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.

Oh I'm sure that some women can wear it, but that is not my whole statement. I said that women can't carry plate swing a great sword and hope to do any damage. If you want a parallel to modern times, women still aren't allowed on the front lines. Why? Because they, on average, severely under preform as opposed to their male counterparts. I am not trolling you are just being unrealistic, women and man aren't equal. Yes, they can. Your history and biology knowledge could do with an update. As for that "parallel", it is indeed sexist. The only sources are from extremely biased individuals or groups harbouring archaic misogynistic notions. What may be true is that women and men tend to (but that is by no means absolute) excel in different roles. As has been stated and confirmed by military leaders and the likes of emergency fire-fighting services. Mixed teams do well. It's the diversity of roles and capabilities that ensures a cohesive unit can perform above expectations. People are equal. Different, yet still equal. In the case of military performance, both sex and gender matter less than many would like to claim. Oh, and in the case of a videogame it does not matter at all in any way.

Well modern game audience consists of people that get easily butthurt over trivial things. Go figure. Or maybe we could not be ridiculous. I agree the armour is better than other examples, but that doesn't mean it isn't itself flawed. Others have already covered the reasoning for why it's not only impractical/counter-productive from an immersion perspective but isn't even necessary for distinguishing characters in a gameplay perspective. Both the "realists" and the "gamists" have agreed that actual breast-shaped armour is ridiculous, but they have also both been seen to agree that the reasoning given for the diminished examples Obsidian presented doesn't match up with either perspective. It's not necessary or even obvious enough for combat/gameplay and it's not sensible in terms of how armour behaves. Also, women in the real world that wear armour aren't distinguishable from men in the real world that wear armour by their armour. At least not at a glance, with the potential (because they don't apply to everyone) markers being possible wider hips and narrower shoulders. The only exceptions are where someone doing things "for fun" (ie: the equivalent of impractical ceremonial garb that would be obliterated in combat) decides to make things like chainmail bras or actual boob-plate. (Though the latter comes with the caveat that, yes, it does pose a serious risk if anything strikes you there or you fall forward, & that the armourer takes no responsibility for it being shoddy design.) Your mention of codpieces is facetious as well, particularly since those were largely designed to prevent "unsightly bulges". (Men's trousers weren't like they are nowadays.) They were later used to draw attention to the crotch, as a.. "statement of virility" in a sometimes-quite-obscene manner. (Though they were much derided by later periods, and quite rightly so I'd say.) Their reason for inclusion in armour of the period was not practical but because it followed civilian fashion. (I can't imagine having metal impact into the groin to be a terribly fun experience; it would do just as well to be less obtrusive and thus less likely to take a strike from a blunt weapon.) Again, an instance of "ceremonial" or "fashion" type armour rather than proper military/adventuring protection. All in all, I think someone uh.. let's phrase this neutrally rather than insultingly.. "complaining" about people taking issue with quite obviously ridiculous norms in videogame development that are (if one is honest) sexist in their nature and implementation. It's especially ironic if that person makes a point to call others overly sensitive. (We'll ignore that the term used in this instance is itself questionable, for now.)

