Napoleon?
Genghis Khan?
Cyrus the Great?
Alexander the Great?
I think it is funny that, on an RPG forum, using Hitler as an example of someone with a high charisma score is somehow seen as automatically invoking the Holocaust. Seriously, if that is the belief, stop playing D&D. I doubt Gygax, when using Hitler as an example of someone with a high charisma (DMG 1e), was invoking the Holocaust.
I suspect the issue is equating Obahma with Hitler. If one wants to argue in the abstract that Hitler had high Charisma that is something somewhat different.
That said Hitler is probably not even a good example of someone with Charisma from a gamer point of view. The Guy did not have particularly good Charisma in most circumstances, instead he was amazing at public speaking. Up until he got a gig (politician) that made use of that talent he had been generally a failure at everything he tried, was a general loner unable to easily make friends and is not considered to have been particularly attractive physically. None of these traits fall in line with what we generally equate as Charisma in our D&D characters.
The word "libertarian" confuses me as well. I had thought it meant something like "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" (like me!). Instead, in Texas at least it seems to mean "fiscally anarchist, socially ultraconservative."While there are a huge range of Libertarians, I have never met a member of the party that was fiscally anarchist, socially ultraconservative.
Now, they can personally believe in many things but the platform for the party states the government shouldn't be in the business of legislating social issues. So, while an individual Libertarian might not like a particular group, behavior, religion etc. as a Libertarian they shouldn't be interested in limiting the things they don't approve of just because they don't like it. Live and let live is a Libertarian mode of thought.
I am not sure if these people you have met feel that way. If not, then they aren't likely going to be happy if a Libertarian ever gains a political office.
I gave up on the LP. That sounds really nice, live and let live. But follow that out and look at the results. If you are a Libertarian, you believe that I should be forced to tolerate what you think is right. For example, I believe the platform still calls for abolition of all arms and ammunition control. That initiates force against me, because it forces me to tolerate what I know to represent a grave danger. So all the rhetoric about being the party of liberty, choice, rights, is nonsense. Where is my right to be protected by the government when people are walking around with Kalashnikovs? Am I free then? I'm sick of the simplistic (and people of all political stripes do this-liberals when they talk about abortion, conservatives when they talk about guns, and so on. I don't take sides any more, because all parties are guilty of this.) 'freedom good, choice good, rights good!' It trivializes complex, important issues.
Was it a bit of a jab? Yes. Was I referencing the Holocaust? Not at all. I consider the Nobel Peace Prize for campaigning thing to be more of an insult...probably because it's 100% true.
Quite frankly, I dare someone to come up with a better example of someone with exceedingly high charisma than Hitler.
Happy New Year Kthulhu.
First off, I respect that you that you want to set the record straight in regard to your intent. I probably took it a little too seriously. On the other hand, I felt it warranted being taken at least a little bit seriously. In any case, speaking for myself, I've dropped it and moved on with no hard feelings. Hopefully by the end of this post you'll feel the same.
I quoted your whole post above, so I don't bust apart all context, but I am going to quote again to add some specific comments.
Was I referencing the Holocaust? Not at all.
Only you know yourself, so if you say it, then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The problem is when you can't isolate or disassociate Hitler from atrocities, the Holocaust, and everything else. You can try but you'll always fail.
It’s like the old story about the magic carpet that comes with the instructions that it will fly so long as you don't think about elephants. Once you know that, you can't help but think of elephants. Or try to consider Hiroshima without also thinking of the atomic bomb. We can talk about how Hitler was a sensitive Jewish painter in his younger days all we want; it will still be impossible to separate him from the specter of the Holocaust.
If you didn't know that, then without intending to be sarcastic or patronizing, now you've been told.
As far as the Nobel Peace Prize, I don't know where you're coming from. He didn't ask for it, they gave it to him. Probably as a manipulative gesture on their part. I'm not going to get into whether Obama deserved it or not, because I have my own doubts. However if you have a beef with it, you need to take it up with the Nobel Committee. All Obama could have done was refuse it, which would have unnecessarily made enemies and diplomatic problems abroad. The critics he has back home were still gonna be his critics even had he refused it. There was no clear cut correct way to handle that situation, and I believe he made the best choice available.
Quite frankly, I dare someone to come up with a better example of someone with exceedingly high charisma than Hitler.
Again, I'm going to give you the same answer I gave Derek.
Hitler is a great example of charisma. That's why I have no problem with Gygax using him as an example. But this isn't a discussion about charisma. Its a discussion about politics. The central topic of your post wasn't about the nature of charisma, it was about President Obama.
