SusurrusParadox

Was there ever any update on this? I can't seem to find one. (As someone that backed for a physical edition, I would expect the digital key to match the content as closely as possible.) Also, what is the "Kickstarter Exclusive In-Game Pet" and "Kickstarter only in-game achievement and item" ? Are they the "Giant Miniature Space Piglet" + "Gaun's Pledge" ? .. and if they are not, do backers get these 'pre-order exclusive' items? I am concerned as to whether we were lied to (ie: they are not exclusive to Kickstarter) or whether we are going to miss out on content (however small a pet and a ring are in the grand scheme of things) because we backed early.

Just stop being abusive and insulting people, seems to be a rather good place to start. For instance don't accuse people you don't know or have just started interacting with of having stunted emotional development or being abusive backwards cavemen. Oh, I do (insincerely) apologise if my directly mimicking the format of another user's post seemed at all insulting to your delicate sensitivities, Nonek. One might think if you were so concerned about rudeness then you might have called out those very same instead of arguing that my throwing in snarky remarks is somehow demolishing the towers of textual argument with some sort of miraculous explosive force. If you think that the inability to properly empathise and the complete dismissal of the role of human emotions in decision-making and the part they play therein is not equivalent to emotionally stunting then I'd love to hear your argument. (Though you.. don't seem to be making one. Hm. How strange. Could it be that you lack one and are instead substituting for that with weak ad hominem remarks about comments which have already been covered as not applying to you?) Jeez. I know you're not an idiot, Nonek. Are you trying to convince me otherwise or something? Your behaviour is baffling.

You seem surprisingly.. oh how do I put this... oversensitive, Nonek. As others have queried, are you feeling guilty about something? (I didn't quite expect this reaction from you, given that your comments in the update threads have been very reasonable and insightful. Strange how a topic about sexism and the like can suddenly get some people acting so out-of-sorts.) Well what else can one expect from an abusive backwards caveman Mr Paradox? No just having a little fun at the expense of the preachers, keeps the tone nice and light rather than po faced and serious at all times, let alone making generally abusive comments aimed at everybody. Did you ignore that the comment you're referring to was not actually aimed at you or are you just going to continue to throw a bloody tantrum over it? (If you must know, I'd say that particular label gravitates most greatly towards Volo.) Comparing people that would like sexist/racist/etc. nonsense to stop being supported by general society and kindly go away to the Nazis and to Fascism seems.. intellectually bankrupt. Almost certainly ethically unsound considering how it diminishes the atrocities committed under such regimes. Then again, what else would one expect from an Englishman? (Frankly, better; especially considering the side the British were on during that war. Unfortunately it does appear like the existence of the English Defence League and the British National Party and their successes "south of the border" speak to a certain malignant sentiment amongst white English people.) [i'd apologise for the potentially insulting and ad hominem nature of that remark, but it's just intended to keep the tone "nice and light" with a bit of friendly intra-British banter. Right?]

I know you're being facetious, but the Jews weren't considered "white" by the Nazi regime. (Race being a social construct, the definition of who is 'white' and who is 'black' and who is whatever other bloody colour varies culturally.) [Note: Being a social construct doesn't make something functionally meaningless, it just means it's a cultural thing rather than a biological thing. For so long as people still recognise it and the consequences of that sort of thinking in modern society, it will have to be approached as if true. Treating the symptoms, as it were.] Also, ironically enough, "Aryan" would more accurately refer to the region that is modern-day Iran.

Nah. They face less discrimination, certainly. But as to who faces "derogatory" and "dehumanizing" treatment? How can you even being to quantify that? "Specific forms" is my real point there. I'm not contesting for a single second that everyone in the world can be the target of terrible things done by other people. But how many forms of derogatory and dehumanizing treatment have specifically targeted the straight white male? Compared to, say, black people, or gay men? That's what I'm getting at. This doesn't really help your argument, though. Every white male who has ever been through US military bootcamp has been dehumanized and faced with derogatory comments. Every white male who has been through high school in the United States has been dehumanized and faced derogatory comments. You keep using these two words, but I think you want to use other words. You're basically saying that white men don't get insulted or treated like ****. Of course they do, and it is usually from other white males. Focusing on this is waste of time and effort. See the part I switched to bold text? Nailed it. When men also suffer the perpetrators are themselves overwhelmingly the same gender (& often the same race) as the victim. Not so along other lines. (That's the key point to take away from that.) On a related note, women going through high school and the U.S. military suffer at least the same and often worse. (The statistics on military rape are absolutely repulsive, and members of the military have spoken out about female squaddies receiving abuse and it being down to sexist misogynistic rectums that refuse to get with the damn times.) Further note: Those guys (& women) in the military chose to enter that system, with a certain level of dehumanising treatment expected. That doesn't mean they endure it equally, and the evidence supports that.

