BruceVC

I really don't like this post I'm trying to come to grips with what its exactly that I don't like about it. It may be the holier than thou tone of taking the moral high ground (correctly, I may add) on the discussion while committing the hypocrisy of failing at its own standard. I don't know who you are in RL Wals, I don't know if you actually are doing something to end global terrorism but even if you did that wouldn't a reason to shame others for their choice. I don't like to push onto others things that I wouldn't carry myself and so I tend to look upon that kind of behavior badly. I'll chalk this up to a bad temper due to a horrible situation, but I don't think shaming people in forums makes you a bloody hero either. Sorry if I offend. Geez dude, thats quite a guilt trip you putting Walsie on there I didn't think you played the " guilt trip " card, thats more a SJW function

Oh you must be relieved, you have found a justification to also jump on the " lets ignore BruceVC on this thread bandwagon " And the reason, well its very serious. He used the word censorship in the wrong context !!!! I meant to say you are avoiding/boycotting/ignoring certain websites and that means you aren't getting a balanced view of certain topics. Exactly how I cannot explain to you properly about removing the hookers in GTA, you don't understand my reason and you refuse to read the link which explains the point But I get thats not really important to most people on this thread, whats more important is a medium so you guys can vent and express outrage. But you aren't really interested in dissenting opinions, which is why you will notice that very few people outside of the normal contributors are active in this discussion But at least you found a way to ignore my posts, that pesky word " censorship ", well done Listen closely, because I am only saying this once. I do not appreciate that implication in there that I am somehow hypocritical because I am now censoring you, so here's some education: If I decide to not respond to you, but leave your posts intact, that is a boycott. If I were to remove your posting ability, which is actually well within my powers, then I would be censoring you. I would never, ever censor your opinions or those of anybody else here - I am only here to enforce forum guidelines, and in fact I am going to be letting other mods handle the occassional beef with you from now on since my extreme frustration with you constitutes a serious conflict of interest - but that doesn't mean I have to take them all seriously. As for jumping on a bandwagon, I believe I started the bandwagon since we had this discussion before. I can find the posts where I resolved not to speak to you on this subject three months back, if you want. I just changed my mind because I felt bad about ignoring you since I believed you were discussing this in good faith. Clearly, that was a mistake. It has nothing to do with your opinions, I can respect some of your opinions. In fact, I'd be the first to admit that most prostitutes are, in fact, victims of society. You don't even know how much you are understating some of that when you claim that legalizing prostitution would solve the problems. It's legalized here, but at most it mitigated some of the problems. A large share of "legal" prostitutes in Amsterdam here are foreign women who were lured here with the promise of a dance career and forced into prostitution by circumstance or threat. Not to say that it isn't a huge improvement, most of them get healthcare and fewer have drug addictions and in fact the lion's share of prostitutes are in there by choice (though whether they like it or not is up to them). You assume I, being a part of "you guys" as if we were a single unit, disagree with you on everything and that simply isn't true. Also, I read that article two threads back when it was first posted as an archived link and in fact the two of us discussed it then. At length. Again, you can literally look back and find the posts. I wasn't even participating in this discussion about prostitutes in GTA this time around since we already had it, literally you and me. In fact, we drove around in circles about it several times. We discussed the idea that adding male prostitutes might be a solution, though that probably would just add gay-bashing to the list of complaints since male prostitutes mostly service men. We argued about how GTA is an exaggerated representation of US street crime and for it to be so prostitution is a neccesity. We bandied back and forth if being a "victim of society" was a worthwhile reason to censor them in art as street gang youths are just as much victims of society and you could say that soldiers are victims of society and their PTSD means that any war game would be insensitive on the same grounds (thinking about it, war games have been shown to help soldiers deal with PTSD and there is a correlation between video game sales rising and crime rates dropping so until we have more information, the logical conclusion would be that censoring any of these could be harmful to society rather than beneficial). You didn't agree with some of the points I made, though you conceded on others yet you are making those same points again now. I am not interested in dissenting opinions? You've literally said "I haven't thought about it that way" on some of the things you said then and yet you're back now with the same points still not having thought about it, instead derailing the thread to make the same points again and again and again. It's not your use of the word censorship. It's the fact that we've explained how you're wrong about what is or isn't censorship a million times in long, drawn out discussions and you