BruceVC

But understand, you've defined poverty and non-poverty, and declared that your version of poverty is bad. But the definition is still yours, not theirs. During the 40s and 50s there was a big movement to bring money and erase the blight of poverty from the Appalachia area of the US. But most of the people who grew up there never really knew they were "poor" until the government came and pointed out that getting water in a well and pooping in a hole was bad compared to tap water and an indoor toilet. And that's not to say they were stupid and just didn't realize that there were other meats to choose from than squirrel and opossum* for dinner. They had a different life than people in Washington, in New York or in Chicago had. And because they had a different life they expected different things out of it. Not better/worse but different. Understand that the "average indigent South African" at this point may not be a separate society within your society but a part of your society, and therefore remains culturally similar in expectations, if disenfranchised within the larger society. What we're talking about is more akin to if you went to, lets say, North Sentinel Island with a huge armed force and telling the Sentinelese that they're living in poverty and you're bringing them a better way of life and killing those who don't accept your way. Or going into an Orc encampment and killing them all and looting their bodies because they've been attacking people who wander on their lands. *for one thing, there were turtles, raccons and chipmonks. Okay your have explained your point nicely and yes we were talking about two different groups of people. I was talking about people who are well aware of modern conveniences, who really reflect most impoverished people in the world, and are part of our society but are disenfranchised due to economic conditions. You were talking about people who don't know much about the outside world and probably don't care about it and those people being forced to uplift themselves by Western societies because "they know whats best for them ". And yes this is wrong and my lifestyle wouldn't apply to them But in your example are there really many groups of people who are so isolated from the modern world? I know tribes exist in the heart of the Amazon but apart from that I imagine the global and interconnected has touched and resonates with most folks?

But the thought you may get ripped off using a taxi shouldn't be a reason not to use one or negate the fact a taxi is more convenient that is the main reason we don't use a taxi when we go to NY. other reasons include but isn't limited to the following: rude cabbies racist cabbies who don't pick-up minority fares exorbitant cost seats with mysterious foreign substances heck, in the literal thousands o' trips we has made to the bay area, we has only used a cab two times. use bart instead. we were not wealthy the last time we were in london, so we didn't use cabs much, but while they is better than NY cabs at avoiding the aforementioned shortcomings, your tale o' tourist fleecing does suggest that london cabs ain't flawless... and we suspect they is still as expensive as we recall. convenience typical has a cost. HA! Good Fun! Okay good points raised and I agree convenience does have a price, it shouldn't but it does when it comes certain taxi drivers as we experienced.

But the thought you may get ripped off using a taxi shouldn't be a reason not to use one or negate the fact a taxi is more convenient

Main reason being convenience, if you have been walking for 4 hours and the streets are really busy the taxi option makes loads of sense. Trust me ... Underground... so why go to the busy underground when we can walk 20 meters from a particular tourist attraction and get into a taxi? ... 'cause you paid ~$40 for the taxi? HA! Good Fun! Yes but as I mentioned we were ripped off, the taxi driver took us on an intentionally long route and thought we wouldn't notice

Main reason being convenience, if you have been walking for 4 hours and the streets are really busy the taxi option makes loads of sense. Trust me ... Underground... Of course but you need to realize just how busy London is at the moment. Its summer and there hundreds of tourists enjoying the WW1 commemoration at places like the Tower of London, so why go to the busy underground when we can walk 20 meters from a particular tourist attraction and get into a taxi?

Why are they less fortunate? Because they don't live like you do? The idea that - in generalities - you can "improve" the lives of "less fortunate" you're already assuming that your way of life is correct and those who don't live that life need your interference to be enlightened to your righteousness. No offense Amentep but I do think my life is correct, not because I am arrogant but because I don't live in poverty. And why wouldn't anyone who lives in poverty not want to uplift themselves? As I said in the post above if you ask your average indigent South African what they expect from society and there government they always say the same thing " a job and basic services ( housing, water and electricity) and a future for there children". This is irrefutable and understandable considering the conditions many poor people live in

Native Americans? Due to genocide and imperialism their societies may not look the same as they did centuries ago but they still have tribal identities and culture. After murdering them, robbing them of rights, and continuing to practice discrimination against them, it's a little awful to take symbols and stereotypes associated with them, remove the human element, and stick them on monsters. What good are technical advancements if they come with oppression and exploitation? Why does "less technically advanced" always equal "less fortunate"? Okay I see what you are saying, I am a software consultant and I live in a world of 1 and 0 so I need examples in order to get clarity. So thanks for the Native American example Yes there is no doubt that atrocities were committed in the past against various tribes in various countries. But nowadays the intention of Western countries is to help less fortunate countries or societies within reason, this of course does not mean all Western assistance doesn't have ulterior motives or is completely altruistic but if you think of the millions of dollars that gets poured into Africa and certain countries it is really suppose to uplift people. And I am not talking about investment from corporations, that's obviously about positive return but the country invested in obviously benefits through jobs and taxes and allows the governments of those countries to enhance and implement education and healthcare and other areas of social transformation So not all foreign aid is about exploitation. And finally why wouldn't any culture with a sense of the advantages of living in a global and educated world not want to be part of a system where you have electricity, housing and jobs? So this wouldn't apply to tribes in the heart of the amazon who don't know much about the outside world but if you go your average rural African person that is what they endeavour to....jobs, basic social services and a future for the children that lies outside poverty This is a natural part of a progressive society ?

