Lurker > ParanoidObsessive

I'm 45 and haven't been to school for decades, yet I'll still occasional have dreams about being back in school and having deadline or grade problems, or something else school-related.

Which is even weirder, because I didn't really have those sorts of dreams when I was in school.

Kotenks posted...

This comes to down to what you think the purpose of the prison system is. If it's rehabilitation, then life sentences don't work. They ought to be kept in prison until they've reformed. If it's because of retribution and giving them their due, then a life sentence can be seen as a fitting punishment for the crimes they've committed.

There's also a third motivation, though - prevention.

The idea of prison as prevention is that you keep the violent criminals in there and they can't commit their crimes again. Whether they're being turned into productive citizens or simply punished isn't as important as the fact that they're being kept away from everyone else.

By that motivation, a life sentence (without parole) is just the same as a death penalty, because it means you'll never risk them being able to commit another crime (unless they escape somehow).

The problem is, because people don't agree on what the purpose of prison should be, prison doesn't really succeed at any of its potential purposes effectively. It's shit for rehab (with recidivism rates through the roof) because we don't actually DO much to rehabilitate anyone. It's shit for keeping people off the streets because a lot of criminals tend to get dumped back out (after learning how to be even more effective criminals while in prison). And it's kind of shit for full-on retributive punishment because we worry too much about being humane and try to avoid abuses. Then add on issues with the justice system as a whole (Should drug offenders be in prison in the first place? If trials keep having mistakes, misrepresented evidence, and other flawed investigations, can we justify the death penalty if we can't be 100% sure someone is guilty?), and the whole thing becomes a huge mess.

Revelation34 posted...

You had to join the Empire which supported the Thalmor since the only other path was the racist path.

I literally never join the Empire (except for once, just for completionist sake).

Even aside from the fact that they try to randomly kill you just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time almost from the moment you start playing, once you start to know anything about the backstory, they get even worse. The Imperials are pretty much the entire reason the Empire loses the war with the Dominion (the war was being won everywhere else, but Cyrodiil collapsed and the Empire panicked), they straight up sold out the Redguard (so why would you ever trust them to actually support Skyrim or the Nords?), and giving in to the Thalmor demand to outlaw Talos worship isn't just a question of "religious freedom", it's literally destroying the universe (which is the entire reason the Thalmor want to do it in the first place).

And it's not as if the Imperials aren't racist - about half of Tullius' dialogue comes across like he hates Nords, and the Empire was founded through conquest and force, not peace love and understanding. The Imperials are as self-interested as anyone else, they're just better at lying about it (hence their racial power).

Also, the Stormcloaks aren't nearly as racist as people make them out to be. The "Skyrim is for the Nords" philosophy isn't all that much more radical than most of the other races tend to be about their own homelands. Skyrim's history is almost entirely comprised of stories where the Nords are fighting against elves, so it's kind of understandable that they'd be at least somewhat down on them. Are you mad because they treat Khajiit like criminals? Well, nearly every Khajiit you meet is a criminal (or a secret Thalmor agent) - most of the caravan Khajiit will tell you they were criminals in their homeland and left to get away, and the merchants sell Skooma and become fences for the Thieves' Guild when you do that questline. Mad that they treat the Dark Elves like refugees? Most of the Dunmer in Windhelm are refugees - the poor, less capable masses escaping their homeland (and the more capable, more skilled Dunmer tend to move farther into Skyrim, where they become bandits or other antagonists). Mad because Nords tend to dislike Altmer? They literally just fought a war against them, and are still opposed to their continuing manipulation (and the Thalmor are wandering around Skyrim torturing and murdering people). Racist against Imperials? Well, the Imperials are currently trying to beat all dissent and Talos worship out of the population at the whim of the Dominion, so there's not much to respect there (and even so, Ulfric still respects Tullius even if it doesn't stop him from wanting to kill him).

To top it off, it's not as if you being one of those races stops them from happily recruiting you into their ranks and accepting your help in freeing Skyrim from the Empire. It doesn't even stop you from entering cities (if you're Khajiit), or being treated relatively well by most citizens of Skyrim (even the ones who strongly support the Stormcloaks). Maybe the real problem is, like Niranye in Windhelm suggests, that the people who get pissed about Nord racism are being "too proud and naive", and don't really make much of an effort to overcome it (the way she did).

