Kirth Gersen's page

In response to Shinhakkaider’s experience:

** spoiler omitted **...

See I'm kind of okay with 3. even though some people do find that offensive. I know it's just a person trying to relate and there's no offense meant by it. In certain circumstances I have to "code switch" when I'm in certain company. The way I talk to and relate to one group of people I'm familiar with is different from when I have to talk to an relate to people say at work. It's not that different.

But in social situations I dont get all lispy and start talking like Richard Simmons or Paul Lynd when I'm talking to a gay male. I STAY ME. I'm not going to try and be something that I'm obviously not.

As for the first two yeah, they really suck. Especially when having to deal with law enforcement. It's one thing that people who are on the outside of it REALLY dont understand. We understand that there's a high rate of crime in the AA community. I get that. What people dont understand is that for a fair amount of Law Enforcement people they feel that that gives them the right to treat every AA that they come across like a criminal. Whether they are or not. it's why it's so easy for the average white person to believe that when an unarmed AA is killed by the police or some trigger happy civilian that some how THEY DESERVED IT.

That's what bothers me. It's not only the attitude of the cops but of the general populace. I know plenty of AA males who have no desire to be criminals or go to jail. They just want to work their jobs and go home to their families and enjoy their lives. Unfortunately public perception of who we are a human beings is very different and very negative. If we're not PERFECT citizens then we're criminals. There usually is no in between there.

I think that the LGBT community has it's own bunch of negative stereotypes to deal with but honestly on some level I think the general public is more accepting of them on some levels than they are of AA's. I think that acceptance has do with the fact that your brother, your sister, your mom, your cousin or your dad, anyone in your immediate family or social circle can be gay. But if you're white how many of your family members are black? typically? It's more the exception rather than the rule yes? I think the possible proximity of a gay friend or relative on some level humanizes gay and lesbian issues in a way that they never will regarding race.

So, and I'm not discounting anyones hard times or struggles, but from where I'm sitting (and there always will be people who cant let go of their hate and ignorance towards gays) I think that the struggle for equality by the LGBT community will be a shorter one than the one for AA Civil RIghts. Which in many ways is STILL going on.

I’ve often heard men say that the one type of woman they just cannot stand is the “violent feminist” The type of woman that seems to ‘hate’ men and jumps down their throats at every perceived slight. What’s funny about this is quite often what these women seem to be responding to is based more the tone of what is being said, not necessarily the literal words, something subtle that I too seem more aware of than the average person and is incredibly important. I think that there is an argument that could be made that the “violent feminists” are, of all women in this world, the ones who are responding most appropriately to what is actually happening around them because they are not giving a free pass to issues that really, really should not be simply swept under the rug.

I think you've hit on one of the more prevalent defense mechanisms that people enjoying, consciously or not, the benefits of being the majoritarian display. They place the burden of judgment on the person aggrieved, shifting the discussion from whether something wrong was said or done to whether or not one should have spoken out. It sounds sort of sophisticated, but if you take it apart it turns into one of those "damn you for hurting my fist with your face" complaints.

I've observed it in many conversations about women, gays, people of non-majority religions and no religions, people of non-majority races and ethnicities, and so forth. It seems to represent a stage where the speaker is aware that he or she can no longer openly and gleefully endorse an inequitable state of affairs, but still prefers that state of affairs and so needs a layer of deniability. Therefore the greatest sin becomes calling someone a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist. The labels are now the bad things, not the behaviors they represent.

Some people will realize their doing this and try to clean up their act when it's pointed out to them. We all inherit a lot of cultural baggage, myself included. I had a few things to say about "violent feminists" in my teen years before I realized I was wrapping myself in penis privilege.

I have not, but I am always looking to learn about new perspectives, I'll check it out.

You might want to check out Mad Men. It's ostensibly a period character drama set in the 60s but along the way there's a deep exploration of masculinity and femininity in America.

.... Oooookaaaay....

I realize this is a rant, but it seems less aimed at promoting interest in mutual understanding and more at making heterosexual men feel bad about wrongs that they may or may not have committed. Any bigotry on the part of women is quietly brushed aside and the thrust seems to be that whole treating anyone poorly is wrong, it's only really really wrong when a man does it. I'm getting a planet of the apes vibe here re: the word "no".

As for how that last post relates to gaming... there are actually a ton of queer folk at Paizo. We've always been very forward about saying as much, but many of us have remained quiet about who *specifically* is LGBTwhatever. Part of that is just a personal privacy issue, but I know that I've sometimes second-guessed myself about such public declarations for fear of unexpected future awkwardness.

