Longknife

The issue is that to make it happen, you need to get some talents focused on damage dealing instead of tanking. Fighter is undeniably the best tank in the game, so it makes little sense to commit anything to damage instead of defense when it's much easier to commit that offense to your Rogue or Wizard or the like.

I like to think OP is really that adorably naive and had this big happy "what could go wrong? " smile across his face when making this thread.

MOAR LIKE THE WEAKHOLD

Woedica Godlike would just be born with the hairstyle and makeup (though permanent) of a member of the band KISS, because Woedica is metal as ****.

Off-topic but how do they even expect to evaluate pain anyways? Like I'm allergic to morphine and I can DEFINITELY say my pain tolerance jumps after every surgery. I had nerve pains in my leg at a time and despite these (which are the worst kind of pain as far as I'm concerned) I could last a good 4 hours+ with that kind of pain....not by choice, "friends" and family just didn't give a **** about me. Not saying by any means that I could tolerate it, I would visibly shake and sweat and spent a semester studying purely at home from books because these prevented me from concentrating on my lectures, but I withstood it. Later my mom developed nerve pains in her hip, she couldn't stand them for half an hour and would demand we go home so she can lay down....I knew better than to point out the hypocrisy. Point is different people rate different thresholds of pain as different numbers on a scale.

I was fully expecting to see increasing smaller, more zoomed in photos of her, with the last photo in the sequence being her ass.

I have played to this point several times now. I have no idea what you did to this floor Obsidian, but please fix it. Something about being around that table when you first hit the floor? Party members derp hard. Yesterday I almost lost a trial of iron file because any time I assigned a move to a character, they either completely forgot it or for some reason re-assigned their command to run across the room. Like for example if I ordered my Wizard to cast Chill Fog, instead of getting the cast symbol + feet when I placed the AOE position, it was just the normal cast implying they didn't need to move, but when it came time to cast Chill Fog, they would drop what they were doing entirely and the Chill Fog symbol would change to feet as if I randomly ordered them to run across the room. I have no idea what's wrong with that floor, I only know I began that floor having just rested with a fully healthy party and all spells at my disposal. By the time the fight ended, all but two of my characters had wiped, and by no fault of my own, because I couldn't for the life of me get any of them to actually cast their spells. I had to babysit them and order the same move be done thrice before it would finally work. I don't care if you gotta delete that table and ruin the battlefield type of that area to make that place work, just do it.

Have you completed the quest to help her find the old Engwithian Gym ruins to help her get swole yet?

Bobby Null seems like a cool dude. Lurks these issues and reads them, even if he doesn't (can't?) comment on them.

What's the difference? "Should have more credibility" and "shouldn't get to weigh in?" I mean the last guy who posted, your response was "were any of those people transgender?" You obviously are providing them with bias and giving their stance more weight. Everything I said more or less still applies. The "men are oppressors" line is on point with what I said a couple posts back about how giving any perceived differences in STEM the title of "sexism" only serves to escalate any emotionally-charged responses that may occur. That snippet was posted by someone else....who conveniently disappeared (as my debate partners so often seem to do these past few pages) when I posed the question of why he insists on labeling men as oppressors and what purpose it serves. My point was and still is that I see no definitive reason to label it as sexism, nor do I see why the term or phrases like "men are the oppressors" should be used since they contribute absolutely nothing and only serve to devolve discussions into petty quarrels. The second part of your post is indentical in tone. What ****ing purpose is there in asking me if I think only white heterosexuals should be allowed to voice their opinions? You knew damned well how that statement came off and you know damned well what the answer to that question is, and yet you ask it as though it's relevant, topical, or does anything for the discussion. Once again Bruce, this is why you have this reputation of being passive aggressive. And in general I find your "it's to give it context" point flawed. I find the people who "use context" are the same people who skim newspapers and develop their political stances based on what the democrats or the republicans think, without actually bothering to consider the issue themselves and critically think if they approve or not. The only relevance I believe such a question to hold is if the overwhelming majority (I'm talking 95%+) of a community is in agreement on something. Even this, I would expect to be applied more to communities and cultures, not sex orientations or the like. I would be interested what the black community thinks of the local police force vs. what the white community thinks, I would not be so interested in how community X perceives a joke vs. community Y. I do not expect that myself and other disabled people will come to a full-stop concensus on disabled issues, I do not expect the gay community to come to a full-stop concensus on gay issues, I certainly don't expect transgender people to have a concensus on....a ****ing joke. A joke is a matter of a personality, how sensitive the person is, their brand of humor and how much they appreciate humor in general, not sex orientation.

