the Stick's page

Before offering some advice, first let me say from reading teh thread title, I thought you REALLY liked your maps...

Frames are rediculously overproced. You can probably build your own for about 10-20% of what you would pay for one premade. Most home improvement stores will cut framing material to the lengths you specify for free and you can staple/tack/nail/glue the frame together. One strip of crown molding can make a pretty decent size frame and there are several low-cost options.

You will need some matting for backing, but you should be able to find some relatively cheaply. As Vaziir mentioned, plexiglass is cheaper (and lighter) than glass and may serve you well. Hope this adds some low-cost ideas to your repertoire.

Final P.S. - You don't need a lot of talent to make your own frames, but you you do need some talent to make them well. Practice helps and the cheapest materials tend to make the shoddiest frames. Depending on your budget, you may want to be a little discrminating in your matting choices.

James? *listens to echo*

I don't think soccer will gain mainstream acceptance until teh officating is more uniform. Keeping the referees (and linesmen) shielded behind a cloak of secrecy goes against American sense of fair play.

I was surprised to see three instances so far of referees carding players for diving (simulation), which brings the total number of times I have seen that to five. Personally, I would like to see red cards handed out (often) for diving, even late if teh grievously injured suddenly hops back up or if replay shows no contact whatsoever made. I'm a big hockey fan. Why? Because there is near universal condemnation (by the players) for diving and regular enforcement against it.

I've seen so many players choose to fall down rather than hop/roll/whatever and continue the play, where that simple continuance could lead to a scoring chance. And that laziness, that gamesmanship, that crass disrespect for honest competition completely turns me off. Despite their physical conditioning, I question the toughness of the majority of these "world-class" athletes because so many choose to feign a foul. They make the NBA look honest! (and I quit watching pro basketball some time ago too).

The Stick has some good points on implementing what I was suggesting. Trust my I have more flare then what I said it was just that I was using broad strokes to get the general idea of course.

I really like the idea of making the paladins look like gestapo flunkies who are corrupt.

You also might take a page out of the Medici family journal and buy your way into the religion to corrupt it from the inside. Then go all "Little Nicky" style and have those new high ups say, "Let the sin begin"!

My apologies for any implications of lack of flair. That was not my intention. :D

The Medici family is definitely a great source. Might I also recommend Machiavelli's The Prince and Sun-Tzu's Art of War for any aspiring ruler.

Ye gads! A populace trained for combat? What are you, Israel? ;D Were I an evil dictator, uh, righteous king, that is, I'd be a teensy bit worried about having everyone trained to fight... unless of course they have someone (that is not you) to attack.

This means war! Find a pretext to attack a neighboring country (they're hogging your water supplies; they're supproting goblin activity' they're not suppressing goblin activity enough; they're heretics; etc.). Provided you have good leadership, your populce gets to vent its aggression and get more realistic training. A successful campaign (read riches flowing into your kingdom) should increase the public desire for blood (and the church may add tenets to support crushing the heretics, once they start getting lucre).

Where are the failures exiled? Might I recommend publicly some island far, far away or free to go, but privately the pits of Hell. Being exiled for failing the monarch's test sounds like a great backstory for some young hero to return and slay the corrupt king one day...

Come on, gamers! Let's be more creative! Apparently in his game, the character is not going to be retired, so let's try to offer suggestions for his game. :D

Ito's got some great starts, though perhaps a bit too obvious. If the king of a LG-leaning nation suddenly starts espousing prostitution and death arenas, there will likely soon be an open revolt. Let's try to make sure the king only faces coups and assassinations.

One could start with a state-approved religion. A good religion... that has corruption festering... Any of your fellow players running clerics of Asmodeus (hopefully not openly). Stick them in a position of directly the state religion and let them slowly suborn the rituals.

Keep slavery illegal... but add new, humane sentencing guidelines for heinous crimes, where teh convicted is required to work to pay back womever was offended (hint: you/the state!). Make sure at least some f the judges share your views, and boom - a ready-made asource of slaves that is good for society (by teaching criminals to pay for their errors and keeping bad people off the streets). Your people will love you.

Make sure you have a secret guild/police force/band of mercenaries that you can use as a foil. They stir up trouble, and you enact laws and send forces to "fix" the problem. Pretty soon, if the cronies do their job right, you have the people clamoring for more draconian laws oto deal with teh problem and willingly giving what freedoms they have to you (kind of like the US/UK, if I may editorialize a moment). Hail, Asmodeous!

You know what, that special police force makes a great cover for your very own assassins guild. Don't forget that character assassination works sometimes better than actual death. Make those lawful-goody paladin vassals look corrupt/inept/lazy/unconcerned for their people/against the crown, and then you can lower the boom on them, and take or redistribute their lands as you see fit. Done right, you may get other vassals to do the dirty work for you, unwittingly contributing to Asmodeus' goals.

Please let us know how it turns out!

Hey James, you still around? Is this game still going on?

