Longknife

And I love how you are going out of your way to make this an issue of inferiority vs. superiority. It's ridiculous to even imply that women stand a chance when we're discussing relative physical strength, on average. And if we're discussing the extremes, the upper percentiles of either gender, the otherwise relatively big differences turns into a massive gulch. This doesn't mean that one thinks that women are "inferior to men". Really, stop trying to shove cultural marxism and political correctness down everyone's throat. The guy stated his preferred gender ratio, as per the thread, and explained why he felt that way, and it's perfectly reasonable to say that "Hey, I find it a bit ridiculous that somehow the 6 beefiest female meatheads of the continent have somehow coalesced and become part of my party, and I prefer to keep it at a more realistic level". It has nothing to do with misogyny or some other ridiculous cause, it has nothing to do with fireballs or magic, or the fact that it's a fantasy setting. It's a preference based on fact and the universe as we know it, which no-one other than the player has anything to do with. He doesn't care if you fill up your party with pink-haired orlan females that kills dragons left and right because you think they're pretty, why would you care if he prefers 1-2 females because of human gender dimorphism? Other than virulent brainwash through rote repetition and offence by proxy? Just adding my two cents? I personally think how much someone works out or the like is far more likely to play a role in who's stronger than gender is. What I mean is I've known plenty of guys with very arrogant and misogynistic beliefs that they're stronger than women by default....but not all of them bothered working out. Then lo and behold a woman that does comes along and outmatches him. Having said that, I recently saw a statistic that was pretty conclusive. It showed how typically, Olympic runners for example (believe it was runners) will have such a gap that the slowest male runner outperforms the fastest female runner. That's pretty damning evidence that would definitely suggest that yes, of course when you have two people both equally dedicated to a physical activity, the male will have the advantage. Likewise and just as a last example, a friend of mine does judo and haekido I believe. Discovered, to my surprise, that I'm stronger than her. I do not work out. The only work outs I have to my name are that walking with one leg is more taxing on your muscles (I naturally build leg muscle) and when I use crutches around the house or the like, then there's some arm muscle. That's it really. So yeah, that was surprising for me but also speaks quite a bit about the advantage men have. Also, this post is hilarious: *rolls eyes* No, I understood you, the number is still irrelevant. But thanks for assuming I'm just stupid. The point is that woman are in the military at all. You attributing real world blueprints such as HOW MANY WOMEN ARE IN THE MILITARY and WEIGHT to a fantasy game is just... why? If you're constantly on the look out for "inconsistency" or whatnot, how are you possibly going to have any fun? Does it really matter to you that much that there are female wizards in a fantasy game? Does it matter to you that much that other people are playing female PMs that you have to come into a forum thread and state that you think it is unnatural (well, I mean, unnatural except if they are love interests, according to you)? The why is spelled out for you: immersion. He wants the world to feel believable for him, and it loses a degree of that when he has all these stronk women in squad. To everything else? Dude where on EARTH did he say that he takes offense to anyone else playing as females or that his goal is to rain on everyone else's parade? He stated a personal preference because this thread asked for it. You are the one reading too much into things. He only grew hostile after you were already at his throat.

I am a strong, independent Aumaua woman that don't need no man.

+1. I'm comfortable with the amount of change we've had and I don't think GamerGate is going to achieve much more. The only thing I'm hoping for is that it keeps the push for basedgamer.com going so we're entirely rid of metacritic. Recently had a guy on reddit PM me asking if I was still a part of GamerGate. I said no and that I felt like GamerGate had accomplished what it wanted within the games industry and was now targeting things I disagreed with and considered a waste of time, as opposed to what I would've liked to see (AKA, go figure out why MSNBC, the BBC and other major news networks did bias, flat-out inaccurate and dishonest portrayals of Gamergate, all in the interest of exposing media bias and/or negligence for the sake of more important stories). He responded with, and let me quote him on this: That's both something I don't really give so many ****s about and I think that such a "battle" is not feasible. Such a battle would be similar to the case we had here at Obsidian: you have every right to be disappointed in how Obsidian handled the situation, but to claim it was self-censorship under the pressure of SJWs is something you can never hope to prove. You can never prove if the company felt pressured or if they honestly share the opinions of the SJWs and the SJWs merely brought the issue to their attention. What I saw when I tried bringing Firedorn's responsibility and influence over what Obsidian did to the attention of KiA....? I saw a lot of kiddos really anxious to test out their brand new pitchforks they just bought, willing to jump over a couple steps in proving guilt and to demonize a company that much quicker for minor offenses ("how DARE they even speak to SJWs"), all just so that they could justify their anger. GamerGate could've been something that followed-up games journalism investigations with investigations to some of the bigger journalism names that gave GamerGate bad, dishonest press. Instead, for whatever reason, the remainder is largely choosing to just develop sides and "show no mercy" to developers who disagree with them. By all means, if Ubisoft or Double Fine tells you you're a trash movement, boycott them, and you as an individual have every right to make purchases based on what you do and don't like. (AKA you can skip Obsidian products if you didn't like how they handled it) Treating this like a war on developers with differing opinions or an unwillingness to be hardcore GG supporters themselves though...? That's idiotic. The remainder can have fun doing that stuff and bringing about absolute zero change while dragging GamerGate's name through the mud, I'll be over here doing anything else with my time.