But you know what? Especially in the current political environment, the greatest thing any of us can do to advance equality is to simply live openly, and in doing so remind folks that non-straight people are all around them, all the time.

F@$# discretion. Thank you all for flying the flag.

Interesting forum post. Has anyone ever dealt with outright blatant homophobia or, more commonly, what I call "locker room" humor in their games, either from the GM, players, or both?

Example from a real game: "Your PC enter the prison section --"

"Oh, fu#@! Don't drop the soap!"
"Haha! Yeah, your elf better watch it in there, Brian. Or he's gonna get the shaft!"
"Yeah, Brian. And none of that mamsy-pansy safe shooting cr&% your character does all the time. These guys mean serious business, what with no women for so many years."
"Still can't tell if elves are male or female. Or how they like to get it."
"Hey, at least they're gettin' some, Mr. 40 year old virgin, either with pu#^# or fu$#@$ by a f%~$^&!"
"Ass#%$%! At least when I'm fu$#*^$, I know it's a lady, not like that b8$#@ you call your [girlfriend/wife/roommate with benefit]!"
"Fu#$ you, f*#$#^!"

Etc. NOTE: Cleaned up the language a bit. I left the group shortly.

Interesting. Though I respect your feelings on the matter, I am not sure everybody would agree that this behavior was homophobic. Locker room, yes. Juvenile and dirty. Even loading dock, as I would say, having long ago worked on a couple of them.

But the soap and the elves are guy talk and nothing I haven't heard from my gay friends. In fact, a beloved gay friend just today repeated his favorite saying of "the only thing more effeminate than a female elf, is a male elf." He makes more gay jokes at our table than anyone. In fact, his language is as salty as anybody's, maybe a bit more than some.

Gandhi said something like "nobody can hurt us without our permission," or some such. Meaning, we get hurt when we take things hurtfully. In this way, I am sort of with Shifty. I used to long for the day when sexuality was a non-issue, when we were all so okay with it that we never mentioned it. But I also feel like we gain so much from learning to laugh at ourselves and each other. Humor is powerful; it allows us to get to know each other much more intimately, and to push our boundaries and become comfortable together and with the truths we aren't always happy with. Through humor, we can find equal footing without losing ourselves. Our sexuality is part of our identity. We must remain true to it. We are stronger together when we do. Humor is that bridge.

I'm straight too. To deny my love for boobs would make me slightly hypocritical, not to mention miserable.

[Books a flight to northern Europe.]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Well, I will just say again. If the idea of the game is to have as "challenging" an encounter as possible... nothing raises that challenge level like having to survive without a dedicated healer watching over you.

Again, I agree. This speaks to the usefulness of in-combat healing at the table. If it's wasn't useful, then doing without it would be preferable rather than raising the difficulty for the party..

-James

James, for some reason we seem to grate against each other when I think both of us are fundamentally presenting a reasonable view of our own perspective which just happens to be different in this case.

It probably is related to a desire for other people to read our so-reasonable posts and say "aha! I get it now." Which doesn't always happen, regrettably. At least in my case, I won't speak for you.

Also, it is very hard to have a conversation about fundamental tactics without the other person perceiving the expression of a preferred tactic as a denigration of a different tactic.

I've really tried not to do that. I've said all along in this ridiculously long thread that choosing to heal in combat is a perfectly reasonable tactic, and furthermore is a perfectly defensible role playing choice.

So, hopefully you will understand that I am not calling combat-healing badwrongfun. It's just a choice.

I happen to believe it is a choice with some negative in-game consequences that some people seem not to recognize. Which is not surprising since I am not aware of any tactic that doesn't have some negative in-game consequences. The issue at hand is which tactics appear to me to be tactics which have more in-game benefits and fewer in-game penalties.

In my experience, treating healing in combat has several in-game benefits. I'll list a few.

1. It allows other combatants to focus entirely on their non-healing role. That means the full-attacking barbarian can rely on a heal from the party healer and get off another full-attack when without a dedicated healer he might have to spend a round drinking a potion or activating a magic item.

2. It allows the party to have a clear delineation of roles. It has been my experience that parties who have a dedicated healer frequently (not always, but frequently) have other roles as clearly defined. The "tank" the "skill monkey" the "blaster", etc. This is not a "bad thing" since it simplifies the determination of tactics and helps each member to know what to expect in combat.

3. It helps to alleviate the "backpack full of CLW wands" syndrome, which is something that really irks me personally from a role playing perspective.

