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 Society Member. 22,179 posts (23,101 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 8 aliases.


1 to 50 of 5,460 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Basically it's triage. You've got a set of symptoms with various possible explanations. You can run all the tests and look for all possible causes at once or you can start with the most likely ones and work your way through them.
The same applies to all sorts of medical things, not just race. Race will be one factor in some cases.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
We know, for example, the basic division among Africans and from that we can pretty easily determine if any given two groups are closer to each other than to Japanese Ainu. As I said earlier, there are several distinct genetic groups in Africa, one of which is ancestral to the rest of the world's population. (From that linked Map Y-DNA Adam -> A B DE C F, F->everything else.) If your African groups are within any one of those basic division except F, they're closer to each other than to the Ainu.

Yes. But there's a much higher than chance probability that they're not both within any one of those basic divisions, because variation within groups is much greater than variation between groups.

Which is to say, show me a "black" person, or even an "African," and there's no reason to believe he's more closely related, genetically, to any "African" than he is to an Ainu.

Quote:
Now, I'll agree that the common idea of "black" or "Negroid" as anyone with black skin is not particularly useful.
But the slightly less common idea of "African" isn't much better, given the degree of genetic variation within actual African people. Remember, that map is based on a single chromosome; just because two people are both within Y-DNA haplotype C says little or nothing about their mDNA, since that's inherited entirely independently. So you end up with an oversimplified map based on only a single type of variation, and you still can't point to a specific haplotype and say "this means `white'"

Yes, that map is only based on one chromosome. There are other studies that show very similar patterns. They've done things like identify areas of origin of African Americans based on genetics. And that goes well below the main distinct groups I was talking about.

Of course, part of the problem that's keeping me from disagreeing even more strongly is that there is actually more genetic variation within Africa than in the entire rest of the world. More distinct groups and deeper divisions. That includes even the genetic influence of Neandertals and Denisovians. Because basically only a small part of Africa's diversity actually left (before modern times) and is ancestral to everyone else.
Making this argument about any other region would be much clearer. Any random groups of European descent will be more closely related to each other than to the Khoisan. No question.
Same for any random East Asian groups.

We're not the randomly mixed genetic swirl you seem to be claiming.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
As a side, but somewhat related note on your strict use of clades. I assume you don't agree with the separation of dogs, wolves and coyotes into separate clades? Since they have all interbred (and still do).
As you noted, I'm a pretty strict cladist. In general, dogs are pretty reproductively isolated from both wolves and coyotes, in part because people are pretty good about protecting their dogs, and in part because we're running out of wolves and...

But the Eastern Coyote is pretty much a hybrid coywolf. The real world is messier than the pretty theories and classifications.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
@tacticslion None of this is definite proof that people have souls that go somewhere after death. It could be your own mind tricking you ;-)

He's got Plane Shift. He could go visit Heaven.

Of course, he could be insane and in a complete hallucinatory state, but if you're that far gone, there's really nothing to be done but enjoy it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Kazuka wrote:


It doesn't change what the studies themselves have found. That, within a particular group of African descent, certain risks are higher than in other groups of African descent.

But that's not race. That is "particular groups of African descent."

Descent is real, and so (of course) is Africa. But when you lump two groups of African descent together and call them something, whether you all Just like tall people are at higher risk of certain diseases and health complications than short people are. Or how heart attacks typically present differently in men and women.

Even-toed ungluates (artiodactyls) are real. Crabs are real. Whales are real. But if you're going to claim that (artiodactyls + whales) are a real group, you're going to need to show more than that. As it happens, this has been studied, and there's a lot of genetic evidence suggesting that this particular group does show a clade, because this group shows more internal similarities among each other, similarities that are themselves different from other types of animals and even other types of mammals. [In fact, (hippos + whales) are an actual clade that excludes camels.]

I can't make that kind of argument about (crabs + whales); the within-group differences (e.g. whales have endoskeleons, whales are warm-blooded) totally dominate the between-group differences between whales and hippos, or even whales and camels, or even whales and chimps.

For "race" to make sense, you need to be able to make a similar argument -- it's not enough to say "look, here's an actual group of people, and they're different from this other group of people, therefore that's a racial difference." You can't simply lump two groups of African-descended people together and call them "black," or "African," or Negroid" when there's nothing to suggest that those two groups of African people have any more in common with each other than they do with the Japanese Ainu.

The fact that they are not completely different clades, admitting no interbreeding or other fuzziness, doesn't mean you can't group populations in useful ways. We do actually have decent ideas of the ancestry and relationships of various different groups of humans.

We know, for example, the basic division among Africans and from that we can pretty easily determine if any given two groups are closer to each other than to Japanese Ainu. As I said earlier, there are several distinct genetic groups in Africa, one of which is ancestral to the rest of the world's population. (From that linked Map Y-DNA Adam -> A B DE C F, F->everything else.) If your African groups are within any one of those basic division except F, they're closer to each other than to the Ainu.

Now, I'll agree that the common idea of "black" or "Negroid" as anyone with black skin is not particularly useful. If nothing else it would include native Australians and Melanesians who aren't closer to any African population than any other non-African group. Still, that doesn't mean that the concept of race is completely useless. It just needs to be better defined. As we have done.