/bump

Hey, is this game still going on? I would be very, very interested in participating, if so. I have been jonesing for ShadowRun for years now. I even started putting together my own vision of Charlotte in the 2070s, just in case I ever put together a group.

I'm a little out of the way (Winston Salem), and a lot busy, but would love to hear about what's going on and maybe making the occasional foray down to play.

Gollum Golem? just sayin'...

This law, while intended to stand up to illegal immigration, has caused those who immigrated legally to stand up for themselves and those who share their ethnic background in protest

Yeah, it sure has. My legal immigrant wife is incredibly upset that millions of people get to circumvent the years of crap and 10's of thousands of dollars whe has spent to come here. I've seen stories where older immigrants, both legal and illegal, of Hispanic descent have complained about the people now crossing illegally.

I meant teaching about oppression, which is what this bill will stop. As to them not being restricted in colleges, that's all well and good, but high school is made to prep students for college. What is going to happen to those students who got the "white people never did anything wrong" version of history in HS, then a completely different version in college? It is giving them conflicting information and setting them up to fail.

Perhaps you should read the bill: AZ HB2281

I find some objectionable content in the Provisions, but the single sentence content is hardly an endorsement of White Power that some claim. I think too much emotional opinion is being read into the content of, well, pretty much everything.

Also, let's face it, how can you teach history without teaching oppression?

There is quite a large difference between teaching oppression and teaching about oppression.

The law seeks to make illegal teaching oppression, that is, that one is actively being oppressed by another group. For a rediculous example, it would outlaw curriculum that instructs students that Canadians are forcing them to eat backbacon and wear toques and do not have the interests of non-Canadian students in mind.

However, as a part of history or social studies or civics (or even other courses), it would be perfectly acceptable to discuss (again, rediculous example) the Great Porcine Butchery of 1889 and its subsequent effects on First Nations peoples, etc. etc.

In any event, these courses would not be restricted (where I feel they belong) in college. At risk of going off-topic, perhaps schools should concentrate only teaching language, math and reasoning skills... so the populace at large can become more informed and make better decisions on their own... even if that does not directly adn specifically benifit politicians, school boards, teachers' unions and more. [/mini-rant]

[humorous aside]

Speaking of "the man", when I was in grad school, my firends and I were stunned to learn an otherwise white-bread classmate had been awarded a minority scholarship (based on her heritage as an underrepresented group - Appalachian-American). We looked up all the categories of minority that qualified for different scholarships and came to the conclusion that every singel one of us was a minority in some way, shape or form... except poor old Jeff. He was just a white guy from upstate New York and fit into none of the federally-recognized categories. That prompted me to remark to him, "You're the man that's been keeping us down all these years."

I found the humor because "despite" our minority status, every single person there either already had or was in the process of earning a master's or Ph.D.

[/humor]

...sounds angry...

I can't blame you; there is a quite a bit of injustice in the world. I also figure you are probably venting a little here in cyberspace where "the man" won't cast his suspicious eye upon you.

The question becomes, what do we do about that injustice? If we always get angry and swell up and rail against the authority (no matter how unjust they may be), then the people comprising that authority will only have their ignorant views reinforced. We would all do well to remember that, whether we like it or not, we serve as ambassadors for our race every time we are in a non-homogenous mix of people.

I've been an unwitting ambassador for 'my people' before, being the only member of my 'race' ina 50-mile radius. Even more unnerving, I've been the ambassador for other races, when people without my experience ask me about those who are different with whom I have associated. Sometimes it really sucks to have that constant responsibility adn there have been plenty of times where I really just want to be myself, but I am conscious of the consequences of how others perceive me. At times, I have acted 'normal' for me, despite that responsibility (we are only human after all). But I have made (and continue to make) efforts to demonstrate that we can get along and differnet is not bad, etc. etc.

My point is don't give up. YOu can't win every battle and some people are just going to be a&&!+#$s no matter what. But a lot of people (including those lacking any obvious authority other than the idea of "privilege") can think for themselves adn positive interactions can slowly break down the barriers we humans build so readily on superficial appearances.

My point is that if the racist epithet is being used to silence people who are not racists, society runs a severe risk of creating a policy area where the politicians will allow no insight or accountability. Once that happens, you can guess how good the situation in that field will be.

Very well said! I think one of my biggest frustrations with AMerican politics and society is that there are an increasing number of topics that people are actively dissuaded from discussing. And I agree whole-heartedly that that is a shame to society and likely to lead to negative results rather than positive. Thanks for a great post!

But they can't vote to strip their fellow citizens of their rights, which is what is what opponents of the Arizona law contend is the issue. I don't think I've ever seen a credible argument in support of government by simple majority. Have you?

Uh, sure they can. And have in the past. Although technically most o those abuses were directed towards "non"-citizens. Then again, we could cite Japanese internment during WWII or more recently a slew of eminent domain cases. I think you even cited the Native American relocation acts.

And just what do you think a democracy is? Majority rule. Technically we are supposed to be a republic which is intended to safeguard against the "bread and circuses" catering to the majority, though it seems that we have moved too close to democracy and requisite vote-pandering in recent decades. Every four years supposedly intelligent people call for the abolition of the electoral college which would bring us yet one step closer to simple majority rule.

