BruceVC

So you ignore the points I make above and I and others make in other threads, say you're too busy, but you're not too busy to say 'righto!' to a very polarized and misinformed post trying to disagree with what I said? Seriously. Go apply for a PR job somewhere, or run for office. You've got the skills. If you're not ugly, you may go far. Tip on the polarization for you, Calex, and everyone else who think it's a Republican vs. Democrat thing. It almost never is. Both parties are by and large bought by the same people both to hedge their investments and divide and conquer. It would behoove you to stop thinking you're on Team Obama or Team *insert your favorite Republican here*, and realize that with either team the game is rigged. Yeah I changed my mind and decided to comment when I realized how biased and uninformed some of your comments are..I hope you don't mind

Gonna stop ya right there kiddo. If anything the republicans in congress wanted us to get into Syria, NOT the President. You didn't see Obama standing there next to two known terrorists and saying "we should support these guys" (That was McCain btw) and the "tricky diplomacy" you cite is one for the Chemical weapons that Obama was slow to act on in the first place (their use anyway). And Libya he didn't start. That was the consulate being attacked and then a popular uprising against Quaddaffi's regime. It WAS NOT some sort of inside job/false flag op to get us to go scrambling into Libya, and at best all we've done is impose a no-fly zone over the area (which G. H.W. Bush didn't have happen over Iraq after 1991's war which led to Saddams control of the region continuing.... I **** you not), and Skippy? that no-fly zone was UN santioned. Also right now Libya has 0 control as a nation because of the uprising in 2011 and is a bit of a lawless spot. Now HOW THE **** did you think that Obama was a warmongering yahoo that wanted to go to Syria and had us "fighting a war" in Libya? Mr. Obama is the commander in chief of the U.S. Military, not Mr. McCain. McCain can warmonger all he wants, and does, but Obama calls the shots. interesting /= tricky. Please do not misquote me. I refer to a number of different things involving a number of different countries when I say 'interesting diplomacy'. It's interesting because those pushing for overt military intervention in Syria (the Obama administration indeed was doing this and there are numerous articles as well as videos proving this that you've apparently not watched/read or just ignore (though it was pretty hard to ignore Kerry)) were thwarted, and that doesn't happen too often these last couple decades. Ukraine/Crimea marks the second major diplomatic setback to Anglo-American hegemony in the last couple years, Syria the first. Russia and Putin had a hand in both, moreso in the second of course. There was no popular uprising in Libya. It was a coup sponsored by some members of NATO (the US being one), and only succeeded due to military intervention by some of those members. The U.N. sanctioning something does not make it legal or right. Really, you have to ignore a lot of things to not think Obama got us involved in Libya or realize that his administration was pushing to go into Syria as well. And whether or not France was involved (and they were) has nothing to do with Obama committing U.S. forces to the invasion of a nation. Nor does what some republicans such as McCain bliabbling about have anything to do with the actual action of committing to military force. Nevermind that Obama committing military in the invasion of another nation without congress's explicit authorization is unconstitutional, though he is not the first president to overstep those bounds he did overstep them, and yea that is impeachable if congress was going to actually do it's job (something it doesn't do too often for better and worse). Half of what you wrote is incoherent by the way. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's due to those ****** you stuck in there. Try not to swear so much. This is the main issue I have with your posts Valsuelm. You make some accurate points and then you make comments that are completely and utterly factually false. You say "There was no popular uprising in Libya. It was a coup sponsored by some members of NATO (the US being one), and only succeeded due to military intervention by some of those members" The insurrection in Libya was part of the Arab Spring, I am sure you have heard of that? This had nothing to with Western powers or NATO. This was about the citizens of several countries in the Middle East wanting a better life for themselves and the fact they were tired of there rulers and or governing families living a life of opulence while they lived in poverty and squalor, I find it insulting that you don't seem to think that people living in countries lead by dictators don't aspire to a better life. In your world the uprising in Libya must have been due to "Western influence...its just demonstrates your ignorance around the causes of the Arab Spring. Its the same fallacious understanding you have of other global events, like the reason why the Zimbabwe economy is in such a bad state. You think its because of the West and sanctions when its due to the disastrous economic and political decisions Mugabe has made You really need to stop believing everything is some great Western conspiracy, you sound like a zealot

