Yndri Ysalaa (The White Mage)

Belle Sorciere's page

125 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I am so grateful for this thread. I haven't been responding or contributing because I haven't felt up to it, but reading everyone's posts here has been a net positive for my mental health.

So thank you all for being here.

Apocalypse is brilliant and fantastic and well worth getting. It makes up for a lot in a game where you can't design your own spells.

Well, damn.

:( My condolences to his family and friends.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am seriously looking forward to this more than any other movie except Captain Marvel.

Terquem wrote:
I'm sorry if by expressing my opinion I said somethings that were insensitive or unkind.

My own observation was you were speaking with the best of intentions. My intention was not to make you feel badly about anything and I am sorry if I did so.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

My opinion is that one cannot actually feel like they should be a man, but also feel like they are not, nor also feel like they should be a woman, but feel they are not. My opinion is that what we feel is confusion about who or what we are, and we all feel this confusion at times. Our society fills our heads with ideas about what a man is and what a woman is, but these are just constructs.

Or what he's describing is possibly gender fluidity, which does exist and is real and real people have experienced it as well.

I know you're trying to be helpful, but a common thing that trans people hear a lot is that they're confused - about themselves, about gender, about what constitutes gender. This doesn't help, and can push people away from learning what works best for them. Trans people aren't confused. Genderfluid people aren't confused.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I once got into a nasty argument with a guy who wanted to play a transgender woman in Wraith. My point was that if he couldn't respect the character enough to use the correct feminine pronouns he shouldn't consider playing the character at all and he was put out by this.

Like respect the character you're playing and you'll probably do fine.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
KSF wrote:

In the good news department (smaller good news, but good news):

The Wisconsin Department of Justice has advised the state's Group Insurance Board to stop their recently announced plans to go ahead with implementing coverage for gender surgery next year. The Wisconsin DoJ's reasoning is more or less the same as that put forth in the new Texas lawsuit (in which Wisconsin is a co-plaintiff).

The Group Insurance Board and the state's Department of Employee Trust Funds replied (paraphrasing): Nah, we're going to go ahead and expand trans healthcare coverage just the same, thanks.

The insurance board did not take any action on the changes at a meeting Tuesday. ETF is proceeding with the decision made in July, spokesman Mark Lamkins said.

Which I take to mean a) they weren't making the change to coverage under duress. And b) there are some good people out there.

Take your victories where you can find them.

Hey, thanks for the commentary. I wasn't really thinking of that when I made my demoralized comment.

I am saving this for a reward for when I finally finish Human Revolution.

Wow, so blatant.

KSF wrote:

Here is some horrible news. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who just succeeded in getting an injunction blocking the rights of trans students, is now going after transgender medical care.

Another lawsuit, to be heard by the same judge.

More details from The Guardian, including TLDEF director Jillian Weiss weighing in on the lawsuit.

The State of Texas is joined in the lawsuit with Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kentucky and Kansas.

Ah, good lord. They're just not going to stop. D:

I mean I knew that but it is demoralizing seeing it in action.

I call it ChroD

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

I don't think that's what Belle was saying, tengu-friend. ^_^

I think her point, in response to Bob's post, was that it's important to report on LGBT athletes (and not treat it as dirty or all about sex). I didn't read her post as being pro-forced outing at all. Look more carefully at the final line of the quote in your post.

Exactly. Thank you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is a good thing when public figures such as Olympic athletes come out as lgbt because it helps those who might be struggling or having difficulty finding relatable role models. I also don't agree that being out as gay is all about sex. It's about relationships. What that reporter did is wrong for the aforementioned reasons, but an article about gay athletes is not out of line in itself.

1980, when I was in the sixth grade. I took an elective class called "Intellectual Gaming" and discovered people playing Advanced D&D in the back, and I was hooked.

Also played some Traveller.

Krensky wrote:

You assume that the people writing 'game fiction' are just doing it for the money. Many of the original ones (Stackpole, Findley, Hickman, Weis) were editors, developers and designers for the games the wrote novels about. In some cases, like Weber and White's Starfire novels the authors were fans of the game and it's essentially professional fan fiction.

Now, none of this makes a book good on it's own.