I don't want you to consture this as ad hominem, as I would love to see reasoned debate about why the AZ law is bad. But recently your arguments seem to be "everyone but me is wrong" and you even admit to not examining the new text of the law. Is it better? Does it address the concerns? Is it now still racist (or less so, or more so)?

I'm confused.

My job here is done! ;D

the Stick wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with native language.

Are you implying that the two are mutually exclusive?

I'm not sure what you mean. Mind explaining? I *think* you're confusing correlation and causation, but I'm not sure.

I was asking if you thought that race and native language were completely separate from each other.

My answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no. Most Batak tribesmen speak Batak. That is, race = native language. But most Batak also speak Bahasa (as that is the official language). So while Bahasa is a constructed language it could also be considered native, adn over 300 ethnic groups speak it.

My point is that sometimes language is associated with race. I don't know many Chinese who speak Batak, nor any Hispanics who do, so if you ran into a Batak (and could identify her by her facial features) you might rightly assume she speaks Batak based on her race.

Many would extrpolate that most "brown" folk form south of the borader speak Spanish (or Portuguese), Often that might be correct, though there are many other languages available too.

My larger point is that discriminating based on language could be construed as racist... though personally I think one would usually have to be looking for racism to label it as such.

It's just that I have such trouble differentiating between all those pesky non-white people.

Sarcasm aside, that is the type of remark I personally find offensive in a debate. Perhaps because our cultural bias (in America) tends to derive from white European settlers, we only learn of white racism, to the point that it quite often seems that racism is the sole purview of whites.

But I ask, how familiar are you with China's Han majority? or African tribalism? Japanese "nationalism"? All cultures exhibit their racism, and the racism that currently exists in America is (for the most part) vastly watered down in comparison.

It sounds like many of the somments posted here are being made by people not familiar with the views of other cultures. Listen to the way others talk about "other others" and compare that to the insular ignorant of America. When otherwise higly intelligent people say things like "Never trust an Indian" or "All members of that tribe are liars", I notice. And unlike most Americans, those views are rarely challenged by the society at large (though in local areas I have seen those challenges to teh mindset occur).

I think, like I have heard natives describe the coming of democracy to former dictatorships, that many people are uncomfortable with so much choice and freedom and prefer strict laws so they do not have to do so much thinking. Black, white, yellow, brown, red, taupe, mauve, vermilion or whatever the color, dealing with "different" requires thought and self-awareness... and people are lazy. Don't be lazy; get to know the non-whites and all the subtle variations in between.

It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with native language.

Are you implying that the two are mutually exclusive?

WHY is raceism not ok?

I missed this a little earlier, but I think this is a very important question and finding answers to it can certainly help us understand our own humanity.

I think 'individual' racism, while distasteful to many and limiting to those expressing it, is not "evil'. People should be free to think as they please, and if that includes hating others for their differences, weel, that's part of the price of a free society. I believe we absolutely should not censor thorught and speech, though we are certainly free (and some could argued obligated) to censure that same thought and speech.

Personal racism is 'fine' in society. Institutional racism is not. When racism transcends an individual's thoughts and begins to affect others in tangible ways (can't buy a house here, or get a job, or go to a certain school, etc.) then it is taking away freedom from those that are the target of the racism. Without constructing a huge argument, my personal conclusions are that that is bad for society at large, when segments of the population are excluded or denied freedoms. Do as you please as an individual, but do not let government (or business) act like an individual.

2. I don't hold non-native speakers to the same standard.

Is that racist?

<half-humor, half serious, since it applies to teh topic at hand>

I meant to add that I now live in the South. Some places are very well integrated, like where I work. Other places... not so much. My wife and I were excited to make friends with the other mixed race family in our neighborhood (and they were just as excited to meet us too), though we are two-thirds of the non-white faces I've seen in a four block radius.

To return to the West Virginia of my youth, I should comment that sometimes familiarity really does breed contempt. I recall that my family hosted visitors from Africa to share farming techniques. It was pretty amazing to think that my grandparents and parents invited an African to come stay with us and play with the children too, in the 1960s and 70s. Of course, perhaps that was because he was African adn not African-American.

On a related note, I have seen quite a bit of tension between Africans and African-Americans, mainly do to different philosophies of life.

apparently from WV too!

Yep, I am a West Virginia native too, though I've often joked I came from the "good part of the state" - the eastern panhandle. Though the paper mill Henry Louis Gates wrote about was (and still is) there (although when I attended the family picnis the integration seemed to havepassed through the awkward stage).

The central and southern parts of WV were quite a shock to me. I had never seen a coal mine until my college years, and I once dated a girl who told me she was from "Niggerless" County (Nicholas), since if a black family moved in they were soon driven out.