As a side, but somewhat related note on your strict use of clades. I assume you don't agree with the separation of dogs, wolves and coyotes into separate clades? Since they have all interbred (and still do).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
*shrug* All that really matters is that someone has thoughts feelings and wants. After that genetics is irrelevant.
Until they die of some disease that wasn't treated properly because their genetics were different from the normally studied population.

If you're treating people differently based on their "race," you're still treating people improperly.

Intragroup variation is greater than intergroup variation.

To use an oversimplified example -- yes, sex is real. So is height. And so is a relationship between height and sex -- men are taller. But if you use this factoid and direct your clothing company to make all men's clothes the same size and larger than the size of your women's clothing, most of your customers will still be wearing the wrong size (you'll be fitting them improperly). Because the variation within the groups is greater than the variation between the groups.

If you want to do proper medical treatment, you treat them based on how they present as individuals, and you shouldn't assume that just because there's an association between a specific gene and a "race," that it's present in all, or even most, people who present as that race. Because the variation within groups is greater than the variation between the groups.

Yes. You shouldn't just look at race. Duh. You should consider the individual case. Duh.

But still, there are conditions that are far more prevalent in some populations than in others. When you're trying to figure out what's wrong, that's worth considering.
And when you're doing research you shouldn't assume that your locally derived sample of subjects actually covers the world's population.

To use your height & sex analogy, you also shouldn't ignore the sex difference and base the proportions of the various sizes you make only on men (or only on women, if you prefer). Either will distort the actual demand. Even though variation within the groups is greater than the variation between the groups.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
*shrug* All that really matters is that someone has thoughts feelings and wants. After that genetics is irrelevant.

Until they die of some disease that wasn't treated properly because their genetics were different from the normally studied population.

Sure. On the moral level, you're right. People are people and we shouldn't treat them worse (or better) based on their genetics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Orf, do you think it's possible to recognize that race is a social construct rather a heritable trait, but still think it's "real?" 'Cause that's sort of where I am at this point.

Well, social constructs are definitely real in some sense. If I try to practice medicine without a license, I'm really going to a real jail, but the license itself is entirely a social construct. A whole bunch of people sat down and agreed upon a set of hoops that a person has to jump through in order to be licensed, not all of which are related to the actual practice of medicine.

Similarly, the actual social construct of medical licensure varies from person to person and from place to place; I might be licensed in Alabama but not in Mississippi, because the social group we call Alabama has constructed it differently. And Missiissippi may or may not allow me to practice with an Alabama license, and whether or not I am allowed to practice may also vary with the (socially constructed) circumstances -- for example, someone is hit by a car, I may be allowed to provide emergency treatment while waiting for the ambulance to arrive, when I'd not be allowed open a clinic.

But even beyond social constructs having effects in and of themselves, the concept of races maps, very imperfectly, onto a real thing. There are real populations that can be distinguished by various markers. There's overlap and fuzziness, but there is also something real there that we're not just making up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Kazuka wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'd actually love to see a kind of cladistic human family tree. I poked around a bit, but didn't come across anything.

I'd love to see such a family tree too.

I think the only reason they haven't made one is they're still trying to nail down the origins of some groups.

No, it's more fundamental than that. How can you make a cladistic tree when the stuff you're clustering does not form clades?

Bacteria, in general, form clades; one bacterium splits into two bacteria and so two different bacteria will either have the same parent or different parents. Bacterial genes, by contrast, transfer between individuals bacteria and so an individual bacterium might have genes from twenty different bacteria, including different species.

Languages, by convention, are also cladistic; English "came from" West Germanic, and merely borrowed from French.

So we can divide languages very cleanly, for example, into languages descended from Germanic and languages descended from Latin, and there's no overlap between the two.

People are not cladistic. I have two parents, and I share only one of them with my half-brother. So we can't divide people neatly into "people descended from person X" and "people descended from person Y"; some people might fit into two categories.

There's actually a very powerful theorem for population genetics. After a long enough time, you will either be an ancestor of all living humans, or of none of them, but not of "some of them." Because of this, we can sort species into clades as well; all birds are descended from dinosaurs, all ostriches are descended from proto-raitites, no sparrows are descended from proto-raitites.

But we literally can't do that with humans. Some humans are descended from some other humans, and some humans aren't descended from other humans, and some humans are more closely descended from other humans than still other humans.

That's also the problem with tying...

Yeah, I get it. It's more complicated than a simple cladistic tree would show. There are crosses and mixtures.

On the other hand, especially before easy travel in the modern era, populations of humans come fairly close. We can track which populations descend from other populations and whether it's solely from that population or with input from another.

In theory, I agree. Humans are a clade and there are, strictly speaking, no meaningful clades within the group. Which is why I said a "kind of cladistic tree". Which I still want to see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazuka wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

What are we even trying to argue about now???

Also: Just because people think something matters doesn't make it real. As Philip K. Dick said, "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away," and the concept of "race" specifically does not make that cut - neither, as a matter of fact, does group identity in general.

Not believing in race doesn't suddenly change the melanin content of your skin, your bone structure, or your tendency towards certain diseases or mental disorders. Or whether or not the people who most look like you tend to be poor and arrested more often.

You can sit back and argue it has no basis in reality if you wish. Medical science disagrees. Geneticists disagree. Psychology disagrees. The societal mechanisms of America that enforce the nation's ongoing race problems disagree. For them, race not only exists, but have serious effects that can massively impact your life.

Racism certainly exists.

