BruceVC

I don't really have an opinion on 4chan? Its got its good and bad traits like all websites But we absolutely do have freedom of abuse in RL Every company I have ever worked has a code of conduct that explicitly states what is considered unacceptable behaviour and things you can say Below is an example of part of the business ethics of the company I work for that we have to follow Responsibility to Uphold Diversity In order to uphold and sustain a fair and sustainable working environment, you must:- i. Respect the basic human and constitutional rights of all; ii. Treat people fairly regardless of their differences; iii. Provide a working environment free of discrimination; iv. Value different culture and beliefs; and v. Respect communities in which xx is located.

KKK being a conservative organization Abarr is a moron. The KKK were never a 'conservative' organization. It was founded by a bunch of traitors after they lost the civil war. They don't respect traditional American values, nor do they love their country. Imperial Wizard Bradley Jenkins The KKK has wizards! Now I finally get the robes. Maybe they have 'racist a**hole' as a prestige class. They were really more a vigilante group as inititally founded who was dedicated to upholding the "law" of the confederacy in the face of reconstruction than anything else. Vigilante groups have a long history in the US (like the San Francisco Vigilance Movement that was anti-immigration). That said, the branding in 1870 as a terrorist organization is certainly fair in reflection to their status and activities. The Imperial Wizard designation for leaders has been with the group since the original, as have some form of facial coverings to hide identities. I think the robes themselves are more artifacts of the second group, however, and derived from "Birth of a Nation". Hi Amentep " waves " Where have you been ? I was getting worried you were still alive

Well yes, I imagine very few websites would want to attract a raging bigot ? Being "Right Kind " is not an unusual expectation to have of members of a forum. Its not like you are expected to follow all these unreasonable rules in order to engage in debate ?

Like who ? I have had several debates with people on these forums who do believe that white people ( white males ) are discriminated against in modern society. Sometimes they have valid points like Oerwinde and his story about Chinese malls in Canada and sometimes there points aren't so valid. Isn't GG about a perceived discrimination towards " gamers" ...who are targeted selectively because they are white males and there influence they have on the development of games?

There we disagree. Why should we have the same conventions and mode of behavior? Why should be have the same rules on the Internet that exist in RL? Good question There are several reasons but the primary ones are ( this doesn't apply to all websites and forums but most of them) The Internet has become a mainstream way of communication and expression Websites have standards and seek to attract like minded people This means that automatically there have to be rules and codes of conduct that define what that particular website stands for. These exist on almost all websites If for example someone logs on to a website and says something like " I'm a gay gamer and I am interested in this game about feature x or lack of feature y " a completely unacceptable response would be from some members " oh well we don't care about gay people so go to some other website" By allowing this type of discrimination you would be undermining what most websites stand for which is a place where anyone can really discuss a topic without fear of abuse or vitriol A small percentage of people cannot be relied on to adhere to what the principles of most websites stand for, which includes policies of non-discrimination. So you need to enforce rules or some people don't care what they say and the consequences of those words

Your post doesn't really reveal what issues and decisions the Democrats did that made you lose faith and confidence in them, can you give more detail ?

I doubt a unified Korea would somehow surpass China's meteoric economic rise or status? Also the Chinese have long been embarrassed by several utterances and actions of NK. So I really think a unified Korea is something that would suit China in the long term?

I doubt there will ever be unification in Korea. I think there would be an almost immediate reunification of the Koreas if removed the influence of the Kim family and allowed the NK people to decide there own political future ? There are international forces opposed to unification. Even if the Kim family went away; they would be replaced. Also, there is a growing portion SK's who don't want unification. The longer this goes on; the less likely unification becomes. What international forces are opposed to the Koreas unification aspirations? I find that interesting, do you have any links?

I doubt there will ever be unification in Korea. I think there would be an almost immediate reunification of the Koreas if you removed the influence of the Kim family and allowed the NK people to decide there own political future ?

