BruceVC

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/30/entertainment/trevor-noah-daily-show-jon-stewart-feat/index.html So this is an interesting development, a South African comedian Trevor Noah is about to get the prestigious job of replacing Jon Stewart on the Daily Show I'm not sure if anyone on these forums has even heard of Trevor Noah, many people find him really funny. He is okay to me...not that funny He also needs to realize that you won't go very far in an American media house if he thinks his humor should be based on anti-Western and anti-American sentiment. So I am cautiously optimistic about if he will succeed in his new position. The one consolation is that I believe that the writers of the Daily Show should be the primary contributors towards his jokes and what he discusses. So hopefully he doesn't come across as just annoying his audience with the level of his humor

Exactly..and we don't want a weakened EU in the face of the rise of Russian hegemony and military aggression

I see this video has just made it onto CNN..I expect there now will be consequences around how this Policeman conducted himself ?

You know I don't think mentioned that. Then again, there are plenty of sjw's who are 'absolutely committed' and go out of their way to ruin peoples lives for holding the wrong opinions in their view. They also go out of their way to make mountains out of mole hills, there are also plenty who will lie through their teeth and use the playbook of alinksky, to turn something that isn't an issue into said mountain. You may or may not have noticed this, but while you don't fall into that mould, plenty of others do. Much like they'll go out of their way to disrupt public events, push companies to fire someone because of the private actions, and so on. There is no justice in any of those actions, those are the actions of a mob of people who are perpetually offended because of their own petty reasons. What you think "GG tells people about you" isn't the thing. It's the actions of sjw's themselves that's causing the pushback because they've had enough. Sure I hear you and I don't disagree. There are examples of SJW ( I really don't like that term because it has a negative connotation for many ) that have raised issues around inclusivity that are just unreasonable or more disruptive than constructive . But we mustn't generalize and think all people who raise SJ issues are automatically wrong or misplaced. But I think we can agree on this, sometimes issues raised by people who believe in SJ causes are valid ?

Geez thats a serious indictment of that Policeman...he seemed really annoyed and I would advise he needs some kind of anger management course But I wouldn't want this to be seen as " this is how all Policemen conduct themselves " ....because I believe this is more of an isolated incident....well I hope it is

SJW's aren't the market, so a company submitting to them makes no sense. The only value that they provide is the amount of whining, and their threats to the company in question. I'd actually say they're no different than al sharpton or the mob. "Nice company you've got here, it'd be a shame if someone called you guys sexist/misogynists/racists/etc." I got news for you both if you think companies like Obsidian and Double Fine only care about equality when it literally infects them like a virus... I need to laugh every time someone talks about this or that company "submitting" to "SJWs". I'm not sure I can handle another "its the fault of SJW that Obsidian did this or did that" Those that know me know that I am absolutely committed to SJ causes and I can promise you following we are not responsible for the death of JFK we are not responsible for the financial crisis of 2008 we do not influence Obsidian on gaming design decisions Guys don't believe what GG told you about us, its just not true

I didn't perceive you were yelling, that was in reply to you saying "We'll be over here not even noticing any problems and yelling at Greece to get off their asses", which I take exception to (Greece isn't a Reichskommissariat, bro), but above everything else, I find utterly pointless. Want them to "get off their asses"? Stop lending them money. The Google/Startpage remark was facetious as I already explained, made even more so by the fact that Startpage is Google for all intents and purposes (save privacy). I do not doubt that the current climate in Germany is to blame the PIGS for all of Europe's woes. A not completely unfounded view, but skewed. The links I posted meant to illustrate that it's in fact France's, Europe's second largest economy, that is a much bigger cause for concern than the PIGS, a fact you glossed over as it doesn't fit very well with the mainstream discourse. The links dealing with the "German [mini]jobs miracle" thing and growing poverty and inequality illustrate how the great macroeconomic figures you wield to claim that Germany is an economic powerhouse (which it is) mean very little as far as actual people's living standards are concerned. The whole growth paradigm is hogwash, because economies growing by eleventy bajillions of make-believe money doesn't mean much if the majority's purchasing power is steadily decreasing. That's what the widening income gap means. Your reply was in the context of who is being hurt the most by sanctions, which is a matter I ignored completely. Rather, I was replying to your half-truths and oversimplifications, and especially your own self-contradiction when you simultaneously assert that the dollar-to-Euro exchange is dependent on multiple factors and then launch into a diatribe against Greece. Don't take this as a criticism of Germany, a defense of Greece, or a rebuttal motivated by a hurt patriotic pride. The accepted narrative makes my skin crawl, is all. These forums are amazing, if you ever want a perspective that goes against the accepted facts of a particular political or economic reality I can guarantee you will find at least one person, maybe two, who will you give you that perspective through a series of specious posts Why is it so hard to just accept things? Is it because of the anti-Western sentiment that some of you have convinced yourself about ? I don't know, I find it fascinating Germany is an economic powerhouse and is instrumental in the continued sustainability of the EU. We want the EU to succeed and the EU is an important contributor towards the worlds economy and plays an even more important part as a block of Western aligned countries..you should be unequivocally supportive of the EU 2133...I mean what reality do you suggest for a world where the EU fails ? The PIGS countries are primarily responsible for there economic state but on different levels and austerity and fiscal reformation are the paths they need to follow to redeem there economies. By the way Spain is on the road to recovery so it can be done and its not unreasonable to expect them to reform You say the solution is " to just not lend Greece money", you do realize that the EU and other bailouts to Greece were needed or Greece would have become bankrupt and been unable to pay its various public sector salary bills and other debts. So the EU had no choice to lend Greece money unless you feel Greece should just leave the EU ...or be kicked out which wouldn't have helped anyone