True, we are talking about conspiracy theory here - like dragging NATO into conflict Okay I see where you are coming from. But the chance of NATO getting involved militarily at the moment is almost zero. Firstly Ukraine is not part of NATO so there is no legal obligation and secondly Ukraine isn't of real strategic importance to the really powerful NATO countries that would motivate military action. That does not mean the West isn't concerned with Russian interference and will implement punitive economic measures to change Russia's current course of action. But this is not the same thing as military intervention But Ukraine is of strategic importance to Russia which is why they are interfering in the conflict and supporting the separatists. Ukraine is not, but civilian plane could be and then it would be attack on NATO country But even then NATO will not go to war unless the Ukrainian separatists said something like " we shot the plane down as act of war against a NATO country" and since they are firstly even denying they shot the plane down and Malaysia isn't part of NATO there is no chance of military intervention by NATO over this tragedy

Incorrectly though. Of course. Al Baghdadi was a big pal of a certain Abu Musab Al Zaqawi, laterly of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and succeeded him as lead in that organisation. ISIS is Al Qaeda in Iraq, rebranded, and as such predates the Syrian Civil War by years. Indeed their extreme measures are almost identical from 2006 to now, including softie liberals like Ayman al-Zawahiri thinking they are bit too extreme. Thank goodness for Russia and China and their principled and reasoned stand, else Al Baghdadi would be ruling from Mosul and Damascus instead of Mosul and Raqqah, and would be halfway towards living up to ISIS's name. Shame it took that clusterasterisk in Libya for them to learn the costs of ill thought out western meddling and how they'd ignore everything about UN resolutions except the parts they like, but for some reason they trusted western good intentions. Poor naive Russia and China, falling for the equivalent of a Nigerian Money Scam, but at least they learnt from their mistakes. You are not seriously suggesting that if Syrian war had ended in 3 months. like Libya, ISIS would still be existence in its same form? ISIS gained in strength and structure as more and more foreign fighters came to Syria with there own brand of Islamic fundamentalism. ISIS didn't exist in Syria until at least a year into the conflict, if you disagree with me post some links to prove your point?

To me, I interpret what ashtonw is saying to be that tribal cultures in sci-fi/fantasy are often seen as backward subhumans in need of the enlightenment from (or eradication by) the main culture. Its a reinforcement of the type of cultural imperialism that says it is okay to play colonial and bring civilization to the savages because its for their betterment to be forced to follow your culture than their own. Mind you just as problematic is the Noble Savage view of primitive culture; in this scenario they should be embraced and emulated -- if not joined - because they have held on to an inherent "honesty" lost in modern culture. This view can eradicate an existing culture just as easily as the other... I'm not sure what she means , she mentioned Tribal culture. Tribal culture still exists today but they exist primarily in Africa and South America. So I don't know why it is an unreasonable assumption if you mention tribal culture and I assume you mean black tribes. Ashton maybe give some examples so I understand you properly? But yes of course racism is not always white vs black, any racial group can demonstrate racism. I would think that is obvious? But also what is inherently wrong with bringing technical advancements to less fortunate people? Why should we see this as bad thing, the main reason for this is that is associated with Colonialism and this more about the abuse of less advanced cultures and controlling of there natural resources. But if you can improve the lives of people less fortunate this is a good thing and something we should aspire to, its the implementation of it that to me can be controversial Let me give an example. As most of you probably know there is the spread at the moment of the Ebola virus in some Western African countries, this is a very deadly and concerning virus that doesn't exist in Western countries. So what is wrong with the World Health Organisation coming to places like Liberia and telling them, and helping them, that they really need to improve certain aspects of there healthcare and social conditions to prevent this type of virus?

Oh yes, the danger of being a member of a privileged class: seeing racism when it's not there. Can we just toss Tolkien aside for the moment (because I hate LoTR and I never finished the books) and just look at how tribal cultures in scifi and fantasy in general are treated as inhuman, barbaric, primitive "others" and what this says about how we view the real people who live in tribal cultures (who may not be necessarily black). Alright lets have this debate, I want to be clear on your point. Are you saying that generally in Sci-fi and fantasy, like Orcs, tribal cultures are seen as barbaric and primitive and what this really represents is symbolism for black people nowadays? If I understand you correctly. I don't see the connection because many modern tribes have been integrated into society? And yes of course there are black people who live still live outside cities. For example in South Africa we have millions of people who live in rural areas but we don't consider them primitive or barbaric. Most of them are not sophisticated due to lack of education or poor education buts that just a reality. And of course education is key to change this and our government spends the most money in its budget on education. But this takes time So I still don't see how barbaric tribes in fantasy realistically represents black people?

