213374U

So when talking about Muslims' views in the West, a) Sharpie's first piece of "evidence" is a poll that asked Muslims everywhere... except in the West, and b) he tops it off with a link to a ****ing NYT piece talking about some Muslim immigrant in Denmark being open to eating pork, and non-Muslim, dark-skinned Danes being beaten by racists. In between a 2005 survey from "a British Islamist hell" showing that a whopping 4 percent say violence for political or religious reasons is ok, and so on. But that's headline fixation for you. Reading? Ain't nobody got time fo' dat -- if you don't like the "facts" presented that's not his problem, and he can make up more "facts" as he goes. Much less amusing is the fact that he's basically in favor of bringing back Soviet-style policies with regards to Islam. In that vein, there's clearly cause for concern, as Denmark's transformation into an Islamic state is well underway.

Well it's way better than being a passive aggressive beta male. And you cannot act this you need to be one, son. Should I call you son after you know...? Did... did you just call someone a beta male unironically? Just wow. In other news, I accidentally the whole covfefe. What should I do?

You insist on romanticizing the past, but that requires that you ignore facts. As I said: they did sometimes attack the local populace, they did consider them valid targets. They simply went for higher value targets, whenever possible, but not to the exclusion of any others. Granted, what they didn't do is kill members of their own ethnic group who were *also* politically close to them, much like jihadis don't bomb wahhabist mosques. I already gave you specific examples how, but you keep hand waving them away, because they are justified if fighting for muh freeduhm. But that's really beside the point, rationalizations are like аssholes. Yours is valid for you, jihadi Joe's is valid for him. As for the phone call: it was a common tactic to wrongly call it in so the blast would hit responders and cops, too. Even if they genuinely tried to give warning, you plant a bomb in a ****ing mall. What exactly do you expect will happen? How is that not indiscriminately targeting civilians? And I didn't say anything about accepting anything or importing more trouble. I was simply commenting that your view that the 80's and 90's were "better" doesn't reflect reality. You are dismissing the counterexamples that don't fit your narrative as "not true terrorism" (rather, "freedom fighting", yes?). Well, sure. There was no Salafist terrorism to speak of in the 70's, the 80's and 90's, so if "better" means exactly less Salafist terrorism, then yes, it was a "better" time. That's just shifting the goalposts rather an accurate assessment, though.

I've no interest in getting into a debate of value judgments here -- the thing with violence is that it doesn't determine who is right, only who is left. I'm just pointing out, based on actual examples, that the differences you see aren't such. These IS-"inspired" attackers target the populace at large because they don't see themselves as part of that populace, but that distinction is completely arbitrary, much like Basque freedom fighters not considering themselves Spanish. They prioritised high value political and military targets over plain citizens because they thought that was the most expedient way to accomplish their goals, namely the destabilization of the state, not out of any sense of honor or whatever else you're thinking. Proof of this is that they did not hesitate to murder any civilians that got in their way, and showed no regard for collateral damage. Again, this is when not directly targeting civilians. Sorry, I'm just not seeing it.

You called? If i recall correctly it was not intentional - someone screwed up either on the telephone caller or police with their reaction time to the warning time. While they placed the bomb, agreed, not the best method of fighting for own "freedom" their intent target were not the civilians, that's why they made the calls where the bomb is. Compare bombings done by IRA or ETA to the "modern" wave of terror and you will notice large differences in methods and targets (on top of what those movements were fighting for and still are to some degree) Don't know man, they did plant a bomb in a mall. Looks pretty intentional to me. They also liked to attack buildings where cops lived with their families... which unsurprisingly led to civilian casualties. And they frequently assassinated average joes who were members of certain political parties in small towns. Low(er)-intensity violence was directed at mom and pop stores, bars, and so on. The differences in methods are attributable to these groups being more professionalized and having actual funding structures, command hierarchies and clear political goals. Evidently you are going to see differences between essentially lone wolf attackers who seem mostly unconcerned with their personal safety, and members of a paramilitary organization. Regardless, I'm not sure that terrorist groups that select targets on political rather than cultural criteria are "better". Result is exactly the same if you happen to be part of their target collective, and the criteria is every bit as arbitrary. They all fight for "freedom" in their own mind.

Hmm. I wonder if you are deliberately paraphrasing Goebbels or it's just an example of "great" minds thinking alike?

