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

ShinHakkaider's page

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 1,445 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,445 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:

...Nobody is, and nobody has.

"Things have gotten better" is not the same thing as saying "things are perfect". You're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point because you're just loudly agreeing with the people you're yelling at.

"better" is a loaded term as the line that defines it is going to be in very different places for very different people.

It was my mistake in thinking that was apparent in what I was saying. Thanks for clarifying, Freehold.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sundakan wrote:

...Nobody is, and nobody has.

"Things have gotten better" is not the same thing as saying "things are perfect". You're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point because you're just loudly agreeing with the people you're yelling at.

Didnt we have a mutual agreement to ignore and or not respond to each other on these boards?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:


Separate but (not really?) equal is still around.
Wage discrepancies based on race is still around.
Disenfranchisement of the black voting block is still around.
Race based hiring is still around.
Race based housing is still around.
Disproportionate convictions and sentencing of black people is still around.

They're around but they're not as prevelant as they used to be.

Wolf, You're saying that these things arent are prevalent as they used to be and to be fair they arent.

They are still very far from equal though and I think that's the issue. You want to have harsh draconian drug laws? fine. But make sure penalties are applied equally across the board.

Dont tell me that hiring practices are fair across the board when white employers are more likely to hire a white guy with a felony record over a black guy with no record and an actual degree.

Dont pay me less in the same position as a white guy because of my skin color.

When I'm looking for an apartment to live in as long as I can pay the rent or in the case of buying a house can provide the down payment and pay the mortgage dont just take me to the lower income or black part of town.

And dont execute me at a traffic stop when my hands are raised in the air if you wouldnt do so to a white guy in the same situation. Or if you are going to execute ME, treat white guys with the same disdain for life.

FAIR. EQUAL.

That's LITERALLY all we're asking for.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
You can't openly be proud to be a bigot anymore, that's a non-trivial change.

Wait...What?!?!

That's an ENTIRELY trivial change. Also? *looks over at the Republican nominee for president and his base of white nationalist/alt-right supporters* I'm not really sure that that's accurate?

Separate but (not really?) equal is still around.
Wage discrepancies based on race is still around.
Disenfranchisement of the black voting block is still around.
Race based hiring is still around.
Race based housing is still around.
Disproportionate convictions and sentencing of black people is still around.

All of this stuff still exists. So what someone will think twice about calling me a name to my face? I WANT to know who my enemies are. The thing is: these people are my co-workers, my doctors, my childs' teachers and administrators, our judges, OUR POLICE OFFICERS.

It's a little funny to me that people in this country especially the right wingers are so obsessed with Jihadists living among us or coming here to disrupt their way of life and kill them for no reason. Thing is? I know EXACTLY what that fear an anxiety feels like.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So Gandhi and MLK were peacefully assassinated and the protesters were violent?

EXACTLY.

Peaceful protests arent going to stop you from getting shot in the face.

Or having hoses turned on you. (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble).

Or having dogs turned loose on you (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble)

Or as in the case of Medgar Evers SHOT IN THE BACK in his own driveway. and upon being taken to the hospital was denied entry BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.

But people are determined to talk about how great peaceful protest is...

It's called laying your life on the line for a cause you believe in... the kind of thing we venerate soldiers for. A lot of people did just that during the Civil Rights Movement.

And for what? Alot of the same crap they were fighting and dying for is still going on. Segregation is still a thing more so than ever except now its redlining and gentrification. The police are still murdering unarmed men women and children the only difference is now it's being captured on video because everyone has a camera phone. The laws changed but people found ways around the laws to do what they want to anyway. I ask again, what did these peaceful protestors die for?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergie wrote:
Norman Osborne wrote:
Stuff

Neither of those incidents are Al Sharpton's doing in any way. He had a tangential role in both. I don't stand by everything Al Sharpton says, but his message has always been non-violent. If you attempt to help the poorest people at the bottom of society, not all of them are going to be paragons of humanity. I think it would be fair to criticize Al Sharpton for going after publicity, but that is absolutely necessary in a civil rights movement.

Just out of curiosity, what civil rights leaders do you think have done a good job of improving race relations in the last couple of decades?

I'm not siding with Normal Osbourne at all here, but he's not wrong about Al Sharpton. He DID incite that incident at Freddy's. I don't think that his intent was to cause deaths but he had to know that what he was saying that would incite passions in a way that would not end well.

That being said, Al Sharpton ONLY exists because white politicians stood by and did nothing whenever racism reared its head in the black community. Whether it was a place like Freddy's or police brutality instead of stepping up and speaking up for their constituents they did nothing. They could have easily blunted his influence but they couldn't be bothered. I personally dont care for Sharpton, he's an opportunist and that's being mild. But like him or not he gets the publicity and he gets results.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So Gandhi and MLK were peacefully assassinated and the protesters were violent?

EXACTLY.

Peaceful protests arent going to stop you from getting shot in the face.

