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. 23,455 posts (24,376 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 8 aliases.


1 to 50 of 6,010 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I do not remember any instance of violent protest that led to actual long-term changes in society.

The american revolution?

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

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

MLK was seen as an evil commie until X came along.

MLK was seen as an evil commie until he was good and safely dead. Then he could be recast as a saint, because it was safe to do so. He was hated by a huge chunk of white America. They celebrated his death.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Rednal wrote:
I can't control the American public's reactions - I can control my own. And my standards are higher than basic primate socialization. XD
Sure, and as I said earlier, she was the clear intellectual winner. However, that isn't how we grade these things. The winner is who grabs more undecided voters. Anyone who is undecided at this point doesn't give a flip about issues. Trump won the dog show and I predict that will translate to a bump in the polls.

I don't think it's quite as simple as she was the intellectual winner and he won the dog show. It could easily have gone that way and some will certainly see it that way, but most of those voting purely on "alpha male" grounds are already behind Trump.

By baiting him and getting him to react on cue, while not getting flustered or backing down herself, she played a subtler version of primate politics. She showed him up as just a blusterer with no control and not actually able to control her.


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

It's interesting, seeing how different people interpret the same things in different ways. Trump got angry and heated pretty much right after the debate began, and did everything he could to shout Clinton down - and she basically ignored him and just kept on talking. The ability to ignore an antagonist's barbs and focus on the job is a trait I think the President needs.

...And then he had the gall to say she was being 'holier than thou', and that she was the rude one when it came to debates, when he was constantly interrupting and going over his time. He said that he had a good temperament (after those outbursts? Did he think we forgot?), and that she didn't have the stamina necessary to lead.

I've said this before, but a lot of Trump's strategy seems to be accusing others of having his problems, while trying to take credit for everything that goes well.

Projection.

It was a prime Karl Rove tactic, but Trump seems to have internalized it.

Makes me wonder about his health.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:

As a Clinton supporter I agree with all of this. The debates aren't about the facts, the debates are about the room, the show, the presence. From her opening comments Clinton was visibly nervous, and throughout the night only landed three or so good counter-punches. Every time she lead out on attack it fell flat, and most of her prepared quips to refute his statements also didn't land well. He was in command of the stage last night.

And that's kind of the point. Anyone who was going to choose based on policy chose already. We are into the dog show/beauty pageant part of the race now. And Clinton lost last night on those grounds. We can squabble all we want about who won the intellectual debate (Clearly, Clinton) but that wasn't what last night was about for anyone who was still undecided.

I disagree completely. She was ready. She stayed calm and controlled and baited him into losing what little cool he had.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:

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

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

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

Well, I see you're firmly on the chicken side of the chicken and egg debate.

Is it even possible that it starts with the police acting like an occupying force and that's what creates the belligerence? Especially when it comes to black areas where the pattern often goes back decades to when the police were actually enforcing openly racist laws?

Peaceful protest is what destroyed those bad laws. That is the path forward when the government places unfair rules. When people start into violence it just reinforces the negative responses. The rioters ARE just as much to blame as the cops who are being abusive. They are each opposite sides of the same hateful coin. Each one doing horrible things because the other side did horrible things. An endless cycle of violence in which BOTH sides are dirty and soaked in blood. OR are you trying to say it's ok for blacks to attack innocent white bystanders?

Where is your outrage over the treatment of these white children who were attacked?

Just do an internet search rioters are attacking innocent people. You are supporting this?

Edit: The side I am on is the one of peace. You fix problems with peaceful actions. You create problems with violent ones.

You're blaming the BLM protests (and the proceeding ones), some of which turned violent, for police harassment and murder of blacks going back decades?

I take it back. This isn't even chicken and egg. This is straight up victim blaming. It's not a cycle of violence because for decades the overwhelming majority of the violence has been one-sided. I'm happy to condemn individual incidents in the last few years, but you can't just start there and blame both sides. Police abuse of minorities goes back throughout this country's history and it's not the fault of the minorities. You don't wipe the slate clean in 2014 and say "black people rioted so any police brutality after this is a reaction".
You're right that peaceful protests are more productive, though I could point at a lot of violence back in the 60s. We all learn about MLK, but we learn a whitewashed version of that history. We also forget how hated even he was at the time, not to even talk about the more militant black leaders.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
All the health related speculations about Clinton matter is that she'd better have a good vice.

All the health related speculations about Clinton are basically propaganda. I mean, the only real reason to be concerned about her health is her age and that applies at least equally to Trump.