Well said. I'm not interested in their "better". furthermore, they are trying to "sanitize" the internet. I personally do not want that. I believe the internet culture is worth preserving as it is. Why? Because everything is a two-edged blade. You cannot change what is bad about it without demolishing what is good about it in the process. I do not want the internet to mimic the real world in terms of everything (standard, conventions, lack of anyonyimity, etc.) I have the real world for that. I'm quite happy with accepting the bad as a trade-off for the good. I hear what you saying but you can't separate the Internet from RL In other words its not unreasonable to expect people to behave on the Internet the same way we expect them to behave in RL in most cases So there are codes of conduct that need to be enforced on certain websites and forums and certain statements and perspectives that won't be acceptable just because they said on the Internet

Funny enough there are several people on these forums who do believe that we need " to draw attention to the fact that white people are becoming a minority and losing our political power and way of life.”? But I suppose that doesn't mean you need to join some quasi-KKK organisation to protect the interests and prevent the marginalization of white people because for me that's not a real problem in our society

Negative. Some things people say are subjective. Some things are not. 2+2=4 isn't subjective. It's factual information. Doesn't matter that it's your perception of math. You're perceiving something static and truthful. It's all about context. Here's an example: You might say "This ferrari is better than that little economy car." That's subjective. However, if you said "This ferarri is faster than that little economy car," that's objective. The ferrari is measurably, truthfully faster than the other vehicle. You aren't speaking to your mere individual perception of things. You're speaking to observable facts. Objectivity is essentially the basis for all science. You start with things you DO know, and try to figure out things you don't, so that you can know more things. Thus, if you're interested in objectivity in discussion, you're actually interested in evaluating whether or not there's some amount of concrete, truthful data that can be deduced from an exploration of a topic. Namely, romance in games, here. If you truly believe that everything's all just subjective, and objectivity doesn't matter, then what's even the point in saying anything more than "I don't like X" or "I like X."? Hearing the pleasant sound of your own text? Also, nothing need be "fully objective" to be significant. Even though the ferrari is faster than the economy car, I can still subjectively like the color of the economy car better than the color of the ferarri, etc. So, the comparison of the two cars isn't fully objective, but so what? What IS fully objective? The fact that the ferrari is faster than the other car. That matters, as opposed to that simply being an opinion, or somehow unprovable. An objective statement can serve as a basis for something else. In fact, objectivity pretty much serves as the basis for subjectivity. We don't just randomly or arbitrarily like or dislike things. We like and dislike things for reasons. We believe certain ways for reasons. That isn't to say that we're always reasonable (specifically adhering to reason/logic for all our deductions/conclusions), but that you like the color of a car because it is, in fact, that color. If nothing was fully objective, then the color of the car would be completely just people's opinion. The court of law would be even worse than it is now. "Your honor... that my client's 73 stabs to the victim's headial region was somehow harmful to the victim, much less caused the victim's death, is PURELY subjective!" Anywho, simply put, there is significance to the difference between objective context and subjective. It's all about the goal. You're either attempting to prove/deduce/support something you believe to be in some way observably true, to at least some degree, OR you're simply sharing your personal perspective that you know has nothing to do with objectivity. There's nothing wrong with that, if that is the case, but, you just can't really have both as a goal. What I mean is, something's either just opinion, or it's some combination of opinion and observable/measurable fact. So, yes, we do all like different things in games. ALSO, even if you DO like romance, there's some aspect of objectively better and worse ways to do it. There's not ONE correct way to do it. But there is, in general, a right way and a wrong way to do it. As with anything else. This is very true Lephys, also don't forget we like Chainmail Bikini armour

Did Al Qaeda come back? It seems like the guys in Iraq are ISIS. Well my technical BS aside; we'll see what he does. Re-invading Iraq would be a huge mistake; as was the original invasion. Let's hope Obama breaks this campaign promise too. The Al-Qaeda element always existed in Iraq amongst the Sunni population and support for the ideology never necessarily went away from some sectors But if Al-Maliki had incorporated the Sunnis in the new Iraqi Government the support for this more radical form of Islam would be much less We also know that technically Al-Qaeda has actually distanced itself from ISIS but of course there are people within ISIS that use to be aligned to the movement So it gets a little confusing if you ask the question " is Al-Qaeda still active in Iraq" ? They are on some levels but ISIS is the bigger threat to overall stability Whtar

This is a relevant point you are raising There was no doubt that when the USSR collapsed there were some people who took this as irrefutable evidence that Capitalism and Democracies were faultless and it was the responsibility of Western countries to export there systems of government to less fortunate governments around the world But we now realize that you can't actually export the concept of a Democracy, or Capitalism, and expect all cultures to automatically accept and thrive under systems of government that work for Western governments So if you look at the Middle East for example we know that due to the fact most of the countries there are religious states they need to find there own form of sustainable and working governments that work for there citizens This rule doesn't apply to Africa which would absolutely benefit from more Democratic and free market institutions So we need to look at each country and region on a per case basis

