Amentep

Social Justice Warrior As far as definition, I don't think there's one that everyone could agree with. Typically involves someone trying to argue for doing something to improve the life of some perceived oppressed group. That's a scurrilous and inaccurate description of what a SJW is A SJW is simply someone who takes the important position of addressing various SJ causes and is active in trying to ameliorate the conditions of people in society who are intentionally and unintentionally victims of bigotry and discrimination. I believe in the principle of doing the right thing irrespective if the majority disagree. And we use various mediums, like the Internet, to try to get our message across Hmm, I was trying to be neutral about the definition (since its a hot button topic). Didn't realize you could be scurrilously neutral, but hey live and learn...

Would you please cite your definitive work on the subject in a peer-reviewed journal? I'd like to read it.

Social Justice Warrior As far as definition, I don't think there's one that everyone could agree with. Typically involves someone trying to argue for doing something to improve the life of some perceived oppressed group.

Not sure I would have went with a "fictional show illustrates how life was like 50 years ago" example, but maybe it'll work out for you. It may be fictional but its accurate account of a women's role in the workplace and perceived place in the home in the 1960's and earlier So you were able to study every work place there was in the 1960s and can state, categorically that Mad Men accurately - to 100% - reflects women's roles in the workplace and perceived place in the 1960s and earlier? I'm not saying that those issues weren't there at all, but I'd feel more comfortable if you were pulling the basis for this from, say, Mary Wells' A BIG LIFE IN ADVERTISING, Janice Rutherford's SELLING MRS. CONSUMER or Juliane Sivulka's SOAP, SEX AND CIGARETTES, or any other non-ficitional* source than from a TV show that is going to heighten any potential conflict for dramatic effect. *acknowledging that even non-fiction has inherent bias

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-31858156

In my experience (YMMV): US's "Affirmative Action" ends up amounting to "If person 'A' and person 'B' are equally suited for a job (same degree, experience, etc) you can't hire person 'A' over person 'B' because of A's race." It doesn't mean that if you have 4 Y Race people and 3 Z Race people you have to hire a Z Race person next regardless of job knowledge, experience or other pertinent hiring factors. Title IX is against discrimination against men or women by a federally funded program. We mostly know about it from collegiate athletics in education to address high disparate spending and opportunity based on gender. A college might have, for example, a Basketball, Soccer, Lacrosse, softball, tennis and track team for gender A and a Basketball, Soccer, Tennis, Softball and volleyball team for gender b. The participation and scholarship opportunity for gender A students is disparate with gender B. This gives less access to gender B and under Title IX this can't happen in a program that receives federal funds. It has, based on some non-sports related wording, also provided a "don't sexually harrass/rape other students" rule. Not sure I would have went with a "fictional show illustrates how life was like 50 years ago" example, but maybe it'll work out for you.

Aye. You should have heard what my father called Brazil nuts. Yeah, they were sold under that name for many years (you can, occasionally, see it crop up in really old films on signs in stores and such).

"Never let another man touch your doomsday stash." - words to live (the apocalypse) by.

Bruce the Identity Thief! Its really irrespective what words use to mean, its what they symbolize now that matters What does it symbolyze? Is it related to the Atlantic slave trade? It has a long history, but generally got regarded as an "offensive" term second half of last century. Before that, it was considered a perfectly good word, the same way as slavery and racism was considered perfectly good practises. When the latter changed, the use of the word did too. Pretty sure it was considered offensive before that, but probably depended heavily on which side of saying it you were on. (Also - and I'm not defending it - but with respect to the original post, I'd suspect that pretty much any white person born before, say, 1948 or so PROBABLY has uttered something that'd be considered racist now. Not guaranteed, but highly different times)

How'd he like the tune?

^Wasn't there a killer who used that argument when they were caught? That they were a killer, admittedly, but they'd never robbed anybody because they only took things after the person they killed was dead. Or maybe it was a movie and not a historical thing.

^For sufficiently liberal interpretations of "eschewing" that may be true...

MOONRAKER (1979) - Eon skipped the previously announced FOR YOUR EYES ONLY to leap into the space craze with Moonraker. A plot that is highly similar to the previous outing (bad guy steals stuff so he can complete plan to eradicate all but his chosen people in his secret sea/space base. Bond and an agent from another country investigate. Jaws interferes). They manage to improve on one aspect of the previous film (namely that Drax is a more interesting villain than Stromberg and gets better lines "Make sure some harm befalls him"). But the rest of the story is languid and there's one set piece too many (did we need another boat chase?). Jaws makes a welcome return but as so much reminds one of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME its hard not to notice that this film isn't, ultimately, as good as that one. MINISTRY OF FEAR (1944) - Ray Milland plays a man just released from a prison for the insane who stumbles upon a spy plot by accident. A wrong man thriller based on a Grahame Green story and directed by Fritz Lang. Lots of moody lighting and good suspense. SINBAD: THE 5TH VOYAGE (2014) - while I applaud the idea of going back and doing stop motion animation adventure film (just like Ray Harryhausen did back in the day), I can't help but wonder how writer, director and star Shahin Sean Solimon would look at the Harryhausen films and make such a leaden and grim film. The Harryhausen films (even to CLASH OF THE TITANS) were direct descendants of the swashbuckling films. Derring do, excitement, humour, thrills and fun. This film lacks that, instead Sinbad is more in line with a taciturn Batman than the Sinbad of the Harryhausen films. The stop motion animation is okay, but often staged in uninteresting ways. Almost no character but Sinbad has any development and remains a cypher through the story. A real dissapointment (possibly because the intent to do a modern day Harryhausen film - even with a low budget - is an exciting prospect).