Pretty much anyone who's bought into the Clinton's hiding serious health problems theory isn't voting for her no matter who her vice president is.

If you're looking for reasons the vice presidential debate should matter, I'd focus on Trump's comments suggesting he'd delegate most of the actual work to his vice-president - and Pence saying his role model would be Cheney.

But it doesn't matter - the vp debate still won't matter. Both candidates are basically reliable middle of their party types. Neither's going to flame out or anything like that. Debates don't usually make a huge difference. Vice-presidential candidates don't usually make a huge difference. Vice-presidential candidate debates rarely mean a thing.


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

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

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

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

Well, I see you're firmly on the chicken side of the chicken and egg debate.

Is it even possible that it starts with the police acting like an occupying force and that's what creates the belligerence? Especially when it comes to black areas where the pattern often goes back decades to when the police were actually enforcing openly racist laws?


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

Honestly for a very long time I was a believer in the "thin blue line" and as a concept I still believe it has merit and value.

However as a concept compared to the modern practice I have several worries in how it is being executed.

I pointed out before and I will again how it seems just having a weapon and being black is grounds for police to treat you as a hostile force. I do not see how the NRA can abide by that at all if they are honest in their mission.

We have people that will state as their sincerely held belief that merely disobeying a police officer is grounds for summary execution. This is not an exaggeration; the idea that a police officer is allowed to use lethal force in order to illicit compliance with his orders is giving him carte blanche to perform summary executions to those who offend him by not complying.

Mind you, complying can get you shot too, if you're black and you move in a way that startles the cop. Levar Jones, shot by an officer when he reached back into his car to get his license as ordered.

And no, the NRA isn't honest at all in their mission. That's been clear for years.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sundakan wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Drahlianna wrote:
If a policeman gives you an order, you're supposed to obey.
This is not true. It is not a law.
They are the enforcers of the law, that's why they can do things such as put up barriers that read Police Line Do Not Cross.

Key word. "Enforcer".

They have many powers when enforcing the law.

None when they are not.

If a police officer tells you to vacate your home so their buddies can party there, you do not have to comply. If they tell you to vacate your home so they can have a little poke around, see if you're hiding something, you do not have to comply. It's a warrant that gives them that power.

In this case, they had the power to detain. Their detainee is an injured teenager. Injured people don't tend to think straight. Teenagers don't tend to think straight. People who think they've done something wrong don't tend to think straight. People who are afraid (say, of people in blue suits who have a history, especially recently, of murdering people who look like you) don't tend to think straight.

An injured, afraid, teenager who was afraid she'd might have done something wrong, and was afraid of the people standing around her is not going to think straight.

So when she's a little uncooperative, I can understand being a little rough with her. The kid you're detaining won't quite sit where you can do your job, I can see getting a little shovey, a little grabby, tying them down, etc. It's regrettable, but you need to get them where you need to get them, because it's your job.

Using pepper spray on the kid is equivalent to poking them in the eyes repeatedly and then choking them until they stop moving. That's more than "a little rough", and being a police officer doesn't excuse you from committing child abuse.

This is the point. Cops need to be able to handle situations like this without escalating to force and using pain to get compliance.

With everyone, but especially with kids. There are plenty of other adults who need to control kids in one situation or another - parents and teachers and many others and even though they may need to prevent kids under their charge from acting out or from running off, they don't get to use pepper spray to do it. They don't even get to use pepper spray if the kid gets violent, which she wasn't.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I'm not "shutting out" your opinions. This isn't me refusing to hear the thoughts of non-hunters—this is me asking for bullets and you giving me buckshot.

I'm not saying that you're shutting out my opinion, but...

Quote:
"I was kind of hoping to just hear from those this label could conceivably be applied to on this one"
...is definitely not in keeping with your analogy. Saying that you only want to hear from one group of people is explicitly ignoring the opinions of others. You're more than welcome to do so, I'm just trying to explain why it is my opinion that that's an unwise course of action if your goal is to engage in public discussion for the purpose of learning or molding your viewpoints.

"I want to know if women find this offensive."

"You should listen to men about that."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
You know, I was kind of hoping to just hear from those this label could conceivably be applied to on this one. Not sure we need to hear from our "gamer dudes" about what they think of the term and why they think they should or shouldn't use it on other people. :P
That's an oft-spoken opinion (given in regards to a variety of topics) with which I wholeheartedly disagree. It's important to have opinions from people that don't necessarily belong to the group being discussed because it allows for outside views which otherwise might not have been heard, to make their way into the discourse provided that the views are being supported with reason-based argument and not just "that's how I feel". For example, as a hunter, I fully want to hear the opinion of non-hunters on the subject of hunting, because if I decided to just shut out all non-hunter views, then it would be impossible for my philosophies on hunting to ever be challenged in a number of ways, since I'd be excluding a large number of ideologies.

