First, @whomever directly replied to my post - it is true that there are some games that can potentially represent more female-oriented wish fulfillment. It is also true that these either were exceptions in their time, or more recent developments. It's definitely couldn't hurt for game publishers to give us some more of it.
I have to agree with this quote from Highroller:
I think the problem stems from too many games trying to imitate games like Call of Duty and Halo, and not enough games trying to be different, or give us newer experiences.
That is precisely the complaint I have. We've seen every possible re-hash of this hyper-masculine hero image. Why not give us another angle? When you think about it, having a main character from an alternative demographic of some kind brings with it a new set of potential conflicts, hence a new set of stories to tell. Hollywood has been exploiting this with great gusto recently, via many films that focus on the conflicts in the lives of African American characters. But for some reason, video games do not, in spite of the fact that there's probably some money to be made from novelty value alone.
What's frustrating to me is how absurdly well and critically acclaimed are the games that do precisely this but how poorly received by the public they are. Example: Spec Ops: The Line. Dealt highly with the overly-masculine "kill everything soldier strong rahhhhhh!" mantra in the best way possible and was very well received critically, but did so poorly on the open market that it didn't even recoup its cost, much elss turn a profit. But CoD and Halo sell like hot cakes
Females being main characters was not the complaint. Even the roles females are in are hyper-masculine in nature. It's females being great warriors that are good and even then they have male warriors in lesser roles. It's not like males are in non-masculinized roles that are celebrated.
Also, exception, not even CLOSE to the rule.
Your post would lead me to believe that the female leads are equal with the male leads. A victory for the feminist movement. If you disagree with me, check your white cis male privilege.
Not even close to what I said. What I said was that the complaint of the thread was not X, but rather Y. This is not to say that X is not a problem, but that it's simply not what we're discussing. So when someone says
"Y is a problem" and Sailor responds with "Here are all the examples of not-X" the proper response is "you've missed the boat"
Saying "you've missed the boat" is not the same ****ing thing as "X is not a problem."
Females being main characters was not the complaint. Even the roles females are in are hyper-masculine in nature. It's females being great warriors that are good and even then they have male warriors in lesser roles. It's not like males are in non-masculinized roles that are celebrated.
Reductio ad absurdum isn't a logical fallacy... It's a logical debate tactic to show that when the opponent's logic is tested in extreme examples it fails to hold true. Logic ought to strive for universal applicability. Reductio ad absurdum is used to show that it fails said test.
No you do not. Cards with "when X dies" trigger are based upon the last time the card was on the battlefield. Given that it was an 0/2 frog with no abilities it did not have the "when X dies" ability and therefore will not trigger.
See there is a legitimately reasonable defense of Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon. There was absolutely no reasonable defense of what happened with Rodney King.
I think so and you think so, but some of the rhetoric we've been seeing indicates that some people in the African-American community think otherwise. Obviously it's a moot point; if anything were going to happen it would have happened by now. But just when the verdict was announced, I don't think it would have been completely crazy to worry that it might spark a King-like disaster.
To be perfectly honest I thought one would be justified. BUT I can clearly understand why there wasn't one.
Personally, I find it just too cute that white people think black people will riot after this.
It happened after Rodney King.
Rodney King was a lot more blatant than this as well. See there is a legitimately reasonable defense of Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon. There was absolutely no reasonable defense of what happened with Rodney King.
The 2nd says
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There are commas there for a reason.
Actually, not really that important. The only thing the commas indicate is that the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state" is an appositive phrase that merely clarifies what is meant by "Militia."
I believe the intent of the phrasing and the use of those commas is to say that the militia should be regulated (in it's power of force) by an armed free people.
I could be wrong, and you're welcome to disagree. That's just how I see it.
That's a grammatically incorrect reading of the sentence, even by 18th century standards. It's not so much a matter of opinion in this case so much as a matter of "that's not how English works." All the commas do is clarify that the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state" serves as an adjective phrase to describe "militia." There would be no difference if the 2nd amendment read "A well regulated Militia the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There's a reason that pretty much everyone says the 2nd amendment doesn't make sense grammatically. It's because it doesn't.
EDIT: To be clear I'm just having a grammar-gasm. I'm generally anti-legal based gun control legislation because its application is always done in racialized contexts that disproportionately affects minorities. In theory, well I haven't put too much thought about it in theory. I guess in theory I'm pro-regulation, but certainly not a blanket "all firearm" ban.
Guns are not the right. The right is to arms.
If the gun had never been invented, we'd still have the right to bear arms and that would mean, swords, spears, rocks, or whatever was considered "arms".
[...]
Most states, and SCOTUS have all recognized that each individual able bodied American is the Militia (unorganized) the organized militia is actually an arm of State government (National Guard), and the military is an arm of the federal government. To keep those arms in check, the People's right to be armed shall not be taken away.
It's checks and balances.
(This is not to be read as an endorsement of people owning nukes or fighter jets please don't strawman me)
Er, how do you not think that either you need to more clearly define arms such that nukes and fighter jets fall outside of the definition (pretty difficult to do) or that your argument about "natural rights" entails those things. It seems like either you have inconsistent logic or arguments about nuclear private ownership explicitly are not a strawperson.
Quote from ICM »
The 2nd says
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There are commas there for a reason.
Actually, not really that important. The only thing the commas indicate is that the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state" is an appositive phrase that merely clarifies what is meant by "Militia."
Let' be clear, it's cotton money, not paper money. I realize the term of art is paper money, but for its uses as described "paper" is inaccurate descriptor.
Technically speaking the accurate means for the system to work is for it to crack down on everyone equally harshly - not leniently. The system is intended to investigate every murder/potential murder as something serious - the fact that white's are less regularly looked at critically is the aberration not that black's are scrutinized frequently.
