BruceVC

No offense TN but is social media really irrefutable proof of anything? Like that photo of the syringe...how do you know its real? Can you possibly post some credible links that can be verified?

I started watching the latest season for Hell on Wheels and as usual its very entertaining

Just like you advocate the destruction of earth by living right? Don't take what Oby says seriously, most of us don't

Well you can see it like Gaider is on some grand SJW crusade or you can see it like he is making Bioware games more inclusive. I prefer to see it like the latter and his endeavors are much appreciated

Yep, US begin war against Syria at last. They make long path to make this real. Firstly with help of Turkish ally they create ISIS. But ISIS fail own goal and has been defeated by Syrian army and Kurdish selfdefence. Then US organise ISIS "invasion" into Iraq, where they: Cut Kurdish supply lines. Syrian Kurdish self-defence has been weakened. Has been armed by newest US weapons (Iraq army just delivers all these toys to them and flee without fight). After this well armed US-backed terrorist return to Syria for finishing own work. And US use this situation for attack of Syria without declaration of war or permission from UNN (We make war against terrorists, trust to us).... Profit. It's so good really. Syrian Trap triggered. Wait so you are suggesting that the USA created ISIS as a reason to actually invade Syria? Please tell me even you don't believe this ..... Not to mention that this whole ISIS situation will almost certainly ensure that Assad will remain in power. Also ISIS has made Iran more powerful than ever. If making ISIS were our plan; it sure blew up in our face. Not to mention there is really no room for profit here. Exactly, the USA has no intention of bombing anyone in Syria except for ISIS targets

Of course this is true, but any reasonable person knows this

Yep, US begin war against Syria at last. They make long path to make this real. Firstly with help of Turkish ally they create ISIS. But ISIS fail own goal and has been defeated by Syrian army and Kurdish selfdefence. Then US organise ISIS "invasion" into Iraq, where they: Cut Kurdish supply lines. Syrian Kurdish self-defence has been weakened. Has been armed by newest US weapons (Iraq army just delivers all these toys to them and flee without fight). After this well armed US-backed terrorist return to Syria for finishing own work. And US use this situation for attack of Syria without declaration of war or permission from UNN (We make war against terrorists, trust to us).... Profit. It's so good really. Syrian Trap triggered. Wait so you are suggesting that the USA created ISIS as a reason to actually invade Syria? Please tell me even you don't believe this .....

Something else that I mentioned that is very significant is that this is the first time, I can recall in recent times, that various Middle East countries are directly involved in airstrikes against ISIS or any enemy for that matter. For example the Jordanian air force is really bombing ISIS positions. Normally Middle East countries just supply logistical support. This is a real "coalition of the willing " and I'm glad the USA has obviously made it clear that they will get involved but not if other countries don't also contribute militarily. This makes sense on a number of levels.

Well after your indictment of the game I have to say ....nothing No, I did think the narrative was interesting. The constant questions ..where was the Colonel....what had happened to him Also I enjoyed the usage of some of the weapons, like sniping. But I suppose that's common to most shooters. But I do agree now that you mention it that some parts of the game were illogical

Narrative? Compelling? Uh...yeah, sure. We killed hundreds of militants to get to where we are right now, but, hey, there are like maybe three dozen more dudes ahead, and there's this neat white phosphorous cannon sitting over here...how could we resist? Also, we're not actually going to take a look to see if they're actually really militants, even though they currently haven't even spotted us yet! "Oh my gosh, we are such horrible people! The indiscriminate killing of the other hundred dudes before this clearly did not show that maybe there's something wrong with war and possibly us if you pay any heed at all to our normal societal values!" In my books, this kind of narrative would be laughable, not compelling. It's the kind of narrative almost any action game could show if it really wanted to, but it doesn't because it'd be ridiculous, not to mention tedious and preachy...all three of which the game very neatly exemplify. The fact that the basic gameplay was pretty boring didn't help much either. That seems to be true of every corridor third person shooter I've ever played, though, so maybe I'm a little biased. Barti when you put it like that it does make the game sound a bit silly, but you are also only discussing the negative

I think your criticism about the civilians who live in ISIS occupied territory is harsh and unfair. ISIS has had 3 years of fighting in Syria to hone and improve there combat skills. When they first invaded Iraq the Iraqi army capitulated and retreated. ISIS may not be as effective as any conventional army but they are still a dangerous force. And they have no issue with extreme violence, mass killings and they have a complete disregard for human rights. You can't expect your average civilian to reasonably oppose them. So of course non-combatants will either flee from them or accept living under there anachronistic and extremist interpretation of Islam

I have to confess I played this game about 3 months ago and I really enjoyed it. There are certain choices you need to consider that make the game different, like whether to use Napalm, and the narrative is compelling. But end of the day aren't all shooters really the same? You get different weapons and progress through a series of maps towards an end goal. What were you expecting that has you so disappointed?

