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

pres man's page

7,538 posts (8,230 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 10 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,538 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

DM Barcas wrote:
The most powerful consequences of any law are the unintended ones. What have been the unintended consequences of similar state laws? Have we seen any denial of services, mass or otherwise, in the states that have similar laws? We do know that we have the government forcing people out of business in places like Oregon for non-compliance, so we have those examples to work with on the one extreme. Do we have any examples from the other extreme, or is it still a hypothetical game of libertarian vs authoritarian theory?
DM Barcas wrote:

Legal analysis (by an actual attorney).

If he is correct, then we have to merely look at other states that have instituted a similar law to see what the consequences are - rather than talk about theoretical outcomes or analogies.

Well if he is correct, then there have been some of these cases where people are running business and claiming they should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws due to religious issues, in these states with these religious protection laws have passed, and the people have still failed in their claim. So basically it looks like this entire issue is a non-issue.


thejeff wrote:
Still, no actual lawsuit or legal challenge, despite some very dubious claims.

True, but that is only because they were proactive and changed their business to a religious one as the legality of same-sex marriage changed. In the article it mentions at the end that a woman had filed a complaint because she was denied a same-sex marriage at the location and it was only the fact that the business was now religious in nature that protected them from litigation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
You don't see anything different between "We're gay and going to get married" and "You're going to Hell"? One is someone actively attacking others. The other is just people trying to go about their lives.

Do you see a difference between "go find another business that will work with you" and "I want you sued and put out of business because you don't want to do business with me"?

EDIT: "... do business with me in this one particular instance, even though you were quite willing to do business with me all kinds of other situations."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
The forcing clergy thing is probably a reference to a wedding chapel that had been doing all kinds of secular and religious weddings, as long as the definition of marriage was legally one man and one woman. When it changed, they refused to accept the new definition and there were/are legal challenges.
If that's the case I'm thinking of it still wasn't clergy being required to do anything. They were renting the space out for weddings and refused to do the same for a gay couple. Who were bringing their own official to perform the ceremony.

The situation was much more grey than that. Here is an article with a good timeline of events.

While I obviously don't know the exact motivations of the individuals involved, I am going to try to extrapolate a possible position for them.

The individuals who were involved were "ordained", whether that makes them "clergy" I would say is an issue for debate, but I think one could claim they do fall into that area (barely). They didn't "rent" out their wedding chapel, they were the only ones they allowed to perform ceremonies there, so that were not just not supportive of their religious beliefs (i.e. secular ceremonies) but were in opposition to it were not allowed there (e.g wiccan wedding ceremonies). So the options were secular wedding or Christian wedding, either one performed by them. Their "ministry" as they saw it was to try to help people leave their sinful relationships and enter into a god accepted one.

Therefore they were able to operated entirely within the secular workspace and fulfill this mission as long as marriage was defined as one man and one woman. Marrying two heterosexual atheist while not as desirable as marrying two heterosexual Christians, still it was better than having them "living in sin" out of wedlock (i.e. the total sinfulness of the individuals was reduced in these people's eyes, and if the atheists later became Christians, then they would be in a god accepted marriage already).

This is not true for these people for same-sex marriages. They view homosexuality as a sin, well so is atheism what of that. But in the case of same sex marriages they see it as a distortion of a god's idea of marriage, thus it is also sinful. Thus, even if the homosexuals were somehow "cured" later, they would still be in a sinful relationship and would have to get divorced which I image they view as sinful as well. In that case, by performing a same sex marriage, they would not be reducing the sinfulness of the individuals, but increasing it (in their eyes of course).

When same sex marriage was legalized and in addition to that city officials had said that a recently passed anti-discrimination ordnance would apply to secular business run by "ordained" individuals. They had to change their business into a religious one in order to be safe from litigation. In effect, they had to become more discriminatory in order not to be charged with breaking an anti-discrimination law.


George Takei should become the gay Al Sharpton. Show up and begin the protests for any of these business.

FYI, pedophilia is being attracted to someone that is prepubescent. Excluding individuals living in an area of famine, it is rare for a 14 year old to be so. That doesn't make it not creepy in a cultural sense, but it would not be pedophilia.

