Meshugger

That would be pretty much the definition of bias and prejudice when those "ideas and values" are based on skintone or gender or sexuality or any other superficial irrelevant trait or set of traits. (As I've mentioned before, the reasoning can be seen but that doesn't mean it's not faulty.) "Privilege" is more the concept that certain groups are inherently advantaged in terms of societal prejudices and systemic bias. (That doesn't mean that members of those groups cannot be disadvantaged in other ways, most commonly economically. The standard way of describing it is: In the majority of instances, all other things being equal, someone of the privileged group/s will fare better in the same situation than someone of a disadvantaged group.) [For most areas of the West, such disadvantaged groups include: non-white people, individuals that are LGBTQIA, women, and those that are disabled. A short but by no means comprehensive list.] I wouldn't think anyone could reasonably argue that prejudice and bias don't exist, or are not things which most people perpetrate without being aware of, nor that socioeconomic and political/legal systems tend to be apply in a rather unequal manner. I think that anyone can tell people are different from each and tend to band together for different reasons, superficial or no. But is it even a bad thing? You cannot force people to love each other, it has to come evolve from each individual, and neither can it be reason with, since love, well, isn't not that reasonable to begin with. I am not asking for isolation or to live through the eyes of fear, i am simply asking for freedom of association. Do you wish to undermine it? And how can you expect to deconstruct power-structures without seriously hindering it? Just curious. Well, yes. It is a bad thing when it leads to oppressive and abusive behaviours or unjust discrimination. (Just discrimination would be, say, giving medicine only to people that are sick. Or only imprisoning criminals. Etc.) As I mentioned though, people do tend to fall into grouping behaviours just because it's part of human nature. (We tend to want to belong and we like sharing similarities with people and having our existing notions reinforced.) [sometimes that can be dangerous. It's good to have a balance, provided people don't go off the deep end when it comes to conflict.] {There can be a tendency for people to draw lines in the sand and then take polar opposite stances when they wouldn't have done so if they hadn't done the "Us vs Them" thing in the first place.} The issue is only when it goes badly or it's for.. less than savoury reasons. So yes, I do believe people should think more critically and maintain self-awareness and try to ensure they are actually being as reasonable a person as possible and not lapsing into any 'traps' of faulty rationale. Hmm. See, this is where my personal and ethical views can diverge. Personally, I wouldn't mind isolating/ostracising/exiling the more extreme sort of bigots. I tend to consider them beyond redemption, because very little will convince someone that was raised from birth to believe xyz things and has their peer group and authority figures reinforcing those views and has no personal motivation (other than possibly a sense of ethical rightfulness?) to actually change their behaviour. That said, I do believe that those that are simply naive/ignorant are more than capable of learning and adapting. (Wilful ignorance is something that repeatedly confuses and irks me. I really don't understand why someone would completely ignore an opportunity to learn another perspective, even if they then disregard it after consideration.) So yes, I would say that my favoured solution for dismantling overarching structures is altering them at the basic component level. (Legislating change.. doesn't always work. It can help, but there needs to be pressure/revolution from a 'critical mass' forcing change on a social/community/individual level.) Freedom of association though... On the one hand, associating with the KKK does at least let one know which people are bigoted backwards racist cabbages. On the other, it would be nice if such groups were excised like the metaphorical cancers they are. (Again, I'm not sure whether mandating/enforcing their breakup would actually do anything other than force them underground. It can do one of two things: make it clear such views are no longer remotely acceptable and hasten progress or form a resilient 'hidden' movement that could be arguably more dangerous than having them in the open.) There are flaws in the legal/political/economic systems stemming from the social faults, and they should absolutely be reformed. However I'm not sure whether heavy-handed brute-forcing of legal/political measures as far as the social faults themselves are the best solution. (I'd lean towards no, but in terms of things like abolishing slavery and prohibiting discrimination against minorities.. the laws existing does certainly help.) ... in summary, I think the answer is "yes" I do wish to undermine certain types of associations. Just not in particularly foolish and tyrannical ways. You see little room for redemption and you wish to excise those who do not fit your utopia? You have taken the first steps to the dark side with those thoughts, my child.