Let me give you one final example: If I said Rush Limbaugh had a powerful and commanding presence... just like Jabba the Hut. If I seriously expected you think that I was merely talking about the authority with which Rush speaks; I think my intelligence was being insulted if I were you.
And this is not a sly attempt to make fun of Rush, he was a handy conservative figure to use as an example in comparison to 'Hitler/Obama'. One can’t separate Jabba from being a big fat drooling worm any easier that one can think of Hitler in terms other than as Claus von Stauffenberg said in the movie Valkyrie, ‘the Archenemy of the World’.
But... I really am serious about not igniting this into something bigger than it actually is. I don't want this to be a grudge between us, or go over it again and again like a broken record. Its over. I vented a little, and said how I felt about it. Now its done as far I'm concerned. People are gonna do what they want anyway, and I can't be the Message Board Cop.
No hard feelings. Good gaming. Happy New Year to you and your friends and family.
EDIT: This might be a double post. I think the MEssage Board Bug ate the first one.
Was it a bit of a jab? Yes. Was I referencing the Holocaust? Not at all. I consider the Nobel Peace Prize for campaigning thing to be more of an insult...probably because it's 100% true.
Quite frankly, I dare someone to come up with a better example of someone with exceedingly high charisma than Hitler.
Happy New Year Kthulhu.
First off, I respect that you that you want to set the record straight in regard to your intent. I probably took it a little too seriously. On the other hand, I felt it warranted being taken at least a little bit seriously. In any case, speaking for myself, I've dropped it and moved on with no hard feelings. Hopefully by the end of this post you'll feel the same.
I quoted your whole post above, so I don't bust apart all context, but I am going to quote again to add some specific comments.
Was I referencing the Holocaust? Not at all.
Only you know yourself, so if you say it, then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The problem is when you can't isolate or disassociate Hitler from atrocities, the Holocaust, and everything else. You can try but you'll always fail.
It’s like the old story about the magic carpet that comes with the instructions that it will fly so long as you don't think about elephants. Once you know that, you can't help but think of elephants. Or try to consider Hiroshima without also thinking of the atomic bomb. We can talk about how Hitler was a sensitive Jewish painter in his younger days all we want; it will still be impossible to separate him from the specter of the Holocaust.
If you didn't know that, then without intending to be sarcastic or patronizing, now you've been told.
As far as the Nobel Peace Prize, I don't know where you're coming from. He didn't ask for it, they gave it to him. Probably as a manipulative gesture on their part. I'm not going to get into whether Obama deserved it or not, because I have my own doubts. However if you have a beef with it, you need to take it up with the Nobel Committee. All Obama could have done was refuse it, which would have unnecessarily made enemies and diplomatic problems abroad. The critics he has back home were still gonna be his critics even had he refused it. There was no clear cut correct way to handle that situation, and I believe he made the best choice available.
Quite frankly, I dare someone to come up with a better example of someone with exceedingly high charisma than Hitler.
Again, I'm going to give you the same answer I gave Derek.
Hitler is a great example of charisma. That's why I have no problem with Gygax using him as an example. But this isn't a discussion about charisma. Its a discussion about politics. The central topic of your post wasn't about the nature of charisma, it was about President Obama.
Let me give you one final example: If I said Rush Limbaugh had a powerful and commanding presence... just like Jabba the Hut. If I seriously expected you think that I was merely talking about the authority with which Rush speaks; I think my intelligence was being insulted if I were you.
And this is not a sly attempt to make fun of Rush, he was a handy conservative figure to use as an example in comparison to 'Hitler/Obama'. One can’t separate Jabba from being a big fat drooling worm any easier that one can think of Hitler in terms other than as Claus von Stauffenberg said in the movie Valkyrie, ‘the Archenemy of the World’.
But... I really am serious about not igniting this into something bigger than it actually is. I don't want this to be a grudge between us, or go over it again and again like a broken record. Its over. I vented a little, and said how I felt about it. Now its done as far I'm concerned. People are gonna do what they want anyway, and I can't be the Message Board Cop.
No hard feelings. Good gaming. Happy New Year to you and your friends and family.
The word "libertarian" confuses me as well. I had thought it meant something like "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" (like me!). Instead, in Texas at least it seems to mean "fiscally anarchist, socially ultraconservative."
To make matters more confusing most of the world considers Libertarianism to be essentially a synonym for Left Wing Anarchism since the term originally dates back to the Anarchist movement in and around Paris circa late 1700s and early 1800s. Its unclear (to me anyway) why the term was adopted by neo-classical liberalists in the U.S. as a name for their movement.
