In Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan there has been a serious problem of over population of deer without wolves to help moderate their population growth. This overpopulation of deer has led to the eradication of various species of trees and flowers in the region, because those are the favored foods of the deer.
By Agent Smith's definition, all life is a virus. When a definition includes everything, it's no longer really a useful definition, unless it's a word like all, everything, or universe.
Is deer season in Wisconsin still like two weeks long? Maybe elongating that would help to mitigate that some, though I don't follow Wisconsin deer population news, so it's just a guess.
I've only ever been in campaigns with 15-point buys (all of which have had parties of 5+), but you shouldn't have too much difference between that and a 20-point buy. What's the party comp? If it's mostly martials, then they'll balanced just by virtue of the fact that they're having to share gold and loot more thinly.
I am seeing all those mafia jokes and I can´t help but think - does everyone hate the consigliere archetype or is it too obscure? Bonuses to persuasion and teamwork abilities aren´t bad at all imo. Sure, you aren´t a better fighter than a straight rogue, but the concept is already inclined towards a more social character.
Also, the sharper is also worth looking into if you want to be good with concealing a knife, but it more oriented towards b!@+%!@+ting people or swiping nice things off them, and the latter isn´t quite so business friendly.
I really want to like the consigliere, but the teamwork feats would be useless to me until level 10 when I could give them to party members, which makes it a fairly late arrival.
For Sharper, I like building towards being a thief (since RP-wise I'd probably start off as a low-level street thug pick-pocketing people and then build into a crime boss over time), but Steal is one of, IMO, the worst combat maneuvers in the game.
The reason why I don't like Intimidate Rogues is that they usually have to worry about oozes and elementals... focusing on mind-affecting abilities means you also get trumped by constructs and undead.
Constructs sure, but I'm less worried about the undead since I don't imagine we'll be fighting against very many in Hell's Vengeance.
Hmmm what about instead of the type of mafioso that just wants to talk people into accepting his offer that they can't refuse, I instead build the type that beats them into submission. For that, I'm thinking of a light hammer or sap build with the Thug and Scout archetypes with the Enforcer feat, building into Shatter Defenses. Once Shatter Defenses comes online, I would charge on the first round getting an intimidate check if I hit, which would then make my opponent flat-footed for eternity. Wash-rinse-repeat. Add the Sap Adept/Master chain in for massive numbers.
In all honesty since its 2 relatively common items. Just ask if they are allowed anyway.
I already know for certain that they won't be, having played a couple of campaigns be these rules already. It's not a death-sentence on the build, but it does give me some pause.
No, you just need to set up two actions that would be equally valid. Say img going to attack or I'm going to roll bluff to feint. If you get the attack, you get a bonus tonattack rolls for one minute. If you roll the bluff, you get a bonus for skill checks for one minute. Basically just never put yourself in a position where you would have to not thanks the action, and you're never going to have to worry about becoming shaken.
That's a definite potential option then, as it would be pretty thematic. The only issue I see is that, in this campaign, we're limited to 1 splatbook per character. So using the Harrowe Handbook for the archetype would mean I have to skip the spring-loaded wrist sheaths and balisongs.
Instead of knife master, I'd go with a Sczarni Swindler. It's a better thematic match and let fate decide is a fantastic buff for a rouge.
Hmm I'm intrigued, but a little confused by Let Fate Decide.
Spoiler:
At 1st level, the swindler can declare two different actions that rely on different types of rolls or checks, such as attacking a creature (an attack roll) or sneaking past the same creature (a Stealth check). As a standard action, the swindler then uses a random method to choose one of the declared activities, such as flipping a coin, rolling a die, or drawing a harrow card. The specific method doesn’t matter as long as there is an equal chance of either activity being chosen.
If the swindler then performs the chosen activity within the next round, she gains a luck bonus on the roll type required for that activity—attack rolls with a specific weapon, a specific skill check, a specific ability check, or a specific saving throw—equal to half her rogue level (minimum +1) for 1 minute. If the swindler performs any other action (whether declared or not) in the round after using this ability, she becomes shaken for 1 minute instead. The swindler can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier.
This ability replaces trapfinding.
So if I choose an attack roll as one of my options and end up getting that, does that mean that I get shaken if on my next round I move AND attack? Seems like a bit of a raw deal since randomly choosing the action is itself a standard action.