Or having hoses turned on you. (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble).

Or having dogs turned loose on you (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble)

Or as in the case of Medgar Evers SHOT IN THE BACK in his own driveway. and upon being taken to the hospital was denied entry BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.

But people are determined to talk about how great peaceful protest is...

OTOH, I suspect without the commitment to non-violence on the mainstream of the movement it would have been even worse and not have ended even as well as it did. Black people couldn't have won the armed struggle it would have turned into.

Non-violence resistance is a valid tactic in the face of stronger oppression. It will be met with violence. Rule of thumb: If you're not being met with violence, you're not accomplishing anything.

My issue with non-violent resistance is that it naturally favors the oppressor. It allows them to do heinous things and then the results only come after someone has been further hurt or killed. This from a country that doesn't hesitate to go to war to fight for it's interests. It's a do as I say not as I do. And it sucks.

Besides, non-violent protest is getting BLM nowhere. Nothing is changing for the better. The populace at large wants people of color out of sight and silent. We can be celebrities and sports stars as long as we don't speak out of turn. And if you're a person of color who doesn't have the benefit of celebrity you're a troublemaker. Thing is there are ALOT of scared black people in this country. The thing is people are only going to be scared for so long before they realize that they have very little or nothing to lose in fighting back.

Reminds me of something that was said by two characters is Tarantino's The Hateful Eight:

Major Marquis Warren: ...Just how many n*gg*r towns did ya'll sack in your fight for dignity in defeat?"

Chris Manix: Oh my fair share black major! 'cause when n*gg*rs are scared that's when white folks are safe!

and later on in the same movie

Major Marquis Warren: You got no idea what it's like being a black man facing down America. The only time black folks is safe? is when white folks is disarmed.

At one time both of these were kind of true. Maybe back in the 1870's. Maybe in the 1950's too. Not so much now though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So Gandhi and MLK were peacefully assassinated and the protesters were violent?

EXACTLY.

Peaceful protests arent going to stop you from getting shot in the face.

Or having hoses turned on you. (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble).

Or having dogs turned loose on you (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble)

Or as in the case of Medgar Evers SHOT IN THE BACK in his own driveway. and upon being taken to the hospital was denied entry BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.

But people are determined to talk about how great peaceful protest is...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I do not remember any instance of violent protest that led to actual long-term changes in society.

The american revolution?

John Brown moved the country towards the civil war and emancipation.

Malcom X's bad cop to Martin Luthor Kings Good cop.

MLK was seen as an evil commie until X came along.
MLK was seen as an evil commie until he was good and safely dead. Then he could be recast as a saint, because it was safe to do so. He was hated by a huge chunk of white America. They celebrated his death.
As I recall when he was shot, he had spoken to a labor meeting the night before. King was a labor as well a race advocate which earned him damnation from racists and capitalists alike.

THIS.

People wanted him dead already. But when it looked like he was going seriously unify and advocate for labor as well? That put him on the fast track for a bullet. Because you know you cant have poor / working class whites teaming up with black folk and kinda have them realize they're kinda in the same boat. They gotta break that sh*t up...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There's a cycle here.

People want only peaceful protest.

But peaceful protest that really doesn't impact them or inconvenience them in anyway. Otherwise it's "How dare they protest?!?"

So peaceful protest that doenst inconvenience or offend anyone, gets nothing done.

So the same systematic issues dont change OR they get worse.

But that's not their problem because unless the media is covering a riot they don't notice peaceful protests. Or community meetings. Or mothers and family members marching to protest the violence in their communities.

Then the wellspring of rage and frustration bubbles up after another police shooting, where yet again the victim gets blamed, so peaceful protests begin anew only to be ignored until violence happens so then people can go "look see? theyre nothing but savages! It's their own fault that this happens to them!"

And so on, and so on, and so...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also we've seen what peaceful protests have gotten us.

Colin Kaepernik is the most disliked man in the NFL.

For taking a knee.

he's received STEADY death threats. He's been called a N*GG*R, repeatedly by the same white fans who were cheering him a few years ago.

This is an organization where the fans have rallied around accused multiple rapists, domestic abusers, racists, homophobes and in one case an accused murderer.

The high school and college players who have done the same have received a steady stream of death threats.

Peaceful protests have been met with reporters and right wing radio hosts encouraging their listeners to RUN THEM OVER if they're in the street.

But tell me again how well peaceful protest works against an enemy that has no empathy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:

There are some people with strange ideas about what cops can do.

The short answer is cops CAN DO anything they want. And they fully expect you to behave whether you committed a crime or not. NOBODY is going to stop a cop from robbing you or killing you, they ARE the authority. Your only recourse is a law suit and the hope that you can convince a judge or jury that the story the police are feeding them is a lie. The fact that there is a thin blue line means they give each other the benefit of the doubt on all stories true or not. In MOST areas of the country this isn't an issue. People mostly get along and the police are respected. But in areas with a belligerent population (for whatever reason) the police can operate more as an occupying force. It's sad but they CAN DO it. How many of the downtrodden can afford to sue them in response? It isn't just a black issue either it's a poor issue. You are treated like dirt if you have no money.

