Lurker > Unbridled9

Sansoldier posted...

Voted kinda important. Usually, it doesn't matter, but it helps in these areas:

1. Character creator options, especially with hair and skin tones.
2. Character writing (human world). Unless you're really experienced, it'll be tough writing well developed characters of the opposite gender. Not many games are all that story focused, so it doesn't typically matter. Same with modern settings - It would be nice to have someone from the story setting, or the staff has contacts with someone who is.
3. Having people from all walks of life may make the game more well rounded. In America, racial identity is a pretty important part of this, but I'm certain it's quite different in other countries. Even non-gamers providing valuable input would be helpful, since many of us may take for granted systems that may turn others off.
Higher diversity has a greater chance of allowing different voices be heard. Some people may have some great ideas that can enhance the game.

And far, far, more of them will offer ideas and complaints that are self-serving if not outright terrible. I'm sorry, but while I do agree that an outside view CAN be helpful, the idea that it's, somehow, a good thing in of itself is foolish. Should a CoD player need to have the voice of a JRPG fan in his shooter? Or a FF fan have to listen to someone complaining that they can't trick-shot the boss? Should either of them have to listen to, or see their game mechanics be influenced by, someone whose gaming 'experience' is playing Candy Crush on their rides to and from work? I want the doors to my house to be open to let others in, not knock down the supporting walls. We've already seen that game companies are more than willing to destroy their games and franchises for a quick buck. We shouldn't be encouraging them.

Sahuagin posted...

not properly indicating what is actually being asked is not a "trick" question, it's a flawed question

for Peanut Butter, I can find that "Marcellus Gilmore Edson of Canada" was the first to patent "peanut paste". the aztecs had also made a peanut paste a long time earlier, and there were more advances to come after Marcellus to make what we now know as "peanut butter".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellus_Gilmore_Edson

Which is the first pokemon?

Bulbasaur?
Mew?
Arceus?
Rydon?

A flawed question. But yea... You didn't indicate we were specifically talking about wonderbra's as opposed to the far more logical assumption of bras in general, there was NO indication that you were talking about the green ink in the slightest and it isn't reasonable at all for people to even consider that, and peanut butter is highly iffy at BEST since a better answer would be that it was first PATENTED in Canada, not INVENTED (which is not the same thing).

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They have a tendency to control their industries

Pretty much every company over a certain size in China is basically required to have direct CCP oversight and, if I'm not mistaken, have the CCP get a direct cut of the profits. Even if that's not the case, since the CCP effectively controls China (any other parties are meaninglessly small), any taxes from them would go to fund them. I know it's impossible to cut them out 100% in modern society just because of how many small things you don't even think about are made there (nevermind if you NEED something and all the products are made here) but I do my best to avoid them.

However, and I want to make this EXTREMELY clear, my problem is with the CCP, not with Chinese people. It has nothing to do with race or anything and is entirely because of how horrible I view the government.

I'm pretty sure the bra was invented by some french Noblewoman who couldn't take the corset anymore.

When you play a new video game....is the ethnic diversity of the team important to you?

How the heck would I even know? I mean, 99.9% of people outright skip the credits and even if you didn't you'd have no clue who the people were. Unless I went out of my way specifically to check the team beforehand for this I wouldn't know... which is just stupid.

Would you be bothered if you found out the game was made by all white people?

No.

Even if it was a great game, would something rub you the wrong way knowing it was made by a team of all whites? Would you assume the company has racist hiring practices? Would you feel compelled to do something about it?

I wouldn't even know in the first place unless they outright came forwards and said 'we only hire white people'. See above comment about how the heck I would even know.

When you watch a new movie...does the gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation of the writer, director, producer, etc.....play a factor in how much you enjoy that movie?

Nope. I barely watch movies anyways currently.

Do you get upset when there are too many straight/gay characters in a show?

Why would straight people upset the audience of a show? Maybe if it was something meant to be exclusive to the LGBT community, but otherwise...

Do you get upset when there aren't enough handicapped people represented? Trans people? Muslim? Etc?

No.

But even so. Does that mean privileged white people are 100% incapable of writing an engaging and relevant story about the struggles of blacks? What if you later found out that that "privileged white dude" who wrote the story, grew up with a black family in a black community and experienced/witnessed extremely brutal racism firsthand? Would that change anything?

I can safely say that this is not a question I feel should be answered by me.

How important is this stuff to you?

To me? Used to be completely unimportant. Only thing I care about is if a game was made in China or not currently, and that doesn't apply to Chinese PEOPLE, it applies to the CCP. Finding out a game was simply made by someone of Chinese descent or from China but left for whatever reason wouldn't cause me to consider not playing it for even a second.

wolfy42 posted...

Sadly I already deleted it. I tried 2 classes but was bored to death with both of em. Hopefully others enjoy it more than I did, but I found Diablo 3 more fun, and I didn't really enjoy D3 much (Played D2 again recently way more).

Not having luck with MMO's lately, guess I'm burned out.