4. It contributes positively to the combat hit point differential, increasing the amount of damage needed to put a party member down, or to TPK the entire party.

5. It facilitates aggressive combat tactics such as charging, full-on melee, full-attack damage exchange etc. Knowing that a healer is ready to step in at need, that barbarian doesn't have to worry so much about reduced AC while raging and/or potential HP deficit when they stop raging.

I'm sure there's a lot more.

So you see, I acknowledge the tactical benefits of having a dedicated combat healer. And by "dedicated combat healer" I don't even mean a "healbot" who is wholly dedicated to healing, I just mean a character whose primary combat function is to heal damaged party members. They might be dropping a wall of fire or even buffing up a party member when not healing, or might even take a whack or two at the enemy themselves until the healing becomes necessary.

However, there are lots of negative consequences of this approach as well. Here is my off-the-top-of-my-head list:

1. The healer has limited tactical options since they have a clearly defined primary function that is driven by need. This makes the healer necessarily a reactive, not a proactive role.

2. Spell slots dedicated to healing are spell slots not available for other offensive, battlefield control, defensive or buffing spells. This further restricts the party's tactical options in combat. Now, this is somewhat reduced by the ability of clerics to spontaneously cast cure spells, but not all dedicated healers are clerics. And even though a cleric might have "prepared" several non-healing spells, the acknowledged role and the party expectations necessarily make the healer pause and greatly consider the consequences of "wasting" a spell on not-healing when a party member ends up needing healing anyway.

3. Healing is absolutely a net positive in the hit point differential equation. However, it is not usually one of the better spells for contributing to that equation. This is a very difficult concept to get across to some people. But it is quite easy to mathematically demonstrate. A buff spell which provides a +1 to an attack can be modeled using probabilities to estimate what it contributes to a combat encounter purely in terms of hit point differential. A +1 is a 5% increase in a chance to hit. If the entire party is the recipient of that buff, then every PC has a higher chance to hit every single round of combat. If some of those members are full-attacking, then that means they get multiple attacks per round with that 5% increase. Let's say it's a party of four and two of them full attack with 3 attacks per round (melee and ranged we'll say). That means each round contains 8 attacks. If the fight lasts four rounds, that means an average additional hit point damage on the opposition of 1.3333 attacks. Now, does 1.333 attacks contribute more to the hit point differential than one first level cure spell? I would have to say if your characters are built well, yes. So replacing a heal spell with a buff spell in this case contributes more to the hit point differential than the heal spell. Since the hit point differential is the only measure that matters in combat, that's a pretty interesting observation. This is only one example. A buff which adds damage to every hit contributes even more to that differential. A buff which reduces hits on the party does too. So while healing is a net positive, it is frequently not the most efficient way to contribute to a meaningful hit point differential in combat.

4. More aggressive combat is not always good. It exposes the party to additional risks. Leaping into melee not only allows the PC to make a full attack, it allows the opposition to do the same thing. It has been my experience that parties which have a dedicated healer tend to be less careful than parties without one. That means those parties take more damage, which requires more healing which provides a positive feedback loop which appears to show how important healing is. This becomes a cultural thing with many groups. It's "just the way we do it." As I have said, my 4e party has a dedicated healer who enjoys the role and who is incredibly good at it. Does that mean my ranger does foolish things in combat expecting the healer to save his butt? Hell yeah he does!

5. Because heal spells are generally less efficient in managing the hit point differential, that equates to more spells cast in combat. That's just simple math. That means healers tend to run out of spells more quickly, which leads to the "fifteen minute game day" syndrome. It has been my experience over the decades that I've played this game that the single most common situation that causes a party to have to rest to regain spells is when the healer says "uh, guys? I'm low on heals."

Anyway, all of these things lead me to prefer preferring a style of play which I believe maximizes combat effectiveness, minimizes party resource expenditure, encourages careful planning and tactical maneuvering and allows all of the party to contribute proactively in combat for the majority of the time.

Now, that doesn't mean that my parties never heal in combat. But in my preferred style of play healing is just one more tactic that has its place. It doesn't drive party behavior

OK, I'm done with this now. I just hope someone who has always held the traditional "tank, healer, skill-monkey, blaster" idea of adventuring might give it some thought and see if they might be open to a new style of play.

Heck, you might find you enjoy it more.

My parties seem to.

This is indeed one of those subjects we have to try be careful with using the correct terminology about if we are trying to be sensitive seeing as the social stigma against mental illness is basically just as strong as it is against LGBTQ people, if a great deal quieter. It’s just something to pay closer attention to in the future if we value not making marginalized people feel even more misunderstood or made fun of then they already are. No harm intended I'm sure, just something to watch out for.

