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

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 23,506 posts (24,427 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 23,506 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ChaosTicket wrote:

This was my last attempt to find a reason to keep waiting for something to improve instead of going through the motions hoping I can win the scenarios and that the rewards would make things enjoyable.

I wanted to pick fun characters instead of just doing whatever I had to to get the reward, but that didnt work.

Now I cant do either. Its like working a boring job for free.

John Compton, who actually runs PFS, asked you for more information, so he could help you. Rather than bongoing to us, perhaps you should respond to him.

Or you can just complain and we can ignore you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Are you that certain she'll win? Between the closeness of the polls, new voter suppression initiatives from Republican-run statehouses, and and some possible hacking of the election itself, I'd say that it's a tossup and no amount of stunning debate performances by Clinton, nor endorsements by Republican run newspapers that no one reads is going nail it for her. And who knows, maybe Julian Assange is holding onto some new juicy bit that he's biding his time on waiting for a perfect moment to damage her numbers some more using his Wikileaks material.

Word just came out that 30 percent of Las Vegas Latinos are voting for Trump, when most of us were convinced that the real number was going to be close to zero. That may be yet another indication of how this election does not fit standard predictors.

Certain? No. Nothing in politics is certain. Her chances are much better than a tossup. Better, for example, than Obama's looked at this point in 2012.

As for that Latino poll, sketchy at best. Really small sample size of Latinos. Possible it's the start of a trend. Possible it's an outlier. Possible it's just bad. Don't panic over single polls. Watch trends and averages.
That said, we've never seen 0% for Trump among Latinos. In Nevada 15-20 seems have been more common.

As I've said before, for all the talk of how this election is different and can't be predicted by polls and data, the data was pretty much on the money for the primaries, it's just that no one wanted to believe it. And the general is following the expected trends - Trump wrapped up the nomination first and got a bump from that, Clinton recovered after she wrapped up her nomination. When Trump's convention was horrible, he got little from it. Clinton's went very well, so she got a big bump, but the race tightened, as races do. She had a great debate performance, while he thrashed - bump in the polls. It'll fade, probably when he stops throwing gas on the fire. Assuming the other debates follow the pattern, she'll get a boost again, though probably a smaller one. In between, the race will tighten.
In the end, most likely, but not certainly, she'll win. It'll be pretty close, not miles off from the polls.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Impeachment requires a 2/3's of the senate for conviction. I would expect Republicans to win back a couple seats, but doubtful they'll have enough to sustain an impeachment.
2018 is likely to see another mass invasion of Republicans in Congress.

Odds are they'll pick up 6-9 seats. Right now it's 54-44 in the senate. Over the next two elections, the GOP would need to pick up 13 seats to get their 2/3's majority. It's very likely that Dems will pick up 3-5 seats this election, meaning that the GOP will need 16-18 in 2018. A 15 seat swing in one election is HIGHLY unlikely.

Neither party has held a 2/3's majority since 1967.

I would be very surprised if the Democrats picked up more than one seat. Clinton's campaign strategy is not only not helping the down ticket, but may be further damaging it with her "A vote for anyone other than me is a vote for Trump" theme. In fact, she does not seem to be doing ANY campaigning for the down tickets.

Yeah, we know. You think Clinton's a complete disaster. Are you still predicting she'll lose?

Odds of taking the Senate have dropped to around 50/50, from most projections I've seen. With a little movement upwards in the last couple days, but too soon to say if that's a trend or just a bobble.


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

I think you agree, but it's not entirely clear: I read that as referring to interactions with the moderation team as the moderation team, not "I'd better be polite now because she's one of the mods", but "A mod posted and warned me/us we were treading the line, so I should listen and back off, rather than yell at them for bad moderation."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:

Id say its a pretty big difference when one's scandle is unrelated to and the other's are directly related to if not empowered by the office they both seek.

But then again, from some of the comments I've seen here, I'm actually beginning to wonder if there where there really where multiple versions of the debate released, or if blind fanaticism or hatred is really that powerful among some folks.

While I'd largely agree with that hatred really is that powerful among some folks, I'd just like to be clear that you're not actually referring to the folks that were chanting "Lock her up" at the convention or the folks cheering descriptions of Mexicans as rapists or those demanding we bar Muslim refugees from the US or the KKK and alt-right supporters of Mr. Trump, right? You're talking about the other side as the ones full of hate?

Maybe we saw different versions of the debate because we live in different realities.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Impeachment requires a 2/3's of the senate for conviction. I would expect Republicans to win back a couple seats, but doubtful they'll have enough to sustain an impeachment.
2018 is likely to see another mass invasion of Republicans in Congress.

There hasn't been a "mass invasion" enough for a 2/3rds majority in more than 50 years. Even then, it wasn't that dramatic a change.

A Republican majority after 2018 is likely.
A filibuster proof majority is possible, but unlikely.
A two-thirds is theoretically possible, but would require a Republican wave well beyond what happened in 2010.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Clinton would be more likely to nominate a liberal justice and this could have an astounding impact on the next 20 years.
That's assuming of course, the Republicans don't stall until they recapture the majorities in 2018. Then they can launch impeachment proceedings.

If they don't hold a majority in the Senate I don't think they'll be able to stall. With control of the agenda, they can just not schedule confirmation votes. In theory, they could filibuster, but if they filibuster a reasonable nominee for no better reason than "We're not going to let a Democrat appoint Justices", the filibuster rules will be changed out from under them. That can't stand. And enough Republican Senators know it that Democrats will be able to peel off cloture votes.

Even with a majority, I doubt they'll be willing or able to stall indefinitely. not without the figleaf of "lame duck president". It's possible though, they've surprised me before.