No. See, what you're not understanding here is that (assuming you are male yourself) men already predominate. What is ensured through 'safe spaces' is that there is a place outside of that for people to feel safe. (The same applies to LGBTQIA groups, or in other circumstances to non-white individuals. It's not about "special clubs", it's about being protected from the abuses and threats that society in general poses.) You don't need a club of your own.Yo You need to change your behaviour, and that of fellow men, so that people don't feel the need to have a separate safe space. Seriously, the response to "These people don't feel safe in the world at large" should not be "BUT HOW COME THEY GET-". It should be working out why they feel that way and then trying to fix the flaws in the system. (& once you've done that, I think you'll find you will get a "successful mixed virtual society". As well as a much happier and friendlier one, I reckon. Diminished bigotry and abuse benefits everyone, since it shows there's no tolerance for that sort of obnoxious harmful behaviour in the community.) (As a disclaimer, I'm a white cis male that likes women. So I'm pretty much the archetype of the privileged gamer myself.) First of all, the concept of a "Safe Space" on the internet is hilarious. If you feel "unsafe" on the internet, I submit to you that you have a problem that all of the safe spaces in the world is never going to fix. Second and more importantly, just because someone -- or a group of someones -- has a feeling, doesn't mean that feeling is valid, or even worth paying attention to. This is harsh, I know, but it is reality. A million people can complain about feeling "unsafe" on the internet, but the first question we should ask is not "How do we make these people feel safe?!" but "What the hell does that even mean?" Feelings are not arguments. Feelings are not proof of a systemic problem. Feelings are not enough to demand compliance to a way of doing things. Feelings are feelings, and we all have them every day, and many of them are quite dumb and irrational. Just because a bunch of people all have the same feeling and are vocalizing it on the internet doesn't make that feeling any less dumb or any less irrational. First of all, why is it ridiculous? Why else do moderators exist, hm? I would suggest your argument is ridiculous. Secondly, and more importantly, just because something involves ~feelings~ doesn't mean anything about it is invalid or incorrect or not worth paying attention to. This is a challenge for those with stunted emotional development, I know, but it is reality. A million people can point out that those attitudes don't merely exist "online" and they do translate to physical violence, but the first question we should ask is not "What the hell does that even mean?" because we should already be aware of the existence and prevalence of violence and harassment and sexual assault but "How do we make the communities we are a part of less viciously hostile to minorities and less supportive of abusive/bigoted behaviours?". Statistical evidence and the demonstrable effects upon large swathes of the human populace is proof of a systemic problem. Requesting compliance as far as maintaining a basic level of respect and consideration for others, in terms of equal treatment under the law and judgement based on character in social exchanges certainly seems reasonable. Feelings are not arguments, but they tend to be motivations for (and results of) them. You appear to be drawing some sort of weird 'Straw Vulcan' up as an ideal when people quite clearly don't act in isolation of their emotions. It's possible (and I think reasonable) to maintain control, but to pretend they don't exist or are always devoid of merit is utter nonsense. Feelings are feelings, and most of us have them every waking moment, and some of them do tend to be irrational. (This is why critical thinking & awareness are important skills to develop.) Just because a bunch of people (some men) all have the same feeling (fear/offence/anger) on the internet (and in meatspace) doesn't make that feeling any less foolish or any less derivative of ignorance, and it certainly doesn't make it rational nor reasonable nor justifiable. (Thanks for ticking at least two boxes on that 'derailment bingo' card someone shared earlier.)