"Race" is much trickier. There are certainly genetic groups, but distinguishing between them strictly on easily observable markers like skin color is problematic. Native Australians and Melanesians aren't the same race as Africans, despite both being black.

As I understand it, even within "African" there's more genetic diversity than in the rest of the world put together. That it might make most sense to distinguish something like 4 racial groups within Africa, one of which includes everyone else. That's complicated a bit by mixture with Neandertals and Denisovians.

I'd actually love to see a kind of cladistic human family tree. I poked around a bit, but didn't come across anything.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Kazuka wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Kazuka wrote:
...the Middle East (imagine how well Israel will take being told they're the same racial group as Palestinians)...
They're called Semites - and similar ideas have been put forward before.
And is no longer accepted. "Semitic" today only refers to a language group, not a racial group.
I'm a little confused about your point here - language family lineage is real, "race" not so much. In the case under scrutiny here, it's the same parameters for group identity either way.

And just to further confuse things and belabor the point that even compound terms are not just the some of their parts "anti-Semitic" means prejudiced against Jews, not all Semites (whether that's Semitic speaking or a racial group).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Tacticslion said it best.

Thank you. Your my hero. I hate it when atheists throw bricks at me just because I am Religious.

If that includes me, that wasn't my intent and I apologize.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazuka wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Why not "Eurasian-Americans?"

You would be classifying East Asians (who all hate each other) with Central Asia and South Asia (more distinct racial groups in that area), the Middle East (imagine how well Israel will take being told they're the same racial group as Palestinians), some Africans (Egypt is that annoying nation that owns part of Asia), and Europeans (of whom all of the previous groups have various reasons to dislike/hate).

You'll probably only tick off China, Russia, a few South Asian nations, a good portion of the Middle East, and several European nations.

That's why no one does it. There's always the question of if this bit of "European Imperialism" will be the final straw for the Chinese, the Russians, and a few other nations in Asia and the Middle East. I mean, it's not like Europeans haven't spent at least two thousand going into Asia and screwing things up...

It's also not a very useful term. It doesn't describe any distinct useful demographic. There's no point in it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
There seems to be disagreement on those points, thejeff.

I can't help it if some people use the term incorrectly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kazuka wrote:

Why don't we use European for whites?

Because not all of the white races are native to Europe.

"White" is used because, at the time it was coined, the upper class tended to avoid sunlight, believing it unhealthy. As such, a "healthy" white person could easily have skin close in shade to snow.

"Black" was coined for a similar reason; recent arrivals from Africa who spent all of their time in the sunlight tended to be pretty dark skinned. You can see this crop up in a few places in modern Africa. I think I read something about the longer-term African American lineages in North America suffering pigmentation loss due to generational adaptation. In a few hundred generations, it's entirely possible that the "white" and "black" races will have the same skin color in North America.

This skin pigmentation loss is also expected to happen to any humans who live in space for long enough, due to the lack of natural sunlight. As such, any movie today who depicts someone with a modern African American skin tone that has lived in space for generations is actually scientifically inaccurate; in this case, "white washing" or use of skin color-changing make-up is actually necessary for scientific accuracy. This is why, for the most part, any hard science far future scifi movie will probably have an almost-entirely white cast. Because evolution doesn't care about modern racial sensibilities.

There may be such effects, but from what I understand they're completely swamped in the modern US by interbreeding. Much from rape in the slave era.

There's some truth in that theory, but I think it works on a much longer time scale than you're suggesting. The few hundred years of Africans in America would have minimal effect, especially since much of that time was spent doing hard labor in the sun. Or consider Africans who lived in the jungle areas, not in open savanna. Nor does it really explain the differences between races outside of white and black. Even pre-modern era populations don't line up neatly by skin shade based on sun in the home areas.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Every show needs to have him because he's a popular character, largely because of RDJ's portrayal. That's pure business. :)
Not that he's actually been in all the movies.

And not just Iron Man either. I'd hate to never see Steve Rogers again. Or Thor. Or Spiderman, for that matter. Or pretty much any of them. They certainly don't all need to be in every movie, but I like seeing the various older characters interact with the newer ones and their old friend's successors.

Keep bringing in new characters. That's great. Keep bringing back the old ones too. Recast them as needed - a new take on a character can bring new life to them, as long as you get good actors and don't just recast with hacks. Just like in the comics, characters change with new writers and artists.

Just please don't reboot the whole thing and make us have origin stories all over again. That's been the default approach to superhero movies in the past and I'm so done with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Lazlo.Arcadia wrote:
As for the assumption that everyone other than PC's were 1 - 3 commoners, that is not what I said.

What you said:

"RAW puts the total world population at 95% Non-PC classed (most of the world are level 1 - 3 commoners)..."
A mid-sentence parenthetical statement is a clarification of what came right before it. So when you said "most of the world are level 1-3 commoners" as a parenthetical explanation, you were defining your previous statement. That is, you stated that 95% of the population was non-PC-classed, and then explicitly defined that statement to be a reference to level 1-3 commoners.
Jiggy, that's not necessarily true. a parenthetical statement isn't necessarily an appositive. it's just more information. that might be to specify or it might just be extra. i read it to mean that most of that 95% were 1-3 commoners not that the entire 95% were.
** spoiler omitted **

derail continued:
And yet it remains true. Both most of the 95% are 1-3 level commmoners and most of the world are 1-3 level commoners. If the first part is true, the second likely is as well.