In some cases that's true and reasonable. When you're dealing with something like this where we're talking about a label applied to a minority within a group, it's easy for the majority to dominate the discussion and wind up with some apparent consensus that doesn't actually reflect the opinions of the group the label applies to. Which could be either the guys deciding that "gamer girl" is just fine with the few women's voices protesting being missed or the guys white knighting it into a major insult while the women don't really care.


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

It's amazing. Nobody's even pretending Hillary isn't facing huge double standards. NPR is talking about how in order to win she needs to somehow crush Trump without looking annoyed, derisive, or raising her voice.

Let's do predictions, folks! My prediction: Trump will spend the whole debate yelling, then Hillary will raise her voice slightly and he'll say she's screaming.

She's got to do better and she's got to do it backwards and in heels.


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

Still, you don't have to look further than this forum to find instance of people trying to sh(o)ut you down by whatever means necessary just for having another opinion regarding any of the many hot topics (religion, politics, edition wars, PFRPG's balance issues, you name it). Those people would love to have an easy way to shut you down by claiming offense and thereby forcing you "to apologize, retract and not repeat your comment" on anything they don't want your voice to be heard.

So I'd rather have moderators to decide when I'm going over board with my posts than have this power put into the hands of any random reader who might or might not hold any grudge against me. Because self-moderation simply stops to function when a messageboard reaches a certain critical size

I'll admit that I tend to take "just for having another opinion regarding any of the many hot topics" as something of a red flag - at least when applied to topics where some opinions actually are offensive - race issues, gender issues, LGBTQ issues, etc. IME, the vast majority of the time when someone responds to an accusation of racism or other bigotry with something like "it's just an opinion" or "you're just trying to shut down dissenting opinion", it's much like someone complaining that "political correctness" is keeping them from telling the truth about "those people."

Edition wars and game balance, not so much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Well I think the discussion certainly has room for questioning why the police felt she had to be detained as that certainly colors all further conversation about expectations from the police. This merely confirms if they were in the wrong from the start or not.

Unfortunately, it's black-and-white here. "Minor in an accident = police MUST detain her."

They had no choice. She's a minor, so they are required by law to detain her.

There's no misconduct nor room for error here. Once the police arrive on a scene and discover a minor who has been in an accident, that minor is stuck with them until someone with authority to "take possession" of the minor arrives, or until they bring her to someone with that authority.

(In other words, their job is to either hand her over to her parents or take her to the hospital. That they failed at both is where the problems begin...)

As I said above, they didn't fail at both. Her struggling led to her being arrested, not just detained. She was held at the station and released into the custody of her parents.

As far as that law goes, they did a correct thing.

The use of force in detaining her remains unacceptable of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


That is a contortion of the situation on the ground. The claim "unwilling to do this job" which is trumpeted by employers who state that they "need" immigration to fill their labor requirements is a lie. You CAN find people to do those jobs,

... but at a price that the employer is unwilling to pay (and often unable, given their profit margins and other costs). That's what "market" means. The buyer and the seller need to agree on a price.

Or to put it another way:

Quote:


They are trying to deny an adequate supply exists rather than pony up the cash that demand requires.

There is not enough demand for labor at the price a lot of people want to be paid. Those people tend not to get jobs.

There is not enough supply for labor at the price a lot of people would like to pay. Those people tend not to find employees.

The "market" has found a relatively stable situation where the people who are willing to work for next-to-nothing can get jobs that pay exactly that next-to-nothing. Which is what the market does -- match buyers with sellers.

Ah, the holy market doing its duty, legal or not.

But the thing is, regardless of what would happen if there was no supply of cheap labor, once there is such a supply, wages will fall and such labor will be preferentially hired.
That some businesses aren't currently willing and able to pay more when they can get workers for less doesn't mean they wouldn't be willing and able to do so if the cheap labor supply dried up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
Except they are required by law to take her to a hospital, which they didn't do.

Assuming the law as given, they took her to the station and released her to her parents, which I think is legal. They just can't release her on her own recognizance. Had they not arrested her, they would have needed to take her to the hospital or her parents.

