promises and his actions in office, and I really doubt news outlets will put the two in any kind of historical perspective.

Yes, I just described the last two years as "historical," what can I tell you, it's been that tiring an election cycle.


thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Sorry, I don't follow politics that much, is Bannon the Speaker, or the President? :P

He's Speaker for the President.

When Trump talks you can see Bannon's lips move.

I prefer to think that when Trumps talks I see Bannon's hands move, in the same way that when I see Kermit the Frog speak, I see Henson's hands move. Well, Whitmire since 1990, but you get my point.

Not that I think Bannon doesn't have to sound out the long words, he probably moves his lips while he reads.


Sorry, I don't follow politics that much, is Bannon the Speaker, or the President? :P


It's not what we want, it's just where we happened to end up.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


To paraphrase Brando, "How many you got?"

I'm afraid we're going to have ample opportunity to find out.

Y'know, I was planning on an edit, but, sure, I'll reply instead. I was just name checking Brando to be snarky, but right after I hit the submit button, the I realized the truthiness of my own sarcasm.

I honestly do not believe that a Republican majority Congress under President Trump will stop clusterf!@+ing themselves to a degree that Democrats will say, "I usually vote the party line, but this time I have vote with the Republicans for the sake of the least among us." Like, ever, at all, infinity times. So, if you're still reading this Bugley, I guess my serious answer is, 2018 at earliest.


bugleyman wrote:
I'm just curious...how many GOP clusterf@&*s must Congressional Democrats unanimously oppose before people stop claiming there is "no difference" between the parties?

To paraphrase Brando, "How many you got?"


Wait, Ryan's saying he pulled the bill at Trump's request? I bet the President tweets a different story at 4 a.m. tomorrow morning. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Now wait for the republicans to wait for the democrats to celebrate, get drunk, then run back home and pass it.

Already working on step two here.


Given Obi Wan's long soulful considered glance at the Lars homestead on Tatooine, I totally hope Lil Luke Skywalker doesn't show up for a cameo next season.


Sad news. :(


Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Obama did not start the war in Yemen, he intervened in an existing war. Which I believe is the pattern with all the military actions Obama has taken. OTOH, we started the war in Iraq.

One could argue that Bush Sr. didn't start Desert Storm, but merely intervened in an existing war, and that Dubya's invasion was a continuation of that conflict. I personally wouldn't buy that argument at all (well, at least not the second half of it), but one could make that argument.

One could also argue that the Afghanistan war was started by the Taliban, by sheltering Bin Laden. Most of the world, at the time, was willing to accept that interpretation. The continuation of that war is exactly what most people are now condemning.

Well, and the expansion into Iraq, but yeah.

At this point I'm much less worried about which party has started more wars while their President was in office (look, whatever, that grammatical construction is rock solid) than about how President Trump will deal with the North Korea Nuclear Warhead Delivery System issue. I really, really think Trump's term in office is going to do more harm than good.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
But have you noticed that none of the rivers are on fire lately? Thank you EPA.

1972 Clean Water Act, signed into law by Richard Nixon. You'll remember he had an (R) after his name, but was pretty far left of Clinton and Obama on a number of issues.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Is the NSA running a satalite dish out of your colon? No? You're welcome. Any of your kids get shot in a new war? No. You're welcome.
If you're claiming that Obama did not increase NSA surveillance of American citizens, and did not continue our unending foreign warfare, I want tickets to that alternative universe.

I'm not saying either of those things didn't happen, I just don't think there was one moment where Obama decided to sign those particular executive orders because he thought it was a really great idea, if you see what I mean.

Oops, ninja'd by BNW while I was composing my post. (And going to the bathroom on the way to fetching another beer, but let's not get too personal, shall we?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Yeah but how is any of that helping Kirth?

That's exactly where the modern Democratic Party keeps falling down.

Dems: "We're helping the working class!"
Local People: "How, exactly? None of us are seeing it."
Dems: "Well, you're all bad people anyway, so we don't need to talk to you except by making snide remarks."

Trump: "I'll Make America Great Again (TM)!"
Local Pepple: "How, exactly? You people never do."
Trump: "No earthly idea! I've never been able to fix anything, and run all my companies into the ground! But I'm listening to you, and I understand your concerns."

I can't decide whether to favorite this or cry; guess I'll do both.


Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
In short, team Trump is demonstrably incompetent. There is no 'brilliant plan' to distract the media with seeming mis-steps... they really are just this inept. Ergo, the democrats should go at them head on and let the country see 'the Donald' flailing about helplessly. Heck, some of the Republicans have started to do so.
It feels like these guys binge watched "24" and have decided they now know how the government works.