Also, all those Star Wars books you mention? Those are all work for hire.

Heck, Weber was responsible for a lot of the source material used for his Starfire novels. Not just a fan, but also a writer for the game line.

I also agree it's unfair to characterize authors of game-based novels as just meeting quota to get a check. Someone can just as easily want to tell a story in Battletech, the Forgotten Realms, Star Wars, etc. regardless of what the original media was.

This is quite promising.

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

I am a bit surprised that the poster V is contemplating does not include their children.

Also emo = emotional ;-)

It references a genre of music and associated subculture. If one wants to call someone emotional, using "emo" is misleading. "Emo" is also often used in a derogatory fashion relative to everything from being "oversensitive" to various mental illnesses (such as depression). I mean you can use whatever word you want, but the word you chose to use carries connotations that are going to be read into it because you chose to use that word.

Not to be overly serious or anything.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

V isn't emo, V is regretful.

I think I liked the finale best of all 10 episodes.

Alzrius wrote:
Belle Sorciere wrote:
Also, I don't see how your quote discredits Polygon for all time.

Leaving out the hyperbolic "for all time," it demonstrates disdain for the topic that they ostensibly cover. That, in turn, hurts their credibility. It's the same reason why ESPN doesn't say "all sports are a waste of time, of course."

That's just one of Polygon's recent issues; I won't even get started on the fiasco that was their review of Doom.

With such standards in place no media would be remotely credible.
No, I don't believe it's unreasonable to have a standard of "don't hold your core audience in contempt."

I don't know why I came back to this trainwreck of a thread, but no - they might have once in your estimation expressed contempt for their audience (and let's not even get into whether and how much I disagree with that). It doesn't seem to be a habit, and this is basically just an attack on their credibility because you don't like what they had to say.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Relevant to age, Carol Danvers would have to be at least 40 years old to hold the rank of colonel.

Alzrius wrote:
Belle Sorciere wrote:
The point being that Ghostbusters isn't being discussed as a flop.
Consider the source. You cited Polygon, the video game news website that once said "all video games are stupid, of course."

That's not the only source of that quote, just the first one I found. Also, I don't see how your quote discredits Polygon for all time. With such standards in place no media would be remotely credible.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Belle Sorciere wrote:
The point being that Ghostbusters isn't being discussed as a flop.
It's highly unlikely that GHOSTBUSTERS is going to recoup it's budget in theatrical release. We'll see in a month or so. But right now? It's a flop.

Literally the only places I've seen this film discussed as a flop are this forum and MRA sites.

The point being that Ghostbusters isn't being discussed as a flop.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Yeah, I didn't like the original Ghostbusters that much, either.


On an unrelated note: The more outrage I hear about this movie, the more inclined I honestly am to see it. I hope that the fact this movie "flopped" doesn't lead to Hollywood's typical tendency to kill female stars' careers—I know there's a lot more fragility there than with their male counterparts right now. It sucks how the vocal minority that wants to get intensely angry about this decided to bring down the hatemob it did on one of the lead actresses, too (though I guess it's some comfort that it finally got Twitter to ban someone, considering all the BS they usually let their users get away with).

I've heard nothing but praise for the lead actors in it. I'll probably put it where I put movies like Terminator, Sisters, and other "You have to see this movie!" movies: If I get the chance, I'll see it. If I don't, eh, I won't mourn it.

To be fair, for a "flop" it had the second-best showing for its opening weekend, after The Secret Life of Pets. Then there's this story that says:

After pulling in nearly $46 million at the box office, making it one of the top-grossing live-action comedies in years, Sony executives are looking to capitalize on the success of Ghostbusters and plans are in the works for a sequel.

Hrothdane wrote:
Thank you so much everyone! It's gone smooth so far. I go back on November 2nd to find out if it got accepted.

You have made an awesome step. <3

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Snakes make wonderful pets, though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simeon wrote:
I'm a bi 15 year-old guy, and it's pretty tough balancing what society says I should be and who I really want to be. However, the Pathfinder community has been one of the most welcoming communities I've come across and knowing that all NPCs are assumed to be bi has really helped me. This post is kinda deraily but I just wanted to put my thoughts out.