Assuming you're talking about XIV, it's important to keep going. You're learning the basics of your class and getting their rotations and skills hammered into you which becomes important later on as the difficulty of bosses increases and you reach a point where you NEED to know and understand your rotations and skills on an instinctual level.

I main dancer. I gotta keep two patterned steps up (I.E. gotta get 2/4 quick key-inputs done accurately), got two OGC abilities that both buff and proc additional attacks, and TWO random attack rotations I gotta keep an eye on (three if you split AoE and single). This isn't to mention my shield samba and my heal. In order to be a good dancer I need to not only keep an eye on the fight but know exactly how my abilities are working and everything. A missed technical step is not only a major DPS-loss for me, but for whatever team-mate I'm partnered up with. A simple step isn't too crippling but that's still a DPS loss on both our parts. It's not easy. I don't know if other class rotations have it harder or not...

But when I level synch for a low-level fate or dungeon my abilities are so limited in comparison. What is normally a rapid and delicate dance is reduced to basically a brain-dead rotation where I keep having to remind myself that certain abilities can't be used. Seriously throws me off to remember I don't need to track fans or keep an eye out for my OGC abilities.

So yea. Early on it might seem easy, but more and more pile up as you level until what might have been a stupidly easy thing early on is now something you just gotta KNOW to do well.

Plus, if you're talking about 1.0... It's seriously changed. IIRC 1.0 didn't even have auto-attack.

wolfy42 posted...

I think I was in the FFXIV beta, I know I played it at launch. Never went back to it though (or maybe tried it again once a long time ago but only briefly). Now that it's free I wouldn't need to try and figure out my old account to play it again. Back then (at launch) there were parts you pretty much had to party for, which kinda sucks for me.

I've tried some of Ark now, just played the female gunslinger so far. It's ok, but both very easy, and kinda meh on the actual combat so far. I may need to try a different class (this one just hasn't really been fun yet).

If you are referring to 1.0 (which is most likely the case) then the game completely changed with A Realm Reborn. You don't need to party at all outside of dungeons (obvious) and some FATES/hunts (which are entirely optional). Even then the party finder is great, you'll never have trouble getting a party, and when you do the community is extremely non-toxic and supportive. So you don't need to worry about, say, the party going off on you and attempting to kick and/or disband because of a wipe.

Edit: Free trial is still suspended. However the starter edition, which has all the expansions except endbringer, is only 20 bucks and comes with a free month.

wolfy42 posted...

Wont' let me play till tomorrow. So much hate for this game, but at the same time many people are saying it's massively addicting (and complaining about that mostly lolz).

I will try with a controller first to give it a better chance. If I don't like it, i'll just keep playing my current PoE character till I go on my trip, and when I get back Elden Ring will be ready.

Have not actually played a MMO for awhile (since Phantasy Star Online 2 came out in the US...like a year ago or so?) and only played the last one like a month or less. None have really caught my attention since Dungeons and Dragons Online......but damn if I don't actually really need a good MMO to get lost in.

Back in the day MUDS like 3k could keep me entertained forever. In fact, I replayed 3k again a few years ago and that is by far the most I have played a MMO in like a decade. I still got in like 8+ hours a day on that.

Most other MMO's just don't have enough progression and everything takes so long or you don't have much character customization etc.

FFXIV's well worth looking into. I don't know if the free trial's resumed yet, but if it is you get both ARR and Heavensward for free with no subscription and you only need to pony up if you wanna get into Stormblood/Shadowbringers/Endwalker. It's story is top-notch and the gameplay is very solid as well (if slow at the start). It's got a ton of character customization and it's gear designs tend to be far better than the WoW body-paint style. Best part is it's a game not defined by it's endgame raiding/PvP scene. Once you finish the story you can, say, focus on buying and maintaining a house, leveling other classes, hunting down glamor pieces, whatever else and not 'fall behind'. The developers have even said that they DON'T want you to ever feel like you're forced to play and would much rather you take a break and unsubscribe than do something that makes it so that you HAVE to play or fall behind.

Who said it? You did.

I don't care about the label of white supremacy anymore but will stand up to anyone expressing said ideology? I don't see how that conflicts. One is a complaint about over-application of a label on basically anyone who doesn't agree with a very specific left-wing ideology that's also being used to nullify any discussion that can be had on a subject while another is a statement that I will oppose anyone who espouses certain views. I.E. the logical conclusion is that I will oppose anyone who actually espouses said viewpoints but no longer care about a specific label due to over-application of it. Hell, you've got people here accusing ME of being a nazi sympathizer because I value freedom of speech extremely highly. I fully get that people will say disgusting things with it, but I think they should have the right to say it. Especially since the banning of this sort of thing can easily be a slippery slope. Who gets to define what speech is and isn't allowed? What happens when they define something YOU advocate for as 'hate speech'? What even qualifies as it anymore? It feels like I could say 'I like tacos' and get accused of appropriating Mexican culture and white supremacy.

Arcturusisnow posted...

Except we have already passed the "leading to" stage. These fuckers are Nazis and you are too if you support them.

I support the right to free speech. I would never support a nazi.

kangolcone posted...

Just going to say that the thing that allowed the Nazis to so easily rise to power in Germany was people allowing them to rise unchallenged.