Agreed, even if they get completely defeated in Syria that doesn't mean the ISIS ideology will vanish. You can never really defeat an ideology through military means. But the honeymoon of there safe haven in Syria is basically over and that's a goods thing

Volo are you not worried that this game is too old school and hardcore for you to enjoy in the long term? In other words does it have real replayability?

Yeah I agree but remember something very important. One of the reasons ISIS has been so successful is that no one has seriously threatened there home base in Syria, this is a game changer. So there military effectiveness may be curtailed quicker than you think

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/22/world/meast/u-s-airstrikes-isis-syria/index.html I thought this discussion deserved its own thread because its reached a melting point and for the first time since the campaign against ISIS began the USA has started bombing ISIS in Syria. Several points that are worth discussing that include the fact Assad wasn't consulted so what will the Syrians response be? I don't think they will do anything as ISIS is a threat to Assad reign so I think despite there initial protests there will be tacit support. I noticed Russia saying " the sovereignty of Syria needs to be respected".... ...after Ukraine I am surprised any Russian official can seriously make statements like that without laughing Anyway ISIS over played there hand, they made a fatal mistake that Obamas conciliatory view around military intervention as thinking that the USA is weak. They publically beheaded several American citizens and now they are facing the consequences Now that the USA is targeting them within Syria I believe there days are numbered Also what's very different about this military action is that several Middle East countries are actively involved in this new " coalition of the willing ". They include the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Bahrain

I don't understand your point ? What do you mean by hidden qualifiers?

Actually Amentep and I have disagreed on this topic on several areas. He definitely doesn't share my view on all things related to SJ issues, the one thing we do agree on is the meaning of words. Anyway consider what he is saying, he makes some valid points

And what, pray tell, would that be? I think the idea that the gamer identity is supposed to die is stupid. I also think mischaracterizing feminism is stupid. Personally, I see your stand as inconsistant since your argument isn't based on meaning or even intent of use but on a nebulous "how many people use it in the way described". Which I guess means that once 51% of the people start calling gamers white misogynists you'll be agreeing with the "gamers are evil" stance? Yeah you right Amentep. And you and I have discussed this in the past around these exact words The principle of the meaning of words needs to be consistent, you can't be selective when it suits you Volo, its okay to admit you are wrong. No one will think less of you

That's been my personal experience in the South African context around what ISIS are doing, so the typical comment to ISIS brutality is something along the lines of " yes I don't support them BUT ....." and I always find that the moment someone uses the " but " word it almost negates everything that said before because then there is this complicated justification for there actions. And in South Africa we are dealing with a greater problem and that's around perception, as I mentioned there really are people who deny that groups like Boko Haram and ISIS are Muslim extremists. And that's very unhelpful to the broader understanding of why these groups exist and how to reduce there effectiveness

Bruce we all know what the dictionary says. But the problem is in identifying said inequality and finding solutions that are fair. You can have all the best sounding motivation in the world but it is the how you go on about achieving your goal and the results of your efforts that can rightfully come to define your entire movement. Sure I agree and that's why you'll notice I don't call myself a feminist anymore. I say I believe in gender equality. But I wanted to highlight the fact that there is movement of people, like Emma, who are aware of the negative perception around the word feminism. I just find it interesting that she wants to directly discuss that this word doesn't have to mean what some of you guys have come to say the word means Anyway I'm not here to convince anyone anymore about what the word means to them, I had a whole thread dedicated to that. This is more informational and for you to ponder when you are by yourself

But they're not achieving anything, that's the point. The message is to play smart. Think logically, not emotionally. You really think they aren't achieving anything? You may be right, but what about some pride and dignity. They not be achieving political change but just the fact they can partake in a march without being beaten up or arrested must be worth something?

I hear you and for anyone who isn't gay that would be applicable. But how high on the list of priorities would gay rights be for you if you were gay? I can tell you from experience that the further East you travel, the less gaydar people actually have. Noticed it VERY quickly when a class I had with people from various countries included a flaming gay Ukrainian and only myself and the latinos seemed to notice, while the asians and russians were all oblivious to it. I would later go on to advise a female russian friend that her love interest was flaming gay (which I determined after speaking to them for a grand total of five seconds) not once, but twice. In that sense, I promise you blending in as a "normal guy" if you're a flaming gay homosexual is pretty darned easy in Russia. They're not gonna drop dead suddenly any time soon. And having said that, I think what Fighter is saying is that you need to pick and choose your battles wisely. If a massive gay pride protest and parade took place in Moscow tomorrow, no one would take it seriously. If it were a protest for peace completely devoid of any gay representation, it'll be heard. Pick your battles and focus on the one you have a chance of winning first. If a gay Russian insists gay rights is more important, he's more than welcome to organize a protest aimed at that....though in my experience with the culture, I highly doubt anyone would have the balls to do that, and understandably so....which AGAIN highlights how that's the more difficult battle and the one to put on hold for now. Campaigns for basic human rights and dignity shouldn't be not practiced in a place like Russia just because of the Ukraine issue. These concerns can be interchangeable In other words I don't buy this whole argument that says " just because people are protesting about Ukrainian crisis gay activists also shouldn't protest" Imagine trying to sell that logic to activists in any Western country? You take what awareness you can raise in a place like Russia, you can't really be selective because its not like these types of marches are common as far as I know? I think problem is that there are many people that may support Ukraine but simply dont support LGBT movement. So in the end it hurts those people who just want to show support to Ukraine because they end up in same basket as LGBT movement. Good point, I can see the logic behind your post. Its a pity but I can see how that may be the case