'freedom good, choice good, rights good!' It trivializes complex, important issues.
And thus we are trapped; Democracy is a lousy system for handling what are more often then not really complex issues with tons of shades of gray but totalitarian forms of government have an abysmal track record at anything except self propagation and usually do significant collateral to their own population along the way.
'freedom good, choice good, rights good!' It trivializes complex, important issues.And thus we are trapped; Democracy is a lousy system for handling what are more often then not really complex issues with tons of shades of gray but totalitarian forms of government have an abysmal track record at anything except self propagation and usually do significant collateral to their own population along the way.
I think I've made my peace with our system. It stinks, and it's also the best anyone has ever come up with.
|
Maybe? What do you think of the proper way the Government should use finances?Now that's MY kind of conservative. Gay marriage? Let 'em! -- we've got a budget to balance, and don't need the distraction.
Oh don't get me wrong I am a 'moral' conservative as well. But I think there is a distinction. Also I don't believe in forcing my views on anyone. Plus I have a good friend who happenes to be gay and who is the most ultra fiscal conservative I know. He can't stand Obama. It gives me the giggles. He often states he "doesn't need the lable married to be happy, but the he needs a good job to be."
|
|
Was it a bit of a jab? Yes. Was I referencing the Holocaust? Not at all. I consider the Nobel Peace Prize for campaigning thing to be more of an insult...probably because it's 100% true.
Quite frankly, I dare someone to come up with a better example of someone with exceedingly high charisma than Hitler.
Captain Freaking KIRK!!! How high of a Charisma do you need? He talks like he is going to have an epeleptic fit yet he always gets the girl!
|
Not everyone would though. I have heard soem ultra new age Athiest bsh her just because.*peeps cautiously around the corner*
Mother Teresa?
*meep*
Sure. :D
We'll wave her on through. No objection.
Yes. Just because she refused to let dying people see their families. Just because she forced the mto convert to get treatment. Yeah, she was a real sweetheart. Absolutely no negative points, at all.
Not everyone would though. I have heard soem ultra new age Athiest bsh her just because.
I had to recant. You'll see that later as you read.
Actually I probably regretted the harshness of my tone in the posts prior to the ones you quoted, especially to Thing from Beyond the Edge, and was trying to lighten up.
|
|
Yes. Just because she refused to let dying people see their families. Just because she forced the mto convert to get treatment. Yeah, she was a real sweetheart. Absolutely no negative points, at all.Not everyone would though. I have heard soem ultra new age Athiest bsh her just because.*peeps cautiously around the corner*
Mother Teresa?
*meep*
Sure. :D
We'll wave her on through. No objection.
I have to watch how I respond here since I don't want to be band from posting here but I suggest that if you have things to say such as this you might want to have soem links to prove it.
<starts swinging around the ban hammer like Thor>
|
|
Not everyone would though. I have heard soem ultra new age Athiest bsh her just because.I had to recant. You'll see that later as you read.
Actually I probably regretted the harshness of my tone in the posts prior to the ones you quoted, especially to Thing from Beyond the Edge, and was trying to lighten up.
I had such little time I posted just a quick message. I see others have a different view. Then again it is a free country and we do like everyone having opinions so we can keep an eye out for the nut jobs.
I suspect the issue is equating Obahma with Hitler.
It doesn't surprise me at all that people would take it that way, because I hear "Obama=Hitler" on the radio just about every morning.
|
|
I have to watch how I respond here since I don't want to be band from posting here but I suggest that if you have things to say such as this you might want to have soem links to prove it.Yes. Just because she refused to let dying people see their families. Just because she forced the mto convert to get treatment. Yeah, she was a real sweetheart. Absolutely no negative points, at all.Not everyone would though. I have heard soem ultra new age Athiest bsh her just because.*peeps cautiously around the corner*
Mother Teresa?
*meep*
Sure. :D
We'll wave her on through. No objection.
Sure. You first.
Wikipedia. Third paragraph down. Not conclusive, it is wikipedia, after all, but there. Your turn.
You can also take a look at the comments by Peter Hitchens towards the bottom of the page.
|
|
I suspect the issue is equating Obahma with Hitler.It doesn't surprise me at all that people would take it that way, because I hear "Obama=Hitler" on the radio just about every morning.
Funny thing I could equate just several politician with Hitler or even Fred Phelps our state resident tick turd, but not Obama. He actually seems like he wants to do the job I just wish he would get along and do it.
I can only speak for my experience in America but I suspect that the political split amongst gamers can be traced in part to the demographic factors around gaming.