GenCon isn't going to move, at least not anytime soon. I read the letter linked at the beginning, it never made any threat of moving, it merely said that they would have to figure it into their future decisions.

The forcing clergy thing is probably a reference to a wedding chapel that had been doing all kinds of secular and religious weddings, as long as the definition of marriage was legally one man and one woman. When it changed, they refused to accept the new definition and there were/are legal challenges.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I don't know. Does that happen?

Not really relevant, we are talking about the implication of these laws and approaches. What is your opinion, should our hypothetical photographer be forced by the long arm of the law to have to work baptisms or be sued possibly to the point of closing of their business?

thejeff wrote:
Do you really think that if the gay agenda had only gone as far as marriage, but not bothered the bakers, photographers and florists, everybody would have been happy and there wouldn't have been any backlash?

Any backlash? Sure there would be backlash (and has been), but it would have been different backlash.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I don't think I understand you. It kinda does need to be "all or none", since that's what this bill is doing. The bill does not give any "exceptions" like the one you list. All that matters is it allows businesses to ban certain groups on "religious grounds".
Understand this bill is an overreaction to an overreaction.
If those uppity gays hadn't demanded to be treated like normal people we wouldn't have needed to pass laws letting us discriminate against them. We could have just continued doing so without any new laws.

And again, I would ask, if a Jewish photographer was willing to take pictures of Christians in all kinds of settings (graduations, weddings, family gatherings, etc.), but wasn't willing to take pictures of a baptism, would that mean they weren't treating Christians "like normal people". Does it have to be 100% or 0%? I am not talking about this law specifically, just our society in general.


thejeff wrote:
Which is a fine house rule. In the game as written, that's not a requirement for alignment.

I'm not sure what "game as written" you are referring to, but I will assume PF. In that case might I point out:

PRD wrote:

Alignment

A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

All creatures have an alignment. Alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I don't think I understand you. It kinda does need to be "all or none", since that's what this bill is doing. The bill does not give any "exceptions" like the one you list. All that matters is it allows businesses to ban certain groups on "religious grounds".

Understand this bill is an overreaction to an overreaction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

So I'm just a bit confused, because nobody supporting the bill has responded to this point except to claim "strawmanning".

Are the people in favor of this bill also in favor of repealing the parts of the 14th Amendment that keep businesses from banning non-whites from their establishments?

Need it be an all or none situation? Could a Jewish photographer be willing to work with Christians in general, but refuse to photograph a baptism specifically and it still be okay with the 14th Amendment?


HardMaple wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I think you're wrong about the intent. I think the intent is pretty clearly to allow open discrimination against gays, not just the kind of examples you approve of.

The effects of the law as written are obvious and there has been the opportunity to do as you suggested and narrow it. As far as I can tell, the legislature and the governor want the broad law.

Give us something substantial to back these claims. All I see is interpretation. Give specific examples of why these legislators and governor want to legalize gay discrimination.

It is pretty well known this (and similar efforts in other states) is a response to cases like:

Some bakeries and same sex marriages.
Some florists and same sex marriages.
Some photographers and same sex marriages.


Spook205 wrote:
pres man wrote:

There is a difference between evil as a force and evil as an alignment. Alignment is based on the beings ethical and moral choices, if a creature isn't capable of making said choices, then they shouldn't have an evil alignment. That doesn't mean they can't be embued with the evil force, that is what the subtype [evil] is for.

Within my own games, skeletons and zombies, as well as lemures, all have the neutral alignment (is essences no alignment), but all undead and obviously devils, have the [evil] subtype. To my mind that is how you "square the circle".

I'd be with you on skeletons and zombies.

Lemures are where they are and are what they are because they're LE. They're like the lawful evil grist in the lawful evil mill. They're literally formed from the malignancy of a spoiled soul.

True, but since they are mindless, they are no longer capable of moral or ethical judgments, thus an alignment other than neutral is not appropriate for them. They still have the evil subtype (and lawful) which is evidence of their spoiled soulness.