You seem surprisingly.. oh how do I put this... oversensitive, Nonek. As others have queried, are you feeling guilty about something? (I didn't quite expect this reaction from you, given that your comments in the update threads have been very reasonable and insightful. Strange how a topic about sexism and the like can suddenly get some people acting so out-of-sorts.)

"Female" and "male" flow off the tongue better for me than "man" and "woman". I've never liked the latter two so I generally do not use them, (with the rare case of "man" as part of a phrase, such as, "What were you thinking, man?"). Define female: noun: female; plural noun: females 1. a female person, animal, or plant. Usage defines, unfortunately. The "weirdness" is kind of your own making - the same could be said for my dislike of "man" and "woman", true, but I'm not preaching at others for it. Not quite. "Female [x]" is adjective. "[x]ing women" is noun. The difference in descriptors was what I was referring to with that part. (I realise I was unclear on that, so I do apologise for not clarifying better.) It's all about where the stress/emphasis is placed, which can be revealing when it comes to thought-patterns (conscious or subconscious). Additionally, that was just one component & the others still apply. That said, I wasn't actually saying "YOU SHOULD NEVER USE THAT WORD EVER". Just pointing out it (as all words) comes with certain baggage and may not be ideal.

And somewhere someone has classed you as the same that need to be "removed" from society. Price of freedom is hearing dumb stuff now and then, and all. The issue there is it's not as simple as "hearing dumb stuff" when it comes to that particular type of bigotry. Those are the sorts that would kill (& have killed) the targets of their particular prejudice. Amongst other offences and abuses. (That particular issue tends to be most prominent when the statistics for violence against trans women crop up. They're absolutely appalling.) It's all well and good to prosecute them after the fact (if/when that actually happens) but.. I'd much rather the incidents never happened in the first place. Although, assuming you're American, the rest of the world disagrees with your laws on what "freedom of speech" covers. (I'm assuming that's the freedom you were referring to since you mentioned "hearing".) Europe and Canada and others tend to consider abusive/hateful language to be exempt from protection and often grounds for prosecution due to inciting violence/hatred. That said, I do disagree with "Life in the dungeons!!" approaches.

That would be pretty much the definition of bias and prejudice when those "ideas and values" are based on skintone or gender or sexuality or any other superficial irrelevant trait or set of traits. (As I've mentioned before, the reasoning can be seen but that doesn't mean it's not faulty.) "Privilege" is more the concept that certain groups are inherently advantaged in terms of societal prejudices and systemic bias. (That doesn't mean that members of those groups cannot be disadvantaged in other ways, most commonly economically. The standard way of describing it is: In the majority of instances, all other things being equal, someone of the privileged group/s will fare better in the same situation than someone of a disadvantaged group.) [For most areas of the West, such disadvantaged groups include: non-white people, individuals that are LGBTQIA, women, and those that are disabled. A short but by no means comprehensive list.] I wouldn't think anyone could reasonably argue that prejudice and bias don't exist, or are not things which most people perpetrate without being aware of, nor that socioeconomic and political/legal systems tend to be apply in a rather unequal manner. I think that anyone can tell people are different from each and tend to band together for different reasons, superficial or no. But is it even a bad thing? You cannot force people to love each other, it has to come evolve from each individual, and neither can it be reason with, since love, well, isn't not that reasonable to begin with. I am not asking for isolation or to live through the eyes of fear, i am simply asking for freedom of association. Do you wish to undermine it? And how can you expect to deconstruct power-structures without seriously hindering it? Just curious. Hmm. See, this is where my personal and ethical views can diverge. Personally, I wouldn't mind isolating/ostracising/exiling the more extreme sort of bigots. I tend to consider them beyond redemption, because very little will convince someone that was raised from birth to believe xyz things and has their peer group and authority figures reinforcing those views and has no personal motivation (other than possibly a sense of ethical rightfulness?) to actually change their behaviour. That said, I do believe that those that are simply naive/ignorant are more than capable of learning and adapting. ( You see thats where I have no issue locking away extreme irredeemable bigots. Just remove them from society, some people on these forums have called me an authoritarian and dictator because of this perspective of mine. But I think I could sleep fine in the evening knowing certain people weren't able to negatively impact society As was mentioned, that's a dangerous path to go down. Altering things so their behaviours are no longer socially acceptable seems a better option. Then their nonsense dies out naturally with their own inevitably deaths. Furthermore, I'm not sure I trust authorities to that extent. A good excuse today, a bad excuse tomorrow. Could be the first step on a slippery slope.