Of course my neck of the woods had its own share of ignorance. I recall my grandmother using a nursery rhyme when I was a kid that begain "Come in if you're white, stay out if you're black..." At the time, I thought (quite logically to my little mind) that it meant I had to clean up before coming in the house so I wouldn't track dirt inside.

I do know that things (in my neck of the woods) have improved over teh years. I remember being stunned by youth so willing to hang out with other races when I went home from college one summer. The younger generation, so long as they do get out, do seem to become more and more tolerant, at least until there's competition for resources, i.e., the economy sours.

Excellent Questions. My opinions:

At what point do anti-racist mesures become racist themselves?

Racism, being often subjectively manifested or identified, is a tough issue to address through laws, and even tougher to adjudicate purely by letter of the law. If laws enacted to combat a disparity do what they are designed to do, then those laws need to be retired. But one can always find 'corner cases' where they may apply. My own opinion is that rather than rely on laws telling us what to do, we should rely on our own judgements and intellect (wow, my inner optimist must be strong today) to tell us what is right. Discrimination is quite often wrong and unfair, and we shouldn't need a law telling us to play fair. Unfortunately, in times past, appeals to law were often the only recourse - I woudl like to think that our society has matured to a point where other avenues are open and where the laws can be written to simply say fairness must apply to all.

In practice, there are still institutions with significant ethnic disparities. There are many reasons for this, and not all are blatant racism or discrimination. Rather than write laws to force integration, those institutions need to have strong and wise leaders with a policy of inclusion. While no situation can be rectified overnight, given a decade or two, equality should be achieved. The main problem I see is that people are inherently lazy and strong wise leadership is often only paid lip service.

Next question what is the solution for reverse discrimination?

Reverse reverse discrimination... if we continue our 'let's make a law for that' laziness. The real solution is to simply get to knkow your neighbors and learn about the people around you. YOu may find some generalizations about groups, but the more diverse an array of people you get to know, the wiser you will be in making decisions. Presumably that will carry over into economic situations as well.

Gee, I"m practically PollyAnna-ish today. But honestly, we need to move beyond seeing race everywhere. Yeah, it's easy to note the color of a person's skin, but it takes a little effort to judge the content of their character. But effort is what makes humanity advance.

I'm curious how the children of racists (specifically those belonging to established hate groups) have grown up. Does anyone have any data on how many of those children remained associated with the parents' group? Anyone even know if any studies have looked at that?

I strongly suspect that some children grow up to find their parents beliefs wrong... and not just children of racists....

a lot of stuff I generally agree with! :)

Yay, education! And I think also getting to know one's neighbors, no matter their heritage. I think solving 'large' racism problems works best when 'small' ones are addressed, individually.

I think several posters have hit on a common theme. It's not race that divides us, but rather economics. Unfortunately, you ususally can't look at a person and judge their economic class, though you can certainly see the color of their skin. So by default and innate human instinct, race becomes to go-to judgement.

Again, I reiterate that education solves much of the problem, though that education needs be valued, accessible and objective. With education, economic mobility is achievable and wealth leaves behind many of the biases that plague the less fortunate.

HOWEVER, I don't agree that we have some sort of duty to respect everyone's opinion; merely their right to hold and express their opinion. If you say something stupid, don't be surprised when people conclude (and point out) that you are, in fact, a moron.

I did not say that. At best, I implied that we should respect everyone's right to free speech, but I thought I also made it pretty clear that we in no way have to agree with what is expressed and reserve our own rights to express disagreement.

I'm curious if your model of racism includes intent.

Can an institution or group be racist if none of it's members are racist?

I can't make a generalization, but I will share a very recent personal experience. I teach at a university. I noticed in one of my classes that my white students were getting much higher grades than my black students... consistently. I started examining my own grading scales just to make sure there wasn't some unseen bias there. What I found is that half of the white students were 'non-traditional", returning to college after work experience while none of the black students were. Non-traditional students are generally more diligent and well-prepared, no matter their race. Also, looking into the individual bakcgrounds, certain students did seem to come from 'better' schools, again leading to a stronger preparedness for the class material. What really convinced me is that in another class, my white students were at the bottom of the grade scale.

What amazed me most is that I thought to examine my grading methods to hunt for unintended bias. Had I found it, woudl it be racism? I would say no, since it was unintentional, unless I did nothing to correct it once found.

I think institutions can (and do) exhibit bias, and I believe it is important to have a diverse array of voices within an institution when making policy. I also think those voices should be chosen wisely and not just including X so there is someone of race X there. Ideally, the more logical and reasoned people would be examining these policies.

I also note that this is primarily addressed in government which is there to serve the people. In business, the primary goal is usually to make money, so this goal gets shoved down a few notches. As society progresses, I think that goal will increase in priority.

Ooh, I am excited at how this disucssion is going. Kthulu and Freehold DM make me think about some points. I think we have a triumvirate of Racism vs. Bias vs. Ignorance, and unfortunately the latter two are often shoe-horned (incorrectly) as racism.