You called?

Yep.

An illusion.

I don't know in general, but that's certainly not what happened with Bioware. The obligatory MP mode started with ME3, and the multiplayer component in that game was handled by a completely different studio (Montreal, while the main game was developed in Edmonton), and it was a stripped down version of what seems to have been initially prototyped as a standalone Battlefield-esque FPS. It was also such an unexpected success that its monetization model was copied and has more or less become standard. Their focus on multiplayer can be said to have begun with the choice to make SWTOR an MMO instead of another single player installment in the franchise, and whose development begun before the company was acquired by EA. Whatever the reason, "big names" have been slowly but steadily quitting the company, and that, coupled with EA's culture of style over substance, dismal QA and especially microtransactions bull**** is, in my mind, what has done the most damage to Bioware in the last few years. As for EA "learning the lesson": lol. Companies the size of EA are literally impervious to criticism, and weak sales simply result in canned product lines. Enjoy the memories and move on.

I just realized how stupid my question was. The answer is, of course, to reduce as much as possible the amount of control users have over the stuff they pay for, while increasing your own. Regardless, GOG have already backpedaled. Somewhat. I have no doubt they'll keep "iterating" and pushing their not-Steam malware at every possible turn. Because why the **** not?

I don't understand this. You (as a publisher) presumably already have your product on Steam. Why would you want to expand to a platform whose biggest draw is that it is not-Steam, and push for it to be more like Steam? Man, **** GOG and their bundled bloatware, but most of all, **** their bull**** corp-speak rationale and their treating customers like idiots. I'm getting more and more sick of this hobby every day. Guess it's time for me to pick up fishing as befits a cranky old man.

1.06 patch notes (if anyone cares about this game anymore, at this point...)

Yeah, if we could get an official vote count before the ****ing MSM proclaim the next French President, that would be great.

The only problems I would actually consider worthy of the term are those of a technical nature. I encountered several of those, including one that is game-stopping, and one that I guestimate that results in, at minimum, a 20% chance of crashing in any given MP match. I wouldn't expect BioWare to issue an apology over this while they work their ass off on a fix. It would be nice, but that's just not how they roll. With regards to the apology business, I find their way of handling these matters suspect, and at face value, humorous for the ineptitude. But I don't consider it a "problem". It's their rep, not mine (I don't have one), that is damaged when after shipping a faulty product and taking a beating, they decide to put on a PR show for purely political reasons. You may of course disagree that this is what they are doing, believe that the apology really is heartfelt, that a rewrite is warranted, and that their exploration of these issues is the most meaningful and thoughtful they are capable of. I'm going with my gut and just call virtue signalling. That is why I said that they shouldn't apologize. And no, they did not apologize for the ending of ME3. They nuked the old board, but Dr. Muzyka's statement on the matter is still available for anyone to read. And that's the kind face of BioWare; Chris Priestly and Ninja Stalin were much less inclined to entertain any criticism on the old BSN. And as I explained, they actually doubled down on it in practice with the EC. Funny, too. Because the whole "we are listening to and will address your feedback" is exactly the same, word for word, PR bull that they are feeding us now... except when the issue is transgenderism, apparently.

Right. So we're at that stage where we compare dictionaries, huh? Yeah, these internet discussions of semantics are so enjoyable that the prospect of having MEA crash a few more times on me is starting to look appealing. I loved you bringing up a legal definition by the way, because everyone knows that the legalese lexicon is completely modern, intuitive and not misleading or confusing at all. Make no mistake, it is a condemnation, for the reasons enunciated several times throughout the last two pages, by me and others. I suppose the sexual undertones of the word have taken a more metaphorical than literal sense, but if you find said undertones really so off-putting, the word kowtow fits the bill perfectly as well, without any such scandalous connotations.

Yes. They aren't mutually exclusive things. They did it originally with the way the subject is introduced (tokenism) and they made it worse by apologizing *only* to a subset of their customers (?) over what is by all accounts a trifling matter when a deluge of criticism over their writing has never before fazed BioWare, and while the game suffers from other very serious problems. Take the Extended Cut, for comparison. People hated the ending and claimed that it was nonsensical, that it removed all player agency etc. Not only did BioWare not acknowledge any fundamental problems with the series' climax -- they in fact doubled down on their "artistic vision" with the addition of the "Refuse" ending where the player fails, everyone in the galaxy dies, and the people from the next cycle USE THE CRUCIBLE AND GO FOR SYNTHESIS ANYWAY. A huge middle finger. Which is absolutely fine, it's their story after all, and it's pretty childish to expect an author to change things just because you don't like it. Or so I thought.

