Valsuelm

The King of modern feminism has arrived! Ok, for cereal: I'd been thinking it's been awhile since Bruce had started some thread about the injustices women suffer and how feminism is a good thing. I was actually beginning to wonder if the SJWs and mangina folks around here had come to see the light. Alas, I guess not. Do you live in a box Hurl? Seriously. That feminism has become a reviled thing by many is news to you? It's been a reviled thing by many and deservedly so at least as far back as when I was a kid (probably further). Limbaugh coined the term 'feminazi' over two decades ago, which became part of contemporary lexicon. While I'm no fan of Limbaugh, his criticisms of those he was referring to as 'feminazis' were very valid then (so no one is confused: Limbaugh is for equal rights under the law (as are the vast majority out there in the western world who are not fans of feminists), and he was far from the only person making those criticisms or observations. The feminist movement got poisoned a long long time ago. Organizations like NOW (which was the premier (maybe still is) feminist organization in the U.S. (as touted by the mainstream media) throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s), has been sailing on the Sea of Misandry since pretty much it's very inception. Equal rights for all is what it should be about. The word 'feminism' is sexist itself, even without the deserved negative connotations it's earned by the acts and words of many of it's loudest supporters. Most people in the western world are and have been for at least the better part of a century for equal rights. The good battle was fought and won in the west before most if not all of the people here were born. What's been going on in the name of 'feminism' since has largely been a disgrace. In a way Hurl looks at feminism in the way some look at the Confederate Flag. For some that flag is a great standard of liberty, freedom, rebellion, and other good things. They don't see the evils that others (who tend to not know their history) associate with the flag, or they dismiss them as that's not what the flag was originally about. And like Feminism, the meaning of the Confederate Flag was poisoned in the minds of many through the evil deeds of some who flew that flag. Is it unfortunate that Feminism and the Confederate Flag nowadays are something that they were never originally meant to be (at least in the minds of many good people who support(ed) them)? Sure thing. But it is what it is. Adapt and move on. Remember the history, but don't wrap yourself up in it's battle standards (be they a flag or a word) when others spouting evil are doing the same. The moral of the story: Be for equal rights. Don't be a feminist. Oh, and hey... enjoy the fact that you live in a nation (pretty sure most if not all here do) where those equal rights exist.

Well D&D system is better than what PoE has developed. That automatically gives it a head start. Of course people are excited. Is it? I really don't know. I do know that 3E was a step down from previous editions, but a step I could stomach. 4E was utter poop. I've really got no reason to believe that 5E is any good at all as WotC lost all credibility with me many years ago. I honestly don't like much of what I've seen Josh do to the PoE ruleset, but it still looks better than 4E to me, albeit not much. What would get me to play SCL would be a compelling story, and that's what likely is going to keep me playing PoE (assuming it has one) in spite of PoE having many modern design philosophies that I consider utter poop implemented in it's mechanics. In what ways exactly is 5E better than PoE? Lets say it tries to fix some same things that Sawyer did try with PoE, but it actually does it well.It also knows when not to change things that work. Having a rules system that is developed for 30+years vs one developed for 2 years.. hmm, hmm.. which one is better.. I wonder.. Ambiguous answer. I asked for some exacts. A couple of examples are in order, not more ambiguous opinion. And a great game need not have decades of development behind it. In fact, I'd say games that 'develop' over such a long period of time generally suck now. D&D was at it's best less than 2 decades in, it didn't take it 2 decades to get there, and it's been pretty much all downhill since the mid 90s. Other examples would be World of Warcraft, which reached it's peak in quality years ago, and Magic the Gathering, which reached it's peak in quality almost two decades ago. The best games are generally not 'evolving' their design over time, and especially not doing so in order to milk it's fanbase of more money as a primary motivation for doing so as all of the previously mentioned games do. While there are variants, we are playing the same game of chess people played long long ago.