2004 lot of countries that one could say are in Russian perceived sphere of influence more than Finland joined in NATO, like for example Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Biggest obstacle to Finland's joining in NATO is that some of our equipment isn't compatible with requirements of STANAG (Standardization Agreement) and would need to be replaced sooner than planed. Of course joining in NATO could rise political tensions with Russia, which of course could impact our trade and agreements with them, but as Finland is already member of EU and does military cooperation with NATO countries predicted impacts caused by joining in NATO are seen minor. And as by joining in NATO Finland also has high probability that its weapon trade in NATO countries rise, as currently Finnish military contractors can't make offers on most valuable contracts, as they are mostly only for member states and of course as members state Finland would get cheaper contracts on some of its equipment and get some equipment possibly to acquire some equipment that Finland is currently prohibited to buy, which would probably mean that military pending would drop from it current level. So joining to any multinational organization that has some actual economical, political or/and military power is of course more complicate than signing couple papers, especially when joining said organization is against current constitution, which currently state that Finland is nonallied country, but it's not Russia's influence that keeps Finland out of NATO. Elerond I heard that the Finnish army uses reindeers to transport its soldiers and military hardware and this is the main reason you guys can't join NATO as NATO doesn't allow animals to be used in times of war, is this true?

Gonna stop ya right there kiddo. If anything the republicans in congress wanted us to get into Syria, NOT the President. You didn't see Obama standing there next to two known terrorists and saying "we should support these guys" (That was McCain btw) and the "tricky diplomacy" you cite is one for the Chemical weapons that Obama was slow to act on in the first place (their use anyway). And Libya he didn't start. That was the consulate being attacked and then a popular uprising against Quaddaffi's regime. It WAS NOT some sort of inside job/false flag op to get us to go scrambling into Libya, and at best all we've done is impose a no-fly zone over the area (which G. H.W. Bush didn't have happen over Iraq after 1991's war which led to Saddams control of the region continuing.... I **** you not), and Skippy? that no-fly zone was UN santioned. Also right now Libya has 0 control as a nation because of the uprising in 2011 and is a bit of a lawless spot. Now HOW THE **** did you think that Obama was a warmongering yahoo that wanted to go to Syria and had us "fighting a war" in Libya? Well said, the suggestion that Obama is a warmonger is absurd. He has deliberately avoided wars like Syria and Iran and allowed negotiations and sanctions to get those countries to tow the line, despite criticism from the Republicans that this made him weak and the "USA was betraying it allies" . In Libya the Americans supplied air power to defeat Gaddafi's ground forces like his tanks and anti-aircraft defenses. But it was the French and the UK who did most of the international intervention and it was the Libyan rebels who did the fighting on the ground. Any person who thinks that Libya was an example of an American driven and led military war has no clue what they are talking about

You leaving out the part where you came across a pack of timber wolves and you and Tommy had to fight for your survival All in a days work for GD. You must be one of the few members on these forums whose daily excursions in RL sounds like a session of Skyrim

We do not moderate every slapfight but when the thread is threatening to completely collapse due to petty personal insults Ill occasionally try to salvage it. I was actually impressed you didn't take his bait. To be honest I had no idea who you were talking about or what you actually meant, but now I understand. I don't mean to be rude but sometimes you make these one line comments that might as well be in Mandarin ...because I just don't get what you are saying But saying all that I think you Mods all do an excellent job at allowing us to have our debates which I imagine must seem a little pointless and repetative at times