Impeachment isn't going to happen. Not without some actual significant new crime to work from. Certainly not a conviction in the senate - 67 votes on a purely partisan impeachment? We haven't seen dominance on that scale since the 60s. Nor would impeachment actually switch the White House, unless they impeach Kaine too. At some point, that kind of abuse of political power has to backfire.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:


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

Read Embassytown a few months ago and reading Downbelow Station right now. This one doesn't really have a lot of Aliens in to but the ones that are there are considerably more comprehensible than the Arieki.

What other Cherryh books would you most strongly recommend? Sounds as if you've read most or all of them...

Chanur's my favorite for aliens. They're not all the least comprehensible, but the Hani are the viewpoint characters so you get really deep into their view, including how they see the other, stranger, aliens.

Personally, I couldn't really get into Foreigner, but a lot of people like it.

If you like Downbelow Station, there are both loose sequels and prequels. Not a lot of aliens, though the azi, as cloned and programmed humans get pretty close.

Downbelow Station was written first, though right? The prequels are retroactive?

Yes. Heavy Time & Hellburner are set in Sol system during the building of Mazian's Fleet. They focus on down on their luck asteroid miners and politics.

The sequels follow soon after Downbelow Station and generally focus on merchanter's dealing with the new state of things.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Ah, I see. Yeah, LatinX voters have always been a somewhat weaker voting bloc than, say, African-Americans, who actually vote more than white people. Looks like Clinton still has a healthy lead, of course. 30% is not great.

Even in that poll, he's only getting 19%. With a 79% unfavorable rating.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:


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

Read Embassytown a few months ago and reading Downbelow Station right now. This one doesn't really have a lot of Aliens in to but the ones that are there are considerably more comprehensible than the Arieki.

What other Cherryh books would you most strongly recommend? Sounds as if you've read most or all of them...

Chanur's my favorite for aliens. They're not all the least comprehensible, but the Hani are the viewpoint characters so you get really deep into their view, including how they see the other, stranger, aliens.

Personally, I couldn't really get into Foreigner, but a lot of people like it.

If you like Downbelow Station, there are both loose sequels and prequels. Not a lot of aliens, though the azi, as cloned and programmed humans get pretty close.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I can't think of a case where debates have had any real impact on an election since Kennedy-Nixon.
Coverage of the Machado shaming story seems to be running pretty frequently on Telemundo, Univision, and other Latinx media here in Florida. The news just broke, but old school Cuban-Americans don't seem too happy Trump's company sought ways to break the Cuban Trade Embargo. If the former (and his record of hiring cheaper foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago and golf resorts) increases LatinX GotV efforts and the latter convinces Republican-leaning Cuban-Americas to stay home, Florida is more likely to go Clinton on Election Day, which portends doom for Trump's election chances.
Interestingly enough, Trump has picked up 30 percent of the Latino vote in Vegas which formerly went overwhelmingly for Obama. And those Cuban voters might remember that it was Obama that ended the Embargo.

Yeah, older Cuban-Americans in Florida probably wouldn't vote Clinton even before Obama ended the embargo, but many are now more likely to decide to not vote for Trump either. Normally they're pretty dependable voters, so it could help tilt the vote away from Trump.

Which seems weird to me, a non-Latina from the outside looking in to their media, but older Cuban-Americans in Florida seem to consider "anti-Castro" a top priority. Other Latinx Floridians don't seem to care one way or the other.

Cuban-Americans have long had entirely different voting patterns from other Latinos.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Snorter wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Well, I can't speak for snorter, but there are a variety of things she did while Bill held various offices.

To be clear, I wasn't denouncing Clinton with that 'like', but was just offering support for the idea that Trump admitting he's not paying taxes is not going to hurt his popularity with his own base.

As much as it angers everyone else, the people who follow him have a bizarre idea, that one day they'll make it rich, and they don't want their road to Moneybags Mansion to be hindered by the IRS.

Also, if he is exploiting a legal loophole, then he's not doing anything wrong in their eyes. The fault lies with the politicians who wrote the tax laws so incompetently, that they contain such loopholes.

That's why any attempt to attack him on the taxes front could become a terrible can of worms that his opponents wish they had not opened.
Not only is there the possibility that Democrat politicians (not just HRC, but those lower down ticket) could be revealed to be doing the same as Trump, but the whole point of Trump's argument is that the current establishment is crooked, and lifting the lid on shoddily-written tax laws with loopholes you could drive a truck through would strengthen his case.

If he actually thought that and wanted to make that argument, he'd release his tax info and make it.

Instead, he's hiding it. There's something in there that looks worse than hiding it does. Could be low taxes, could be less money than he pretends, could be something else, but he's hiding something.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Battletoad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I interpret that as "we have to take their ( their referencing minorities) guns away"
Not directly, but effectively yes. That (along with the whole "it's unconstitutional" thing) is one of the big reasons I'm so vehemently against Stop and Frisk. The fact that it's from NY doesn't help either.
IIRC, it was specifically in response to a question about black crime, so it was pretty directly about minorities.
It's been multiple days since the debate so I'd have to go back and look for the context of the comment, but in all practicality, it doesn't much matter whether it was aimed directly or indirectly at minorities. The mere fact that he supports Stop and Frisk (regardless of his reasons behind doing so) is mind-numbing, but in no way (sadly) surprising.

It matters only in thinking about why his gun-loving and/or can't trust the government supporters mostly won't be bothered by this - because they know it won't affect them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Battletoad wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I interpret that as "we have to take their ( their referencing minorities) guns away"
Not directly, but effectively yes. That (along with the whole "it's unconstitutional" thing) is one of the big reasons I'm so vehemently against Stop and Frisk. The fact that it's from NY doesn't help either.

IIRC, it was specifically in response to a question about black crime, so it was pretty directly about minorities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Terquem wrote:

There is something from the debate I don't get. Maybe I missed something, I don't know, but

For eight years or more I have been hearing that BHO or HRC will "take our guns away" even though neither one of them ever said they would, ever.

Now I heard Donald Trump, say, from his own mouth, that "Stop and Frisk," is good because we need to "take their guns away."

