Valsuelm

I used to like flying, then we got the TSA, and now I fly a small fraction of what I used to.

Truly Inspirational:

The piece is magical, impressive: Also, best Disney animated movie in three decades in my opinion.

If that's actually a form of moderation on this forum and what's going on then I protest as yes, it messes with everyone reading the thread, and is not a good form of moderation.

Not really, irreverence is. Insulting can certainly be a part of irreverence, but something blasphemous requires something held sacred, in high regard. In the case of this thread that's considered to be people's opinions of cRPGs, not the people themselves. The post that initiated this discussion was insulting a group of people, not being irreverent to their opinions. Blasphemous: ' )#@$ you Zeus!' Not blasphemous: '@)#*$ you for believing in Zeus!' I agree that a more apt word for this thread would be 'heretical'.

Starts being homopohibic? LOL. 'So I was surfing the web yesterday hun and I came across this website, and oh.... Mai.... GAWD I can't even speak of it the horrors it contained. I was never scared of homos before! errrr... wait.. we're not supposed to call them that right? Oh nevermind.. .anyways... I don't know if I can handle it when Johny comes over for dinner tomorrow. I mean, he's been here numerous times, I've always known what he is, but after seeing that website, he scares me now! They all do!' LOL. Show me the website that illicits the fear of homosexuals in someone. Or did I misunderstand and we are talking about a fear of hominids (though that website would also be amusing)? Considering you wrote this Bruce and your seeming irresistible magnetic draw to anything and everything cultural marxist, I'll go with my first instincts. Sadly, I'm guessing we're talking the former and not the latter. 'Homophobia' is a really bad word as it is commonly used, used as an insult and to belittle something/someone who doesn't exist in tangible numbers, and by folks who fundamentally don't understand either what a phobia is or the meaning of the related suffix, nor understand what a 'homo' is outside of the slang. It's also a combative word, designed not just to obfuscate the true meanings of 'homo' or phobic' to those who don't already know (the young in general) and twist the meanings in the minds that already do, to remove thought, logic, and reality from the discussion but also to divide those having it. Giving those that use it a false sense of enlightenment over those it's aimed at who are given a stigma of cowardice amongst other negatives. It does it's job well on those grounds. I'm sure, somewhere out there, there is someone that is actually afraid of homosexuals (there's someone out there afraid of grasshoppers too), but I have yet to meet such a person or hear of them outside of unsubstantiated rumor. They're like the boogie man or the Yeti. There are oodles of people afraid of hominids though, that's actually quite common, but I don't think that's what we're talking about, there was mention of LGBT afterall. It's unfortunate that such a misleading and misinformed word had made it into the modern lexicon this last decade, as well as those who use it in it's commonly used manner to sink to such a low level of intellectual discussion. But then they generally aren't aware of where such words come from. Bellyfeel me my blackwhite newspeak!

Finally something blasphemous. Well done, my good sir! I wouldn't call that blasphemous as much as a misinformed attempt to insult. There are oodles of blasphemous posts in the first few pages of this thread that are more informed and don't attempt to insult.

If you like video game music, especially console video game music, and don't know who Smooth McGroove is, enjoy: Watch in youtube for the playlist of oodles of other covers.

I've known and watched a lot of prosecutors. She's the cutest one I've seen. Wish I knew what she was saying. Again Oby. Please stop linking non-English media in this English language forum, without providing an English translation, even if it's of a hot prosecutor.

You're an extra special level of brainwashed if you think taking a gender studies course is required to understand modern feminism, or a course in most anything to understand whatever it is the course is attempting to convey. And one would have to live under a rock to have reached adulthood and not have spoken to a modern feminist. They are not rare creatures.

It is insulting to both men and women, anyone who thinks for themselves really. I know more than a few women who are insulted and disgusted by modern feminism.

