aluminiumtrioxid

Well I'm mildly arachnophobic as well (there's no way in hell I'm going anywhere near spider-related quests in Skyrim with a melee character), but PoE's spiders didn't really leave much of an impression.

every government, everywhere uses similar tactics to mind-control the citizens I strongly doubt our leaders are capable of comprehending technology more complex than a football.

Yes, they can. Should they be forced to? I don't know, is a person trying to breach the subject of minority representation in gaming forcing anyone to do anything? I mean, basically, some people come across as having this predicted chain of events that's inevitable to happen unless we push against the SJWs with all of our might oh my God do SOMETHING: Step 1: Developer makes a game which features something socially conscious folks find objectionable. Step 2: People talk about it on twitter! They're saying unkind things! Step 3: ??? Step 4: CENSORSHIP ENSUES Note that in these hypothetical scenarios, Step 3 is never really elaborated upon. Whereas the more realistic chain of events would look more like this: Step 1: Developer makes a game which features something socially conscious folks find objectionable. Step 2: People talk about it on twitter! They're saying unkind things! Step 3: After a few weeks, the discussion dies down because the Internet's attention span is comparable to that of a hamster. Step 4: Nothing changes whatsoever.

You mean add it at the end of our upcoming session

"I have knowledgeable friends whose opinion I largely trust" shouldn't be confused with "I myself have more than a passing familiarity with the issue".

Could we have this discussion at a time when exams aren't looming above my head? Well, that just sounds like good business sense to me. I mean, it's gotta widen the appeal, there are people who would drop good bucks on a game with decent minority representation on ideological grounds alone. I don't think the advice "keep in mind potential customers who are minorities when designing a game" is fundamentally unsound. Also, he points out that the game world has Zerrikanians who could be present for any number of reasons ("mercenary company looking for employment in a war-torn land" sounds reasonable to me, it's not like there's setting information it's in conflict with). Basically, my concern with the casual dismissal of "hey, it's a game based on Slavic folklore, you can't have minorities or they will inevitably feel shoehorned in" is that, well, despite adolescent bull**** like TW1's sex cards, the writers at CD Projekt have largely proven to be decent storytellers. I think "no, it's impossible for them to write minority characters who don't feel tacked on" is selling them short. I'm pretty sure they could find a solution if they wanted to.

Who is the best feminist scholar? Twilight Sparkle I have no idea, but I sure as hell have a strong candidate for who isn't Boo Come on now, trust your instincts. For example, when someone says "left scholar", i say Noam Chomsky. When i say "Gender pay gap/feminist scholar" you say....? I don't say anything, because I'm studying medicine, not gender studies, therefore I lack the kind of insight into the field that would let me make such judgments. There is value in acknowledging the limits of one's knowledge.

Reading this article, and the comments section on certain Hungarian websites, I'm now kinda paranoid my own government employs the same tactic. But then I realize they have consistently proven to be incompetent at everything, and human stupidity knows no bounds. So I'd still assign a higher probability to the alternative theory of "no, their supporters are that dumb".

...And the beginning engaging in a bit of deliberate misrepresentation.

In 5E, crits straight-up double all damage on the attack, no fiddling with different critical multipliers. So yeah, piercing weapon with 1d8 base +2d8 bonus critical damage (since it's a melee weapon and therefore benefits from your Savage Attack racial trait).

How lucky I have expounded on the reasons why I find the video distasteful and manipulative. So maybe we can cut back on the bad faith attempts at guessing, hm? Understatement of the year much? We're talking about an organization with the mission statement of "undoing the damage of the university". ("Education is eeevil... it buuuurrrrnnssssss uusssss...") A guy who believes Judeo-Christian civilization is a "unique American creation" threatened by "secular extremism". Let me repeat that: Judeo-Christian civilization is a unique American creation. (Of course, given Mr. Prager's feelings towards institutes of higher learning, the fact that he holds such opinions is not surprising at all.) And of course fighting against gay marriage is the same as fighting against islamist extremism, because at this point, the only people left in the room are the kind who wouldn't find that sentiment in any way remarkable. "She's working for an anti-intellectual conspiracy theorist" is one of the mildest ways you can put this. Then again, she also claims in her books The War Against Boys and One Nation Under Therapy that feminist influence has resulted in banning the game "tag", which is such an utterly, mind-bogglingly idiotic statement to make, I almost fear my brain is at risk of spilling out through my eyesockets just by looking at it. So maybe it's understandable if one has reservations about the credibility of said books.

In all fairness, it's kind of hard to take being called an illiterate moron very constructively, I imagine. I did not contribute very efficiently to establishing an atmosphere that fosters constructive discussion. I believe apologies are in order on my part.

...Not even at self-criticism?

And were rather terrible as well, for reasons totally unrelated to that. Still, watching luzarius work his mojo is priceless ("but don't you UNDERSTAND, it's caused by THE VENGEFUL GAYS, why can't you SEE IT, it's like I'm surrounded by BLIND IDIOTS"). I'm seriously tempted to open a troll account of my own now.

