Amentep

Its on cassette tape, just like we used to have for the C64. 144 of them.

I must be misunderstanding, are you saying this type of event, which is clamping down on freedom of expression , is common in Western countries? I think he means celebrity images being co-opted into memes is so common, the fact that one was made and a celebrity didn't like it wouldn't make the news.

But that's the thing; racism is taught. While oppression (in general) can lead to a class system that class system isn't inherently racist (it is inherently "otherist", making marginalising people by race, gender or anything obviously observable very easy though, hence why it goes hand-in-hand so often).

When you say level do you mean rates of occurrence or just in terms of how bad it is ? If it's the latter, I'd hope hateful speech would be seen the same regardless of who's saying it. Funny enough I don't think it is, as I mentioned in South Africa as a white person we are subjected to hate speech from some groups. Things like "whites will driven to the sea and back to England ( its always England we come from remember ) and " one settler, one bullet " but I don't get hurt by it. Its more annoying because it comes from a silly and irrelevant perspective Just because its understandible doesn't make it excusable. Sure its easy to shrug off for the majority powerbase, but... ...IMO the reason why "reverse -ism" is a thing (it crops up everytime racism, sexism or similar get debated) is because there is a perception - right or wrong - that the people who talk about ending racism don't really care about solving the problem of racism, they only care about moving their group out of the oppressed position. And in its way, that's fair - no one wants to be on the short end of the stick. But doing that doesn't really solve the problem. The worry I have is that fixing a symptom here and there doesn't address the root cause. If you've grown up being taught to hate Group X, odds are you're going to teach your kids to hate Group X. And it doesn't matter if you have power in the society or not; what it means is that when you have the power though, you have an opportunity to exercise something you've been taught to be right all your life - that Group X isn't worthy of the same human rights as you. Edit: Fixed a missplaced "T".

Was their a race poll that I was supposed to take before I started posting? If so I didn't take it. Seriously, I'm not sure why a posters race, gender or sexual orientation should matter anyhow. I'm fine with arguing points rather than people. We've always seemed like a pretty good group of people attracted to Obsidian games and in the end I'd like to think we can all agree to disagree if we can't find common ground. Anyhow, I've never argued that "black on white" racism was on the same level as "white on black" racism; I have argued that racism - all of it - is bad for society and needs to be eradicated, in its entirety. And I don't think you do that piecemeal. I think our past history shows that improving bits and pieces at a time doesn't, ultimately, work the way it should. EDIT: And being kicked in the groin isn't the same as being shot in the back. I'm not sure I'd want any of it to happen to me.

Pretty sure it does. There are currently post count restrictions. You can also restrict by class. These are things administrators - not moderators - can do. There is, I believe, one administrator on the Obs side. Or they started online in BBSes or UseNet which couldn't even recall messages properly, much less really allow them to be edited. Or they were around in BIS when people would make a troll post, then edit the post to be innoculous for laughs because not everyone is going to quote a message and understand why the limits were created in the first place. On a privately owned message board you only have as much freedom as the owner of the board extends to you. A message board isn't a public space.

^The typical tradeoff is magic is more powerful but has limited uses (ie I can swing my sword more times than you can lob your fireball)

And then when we invaded Mars, we'd be the ones killed by the common cold, not the Martians.

IMO, you can't fix the system unless you fix why the system exists. Racism is perpetuated through generations; you can improve the lives of the oppressed but they can still pass on the mindset that oppression has created (regardless of which side they're on) to further generations. If you don't strike down the ideology the only thing you've done is given both sides equal hand in hating one another (ie both can use the system to oppress one another in continuing cycles of oppression). EDIT: Also, if you allow the racism to continue to exist, fixing the oppressive system is only going to lead to the racists creating a better (or at least more subtle) oppressive system. The only way to end an oppressive system is to end the root of the oppression, ie the basic concept of race as anything other than an arbitrary construct.

I don't disagree with that statement. But I don't think you solve racism by letting it slide because of historical oppression. The solution to racism is for everyone to realize that race doesn't matter, and you just can't get there without addressing racism of all types - no matter how ultimately ineffectual the racism itself may be. I reject the assertion that I brought up different types of racism - because I don't believe there are different types of racism. To use "reverse racism" or "reactionary racism" as an example, what you say is quite true - it is often borne of systematic discrimination. But you don't create equality by continuing to allow the idea that the groups are unequal to persist even if there's a sympathetic reason for it to exist in the oppressed population; its a flawed approach. You can't fix the system until you fix the perception. To eradicate racism (IMO), the idea that the races are fundamentally different must be challenged as a very notion at all levels.