You haven't watched the videos I linked earlier have you? No I haven't, I don't think videos carry that much credibility. I prefer links with references like that link you provided about effectiveness of sanctions against South Africa Seriously? You don't think interviews with people, pictures, motion pictures, and actually discussion you can hear has credibility? While the videos I linked don't really have any first person interviews as they're discussing an ideology, videos are of the utmost importance if you're going to learn about many subjects as no article about an interview can ever beat the actual interview. In addition, a written article, no matter how well written or cited, is much more open to misinterpretation than a video with a face and a voice for reasons that have everything to do with how effective various forms of communication are. Video is second only to in person discussion in many instances. You've closed yourself off to a great deal of information if you don't watch videos. And as for citation, some videos have it, some don't, but the onus of homework on a particular subject you're watching is then upon you (which is where it really is even with citations). Every video you ever watch should be researched, that's how you learn. If you don't watch, you don't learn, if you don't research you don't learn. You effectively close your mind to innumerable possibilities. Which really explains a bit in regards to how much you tow the official popular line on so many subjects. Insofar as the subject at hand, I linked the videos as they (if you watched them) would introduce you to some concepts and ideology I'm pretty sure you are not familiar with, as much of what you've asserted to believe in on these forums is partially derived from the concepts I linked. There are definitely articles out there on the subject at hand (with citations too), but I'm not going to bother go dig for links for someone who actually thinks videos on whatever it is we're talking about aren't relevant or something that can be enlightening. Not to mention the articles I've read on the issues don't tackle what the videos convey as good as the videos do (if you watch them, and do your homework on what they bring up). The only scenario I can think of that doesn't involve ignorance on your part in regards to refusing to watch videos anyone links here is if you're deaf. As for a deaf person I could certainly see where watching videos on youtube would be problematic as the closed captioning of most videos is inaccurate. Are you deaf or do you just choose to be ignorant?

You haven't watched the videos I linked earlier have you?

Ya know, 'bossy' is minor league on the sexist scale if we're to believe it's sexist. Or if we're to assume that there are sexist words to begin with. Let's talk about the word 'bitch'. If you call a woman a bitch it generally has different meaning than if we call a man a bitch. Is that bad? Should we ban it due to the differences? Will we need to come up with another singular word for a female dog? What singular word will we use in lieu of 'bitch' to get our meaning across if someone is one? What word will we use instead of 'bitch' to describe someone who is using it in it's verbal capacity? What singular word will we use instead of 'bossy' to describe someone who is being such? Will banning either of these words solve any problem at all? Will banning either of these words create problems? Will banning either of these words not limit the vernacular of the mind? Does limiting the vernacular of the mind limit it's capabilities? Does limiting the vernacular of a people limit their abilities to communicate effectively? How do we ban these words? Make it a crime to utter them? What will be the punishment? How do we do this when such a thing as the First Amendment exists? Should we just ignore the First Amendment when we want to? Do we just socially ostracize someone who dares utter these words? Is socially ostracizing someone who would use one of these words a good thing? Is socially ostracizing anyone for saying a word a good thing? Is socially ostracizing anyone ever a good thing?

My apologies. I misread to a certain extent what you wrote, I think in part due to the extended ().

So you think banning a word is a good intentioned thing? Also, really? You've never heard of a female touted as a good leader? If we're talking about a girl, and not a woman than yea.. I could see that. It is a very rare kid indeed that is a good leader. But if we're talking about a woman, that's another story. Granted, good leaders of either sex aren't exactly the majority of the population, but they're out there in both sexes. If you're at all familiar with history there are a number of female leaders who have been considered good. If you're at all familiar with modern politics there are a number of female politicians who have been labeled good leaders (though I'd argue most of them are not, but also argue most male politicians who are called good leaders are not, but that doesn't change the fact that some folks call them that). One could look other places in society as well. Teachers, bosses (should we ban this word too due to it's similarity to 'bossy'?), company leaders, etc. A really good teacher is often a good leader (I've had some really good female teachers that I would call good leaders, haven't you?). You've really never met a female you yourself would call a good leader? That's all it takes to know of one. If you haven't either you don't know very many people or the problem you think is 'out there' is within you. Really... the whole oppressed female thing at this point is 100% hogwash in 2014 U.S.A. and this 'bossy' thing is 100% contrived (take a look at the sponsors for this initiative). Are there oppressed females out there? Heck yea.. and so there also be oppressed males. Usually it isn't a function of their sex why they're oppressed. And genuine sexism goes both ways in this world, just as genuine racism goes multiple ways. But even if women were horribly oppressed, banning words won't undo that oppression. Banning a word has never undone any oppression. Those that would ban a word are interested in controlling your mind, they have no good intentions.

Not really, no you didn't. If that's what you saw.... well.... I'm probably wasting my time right now.... so I'll stop.

