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

3,487 posts (3,737 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,487 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Kajehase wrote:

The early West Wing second season scenes of Leo going to Manchester, New Hampshire to recruit then Governor Bartlet to run for president was shot on the set of Gilmore Girls.

Bradley Whitford (Josh Lyman) and Joshua Malina (Will Bailey) first met on-stage during the original Broadway production of A Few Good Men, when Whitford came on as a replacement actor in the role of Lt. Kaffee.*

In 2005, Rob Lowe (Sam Seaborn) also appeared in a stage production of A Few Good Men as Lt. Kaffee.

** spoiler omitted **

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!


Speaking as a 5E fan, I'd love to see The Lady of White Rose Manor web features expanded into a full adventure and sold in pdf and print versions. Okay, fine, if I'm 100% honest, I'd probably only buy the pdf, but I'd love see it collected and published. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:


If you want to see an end to the two-party system in the U.S., you need to accept that short of either 1) rewriting the founding documents, or 2) full-scale burning-in-the-streets, thousands-of innocents-dying revolution, it ain't going to happen.

That's not quite true. Something could be done at the level of individual states, for example. Right now, all the Constitution says about state-level representations is how many each state gets. All the other rules are set by the state. Even the existence of districts is a state-level decision. New York could decide that all representatives are elected on a statewide basis, and that the top N vote getters (currently 27) get seated. This would make third-parties competitive in New York State, even if they weren't competitive in Alabama (and it wouldn't do anything at all for Wyoming, which would still be a winner-take-all state with only one representative).

Similarly, New York could decide that presidential electors are elected individually (which is how they were supposed to be elected back in 1789) and in a nonpartisan fashion (ditto). Right now, I'll be honest, I don't even know who I would actually be voting for if/when I vote for Clinton, because the electors themselves are meaningless, chosen to be party hacks, and required by (state) law to vote for the candidate whose slate they appear on. But, of course, since the Presidency is still a winner-take all election, I'd still be better off voting for a bloc pledged to a single candidate (rather than splitting my support), and I'd be better off voting for one of the top two candidates -- and again, this is just math, not propaganda.

I'm not saying you're wrong about state level representation, but the tea party has taken over the Republican party Presidential nomination process by running their candidates as Republican at a local level. That approach seems much more expedient than amending the state constitution, you know?


Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:


3rd parties are totally viable as dozens of foreign countries have already proven. Enough with the fear-mongering because all these parties trying to do is prop up this broken binary party system.

These two establishment parties are just trying to lock people into believing that if you don't cast a vote for the big two that your somehow wasting your vote or empowering the "other party".

Standard fear mongering rhetoric that ensures nothing changes and power stays exactly where its at (with the big 2 parties). It's a broken system that only exists to maintain the status quo of existing power.

The only way to beat the game is not to play it. And don't try and say these two candidates aren't the establishment status quo.

Trump and Sanders should have, by all rights, run as third party candidates. (I will, for the sake of civility, refrain from naming either hypothetical party.) It seems extremely disingenuous to blame the choice of individual voters when one of the Democratic primary candidates and the Republican Presidential candidate have chosen major party name brand recognition over their own political identity.

tl;dr: I'm not trying to beat the game, I just want my candidate of choice to be elected as President.


Sorry, Chris.


thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I don't disagree Wormy, but the post I was responding to specifically mentioned posters knowing "where they stand when they are in less than peaceful interaction with the moderation team." Sure, tone is tough to interpret on the interment, so sarcasm gets taken seriously more often than it should, but if you're behaving badly (with a mod particularly, but any with any poster) you're standing at the center of a bullseye.
I think you agree, but it's not entirely clear: I read that as referring to interactions with the moderation team as the moderation team, not "I'd better be polite now because she's one of the mods", but "A mod posted and warned me/us we were treading the line, so I should listen and back off, rather than yell at them for bad moderation."