That would be pretty much the definition of bias and prejudice when those "ideas and values" are based on skintone or gender or sexuality or any other superficial irrelevant trait or set of traits. (As I've mentioned before, the reasoning can be seen but that doesn't mean it's not faulty.) "Privilege" is more the concept that certain groups are inherently advantaged in terms of societal prejudices and systemic bias. (That doesn't mean that members of those groups cannot be disadvantaged in other ways, most commonly economically. The standard way of describing it is: In the majority of instances, all other things being equal, someone of the privileged group/s will fare better in the same situation than someone of a disadvantaged group.) [For most areas of the West, such disadvantaged groups include: non-white people, individuals that are LGBTQIA, women, and those that are disabled. A short but by no means comprehensive list.] I wouldn't think anyone could reasonably argue that prejudice and bias don't exist, or are not things which most people perpetrate without being aware of, nor that socioeconomic and political/legal systems tend to be apply in a rather unequal manner. I think that anyone can tell people are different from each and tend to band together for different reasons, superficial or no. But is it even a bad thing? You cannot force people to love each other, it has to come evolve from each individual, and neither can it be reason with, since love, well, isn't not that reasonable to begin with. I am not asking for isolation or to live through the eyes of fear, i am simply asking for freedom of association. Do you wish to undermine it? And how can you expect to deconstruct power-structures without seriously hindering it? Just curious. Well, yes. It is a bad thing when it leads to oppressive and abusive behaviours or unjust discrimination. (Just discrimination would be, say, giving medicine only to people that are sick. Or only imprisoning criminals. Etc.) As I mentioned though, people do tend to fall into grouping behaviours just because it's part of human nature. (We tend to want to belong and we like sharing similarities with people and having our existing notions reinforced.) [sometimes that can be dangerous. It's good to have a balance, provided people don't go off the deep end when it comes to conflict.] {There can be a tendency for people to draw lines in the sand and then take polar opposite stances when they wouldn't have done so if they hadn't done the "Us vs Them" thing in the first place.} The issue is only when it goes badly or it's for.. less than savoury reasons. So yes, I do believe people should think more critically and maintain self-awareness and try to ensure they are actually being as reasonable a person as possible and not lapsing into any 'traps' of faulty rationale. Hmm. See, this is where my personal and ethical views can diverge. Personally, I wouldn't mind isolating/ostracising/exiling the more extreme sort of bigots. I tend to consider them beyond redemption, because very little will convince someone that was raised from birth to believe xyz things and has their peer group and authority figures reinforcing those views and has no personal motivation (other than possibly a sense of ethical rightfulness?) to actually change their behaviour. That said, I do believe that those that are simply naive/ignorant are more than capable of learning and adapting. (Wilful ignorance is something that repeatedly confuses and irks me. I really don't understand why someone would completely ignore an opportunity to learn another perspective, even if they then disregard it after consideration.) So yes, I would say that my favoured solution for dismantling overarching structures is altering them at the basic component level. (Legislating change.. doesn't always work. It can help, but there needs to be pressure/revolution from a 'critical mass' forcing change on a social/community/individual level.) Freedom of association though... On the one hand, associating with the KKK does at least let one know which people are bigoted backwards racist cabbages. On the other, it would be nice if such groups were excised like the metaphorical cancers they are. (Again, I'm not sure whether mandating/enforcing their breakup would actually do anything other than force them underground. It can do one of two things: make it clear such views are no longer remotely acceptable and hasten progress or form a resilient 'hidden' movement that could be arguably more dangerous than having them in the open.) There are flaws in the legal/political/economic systems stemming from the social faults, and they should absolutely be reformed. However I'm not sure whether heavy-handed brute-forcing of legal/political measures as far as the social faults themselves are the best solution. (I'd lean towards no, but in terms of things like abolishing slavery and prohibiting discrimination against minorities.. the laws existing does certainly help.) ... in summary, I think the answer is "yes" I do wish to undermine certain types of associations. Just not in particularly foolish and tyrannical ways. You see little room for redemption and you wish to excise those who do not fit your utopia? You have taken the first steps to the dark side with those thoughts, my child. Oh psh. I never said that, given the opportunity, I would actually implement such things. (That would indeed be a very dark path.) Did clarify that was a personal view not in line with my ethics (because it's the arguably "simple" solution). Really I'd rather people just.. not be bigoted so-&-so's towards each other on such ridiculous grounds. (Like, if you're gonna take issue with someone then target their behaviour rather than whatever other nonsense people have problems with.)