Hope just leads to disappointment. Ah yes, but " hope springs eternal in the human breast "

Final point from me and then I'll move back to the Orcs Homophobia isn't a fear of men but a dislike or a fear of gay people, this is a very important distinction http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

Main reason being convenience, if you have been walking for 4 hours and the streets are really busy the taxi option makes loads of sense. Trust me

Nothing you can do will change that. Really, you don't think that someone could, for example, be homophobic and then realize this type of discrimination is wrong? You don't think people can change there views in life?

Also there are several new IP similar to old Sierra games that are being funded by KS through ex-Sierra developers, Hero-U is one them

Except that you did not leave Syria alone. If you had maybe we could see what would happen. And it's not up to me or you to decide if they are better off. Wow, you really think the West has deeply intervened in the Syrian conflict? Some arms were supplied to the rebels but the Saudis and other Sunni countries provided most of the support for the Syrian rebels. Proper intervention from the West would have involved destroying Assads tanks and supremacy of the air like in Libya...and the West didn't do this at all. If they had done this then the ground fighting would have been between the Syrian rebels and troops loyal to Assad. Right now the Syrian rebels are at huge disadvantage because Assad has the usage of his whole army that includes tanks, artillery and planes. Its a very one sided civil war

Well it being okay, and the way it works are often different, so best looking at things case by case. In this case, they can't ignore ISIS making a joke of their hopeful client state. Sure I agree foreign intervention is complicated. But either the West must abide by the UN security council votes or it must ignore them. What annoys me is that now the world is asking "What is the West doing to stop ISIS"....but if the West has intervened in Syria and ignored the UN we would be hearing " look its the arrogant West getting involved in other countries conflicts. Obama is a warmonger " and other ridiculous comments So the West is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't ?

Left a governement that almost immidiately failed without direct US role. That is not my definition of a functional government. This is what really happened in Lybia: Three years after Gaddafi, Libya is imploding into chaos and violence World View: Its government has no real power; militias are ever more entrenched, and now the state itself is under threat http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/three-years-after-gaddafi-libya-is-imploding-into-chaos-and-violence-9194697.html I see this a lot, whenever I say "Libya is an example of how the West should intervene in order to achieve regime change" People will say " but look at Libya now, we are seeing sectarian violence". They are missing the point, the West cannot be involved in regime change and run the government, this has proven not to work as the West in seen as an occupying force like in Iraq. The West allowed the Libyans to run there country the way they wanted once Gaddafi was removed Now you may say "well the West should have just left Libya to sort out there own civil war" and all I'll say "compare Syria to Libya and ask yourself what country is better off despite the current violence in Libya"?

So what ? It's in the West's interests to go finish off ISIS as they're slapping around Iraq at this point and the US has an objective of fighting Islamic terror with broadswords the past decade. I'm confused, are you saying its okay for the West to intervene in other countries affairs even if it doesn't directly impact them? I believe that but I always thought you were one of those that said "the West should stay out other countries internal affairs" ?

Oh wow. US naively made a predictable mess -- just like the years of blood and destruction during Iraq occupation or the Taliban post USSR occupation -- by sponsoring these freedom fighters. But sure blame everything on Russia and China. Strawman argument, I didn't say the USA is not partly responsible for the Iraq mess. But they did pull out in 2011 and leave a functional government. The new Iraqi government failed to integrate the Iraq Sunni's who have now mostly aligned themselves with ISIS But the real question should be "how was ISIS created " and I've answered that

Well, the West and Russia and China play the global game so they interfere in places they really don't need to all the time. Surely you're not implying with your last line that the West acts outside of their own interests. US should definitely look to end ISIS. Perhaps they can enlist IDF help, too. The reality of the creation of ISIS is simple, they were born out of the protracted civil war in Syria. The civil war in Syria would have been over years ago if the West had been allowed to intervene like the Syrian rebels asked them to do through the United Nations security council. Just like the West helped end the civil war in Libya Russia and China vetoed military action in Syria, the creation of ISIS is there fault. But they don't care and pressure gets put on the West to do something about it

Once again despite the creation of ISIS having nothing to with the West it is expected that the West must help deal with this Islamic extremist threat If the West's suggestions around military intervention in the Syrian conflict in the beginning of that civil war hadn't been vetoed by Russia and China ISIS wouldn't have been in existence today. So Russia and China should be pressured to deal with ISIS...oh that's right, I forgot., Russia and China only intervene when there own national interests are directly threatened.

. Bunch of kids with superhero powers fighting in arenas/possibly in co-op? Sounds feasible to me, but we'll see. If that is what this game is really about my interest in it has diminished dramatically

I see what you are trying to say but I have to disagree, bigotry is a choice that some people make and racism is a form of bigotry. And there are absolutely some people who dislike or think less of people automatically because of the colour of there skin. But you are also right, there is such a social dynamic as the class struggle in all countries in the world but this doesn't have anything to do with racism but there are similarities End of the day no one is born a bigot, its a choice we make based on certain conditions that influence our perspective