If anything, from a narrative perspective, the best way for you to fight against what you see as the racism of the Stormcloaks might be to join them - becoming the heroic champion who helps them free Skyrim would probably go a looong way towards showing the Nords that your kin aren't all that bad. Even as an Altmer, you're showing them that not all High Elves are Thalmor or support the Dominion. That not all Khajiit are worthless criminals. That not all Dark Elves are shiftless vagabonds. That not all Imperials support the self-destructive policies of a weak and dying Empire.

As is, the Nords in general and Stormcloaks specifically don't have many reasons NOT to think the worst of all the other races.

UltraIchi posted...

Gta

I actually try to go out of my way to avoid hitting pedestrians or otherwise limit collateral damage when I'm playing GTA or Saints Row.

Not so much that I'm overly careful all the time (especially during timed missions, I'm a lot more lax about who might get taken out in the crossfire), but I also don't just indiscriminately murder civilians for no reason, either.



Unbridled9 posted...

As such there is no 'right' choice to make and the 'only' solution is to be an apathetic, self-interested, jerk because any time you try to do anything else it will amount to nothing.

There technically is a right choice, though. What she's trying to explain to you is that what you should be doing is either encouraging people to solve their own problems, thus allowing them to become stronger, or to deliberately solve their problems to make them weak on purpose (and to strengthen yourself).

Basically, conflict breeds strength, so if you help everyone with their problems you're not really helping them, you're just making them weaker, and more likely to have problems again later. Arguably, you could look at it is as a similar philosophy to "Give a man a fish/Teach a man to fish". She's telling you that if you really want to help people, you should stop giving all these people fish and teach them to fish for themselves.

This actually comes into play later on Nar Shadaa - when the dude is talking about his wife who's missing (she's trapped in the Refugee section), you can actually encourage him to be "stronger" in a way that Kreia absolutely approves of, but which still results in the two of them getting back together.



Unbridled9 posted...

You don't even get some statistical advantage by being 'grey' as the best powers are behind the extremes. Meaning your best bet is to effectively tell her to shove it and act like a hero/jerk.

Nah, you're kind of missing the point of her philosophy.

Looking for a statistical advantage is literally relying on the Force. Because that's what the Light Side/Dark Side bonuses represent. And her entire philosophy is that people shouldn't rely on the Force. Because it's a callous, manipulative thing that controls everyone. To truly be free, you need to reject the Force entirely. It's why she's with you in the first place - you're the only one who's ever been able to reject the Force and survive. You're basically the only hope she sees for the future - a galaxy where the Force can die but life can continue without it, free to thrive without an invisible master pulling all the strings.

Essentially, if you develop your skills (something else she encourages you to do), you shouldn't need the stat bonus from being full Light Side or Dark Side. So actively rejecting the temptation is strength, but allowing the Force to shape your behavior so you can benefit from it is weakness.

It's also why Sion and Nihilus exist - they're examples. Sion is showing you what blind reliance on the Force leads to. Nihilus is what you could have become (and technically may still) due to rejecting the Force but still being unable to fully let it go. You need to learn from both, transcend both.

Arguably the real weakness of the game is that Kreia's philosophy isn't represented in game mechanics more effectively or more often, but we could say the same about lots of things (like how you can only really be a thug Sith, not a cunning or manipulative one, which is arguably better in every way).

It also doesn't really help that, canonically, you rebuild the Jedi Order by recovering the "Lost Jedi" and training them, which leads them to refound the order that eventually grows into the order as we see it in the movies, so they can't really tell the story of you learning Kreia's lessons, coming to agree with her philosophy, and trying to murder the Force. Because the future universe doesn't reflect that outcome.

http://i1.wp.com/skepticreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/president-dog.jpg

I would indeed vote for Man's Best Friend. He is a very good boy, after all.

Gypsy!

dedbus posted...

Building a pie from scratch you would have to make the universe

Came in solely to specifically reference this.

Muscles posted...

No, the story doesn't really have anything to do with Christmas, it's just an action movie that takes place during Christmas time

Multiple elements of the movie reference it, though. And it's the reason why he's visiting his ex-wife in the first place.

It's like Gremlins - you might not like the idea, but taking place at Christmas does add an element to the overall story that would be lacking if it was just set on "some random Tuesday". So it's as much a Christmas movie as plenty of other Christmas movies.



Zangulus posted...