Can it be fixed in those areas? No. Well yes but only if you catch it early enough. Once people start training their kids to resist and defy then NO AMOUNT of corrective measures can fix the problem. These areas will be lawless occupied zones till the population (cop and rioter alike) are forced to change though some massive outside thing.

WOW.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:
I pointed out before and I will again how it seems just having a weapon and being black is grounds for police to treat you as a hostile force.

I think that "just having a weapon OR being black is grounds for police to treat you as a hostile force" is even MORE accurate and worrisome considering the number of unarmed black men and women who have been murdered by the police. Several people in this thread alone seem just fine with this mode of thought. A poster upthread even referred to this 15 year old girl as a WOMAN instead of what she actually is, a teenager and a minor. That's a way that makes it easier for people to criminalize her and feel justified in whatever treatment she receives from LE.

It's a commonplace tactic that's used especially in regards to black children. Reduce or eliminate empathy for black children by referring to them and treating them as adults, reduce empathy for black adults by thinking of them as sub human or in some case super human beasts.

It's definitely how LE and their supporters view black people in the US.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
But that won't play with the Al Sharpton crowd.
Please clarify.
It's very simple if and when it comes out that the woman was trying to conceal drug posession by resisting police, that fact won't matter to the man who makes his living by raising a ruckus. Look up the Tiwana Brawley case.

So let me see if I'm understanding your point correctly.

You are justifying the treatment of this 15 year old girl who had just been in an accident, who may have been hurt and or in shock, afraid of the police. With a false accusation of rape and the ensuing bruhaha / fallout of that.

I'm asking flat out if the fact that she may have had a dime bag on her warranted her treatment at the hands of these officer, yes or no?

Her treatment was justified by the fact that she was attempting to leave the scene of an accident she caused and was in defiance of the orders of a police officer. Her posession of contraband if true, only leads to background context. If a policeman gives you an order, you're supposed to obey.

So by that logic they would have been justified in shooting her dead for resisting yes?

Here's the problem that I have with this scenario. She's just been in accident. She ran through an intersection and hit someone's car. Fine. Doesnt change the fact that she'd just been in an accident. The fact that she refused medical attention and just wanted to go home may or may not have had anything to do with the weed found on her. She just may have been in shock and SCARED and just wanted to go home. And the police are not a reassuring, de-escelating force they are to be feared and AVOIDED. So I'm sure that probably played a part in her frantic need to get away as well.

But I hear what youre saying, none of that other stuff matters. It's very black and white. Obey. and nothing bad will happen to you. Except THAT'S NOT TRUE either. Complying with the police will get you beaten or just as dead as if you would comply.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
But that won't play with the Al Sharpton crowd.
Please clarify.
It's very simple if and when it comes out that the woman was trying to conceal drug posession by resisting police, that fact won't matter to the man who makes his living by raising a ruckus. Look up the Tiwana Brawley case.

So let me see if I'm understanding your point correctly.

You are justifying the treatment of this 15 year old girl who had just been in an accident, who may have been hurt and or in shock, afraid of the police. With a false accusation of rape and the ensuing bruhaha / fallout of that.

I'm asking flat out if the fact that she may have had a dime bag on her warranted her treatment at the hands of these officer, yes or no?

EDIT: has anyone even mentioned Al Sharpton in regards to any of these cases? Or is that just the usual alt-right response to everything involving black people and police brutality. Because I honestly havent heard a peep from Sharpton concerning any of these cases and I'm IN NYC.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
But that won't play with the Al Sharpton crowd.

Please clarify.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I have the feeling that police officers in the States are incredibly stressed, tense and even scared

Again, I point to a portion of the civilian populace who are for the most part UNARMED and have to worry about being murdered for no reason by the police. And a lack of empathy by the general population at large

for the murdered persons because of perceived affiliation with criminality because of skin color.

Police may be stressed, tense and scared, but they are also armed and protected by not only each other but by general public opinion that they are justified in killing whoever they want as long as they are of a certain skin color.

I apologize if my words dismissed the victims' pain. It is not my intent

What I find very dangerous is scared people with weapons who feel justified in using them

Also I am not sure that general public opinion backs such killings. I am under the impression that the judicial system's response is a greater culprit here

I hope my words express my thoughts adequately. I feel very unsure as a non-native speaker about how people might understand them. Please point it out if I hurt people's feelings. It is really not my intent :-(

I didnt think that you were being dismissive at all nor did I intend to come across like that. Apologies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

I have the feeling that police officers in the States are incredibly stressed, tense and even scared

Again, I point to a portion of the civilian populace who are for the most part UNARMED and have to worry about being murdered for no reason by the police. And a lack of empathy by the general population at large

for the murdered persons because of perceived affiliation with criminality because of skin color.