No ****, that's because the circumstances of Muslims is in no way comparable to that of gamers. Muslim's exist in a culture of islamophobia where they can be subject to state sanctioned harassment, detainment and murder. Articles demanding an "end to muslims" in such a culture would not be tongue-in-cheek or mere hyperbole but instead contribute to the actually existing violent status quo. You cannot simply replace one group with another and treat it as if the implications are exactly the same. That said, who the **** cares that some random websites wrote some melodramatic articles on 'gamers'. I've been playing games all my life and quite frankly couldn't give a ****. Until we live in a world where employers are not hiring gamers, people are running around murdering gamers or the state itself has "declared war on gamers" you are just another tumblr generation kiddie desperate to be "oppressed". If we cannot change games journalism, then we might as well give up on everything. Explain. Compared to all other injustices that exists in the world, ethics in games journalism is quite a small thing in the grander schemes of things. But if this fails, how can people possibly be able to overcome anything bigger? But GamerGate has already won, so i am optimistic about the future. Just remind me again, what has GG achieved in the last 9 months? And I'm not being condescending, I want to see how you guys see the success of the movement BasedGamer got funded. Several sites either adopted an ethics policy or ammended theirs. The FTC adopted rules regarding undeclared affiliate links and admitted GG was the reason. Some female devs got greenlit or funded as a result of GG efforts. The Escapist cleaned house of their SJW staff to focus less on social justice issues and more on games and such. TechRaptor and NicheGamer got huge support boosts establishing them as alternatives to the point that they were able to get press passes to events they were previously unable to. Thats off the top of my head. Thank you for responding, why do some people question my motives when I am interested in certain topics that I don't know a lot about ? Is it because of my view on GG I wonder that they think I have an ulterior motive? It may have something to do with this probably being the 47th time you've asked a question like the one above, and that so much time is wasted on (re-)clarifying things that the discussion repeatedly gets distracted away from anything that's difficult for you to discuss.

I'll just say this: Recently as a topic of discussion with my friends, I saw a youtube video where some guy, whose channel is devoted to anime, did a video reviewing all anime released this season and proceeded to say all of them are absolutely terrible and anime will never be recognized as a legit art form because it's got so much awful crap. My friends and I started discussing what exactly is wrong with anime, why do we all hate it and why do even the people who like anime look at it and say "wow this is really bad" before watching it all. We quickly noticed anime is very guilty of one thing: constant romance. It is incredibly difficult to name an anime that doesn't make romance a cornerstone of it's plot line, with the ones you can name probably being the ones that are recognized as being....actually good? Great example: Cowboy Bebop is not about romance at all and it's a great anime (hard to believe, I know) with lots of meaningful stuff to say, yet I remember when it first hit American television, there were LOADS of people who wanted to see a potential romance between Spike and Faye when it simply was not there. They insisted it was an actual thing, completely missing the point and the purpose of their interactions with one another, thus robbing themselves of understanding what the creator was trying to get across with those two. And for what...? For the sake of concocting another overdone romance story in their minds that's been done before and has nothing meaningful to say....wtf why? In short, it's kind of a very very cliche, overdone and predictable story plot that gets used ad infinium because, for whatever reason, some people can't get enough of "boy meets girl, there's sexual tension for a long time and then they finally confess their feelings and yay." I then started kinda watching an episode of the animes the guy listed as garbage from this season just to see for myself how garbage they were. And boy, were they garbage. There was one where the characters were actually realistic and believable, flawed and unique in their own way, (as opposed to the cliches that anime overdoes, like the tsundere and all the other character types) but I still had no interest in watching another episode. Why? Because the overall plot was romance, and it was predictable as hell. Even if the characters were likeable, they were going nowhere because I knew exactly where they were going without even watching. I ended up just looking up a synopsis for future episodes to confirm that yes, I knew exactly what direction it was headed, and that was that for me. For me? It's simple: I play games, read stories and watch shows to hear something meaningful. I like New Vegas because of all of it's philosophical and political insights. I like Binding of Isaac because of it's dual meanings that actually say a lot about the topic of depression and even religion's involvement with it. I like Dark Souls because of it's commentary about human resolve and life as a struggle in general. I like Rick and Morty because of scenes like this: I like shows, stories and series that can manage to say a lot within the short little scenes, jokes and time that they have. I like stories that are multi-layered, thought-provoking and fresh. Romance is none of this. Romance is not a thought, it's an emotion, more or less. It's not something you can learn or experience from a story, nor is it something you can apply a ton of thought-provoking twists to to keep it fresh and unique. No, romance has been done and will continue to be done because for some reason, some people haven't figured out the boy will get the girl every single time. Romance feels like the fast food of stories: it's a guilty pleasure that all of us enjoy off and on, but how much actual substance is it really providing? None at all. I do not finish a romance story or sub-plot having become smarter or wiser for having done so, I simply enjoy watching it and going "SQUEEEE~ I hope something like this happens to me :3" and then that's that. This is made worse by the fact that romance stories are always abysmally untrue to how romance often works out in real life, for example with many romances in stories being something that manifests itself over time, when in reality no wtf dude tell her you like her straight up or you'll be friendzone'ed. All of this is made worse by the fact that this is a game. They need to somehow design a waifu that the vast majority of the community would enjoy. This is practically an impossibility, because all of us are individuals with different interests in women (or men). It simply cannot feasibly be done, and no matter how good you write your romance, there WILL be a large chunk of the audience that absolutely loathes it because it didn't click with them at all. In short? I will never understand the desire for romance in games, nor do I see it as realistically feasible to please everyone with it. Combine this with the fact that the writers of Obsidian loathe that ****? Yeah, it's probably not a good idea to force them to do it. Maybe...just maybe...it's not that Bioware is bad at romance and needs Obsidian to "show them how it's done," but rather romance is the go-to for bad writers who have nothing meaningful to say, and Obsidian actually has meaningful stuff to say? Romance is to writing as **** jokes are to bad comedians. I don't know anyone who watches stand-up and says "yknow this guy really needs to tell more **** jokes I've heard before," so I find it kind of amazing that people still insist on romance-driven plots.