1) gaming "hot beds" include the midwest (tends toward conservative) and the Northwest (tends liberal).
2) focused clusters of gamers. Universities (education increases the likelihood of liberal disposition) or military bases (military is traditionally conservative).
3) The gamers are aging (people tend to get somewhat more conservative as they age) and it is a white male dominated population (who also tend to be conservative).
4) However, minorities and women have made great inroads (but not far enough) into the hobby thus democratizing the hobby (and to an extent adding liberal voices).
5) Gamers tend to be thinkers (which also lends itself to liberal positions) who also relish in violent slaying of the enemy in games (conservative) and the game has simplistic moral models (alignment) which also tend to be conservative.
6) Gamers also tend to be exposed to several other cultures in game or out of game which leads to a more liberal position.
No wonder we are all over the place!
Also, I am suggesting vague tendencies, not steadfast rules...and I am using liberal in the American political sense.
A
|
|
I have to watch how I respond here since I don't want to be band from posting here but I suggest that if you have things to say such as this you might want to have soem links to prove it.Yes. Just because she refused to let dying people see their families. Just because she forced the mto convert to get treatment. Yeah, she was a real sweetheart. Absolutely no negative points, at all.Not everyone would though. I have heard soem ultra new age Athiest bsh her just because.*peeps cautiously around the corner*
Mother Teresa?
*meep*
Sure. :D
We'll wave her on through. No objection.
Sure. You first.
Wikipedia. Third paragraph down. Not conclusive, it is wikipedia, after all, but there. Your turn.
You can also take a look at the comments by Peter Hitchens towards the bottom of the page.
These include objections by various individuals and groups, including Christopher Hitchens, Michael Parenti, Aroup Chatterjee, Vishva Hindu Parishad, against the proselytizing focus of her work including a strong stance against abortion, a belief in the spiritual goodness of poverty and alleged baptisms of the dying. Medical journals also criticised the standard of medical care in her hospices and concerns were raised about the opaque nature in which donated money was spent.
So lets see where to start.
A Nun speaking about G~D? Have some common sense will you. Her life work was to be an example of the Lords mercy.
Strong stance against abortion. She was ROMAN CATHOLIC and as such felt that every life had meaning. Hence her work with the poor and dying that had no other voice for themselves in that country at that time. Once again I call for common sense to this objection.
A belief in the spiritual goodness of poverty. That is so often miss quoted and taken out of context. Her views as far as I can tell were that you should not worry about karma and what you may have done in a past life but rather view this life as precious and do what you can to help yourself and deal with your situation as it is. Not as you feel you deserve from somethign that may have happened to you before you were born.
Baptisms of the dying, alleged. Hmm lets see I can actually see her doing this. She is a Nun after all and concerned about the afterlife as well as the life in the here and now. Is this conversion. Not really especially if the person doesn't agree to it. You amy wish to use wiki to look up baptism.
Criticim about the standard of medical care in her hospices. Well it all depends on how many are dying and how much money a woman with limited funds has doesnt it? It is a Hospice after all. A place to help those who are dying to pass in as much comfort as we can.
The opaque nature in which donated money was spent. Well I don't know if I can go to every charity and see how every dime was spent so you might have something there. Thern again how many soup kitchens and Hospices did she help found? Both in India and abroad?
Hitchens has argued that "her intention was not to help people", and he alleged that she lied to donors about the use of their contributions. “It was by talking to her that I discovered, and she assured me, that she wasn't working to alleviate poverty,” says Hitchens. “She was working to expand the number of Catholics. She said, ‘I'm not a social worker. I don't do it for this reason. I do it for Christ. I do it for the church.’"
Well I won't call Mr. Hitchens a Liar. He could have had that conversation. I have no proof. I can say that most of the stuff that comes out of his mouth has a ring of falsehood to me and that I find the man laughable. But that doesn't actually lead to criticism of his statements just my opinion of them.
Some of us make less typos when we've had a few.
It also helps some people with coding software, understanding graduate-level math texts, and speaking foreign languages that you haven't studied or used in years.
The Guy did not have particularly good Charisma in most circumstances, instead he was amazing at public speaking.Then I guess it was an apt comparison...
Low Cha and high ranks in Perform (Oratory)? Since 1e had no skills...
|
|
Or maybe low Cha and high ranks in Perform (Oratory)? Since 1e had no skills...The Guy did not have particularly good Charisma in most circumstances, instead he was amazing at public speaking.Then I guess it was an apt comparison...
Perhaps, and skill focus/mastery to boot.
But Obama only does well when he uses his Panels of Eloquence. Take those away, and he isn't much better than Bush was, frankly.