So I'm playing in a Hell's Vengeance game sometime in the near-ish future. Usually when making a character, I pick a class, make the most optimized build for that class in whatever particular campaign I'm playing, and then make up RP elements from there. For a change of pace this time, I'm trying to do it in the opposite order and could use some help. Since Cheliax has always had an Italian vibe to me, and since I like old mob movies, I want to make a wise-guy PC named Furio Serafini. So far on my build, I'm going with a Scout Knife Master UC Rogue who uses dual balisongs with spring-loaded wrist sheathes in order to get a ridiculously high sleight of hand check to conceal weapons, giving him the visage of a legitimate businessman who definitely isn't armed... that's for sure. Beyond that, I don't really have any thematic ideas and could use some help with turning RP into mechanics. I'm open to changing any of the ideas I've already put down, that's just what I've got thus far.
Hmmm so if I'm visibly unarmed (not even a weapon my belt) during combat, I don't benefit from suddenly becoming armed if we're already in combat, I assume? That would make concealing a weapon pretty limited in use, not that that's inherently a terrible thing.
Bonus feats which don't require prereqs will always explicitly state that that's the case. Easiest example is the Master of Many Styles Monk and the bonus style feats they get.
Edit: Fighters would be absurdly strong if they got feats without needed prereqs every other level. Improved Critical and Vital Strike with a rapier at level 2? Don't mind if I do!
"How can I get women to join my campaign? " ... wow.
"How can I get _______ to join my campaign? "
feels like we are playing "Pathfinders Against Humanity"...
Some interesting choices are...
"Men"
"Real Men"
"Short People"
"Persons of Color"
"Pasty White Geek Guys"
"Hindus"
"Dog Lovers"
"Hippies"
"Jocks"
"Cowboys Fans"...
As someone who lives 20 minutes away from AT&T stadium, I have no problem discriminating against Cowboys fans. They'll only pay attention when things are going well anyway.
So I'm thinking about building an assassin-themed character for a Hell's Vengeance campaign, and in fleshing out the details of the build, I like some of the thematic effects but am curious about a few of the mechanical benefits. I'm thinking about making the build as a Scout Knife Master UC Rogue, with the focus being on attacking from above (DFA) and concealing weapons (currently thinking about doing TWF balisongs). My question is, while I get that concealing a weapon is just a sleight of hand check, and that it's good for niche cases where you need to go somewhere and appear unarmed (a fancy party or something), but does it have any other mechanical benefits? Can I use it to initiate a sneak attack or something? As far as action economy goes, I imagine I would use a swift action to release one knife from a spring loaded wrist sheath, a free action to open the butterfly knife, and then move/attack, doing the same thing on my follow-up round in order to draw the second knife.
I'm interested in this less for the throwing part and more for the attacking from above aspect. Does anyone have a list of feats/benefits from attacking from a higher position? I know of Death From Above but can't think of much else off the top of my head.
I made my post before his rebuttal was up there, which is why I was using my own group where I don't have to guess as an example. Also asking me to come to a game hoping I'll play the way I tend to play, and asking another group to come play because of an observed trend in their playstyle is not, in fact, very different.
He's trying to get women to play based on assumptions on how he think they'll play.
...or how he's observed them play. Like I said, it at the very least happens in my group. I don't have to make assumptions on how I think the women in my group will play, because they each have their tendencies. It just so happens that of the people in my group that focus on character development and intra-party relations, the women of the group do it more often than the men per capita.
I'm laughing because he makes a sexist generalization about women, then men and then calls himself a feminist all in one sentence.
I think that thinking tasking women with trying to balance murder-hoboism would be in anyway an attractive prospect for said women is also quite funny.
Noticing trends and thinking people deserve equality are not mutually exclusive concepts. Also, assuming the trend is accurate for his group (again, it is for mine but I can't speak for his) then seeking out people who tend to play the desired playstyle is called balancing, not tasking. If someone asked me to play in a game because there was a demand for mechanical min-maxing (my main focus when playing), I fail to see how that's in any way a negative.
I would really enjoy the diversity of gender because I think generally women tend to be more focused on character development and interparty politics which would be a good counterweight to the more masculine murder-hoboism method of playing (although I'm a feminist and recognize that women too can be murder hobos.)
Lol. so many lol.
I mean, he's not inherently entirely wrong. It's obviously not true of all or necessarily even most groups. But at least in my group, the above mentioned trend holds roughly true (since it's a trend and not a universal truth, there are obviously outliers). Just because it's not a trend in your groups doesn't mean it isn't in others.