Step in the right direction.

A waifu pillow would be cheaper.

My citation says 10 per 100,000 deaths. Personally, I do not look it as numbers so much as I do lives. Do you realize that 10 deaths per 100,000, if we were to apply that to Obsidian forums as an example, means ten of us would be gone right now. Every life should be valued. I know that sounds corny, but think about yourself, all your uniqueness and all your stories and opinions you'd like to tell, and every single other human on earth is exactly as unique. The phrase "you are special, just like everyone" is infact not a paradox. 10 per 100000 deaths in the US are due to guns? Last study I looked at(http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809516) shows obesity being responsible for 18.2% of deaths. That's 18200 per 100000. Being obese kills 1820x the rate of a machine designed to kill. I'd say violence is certainly isn't much, and obesity is easier to address both culturally and legally than guns, which are protected by an amendment and one of the most effective political lobbies in the world. As someone who has personally suffered with weight issues, including obesity, I can say that it is much worse than the statistically insignificant damage gun violence causes, in that it renders the lives of those who suffer with it plagued with health problems and a sense of worthlessness. Addressing the issues that cause obesity, such as the crap food available to low-income households or the lack of education in nutrition and fitness is also easier to do than touch gun ownership. And this makes guns a positive change to the country how? You have highlighted another problem within the USA. Just because it's a more widespread and severe problem does not mean guns are now golden tools of righteous justice, and it is still very questionable if they save more lives than they kill as things stand. It's interesting that, I actually am fairly ok with the concept of M.A.D. because I do not realistically expect any country to be so stupid as to launch a nuke. Lo and behold, Russia and the USA - for all their faults - have avoided just that despite tons of turmoil. But these are educated people elected into office and kept in check by multiple other educated people, also elected into office. Not to say that there's no such thing as a bad politician, just to say that the entire system is designed to severely diminish such a decision ever happening. Guns on the other hand are like M.A.D. on a smaller scale, the problem being any idiot can own a gun. Tell me, what do you do about the George Zimmerman's of the world who wanna make believe they're action movie cops? Thus, regulation. And for the fourth time, just wanna keep highlighting that no one has addressed that I've repeatedly asked for an example of assault rifles or other military-grade firearms ever being neccesary for civilian use. Off-topic, but sadly not that simple. Obesity is also a result of the mess that is the entire Midwest and Central United States. Those states were built too stretched out with no sense of centralization in the town design. Everyone was high on how much free land they had, and apparently no one had a sense for "hey it might be convenient if I don't like 30 minutes from the store." The result? You have to drive everywhere, and I promise you there's cheap fast food along every major road. Every time my mom comes to visit Germany, she swears she's actually eating more, but it's actual food and the towns in Germany all have pedestrian zones where vehicles are not allowed, so you're forced to walk, and lo and behold she loses weight every trip. So simple, yet so effective. Sadly, solving obesity for those states is not so simple as it requires some serious redesigning of the average Midwestern towns. As a side note, it's also true that as bad as McDonald's is, it's also a "lifesaver" in it's own ways, because many poverty-stricken families are able to make ends meet thanks to their dollar menus.

