BruceVC

That must have been quite funny. What I typically do in that situation is if there is a group of ladies and one guy is to approach the guy first and chat to him and offer him a drink. Then start talking to the ladies but use him as a way to get an introduction, that way you are seen as less threatening and not trying to cut the guy out of the situation. I also always automatically include him in rounds of shooters I buy. I see this approach as more respectful based on the situation as the guy obviously has some significance to the ladies.

Yes that is exactly what I meant, I surprised that such a simple point could be so misunderstood by some people I didn't misunderstand it at all. My satire on the ridiculousness of what you stated and the ideas that generated your statement as well as the points I made on the subject in general are apparently lost on both you and Oerwinde. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia?q=homophobia No, you are the one who still misunderstands. Homophobia in the context of social justice and bigotry is the dislike of someone because of there sexual orientation. There is no other way to see this form of discrimination. You can try to debate its meaning in any other way but you would be wrong. And I think almost everyone on these forums knows what the word homophobia represents and means. There is nothing ridiculous about saying "homophobia is considered unacceptable to many people"

I meant to comment on this earlier. I was very impressed and want to really recognize the fact that you made a post that you didn't have to make as people, me specifically, had misunderstood your original point. There was certain unnecessary contention around the semantics of what you were saying but you took the time to explain what you are actually getting at. This really shows a maturity and tthoughtfulness that at times we often all seem to lack in defusing certain debates, so well done

Why was there hate directed towards you?

As I mentioned before this is probably the most annoying question someone could ask. I am exactly who I say I am, I am a real person who believes what he posts and is happy to debate the discussion points. Lets move beyond this absurd suggestion and try to focus on constructive comments

Where would this "private matters " apply in a society. Where do the rules of equality not matter....Hades, Forgotten Realms maybe? Oh is this where you get those religious cult groups that live in remote parts of the country and where incest and pedophilia is practiced? Those are private matters.... If someone is prejudiced against LGTB, he should be allowed as long as they don't break the law. Legislation shouldn't be used to deny rights to either side of the fence and that means the right to freedom of speech. This is what some feminists and rights activists seem unable to comprehend, they assume their position to be the correct one and therefore enforcing it is a righteous act. I agree about the LGTB part but what if that person goes to a website and starts being homophobic? Websites have their forum rules, unfortunately that means that depending on the place honest dissent that is voiced politely can be perceived as a harmful speech and blocked. You can customize your web experience so that you're never exposed to other perspectives (and Google helps that a lot with search algorithms) Internet forums are often like gated communities, if there is a dominant view it will be the one that's enforced. Short answer is that moderators will take care of it based on the community rules/biases/ideology. For example, we don't tolerate bots. Sorry for the belated response, I was away for the weekend and only returned late last night. I'll just summarize my point. People keep saying " you can't say you live in country that allows free speech if you also say that certain words are not allowed to be used. This is a contradiction" But in the UK for example they prosecute people for using certain words and offensive descriptions on Twitter, yet they live in a Democracy that does practice free speech. I'm sure that in all other Western countries there are similar cases of people being charged for using certain words through social media in a way that is considered socially unacceptable This does not mean the country doesn't allow free speech. Thats my point. I don't think he meant it in that way, I think he meant acting homophobic on the website. Yes that is exactly what I meant, I surprised that such a simple point could be so misunderstood by some people

Where would this "private matters " apply in a society. Where do the rules of equality not matter....Hades, Forgotten Realms maybe? Oh is this where you get those religious cult groups that live in remote parts of the country and where incest and pedophilia is practiced? Those are private matters.... If someone is prejudiced against LGTB, he should be allowed as long as they don't break the law. Legislation shouldn't be used to deny rights to either side of the fence and that means the right to freedom of speech. This is what some feminists and rights activists seem unable to comprehend, they assume their position to be the correct one and therefore enforcing it is a righteous act. I agree about the LGTB part but what if that person goes to a website and starts being homophobic?

Monte I don't like conspiracy theories to get in the way of the greater good

Where would this "private matters " apply in a society. Where do the rules of equality not matter....Hades, Forgotten Realms maybe? Oh is this where you get those religious cult groups that live in remote parts of the country and where incest and pedophilia is practiced? Those are private matters....

Thats an impressive list, nice one

Thats harsh, I don't believe anything like the desciption below "Orwellian" is an adjective describing the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It connotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly Nineteen Eighty-Four.[1]

What do you think of Putin Malc?