I think it's a pretty safe bet to include House of Cards. Maybe some West Wing, but c'mon, Bartlett? Not the president Trump wants to be!


CBDunkerson wrote:

Federal courts are saying Trump's new travel ban is just as unconstitutional as the first one.

Basically, you can't make a bigoted unconstitutional effort to restrict travel by members of a particular religion 'pass legal muster' no matter how much you water down and/or disguise it... the intent will always be unconstitutional.

Funny how that works. You'd have thought a former prosecutor like Giuliani would know that, but apparently not, because he went on national TV and bragged about how they were going to revise the "muslim ban" to 'make it legal'. Immigration lawyers have been using that, and other equally bone-headed statements by Trump and his advisers, to hammer them in court.

In short, team Trump is demonstrably incompetent. There is no 'brilliant plan' to distract the media with seeming mis-steps... they really are just this inept. Ergo, the democrats should go at them head on and let the country see 'the Donald' flailing about helplessly. Heck, some of the Republicans have started to do so.

. . . Butbutbut! It said right in the text this time that it wasn't discriminating on religion, and all these so called judges judicially overreached by considering its intent. He's trying really hard to make America great again you guys! :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Vo Giap, Ambassador of Bachuan wrote:

What I saw on the news today suggested that the next likely president of South Korea will be Moon Jae-in, the chief of staff under the previous president at the end of the Sunshine Policy years.

That being said, I'm only posting because the removal of the South Korean president reminds me that it's been a while since I made a witch post.

Choi Soon-sil - Shaman or con artist?

It's kind of a right wing thing in the US to claim to be guided by supernatural powers, most of the candidates in these past primaries claimed god told them to run for president, which can only be embarrassing for god as that many people being wrong about their wishes can only lead some to doubt there's actually any supreme being and, in fact, that it's opportunistic sociopaths exploiting people's beliefs for personal gain. I'll try to avoid saying which side of the debate I fall under.

Or astrologers. Don't forget the astrologers.

But to pretend to take it more seriously for a moment, just because God wants you to run doesn't mean he wants you to win.

To quote Stephen King: “When his life was ruined, his family killed, his farm destroyed, Job knelt down on the ground and yelled up to the heavens, "Why god? Why me?" and the thundering voice of God answered, There's just something about you that pisses me off.”


GM Niles wrote:
Oooh, that's another awesome theory. My daughter would be pumped if Rey was Sabine's daughter.

Your daughter? I myself would be pumped!


Matthew Shelton wrote:
Benjamin Medrano wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
BTW, is there a reason why they couldn't do imperial(metric)/fahrenheit(celsius) format? I mean, Numenera does that all the time so I think its doable at least .-.
I think the issue is that with the size of the book, the increased notation would actually have an impact on the length...but I could be wrong.
A short three-column chart showing temp equivalents (including Kelvin) could be integrated into the border art on some pages as needed.

Kelvin? This from the guy who asked if it ever reached -40 where I lived?! ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

All that talk earlier about the importance of identity politics and no one did anything for International Women's Day except me and the other red?!?

F!++in' Democrats...

Maybe. Or maybe you're the only ones who're so insecure about your political affiliation that you're pathologically unable to go without mentioning how active you are. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Shelton wrote:
You have to start at 20C = 68F. Every 5C up or down is 9F.

You can't just start at -40? :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The Mad Comrade wrote:

Musings:

Obsessing over "Trump voters" and "why Clinton lost" 3+ months post-election is a waste of breathable air.

That is 3+ months of time flushed into the septic field spent agonizing over nothing. Nada. Squat. Zip. Zilch. Zero. By the rules of the "great game", the Democratic Party lost again.

Get this through your thick skulls, Democratic Party: you lost and have been losing because you won't ditch your 'paymasters' - who would seem to be continuing to provide funds to a pack of losers that cannot maintain even parity with "The Enemy" inserting rawrl grawrl snarl woof woof bite chomp sound effects here.

I am amused by the common refrain of "Why are we wasting time arguing about why Democrats lost?" followed immediately by "You need to accept my explanation for why you lost."
I'm more amused by the notion this thread is actually the Democratic Party planning committee.

I really, really, really enjoy the thought of DNC staffers stumbling onto this thread and exclaiming, "ZOMG, we should have been on the Paizo message boards since before the election; we haven't considered any of this! You'd expect them to be RPG nerds, but it turns out they're the most politically informed people in the US, bar none! Hire them immediately!"