Based on the previous release, I would expect the resale price on ebay to top $3k within a week. Though it is interesting that they are including Star Fox 2 as one of the titles.
*goes back to playing Secret of Mana on Retropi*
As someone with a RetroPi build, I also have a hard time getting excited about trying to spend $80 on a retro console that only comes with 21 games... if you're lucky enough to get one.
My guess then is that we most likely won't get a great post-event poll until the election, which is ultimately the only poll that matters. I will say that watching May's and Corbyn's town hall-style meetings on C-SPAN has been a fairly entertaining addition to my dinners.
When were those polls being referenced taken? It'll be interesting to see what changes in opinion, if any, might come from this past weekend as well as Manchester.
Well, I know where North Korea is, but Iowa would be a stab in the dark. Colour me ignorant.
Even more pointedly, humans do a bad job in general of deciding what geographic regions are important to know where they are.
For example, I bet you could show me exactly where Luxembourg is on a map, but would be virtually impossible for you to use just a map to show me where Tarrant County is. But, Tarrant County has about the same land area as Luxembourg as well as 3 times the population and 3 times the economic output.
So, really, "show me that on a map" is just a geography snob way to be a jerk to people, and should be ignored as such.
As someone who's lived in Tarrant County, unless you like the Rangers, Cowboys, or Six Flags, there's not much reason to know where Tarrant County is. Hell even when the Super Bowl was here, everyone referred to it as Dallas.
Yeah, except for Lockheed Martin, Bell Helicopter, American Airlines, Carswell Air Force Base, BNSF, the Barnett Shale, The Kimbell and Amon Carter Museums, TCU, the water gardens, botanic gardens, Japanese gardens, Bass Hall, Texas Motor Speedway, Bureau of Engraving and Printing Mint, Sundance Square, Levitt Pavilion, UT Arlington, and 30% of all the best TexMex in Texas. So you know, whatever. ;)
I'll agree with Bass Hall (used to work there) and UTA (used to go there) but the rest aren't much of a reason to care about Tarrant specifically. And 30% of the best Tex-Mex? Idk man, San Antonio and Austin may take the cake on that.
Well, I know where North Korea is, but Iowa would be a stab in the dark. Colour me ignorant.
Even more pointedly, humans do a bad job in general of deciding what geographic regions are important to know where they are.
For example, I bet you could show me exactly where Luxembourg is on a map, but would be virtually impossible for you to use just a map to show me where Tarrant County is. But, Tarrant County has about the same land area as Luxembourg as well as 3 times the population and 3 times the economic output.
So, really, "show me that on a map" is just a geography snob way to be a jerk to people, and should be ignored as such.
As someone who's lived in Tarrant County, unless you like the Rangers, Cowboys, or Six Flags, there's not much reason to know where Tarrant County is. Hell even when the Super Bowl was here, everyone referred to it as Dallas.
I highly, highly recommend the Codex Alera series by Jim Butcher. It's basically Avatar: The Last Airbender meets ancient Rome, but with way more involved and interesting elemental mechanics.
Isn't "US education" an oxymoron, anyway? I mean, you guys don't know where North Korea is, you elect a baboon for president and you think carrying a gun to the mall keeps you safe. I'm sorry, but why even bother spending anything on education? Yeah, sure, you get an occasional Bill Gates or Antonin Scalia, but nos Hercules contra plures.
Is the bolded a reference to something to which I'm not hip, or is it an attempt at an actually critique? Also the carrying a gun to a mall bit is a whole separate argument, one that's unfortunately apparently considered taboo on this site.
Haha ah, that was good for a nice chuckle. All-in-all, I'm content with not being able to point at countries on a map as being near the bottom of my priority list for how I gauge an education system's quality, depressing as it may be. I'm significantly more concerned with the lack of any kind of formal logic classes in general education, or the wasting of resources on mandating unnecessary coursework in secondary education and a compulsion to sink yet more money into unsuccessful athletics departments.
Isn't "US education" an oxymoron, anyway? I mean, you guys don't know where North Korea is, you elect a baboon for president and you think carrying a gun to the mall keeps you safe. I'm sorry, but why even bother spending anything on education? Yeah, sure, you get an occasional Bill Gates or Antonin Scalia, but nos Hercules contra plures.
Is the bolded a reference to something to which I'm not hip, or is it an attempt at an actually critique? Also the carrying a gun to a mall bit is a whole separate argument, one that's unfortunately apparently considered taboo on this site.