Police may be stressed, tense and scared, but they are also armed and protected by not only each other but by general public opinion that they are justified in killing whoever they want as long as they are of a certain skin color.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've worked both not for profit and for profit companies and some of the highest paid people in those companies were some of the biggest sociopaths.

Higher pay DOES NOT EQUAL better quality of HUMAN BEING.

More money for better training, possibly.

Suing the crap out of these abusive cops, their departments and their unions, possibly.

But paying someone more who's already an abusive, racist, sociopath is just going to make him/her a BETTER PAID abusive, racist, sociopath.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
The only thing you would get by increasing the salary of bad policemen is better paid bad policemen. The principles for how you should do such an important job are so central that if you are willing to ignore them because you aren't paid enough to care, more pay isn't going to make you follow them.

EXACTLY.

I grow tired of hearing how tough of a job the police have. You know who have tough jobs? FIREMEN. Those guys run INTO BURNING BUILDINGS to rescue people and put out fires. At no point do I ever constantly hear the refrain "I felt threatened and feared for my life so I let the people in the building die because I didnt feel safe."

Also? You want to know what's harder than being a police officer? Being an unarmed black male or female civilian. Because you legitimately have to worry about the police murdering you for no reason as well as the criminals that the police are supposed to protect you from. At this point I'm less worried about the actual criminals. They're SUPPOSED to be the bad guys and I kinda know how to take care of myself in regards to them. But the police are EVERYWHERE and the ones that dont abuse their power do not check the ones that do.

One of the things that I find really interesting and enlightening is listening to interviews with former LE who were sickened about the levels of abuse and corruption inside their departments. When you listen to these guys speak most of the time theyre not justifying the actions of the police but they were just part of the CULTURE of the department. and going against that culture has very, very real consequences for them.

Basically everyone is a victim here, the average person of color because people who are unilaterally pro-police believe that we're all or mostly criminals and deserve whatever happens to us whether we were actually doing something or not.

The police officers who want to do their jobs in a decent and respectful manner but now are lumped in with the abusive, murderous thugs that are their colleagues but cant speak out against them in fear of retaliation from those self same colleagues.

Then you have the communities at large who are now not willing to call the police for help because they dont know if they are going to be beaten or murdered by the people that are paid to help them.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

But apparently if youre a white woman you can get away with something like this without getting tasered, pepper sprayed OR shot.

HERE

Actually she WAS getting tasered before she tried to drive away, so perhaps not the best example.

The tasing probably was in part responsible for her freaking out and trying to drive away with the cop still in tow.

My mistake, I'll edit accordingly.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

But apparently if youre a white woman you can get away with something like this without getting pepper sprayed OR shot.

HERE

EDIT: She actually was tasered.

But I'm pretty sure if that suspect was black and male that cop would have opened fire. They've killed people for much less.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Considering that LE has a penchant for murdering unarmed black men and women (and the occasional white man) for no reason what oever? Also considering that she'd just been involved with a car accident and was probably shaken up if not in shock? I think wanting to get the hell away from those officers might have just been her survival impulse kicking in.

When I look at police I used to say to myself "Stay away from them and you'll be alright. They dont want anything to do with you and yoiu dont want anything to do with them."

Now when I look at them I wonder if they're just going to decide to antagonize then murder me or my son or my wife too for that matter. For no good reason. Because thats's what they're doing. It only seems worse because there's video of everything now. And people like Nenkota Moon would be defending them unilaterally saying that we had it coming because...REASONS.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Randy71 wrote:

Many people like to complain about Donald Trump being racist but they may not be aware that Hillary Clinton is racist as well. Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. The Goldwater Girl organization opposed the 1964 Civil Rights act. Hillary was a member of an organization that opposed equal rights for black Americans, And she had the gall to say that she is proud to have been a Goldwater Girl.

Also, Margaret Sanger said these following words: "Colored people are like human weeds and need to be exterminated". Hillary said these following words about Sanger: "I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision". Hillary admires a woman who said that black people should be destroyed. That is disgusting.

I'm aware of ALL OF THIS.

I am a registered voter.

I am also black.

I am STILL voting for Hillary Clinton.

Here's why:

I'm in no way a fan of the Clintons. In fact if the GOP had their crap together and run almost anyone else (with the exception of Cruz) I would sit this one out and let the chips fall where they may. In fact one of the reasons that I ABSOLUTELY HATE the GOP now is that they've bascially run a candidate so openly VILE that they are essentially forcing me to vote for Hillary Clinton.

I will NEVER, EVER forgive them for that. Donald Trump and his poster children for THE PURGE family have successfully courted the white supremacist vote and made racism and white supremacy mainstream. So that essentially means that after he wins the election its going to be open season on muslims and black people (well it's kinda ALREADY open season on black folk but whatever...) not from Trump directly but from his followers. He'll just do what he always does, deny that he influenced them and avoid taking any responsibility for his rhetoric.