I enjoy reading and posting in this thread, but I think doing so makes about as much difference as getting sloshed and bulls**ting about politics with the rest of the barflies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's not equate sentience with human-level intelligence, though.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Tool use by the way is no longer considered an indicator of sentience.
No, but Gallup's Mirror Test is, and a number of non-humanoid animals have passed it, including elephants, dolphins, orca, magpies, ants, and quite possibly manta rays.
If ants pass this test, than I question it's value in determining sentience, something that we haven't yet nailed down that much in standards for. Manta Rays are another questionable inclusion, given that I haven't read anything substantive about manta ray behavior that would indicate sentience.

You don't think ants should rate higher on sentience than inchworms? :P

My real (admittedly, thread-derailing) question is, if you're of the opinion that we haven't yet nailed down standards of sentience, how can you differentiate between ants, manta rays, and all the less questionable inclusions on the list?

As for the role of slavery in my games, my campaign world features orcs as a slave race to one of the human empires, but there's no way I can describe it on the interwebs without sounding like a racist jerk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
GOLD LEADER/SQUADRON Y-WINGS WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
As I was watching the episode, I was thinking, "Ezra's flying a Y-wing; this is probably the best moment of Freehold's life, bar none." ;)

no.

The best moment of my life will be when I fly one.

Also, the charging up of the ion cannon seems to be canon now...

Fine, dude, "the best moment of Freehold's Life so far." That better?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
GOLD LEADER/SQUADRON Y-WINGS WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

As I was watching the episode, I was thinking, "Ezra's flying a Y-wing; this is probably the best moment of Freehold's life, bar none." ;)


thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I always thought that fantasy settings positing the existence of creatures that have human-level intelligence, but lack opposable thumbs or other means of using tools was kind of cruel. The pseudodragon is as smart as an average person, but has the hardest time turning pages.

Not every sentient needs to be a copy of Homo Sapiens, just because ours is the only model of sentience we're aware of, doesn't mean that every other one is going to follow that model.

Tool use by the way is no longer considered an indicator of sentience.

Not to derail the thread, but are there many examples of tool using, non-sentient species? I mean in the real world, on this earth.

For sufficiently low definitions of "tool-using".

None of those examples seemed particularly sentience exclusive, though. (Yes, since you ask, I'm one of those annoying people who prefers to think that bird nests are incubators, not "houses.")


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
kept saying "Shibe" all the time

Are you trying to say "Scheiße"? You're hurting my eyes!

Trivia: a native German speaker in my day would almost never use it by itself except in the sense of "worthless" ("Das ist doch alles Scheiße!"). For cussing, it's more fun when combined with other words. ("Hundescheiße" is a favorite).

In the days before battery key fobs, searching drunkenly for one's car, one might exclaim "Wo in der Teufel ist mein Scheißauto?!"

Okay, here's what I'm wondering, in the wake of many, many conversations with my German friend from boarding school back in 86-88: The word scheiße, in German, is not definitionally associated with the gastrointestinal tract the same way the word sh!t in English is, correct? 'Cause the two sound like cognates, but scheiße is much closer in meaning to schlock in Yiddish, right?

Zum Teufel, I'm sorry I hurt your eyes!


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I always thought that fantasy settings positing the existence of creatures that have human-level intelligence, but lack opposable thumbs or other means of using tools was kind of cruel. The pseudodragon is as smart as an average person, but has the hardest time turning pages.

Not every sentient needs to be a copy of Homo Sapiens, just because ours is the only model of sentience we're aware of, doesn't mean that every other one is going to follow that model.

Tool use by the way is no longer considered an indicator of sentience.

Not to derail the thread, but are there many examples of tool using, non-sentient species? I mean in the real world, on this earth.


Well, are pseudodragons exotic because they look like a cool little almost-dragon, or because they're intelligent enough to understand the concept of self determination? I'm with you on Absolom being a neutral city (that's what the stat block said, last I checked) that allows slavery, but have severe misgivings about equating pet ownership with slavery.


Isn't it pronounced Swassia, though? I only know that because I spent a whole lot of time wondering why everyone in Doona Barr's comic The Desert Peach kept saying "Shibe" all the time before I understood the German alphabet stuff. Look, whatever, her lettering is flowery at the best of times, it just looked like there was a capital B in the middle of the word, okay?!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Pan wrote:
They dont want to argue with you and are taking the path of maximum slackerage.
Yup, I was amused about it though. The class is literally about teaching us how to build effective group dynamics to lead to better, informed decisions... and my classmates think the best method is to just abdicate to me.
What if they're right?