They're not coming up with "changes." Female torsos are shaped the way female torsos are shaped, and that is not the same as male torsos. Thus, they're simply applying armor to the female torso, and retaining enough of the female torso such that its silhouette/form remains visually distinct on some of the armor (even the more rigid, plate armor and such seems to be distinct for females, just not strictly because it fits around the chest, because it isn't flexible at all.) Talk about "changes" that wouldn't mean anything, "Let's make sure we spend the time to make sure the female models' torsos become EXACTLY like male models' torsos whenever armor is applied! What? No, no don't just make the armor for that model. Make it for a DIFFERENT model, then make it fit that model, too. Yeah... yeah, 'cause this mechanically means a lot." They already talked about how none of the equipment models are universal -- a male Dwarf gets a different armor model than a male Orlan, etc. Thus, why would female models be any different? Also, how do you know all female torsos in the whole game will look the same? Acknowledging that boobs exist isn't sexist. The female characters are defined by a thousand different things. Saying "why is a female defined by her chest size?" Is like saying "why is a male defined by his lack of chest protrusion and the existence of his extra upper-body musculature?" Bodies can vary quite significantly. There are women taller and more muscled than many men, there are men shorter and slimmer than many women. (People also exist that are neither men nor women, though the hopes of representation for them in games are very slim indeed.) If you want to retain the shape then do so with the aspects you've mentioned; the typical masculine wider shoulders and the typical feminine wider hips. (Though in that case one might argue that there should be 'short, medium, tall' and 'slim, average, heavy' options so that people wanting muscled giants [hyperbole] and people wanting skinny leprechauns [again, hyperbole] can better represent their characters.) [if they're putting in effort to differentiate armour between the sexes (since gender doesn't always match biological sex) then the extra work to make it differentiated between actual body-types seems far more logical a solution.] {That way I can tell apart my party members by their actual appearance rather than whether their armour as bumps if I peer closely and stop paying attention to the actual gameplay and don't bother to check the more obvious markers as to which character I'm looking at such as their distinguishing features and gear.} Acknowledging that breasts exist may not be sexist, but assuming that all women have breasts that would be noticeable through armour or that no men have breasts can be. (Though I think perhaps that might come under cissexism/transphobia as well.) I'm curious what those "thousand different things" are and why, if there are already a thousand different things anything else is needed? Such as armour emphasising breasts? (On the note of Calagund, thank the gods she got proper armour. I hadn't caught the first picture and goddamn the recent fix looks so much better. The earlier version looked absolutely ridiculous and sexualised, which is quite a feat for plate armour. Now if only Obsidian had better reasoning for why they haven't bothered to apply the same measures to other armour styles.)

What makes you think that one precludes the other? I'm not sure how you would distinguish between men and women's role in front-line combat; there you either learn to fight well or you die. But it might be interesting to explore the difference between men and women's soul-based abilities. Just to hypothesize wildly: suppose the role of the male is to draw forth a new (or recycled) soul out of the aether; that of the female is to hold and retain the soul while a body forms around it. Thus like a magnet and a battery: the male is able to draw off some soul energy from a source but cannot retain it; the female is able to retain the soul energy but is unable to draw it off. Now apply that to combat: a trained male can use his ability to temporarily disrupt and weaken the soul of an opponent. A trained female can latch on to that (or any other loose) soul fragment and prevent it from being recovered. By working together, they are stronger than they would be individually. That's both sexist and reinforces the false notion of gender being binary. (There is greater diversity in gender than just 'man' or 'woman'.) In relation to the details of your ridiculous notion though, the male is active and the female is passive? He attacks and she controls? How very archaic of you. (I don't think such backwards gender roles complicating game mechanics are at all desirable by anyone with any sense.) Oh, and your notion is also heteronormative in that it assumes the "ideal" partnership is one of a man and a woman. (Now where've I heard that silly claim before..?) Somehow I get the feeling you must be trolling. I'd like to believe no-one is quite so.. ridiculous.

Because in a world where women are of equal strenght to men, we must asume that their boobs are pure muscle and help them support the heavy armor, thus we conclude that the outline of boobs can be seen on scale, but canot be seen on plate, because the boobs are not strong enought to bend the metal. Is that enough realisam for you to be able to sleep at night? Women can (and do/did) wear heavy armour in our own reality too. You don't need a fantasy for fighters of different genders to be equally capable. Breast size varies is a point someone else raised; unless Obsidian plans on that being a slider in character creation (because to do otherwise would break immersion for some, though it comes with problems of its own) then they're kind of slipping up by giving every NPC with breasts the exact same size. Would have been better to go with the "realism" route in this instance (where the weight/material of the armour and the padding beneath tend to compress/mask breasts to the point of making their bearer indistinguishable from someone without them) for gameplay reasons as well. You're just being facetious, and arguably trolling.

What a shame. I suppose I'm obligated to inform you that you must have made a mistake: you posted in a semi-public thread instead of sending Gromnir a private message. If you'd like to resort to personal attacks instead of actually responding to what I believe are quite valid points then I might recommend against that. Given that such would contravene the forum prohibition on harassment, as you should well know.

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.