So as someone who was recently in college (originally for music education, switched to software engineering after two years but had to stop attending full-time after two and a half more years and start only taking one class per semester because money), I have a few complaints. I'll skip the complaints that are due to my screw-ups because that would be an ungodly large wall of text.
1) Arbitrary and unreasonable elective requirements: As part of my software engineering degree, I'm required to take a number of math, science, and technical electives in addition to the general ed requirements (see BNW's rant which I mostly agree with) and the degree-specific courses. Now the technical elective options were decent (basically all just specialized, and relevant courses like AI, robotics, etc.), the math options were alright but not entirely relevant unless paired with a specific and very specialized technical interest (I took game theory because it was basically linear algebra part 2), but the science electives were atrocious. As a music ed. major, I took Astronomy 1 as my science elective. As a software engineer, that wasn't an option. So what was my option? Surely something significantly more relevant to my degree. Nope, I took General Chemistry 1, which was basically AP chemistry from high school... a class I'd already taken. The other options weren't much better (optical physics, some mechanical engineering courses like statics and dynamics), so I'm left wondering what the purpose of me spending ~$1300 for that class (tuition and supplies) was.
2) Gen. Ed.: Feeding off of BNW's post upthread, while I'm a huge supporter of liberal arts education, I see no reason to force every student at a university to take the same courses they took in high school, as though they will somehow surely retain the information they didn't get before. The same confusion applies to non-liberal arts courses that can be covered under gen. ed. If it doesn't have to do with the career path my degree leads towards, what's the benefit to me? In regards to the argument earlier that engineers would be upset at being referred to as "tradespeople", I can assure you, so long as their jobs keep paying them the same amount, you'll hear no complaints.
So I'm running Strange Aeons for my group as my first full AP as a DM. We initially started running this as the books were being released, but had to stop with ~one session left in book 1 due to time constraints. Now that we're resuming (should be finishing book 1 tonight) I've spent some time reading outside material, both Lovecraftian and other horror material, in preparation. I've found that while this AP is definitely geared towards eldritch horror and is generally written very well, the Pathfinder system seems to be the major limit on how spooky this adventure is able to be, particularly in regards to my group as we tend to goof off during sessions. The limitation I'm referring to is in Pathfinder's (and most pen/papers in general) focus on combat when it comes to mechanics. While this is great for most uses of the game, I've mostly been of the opinion that the more you're able to fight and understand a thing, the less unnerving or scary that thing is. While I could just use that reasoning to through in some super high CR encounters that the PCs are supposed to run away from (Bokrug's encounter, basically), that's really best done as a one-off and not a recurring theme, otherwise the group gets into the groove of, "Oh, we know that it's a high CR monster and we can't kill it, guess it's time to run again" which is more frustrating than scary. So to get around this, I'm trying to come up with some ideas for what I could do to really add some horror elements to the AP and would appreciate any help with that, the more immersive the better.
So far, my main idea is to add a few SCP entries since my group is already familiar with the concept of SCPs (though not necessarily the specific instances that I'm adding) and they're already pretty well written. The way I plan on using any of the SCPs will be in keeping the theme of their concept, so they won't follow the rules of the game, they will almost entirely have nothing to do with combat, and the PCs should never fully understand them, since lacking understanding is one of the biggest reasons that they're spooky. The two SCPs I currently have in mind are:
SCP-087: Can be used to keep players out of areas where they aren't supposed to go (or where they're not yet ready to go). I'm planning on playing it out pretty similar to the tests described in the SCP entry, having any illumination show only 9 steps in either direction, having the child-like whimpering and pleading start to be noticeable after the 27th step, and (should they continue) have the face appear after the 50th flight of stairs. If they reach that, I'll have them make a will save to avoid getting a lesser madness, compel them to run back up the stairs regardless of the save, and have them become exhausted for the rest of the day.