Even if most is only 53% of the 95%, it's still most of the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:
Haladir wrote:

Why are white people called "Caucasian?"

Racist 19th-century pseudoscience.

A better term would be "European," which is what I try to use now.

That makes about as much sense as calling a black man from the UK "African American".

Wouldn't it make as much sense to call a white American European as to call a black man from the UK African?

I've certainly seen European-American (or more commonly variants for a particular country, usually for 1st or 2nd generation immigrants).
European makes as much sense for whites of European descent where ever they live as African does for blacks of African descent where ever they live.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
So caucasian was chosen specifically because there are very few if any americans who could be claimed to be caucasians?

More seriously, it was set up a long time ago, isn't particularly American usage, especially then, but even now, wasn't defined with any reference to Americans.

It's certainly not used in the US instead of "white". "White" is far more common. "Caucasian" tends to be used when someone wants to sound scientific - big word very impressive.

It is used in US census and surveys I believe

I have almost never heard it used in France though it exists and with the same meaning

BTW statistics based on race or ethnic group are illegal in France

I think both are a reaction against the racial paradigm used by Nazis when they occupied France

Might be used in some surveys. May have been more common in the past, though I don't know.

Not in the Census.
Choices for Race are
White
Black, African Am., or Negro
American Indian or Alaska Native

And then bunch of more specific ones for Asians & Pacific Islanders. Not entirely clear to me why this gets more breakdown, though I could make some guesses.
Also, Hispanic is a separate question and you answer both.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ajaxis wrote:
I don't understand the all or nothing part. Why wouldn't the UK make deals similar to the US, trade with minimal tariffs>, and no real control over the US sovereignty>

The real question is why the EU would make the kind of deal you seem to have in mind.

The deal you just described basically gives the UK all the benefits of being in the EU, but none of the responsibilities. Actually, that's pretty close to the deal that the UK already gets -- it shoulders about 1/3 of its share of the costs of the EU, is not required to follow the vast majority of EU policies, is not part of the Schengen shared-border arrangement, and is even permitted to keep its own currency.

The fundamental principles of the EU in its current form are the free movement of four different resources: goods, labor, services, and capital. Basically, this means that, in exchange for the right of British banks to offer financial services to companies in France or Poland, Polish and/or French citizens have the right to take jobs in the UK.

For example, right now, UK companies can't trade on US-based stock exchanges. If for some reason I want to buy shares in BT Group or GlaxoSmithKline, I can't actually do it through my broker -- I need instead to buy ADRs (which are not only less convenient, but less flexible, and don't actually give me share ownership). There are all sorts of products that UK banks aren't allowed to offer in the United States unless they set up a US subsidiary (which, of course, is subject to US regulation). By contrast, a Maltese can just call his broker and buy actual shares of BT Group and can get a mortgage from the Royal Bank of Scotland as easily as from the Bank of Malta -- and a lot more easily than he can get one from a US-only bank.

The British financial industry makes a hell of a lot of money off of this arrangement. Britain is exempt from a lot of the actual EU banking regulations (which means that financial firms can do things in London they'd not be allowed...

In other words, the UK should be able to make deals similar to the US, but those deals are likely to be worse than the deal they currently have with Europe.

They're more likely to get a deal similar to the deals some of the Scandinavian countries have, which are much worse. Though still not bad really.

As for why the EU shouldn't offer them wonderful deals that give all the benefits of membership without any of the responsibilities, the answer seems implicit in the question- Why would anyone join (or stay in) if they could get such deals?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
So caucasian was chosen specifically because there are very few if any americans who could be claimed to be caucasians?

More seriously, it was set up a long time ago, isn't particularly American usage, especially then, but even now, wasn't defined with any reference to Americans.

It's certainly not used in the US instead of "white". "White" is far more common. "Caucasian" tends to be used when someone wants to sound scientific - big word very impressive.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
An excellent follow-up question would be: why are white people called "white"?

Shouldn't that be "Why are pinkskins called 'white'?"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

If it isn't THE God then this fails and nothing really changes. We already have immortal souls if we accept Jesus to we gain nothing by being undead. Jesus knows his faithful. If the lich thing bothers him it will fail and I am either dead or alive. In either case I stay by the Lord's side. BUT it would be worth the risk to see if a direct granting of spells is even possible.

Obviously the deal is a NO if it would destroy my faith.

As for the other faiths? We are ALL brothers and sisters Islam, Christian, and Jew. We ALL worship God whatever we may call him. They will believe my new insight or they won't. As long as they have faith they CAN be wrong and still be saved. Jesus will educate us all when this world ends anyway. The ones I worry about are those without faith for they have accepted a dark end. And they wouldn't be any more inclined to believe me spells or not than they do now.

Well, obviously the lich deal comes from the devil. It works the same way any deals with the devil do - you have the free will to sin by taking it, so God does not prevent it. That you mistakenly think you're still righteous is traditional.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are those rules in the 3.0 DMG? I didn't see them and don't have the 3.5 one.

Per PF's settlement rules, you can get 3rd level spellcasting services in the average village (61-200 people). That gets you your Remove Disease. I'm not sure how that lines up with 0.1% being able use it.
Of course, it's never been quite clear what 3rd level spells those spellcasting rules get you access to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lazlo.Arcadia wrote:

Feel free to take a look at d20 canon demographics, which is what all this was based on. Admittedly I adjusted some of it to fit my own campaign, but the numbers are surprisingly not that far off.

