|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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:
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:
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?
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.
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.
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?
On friday I was listening to The Takeaway (NPR show, I'm liberal) and they aired a soundbite of a woman calling in to say, "I want to know how a judge can block the order of the President, who is trying to protect us." I flipped my fricken lid, right there in my studio and yelled, "Oh DAYUM, your voice sounds older than mine, you must have failed 8th grade social studies before I was even born!" Then I realized I was getting over excited and yelling at myself in an empty room, yes, like a crazy person.
My point is, it still surprises me just how uneducated the average citizen is about the function of the US government.
Oh c'mon, you're talking like Trump said she was bought off by Goldman Sachs, and then filled his cabinet with Goldman Sachs executives without releasing his tax returns!
. . . Y'know, or something. Too on the nose?
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Speaking as someone who both contributed to Clinton's campaign and voted for her in both the primary and the general, I think following Obama with Clinton was a terrible, terrible move on the DNC's part. Obama, whatever your opinion of his Presidency, was a calm, cool and collected bright young thing, and we decided on Clinton, cause the kids these days looove Stern Old Ladies, can I get a holler back?!
Look, I don't know, I'm making this post immediately after watching Last Week Tonight, and running RuPaul in 2020 with the campaign slogan "Make America Fierce Again!" just might be the best idea I've heard so far, okay?
Not my MIIIILK!!!11!
Thanks for the speedy answer; for what it's worth, the book does present it in that meta-sort of way, but that just means I love the movie so much because I remember the book every time I watch it.
And, because I feel obliged to post a question, have you watched the FX series Atlanta, and if so, what is your opinion of it?
I'm willing to assume they want a better future for their children, but have been misinformed as to how to accomplish said better future. (Yes, that means I think I know what will make for a better future for them better than they themselves do, I get the irony.)
At some point (post election) it occurred to me that the US is rather screwed by its large population. (The numbers in the following examples have been rounded for convenience.) For instance, 5% unemployment is about as low as the unemployment rate can get, but with a population of 300 million, that's 15 million people right there. My state (Rhode Island) has a population of 1 million. I think a lot of the people who voted for Trump because every single person they know is unemployed and the Democratic Party wasn't addressing their concerns at all weren't confused about the day to day experience of their lives, they just got talked into voting against their own interests.
I'm not saying it's a good idea to assume decency in people I don't know , but it seems a worse idea to assume indecency simply because I don't know them.
Colour me gruntled. ;)
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Those snow women were pretty badass with their snowballs, though, am I right?
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I've been wondering that since Trump's speech in Nevada, when he was heard exclaim, "I loooove the poorly educated," and the crowd went wild, and I was left thinking about how we used to be unhappy about being poorly educated, and want a better future for our children.
Indeed, I think the entire election cost Clinton the election. I just get bummed out when I hear people saying that Biden could have won, or Sanders could have won; given how narrow Trump's victories in the battleground states were, Clinton could have won.
. . . Not to Tuesday-Morning-Quarterback the election; YAY PATS!!!11!
I know, right? It's obvious from the first word of his posts!
I agree with your point about Democratic rural outreach, but, like I said earlier, I think Sanders sucked a lot of air out of the Clinton campaign while Trump was campaigning unopposed. Like I also said earlier, I think it's simplistic to say that Sanders cost Clinton the election.
Of course, there was also that moment a week before the election when FBI Director Comey just popped in to let everyone know that Anthony Weiner, Democratic Party Perv Par Excellence might have sort of pervy pictures on a computer they hadn't bother to check for top secret emails that Clinton was not criminally negligent with, JUST SAYIN'.
That felt less like marketing than full on malfeasance.
Oh dear, I've started ranting again.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
It's important to remember that Clinton had a primary opponent up until the debate. I honestly believe that, had Clinton been running unopposed from the time Trump was, the battle ground states where Trump won by narrow margins would have been far more embattled. (I mean embattled in the best way possible here.)
I think it's overly simplistic to say that Sanders cost Clinton the election, but I think it's completely unrealistic to believe that a third party candidate who changed party affiliation for the length of the Democratic primary and then switched back would have sailed to victory.
I've said earlier in this thread that we have to stop selling ourselves as the party of diversity and inclusion and operating under the assumption that people will vote for our candidates just because we're pure of heart. I hope no one took that to mean I think we should be less inclusive or diverse; what I meant was, during the the last election, Trump completely took ownership of the border wall, when we should have had Democrats pointing out that there are already 500 miles of border wall constructed, so why don't go take your seat back at the kiddie table while the grown-ups are talking you f**king child? So, yeah, marketing.
Um, too much?
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I don't want to spin off into a flame war, but describing it as "the liberal Democrats tried to water down the points of unity" doesn't exactly sound like you're speaking in the spirit of compromise.
I didn't even realize the Democrats had polarized into class and identity camps.
Spastic Puma wrote:
Compromise on politics isn't exactly Doodlebug's strong suit.
Beckett, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but if none of the candidates/parties were compelling enough to win your vote, how was Clinton any weaker a candidate that Johnson, Stein or Trump? Or are you just speaking hypothetically about a specific party from a perspective of complete disaffection?
I don't know Beckett; this was a race where there was a recording of one candidate describing how he used his position to sexually assault women and the other was a woman. I'm not saying your guy didn't win, but it's tough for me to believe sexism was was so extremely marginal that it was irrelevant.
Death camps? Of course not, but what about just, y'know, concentration camps, say, somewhere outside the legal jurisdiction of US law, maybe someplace we've leased from a communist government. 'Cause Comrade Obama did his level best to shut Guantanamo Bay, but during the campaign Trump was much more of the opinion, "Close Gitmo? Hell no, fill it back up!!!11!"