But Obama only does well when he uses his Panels of Eloquence. Take those away, and he isn't much better than Bush was, frankly.
Yeah, he's not much better without the prompter than Bush was with it -- which is to say, terrible.
|
|
But Obama only does well when he uses his Panels of Eloquence. Take those away, and he isn't much better than Bush was, frankly.Yeah, he's not much better without the prompter than Bush was with it -- which is to say, terrible.
Yep. It's sad that people think any of these morons are worthy of admiration.
But Obama only does well when he uses his Panels of Eloquence. Take those away, and he isn't much better than Bush was, frankly.Yeah, he's not much better without the prompter than Bush was with it -- which is to say, terrible.
Someone said they provide an Enhancement bonus. I think I can get behind that.
But Obama only does well when he uses his Panels of Eloquence. Take those away, and he isn't much better than Bush was, frankly.How many politicians are, really? I know my command sucks at speeches except for a rare few.
Clinton, as much as I don't care for him, could handle himself fine without. Bush 1 was okay, Reagan was good. Anything before that would be before my time, but there's at least two examples.
But Obama only does well when he uses his Panels of Eloquence. Take those away, and he isn't much better than Bush was, frankly.Yeah, he's not much better without the prompter than Bush was with it -- which is to say, terrible.
I think public speaking is somewhat overrated. I'd rather have a mute run the country that has a great mind than a great speaker that is actually a dunce.
I think public speaking is somewhat overrated. I'd rather have a mute run the country that has a great mind than a great speaker that is actually a dunce.
Agreed. But I'd unfortunately peg Junior as being closer to a "dunce" than a "great mind"...
|
I think public speaking is somewhat overrated. I'd rather have a mute run the country that has a great mind than a great speaker that is actually a dunce.Agreed. But I'd unfortunately peg Junior as being closer to a "dunce" than a "great mind"...
I doubt that the television media, where most people still get their impressions of the candidates from according to the last Associated Press/USA Today poll I saw on the subject, would go for that. Hard to get usable soundbites from a mute after all.
I think public speaking is somewhat overrated. I'd rather have a mute run the country that has a great mind than a great speaker that is actually a dunce.Agreed. But I'd unfortunately peg Junior as being closer to a "dunce" than a "great mind"...
After seeing his insane plans on illegal immigration and how in the future that it would end up destroying his own party you might be correct.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I think public speaking is somewhat overrated. I'd rather have a mute run the country that has a great mind than a great speaker that is actually a dunce.But Obama only does well when he uses his Panels of Eloquence. Take those away, and he isn't much better than Bush was, frankly.Yeah, he's not much better without the prompter than Bush was with it -- which is to say, terrible.
Well, you know, this guy is the real power behind the throne. The White House is just a front. Notice, he has to use props to explain stuff to his intern?
Well, you know, this guy is the real power behind the throne. The White House is just a front. Notice, he has to use props to explain stuff to his intern?I think public speaking is somewhat overrated. I'd rather have a mute run the country that has a great mind than a great speaker that is actually a dunce.But Obama only does well when he uses his Panels of Eloquence. Take those away, and he isn't much better than Bush was, frankly.Yeah, he's not much better without the prompter than Bush was with it -- which is to say, terrible.
Actually, that was a picture of President Clinton when he was in office with one of his young interns. Trust me, you don't want to know where that beaker went.
** spoiler omitted **
?????????
I think public speaking is somewhat overrated. I'd rather have a mute run the country that has a great mind than a great speaker that is actually a dunce.But Obama only does well when he uses his Panels of Eloquence. Take those away, and he isn't much better than Bush was, frankly.Yeah, he's not much better without the prompter than Bush was with it -- which is to say, terrible.
Okay, that does it.
Hawking 2012!
Hawking 2012!
It's scary that Gary's post prompted the exact same thought with me.
The problem is that great scientists are often LOUSY politicians. Look at some of the middle-school-level snubs on Jerry Coyne's blog, for example.|
|
Hawking 2012!It's scary that Gary's post prompted the exact same thought with me.
Shame he's not a US national and is therefore ineligible.
And of course thanks to the death panels of the evil UK health service, he's also dead.
One of these statements is not true.
Hawking 2012!It's scary that Gary's post prompted the exact same thought with me.
The problem is that great scientists are often LOUSY politicians. Look at some of the middle-school-level snubs on Jerry Coyne's blog, for example.
Wow, what a jerk. Who is he?
He was fresh in my brain because I recently picked up the illustrated version of A Brief History of Time + The Universe in a Nutshell. Brilliant man.