I think the class should spend more time defining the contextual criteria of "best."


Finally got around to reading The Peripheral by William Gibson. At first my loyalties were divided between the impoverished cyber-rural badasses and the posthuman urban aesthetes, but once they teamed up I felt much less compromised. I need me a plate of nubbins from Hefty!


They can talk, it's just that Otyugh is the only language listed in the MM.


I'm not sure Putin expects Trump to deliver anything, exactly. It's just that having Trump in office removes any consistency from US foreign policy, and Putin prefers things that way.

A few months ago, on a now locked 2016 election thread, I offered a hypothetical about Trump insulting the President of the Federated States of Micronesia and ruining US diplomatic reputations for the length of his term in office, but I got that one all wrong; it was Australia!


CBDunkerson wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Well, I'd say that the US judiciary response to Trump's travel ban shows that we don't actually have dictators here yet

So you're saying the Russians have been more successful? Sure, that's true... but don't count team Trump out just yet. They've got big dreams.

BTW - Guess who may get to fill more court seats in a single term than any previous president?

I'm saying that the Russian ipads use murder and intimidation to silence dissent, and and in the US the judicial branch is a limit on executive power. The fact that we're having a conversation about the future of the Democratic party instead of repeating the party line while the party in power murders the opposition shows the difference between Russain and US ipads.

Again... it shows that the Russians have been more successful. The playbook is the same.

Or do you really believe we aren't seeing "intimidation" here in the US?

The independent US judiciary and lack of blatant (though unproven) assassination of political opponents are likely tied together... and again, Trump is in a position to severely reshape the judiciary.

"The Russians" is far too broad a category to mean anything. I'm one of "the Americans," and I've been posting on these boards for the length of the 2016 election cycle, so I'll assume you're familiar with my opinion of Trump.

Actually, I'll explain them, just for fun: I believe Trump's political education consisted of watching 24, House of Cards and The West Wing and deciding that he was just as good in a crisis as Palmer, as ruthless as Underwood and as smart as Bartlett without ever considering what the actual responsibilities of the office entail.

I find Putin much, much scarier, because of his familiarity with the workings of the Russian government. I'd say you're right that "the Russians" have been more successful, but I think that gives too much credit to Trump for knowing what the hell he even wants to accomplish during his tenure in office. I don't think Trump is remotely capable of operating at the same level as Putin. I feel like I'm living through le Carre's Karla Trilogy, but we somehow elected Haydon to the presidency.

I don't know where all that leaves the future of the Democratic party. Make Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, The Honorable Schoolboy and Smiley's People required reading so people know enough to elect Smiley instead, I guess.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At this point, I'm expecting that we'll get confirmation that the full Mystic will be released the first week of April, but the actual UA will be a picture of a otyugh who was hiding under an outhouse eating a horrified, pantless commoner with words APRIL FOOLS! written underneath.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Well, I'd say that the US judiciary response to Trump's travel ban shows that we don't actually have dictators here yet

So you're saying the Russians have been more successful? Sure, that's true... but don't count team Trump out just yet. They've got big dreams.

BTW - Guess who may get to fill more court seats in a single term than any previous president?

I'm saying that the Russian ipads use murder and intimidation to silence dissent, and and in the US the judicial branch is a limit on executive power. The fact that we're having a conversation about the future of the Democratic party instead of repeating the party line while the party in power murders the opposition shows the difference between Russain and US ipads.


Well, I'd say that the US judiciary response to Trump's travel ban shows that we don't actually have dictators here yet, but I'm sure some kindly contributor to the thread will correct me.


thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

I'll just say this, I'm a bit skeptical about the term "Suburban Republicans." It feels like the new "Soccer Mom," and I've gotta say, the first time I heard that one, I realized that the children of Democrats play peewee soccer right next to the children of Republicans. On the same team, even.

Fair, but the same is true of nearly any demographic split. Taking the patterns as absolutes is an error, but so is pretending they don't exist.

That's a fair point too, I just think the demographic we need to win in the suburbs is better defined as "Trump voters" than "Republicans," you know?