The proper analogy to my point with respect to vaccinations would actually be "I do not feel that measles vaccination will work if you only vaccinate the (rich/poor/men/women/white/black/whatever-subset-of-the-population-you-want)"

But - and this is the point that confuses me, if the goal is to rid the world of racism (or sexism) then how is this achievable if you only try to eliminate one form of it allowing others to continue to exist? If racism is bad - in general - then surely the way to eliminate it is to eliminate all of it? Not some of it here and there, a little at a time? No problems from my standpoint, I really do try to understand these sides of the debate as best I can, but sometimes I can't follow the logic (which may be hindered by language barriars).

It is when that's not the one being debated. Which was, in fact my point (I think we actually agree on this as what we're both trying to get at is that the important thing is to have a common reference for concepts being used in discussion). And in several places that's what I've seen regarding sexim, to wit: "Those guys are sexist!" "What about these women saying #killallmen?" "Lol, women can't be sexist, they're oppressed." "What, hating gender isn't based on who is oppressed, its based on hating a gender." "Lol, you can only have sexism if you're oppressed. Anything else isn't sexism." "But the definition..." "Lol, you're using definitions...that's so 1980" etc, etc. Really? That's a rather...bold claim. I'm looking forward to your proof that everyone in the world is, in fact, guilty of some form of racism.

So there's "good racism" and "bad racism"? Its only bad if it "affects their lives on a daily basis"? But otherwise racism is okay? I never said any of that. Try again. You implied it or perhaps I inferred it, hence my question. If, as I follow your argument (but maybe I'm confusing several arguments together), racism has to have a component of systematic oppression (ie that there is a dominant race in the culture) and that while there can be "racism" against the dominate race, that because they're are systematically supported (or perhaps just not actively oppressed) the racism against the oppressed cultures are the ones that "matter" and "racism" against the dominate race is irrelevant. Therefore it is okay ("allowable", "good") to have racism against the dominate race but not okay ("forbidden", "bad") to have racism against the oppressed groups.

So there's "good racism" and "bad racism"? Its only bad if it "affects their lives on a daily basis"? But otherwise racism is okay? "People" don't redefine words. Use by society redefines words. A person can't redefine a word, for example, to ensure that they win a debate because their opponent is no longer arguing with a shared context.

I've seen nothing that indicates there is any serious thought behind doing Howard the Duck again. Realistically, they have a lot more world building to do before HtD would make sense. As a side note, I still remember seeing HtD in the theaters on opening weekend.

One time I played BG1 and got to Serevok and CLUAconsoled in an army of Drrzt's and Sarevok killed them all. It was sad. Or funny, depending on your perspective.

I wasn't here when the original discussion happened. If I were, I might have said: Not really, for any set of numbers where addition and multiplication are defined, there will be an X where X + X = Y*X where Y signifies the doubling of X. Its a property of the relationship of addition and multiplication; if you're in a number "set" that can't do this then adding and multiplying can't be defined for that set. If I remember correctly.

You're throwing the soul of the dirt into the soul of their eyes. Just remember when you blind an ooze in his soul, it's striking its ooze on your soul. You've been soul oozed. (the above may not be serious) Generally speaking (and more seriously speaking) so far I agree with you. A lot of combat decisions in the game basically fall in "does this character tank or not" and then making sure the tanks attack and everyone else snipes. And have some exit plan for teleporters.

There's only one way out.

Yeah not reading all of the thread to see if anyone suggested it seriously meant that my joke was wasted. For what its worth, I can live with the disconnect of knocking a jelly prone (because its a game rather than a simulation), but it doesn't terribly make a lot of sense removed from a game context (ie if you were writing a PoE novel, writing that Eder knocked the jelly prone would just be silly).

Since everything uses souls and soul power in the game...you're probably knocking that jelly's soul prone and blinding the eyeless creature's soul so it can't sense however it is that it senses with its soul. This means fire burns the Flame Blights soul too.

Gfted1 might have to rethink his drone defense plans: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150413-chimpanzee-drone-curious-clever-chimp-attack-zoo/ Chimps with sticks 1, Drones 0

To be honest, one branch of my family comes from one of the poorest areas of the US. And a lot of the generation that "got out" (and their kids) have weight struggles. I think part of it is not having a strong diet education coupled with the fact that being able to eat what you want, when you want is a sign of affluence when your background is having the cheapest food possible when you didn't have to go without entirely.

You have no freedom on a company owned message board. That's not even to get into the "You can't ban him/her, they're a good poster, that's a stupid rule!" and "Crushing that poster's freedom is wrong!" and "I can't believe Obsidian allows a bunch of Fascists to run their message boards!" emotional appeals every single time some "nitwit" is "crushed". Having the forum enforce a rule is about as impartial as you can get and saves a lot of time and trouble for the mods.