|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!
Orfamay Quest wrote:
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?
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.
I certainly didn't mean to endorse being polite and courteous to only Paizo mods and staffers, if that's how I came across.
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:
Given the alternative, how is anything you described in the first paragraph Clinton-victory dependent?
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:
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.
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:
Drahliana, do you honestly believe it's about Trump vs Sanders faithful? I think it's about the undecideds, no insult intended.
This time I read the banner, and it's from the Miami Herald, not the Onion! #thecomeback
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.
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."
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.)
Freehold DM wrote:
I never thought I'd say this, but we have to start working to eliminate police unions immediately!
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.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Holy Bejeezus Orf, electionbettingodds has quicker refresh than 538. :)
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
It must have been a graft, he obviously didn't grow one of his own. :)
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!
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?
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.
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!
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?
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:
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.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
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. :)
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:
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.
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.
"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!"
Still not as bad as deplorable.
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.
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.
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."