Honestly, its disgusting that you would use dead Holocaust victims to promote you being against Nazis, meanwhile, no reason to stand up to people with shared ideology because freedom of speech. You are spineless and your ancestors would be disgusted by your response.

Who says I 'don't stand up to them'? I kick them out of my friend groups and, the moment someone expresses such a belief, I intend to challenge and destroy that heinous ideology. That doesn't mean I think the freedom to speech should be banned.

Also, if you SERIOUSLY are arguing people shouldn't be allowed to speak their views because it MIGHT lead to nazi's, shouldn't we ALSO ban anyone advocating for communism and reading Marx because of the horrors IT lead to as well? It goes both ways after all.

Also, if you REALLY hate what the Nazi's did, are you standing up to, say, China and what it's doing right now with it's minority groups? I am. I've been warning everyone I know about what they've been doing to both ethnic and religious minorities because it's unacceptable and outright horrifying (things like forced organ harvesting).

Finally, I IMMENSELY disagree with what you said, because part of the things the Nazi's did was make it so you COULDN'T speak out against the party. I'd say championing the right to be able to speak out against the government, or speak out in general, is what my family would have wanted. If only so that word of the horrors that the government was inflicting upon them could spread.

Cacciato posted...

More like UnbridledNein amirite

Yea... No. I have no love for the nazi's and outright despise them and everything they stood for. I got nazi bullet holes in my family tree (lost several members to the camps). The moment anyone I meet advocates for it is the moment they get kicked out and I lose a friend. If you persist for even a second longer in this I'm slapping you on ignore without a second thought.

Im on your side, man. Im so tired of people being offended by swastikas and white supremacy. I honestly cant name a single time that those two things hurt anyone. You should always have the freedom to promote the genocide of people and draw Nazi emblems in your nations flag.

Why not? They have freedom of speech and, as disgusting as I find it, they're allowed to say it. I also find cannibalism morally reprehensible and a crime against everything human, yet people still make shows and movies about it (like that Hannibal movie and arguably every vampire movie ever) and I don't think it should be banned. If it were up to 'my morals' I'd be banning stuff like Satanism and what-not, but my belief in freedom of speech and religion is greater than that. As horrific as these things sound, they should be allowed to say them.

However, I just don't care anymore about the label 'white supremacist'. It gets applied to everything even remotely not in favor of the left wing now-a-days. I just don't care anymore.

Jen0125 posted...

You mean outside of all the flags and signs?

What flags and signs are the truckers holding?

At this point I simply don't care anymore regardless. Seems like half the world is 'white supremacist' and about to go goosestepping down the city streets if the media/twitter is to be believed. So I don't really care anymore about the label. Been way to over-applied.

Have they actually done anything white supremacist-y? Last I heard, they actively expelled some people who tried it.

Anyways, maybe because they're Canadian? They can't really do much about Biden as they're not US citizens and, even if they could, their own nation would come first logically. Maybe, if they succeed, they'll go after Biden.

DocDelicious posted...

Interesting that you mention this as it's the one bit of praise I've seen the game get. Like even if someone hates everything about the game generally they'll say something like "but the full-loot PvP was great".

With the success of games like Escape from Tarkov, Rust, Mortal Online (and MO2), I hope we see more games pick up this feature. It reminds me of the glory days of Ultima Online, Star Wars Galaxies, and Dark Age of Camelot, and I desperately want more.

Considering Rust is the only one of those I've heard of, I'd say it's not as popular as you seem to think.

But anyways, let's seriously think about it. Imagine you are a new player who just picked up the game. Not at launch but a few weeks to a month afterwards. You're starting to play but you have common and trash quality gear compared to the better players. You have NO chance of winning against them what-so-ever or, at the least, if you COULD win it either takes far more skill than can reasonably be expected or, conversely, gear matters so little that it's irrelevant. However, you scrape by using common and uncommon gear. Then, finally, you get a piece of rare gear. You're ecstatic cause you finally have something decent! You step out of the dungeon... and get bodied by some **** in epic and legendary quality gear. They take that sword you worked hard for and either go to sell it off or destroy it in front of you. All that hard work gone to waste at the hands of someone you couldn't hope to fight against who didn't even need it. Would YOU stay subscribed?

The only way it works is is gear is either so easy to come by or so irrelevant to the actual combat that it's rendered effectively moot. If some scrub in commons can kill you and take your epic gear almost as easily as if he had it, then what's the point? If it's so easy to obtain said epic gear that everyone has it and you can replace it easily, what's the point? It's a self-defeating concept. If you have full-loot PvP either your stats are so meaningless that there's no point to the full loot, they're so easy to replace that there's no point to the full loot, or your player base is going to vanish quickly because there's full-loot.

And, let's not forget, that this ONLY appeals to the fanbase that likes PvP exclusively in a genre that's already solidly 'niche'. Players who enjoy PvE content (which is, easily, the majority of MMO players) won't even bother with such a game. If the PvP can't even be toggled off and you're someone who hates PvP, or at least PvP outside of voluntary battlegrounds, why would you bother even checking out a game whose main selling point is it's PvP?

