Valsuelm

You can stop your trolling anytime now.

A whole bunch of misinformation in this one to make many an ignorant hateful racist living in ****ed up fantasyland happy. I recommend fact checking before posting things such as this.

How easy is it to put on a mask and pretend to be someone else and fight for someone else's cause and ideals? If I was a radical Right-Wing Neo-Nazi, how could I use someones faith I don't like for the benefit of myself and my own ideologies? (This happened a lot during the worst of GamerGate, Anti-GG dressing up as Pro-GG, harassing. Pro-GG dressing up as Anti-GG, harassing. This can happen just as much in the real world as it does in the virtual world. I remember that a lot of people thought the attacks in Norway, by Breivik, was fundamental/radical Islamist before the story unfolded). It might be controversial of me to even ask these aloof questions and speculate/analyze like this but... who benefits from these attacks, in the long run? And what political ideology has been on the rise all of 2014 in Western Europe? EDIT: The point I want to convey here is: Don't jump to conclusions until the story unfolds, and more research has been conducted. Agent provocateurs on all levels are indeed a thing. A not uncommon thing.

So why is it that the opponents of mass immigration are the radicals and not those who are for such things? The rise in crime due to immigration plus a bad economic situation and terrorist attacks both in Europe as well as from extremists that migrate from Europe has drawn more support to far right groups across Europe. Mind you these are their national equivalents of the KKK or Neo Nazis, they aren't reformist and aren't very likely to begin mass deportations of immigrants if they get their chance. Even if they have good point extremism ins't the way to go, but in the face of unfaltering opposition the only possible response is violence. From all I've seen for the most part the association of those who are against the mass immigration that is and has been occurring for the last couple of decades in most of the west with 'far right groups' is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize the position and argument of those who have issues with mass immigration. Classic label them a 'bad name' or guilt by association (never mind if there's an actual association or not, that doesn't matter) to de-legitimize the argument. The main steam media is and has been for the most part pro immigration for a long time now, which shouldn't be a surprise given who generally owns it. The very fact that some groups are labeled as 'far right' should ring alarm bells, whether they be generally against immigration or not. This label is pretty much only ever used to marginalize an argument, and sadly it works on the more ignorant out there. ie: in a somewhat related issue, it's purely asinine that those who are generally nationalists are considered 'far right' these days as there are oodles of people from all schools of political thought that embrace the merits of nationalism, just as oodles of people from all schools of political thought have issues with mass immigration and are not members of the KKK or neo-nazis. That's pure propaganda designed to marginalize the argument and merit discussions of nationalism, just as it is in regards to the subject of immigration and other issues. 'You're against immigration? You must be some fringe far right loony!' So sayeth the modern dogma preached by talking heads bought and paid for by evil folks who generally want mass immigration and a divided populace. Neo-nazi's and the KKK should almost never make the news because they rarely do anything newsworthy, yet they are invoked often to marginalize. In fact, it's been more than a decade since I've read an article or seen anything where those two groups are mentioned where marginalization is not a goal of said article or media presentation. Successfully associate someone(s) or an idea with either of those groups and you've completely shut down their argument in the minds of many an ignoramus. For anyone really paying attention, it's really as ridiculous as someone saying 'Joe likes hamburgers, and so does the KKK!!' and then idiots believing that not only hamburgers are bad but Joe and everything about him or that he'd ever say is bad, crazy, evil, nutty, etc., never mind if any of this is true or what Joe actually has to say. There are a real lot of people that are not really paying attention at all though, or are half-assing it, that fall for this brainwashing trick. All that said, the issue of immigration/emigration is complex and the relevant discussion points vary both in terms of specifics and degree depending on the nation we're discussing. In general though, both extreme positions, that of wide open borders and completely closed ones (and even wanting to mass deport millions of legal residents) are beyond asinine, and neither deserve much discussion in the media as they are positions that have as much merit as the occasionally put forth idiotic at best idea of nuking the whole of the middle east. Yet both get oodles of attention while the complex realities are nearly completely ignored. One should ask themselves why.