I bet you didn't like MAD MONSTER PARTY either.

I'm not a physicist or an airplane buff, so take my understanding with a grain of salt. Remember that anything in the plane is going at the "speed" of the plane; when it hits enough thrust to counter (temporarily) the gravitational pull objects in the ****pit would have no force that would act on it to cause it to fall until it loses that countering force. Since all of the air in the ****pit is also moving at the "speed" of the plane, the air itself won't exert a force on the candy bar. In other words, it can't reach terminal velocity until the plane alters the forces (by reaching a point in the parabola that they have to alter thrust) in such a way that the force acting on the candy bar no longer is sufficient to negate gravity. The example of the feather and the ball is actually talking about weight not mass (in a frictionless environment, a feather and a metal ball will drop at the same rate). When you look at mass, while the ball may have more mass that the feather, the mass of both the feather and the ball are negligible in relation to the mass of the earth and therefore the slight more pull the ball exerts on the earth doesn't change the elapsed time significantly enough to be measurable against that of the feather. Obviously this isn't the case between a feather and a celestial body. Again not a physicist so someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong.

I dunno, I liked it but I have a soft spot for classic style monsters, I admit. I'll be interested in seeing what he does with Popeye, certainly.

Great Quote: 'Government has no authority "to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the Marquis of Queensbury Rules."'

I liked Genndy Tartakovsky's HOTEL TRANSYLVANIA a lot in terms of using 2D animation thought and aesthetics into 3D.

That wouldn't have taken much doing. There, I said it

Digression was fairly common on rec.arts.games.* back in 1996 though - every discussion became a console war or PC vs console war (but then, somewhat to your point, Usenet wasn't moderated typically).

I don't think its just common on these forums, I think its common on the internet. Discussion go off on tangents that have little to do with what started them.

Based on the (very) limited anecdotical evidence at my disposal, this doesn't seem to be an industry standard, though. Yeah its a total anecdotal experience so I acknowledge it might not be applicable to the larger group despite how it influences my perspective. Since I don't frequent strip clubs or know any strippers anymore, its possible it was symptomatic of this particular person, or the time period (about 25 years ago), or the regional area. I've also read of high levels of addiction (drugs/alcohol) with strippers, but again that was years ago and its possible that even those stories were more sensational. I have no issue with the job or the people who perform it.

...It's not really an assumption when the industry standard seems to be "every female character needs to be sexualized". Usually actively pushed by (needless to say, male) producers and execs, even when it makes zero sense. I'd argue that it could be a chicken/egg thing. Do game makers make "sexy female" characters because of execs who think that's what the market wants or because the market actually responds well to it? It might not matter in the end effect, but it matters in what way it might be improved. This would be an easier topic to discuss if it was clear what drove some decisions and whether they were even consciously made or not. I'd lump "doesn't actively hate the job and thinks the money is way good enough" with "enjoys it". I mean, my point was more like "she's not a Victim of the Patriarchy Who Has To Be Rescued From The Awful, Awful Fate of Being a Stripper", but a person who made a choice knowing the benefits and the drawbacks of the job. I wouldn't, necessarily. One of the exotic dancers I knew basically felt trapped in the job by the time I met her. She'd gotten into it for the money and the money allowed her to get independence from her parents. She got a boyfriend, had a kid, the boyfriend left her and she felt she had to keep stripping because she'd established a lifestyle for her kid that she couldn't pay for without the money for stripping and without the child's father contributing anything (essentially he was a deadbeat dad). Thing is she knew that it was a limited lifespan as she was getting older, and she was trying to go to school to get a long term career, but she struggled because the lure of money kept pulling her away from her coursework. Arguably she was addicted to the money (and possibly the attention) she got.

...Fictional strippers entirely brought into existence by men, to increase a game's appeal for men is somewhat different from real life, living, breathing, flesh-and-blood people choosing to do that job because - Heavens forbid! - they enjoy it. You're making a rather large assumption there - not necessarily inaccurate per se, but broad enough for me to feel that a little uncomfortable with it even if at some level I think I agree with the gist of what you're saying. However I think it fair to point out that not all game developers are men, so it is possible for a game to have strippers who weren't brought into existence by men. Also if a game is trying to mirror real life, and real life has strippers and the subject matter contextually makes sense to have strippers, verisimilitude, not male gaze, would indicate the need to include strippers. And while my anecdotal evidence is limited (and naturally because of anecdotal nature not necessarily representative), the women I knew who worked in exotic dancing didn't choose to do it because they enjoyed it, but because of the money they made.