One thing is for sure - Romantic First Person Shooters would be pretty different. Also I'm a little worried what resources you'd be building for the RTS romance... Imagine a Romance arc in a game like COD ....

That's what the office printer is for, my good man. I am still more comfortable with a regular book than reading things on a screen, myself. Wish I had pre-ordered the Witcher 3 CE, thinking about physical v, digital, certainly would save me some download cap, hah. Yeah I just prefer books to any digital book like the Kindle, its the tactile experience I prefer On CNN at Davos this year Richard Quest asked all the CEO of all the corporations he interviewed " so what do you prefer reading a paper book or using an E-book " and they all preferred a normal book to an E-book, the E-book was just more convenient

? Why would I want christians in gimp suits??? Or force romance into video games??? Why wouldn't you? lol I like the political objective of implementing mandatory Romance in EVERY single game and gaming genre...no exceptions. Even RTS Namutree for President !!!!

Well sometimes punitive legal steps are necessary to get people to do the right thing, so yes you are right. This bill would have prevented businesses and people from being sued if they had refused to serve members of the LGBT community. And I'm not even talking about marriage or churches which we understand are different, I am talking about commercial entities. So of course this would cause frustration and offense. So yes this bill needs to be amended so people can't use the law to discriminate ..that's the whole point

The problem (IMO and I could be wrong - I don't propose this as a "magic bullet" cure all) can be outlined somewhat thusly: The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So everyone has religious freedom and the freedom to exercise their religion. Yay, 'Murica! But within the tax and legal codes (federal and state), they government supports marriage (giving benefits to married couples, inheritance rights, etc.). This is where things get murky; there are two types of marriage in the US - Union in the Eyes of G/god(s)/G/goddess(es) dependent on your religious affiliation and Union in the Eyes of the State. They're both called "marriage" and generally they're inexorably paired and linked. Treating them as the same concept because the language is ambiguous leads to a conceptual identifying of marriage as being a universal concept regardless of state or religious origin. In short because the state issues a marriage license for a couple who were also married in the Hindu faith and the state issues a marriage license for a couple who were also married in the Catholic faith, the state says these marriages are equal. Things that are equal are interchangeable, so the challenge with this conceptual correlation is ensuring that the religious marriage remains unequal (based on faith - the state doesn't say the Catholic church has to recognize a Hindu wedding) while the civil marriage remains equal. Part of the big push for legalization of gay marriage is due to the state sponsored benefits. A lot of the push back from religious groups is because of an increasing feeling that they'll be mandated to provide gay marriages (because, again, the state marriage makes all marriage equal in the eyes of the state, or so they fear). But if, for example, all state unions (gay, straight) were called "Civil Unions" then it'd be harder to argue against, say, selling flowers for them. And this is the crux of it, if a Southern Baptist florist had a gay couple ask for flowers for their marriage in a Unitarian church, it'd be easier to argue (and demonstrate) that requiring that purchase from an open-to-the-public business isn't having their personal faith violated because the Unitarian Marriage isn't "in" their faith and the "Civil Union" isn't in their faith, They're not supporting marriage in the Eyes of their God by providing an open service for the couple (who ultimately, remain heretics in relation to their own personal faith). What this does is remove the concept that marriage equation through the state makes it about Southern Baptist Marriage (which is the ultimate argument of these religious freedom movements) and the dialogue is clearer because marriage doesn't mean multiple things (and the hinge point being, the state no longer becomes an equivocal point between the Southern Baptist Marriage and the Unitarian Marriage in the example by having them both endorsed by the State and seen as equal to one another - which they just can't ever be as the religions themselves aren't equal). If that makes sense. Thats an interesting post, very interesting. I need time to ruminate on your words

