|dvh|'s page

1. You're reading a lot into what I said that isn't there.

2. We're not discussing what other people do elsewhere, we're discussing this one case.

3. Your logic is bad, and I'm not sure if you're just trying to spin it to make your position seem tenable or if you're trying to convince yourself you're right. Saying "a gypsy fortune teller is not a stereotype unless you are saying that all gypsy’s are fortune tellers" is just ridiculous.

|dvh| wrote:

So it's OK to play Asian-inspired concepts that define their characters as good at math?

Or people of African descent who are strong and athletic?

I mean, so long as you're portraying the stereotype in a positive manner, it's cool, right?

Like I said you are paying way to much attention to stereotypes. Most concepts can be traced back to something from either history or fiction. It seems to me that no matter what concept you have you take the chance of offending someone. So when I write up the NE druid who performs human sacrifices I take the chance at offending people of Irish decent. When I write up the sea reaver barbarian I risks offending those ancestors were Vikings. The inquisitor class is obviously an attack on the Catholic Church. My point is that any concept can be considered offensive if you chose to look at it that way.

Considering that the Varisian ethnicity is obviously based on the Romani maybe you should be a little less judgmental.

You didn't answer the question.

So it's OK to play Asian-inspired concepts that define their characters as good at math?

Or people of African descent who are strong and athletic?

I mean, so long as you're portraying the stereotype in a positive manner, it's cool, right?

Another aspect of business tattoo policies isn't so much they don't want people to have tattoos but rather don't want to have a policy to regulate said tattoos. A blanket 'no visible tattoos' is easy to handle. But what if the tattoos are offensive in nature? And how is this defined? Who makes up these guidelines? And what if a customer finds a tattoo offensive but is acceptable per these guidelines? Do they fire the employee, make him cover it up, lose the business? Speaking from a managerial viewpoint I'd much rather enforce 'no visible tattoos' then try to explain to someone why a half-naked woman on their forearm isn't acceptable for a server to display because I just dealt with a customer ranting for an hour about it.

Same as any other offensive clothing/etc rule that workplaces also have? Tattoos don't need to be ruled differently.

Not hiring someone because of highly visible tattoos or other body modifications is no more "discrimination" or "prejudice" than choosing not to hire someone who hasn't bathed in a week and comes into the interview wearing hotpants.

Companies want to present a certain image. Slovenly and unprofessional is not an image most want to present.

Man that's wrong on like every count.

1. Someone who doesn't bathe can affect the work of people around them.
2. Having unusual fashion sense shouldn't affect one's work either.
3. Again, maybe people should grow up and not consider things like tattoos as slovenly or unprofessional.

^
|
|
|
This
So This
Very well said rinjin.

As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations.

Well if the business is a corporation, it has most of the same rights as a person.

And that's pretty much garbage and I can't wait until we get rid of that ruling. The decision is always made by a person, an actual living sentient person, not a legal fiction.

1a. So a choice to get visible requires others to overlook the tattooed person in employment consideration? Or is this just a subjective judgement?

1b. Actually, tattoos were originally a declaration of faith or accomplishment. But that reason, as well as the old non-conformist reason, are pretty much moot nowadays. Who wants someone with outdated social understanding working for them?

3. These consequences are not absolute. Each one is a conscious decision made by a person. People can grow up and decide tattoos aren't scary or counter-cultural or anti-business.

4. Ugh, yes it is. A prejudice is a prejudice is a prejudice. Whether or not it's a choice doesn't matter.

A few points:

1) If you want a job, you must realize that the business has rights as well. When two rights collide, who's must give way? The other person's rights because you feel they affect your rights?

2) There is a difference between no tattoos and no "visible" tattoos. I am a high school teacher, I have tattoos, I have them in places that are not visible to the students I teach in everyday life.

3) It doesn't impact your right to work. There are many jobs where tattos are allowed. You are free to express yourself on your body however you want, it is you that must balance you right to freedom to tattoo with a company's right to project an image. You are the one making the limiting choice.

edit:

4) If your tattoo's impact customer's perceptions of your employer's business, are you not hurting your employer?

1. What rights does "a business" have? And what right is it I'm supposedly trampling on by having hypothetical visible tattoos?

2. OK?

3. It does impact my right to work if my choices that should affect only me restrict my job opportunities because the prejudices held by employers.

4. If I were a minority (racial, religious, etc.), would my status impact my employer's perception by racist/whatever customers? (I know having tattoos isn't as serous or a legally-protected class, but it's the exact same logic)

I am so hype for both Blood of Serpents and Blood of Dragons. Want now please.

Uh...this doesn't seem like making a character based off a stereotype of real-life people to anybody else?

|dvh| wrote:

Fun with social mores. I don't get the whole anti-tattoo thing, but I am presently working somewhere where you're not allowed to have any visible.

You don't get the fact that you are a representative of the company while you are on the job.

You don't get the fact that the company just might have an "image" that they want to project to the world at large.

You don't get that some people's attitude towards tattoo's might be different that others?

Oh, I understand some people don't like tattoos and that businesses cater to them because business is business. I just don't like other people's attitudes indirectly affect ownership of my own body if I want to do things like pay rent.

Edit: if one don't like tattoos, fine, don't get them. But someone else's opinion shouldn't affect what I can do with my body so long as I'm not hurting anybody.

mmm...I'm not sure about that. I think it's more to do with tradition and long-standing prejudices that intent to bully. But I guess it's perspective and conjecture either way.

Fun with social mores. I don't get the whole anti-tattoo thing, but I am presently working somewhere where you're not allowed to have any visible.

Without adjectives.

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Undead Leon Czolgosz wrote:

Most strands of anarchism (dudes mentioned above and their followers, Black Bloc-types, anarcho-syndicalists, liberals with fits of delusion like Chomsky, etc.), though, are without a doubt "far left."

