IV
VIII
VII
II
IX
III
X
I
Tactics
XI
V
XII
XIII
VI

Quote from: Prime Megaten on November 19, 2015, 09:03:34 AM

Quote from: RadioactiveTurkey on November 19, 2015, 01:36:55 AM

Quote from: Prime Megaten on November 19, 2015, 01:31:46 AM

Quote from: RadioactiveTurkey on November 19, 2015, 01:27:15 AM

Quote from: Baha on November 19, 2015, 01:18:31 AM

Quote from: The Lord Tape Measure on November 19, 2015, 01:17:08 AM

Quote from: Baha on November 19, 2015, 01:16:19 AM

Quote from: The Lord Tape Measure on November 19, 2015, 01:10:18 AM

Quote from: Winy on November 18, 2015, 11:13:25 PM

Caitlyn Jenner

Bruce*

Caitlyn Jenner is her legal name.

Don't give a shit about HIS legal name

She's also legally female.

No, she's not. Female refers to sex.

That's why she's legally female. Her ID and other forms of identification have an F instead of an M.

She's not legally female, she's legally a woman. They're not the same, and I guarantee none of her state IDs say F because gender is an irrelevant piece of information.

Obviously I can assume that you have a driver's license, but here's a picture of a driver's license anyway. Despite the fact that there is no "gender" information on a license, it is still apparently used on your driver's license and birth certificate. The only explanation that I see is that the state uses the terms "gender" and "sex" to mean the same thing.

And that argument is entirely semantic, anyway. Nobody is arguing biology here. Saying that someone is legally a woman or female is the exact same thing, because all it implies is whether you'll be treated as a man or woman under law. I'm pretty sure Jenner's got the age maximum beat, but she wouldn't qualify for the draft anymore iirc.

Huh, you're right about the license. Seems silly to allow them to change the sex since sex is still an important piece of information, especially in medical situations.

Anyway, I'm not arguing about anything. Transpeople remain their original sex; if a driver's license indicates sex is gender, it's incorrect. Many people still get gender and sex confused and pointing it out early prevents vitriolic discussions from happening.

No, please never make Bad Company 3, dont rape it

So apparently muslims are scared shitless of dogs. Like if you're walking with one, they'll distance themselves. Why the fuck is that?

Debating Hate Speech

Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Should hate speech be discouraged? The answer is easy—of course! However, developing such policies runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. When a conflict arises about which is more important—protecting community interests or safeguarding the rights of the individual—a balance must be found that protects the civil rights of all without limiting the civil liberties of the speaker.

In this country there is no right to speak fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful.

Acts Speak Louder than Words
One way to deal effectively with hate speech is to create laws and policies that discourage bad behavior but do not punish bad beliefs. Another way of saying this is to create laws and policies that do not attempt to define hate speech as hate crimes, or “acts.” In two recent hate crime cases, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that acts, but not speech, may be regulated by law.

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), involved the juvenile court proceeding of a white 14-year-old who burned a cross on the front lawn of the only black family in a St. Paul, Minn., neighborhood. Burning a cross is a very hateful thing to do: it is one of the symbols of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization that has spread hatred and harm throughout this country. The burning cross clearly demonstrated to this family that at least this youth did not welcome them in the neighborhood. The family brought charges, and the boy was prosecuted under a Minnesota criminal law that made it illegal to place, on public or private property, a burning cross, swastika, or other symbol likely to arouse “anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.” The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Minnesota law was unconstitutional because it violated the youth’s First Amendment free speech rights.

Note that the Court did not rule that the act itself—burning a cross on the family’s front lawn—was legal. In fact, the youth could have been held criminally responsible for damaging property or for threatening or intimidating the family. Instead, the law was defective because it improperly focused on the motivation for—the thinking that results in—criminal behavior rather than on criminal behavior itself. It attempted to punish the youth for the content of his message, not for his actions.