SCP-1879: We have a recurring theme in some of our games with one or two characters that are sometimes found in town selling magical items (these characters are genie-binders in our games) but the items are generally cursed (the DM just rolls a random curse). This SCP fits well with that theme and I'm thinking of having him (naming him Ahgi by the way) randomly appear in a closet or behind some other door ~once per book. He'll initially offer a player something moderately valuable (nothing game-breaking of course) and for a decently low (preferably comical) price, so that the players are compelled to trust him. After one or two of these transactions, the price of whatever item or service he offers will increase oddly, trading them for "just their soul". If they accept, that player will lose all skill ranks in Perform skills, or if they have none, will never be able to put ranks in those skills (we don't have a Bard so it's fine). Eventually the price will reach a point that they can't possibly accept it, so after declining him 2-3 times, Ahgi will inflict some terrible affliction upon the declining character, starting them on a side quest to cure what ails them. Closing the door on Ahgi will cause him to disappear from whatever closet or small room he was in, but if the deal wasn't completed, he'll reappear somewhere nearby soon after.
Anyone have any other ideas that might work well to bump up the spookiness.
Its been one day. Why RIP? Sometimes people need more time to respond. For myself, I am completely unfamiliar with what you are basing this on, so I wasn't sure how to respond when I looked it over yesterday.
Haha I needed a way to bump the thread and I hate just saying "bump".
So I'm going to be playing in a Hell's Vengeance campaign in a few months, and my DM has agreed to work with me on homebrewing a class. He would prefer if it was just an archetype to make things simpler, but for what I want to do, I don't know if it would be simpler to do that, or just create a class based loosely on a few currently existing classes.
So what do I want? Well it's Hell's Vengeance, so naturally... I want to play Dio Brando (part 3's Dio, specifically). Now obviously playing a full-powered Dio would be mind-numbingly OP. But so long as I can still convey the essence of Dio's character, along with the concept of a Stand, I'll be happy getting as close as possible while maintaining relative balance. I know many people will say that a Stand is similar to a Spiritualist's Phantom or a Summoner's Eidolon, but there are significant enough differences that I'm not really happy just re-flavoring either of those classes or making small changes to them. To that end, I tried my best to create what I think is a relatively balanced (though I just made it ~2 hours ago and haven't tested it) class feature that I believe best represents a Stand. Taking that, I then added and edited several class features from other classes (mostly Monk) in a way that I think does a halfway decent job, but that's for you to decide. So I'd greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions regarding balance, concept, or other alterations I should make, as this is my first attempt at homebrew.
Class Features:
Armor Proficiency:
The Stand Master is not proficient with any armor or shields.
Weapon Proficiency:
The Stand Master is proficient with all Simple Weapons
Stand (SU):
A Stand Master begins play with the ability to summon a Stand, a supernatural being which serves the Stand Master, and acts as an extension of him. Summoning the Stand is a swift action which does not provoke an attack of opportunity and requires
no effort on the part of the Stand Master though he must be conscious to do so. The Stand may be summoned in any square within 5 feet of the Stand Master so long as that square is unoccupied, though the Stand may be summoned in the Stand Master's
own square. Once summoned, a Stand lasts until the end of the Stand Master's turn. Though a Stand manifests corporeally, it is not its own creature and is in all ways an extension of its master. The Stand may be targeted while it is summoned, and any
attacks or effects which target the Stand resolve as though they targeted the Stand Master, meaning all damage, healing, or other effects which target the Stand affect the Stand Master instead. A Stand Master may take any action with a Stand that he would normally
be able to take himself, using the same action resource and time. A Stand Master who uses a Stand to attack may do so as many times as the Stand Master himself is able to attack, using the same action resources and time (EX: At 6th level with a BAB of +6/+1, a
Stand Master can make the first attack himself at a +6 and a second attack with his Stand at a +1, or any similar combination. Each stand has its own weapon, and may only use that weapon for any combat purposes. Effects which increase or decrease the Stand Master's attack, damage, or combat maneuver rolls also increase those rolls for the Stand, so long as the Stand can use them (EX: a Stand with Unarmed Strikes as its weapon would not benefit from the Stand Master having Weapon Focus (Dagger) because it can only use Unarmed Strikes, but it would benefit from the Stand Master being affected by Haste or having Improved Unarmed Strike).
At 6th level, the Stand can be summoned in any square up to 10 feet from the Stand Master so long as the square in which it is summoned is unoccupied.
At 10th level, the Stand Master may choose to let the Stand stay summoned until the beginning of his next turn.
At 12th level, the Stand Master may summon his Stand as a free action on his turn, instead of a swift action.
At 3rd level, the Stand's attacks are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming DR and affecting incorporeal creatures.
At 6th level, the Stand's attacks are treated as cold iron and silver for the purpose of overcoming DR.
At 9th level, the Stand's attacks are treated as having the same alignment as the Standmaster for the purpose of overcoming DR.