It's not the medical jargon definition. It's common usage derives from a misunderstanding (or an outdated understanding? I'm not sure) of the technical term, but English is a living language and his usage is correct.

It's also metaphorical. I can describe US economic growth as anemic, without actually diagnosing the population with anemia.

Basically, my point is that until we start to see more stories like this, the Moral Majority will be the face of Christians to many outsiders.

Hard to pick. I think I laughed the hardest at Knocked Up and Superbad when I saw them, but part of that had to do with the time and place in my life. Looking back, I think my favorite comedy is Blazing Saddles.

As I was driving to work this morning, I realized that in fact my favorite comedy has to be A Christmas Story. No other movie so consistently amuses me and makes me laugh and smile no matter how many times I watch it. I think my brain had just filed it so strongly under "Christmas movie" that it didn't come to mind when I was thinking "comedy movie."

Question not. That way leads madness.

I've heard of parents saying things like "If you ever do X, you're not my child anymore and you'd better find another place to live". That's bad. But there are also parents who educate their children about sex, and emphasize how happy they are that THEY waited (or perhaps that they're sorry they didn't), talk about the risks (STDs, pregnancy, etc), while still making it clear that they'll always be loved and accepted no matter what. Some people in this thread can't see past their disagreement with abstinence and/or religion to see the difference between those two types of parents, or perhaps even be willign to believe the latter even exists.

There are some. There are also some who jump in assuming any criticism of anything loosely attached to religion is based on hatred of religion not of problems with that specific practice.

You don't need to get that fancy. Cure potions are 1 oz. I have given horses de-wormer orally and they will fuss, but you can get fluid into their mouth.

1. Nobody is saying never ever heal your buddy and/or let them die. That is ridiculous.
2. Nobody is saying you will never ever have to heal.
3. What is being said is that the bad guys can put out damage faster than you can heal so the best thing to do is kill bad guys. The less bad guys there are the less damage output there is.
4. Most of the time if you have decent characters and use good tactics you will not have to heal in combat.
5. Once again, most of the time does not mean never.
6. Bookmark this thread if you have too.

The key to Gygax's attitude was "withdrawal". Attempting to "nova and rest" as people put it would have created major problems in Gygax's dungeons, because he used wandering monsters as a matter of course, and random enocunters occurred regularly in the wilderness.

Wait -- doesn't having wandering monsters make "nova and rest" MORE likely, not less? E.g. without wandering monsters, you can use up 100% of your healing spells before resting, but with wandering monsters, you can only use up 50% of your healing before you rest (because you need the other 50% in case there's a random encounter).

I doubt seriously if Gygax would have tolerated serious attempts to indulge in a 15-minute day.

Well, combat rounds were ten times longer and non-combat turns were 10 minutes each, so a literal "15 minutes" is probably unlikely. But as noted above, clearing dungeon rooms until you're out of healing spells and then retreating was pretty much par for the course, I think.

Evil Lincoln wrote:

On the flip side, TOZ, they can be a great way for GMs to include consistent...

Consistent. As in, not random.

Reading the rest, I think we agree.

Hoo boy, if you think consistency and randomness at odds, they might have a seat for you in congress...

I'm of two minds on the issue, honestly. Mechanics that keep even the GM guessing can be great, but there's a specific kind of campaign that needs such a rule...

But just because it's randomized doesn't mean it is a total non-sequitor! It just means that if you spend time in that particular place, neither you nor the the GM knows for certain what's going to come at you. Kinda cool. Should it be mandatory? Hell no. Does it solve the problem of resting-on-demand that we're discussing... maybe there's a narrow sliver of level/party-makeup combinations for which it does.

But if you are really having this problem, you need to get acquainted with the big three timers:

• soft timers (they have a hostage, so we can't tarry)
  
• hard timers (the ritual will be complete on the sunset of the third day! we can't be crafting items now!)
  
• reactive NPCs (the enemy wizard knows we attacked his fort — scry sensors spotted every day, he's gonna hit us at the worst possible time, let's hit him first.)
  

I try to use each of these some of the time to keep it from getting predictable. Sometimes use more than one. Very occasionally, use none, and let the players go nova, retreat, rest, repeat. Honestly, it can be fun to see just how hard they can hit one encounter.

You need to keep some kind of pressure on to get the rules functioning in line with the original (somewhat silly) design assumptions and CR. Optionally, you can pitch the CR assumptions out the window and eyeball everything... this is harder for new GMs to do, but the result is WAY more fun.