simply do not care. It's not any of your opinions that are the problem, it's your debating style, memory span, manipulation and all around acting on bad faith. There is simply nothing to gain from discussing with you. I might as well try arguing with Oby. Do you not see how frustrating you are being that in almost every thread you participate in a lot people eventually decide you are a troll that should be ignored? This thread isn't even the worst one, as it's not about RPG romance. I consider Longknife to be one of the most interesting of the newly active members, even when I disagree with him (which happens plenty of times) his posts are always interesting and he puts the sincerest effort into it - he just had the same breakdown I had with you three months ago - a breakdown of frustration because you ignore everyone that puts effort into their posts in favor of engaging with Volourn. Just three days ago, you told me "you made good points, I'll respond later since I have to respond to these other people first" and you have yet to do so. I haven't been counting, but thinking back there were at least six other instances of you doing this to me alone, and you have done it to other people too. You never end up responding to what you consider to be "good points". There's also the use of "you guys", implying this is some sort of echo chamber, when not three pages back you liked one of my posts for disagreeing with someone else here. We're constantly arguing amongst ourselves, about whether femfreq should be ignored, about how much of feminism is toxic and how much of gaming is toxic, whether male privelege is or isn't a viable reason to discount male opinions, about whether the latest GG scandal is worth attention or not, even about why we are in this (I am in it for free speech, others for taking down specific targets that offend them, and still others just hate hipsters from San Francisco and want to rant on the internet). The reason very few other people participate in this thread is because they a) don't care that much and b) they always stop by making some wild accusation, of course the pro-GG people will defend themselves. When Tale did it, I gave his arguments the time of day and responded in great detail, did I not? I responded rudely when he started in a rude manner, but once he decided to actually argue his points I respected his opinions and gave my counter argument and I'll very much agree to disagree and I've been proven wrong on certain issues in this thread and conceded several times. I am not discussing the prostitutes in GTA now and your link isn't relevant to me also because I don't see the point of discussing it with you again. What is relevant is pointing out that GG is a consumer boycott on moral grounds at it's very core and your response is "psh it's easy to make an exception, your boycott hasn't done anything anyway". I'd hate to see you actually champion a cause you believe in if that is your attitude, you'd give up in a day. Which seems about your track record, anyway, considering how highly you seem to value the victimhood of prostitutes when your male urges come a-knocking. If it's so important to you that we read that link, we told you exactly what you had to do: Provide an archived link. In the amount of time you spent writing posts about it since, you could have done that a hundred times over. It's obvious you do not want anyone to actually read the article, you just want to derail the thread (since this is the umpteenth time you posted the same article) and you find your hook to do so by judging us for not doing it on your terms. But here's a newsflash, your terms are not more important than a legitimate consumer boycott. Judging from your posts, you seem to have less respect for people using peaceful consumer means of protest than you do the people who harass, as at least you recognize their dedication. Why would I waste my time on you if you can't even respect any of my (or Nonek's, or kirottu's) peaceful means and aren't willing to use a minute of your time making an archived link? There is no reason to engage with you. There is no point to it. There is nothing to gain, nothing to learn and no way to convince you since you conveniently just forget when you changed your mind. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results - I'm done. I should have stayed done three months ago. When Zorapter or Hiro or Longknife say you're a troll, a couple of months ago I would have disagreed. I enjoy some RPG romances and agree with the vast majority of SJ causes (if not the toxicity of a lot of the groups that espouse it) and because of that I'd never been on the receiving end of your bad faith, manipulative style of debate. Now? None of those guys would be able to convince me that someone else is a troll. You did. Especially when you started throwing around "whore" as a derogatory term to try and troll Volo where you perceived his weakness to be - female loved ones. You aren't here in good faith, you're here to get a rise out of people and I commend you because you're very effective at it. Thanks for explaining, I do appreciate the effort you put into responses. I dont agree with certain things you said, it would be a very different discussion if you had just said in the beginning " I've read this link " but you insisted on me either explaining it to you or posting it under the archive link I also told you I did use the word censorship in the wrong context, but you still feel the need to explain it me again, as if I still don't know what the word mean But anyway lets just move on now, I have no issue if you dont want to debate with me on any topic, thats the beauty of the of forum where we have free choice of who we speak to