Right-wing propaganda does tend to inflict an unfortunate burning sensation upon contact, not unlike holy water, but I wouldn't exactly call it "truth". So you believe that the wage gap exists despite clear evidence to contrary? Well, the wage gap does exist, as proven by the study helpfully linked by Meshugger. It's just not as significant as people claim it is; but then again, I never ran around claiming a 23% wage gap. In fact, I have gone on record to point out that in certain professions, there's actually a wage gap that favors women. What I take issue with, however, is Sommers' insistence on denying the profound effect culture has on shaping one's options and choices. It's vile and unscientific, choosing to tell the feelgood lie that everybody's a master of their own fortune, when in reality, we are very much products of our environments. Also, those horrible floating text thingies offend my aesthetic sensibilities. Edit: oh, and her "common sense proof" is a laughable strawman. It either means she basically has no understanding of what she's talking about, or (and I find the latter far more likely) it's purposefully deceitful.

Right-wing propaganda does tend to inflict an unfortunate burning sensation upon contact, not unlike holy water, but I wouldn't exactly call it "truth".

Dude, you define "conspiracy theorist" as "someone who dares to oppose harmful social and economic policies championed by the Democratic Party, by pointing out their long-term harmfulness [citation needed]". At this point of vigorous strawmanning, there's no citation that could ever possibly convince you. Which is ironic, considering you just called me incapable of understanding, or empathizing with, those who hold political views opposing mine. Projecting much?

That's great, first Meshugger fails at lit 101, now you do the same with grammar. "Vicious" was a qualifier of the backlash. I didn't accuse anyone of "vicious motivations". The "qualifier" you chose intrinsically refers to motivations. From Oxford Dictionaries: Definition of vicious in English: adjective 1 Deliberately cruel or violent I stand corrected. (Well played, sir. Well played indeed.)

Hm, lemme get out my Progressive-to-English dictionary to help me parse that sentence: wingnuttery: Holding political or philosophical views which, despite being moderate and centrist in the greater political spectrum, are far enough away from radical progressivism that most progressives are completely and utterly unable to understand them or muster any tolerance or empathy for their advocates. anti-intellectual: Refusing to tow the party line of the radical left-wing politicization which has taken a hold of many social 'science' institutions. conspiracy theorist: Someone who dares to oppose harmful social and economic policies championed by the Democratic Party, by pointing out their long-term harmfulness. Which leaves: "outright lies" "malicious misuse of statistics" ...which scream for [citation needed]. Can you substantiate these two claims? Using my superior deductive (actually, inductive) skills, I have ascertained that you clearly have no interest in even attempting to initiate a good faith discussion. You did so wisely; being a supremely rational person, surely you must be aware of the statistics on the likelihood of changing a person's mind with a (reasoned) argument. Furthermore, you must be aware that it's fallacious to assume statistics somehow don't apply to us; in the absence of other factors, we should default to what we know, namely the fact that it's extremely unlikely for you to convince me to change my beliefs, and vice versa. What puzzles me is the fact that the projected return on the investment of typing up that lovely little list you have there must be exceedingly small; most likely outcome is not even being dignified with a response (making the aforementioned investment a wasted one), or, even worse, it could lead to a protracted argument that only causes further loss of time and energy invested into furiously typing up walls of text and checking sources for both participants. Of course, there's the extremely small chance of changing minds, but I reckon your chances of doing so have been pretty much shot to hell after an opening like that. (Well, even more shot to hell than they regularly are (which is "very").) So clearly, typing it up was an irrational decision. What prompted you to do so?

Quite so. In my defense, I could do much more productive things with my time than debating how justified certain internet journalists are when employing certain characterizations. If I'm showing someone the respect of giving them my time and attention, it's not unreasonable to expect them to refrain from wasting it by making claims they can't prove. That said, since I clearly feel my time is not being spent optimally by debating this issue, I will now bow out of the discussion, since it's unlikely I can add anything of value to it. Have a nice day, gentlemen.

I'm only harping on people being illiterate morons when they keep making claims they can't back up with textual evidence. Which is pretty much the definition of functional illiteracy. (Well technically it is not, since "functional illiteracy" means a very specific thing, but you get my drift.)

I'm not the guy who seemingly feels compelled to drop subtle barbs about (ill-understood) cognitive biases whenever feminism is discussed, so "superiority crusade" might be a bit of a mischaracterization here. By the way, I really can't wrap my head around how "vicious backlash" could mean anything but "a backlash that is characterized by being vicious"; then again, I am but an ignorant foreigner. Anyone care to lend a hand?

Who is the best feminist scholar? Twilight Sparkle I have no idea, but I sure as hell have a strong candidate for who isn't

[citation needed] Note: "my ignorance" does not count as a credible source. Stop sidestepping. What are these structures? Define them. Why are they racist? Saying "just acknowledge them" is way too lazy for anyone to take that argument seriously. Says the guy who's too lazy to ****ing google the phrase "structural racism". Examples of such.

And yet you keep defending one side, and accuse the other side of "vicious" motivations. [citation needed] That's great, first Meshugger fails at lit 101, now you do the same with grammar. "Vicious" was a qualifier of the backlash. I didn't accuse anyone of "vicious motivations". It's amazing how you can overlook basic, elementary school-level stuff like this, yet still be 100% assured of your superior rationality over those biased feminists.