My citation says 10 per 100,000 deaths. Personally, I do not look it as numbers so much as I do lives. Do you realize that 10 deaths per 100,000, if we were to apply that to Obsidian forums as an example, means ten of us would be gone right now. Every life should be valued. I know that sounds corny, but think about yourself, all your uniqueness and all your stories and opinions you'd like to tell, and every single other human on earth is exactly as unique. The phrase "you are special, just like everyone" is infact not a paradox. The difference being that a car is designed as a means of transport. Does the majority of the community consider it a fair risk to accept driving as a thing believing themselves capable of doing so? Yes. Guns on the other hand? The argument being made is that they protect us from violent crimes, with much of the population actually being against such liberal usage. However, evidence would suggest that within the US and many american countries, they do the exact opposite and see use in violent crimes just as much as they see use stopping it, negating their purpose in many situations. Removing them and/or heavily restricting them (aka pistols are for civil defense and need proper registration and backround checks, with the right to bear arms being something you CAN lose as a convicted felon. Rifles and shotguns should be for practical purposes such as hunting only and thus provide an extra step of registration to acquire) seems like a good solution. Again I ask, when has an assault rifle ever been vital to stop a violent crime? I have asked this question thrice, it goes unanswered. A pistol can provide the solution in such cases, a rifle is overkill. Which is horrendously inobjective to cling to. Those days are long gone, we are not pioneers in strange, unknown territories inhabited by wild animals. We live in remote suburbs, bored out of our minds safe as safe can be. The same logic that guides that way of thinking is the same logic that leads me to encounter people who will tell me I'm an inferior human being because I was born disabled, blissfully unaware that if society were given a choice between saving the life of Stephen Hawking or saving that guy's life, he would be dropped in a second flat, because disabilities are no longer the hinderance they may have once provided. Likewise, to cite the founding fathers is to fail to see that what they wanted was specific for that context, with England as a realistic threat and rifles being limited in strength. They could not have known or expected that someday we'd see fully automatic rifles. They could never have known the politics of today, where - I promise you - were the USA to become a police state, everyone and their mother would use it as an excuse to "liberate" the USA to get their hands on it's natural resources. They could not have been able to practically imagine where a line should be drawn. What they were getting across - the why of their stance - is that people deserve a form of self-defense; how much, they never specified. And if the founding fathers adhered to something, does this mean we have to blindly follow it no matter what? They were brilliant men deserving of respect, no doubt, but this does not mean they're without flaw. Einstein and Hawking have both been wrong, the founding fathers are no exception. If the founding fathers suggested we eat dirt to stay healthy, does that mean we all need to? Have reverence for the specific ideas named (such as freedom of speech and religion), not for the men spouting the ideas. And wtf the culture comes first. The laws are designed to appeal to that culture. The issue at hand is that the culture the USA has now is woefully inobjective and equates "no more fully automatic assault rifles" with "THEY WANT US TO BE HELPLESS SO THEY CAN OPPRESS US." Again, I ask for a case where someone owning an assault rifle specifically was what prevented a crime/deaths of innocents. A pistol is good enough. I do not see any point with attacking culture with reason since most cultural expressions are the result of irrational human beings. America without guns is no longer the american culture and that's why it is so difficult to change it. So you're suggesting a culture is an inflexible thing that never changes, or that somehow America as we know it would not be America if it lost one simple aspect of it's identity? I certainly don't believe that, nor do I see a cause to fear such a change. Cultures changing over time is natural. If it were not, then we'd still have to put up with the Prussian culture many Germans were exposed to where they were beaten to a pulp for not doing things in the exact fashion their parents expected of them, turning them into intolerable asses with superiority complexes. I live in the suburbs and its not unusual to see raccoons, opossums, deer and wild dogs and cats (and rabid dogs and cats at that). A bit more uncommon (but not unheard of) to see coyotes and bears. And not too long ago, there were some alligators just on the other side of town. Well then obviously you need a fully automatic assault rifle to protect yourself, lest the raccoons run you out of house and home. Disregard everything I've said thusfar. Raccoons, opposums and deer are NOT going to be hostile towards you unless you yourself put yourself dangerously close to them. Where I once lived we had raccoons and oppossums too, and they only snuck towards people's houses at night to eat cat food, running off if they were seen. Dogs and cats, you have animal control for that. Coyotes are again very timid and keep their distance from humans (aka if they even come close to you, their instinct is to avoid a confrontation, not to hunt you) and bears? Unless you've got giant brown bears or mother bears, even black bears will keep their distance. Alligators I honestly forget what their habits are, but again I don't see why you need a freaking assault rifle for them.