By 7th or 8th level, a smart party can no longer be threatened with the prospect of random encounters in the middle of the night while they sleep, thanks to reliable access to Rope Trick. Heck, if you memorize it twice you can be immune by level 3 or 4.

Different groups play with different styles -- different Players want to play different ways. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a 15 minute day just like there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a long day.

For me, I prefer "nearly" 15 minute day (but more like, er, 25 minutes?) to a long, long day.

The "13 Encounter Day" makes it harder to design accurate encounters whereas if they're going for the short day I know exactly what they're gonna do so I can more accurately prepare. With the long day some of the fights WILL be way too easy and that's not fun AND there's a really good chance that near the end any fight will be too much for them.

Also, the "13 Encounter Day" makes it harder for me to put the BBEG where I want him. In a "4 Encounter Day" This becomes much easier.

.... But I certainly try not to become too predictable. Occasionally I'll stretch a 3 or 4 encounter day to maybe 8 or 9 encounters.

Why not?

Sometimes the PCs have that advantage.

The GM has all sorts of tools for limiting the rest available to the party... soft timers, hard timers, reactive NPCs...

But if there's always such a constraint on everything the PCs do, then the players will start to feel that the world is contrived against them. So, like all aspects of GMing, the thing to do is include everything sometimes. Keep it dynamic and unpredictable.

Once in a while, throw the players up against a challenge that is best surmounted with patience and rest as part of the plan. Make it so hard they need a 15 minute adventuring day to beat it. Then laugh hysterically if they bite off more than they can chew because they imagined their own timers and limitations.

Don't always steal the spell book, but sometimes steal the spell book. Don't always use a hostage to imply a timer, but sometimes do it. Don't always allow mid-dungeon rest without consequence, but at least once is okay.

...well, I could just as easily flip that and ask why the words cow, how, now, etc are the way they are. or even better, why are there words like sow, row and bow that change meanings if they're pronounced differantly? it's just the way the languages evolved is all. and way back when, someone decided that drow rhymies with cow. that's all. it could ahve easily gone the other way. in fact it had a 50% chance of going the other way. but the world works in mysterious ways..

The big difference is the construction of those words.

cow
how
now
are missing a key infrastructure--the preceding 'r'--that should, if present, naturally result in a linguistic syllogism.

Throw and grow, for example, have a preceding letter or letter set followed by letter 'r' and concluded with letters 'ow.' They are always pronounced with an /O/ sound. Therefore, 'drow' must be pronounced /drO/...

If someone wants to decide to not have sex until marriage/death/sign of gods, its his or her or its choice, no problem, as long as it is informed and voluntary choice. However, choice cannot be really called informed and voluntary when is based on erroneous, false or incomplete information (and even more when based on malicious misinformation). Thus, sexual education should be provided to everyone. Its unfortunate that a large group of close-minded idiots is dumb enough to think that mere education about sexuality will immediately and irrevocably will turn their children into raging, shameless sluts and force them into prostitution.

Dagnabbit, someone discovered the Super Duper Top Secret Librul Plan to Bring Ruin to America, Destroy Christianity and Bring Forth the Atheist Muslim Communist Nazi Totalitarean Anarchist Nation Under the UN's Leadership (TM)! That's the fifth time this month. Who's in charge of security around here

Summation of thread so far:

Christians: "Not having sex is not deviant behavior."

Atheists: "Not having sex is not deviant behavior."

(Well, except maybe Mr. Shifty)

I still haven't seen a single post of people pointing and laughing AT HER (the athlete).

Everything after that is debate about sex education. Not the same thing.

A dad pushing her to accept one does, however - her. Her sexuality is not for him to shape, or try to strangle when she can't defend herself.

I don't get the abstinence movement. At all. Girls putting on "purity rings" when they get married to their dads... For serious??? Ewwwwww...

But where's the line? If your taxes increase to cover the cost of people having sex and such tax increase keeps you from doing the things -you- enjoy, is that fair?

Oh no!!! Not tax increases!

Evidence shows, for at least the third time in this thread, that attempts to keep people, particularly teens from having sex rather than warning them of the risks, encouraging them to avoid sex, but giving them the tools and knowledge to mitigate the risks, lead to worse and more expensive outcomes. States with abstinence only sex education have higher teen pregnancy rates, more STDs and no less teen sex than states with a more comprehensive approach.

The costs of people having sex, when they know what they're doing and have easy access to birth control and to barrier methods against STDs are pretty minimal.
When you attempt to restrict the behavior, the costs go up, because most of them keep having sex anyway!