I told you I'd follow up, and you should re-read what I wrote again, I didn't sink to the low you think I did. So here In very brief are some retorts, again in very brief because as I mentioned each of the topics could easily be their own threads, and some have been already. Well, it wasn't just Obama that 'bailed out the banks'. It took Congress and Bush and many other had a hand too. And no, it didn't prevent a global depression. Obviously, you don't understand much about what goes on with the Federal Reserve, banks, derivatives, the widespread mortgage fraud, where that money actually went, etc. It's a huge subject. But in very short, no, the 'banks' and the evil effers who own them should not have been 'bailed' out. It was possibly the largest heist in recorded history, and the fallout of it has yet to be fully felt. When someone pulls their pants down, sits down on a toilet and lets their bowls loose, we don't need to see the result to know what came out. I suppose you could get really specific with it and do some studies on what comes out, measuring density, pliability, odor, etc, but in the end it's essentially all the same. Read the bill yourself and you can see a number of things fundamentally wrong with it, some of which has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. But you won't do that. You'd rather tell us Americans how we're wrong to have issues with 'Obamacare' when you fundamentally don't understand what some of those issues are nor bother to read the actual bill to see if it's even good. You'd rather dismiss what the girl says rather than research some of what she shows in her video yourself, because that's easy right? And it flies in the face of the beliefs you've allowed yourself to be given. Just let the talking heads at the BBC and CNN tell you what to think right? Just not the ones at RT. Anyways, 'Obamacare' is now four years old, and many of the results are already in, and it's a failure in almost every way. There are many results though that we won't see for years yet. Anyone thinking Obamacare is a success has stock in an insurance company, is totally deluded, or is evil. Not to mention much of 'Obamacare *is* unconstitutional on a couple different levels, no matter what our incredibly corrupt supreme court says. How it even came to be was unconstitutional (though it's not alone in that, it's the norm and has been for awhile on capital hill these days to ignore Constitutional guidelines on how bills are supposed to be generated). And I realize you probably give two flying effers about the U.S. Constitution, our rights over here, and the rule of law, but the legal precedent set in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius is potentially the most damaging to individual freedom and enabling of federal power precendent to be set since Wickard v. Filburn. Not that you're familiar with U.S. Constitutional law. But really, she never said she was convinced it was a failure. She just mentioned who will benefit, and that Obama's administration colluded with insurance companies on 'Obamacare', which they did. We are not out of Iraq. We definitely still have a military presence there (look up our 'embassy' for example), albeit it somewhat officially diminished. The withdrawal of those troops was the result of something Bush signed, not Obama. Obama actually tried to officially extend the length that overt occupation would last beyond what the Bush administration agreed to, but the Iraqis wouldn't have it. We still have thousands stationed at our embassy there alone, as well as personal in various other places in Iraq. Also, he has not avoided starting other wars. There's Libya for one, and his administration tried their damnedest to start something in Syria. Public outcry and some interesting diplomacy by some nations such as Russia thwarted that, for now. In the case of some, it is. In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan (the one she cites) it definitely is. First, there's *zero* evidence in the public domain that he was associated with Al-Qaeda at all. The evidence that is in the public domain paints a pretty clear picture that Anwar was probably anything but an 'Al-Qaeda' operative, what's left of it that is. In the days after he was killed a lot of his videos and documents written by him on the internet were taken down, and if you saw some of them before they were like I did you'd know it's because they totally fly in the face of what was told to everyone on the news. But that aside. For the sake of argument let's assume that there was some evidence that Anwar and Samir were Al-Qaeda operatives. As U.S. citizens they were entitled to a number of basic rights, not the least of which is a trial by jury, and the ability to face their accusers. Instead, they were murdered at the behest of the Obama administration and with Obama's blessing. There might not be a better example of how evil Obama is, and how desperately lost so many in the U.S. are to actually think what was done is ok. If you want something to impeach Obama on, this is it. He broke numerous laws, and sanctioned the complete violation of an individuals rights. But it's ok right? Because the guys killed were Muslim, and spoke out against some of what the U.S. was doing, and because the U.S. government said he Anwar was bad (nevermind they provided absolutely zero evidence, and Samir was just collateral damage). Maybe you're cool with your government just saying someone is bad and then going off and killing them without offering proof, but I'm not. Especially when the evidence out there tends to paint a different picture, and said government has a history of lying. While I personally wouldn't call Snowden a hero for reasons that go beyond what most people think he did, he did not compromise the security of the USA in any way. And if all he did was what many people think he did, expose the mass corruption and mass violation of various rights of U.S. and foreign citizens, then yes, he is a hero. Anyone thinking otherwise is a statist, doesn't understand or appreciate the natural rights they have codified in the U.S. Consititution, and/or is evil. The girl in the video doesn't call Snowden a hero either, she calls him a 'whistleblower', which he is whether you agree with what he did or not, and she points out that Obama pledged to protect whistleblowers such as Snowden and Bradley Manning, which he did prior to being elected. If Obama really wanted to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay, it would be closed. He promised during his campaign it would be, he lied. All over. Off the top of my head pretty much any WTO event, many of the 'Occupy Wall Street' events (look them up on youtube), wherever the president happens to be, and at other places, In the last decade or so there's been these things called 'free speech zones' popping up at campuses all over the U.S. and in some governmental jurisdictions. That alone really tells you all you need to know about how precarious a place the 1st amendment is in the U.S. and she is no doubt in part referring to HR, 347. I'm really not sure how to interpret it for you Bruce. It's pretty straight forward. As someone who comes of as ever the optimist (albeit on heck of a gullible one) I would think you could relate to what she said. Positivity over Negativity! Anyways Bruce, I probably spent too much time on this, as I doubt you'll do any homework based on what I wrote here, as you didn't based on what the girl in the video said, and don't ever seem to based on what anyone in these forums say. In contrast when I watch a video I just about always do my homework on it if it tells me something I haven't yet heard or haven't yet researched. You should get a job at CNN or the BBC, or join someone's PR department. You've got those skills. Thanks Valsuelm, I appreciate the time you took to respond. I don't agree with most of what you said but I also don't want to spend anymore time debating this particular topic. There are other things that I need to spend time on. But we can continue this discussion at a later stage