Seriously. Using the word 'female' is creepy? That's a new one for me. I've never heard that before. Can you elaborate on this? Why is it creepy? Where does this creepiness come from? And does it also apply to the word 'male' as well? I just find it a little odd. "Female", not necessarily. (There are valid usages for that, though they've been few & far between in this thread.) "Females", yes. It comes from the clinical/biological usage of it. Connotations of reducing people to their body, which.. is a bit of a problem with women in society. (Also a potential transphobic element if emphasis is placed on the biology/body.) Any species can be female, only humans can be women. (Assuming current real-world perspective. Fictional species need not apply.) That adds a dehumanising element as well. (Not a great indicator for discourse on treating people as equals, is it?) Female/male are adjectives, woman/man/person are nouns. So it's also grammatically... less-than-optimal. (Part of it is also from the sort of person that typically refers to women as "females", because they aren't exactly the sort to harbour uh.. 21st century views.) Repeated usage of "females" from some users was definitely coming off as a bit weird at the very least.

Yes, this is a big part. I don't think anybody suggests a conspiracy with malicious intent among those who uphold the status quo. But regardless of the intent, the resulting system is unjust and wasteful. I have no trouble believing that the small proportion of women in, say, senior management positions, is largely due to tendency of employers to hire people from their own peer group for such jobs. But I believe "Social Justice" activists are making a mistake when they then jump to the conclusion that this discrimination happens evenly along gender lines, leading them to massively overestimate the benefit that average men gain from this employer behavior, and underestimate the amount of new injustice added by the quotas they demand. The demand for legally mandated quotas is based on the assumption that the peer group from which the employer prefers to fill senior positions is defined by gender: ingroup: the ~50% of the population that happens to be male outgroup: the ~50% of the population that happens to be female When it is in fact much more plausible to assume that the line is drawn like this: ingroup: the ~0.001% of the population that went to the same elite universities, frequents the same private clubs and events, has the same business connections, etc. as the employer outgroup: ~100% of all women and men Sure, the ingroup may consist mostly of men, but that is of no benefit to men as a whole, and not something that men as a whole should "pay" for But unfortunately, 'class-think' clouds the judgement of "Social Justice" activists - everything is immediately treated as a property of (or an effect on) a gender/racial/social 'class' as a whole, with little to no thought on whether such a generalization is at all justified in the case at hand. (It almost never is.) Oooh, see this is where it gets fun. Your statistics are way off, and in fact the "social justice" types I actually know would argue that you're completely ignoring the effect that race (amongst other things) has in particular. The dominant bias is towards white (cis) men followed by white (cis) women. (So actually it's you at fault for flawed generalisations it would seem.) Also, the arguments for the "quotas" (& they're actually a very small portion of the total) is that once you have diverse groups actually in those positions then the latent biases should dissolve and the systemic disadvantaging should be less of an issue. (Essentially the theory goes that once it's not just heterosexual white cis men from economically privileged backgrounds in positions of influence then things should hopefully balance themselves out.) It's certainly flawed, but it's better than nothing. Nothing occurs in isolation, and to disregard other factors is a disservice. (I also have no idea what on earth you're drawing the idea of "elite universities" and "private clubs and events" from when the prejudices/biases are present at every level of employment/education.) [Women in STEM fields have been present for centuries and yet consistently suffered erasure/abuse despite attending those same "elite universities". Don't think that's so easily explained by your hypothesis.] No-one said it happens entirely evenly nor did they say it happens exclusively on the basis of gender. I mean, if you're using "social justice" instead of "feminist" (& even there, there's intersectional feminism as an ideal taking into account other forms of discrimination/disadvantaging) surely you'd know it's not focused on gender alone.