That's more or less my monk experience.

Does this matter? Do transgender people somehow magically have more valuable opinions than other people? I get where you're coming from, but this logic is ridiculous. It creates an environment where some people are listened to and others are not, AKA the exact sort of discrimination you claim to be fighting. Secondly, it also makes this very ignorant assumption that transgender people are somehow universally unified in their opinions on matters and are not unique human beings with unique perspectives and stances on things. Furthermore I can introduce you to a transgender person who couldn't give two ****s about this whole issue. He plays lobbies on TF2Center, a well known community for the game TF2. This might also surprise you, but he doesn't proceed to cry or go ballistic if people call him "he" or "she" or "magic pony" either. You don't think there is any relevance to a joke targeting a particular minority group and asking people from that minority if they find it offensive\hurtful Do you think the best people to decide if certain jokes\comments are offensive are white, heterosexual males ? And no that doesn't mean that other people can't comment but surly the actual minority group targeted has more credibility ? The second line of this is a blatant strawman and is exactly the kind of hysterical bull**** I'm talking about. There's no reason for this. I'll tell you what Bruce, I'll let you solve that mystery on your own since the answer to that question is apparently so difficult to figure out yourself. My point was that if we were to do things your way and only value transgender opinion, guess what would happen? A lot of valid opinions would be completely weeded out solely because the people who had them weren't allowed to voice those opinions. Meanwhile, the transgender community would likely be split on the issue just as much as the community as a whole is, because no group is unified in it's beliefs or opinions. Lastly, it creates a problem where theoretically a minority group could use it's complete and total power of opinion on a subject matter to get all sorts of things done. Not to imply that would realistically happen, but to highlight how flawed this manner of thinking is. If for example a state is electing a senator, one is transgender and the other is not, and the transgender community of that state is claiming the opponent is transphobic and no one is allowed to comment on the matter except for the transgender community, well then guess who has all the tools they need to become senator; hell **** that, they can run for president. A theoretical of course, but that doesn't make it any less flawed. Personally though, again I'm more interested in the needlessly inflammatory statements and accusations that are being insisted upon. There's no reason to make statements like "men are the oppressors," nor is there any reason to even ask if I think only white men should comment on things. And yet you do it. Tell me Bruce, are you an adult or are you a gossip queen in middle school?

Does this matter? Do transgender people somehow magically have more valuable opinions than other people? I get where you're coming from, but this logic is ridiculous. It creates an environment where some people are listened to and others are not, AKA the exact sort of discrimination you claim to be fighting. Secondly, it also makes this very ignorant assumption that transgender people are somehow universally unified in their opinions on matters and are not unique human beings with unique perspectives and stances on things. Furthermore I can introduce you to a transgender person who couldn't give two ****s about this whole issue. He plays lobbies on TF2Center, a well known community for the game TF2. This might also surprise you, but he doesn't proceed to cry or go ballistic if people call him "he" or "she" or "magic pony" either.

Then why label men the oppressors? That's completely counter-intuitive. The last page cited multiple studies where the perceived sexism came from both genders, and yet we needlessly label men the oppressors? What purpose does this even serve? There's no point in it. Why are you needlessly insisting on a choice of words that raises tension and hostile attitudes for no reason whatsoever? Gender playing a role in inheritance is also completely new to me as I've never experienced this, and trust me I've seen a LOT of fights over inheritance. This is completely out of left field for me, and also something that I'd have to remind does not extend beyond the US even if it were true, as I know for a fact gender plays zero role in inheritance law. GamerGate got this accusation countless times, to the point it self-polled on reddit and 8chan. The result? The overwhelming majority of supporters are libertarian liberals. This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, this is a libertarian vs. authoritarian one. Even if it were proven GamerGate were conservative, your entire argument would be a meaningless ad hominem making the ridiculous suggestion that someone with conservative stances cannot be correct or offer valuable insight.

How did this thread get to page 4 and no one linked that video before me wtf?