Hillary Clinton may be a power hungry, war mongering, greedy, career politician but I'm guessing the death squads wont be a priority for her.

Not in her first term at least...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So, I take it that Stop and Frisk is actually opposed by such people? I haven't really seen the gun rights groups speaking out against it.

There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usually see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.) That's one reason, for example, that the idea that noncitizens have constitutional rights is controversial in some circles -- that, and the fact that it costs money to educate immigrant children that could be saved by simply throwing them out of the public schools.

The idea that constitutional rights only apply to whites has an equally long pedigree. Even when the actual law has changed (or case law has changed), that doesn't actually change people opinions. Similarly, religious freedom seems only to apply to Christians, and sometimes to Jews. A number of cities/counties have refused to allow mosques to be constructed, while allowing local Christian communities to build all the churches they want..... (See also here.)

Yup. Look at the case of John Crawford who was a black man in a walmart where they sell GUNS in a open carry state, who had a BB rifle taken off the shelf in the store and was murdered by the police in the store for...carrying a rifle that was sold in the store. He was even screaming that it wasnt loaded before they shot him.

Not a PEEP out of guns rights activists or the NRA.

Nor were they front and center in the case of Philando Castile, a legal and licensed gun owner in Minnesota another open carry state who was killed at a traffic stop after TELLING the officer that he had a gun and a permit to carry the officer shot him anyway as he was providing his credentials. The NRA eventually said something but only after being shamed by some of it's own members.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Holtzman was EASILY the best thing about this movie.

Patti: What year is it?

Holtzman: It's 2040, our president is a plant.

Patti: WHAT?!?!?!

Hotlzman: 'm just kidding you were gone 2 seconds.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


He's being compared to Hitler because of similarities in populist rhetoric, and because he's deliberately appealing to a nationalist, racist core of supporters. Very few people think it's likely he'll bring about another Nazi holocaust.
Maybe, but with the strong support he has from White Supremacists and the mainstreaming of racism, I'm pretty sure when his followers come for us darker hued people most of white America is going to stand by and deny what's happening. EVEN AS IT HAPPENS.

I'm pretty certain he'll come for me and mine before anyone else (considering what he's said about those of Middle Eastern descent and Asians).

I imagine most will applaud even as he does in rather loyal and patriotic Americans.

There are enough hate groups out there and I'm pretty sure muti-tasking is a thing so there's no reason that they wont come for us BOTH.

And agreed on that last sentence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:


He's being compared to Hitler because of similarities in populist rhetoric, and because he's deliberately appealing to a nationalist, racist core of supporters. Very few people think it's likely he'll bring about another Nazi holocaust.

Maybe, but with the strong support he has from White Supremacists and the mainstreaming of racism, I'm pretty sure when his followers come for us darker hued people most of white America is going to stand by and deny what's happening. EVEN AS IT HAPPENS.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
That CDROM collection was one of the better purchases I've made.

I still have my CD's. I need to copy those PDF's over to my archive...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nohwear wrote:
The dirty GM, not to be confused with the killer GM. Wants to push the characters to their limits, but wants them to succeed.

That's me pretty much.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I literally just re-watched that entire scene.

While "I" didn't view the scene as problematic within the context of the conversation between the two principles it doenst mean that it ISNT problematic.

There are PLENTY of movies that I LOVE with black characters that I find problematic that my white counterparts just shrug and go "eh, you sure youre not just looking for something to be offended by?"

Then I just take a deep breath and let it go.

EDIT: And FFS I am in NO WAY saying that people who DO find the scene problematic should just "take a deep breath and let it go".

That's how "I" choose to deal with it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GM 1990 wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:


Here's what I find curious about gamers though, especially players.
It's a role playing game. The PC is not the player. They are in essence playing a part. Part of that IS not having your character react to information that they dont have. GM's (at least half decent ones) do this ALL THE TIME.

For sure, but you've got to assess your players. Some individuals are more capable of doing it, which has as much to do with player style and maturity as GM style. A lot of GMing (and life for that matter) is learning to know the group dynamics and individuals you're dealing with. I'm GMing for my 8, 10, 12 year olds and my wife rounds out the group. They've all only been gaming about 15 months, really enjoy the RPing, exploration, and skill challenges aspects, 2-4 hour sessions every other week and we've gone up to 4 sessions with no combat. But I know with my 8 year old, as much as he doesn't want to....he can't help himself acting on player knowledge - and he's probably the most invested of the 4 in his PCs backstory and RPing. So its not even exclusive to more RP inclined.

When I'm playing in my 12 year old's campaign, I'd rather have him roll for those few things that make sense. I can role-play the outcome either way, but still find it more fun when I can literally just take the director's que and "action" the part; without having to suspend my knowledge of what's really about to happen.