I'd need more than your unsupported say-so on that, I'm afraid. Even your Wikipedia article describes Rothbard as closer to hard right than hard left.

Agreed. As Comrade Jeff says, I meant to say that all anarchists* are Far Left except for Murray Rothbard who, as near as I can tell, tried to steal the label "anarchist" from the Left in the same way that Hayek stole the term "libertarian" from us (well, not me, I'm still holding out for the dictatorship of the proletariat) earlier.

This thread, and Harry Reid's (? I think, maybe someone else) histrionics earlier this year (last year?) sadly suggest that Murray was somewhat successful.

:(

---
*Possible exceptions for weirdo "individualists" that I am unfamiliar with.

Hey Anklebiter - are you AnCom?

So we're in agreement then that the US' majority far-right and right-center parties are both garbage then?

It's because an-caps aren't anarchists. Anarchists believe in an abolition of hierarchy. Capitalism requires hierarchy. It's a fundamental problem that can't be resolved.

Alternately, a shaman following a life spirit.

Why do we care what some centuries-dead racists/sexists thought? The government is in charge in the present day and ruling over us in our daily lives. We shouldn't be beholden to the past for our government.

I think your version is fine; the players in your local group seem to consider the female body inherently sexual and shameful and you shouldn't worry about that. The only thing I'd make sure of is getting the artist's permission to modify and re-publish the original artwork.

I'm Latino.... Caucasian, but Latino...

|dvh| wrote:

Kain Darkwind wrote:

|dvh| wrote:

I was replying to you. Please don't tell us what or how we discuss ethics.

I think pointing out your ignorance and making the connection that those woefully unequipped to understand the situation have no business making authoritative statements about it is quite fair.

Just as coming up with a reasonable counterpoint would be on your part. Pleading for exemption from the debate while insisting that you get to continue it seems unethical though. Ironically so.

And I disagree on all your points.

Luckily for me, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without such.

Likewise.

This stuff is awesome. I love these classes.

|dvh| wrote:

I was replying to you. Please don't tell us what or how we discuss ethics.

I think pointing out your ignorance and making the connection that those woefully unequipped to understand the situation have no business making authoritative statements about it is quite fair.

Just as coming up with a reasonable counterpoint would be on your part. Pleading for exemption from the debate while insisting that you get to continue it seems unethical though. Ironically so.

And I disagree on all your points.

I was replying to you. Please don't tell us what or how we discuss ethics.

Soon.. the mysteries will be revealed soon.

I'm going on lunch in 20. I really, really hope it's here when I get back...

Or I'm going to continue waiting.

So we're not allowed to debate the ethics of situations we've never been a part of?

It's only noon here and I am also ready to burst due to hype.

It's 0640 here and I'm awake. I want my beta test because entitlement!

(hype train goes choo choo)

FYI, the character you're referring to is usually called Dictator in fighting game circles, since Capcom USA changed the names of the bosses in the North American release of SFII.

It's definitely in the latter parts of October. Hopefully that playtest is soon!

NR largely. My current Pathfinder game is solid R pushing NC-17 frequently. I recently ran a Vampire: the Requiem game that was solid NC-17. I have a Conspiracy X campaign I'm letting percolate that would probably be R.

/hype

The hype train goes choo choo.

Seems like a good mix.

Sorry for the derail folks. I'll take a look at those options, thanks!

9.99 is a big sum when for the last six years or so I've been on the verge of homelessness.

Argh I lack Herolab and the money to acquire it. Thanks for the template, I'll use that.

OK, I totally forgot how to do those character sheet things. Can someone help a noob out?

Paavo's straight melee from the Ragechemist archetype. I could switch that up though since it seems like we have a lot of melee offerings already.

I'm totally interested. I have an alchemist I can edit to be campaign-appropriate, or I could run with any number of other ideas I have floating around.

I've never played Jade Regent before, but I do have the player's guide and would love to be a part of the campaign!

Unlike all those "feminist" studies and SJW, right? Those are completely unbiased and totally objective.

Maybe you should use fewer pejoratives when trying to make a point.

Even when that point is not relevant to what was brought up. I was discussing the AEI, not whatever straw man you're trying to interject into the discussion.

One of them, as stated by literally every job interviewer who ever talked to me about the subject, might be that men are far more often willing to negotiate their salaries already during their job interview.

So why isn't there standardized pay so women aren't paid less for the same work?

Also, non-credible sources are non-credible. The American Enterprise Institute is about as biased as one can get on economic matters. They (and Sohmers) don't seem that keen on gender issues, either.

|dvh| wrote:

Not really, no.

Could you be more specific?

Can you? Your original blanket statement wasn't very specific either.

Then when discussing the other issues you need to be specific, because in the larger picture "privlidge" is a giant timey whimey ball of confusing and contradictory ideas that implies a lot of things that simply aren't true. If you're shown espousing something that isn't true then it undermines all of your other arguments.

Not really, no.

I'm not that worried. I'm pretty sure that blowing someone's pixilated head off with a rocket launcher is always going to result in some very unlady like language whether or not there are ladies around to hear it or say it.

That's not really the argument at all. Sexism in video games has more to do with how women in game, or women in gaming culture, are treated.

But we're not talking about differences, we're talking about privileges. Things like women making less because employers assume they'll leave the workforce to have children, etc.

Except you also get health care, etc. in Denmark.

Because sexism, racism, et. al. in video games and industry culture is an actual issue.

|dvh| wrote:

Biased language, lack of citations, non-credible source, etc.

Feel free to provide counter points, then. Preferably with unbiased language, citations, a credible source, etc.

Why? I don't have any obligation to do so.