I'd also just like to point out that.... Some might read my last post and wonder wtf is with the effort I put into re-defining it. Why am I not happy with "sexism" in regards to that one study and prefer "prejudice and stereotypes based on common personality traits encountered amongst genders?" Because sexism has a hateful, divisive tone to it, in my opinion. As Zwiebelchen states, yes of course he'd support equal pay for women. I'd be willing to place a bet there's not a single person on these forums who doesn't think women deserve equal pay. But when you afford these issues the title of "sexism" then it carries a tone of women being oppressed and men are the oppressors. Some women suddenly get worked up like paladins on a holy crusade whereas some men get offended and defensive because they perceive it as meaning they're bad. It seems like far too strong of a term to be used so commonly in this day and age, in my opinion. Alongside that, for the sake of argument, let's assume someone took my hypothesis of confidence, NOT gender, being the deciding factor on who gets hired with men simply being far more likely to have confidence. As such, the moment a study is done that compares men who lack confidence vs. women who lack confidence, men who have it vs women who have it and every combination that could feel relevant, suddenly the gender variable is shattered and confidence is proven to be the variable. One conclusion one might make is that since men are still far more likely to exhibit confidence, we should legislate what kind of application process takes place to try and diminish any gender gap issues as much as possible. If we did that, someone would get hurt. Let's say for example that it was decided we should only allow personal interviews and not hand written applications to get rid of any prejudice employers or universities assessing applicants may have when they see male or female on the application, instead requiring them to meet them in person and see firsthand who they like more based on their personal confidence and the like. Yknow who would get hurt? Shy people. Nervous people. Ugly people. I'm not joking; studies will tell you attractive people have an advantage on job applications too. Hell, in some cases the disabled can get hurt as many employers actively avoid the disabled out of a poor understanding of disabled worker's rights and a fear of accidently doing something illegal. (in itself, another example of how an effort to help a group can do just as much harm as it does good) You see? It's quid pro quo. For every measurement you take to help a group, another can get hurt. It's not that easy to find a working solution; a LOT of thought needs to be put into this kind of stuff and how to alleviate it, if at all. Screaming "sexism" and focusing solely on not discriminating by gender isn't going to bring about much progress, in my opinion. It's important to recognize the issues, but also to thoroughly understand the "why" of it and thoroughly think out any plans to alleviate it, if any at all.

So you brought a source, I brought a source, and this concludes with "sorry your source sucks and I refuse to watch it?" Why not just look for data? And what I meant by "why" is that there's a number of factors that can be the cause. We have absolutely no reason to assume sexism directly. For example, self-confidence is something that multiple studies have highlighted to do wonders for you. You can be completely unqualified for a job, but if you exhibit a lot of confidence, you may get the job over someone more qualified. What I'm saying is that they've not rooted out alternative explainations. There's a term for it in science that I'm forgetting....but a term for when you think you've proven a link, but you've possibly mistaken a link between A and C when infact it's B that shares a link with C and B just so happens to appear commonly where A does. My point is I consider labeling it sexism as rather lazy. It's like when you don't like a person and you say "because they're bad" or "because they're evil" without trying to explain WHY you don't like that person with actual definitive traits and words that don't have ambiguous blanket meanings. By all means, please do research the matter further because we could learn a lot from it and perhaps it's important we do, but I feel as though we're jumping to conclusions rather than evaluating all possibilities. I for one would not be surprised if confidence were the cause and that it just so happens men are more likely to exhibit confidence, and that the moment you develop a study that compares a guy lacking self-confidence to a woman lacking self-confidence (or to a woman who has confidence, etc etc) that suddenly the results are not divided by gender, but by the confident aura displayed. Yes, I realize the study focused on application papers where the only difference was male and female on the application. Perhaps we agree (or we disagree, depends entirely on how you look at it) but the difference is I find the explanation of "sexism!!" to sound lazy and reactionary whereas I think "people stereotype, confidence might be more common in men and thus when they only have papers to go off of, they show prejudice in that they'd rather take their shot with the male" would do a better job of pinpointing the issue. Not exactly in denial of prejudice and stereotyping being a cause for discrimination, it's just I think it would do better in furthering research to combat it instead of just saying "sexism" and trying to shame the person. We DO know the reason. It was a gift to him from a female friend.

