Namutree

Because the entire thing is [citation needed]. That's what I thought, you don't really have a reason to dismiss it. Its just a knee-jerk reaction because it raises the reality of harassment of women on the Internet and it appears that this view is not something that certain people who support GG want to really accept or acknowledge...or even discuss Do you think this then undermines the objectives of GG somehow? Is it not possible to support GG but also support a video like this and the message it is trying to convey ? I think some of it is perfectly reasonable, and some of it is nonsense. Benefit 3 is nonsense. You release your contact information online and you run the risk of being stalked; male or not. That said the video wasn't terrible. I did notice one thing though. At the beginning the guy clearly used the word, "gamer". I guess the idea that gamers are dead has been dropped by feminist frequency. To me, that counts as a tiny win for GG. EDIT: Am I the only one who thinks the guy on benefit 12 has a fake mustache? It seems like the wrong color, and it also appears to be slanted like it was hastily put on.

Starwars takes elements of westerns and other genres as well, but that doesn't mean it was based on them. It was inspired by Flash Gordon, it's tone was and general universe was based on Flash Gordon. George added tropes from other stories sure, but the basic idea for Starwars came from Flash Gordon. That isn't well known, but is very true. Even from the beginning of the creation of Starwars Lucas went out of his way to make it a story a ten year old would love. The tone of the original trilogy even matches that premise. It's a part of why the British crew on the first film were so critical of George Lucas; they weren't happy working on a science fiction movie for kids. Please just accept that the originals had kids in mind during it's creation. The script and direction put in both moral ambiguity and nuance. The things Trashman and maybe you want. It's kind of silly to say that a script that had moral ambiguity and nuance was bad; except for the ambiguity and nuance. Much of the atrocious dialog was the result of trying to make Anakin a sympathetic villain. Many of the terrible performances were the result of trying to make the story sophisticated and nuanced. It's like you can tell where the movies failed, but not WHY those aspects of the prequels failed.

George Lucas also said that Greedo shot first... The original trilogy, without a doubt the first two movies, were made for people of all ages. If those movies just appealed to kids, they would not have been near as successful as they were. Nor would so many people be wanting to be seeing them decades later, or be invested in what the sequel trilogy will bring us. The addition of the original cast would not be so important if they just wanted to appeal to 10 year olds. Starwars was based on Flash Gorden; a kids show. When making the original script George Lucas wanted it to be, "A movie a ten year old would love." (From his biography) With the original trilogy he never strayed from that premise. Don't get me wrong; he didn't design the movie to alienate adults, but ten year old kids were the target. The fact that such a wide audience enjoyed the movie came as a complete shock to Lucas. We've already seen the results of both approaches to Starwars. Make it a story of the heroic good guys fighting the evil bad guys (The originals) and you get some of the greatest movies ever made. Make it morally unclear and have sympathetic villains and you get the prequels. Movies that are sub-par at best. For episode 7 a good villain will have more in common with this: Than this:

Or if you like a high fantasy story of good vs evil. You should also keep in mind that Starwars is meant for ten year old kids. George Lucas has said so himself. It's not meant to be sophisticated or nuanced, and any attempt to make it so just makes it lame. As an adult watching the Starwars originals brings out my inner child; while watching the prequels drains my will to live. The fact that the originals were beloved and iconic classics is validation of my stance. The prequels followed your logic and are crappy, boring, and held in complete contempt by nearly everyone who sees them. I wonder why you insist on shoehorning in sophistication and nuance into a universe they will never belong in; while ruining that universe's primary appeal.

What a douche.

What is JW?

I call BS on your BS. Vader was a great villain. Which is what Lucas did; by making him sympathetic. Vader should not be sympathetic. Neither should the new villains. Anti-villains are not good for the tone of a Starwars movie. Awesome and intimidating villain that became an icon. Pansy almost nobody liked. Keep anti-villains away from Starwars

First you say it's the rich; now it's neo-liberal ideologues. Which is it? The rich or neo-liberals? Most of the rich are not neo-liberals. They usually prefer economic protectionism; for obvious reasons.