Keep in mind, this applies to MMO's in GENERAL, not just New World. I'm not saying that the concept can't work. There's certainly a niche for it. But it's not a large one and you've limited yourself twice already just by making it a PvP-focused MMO. Nevermind players who will stop playing because it's not fun to get ganked by players who they have no chance against.

So yea. Full-loot always-PvP MMO's are a horrible idea. Odds are the 'playerbase' you're listening too is a small group of players who were on the high end of the gear spectrum to the point where they could easily destroy weaker players and not weaker players who stuck around.

I'll be honest, that ANYONE is still playing New Worlds after all the flaws, negative press, poor design, and just everything completely baffles me. There's much better MMO's out there and my only speculation is that it's getting a boost from WoW's sinking ship and XIV being too flooded to be able to take in new players.

No.

I saw it was published by Amazon and nope-ed out right then and there.

But on a more basic level, a game needs to make money. That's why people make games (even when it's a passion project the company needs enough income to be able to afford that). When it comes to F2P games this almost always means either you'll eventually reach a point where you're basically stuck unless you do a massive amount of grinding or there will be a heavy focus on lootboxes or both. Graphics and art are also VERY costly. If a game has good graphics it cost a lot to develop. If a F2P game has good graphics it needs to earn a LOT of money in order to make back those costs. That means you need to shell out a LOT. Think about Raid. It's 'free' but if you want to get anywheres you need to shell out cash if you don't wanna be stuck with garbage tier stuff. That game milks you for all your worth an it only had to appeal to mobile phones. This game is MUCH more costly to develop. I don't even need to look further than the trailer and F2P listing to know it's gonna suck.

But to make it worse it's published by Amazon. Amazon's show itself to be extremely greedy and inept and it's only got, like, one game out. New World had terrible design concepts right from the start (who, in their right mind, would suggest a PvP-always full loot MMO? That's, like, the WORST idea possible for a MMO!) and couldn't even resolve basic issues and bugs along with being riddled with terrible design choices throughout. I feel confident that this attitude will carry over into New World and will result in a game that's little more than a shoddy cashgrab hidden by pretty graphics.

You know, when you absolutely should have failed but succeeded (likely in an absurd way) or when you absolutely should have succeeded but, somehow, managed to mess it up?

For example, when I was a little kid I was taking karate class (like a lot of little kids do. Has that ever actually HELPED?) Was playing with one of the adults before class started and I swung a funoodle at one of them. He tried over it but then we heard a massive SNAP and he fell to the ground crying in pain. Somehow I had managed to break his Achilles tendon with my swing. Still not sure if this was a nat 20 or a nat 1...

Another time, same class, we were in a line-up and some kids were gushing over the, then new, pokemon cards. One of them had gotten a foil, 1st edition, Blastoise. Since it was a foil, though, the other kids were CONVINCED it was a fake (since it didn't look like THEIR cards) and they threw it away. Landed right at my feet. It was not a fake. Nat 20.

Finally, one day at college, we were in Spanish class when I started to feel woozy, weird, and started to smell strange things. I knew exactly what this meant and quickly dashed out of the classroom trying to get some water or at least to a place that had soft cushions instead of hard desks and office carpeting. I knew there was a cushoned bench and a water fountain, like, right outside of the classroom. I got to the door... and whump. The teacher said I barely made it out of my seat, but I remember distinctly slamming into the door. Either way, a nat 1 (made worse by getting an ambulance bill. >.<)

Sort of?

Like, it depends. I think the best way to summarize it is that you're expected to take them off (especially if a guest), especially if it's carpet, but no one usually cares if you don't barring the shoes being muddy or something.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Hey! Don't mock the marvel of the first successful operation on grapes! This will be a wonderful gateway to improve their health as they now have access to better medical options!

Our family uses mac, my desktop uses windows 11, and my laptop uses whatever chromebooks have.

Cacciato posted...

It hung itself with its own vine a weeks later when his wife left with their seeds.

Aye. It was a sad day. I can't believe the court sided against him. He was basically tread on underfoot by the justice system.

I miss those days. Feels like everything is just negative, negative, negative now-a-days regardless of... well... anything.

I'm curious as to what reason that is since I would think the statement of 'I would ask however, where can a light skin person go in the world and be treated like this?' would factor in, ya know, the whole world.

IronBornCorps posted...

We really need to stop framing discussions of racism around a single person hating a certain group. Racism is much bigger than that.

For example, in the US, people with darker skin are far more likely to experience failures of the criminal justice system, lower bank loan approval rates with smaller loans when they are approved, less access to higher education and even healthy food options. All while hearing rhetoric like "Well, we set the slaves free, what more do they want?". Of course this is in the context of the US. I would ask however, where can a light skin person go in the world and be treated like this? Do you think the US is really the only country with these issues?

I know this is a tangent, but too many takes on racism are overly simplified as "if you hate a person for being part of a certain group...". That's prejudice sure, but racism needs to be corrected on a systemic level, and the fact it's so rarely mentioned in discussions should convey how deeply ingrained it is in some of our minds.

