Orogun01

Where would this "private matters " apply in a society. Where do the rules of equality not matter....Hades, Forgotten Realms maybe? Oh is this where you get those religious cult groups that live in remote parts of the country and where incest and pedophilia is practiced? Those are private matters.... If someone is prejudiced against LGTB, he should be allowed as long as they don't break the law. Legislation shouldn't be used to deny rights to either side of the fence and that means the right to freedom of speech. This is what some feminists and rights activists seem unable to comprehend, they assume their position to be the correct one and therefore enforcing it is a righteous act. I agree about the LGTB part but what if that person goes to a website and starts being homophobic? Websites have their forum rules, unfortunately that means that depending on the place honest dissent that is voiced politely can be perceived as a harmful speech and blocked. You can customize your web experience so that you're never exposed to other perspectives (and Google helps that a lot with search algorithms) Internet forums are often like gated communities, if there is a dominant view it will be the one that's enforced. Short answer is that moderators will take care of it based on the community rules/biases/ideology. For example, we don't tolerate bots.

Where would this "private matters " apply in a society. Where do the rules of equality not matter....Hades, Forgotten Realms maybe? Oh is this where you get those religious cult groups that live in remote parts of the country and where incest and pedophilia is practiced? Those are private matters.... If someone is prejudiced against LGTB, he should be allowed as long as they don't break the law. Legislation shouldn't be used to deny rights to either side of the fence and that means the right to freedom of speech. This is what some feminists and rights activists seem unable to comprehend, they assume their position to be the correct one and therefore enforcing it is a righteous act.

Don't worry, you're only missing COD with some crappy mechs. Not to discount anyone else's opinion on this game, but this is kind of how I felt after playing the beta a bit. But to each their own. I've heard lots of positive discussion that painted a different picture. So I'm actually a bit surprised. I'd like to hear elaboration from one who actually played, if you're up for it. Just for informative purposes. I have no interest in playing multiplayer shooters myself. It is not the ultimate savior of the FPS genre that it was made out to be, there are some unbalanced (downright cheating) strategies in particular the stealth + auto aim gun. But the biggest gripe is that the game's main attraction; the Titans, turned out to be an underpowered shell and what should had been a group of people working together and setting defenses against a massive enemy is one guy putting a few rounds on the window. It literally is a modern shooter with the addition of some robots that in now way alter the game to make it anything other than a modern shooter. I guess that if you like that, then the game is for you. I was expecting something more.

@Bruce,Kaine,Malcador: Sorry if my post gave you guys grievances, it certainly wasn't my intent. It was more of a facetious attempt at illustrating and revealing the underlying tone of Third Wave feminism, which it seems to be only embraced openly by fringe elements. I don't think I can adopt a political view just because I agree with some of their points, and specially not if the rest of it is deranged ( I couldn't think of a softer word ). Whatever the intent the focus of feminism on what they perceive to be female issues caused by society and trying to change that society, rather than having women change their perspectives and empowering will probably have negative connotations. If you remove all societal restrictions and gender roles from women they are likely to grow in a vacuum where they have no norm to base themselves against. So far feminism hasn't come up with a positive role model as to what women should become, and more focus on the negative isn't going to help. @Ametep: Good read, I'm liking you more with each post

Don't worry, you're only missing COD with some crappy mechs.

You fail to grasp the tenets of modern feminism, I'll help you. Women are perfect, if a woman has a flaw the fault lies with the Patriarchy. A woman can do anything a man does but does not need to do it or be capable of doing it and should regardless be considered equal. All men are rapists and oppressors, therefore men cannot be considered to suffer of anything a woman can because of their privilege. Are you getting the picture?

Well, you just break the law. Jaywalking is pretty common here, occasionally the cops do a crackdown because too many pedestrians get killed by cars but for the most part they ignore it (like everything else, heh). Or because you're black.

Hey Rostere, is its still legal to pee standing up over there?

I thought it did happen... or did I just black out? Did I get some?

Thank you lord Jesus! My prayers have been answered.

We should also warn him/her about Oby, do not listen, engage or otherwise regard it as a serious poster. And then there's Volo.

I thought the problem with Bioshock Infinite was that he had the amount of free reign to make the game he wanted, he just couldn't make up his mind as to what that was. This is a reference to the story, right? xD Anyway, that's not the impression I got. Otherwise I'd believe the game would have been released earlier than it did.. I think. It felt kinda desperate with the way of changing the boxart to attract the dudebros and how most of the content in the game was cut. The philosophy with Ken Levine's gameography (excluding Thief) is that there's some kind of matronly school teacher standing behind him repeatedly going: "Now do it again, but properly this time." It all started out with System Shock 2, which was basically being System Shock but without the wacky cyberspace mini-game, but with an unbalanced skill system, and looking like an arse made out of Lego. Then there was Bioshock, basically being System Shock 2 with more imagination and no longer having to put 6 points into 'Exotic Weapons Proficiency' to figure out how to **** people over the head with a piece of jagged rock. And now we have BioShock Infinite, which is basically BioShock reversed, which of course is the plot-twist as well. If the Leigh Alexander article is to be believed; and i'm inclined to do so since there is a considerable gap between what was shown at E3 and the game, plus it explains why it took so long to come up with an uninspired game. Albeit a very pretty one but it doesn't take 3 years to create modular assets and code a pretty shader, there was likely a lot of rework done. Also, in case someone didn't know: they licensed UDK for this game so they didn't have to create a whole engine.