If you are only vaguely aware of USAPATRIOT, then you may be more qualified to speak about it that the people who voted it into law. http://books.google.com/books?id=Y_Ej_RA5Bf0C&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f=false That's some healthy lawmaking, right there. Unfortunately I have an aversion to anything associated with Michael Moore.... It's a well deserved aversion, but even Moore has a hand in a few good things. The above just illustrates what's also illustrated and discussed elsewhere: that the 'Patriot Act' was shoved through congress without being read. That's important, but also important if not moreso is since that time congress and everyone else has had more than enough time to read it, and yet a majority of congress continues to vote for the renewal of expiring provisions and our President signs it into law, repeatedly (despite the fact that much of it is illegal on Constitutional grounds), whenever the occasion arises. We as a nation continue to elect people who either don't care about our rights and the Constitution, are too stupid to realize what they are, or are downright evil and want to take them away. None of that bodes well for us.

If your goal is for the populace of a nation to suffer and perhaps kill a great many innocents then sure, sanctions work. At their best sanctions are a bunch of hot air for the most part (which in regards to Russia they will be), at their worst (something they are all too often, ie: Iraq) they're downright evil. Okay interesting perspective but I don't agree that sanctions are ineffective. Both the change in Iran and South Africa's attitude towards international pressure about certain policies are testimony to that. But I will say this, if the government of a particular country doesn't care about the suffering of there citizens then the sanctions won't be as effective. If you take North Korea for example the leaders of that country still lived a life of luxury but there citizens suffered and starved to death in there hundreds of thousands ...but that mass loss of NK lives is irrelevant to the Jong-il family South Africa is an anomaly in regards to sanctions, and if they even worked there is questionable. It's very noteworthy that the sanctions that ultimately were imposed on South Africa came about due to a great deal of pressure on the U.S. government from it's citizens and grassroots movements in the U.S. Both the U.S. government and the U.K. government (Mr. and Mrs. Sanctiondecider-Giver on planet earth) were more than happy to allow South Africa their apartheid system before it became political suicide for U.S. representatives to not impose them. Without so much pressure from the U.S. citizenry those sanctions would never have happened. And this is the only instance of sanctions in history I can think of that came about this way. Normally, and in every other case I can think of 'sanctions' are an aggressive imperialistic tool initiated on levels in society that are anything but grassroots, whose goals tend to not what they are advertised to be to the world at large and are anything but noble. (see Sarex's earlier linked documentary for a good example) In regards to sanctions on Iran... I don't think they accomplished all that much really, at least insofar in what they were advertised to try and accomplish. It remains to be seen what the ultimate affect of sanctions will have though. And I think it's definitely debatable if they're even a good idea to begin with as the ultimate affect of them may blow up in the faces of those imposing them (possibly just about literally). Iran is one of the more interesting subjects in the world though, and one of the most mis-advertised in the western world. If you want to see a decent documentary on what sanctions can do to a nation watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHn3kKySuVo You might just change your mind on the idea that sanctions are a good thing. There's another documentary out there on the subject that's even better but I can't recall the name of it right now (watched it years ago). Of course that the U.S. and U.K. even hold the power they do to impose sanctions on anyone is a troublesome issue in and of itself, and on many levels, many of which don't reach face value for your average person. But that's a world banking system thing, didn't ya know?

I know Canada is one and the other one slips my mind..... No, Canada isn't one. Canada still has a queen. Puerto Rico is probably the closest thing we have to a 51st state (not considering D.C. of course), and it's move to become a state has been shot down a couple of times snow. People seem fixated with the nice round number of '50'. In reality the greatest likelihood for a 51st state would be if one of the existing states split, and while I think that's a long shot right now, there is a growing movement in a number of states to split apart that I do think may gain real traction as time goes on.

Sanctions absolutely work, but they take time to work and you need a certain level of severity to be meaningful If your goal is for the populace of a nation to suffer and perhaps kill a great many innocents then sure, sanctions work. At their best sanctions are a bunch of hot air for the most part (which in regards to Russia they will be), at their worst (something they are all too often, ie: Iraq) they're downright evil.

I'm happy to watch that video but I still need an answer. Do you guys think that Serbia was treated unfairly by NATO in respects to the Bosnian War? I think there is far more than has met the eye of most of the people reading this forum in regards to Serbia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, etc. I think there is far more than has met the eye of even those looking closely at the situation (ie: Chinese embassy go boom accident my ass). I think that you should watch the video Sarex linked. I think in this day and age NATO has lost all pretenses of being what it was supposed to be (a defensive alliance) and has morphed into an imperialist tool in the eyes of anyone who pays attention and doesn't gobble up the propaganda NATO and many of it's members serve up regularly. Some have said it's always been just an imperialist tool, I'm not sure they are wrong. I think NATO definitely treated Serbia 'unfairly' and was acting as an aggressor as well as the main instigator in the war despite the official overtones otherwise. And I think that anyone who looks into what went on during the wars, and what's gone on since will come to that conclusion if they let facts and not propaganda or misplaced loyalties reign supreme. And for the record, I am neither Serbian nor Bosnian, and have no family history in that part of the world, nor skin in the game over there.