Complaining? You mistake complaints with criticism and derision. The former I've long learned to be rather pointless. The latter is simply a guilty pleasure of mine. And the whole "you care because you posted" argument is about as poignant now as it was when first enunciated by Diogenes circa 350 BC. I "care" because this is the latest antic from the developer of the problem-laden game this thread is about. And sorry, but you don't get to decide what words mean. See below. This does fit a dictionary's definition of pandering. If it doesn't agree with yours, take it up with the English language. I can accept that the character in question does not fit your particular experiences with transgendered people and that it's not a good representation of transgenderism, and the issue being her whole raison d'être is a "problem". Though I wonder what else can be construed as "misrepresentation"? Both Reyes here and Cortez from 3 are homosexuals, should I be hurt as a straight Hispanic male that my representation quota in Mass Effect is 0% straight? Demand an apology, perchance? The issue you're describing is a side effect from poor writing. However, bad writing per se does not in any way shape or form constitute "exploitation", unless you are suggesting that their motivation to include these issues is to sell copies to certain collectives, because BioWare is otherwise gaining nothing from half-assing these extremely two-dimensional characters, and obtaining an advantage is integral to the whole exploitation business. Again a word that doesn't mean what you think it means. I'd rather BioWare be responsive to all criticisms, or none at all. Not just the ones that earn them high-fives from internet political cliques. So let's recap: I made a post opining that this is pandering and BioWare's way of handling it is silly, yet very much in character. You retorted that it's irrelevant to you -- which is cool. But then you also said several times that you found it mystifying that some people are worked up by this, suggesting that I'm somehow bothered. But I've already stated multiple times that I'm not really bothered, by either the inclusion of a trans cardboard cutout character (nice try) or their follow-up. I do find it mildly amusing however that they chose to apologize and rectify for this reason in particular, especially in light of: - the utter trainwreck that this release is in general, with this particular issue being simply a drop in the sea - BioWare's past defense of their "artistic integrity" (read: **** narrative craftmanship) Does it "matter" to me? Not enough to launch an internet crusade, no. To make a post on a message board? I don't need to be deeply invested to do that. And since the patch has been such a massive letdown, I don't really have any incentive to play the game, so I have more free time than would be advisable. To further clear up the issue, so that semantics doesn't get in the way: pan·der (păn′dər) intr.v. pan·dered, pan·der·ing, pan·ders 2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses to act as a pander; especially : to provide gratification for others' desires http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pander https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pander Neither definition makes a reference to distasteful desires or immorality, but again, nice try. The desire in this case is, simply, representation in media by a collective who feel they are underrepresented. Which is fine and perfectly legitimate, but BioWare's (and previously Beamdog's) execution even more so than intent makes it pandering. It is not a bad thing "now". It is a bad thing period. Instead of trying to write believable characters in plausible situations, they simply go by the numbers to try and make a statement. The complaint here, and previously in SoD's case -by transgendered people no less- is that these characters are trite and cheapened because their whole theme is transgenderism. So back to my original question about making it one trait of a fully developed member of the crew. Funny thing, I didn't get so much heat when I laughed at biower pandering back in ME2, with the whole concept of Miranda. But now it's different, because SHUT UP WHITE CISHET ****LORD

Talking with your fellow posters about things that are "literally irrelevant" to you is relevant? So the takeaway is that you like talking about talking. Cue Inception/Xzibit memes. Sorry, I don't buy that the reason for you quoting me is simply that "you're reading the thread". Do you post nothings in all the threads you read? And, since you are a mod, you probably read a lot... What was the point you were trying to make, again? That you don't understand or care about some things other people talk about? And therefore... no one else should care either? Okay chief. But that's not quite how this whole internet thing works.

In other news, the patch didn't fix the issue I mentioned earlier with not being able to gain XP. This on top of the, erm, underwhelming response to common MP complaints means I'm probably done with the game. I won't be asking for an apology, mind, but I sure won't be recommending this product to anyone anytime soon.