Has anyone else done a similar write up for what they are using in other campaigns? How was it similar / different from the one here?

Where are these "d20 canon demographics"?

How do they match up to the various settlement and casting services rules that put at least some casting in every tiny hamlet?
Often those will be NPC classed adepts in the smallest towns, but still.

I'm unaware of any official Pathfinder "Percentage of casters" or "Percentage of NPC classes" for that matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:

Yeah for all their claims of "No Mind Control, Clones or alternate reality Caps" it turns out to be Mind Control.

I'm guessing the backlash requiered a very quick response to clear the air.

The revelation is actually printed in the second issue. Unless lead times in the publishing world have drastically changed, there is absolutely no way they changed that in response to the backlash. That issue was already finished and in the can when the first one hit the shelves. This was the plan all along.

And it's technically not mind control, so not a lie, just misleading. Like we all knew all along.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Need to add I have heard of some actual impacts due to fears now. There are business that were going to Britain that have stated that they will not be doing so...for example Virgin (as per Branson)has cancelled.

It appears that as of right now the biggest fallout (beyond the damage to currency) has been the loss of an increase of several thousand jobs due to some deciding they will not employ in Britain.

I find it ironic, Branson is now saying we all should push for a second vote as he's called off his deal...but he has no leverage. He's already cancelled the deal...a second vote won't save it.

If he had said he was considering cancelling the deal or maybe taking it out if Brexit actually happens, that would be one thing...but as he has no deal now...what leverage does he really have.

It might be a loss for Britain, but I'd say...reacting when no action except for a vote has actually occurred, shouldn't be something they expect a positive reaction to.

So, he's cancelled 3000 jobs he was going to bring to the UK...BEFORE Brexit has actually happened.

What's next...he's going to remove Virgin from the US because Bernie Sanders isn't going to be the Democrat Nominee?

Well, when should businesses begin to consider the consequences of such votes? Should they continue on as if nothing could possibly change until after the formal invocation of Article 50? Throughout the 2 years process of negotiation, before the actual exit? After all, no rules or regulations are likely to change until then, so why not keep moving your business somewhere they might not be able to work, as long as they can right now?

Businesses do such things all time. React to proposed or in progress treaties and legislation. Even based on which politicians get elected and what they're expected to do. How drastically business plans change depends on how likely they think it is to actually be enacted and how big a change it is.
This ranks pretty high on both counts. It's politically very hard to just ignore a huge referendum like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:


That said, you are right pointing out that BoJo wouldn't feel constrained by a simple statement made by Cameron ; he would have to take stronger action to derail Brexit (such as asking for a Parliament vote, maybe ?). For the rest, we seem to talk past each other. For the record, FO secretary seem to go BoJo and Brexit way.

Ultimately, the issue is that the UK, as a whole, was unprepared for a Leave vote. I'd like to expand on a quote alluded to above, when Faisal Islam asked one of the pro-Leave MPs what the plan was:

Quote:


“I said to him, so where’s the plan? Can we see the Brexit plan now?” Islam told Botting, without naming the MP specifically.

He said the pro-Leave Tory replied: “There is no plan. The Leave campaign don’t have a post-Brexit plan.”

According to Islam, the MP then pointed toward the Houses of Parliament and said: “Number 10 should have had a plan”.

“It sounds like I’m making that up. That literally happened two hours ago,” Islam said, pausing in apparent disbelief.

“So - and I’ve said this before - the person with the most thought through plan, as evidenced by the past 48 hours, is, astonishingly, Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister of Scotland”.

After another pause, presenter Botting replied: “I don’t know what to say to that.”

So, the pro-Leave camp didn't have a plan, Number 10 didn't have a plan, and the EU (obviously) didn't have a plan. Great.

Further to that, no one wants to be the person responsible for, literally, the biggest cock-up in the entire history of the United Kingdom, the one responsible for breaking it up. Cameron certainly isn't going to touch that one with a hay fork, and there's no need for him to. And, frankly, every reason for him not to, because there is no plan...

So step one, then, is to Get A F---ing Plan. Because until and unless there's a plan (and just as importantly, a...

Well, even without a plan, pushing through the formal invocation of Article 50 would reduce uncertainty.

Even if the succeeding PM/Parliament wants to back down, they apparently can't revoke that, at least not with agreement from the EU.
But, as I suggested before it's not quite as simple as Cameron deciding to do so.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
Never say never ! It will all dépends on how things turns out in a few months time... The EU is nothing but pragmatic, and the last economical crisis led it to construct on the fly new mechanisms ; even the ECB chose to ignore its own rules to do what was needed. If UK goes out of its collective way to wreck other economies for selfish reasons, nobody will object to its forced exclusion : all in the name of democracy and of the collective will of the british people.

Any such move would require the EU to change its fundamental rules to allow it to kick a member state out. Britain itself - which remember is still a member until the process is completed - will simply veto it. I suspect others - maybe Greece or Poland - would be starkly tempted to as well as the precedent would be alarming.

Quote:
A third way of explaining Mr Cameron refusal to issue a formal declaration (despite having said before the vote that he would do so at once) could be that he refuses to personnally assume the responsability of the referendum he asked. Letting the next PM handle the matter could be a way of getting back at his Iago, BoJo. Of course, it can be argued that a continent-wide economical crisis is a harsh price to pay for personal revenge, but hey, politicians can be as insane, immature and mean as any other guy.