At 15th level, the Stand's attacks are treated as adamantine for the purpose of overcoming DR and bypassing hardness.
The Stand Master's Stand is selected when he begins play and cannot be changed at any point after.
Cult of Personality:
The Stand Master's sense of self-confidence and charming personality cause his enemies to question their every attack. When unarmored and unencumbered, the Stand Master adds his CHA bonus to his AC and his CMD. In addition, the Stand Master gains a +1 to AC and CMD
at 4th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every four Stand Master levels thereafter, up to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.
These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the Stand Master is flat-footed. He loses these bonuses when he is immobilized or helpless, when he wears any armor, when he carries a shield, or when he carries a medium or heavy load.
Unarmed Strike:
At 1st level, the Stand Master gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. The Stand Master may make Unarmed Strikes with his hands full, and applies his full strength bonus to his attacks. Additionally, the Stand Master does increased damage with his
Unarmed Strikes, treating his damage dice as that of a Monk two levels lower (minimum 1d6).
Bonus Feat:
At 2nd level, and every 4 levels thereafter, the Stand Master may select a bonus feat. He must meet all prerequisites, however he may treat as class levels as Monk levels for the purpose of meeting bonus feat prerequisites.
Stand Pool:
At 3rd level, the Stand Master gains access to a pool of points equal to his CHA mod + his Stand Master level. Once per round, the Stand Master may use a Stand Point to activate his Stand's Stand Power, or another ability which uses Stand Points. Upon reducing
an enemy to less than 0 HP, the Stand Master regains one Stand Point, though such an enemy must be no lower than the Stand Master's level - 2. The Stand Pool is replenished following 8 hours of rest, though the hours need not be consecutive.
Weapon Training:
At 5th level, the Stand Master can select one weapon type (EX: daggers, unarmed strikes, star knives, etc.). He receives a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when using that weapon. This bonus increases by +1 for every 5 Stand Master levels after the 5th. This feature is treated as the Fighter's ability of the same name for the purpose of meeting feat prerequisites and other effects which involve Weapon Training.
Available Stands:
Za Warudo:
Stand Power - Toki yo Tomare!:
At 3rd level, a Stand Master may spend one Stand Point to make an extra attack at his full BAB as part of a full-attack action, either with his own attack or through his Stand.
At 12th level, a Stand Master adds a second extra attack at his full BAB - 5 in addition to the first when he activates this ability.
So has anyone here read through H.R. 1628 yet? I'm reading through it now and am creating an annotated pro/con table (yes, I fully expect the con side to weigh a lot more by the end), but not being expert on the subject of healthcare, I imagine it'll take a good while to finish.
Yeah, but if the claim is patriarchal societies tend to be sexist because the people in charge are jerks (not 'because patriarchy,' because that's simply a tautology), there isn't a problem with double standards, unless you can prove that matriarchal societies also tend to be run by jerks.
And by 'jerks,' assuming I'm toning the language to something forum appropriate.
People in charge of patriarchal societies being jerks is not an indication of their behavior being caused by sexism, so I'm not sure how that's the deciding factor.
*Edit: left out "being jerks"
Well. No. Not 'caused by sexism.' That...doesn't even make any sense (no one is drafting weird 'healthcare' exceptions because sexism is standing over their shoulder with a gun). Part of their 'jerkishness' is _being sexist._
Ah I see, so we're referring specifically to the US in this instance. I apologize. I was assuming you were actually wanting to talk about the topic at hand instead of devolving into a tangent about something else.
Yeah, but if the claim is patriarchal societies tend to be sexist because the people in charge are jerks (not 'because patriarchy,' because that's simply a tautology), there isn't a problem with double standards, unless you can prove that matriarchal societies also tend to be run by jerks.
And by 'jerks,' assuming I'm toning the language to something forum appropriate.
People in charge of patriarchal societies being jerks is not an indication of their behavior being caused by sexism, so I'm not sure how that's the deciding factor.
I had never heard of the Lashunta before seeing Starfinder so I have no real opinion of their before vs. after. That being said, historical precedence doesn't determine whether or not something is sexist (a bias based on sex). Whether or not it's "problematic" (whatever your definition for that is) is up to you. It's not for me because variety is the spice of life, but if you're going to claim that a patriarchal society is sexist because it is patriarchal, it's a pretty glaring double standard to assert that a matriarchal society isn't similarly sexist.