The best argument Ive seen about whether its a Christmas movie or not is to refute/confirm the idea that the entire movie could have any other Celebration be substituted and it would still work.

The problem is, there is almost no "Christmas" movie that can't have Christmas replaced with a different holiday (or no holiday at all). Including tons that most people wouldn't hesitate to call Christmas movies.

Unless it's explicitly about specific aspects of Christmas (something like "Santa Claus Is Coming to Town"), almost anything can be swapped out or dropped. Because Christmas itself is almost always used as the backdrop more than the core of the story.

Even White Christmas - a movie literally named after a popular Christmas song and which has been a Christmas standard for decades - could easily be changed because the plot just requires the two leads to help save their old mentor's resort from bankruptcy, and the Christmas aspect is almost entirely superfluous. A Christmas Carol is mostly just rooted in the idea that the main character is a cheap bastard and has to change his ways or he's going to die. A Christmas Story could just as easily revolve around Ralphie's birthday. Even Frosty the Snowman really just needs winter, not Christmas.

The first one was the better of the two, but neither was all that good honestly.

I never upgrade Windows. I only ever get new versions when my old computer dies and my new one comes with the new version pre-installed.

If I had my way I'd probably still be using XP.

I honestly prefer most of the Monkees songs over most Beatles songs.

Should have posted a topic saying the son of the woman who invented Liquid Paper died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bette_Nesmith_Graham

Neither?

adjl posted...

I tried doing a Renegade run after beating it as Paragon and quickly lost interest in the game because it just wasn't fun to be a dick for no reason like that. It can sometimes be entertaining to not be the good guy, but so much of that was just like "Hello! How are you?" "Eat shit and die.", which is so absurdly exaggerated that it's just kinda dumb.

The problem is they present it sort of like the difference between "hero" and "badass", but because they were still coming off of KotOR with the Light Side/Dark Side dynamic, about half the Renegade choices just sort of come across like "Be an asshole".

Alpha Protocol does it better, where your options are basically to be professional, sarcastic, or aggressive. Or as they put it, you're choosing whether you're Jason Bourne, James Bond, or Jack Bauer. It's not really "good" or "evil", or even "nice"/"dick", as much as it is how you view missions and the best methodology for engaging. Of course, in Alpha Protocol, you're kind of a dick no matter what options you pick - there really isn't a "good guy" option.

Criminalt posted...

What people like you like to forget is that it's the Empire that's keeping the Dominion out of Skyrim.

The Empire can't even keep the Dominion out of Cyrodiil!

Plus, they don't seem to be keeping them out of Skyrim either, considering how many Thalmor I've had to stab in the face.

Criminalt posted...

Like hold guards who warn you to stay out of trouble because you're obviously being racially profiled.

Well, I wouldn't know because I never play filthy subhuman scum.

And if you pick one on a whim, you'll probably regret your choice and hate it years from now.

Yes. All the time.

Depends on the game and the sort of character I'm playing, but I always value narrative and character decisions over purely mechanical ones.

Hell, I'll wear substandard armor simply because it looks better than something stronger.



Criminalt posted...

Yeah, I won't steal from Orc strongholds when I'm playing as an Orc in Skyrim because they're my people.

I generally don't steal from anyone unless I'm playing a Thieves' Guild run. And even then I tend to prioritize stealing from people I don't like over people who are innocent or poor.

Ogurisama posted...

Nope, today will be terrible

Because of the concept of entropy, it is scientifically and objectively true that every single day will be slightly worse than the last.

AndyReklaw posted...

I really hope they can have Clint stick around as a mentor role for the Young Avengers. His best moments are when he's helping to encourage someone.

Even in the comics. Some of his best moments come from when he was forming/running the West Coast Avengers, or acting as mentor to the Great Lakes Avengers.

Bulbasaur posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/6/4/AAd1RyAACrsg.jpg

Funny that you posted that cover. I was going to reply to the original post that I'd rather see Rocket Racer instead. And then you went for the two-fer!

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Jackson_Weele_(Earth-616)
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Robert_Farrell_(Earth-616)



JustaSandwich posted...

It's funny how comics have such a limitless quantity of random characters that I've never heard about at all.

Look, there was a LOT of drugs going around in the 70s.

And the 80s.

And the 90s.

And... you get the idea.

https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Snowflame_(New_Earth)