Polonium 210 is an alpha emitter, and as such it will not radiate from a person since even skin is enough to stop it. You want a nice beta or even better gamma emitter for your simile. Now that this vital information has been disbursed I return you to the eternal debate: misogyny vs misterogyny, which is worse and why? Thank you, Baldrick.

That would be pretty much the definition of bias and prejudice when those "ideas and values" are based on skintone or gender or sexuality or any other superficial irrelevant trait or set of traits. (As I've mentioned before, the reasoning can be seen but that doesn't mean it's not faulty.) "Privilege" is more the concept that certain groups are inherently advantaged in terms of societal prejudices and systemic bias. (That doesn't mean that members of those groups cannot be disadvantaged in other ways, most commonly economically. The standard way of describing it is: In the majority of instances, all other things being equal, someone of the privileged group/s will fare better in the same situation than someone of a disadvantaged group.) [For most areas of the West, such disadvantaged groups include: non-white people, individuals that are LGBTQIA, women, and those that are disabled. A short but by no means comprehensive list.] I wouldn't think anyone could reasonably argue that prejudice and bias don't exist, or are not things which most people perpetrate without being aware of, nor that socioeconomic and political/legal systems tend to be apply in a rather unequal manner. I think that anyone can tell people are different from each and tend to band together for different reasons, superficial or no. But is it even a bad thing? You cannot force people to love each other, it has to come evolve from each individual, and neither can it be reason with, since love, well, isn't not that reasonable to begin with. I am not asking for isolation or to live through the eyes of fear, i am simply asking for freedom of association. Do you wish to undermine it? And how can you expect to deconstruct power-structures without seriously hindering it? Just curious. Well, yes. It is a bad thing when it leads to oppressive and abusive behaviours or unjust discrimination. (Just discrimination would be, say, giving medicine only to people that are sick. Or only imprisoning criminals. Etc.) As I mentioned though, people do tend to fall into grouping behaviours just because it's part of human nature. (We tend to want to belong and we like sharing similarities with people and having our existing notions reinforced.) [sometimes that can be dangerous. It's good to have a balance, provided people don't go off the deep end when it comes to conflict.] {There can be a tendency for people to draw lines in the sand and then take polar opposite stances when they wouldn't have done so if they hadn't done the "Us vs Them" thing in the first place.} The issue is only when it goes badly or it's for.. less than savoury reasons. So yes, I do believe people should think more critically and maintain self-awareness and try to ensure they are actually being as reasonable a person as possible and not lapsing into any 'traps' of faulty rationale. Hmm. See, this is where my personal and ethical views can diverge. Personally, I wouldn't mind isolating/ostracising/exiling the more extreme sort of bigots. I tend to consider them beyond redemption, because very little will convince someone that was raised from birth to believe xyz things and has their peer group and authority figures reinforcing those views and has no personal motivation (other than possibly a sense of ethical rightfulness?) to actually change their behaviour. That said, I do believe that those that are simply naive/ignorant are more than capable of learning and adapting. (Wilful ignorance is something that repeatedly confuses and irks me. I really don't understand why someone would completely ignore an opportunity to learn another perspective, even if they then disregard it after consideration.) So yes, I would say that my favoured solution for dismantling overarching structures is altering them at the basic component level. (Legislating change.. doesn't always work. It can help, but there needs to be pressure/revolution from a 'critical mass' forcing change on a social/community/individual level.) Freedom of association though... On the one hand, associating with the KKK does at least let one know which people are bigoted backwards racist cabbages. On the other, it would be nice if such groups were excised like the metaphorical cancers they are. (Again, I'm not sure whether mandating/enforcing their breakup would actually do anything other than force them underground. It can do one of two things: make it clear such views are no longer remotely acceptable and hasten progress or form a resilient 'hidden' movement that could be arguably more dangerous than having them in the open.) There are flaws in the legal/political/economic systems stemming from the social faults, and they should absolutely be reformed. However I'm not sure whether heavy-handed brute-forcing of legal/political measures as far as the social faults themselves are the best solution. (I'd lean towards no, but in terms of things like abolishing slavery and prohibiting discrimination against minorities.. the laws existing does certainly help.) ... in summary, I think the answer is "yes" I do wish to undermine certain types of associations. Just not in particularly foolish and tyrannical ways.