In the example of people in mostly white states suddenly encountering a black person and not knowing how to act... I would have to say that one would be hard-pressed to declare racism there, assuming of course they didn't try to run him out of town or somesuch. I would classify that as ignorant, much like my previous example of the Elderly Austrian woman seeing the first dark-skinned person of her life. If they meet that ignorance with an open mind and generally treat the different person civilly, then I think we avoid racism, even if they don't know exactly how to proceed or misunderstand some culture.

I think bias could be defined as personal behavior that does not harm others. If I choose to only associate with others of my particular religion/ethnicity, I may be missing out on social interaction, but I am not harming others who are different.

I think we should reserve racism as the favoring of one race over another, and should work to combat that (as have been doing for quite some time now). Fair hiring/housing/economic policies for all.

And 2BH, from what I saw in Europe, they have done a far better job of removing race from their society than America has (with the exception of the Turks).

2BH = To be honest?

I'm not sure I agree. I think Americans are much more open about thier problems and much more vocal. And the Turks were an issue in the 90s. Now there are issues with Eastern Europeans, Moroccans, and many more. I read an interesting piece about the quiet racism in France that led to teh violent protests and eruptions a few years back. Essentially the entire immigrant population and their descendants were marginalized into second-class citizens. Numerous accounts were relayed about young men whose grandparents had originally immigrated, but they were still treated horribly. The list of abuses is too long to describe, but untli that eruption of protest, we certainly saw no sign of it (we being Americans in general). Also, football matches are notorious for racist jeers, to teh point where governing bodies had to step in with penalties and an entire ad campaign was devised to combat racism

I just think Europe has done a much better job of keeping things quiet and giving the appearance of calm. And after all, aren't first-time travelers to the U.S. stunned by our openness?

Where does one draw the line on free speech as it relates to hate? The people who are voicing these racists opinions are breeding and raising their children into their hateful world.

I do not draw the line at all. All speech should be allowed. However, we should strive to make sure all children have access to solid education, where the emphasis is on logic, communication and critical thinking, in other words, the 3Rs.

You and I have both likely noted the seeming explosion of home-schooling where such standards can be worked around, allowing cults to indoctrinate their children. I think this is in part a response to the changes in the educational system over the past 40 years, but that is a topic for another thread.

I would note that children tend to rebel. Is it the AMish who send their children out in to the world to experience for a year before deciding whether to stay in the fold? Isn't the Mormon mission trip aerving a similar purpose? Only if the children are kept completely sheltered their whole lives will they not be curious. SOme may side with their racist upbringing, others may turn into anti-racism activists. I suspect the majority will fall somewhere in the middle and be embarrased about some of the things thier parents told them.

I want to address racism in America too. Moving to the South from a mostly white state, I was still startled to see how ... separate ... blacks and whites can be. I think there is a lot of distrust and a lot of "it's better we just not associate", especially when both populations are large enough that they don't need to. And that works for some people, and seems to be their choice. I personally think they may be missing out and I am pleased to not that the majority of people with whom I interact are perfectly fine with integration.

I have noted that even among the highest levels of society here (at least that I've seen) there is some stunning ignorance of other groups or institutions. Some mere months after I moved here, I found myself as the unwittingly ambassador of a historically minority institution to a group of wealthy, white social movers and shakers who had spent their whole lives less than five miles from the same institution. That was awkward, but the key was, they were willing to listen... maybe not drive into that part of town yet, but they seemed reassured it wasn't a hotbed of chaos or some imagined horror.

I've certainly seen racist behavior first-hand. I've occasionally been a "victim" of racism (or sould I say "subject", a much more appropriate term for most). But more often, in those situations I have changed minds by simply not being what people's preconceptions of me were. Sometimes there was no changing minds. On rare occasions I used good judgement to get out before the impending violence flared. Most of the time, I firmly believe that calm, rational response is far superior to hysterics and playing the victim. Not all, but most.

Years ago, long before Europe began experiencing its immigration issues, I spent some time studying in Austria and my roommate was an American of Indian ancestry... and by that, I meant he was dark-skinned. One day, we were walking to class and cut across the grounds of a retirement home when I noticed an elderly lady just staring at Niraj. She approached me, completely ignoring him, and asked me if he was "der Schwartzer". Being young, I was slightly embarassed, but I also realized that she had simply never met a dark-skinned person before. Being elderly, I am fairly certain she was set in her ways and likley regarded something different as undesirable, but she was curious enough to ask.

Many would be tempted to call her a racist. She may have been; she was olde enough to have been a young woman during WWII. But while she chose not to associate with Niraj, she did nothing to negatively affect him (other than perhaps his ego, but fortunately his German was quite good enough at the time to understand what she was asking). She didn't try to have him thrown off the grounds, or charge him a special fee or anything like that.

Compare this with an experience I had just a few years ago and which is so commonplace that no-one even bats an eye, but which is blatant racism which would likely horrify Americans who spend much time discussing racism. In Indonesia, there are roughly 330 different ethnic groups, some that I couldn't tell the difference between and some that are very obvious. However, every native of Indonesia knows who is what group and most hold strong opinions about members of each group (within reason - many groups are greatly separated by distance and probably don't have biases, other than "not my group"). It's also common that prices, even for staples like food, vary depending on you race. Let me bold that: The price you pay depends on your race. If one happens to be the same race as the proprietor, you get the "family discount".