Ha! My bad. I didn't even notice the naked chica until after I had posted. At which point I thought, 'eh.. we'll see if this makes it past the censors. It's not really suggestive or sexual in any way, just art I'd say.' The cover of the album. Here's the same song sans nude image:

Well D&D system is better than what PoE has developed. That automatically gives it a head start. Of course people are excited. Is it? I really don't know. I do know that 3E was a step down from previous editions, but a step I could stomach. 4E was utter poop. I've really got no reason to believe that 5E is any good at all as WotC lost all credibility with me many years ago. I honestly don't like much of what I've seen Josh do to the PoE ruleset, but it still looks better than 4E to me, albeit not much. What would get me to play SCL would be a compelling story, and that's what likely is going to keep me playing PoE (assuming it has one) in spite of PoE having many modern design philosophies that I consider utter poop implemented in it's mechanics. In what ways exactly is 5E better than PoE?

Do they have forums? Bruce you should create an account there and ask them if they'll have romance. I just checked the forums and people are already asking about it Yeah but Bruce is a promancer's pro. If anyone can successfully lobby for it, that would be Bruce. The promancer army is legion, our tentacles permeate all gaming mediums Also its actually a normal question to ask for Romance in a RPG, remember you guys with your aversion to Romance are the exceptions..not the norm A sword wielding promancer in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDi3cpedm5c

Is there actually some thinking here that Kotick is tough or something? The guy competes for the biggest #@($!( wuss award in the game industry yearly, and is about as intimidating as any overgrown brat ever is (which is to say not at all for anyone with a spine). There's a lot of people out there who would probably do more than just be tough on Kotick. He's an extremely disliked person amongst many who play or used to play World of Warcraft, as is the company he heads. And that's many of millions. That's just one group of gamers that can't stand the guy, there are others. If there was a national poll for biggest asswipe in the game industry he very well might win it.

I would imagine and hope in the same manner as patches were offered by most companies for many years and are still offered with some companies. Through a standalone installer, .exe, or compressed file to extract that you download from the software manufacturer's website or some other website that they designate.

No doubt. This case was different, the Pakistani men only abused and groomed white, British girls..no Asians So it was particularly appalling as here were these men basically practicing egregious sexual abuse and not thinking it was that bad because the girls they used weren't Muslim and therefore didn't need any kind of respect Just about no one who practices egregious sexual abuse thinks it's bad or has any real respect for their victim. Not having real respect for your victim is generally a prerequisite for abusing them, in any manner. The color of skin or the religion, of the perpetrator or victim, does not make it any less or more evil.

I'm absolutely no fan of PC/Cultural Marxism or doublespeak of any other nature. It's frankly fundamentally evil. That said, this guy is making way too much of the factor the paranoia of being labeled a racist (which is a paranoia that does exist) contributing to the authorities not doing something, as well as the fact that Pakistanis are allegedly the culprits (he talks as if they are the only culprits). Sexual abuse of children is far more widespread than most people in my experience think. It's a complex issue with many variables that might or might not apply in any given case. And it's certainly not a Pakistani only thing. I guarantee you there's Caucasian Brits born and bred on that island that engage in the same evils and get away with it. In fact, there have been two high profile cases of sexual abuse of children in the UK in the last couple of years that I'm aware of. Here's just two articles on those: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15078957-sweeping-child-abuse-scandal-shakes-bbc-and-other-british-institutions?lite http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2897836/How-Prince-Andrew-s-sex-abuser-friend-Jeffrey-Epstein-kept-list-nicknamed-Holy-Grail-great-good-Bill-Clinton-Tony-Blair-Mick-Jagger-Donald-Trump.html There have been other high profile cases of rampant sexual abuse where people looked the other way through the years. An excellent documentary on what's arguably been the biggest is here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/secrets-of-the-vatican/ Why do people get away with it? Well, that's complex. A lot of people look the other way. A lot. A lot of people don't perceive the problem. It's often very hard to prove even when a kid comes forward (and they more often than not don't until they are much older, if they ever do), and there are a hell of a lot of evil perverts out there. I could tell numerous horror stories (I have an immediate family member who worked internal affairs and abuse cases at the state level for decades, I spent a year working at a drug rehab when I was younger (it might or might not surprise you to learn that many who abuse drugs were abused as kids), and I have people close to me that I met as an adult that were abused when they were younger), and more often than not the perpetrator got away with it (legally anyways, there are ultimately often other consequences). It's heartbreaking stuff really, as often the trauma of having suffered the abuse consumes the victim in very negative long lasting ways. I know of people who were born perfectly healthy who ended up in mental hospitals (some as permanent residents) due to the trauma they suffered as a kid. I've seen enough that I actually rank certain types of sexual abuse of children to be a worse crime than murder. Anyways... I'll stop at that as I could write a book on the evils of sexual abuse and the subject is the evils of PC. Here's some videos on that: Yuri Bezmenov The Narrative: The origins of Political Correctness http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=29077 The History of Political Correctness http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=28996 CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M Patrick Henningsen - Hour 1 - The Politically Correct Matrix http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2013/12/RIR-131223.php Cultural Marxism for Dummies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUt8iHVTO4w&list=PLVCYZiC20h34ooDIC3BjPSiIDlmM9pvT9