There is a difference between evil as a force and evil as an alignment. Alignment is based on the beings ethical and moral choices, if a creature isn't capable of making said choices, then they shouldn't have an evil alignment. That doesn't mean they can't be embued with the evil force, that is what the subtype [evil] is for.

Within my own games, skeletons and zombies, as well as lemures, all have the neutral alignment (is essences no alignment), but all undead and obviously devils, have the [evil] subtype. To my mind that is how you "square the circle".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will say that I am honestly conflicted on the issue. On the one hand, I believe too many of these religious business owners get worked up about stuff that they shouldn't be batting an eye at. Photographing a same-sex wedding isn't like they are asking you to come photograph an orgy or something. And I definitely thing denying someone the service of dinner over their orientation is utterly ridiculous.

On the other hand, the idea of using the government to hold a figurative gun to people's head and say, "Either you be involved in this wedding or we will put you out of business" rubs me the wrong way as well. On some level, I feel as if I would rather know who doesn't want to do business with me than not. I mean, wouldn't you rather have a wedding photographer that was excited about doing your wedding than one that was in effect forced to do it? What would stop the second one from taking pictures where the tops of your heads were all cut off ("I guess I wasn't having a good day, oops.")

I don't know, maybe it would be better in the long run to force people to treat others humanely. Maybe if a few religious leaders would take their heads out of their nether regions and recite that old saying, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". Take the heathens money and go give it to your church and let them do God's work with it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
pres man wrote:
deusvult wrote:
Up until Pathfinder, the Cure series of spells were Necromantic.
Perhaps you mean up to 3rd edition?
There's a difference?

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
Up until Pathfinder, the Cure series of spells were Necromantic.

Perhaps you mean up to 3rd edition?


In my own setting, the god of death and order does animate some undead, but these are never the kind that can spawn more undead on their own and they are from the corpses of willingly devoted followers (I don't mean to sound like they willing were to be killed to make the undead, but instead were okay with the fact that corpses would be used this way upon their death). Mostly they are for the purposes of protecting the graves of those the church is entrusted to watch over. Is the use of the appropriate spells an evil act? Sure, why not, but since the deity is Lawful Neutral, as are most of his clerics, what does he care if a few evil acts are done once in awhile in his name. Heck, his follower even do good acts from time to time as well, as crazy is that is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ettercaps, aranea, driders, and other spider related creatures were formed initially by drow and their spider goddess (Arachne in my setting) from other humanoid beings (though they breed true). Those worthy individuals with sorcerer powers for instance where changed into aranea, while more mundane individuals were transformed into ettercaps. Non-drow elves could be transformed into drow by the same process (drows are believed to have been originally from the plane of shadow).

Drow actually have open recruiting in most large cities and this is tolerated by most groups, though frowned upon. Yet since they tend to recruit from the cities unwanted (homeless, runaways, etc), most cities are willing to allow it. They make it a point not to break any local laws, not out of respect, but as a means of forcing their presence (that and bribes, threats, etc). Drow tend to be very political (especially the ones sent to the surface world) in my setting.

Their chaotic nature is revealed in their belief that you have to choose your path. So they would not force someone to become an ettercap for example, but that doesn't mean they would feel obligated to explain all the consequences. So they might say that it will make you physically more powerful and you'd become more aware of your surrounds. At the same time, you'll be able to command giant spiders. They wouldn't point out you'd be turned into a monster or that your intellect would be damaged.


In my setting, goblinoids breed true along the female side. e.g a human male and hobgoblin female would produce a hobgoblin offspring. A male hobgoblin and female human would produce a human offspring. So no half-goblinoids. The only exception is templates (half-dragon, half-fiend, etc).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

True dragons were at one point guardians of the gods (I tweeked their alignments so that there is at least one for each alignment) earthly treasure vaults (think Talos in the old Jason and the Argonauts movie). At some point the gods lost interest, dragon guardians were slain, vaults were plunder. Still the descendants of those guardians still exist and they still have the urge to guard treasures, hence the tendency to have hoards. Whether the gods created the true dragons or merely change them to suit their purposes is not clear, since it happened ages ago.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This might be helpful.