Trust me I think Mods have a very difficult job and I wouldn't want to do it, But I don't see how you can think Drowsy's comment was polite or constructive in anyway. Especially after Paradox spent time making a detailed post I've been on the internet long enough to not to mentally register posts that are rude or not constructive. You will learn as well, trust me

Topical: Don't ever let BruceVC become a mod.

That would be pretty much the definition of bias and prejudice when those "ideas and values" are based on skintone or gender or sexuality or any other superficial irrelevant trait or set of traits. (As I've mentioned before, the reasoning can be seen but that doesn't mean it's not faulty.) "Privilege" is more the concept that certain groups are inherently advantaged in terms of societal prejudices and systemic bias. (That doesn't mean that members of those groups cannot be disadvantaged in other ways, most commonly economically. The standard way of describing it is: In the majority of instances, all other things being equal, someone of the privileged group/s will fare better in the same situation than someone of a disadvantaged group.) [For most areas of the West, such disadvantaged groups include: non-white people, individuals that are LGBTQIA, women, and those that are disabled. A short but by no means comprehensive list.] I wouldn't think anyone could reasonably argue that prejudice and bias don't exist, or are not things which most people perpetrate without being aware of, nor that socioeconomic and political/legal systems tend to be apply in a rather unequal manner. I think that anyone can tell people are different from each and tend to band together for different reasons, superficial or no. But is it even a bad thing? You cannot force people to love each other, it has to come evolve from each individual, and neither can it be reason with, since love, well, isn't not that reasonable to begin with. I am not asking for isolation or to live through the eyes of fear, i am simply asking for freedom of association. Do you wish to undermine it? And how can you expect to deconstruct power-structures without seriously hindering it? Just curious.

Is it just me or does that "white man" has distinct Mongolian features? An albino Tibetan perhaps? At least it is something different.

Men and women think and behave differently? Whoa! Who would've thought? I am sensing that these 'privileges' are more a result of people with similar values and creeds banding together than any institutional -ism. Take hiring someone for work, do you tend to hire the wildcard or someone with the same ideas and values....someone that even reminds of yourself?

Yes, what a wonderful idea to give the "disadvantaged" an own safe place. Let's add the the tag-line "Separate, but equal" as well. History has shown that it has worked bef....ohwait!

1. Your beer metaphor is not a very good comparison. I mean, the whole premise that the Codex knows better what makes a good RPG and what doesn't is flawed. 2. I'm German and I don't know Bud and Fosters. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't compare Skyrim and Fallout 3 to either of them though, judging by what you're implying. 3. YES, if almost all beers are on the list, even some crappy ones, then excluding two that have lots of good qualities (and even "twin beers" on the list) and are more popular than almost any of the beers on the list seems like a very stupid thing to do. Especially if it's only because they're popular. By the way, my whole point is that lists like this one are only useful as a guide for newcomers or for people looking for a good RPG. As has been said it's useless to make a simple list of favourites. If that's all they wanted to do, I'm completely fine with the ranking and the list. It serves no purpose but it's fine. My point, however is that if it's also supposed to be a guide, then some pretty important RPGs are missing. The list is exactly as you just said, a list of favorites. It's not a beginner's guide to the genre. *Bud and Fosters don't taste bad, they do not taste like anything at all really, which is why so many drink them.

This wasn't? Whoops....

...his list of favourite beers that, as has been said, includes almost all the beers that exist. Skyrim and Fallout 3 are very, very good RPGs, mainstream or not. (In the case of Fallout 3, this shouldn't even be a question; in the case of Skyrim, well. They did include and praise Morrowind. So the gameplay can't be the problem. The world is interesting, the dungeons are excellent. The only negative thing I can think of are some storylines, but well. There are lots of them, and I'd say most were pretty good. Neverwinter Nights only had one plot, and it was horrible.) So any beer-connoisseur should consider Bud and Fosters as very, very good beers. It shouldn't even be a question. They included Guinness, which is exactly the same thing, so therefore Bud and Fosters should be there as well. You're not making a good argument here.