Not really, I can voice facts with an impersonal tone which focuses on the issue rather than on the ethnic group. However someone may interpret that is up to them, I know myself. The problem is the refusal to even admit to an issue sometimes because of race; unless the race committing the crime is white people who have become synonymous with the establishment. A relevant example to the thread would be saying that feminism's failure to quell its fringe elements has resulted in it being perceived as a movement of hysterical women. In itself not really an accusatory statement but when presented to some people they tend to get defensive. One might argue that, rather than a minority of rather obviously extreme bigots (which is what those fringe elements are, considering they tend to harbour transphobic views and some rather.. odd "solutions" ), the issue is more deliberate misrepresentation and propaganda from those that would rather retain the status quo and will resort to any and all weaponry they can find to malign and demonise the "other side". You seem to have a touch of a victim complex, though you pay lip-service to being impartial and objective. (In fact, such claims have an air of the racist "science" perpetrated through the previous century/centuries.) Facts are facts (except when they're not), but their presentation and the motivations behind such will often quite clearly reveal (if not bias) where someone stands on an issue. What also would seem to be important is not taking facts as if they exist in a vacuum, and making a point to research the whys and wherefores of a situation/statistic.

That sort of aggressively conditioned feminist reflex is most prominent to the anglo-saxon world and gets progressively less so as you go eastwards, and southwards from France onward (lumping in Australia with the west here). You may or may not be surprised to know that such observations would hardly arise in a conversation here. The point being - the female perspective, apart from some genuine gender differences, is heavily influenced by cultural factors. I'm mentioning this because I find those sort of observations stifling, a sign of shallow reasoning. Only women were the priestesses at Delphi, no? Enough for an accusation of misandry, maybe?... The cry of misogyny is now one of those blanket terms, like homophobe or fascist - used to discredit anything and everything on the opposite sides of a debate. I also usually hear it from people who have least reason to complain about their position in life, so I can't help but treat it as a sort of shallow diversion for the bourgeois. I'd also venture that its culturally damaging. Seen more than a few englishmen and americans chasing after asian wives specifically because they don't want to deal with that sort of thing. Didn't understand what it was about at first, only later did I get it. I do agree that there is a specifically female perspective but its not one of those things that's easily defined (which we also agree on). Ooh, boy. See that fetishisation of the "submissive Asian wife" stereotype? That's racist as all hell as well as pretty obviously misogynistic. That said, I don't believe you'll listen to any argument on the matter. You seem to have quite firmly set yourself in the "I don't see a problem, so there mustn't be a problem" camp. (In which case I might refer you to a recent interview of Russell Brand: http://huff.to/1jl1JMb ) [skip to the bit about sexism, or if you don't fancy listening to it or have hearing difficulties then there are paraphrased snippets somewhere down the page.] {The summary is: You aren't in the position to really make that call.} I'll make the attempt anyway by pointing out that if you think women in the region of the world commonly demarcated as "The West" don't have issues with sexism and misogyny and abuse then you are either amazingly sheltered from reality or you've become oblivious to it as normal. (On a related note, "Some people have it worse elsewhere" isn't a legitimate justification for not doing anything about things you perceive as comparatively minor. A bad thing is still a bad thing, regardless of whether worse things exist.) Furthermore, "misandry" doesn't really hold any water because in the current Western systems there isn't really any sociocultural nor judicial nor political oppression being perpetrated towards men. I won't disagree that some people really do genuinely despise men and take every opportunity to be abusive monsters towards them (I've encountered one myself, though in that case it was a maladaptive reaction to having suffered sexual abuse), but that's one instance in my lifetime compared to every woman I know having experienced sexual abuse or harassment throughout their lives. (Most of them from early teens onwards, which is frankly disgusting and the prevalence of which should be a major red flag that something is seriously wrong on a societal level if so many men are behaving in such a reprehensible manner.) Also, on a minor note, the repeated use of "females" instead of "women" makes people sound... well, vaguely creepy. A friend once described it as making people sound like Ferengi. Not a flattering comparison, but an apt analogy as far as sexism. (I haven't really seen Star Trek myself, but I have a couple friends that are heavily into it.) Gromnir actually raised a very good point, which is that most men won't realise how women tend to view the world. (That is obviously a sweeping generalisation in the latter point, but distinct groups do tend to have shared experiences.) They haven't experienced the way things they take for granted affect those of other backgrounds, nor have they (until a point; with Gromnir, it was watching Dune) actually paid attention to the way others perceive things based on their own experiences of sociocultural norms. Now, Gromnir said that he would leave it to others to determine validity, but I'm going to pretty firmly stand with the experiences of.. pretty much every woman I've ever spoken to (as well as my understanding of cultural myths and the influence of narratives on societies) and say that yes it is indeed a valid perspective and one that bears discussion and merits action. Similar arguments are made about LGBTQIA representation in media & representation of non-white people & representation of disabled people. (Usually of the form "Why on earth is [x] character not being played by someone that's actually got the traits of [x] character?" OR the form "... okay, why is every member of [x] group being killed off or portrayed in a negative light?". Valid questions to be raising.) [Although, as far as Dune: Weren't the Bene Gesserit all women and semi-secretly pulling all of the strings in most instances? Perhaps sexist in the roles, but I wouldn't necessarily call it misogynistic. Perhaps the movie was; I haven't personally seen it.] So yes. I think Step 1, if there is to be guidance on this, is: Actually listen and pay attention to things, & double-check your worldview. (Although, just as a heads-up: Once you start noticing, you may be disturbed or aggravated by the prevalence.)