Can you imagine the outcry this would cause is the price of a loaf of bread depended on the color of your skin? But this is common in many other parts of the world, and is expected. I was dumbfounded when I first saw this happen, and asked more about it. If I really looked hard one might liken the Hawaii "local price" as something similar, but this is not (usually) exclusive to skin color (in my understanding).

My point is that Americans are given to hyperbole. I'm tempted to start a simlar thread on the use of Naziism, or suggest anyone calling some agency Nazi should be forced to spend a week ina concentration camp then see if they still think any segment of American government is Nazi-like. Back to point, I think we are too quick to accuse and too slow to work toward partnership and understanding. Screaming "racist!" draws attention and gets news time, but quietly working to calmly allow integration of different groups into partnerships of their mutual choosing is boring. Maybe we should be more boring and get our excitement from rolling dice...

Racism has had a nasty history in America; none can deny that. Recent decades have shown remarkable progress. Truly, we are a melting pot of cultures, and one of very, very few such societies.

One often hears racist speech in America, which naturally makes one wonder if racism still owns the night. But I think we often forget that we as a society have the fundamental right of free speech. Even if that speech is hateful or exclusionary, it should be allowed. I despair whenever I hear that a speaker is barred from someplace since not hearing firsthand prevents someone from making up their own mind about the content. If someone wants to found a group espousing racist views, that should be thier right.

Actions, on the other hand, attract the attention of the law. Numerous laws address discrimination. You can't not hire someone just because they're Race X - and the same goes that you can't hire someone just because they're Race X. Business dealings, govenrments etc. all must abide by laws that ideally should be colorblind.

Personal choices, however, are grayer area. If I don't like Canadians, I am fortunate to live in a country where I do not have to wear a toque adn eat backbacon if I want to eat at a diner. If a Canadian happens to own a restaurant, I have the freedom to either not eat there, or suck it up and suck down some syrup. If I express my racist views, that's my choice. If I try to force the diner out of business, that's beyond my personal liberty and brings the law into the discussion.

I believe America is very much leading the world in removing the harmful effects of racism from society. As bad as things have been in the past and as bad as some individual experiences are, racist action is generally not approved in America. FOr contrast, please see my next post.

I've seen in some other threads the topic of race and racism give rise to near-infernos. I got to thinking about racism, America and the world. I sometimes think that we Americans are quick to throw around the term racism, adn that most of us fail to understand our own fundamental (and often unique) liberties. I'd like to introduce a calm and reasoned discussion on racism, especially since this board has participants from all over the world, with the goal of understanding a little better how people interact and to foster a little more awareness of our similarities and differences. I'll start first...

the Stick wrote:

Annex Mexico.

1) industry already flows south... the reason? its cheaper, they pay lower taxes, pay less tot he people, worry less for the benefits, etc... economically speaking there are thousands of companies that won't benefit from this move... why to fix the backyard where youleave the thrash and someone else takes it when you can just do it.. yes you get some rats and problems but its so much easier to just do nothing about it.. and "cheaper"... yeah even us know that we are usa backyard...

2) indeed! immigrant money is about.. i think the 3rd income in mexican economy... if not more... I know towns where most yound adult males are in USA leaving mostly women, children and old people... those towns get a lot of life in december when those people come for holidays (my family is from one of such towns... Yuriria, Guanajuato... but i think most of them don't worry about Arizona... if i heard well most are in Chicago)

3) in this we agree... actually a ot of poeple says that it will be solved with legalizing some drugs that will cut the cartels business.

4) That was the TLC for... ahh you call it NAFTA... if I remember well while we benefited us it gave us the longer shaft... or i think that is the expression... i just remember it caused us a lot pf problems and bankrupsies... at least companies get into getting better quality controls.

5) you ar right, only a fraction of the immigrants are mexican (even if that makes a lot of them), there are from all of the countiries south of Mexico.

but yes... a true and decent agreement between Canada, Mexico and USA should have done a greater deal for the 3 nations...

oh yes Mexican Politician would get an outcry if USA tried this... but I am sure about a big part of the population would accept the change with open arms...

I am not one of those... but since we need to get rid of our politicans one way or another... I would be happy to arrive to a compromise...

still i know this is not gonna happen unless it becomes a continental block much in the way of the European Union and after Greece bankrupsy and Portugal's state... that doesn't sound like a smart choice

First, thank you for responding to my idea. I appreciate also the perspective of someone outside the U.S. as well.

I think for (1) if all Mexicans were suddenly Americans, then American wage laws would apply, tax collection would increase, but wages would also increase. I agree that many businesses would have to adapt rapidly or perish, but I also think that the benefits to the worker would be phenomenal.