Wow, I really like this new Vivienne look. She is beautiful

NATO has been open to Swedish entry since about the end of the Cold War. Even before that though, there have been significant ties and (secret) military cooperation. I don't think that Sweden will enter NATO any time soon, though. It's honestly more likely that Finland joins NATO. What is likely though is a significant military rearmament in Eastern and Northern Europe. Additionally, I think we will see Central Asian nations drifting further away from Russia and closer to China and Turkey. I was referring to several news items that followed on the heels of Russian action in Ukraine, claiming that Sweden considered to revise its previous position on Nato membership. As for Finland, I am not familiar with situation there, but I suspect that it might be more complicated case like with any other state in Russia sphere of influence and further NATO enlargement. I doubt this action will have a significant direct effect on the current trend of Russian power in Central Asia one way or another. ( unlike the adverse effect on relations with Europe, or intervention in Syria effect on middle eastern countries). Btw this arena is one of the concerns of "westren" policy makers, that to harsh sanctions might disturb the balance of powers, leading Russia toward China. In Finland NATO membership has been on table from founding days of NATO, as then USSR and now Russia had/have quite aggressive foreign politic and Russians have long history to invade to lands of Finland, which is why many people see that membership in NATO would give Finland extra protection against possible future aggression or at least make invading Finland less sensible thing to do. But on other hand Russia is Finland neighbour which Finland also has as long history of trade and cooperation as it has history of aggression from Russia, and Finland don't have best history with NATO countries either, as we have been in war with several of them, although only UK has ever attacked us (during Crimean war), I think. And in second world war, USA and UK (and some other NATO countries) gave their support for USSR and put heavy sanctions for Finland. Which why Finland is quite reluctant to join any military alliances. Of course there is also discussion how NATO membership will effect Finland's military spending and do Finland need to take part in NATO operations when it's a member. Although now it looks like that Russian's actions in Crimean may have given enough support for NATO membership that first time of history constitutional majority of Finland's parliament could support joining in NATO. On the other hand Cabinet of Finland is currently very indecisive (in all subjects, not only this), which probably means that current Crimean crisis will be over and new parliament have elected before there is even first version of bill written about subject. Interesting post around how Finland views NATO

I mean, you even put this kind of disclaimer under it going "see, here's proof that I'm not bigoted! I have an important person in my life who is gay and therefore I know and care about the plight of the gay peoples!" Pushing your "credentials" was literally the only thing you said in this thread that actually makes you seem bigoted. Try harder. Thats a very good post and thoughtful (and I gracefully take the criticism )

Standard troll tripe really, both disrespecting and disrespectable. Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning Whats wrong my darling....come tell me whats bothering you