I don't think it's reasonable to use speculation/fantasizing on likely common intentions as the basis for drawing up a moral line along gender boundaries à la "if women do it praise them, if men do it condemn them". Individuals have intentions, not groups. Personally, I think that the whole idea of trying to forbid "discrimination" in the realm of private interaction is unrealistic and incompatible with the idea of individual liberty. When people choose to associate with others in exclusive spheres, I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, because (regardless of who they are) they may have valid reasons to do so. And even if I found their reasons stupid, it wouldn't give me the right to try and stop them. So I guess my opinion on the topic of "safe spaces" can be summed up like this: Some people want to interact in private spaces from which I am excluded? Well, good for them. I'm not in the business of forcing people to interact with me. People want gaming companies to give moral and infrastructural support to some of those private clubs? I don't care about that either, as long as developer updates and other services provided by the company remain available in the public space (and thus to me). Will the existence of such exclusive spaces help to solve inherent problems in the larger community such as sexism / trolling / world hunger? I have no idea. If people are convinced it it will help, let them go ahead and try it out. Groups are made for individuals, therefore groups do indeed have common intentions. (Kind of an "avalanches are made of snowflakes" analogy. Individual snowflakes might not mean to cause an avalanche [snowflakes definitely don't have intentions, but work with me here] but their cohesion with others tends to cause a, uh, snowball effect. ... if you'll pardon the incidental pun.) In most instances, individuality is subsumed into the group identity. It's kind of how humans tend to work; very much an "us vs them" mentality. Can possibly be seen in those that decry anything they perceive as "SJW" territory as.. over-sensitive or preachy? (Although if anyone's going to label me with that, I'd like to at least make the point that I favour Rogues; warrior types are so bloody boring.) In that instance, I would hypothesise that they value their own freedom to be prejudiced & behave in offensive/abusive manners over avoiding unnecessary harm to others and maintaining intellectual integrity. (Which might be considered almost fair..? Whilst I don't personally agree with it, I can at least see the reasoning for it. Personal freedoms are something I value myself, but I would consider most of those to terminate where they encroach on another. To rephrase it: I'd rather that liberty be tempered with reason and respect, for others and the/their environment.) (On the note of groupthink and identity: there're a whole load of weird flaws in typical reasoning that critical thinking is designed to attempt negation or limitation of, and the lack of critical thinking in general tends to be the cause of quite a few perceptibly irrational views including that sort of behaviour as well as bigotry. Since bigoted views are usually inconsistent or based on faulty reasoning and/or misinterpretation/misrepresentation of evidence.) [in most cases one can shift perspective and sort of see how they'd arrive at the conclusions, but it makes them no less flawed.]