I certainly didn't mean to endorse being polite and courteous to only Paizo mods and staffers, if that's how I came across.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The word "derailing" is starting to sound like a fake word. Derailing. Derailing. Can someone get this kobold a thesaurus?

Not to derail the thread, but digress and digression work. :).


I don't disagree Wormy, but the post I was responding to specifically mentioned posters knowing "where they stand when they are in less than peaceful interaction with the moderation team." Sure, tone is tough to interpret on the interment, so sarcasm gets taken seriously more often than it should, but if you're behaving badly (with a mod particularly, but any with any poster) you're standing at the center of a bullseye.

I've had my share of arguments with other posters, but that doesn't make it any less disingenuous to to be argumentative and feign innocence. I have no problem's with the moderation as is. All my deleted posts have deserved deletion, and I've never been PM'd, suspended or banned; take that for what you will.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

No. I think it was in this thread above, somewhere, but I hope for a Clinton victory because, I think, when she disappoints all her rad-lib, lesser-evil voters, it will lead to a further radicalization of the fast-food strikers, police abolitionists, Native American water defenders, etc., I've been running with and give us on the Far Left a chance to grow at least as big as we were in the sixties.

But I still hate her and I ain't voting for her.

Actually, come to think of it, I blame Bernie for all this shiznit. If he hadn't run and churned up all these social-democratic Democrat voters, I wouldn't have to run around handing out Jill Stein bumper stickers and could just make "Voting is for ninnies! For workers revolution!" posts like I did in 2012.

Given the alternative, how is anything you described in the first paragraph Clinton-victory dependent?


Just always make an effort to be polite when you're interacting with the mods, and everything should be fine. If a poster is in less than peaceful interaction with the moderation team, it's probably safe to assume that poster is in big, big trouble.


SmiloDan wrote:
Set wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:
But I'm re-reading Perdido Street Station next (after Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie), I'll be able to compare it to The Aeronaut's Windlass then.

Perdido Street Station was a little wordy for me, but Embassytown, the only other book I've read by him so far, was pretty amazing and much more straight sci-fi (reminding me a little bit of David Brin, in that the aliens were pretty distinctly alien, and not just in physiology).

I love me some good alien aliens.

See, Embassytown reminded me of CJ Cherryh's SF. She's a linguist and archaeologist, her specialty is crafting truly alien psychologies and cultures (her stuff is often called anthropological science fiction), and even some of the place names and characters reminded me of her stuff, particularly Bren/Dan. She's very prolific, and I've read 50 or 60 of her novels, so I'm a little obsessed, and might be reading into things that aren't really there.

I haven't read Embassytown, but I loved The City & The City. I spent the entire book thinking, "It can't be a coincidence, this dude's read Wave Without a Shore." So, who knows.


Jessica Price wrote:

The only actual, non-strawman door-holding situation I've ever been offended by was when I held the door for a guy behind me who was carrying a large, heavy box. He refused to walk through it, because, and I quote, "It's not appropriate for a woman to hold the door for a man."

So I told him, "You don't get to decide what is or isn't appropriate for me," and kicked down the doorstop so the door stayed open, and went on my merry way. If he wanted to set down his box, un-door-stop the door, let it shut, and then re-open it, pick up his box, and struggle through the doorway, just so he wouldn't have to walk through a door I'd held for him, that was his time wasted.

I find this hilarious because just the other week I was leaving the liquor store with a six pack in each hand (this is a story in which I am very, very classy looking, okay) and I had to stand next to the door waiting for an elderly woman with a single bottle of wine to process the concept that my male gender wasn't going to magic the door open for her. I certainly didn't take an insult once she realized, though I'm honestly not sure I bothered to thank her at that point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's also important to remember that President Obama himself said "Racism, we are not cured of it. And it's not just a matter of not being able to say n%@~$~ in public. That's not the measure of whether racism still exists or not." (I know, that's inflammatory language, but I'm trusting the profanity filter to catch it, and those are the President's exact words.)