Wow guys. All this fighting over sex. It's not even that great guys.

The internet makes me facepalm sometimes.

I guess I'll toss in a few of my own points:

• You're missing out on something that feels good is not really a point
  
• It does carry very real health risks
  
• Preventative measures do not always work
  
• Health care when preventative measures fail is expensive
  
• People rushing marriage for sex is once again, a symptom of lack of self control
  

For one thing guys:
I was an atheist through all my teen years and into my early 20's. I'm 23 now and have only been religious for 10 months.

I had sex once. No it is not that great. In fact it is downright boring.

So far I have seen at least 5 pairs of friends ruin their lives with sex before marriage. And no I don't mean "they had to have an abortion." Most of them end up living in broken down houses with each other, resentful, angry, and poor. Seen so many of their marriages fail this way and they spend years miserable because of it.

I'm confused here. They ruined their lives with sex before marriage and that made their marriages fail? Why'd they get married? Pregnancy?

As for lack of self control, well yeah. That's a problem. People lack self control. You can blame them for it, say they deserve whatever happens or you can recognize that and try to lessen the damage that it does.

Again, areas in the US that emphasize abstinence-only education have higher rates of teen pregnancy, STDs, no lower rates of premarital sex, earlier ages of marriage and higher divorce rates. If you think those are problems, telling people they should be abstinent is not a solution.

There are no real risks to abstaining from sex.

There are real risks with placing too high a value on staying virgin until marriage. For example, rejecting otherwise good partners because they didn't abstain. Marrying someone hastily because you want to have sex with them. Marrying someone you're not sexually compatible with.

I know I wouldn't want to make a lifetime commitment to only have sex with someone I'd never had sex with. It's not the most important thing in a relationship, but it is important and it's a good thing to know up front.

Areas of the country where abstinence is more stressed tend to have lower ages of first marriage and higher divorce rates.

Learn what you are doing and act responsibly, and there are no "innumerable dangers and complications" to not being a virgin.

And as for the crabs, that is exactly the feeling I get when I tell people I am an atheist, and happy with my choice, on the internet. Forget getting away, the religious WILL criticize you for taking a different path.

Speaking as one of those who intends to wait until marriage to have sex, I don't feel oppressed, obsessed, or repressed. Likewise, I don't feel controlled, stunted, or overly stressed.

What troubles me, how is most of this thread certain I must be?

*edit. I don't have any STDs, never commited a sexual crime, and would be quite amazed if a parent. Abstinence works just fine, in fact it is the most effective, if you actually practice it.

Abstinence is quite fine. Nothing wrong with it at all.

Abstinence-only education, as pushed by many of the more conservative religions in the US, tends to lead to higher levels of STDs, teen pregnancy and not much, in any, less sex.

Religious emphasis on virginity can lead to the "technical virgin" concept where some one does everything but actual sex and so remains "pure". It can also lead to the idea that, since it's the virginity that matters, if you have sex once, there's no longer any reason to refrain.

I must be missing half this conversation by not listening to the video.

I agree with him. Sexual repression sucks.

It's beyond wierd, and often attached to a whole bunch of oddball belief systems that can just as often cause a lot of problems for women in later life.

Hang-ups are rarely helpfull.

YMMV.

Sorry Kirth, you got caught in my troll aura. ;)

It's not often that a federal judge and I agree.

Moro, you aren't being 'harassed' or 'embarrased', you are being checked upon though. And I do note that even FHDM cites that his experience was generally through being in odd places at odd times OR undertaking activity that he is 100% aware will draw attention. Besides it isn't 1 in 7 or 8, its 1 in 5 of the people they searched, and not everyone is being searched - so your odds of being inconvenienced are pretty low. On the other hand I reckon you'd be the first to holler and wail if you were the victim of crime, so this is the price you pay.

(I base this on how upset you apparently get over interactions with strangers where the worst that happens is you have a chat and empty your pockets, I can only guess how upset you'd be if it also involved what was in your pockets being taken and you were assaulted to boot)

Whilst I would agree with him about the cycling issue (rock solid, we have those stupid laws here too) in these cases the search and 'hassling' came off the back of a reason to be having a conversation. They didn't just pull someone up and search them, there was a cause.

Protip: if you already know the triggers that draw attention from the Police, try not to be too surprised when you do those things and attention gets paid.

Now TWK I reckon you are right, there are probably too many laws that could be cut away, but too many to even know you are breaking one? really?

