evensong

So... Still no argument against the points I made earlier, Luckmann? Just asking. Because thus far you've just made "that's not true, because I say so" responses.

Jokes are part of culture. Culture helps shape opinion. If you don't understand this you're either rather ignorant or wilfully blind to it.

Why do you hate God, Longknife?

Feargus Urquhart's like the diary of Marcus Aurelius: stoic and sensible, yet kind and generous.

Chris Avellone's, more like an interesting and complex main course you can't quite figure out the contents of.

I like to imagine J.E. Sawyer's political opinions to be much like a warm blanket on a cold winter day.

I'm guessing this is a hangover from D&D, where you have half-elves and half-orcs, indicating they can produce viable offspring and thus not considered separate species?

I don't use it myself, but I think IEMod allows for changing models in-game? Someone will probably know. http://rien-ici.com/iemod/pillars_of_eternity

Yes, exactly as I said: divorcing the author from the meaning and intent of his work, not divorcing the author from all association and influence on the work. If you feel that this blue window shade put in this room in this scene indicates the people in this scene are shallow and cold, then regardless of what the author actually intended the "death of the author" says that it's a perfectly valid interpretation; the authors intention doesn't matter. It doesn't completely divorce the author from all impact on the work they created; it never really has, it just allows for each individual to create "perfectly valid" interpretations of it. Man, I have straight up misunderstood this essay for years. Seriously, thank you! I get it now.

Heh - I was surprised when I saw it in the game, because Obsidian are usually pretty progressive when it comes to questions about sexuality and gender. I was thus not surprised when they removed it after virtually no pressure at all, and I pretty much expected their explanation to be what it was too - I actually think it simply slipped past them. I'm also guessing it didn't require much reflection in that moment because Sawyer already has an opinion about that kind of stuff.

Also Longknife has got it right. The Barthes essay argues for the interpretation of texts without considering the authorial context (hence the "death"). It's true, it's on Wikipedia: "Barthes's essay argues against traditional literary criticism's practice of incorporating the intentions and biographical context of an author in an interpretation of a text, and instead argues that writing and creator are unrelated."

You know who does advocate the death of the author, though? SJW's. Heyooo.

Rhyme meter is good but work on your scanning. Anapests - two short unstressed, then a long stressed.

It's always weird to me when people reply to the OP in a thread that has gone on for several pages.

You guys are completely missing the point. Being able to write about a concept in a neutral way shows capacity to sympathize with that concept and understand it. Obsidian has written about "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" multiple times and must at least have some degree of understanding and/or sympathy with it. Therefore, even if it's not their concrete stance on things, I find it odd to see how quickly that change came about, given the circumstances. Understand, certainly, but that's a far cry from sympathising. An example is Joss Whedon's Firefly, where the lead character is an internally consistent and well written libertarian character written by a dude pretty far out to the left. Hell, the same dudes that wrote the ridiculous Michael Bay film Pain and Gain are currently writing the distinctly pro-feminist (but sadly, not especially good) Agent Carter. Characters do not reflect anything about their creator, unless you're reading Atlas Shrugged, in which case you should be reading better fiction anyway.

I will admit I find it a tad odd and surprising to see that Obsidian chose to censor the limerick, seeing as how this is the company that produced Caesar's Legion and Durance. Both of them preach about how conflict or "fires" can make you stronger while burning away the weak and unworthy. With stories like that, you think they'd have a mentality of how the world is harsh and you need to be willing to face that some people can and will offend you, but you need to be able to carry on. But again I'm a realist and I'm sure this was a decision made (decision to even ask Firedorn) moreso in the interest of marketing. Companies are notorious for being a place for ideologies to die. Do you find it a tad bit odd that Christian Bale is not actually Batman or a serial killer? I find that analogy a little weak. He played a part that was handed to him. Obsidian wrote and constructed those things themselves. You're better at writing about concepts you're passionate about, so it's odd to see writings about "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" on one hand and then a desire to protect someone's feelers in the next. As I said though, the realist answer is of course that marketing would never allow such potential drama like that limerick existing post-complaint. Yeah, it's absolutely unbelievable to me that they could put in several characters and factions with different opinions and ways of life into A ROLE PLAYING GAME.

Enchanted hats would be great, But not in the game's current state. It's already a breeze Sailing PoE seas Pimped out hats would just make it too easy.

Also, as a med student: although you can measure the physiological process of pain through a variety of methods, the phenomenon is so complex and - crucially - is an entirely subjective experience anyway, so there is no point in measuring it on an individual basis. There's a reason the scale of insect sting painfulness (the Schmidt sting pain index), for example, is only useful as a relative measure and has to use the subjective experience of a single person (Justin O. Schmidt) as a baseline.

It's occasionally hard to recall Our opinions are hardly at all Any use in this fight. So we all as well might Lay down arms and embrace: game's for all!

A responsible person would say, "Jesus Christ, chill the **** out, okay?" But our anger burns bright, And it lights up the night Radiating from digital screens.

There once was a thread that began: "This shirt that was worn by a man Has been thrown to the ground! We must bravely sound Our complaints about censorship." But! Our OP forgot one small thing: When the war bells of internets ring Then we all lose the plot What we say matters not. We have clearly all gone quite insane.

The difference, of course, besides your satire being satire, is that transphobia is real and contributes to laws being passed and people being murdered. Also, obviously, to determine what claims of offense have merit, we have to talk about what offensiveness is and how to think about it, instead of leaving it up to what each person feels is true personally. I'd offer a tentative suggestion that something can be considered genuinely offensive it it contributes to a culture that affects people in other ways that words, because at that point it's not just about a hypothetical offense but something that really does affect people's lives. Whether or not it's intended as offensive is entirely irrelevant, nobody meant to be sexist in the 50s either.

No, like, in the history of ideas, has anyone thought that everyone adhering to their own framework of thought are universally laudable and excellent human beings? I consider myself a feminist, but obviously I am not blind to the fact that the label "feminist" is attached to a mixed bag with a lot of idiots and a lot of smart people in it. Same goes for liberals, conservatives, fascists, communists, libertarians, anarchists, third-positionists, Schumpeterians, whatever.

Has anyone thought this, ever? Also, I'm curious - I haven't watched the FemFreq video with New Vegas, it's half an hour long and mostly stuff I am already familiar with thoughts-wise, and I couldn't find the bit where she was talking about New Vegas with a cursory scan of the video... Could you do me a favour and point me to the right place in the video?

Want to explain why? I'm guessing because I'm talking about "frameworks" and **** which means it's all a human construction and therefore flawed, as opposed to the logical bastion of "reasonable" (see also: "common sense"), but here's the thing - all reasonable opinions exist within frameworks based on a set of fundamental concepts. Be that an ethical framework based in utilitarianism, or ideas of social justice based on the idea of nonlegal power structures affecting peoples' lives or the inherent superiority of royalty (chosen by God), or economical models based on rational actors - all ideas are parts of frameworks. What I'm getting at is that there is no essential "truth" from which people deviate and delude themselves. (The closest we get to that is found in our biological responses.) Your thinking exists inside a framework too, and it's not at all obviously true that yours more correct or true than the one we've been talking about.