Yes. As Cameron walked back into Number 10 after announcing his resignation, he apparently said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" He was also under the impression that the Leave camp had a plan all ready and waiting to roll.

Later that day Sky News political editor Faisal Islam asked a prominent Leave campaigner what the plan was for Brexit and they replied, "We haven't got one."

Quote:
All of this is like a train wreck, all in slow motion.
Yup. We live in interesting times.

Yeah, basically nobody thought it would win. Everyone was using it for political advantage. No one was actually considering the practical consequences.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Del Rey put out a nice set of all the Howard Conan stories some years back.
The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian
The Conquering Sword of Conan
The Bloody Crown of Conan

Not sure about the others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm still more curious what the folks at Paizo are thinking about as they work on this. What they're using as inspiration.

Most of the suggestions I've seen here are pretty much straight science fiction. There may be handwavy technobabble kinds of things that push it into science fantasy for some and the occasional cosmic powered alien, but very little in the way of the kind of PC casting magic + tech I'd expect from something kind of PF compatible & from what they've said about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Soilent wrote:

I'm not sure what to expect, it's quite a conflict of interest.

Seeing as Lovecraft is a heavy inspiration, yet this is a Paizo product.

Lovecraft was very racist, most noteably making a HUGE deal out of interracial marriage.

Meanwhile Paizo has always been deep into the progressive mindset.

I'm curious.

Though really, the lovecraft quote seen above "Never explain anything." explains a great deal about his concerns as a writer. He was considered a hack in his own time, because his primary concern was getting words onto pages, without actually saying anything.

I'm hoping Paizo can do better than him.

Nearly everyone who's used Lovecraft as inspiration in the modern age has avoided at least the more troublesome racist aspects. Paizo certainly has so far, to the best of my knowledge. I can't imagine that will change.

There may be some things that could be racist by analogy - if you take Deep Ones interbreeding with humans as an allegory for interracial marriage, then it's a problem. Of course, Paizo already has that in both Deep Ones and the Skum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:


This thread sure changes shape as fast as a protean

Well, we are trying (collectively) to understand the consequences and implications of a Brexit. It would help us understand them if we knew what they actually were. One of the major issues with the referendum itself is the huge amount of misinformation thrown around by both sides, added to the ordinary common or garden variety of ignorance about economics that seems to plague most countries. (Actually, I've probably reversed cause and effect there. Oh, well.)

For example, I understand very well why people who themselves feel economically threatened would want to preserve any economic advantage they have. But just because you feel economically threatened by something doesn't mean that it's actually an economic threat -- sometimes the evil shadowy thing with tentacles in the corner is just a plate of calamari in a bad light. And sometimes economics can counterintuitive and the most obvious way to protect what is yours will actually cost you more.

About xenophobia and racism, the factors in this election "that dare not speak their name," we can't do much. If the reason someone voted to leave is because they don't want Poles in their neighborhood drinking vodka instead of whisky and because the Italians eat garlic in bed,.... well, pointing out that the Poles actually drink more beer than vodka probably wouldn't help.

But they're tied very closely together. Xenophobia and racism are there and they're certainly factors, but they're tied closely to people's economic perceptions. It's not just that they don't want to live next to the filthy vodka drinking Poles, but that they're taking the jobs and making you poor. It's nonsense of course, but scapegoating is a very effective tactic. The economy is bad, you can't find a job and people are giving you an easy explanation that matches your prejudices.

When times are good, you may still be prejudiced, but it's a lot harder to get you riled up enough to do anything drastic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Demi-Lich H. Ross Perot wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Tammy's a bad apple.

Tammy's also a real peach. {waggles non-existent eyebrows}

Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Sharoth wrote:

Edit - I too am not completely trusting of law enforcement or the government. (Long story.) I respect most officers, but I do know there are more than a few bad apples in the bunch.

As none other than Dr. Philip Zimbardo said after the Abu Ghraib disgrace broke out, it's not "bad apples," it's the barrel itself that's making the apples bad.

Remember that the original saying is that "a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel".

The whole point is that corruption spreads, not that it's fine because there are just a few bad apples.

nominally,I would agree with you, but I would argue here that the saying has taken on the latter meaning nowadays.

Perhaps the saying has been drifted in meaning amongst folk nowadays, but that means those folk are wrong. They are the same folk who felt it was necessary to drift the meaning of words like decimate, to confuse words like accurate with precise, and to invent words like "pro-active." Wrong, wrong, wrong!

And get off my mausoleum lawn, you whipper-snapper!

Well, I'm a firm believer that language is descriptive, not perscriptive, but I think it's worth pushing back on this one. It's taken on the latter meaning, but the older analogy is actually more applicable to most of the cases it's used in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Kazuka wrote:
DM Wellard wrote:

Article 50 is the mechanism by which you actually start the process of leaving the EU

Europe is NOT a country and it was the habit of treating it as such adopted by so many EU lawmakers that actually started this sad sorry mess in the first place.

You're a collective group of individual governments that report to a much larger government which has been slowly gaining more and more power over time and slowly eroding the smaller governments into one cohesive nation. And it started out as a group of governments working together.

This should sound familiar.