What the **** are you talking about? The ancient Egyptians were as African as you can get. They spoke an Afro-Asiatic language which is distinct from the Semitic branch (which developed in the Middle East), which can be said to be wholly African in origin. The Carthaginians were Semites though, you are correct on that point. The highlands of Ethiopia is a site where you can find very ancient evidence of agriculture. It would be completely wrong to say that "civilization never developed there". And this is without delving into the civilizations which has existed at other points in time in Africa. Sure, they might have been a few hundred years behind, but it would be contradictory to not call it "civilization" since that would pretty much disqualify a great deal of other cultures I'm betting you define as "civilized". If you are interested in anthropology and the rise of civilizations I recommend the book "Guns, Germs and Steel". European civilization has only been prominent for about 400 years. The Romans and the Greeks had their time but it would be deeply unfair to say that they were clearly above the level of the Persians and the Chinese (for example). If things had turned out differently and the Chinese would have come to Europe instead of the other way around, they would also have described European medieval history as consisting of ridiculous and pointless tribal wars, religious superstition and so on. It is only because of our subconscious image of civilization that we regard living in a house of stone as inherently more civilized than living in a "hut" as you implicitly mean to say is so uncivilized. Sure, but how this is relevant to the current state of Africa? I hear the perspective often on this radio talk I participate in " Africa use to have very advanced civilizations ", I agree with that, its part of the history of the continent. But how do we get the AU to realize that the only way to uplift the continent meaningfully in an economic and social way is for the AU to actually enforce its own policies, like no fraudulent elections and no abuse of human rights that is given tacit support by many African countries. Like the rise of homophobia we see in certain African countries? Its great that Africa had previous civilisations but how does that help us now?

Yes you raise some valid points and I don't disagree with everything you are saying Africa hasn't had the same economic evolution events that European countries had, like the Industrial Revolution, or major wars that united the continent under a certain ideology. Also the early colonial states that the Europeans established were about the abuse and extraction of economic resources in some countries at the expense of local people But the reality is most colonial control ended in the 1960's especially amongst the British and French colonies, these colonies were handed over to new African governments to govern by themselves. And the new African leaders were all educated in excellent Western universities and they did understand economics and what good governance was. They just decided not to follow it and rather enrich themselves and their supporters and tribe. So by the 1980's almost every single African country was bankrupt and needed loans from the IMF There are several African countries that do a relatively good job at trying to maintain government institutions so that they can provide important services to their population, like healthcare and education, but there are more countries that have failed miserably and this is a direct result of the actual governments and their disinterest in good governance. If you look at Zimbabwe this is an excellent example of how an African country can effectively destroy its economy through government policies and also its a good example of how the AU has failed to condemn Robert Mugabe and allowed him to continue to rule his country as a dictator. So the AU in its current form needs to be challenged for not enforcing its own policies around the principles of Democracy and what its says it stands for If you are interested in why Africa is in the state its in I recommend reading the book " The State of Africa " by Martin Meredith. Very interesting and relevant

Holy Smoke, that would have completely frustrated me. How many hours did you spend playing the game to the point of the crash?

Often when people try to, they are murdered. The powers that be generally want the African continent subjugated under a friendly to them tyrant or in turmoil if a friendly tyrant can't be found. Robbing it of it's resources is much easier that way. And there are numerous players on the African chessboard. Many of them ruthless. The AU is the organisation responsible for the stewardship of Africa and its member countries This whole " western countries are robbing Africa of its resources" is so 1960's and really irrelevant to the obvious problems the continent grapples with. These problems are corruption, lack of governance and a failure of the AU to enforce its own manifesto within its member states But just for record who has been murdered in Africa by Western powers in order to gain some economic benefit in the last 20 years?

This, QFT

Here is an interesting link where one of the attackers tries to justify his actions, you tell me if this makes any sense. Its the same illogical diatribe against the West that we often see and hear from radical Islam http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/10/world/france-market-shooting-scene/index.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30761963 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/boko-haram-deadliest-massacre-baga-nigeria Both these links have been posted but I wanted to repost them just to highlight how completely out of control this situation in north-eastern Nigeria is Over 2000 thousand people massacred and we don't hear anything from the AU around how there is going to be a consolidated campaign from Africa to address this military threat from Boko Haram 20 people die in the Paris attacks and the whole of Europe is united in condemnation and outrage. When will the African continent actually start addressing its own problems in a meaningful way ?