You call this nothing?: http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2014/03/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-the-u-s-to-rest-of-the-world/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate (for number two, I don't know how familiar you are with Honduras, but being beaten out by them is not exactly something surprising. Many central american countries are currently rather violent, El Salvador included)

It's multiple possible reasons, such as: 1) A hobby for some. They go to the shooting range and try out different guns 2) Basic home protection. They worry about burglars and want a defense 3) Paranoia about the government or the like 4) Iunno I'm sure some people simply feel cool for owning a gun and don't actually want much usage beyond that Also, not all of the USA lives in the middle of nowhere. The Midwest is just a part of the USA that would feel perhaps a tad alien to a European because the midwest is a part of the US where pioneers said "LOL HOLY CRAP LOOK AT ALL THIS LAND" and built their houses and neighborhoods as liberally as possible. The result is that good job pioneers, it now takes me 20 minutes by car to hit the nearest supermarket. The West Coast and Northeast are largely more familiar to what Europe is like and the Southeast can be a mix of both.

Which is horrendously inobjective to cling to. Those days are long gone, we are not pioneers in strange, unknown territories inhabited by wild animals. We live in remote suburbs, bored out of our minds safe as safe can be. The same logic that guides that way of thinking is the same logic that leads me to encounter people who will tell me I'm an inferior human being because I was born disabled, blissfully unaware that if society were given a choice between saving the life of Stephen Hawking or saving that guy's life, he would be dropped in a second flat, because disabilities are no longer the hinderance they may have once provided. Likewise, to cite the founding fathers is to fail to see that what they wanted was specific for that context, with England as a realistic threat and rifles being limited in strength. They could not have known or expected that someday we'd see fully automatic rifles. They could never have known the politics of today, where - I promise you - were the USA to become a police state, everyone and their mother would use it as an excuse to "liberate" the USA to get their hands on it's natural resources. They could not have been able to practically imagine where a line should be drawn. What they were getting across - the why of their stance - is that people deserve a form of self-defense; how much, they never specified. And if the founding fathers adhered to something, does this mean we have to blindly follow it no matter what? They were brilliant men deserving of respect, no doubt, but this does not mean they're without flaw. Einstein and Hawking have both been wrong, the founding fathers are no exception. If the founding fathers suggested we eat dirt to stay healthy, does that mean we all need to? Have reverence for the specific ideas named (such as freedom of speech and religion), not for the men spouting the ideas. And wtf the culture comes first. The laws are designed to appeal to that culture. The issue at hand is that the culture the USA has now is woefully inobjective and equates "no more fully automatic assault rifles" with "THEY WANT US TO BE HELPLESS SO THEY CAN OPPRESS US." Again, I ask for a case where someone owning an assault rifle specifically was what prevented a crime/deaths of innocents. A pistol is good enough.

While I get this was a humorous comment, Germany has essentially "banned" it's own army. Of course we have one, but our military budget is pathetic. Germany's defense is now it's economy and it's value as a trade partner; you attack Germany, you will have over half of the western world on your ass. (which btw, applies to the USA as well, if the USA could only see that) Germany totally has...."anger management issues" where it's got this fabulous habit of getting bored and declaring a World War....and it's addressing that. The military budget is pathetic, the culture means that if you say "I'm in the military" here in Germany then you're kind of frowned upon, and it's a culture where if you suggested giving them all guns or mailed everyone a gun, they'd freak out and think it was insanity. Likewise, I am not suggesting that Germans or any other group are somehow naturally more "morally correct" or the like, I am merely highlighting that if you compare the gun incidents in the USA to another country that allows gun ownership such as the Czech Republic, Switzerland, and Scandinavia, then you'll see a ridiculous difference. Could this be a result of those countries having more thorough screening and registry processes for owning weapons? Perhaps, but take a look at this: http://www.gunsandammo.com/network-topics/culture-politics-network/best-countries-gun-owners/ Each of those countries, the text will list what percent of civilians are estimated to own guns. Switzerland and Czech Republic are ranked 2nd and 3rd on their list of gun-friendly countries, and they have ownership rates between 16% (Czech) and 29% (Swiss). The USA has a whopping 43% as it's estimate. Clearly, there is also something going on culturally. Either way, evidence would suggest more gun regulation is in order, would it not?