Spoiler:
Lawful Nerdy probably is the one most accurate that I came across. LOL


Core 3.5 feats only.

Since it has been a couple of weeks, I imagine this isn't going to be helpful, but I would suggest going the Spring Attack route (Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack). I know it seems as flurry is going to be effective, but really it is a trap. You won't have the AC no matter where you put your highest stat, nor the hps to sit there and go toe-to-toe with most level appropriate foes. Spring in, stunning fist, spring out. That should be your modus operandi.

If you had faith in your GM letting you get any magic item you wanted, wealth level appropriate of course, then I might suggest other routes, but based on what you have said about this GM, I would not assume that.


If you are trying to justify the change based on game mechanics, then you are on the wrong track. The spiked chain didn't lose the reach for any game balance issue, it lost it because Jason didn't like it having reach. Period.

Finesse was not a valuable quality in 3.5 for a spiked chain, since almost all builds were designed around tripping, and tripping in 3.5 was always done by using Str for the attacker. Focusing on Dex over Str in those builds would be counter-productive, not to mention it required an additionally feat in a feat heavy build already. It should be noted that the trip feat was more powerful in 3.5 as well.

The fact that the trip mechanics and feat were nerfed made any legitimate mechanics argument for nerfing the spiked chain's reach irrelevant. No the reach wasn't nerfed for mechanic reasons, it was done for purely aesthetic reasons.


The probability to hit isn't really relevant, unless it is extremely small. In this case it falls into the crit range and has an effect.

For example, if a character only hits on a 19 or 20 (and thus only confirms a crit on a 19 or 20), then a weapon with a crit range of 18-20 is no better than a weapon with a crit range of 19-20 (since the 18 wouldn't hit anyway).


Trust not too much in peer reviewed studies.


Black Dougal wrote:
you mean the retaking of Moria right?

D'oh!


Hama wrote:
Nope, just Fili, Kili and Thorin.

True, I was pleasantly surprised that Jackson didn't kill more dwarves, as I had expect him to. Sticking to just those in the books was a nice nod.

Now expect that if they give him enough money, we'll see a movie about the brief retaking of Mordor and the fall of Balin.


I want to just say that I posted this almost exactly one year ago and totally called it.

Spoiler:
Okay, not totally, it was Radagast (aka Poop-Head) and not Gandalf, but still I totally called the whole Beorn Bear Bomb right.

As to the issue with the gems being left hanging, I would hope that these are clarified in the extended version.

For those that know the book extremely well, were all of the dwarves explicitly described as male (described using male pronouns, as sons, brothers, uncles, etc)? For example, could Nori, Dori, and Ori have been female and not explicitly gone against the original text? Makes you wonder if a lot more females could be put into stories like this with little effort, at least for supporting parts without forcing a crude "love story" in.

Also, how close are the Iron Hills to the Lonely Mountain?

Spoiler:
The elves get there and say they are going to attack the next morning. Thorin sends a raven at that time. By the next morning an army of dwarves shows up. Seems pretty quick turn around time to me. Of course Jackson is always scared of showing the passing of time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content." – Conan of Cimmeria


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

Q: "Son, who shot first?"

A: "Greedo did."

I'm sorry, son. I failed you.

Just posting this as a warning: teach your kids before its too late.

Well he did. His mouth I mean, not his blaster.


Neocons even sent infiltrators to Crimea to make it seems as if the area wanted to defect to Russia, just so they could claim that there was proof that Russia was trying to do a land grab. Tricky ass neocons.


KestrelZ wrote:
The best advancement Pathfinder made was a guide for a GM to create races. Yes, it is flawed. It is still a guide and far better than 3.5 asking people to look in he monster manuals and guesstimate if a home brew race was suitable.

Well that was the default way of doing it. The more advanced way was to buy the Savage Species rulebook. It had rules for determining LA. Again, just like with PF, the rules weren't perfect and D&D didn't follow all of themselves, but let's not suggest there wasn't any guidance given, you just had to pay for it.

Arturius Fischer wrote:
Instead of, say, having the Monster Hit Dice 'buy back' some of the Level Adjustment.