Of course, if they had taken her to the hospital, I believe the hospital couldn't have treated or examined her without her parent's consent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
William Hunsley wrote:
Spazmodeus wrote:
William Hunsley wrote:


However I wonder how are people able to use the green font for their dice rolls?

It's automatic....the forum parser does it for you when you enter a dice roll....see the 'How to format you Text "Show"' spoiler at the bottom of the page for other options.

I think I'll submit a Bard....

Let me try...

1d10

Edit: Still doesn't seem to work for me.

Like this:

<dice>1d10</dice>

Except with square brackets "[" instead of angle ones "<"
1d10 ⇒ 5


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Er, people calling you a jerk isn't infringing on your freedom of speech. It's them exerting theirs.

Yeah but people telling me that I'm not allowed to say something because they would feel offended by it most certainly is. And that's what I'm talking about here, because that's exactly how I've seen the offense card being played. You put an argument at the table, the person you try to communicate with don't know how to counter your point but also doesn't want you to be right and suddenly it's about they feel offended by something you probably didn't even say.

Happens all the time. I've been probably even guilty myself of this particular "crime".

You're certainly "allowed" to say stuff you know will offend people. Are you "allowed" to say it without being called a jerk? Probably not. But that's not censorship. That's you not enjoying being called a jerk. It's you being offended by a perception of you other people form based on your attitudes.

Instead of leaning on specious platitudes, could you cite a specific example?

To some extent this is what I meant a long time back about "weaponizing offence". Someone makes an argument and someone else spits back "I'm offended by that" and expects to win the argument by making the first one shut up. That's the "politically correct" that people on the right keep bongoing about.

What I've seen more of lately though is the pre-emptive strike against that. The "I won't be able to talk about this without being shut down by someone taking offence" line. The "It's just my opinion" line. The "shutting down dissenting thought" line.


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

Obviously, not wanting to be searched by police is suspicious and justifies a search.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Why can't people accept firing the bad cops?
Because they go one town over and get the same job, same pay, same benefits, and get to be the same bad cop. I wish I had a gig that sweet.
As for the cop finding a new job easily. That is because there aren't enough officers in some communities to fill all positions so they take anyone with a pulse. This is exactly the sort of problem that is fixed by higher pay. If you create competition for the jobs then the departments can pass over the guys who has already been fired and hire a better guy who is willing to serve the public trust.

Or it's because cops take care of cops and they look out for the guy that got unfairly fired because pepper spraying some stupid kid who deserved it kicked up a public fuss.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'm also amused that Aranna's two solutions here are "boost pay" and "bust unions". Those don't usually go together.
I stand behind pay boosts... better people try to get into the better jobs. But if eliminating the unions won't fix hiring and firing than you need a solution that works. Perhaps firing the entire police force (by shutting it down) then restarting a new one with new management who care about the people they are hiring and are willing to pay more for the best people.

How the hell would you even begin to do that? Do we shut down the police departments for a couple of years for the transition? Rebuild everything from scratch, starting with new trainers and management who aren't part of the current force (or they'll just propagate old ways) and who thus have no idea what they're doing?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:
EDIT: Seeing the union stuff above, I'll point out that my megacorporation is non-union, at-will-employment (whatever it's called where they don't need a reason to fire you), but STILL has termination issues. So laying the impossibility of firing people squarely on unions is unfair. Look to the lawyers...

Forget the lawyers. Look to the management. Look to the corporate culture.

Is there even any evidence that police departments are trying to get rid of these bad cops, but are prevented by union rules or fear of law suits? Like Freehold said, when they do get fired, they just get hired by another department. That's not "We can't fire the bad ones." That's "We don't want to and only do it when forced by public pressure."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
Pan wrote:
The thin blue line keeps cops in uniform for better or worse. Nobody circles the wagons like police unions.
Then you have your hiring / firing solution right here. Eliminate the police unions. Simple.

Ahh, there's the conservative solution for you - kill the unions.

The unions certainly help, but I'm not convinced they're entirely a bad thing. Near as I can tell, they're not usually actually fighting management in most of these cases. The brass rallies round as well. Then the prosecutors join in by arranging not to indict those few cases that actually get that far. The thin blue line is actually pretty thick and goes well beyond the rank and file.


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

It might be easier to get better cops and get rid of bad ones if you paid more, but that still has to be the focus. If you're not trying to build a more empathetic police force at the local level it's not going to happen even if you pay them more. This isn't a problem of isolated bad cops that the well-meaning departments just can't get rid of. The problems run much deeper than that.