All I am hearing is "blah blah blah, you should be grateful to live in a police state"

Did you know that living in a police state doesn't mean that a person is more safe, it just means that they have more people to fear, because in addition to being persecuted by criminals they will also likely be persecuted by those with the law on their side?

Having the law on one's side doesn't mean that someone is doing the right thing.

Also, in reference to your statistics, when they are performing random searches of black males more times than there are black men in NYC something is off, as that would mean that a black man not only statistically guaranteed to have his rights violated, but it is possible for it to happen more than once per year.

Also, to me, I think the reason that 20% were found to be committing a crime is because we have to many laws. Its way to easy to commit a crime without even realising it. I think shooting someone for no good reason should be illegal. You shoot someone without a damn good reason, go to jail. Just owning a gun =/= shooting someone. Or another example: I think junkies that steal, burglarise or shoplift to feed their habit should be arrested. Being a junkie =/= stealing to feed a habit.

I guess in summary, I think criminal laws should be punitative, not preventative. (especially in light of how harsh our punishments can be.)

Anyhow if it is 20% I'd take it on the chin.

5% not so much.

Well, then please look at the numbers. As you will see, your 1 in 5 statistic comes from a sloppy reading of the sloppily written wikipedia article.

Here's a chart from 2006 (I'm not very internet savvy, I don't know if there's one for more recent years) that breaks down the "suspicious behavior" (3rd chart down) of those stopped.

"Area Has a High Incidence of Crime." "Time of Day Fits Crime Incidence." "Furtive Movements" (anyone remember Amadou Diallou's "furtive movements"?). "Change Direction at Sight of Officer."

Given the evidence strewn throughout the NYCLU's pages and given their recent history, I can't share your touching faith in the NYPD's ability to impartially carry out a program that, imho, is probably unconsitutional to begin with.

You misunderstand me by omitting the rest of my argument. If this group is disproportionately likely to actually be up to no good and suspicious behavior (something near-universally recognized by criminologists, who have moved on to arguing about why this is the case), it makes sense that this is the group stopped disproportionately.

I understand you perfectly. The problem is you're wrong.

You. Can't. Do. That.

The street is not an airport. You cannot stop people at random and search them. They have a constitutional right against being searched on grounds as flimsy as "furtive movement" or "they looked nervous".

I'm not being politically correct and saying that blacks don't cause a disproportionately large amount of crime: they do. I'm saying that even though that's true and the program would be useful in stopping crime you still can't do it.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Why is the law the law for one group of people but not another?

I'm a bit lost on where it isn't. Am I misreading? Is there spot that says some people aren't subject to the exact same law?

The police don't do this anywhere else but poor black neighborhoods because they CANT. If they try to do this anywhere else they get their asses handed to them in court.

Unreasonable searches, well heres the party, reasonable is subjective isn't it

Subjective does not equal non existent. "Furtive movement" which is what they use to justify the searches, does not constitute a reason to stop someone. People are getting nervous around the police because the police keep harassing them... of course they're going to get nervous when the cops show up.

and in 20% of cases appears to be well founded. Show me a better way to achieve a higher result.

That's a pretty sucky average. It means you've just detained and harrased 4 innocent people for no reason.

One in five of the offenders being stopped is found to be breaking the law

No, its carrying drugs OR a weapon. Note that a weapon does not automatically mean an illegal weapon, since knives are legal to carry. (and frankly a good idea. My dad worked down there for the telephone company and had someone bite him)

What I'd like to know is why is the figure so high? That 20% is pretty significant.

Its because there's so many codes rules and regulations that a lot of people are bound to be in violation of one of them if you rifle through all of their stuff. It could be something as dangerous as a gun, a taser (which is illegal in ny) , a 5 inch knife, pot, or even asprin that's not in its original bottle.

Why are all these people doing the wrong thing?

Well they're carrying weapons because they live in a dangerous neighborhood, which is neither wrong nor illegal. Only 1 in 266 were carrying a gun. (0.4%) were carrying a gun, which is only illegal if you can't afford 500 bucks a year for the permit: in other words its legal for rich people but not for poor people.

Why is the law the law for one group of people but not another?

Exactly BNW. I am sorry that your thread was derailed by me, but to me the two topics are very similar. The Bill of Rights says one thing regarding searches. When authorities completely disregard the very rules that they are sworn to uphold, then, to me, our unalienable rights are worthless.

@TheWhiteKnife
Cool, next time Ulahideen Dirkadirka moves next to your neighbourhood airport and orders some Stingers "to deal with a Zionist rat problem", be sure to go help him set them up in the front yard. Seems legit.