I'm not so sure you can't be openly proud to be a bigot anymore. You can certainly get away with coded terms like "urban" and "thug," and that's the least of the behavior Trump has displayed. That's not to say that things haven't improved since the days of Jim Crow, but there's still progress to be made, and we're going through an extremely reactionary period at the moment.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Farael the Fallen wrote:
Tonight we will see a debate that will decide the fate of the world...

No it won't. Clinton has to bring out a command performance just to make sure that she keeps the Sanders people.

Trump can go up the podium and do nothing but drop his pants and it won't change an iota on his followers.

Drahliana, do you honestly believe it's about Trump vs Sanders faithful? I think it's about the undecideds, no insult intended.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
It was probably just an accident. I'm sure they were actually trying to pepper spray somebody else and just got her by mistake. That's a valid excuse now, right?

Sure.

Like this case where the police shot a black medical caregiver who was lying on his back with his empty hands straight up in the air.

It was all good though because they explained that they were actually trying to shoot the white autistic man who was playing with his toy truck nearby.

This time I read the banner, and it's from the Miami Herald, not the Onion! #thecomeback


So you're doing fine then, even if english isn't your native language. :)


Well, she wasn't technically resisting arrest. She was just behaving so erratically that the poor armed police officers had no choice but to pepper-spray her to remove the symptoms of brain trauma, I guess?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Fair enough on the other points. I can't speak at all to German discourse.

On a more general note, I think that this doesn't make work easier for the moderators here. I don't know how many forum members here are from abroad, but I think that having another cultural background and maybe even English not being your native language can make discussions here quite complicated.

It's definitely what I try to be aware of when confronted with a surprising reaction to what I wrote because I can never be sure if this maybe was a misunderstanding just due to my language skills (or the lack of them ^^).

I haven't worked through the entire thread, but I will say I find Paizo mods more willing than typical board mods to explain the reasons for their moderation. I've dealt with forums (yes, I took Latin and forums is a glaring fricken error when it should properly be "fora," but whatever, I'm going for comprehension, not smartness of pants) where posts are deleted and posters are banned with no explanation whatsoever. Paizo mods usually post their reasons for removing posts and forgive innocent mistakes. I mean, Paizo mods also seem completely fricken merciless when it comes to feigned innocence from trolls, but that's as it should be.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Celestial Healer wrote:
You know the Onion is a satirical site right?

It's not whether or not I know The Onion is a satirical site, it's whether or not I bother to read the banner at the top of the page. /embarrassed.


Fergie wrote:
Police Chief Says There Just A Few Bad, Deeply Ingrained Prejudices Giving All Cops A Bad Name

I'd be much more willing to give him the benefit of doubt if the words "just" and "all" hadn't been used. "There are a few bad, deeply ingrained prejudices giving cops a bad name," is actually a statement I agree with. When you add the "just" and the "all," it reads more like "If you actually do the math, there haven't been that many riots caused by police violence."


Aranna wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Pan wrote:
The thin blue line keeps cops in uniform for better or worse. Nobody circles the wagons like police unions.
Then you have your hiring / firing solution right here. Eliminate the police unions. Simple.
That sounds like my magic wand solution of requiring every single uniformed officer to wear a body camera with the department providing 100% transparency of the footage. Simple to describe in a single sentence, and impossibly complex to institute in practice.
Logistically union elimination is easier to do. Republicans have already eliminated some of them with simple changes to the law. Just pass a Police Reform Law that prohibits public servants like the police from forming unions in an effort to stop corruption.

I disagree. I think both union elimination and universal body camera requirement would see so many legal challenges that neither can be accomplished. I think they're both impossible. (Not hyperbolically impossible, actually impossible.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Pan wrote:
The thin blue line keeps cops in uniform for better or worse. Nobody circles the wagons like police unions.
Then you have your hiring / firing solution right here. Eliminate the police unions. Simple.
my lady, the day that happens is the day i foreswear your company, go to joss whedon's house, kiss him full on the lips, and thank him for his years of excellent writing and directing.