Absolutely correct about being able to assess your players. People I know and am familiar with are going to get some leeway and trust as opposed to when I'm gaming with strangers. I was speaking as someone who pretty much strictly games with 'mature' adults as opposed to kids though. I feel that with kids you DO have to make certain allowances to keep them involved / invested and I'm FINE with that. I've kinda actively been keeping my son (aged 14) AWAY from RPG's for reasons of my own (which I'm not going to divulge here) but it's absolutely GREAT that you involve your family in your hobby.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GM 1990 wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

So my thing is this, if I have players who aren't going to metagame exclusively to their own advantage? Then sure, let them roll everything, perception, disguise whatever. Because then I can TRUST them not to be dicks and use out of game knowledge to possibly get a leg up.

For example: Me calling for a Perception check automatically alerts the players that there is something to check for. Even if they all fail the roll, the players know there is something there and automatically have their characters start making adjustments to be aware of something in the room or that there is something in the room that can and needs to be found.

In the same sense that people call out railroady GM's as bad GM's?
I call these types of players Bad Players because they purposefully break immersion for a perceived advantage.

As a result, because I know everyone isnt perfect I use Passive Perception for certain things. I keep an index card with all of the PC's perception modifiers on it +10. Whenever they run into or pass something that normally would trigger a Perception check I consult the card. Those who have a number high enough to beat it get alerted. Those who don't? Don't.

If a player hears something in a description or realizes something because of the environment that their character is in and they call to make a Perception check? Then they roll. But if they walk into a room and the invisible assassin is standing still in the far corner of that room waiting to strike? There's no observable stimulus for them to react to. So their Passive perception comes into play.

If that Assassin strikes and remains invisible and the PC's call for Perception checks then, because they are aware of danger, there IS observable stimuli (that fist sized hole in the fighter's chest and armor...) then they get to roll.

I do sort of the same thing with disguise. Although Disguise is usually easier to adjudicate as they PC's usually have enough time to prepare and take 10 or 20. But in the

...

Here's what I find curious about gamers though, especially players.

It's a role playing game. The PC is not the player. They are in essence playing a part. Part of that IS not having your character react to information that they dont have. GM's (at least half decent ones) do this ALL THE TIME.

I dont buy it as being a catch 22. I see it as some players either needing to ALWAYS have all the advantages available to them all of the time or just bad playing. I'm not talking extremes here. I'm not saying anyone who metagames is a bad person. But the type of player who always needs to be on top of everything or plays the game strictly as an exercise in numbers or who role plays right up until the point it's inconvenient for their character is someone I'm incompatible with as a gamer.

I dont see it as punishing yourself for not using information and insight that the PC doesnt have. I see it as PART of playing a role-playing game. I've been playing and running games a long time and as a good player you kind of learn that's part of the deal. As a good GM, you learn not to take advantage of your players ESPECIALLY if they're being good sports.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So my thing is this, if I have players who aren't going to metagame exclusively to their own advantage? Then sure, let them roll everything, perception, disguise whatever. Because then I can TRUST them not to be dicks and use out of game knowledge to possibly get a leg up.

For example: Me calling for a Perception check automatically alerts the players that there is something to check for. Even if they all fail the roll, the players know there is something there and automatically have their characters start making adjustments to be aware of something in the room or that there is something in the room that can and needs to be found.

In the same sense that people call out railroady GM's as bad GM's?
I call these types of players Bad Players because they purposefully break immersion for a perceived advantage.

As a result, because I know everyone isnt perfect I use Passive Perception for certain things. I keep an index card with all of the PC's perception modifiers on it +10. Whenever they run into or pass something that normally would trigger a Perception check I consult the card. Those who have a number high enough to beat it get alerted. Those who don't? Don't.

If a player hears something in a description or realizes something because of the environment that their character is in and they call to make a Perception check? Then they roll. But if they walk into a room and the invisible assassin is standing still in the far corner of that room waiting to strike? There's no observable stimulus for them to react to. So their Passive perception comes into play.

If that Assassin strikes and remains invisible and the PC's call for Perception checks then, because they are aware of danger, there IS observable stimuli (that fist sized hole in the fighter's chest and armor...) then they get to roll.

I do sort of the same thing with disguise. Although Disguise is usually easier to adjudicate as they PC's usually have enough time to prepare and take 10 or 20. But in the cases where it's a rush job? In those instances there SHOULD be some uncertainty to the reliability of the disguise in question. In those cases I roll and add or subtract modifiers as warranted. When they employ a disguise there SHOULD be an element of suspense somewhere I think. But that's just me. I do try to run games as a balance between both role-playing AND a game.
When I have a trustworthy group who wont metagame too much? They definitely have more leeway than if I'm running a game for a bunch of relative strangers.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Nenkota,

Yeah but I don't spend my money of movies muchly unless I'm SURE it won't go to waste.