(2) (3) and (5) I think we see eye-to-eye on. :)

As for (4), NAFTA/TLC did end up being ... less good ... than it was supposed to be. With no border, no NAFTA (well, excpet for those Canadians). There is certainly a large economic opportunity in Mexico, but it seems two countries cannot realize that.

And I certainly agree that politicians would have a big problem with this idea. After all, they would lose a lot of their power and influence. The older I get, the more convinced I am that politicinas no longer even offer a pretense of representing their constituents and just want their own little kingdoms.

I am interested to see how nations adapt to an increasingly global economy. I do hope that we can work to bring up the poorer nations and not bring down the richer nations. Eventually we will all be on the same page (economically-speaking).

My apologiues for the big rant - I become vexed when no-one seems to want to engage in debate not on whether the law is misguided or racist, but rather how we can fix the problem. The law is not the problem, merely a symptom.

The Mexican government has no impetus (nor power) to halt illegal immigration. The Mexican government is not very strong, adn tends to be very corrupt (such as I have read). Why not annex Mexico?

Loaded? Yes. Straw-man? I'm not so sure. In this very thread there is an assumption shared by many that immigrants are more likely to be criminals than natives, an idea that is:

1. Wrong.
2. Racist.

1. Wrong? I will ignore what others have said about being here illegally automatically makes them a criminal. That can be a bit disingenuous, though I can see merit in it. Others have better access to statistics than I, but there are lies, damned lies and statistics. So I agree that it is entirely _possible_ that illegal immigrants exhibit the same or less criminal profile than native-born Americans. That's possible.

But what about the stack of laws broken simply by illegal status? No driver's license, no SS/FICA/Medicare taxes, etc. It seems that if suddenly an additional 10 million or so taxpayers started paying taxes, maybe my governmetn wouldn't be trying to nickel and dime me into the poorhouse.

2. Racist? I am trying hard to be be civil. I am married to an immigrant. A LEGAL immigrant. You should hear here talk about illegal immigrants. She LOATHES them, since she has had to go through untold invasions of her privacy, spend 1000s of dollars (if not 10,000s) and countless hours of her time jumping through an incredibly complex set of regulations while dealing with people who are often quite rude (and perhaps racist). So if I am a racist (and by extension, my immigrant wife is a racist, then who is not a racist? THose, like you, who seem to claim that circumventing a legal process, no matter how vexsome or misguided, are perfectly fine? If we wnat to whip out the race card, I suggest your opinion is the racist one, as "these poor people" have no other option to come to America. What about LEGAL immigrants.

Again, I try to be civil, but my wife has upon occasion become fed up with all the illegals who don't go through the crap she has had to go through. I guess I'm married to a flaming racist, eh?

I tell you, it's those Mexicans. Except for a few "clean" ones, they're criminals. Plus, who wants a bunch of young workers? It's not like we have an aging population and longer life spans, or anything.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go reflect on Moral Superiority by Accident of Birth.

Are you sure you shouldn't replace "bugley" with "straw" for this post? I understand your frustration, but my that's a loaded post...

And I'm surprised at no response by anyone to the idea of making all Mexicans Americans...

Do you really want to fix the illegal immigration problem with our border with Mexico in a humanitarian way? I have the solution, though we are too cowardly to implement it.

Annex Mexico. Make Mexico part of the United States.

Let's examine this from a few points:
(1) Industry can then flow southward, wages there will increase, there will be more jobs (and more consumers) and fewer people will need to head so far northward.
(2) The Mexican government has no reason to halt illegal immigration, since the vast majority of immigrants (legal and illegal) funnel money back into the country.
(3) The Mexican government is even more inept and powerless and corrupt than our own. Want to stop the violence associated with Mexican drug gangs? Make them American drug gangs... finish this argument yourselves.
(4) Unifying the U.S. and Mexico will provide U.S. businesses a bigger market, and will encourage the Mexican people to aspire (even more so) to American ideals and standards (whether that is a good thing or not is a topic for elsewhere).

Of course, this is not a perfect solution, since many of the illegal immigrants come from farhter SOuth than Mexico, but it would put a major dent in the problem. If those other governments wanted to retain their autonomy, seeing the U.S. absorb Mexico would certainly provide impetus for their governments to approach the problem on equal footing. Expect an outcry from the E.U. and the Middle East, as alarger America would dent their power projection capabiliities and economy. Many would regard this as simply imperialist expansion or Manifest Destiny, but this solution would work within a relatively short time frame.

Treeman ("By the power of Mistletoe ... skull")

Ferocious Oakfriend (okay, he wasn't human, but I thought of that one after reading about Thelonius Monk...)

Garret Freemartin (okay, that was a ranger, but it works)

Drew Greene (more modern)

St. Cuthbert (only in Greyhawk and only with a sense of humor and no fear of attracting the gods' attentions... or rather no great attachment to the character)

Trapper John

Sunshine Willow

randomly combine two names of a plant/tree and animal/natural feature

:)

Urizen wrote:

"Do you know what this is for?"

OUCH!

Missed opportunity! ...chess sex ...