I don't believe there's a one to one correspondence between Hitler's rise to power and Trump's election, I just think saying, "Meh, the pendulum will swing back eventually," is naive. Bannon has a political agenda. Trump hasn't displayed the political ability to make me think he's remotely capable of dealing with the responsibilities of his office. That's not a good mix.
Having watched Trump do his best to invalidate both Obama and Clinton as candidates, I'm truly truly scared of what he will do to opposition candidates with the power of the presidency. Now I find out that Bannon, who's been given a seat on the NSC, subscribes to some sort of cyclical apocalyptic ideology? I'm honestly terrified of what the next four years could bring.
In the time since Trump won the election, but before he took office, I was spending a lot of time thinking about how world spanning empires don't last forever, but they can adapt. The British Empire, for instance doesn't exist anymore, but it's still the same Houses of Parliament and Monarchy in the UK, and, snide comments about Brexit aside, it's a functioning government. Since Trump actually took office, I'm thinking about how the Weimar Republic led to the Third Reich, and how that all ended.
I don't mean to overstate the case, or Godwin the thread, that's my honest opinion at the moment. I don't mean to start a flame war with you Bugley, but I think saying it's just the Democrats turn to be out of power underestimates the current situation.
I think the effect of the basket of deplorables comment is being overestimated by just about everyone who mentions it. It was used a rallying cry, sure; even here in blue, blue Rhode Island there were Trump supporters with "Proud Deplorable" lawn signs. But I haven't talked to anyone (and I mean that literally literally, not one single individual in person or online) who's vote was changed by it.
You make your battle drums from the skins of your enemies a couple of times, and it's all anyone ever talks about . . . *sigh*
My point is, introducing an amendment would bring the debate to the national stage. We need to start thinking bigger than just being inclusive and diverse and hoping everyone will flock to us because we're pure of heart.
I don't disagree, but I think the stonewalling of Merrick Garland shows how gerrymandering can literally have an effect on the electoral college. Like, literally literally, not figuratively literally.
I don't think redrawing state lines in order to gerrymander the electoral college is remotely possible, but I do think congressional Dems should introduce an amendment to have the President selected by popular vote rather than the electoral college when the two have different results, and embarrass the hell out of the Republicans when they don't support it. (Ideally said amendment would pass, but my optimism dial is currently set to negative infinity.)
No, but it can result in a situation where, say, Congress refuses even interview the Supreme Court nominee of an opposition party President, so their complete nut job of a presidential candidate can mobilize the party faithful voter base in swing states by mentioning the "open" Supreme Court seat as election issue.
Y'know, for example.
Sure, but a ten foot cube is standing shoulder to shoulder in D&D terms. :P
More seriously, I just wanted to let you know that I also like your idea of reflavoring magic items as futuristic tech. Whether a wand of magic missiles regains 1d6+1 charges at dawn because it's magic, or because it's powered by a miniaturized cold fusion reactor seems like a nonissue, so I say go for it.
The DMG has examples of renaissance, modern and futuristic weapons. Their version of burst fire is all targets in a 10 foot cube within weapon range must succeed at a DC 15 Dexterity Save or take normal weapon damage, which costs 10 rounds of ammunition. However, the automatic rifle is the only weapon with that property (not even the shotgun has it, which is weird given the existence of buck and bird shot, don't ask me) which means that a tommy gun and a Kalashnikov have exactly the same stats, so you'll probably want something with a little more variety.
That's my long winded way of saying I like your idea.
David M Mallon wrote:
David, have you ever read a novella by Water Jon Williams called Surfacing? The colonist humpback whales can relate to the indigenous deep sea species because both share a relational language. The human xeno-linguistic expert's life is a mess; he just wants to hang out on his yacht, but that's not a realistic possibility.
Look, I would rather have posted this to a books thread, but we are we are, okay?
Y'know, it's funny: there's a thread exactly like this on over on ENWorld, but it's in the 5e subforum. Over there, I'm all, "Well, 5e Paladins have to live by the tenets of their oath, but there's no requirement of LG alignment mentioned in the class description, so rules lawyer one as you will; have fun!" On the Paizo boards, on the other hand, I got nothing. Paladins are LG, as stated in the CRB, end of discussion.
I don't think it's quite that bad. There are posters here I've come to respect because of their willingness explain their points of view in further depth, and others who have impressed me by accepting my apologies for my own douchebaggery.
I enjoyed the political threads, I just think it's unrealistic to expect Paizo to miantain them when polithread moderation is a full time job and all the Paizo employees are employed full time making RPG stuff.
Then take it up with the Mods, RainyDay.
Edit: That is, I have rather huge problems with equating the two, but given the spirit and/or letter of the polithread ban, don't feel it's appropriate to go into them here. In addition, Paizo staffers themselves recommend contacting them over issues with board moderation rather than playing "NO YOU!" with other posters, so that's what I'd recommend.
One week closer to full mystic, that's all I'm thinking.
I like horizon walker at first glance, but anytime one playing at my table uses Portal lore, everything's going to get very labyrinth-ey; it's a feature not a bug, my players will finally understand how much effort I put into all three dimensions of dungeon design! Primeval Guardian, well, I've never felt a burning need to play a weretreat, but okay, I get it. Scout is weird, if only because I really enjoyed the 3.5 scout, but that class was designed around a whole lot of 3.5 design quirks that 5e has dealt with differently. I like the idea of a nature rogue, and think this is a good example.
ONE WEEK CLOSER TO FULL MYSTIC!!!11!
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 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.