And because I invoked Westerberg, I can't not post one or two of his gems. These are both two of my all time faves lyrically. Pure Genius. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wigclcg3stc

Just watched Adult World. It's soundtrack is almost exclusively made up of the music of The Handsome Furs, a band I had somehow not heard before. It's a great soundtrack. Here's two samples: <snip> They somehow remind me of both MGMT and The Replacements at the same time, and I'm digging them more than MGMT (who I like).

This poll should have been conducted through the backer portal methinks and only opened to those of us who actually have physical goods coming to us. Also, if Paradox and Obsidian go with option one, I hope that those who would prefer to wait for the disks can be accommodated.

Add a bit of sugar to that along some fresh mint leaves, allow it to sit for a little bit, then pour over ice, and you have a very dangerous concoction. Dangerous in the sense that it's so good and smooth if blended right, many will be apt to drink more than is generally prudent before you know it. If I use rum I can make a drink with those ingredients that's almost pure rum (the only other liquid is any ice that melts) that a 5 year old would suck down. It's that smooth of a drink. Gin is awesome too in my opinion, but the alcohol taste factor of gin is impossible to hide in my experience (if we're talking a drink with gin as the main ingredient that is). I used to sell a lot of the rum version of this drink in my bartending days, as more people like rum than gin (also, you're not going to reach that generally imprudent stage as fast with rum).

Don't confuse someone who knows what they are talking about with a know-it-all. There's plenty I don't know. Unlike many others though, I generally don't converse or opine about things I don't know (on rare occasion I will make this mistake, but if I do, I'll openly acknowledge it). Rather, I listen (or read), and/or go research whatever it is if it's something I think is worthy of spending time learning about (note this doesn't mean just reading a wiki entry, which seems to be the extent what oh so many consider research around here). Of the things I do know about, I tend to know more than most as I generally spend a lot more time than most learning about whatever. There is no persona here. I don't ever pretend to be someone or something I am not, unless the very purpose of the conversation is to pretend. While it's hard to know for certain with any given individual you meet on an internet forum, I like to think that most of the people here are not as deluded as Gromnir (the only person in my history of interwebbing that I've ever found cause enough to set to ignore). If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't spend time on this forum.

There's two ways to interpret that, but in either case, no. I don't expect news I read to have ignorance. I expect whomever is doing the story to actually thoroughly research whatever it is they are covering and present all of the facts, ignoring none. That is what journalism is supposed to be. Is that what most journalists do? In the main stream media? Certainly not. In the wider media? Hard to say as there's quite a lot out there. If you meant we should all have a fair amount of ignorance (which I certainly hope you didn't mean as you'd pretty much be a hopeless case if so), no, and the reasons for this should be obvious.

I wonder if the people in the U.S.S.R. referred to it as 'big government run amok'.

And Jon Stewart Vals, are you sad to see him going? Not really. I generally don't get emotionally involved on what a TV personality does or doesn't do. I'm indifferent in regards to what Jon does. Good for him I suppose as he's wanting to go do something else.

If every mainstream media anchor that mislead the public got suspended for 6 months with no pay tomorrow, about the only ones that would be working would be the brand new ones (if there are any) that just haven't had a chance to mislead us yet.

In the U.S., police need a warrant or reasonable suspicion you've been involved in a crime to legally pat you down. What 'reasonable suspicion' is, is of course somewhat ambiguous. It's a fairly simple concept however that can get complex given various scenarios. You really should read the U.S. Constitution. The 4th amendment is pretty clear in what it states. Note that many consider the 'reasonable suspicion' bar to be too low and a violation of the 4th amendment. Legally however, since 1968, that's all the police need. But again, it's an ambiguous threshold, so it's something that's open to abuse, as well as something that might be used by a defense attorney to lambast an officer on the stand should the case go to trial.