Now he may have been referring to actual convicted criminals who are in possession of firearms illegally, but he didn't clarify that. he seemed to me to be saying that if someone was in a "gang" or looked "bad" they should have their gun taken away.

Am I missing something here? Did a candidate for President of the United States actually say that he advocates taking guns away from lawfully gun carrying citizens?

No. Of course not. Everyone knows that Stop & Frisk only applies to urban thugs and they don't carry lawfully. So, no problem. This won't apply to real gun-loving Americans.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Her decades of involvement with Wal Mart is a big one.

Decades? Wasn't it six years?

Quote:
her support for racist laws from the crime bill
Again, I think it's hard to make a case for that having been "racist" given that two-thirds of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for it. Unless you are suggesting bias against some other 'race'?
IIRC, a couple of years ago, Citizen Quest pointed out John McWhorter's argument that a similar number of members of the CBC voted for the crack/cocaine disparity in sentencing laws, so that couldn't possibly be racist. I asked if segregation was racist even though Booker T. Washington supported it, but I don't recall getting an answer.

I think I made the argument that a law could wind up having racist effects, but the intent might not have been racist at the time.

Arguably though in this case most of the Black Caucus seems to have been brought along by a combination of some things they did like in the bill and fear that if this failed, they might wind up with an even harsher bill - passed with more Republican support.

So they voted for a less racist law in order to prevent a more racist law?

If that's how you want to put it.

Part of the nasty compromising nature of politics. Everyone whoever supported any law that had any racist part is forever after tainted with racism whenever it's useful to do so.

My real opinion on this whole thing is that whatever the nature of Clinton's support for possibly racist laws when she wasn't even in office, ignoring the massive support she has from blacks now is even more racist. Using her racism as an argument to oppose her ignores all those backing her now.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Her decades of involvement with Wal Mart is a big one.

Decades? Wasn't it six years?

Quote:
her support for racist laws from the crime bill
Again, I think it's hard to make a case for that having been "racist" given that two-thirds of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for it. Unless you are suggesting bias against some other 'race'?
IIRC, a couple of years ago, Citizen Quest pointed out John McWhorter's argument that a similar number of members of the CBC voted for the crack/cocaine disparity in sentencing laws, so that couldn't possibly be racist. I asked if segregation was racist even though Booker T. Washington supported it, but I don't recall getting an answer.

I think I made the argument that a law could wind up having racist effects, but the intent might not have been racist at the time.

Arguably though in this case most of the Black Caucus seems to have been brought along by a combination of some things they did like in the bill and fear that if this failed, they might wind up with an even harsher bill - passed with more Republican support.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Ironically I've only seen MEDIA reports about the heat of 2016 being hotter thus far.

Is this media? It's titled "Report" (as part of the "State of the Climate Report" series) and it's issued by one of the US agencies that is responsible for tracking this thing, not by a news agency.

I quote, "For the 15th consecutive month, the global land and ocean temperature departure from average was the highest since global temperature records began in 1880. This marks the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping. The July 2016 combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces was 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average, besting the previous July record set in 2015 by 0.06°C (0.11°F). July 2016 marks the 40th consecutive July with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average."

That report doesnt' say 2016 is the hottest year. Where did you read that?

2016 isn't even over yet, we don't have a full picture. Data sets need to be corrected (like our area, that monthly has had a continuing problem with our area reports, where it is reporting the exact opposite of what's been happening. If it were a true analysis, I'd say something is fishy with it because someone is using false information to try to come to some conclusion), the overall year needs to be seen, and information needs to be completely gathered. That information probably won't be in till the end of December at the earliest.

The report lists that past 15 months, but that is NOT 2016. A media reporter may think that means all of 2016, but that would be an incorrect assessment. 2015 is still having it's more specific analysis and comparisons still completed (part of that may be due to some of those comparisons need information from 2016 interestingly enough). 2016 won't have a complete picture until 2017.

Not sure why you think that report says 2016 is the hottest...

It doesn't, because as you say 2016 isn't over yet. It does say that every month so far in 2016 (up to July in that report and I believe August has been added since) has been the hottest ever. It's possible the last third will be enough colder than 2015 to change the outcome for the year, but it's not looking likely.

I do apologize though - I had meant and should have more clearly said that 2016 is on track to be hotter than 2015, not that it already is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Right now Clinton seems to have a 4 point lead. Libertarians generally vote Republican. If Johnson throws support to Trump, that could decide the election with his 6 percent.

Yeah and if he threw his support to Clinton, she'd win in a walk. Assuming his supporters actually do what he says, which they wouldn't. Not that it matters because he won't throw his support to either of them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Grey Lensman wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
In all fairness, I'm sympathetic to the notion that not every Congressperson needs to read every bill, that's insanity. That's why committees exist, so that our representatives can specialize, and rely upon one another to cover all bases. Especially when some bills can reach into the hundreds or thousands of pages, if they had to *personally* read them all they'd get nothing else done and we'd be upset about *that*. Nothing wrong with tasking a couple of interns and/or experts on the topic to give them a rundown.

That bills are running into routinely ridiculous page counts begs to question the necessity of doing so.

On major policy bills such as the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act that affect everyone, I'd rather that the Congresscritters actually read what they're voting on instead of listening to an intern. 'Experts on the topic' include lobbyists that are inherently biased, which seems counterproductive to obtaining objective views of legislation.

Pretty much no one read the Patriot Act which was ramrodded through on the shockwave from 9/11.
Yep. Which is my point: no one read it, only one voted against it. It really should have been read by the entirety instead of taking the assurances from interns et al that it was a good thing. Now ... blecch.
It wouldn't have mattered. the political reality that no one was going to vote against somemthing called "The Patriot Act" given the political landscape of the moment.
We need a gadfly senator who filibusters often - not the anonymous way, but plays the trollolol card by actually reading the bill as his filibuster.