Waiting for some of the other libertarian/conservative minded people besides myself to notice this post. This is gonna be good. Well I'm sorry but it's true. I have encountered quite a few rational, respectable gun advocates who've been up for some decent debate, but the common trend is that they'll often point to other countries with guns and say how it's proof a state that allows citizens to carry guns can work. Yes, it can, but for whatever reason, it clearly doesn't work in the USA. It's something in the culture, likely related to how Hollywood romanticizes violents and makes it cool. I'm not saying this like "let's censor Hollywood" because Hollywood has every right to produce whatever it wants, and obviously plenty of OTHER countries watch Hollywood movies too and don't go nuts. The USA however is a specialty case. I've met plenty of black kids who purposefully dress, talk and walk as gangsta as possible because they think it makes them cool and just like the rappers, and sure enough those very same kids might experiment with petty theft to feel like "a real thug." Police officers in the USA, you can find so damned many of them that think they're freaking cowboys or Dirty Harry. It's freaking VISUAL in the way they walk and conduct themselves around people. Everyone is living out some fantasy, no one's in touch with reality, and even more responsible gun owners I've met have not been above saying "WATCH THIS IT'LL BE COOL" while holding an automatic weapon in each hand and lighting up a paper target. That to me screams "I like feeling like a movie protagonist" and yes, I do think it's part of the problem. Again not calling for censorship, just saying it is what it is. (also side note, I find it interesting research suggests violent video games might deter violence whereas violent movies might encourage it. Guessing it's largely because video games involve you yourself in the violence so that you feel satisfied, whereas movies do not) To top that off, the NRA is not helpful to the situation. It's just an obviously bias group that doesn't have safety concerns in mind. Yes of course it and it's members look out for their own safety, but they fail to acknowledge that not every gun owner is safe and that conditioning the laws based on the best case scenario doesn't do a whole lot for the lackluster ones. I get it dude; your hobby is at risk of being outlawed to a degree and that really sucks. You do have to wonder at some point if your hobby of choice is more important than all the lives lost to gun accidents, criminal activity etc. At any rate, even if you wish to argue that people have a right to own pistols (fair imo), I see no reason why random yahoos should own M16's. You would never feasibly need an M16 in real life. It's expensive, the ammo can't be cheap, and if you've got a burglar in your house? Show him a freaking pistol, he will probably run. You do not need an M16 to get the point across. But as I said, the issue is two-fold: there are paranoid people who think the government or police are out to get them, and there are cops that are blatantly flawed in their work, either via racism, overzealousness with their gun themselves or the entire job is a massive power trip for them. Address both issues simultaneously to showcase to people that this isn't about taking power away from the people so the government can oppress them, it's about safety concerns and the fact that....can anyone here name a SINGLE news story of civil defense where the situation warranted a "thank god that civilian owned a fully automatic military-grade rifle!" I'm sure there's a story somewhere of a thug with a pistol being driven off by another thug with a pistol, but I've never heard of a story where the civilian with the gun NEEDED his fully automatic weapon with 20 bullets in the cartridge or else every innocent person in the area would've wound up dead. Likewise, does the USA realize that the vast majority of the world is living without firearms for civil defense, and lo and behold none of us have been enslaved by our oppressive police state governments yet? Hard to believe I know, given how Merkel's always throwing up that gang sign of hers when she speaks. Clearly a provokation towards her people. But yeah, living in two different countries gives you strong criticisms of each. If I were to criticize Germany, I'd be quite to criticize their lousy television, how negative and dickish their culture is in general, how many freaking bureocracies and regulations there are for every little things, and several other things. But the police? Germany has the USA beat so easily here. Three years training, decent familiarity with law studies, guns locked in place and a preference for solving problems by talking to people rather than treating them all like thugs who need to be put in their place. Decent police training would do wonders for this, as the problem is that currently the US police force (and military aswell) attracts all kinds of nutjobs who are after nothing more than a power trip or an excuse to be violent. Make those nutjobs go through decent training that's both boring for them and makes it crystal clear this is a practical job and not some glorified scene from a Hollywood movie, and I promise you police brutality will plummet.