I hear you and for anyone who isn't gay that would be applicable. But how high on the list of priorities would gay rights be for you if you were gay? I can tell you from experience that the further East you travel, the less gaydar people actually have. Noticed it VERY quickly when a class I had with people from various countries included a flaming gay Ukrainian and only myself and the latinos seemed to notice, while the asians and russians were all oblivious to it. I would later go on to advise a female russian friend that her love interest was flaming gay (which I determined after speaking to them for a grand total of five seconds) not once, but twice. In that sense, I promise you blending in as a "normal guy" if you're a flaming gay homosexual is pretty darned easy in Russia. They're not gonna drop dead suddenly any time soon. And having said that, I think what Fighter is saying is that you need to pick and choose your battles wisely. If a massive gay pride protest and parade took place in Moscow tomorrow, no one would take it seriously. If it were a protest for peace completely devoid of any gay representation, it'll be heard. Pick your battles and focus on the one you have a chance of winning first. If a gay Russian insists gay rights is more important, he's more than welcome to organize a protest aimed at that....though in my experience with the culture, I highly doubt anyone would have the balls to do that, and understandably so....which AGAIN highlights how that's the more difficult battle and the one to put on hold for now. Campaigns for basic human rights and dignity shouldn't be not practiced in a place like Russia just because of the Ukraine issue. These concerns can be interchangeable In other words I don't buy this whole argument that says " just because people are protesting about Ukrainian crisis gay activists also shouldn't protest" Imagine trying to sell that logic to activists in any Western country? You take what awareness you can raise in a place like Russia, you can't really be selective because its not like these types of marches are common as far as I know? I don't think you read my post. No one is saying they can't be there. All that was said was please don't be flaming gay and come dressing or acting in a way that screams "I'm gay" because it detracts from the purpose. This is hardly a big issue: I have to dress professionally for a job interview, they're being asked to dress less flamboyantly for protests. No one is saying they shouldn't protest about gay rights. All that was said is that in an idealistic world, that would be the case. In reality, they could get f***ing shot. Therefore, it doesn't happen. They probably want to, but also know better, and thus stay quiet and weigh SAFER options in their heads. I promise you if you went to Russia and gave your speech about basic human rights and how you should all march on the Kremlin...if you gave that speech to the very gay people who would benefit from the protest, a good percent of them wouldn't support your protest out of fear and would likely try to talk you out of it. And this is not the west. You'd be horrendously naive to handle a problem in the East as you do in the west. Different cultures exist, different mentalities exist. Act appropriately for each if you wish to live long. I for one don't go telling people my religion (or lack thereof) while in the Southern States in the USA because I'm smart enough to know it'll cause trouble, and I'm also realistic enough to know that if I organized a agnostic/athiest pride parade in a Southern state, all it'd accomplish is it might start a fight. Therefore, don't bother. The athiests and agnostics in that state will know to keep their mouths shut and pretend they're Christian too, those that don't deal with extra stress and conflict. That same rule does not apply to the rest of the United States, nor to Germany, nor to the Netherlands, nor to Canada. However, it's probably not wise to discuss how disgusted you are by Israel in Germany. (here nothing bad would happen to you, it's just gonna be HELLA AWKWARD and uncomfortable for the room) Different cultures react different ways and must be handled differently. You're free to go to Moscow and act just like you would in your own country, but don't act surprised when you end up arrested. I did read what you said but I don't think I explained my point properly And you have actually summarized the exact issue with why gay activists are protesting at the peace march, I agree with you. Russia is not the West and I would be intimidated and probably deported if I started to raise awareness around gay rights. And most gay people probably wouldn't join my campaign out of fear. But that's why they are doing it at the peace march, the Russian authorities are less likely to be heavy handed. And just to be clear, the purpose of them being in the march is to say " I'm a gay Russian and I want people to know ", sp the flamboyant dress is part of the message and the way they raise visibility. So again the argument that's says " they need to dress differently " defeats the point of what they are trying to achieve

https://za.celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-news/emma-watson-delivers-stirring-speech-at-u-n-204442194.html Guys here is an interesting read, I have even more respect for Emma Watson after seeing her efforts to highlight the campaign for gender equality Very relevant when she said "I was appointed as Goodwill Ambassador for U.N. Women six months ago and the more I've spoken about feminism, the more I have realized that fighting for women's rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop." "Feminism," Watson continued, "is, by definition, the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes." How many times have I said that feminism doesn't mean you are a man-hater or that men must be marginalized ...Volo I hope you read this