Off the top of my head a lot of asian countries tend to fit foreigners in a variety of racist ways. Though, TBF, that applies to pretty much every race. Like remember that ad a while back where that Chinese woman threw a black man into her washing machine and a handsome chinese man came out with the implication that the detergent did that? I also seem to recall a Japanese ad in which an airline company had one man ask another if he had gone overseas only for said man to turn to him with an extremely long nose which was a stereotype of white people in Japan or something (I'm not really all that knowledgeable about these things. I haven't exactly LOOKED for 'how do other cultures treat other races in regards to stereotypes and racism outside of America.) I also recall an incident in Africa in which white farmers were outright forced to give up their farms to native africans, which backfired horribly as a lot of them didn't know how to farm, but that's neither here nor there. I ALSO recall some book that had taken a lot of effort for historic accuracy in which the Chinese characters constantly referred to non-Chinese as 'foreign devils' or 'dwarfs' or something for the Japanese. Not to mention the notion of 'pet white guy' in Chinese companies in which a company would hire a white guy just so it would appear like they had international businesses involved. Plus some stereotype about Americans always drinking soda. Like I said, I don't exactly look for this stuff. This is just what I've passively, and mostly randomly, heard.

But I guess what I'm saying is that NO ONE is immune to racism, not even white people. Just because they don't get the worst of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As for the bank loans thing and what-not... I feel it's a much more complex issue than that and something that is best discussed more in halls of knowledge and research as opposed to an internet forum.

Blightzkrieg posted...

You can always just add a speech bubble saying "I just turned 18" in MS paint, though if it's a recurring nut you might want to invest in better software.

Or I could just... Not. I mean, she wouldn't appeal to me even if she was an adult; nevermind as an underage child/teen.

Sarcasthma posted...

Iris be female. We all know about R34 and, even if not, you'd have to acknowledge SOME guy out there would think she's hot/sexy/etc despite being underage.

wpot posted...

I should know better than to discuss racism on an internet message board, but what the heck...

I think the overarching answer to your question is that racism is not...binary. It's not either "you're a disgusting, unredeemable racist" or "you're not racist" with nothing in-between. Everyone has thoughts that are prejudiced at times. Anyone who says they don't is being dishonest and (frankly) unhelpful.

Soo...in your examples you asked if you would be racist if you came to an conclusion that was reasonable based on your experiences but prejudiced against a race. The answer is that that would be a prejudiced thought, yes. However, again, everyone of all races comes to thoughts and conclusions that are prejudiced at times: What matters is how you act on those thoughts and conclusions.

You would be capital R "Racist" as a personal trait if you didn't occasionally search yourself for prejudices and/or didn't allow an individual to prove your prejudices inaccurate before making significant judgments about them IMO. If you avoid doing that you would still have occasional prejudiced thoughts but (through logic, compassion, training, or other techniques) you would have learned to appropriately control them.

If you aren't self-critical and willing to change you're at a much higher risk of being Racist.

Finally, it is possible to have a prejudiced thought that is also true. I won't use an example for obvious reasons, but let's just says that all races probably have tendencies that could legitimately bother people from other races. Observing in and of itself isn't wrong. How you react to it is what's important.

A fair enough assessment.

Well, you can't be racist against food, even if ethnic. Small-minded, maybe, but that's different.

The better hypothetical is: what if every Swedish person you ever met stole your wallet? Would you be racist for disliking Swedish people? The answer is technically, yes, you would be racist. However, that's where there's a disconnect between hypotheticals and reality. Outside of a few extreme examples, you are never going to run into a group of people (or restaurants) who are bad through and through. Most people are decent if you meet them in the right context...and the same is even more true of most groups of people.

Well, let's take a more obvious example here. The N**i's (yea. I'm sick of this example being brought up.) were taught, more or less, that every Jew was a horrible person. Yet a lot of them had never, at least knowingly, met a Jewish person. This then begs the question of if every N**i was actually a racist or not, especially if what few examples they saw were propogandistic. I mean, if you get told in your school, your culture is based heavily around the hatred of, and just everything ELSE, would it be unreasonable for a person to just assume that was the case if only because that's what their culture said it was? Or would they simply be going along with what was the norm? I know an easy way to tell would be to simply look at how they acted/reacted following the war as the people who weren't actually racist would have little, if any, problem with changing their views, but not only can actual racists have their views changed (which would mean you couldn't SOLELY look at if they had changed their viewpoint or not), but it begs the question of if they were racist DURING that time in which they were in the N**i culture.

I guess what I'm questioning here is where does the line between, at least a semi-reasonable prejudice or acceptance of a culture, and and actual racism get drawn? Especially if we can't judge someone based entirely on their external beliefs (since a non-racist could, presumably, be raised in a racist society as well as an actual one have their viewpoints change).