Yay!

In the 80's the economy was pretty bad until Reagan took over. The immediate situation was worse than it is now, but the long-term economic outlook was better. So, just as bad as now in it's own way. I would also agree with you that left-right does not equal fiscal responsibility. Especially when you consider that Reagan re-popularized military interventionism in the US. In the long term such a policy has costed us trillions of dollars, and many enemies. I loathe Reagan, but some on the right love him for various dumb reasons. Well really I have a hard time calling people like Reagan politically right wing. He certainly wasn't a champion of traditional American values; socially or economically.

That's true. Still Drowsy suggested that the push to end welfare comes from the rich; not common people. If she's not rich it at least suggests that the push does not come from the rich alone.

You don't like the "nanny" laws? For those who may not know "nanny" is code for welfare. Let me guess LadyCrimson; you are more working class than wealthy elite.

HAHAHA!!! Oh socialists and their class theories. None of it is ever based on facts; just ideology. The push to end welfare mostly comes from blue collar (I don't know if that's an American specific term; it basically means working class) people pissed off that they have to work while lazy slackers feed off the system. Most of the political support FOR welfare comes from the upper-class communities. I can assure you in the US if you ask poor to lower-middle class people about welfare about 1/2 of them will want it eliminated, and the other half will only accept the programs grudgingly. Ask the rich and about 19/20 of them will give their complete support for welfare.

I assume you mean inaccurate. Israel is indeed an ally of the US; even helping us with logistical support in the Iraq war, but being an ally and being an asset are two different things. Relations between the US and Israel are good, but it's a dysfunctional relationship. Their status as an ally compels the US to get more involved in the Middle East; not only to protect their interest, but also because being their ally earns us the ire of Muslim radicals. I'd rather those radicals kill each other rather than us. Then there's the economic aid we give them. Having Israel as an ally is just too expensive. Not to mention I oppose the very notion of the US having "allies" as a matter of principle.

Not your kind of freedom at least, but then I don't really believe one would be truly free under your kind of system. Are you talking about the US system as it is or Guard Dog's tiny government/no government ideal?

I added the bold there. They don't want an all-powerful government. They want balance; generally. They see an all powerful state crushing all semblance of freedom as a threat. They see a stateless or near stateless society where much of your life is left to chance and your future not being secure as a threat as well. It's not hard to understand. They see government as a tool: It's good when used properly, and it can be bad when misused. A hammer for example is good for construction, but it's not so good when used to bash people's head in. The problem isn't the hammer; it's the misuse of the hammer. Again; I'm only playing devil's advocate.

Maybe they think a balance of freedom and security (economic or otherwise) is better than an unbalanced reverence to freedom. Don't get me wrong: I likely am as pro-freedom as you, but I can still understand other points of view.

I'm hardly interested in Brianna Wu, but this... She's such an abrasive moron. What the hell is "mansplaining" anyway? All he did is provide evidence that her claim was untrue; why would the fact he is a man be even remotely relevant? There are people who think this brazen stupidity is acceptable?

A dang good suggestion! I 100% approve.

Sounds horrible.

It's obvious that anti-GG holds misogynistic views of women. It's not surprising considering anti-GG is a bunch of white-males who believe everyone should think the way they do. Remember; it has already been established that anti-GG thinks any women that are pro-GG just want attention from boys.

I dunno... maybe the discussion's more heated because people are so cold this time of year. 6_u (I accept that this joke relies upon my geographical location, and is not globally true.) Works for me.

That would create trap builds. Anyone taking on 4 or more classes would be too low level to be effective.

I think the multi-class limit should be three. Also I think someone who chose that many classes would be garbage. Sure he'd have incredible versatility, but he'd be incredibly low level; making defender mode useless.

I liked John Huntsman too. Oh well; I'd rather have Rand Paul anyway.