He's not making sense there. That's not how the attacks are happening. However, it looks like he's a PvPer. Maybe I'll run into him in DoTA like I did Kim, and perhaps he'll make more sense there. Edit: He looks and sounds like a weird art dealer that might try and slip me some roofies at an afterhours party in Manhattan. I bet he's got a pet monkey. Then how are they happening? We know these guys were trained overseas. And why do you think he has a monkey? Magic. Seriously. Wizards! We do? Well then who trained them overseas? Couldn't be the U.S. or one of the NATO allies training them could it? I mean, I know someone over there right now expressly for the purpose of training military folks of all types, and the U.S. is sending more later this month. Wonder where the guns came from.... hmmmm.... Why I think he has a monkey is because he reminds me of someone I met once. A freaky art dealer (or that's what he said he was anyways) that tried to slip me something (probably roofies) at an after hours party in Manhattan, who had a monkey. Looks and sounds a lot like him. Maybe it is him. Politicians are often seriously messed up folks. Why do you feel the need to try confuse every single issue when it comes to these types of developments ? Can you not just accept something for what it is? Two disenfranchised French Algerians ( plus the other guy )who have explained why they did what they did. Its not hard to understand, its not hard to see what happened. Its not hard just to say " yes I can see this was an attack from a small group of Islamic extremists" And despite the fact the entire worlds security services have the same view of this attack, including Muslims groups, you somehow have a different story and expect people to actually take this seriously? Is that what it is? Evidence Sir Bruce! Present it! Oh, and again, evidence, not the words of someone on TV. Pretend we're in a courtroom, and you've got to convince a jury. Lay out your evidence that has so convinced you and should convince everyone. As for the entire world's security services..... did they all do an investigation? That's amazingly quick and comprehensive police work if they did. Also amazing team work. I'd have thought they'd get in each others way. Where's their report? Did you know one of the lead investigators on the French team committed suicide before filing his report? I will accept something for what it is when it is clear what it is. You on the other hand just accept on faith what the media, government agency X, or politician Y throws at you as if they never lie. Tip: They're notorious for lying. See, there's a saying that I've found to be true: 'Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.' You seem to enjoy being fooled all the time. Now, as I've said, I'm not sure yet. It might turn out that what's being reported in the media is largely true. But they've been shown to have lied and pushed propaganda on this story, so it would be wise to question things. And even if the reported suspects are 100% guilty of what they are said to have done, there are still things worth questioning. I realize that's hard for you to understand, as you want the things the media and your favorite government agency tells you to be nice, neat, and true. But the world is much different and more complex than advertised. You'd realize that if you ever stepped outside your box. How many times do you need to be lied to before you actually stop trusting someone or something? How many times do you need to be lied to before you question what those who have lied in the past say? I can agree that at times we are mislead by certain government organisations. The invasion of Iraq and the justifications for it we now know weren't true. The imminent and possible attack of the UK by Iraq missiles and the link to Al-Qaeda with Saddam Hussein were obviously embellished and untrue to get public support for an invasion But as you well know the world has moved on since the days of the Bush rhetoric, " you are either with us or against us "...those types of comments and actions just don't exist anymore. Western countries now respect the decisions of the UN security council. This has of course created its own set of problems, like the lack of decisive intervention in Syria which lead to the indirect creation of ISIS as the civil war dragged on. So yes I agree with you that ISIS is an indirect creation of the Syrian civil war but it was not something that the USA and other Western countries wanted or could have predicted would happen But my issue really is this constant refusal from you to see certain things for exactly what they are. This attack in Paris is exactly what it appears to be. And it won't be the last as there is a real and viable threat from this type of Islamic extremism that most Western countries face