While the best answer would probably be something along the lines of 'we have to judge each case individually' I sort of feel the difference comes about from how a person attempts to defend such a belief if challenged on it. I.E. if a person with constant bad experiences with Mexican restaurants gets presented with an actually decent one, do they continue the assumption that all are bad, or maintain the belief that they are and that one was an 'exception'? Or if someone points out that all Swedes are not pickpockets, if the person takes a reasonable precaution (holding their wallet or not taking it along) or assume automatically that the BEST precaution is to assume that they are pickpockets and avoid them entirely, especially if they were to meet one who wasn't a pickpocket and actively tried to arrest them. Are they 'one of the good ones' or do they accept that their prejudice, while founded in past experience, is discriminatory? Does a former N**i reject the culture once they were defeated and, even if it takes a bit of un-brainwashing, accept that Jewish people are not evil, or do they hold on to the belief despite active evidence to the contrary?

I'm certainly not going to challenge someone if a better answer comes along, cause I sure as HELL don't have a proper answer myself. But I do believe it's important to distinguish between someone who is operating off of past experience and/or 'legitimate' (in quotes as I don't want to sound like I'm validating such an opinion) concerns and someone who outright believes and accepts that they are actively evil/smart/stupid/etc.

Especially since, here's both a modern and actually important distinction. In China the CCP is basically everywhere and controlling everything. This includes Chinese people who come to America. Especially since a lot of them are, at the least, encouraged to spy and steal from the west to support the CCP. So would it be reasonable to assume any Chinese person who came from China was a potential CCP spy and keep a watchful eye on them (and potentially be effectively accusing every Chinese (country, not race... If you can call it a race), or would you avoid doing so but, in doing so, risk letting legit CCP spies potentially steal, say, company programming code which would be both a massive security breach and potentially extremely harmful to your company?

Once again, I want to make this clear to anyone who might attempt to mod and said associated moderator, I'm NOT trying to validate racism! I am trying to question where the line between a reasonable assumption and brainwashing/actual racism is so it could be better defined and legitimate discussion can be had. Racism is disgusting in all forms and needs to be shunned, opposed, and hopefully shut down.

Edit: Here's a personal example. I used to hate tea. The only time I had it was when I was sick and it was always, in my opinion, disgusting. However I recently had trouble sleeping and got suggested chamomile tea as a sleep-aid. As I was desperate to not have a four hour sleep cycle I decided to try it and was extremely pleased to find I actually ENJOYED the taste. What I found out was that mom had always served me LICORICE tea, which I profusely despised. But now I'm an extremely active tea drinker (it having entirely replaced soda and challenging fruit drinks) and have been trying out new teas profusely. But this begs the question of if my earlier experience was a pesudo-equiv of drink-racism. Since everything I had before tasted wretched to me and was medicinal, at best, in nature, was my assumption effectively discrimination, or was it a reasonable assumption based on prior experience? Considering I fully changed my belief once I actually tried a different tea, I would assume the latter, but I can't deny the former is also a possibility.

Funny thing is that Argentina has a place where even rain is something, like, an event that only happens once a decade or something. Let alone snow. But yea; Fiji makes perfect sense.

trodi_911 posted...

Let's be real. It's none of that BS.

She's hot.

If that was it Diantha and potentially Iris would have far more votes. I forget how old Iris is in B2/W2, but Diantha has a whopping 0 as of right now. If it was 'because hot'... you'd expect her to at least be beating Leon.

TheSlinja posted...

I really never understood the hype for cynthia
but im a DP hater in general

Several things. Her attitude is fairly decent, she's a very active part of the plot, but mostly...

She's probably the single most brutal champion in the entire series. Even overleveled teams that breezed through the 4 can be utterly flattened by her. That's why she's such a terror and why she's also so beloved. For a lot of experienced players, while there may be hiccups (Ex: Whitney and her Death Cow) the battles are generally fairly easy in the games... And then along comes Cynthia who is probably the hardest champ in the entire franchise.

She's terrifying, and that terror is also why she's so beloved.

Main line games only obviously. Who? This is not about their power level (necessarily) but which one you liked the most.

As it got pointed out to me...

It didn't get banned. It got removed from the curriculum. Which is not the same thing at all. Presumably, if someone brought in their own copy, there would be no issue. Additionally they have not banned other books discussing the issue and Maus is FAR from the most important depiction of the events. Even if it WAS a legitimate ban being enforced for the reasons the democrats claim... it's just one school with one school board with reasons that are theirs and there's been no reason to believe it would get bigger. So... Yea. It's mostly hyperbole being stirred up by the media to paint the right in a negative light. Millions of books aren't on the curriculum and books get added and removed all the time for a multitude of reasons.

There was a pretty considerable period of time between when vaccines became available (especially for older people, and I'm guessing your mother is at least in her 50's) and any sort of mandate coming into effect. If she didn't get it before mandates started showing up, she wasn't actually that eager for it.

I don't think that was it. I know her after all and that's not in character for her. I believe her reason for not doing so (I didn't exactly feel the need to ask) was more of not knowing where to get it at the time than something like that.

adjl posted...