The real answer is far more depressing. The government is designed to help it's citizens and to provide cornerstone services for the betterment of the community. The government does care, but government is where people with emotions, personalities and unique lives conflict with attempting to quantify and calculate everything for maximum productivity. A bureocrat is one of the most depressing types of people you can encounter because a bureocrat is dead inside. This is a person who possibly got into law because they sincerely wanted to help people, perhaps didn't make the cut for lawyer or another such job, and now they find themselves in a job where their function is to be a cog in a machine. A bureocrat is not allowed to think for themselves, is not allowed to feel, and has to follow regulations. If you go to a government office and tell them that whatever government application they've assigned to you doesn't apply well and makes your life a living hell, the person telling you "too bad, bring me the proper forms" has to watch how the government fails every single day of their lives; they know damned well you're right, but they're powerless to do anything. They are the front line, they are the ones that know all too well that there is a limitation to how prepared the government can be, how you can never truly neatly pack an entire population into different divisions of government assistance or the like, and they are the ones that know firsthand that at some point, you as a person a little more than a number in a ledger to your government, IE if some government plan pleases 70% of the population and you're unfortunate enough to be in the 30%, tough, the government is incapable of providing sympathy in this regard and thinks logically, gladly settling for the fact that 70% is a majority. Don't ever have the attitude that a bureocrat, politician or lawyer never had the desire to help people. They did, and perhaps still do. What's going on and what you guys are discussing is that....when you work with government, you hit an impasse where emotional thinking and logical thinking conflict. Both are highly important. Both should be valued. Emotional thinking tells you that you are responsible for the well-being of your people, and as such, if that guy over there can't afford food or a home, you need to provide for him. Logical thinking tells you that while a plan isn't perfect, it'll help 85% of the community, and 15% are then blatantly hindered by their government. Bureocrats (again as an example) are so jaded because they WANT to find the solution and they WANT to find the balance, but experience shows them time and time again that they have to settle for the logical choice. But that's just it: they're still settling. They're still leaving some portion of the population to fend for themselves, perhaps even harmed by the government. But a bureocrat is powerless. They do not get a voice, they do not get an opinion. If they attempt either, they'll quickly be fired and replaced. Bureocrats are a paradox for me, as I have both deepest sympathies for them and absolute disgust as I personally cannot imagine myself selling out like that, even IF it were my only option to make ends meet. I imagine in a practical sense, they cling to all of the good cases as a way to convince themselves they're still doing good work. To me, hating the government is easy. This quote comes to mind: It's very easy to point out the government's flaws and to highlight all the atrocities a government might commit. What's hard is suggesting a better, working alternative. The very reason bureocrats are so depressed is because they are left stuck there, WATCHING the failures first-hand while knowing of no answer or alternative to make things better. My first experience in Germany? I haven't mentioned this before, but I was actually ditched here. My father was never there for me, and when I was 16-18 (occured over time) he got the brilliant idea to actually, yknow, be a father. He saw the costs of raising a child and ran away, and for some reason he insisted he wanted me out of Germany, to the point where I was left with nothing when I refused (going back to the USA was not an option as I'm disabled and my healthcare bills are ridiculous in the USA, not to mention I was a student ready to study and university in the USA is expensive too). A friend of my father's who saw what an ass he was (as so many have) helped me out and tried to set me up with government support. Despite being German and a student, through some weird convolution of my situation as a dual citizen, I did not qualify for any student aid. Weirdly, I could qualify for unemployment, even though it was clear that I would not be getting a job anytime soon. I mention this only as an example of how imperfect governments can be. A government is prepared for case A, B, C, and D. If you do not fall into one of those categories, it's going to shoehorn you into one of them as hard as it can, usually to your own detriment. As a disabled dual-citizen with very limited German records, I can safely say I'm a case X, and bureocracies are a nightmare for me. If the government "turns on the people," it is not out of a blind desire for self-preservation, but because the government is also aware of all the things it's done right and believes it can still do good. It's holding out and hoping to convince people it'll do better. Please name a police state where the government is honestly downright oppressive towards it's people, and I think you'll find they're all dictatorships or function as such. (aka they claim democracy but are functionally a dictatorship) That's the result of a spoiled brat of a leader who does care about self-preservation, with him and the government being synonymous. As far as weapon laws go, the USA is a god damned hellhole in this regard and needs it's toys taken away. It's very simple: you get dangerous toys, and when you can't use them properly, they get taken away. I do not worry about guns in Czech Republic, Switzerland, Germany or Portugal because none of these countries go bat**** crazy with them. The USA does. What needs to happen is, slowly over time weapons need to be outlawed unless under specific circumstances or extensive training and backround checks. It can't happen overnight as there are a lot of illegal weapons in the USA to address, but as it stands now, USA herpderps hard and can't figure out why an M16 and a 9mm aren't quite the same thing. The USA, for whatever reason, has a toxic gun culture that results in insanely high gun violence as opposed to other gun-wielding countries. Let's not point fingers at those guys and talk about how good they are and insist the USA can be that good too; no, clearly it can't, and we'd be stupid not to restrict guns more as a result. In return? You do what Germany does: lock the police officer's pistol in place and actually train them. Where I study? The police station has attended some of our lectures in law, specifically criminology (I would highly recommend for ANY law enforcement official as it teaches empathy and understanding for the criminal) or important lectures by the criminal law professors. It was very weird the first time to go in, take a seat where I normally do, look to my right and see a freaking blonde girl in her police officer's uniform calmly sitting there ready to hear the lecture, giving me a light smile when she realizes I'm staring all confused, but it's kinda cool. It's nice to see them interacting with the public by simply attending the lecture like any civilian would, and it's nice to see them be like "yo I didn't catch that can I see your notes," especially since they do not have to worry about passing an exam, so their interest is purely genuine interest in learning what the police station wants them to learn. In Germany a cop will have a minimum of three year's training and they need to have at least a basic understanding of the laws; mind you Germany's "basic" is world's more professional than the USA's basic. I have a cop friend who has taken many of the same exams I've taken, for the most part only lagging behind on Civil law or things like Worker's rights. And to top this off? **** this "the cop is not expected to put himself in harms way" bull**** that the USA has. No, screw that dude. You signed up for the job, YOU take the risk. You would never hear a firefighter say "I fear for my own life if I enter that building, therefore I won't." Likewise, you don't get to shoot a suspect "cuz scurred." In Germany, the pistols cops carry are actively locked in place. AKA, if I were to somehow get a firearm, I would have a clear advantage vs, a cop because he needs several seconds to unlock his holster. This is exactly how it should be. You know what the result is? Friendly cops who've learned to solve problems with words rather than aggression and displays of dominance, and none of that stupid ego trip crap where a cop is fancying himself some hero on a TV show as he approaches you or your car with his hand on his gun like he's Quickdraw ****ing McGraw. The USA employs absolute ****ing clowns and idiots with power fantasies as cops. Honestly, just ****ing train them properly. Screen them. Show them this is a practical job and not Hollywood. It's not that hard. But no, you guys have the NRA insisting blind people should own guns too, and apparently it's really ****ing hard to figure out the NRA might be bias here, and thus any propaganda about how we need guns to protect us from the police or it's impossible to improve and limit the cops aswell just gets eaten up lickety split. Side-note? Please name famous violent protestors revolutionaries who got what they wanted, now compare this to the percent of peaceful protestors who got what they wanted. Holy ****, it's like peaceful protests work or something, amirite? Overall as I read this wall of text I just wrote above? You all need more empathy. Don't just point fingers at your opposition's failures, try to understand the why of things. Try to understand why things might be as they are. By all means be very critical and provide constructive criticism, but don't go demonizing groups you don't agree with like they're some monstrosity, because when you do so, you're turning them into some mythical beast that you're making no effort to actually understand. You wanna bring about positive change? Ask yourself the why of things, and that means asking why things are the way they are and why things and issues you don't like exist.