Oh you must be relieved, you have found a justification to also jump on the " lets ignore BruceVC on this thread bandwagon " And the reason, well its very serious. He used the word censorship in the wrong context !!!! I meant to say you are avoiding/boycotting/ignoring certain websites and that means you aren't getting a balanced view of certain topics. Exactly how I cannot explain to you properly about removing the hookers in GTA, you don't understand my reason and you refuse to read the link which explains the point But I get thats not really important to most people on this thread, whats more important is a medium so you guys can vent and express outrage. But you aren't really interested in dissenting opinions, which is why you will notice that very few people outside of the normal contributors are active in this discussion But at least you found a way to ignore my posts, that pesky word " censorship ", well done

He's not making sense there. That's not how the attacks are happening. However, it looks like he's a PvPer. Maybe I'll run into him in DoTA like I did Kim, and perhaps he'll make more sense there. Edit: He looks and sounds like a weird art dealer that might try and slip me some roofies at an afterhours party in Manhattan. I bet he's got a pet monkey. Then how are they happening? We know these guys were trained overseas. And why do you think he has a monkey? Magic. Seriously. Wizards! We do? Well then who trained them overseas? Couldn't be the U.S. or one of the NATO allies training them could it? I mean, I know someone over there right now expressly for the purpose of training military folks of all types, and the U.S. is sending more later this month. Wonder where the guns came from.... hmmmm.... Why I think he has a monkey is because he reminds me of someone I met once. A freaky art dealer (or that's what he said he was anyways) that tried to slip me something (probably roofies) at an after hours party in Manhattan, who had a monkey. Looks and sounds a lot like him. Maybe it is him. Politicians are often seriously messed up folks. Why do you feel the need to try confuse every single issue when it comes to these types of developments ? Can you not just accept something for what it is? Two disenfranchised French Algerians ( plus the other guy )who have explained why they did what they did. Its not hard to understand, its not hard to see what happened. Its not hard just to say " yes I can see this was an attack from a small group of Islamic extremists" And despite the fact the entire worlds security services have the same view of this attack, including Muslims groups, you somehow have a different story and expect people to actually take this seriously?

Those were originally bred for hunting lions, right? When I was stationed in Jacksonville my neighbor had one of those. Giant, beautiful, friendly dog and I love how the fur on the spine runs counter to the rest of the coat. I think I once read that they instinctually attack from behind so it always made me a little nervous how it would follow me to the pier and watch me fish. Yes you are correct, thats good general dog knowledge They are very effective hunting dogs, my dad has a huge garden and over the last 20 years all he has ever got was Rhodesian Ridgebacks and Jack Russels ( I love little tenacious Jack Russels ) But the ridgebacks make excellent guard dogs and they can be highly intelligent, when they decide to attack they don't even bark....they just bite

Awesome news, there is a new season of Banshee that has just been released

I would really advise you guys stop using these strange justifications to avoid having a debate in a meaningful way, its looks really bad from an outsiders perspective You can easily make an exception to your "GG boycott " and read the link I posted , its not like your avoiding of Polygon has made any difference to them being in business so it should make no difference to reference this information quickly. But I refuse to do the work for you and post even an archive link , if you care about this debate then you need to read the link yourself. Thats what everyone else does I also did try to explain the article, in essence the writer says that hookers are already victims in RL due to their lifestyle choice and its unnecessarily cruel to have them in the game and to be killable. So he suggests removing them, but no one seemed to understand that point. Now I realize why, I don't think many people read it because its on Polygon. But you need to read it to understand the point as its more complex than what I mentioned and the truth is I can't get the message across as effectively as the article does So read the article !!!!

You make me laugh .." "don't worry, my dog is friendly," says the jogger " That's so true,,,and I have stupidly thought that about one of my dads dogs who ended up biting a guy that came to look at the phone lines....I said to him " its okay the dog won't bite". The dog was a Rhodesian Ridgeback

Nice, I'm going to play this game next

I'm truly shocked that there people who have decided to not play W3, guys this is one of the MOST anticipated fantasy RPG we have ever seen. Its going to be bigger than Skyrim...imagine how exciting it's going to be exploring that land I beg you to reconsider any decision to not play this game

I know there are a few people on these forums who subscribe to conspiracy theories but I find them completely irritating and unhelpful. Its like they exist so people have an excuse to not realize the obvious truth and therefore don't have to worry about a solution Do you know there are people who think that ISIS is an American and CIA created and supported organisation, thats right the same ISIS that the Americans are currently fighting in Iraq