You have your root causes mixed up. The root cause isn't income inequality, that's also result of the actual root cause, racism.
Racism exists as a thing mostly as a justification for economic inequality benefiting those at the top. Medieval europe wasn't really that racist, and apparently had less hostility towards people for being black than for being french. St maurice for example was thought to be black for hundreds of years.
Then the slave trade started, and people needed reasons to justify Forcibly kidnaping other sentient human beings , getting them killed on an atlantic voyage of inhuman horrors, and then sending them and their children and their childrens children to work for you in perpetuity under the threat of being whipped or hanged. Being a lesser human, or not even human at all, fit that need.
It got entrenched further when slaves and poor whites teamed up for Bacon's rebellion. After that the elites realized that they could suppress the poor or the african americans but not both. So they started treating the poor whites a LITTLE better and set them against the african americans.
And it's still as useful thing to do. Martin Luther King tried to tie the union and african american causes together. Racism is still used to get poor whites to vote against their own economic interests. Don't vote against that tax bill that keeps the rich guy from paying any taxes, vote against the food that black person is getting! Look! A black person with lobster! Get them!
So yes. Racism exists because there was money to be made off of it, and there's STILL money to be made off of it. I don't think getting rid of the economic problems would get rid of the racism but i know racism isn't going anywhere until the economic disparity narrows.
Racism in the west, sure (though I tend to defer to Hanlon's Razor), but not necessarily racism across the globe. South Korea, Japan, and parts of China have a tendency to be pretty racist in the modern day without much economic incentive. Just a small anecdote: during the ebola scare from a couple of years ago, there were quite a few bars and other establishments in Ulsan (SK) that wouldn't allow entry to anyone who was black as they were assumed to be from Africa and therefore possibly infected.
What non-marginal change do you think Democrats at the state or federal level could realistically enact in a short time span that they aren't currently?
Return to at least pre Reagan era tax code, end the war on drugs, raise the national minimum wage to reflect a living wage, guarantee education, be it collage or trade, for Americans of all income levels, enact single payer heath care, or at the very least create a state insurance option to Obama Care, and enact prison reform. That's off the top of my head. Those changes would improve the lives of minorities in the US drastically without once mentioning race or even suggesting it's a factor.
I said "realistically". Also some of those aren't terribly specific. What would you define as a "living wage"? Enact prison reform how?
Well, whether or not that's actually what she's getting tossed in prison for is the subject of debate. Her story and the court's story don't match up, and given Code Pink's history, I'm not inclined to give her account of events more weight than the court's.
If she didn't engage in violence, then there is no excuse for a prison sentence.
Think about what you're saying...the government is tossing people in jail for nothing more than what they said, and neither side debates this. What exactly was said, or how loudly, is totally irrelevant.
The idea that anyone is even remotely accepting of this is a death knell for freedom of speech.
I'm a well-educated, level-headed American, and I have absolutely no doubt that is now time -- hell, past time -- to leave. This country is done.
(Emphasis mine)
False. The reason she was in court was because she allegedly disrupted the proceedings and failed to comply with law enforcement when they tried to get her to initially stop. Whether or not that's actually how things went down is the subject of the debate that I referred to in my previous post. I'm a fan of "the end is nigh" type rabble rousing, but it just doesn't really fit here.
We understand that their lives are still bad. We know. Got it. The argument is that voting Democrat makes their lives BETTER whereas voting Republican makes their lives equally bad or WORSE. (Note: this is not a position I hold to be inherently universally true, due in large part to "better" being a subjective term just like "good")
What upsets me is that the Democrats aren't offering real change, just marginal/incremental change. Things are slightly better under a democrat, things are worse under a republican, it's the carrot and the stick that democrats believes guarantees the minority vote. I think Clinton lost a lot of that vote because folks didn't feel like marginal change was going to do it.
What non-marginal change do you think Democrats at the state or federal level could realistically enact in a short time span that they aren't currently?
Wake up, people. When folks are getting tossed into prison for daring to laugh at the emperor's lackey, it isn't the future of the Democratic Party we should be concerned about; it's the future of democracy. Who is likely to win the next election only matters if there IS another election.
Seriously, we're there. It's time for that conversation.
Well, whether or not that's actually what she's getting tossed in prison for is the subject of debate. Her story and the court's story don't match up, and given Code Pink's history, I'm not inclined to give her account of events more weight than the court's.