As disheartening as it seems, remember that Omicron is an anomaly. From fairly early on, epidemiologists were predicting that Omicron hitting us as hard and fast as it did meant it would burn itself out quickly, and that's exactly what we're seeing. A virus simply can't maintain case counts like that indefinitely without creating too many clusters of herd immunity to sustain itself. It's more than a little scary to realize that it's this easy for a vaccine-avoidant variant to show up with no warning (ignoring for a moment that numerous countries had detected Omicron months before South Africa announced it and just chose to say nothing because they didn't want to look bad, robbing us of the ample warning we could have had), but this doesn't actually do anything to set us back in the fight against regular Covid.

As much as an estimated 40,000 new Delta cases a day is still a lot, that's still much, much better than the third wave from Nov 2020 to February 2021, and the fourth wave (Aug 2021-Oct 2021) was also considerably improved. That improvement comes in spite of people (vaxxed and unvaxxed alike) eschewing restrictions en masse, which is a testament to just how much the vaccine has achieved. Improving vaccination rates will continue to help with that, especially if better efforts are made to get vaccines to under-vaccinated regions to reduce the risk of new variants emerging and giving us another Omicron (though variants on Omicron itself aren't likely to be very successful, given how widespread natural immunity is to the base Omicron strain).

The problem, of course, is that vaccination rates are plateauing pretty hard, thanks to a very staunch group of people that refuses to stop being afraid of them. Those people have latched on to the vaccines' ineffectiveness against Omicron as evidence for their belief that the vaccines don't work at all, so getting them on board with crushing Delta is going to be a major challenge.

It's not just 'a belief that vaccines don't work at all'. Several of my friends and family do believe it works at least somewhat but are immensely opposed to the vaccine mandates and refusing to get vaccinated is their form of protest. Likewise some of them don't trust Fauci and/or Biden and feel they're being either dishonest, making a grab for power, or other such things. For example my mom was extremely eager to get the vaccine when it came out but then some mandate (I well forget which one) caused her to back off and now she's claiming I 'submitted to them' when I went and got it. My dad, meanwhile, is just simply old and can't handle the internet and other modern tech while our local pharmacy is requiring to schedule appointments and is turning down my offers to help (and afraid of mom).

ReturnOfFa posted...

Conservative Democrats are bad too. Historically, To Kill a Mockingbird has been banned by both political parties it seems.

https://bannedbooks.library.cmu.edu/harper-lee-to-kill-a-mockingbird/

I find it funny that it got banned but, at least to the best of my knowledge, Mein Kamph and the Communist Manifesto haven't been banned. I guess I wouldn't be shocked if they had been, but I've never heard of it at the least.

Also, now I want a Tequila Mockingbird.

Hard to say. There's nations ending their lockdowns but there's also nations still in mass-lockdowns getting worse. I think the main question now is 'what do you define as 'worst'?' Like, I think the DEADLY strains may be going down and we'll eventually see it become more like the flu but the infection rate is up. I seem to recall vaccines not working against the new variant so we'll need to wait until they develop one if that's the case.

Jen0125 posted...

Yeah I'm pretty surprised an adult would remain this ignorant for so long just because of their own childhood experience but then again I'm not

It's not like I had any reason at all to care. Once I was out of school I never even thought about it except in historical contexts and considered it something that went the way of the dinosaurs once the notion of an age of consent came about. Not to mention I was MUCH more focused on both college and work. I don't think I even seriously thought about trying to find a romantic partner till I was 24 simply because I was more focused on making sure I didn't piss off some commissioner or state rep.

Edit: I don't mean teen pregnancy went the way of the dinosaurs. I meant it being a wide-spread thing.

Taaron posted...

To chime in on this. Back when I was a teenager some 20+ years ago, I knew of at least two girls who had babies while still in Jr. High. Even had a older coworker who mentioned having sex when she was 13.

There are definitely sexually active kids at a young age.

Honestly myself started getting attracted to girls when I was still in Elementary school, but various factors in my childhood preventing me from pursuing my urges.

I thought teen pregnancies were, like, something rare. Like there might be one or two every once in a while, but even if your school had an average of one a year you were well above the 'average'.

*sigh* Fine. Whatever. Teens are going around and having copious amounts of sex anyways. No longer a teen so I don't really care anymore.

I can almost guarantee that more of your peers were sexually active than you thought, and probably even younger than the general average. They just didn't admit to it because the local culture pressured them into being ashamed of that.

Sorry to disappoint, but it's extremely unlikely. Like I said, lots of religion + pro-abstinence training, none of them were dating anyone until after 18, and so-forth. While it's certainly not IMPOSSIBLE, there was absolutely no evidence that it happened (especially since the class was all pretty close and it likely wouldn't have been secret for long). If you think whatever school you attended is representative of all teens, I'm sorry to say it's not.

kind9 posted...

Remind me, why do people hate Fauci so much? Is it because he changed his mind on some things?

No. After all, new info comes out and such. It's that he's been giving advice that seems well over the top (my parents complained about him being pro-double masking and there were attempts to cancel Thanksgiving and Christmas which tend to be very social events). I'm pretty sure it got mentioned he was also providing advise that was hypocritical (ex: The BLM 'peaceful protests' weren't a concern for spreading the virus but I seem to recall him saying the pro-Trump election rallies, or at least conservative gatherings, were 'superspreader events'.) and also NOT condemning events like that award show where the celebs were going maskless while also having the wait-staff mask up. And he seems to defend China's responsibility in this quite frequently, try to force vaccine mandates (which a lot of people on the right have problems with. The mandates I mean, not the vaccine.), and condemn anyone who tries some form of alternative treatment other than the vaccine. Not to mention things like those dog-experiments didn't help his public image.