Part time student and office manager for a small business, actually. What's your status boo? 12th year student or unemployed? Yet you took the time to rely. I take it being a pretentious pissbag on video game forums isn't particularly impressive with women. I can't watch porn at work, sweet pea. You have an excuse, or is the height of your day debating intellectual juggernaugts like "Valsulem" or "Mor" down the hall from threads about the merits of min-maxing? Bit of an improvement, could be nastier love. I retract what I said earlier, it appears you can take a joke and respond accordingly ...funny comments

Doubt it, going against genetics is hard, but hey I'm not immortal so I can't really say to the contrary. And that is ok, but don't expect companies to hurt their profits and pander to the minorities, don't expect people to write roles they have no interest in or know nothing about and most of all don't force your social justice on anyone. I disagree with you on many areas but I don't want to hijack this thread, we will have to continue this discussion another time in the Off Topic section.

I do think it correlates. To have a gay main character in a game, you have to identify him as such, in good games a character identifies him self through actions and dialog. By doing that you lose your connection to the player(if they are straight). Games are wish fulfillment devices and as such (with a gay main character) will fail their purpose with anyone but the gay players. Volourn's examples are stupid and a bait which I took. He compares apples and oranges, or sexual orientation with physical appearances and real with the fantasy. It's wish fulfillment, everyone (almost everyone) want's to be immortal, no one wants to be gay. It's as simple as that. And no one wants to be straight, this is who you are. You can't change your sexual orientation as much as you can change the race you were born. Its not a question of "what we want" but rather " how the society we operate in accepts us for who we are"

"an entity so old they've outgrown traditional notions of sexuality" thats funny

Because the majority of the player base is not gay and thus they could not see them selves in the protagonist, thus I say alienated. Making games is all about hitting numbers, especially in the non RPG genre, it's all about identifying with the majority of your audience. But if you are fishing for my personal opinion on the gays, then sure I'll tell you that too. I am of an opinion that everyone should live and let live, I am also of an opinion that being gay is not natural and that it goes against the genetic prime directive of mankind, to survive ie. reproduce. If you look at it from a biological standpoint, they are parasites (I am up for a discussion on this topic too, but I think that it would be more suited for the off-topic part of the forum). Now this is not meant to be an insult and I believe that they have rights equal to that of any other person (though I am undecided on the topic of adoption), but this is the opinion I stand by and am willing to discuss. Its interesting that you can understand the concept of people being alienated playing a certain game and how that being forced to play a certain character or make certain Romance choices they may battle to identify with. But now you understand one of the main reasons for fair representation of minority groups in games. This is exactly the reason that we ask for inclusivity so that all fans feel they can indentify with parts of the game. This is not unreasonable.

that's been my observation as well. maybe you two should put each other on ignore, just a friendly advice does wonders for me Nah, I would never ignore anyone on any forum ever. No one has ever annoyed me that much or upset me where I feel the need to "ignore" them Also you need to understand different or uninformed views when it comes to issues of social justice and if you just ignore all opposing views how would you understand the other side

I don't think you are a bigot, I think you are dismissive of the campaign of social justice because it doesn't effect you personally and you think you can somehow create a change in society without people consciously realizing something has to done differently. In other words the status quo is not acceptable in certain examples and if we have to legislate to change the status quo then thats what needs to be done