Sadly this is the necessary state we find ourselves in, many governments are forced to do this as some people need to dragged to the table where we discuss how gender equality is here to stay and be implemented by legislation if necessary. I fail to see how addressing an obvious failure of equality is fascist ?

Whats your defintion of "Stratagems" in the context of this discussion

I am enjoying this new trend we are seeing on some websites where the developers are prepared to answer certain questions directly through threads like this. It really allows you to identify with people on a personal level and expeditiously get relevant feedback , yes you can argue that PoE is fan funded so there is a greater expectation from fans of more interaction but many KS campaigns just rely on KS updates to get there message across. So good effort Obsidian Of course I imagine the negative to this type of communication is the deluge of questions a particular person may receive and maybe how people expect an answer. But I think this has been managed well

I had a really good date last night, there is this girl I've been trying to see for ages and we went for dinner at a nice Sushi restaurant. She use to have a problem with drugs and has been clean for 45 days so she doesn't drink alcohol but that didn't effect the conversation or mood. It was great to see her again and will definitely be seeing her again

It is insulting to both men and women, anyone who thinks for themselves really. I know more than a few women who are insulted and disgusted by modern feminism. What parts are they disgusted with exactly ?

I know you know thats not relevant .....but it was funny

You know what Volo, I'm going to rephrase what I said due to your post. So thanks Gender equality is NOT feminism, I was mistaken. Feminism is a route to achieve true gender equality. If you guys think that men are unequal compared to women please give me 3 examples that I'll investigate and we can campaign together on?

Gender equality is feminism and his entire post was based on this. I fail to see how you cannot think his post wasn't around a view of modern gender equality? Oh wait its suppose to be a joke....thats right I forgot. Let me know when it gets to the funny part No Bruce, feminism is supporting the advancement of one gender, gender equality is support of equality between both genders. If you honestly believe that you can achieve gender equality by focusing on the issues of one out of the two, you are a deluded nutjob. Orogun's post was neither a troll attempt or taking a **** on gender equality. Feminism : http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feminism?q=feminism Gender Equality : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_equality Unless you can explain to me all the examples of how poor men are discriminated against in society and are not really seen as equal to women I reject your definition. We don't have campaigns about " equality for men" because basically the issue doesn't exist for men. But please do tell me how hard your life has been being a man and what you demand changes so you are equal to women ...I really want to hear this one

Do I think that girls are treated differently than boys at the macro-societal level? Yes. We have studies that indicate subtle factors in education (some even mentioned in the BanBossy material) can lead girls away from achievement in areas of math and science.1 Do I think there is value in discouraging bossy behavior in children? Yes. There's a real tendency in modern thought to feel that negative reinforcement is valueless and I'm not convinced it is. Bossy behavior should be discouraged - boy or girl. Note I disagree with the precept of the BanBossy campaign that the same action in a boy called "leadership" is called "bossy" in a girl. "Bossy" is a very specific set of negative behaviors and if people are using the word incorrectly it is not the fault of the word (again, treating the symptom - missuse of a word - rather than treating the reason why people might be misusing that word or even attempting to spread understanding about the word, its meaning and how that relates to negative behaviors we don't want to encourage and to positive behaviors we very much want to encourage). Studies over the years have shown that as boys and girls develop, girls develop verbal ability much quicker than boys. This will lead to a tendency for girls to interact with their social world through words more so than boys (which is why boys will demonstrate more physical aggression while girls will demonstrate more relational aggression, typically). This is, probably, the reason why there is a perception of girls being labeled as "bossy" more than boys (as boys will be trying to assert their will over their peers through their physicality, not having the verbal acuity to attempt imposing their will through verbal methods).2 Ideally, though, I think we'd want to discourage both forms of aggression and channel those efforts towards something constructive. Having said that, plenty of boys will be bossy during their development (just likely hitting it at a later stage of development) and if we feel that this attitude/action set is to be discouraged than we need to be able to "call it out", otherwise we'll either be transferring the bossy label to another word (as the negative traits would still need to be distinguished) or encouraging the behavior to continue (if we drop any concept of the "bossy" traits being negative for fear of discouraging "leadership"). Which gets back to the campaign; if the campaign is really about encouraging girls to be leaders and/or to not be discouraged from pursuing being positively assertive I'd argue they'd be better off campaigning positively than negatively (and while I'm sure they think they're being a positive campaign, I see any campaign that stacks itself against3 something to be inherently negative). If the goal of the campaign is to establish that women have fine leadership skills that can be nurtured and grown - which I think it is - I think they're going about it entirely the wrong way. Because what people are going to take away from the campaign isn't going to be the positive message they're trying to deliver but the negative one they are delivering (even if it is unintentionally, as I think it is). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1There's also a devaluing of education as important - somehow - in high school that leads boys away from education which is why our college populations in many schools are overwhelmingly female - outside of the STEM majors. Sometime in the 1980s women overtook men in higher education. The question we in higher education face is "how do we encourage men to pursue college degrees" and "how do we encourage women to consider STEM majors as viable options for them". Anecdotally, I can't tell you the number of times that I've talked to a young woman who has shifted away from a medical/pharmacological/dental major to "nursing" either because of factors OTHER than the challenge of the coursework. And similarly men who place no value on education, soon to drop out because making money now if more important than making more money years from now. 2Note though that while I agree that boys and girls learn differently and learn at different rates, I do reject the notion that men or women taken as enormous groups (as opposed to individual vs individual) can't compete equally in education - unless there are some other cognitive factors at play (like dyscalculia). Experience teaches us otherwise. The problem in the educational system is that, honestly, it tends to be "one size fits all" which IMO is a terrible way to operate if your goal is to identify individual talent, skill and/or proclivity. 3Unfortunately society has embraced the idea that if you're not against something you are for nothing. So its not surprising that the "net meme" summation of the campaign is negative - #BanBossy Thats an excellent, thoughtful and relevant post. Nice one. You have positioned the debate in a way that is easy to understand and even though you disagree with the campaign you have given, IMO, a better solution. Let the campaign be a positive one as I agree that even though BANBOSSY is intended to be positive the perception of it is negative and that means the message is wasted. I learnt a very insightful view today about an important topic, thanks

