Pretty sure I'm the only DINK status here.

Fuck weapon durability, especially with how weak every weapon in this game is.

Quote from: Töqi on March 04, 2017, 09:40:15 AM

How does this make him crooked?

Trump was labeling Hilary as crooked, so I figure it's justified to put the same label on Pence.

But why?

Not crazy about the generic RPG menus and equipment/loot setup they have (I much prefer the standard Zelda format), but I think they knocked it out of the park giving you access to a bunch of tools early on, like in A Link Between Worlds.

Solaris

Currently burning through some comics now.

None of them were well-developed characters. I didn't find any of them particularly interesting, but I did think Chirrut was incredibly obnoxious and a complete waste of Donnie Yen.

Women would dominate with their superior intellect and hygiene.

Ian is heated but he's said nothing ludicrous or particularly unreasonable.

I agree, but we've been at an impasse this entire time about what we're even discussing, and I, personally, wouldn't mind someone I'm arguing with to just straight up tell me when I'm not being reasonable and to stop responding. At this point I really do feel like I'm just egging him on with no good reason, and I also don't know or care enough about the situation to continue. I was only expressing my criticism of PDP's apology, and now I'm somehow defending the entire media and censorship as a whole -- and I don't want to do their job for them. If it helps, I'd say I concede to Ian.

When that same individual gets people released for the same reason and then refuses to comment on their own? It's incredibly dishonest.

The WSJ is pretty even-handed. They did a thorough job and covered the story well. The consequences of that are Felix's responsibility. You keep accusing the WSJ of being out to get him, but there's really no compelling evidence of that. They just reported the dumb prank of a public figure, as is their job. They even followed up with an article detailing his explanation of the supposedly non-contextualized imagery.

Any source for the claim that they asked Disney to comment prior to asking Felix?

Quote

How about Felix himself?

No, like an actual source which evinces the claim.

Oh fucking please, as if I'm going to believe that when he says making jokes about black people is okay.

...Is it not okay to make jokes about black people?

They cherry picked parts of videos out of context and sent them to Disney BEFORE going to him for comment. There was absolutely no reason for them to do so.

They're reporters, though. It's their job to hold public figures to account for controversial actions. Any source for the claim that they asked Disney to comment prior to asking Felix? Not that you've responded to any of my requests for sources of your accusations, nor that it even really matters.

He criticized Felix for his offensive jokes stating it normalizes hatred against Jews.

Where? That isn't in the WSJ article.

What do people find when going through Ben Fritz's Twitter page? Two cubic fucktons of Holocaust jokes and saying it's okay to make racial jokes about black people.

Or, 3 jokes over the past 7 years, out of 20,000 tweets. And two of them aren't even jokes:
-One about Jews being adept at frying, after going to a Chanukkah party. Jews serve lots of fried food during that holiday to symbolize holy oil. It's not a anti-semitic joke, just a mildly humorous observation about Jewish customs.
-"my hard on is purely for Nazis" in response to a tweet suggesting he watch Man in the High Castle because of its twist on history. Okay?
-Paraphrase, 'jokes about black people are funny'. Okay?

It's incredibly hypocritical that you and the people trying to defend PDP (who has stated several times that it was offensive and wrong) by inflating other examples of offensive humor by public figures -- ya know, the same thing you're condemning? And that's not even taking into account that the WSJ article doesn't condemn Felix as a racist or anything of the sort, it just reported on the video. At least Fritz's tweets are jokes. PDP's prank is so unfunny that it was misconstrued as genuine anti-semitism.

Ben says Felix is a hero of Stormfront because their banner said it was PDP's #1 fan site

Where? Also, I don't really care about Fritz or any of the drama. Literally all I've argued is that the joke was 1) fucking stupid and childish, as well as an act of bigotry despite Felix clearly not being much of a bigot at all & 2) the apology video in the OP is insincere and infantile. Maybe Ben Fritz is a bigoted asshole too; that doesn't mean Felix is or isn't.

That's bizarre. Why ban a single type of civilian rifles for that reason when it can be applied to so many others?

Quote from: Töqi on February 28, 2017, 02:38:28 PM

Quote

Is it truly intellectually dishonest if someone does not define bigotry as showing a bigoted message to people, but rather they define it as actually believing in that message?

Yes, it truly is intellectually dishonest to redefine terms in one's favor to suit an argument.

I see where you're coming from with your answers to my other questions but this I absolutely cannot agree with. Bigotry is not an inherent phenomenon, it is subjective in nature and is defined according to the perspective of those that conceive it. We have generally defined it as we do with everything else for the sake of clarity and convenience in our society, but the nuance of bigotry is still subject to our own individual interpretations. I do not believe that someone who defines bigotry as requiring an actual belief in bigoted ideology to be interpreting that nuance outside of the bounds of reason and thus I don't think it's intellectually dishonest to judge an act according to that individual interpretation.

On one hand you identify bigotry as subjective to the offended party but on the other you state bigotry requires an actual belief.  Mental gymnastics abound. So when PDP paid some guys to hold a sign saying "kill all Jews" and then made a video about it, did he not believe that the sheer ridiculousness and offensiveness of the message was the punchline, like a poorly delivered rendition of the aristocrats joke? I'm really struggling to understand why his beliefs matter over his actions. The joke isn't funny if the message isn't inherently controversial. If he had paid two Indians to hold a sign saying "peanut butter sandwich", would any of this have happened? Obviously not. He clearly understood the inflammatory, and yes, bigoted nature of the joke.

Quote from: Töqi on February 28, 2017, 02:08:55 PM

Quote

PDP isn't a hateful sexist racist fascist bigot

Legitimately asking if you believe propagating the message "kill all Jews" is not an act of bigotry simply because it was meant to somehow be a joke, because it seems that those defending PDP would be more intellectually honest if they just admitted that something can be bigoted and in poor taste, but also an attempt at humor.

Quote

Is an act of bigotry defined by the propagation of a bigoted message or is it defined by the belief in that message?

There's an internal and external component. Belief in a bigoted message is internal, and expression of a bigoted message is external; they're mutually exclusive but often coincident. Felix may not be a bigot or hate Jews, but that doesn't nullify the effect of his actions.

And in regards to that 'propagation', Is Felix somehow promoting the message, "kill all Jews," if he does not believe in it?

Yes, obviously. His belief has nothing to do with how it's received by others. If you say to me, "I don't like you", whether or not you mean it I process that statement as an expression of your distaste for me. A Jewish (or otherwise reasonable, empathetic) person sees Felix's prank message of "kill all Jews" and likely interprets it as an offensive statement. Now the average PDP fan probably sees it and says something like, "that's not very nice but he surely doesn't mean what he said", and gives him the benefit of the doubt because he's a nice, likable, popular guy. But that doesn't really excuse any behavior.

Is it truly intellectually dishonest if someone does not define bigotry as showing a bigoted message to people, but rather they define it as actually believing in that message?

Yes, it truly is intellectually dishonest to redefine terms in one's favor to suit an argument.

Quote from: Töqi on February 28, 2017, 12:04:44 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 28, 2017, 08:54:09 AM

Quote from: Töqi on February 28, 2017, 05:55:40 AM

Either way, "man" and "woman" have separate etymologies and it's pure coincidence that they are similar.

i thought it was an "every fruit is an apple" type situation

I'm not really sure what that means.

i thought there was a time where "man" just meant person, and "wo" was appended later to help differentiate

i'm not privy to the details but that's just what i've read

You're right about "man", but the common terms derive from "werman" for males and "wifman" for females. So it's not as if "women" is described as a subset of males.