I'll just say this, I'm a bit skeptical about the term "Suburban Republicans." It feels like the new "Soccer Mom," and I've gotta say, the first time I heard that one, I realized that the children of Democrats play peewee soccer right next to the children of Republicans. On the same team, even.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Back in my day, my best friend's mother forced him to give me his copy of Deities & Demigods after he colored in the all the illustrations of naked goddesses. True story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:

Because I haven't seen most of them. The first Rush Hour didn't quite hit my offens-o-meter, but I haven't seen it in about twenty years so there may be some parts that flew over my head. But from what I recall, it didn't fall into what I was talking about.

"Beverly Hills Cop" falls closer along what I meant. These are great movies! Really funny, and they unleashed Eddie Murphy onto the world (for better or worse), but at heart they're about a caricature of a Black cop/former thief and his two bumbling White side kicks. He's the hero! Because he's got a Past and Cross-class skill ranks and is more "street wise' than the other two (read: he's a Black person that has a skill set that Black lower class people are expected to have, like breaking and entering). These movies pull it off without venturing into offensive, but it could have gone wrong.

I'm lost on your reference to Pacific Rim. That was an international cast playing an international group of characters that are part of a multinational armed force in a movie set in one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world. Compare it to, say, the Godzilla movie in the late 90s.

That the director is Chinese is actually helping to quiet concerns about The Great Wall. Had the director been a Westerner, even one that showed a lot of deference to East Asian history and mythology, the cries of racism would have been much louder and a lot less confused than they are. Putting a White guy in a time and setting where White guys largely weren't is a weird choice. Weird choices tend to get questioned.

My point about Pacific Rim was that it was made for the international market, and no one seemed to mind the use of east asian motifs. And, yes, when a movie presents the two solutions to the Kaiju problem as building a huge wall to keep them out or fighting them in giant robots, it's using east asian motifs.

I guess I'm just saying I think it's a fuzzy boundary between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation, and one that's in the eye of the beholder. Which, I hope everyone reading this understands, does not mean I believe that people are only allowed to be offended by the things that I find offensive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Kung Fu Joe wrote:

If Matt Damon is unacceptable in a Chinese-made movie set in China, is it equally unacceptable for, say, Jackie Chan to star in an American-made movie set in America? Just wondering what the limits are.

(That said, I don't like Matt Damon and don't understand why he's in the movie.)

Honestly, watch that YouTube clip Scythia posted. It does a great job of at least presenting the arguments and some of the historical forces at work for all three sides in this debate.

There were also a few phrases that made me genuinely cackle.

And to continue Thejeff's point, not only do Asian countries not have the background of culturally dominating uncouth Western countries, Western countries DO have a history of strip-mining the more palatable parts of non-European cultures and claiming them as their own. So there are possible contexts in which a Black or Asian elder coming into an American setting, teaching some backwards Americans how to do the thing, and proceed to save the day, might come off as culturally insensitive. In fact, except for the last step, there's quite a few tropes along those lines.

As an American minority myself, I have complicated feelings about the concept of cultural appropriation. Suffice to say, I don't necessarily agree with leftists on this one (and screw people that think a White person buying Mexican food is Cultural Appropriation YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT PHRASE MEANS). But it is something that happens, and people do call it out. So depending on the context, Jackie Chan coming into an American setting and bestowing orientalized "wisdom" to us benighted savages could, yes, come off wrong.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying here, but why are you speaking hypothetically about a Jackie Chan movie instead of just telling us your opinion of Shanghai Noon, Shanghai Knights and the Rush Hour movies?

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that this movie was produced for the international market, and we're demanding some sort of east asian purity because the director's name is Zhang Yimou instead of Guillermo Del Toro. Or maybe I just missed the discussion of cultural appropriation about Pacific Rim.


Andrew Marlow wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Forgive the repost from the Books Thread:

Parable Of The Sower – Not 1984 – Is The Dystopia For Our Age

Quote:
Speaking to The Stream on Al Jazeera, Okorafor read from the African-American novelist’s 1998 sequel, the Nebula-winningParable of the Talents, which features a presidential candidate, Andrew Steele Jarret, who rises to power by promising, like Trump, to “make America great again,” and whose supporters are known to form mobs to burn and feather and tar those who don’t “quite match Jarret’s version of Christianity.”
That's far less impressive when you realize that the slogan dates way back to Ronald Reagan, and maybe even before then. And the whole "supporters who form mobs" reminds me more of what happened in Chicago broadcasted on facebook.

Almost, Andrew. I would point out there was a sequel to the work titled Parable of the Talents.