In the second case, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), Mitchell and several black youth were outside a movie theater after viewing Mississippi Burning, in which several blacks are beaten. A white youth happened to walk by, and Mitchell yelled, “There goes a white boy; go get him!” Mitchell and the others attacked and beat the boy.

In criminal law, penalties are usually based on factors such as the seriousness of the act, whether it was accidental or intentional, and the harm it caused to the victim. It is also not unusual to have crimes treated more harshly depending upon who the victim is. For example, in most states battery (beating someone) is punished more harshly if the victim is a senior citizen, a young child, a police officer, or a teacher.

Under Wisconsin law, the penalty for battery is increased if the offender intentionally selects the victim “because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation and national origin or ancestry of that person.” The Supreme Court ruled in Wisconsin v. Mitchell that this increased penalty did not violate the free speech rights of the accused. The Court reasoned that the penalty was increased because the act itself was directed at a particular victim, not because of Mitchell’s thoughts.

Success on Campus
Here’s how one community recently approached an incidence of hate speech by calling attention to it rather than attempting to suppress it—by encouraging speech that pointed out how out of place the hate speech was in a community that values the dignity of all.

Matt Hale, a notorious racist, was recently asked to speak at the University of Illinois at Springfield. Hale is the leader of the World of the Creator, a white supremacist group. His presence on campus was controversial. Several students, faculty, and community members thought that the university should cancel his appearance. Instead, he was allowed to speak. Hale’s audience was not impressed. He came across as having a confusing set of beliefs that were out of place in a democratic, multicultural society. Several faculty and students spoke out against his message of hatred.

By allowing Hale to speak, the university recognized free speech rights but also provided a means for community members to respond. Communitarian and libertarian goals were both met.

Quote from: Prime Megaten on November 17, 2015, 11:06:23 PM

Quote from: TBlocks on November 17, 2015, 11:05:18 PM

Quote from: Prime Megaten on November 17, 2015, 11:04:36 PM

Quote from: TBlocks on November 17, 2015, 10:59:28 PM

Quote from: Prime Megaten on November 17, 2015, 10:53:30 PM

>5.5 userscore on Metacritic

I JUST WANTED TO GO TO TOSHI STATION UNCLE OWEN

I really could have used those power converters...

This wouldn't have happened if I was allowed to go hang out with Darklighter in Anchorhead.

Could've signed up for the Imperial Academy at the end of the season.

But noooo, the harvest is when Uncle Owen needs me the most. I'm starting to think he's never going to let me leave!

HE'S HOLDING ME BACK!!!!-.... wait a second...

Quote from: Prime Megaten on November 17, 2015, 10:53:30 PM

>5.5 userscore on Metacritic

I JUST WANTED TO GO TO TOSHI STATION UNCLE OWEN

I really could have used those power converters...

Quote from: Prime Megaten on November 17, 2015, 10:53:30 PM

>5.5 userscore on Metacritic

I JUST WANTED TO GO TO TOSHI STATION UNCLE OWEN

4.7 now

god dayum

how about we kill Howard and bring totally not Chris avellone, Christoph Excalibur into BGS as the lead designer?

Quote from: Prime Megaten on November 17, 2015, 01:29:26 PM

It's not like FO3 didn't have a similar problem. Nine of the perks just added points to stats, seven were simple damage bonuses, five that increased your accuracy, four altered your rad/damage resistances, and most of the rest just offset fuck ups and low skills (25% cheaper bartering, +30 HP, another chance to pick locks, fast sneaking, child at heart, strong back, etc) or extended the use of objects (longer lasting chems, half as likely to become addicted). There are only a couple of "unique" perks, such as Mysterious Stranger, Cannibal, and Mister Sandman.

DLCs added more "unique" perks, like Quantum Chemist, and you can get a small amount of unique perks from completing quests (Power Armor Training), but from what I understand Fallout 4 has the latter and will probably get the former when DLC starts coming out.

yeah, I forgot about this. Todd was never very good at designing interesting stuff for his game.