Nope. Not like that at all

If it was so, the EU would be incredibly more powerful, less criticized and the legal possibility for Brexit would not exist

And we would not be having this discussion ;-)

Definitely sounds familiar, but perhaps more like this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
Correct, though the proper response is often quite different between the cases. Someone being offensive through ignorance can be handled by fixing the ignorance, for example. Someone being deliberately offensive cannot. You can often tell the difference by their reaction to finding out you're hurt or offended.

I think you hit on this with your last sentence, but it interacts here...

Someone that has offended someone isn't automatically ignorant or boorish. It is possible that the offended party is being too sensitive. That possibility opens up a legitimate "chill out" response from the person being offensive on their opinion that the other person is being too sensitive.

In some cases. I was actually thinking there of looking for the barely concealed joy in those who'd intended the attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Curio wrote:
What we must ask ourselves is this: Is the intent of the player to hurt other players with their character? Has the player shown hurtful and offensive behavior to other players out of character, or before/after the scenario? Do they appear to be particularly malicious with any player? Have they been asked to tone it down/stop and chosen to continue? If it appears to be the case, then yes, you have a disruptive player that needs to be kicked off the table and reported.

There's a disconnect between two underlying philosophies here. Is something offensive only when someone intends to offend or whenever someone is offended? One gives leave for people to be pretty hurtful with an excuse of "just joking" and the other stifles spontaneity and free spirit because someone can be offended, bothered, or read a negative implication into anything.

This being the internet of course a nuanced position between the two isn't possible. Anyone more towards one side or the other than you is automatically all the way on the other side.

Quote:
What we must ask ourselves is this: Is the intent of the player to hurt other players with their character? Has the player shown hurtful and offensive behavior to other players out of character
Something can be hurtful or offensive without intent, and something can cause offense without being offensive.

Correct, though the proper response is often quite different between the cases. Someone being offensive through ignorance can be handled by fixing the ignorance, for example. Someone being deliberately offensive cannot. You can often tell the difference by their reaction to finding out you're hurt or offended.

Some are also offended or made uncomfortable by things that shouldn't be a problem - the mere existence of gay characters, for example. Being offended or made uncomfortable should not in itself be privileged. It shouldn't become a weapon.

Which is why it's hard to have hard and fast rules about what's a problem. Judgement and common sense need to be involved. "Don't be a jerk" is the rule, but it's not always the person complained about who is the jerk. And I think both Mitch and Jessica have made it clear they understand that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Sharoth wrote:

Edit - I too am not completely trusting of law enforcement or the government. (Long story.) I respect most officers, but I do know there are more than a few bad apples in the bunch.

As none other than Dr. Philip Zimbardo said after the Abu Ghraib disgrace broke out, it's not "bad apples," it's the barrel itself that's making the apples bad.

Remember that the original saying is that "a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel".

The whole point is that corruption spreads, not that it's fine because there are just a few bad apples.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Scythia wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
A lich, having cheated Death once, will be obsessed with its own destruction no matter how small the risk. It will spend its immortality making sure nothing ever ends it

Unless it's an angsty Brad Pitt as Louie kind of lich, that misses the pleasures of life and feels oh so empty, but can't quite convince themselves to end it. They'll welcome the end, so long as they don't have to DIY.

Or a nihilistic lich that sees entropy as the ultimate fate of all things, and just wants to destroy as much as they can before entropy claims them as well. They'll embrace the end when it happens, they know it to be inevitable.

Or the martyr lich, who gives up everything -even their very humanity- in a bodisatva like manner so that they can better help others. They'll face an ending if it means saving someone else.

Or the knowledge seeking lich, who wants more time to find the answers they require. Once their answer is found, and their place in history secured, they may lose any sense of purpose and seek an end.

I guess what I'm saying is that liches aren't two dimensional. They're former humans, and just as prone to variance and quirks.

Edit: #NotAllLiches

Actually, I was thinking of a Lich created by the OP's process. That is who choose to become a Lich in full knowledge of everything it entails.

What led me to believe what I wrote was a previous post saying that there was no meaningful difference between life extension and immortality. I considered this and realized that all natural processes take into account the inevitability of destruction. Even the universe itself is bound to end.

Someone who chooses to become immortal would naturally try to ensure that nothing threatens this desired state. For the very same reasons that made him choose immortality to begin with.

Well, if you were given the choice between life extension and immortality, that might be valid, but if you're given the choice between death and immortality, the motives might be different. Or your attitude could change over the centuries.

Or for that matter, with this deal, you could be more interested in the magic power than the immortality.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mitch Mutrux wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Mitch Mutrux wrote:
This is 1000% wrong. Pathfinder Society is for everyone. If someone feels uncomfortable or unsafe because of the behavior of another person at the table they absolutely have the right to speak up and make themselves heard.
On the other hand, compromise and accommodation. It should be for everyone. That also means the complainer can't make everyone else conform to their comfort zone. That just means the loudest and most likely to object get their way.
Here's what's up. If someone comes to me saying that player X's action are making them feel unsafe or uncomfortable, player X gets one chance to knock it off. If they keep it up they get a one-way ticket out the door. Every person that shows up to a public PFS game has the right to feel safe and welcome. That is not even up for discussion. Of course proper judgment needs to be exercised here, and not every situation is going to be the same.

Just to be clear, to use one of the previous examples: If someone came to you saying that nosig's crossgendered PC was making them uncomfortable, you'd give nosig one chance to knock it off? Change the PC.