Based on everything I've seen (critics not withstanding) I'll pay money to see it. Just not like an evening showing.

Or wait for it on Netflix.

THIS. EXACTLY THIS.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was 12 and it was finding a copy of THE KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS at my friends house. It belonged to his older brother who'd said that I could have it since he saw how consumed I was by it.

Got my hands on the Red Box Basic not long after that.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
archmagi1 wrote:

Dear Lord this sounds like a mess:

Report: WB made their own cut of SS and did the fusion dance with Ayer's cut for the theatrical release

WOW. Just...wow.

Despite it getting middling reviews, I'm going to stay away from this one until it hits home video. I really was excited about this movie at one point but I'm not going to pay $12-15 just to be disappointed.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For me it's not even the cost (although to be fair movies in NYC cost anywhere from $12 - 21 sooooooo) it's the time and effort wasted that bother me the most now. When I was younger I'd go see just about ANYTHING that seemed interesting. Now?

I've had screening passes to a bunch of movies this summer, the most recent being JASON BOURNE that would have cost me nothing but the time spent lining up waiting to get into the actual theater. But after hearing middling to bad reviews from people that I trust I simply chose not to go.

Track records and preferences factor into it too. I'm more likely to take a chance on a Marvel movie than a DC because of their track record. That being said I was REALLY looking forward to SUICIDE SQUAD as that first trailer kinda sold me on the movie. I'm not a huge David Ayer fan nor am I a huge fan of anyone in the movie except maybe Viola Davis but I still wanted to see it. Now I'll probably be waiting for Netflix or Amazon Prime.

To be fair TV is where the great and interesting stories are being told these days. I got more enjoyment out of STRANGER THINGS on Netflix than I did out of anything else that I've seen this summer outside of CIVIL WAR and THE NICE GUYS.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pan wrote:
Just got back from a promo screening. If you love Bourne you'll enjoy this. If you liked bourne, but want a little more out of the next bourne film, this isnt it.

It's funny because I had a pass to a screening of this on 34th Street for 7PM. I decided not to go because I'd heard from a few sources that I trust who'd seen it in earlier screenings that it felt like Greengrass and Damon were just collecting a check and the movie really added nothing new.

I'm not a fan of shaky cam action and hold Doug Liman's first entry as the best in the series. The best fight though is still the fight between Bourne and Desh in the third movie and my favorite moment altogether is near the end of the second movie when Bourne confronts the child of a pair of his earlier victims.

I've always had a soft spot for characters who are fully aware of who they are and what they've done and take full responsibility for their actions even though they may or may not have been fully themselves at the time. See: the Operative in Serenity (his speech to Mal midway through the film). Also Bucky in Captain America: Civil War:

Tony: Do you even remember them?
Bucky: I remember ALL of them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Emily...is a little old for most people. Admittedly Carol is no spring chicken in some respects, but she's MUCH more in her mid-late 30s than 40s- early 50s.

???

Emily Blount is 33 years old man.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was really hoping for Emily Blount as Carol Danvers but Brie Larson is also a good choice.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Belle Sorciere wrote:
The point being that Ghostbusters isn't being discussed as a flop.

With a listed budget of 144 million in order for it to be successful the gross would have to be at least 288-300 million (roughly a little more than twice the shooting budget).

Right now it's grossed 83million.

WORLDWIDE.

It may be one of the high grossing comedy in years but I'd guess that those other comedies didnt have a 144 milllion dollar budget they needed to recoup and were trying to re-ignite a franchise.

Sony will NEVER declare their movie a flop, Kevin Mack's example of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 is spot on here.

GHOSTBUSTERS came in second on it's opening weekend. STAR TREK BEYOND opened this weekend.

JASON BOURNE opens next weekend.

SUICIDE SQUAD opens the weekend after THAT.

It's highly unlikely that GHOSTBUSTERS is going to recoup it's budget in theatrical release. We'll see in a month or so. But right now? It's a flop.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just saw this about an hour ago.

So I think that it's the best of the JJ Abrahams produced films, in that it feels very much like big budget episode of the original series. The character work here is the least broad and the best of the series as well. Especially from Chris Pine early on.

The negative is that the action is too fast and incomprehensible. A lot of stuff shot in darkness or near darkness that was too hard to make out what was going on. Didn't see it in 3D and saw it in a theater where the screen and the projection are usually top notch so I know that it wasn't the environment.

The Times Square theater that I saw it in (9:00pm show) wasnt even HALF full.

That's not good.I hope that's not indicative of how it's performing elsewhere because aside from the poorly shot action set pieces I really kinda liked this movie.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

*Raises hand* I've been watching since I got home from work and am absolutely loving this show. I may be an outlier though as I'm actually able to sit down, watch and enjoy a show without over analyzing it to death.

Here's how I described it to people on FB :

"STRANGER THINGS on Netflix is the perfect cross between THE GOONIES, E.T., POLTERGEIST and the good episodes of THE X-FILES.
It's like the creators of this show distilled everything that was great about 80's spielberg minus Indiana Jones and made a TV show.