No, but what I would like is for our governments, at all levels, to stop pretending that the laws only apply to the citizens and not them. We do have an amendment process and until it is actually used, there should be no such thing as an illegal weapon, as ruling by whatever whim strikes government (even in a clear-cut case that benefits the public good, such as banning stinger missles) is all too often taken too far. Why even have a Constitution that limits government if we allow government to ignore it at its whim?!?

Edit- Or stop and frisk policies. Why do we allow authorities to spy on us, in direct conflict with our Bill of Rights? Is the Bill really so much scrap paper as to be utterly inconsequential to the police? They shouldnt be spying on us, they work for US! We should be spying on them!

Fergie wrote:

I think you are confusing guilty of a crime that harms society with guilty of being stopped by over zealous police while not white.

Curiously, despite 20% of the people being searched being found as up to no good, you still want to play the racist card?

20% is a significant figure, enough to justify continuing to stop and search people you'd think...

You can try run that down with more hysteria about how it is picking on particular races, not really well supported by the maths either if the stats being presented by the Libertarians are correct.

My point was that "Being found as up to no good" is a highly subjective measure that often points to how people are treated by a system rather then what harm they are actually pose to society.

For example, every time I drive down the highway, traffic moves at about 60-75mph despite the 55mph speed limit. If cops only pull over the people in beat up cars or black drivers, and ticket them for speeding, then the real crime is not speeding, but driving an old car or driving while black. Note also that by spending money, and being savvy about tickets and past offenses, I can have a clear record, despite repeated violations.

If you look at who is being searched and found guilty as opposed to who is using drugs or other illegal activities, you will find vast differences in the numbers. For example, you don't see white guys in suits on wall street getting searched, (or even financially "searched") despite that facts about drug use and corporate crime among wealthy whites.

Note statics used by police and prosecutors are like those used by the military.
"100 Enemies were killed in an air strike."
"How do you know they were all enemies?"
"They were killed in in airstrike."

90% innocent means 10% weren't.

2% had weapons. 100% too high.

I think that says all we need to know.

I think you are confusing guilty of a crime that harms society with guilty of being stopped by over zealous police while not white.

There is a big difference. I've been stopped and ticketed in NYC twice and arrested and detain once. The arrest resulted in almost a year of court appearances, before the case was thrown out (It was thrown out because the police were found to be selectively editing video used as evidence, among other reasons.) At any point during that year I could have plead guilty to a lesser charge (plea bargain) or accepted an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) and avoided month after month of useless court BS. Since I am white, can polish myself up nice, had a clean record (see previous two reasons) and at the time afford to miss work to go to court a dozen times, I fought the changes, and eventually proved myself "innocent". The two tickets were thrown out because I was able to go to court, speak well, and get off on technicalities. Of the 6 charges against me, I was found to be "innocent" of all 6.

In other words:
Innocent = White, able to afford a lawyer, and able to deal with going to court.
Guilty = Black or Latino, not able to afford a lawyer, and not able to miss work, not able to speak to the court eloquently. (Note: Working-poor is the worst position to face the court system).

The "Justice System" that I have experience with is based not on keeping people safe, but supporting a large anti-terror/crime organization and it's various prisons, attorneys, politicians, lobbyists, etc. I see the need for a fairly large police organization in NYC (it is a big city) but like many aspects of our government the current system is rotten to the core, and a mockery of the ideal of Courtesy. Professionalism. Respect.(CPR) that the NYPD is supposed to represent.

Gun control and Amendments 4 and 5 arguments are interesting, but I find it hard to get worked up about them when the evidence, imho, is pretty glaring that this is simply stopping young men for walking while black or Hispanic.

Some reasons why I don't trust the NYPD impartially with my civil liberties: Abner Louima. Ramarley Graham. That dude from Senegal that they shot 47 times. The fact that they set up a secret spy-on-everyone-in-the-city committee with the security divisions of, like, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, whoever. The constant abuse that was on display in their harrassment of Occupiers. Etc, etc.

Over the past twenty years, the number of murders in New York City has decreased about 75%. This can be attributed to more aggressive and focused policing, includung "stop and frisk", which has removed thousands of illegal weapons from criminal hands. As a New York City resident, I am thankful that this has occured; and that I can now feel safer riding on the subway at night to and from my Pathfinder group.

attaching stop and frisk practices to feeling safer is a bit naive. I would rather attach it to increased police presence on subways/transit cops being far, far better trained than they were previously.

Yeah, but what were those 20% "guilty" of? Carrying a few grams of weed (or even crack)? Totally worth throwing out the Bill of Rights!