BruceVC

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?

Yeah, I'm sure you are an active participant in the glory of the American economy, the head of a S&P 500 company, and not a burger flipper on minimum wage or something like that, not at all. 0/10 would not read again. And for someone not interested in the thread, your repeated attention grabs are pretty funny. What, the in-laws are visiting and pissed in your corn flakes again? Or maybe you are just not getting enough likes for your lame jokes in other threads? Poor dear. (that lighthearted enough for you?) I must say that was quite funny

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

You don't care about development companies that create games that represent gay characters as there way of addressing this type of social injustice , you don't think there is a problem in society. So please stop pretending that you actually want a game that " has a gay soldier that the rest of the squad aren't bothered with". I know its good to have people to "like" your posts in these forums but its patronizing to see you feign an interest in something we both know doesn't concern you. In fact the whole discussion about the correct representation of minority groups in games irritates you. No one has ever said that people who believe in social justice, like me, think the world is full of bigots. But there is a problem around discrimination and bigotry that exists in many aspects of society and we address this through different mediums. And by including groups of people that do get discriminated against in RL in video games we hopefully get people to realize that "its okay to be gay ". This doesn't diminish you as a person to be gay. I get it you and others don't agree or understand why its relevant to have gay representation in games but that doesn't change its importance. And you can't seriously think that in intuitions like the USA army the question around your sexual orientation is still not an issue on some levels. The infamous " Don't ask, don't tell " was only officially ended 3 years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

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

Yeah I also thought it was funny the first time, okay I won't do it regularly in the interests of reasonable debate and debating etiquette

Shame he doesn't look impressed