Then you're pretty much screwed whatever you do, yes? But living is better than dying? So you see no difference between a police officer and a random person on the street? I specifically excluded those because if you're in that situation you're effectively screwed (see above). And why would there be a great cost (excluding, again, unlawful and immoral)? Are you or the person you're shielding breaking the law? Wouldn't this come under the heading of consequences of breaking the law? This seems highly unlikely unless you're not paying attention, but assuming this is the situation, its a far different scenario to misunderstand an officer than to willfully defy one. And we're back to sticking it to the man. No or not necessarily in regards to anything you're saying above. As I've said a few times now, what to do, why to do it, and any given scenario is entirely situational. Sometimes they're simple scenarios, but often they are not. I'm not taking this conversation further with you as you keep imagining things that were never stated and are not true, such as equating questioning authority to 'sticking it to the man'. They are certainly not one and the same, and this has now been repeatedly mentioned. If you truly think that, then my sentiments toward you are as they are towards anyone who thinks 2+2=5.

You might fail to comply with the police for any number of reasons. just as you might fail to comply with anyone for any number of reasons. Here's a few of the top of my head though: What the cop is demanding of you might be unlawful, it might be immoral, if you comply there will be great cost to yourself or someone you care about, if you comply your life might be effectively ruined (ie: you're guilty of something that will likely send you to jail for some serious time), you might misunderstand the officer, the officer's directions might not be clear, and so on. The same is true of having to defend yourself. Though a situation where one might have to defend oneself or someone else from violence from a police officer is less common than a situation where one might not comply, it is sadly not too uncommon. What the better course of action is, is entirely situational. It might be to cooperate fully and even get arrested, it might not. It might not be clear what the better course of action is when the scenario is unfolding for the people in it either. Nor might people take the better course of action at the time, whatever that is (sometimes people are in Catch-22 scenarios). And whatever course of action is best, whether taken or not, few people are justifiably assaulted or killed by police (or anyone else) on a moral or ethical basis. Question authority. Stand up to it if need be (or flee it even). Obviously one generally doesn't want to get injured or killed, so going along with BS sometimes is prudent. However, sometimes it is not. If everyone just bowed down to authority all the time everyone except those in authority would effectively be slaves. I could give you numerous examples, some of them personal (as yea, I've not always fully complied with police myself (and I have no criminal record)), but here's one video of some folks who aren't fully complying with police and are perfectly within their rights to do so, and another video of very good advice on how to handle the police if you're ever in a situation where you have to deal with them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc Note: What someone is within their rights to do varies from nation to nation, and sometimes to a large degree. What I write here, and what these videos show and discuss, applies fully if you're in the U.S., it might not apply fully if you live somewhere else.

What makes sense?

I never tried to dispute it. All I said is that just because the monopoly of violence is held by the state doesn't mean that any action of a police officer automatically means the officer will commit violence. And you apparently are asserting that anything a police officer asks you, whether its "Let me see your ID", "Pull over, you're speeding" or "Stop stabbing people and put down the knife" is somehow the time to not comply and resist? I admit I don't get your point unless its "Lets stick it to the man! Down with pigs!" Or I have the common sense to (a) get out of the rain and (b) let people do their jobs in a larger society. But at this point, I'm sure there's no real dialogue to be had here. No one is saying "Lets stick it to the man! Down with pigs!". All we were saying is that cops ultimately have the threat of death behind their words. Will all cops assault you if you fail to comply? No, but many will. Will all cops kill you if you defend yourself? No, but many will, and the state will almost always support them in both cases. Even much of the populace blindly will. That's all that was being said. Whether it's wise to comply or not is entirely situational, and not really relevant to the point that was made.

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength" "Protect and Serve" "We have always been at war with Eastasia"

The point was, that government power is backed up with the ultimate threat of deadly force. Neither of you are able to dispute this, you only assert that you think it would be unwise to not comply. You bow down before the threat ever needs to overtly be made. Nevertheless, it is always there whether you acknowledge it or not. Step out of the box.