Russ Feingold, the only Senator to vote against the Patriot act, spoke some length against it. He didn't filibuster it, and with a vote of 89-1, cloture would have been a breeze if he had.I suppose that would have given him time to read the entire bill instead of making an argument against it, but nobody would have listened. I mean literally nobody would have listened. He would have been reading to an empty Senate floor. It would have been just a publicity stunt, just like your proposed trollolol card.

The problem with the Patriot act wasn't that there were secret evil provisions no one knew about, but if they'd just read it everyone would have seen and opposed it, it's that no one was willing to oppose a bill claiming to protect us from Terrorists in the weeks after 9/11. The nation was panicking and some parties were fanning the flames.

BTW, Russ lost his seat in the Tea Party wave of 2010, but he's running again this year and looking pretty good. There's a candidate worth supporting, though I'm sure some of the usual crowd here can find some way he's far enough short of perfection to justify not voting for him.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Marc Radle wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Well, putting aside the media that says he lost, the polls and focus groups that say he lost, the huge impact media spin has on public perception and the reality of Trump's posture, lies and interruptions, Trump himself sure ain't acting like he won.

He's blaming the microphone. The moderator. He's saying he was "going easy" on Clinton. He's acting like a kid losing at Monopoly.

Agreed. The only thing more embarrassing and, quite honestly, absolutely disgraceful than the way Trump behaved *during* the debate is the way Trump has out and out lied (to a ridiculous and mind-numbing degree), complained, whined, deflected, and pointed blame in very conceivable direction *after* the debate.

Or for that matter the way he behaved before the debate. It's not like either his behavior during or after is a surprise. This is who he is.

Occasionally his handlers can convince him to ramp it down long enough to read a speech off a teleprompter* without going off on a rant, but it never lasts long.

*:
"I've always said, if you run for president, you shouldn't be allowed to use teleprompters,” Trump said in October. "Because you don't even know if the guy is smart."


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
In all fairness, I'm sympathetic to the notion that not every Congressperson needs to read every bill, that's insanity. That's why committees exist, so that our representatives can specialize, and rely upon one another to cover all bases. Especially when some bills can reach into the hundreds or thousands of pages, if they had to *personally* read them all they'd get nothing else done and we'd be upset about *that*. Nothing wrong with tasking a couple of interns and/or experts on the topic to give them a rundown.

That bills are running into routinely ridiculous page counts begs to question the necessity of doing so.

On major policy bills such as the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act that affect everyone, I'd rather that the Congresscritters actually read what they're voting on instead of listening to an intern. 'Experts on the topic' include lobbyists that are inherently biased, which seems counterproductive to obtaining objective views of legislation.

Pretty much no one read the Patriot Act which was ramrodded through on the shockwave from 9/11.

And it wouldn't have changed a damn thing if they had.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CrusaderWolf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
You mean in contrast to how much they get done now?

...yes? Partisanship is at an all-time high and Congress is relatively easy to lock up via procedural rules, especially in the Senate. That doesn't imply that we couldn't make it worse by trying to enforce a bizarre principle of reading everything you vote on.

Besides, Congresspersons aren't capable of being experts on all topics, making them read all bills does nothing to ensure they'll UNDERSTAND all bills. They might flounder through two hundred pages of bill pertaining to cyber-security, or mandating new regulatory practices for testing meat for strains of e-coli...only to have no clue what they just read and so they do what they would have done anyway and talk to someone who WOULD know whom they trust. It's okay to allow politicians to know their own limits.

Or frankly, listen to Congressional leaders or the leaders of their caucus or in some cases their financial backers or the general impression of their constituents - who will be pressuring them on some issues without having read the bill either.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nihilakh wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Well, there's hard evidence that various oil companies were internally operating on the basis that climate change was happening while funding studies and publicity against it. That side is perfectly clear.

That climate scientists and research institutes are doing anything similar is little more than speculation. That they've been doing so secretly for decades worldwide in the face of hostile governments is a pretty wild hypothesis.

Good points thejeff, but could you clarify the second part for me? I can honestly say this is the first time I've ever heard hostile governments being brought up in the same discussion as climate change. Can you explain that in more detail, or at least point me in a direction to learn more about it?

Look for example at the Bush administration's approach to global warming. Not outright denial, but delay & half measures, combined with a good deal of pressure behind the scenes against it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CrusaderWolf wrote:
In all fairness, I'm sympathetic to the notion that not every Congressperson needs to read every bill, that's insanity. That's why committees exist, so that our representatives can specialize, and rely upon one another to cover all bases. Especially when some bills can reach into the hundreds or thousands of pages, if they had to *personally* read them all they'd get nothing else done and we'd be upset about *that*. Nothing wrong with tasking a couple of interns and/or experts on the topic to give them a rundown.
And a good chunk of the actual bill is often something like
Quote:
In 16.7 paragraph 3, subsection a, strike the word "the" and replace it with "any".

As you say, committees, staff, experts and then you vote based on the summary because that's the most your constituents are going to read anyway.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, there's hard evidence that various oil companies were internally operating on the basis that climate change was happening while funding studies and publicity against it. That side is perfectly clear.

That climate scientists and research institutes are doing anything similar is little more than speculation. That they've been doing so secretly for decades worldwide in the face of hostile governments is a pretty wild hypothesis.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

1) Still no bonus to hit that you wouldn't have under any other "sneak attack" scenario. Remember, the goblin is totally oblivious to the rogue's presence. How does that situation not warrant a bonus to hit beyond a marginal +2?

Worse, the goblin retained his shield bonus. How dumb is that?

a- The goblin would lose his Dex bonus and you'd get extra damage.

b- Yes, the shield bonus remains, since you still have to hit him where his shield aint.

You might as well say the Goblin should lose his armor bonus as there are places not covered by his armor and you'd hit there.