Also Stephen King. Has a very Castle Rock feel to it."

I'm on episode seven right now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LittleMissNaga wrote:

One sentence summary: I'm a first time GM, and my game came to a screeching halt when a player stood up and left the game after the rest of the party voted against what he wanted to do.

Longer version: I've played a bit, but this is my first time GMing. It was going pretty well, and everyone seemed to like my NPCs, and the plot-hook, and the dungeon, and even the random encounter on the way to the dungeon.

Partway into the dungeon, they encountered a room that was supposed to be a bit of a challenge. They came upon a locked door, and a devil that was bound to guard the place. He told them that they could release the magic locking the door by going down a side passage and doing some things there. He explained that he was forced to fight them if they tried to go deeper into the dungeon, but didn't actually have to get aggressive until they tried to go for the door he was bound to. He told them freely that he would rather they die against some other guardian in the process of trying to unlock the door instead of having to kill them himself, and promised that he would let them through to the side areas without a fight, and only attack them if they succeeded there and the door unlocked. He also said that if they attacked him preemptively, he'd call for help from the adjacent rooms, which would be a tough fight (probably not unwinnable, but tough).

It was supposed to be a difficult decision and it was. Two players wanted to go through, since the devil was going to allow it and they expected he'd stay true to his word. Two players wanted to fight the devil and risk his reinforcements instead of going past him and having no escape route. The last player wanted to retreat from the dungeon and come back better-prepared.

Well, they talked it over, and eventually four out of five of them settled on going forwards. The last one still wanted to retreat and come back later. When it was pointed out to that last one that he was outvoted, he stood up and declared "Fine, if you're not going to listen to...

I'm only assuming that you run and play these games for fun yes? Because this is something that you actually enjoy doing? This person is making what you do in your free time for fun less pleasant and enjoyable. If this player's poor behavior is consistent and they are not willing to change, why are you even dealing with them? A friend, a REAL FREIND doesn't treat his/her friends like this.

Eject them from the game and MOVE ON.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Will there at some point be a Pocket version of the Strategy Guide? Because while I totally plan on picking up the pocket CRB I think for beginners eventually a pocket Strategy Guide would be just cheap enough to buy multiples of to have around the table or even to lend out to newbies.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
I made my Will save against clicking the link.
I got a bonus to my save because I actually didn't give a s#!# about the answer.
oh come now. Puffyamiyumi is awesome. Or was back in 2003.
This from the person who considers some weird New York chicken to be superior to Popeyes.

it is.

Even Patrick has submitted.

Soon, you will too.

puts on robes SUBMIT TO THE GLORY OF BONCHON

Yeah...I'm sorry but I gotta side with you on this one Freehold. I've had Popeye's and I've had both Kyochon and Bonchon Chicken and there's really not much of a contest there.

I still eat Popeye's when I can't Kyochon or Bonchon but I'd pick the two latter over the former if given the opportunity.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
You do still leave Korvosa, but you can return at the end of Book 4 to attack the Grey Maiden/Red Mantis HQ. This is what forces them to retreat into the castle for Book 6. Other than that, the revised AP Wil still follow a familiar route. ^_^

I hope so because I think that Scarwall was probably the most harrowing (no pun intended) chapter for my players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

It's not like this hasn't been done before...

Or even EARLIER by Jack Kirby HIMSELF HERE

Interesting point. I wonder if those writers gave interviews stating this was the real Cap. Not brainwashing, or a clone, or a shapeshifter, etc.

Reminds me of the Aunt May/Galactus story they did back in the 80s. Splashed across the cover was "Not a Hoax! Not a What If? Not an imaginary story!"

It was of course a dream. But the cover copy was technically correct.

I don't know exactly what's been said in interviews. I don't know what wiggle room they've left themselves. I do trust they're not really intending to have him have been a Hydra agent all along, whatever it looks like and whatever they want to make you think.
Not mind you, that they are but they'll retcon it away when it isn't popular, but the intent all along is for it to not be the real truth.

Whether it'll work or not, I don't know. Whether it'll be a good story or not, I don't know. I do know they're not that mind-bogglingly stupid or out of touch. And that's despite some bone-head moves of late, IMO.

Part of my exasperation with the response to this is that I read the issue unaware of the twist at the end but aware that while reading what came before the twist that something wasn't quite right. There are a few scenes that are "flashbacks" to when Steve was a boy and an encounter with his mom and dad and a strange woman. Now most of the flashback is in muted colors almost sepia toned, except for certain items of clothing on this strange woman and other isolated things in the scene that are red and stand out.

I dont want to spoiler anymore but knowing what I know about what the Red Skull is capable of I think this points to a very high level of manipulation and brainwashing on his part. I'm willing to wait and see what happens and how it plays out.

1 to 50 of 1,445 << 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.