Welcome! And your post isn't deraily.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also I have so many fun games I never would have found in a game store.

I don't have very fast internet (it's fast, but not that fast) and I still prefer downloading to installing from a disk. I like not having to keep track of disks, not having to go to the store to buy disks, not having to deal with and replace damaged disks, and so on.

It is different from when you could walk into a store and check out games arranged on shelves for your potential consumption but I find that I get more than enough games via Steam and GOG as it is.

The fact that no orientation was established means that establishing one is not a retcon. Your edit (which is what I read in the first place and responded to) does not change my response one iota, nor does it remotely invalidate my response.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sulu's orientation was never established before, so establishing one doesn't retcon anything.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Thank you, Fellow Steve, for bringing me Lords of Gossamer and Shadow, and so much more.

This is how I got into Rite Publishing, which in turn got me into Pathfinder.

Steve will be missed.

Thank you. :)

5 people marked this as a favorite.

So in other news, I-1515, the attempt to put an anti-transgender rights bill on the 2016 ballot, failed to make the ballot.

I'd link a story, but I can't seem to manage it on my tablet.

Re 1515 being religious right backed or not, here's the organization behind it: Family Policy Institute of Washington. Google them to see how religious they are.

Also, 1515 failed so yay for that.

Aranna wrote:
I feel that I may have given a wrong impression. The wrong party here is the first one to drag this into LAW. Everything was fine till someone decided to legislate the issue. Now you are caught in a catch 22 where you have to legalize harm to some group. It's a real mess.

Laws that guaranteed trans people access to the facilities appropriate to their gender have worked for years - even decades in some places - without harming anyone. There is no harm here, and there likely never will be. Making it illegal for trans people to use the correct restrooms does harm trans people.

Also, these laws are not just about restrooms, that's just the point where the people pushing these laws are scaremongering. These laws are about denying trans people all kinds of civil rights.

Aranna wrote:

The restroom thing isn't a religious thing. It is a republican thing. Personally I understand why they are worried, republicans usually imagine the worst that could happen and try to prevent it.

I have never seen a guy try to use the ladies room under any pretext let alone the "I identify as female" one. I suppose it could happen if it became law... but I haven't been following that. Personally why not just use the restroom you have the equipment for. You have boy parts use the mens room, you have girl parts use the ladies room. Seems simple enough. The only ones that hurts are transvestites but I have met some of them and they seem to be the guys who get off by dressing as a girl more than "identifying as female" and I wouldn't want them watching me use the bathroom.

Some points:

1) It is absolutely a religious thing and is backed by religious conservatives.

2) Guys have never in the history of transgender rights laws tried to exploit those laws to gain access to women's restrooms. A guy who's going to break the law doesn't care about laws that keep him out of a restroom.

3) This isn't a worst case scenario. This is basically a never case scenario. It basically doesn't happen. Washington's had transgender protections for 10 years and in that time the only instance of a guy entering a women's space (locker room, I think) was someone trying to "prove" that the law would allow him to - but the law doesn't allow this.

4) Your simplistic solution is what the law is aiming for, and would in fact harm transgender people - and would primarily harm transgender women. Given how many do not have access to surgery because they are too poor and insurance that they might not even have won't cover it - or they might not want surgery for other reasons. Basically, your solution would force women to use the men's room and that's not an acceptable outcome in a reasonable society.

5) Nobody watches you use the bathroom because stalls.

thejeff wrote:

To the extent there is a "them", "they" are losing, badly.

The thing that has surprised me about this whole trans bathroom panic especially is how much it's backfiring. Public opinion is strongly against these laws, even in states that have passed them. The backlash from business has been even stronger.

They certainly hurt real people, but they're also losing. Badly.

True, they're almost certainly on the wrong side of history.

But there is a them. There's a them who sets themselves apart and attacks various iterations of "us."

In my state (Washington) right now, there's a religious right impetus to change the law so transgender people are forced to use the wrong restrooms. This is done under the veil of supposedly keeping men from using the women's restroom, but this is already not allowed. Plus, 10 years of the law allowing transgender people to use the correct restroom has resulted in basically zero instances of harassment or worse, despite what is claimed by this movement.