I've had this discussion before so I'll only point out the following.

a- The goblin, with a Dex of 10, had no bonus to be negated.

My rogue only gets "extra damage" if he hits. Seems to me being oblivious to your opponent would make you more likely to get hit, not guarantee you take more damage (a grazing blow is still possible when struck by sneak attack - except, of course, it's not because your PC always does more damage via sneak attack. This is also counter intuitive but hey, game rulz).

b -The shield is used in front and to the flank in the hand it is held in. How does attacking someone expressly and only from behind grant him his shield bonus? Srsly, how?

But all that aside, the real annoyance is the massive cost for my rogue (using gamist crunchy thinking here) to exercise his class abilities and being punished by the #umb#ss rules for successfully utilizing said class abilities.

Punished for being successful. When does that get fun?

How are you being punished? You're not gaining what seems to be a logical advantage, but that's not quite the same.

What would you want as a bonus to hit in such a case?
This goblin had no dex, the next one might not have a shield, so you'd really want some generic bonus that always applied, right?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:

We Just Passed A Grim Carbon Dioxide Threshold, Possibly For Good

What's with "possibly"?

"Possibly", because there's variation up and down throughout the year and with weather events. We'd actually hit 400 for the first time awhile back, but dipped back down again, as expected.

Now, we've been at 400 throughout what's normally a minimum time, so it's likely we won't dip back below it.

All of this clearly explained in the article, speaking of not reading all the article.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Clouds have been the greatest source of uncertainty in climate science for 20 years.
Sounds about right. There were larger uncertainties before that, but of the remaining disputed items clouds have the largest uncertainty range.

I've been saying this since the beginning of my participation here! Then I was smacked down. LOL you guys are funny.

It's chaos people. Using current modeling techniques it is literally impossible to model climate better than a good mathematician, trained in the basics of climate physics/chemistry, can in a few minutes with her RPN calculator and scratch paper.

There is a huge difference between there's a large uncertainty range on one part of the model and "It's chaos", you can't know anything.

You haven't been saying the same thing.

Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

Many older climate models excluded clouds for the simple reason that there was no point including a factor that they had no reasonable parameters for. Current climate models DO include clouds now that we've determined the plausible uncertainty range they represent. No evil conspiracy required.

As to the big negative feedback loop which prevents global warming... you do realize that 2016 was the warmest year ever recorded, right? That warming is right on track with what climate models have been predicting for 40 years?

Except the article linked states that they specifically excluded clouds from consideration. Did you read the linked article? Like, all of it?

Those pesky clouds don't lend themselves to linear dynamics so they either get left out or dumbed down. Either way the model fails.

Yes, I did. Did you read the article (the National Geographic one, I assume)? That particular simplified model to check the theoretical possibility of boiling oceans didn't include clouds.

The actual models they're using to predict climate change do. That wasn't one of them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

20th April, 2016 article: Sunset the Tax Code end of year 2019.

Looks like the bill would (have) force(d) the issue of tax code reform.

That's an insane approach. We've seen in recent years how well Congress has responded to such forced deadlines - budget shutdowns, debt ceilings, short term extensions, etc. How would businesses deal with the uncertainty of "well, theoretically there will be no taxes at all next year, but we suspect they'll pass something, probably at the last minute, but it could be anything"?

It's a recipe for chaos. By far the likeliest outcome is a series of short term extensions of the current code, like we've seen with other deadlines.

If you want "tax reform", whatever you mean by that, work to elect people who want the same thing and lobby for it. Don't rely on destructive gimmicks like this.

Luckily, even this Congress is sane enough not to take this bill seriously.

131-odd members of this Congress co-sponsored the bill from the looks of that article. ;)

Scary isn't it? 131 Congresscritters willing to put a gun to their (and everyone else's) heads. Luckily 131 is less than a third of the House, so it's not going anywhere.

Most of them are probably just posturing, since they know it'll never happen.

Because it's seriously insane. You're a small businessman, right? Would you like to be sitting in December of 2019 with a fight in Congress and absolutely no idea what tax structure you'd be dealing with next year? No way to plan. No clue what rates would be, what could be deducted, what expenses counted, nothing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Yes, yes. Cherry picking is all the rage, isn't it? When warming doesn't happen for years, every year is cherry picked and it's weather not climate and besides it is about less solar radiation due to the solar cycle. When it does happen, it is real, steel hard evidence of warming and climate not weather. The solar cycle is curiously absent. No?
Warming has been happening on a consistent basis over the last few decades. The average temperature GLOBALLY has been going up even if some places got colder due to shifting climate patterns. The annual mean has been rising since 1900 after taking a dip from 1880. Every year for at least the last decade has been "The Hottest Year on Record".

This last bit isn't technically true. 2014 & 2015 were the hottest years on record in their turn. Before that it was 2010. And before that 2005.

The general point remains. There's variability year to year, but the trend is up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
Yes, yes. Cherry picking is all the rage, isn't it? When warming doesn't happen for years, every year is cherry picked and it's weather not climate and besides it is about less solar radiation due to the solar cycle. When it does happen, it is real, steel hard evidence of warming and climate not weather. The solar cycle is curiously absent. No?

I know it's pointless, but I still want know when these years where warming didn't happen were. Even back in 2004 (11 years ago now), when 1998 was still the hottest year on record (beaten by 2005), the next hottest were 2003, 2002, 2004 and 2001. 4 of the top 5 were after that peak. The "pause" lasted for 6 years at best, the running average kept climbing.

The only way to describe it as "warming doesn't happen for years" is to require no variation at all - each year must be hotter than the previous. We had one outlier, for well understood reasons, followed by years that were still hot, but not quite as hot.

That the last couple years have actually shown direct year after year records is the outlier. That 2016, with the El Nino fading, is still hotter than 2015 worries me. Still, we're likely moving into at least a weak La Nina so it's likely 2017 won't be a new record. Which will of course mean it's the start of a new "pause" in warming.