Look at the abuses of civil forfeiture. Look at the stuff that came out about Ferguson - where a huge percentage of the black population had warrants out for minor offences and the judicial system was manipulated to fund itself out of poor people paying fines and late fees.

Or look at the departments with better use of force records. They didn't get there by paying their cops more but by changing things from the top. Changing policies. Walking beats. Different training. Building relationships rather than treating the community as an enemy to controlled.

It's not even that hard to do. We know what works. It's a matter of political will.

Paying more may be part of the solution, but it's a small part.


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

To quote Carlin: "What kind of wine goes with Cap'n Crunch? Sometimes I just give up, smoke a bong full of Fruit Loops and go on back to bed."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
The thing about this that most sticks in my craw is that the law-and-order, she-had-it-coming types are the very same people who scream about how everything the government does is tyranny. Can you say cognitive dissonance?

Nah, it's perfectly reasonable.

The good cops only do that stuff to urban thugs, not to real Americans like them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Everyone, get the fork off this thread.
I don't think it IS a fork. Not with Pence calling on people to stop making claims of institutional racism in policing. This is a campaign issue... with a clear difference between the candidates. Clinton is calling for more police accountability... Trump for higher police presence in minority areas, the return of stop and frisk, confiscation of licensed firearms, et cetera.

True and the general issue is on topic, but there's a thread for the specific details of this case.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Remember, guys, this is how they handle children. Think about how they handle grown people with mental illnesses, or disabled people. These folk do not have the simple training/human experience to know how to handle an uncooperative kid.

Right, they handle (black) (girl) children like that because they're pretty sure they're not actually a threat.

Grown people with mental illnesses or disabled people get shot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
NenkotaMoon wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
NenkotaMoon wrote:
Of course, of course, should have not brought my hopes up. You'd rather defend someone who'd say f#@$ you to the police and walk away when they are trying to question them.

Saying "f#@$ you" to the police is your absolute Constitutional right (First Amendment). Walking away from a cop is also your absolute right unless the cops have reasonable suspicion that you are involved in criminal activity.

Neither are grounds for police to assault you.

They didnt assault her at all. How about this, when a cop questions you next time, you tell him to f@#$ off and walk away.

Well, I'm not a hysterical 15 year old black girl, so the circumstances would be different.

If I pepper sprayed you, it would be assault. (or battery. or someother crime, depending on your state laws /pedant)
If the cops aren't justified, it's the same thing for them. I would not be justified if you were swearing at me. That doesn't do it for the cops either.

She was clearly not a threat to the cops, so that excuse it out. They do have the right to detain her, though I'm not particularly happy about that under the circumstances. She wasn't cooperating. So the question is do they have the right to use pepper spray to enforce compliance? Which is essentially the same question as "Do they have the right to inflict pain to ensure cooperation?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Samnell wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Much like you couldn't really have an African-American analogue without the slave trade and slavery. You can have African analogues, certainly, like you could have Native American analogues of various kinds.

I looked at Sargava with an eye towards making it a more Haiti-like colonial/post-colonial nation and setting for an Age of Worms game, but I gave it up because Sargava's actually really close to being Ira Berlin's Atlantic Littoral: the Game. (To the point that I suspect someone at Paizo read Many Thousands Gone.) It didn't make sense to change that into a New World slave society.

And also I study American slavery so my rendition of a slave society is probably way too dark and real world uncomfortable to be much fun in a game. I try not to talk to a friend about it anymore because I was giving him nightmares.

Much like I'm not really interested in playing in a "realistic" medieval fantasy setting - with proper strict class and gender roles and all of that. Far too grim and nasty.

I'm much happier with something more like Golarion or many fantasy worlds. Not necessarily noble-bright, but just barely above slavery for most everybody.


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

Wow, never thought I'd thought we'd agree on something Bugley

She was resisting. They asked her nicely, she got hostile and attempted to leave the scene on bike.

She got sprayed when she was in the back seat of the car. She wasn't trying to leave.

She was not cooperating. She wasn't a threat. But hey, easier to just spray her and be done.


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

As a GM, I appreciate limits on casters running amok.

I would also like to remind players of the kinds of things GMs like me could do to you if enemy casters were allowed to hide stuff from you as effectively as some of you want to hide stuff from them. o wo Boy, wouldn't it SUCK to charge into a boss fight and get told that invisible casters had secretly stacked a ton of debuffs on you without you noticing?

You mean like the way most people used to play?