What did I say about that strawman? Apology please. You need to understand that tolerance works in different ways. Your Khmer Rouge education camp variety (doomed to failure) and a more easy-going version like mine (coming from what I like to call 'The Reality-Based Community). I don't understand your point, you seem to contridict yourself around issues of social justice. Lets keep this simple, the relevant and reasonable speech by Manveer Heir basically challanged Developers to start to looking at ways to make games more inclusive of minority groups. He also wants to break stereotypes when these minority grous are represented in games. He believes "There are numerous studies to suggest that repeated exposure to stereotypes through media can change an individual's perception of their identity, Heir argued. By perpetuating stereotypes, designers play a small part in sustaining damaging ideas. Heir admits that games are but one aspect of this hugely complex social problem, but said the problem should be tackled wherever possible. We can change this today." I agree 100 % with him, what do you not agree with based on his opinion and what he said? There are two things about stereotypes; the first is whether a stereotype is a myth or well funded observation of idiosyncratic behavior. That African Americans have assimilated gangbanging and crime into their culture is not a stereotype. That's not all they are but for some it is entirely how they know them, if a writer cares about fair representation they cannot substitute one for the other. Even worse, they cannot sweep the real world issue under the rug just cause they have changed their perception. Secondly, I believe in artistic freedom and no good game should suffer a bad review just because the reviewer was a feminist who couldn't separate themselves from their biased worldview enough to see if what the game did was good or not. Writers and game designers should not have to thread as if they were in a glass floor for fear that they might be accused of misogyny, blacklisted, or their game suffer a lower score because of the aforementioned reasons. I hear what you saying and the African American stereotype is a good talking point. My view is it doesn't matter how many stereotypes we have of groups or minority groups the question we need to ask is " are these stereotypes helpful to the image of the group being represented" Lets say you are right and that in the USA certain African Americans "have assimilated gangbanging and crime into their culture". This doesn't represent the aspirations and motives of many other African Americans. So is it fair and accetable to now represent them in games like that? I see this as a generalization and negative perception of African Americans?

Same here, the common argument on these forums seems to be "you don't need to force these changes in games to make a difference" I reject this as by including minorities and groups of people that have been traditionally discriminated against you help to change the perception *My* argument "against" explicitly including social issues is that they're very much linked to the time and place where they occur. For example: being gay is pretty much no big deal for the majority of the population here (I'm Belgian, our prime minister is gay. Seriously: pretty much nobody cared, it wasn't even mentioned in the news, I had to read on some international site that apparently he was the first homosexual country leader ever in the world. The fact that he was Orlesian, err, French speaking, now that was an issue worth writing about!). So any game about a squad of straight guys with one gay person in it is likely just not going to "click" here, just like a game that talks about the French-Dutch language issues in this country is likely not going to work too well abroad (while here it can be argued to be a much bigger issue than gay rights or gay perception). The other one is if you want your game to still be played in 10years the issue you might be advocating about now might have gone away entirely, or the perception changed radically making the story elements awkward or alien (one of the reasons old books are often really weird to read, our entire "cadre" has changed in such a way that we can't properly frame the things they're talking about anymore). Does that mean you shouldn't include lesbians, gypsies, gays and what-have-you in your games? Of course not, but making them into an explicit social commentary is risky and I'm not all that sure it's such a good thing to do. I mean, the gay romances in BioWare games, while oft mentioned are pretty well done in the sense that they're not bound to any local issues, the characters don't make a big deal out if it themselves. The fact that they're there is already promoting acceptance, I don't feel turning them into an explicit social commentary would help anything, rather the contrary. In the context of what Manveer Heir said how is this type social commentary risky or in any way a bad thing around changes to stereotypes in games and in the way that games become more inclusive of minority groups? I don't understand your objection to what he said ? Yes I fail to understand which why I am asking you to explain further, I want to understand your perspective.

In games where the protagonist is a blank slate, making him fully customizable is not difficult. But in a game in which the main character has an identity and the story is set, it's much more difficult. So is it worth it to have a worse game, just to be able pander to people of all colors and minorities. Not to mention that having the main character be gay would probably alienate the majority of the player base. In your view why would having a character as gay alienate the player base? Why would this alienate the player base, I am interested in the exact reasons you feel this would happen? The reality is the ideal situation is a choice of characters to play but I am interested in your input anyway.