I think bossy isn't contemporary enough, whenever there is a bad female boss everyone I know just calls her a bitch and that includes my female relatives who considering are the ones that suffer the most from bitchy/bossy females on the workplace I'd say have every right to express their dislike. Maybe they shouldn't ban the words and just make it illegal for women to be either bossy or bitchy.

You shouldn't get bogged down by semantics, just spill your general RPG blasphemous opinions here. You will feel better, like when I say things like : Bioware's suspension of disbelief relies on lowering the viewer's IQ, and that explains the condition of the BSN.

Is a turn based RPG for people who don't like turn based RPGs.

I thought the problem with Bioshock Infinite was that he had the amount of free reign to make the game he wanted, he just couldn't make up his mind as to what that was.

We'll continue the Girl's thread to honor your memory.

Speaking as someone who's had his ass handed to him a few times, physical strength is great bonus but it doesn't even compare to keeping a cool head and keep thinking. Above all that there is willpower, just the fact that you have made the choice beforehand to not give up no matter what makes a huge difference.

You just noticed that? Also, tiny pictures.

I think that this is a very difficult question to answer. Though to even attempt to answer it, I think, it needs to be presented as a possible problem (which is what I feel the study does). You'll get people that run with it one way or another. As for the validation of the "patriarchy," it's just one of those terms that also gets used in a variety of ways. The wiki definition of the term is pretty simple: "a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children." Looked at in a historical context, I don't find it too much of a stretch to see that that was the reality in a lot of places. Titles tended to be passed down to men, men were the only ones that could vote/own property, and so forth. I think it's gotten a lot better and much less explicit. Studies like this one examine "are there still latent influences that come from that that in general can compromise women?" Figuring out specifically what those are, is pretty hard. But then you'll get some that I think go way too far, such as that one person linked not too long ago that considered any sort of vaginal sex to be rape and to be a way that men subjugate women, but that I feel is too extreme and undermines a lot of other feminist perspectives (specifically, sex positive feminism). I probably identify as a feminist now, although the irony of it is that I do so more because the extreme "MRA" types pushed me away from their perspective more than feminists drew me in (it all started with the Anita kickstarter for me, actually. Before that I didn't really give it much thought at all). I never really became interested in the MRA platform but I was too keenly aware of the fringe elements of feminism, maybe I would be more receptive if they cleaned house and stopped selling academic concepts as current facts.

There's still some issues (I don't know about nursing, specifically) in some situations. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full Nice read, still I would had liked if they had gotten to the bottom of what their bias was specifically. Hopefully an increase in professional women on the workforce will overturn some of these opinions. Although I have a problem with studies like that, not with the study itself but with the fact that it may end up being used as proof of something delusional as a Patriarchy.

I wish your optimism was contagious; I actually think that if she didn't bother to contact the artists and ask her permission she mustn't had much respect for her. Or it could be that she just did a google search and grabbed something convenient (seems like that's her MO)

I think the fallacy is applied pretty generally across humanity, rather than to any particular side of a particular group. Like I said, just an opinion but in my experience I seem to observe that it is used more by those who assume to have the moral high ground.

That is an assumption, and an erroneous one at that. So far the only major groups campaigning to change gun legislation are the ones either for gun control or for making them illegal. I have never seen the NRA or any other pro gun group clamor that they would like to have nukes. Despite the stereotype most gun owners are not insane rednecks. Woah...Columbine and Newtown never happened? It's easy to tell those who lost family, it never really happened...right? The important thing is, we can all go target shooting. That's what matters. It seem like recently an appeal to indignation has become a common tactic among social crusaders, even when it is completely misused they just seem hopeful that their opponent will be shamed into submission. Just my opinion. You are still showing an immense bias towards gun owners, reducing all of them to a few (yes, school shootings are rare you may had more luck trying to put gang violence as an example) disturbed elements which are in no way representative of the majority of gun owners. Can't you really come up with a reasonable argument against gun ownership that doesn't demonize gun owners?

That is an assumption, and an erroneous one at that. So far the only major groups campaigning to change gun legislation are the ones either for gun control or for making them illegal. I have never seen the NRA or any other pro gun group clamor that they would like to have nukes. Despite the stereotype most gun owners are not insane rednecks.