Though I don't think the FAQ touches on whether you know you've been hit with debuffs. I suppose it depends on the spell, but most seem like they'd be obvious.

Or were GMs really telling their players "There's someone you can't see casting a spell silently over on the other side of the room."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Randy71 wrote:

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

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

As we've said before on this thread - racism isn't a binary switch. There's a spectrum. Clinton is not pure. However the things for which she is accused of racism are overwhelmingly fewer, older and more tenuous than Trump's words and actions.

If racism is a major factor for you in this election, I suggest looking at the overwhelming majority of African-Americans supporting Clinton and trust they know where their interests lie.

As for Sanger, it's possible to admire someone for part of her work, but not approve of other parts. Many Americans, for example, admire the Founding Fathers, despite many of them being slave owners, not because of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Can Christian bakers refuse to bake cakes for interracial weddings?
If they can make a religious argument for doing so, they can certainly try. Have to invent a new Bible for doing that, though. It'd be a HARD sell in New Jersey, either way.

Well, just because it's a hard sell doesn't mean it's wrong. Interracial marriage was a hard sell to start with. Way more unpopular when the court ruled on it than same sex marriage is today.

More importantly: It's not the Court's role to judge the validity of religious arguments. The Court does not argue theology. The Court does not dictate what religious beliefs are valid.

The Court does attempt to determine whether religious beliefs are sincere - for example whether someone is sincerely a pacifist for religious reasons or just trying to get out of the draft. But they'll examine his conduct and they'll question an expert on his church to see if pacifism is actually doctrine for that sect. They won't turn to the Bible and decide that it doesn't demand pacifism.

Even beyond that, plenty of groups have used the Bible to justify racism, to justify slavery, to justify bans on miscegenation. There's a long historical tradition which some groups continue to this day. No new Bible needed. Just interpretations of the old one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:
When the message is "vote doesn't matter anyway", why not spin that wheel? ;)

Because that's not the message. It's not what he said.

Kaine wrote:
Casting a vote, a protest vote, for a third-party candidate that's going to lose may well affect the outcome. It may well lead to a consequence that is deeply, deeply troubling.

The message is: Your vote matters, that's why you shouldn't waste it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usualliy see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.)
There is. Freedom of speech only seemas to apply to those who agree with the regressive left. Talk smack about the evils of Christianity, conservatism, misogyny, etc, and you're A-Ok. Start to argue against any allowed leftist talking points and you're a horrible person who should be forced to shut up.

Feel free to talk smack about the evils of liberalism. Expect argument. :)

I do find it interesting that you lump "Christianity" and "conservatism" together with "misogyny". Are you saying there's a connection? Or just that they're things leftists talk smack about?

As for Christianity, I believe most liberals in the US are Christian. Though they tend to be of different branches than conservatives.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Got it Hama. Thanks.

Now is there anyone who can tell me stuff about Hugo Strange? first, why the heck did they pick 'Strange' as his name? did he come before or after Marvel's Doctor Strange? I mean, come on...

I don't know a lot about him, but he definitely predates Dr Strange - he was a Golden Age villain. One of the very early Batman villains. Showed up in Batman #1!

Mad scientist type - with whatever specialty/gimmick seemed good for the story at the time. Giant Monster Men are the one I remember.

How much the TV one will resemble the original version, I couldn't say.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Pan wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Perhaps. What would you suggest as an alternate tactic, then?
I think folks should look to social media. You can organize boycotts and make videos to go viral. The entire medium has a lot of potential.

Er, no, it doesn't. We've tried that experiment and it doesn't work.

Quote:
I hate to appeal to celebs, but its one of the most effective ways in my experience to get points across. You cant turn on a sports channel or read a sports story without hearing about Kapernick and his protest.

That's right. You can't avoid hearing about the protest, but it's demonstrably very easy to avoid doing anything about it.

Look at how many police brutality videos have already gone viral, and the local DA doesn't even bother to file charges against the officers responsible. When charges are filed (Freddie Gray), the officers are almost always acquitted.

I would be hard pressed to come up with anything less effective than social media activism.

In the short term? Sure. Social media activism isn't going to get cops convicted.

Neither is anything else we can do.
Real protests, violent or disruptive, won't do it. Organizing politically & locally won't do it.

There are two separate questions: What changes do you want to make? and How do you apply pressure to make them?