If 2017 does beat 2016 despite a La Nina, that'll be really scary.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
As to the big negative feedback loop which prevents global warming... you do realize that 2016 was the warmest year ever recorded, right? That warming is right on track with what climate models have been predicting for 40 years?

Well, theoretically 2016 is only on track to be the warmest year recorded. A miracle could occur and we could have a record cold 4th quarter. :)

Currently, 2015 was hottest, beating out 2014 by a wide margin.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
Which just makes it puzzling why they publish this data without the cloud effects added in. I mean, if I want to model the flow of water in a lake, and choose to ignore the river going out from it, it will be extremely easy to get a rising water level. If you then publish data to warn of the rising water surface of the lake and how people will have to move from the nearby village, you haven't been doing your job properly.

Publish which data?

The "Is it theoretically possible to boil the oceans" data in the Nat. Geog. article? Because it's a initial model that refutes an earlier theory - even without the cloud data figured in.

More generally, you publish because that's how you do science. Start with a simplified model, publish your results for others to work with and refine or refute. You don't keep it to yourself until you've perfected every detail.

If you mean to imply that the standard climate change models being used today ignore cloud effects, you're just wrong. The details are complex and as with many things, still being worked on and adjusted, but not ignored.

To use your analogy - sure you get a basic approximation of outflow before warning the village, but if you don't say anything until you've got the contributions of evaporation and exactly how much the local wild animals drink correct, you may find the village has washed away before you're sure enough to say anything.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:

20th April, 2016 article: Sunset the Tax Code end of year 2019.

Looks like the bill would (have) force(d) the issue of tax code reform.

That's an insane approach. We've seen in recent years how well Congress has responded to such forced deadlines - budget shutdowns, debt ceilings, short term extensions, etc. How would businesses deal with the uncertainty of "well, theoretically there will be no taxes at all next year, but we suspect they'll pass something, probably at the last minute, but it could be anything"?

It's a recipe for chaos. By far the likeliest outcome is a series of short term extensions of the current code, like we've seen with other deadlines.

If you want "tax reform", whatever you mean by that, work to elect people who want the same thing and lobby for it. Don't rely on destructive gimmicks like this.

Luckily, even this Congress is sane enough not to take this bill seriously.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nihilakh wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Extremely interesting, Nihilakh. As your article states: Clouds have been the greatest source of uncertainty in climate science for 20 years.

Yup. As a class of 2000 student, we actually started learning about (what was then called) Global Warming in middle-school. We were taught that the greenhouse effect, and the role clouds played in it, trapping IR light like a greenhouse would. Obviously at that time, theories were far less complicated.

My initial reaction was honestly skepticism. The way the teacher had explained it was that the trapped IR light would cause the additional creation of clouds. According to her and the text book, these clouds were initially created by human pollutants. These clouds created would only trap more IR light

I of course had to ask the obvious question "What happens when so many clouds are built up, that they just reflect the majority of the IR light back into space?". She didn't have an answer for me, but she assured me that this was absolutely irrefutably the way it worked. No question about it, and to even doubt this basically made me a bad person. It was very doom and gloom right from my first introduction to the subject.

So according to them, people created pollution, pollution created clouds, clouds trapped IR light and IR light created more clouds.

Obviously we have actually learned quite a lot from further studies, and while I'm still on the fence about a lot of the studies I read in regards to, what we now call Climate Change, I think it's come a long way. It's interesting, and even if nothing else, we have learned some useful things about the way our environment behaves from the research. It's a win for humanity whenever we learn something new, or prove something previously believed true to be false. It's really all learning, and that (to me) is awesome!

I suspect that had a lot more to do with middle school and the expertise of your teacher than the actual state of the science.

Climate science certainly considers clouds. They're a small part of the reason modelling is so complex.
To quote the National Geographic article that started this particular go-round:

Quote:

But your model does not consider the moderating effect of clouds.

That's correct. You start off with the simplest model you can, and then you build in complexity. We've calculated the maximum amount of sunlight Earth will absorb and the maximum amount of thermal radiation it will emit. So the next step will be to do some modeling with clouds in, which will probably modify the answers.

Clouds reflect sunlight, but if you put them high enough in the atmosphere, they'll also have a greenhouse effect. On Earth today, the reflection effect dominates—clouds overall have a cooling effect.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:


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?

Because it's still bad but it has gotten a lot better.

That says more about how bad it was than about how good it is, but it IS getting better and it will keep getting better if we keep plugging away at it.

Or perhaps, because we stopped plugging away at it? In many ways we're dealing with backlash from the 60s Civil Rights movement.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fergie wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Trump cheats -> Clinton is bad.
I love the reasoning. Everything has to feed back into how awful Clinton is.

I would frame it as Hillary accepted Trumps money, and they are booth dishonest grifters. Is it worse to bribe, or be bribed?

I look at the two, and see two crooks. Some people only see one crook.
To each, their own.

Any politicians who take campaign contributions are crooked, by that definition. Which is all of them.

We know Trump did things like secretly donate money to prosecutors investigating his university. Simple, clear, quid pro quo.

We know that Trump donated to Clinton's Foundation and earlier campaigns. As far as we know the closest thing to a return he got out of it was them attending his wedding. Such corruption.

Maybe there's some dark secrets still to be uncovered about the Clintons. Heaven knows they've been promised long enough. There's been enough digging, enough investigations. Maybe this time.

In the meanwhile, every claim, every attack just makes me like her more.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fergie wrote:

I think the pay-no-taxes thing is really highlighting just how bad our laws and tax code really are. There have been some interesting articles about how Trump has been getting all kinds of tax breaks, such as this one: Donald Trump Master of Tax Breaks

Here is another about how Trump exploits government programs to avoid tax.
Trump has thrived with government's generosity
I would say this would be damning stuff against Trump, but unfortunately, one of the sleazy NY politicians who took Trumps money, just happens to be Hillary. I'm sure the Clinton's had a great time at Trumps wedding.