Having said that, it's also true that Stoic can be applied basically anywhere.

I still find it very weird people remember me by name just for pointing out how far behind Paladins are.

I think my biggest beef with the game, honestly, is how controlled it is. Characters lack variance because someone got super paranoid and controlling with the stat selection. You cannot realistically say "ok this is my glass cannon so I'm going to give him no defensive talents and instead give him 35 bonus accuracy" because the game hardly lets you get 15 extra accuracy on any singular character. ALL of the stats are highly controlled, and while this makes balance easier for the developers, it really kills replay value. I played the hell out of Fallout New Vegas partially because I loved the story and setting (something I was fully prepared for Pillars to not match) and because the character diversity was really good, which afforded great replay value. I could make one character a damage dealer with 40% crit, whereas another had a lot of utility perks to apply to various situations, and yet another just had a weapon focus that made him play drastically different from most other weapon types. Pillars, by comparison...does anyone honestly notice much difference between a sword and an axe? Don't get me wrong, they clearly do different things, but what I'm saying is the scope of how different they act is...tiny. The difference between using an axe and a sword often feels like "cool, because I used this weapon I do .45 extra damage per swing!!" It's pathetic, it's dull, and it hardly encourages replay value. I like those moments where I lose a fight and I think "man, I could've won that had I been using my other character," but that simply doesn't happen here outside of class differences, the problem being that the class differences quickly get worn out, cause there's 11 classes and 6 party slots, soo.... I just wish my characters truly felt unique, rather than "Barbarian #17." From what I've seen and what I've tried to do though, it's simply not feasible. It feels like the devs were so concerned with proper balance that they ended up smothering character diversity to the point where it's just non-existent, which imo, is not a worthy trade-off. I do not mind in the slightest if a game has 5-6 "meta" builds that are so obviously strong compared to others, because playing such a build encourages you to explore different character types and try to find new metas. With Pillars however, I know damned well no one will find any, because the game does not allow you to stack any singular stat beyond ~+20 and maybe a temporary +30. (or in some cases, a very specific class can get a very specific stat increase under specific circumstances, which again is controlled in it's own way)

https://youtu.be/3xvqGoNX3Uc?t=2m32s Pro logic dude. You'd last real long in a debate class.

I have always hated the word "censorship", I prefer seeing it as just removing content that isn't suitable or is considered offensive That's what censorship is. Sure but my description just sounds more palatable

Having used both an NPC Ranger and Sagani before, I'll also say that she seems to crit unusually often compared to others.

Marked Prey and Sworn Enemy have been set to 0 recovery actions, so they can be used and the Ranger/Paladin can immediately act again. A slight buff, nothing major, I dont think they will ever buff Paladins. That's crazy to me. It's hands down the most in-demand class for seeing improvements. Wizard was a popular one too but I think it carried more of a tone of "Wizard is amazing when you fully utilize it but it often feels lackluster for the average fight" and had a tone of "why not bring a Cipher" (which falls flat in practice) similar to Ranger vs. Rogue, but the class itself was still solid. Don't get me wrong, improvements for Wizards sounds cool, it's just kinda weird to see so much focus on them and next to nothing for Ranger and Paladin. Ranger just needs some simple pet improvements and they're good to go, Paladin needs a world of help.

So anyone else surprised recent patch notes show absolutely zero improvements for Paladins and instead tons for Wizards?

https://imgur.com/a/Uh6oO