Gender equality is feminism and his entire post was based on this. I fail to see how you cannot think his post wasn't around a view of modern gender equality? Oh wait its suppose to be a joke....thats right I forgot. Let me know when it gets to the funny part

I'm really not sure how trustworthy poll results would be in regards to this kind of thing. Each fan-base has something called a "vocal minority" -- a small group of people who make a big fuss about their tastes and opinions, and often end up looking like they represent the overall opinion of the larger audience when in fact they don't. For BioWare, the fans who like romances are obviously such a vocal minority. In fact, I expect that most people who play their games will either roll their eyes, chuckle (heheheh boobs!) or just skip and ignore any romance sub-plot they come across. But the moment you slap "Advanced Integrated Romance System!" on the box as one of the game's main features, you'll lose a large chunk of those people as customers. Because it's just not what they want out of the game. Because they have always been optional... So people can just ignore them if they're not interested in them. Making them an integral part of the game on the same level as race, class and skill selection would make them mandatory which, trust me, a lot of people would not like. Okay but do you honesty think people wouldn't buy a major RPG just because there was mandatory but well written Romance? Are people that opposed to the idea of Romance which would only be a small part of the RPG experience anyway? In a word, yes. In more words, it doesn't matter how well a romance is written, it's impossible to make a character that appeals to everyone. A mandatory romance assumes everyone will react the same way to a given character, which is nothing but pure folly. I have quit games outright after being presented by an unpalatable forced decision or characterisation. With foreknowledge I would not have purchased the game at all, but it's hard to discover the nature of said events without spoiling the game. Foreknowledge that romances are mandatory, on the other hand, will be easy, and consign the game to the do-not-play list. P.S. Oh god, imagine ME2 had a forced Miranda romance. That's the worst example I can think of, of a case where the developers completely misanticipated the player reaction to their headline character. Okay you guys have made a good argument, my objective would never be to make something in a RPG that causes people specifically not to purchase it. So integrated/mandatory Romance is maybe not such a prudent suggestion

Okay but do you honesty think people wouldn't buy a major RPG just because there was mandatory but well written Romance? Are people that opposed to the idea of Romance which would only be a small part of the RPG experience anyway?

Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. (Successful troll attempt though, since reading it literally pissed me off! \o/) Heh, why is that a 'troll attempt' and not just his opinion ? And really, there are feminists out there that believe that stuff (not a large amount, but for some reason, like everywhere else, the yahoos are the ones broadcasting) If its not a Troll attempt then it demonstrates a completely dismissive and exaggerated view of the issue of gender equality and is equally annoying.