That FaerieCon. sounds amazing, really good fun

This is a very good post as it offers both factual and philosophical insights into the state of Communism both past and present I can agree to some of what you are saying but I think you are underestimating how much the only reason Communism sustained itself for so long wasn't because people really thought the system benefitted them but because Communism was enforced through military and dictatorial mechanisms So you had no choice to support the various Communist regimes When the USSR collapsed its interesting how almost none of the ex-USSR states followed new governments that were Communist in a nature, they all attempted to embrace Western culture and political ideology So it just highlights how disliked Communism was by the majority of the countries who were forced to live under it

Exactly, hence the need to approach legalization intelligently. It is hard to enforce when people are under the influence of pot. In most states, just the smell or a small amount is enough to get the driver off the road, but if it is a legal substance, that no longer happens. So we need a better system to police it. Wait, what? So we should just accept that people are going to drive under the influence, and ignore the issue? No. As I said, it's already illegal to drive while your ability is impaired. Just because pot becomes legal doesn't mean it's suddenly ok to drive around stoned, any more than it's ok to drive around while your ability is impaired due to all sorts of currently legal substances. The issue is one in your head, not in reality. This is actually a very valid point, I hear what Hurlshot is saying as I hear similar arguments in South Africa.." we can't legalize Marijuana because people will come to work stoned and be unproductive " ( this is similar to the concern of people driving on weed ) But if you come to work stoned this would be the same as coming to work drunk. You would get fired, just because something is legal and it impacts your senses this doesn't mean people will automatically do it in environments where this is unacceptable. And this applies to driving and working

I agree, sadly Communism is definitely not dead and many people still think it offers them a way of realistic economic transformation In South Africa we still have a Communist party that is part of what is called the "Tripartite Alliance " which is a political union between the ANC, the Trade Unions and the Communist party Its more significant from a symbolic perspective than a policy perspective as they claim to have the interests of exploited workers as there main goal But there are also many examples within the trade unions where you hear speeches from some of there leaders around " we need new radical economic policies and nationalisation policies " and these reek of the old Communist perspective. The irony in the South African context is most of these leaders have quite happily enriched themselves through free markets and Capitalist initiatives so I really question how committed they are to this idea of the state being able to control and drive the economy and implement successful economic change

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/16/world/europe/germany-by-numbers/index.html So its been 25 years since the Berlin Wall fell, now for most of us this was a very important historical step as it signified the end of the Cold War and fact that Communism was a failed ideology and form of government But I know that there are several people on these forums who think that Communism isn't that bad and the world nowadays could maybe benefit from that type of government? But anyway lets hear what you guys think about how the Cold War ended 25 years ago. I know there are some members who live in ex-Communist countries like Czech and Poland. So how do you feel about your new governments? I think the world is a much better place since the end of the Cold War and I really believe that non-Communist governments offer there citizens more opportunities and a better quality of life

I agree but I suppose you have to have some exceptions like Heroine which most countries criminalize and don't allow you to legally consume because of the addictive nature of the substance

Yeah I hear you about the legal dichotomy between the Fed and state laws that exists in some cases I was watching a documentary on CNN about the states that have legalised Marijuana and how this has created huge amounts of revenue and is very profitable but because the Federal government still considers Marijuana an illegal drug they wont allow the various weed shops to deposit any money directly, generated from weed sales, into banks and people have to pay for the stock with cash. So the owners of these shops normally always have huge amounts of money on there premises which they have to probably keep "under there mattresses " Its a weird legal issue that exists because of the fact that various states have legalised something the Fed considers illegal

The butthurt is strong with this one. A few left-leaning states voted as expected, this is supposed to prove something? True raising the minimum wage is fairly popular, but mostly only people earning the minimum wage feel strongly about it. And as we have seen, states that want it are perfectly capable of doing it for themselves, it doesn't have to be done at the federal level. WOD when do you think Texas will legalize Marijuana for recreational use? I imagine this will take some time as I consider Texas conservative when it comes to these types of issues?

We off to an awesome Sunday Farmers Food market today, lots of great food and stalls that offer unique and interesting offerings And its a stunning sunny day so its a perfect time for a flea-market excursion

We could really start privilege checking by how the social justice warriors are all about bringing up and dominating the discussion with white people's problems. Do SJW really bring up only white peoples problems, I always though the movement was much broader than that and included minorities ?

Valid points raised, I suppose I should have asked " why he hates his country " Hoonding why do you hate your country ?