They've set themselves up as "them" vs. an "us" that is among the most marginalized people in society. This whole thing happening anywhere in the US is probably a backlash against losing the same-sex marriage thing so spectacularly. So they cede that ground and attack people they expect will have a more difficult time protecting themselves.

So there is a "them" and certainly more than one kind of "them." Their political tactics have a real cost to real human beings.

Oh no :( I don't really know what to say.

Just a couple of days ago he posted about the new series of Lords of Gossamer and Shadow supplements. It's hard to believe he's gone now.

I enjoyed this. I've read several of the Shannara books although not close to half of them.

I found the books fairly slow, but the series was fortunately not. It's not the best fantasy TV, but I did enjoy it.

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

To be fair, if the apocalypse happens, getting video games at the store will be your last worry.

You CAN still get *video games* at the store - if that doesn't prove that there is indeed a difference between them and *computer games,* I don't know what does. They'll always be different to me.

There's literally no valid difference in this false dichotomy you've set up. So you can buy console games in stores and games for your computer online. That reflects a difference but that difference iis not the one you are trying to promote. Many of these games are available for both consoles and computers which makes the distinction fuzzier than you seem to want it to be.

As far as the rest, people aren't going to cut down internet usage to satisfy Luddite preferences or even concerns about any given industry moving most of its business online. Overall these shifts are a good thing and make games more accessible.

Also, the memetic similarities you describe are not nearly as encompassing as you say. There's quite a lot of diversity in game design, especially as was pointed out, outside AAA titles (although I'd say even those aren't the array of memetic clones you described).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:

Again, you chose to plaY the game that way rather than to just interact with the characters and story and see where it goes.

You can certainly play the game however you want, but when you play it in a way contrary to the way the game's design supports complaining that it doesn't work perfectly is kinda weird.

People who play in a way to maximize paragon and renegade points are not playing contrary to the way the game's designed. They are playing the game in exactly the way it was designed. The game literally rewards you for playing this way. The only way what you said about the game's design could be true is if the game were designed without paragon and renegade points in the first place.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Norman Osborne wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
Yes, the old game store is dying. It sucks, but that is the joy of the internet. You can look at Good Old Games, but I do not think that helps out as much as you would like. Especially since it is a game store. The best bet is to ask around and look at other sites. We will be glad to recommend some games that we like or find interesting.
Slight correction for you...GOG is no longer Good Old Games, and probably half their catalog is now games released within the past 5 years or so.

They're still adding older games to their library, at least. At least over the past few years I recall the X-Wing games and Starfleet Command.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nohwear wrote:
Belle Sorciere wrote:

It took me some time to adapt but once I did dealing with Steam, Origin, GOG, etc. was pretty painless.

Then again I made the transition in 2009 (that is aside from getting Half-Life 2 on Steam a few years prior).

If the OP is on the Autistic Spectrum, it is likely to be harder for him. We tend to have a harder time with changes, especially ones that as big as this.

Unfortunately, this may be something that you will need your therapist or psychiatrist to help you with, assuming that you have one.

I'm on the spectrum as well, which may be why it took me until 2009.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It took me some time to adapt but once I did dealing with Steam, Origin, GOG, etc. was pretty painless.

Then again I made the transition in 2009 (that is aside from getting Half-Life 2 on Steam a few years prior).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In general, the shift to online purchasing has been a net boon to the videogame industry (there is no video game/computer game distinction anymore, assuming there was ever truly such a distinction in the first place).

Steam has been a good thing. There are bad things in Steam (Early Access being abused, for example), but overall it has been a net plus for gamers. I don't have to worry about misplaced or damaged DVDs, and I have more games than I will ever reasonably play (which is my own fault, and I'm much better about not buying everything that looks good). GOG.com is also a net plus, with a different focus on older games. They have older games that wouldn't otherwise run on newer systems, but they often configure them to run on newer systems.

Losing brick and mortar shops is not that great a loss. Product exposure on Steam can far exceed anything you'd get in a store, and you do not have to worry about old games no longer being kept in stock.

1 to 50 of 125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>