People who are EU-sceptics and in the right wing ideologically will use this incident to highlight the failure of multiculturalism. But this terrible event definitely doesn't mean the end of multiculturalism., but it does raise an issue that countries like France now face. Firstly almost the entire global Muslim community has condemned this attack, so its not a case of " Muslims actually support this type of action ". We know this terrorism was committed by Islamic extremists and they don't represent the broader Muslim community And finally France is one of those countries that is an active target for fundamentalists. This exists for many reasons like their history with Algeria, there support for various UN campaigns like Libya and some of the recent laws they have passed that are seen to some as "Un-Islamic ". They have the largest Muslim community in Europe and add to that there social structures ( lots of disenfranchised Algerians live within France) and geographical borders you can understand how they can easily become a target for various extremist groups My thoughts go out to the families of the victims of this senseless violence

Their dogma has survived quite nicely Good lord. Makes me sick. Torch those f*ckers. Burn them like weeds. Yes it is utterly reprehensible And what frustrates me even more is the AU is completely disinterested in resolving this problem despite the fact this is an African problem. And people wonder why the continent doesn't reach its full potential

Oh I forgot, you don't read certain websites because they don't follow the " GG code of etiquette " Ironic that, you are all about freedom of information but you actively practice censorship....and you expect me to tell you what that article says...no I don't think so. If you want to engage in a mature informed debate then you should learn to read all sources of information. Just because you personally don't agree with a website there is no reason it can't provide an interesting perspective. You have now effectively " cut your nose off to spite your face " . Thats sad, I'm glad I don't automatically refuse to recognize certain websites ...whats next? Maybe you can burn some books you don't like ? As far as the sex industry is concerned thats not one of the SJ campaigns I am actively involved in. I can't be involved in all SJ movements Nonek so I focus on issues I can impact. And as I have said twice the solution is to legalize sex work and protect the girls rights. Thats the best we can hope for because you will never make it go away. So I'm not sure what more you really expect me to say? And finally we generally don't use the word " whore" ...it is in fact demeaning . Its obvious who has the less respect for their lifestyle ...try to refer to hookers in a less insulting manner

Now, now Nonek. Lets try not to get too sententious. You need to accept that sometimes you don't have all the information to formulate an opinion about someone's motives....a good example is how wrong you are in this post and my connection and opinion of the sex industry You just need to ask me if you want my view or reason I have done certain things in my life ( yes sometimes I do miss the questions..just remind me ) I never judged the sex industry, in fact I said legalize it and give the girls proper registered jobs so they pay tax and have legal rights But that doesn't mean I'm not acutely aware that escorts don't have great lives relative to most of us. I have been friends with certain escorts through the years as I use to be part of regular dance group and every weekend we would go to the same clubs, there was this club called ESP that only opened on a Sunday morning and use to have a roof that opened so you danced in the glorious sunlight ..anyway I met many escorts at this club so I speak from personal experience And I'm disappointed in your laziness, I explained exactly why I wanted hookers removed from GTA Its because of the article below , I would encourage you to read the whole article so you understand http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/10/7364823/gta-5s-vicious-misogyny-ought-to-be-addressed-not-ignored

Okay not wrong about everything

Thats proper passive agression and derailing of topic and then you are suprised when someone just dont have enough energy to constanty feed you with ammo Really, I always thought passive aggression was where you were actually annoyed with someone or something but you generate that hostility in an indirect way I could lie to you and say I was annoyed by Longknife post but the truth is I'm not, not at all He was completlely wrong around his opinion of me. I don't want to be rude to him and systematically dispute his points because I would have to be a little harsh and I don't feel like doing that. But lets just focus on his accusation of me " derailing the thread " ( and now you are also believing in it) " You are derailing this thread " waaaaaaaaaaaa.......seriously its the Internet, every single thread I engage in there is always an element of people going off topic. So what ? The fact that people want to discuss it should tell you its relevant to some. All these topics are on level connected to GG and SJ causes whether Longknife wants to believe it all not. Now is he suggesting that only topics he wants to raise people must discuss. Sorry, its not going to happen. What a silly thing to say to someone ...." you are derailing this thread " I can't change his mind. So