You think that the lives of democratic voting minorities are better in New York under a democratic governor, with democratic senators, and had Hillary won, a democratic president? I don't.
Quote:
Bill de Blasio was mayor of the city at the time. He did end the stop and frisk program. That means the lives of minorities are now slightly less s**#ty then they were before.
So, Democrat governance made things "slightly less s**#ty", but in no way "better".
Correct, I'm saying that their lives are still horrible in New York, they know the police can murder them without fear of prosecution, sure they don't have to suffer unconstitutional searches anymore like the majority of Americans, but one less indignity doesn't erase the fact that they still have to fear being targeted or outright murdered by the police.
If you improve an abattoir it make it less stressful and frightening for the animals they still end up dead. If you have to tell your kids, especially your boys, that they have to be very careful around the police because they could end up dead that sad reality isn't changed now that they don't have to worry about illegal searches.
We understand that their lives are still bad. We know. Got it. The argument is that voting Democrat makes their lives BETTER whereas voting Republican makes their lives equally bad or WORSE. (Note: this is not a position I hold to be inherently universally true, due in large part to "better" being a subjective term just like "good")
The message I take away from that is... the Democrats do not really need to change much at all. Clinton should have won... and thus, if everything else stayed exactly the same then even just the 'desire for change' factor should be enough flip things back to the Democrats while Trump is in office.
That is the sadist thing I've read in a long time. No matter who you vote for the American people lose.
No, reading about the 15 y/o kid who was killed by police a few days ago was much sadder.
Or the murder-suicide that just happened at a community college 3 minutes from my current location.
Being that I'm an American with a typical American public education, I don't know much about elections in European countries except for in the UK due to having friends living on that side of the pond. Is the French presidential election based on the national popular vote, or is it regionally based?
Direct popular vote. No weird shenanigans (other than the multi-round thing.)
Interesting. So not knowing the general attitude of the average French voter, how much support does a Frexit move have, particularly given Macron's recent statements on the matter? Sorry if these are basic questions. I'm starting to learn French again to stem a tide of boredom and figured it would make it easier if I also learned more about modern France, in addition to generally being concerned about the current state of Europe.
Being that I'm an American with a typical American public education, I don't know much about elections in European countries except for in the UK due to having friends living on that side of the pond. Is the French presidential election based on the national popular vote, or is it regionally based?
I'm familiar with the incident, I'm just not seeing why that's instantly interpreted as condescending, particularly when in that article they even mention that in another case it would be an inspiring message to go out and change the world or some such, even if they don't think it applies here (I disagree with that last part, but that's no surprise...
I feel like the mainstream party "just not seeing" is a big part of why they've been on a pretty major downtrend on election victories. At some point answering "maybe i'm out of touch" with "no its the kids who are wrong" is going to have to go.
I'm not a Democrat, and even if I was, I'm not in a position of leadership within the party, so I don't really see a problem with forming my own conclusion from the evidence with which I've been presented, regardless of whether or not "the kids" (not sure who all that includes) agree.
If we're talking about the same incident (Seattle Social Security birthday party), he didn't give up the microphone; it was taken away from him and then he gave up as the scene further degenerated.
I think it was later that same day that he unveiled the first draft of his racial justice program that Comrade Seas linked a couple of pages ago, so I assume his team was already working it after the Netroots Nation disruption.
Still, though, imho, he handled it much better than the Clintons who alternately responded to BLM demonstrators with condescension ("Why don't you go run for something, then?") and abuse (Bill flipping out when Hillary's use of the "super predator" term came up).
Yeah, that's the one. I lump giving up after having the mic taken away in with giving up the mic in general, but I get your point. Regarding the Clintons, while I only begrudgingly voted for Hillary, I will say that I don't really get all of the animosity towards the "Why don't you go run for something" comment. I guess it's mostly because I don't automatically assume that she was intending it to be condescending and (given that I share the philosophy) took it more as a, "be the change you want to see in the world" kind of thing.
It, of course, turned out that the demonstrator already was working with the (successful, IIRC) Ilhan Omar campaign.
I'm familiar with the incident, I'm just not seeing why that's instantly interpreted as condescending, particularly when in that article they even mention that in another case it would be an inspiring message to go out and change the world or some such, even if they don't think it applies here (I disagree with that last
...
That's an assumption (unless you have Detect Thoughts in your spellbook) but even if it is true (which again, is not my position), how exactly does that make it condescending? Coward-like maybe, but condescending?