I never thought I'd say this, but we have to start working to eliminate police unions immediately!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Pan wrote:
The thin blue line keeps cops in uniform for better or worse. Nobody circles the wagons like police unions.
Then you have your hiring / firing solution right here. Eliminate the police unions. Simple.

That sounds like my magic wand solution of requiring every single uniformed officer to wear a body camera with the department providing 100% transparency of the footage. Simple to describe in a single sentence, and impossibly complex to institute in practice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can accept firing the bad cops, I just think it doesn't happen often enough. Like, anywhere remotely close to often enough. It seems like we've gotten to a point where abusive, racist sociopaths frequently oversee hiring and firing.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:


Is it likely that the Libertarian ticket will win? No, it isn't. Is it impossible for them to win? No it isn't. Unlikely, even incredibly unlikely, is not the same thing as impossible.

Formally, no. Rationally, yes, it is.

If you were in debt to the tune of $50,000 [and had only $500 to your name] and you asked me for financial advice, my advice would NOT be to head to the local roulette wheel. While it's not formally impossible to turn $500 into $50,000 at the table, the odds against it make it a practical non-starter. And the overwhelmingly more likely outcome will put you in a worse position than simply staying the hell out of the casino would.

For people who prefer the Libertarians to Trump, but Trump to Clinton, voting Libertarian is roughly the same situation. While it's not formally impossible for the Libertarian candidate to win, the odds against it are actually substantially lower than your chances of winning a hundredfold at roulette.

So you've got one chance in 1000 (about) of improving your situation, and 999 chances out of that same thousand of making the situation marginally worse by depriving Trump of your support in a very close race with Clinton.

Of course, I say that who shouldn't. If you prefer Trump to Clinton, then by all means, vote for Johnson, Stein, or Harry the Hamster. Anyone to deprive Trump of your marginal support.

Holy Bejeezus Orf, electionbettingodds has quicker refresh than 538. :)


Don't even recognize the name, but don't hold my age and lack of hipness against me, okay?


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

I find Cruz's policies to be completely odious, but still, I felt a weird sense of admiration for him refusing to endorse Trump at the RNC. Thankfully, I no longer feel that conflict.

(I guess Cruz's immune system rejected the spine graft after all.)

It must have been a graft, he obviously didn't grow one of his own. :)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

New York is west of Carthage! You guys always get so technical. This is exactly like the time in college when I was road tripping to Rome, New York, and I spray-painted "Hitdice was here" right before I started a dumpster fire. My friends were all, "What in god's name are you doing?" I was like "Isn't it obvious? I'm a vandal in Rome!" Everyone got real quiet then, until my history major roommate (a real egghead type, let me tell you) said, "What you're doing lacks any historical context, importance or relevance." I was pretty embarrassed, so I took my spray-can and spray-painted "4eva" at the bottom of my earlier graffiti.

Oh, hey, "graffiti," that's a roman word!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It just fell off from weather erosion, and if it didn't was Napoleon's fault! #Sphinxfacts


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kajehase wrote:
Hey! Rome was the goths and vandals, don't blame us for their mascara-and-crushed-velvet-looting attacks.

Vandals are spray-paint-and-dumpster-fire damage, not mascara-and-crushed-velvet-looying attacks, okay?!

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, you're the guys who raided a small Italian town and mistook it for Rome.

Italian? Why would we go all the way to Italy when upstate New York is so much closer?


Individuals behaving in accordance with consent decrees between the police department and The Justice Department even though they far preferred the wall of blue silence can help to change it, though, and that's a case of the individual being forced to comply with the choices other people have made.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's not sink too far into hypotheticals. I just found myself about post a rant about how a potentially innocent person being convicted on bad evidence is much, much better than a demonstrably innocent person being shot in the back by a police officer, and that would have been a dick move on my part that didn't benefit the conversation.