Actually I think that was the way it worked. It was basically a 2 racial HD = 1 LA trade. So a race that was suppose to be LA 4, might be 4 racial HD and LA 2. This was because too much LA (being just empty level slots in 3e) would make the creature way too weak. The compromise was to give it some HD in exchange for some of the LA.


ECL (HD + LA) was complicated, but I understand some hard a hard time with it. Also Savage Species had rules for playing many of the monsters races at 1st level. Basically it was just like multi-classing.

That isn't to say I think it was perfect. In my own version, each LA gives you 1d4 HD, 2+Int skills, poor saves. One reason is that the rules for ECL were written to make the monster choices weaker overall, this helps mitigate some of that. It also makes character level = hd, which effects some spells and other abilities.

I will note that PF doesn't do that for some monsters, focusing on CR instead of HD, this can lead to some confusion as to whether to apply the character level, the HD total, or party level.


thejeff wrote:

I don't think that was quite my question: I want to know when people think it actually stopped being a racial thing and because a justified criminal thing.

Not when the rhetoric changed.
I suspect you agree with me that it's been a racial thing all along. I'm asking those who think today's greater proportion of minorities in the justice system is not due to any racial bias, but just because they commit more crimes.

Poorer communities have always had bigger problems with crime than more wealthy ones. Minorities make up a disproportionate part of the poor, ergo it would not be surprising to find minorities make up a disproportionate part of the criminal justice system.

That isn't to say that racial prejudices don't have anything to do with minorities making up a large segment of the poor or incarcerated, certainly there is a racial component. There is statistical proof that white defenders get lighter sentences for the same offense.

Still I fail to see how this particular incident so far has any evidence of bias based on the system. One can say this particular situation didn't involve any (significant) racial component and still acknowledge that the system as a whole does.


Fergie wrote:
Sadly, it seems like none of the politicians from the president to their local council are are aligning themselves with the people of Ferguson, and many are aligning with the police. I think the police will back off until the spotlight fades, then it's payback time for making them look bad!

To be honest, I doubt the people of Ferguson are monolithic in their opinions. I would guess that there are many that are fine with the police activities. I wouldn't be surprised if those people also tended to vote more often, thus politicians might be "playing" to their bases.


I wouldn't want to make it too easy or common. I enjoyed having my "First Daughter", in the campaign when the party had to infiltrate drow, actually been a male child who was obligated to present as female for the good of the family. Most of the elites of society knew the truth, but it was looked down as "inappropriate" to draw attention to it (and with drow, you really want to tend to avoid anything that is inappropriate as the response tends to be ... uncomfortable).


The Highway PD and the National Guard weren't there that first weekend that the convenience store was looted and burnt down.


Ferguson P.D. doesn't have that many African-Americans.


Sounds like Ozma/Tip.


TheAntiElite wrote:
That said, such could impact attitudes as well, as having even a theoretical option of return and flipping the metaphorical bird at an unwelcoming society might serve to make a difference in the desire for integration versus a deterrent to stick around.

You might look at the history of Liberia.


TheAntiElite wrote:
This is a demonstrably false statement that is disproven by actions taken both in regards to DACA and the attempts to close Guantanamo. That's a blatant contradiction to your proposition! While the sizable WASP contingency comprising the TEA/-publican party may harbor overtly displayed animosity towards Middle Easteners and Hispanics as evinced by the recent responses to both the humanitarian crisis at the border as well as the overall reactions to the Arab Spring, the President and Attorney General have not been in agreement with them.

We were discussing hypotheticals, not that the President actually has these biases. Or at least I wasn't, I know the little comrade isn't a fan of the President, so I can't speak on his behalf.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Furthermore, the passage doesn't point out how Obama and Holder can't be racists. On the one hand if they were prejudiced against white people, I agree, those prejudices probably wouldn't be reinforced with "societal power". However, if Obama and Holder were prejudiced against, for example, Hispanics or Middle Eastern-y types, they could probably access quite a bit of societal power to reinforce those prejudices.