So why is it that the opponents of mass immigration are the radicals and not those who are for such things?

It's not a left/right issue. Nothing really is other than the very issue of the false left/right paradigm itself. The 'gun debate' entered the conversation via what apparently was essentially two trolls posts. The first being by a moderator of this forum. And then the second follow up: Well, it probably makes more sense than arming copy editors would... Apparently they didn't get the 'no laughter aloud' memo, and ironically another mod sunk to the level of telling someone(s) to 'STFU' when the conversation went further and more serious. Poor form all around. @ Hassat: You completely misunderstand the discussion that occurred if you think it's about someone's 'insecurity'. If you find yourself hating anyone, let alone a large group of people, for any reason whatsoever, check yourself. Hate is irrational at best, generally grows out of ignorance, and leads to downright evil things.

Of what?

Fair enough. I have not read the manga (forgot there was one), and likely never will. Not due to lack of interest but lack of time. My backlog of things to read is already at the point where I'm set for the next few years at least. That said, I very much appreciate that written source material is nearly always superior to someone's cartoon/movie/play interpretation of it. And perhaps one day I will get around to reading the Ghost in the Shell manga. Of all the anime movies I've seen I recall Ghost having one of the most interesting worlds.

He might be right, seems every driver here is a self centered idiot. Speak for yourself. And it's very doubtful he's right, but even if he is in that regards I'd argue the cost for us to even find out is far too high. Wait, you trust the people that are driving around you? How terribly naive. I drive like everyone else is an idiot, because it is true. Like with everything else, trust is earned. Believe it or not some drivers are indeed trustworthy on the highway. Having once had a job that saw me log 10s of thousands of miles a year behind the wheel, I picked up a few things your average driver doesn't have in regards to figuring out who to trust . Regardless of that though, yes, one should always drive defensively. Driving defensively however does not mean I need to have contempt for everyone else on the road, nor wish to deny them or infringe upon their basic right of travel at will, or privacy during that travel.

In the U.S. at least, since the early 90s yes. Which has lead to more than one tragedy.

"Even if everyone in the office was armed it wouldn't have helped them one bit." Nonsense. When was the last time two armed gunmen walked into a place like a gun club, military barracks, police office, or anywhere else where everyone there was armed, shot everyone there (~10 people) dead using only fairly standard handheld weaponry, and then got away without serious injury (if not entirely uninjured) while shooting random people on the getaway? Never happened? Right. And it never will. But hey, in your world an entire religion is the problem, rather than a handful of evil people. You saying 'Islam in France' is the problem is as legitimate as saying 'Hamburger Eaters' are the problem the next time a non-vegan blows a bunch of people away somewhere on earth.

He might be right, seems every driver here is a self centered idiot. Speak for yourself. And it's very doubtful he's right, but even if he is in that regards I'd argue the cost for us to even find out is far too high.

How many people get robbed and killed/seriously injured in the streets vs how many people accidentally shoot themselves/others? Well, you don't have to be a genius to know which of these two things happen more often. ''Bunch of civilians'' says it all, your distrust to the general ''populace'' is disturbing. The strange thing is, though, you trust them with dangerous things like cars. But he doesn't. He's all for self driving cars and thinks that they will prevent accidents and save lives.

it would make more sense to make the story take place somewhere other than in Newport City/Japan I haven't watched Ghost in the Shell in over a dozen years. I recall it being a good movie but I don't recall the locale being overly central to the plot. Really, I don't care where it takes place or what color/race whoever is cast is in any movie unless it's central to the story. That said, I do not expect modern Hollywood to make a good live action version of Ghost in the Shell. They might surprise me and I hope they do, but I doubt they will.