I think requiring every uniformed police officer in the US to wear a body camera and 100% records transparency of the footage would do a lot to solve the situation, but given that the FoP endorsed Trump, that feels like a magic wand solution if not full-on arch and darkly sarcastic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
However, when OD&D came out, there WAS NO THIEF CLASS. Hence, there was nothing to say that one couldn't sneak around, or try to find a trap, or try to do just about anything they wanted. Different areas of the nation/world had different ideas of how these things worked, but it wasn't something ONLY thieves could do (for starters, they didn't even exist in the 3 booklets).

B/X (Moldvay Basic) was my first experience with D&D. I remember buying a copy of Grimtooth's Traps and being utterly befuddled as to how a B/X Thief's Find or Remove Traps ability was supposed to interact with the traps described by Grimtooth. An embarrassing number of years later, I learned that OD&D had no Thief class with dedicated trap finding and disarming, and suddenly everything made sense.

I blame DrDeth for my prepubescent confusion!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I don't know, things are just crazy right now. The idea of Trump's rhetoric being so divisive that his supporters will riot in the streets if he loses the election has been raised in this thread, and I think that's a reasonable concern, but african americans have been rioting in the streets already on a pretty regular basis since Ferguson.

I don't think it is right to say that, "african americans have been rioting in the streets already on a pretty regular basis".

I would say that there have been civil rights protests on a fairly regular basis. In my experience and observations, "rioting" is generally due to the police getting aggressive and/or violent. Sometimes it is simply the police/politicians just don't give a crap about the poor or minority neighborhoods, and are content to just watch them burn. (That NEVER happens in wealthy neighborhoods). Either way it is a great opportunity to get more stormtrooper outfits and armored vehicles.

Thank You for that Fergie.

I'm African American and I haven't been "rioting in the streets". I've attended peaceful protests here in my home city of NYC. But I'm at the point where I don't think that peaceful protest or marches are going to work. EVER.

Rioting in the streets wasn't the best choice of words, but this morning I heard what's been going on in SC described on NPR as "peaceful protests which became violent protests." That language is far, far too euphemistic for me. I certainly didn't mean to say that that violence has been the only form of protest. I also don't think the violent-protesters-formerly-known-as-rioters are unjustified in their feelings, as close as that comes to endorsing violence.

My point was, eight years ago we elected the first black President, and his two terms in office should have been an example of the racial equity our democracy can achieve. Instead, starting with the Beer Summit after Henry Louis Gates was hauled off to jail when he had to break a window to get into his own house, the divisiveness has grown and grown. Now I run across white people like myself (except, y'know, Trump voters) saying that if Trump isn't elected, the divisiveness could get so bad that there's a violent reaction. I really truly think it's been that bad for more than a year now, and it's pretty obvious to me that electing Trump is no solution to the problem.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
People ask me about a lot of posts, they say "Battletoad, what are we going to do about these posts?". This is what they're asking me, and let me tell you, we're going to do something about these posts. That much I can say, we're going to be looking into these posts, and we're going to be doing a lot of things to deal with them. And I can tell you another thing. We're going to build a wall of text, and you know who's going to pay for it? The mods, that's right.

Do they know they're going to pay for it yet?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Snipped for space, but I'm responding to you.

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I just think race is inherently relevant to just about every reaction to Obama. I can't bring myself discount that he's the first african american president. Mind you, I don't think "relevant to" is the same thing as "the cause of."

I don't know, things are just crazy right now. The idea of Trump's rhetoric being so divisive that his supporters will riot in the streets if he loses the election has been raised in this thread, and I think that's a reasonable concern, but african americans have been rioting in the streets already on a pretty regular basis since Ferguson. I mean, there was rioting last night in South Carolina, and I find that much, much more immediately a concern than what might happen if Trump isn't elected.

Ugh, I started this trying to make the point that I believe Obama's race is relevant to but not the single cause of the racial unrest we've seen during his second term, but I started ranting about junk that gets me down halfway through; sorry about that.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
You're bringing up his race as if it's inherently relevant to the issue being discussed. While that's probably true for some small segment of the group, I argue that it's by no means the dominant cause. The reason for the spike in gun buying was due to a combination of him being a DEMOCRAT (which is way more relevant to the people prone to hoarding firearms than his race) and the massively increased spotlight on guns in public discourse.