Nice attempt at picking, but really you should stick to your chief's nose little goblin. In this case, Holder and Obama would be reinforcing the prejudice of the white majority against hispanic or middle eastern types, not their own. While they may share the prejudice, it is because the white majority already holds this prejudice that it is reinforced.

EDIT: Mark of the beast post!

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
And I have no idea how Kryzbie would answer this one, but I just wanted to draw your attention, Comrade Jeff, if you hadn't already looked, to the NEA handbook which demarcates racial prejudice from racism by the formula: racism = racial prejudice + power. Hence, the argument ran back in 1973, maybe still today in some of the more crazed white middle class liberal guilt circles, that only whites can be racist.

White middle class liberal rant on how blacks can't be racists.


thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Or we can dismiss the definition as inadequate.
I say that by some definitions only whites can be racist. Someone else says something like only Glen Beck followers believe that stuff. I cite evidence this is not the case, and you get all nit-picky. Goblins, the only thing they should pick is their chief's nose.
It all depends on what you mean by racism.

LOL.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Or we can dismiss the definition as inadequate.

I say that by some definitions only whites can be racist. Someone else says something like only Glen Beck followers believe that stuff. I cite evidence this is not the case, and you get all nit-picky. Goblins, the only thing they should pick is their chief's nose.


I did read it. It says that non-whites can become racist, but not until they control the system. So are you claiming that non-whites now control the system?

I can't quote all the text, that is why I provide the source and then a link when asked so nicely.

Here is another interesting passage.

Quote:
In our society it would be very difficult for any individual to be a racist all by himself. If everyone just had his own individual racial prejudices, which were never reinforced by the society, racism would not exist. But when those individual racial prejudices are reinforced by the culture, we then have institutional racism. Thus, all white individuals in our society are racists. Even if a white American is totally free from all conscious racial prejudices, he remains a racist, for he receives benefits distributed by a white racist society through ts institutions. Our institutional and cultural processes are so arranged as to automatically benefit whites, just because they are white.

This passage points out why Obama and Holder can't be racist, society wouldn't reinforce prejudices they could have. So while they individually have power, they don't have societal power.


Here you go.

Or a little more directly. Feel free to download the full text.

As to the Comrade's point about the time period, either it is still relevant and whites are still in control of everything or we can answer thejeff's question about when things changed, somewhere between 1973 and now.

As to Glen Beck, unless he wrote that when he was 9 years old (and if he did, wow, that is pretty impressive), the idea is hardly new and unique to Beck (I am assuming that he has claimed that some people hold a similar idea).


“In the United States at present, only whites can be racists, since whites
dominate and control the institutions that create and enforce American cultural
norms and values . . . blacks and other Third World peoples do not have
access to the power to enforce any prejudices they may have, so they cannot,
by definition, be racists.”
--from EDUCATION & RACISM, National Education Association. 1973


Fake Healer wrote:
Being racist is a funny thing....even black people can be one.

Actually by some definitions they can't be. Not even say, President Obama or AG Holder. Because they don't really control the power, whites do.


thejeff wrote:
So I'll go back to my earlier question: If racism really isn't a factor in police treatment of black people anymore and it's really just all based on how black people behave, when did this switch happen?

I would say that racism isn't always a factor in police treatment of black people. Nor has it always been. Black folk have their bad seeds, just like whites do, asians do, native americans do, latinos do, pacific islanders do, etc. And those bad seeds tend to end up running afoul law enforcement. Does that mean that everyone that law enforcement comes in conflict with are bad seeds, no, not even for the white privileged is that true. Yet sometimes cops do have to deal with black folk who are problems not due to their race but due to their behavior.


1: Why do you think it was racial?
2: He stopped to confront 2 black men.
1: That were walking down the middle of the street.
2: Yeah, but black men.
1: Were there white guys walking down the middle of the street that he went right by without saying anything to?
2: No.
1: Were there other black men that weren't walking down the middle of the street, that he didn't stop to speak to?
2: Yes.
1: So it is racist because ...
2: He's white and he stopped 2 black men for no reason.
1: ... except for walking down the middle of the street.

1 to 50 of 7,538 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.