Oh no...another member of the GG army...plzzzzzzzzzz...no more

There was a spate of cases over the last few years where a farm that allowed weddings on its site was forced to provide gay wedding despite the owner claiming to be a Christian and therefore unable to support gay marriage and a florist who referred a regular to another florist stating she couldn't make him flowers for his gay wedding due to her religious beliefs being fined for discrimination. A number of people felt that this went against religious freedoms and that, in fact, the government was discriminating against people's right to practice their religion. There's a number of problems with this argument (not the least of which is the government has always limited the freedom of religion when it infringed on others liberties, which is why polygamy, pedophilia and human sacrifice aren't allowed even on religious grounds in the US). The root of the problem, ultimately, is that the state recognizes (and indeed promotes through benefits) a religious concept (marriage) which, unfortunately, won't actually be challenged in any of this. This has been an interesting post, nice one But I'm not understanding what you say is the "root problem ", are you saying that because marriage is seen as a religious right people who follow a certain religious view will always oppose same-sex marriage ?

That's actually an excellent and relevant point Why can't this lead to that kind of dramatic interpretation of the bill? It would seem logical to me because many Muslims, mostly in the ME, don't even speak to women and expect women to wear the Burka..so what not demand to only serve women who dress this way? Under that bill why can't they say that ...damn KP that's one excellent way to get the Indiana lawmakers to quickly make the changes in the new legislation that are expected by many of us

True there would be a degree of punitive economic steps against the overall Indiana economy if this bill wasn't clarified, I'm not sure the overall real impact that would have ? But what concerns me more is where if the bill is left as it is I can guarantee you there will be examples of gay couples who want nothing more than to celebrate the fact they are in love and want to get married, this is an example, being denied services in certain businesses. Denied services and humiliated...humiliated quite possibly in front of there cherished partners. So I would rather the bill was unequivocal in its message that it cannot lead to the discrimination of the LGBT community..I wouldn't accept anything less if I was an American

Well for those like me opposed to this bill there has been a continuous and energized backlash from various groups across the USA and that includes many people within Indiana, like the Major of Indianapolis, Greg Ballard. This is very reassuring http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/31/396555062/indianapolis-mayor-religious-laws-backers-missing-the-bigger-trend?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=storiesfromnpr The reality is the USA is making so much progress at moving the country to the point where it really doesn't discriminate against people because of there sexual orientation and legislation like this seems completely anachronistic and unreasonable .....and really out of touch with what the majority of Americans want

He does. But to my understanding the topic has already been discussed to great lengths here and elsewhere, as far as I can tell, and Moderators closed 2 of these threads yesterday (One of them 30 pages long, and I'm pretty sure that TB's soundcloud was probably shared in that thread). Yeah I agree, can we move ? What these types of topics inadvertently do is keep reminding people of this very minor incident and the criticism that was leveled towards Obsidian. Surly there are more important things that need to be discussed about the game than how " a small number of SJW felt the tombstone was inappropriate " ?

Good to see we are on the same side around this debate Volo, even if it is for different reasons Oh and just to be clear, this bill is now official. But what it really means is now being debated as there is huge pressure on the Indiana governor, Mike Pence, to now clarify exactly what it means and how it can and will be implemented

That's my concern, a person could use this bill to discriminate against any group of people that they have some personal issue with and then claim they not discriminating but rather its there "religious right " to do this and they would be protected from being sued due to this bill

I was aware of this development but I have been avoiding commenting because I haven't played PoE yet and I don't want to ruin the narrative or find out too much about the game

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/indiana-religous-freedom-explainer/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/ Indiana governor, Mike Pence, signed into law a "Religious Freedom " bill that has been vociferously criticized by many as people are concerned that this will allow businesses in Indiana to refuse to serve members of the LGBT community and will effectively legitimize discrimination in Indiana against gay people It must be noted that this is not just a case of conservative Republicans trying to enforce there myopic views on society as many Republicans, including Pence, now want to " clarify " this bill There has also been immediate reaction from certain businesses and states who have clearly stated that they wont invest in Indiana in certain ways if this bill is actually enforced in its current form So what do you guys think? What is the reason or justification for this bill outside of the way it can be used to discriminate against the LGBT community? Is there a valid reason for the passing of this bill? Obviously I am opposed to any kind of discrimination so I think its a strange decision for Republican lawmakers in Indiana to want to pass this bill but maybe there is another angle to this I am missing?

This game looks amazing ...I can't wait

That was a very interesting and at the same time a very humorous video I have no sympathy for the older guy, he went to the interview and was lying about his product...it was embarrassing to see him squirm when he realized he had been setup but he deserved it Imagine going for an interview and knowing you will be lying about a product your company sells but you aren't just lying about a minor thing like what goods get sourced from which countries that arent necessarily on the political correct list like NK and Syria. Anyway he is lying about the fact that the drink is safe....its much worse IMO