Fox News isn't evil, they just have an agenda; and that is to spread as much bull**** about whoever is against Republican views as possible. Fox News isn't evil, they just have an agenda; and that is to spread as much bull**** about whoever is against Republican views as possible. This is fundamentally true, GD I would really like you and any others to read the book below. You'll see exactly how Roger Ailes was able to manipulate millions of Americans along certain ideological lines. Yes the liberal news channels also do this but Fox were the first ones to do it and are arguably still the best at it http://www.amazon.com/The-Loudest-Voice-Room-News/dp/0812992857 Fox news is the first? LOL, have you never heard of Walter Cronkite? Dan Rather? Heck the latter got CAUGHT going on air with a story he knew to be untrue just to discredit a republican pol. Bruce, ALL news is biased. IMO there is not single credible unbiased news source in the USA today. There hasn't been in a long time. And bias can be found in not just what is reported but in what the sources choose not to report. You guys are down on fox news because they don't support your "team" so to speak. It's funny, I never hear any criticism of the opposite end of the spectrum MSNBC who is unabashedly left wing. They have dropped all pretense of being unbiased. And believe me, folks here know the media is biased. All of it. We are not so blind to not recognize a load of crap when it's being pushed on us... most of us at least. That fact that we know what we're buying and buy it anyway (Fox News is the most successful and watched news source in the USA after all) is just another symptom of the "political tribalism" going on here these past 25 years. Okay good points raised but I don't see all the international news channels as biased. In South Africa we don't have MSNBC on my cable selection so I can't comment. But I watch CNN international, Sky News and BBC World and those channels do represent both sides of debates and political issues in most cases. Also you say that "Fox News is the most successful and watched news source in the USA after all" , but aren't you interested in how it became so successful? You should read that book I linked

Hm. Everyone seems to assume that the Republican Party is bought and paid for - yet there seem to be many that don't realize the same about the Democrats. I would warrant that that makes them the superior propagandist of the two...but maybe that's just me. You should read this book Barti, it doesn't discuss who controls the various political parties in the USA but rather how FOX news has been able to influence the news and a certain ideology through an orchestrated campaign. You will know some of it but its worth reading

Same here, the common argument on these forums seems to be "you don't need to force these changes in games to make a difference" I reject this as by including minorities and groups of people that have been traditionally discriminated against you help to change the perception *My* argument "against" explicitly including social issues is that they're very much linked to the time and place where they occur. For example: being gay is pretty much no big deal for the majority of the population here (I'm Belgian, our prime minister is gay. Seriously: pretty much nobody cared, it wasn't even mentioned in the news, I had to read on some international site that apparently he was the first homosexual country leader ever in the world. The fact that he was Orlesian, err, French speaking, now that was an issue worth writing about!). So any game about a squad of straight guys with one gay person in it is likely just not going to "click" here, just like a game that talks about the French-Dutch language issues in this country is likely not going to work too well abroad (while here it can be argued to be a much bigger issue than gay rights or gay perception). The other one is if you want your game to still be played in 10years the issue you might be advocating about now might have gone away entirely, or the perception changed radically making the story elements awkward or alien (one of the reasons old books are often really weird to read, our entire "cadre" has changed in such a way that we can't properly frame the things they're talking about anymore). Does that mean you shouldn't include lesbians, gypsies, gays and what-have-you in your games? Of course not, but making them into an explicit social commentary is risky and I'm not all that sure it's such a good thing to do. I mean, the gay romances in BioWare games, while oft mentioned are pretty well done in the sense that they're not bound to any local issues, the characters don't make a big deal out if it themselves. The fact that they're there is already promoting acceptance, I don't feel turning them into an explicit social commentary would help anything, rather the contrary. In the context of what Manveer Heir said how is this type social commentary risky or in any way a bad thing around changes to stereotypes in games and in the way that games become more inclusive of minority groups? I don't understand your objection to what he said ?

What did I say about that strawman? Apology please. You need to understand that tolerance works in different ways. Your Khmer Rouge education camp variety (doomed to failure) and a more easy-going version like mine (coming from what I like to call 'The Reality-Based Community). I don't understand your point, you seem to contridict yourself around issues of social justice. Lets keep this simple, the relevant and reasonable speech by Manveer Heir basically challanged Developers to start to looking at ways to make games more inclusive of minority groups. He also wants to break stereotypes when these minority grous are represented in games. He believes "There are numerous studies to suggest that repeated exposure to stereotypes through media can change an individual's perception of their identity, Heir argued. By perpetuating stereotypes, designers play a small part in sustaining damaging ideas. Heir admits that games are but one aspect of this hugely complex social problem, but said the problem should be tackled wherever possible. We can change this today." I agree 100 % with him, what do you not agree with based on his opinion and what he said?