I want you to keep in mind here, I'm only reporting what my parents and conservative friends are reporting here. Personally I DO think he should be removed, but that's because I think he's shown he's a terrible leader in times of crisis and doesn't understand how to deal with the situation. I'm not going to get into if he's right or wrong for that other stuff (as I'm simply reporting what my conservative friends say here). Also the dog thing. My left-wing friends get extremely defensive of him whenever I bring him up, even if it's not in a negative light and simply going 'did you hear what he said last night' type convos.

Jen0125 posted...

Lmao well you're absolutely wrong.

Your personal experience doesn't dictate reality.

Neither does yours.

Whargarble posted...

Just because your peers never wanted to do anything like that with you specifically, doesn't mean young teenagers don't have sex. And if this is your honest summarization of teenage sexuality, you were either completely socially inept as a teenager, or you grew up in the 1800s.

Or, ya know, I decided to remain abstinent until marriage? That IS a thing, especially among religious families (of which I am a part of). Either way, the most 'sexual' anyone in my friend group got was a lesbian girl hitting on other girls (who weren't interested.) The boys did their own thing and the girls kept true to the upbringing.

Jen0125 posted...

12-14 year olds are having sex with each other. You think they can't handle reading about women's nipples?

It's an graphic novel about the Holocaust. There's no way to make it pretty. And it's certainly suitable for teenagers.

Yea... I'm gonna call that a 'no'. Least not regularly. Boys are just starting to discover that girls don't have cooties and maybe want to do things with them while girls usually aren't that interested at that age. Maybe when they're 15 to 16 and even then it's hardly them just fucking all the time (else teen pregnancy would be through the roof). Either way, I do think it's reasonable enough.

"These kids have all seen plenty of murders, but we must avoid showing them tits at all costs!"

America is so goddamn backwards. Never mind that you can almost certainly count on one hand the number of kids in any given 8th grade class that haven't watched at least some porn, and statistically, most of those are likely to be ones that see female nudity every time they change their clothes.

I totally agree. It's utterly stupid that we have no real problem showing people killing other people even to relatively young kids, but showing the creation of new life? Likely in a loving embrace and half the population already being familiar with at least one of the two sets? ABHORRANT! BAN IT! Stupid. I'd much rather have my kids look at two people in love expressing it in the most intimate way possible than, say, running around shooting people up wildly like in GTA (which, let's be honest, a lot of teens and kids play even if they're not supposed to). But even something like FFVIIR in which we not only kill tons of mooks and see one on-screen death (via explosion no less), one likely death, and someone getting run through with a sword? Teen. Obviously I don't think we should be showing explicit content to kids, but the puritanical reaction is insane (especially since most of them are well aware of porn by 16-17).

Jen0125 posted...

Why would written depictions of female nudity, profanity and suicide/mental illness themes not be appropriate for teenagers?

Maybe older teens, but we're talking teens who are roughly 12-14 years old.

Edit: And I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm saying it's not them banning the book outright for reasons (at least stated) like them trying to cover up history or something and, instead, for at least semi-understandable reasons.

Seems like they removed it (not banned. That's different.) from their curriculum over female nudity, profanity, and questions of if content (like hangings) was appropriate for 8th grade students. Which makes me wonder why it was on there in the first place. So firstly, they're not 'banning' it, they're removing it from the curriculum. That's not the same. Presumably if a student got caught with a copy of it there wouldn't be an issue. I think those reasons are stupid for 8th graders who should be old enough to handle at least some of that content. I get why they'd want the female nudity not shown to minors, but profanity and things like hanging/killing children (especially in cartoon form)? They've seen/heard worse.

If they were actually banning it I would be outraged, but reading curriculum's change all the time and I don't THINK they're trying to cover up the holocaust or w/e. Even if they were it's one school. I'd want to keep an eye on them, but by itself it doesn't seem that concerning (if stupid in why they're removing it from the curriculum barring that one image).

Zeus posted...

jfc... Mulan without songs and a dragon, a race-swapped Snow White without any dwarves... like, wtf is the point of this shit?

After a certain point, I suspect outrage artists have to just be doing this for attention. Especially since Dink should know better.

Yea. IME Dwarves (the fantasy race) have a relatively positive image in popular culture and tend to be well liked. I can't think of anyone who treats them as disabled or the like. So it feels extremely weird to see something like this.

0.

I don't know why but, whenever it comes up on my play list, I think 'yes I wanna pla...aaa...ayyy... Oh look. FFXIV/Pathfinder/AoEII/Far Cry/something else. I'm gonna play that.'

I'm confused. First off, they're not humans, they're dwarves. An entire species. Secondly, maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but they're all portrayed relatively positively, and heroically right? Not disabled or anything of the sort.