Uh-huh. Literally irrelevant, and yet somehow you couldn't resist the urge to interject. Talk about mystifying. Did I say it affect me? Did I imply this somehow impedes or hinders their effort to fix the game otherwise? Tell you what. You stop twisting my words, cut out the straw men, and quit telling me what I really am debating, and I won't assume that you have an ax to grind, seeing how apparently the only thing you care about in this game is the social commentary. Cool? Cool. I posted it here because it made me guffaw. It's silly, it's pandering, and it shows that their priorities are all over the place. So thoroughly BioWarian. And exactly how does an info dump from a paper-thin character constitute a "representation that furthers or at least exploits marginalization"? Please. Who's making a mountain out of a molehill?

Were there people hurt by waxy faces, derpy eyes and 'melting off a couch' animations they should also apologize to? I remember talking with Hainly, I remember the dialogue and it didn't phase me. And you know what, now that they're changing it, when I see the dialogue again...it still won't phase me. If a simple change like this makes some group of fans happy, why would I care? It's not like I'm playing MASS EFFECT: HAINLY ABRAMS. Sometimes I'm positively mystified by the stuff that works gamers up. You chaps have it backwards. The point I'm making is that BioWare should not apologize, as is pretty much the standard in this industry when stuff goes sideways. But breaking this unwritten rule and doing so for something that is positively trivial while refusing to do it for delivering a non-functional product is pandering, which is what we were talking about. I honestly don't see what's mystifying about this, but then again, I don't see anyone worked up here, either. Other than the people who supposedly demanded an apology in the first place, that is.

I find the practice of mocking people for being "hurt by words" while implying that poor technical presentation is such an absolute travesty that they should be apologizing for that instead (because apparently playing badly made video games is what's really hurtful) highly amusing. I'm sure someone out there is hurt by your casual disregard of these very serious issues, good sir. You should apologize. But really, it's a common courtesy you'd expect from a provider of goods and services when what is offered is not up to snuff. If you go to a restaurant and are served a cold soup, undercooked fish or something else that you wouldn't otherwise eat, the least you would expect is an apology from the waiter while he does something about it. The game is literally unplayable for many people. I am not exaggerating. Back to back crashing. I hadn't seen a game this unstable in a long time. And the only ones I'm mocking here are BioWare. People who are genuinely hurt by random words in a pop culture product don't deserve my scorn... but they have my pity.

It's pandering because: 1) the character itself is part of BioWare's "design by numbers" approach, in this case, to check the inclusivity box 2) of all the dumb **** they have written into the game, this is the one thing that merits a rewrite, as you pointed out 3) the game is currently a technical dumpster fire, but the only apology is directed at people who may have been "hurt" by ~words~ 4) "artistic integrity" It's tokenism exactly in the same way the Mizhena character in SoD was. Instead of being a vendor, this one is involved in a Radiant fetch quest. Why didn't they go balls deep and make a member of the crew trans, if it's such a big deal to them?

You could ask Hainly why she joined the initiative and she basically told you she wanted a fresh start as Hainly and to stop being Stephan. Then she said her name is made up from the first letters of her favorite cities. It's very similar to that infamous dialogue in Siege of Dragonspear and I was pretty bewildered that there hasn't been some anti-SJW alt-moron neckbeard diatribe about that dialogue yet, and now I read that it essentially received the exact opposite of a reaction, what with the LGBT community being pissed off at it. The saying used to go that it is impossible to please everyone. These days it seems as if it is impossible to please anyone. Oh boy. The thing is, in this game you can ask then thousand different minor NPCs why they joined up with the Andromeda Initiative and they ALL info-dump you at that very moment. Mostly because you'll probably never ever talk to them again unless they get a quest later. By the way, most of them signed up for the adventure or to leave an old unhappy life behind. Some with more and some with less legal backgrounds. Yeah, pretty much. It barely registered when I spoke to that NPC. It wasn't even any more info dump-y than any other minor character's two sentence life story. I was like "sure, whatever dude(tte), got anything you need fetched?". But this is hurtful apparently, and someone was #triggered because "dead names" are a thing. Yay nontroversy. Do they do it on purpose? I mean, I did bump this ****ing thread, after all.