Try if you can break the guy. :D

Even better, incorporating all of the above:

Are You Sure You Want to Know?

The times are indeed changing, when metal-heads seem to expect others to be surprised that they play DnD. Back when I started, D&D (ampersand required), there were exactly two types of gamers - super-nerds and metalheads. The connection between the two is that both groups were generally outcasts/loners. I remember leraning quite a bit about Slayer, Anthrax, Metallica, and more, as well as how to make my own ninja-weapons from a couple of kids I otherwise would never have hung out with. I was never that surprised at the time, since we all loved (um, were obsessed with) D&D, but it was an odd pairing.

Somewhere in the 90s, D&D jumped from the purvey of the oddballs to a more accessible hobby. Even gurls played! Despite the market-driven cliche of gamers, they really are a diverse lot.

Of course, my most recent gaming group included five fat, dorky guys in a basement...

As a DM I now insist tha tmy players give me a short blurb about character background, if only so I can make them plot hook bait or try to personalize my own adventures. Some players give me wayyyy too much, but that's fine. Sometimes their background helps me flesh out a portion of my own world, or inspires me to add something new to my world. Maybe that addition won't even affect the character, but it builds on the shared experience. To promote coming up with a background, I used to give a small reward, like an extra few skill points in craft, profession, or knowledge, or an intangible in-game effect visited on the character (one rogue had an effect where no-one ever remembered his face - helpful for roguery, but annoying for sooo manhy face-to-face interactions).

Occasionally some players simply would not make a backstory. So I made one up for them. The look on the mage character's face was priceless when his brother the bard showed up... with his goblin slave... and nodded hello to the NPC rogue whom he apparently knew from long ago and addressed him by a name the party had never heard.... Good times...

As a player and a borderline egocentric narcissist - j/k), I tend to want to get my character involved and be a part of the story. So I will ask my DM about his world and maybe look at some maps or check out his notes on the personalities and gneralities of places and maybe glance at important historical events. I don't expect Forgotten Realms level of detail, just a few sentences worth of information is helpful.

Then I come up with a background for a character that interests me that [u]also[/u] seems to fit in to the DM's world. Sometimes it doesn't, but there is usually room to 'wiggle' to make the background even more compelling. I don't write a novella on my background, but try to give a brief synopsis (I am long-winded so four paragraphs or so). However, I also make sure to add two to three plot hooks - some sort of mystery or unresolved business - that the DM can feel free to incorporate as part of a campaign.

I was very fortunate to have had a wonderful DM who insisted on a backstory and then designed adventures to make every player the star of story arc at some point. Weaving together those backgraounds was magical; what this DM lacked in tactics, he made up for in story-telling. Some of the best adventures I've ever played came from the personalized adventures he made adn the way he got the entire group involved.

Laurefindel wrote:

There was a game where I tried a concept I called "accomplishment cards". Basically, they were little cards given to the players mentioning something they had to accomplish during the game in order to claim the XPs indicated on the card. Some would be rather banal (You must say "Hasta la Vista, Baby" before killing an enemy) while other allowed me some control over the game (you must go to Red Oak Tavern and hire Matt's character as a guide).

It was a much an experiment for the R-P of the players as an alternate method to 'railroad' this particular game.

If I ever GM again, I think I'll steal this idea. Thanks Laurefindel!

Seconded!

Alright, I have to chime in with my opinion. We are all role-players, used to very active fantasy lives. It's only natural that we project that fantasy not only into our games, but occasionally also into real life. What if I talked to that cute girl? What if I told off my boss? What if zombie-ninjas suddenly attacked?

Fantasizing about massive destruction/death is NOT (necessarily) a bad thing. As opposed to wactively working for that goal, say. Becoming obsessed with the idea might be pretty bad too. But just because you wonder what if, and then extend the fantasy to try to predict whether "society" would be better off if that fantasy came true is not a reason to dash off to the head-shrinkers.

Others have suggested or hinted at what I think is a reasonable deduction - that fantasy is a good excuse to examine your own life and feelings (and you can do that on your own; drugs and couches are not necessarily required). To whom are you connected, and why? How do you feel about yourself and your perceived place in the world? How do those feelings mesh with your goals? How do they mesh with your fantasized self?

If you have trouble working out those thoughts, or have violent urges and trouble controlling them, then by all means seek professional help. But simply recognizing the dark side of rationality does not indicate something is wrong with you.

For my own dimestore psychoanalysis, th elonging is probably related to something I have seen in many of my friends or associates today. With all the improvement in communications, we sometimes don't connect. All our conversations begin to feel superficial, especially when we twitter, facebook, email, message etc. so efficiently, but have trouble meeting face-to-face. A friend of mine was really frustrated when he moved to a new city because he made friends so easily online, but couldn't get anyone to actually meet and go do something.

So again, it's perfectly normal to have dark fantasies. If they bother you, examine why. Likely you can figure out yourself far more easily and rapidly (and cheaply) than a psychiatrist/social worker who doesn't know you.

Looks like I killed another thread...