I think most poor and middle class people see taxes as a burden they aspire to avoid as much as possible. Trump is living their dream. One day, maybe they could pay no taxes like him. They play the lottery, and could be rich like him one day. People who think that taxes are a necessary part of a functioning government, and realize that if the rich don't pay, they will have to pick up the slack are the type of people who think too much to ever vote Trump.

Issues that point toward systematic problems are generally more favorable to Trump because he is the "outsider" candidate, while Hillary represents the establishment. Trump is the candidate of Big Changes! Never mind that those changes are going in the opposite direction he says they will. Speaking of doing the opposite of what you say, I think it was odd that Hillary went after trump for "Trickle-down economics". She and Bill are lifelong, hardcore neoliberals, and have pushed trickle-down economics probably harder then Reagan.

Trump cheats -> Clinton is bad.

I love the reasoning. Everything has to feed back into how awful Clinton is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ShinHakkaider wrote:
thejeff wrote:

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.

So what's the answer? If non-violence won't work, are you suggesting violence? Do you think it's possible for that to work and not just make things even worse?

Non-violence favors the oppressor, but only in the sense that everything favors the oppressor. The oppressor has the power. You can't beat him with violence. Any kind of resistance, violent or otherwise gets those resistance hurt or killed. Violent resistance might give the momentary satisfaction of taking some of the bastards with you, but it's likely to end up in an even worse place.

I get that it's natural for scared folks with little to lose to turn to violence. To strike back. We're seeing that already. We've seen it before. That doesn't mean it's any more effective.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Norman Osborne wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Backpack wrote:
If I refer to someone as a "Gamer Girl" that is simply because I wished to explain that she is a girl who also plays games in the fewest combination of possible words.

And the fact that someone was upset by that has not changed your behavior?

Perhaps you could afford the few microseconds it takes to use descriptions that aren't offensive. Or even just call her a Gamer. That's even fewer words.

The problem is that there is almost no behavior in today's world that won't offend some group of people or another. If you open a door for the woman behind you, she might get offended. If you don't open it for her, she might get offended. If you let it close in her face she will probably get offended. At a certain point, you have to just live by your own standards of behavior and accept that some people are going to occasionally take offense to something you have done. Constantly walking on eggshells in no way to live a life.

Yes, technically. B**@+@## in spirit. Anything might offend someone. Some things are much more likely to.

Despite it being a constant boogeyman of evil feminism, I've never run into anyone offended by holding a door for them. Mind you, I don't make a huge production out of it - maybe that makes a difference?

It's worth paying attention to what offends people. You'll screw up sometimes, but most of the time it really isn't that hard. It's not walking on eggshells, it's just being decent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'm not sure about the "boy's night out" thing.
Talonhawke wrote:
I would say however the "boy's night out" may not have been gatekeeping itself but...

Y'all...

I mean I guess I set myself up for this by not explicitly providing the context of "my partner's garbage ex boyfriend and his friends specifically excluded women from playing D&D with them because they considered it 'a guy thing'". But I was really hoping y'all would chill on this and not try to explain someone else's experience.

No, I absolutely agree, in that situation and kind of assumed that's what you meant.

I just wanted to suggest that "boy's night out" isn't necessarily gatekeeping in all contexts.

If that wasn't clear, I apologize.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
While I can see and agree with that in a way, would we see it different/call it the same thing in reverse. If my wife and her friends wanna go see "50 Shades Darker" when it comes out and call it "girls night out" is it still gatekeeping if not a single husband in the group would have wanted to go anyway?

I would.

There's a continuum here.

* Are you not going because your wife invited you and you declined?
* Are you not going to because you are out of town that evening?
* Are you out of town because there weren't enough tickets available?
* Are you not going because she knew that you didn't want to go, and didn't invite you?
* Are you not going because she assumed that you didn't want to go, and didn't invite you?
* Are you not going because she wants to see it just with her girlfriends (and doesn't want you there)?
* Are you not going because her girlfriends don't want you there?
* Are you not going because her girlfriends don't want men in general there, because it would ruin their fun?

The closer she is to the bottom of that list, the less acceptable it is.

If you want it in a smaller package (a nutshell), are you absent because you want to be, or because she wants you to be?

I also see a big difference between "We want an occasional boys/girls night out, without the other gender, regardless of activity" and "We want to keep this activity as a boys/girls thing giving you no chance to join in."

If there's a weekly boys night game and another open game, you might be "gatekeeping" the boys night, but not gaming in general. I'd really only apply the gatekeeping term to excluding people from the hobby as a whole.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Shrug. I disagree. As I said, intention matters.
In an astounding twist of fate, I agree with Orfamay Quest here. Intention is important as far as distinguishing between the usual sort of mansplaining and sexual harassment that occurs in any group and the deliberate, aggressive exclusion that gatekeeping involves. Gatekeeping can be identity policing (OF linked an article called "The Problem With Fake Geek Girls" for Pete's sake), but it can also be literal physical exclusion. I've read about a woman who was prevented from entering a section of a game store by a man physically standing in the way and grilling her on her knowledge of D&D terminology. My partner's old high school boyfriend had a "boy's night out" where they would play D&D.

Fair enough. As I said, stretching the definition.

In that case, I'm not really aware of any table top rpg gatekeeping personally, though I've certainly seen discrimination. And seen/heard third hand stories.

Groups I've played with have always welcomed women, even if sometimes (in my youth) for the wrong reasons.

I'm not sure about the "boy's night out" thing. Strictly speaking it applies, but whether it really falls under the spirit depends. I've seen similar "boy's night/girl's night" things where the others might be excluded from that night, but not necessarily from the activity. Some people need the exclusive occasion and it doesn't matter so much what the excuse for it is. I've never been one of those myself. Usually happier in mixed groups or groups that are mixed because I'm in them. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:


There's definitely some prejudice against women [in caving], mostly in the standard assumptions that men are more likely to be experienced. No "fake caver girl" kind of thing that I know of.