So I took the test used in the studies (I presume) found here: http://www.radford.edu/~jaspelme/minority-groups/past_courses/Ambivalent%20Sex%20Scale%20_%20Moder%20Sexism%20Scale.pdf Unfortunately I see no explaination of what's considered a good or bad score, it merely seems clear that a higher score is bad, a lower score is good. I scored a 15 on Hostile Sexism and a 5 on Benevolent Sexism. Over half of my points for Hostile Sexism come from disagreeing somewhat with statements made about feminists. For example, one question is "Feminists are not seeking for women to have more power than men." I both brain farted and chose the "disagree somewhat" instead of the "disagree slightly" choice, and chose such a choice because wtf there's a lot of feminists with different views out there and some are downright misandrist, and for this I got a whopping 3-4 hostile sexism points. Over half of my 15 Hostile sexism points are from disagreeing slightly or somewhat with absolute statements regarding feminists. My 5 benevolent sexism points (whatever that is) come from accidently strongly disagreeing with "People often live happy lives without being romantically involved with members of the other sex" instead of strongly agreeing, OR perhaps I forgot to flip my score as the instructions said to do. Maybe I'm a derp but I screwed up with human error about thrice in this test; aka my benevolent should be a zero and my Hostile should be a 13 and my benevolent a 0. Alongside that I would like to criticize some of the wording used. There's a lot of "many" or "most" or an implied "all" statements where perhaps you agree such a type of person exists but disagree with the "many/most" term used. I hate these kinds of tests because people interpret "slightly disagree" in response to such statements in different ways, with some responding strictly and answering strongly disagree to combat the "most" part while others answer "somewhat disagree" to acknowledge it can happen at times, though not "most."

All the "studies" you linked basicly reference the same research paper. This particular research paper mostly focused on the economical aspects, i.e. likelyhood of being selected among equally qualified male and female applicants, payment, etc. Not only did it feature a surprisingly low number of samples to really be representatitve (only 64 per gender), but it also showed that the differences in payment and likelyhood of getting the job between males and females in science is not larger than in any other field or industry. Yes, there is sexism and unequal payment in science. Is that a problem? Yes. Is it any different in any other business or branch? Nope. Does that have anything to do with the gravestone poem outrage? Hell no. I want to thank you for at least clicking on one of the links, which is probably more than what anyone else has done, but it is not simply referencing the same research paper: that's literally only in the link in the first sentence of the Forbes article. Other points in numerous sources in those links: - 25% STEM positions occupied by women, despite female students matching or overperforming their male counterparts in primary/secondary higher education - UK is at 13-17% STEM by women - clear prejudice shown against women in STEM in the linked Verge article paper. - etc It was only brought up in response to Luckmann downplaying criticism against things he finds trivial, but which many find as discriminatory, such as the sexist shirt during the historic comet landing. You're right, it is wholly irrelevant to the limerick, but if it's brought up, I'm going to address it if I feel like it. 1) He's right, what does any of this have to do with the limerick? I wanna state this first and foremost, because this is akin to me saying there's sexism in the Middle East when wtf it's largely irrelevant to any of our lives and doesn't mean "there's sexism here too." I'm just jumping into this discussion now so I'm curious why are we discussing STEM? 2) "Primary and Secondary education" do not reflect performance on a University level. I wouldn't even compare the two, I don't think anyone else would either. There's very little that's similar between the ways a school tries to teach you things and the way a university tries to teach you things. Just because I did well in my history classes in High School doesn't mean I have any interest in pursuing history seriously on a university level. 3) "- clear prejudice shown against women in STEM in the linked Verge article paper." It cites: a.) Professors being less likely to take on women in their lab. b.) Women more likely to be sexually assaulted during field work c.) That professors showed bias towards male applicants when shown identical applications from both men and women. To B I say "no ****?" I would expect this anywhere. Guess which gender is more likely to be sexually assaulted in the bar across the street from me, in the stadium behind my apartment or in the grocery store down the street. To A and C, something I repeatedly fail to see is "why." These studies bring up intriguing points but then fail to try and explain the why of things, instead providing a simple "sexism" answer that feels like such a blanket statement. Interestingly I will be taking this: http://www.radford.edu/~jaspelme/minority-groups/past_courses/Ambivalent%20Sex%20Scale%20_%20Moder%20Sexism%20Scale.pdf It seems to be what was referenced by C.) Give me a bit because I wanna see how this turns out. 4) The issue is of course that there are counter points. Case and point: Mercedes Carrera is another you could look up. Intriguing young lady as not many can call themselves porn stars/scientists. This vid I'm linking just to point you in the right direction so you don't google her and just get porn. I recall she does discuss STEM in here but as you can see she also discusses GamerGate and other conflicts first. You could try perhaps searching her name and STEM on youtube to find more:

I mean it's not like standards are high at Kotaku, but at the same time you have to wonder....typically a company response at this point is to fire such an individual and use them as a scapegoat. Distance yourself from them and claim they were an anomaly and not reflective of standard company practices. They could've done this ages ago when the story first broke out, but they're keeping him. In some ways it could be seen as admirable that a company isn't scapegoating an employee but standing by them, but in others it's obviously very "wtf Kotaku" because he's provided little reason as to why he's a valuable asset. Is his boss a woman and is he sleeping with her too? Is Grayson like the world's best gigalo or something?

Thanks Bruce, this post was nice and meaningless. I'd highly recommend people skip over it. I also wanna point out the bitter irony in that the entire reason I felt voicing that opinion neccesary is because we had people on the GG side claiming that Obsidian locking these threads is proof they're against free speech and pro-censorship all the way, which simply isn't true. It's a failure to recognize the facts, such as how Obsidian has actively allowed and run a GG thread in the off-topic forums for months, or how the threads devolve into childish mudslinging. Still you seem to gloss over that fact and present it all as if I'm some snobby douche who goes into ALL threads going "SCOFF SCOFF SCOFF YOU ALL DON'T DEBATE AS GOOD AS ME." Hell no this is an online discussion and I'm here to chill and partake in discussions I enjoy. I screw up a lot too cause I'm relaxed. Right now I'm having a very difficult time trying not to call you out on your **** even more than I currently am (be ironic if this thread got locked cause of you and me). I pointed out what I pointed out because it was relevant to the discussion. Claiming the threads are locked on the grounds of Obsidian liking censorship is in blatant denial of all the back and forth personal jabs that went on that accomplish nothing. And of course, big surprise, you did not respond to any of the things I asked you to respond to. GG Bruce, I wonder why a lot of people have a strict policy of not bothering to respond to you. It's like you can't actually defend your stances when called out on them or something...Pretty weird, right? Nah sorry, didn't mean it as arguing, was just clarifying one last time. Sorry if it came off that way.

As I said, there's not much more to it than what's in his posts. Your point is he's not COMPLETELY happy about it, but there's no real affordance or attempt to understand why that is. If you wish to state he's not happy about it cause he's not happy with the person who complained fine. If your desire however is to say that Firedorn is upset with Obsidian and very begrudgingly agreed to change it against his own desires or the like, then I don't think he'll provide you with support for that. It's just a simple scenario of the practical choice vs. the emotional one. Firedorn, I think, would've loved to keep it in as a "**** you" to the guy who complained, but also understood the ramnifications of doing so and believed the removal was a kinder choice on behalf of Obsidian (which it seems he may have been wrong about, but that's besides the point). Overall, he decided keeping it in wasn't worth the hassle. I think we would've seen different action from Firedorn were it his game and were he on the receiving end of the hate mail instead of Obsidian on his behalf.

I just wish we could see serious debate attempts from both sides for once, but I just tried that and the thread died after I did. xD

Bruce, have you considered that I, with my law studies, might be well versed and practiced in what makes a productive discussion/debate when I need to be, and that you might be speaking from a place of ignorance? I don't mean this to sound snobby, but what I mean is that if you wanted, I could very well explain to you things that others are doing wrong if our interest is in actually having a serious discussion. Or have you considered that it may be proof I have a point when the entire thread seemingly shuts down the moment I start providing what I call a productive debate while calling out what I refer to do-nothing posts? Don't you think if I were just talking out my ass, there'd be more people agreeing with you instead of posts such as PrimeJunta's where he admits that he's posting nothing serious at this point cause he sees no reason to? So the ball is in your court: explain to me how I'm wrong about limericks taking jabs at one another, smug senses of superiority, exaggerations, strawmans and overreactions are not childish and can infact bring about productive debate and discussion. Or are you going to make a meaningless, empty statement about how there is no objectively superior way to discuss things and "muh feels" (or rather your feels) are just as meaningful and important?