Your camera suggestions are an answer to question 1. Social media, disruptive protests, celebrity support, electoral politics are all answers to the second.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
If the camera turns off just as he's beating the s*!% out of/shooting a suspect, well, that would be mighty convenient, wouldn't it? If it goes off when there's nothing going on (most likely option) the cop can get it sorted and there's no problem.

Realistically, the cop won't know the camera isn't working unless there's a problem. For example, I don't know if the "engine overheating" light in my car doesn't work. I know that the engine isn't overheating, so the light is supposed to be off. But I won't know if the light goes on when it does overheat (for example, the thermistor might be broken and not reading correctly; that's a relatively common problem with some models) until and unless, it actually overheats.

So the thermistor may have failed 10,000 miles ago....

And an examination of the device showing that it failed silently without the normal signs could be entered into evidence.

But again, this is still looking at the wrong problem. Cameras do help reduce the use of unnecessary force - along with other police abuses. They're also, it's worth repeating an excellent defense against complaints of police brutality and the like.

They're not a panacea though. We've had plenty of police shootings on video in the past few years that seemed pretty bad to me, but never made it to trial. Which is the other problem with just focusing on testimony at trial: It doesn't help if there isn't one. If the prosecutor doesn't want to push for one, if the department controls the narrative to make the cop look good and smear the victim, there won't be a trial.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I think requiring every unformed police officer in the US to wear a body camera and 100% records transparency of the footage would do a lot to solve the situation, but given that the FoP endorsed Trump, that feel like a magic wand solution if not full-on arch and darkly sarcastic.

I had a similar thought that might be more plausible; oral testimony by law enforcement is not admissible in court unless supported by physical evidence. I'm not sure if this qualifies as darkly sarcastic. So we've got the same situation as we have now -- police don't have to wear body cameras if they don't want to, they can turn them off any time they want, and the department doesn't need to release them if it doesn't feel like it.

But when the officer is sued for wrongful death, he has literally no way to make a defense if any of those happen.

Defense Attorney: I call Officer O'Malley to the stand in his own defense.
Plaintiff's Attorney: Objection! No foundation laid! There is no video supporting his testimony!
Judge: Sustained. Move on to your next witness, counsellor.
Defense Attorney: I object! His camera was turned off at the time!
Judge: Overruled. Move on, counsellor.
Defense Attorney: But how can I defend him in this case?
Judge: If I have to tell you to move on one more time, you'll be in contempt.
Defense Attorney: (Sigh). The defense rests.
Plaintiff's Attorney: Your honor, we move for ...
Judge (interrupting): Yes, I know. Motion for a judgment as a matter of law in favor of the plaintiff is hereby granted on all counts.

Better: treat turning off your camera as destroyed evidence. The court should assume that if you turned it off, it was for a reason. If you destroy evidence the court should assume that the destroyed evidence was strongly against you.

However, that's all magic wand solution. And probably, if there was the will to do it, it wouldn't be necessary.
It's the political will that's the problem. We know how to clean up police departments. We've done it before. It doesn't always last, though some remain much better than others. It doesn't last because the will doesn't last. And it only happens on a local level because the police are organized on a local level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bennybeck Wabbittracks wrote:
Are there examples in Golarion of what might be considered Native American, Meso American or Hispanic cultures?

Not well developed yet. The continent of Arcadia is the Americas analog. There was a bit about it in Distant Shores and some hints elsewhere.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:

The person being offended is the one AND THE ONLY ONE who gets to decide if something is offensive.

If I say something that someone else finds offensive, and they tell me that I offended them, I don't get defensive. I apologize and adjust future speaking with the knowledge that the topic that someone just found offensive could be offensive to other people.

It works for me. I wish it worked for everyone.

To a certain point. As long as everyone involved is really playing fair.

Taking that approach too far makes it easy to weaponize offence. Some people find the presence of LGBTQ people in your products offensive. I do not think you should apologize and adjust future products to avoid offending them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
I would just like to point out, Trump has now said the only reason he gave up the birther conspiracy was because he was tired of the questions interrupting his campaign message source.

As I've said before, for Trump the truth value of statements is irrelevant. All that matters is if they're useful.

Birtherism is no longer useful to him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

Meh --

What of the Citizens United ruling?

Long story, short. Citizens United wanted to run a thirty minute attack ad against Hillary Clinton in violation of campaign laws.

[note: I had more to say but it's been a long day. I wanted to post this as to not leave your question unanswered.]

Citizen's United is an ugly ruling, but it's actually pretty hard not to agree with the basic gist. The government was claiming that the campaign finance laws allowed prior restraint not merely on financing ads, but that it would extend to publishing books or movies promoting or attacking candidates. That's pretty serious overreach.