Does it really happen in the tabletop RPG world? The gatekeeping certainly, but again mostly in the of overeagerness to help the assumed inexperienced "girl" and awkward attempts to hit on them, not in claims they're only faking an interest.
I could be wrong about that, but it doesn't match what I've seen or even the claims I usually hear about sexism in PnPRPGs.

I'm a little confused about "gatekeeping"? My understanding of the word is that "gatekeeping" is something that can only be done deliberately. If Ted hasn't showered since the last papal election and insists on living on canned baked beans, he may drive people out of the group, out of the store, and out of the hobby.... but unless he's doing so with deliberate intent to keep people away, he's not "gatekeeping," he's being a jerk.

Similarly, if Bob wears X-rated tee shirts to the games and makes rude, suggestive jokes to any woman who sits at the same table with him, he's being a sexist pig (and arguably committing sexual harassment, depending upon the jurisdiction), but he's not probably not "gatekeeping."

Trying to decide if someone is a fake gamer is pretty blatantly gatekeeping; the article I just cited specifically talks about "any posers who get ousted by it," where, of course, "ousting" is the traditional role of the gatekeeper or bouncer at any bar. If you're screaming "Get back to the kitchen," you're pretty obviously gatekeeping. I'd argue you're doing the same even if you're the one that won't play with the "fake gamers."

But that's still not the same as simply being a thoughtless and oblivious jerk. Intention matters.

Well, the most common complaints I've seen - the patronizing attempts to help and the creepy attempts at flirting - are done deliberately, if not with the intent of driving them away. So not quite the same as "being smelly". And both tend to function to drive women away.

Might be stretching the definition, but has the same practical effect.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The door was closed when the pepper spray was used.
No it wasn't. She pulled back when they threatened her with the spray, and they get the door further towards closed, but not all the way.
Close enough that her legs could not possibly have been blocking it any more... so they COULD have just pushed it closed without pepper spraying her. Thus, not 'just' an 'over reaction', but a completely unneccesary action.

Possible. We can't see her legs, but my guess is that she'd braced her feet against the door, rather than having them actually blocking it. Not as easy as just pushing it closed, but they probably could have forced it, even without doing the obvious thing of going to the other door and pulling.

But by that point they were annoyed and frustrated, so they just sprayed the little brat who wasn't showing proper respect.

Completely out of line, whether she was blocking the door or not.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:

I'm not involved in a lot of these hobby communities, so I don't personally know their dynamics.

But out of all of them, "gamer" is weird because of the high degree of gatekeeping and identity politics. Again, I don't know the specific social dynamics of every other group that ends in "-er", but gamers are infamous for evaluating whether someone is a "real" gamer or not, and determining who is "allowed" to call themselves a gamer. And that evaluation often has a lot to do with 1) accumulated knowledge of the hobby (rather than just DOING the thing), and/or 2) gender. Certainly sexist interactions occur everywhere there are people, but I've never heard anyone be accused of being a "fake hiker girl".

Different communities have grown up with different social dynamics.

For example, caving has a strong gatekeeping dynamic - as witnessed by the spelunker/caver thing mentioned above. Partly that's justified by it actually being dangerous if you don't know what you're getting into - and you're likely to put other cavers at risk trying to rescue you if there is trouble.
There's definitely some prejudice against women, mostly in the standard assumptions that men are more likely to be experienced. No "fake caver girl" kind of thing that I know of.

In fact, thinking about "fake gamer girl", I associate that almost entirely with video games - and a subset of "fake geek girl", which is still mostly focused on electronic/computer stuff, or with anime type fandoms. There's some of it dating back in sf/fantasy fandom, I guess. Does it really happen in the tabletop RPG world? The gatekeeping certainly, but again mostly in the of overeagerness to help the assumed inexperienced "girl" and awkward attempts to hit on them, not in claims they're only faking an interest.
I could be wrong about that, but it doesn't match what I've seen or even the claims I usually hear about sexism in PnPRPGs.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
What I find annoying is the assumption that pretty much every word out of someone's mouth has to be micro analyzed to see if it's possible it might be offensive to someone, somewhere. I get it, you don't want to purposely be rude or nasty to people, cool. But for the love of Pete, sometimes a cigar is only a cigar and sometimes people only mean what they literally say and aren't doing hidden coded subtexts.

And sometimes, even though they mean what they say and don't intend anything else, there's still meaning in the subtext. "Gamer girl" might be an example of that. Using "gamer" for male gamers and "gamer girl" for female gamers implies something about women being different in the gaming community, even if there is no conscious intention to.

More generally, nothing actually means only what it literally says. Words have connotations as well as denotations. Language and communication are complex things. Which is awesome, if frustrating sometimes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:


  • Either he admits he pays no taxes, which 1) undermines his own position on "making NATO members pay", 2) looks very bad to the working poor and middle class ("Why are we busting our asses to get by, when he's a billionaire and pays nothing?!")

  • Or, he claims he does pay taxes, which immediately prompts calls for proof: releasing his tax returns.

A nimbler debater could probably thread that needle. Trump is a spoiled angry toddler in a China shop.

Or saying that he pays no taxes is a demonstration of how good and clever a "businessman" is compared to a "politician", which plays on the outsider who knows how to get rich and run a business angle.

The right wing appeal to the working class, and it's worked more than not, is to demonstrate that prosperity is waiting for them if they just get rid of the "moochers" and follow that Golden Path.

Possible, but if he thought he could appeal that way, he'd openly admit it and make the case. He can't sell the "I'm so smart I pay no taxes" if he's still hiding that he pays no taxes. Some followers will pick it up, but he's not going to win new people over without actually pushing it.

1 to 50 of 23,506 << 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.