The darkspawn could've been much more interesting if the were more menacing and chaotic. Like a metaphysical manifestation of a uncontrolled torrent of death. They should've risen out of the ground in camp and killing one of the party members while resting. They should've erupted in the central square in the capital (derelith? Dematith? whatever) by the millions and killed everyone. Point being, you should've been in constant fear of them attacking and no place should've felt 'safe', except for a very few sanctuaries here and there. Their existence should've been more mysterious with no one knowing where they come from or why they even exist to begin with. My 2c.

The 'Codex are RPG-connoisseurs or aficionadoes, atleast they see themselves as so. But suggesting Skyrim and Fallout 3, you are pretty much asking a beer master distiller on why he hasn't Bud or Fosters in his list of favourite beers. Things simply do not work that way.

Now either the author is really bad at writing or they're an idiot. Click-baiting, ahoy!

Girls* don't like these boards because: 1) Most people here have aspergian and systematic, dry discussion about game systems, role-playing and the Ukraine. Thus no attention is given to them. 2) Since the flow of information here is in the same character as of a turing machine spewing out data, there is no little to no drama. Girls do not like that *Girls as in most women in society. The very few women that actually post here are so neutral that no one knows their gender.

Thanks for all the nightmares given. R.I.P

Coming up next in this thread: Inspired by the dubious nature of the American 'Revolution', the people started to dwell upon the word 'Liberal'. Is it left or is it right? Is it pro-state or anti-state? What has history told us? Which liberal doctrine is more true to the other? So many questions, so little answers.

I, for one, find the American system of free speech superior to any other in the world. It should be the base standard for any free society.

For a fan-made trailer, it was ok. It captured the feeling of the original, despite groriousu engrisu. However, instead using the ost from Deus Ex, why not use the vastly superior original score? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwyPRm6nxrE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-wv4pFodIQ

Yes. One or the other, not a lame mix between the two.

I do hope that DA:I has branching story, as in sections of the game are completely locked out for the player if certain choices are made. At the same time, i do not hope that this would mean that it would go the same way as KotOR 2. Like certain characters not telling you very important plot-points because you did not bring them to location X to trigger event Y in order to get information Z because event Y will give more influence that than event Y2 and you have to play a certain dark side/light side, because otherwise the character will not tell anything, despite triggering event Y at location X. This all leaves the player underwhelmed, confused and irritated in the end. Either you have a branching story with different consequences, or you have a single coherent story, not something kinda in between. I would say that W2 was successful in that regard, since the branching stories were self-contained, and where not dependent on each other for a single complete story. At least that was how my experience was with the game.

Yup. Kinda hard to tell if they are edgy, doing it for the lulz, or are actually serious about that.

Well, one of the most prominant anti-semite, nazi posters at the 'Codex turned out to have PM:ed one of the transgendered people and wanted her(him?) to meet up with him and defacate on his chest, which ensued to hilarity and much, much butthurt. This is one of the reasons why i visit that place, the entertainment level so ridicolous. Such a thing would've never been possible here.

Volourn, a.k.a. Volourn Honorblade, a.k.a. Pretty Princess (the mods at the 'Codex created the last title just for him) is always right, even when he is wrong. It's always fun when people try to reason with him. It's like teenagers claiming to know everything about sex & relationships. Both sad and cute at the same time.

I do not see the problem. Don't be a **** online? Proper Netetiquette? What's that got to do with women? Creeps thrive in anonymity, so should we abolish it on the net in order to ruin it for everyone else? Topical:

To be fair, the objective was to embaress the kidnappers. If they cannot kill their hostages, then mother russia will show them how it should be done.