What "massively increased spotlight on guns in public discourse"? At least for the first spike in 2008.

There wasn't really much public discourse about it until after Newton.

Except for people in the gun community/business panicking over a Democrat taking guns. Obama certainly didn't focus on it.

Virginia Tech happened 5 years before Newtown, Fort Hood was 3 years before, and the Gabby Giffords shooting in Tucson was the year before, each of which put a pretty heavy spotlight on fun ownership in news broadcasts and in public discourse. I didn't say that Obama focused on it, but rather that the people who ended up causing the spike in gun sales (meaning the people doing the panic-buying) were afraid that he would. Whether or not the fear was well founded is irrelevant and an entirely separate issue (it clearly wasn't).

Yes, but the people doing the panic buying were also the ones who believed Obama to be a secret muslim who wasn't born in the US and thus couldn't legitimately serve as president. I myself am a gun owner, and cannot accept that there's a not-to-one correlation between gun owners and racist. I absolutely don't.

However, we're living in a time when the Republican candidate for president waited until last f**king week to state that he didn't believe the birther conspiracy. I don't see how you can deny Obama's race being a factor in any criticism of him at this point.

That reads like I'm saying you can't disagree with his policies without being a racist. I'm not. I just think there's a huge difference between disagreeing with his policies and panic buying guns, and that you have to buy into the race based paranoia narrative to make panic buying seem reasonable.

Also, selling an AR-15 at a high price because the panic buyers are willing to pay a 1000% mark up is just good business sense, not paranoia on your part.


I don't mean to speak for Syrus, but at a certain point, if you live in a red state, that's that in terms of allowing him to win.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

Hitdice --

I do not believe she was the best candidate. I backed Sanders during the primaries because I found the moral bases of his proposals of higher value. This has more to do with his anti-interventionist stance and his anti-Citizens United stance than anything else. To hearken back to a question put to me earlier by Fergie and Quark Blast, I don't yet know if I will write him in or not. There is a strong urge within me to abstain from the presidential vote altogether.

Thanks for the answer. As is no doubt clear from my "open exchange of ideas" with Doodlebug, I wouldn't abstain entirely, but then I'm not the boss of you. :)


Icyshadow wrote:

I am a dude from Finland who really doesn't have any say in the US elections, but from what I have seen and heard, there are good people and terrible people on both sides of the debate.

Saying only one side has total monopoly on all the nation's wrongs (let alone all evils in the world) is not only intellectually dishonest, but also insulting to all the people who stand by their beliefs without being terrible to others.

Part of me suspects that I'm going to regret posting here, but for now, I stand by what I said, and am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt regardless of their stance. If that is a ludicrous view to have in your opinion, that's not my problem.

Speaking only for myself, It's less a matter of thinking one side has the monopoly on all the nation's wrongs than one side having exhausted the benefit of my doubt. The first election I could legally vote in was Clinton v Bush in '92. That year I attended a Pride march in Washington DC, and some of the demonstrators were carrying signs that read "Hate is not a family value." It's been 24 years, and that motto has only become more pertinent.


Syrus Terrigan wrote:

Pillbug --

The Republican obstructionism in Congress these past few years has *really* stuck in my craw. I think it terribly unfortunate that Mitch McConnell might be a majority leader for 4 more years. But, not in KY, so my words on that point are smoke.

And HRC really *shouldn't* go conservative in SCotUS nomination, to which some others have pointed. On its face, this election should be hers alone to lose; the fact that in some ways it appears she actually might lose is something i find unsettling. While i won't vote for her, and my protest vote will be swallowed up in the redness that is TN, i *do* believe she will win this election. (God help us all, if either of them do.)

Further -- Southern grandmothers? Check. Great cooks? 50%. Meringue? 0%.