I think a much narrower ruling would have been better, allowing Citizens United to run the film, but not the wider gutting of campaign finance laws.
Uncharacteristically, the Court requested a second round of oral arguments, asking the plaintiffs to argue the broader case. Normally the Court prefers narrow rulings, but this time they chose to actually go broader than the original case.


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

Turkeys can definitely fly.

And it's freaky as hell to have one come out of a tree 10' above your head in the dusk. Those things are way too big to suddenly fly down at you.


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

I might suggest limiting the terrain choices to fit your vision for these orcs. Things like "urban" and "underground" tend to be the most effective choices for PCs, but might not fit these.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Battletoad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
I do however want to say that I will laugh myself to tears if Trump wins and he actually manages to change things for the better. The sheer dumbfounded looks of so many people is just hilarious to imagine.

As I said above: "Logically speaking any statement that starts with "If false, ..." is a true statement."

Of course, it also depends on what you think of as "change things for the better". I'm sure the alt-right will approve of many things he'll try to do.

Honestly, given his history (both recent and distant) and given how his campaign has begun shifting slowly on issues to try to pander to more and more voters, I expect Trump would be a significantly more left-leaning president than his main voter base believes. Obviously that's in no way an endorsement of him, nor any reason to even consider voting for him, but it's at least some small reason not to sweat bullets just yet.

Honestly, given his history and his general incoherence on any kind of policy, I suspect he'd be an even worse president than most on the left believe.

The racism and sexism are both part of his deep history and his current rhetoric. Other than that, I'd agree he's not an orthodox conservative. If he wins though, he'll be governing with a Republican Congress and getting his advice from a Republican cabinet. He's said he'll outsource most of the actual detail work to Pence - who is a doctrinaire conservative and also has the "religious freedom" gay bashing credentials.

He's shown himself to be completely out of his depth when it comes to any actual policy - especially foreign policy. He often sounds like he's got no idea of the actual powers and responsibilities of the office. He's going to be constantly in conflict with Congress if he can't just bully them around.

I suspect he'd be mostly an absentee president - letting Pence handle the boring stuff and thus actually run everything - just occasionally stepping in to screw things up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:
I do however want to say that I will laugh myself to tears if Trump wins and he actually manages to change things for the better. The sheer dumbfounded looks of so many people is just hilarious to imagine.

As I said above: "Logically speaking any statement that starts with "If false, ..." is a true statement."

Of course, it also depends on what you think of as "change things for the better". I'm sure the alt-right will approve of many things he'll try to do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:
FICA taxes are paid on net income, not gross, for small businesses. If I have a nice enough year to significantly (rather than marginally) exceed the $118.5k threshold for 2016, I'm in a 3-4% higher federal income tax bracket. Because of that bracket, I prefer to avoid it unless things are shaping up to jump significantly higher than the baseline federal tax rate for that net income bracket. If you barely squeak into the bracket, you lose money compared to if you were just a bit lower, falling into the upper range of the bracket below.

No. Talk to a tax accountant.

Tax rates are marginal. You do not lose money by reaching a higher bracket. Even for business taxes. If the 4% higher bracket starts at $150K and you make $155K, you only pay that extra 4% on the last $5K, not the whole $150K


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

First, that is only relevant if uneducated white men vote to a greater degree than all the groups Trump has alienated. And similarly, that there are more piece-of-string voters for (R) than for (D).

Second, if all the alienated groups have to do to NOT have Trump as president is GO AND VOTE, one would think it could be worth a shot?

Third, why is voter turnout so low? I understand you need to register to do it, but why is that such a hurdle?

Registration isn't the hurdle. It's not entirely clear what is overall. Some of it you can see right here in this thread - "Why should I bother? My vote isn't going to make the difference and I don't like either candidate anyway."

Republicans in general tend to be more reliable voters. There are many suggested reasons for this.
Older voters tend to be more reliable. White voters tend to be more reliable.
Poor people tend to be less so.
Some of that is psychological - the people the system seems to work for participate in it more regularly. Even if they're convinced the system doesn't work for them. :)

There are practical hurdles that play into those as well - older people have more free time. Poorer people tend to have stricter schedules and find it harder to fit time to vote around working hours. Poorer (and minority) neighborhoods often find themselves with less voting machines/booths and thus much longer lines - in many cases waiting hours, while upper middle class people can zip in and out in 10 minutes.

1 to 50 of 6,010 << 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.