Now, nosig's volunteered to do this, which is nice, but it seems above and beyond the call to me. Especially when, as Finlanderboy suggested, others at the table may be enjoying the concept.

Or does that fall into "proper judgment needs to be exercised here, and not every situation is going to be the same"?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mitch Mutrux wrote:
This is 1000% wrong. Pathfinder Society is for everyone. If someone feels uncomfortable or unsafe because of the behavior of another person at the table they absolutely have the right to speak up and make themselves heard.

On the other hand, compromise and accommodation. It should be for everyone. That also means the complainer can't make everyone else conform to their comfort zone. That just means the loudest and most likely to object get their way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

All right, just to make sure we're on the same page, if it was 1933 fresh after that fateful German election day and I'd go like "JESUS CHRIST YOU NUMBSKULLS WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?" you'd be there to tell me that I should respect their decision and wait until I see what happens with objective detachment?

Wow! I mean, it would be cool if the world would wait for you every time it goes bananas, but problem is, it doesn't.

It's a moot point. We can't predict the future and you could have moaned and b$*#+ed all you wanted back then as you can do now, blaming democracy for allowing people to make choices. It would not have changed a thing back then it won't change anything now. What I find disturbing is all this willingness to throw away democracy... for what exactly?

Anecdotal note: the nationalsocialist party despised democracy as well and soon acted to get rid of it in the wake of the Reichstag fire.

Who's talking about throwing away democracy?

We're bongoing about voters making a stupid decision. And worrying about the consequences.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fair enough that it's worth understanding why people made the decisions they did. As you say there might be parallels.
OTOH, that doesn't change where those decisions led, even if that weren't intended by voters of the time. That lack of intent doesn't absolve them of responsibility.

Any more than it does today. It's an observable fact that certain kinds of economic stress lead more people to support racist and other more bigoted policies and groups. That's useful in that it gives us more ways to combat such policies and organizations, but it's not a free pass. It doesn't excuse anyone who moves in that direction, just because there are grander economic and political trends.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
Yeah that's the kind of answer where I think everyone else is the jerks at that point.

Everyone else at the table is 'jerks' because they:

Want to be able to see?
Want to not lose their Dex bonus to AC?
Want to move at normal speed?
Want to not get sneak-attacked?

Edit: This is a knee-jerk reaction?

Want the fights to not last 2 hours?

Want the session to not run into overtime because you have more than one fight?

I have a deeper darkness guy, and I reserve using it.

The effectively blind players might not have fun spending the game in such a state.

This is one of the things you drop when things get real.

It is a jerk move dropping it every fight without a whim for how the other players feel.

I always ask how the other players feel about me dropping it before I do.

Yeah once again its really obnoxious as to how this discussion got derailed because what I was proposing doesn't really blind players unless they are ridiculously new to Pathfinder and don't have the most common standard ways to counteract mundane darkness. You can drop darkness all the live long day now its really not going to affect anyone at all. That's kind of why its a knee jerk reaction.

Don't the standard ways to counteract Darkness rely on removing it? Oil of Daylight or heightened continual light, something like that?

Assuming you don't naturally have darkvision of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Without much of a struggle? That's refreshing. How do you figure? Earlier polls said "Trump is unelectable". From there, it has gone to "a few percent in favour of Clinton".

Sure, I hope Clinton will bag the election easily. But what has changed since?

Trump couldn't muster a majority of Republicans in the primary... and they're only ~23% of the total electorate. His nomination is an accident of history... the result of too many Republican candidates thinking they could be 'the one' and thus splitting the remotely sane vote half a dozen different ways while the b+##@@& crazy wing just kept consolidating around the clear standout for their ideals.

The demographics of the general election are vastly different and stacked against ANY Republican candidate at this point... but Trump is especially screwed because women overall despise him. His only hope is that vast numbers of poorly educated older white males have been hiding out in the boondocks waiting for THIS election to finally go to the polls... while the vast number of eligible minority voters that we know haven't been voting continue to stay away. If that happens then he's got a shot. Otherwise, it ain't gonna happen short of an 'October surprise' catastrophe for the Clinton campaign.

Trump also won the Republican primary because the Republican base has been more and more dominated by that b+##@@& crazy wing. Why vote for the candidate dog whistling his support for your crazy when you've got someone willing to come right out and say it? It's not really clear how much things would have changed with less candidates. Trump was still winning primaries when it was down to 3.

Trouble is, that kind of crazy doesn't help in the general. Anything's possible in politics, but the odds are very long. Any Democratic candidate has serious structural advantages. None of it's helped by Trump not being serious about campaigning. He's not fundraising effectively. He's not building a ground campaign. He's not interested in the kind of voter data that's been winning elections. He took off on a foreign trip to plug his Scottish gold course. He's been holding events in states he shouldn't lose and in states he can't win.
It's possible we're in some kind of paradigm shift and twitter and randomly places huge rallies are now the effective way to campaign, but I don't see any evidence for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ragoz wrote:

"I want to use darkness sometime this scenario. My character is specialized in using it."

Follow this up with, "Hey I haven't gotten to do my thing yet. Is it ok if I do it next combat?"

I would expect the answer to be yes at this point. If it isn't I wouldn't be thinking the darkness user is the jerk here.

"Alright. Can you handle the next combat by yourself? Cause I'm not going to be able to do much."

1 to 50 of 5,460 << 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.