I actually have a post half composed in that other thread to answer this, but the short of it is the answer is already half in that thread within the data linked therein coupled with data that's been linked many times in other threads regarding crime statistics, and the answer is you have a far far far better chance (more than a hundred times better) of finding yourself in an unfortunate situation where a weapon might save you or someone else vs finding yourself in an unfortunate accident with a weapon. I'll finish that post at some point in the coming days, but you can go find the data yourself amongst the CDC and FBI published statistics.

And you're a moderator? Just ...

Paul Simon performing songs from Graceland in Zimbabwe 1987

The best thing for something like that is other armed people at the office. Really. There is no 'balance'. The proposition that we should make laws or rules that govern everyone to prevent a random lunatic from doing super unusual evil deed X is steeped in fear, ignorance, and is lunacy itself. Not only are things like you mention super rare (there's a handful a year throughout the entirety of western civilization that is made up of of over a billion people; oh, and almost all of them happen in places where guns are essentially banned), people who are inclined to pick up a weapon and start using it on people because they had a bad day don't follow laws or rules. It really truly astounds me how this simple fact escapes so many people. "I was going to go on a murderous spree but them pesky ban on weapons laws/rules stopped me' said or thought no one ever.

Without knowing who did it or why, there's really not much to discuss. It could be what the media is going to say it is: Muslim radicals pissed off about a cartoon on Jihad. It could be a false flag attempt of some sort. It could be a couple of evil MFers who just wanted to go kill some people and stir up trouble. It could be a hit on an individual(s) for something completely unrelated to cartoons depicting Muslims or whoever. It could be something else entirely. There's not too much to prevent these things in any of the cases I listed above (other than some strange scenario under 'something else entirely'). The best thing would be to make it so the payoff for the perpetrators is minimal or doesn't exist, and given the nature of western society right now, that unfortunately isn't a very realistic option in many places (such as Paris).

So on one hand you want to make this a free speech issue and on the other you want to report others who would exercise that speech to the authorities... And never mind that it's not possible that the cartoon linked is the one that allegedly upset the men who perpetrated the killings. Go you...

Well, it probably makes more sense than arming copy editors would... Yea.. because if the copy editors were armed they might have been able to defend themselves rather than be mowed down like helpless grass. And banning weapons would have prevented an attack by what is likely a foreigner. Oh wait... the weapons used are already banned in France...

She doesn't have the breast for it, also I'm predicting outrage due to the fact that she isn't Asian. Maybe from the whackoloons that try and turn everything into a race issue, but it won't be the consensus. Japanese love Caucasians for the most part, and a large chunk of anime characters out there are drawn decidedly not Asian looking, including most if not all of the characters in Ghost in the Shell. Casting a live action Anime movie with predominately Caucasians would make sense.

Eh... I disagree. Chrono Trigger A Link to the Past Nethack Diablo Warcraft 3 Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 2 Planescape Torment World of Warcraft in late Vanilla and early BC Civilization 4: BTS I could name more. All of the above were amazing games, and widely acclaimed. Not for everyone of course, but nothing is, and out of the people who loved those games you won't find many stating that they'd want much changed in them. ie: I doubt too many who backed PoE who did so because the spirit of Baldur's Gate was primarily channeled would want to change much about that game. Yes, there are a couple minor things I'd change with all but the first three (those really are perfect), but they are mostly UI changes. ie: The one thing I'd change in the original BG is the tedium of the inventory system, or remove the XP cap (but a mod can do that), and that's really about it. BG2 I'd remove the 'romances' and revert to the more open world of BG1. Anon. We're talking about a major design decision that is not ignorable, not a minor UI issue or things that are ignorable. Obviously, I'm still going to play the game, and hope it's good. But the decision in regards to Combat XP and a few other biggies give me reservations in regards to the direction the game design was taken in. 'If it's not broken don't fix it' comes to mind. I just hope all the fixing of things that weren't broken doesn't diminish the quality of the game experience. Unfortunately I don't know of a single game out there that had a lot of things fixed that weren't broken come out for the better. I most certainly am hoping that PoE is the exception.

Can anyone else confirm that this is true? If so, I'm very disappointed. Very.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnfbV75WC4k