Doodles, I just don't want to hear it right now, let's just shave our bodies clean, dye our skins weird colors and burn buildings down 'cause we're all wacked out on PYRO, okay? :P


Thomas Seitz wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

All I know is I need Elon to finish that space ship for me to Mars.

This place is getting too unreal for me.

As far as lifeboats go, Mars is a real crappy choice. We either solve our problems here, or our problems solve us.

Well it's not like I can get the starship Enterprise A to come pick us up and drop us off at the nearest star system...

So Mars is kind of it for me. Unless you know how build a ship that goes at/near or beyond the speed of light. Or can warp space. Cause I can't.

Seveneves had a O'Neill Cylinder local orbit type answer, but that would require a whole lot of work in the face of disaster, you know?


thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Do you think hate speech legislation is required to counteract Trump's (yeah, I'll say his name) rhetoric? I'm a BIG fan of applying truth in advertising laws to political speech, but if you want to explain why hate speech legislation is a better idea, I'm totally willing to consider it.

How would you apply truth in advertising laws to his political speech?

I'm all for shutting down the fake news kind of thing as well, but a lot of hate rhetoric could skate by truth in advertising laws. It would also bog down nearly all political speech in constant lawsuits, I suspect. Or be so lax it would accomplish nothing.

I've been thinking it over for a little while, and I've sort of started to think that if nearly all political speech is bogged down by lawsuits so constantly that political figures make a conscious effort to speak honestly every time they open their mouths, the world (well, the US) would be a better place.

I'm honestly not sure how to apply truth in advertising to his political speech, but then, I'm not a lawyer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, I don't know if that's an accurate assessment of Irontruth's position, I think he was just filling in a lull in activity on the thread to tell us about what he's been reading up on about hate speech for some paper he's writing.

Although, I do like the idea of using it against politicians using hate speech to contribute to the war on drugs and mass incarceration. Could we do so ex post facto?

The first part was definitely part of it. The more I see people's arguments against hate speech laws though, the more I'm convinced we need them, or at least to increase our awareness of what is hate speech and what effects it has.

I don't like using new laws against prior actions, it generally doesn't sit well with me to change the rules and then punish people for things done before the change. I would definitely use it going forward though.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Guys, take the First Amendment talk to another thread.

I stand by this being fully relevant. Many voters maybe didn't condone 45's rhetoric, but they implicitly looked the other way when they voted for him. Understanding how hate speech works, what it does and how to combat it could help in future elections. I don't mean this just as an electoral math, try to swing things sort of way, but actually moving the country to a better place sort of way.

The future of successful political party cannot be "how do we win next time?" It has to be "how do we make this a better place?"

I think working towards a less bigoted country fulfills the second question. You have to have ideas that will make people's lives better. I think this is one of them.

Do you think hate speech legislation is required to counteract Trump's (yeah, I'll say his name) rhetoric? I'm a BIG fan of applying truth in advertising laws to political speech, but if you want to explain why hate speech legislation is a better idea, I'm totally willing to consider it.

Edit: This post is not a snarky joke; my screen name is Hitdice, and I approve of this message.


Hm, so, well . . .

Now I want a Mandalore-centric sequel series.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Double standards? Hell, I dunno. Long before this thread mentioned The Last Samurai I was referring to Tom Cruise as "the gratuitous white guy."

On the other hand, if I were in his position and I had the chance to film a movie in Japan playing opposite Ken Watanabe, I'd do it; I don't think Matt Damon is going to do a single thing in The Great Wall that Andy Lau or Takeshi Kaneshiro couldn't do, but if I had a chance to act in martial artsy movie directed by the same guy as Hero and House of Flying Daggers, I'd do it. (Edit: actually, having looked at the cast on IMDB, I've found that Andy Lau is in The Great Wall, so we'll be able see who's kung fu is the best right there on screen in front of us.)

On the OTHER other hand, it disappoints me that there's an assumption that I, a white guy, am incapable of enjoying a movie unless there's at least one person in it who looks like me.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
That's certainly one theory, but we've tried the Democrats' "meet them halfway" approach, and we've watched the Republicans' "fight for all you've got" approach, and we've seen which one works. Maybe that's because the "fallacy" works. Maybe it's because incrementalism doesn't. Hard to say. Or, to be precise, hard to admit that we've led the party back to ruin over the last few decades.

Over the last few decades, though? We've only had one Republican President followed by a Democratic President in this millennium. When you say over the last few decades, you're talking about Clinton and Obama, or going all the way back to Carter?

1 to 50 of 3,697 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.