Syrus, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but can I ask why you're unwilling to vote for Clinton if you find the fact that she might lose unsettling? I'm not trying to convince you to vote for my candidate of choice, just asking you to expound on your own point of view.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
NenkotaMoon wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
NenkotaMoon wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
NenkotaMoon wrote:
It doesn't, never liked the idea of the thread to begin with.
Is it the thread or my music choices for you?
I don't care for Janet Jackson either

Okay, we'll tolerate trump supporters but NOW YOU"VE GONE TOO FAR!!!! :)

Don't lie to yourself, you didn't tolerate both.

For crying out loud, you're still posting on the thread; It's not the end of the world just because the majority of the posters disagree with you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

Fallacy. Fallacy fallacy fallacy phallacy fallacy. Fallacist's fallacy...

You ever hear a perfectly cromulent word so frequently that it now sounds weird, like you're now not quite sure it's real?

I never heard the word "enbiggen" until I moved to Springfield.
Ahem... it's "embiggen". I don't know why; it's a perfectly cromulent word.

"I won! I won, I won, I woooooon!"

"No, Ralph, you haven't won a prize, you're failing english."

"Me fail English? That unpossible!"


thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
However, I truly, truly believe (and yes, I know I'm digging my own grave even as I write this) calling Trump a racist demagogue isn't abusive so much as a honest evaluation of his behavior.
It's the right's version of PC: It's not acceptable to call people racist even when they are. It's like calling people racist is worse than actually being racist.

Still not as bad as deplorable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

Fallacy. Fallacy fallacy fallacy phallacy fallacy. Fallacist's fallacy...

You ever hear a perfectly cromulent word so frequently that it now sounds weird, like you're now not quite sure it's real?

I never heard the word "enbiggen" until I moved to Springfield.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:

What if our posts are self-abusive?

(I'm sorry. I'm a real jerk for asking that.)

That's eventually self-correcting. Once you're self-abusive enough, you go blind and have to stop posting.

That's a fallacy. I can still see!


Sara Marie wrote:
Obligatory reminder to treat each other with respect while engaging with each other on our forums. Its okay to disagree with each other and to debate opinions or ideas, its not okay to be abusive. Additionally, sarcasm often does not translate well to text and dismissiveness is not helpful for fostering mutual respect or thoughtful conversations.

I certainly don't mean any of my posts to be abusive to other posters on the thread. If the mods feel it necessary to remove any of my posts, I'm absolutely fine with that. However, I truly, truly believe (and yes, I know I'm digging my own grave even as I write this) calling Trump a racist demagogue isn't abusive so much as a honest evaluation of his behavior.


Fergie wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


We're not arguing in favor of lies. We're saying that, in those situations where you don't know or cannot know the truth, a heuristic like the number of times someone has been called racist by different groups of people provides a relatively safe way to conclude whether or not the person in question really is racist.

I disagree completely.

When you don't or can't know something... just admit you don't or can't know something.
It isn't that hard.
Anything else is intellectually dishonest in my opinion.
I think there is value in taking trusted, informed, opinions into account, and forming opinions based on them, but the idea that a large number of people saying something has value is absolutely nonsense, as is the idea that there is value if these people come from different backgrounds.

This is the kind of thinking that got us into Iraq in 2003, and I feel like people should have learned something from that.

I thought it was the Bush administration doing stuff like lying about yellow cake, but if you want to quote the party line about group think, go for it.

In this specific case, I can and do know something. I've been watching Trump's behavior longer than he's been running for president (Just in the media, not in a creepy way) and he's displayed a willingness to use racism and bigotry to political ends. It's not an uninformed point of view to call that behavior demagoguery, it's just how the dictionary defines it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:

100 years ago, racism was supported by a wide variety including medial experts, and other "learned people".

Yet it was all h$$~%&&@~.
Again, the truth is the truth! The number and breadth who believe a lie does not make it true. Are people really trying to argue against this?

I'm not arguing against it, I'm just one of those annoying people who thinks we should say "seems to be to me," in place of "is."

1 to 50 of 3,487 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.