I mentioned racism in South Africa as that's where you're from (I assume you're truthful with your location), and what I was attempting to do was point out the marked differences between our nations on the issue to say to you that it's not as bad here as you seem to think in regards to racism. It really isn't, not even remotely. I didn't do it to belittle you or your nation. I surmised that perhaps you might have a tough time believing that given the exceptional levels of racism in your backyard and how some U.S. media constantly manufactures stories to stoke the fires of racism. Race simply is the most minor of factors when it comes to Obama, just as sex is when it comes to a female like Hilary Clinton or Sarah Palin. So minor it's really not worthy of being discussed. 'Racism' and 'sexism' are terms far more often used as a weapon to marginalize by the lowest of the low of journalists and politicians than they are actually used as factors to determine someone's vote positively or negatively. And while there are no numbers on it and never likely will be (as how do you even measure such a thing?) I think anyone who's really paying attention to what goes on and talks to a lot of different people would say that Obama got far more votes because he was black than he lost votes because he was black, and the same goes for Hillary, Sarah, and others in regards to their sex and race. Genuine racism exists in the U.S., but the hypersensitivity to it, the false sense of guilt, and false sense of entitlement is far far far more common amongst the populace. As for us disagreeing a lot. Yes. You come across to me as someone who believes almost wholeheartedly in the official western state supported dialogue on almost every subject that ever comes up on these forums. (I am simplifying this critique.) I think I question things a lot more than you do, in essence because many years ago I realized I was being lied to, and a lot. I used to believe a lot of the same bull**** you do but upon realizing that some of it was bull**** I dug for truth, I found some, and it was anything but pretty. I don't think you realize how much of what you think is true is a bunch of lies (your latest thread on 'banbossy' is a good example), and I think you should question things more than you do before you jump on a bandwagon. As I've said on these forums before: Always ask yourself 'Why am I being shown this?' 'Why is this a news story?' and 'Cui Bono?' If we were sitting in a pub or on a dock by a lake on a regular basis over the course of time I think I could convince you of many a thing (I have success doing this with people; truth is a powerful convincing tool for all but the most delusional), but it's hard to debate on a forum, and not knowing where you come from (why you think as you do) on whatever issue it is we're discussing. But really, question things more. Have no heroes, always ask 'why?'. The answers are not what many seem to be on the surface. The world is often not as advertised on television and in the major print publications (both of which are largely owned by the same folks, worldwide at this point).

I wouldn't ever accuse John Taylor Gatto of being a doomsday prophet. Of all the folks I know of that talk about the U.S. education system in a no nonsense manner (which is few people at the national level) I'd actually place him among the most positive of them all. He's a pretty enlightened lighthearted guy in my estimation. A beacon of enlightenment in the dark sea of bull**** that makes up most of what is our discourse on education at the national level is these days. That said, the history of our education and current condition of it truly can come off of as an overwhelmingly negative thing, and John Taylor Gatto is the bearer of bad news to many folks who are unfamiliar with some of what he's talking about. That things have gotten markedly worse in just the last 20 years makes much of what he says all the more relevant. John, a multiple award winning teacher (and very deserving of those awards), likely wouldn't last in today's school system, he would likely be fired, as would many of the better teachers I had growing up. Things are not good. But I'm not looking to get into a debate about the current school system. I read your link (thank you for it), and I think the guy who wrote that article is lazy in his critique, is probably a little too self absorbed. has entirely missed much of the meat of John's work, and if he's limited himself to just reading John's short essays (which he seems to have done) then he's missing out on most of what John ever talks/writes about. John does indeed offer some solutions, but they are solutions the typical holder of a PhD in education are not going to swallow or recognize, as they are a part of the problem more than most anything else, and part of John's solution would mean the elimination of most of such people's jobs. John's best work in my opinion has nothing to do with solutions though, and that's when he writes/talks of the history of the modern education system and is just serving as a historian (it is not a historian's job to offer solutions). And this is why I linked Gatto, and used the specific link I did, as the book 'The Underground History of American Education' was pertinent to what I was talking about. It's a good book, and I highly recommend reading it to anyone, but especially teachers and parents of those in our state sponsored education system. But it's really a good read for anyone who wants to know how and why we got where we are.