In this case Zimmerman was looked at critically. The issue is that the facts are not reviewed as critically for blacks. There is no way to say that given the laws in FL Zimmerman should be charged with murder or manslaughter. The correct judgement was given.
And on pot smoking, last time I saw the stat whites were leading blacks by a few percent on pot smoking - I want to say it was 52% of blacks and 56% of whites - something statistically small between them, but actually a lead amongst whites. (Which of course fits with the whites/blacks I personally know - likely 70-80% of those I know that are white smoke and I don't know of a single black amongst those I know well that smokes)
Exactly my point. Now start throwing white kids in jail with the same frequency as black kids for smoking pot and I bet there will be more push to change the laws.
This is true from our perspective, but lets be real...
WE are the ones who start/instigate the wars in order to KEEP the status quo of American market stability. We do what we do so that the USD remains at the top.
Take Iran, they haven't invaded anyone in over 150 years. But if they try to get the oil off the Petrodollar - you bet your ass we will framing them for something so we can invade. It's what we did to Iraq.
First of all, IR doesn't just study the US. Diversionary War theory was first tested using Latin American countries, none of which have been Hegemons, so it holds true for more than just the Empire countries.
Secondly, Iran started trading in a basket of currencies well before Iraq did. Hell they were the ones to encourage Iraq to follow their lead. Ironic that you used that as an example... Hell Iran even started demanding that oil be purchased exclusively in non-dollar currencies.
I'm sure your kids and grand-kids will be ecstatic that the debt that didn't matter is now under control because their dad decided that collapsing the world economy would teach them a lesson and now the 16 trillion is about how much they need for a loaf of bread.
That is assuming they're not killed in the rioting and civil unrest at home caused by intentionally causing your kids to become destitute by crashing the American economy. Or the war that you didn't care about. But hey, at least DEBT.
How do you know that collapsing the world or the american economy would actually cause rioting and civil unrest? How do you know it would cause a war?
TARP in theory seems like a good idea, but it was the financial equivalent of a wolf in sheeps' skin... The largest beneficiaries were seemingly also the biggest manipulators of the period following the overturning of 2 provisions of the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933. This enabled deposit banks to co-mingle their activities with those of a commercial lending bank or a securities firm, which potentially puts anybodys bank account at risk. Of course, if you look back into the 60's and 70's, there are other actions that have not helped the situation per se, but have made it easier for our financial system to be artificially expanded and while the top of the pyramids keep skating, those toward the bottom get repeatedly ****ed over.
And keep in mind, everyday worldwide, everyone seems to be suffering economically but our 6 largest TBTF banks have turned in collective quarterly profits of 23 billion. If you can't see something wrong with that picture, then I feel sorry for you... OTOH, ignorance is bliss, or so the saying goes...
Pretty much every single credible IR theory agrees that economic collapse greatly increases likelihood of conflict and global economic collapse nearly ensures large scale war.
It is highly likely to be accurate when Realism, Liberalism, Complexity Theory, and Complex Interdependence Theory all agree on something.
EDIT: Hell, even Critical Security Studies pretty much all but says the Diversionary War theory is 100% accurate.
If you wanted to have some fun, you could accuse the people, who are saying that's racist, of being racist, since they're assuming someone named "Wi Lo" would [i]have to[i] be of a particular race.
See, people like Billy actually do this, and it's asinine. Recognizing that people are of a race and recognizing that someone else clearly did something based upon racial lines (and in this cases, ****ing stereotypes) is not racist. It's making a descriptive claim about someone else being racist.
Anyways, yes, it is blatantly racist because it plays upon caricatures of how Asian languages are spoken to mock an Asian airline accident.
What's frustrating to me is how absurdly well and critically acclaimed are the games that do precisely this but how poorly received by the public they are. Example: Spec Ops: The Line. Dealt highly with the overly-masculine "kill everything soldier strong rahhhhhh!" mantra in the best way possible and was very well received critically, but did so poorly on the open market that it didn't even recoup its cost, much elss turn a profit. But CoD and Halo sell like hot cakes
Not even close to what I said. What I said was that the complaint of the thread was not X, but rather Y. This is not to say that X is not a problem, but that it's simply not what we're discussing. So when someone says
"Y is a problem" and Sailor responds with "Here are all the examples of not-X" the proper response is "you've missed the boat"
Saying "you've missed the boat" is not the same ****ing thing as "X is not a problem."
Also, exception, not even CLOSE to the rule.
To be perfectly honest I thought one would be justified. BUT I can clearly understand why there wasn't one.
Rodney King was a lot more blatant than this as well. See there is a legitimately reasonable defense of Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon. There was absolutely no reasonable defense of what happened with Rodney King.
That's a grammatically incorrect reading of the sentence, even by 18th century standards. It's not so much a matter of opinion in this case so much as a matter of "that's not how English works." All the commas do is clarify that the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state" serves as an adjective phrase to describe "militia." There would be no difference if the 2nd amendment read "A well regulated Militia the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There's a reason that pretty much everyone says the 2nd amendment doesn't make sense grammatically. It's because it doesn't.
EDIT: To be clear I'm just having a grammar-gasm. I'm generally anti-legal based gun control legislation because its application is always done in racialized contexts that disproportionately affects minorities. In theory, well I haven't put too much thought about it in theory. I guess in theory I'm pro-regulation, but certainly not a blanket "all firearm" ban.
Er, how do you not think that either you need to more clearly define arms such that nukes and fighter jets fall outside of the definition (pretty difficult to do) or that your argument about "natural rights" entails those things. It seems like either you have inconsistent logic or arguments about nuclear private ownership explicitly are not a strawperson.
Actually, not really that important. The only thing the commas indicate is that the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state" is an appositive phrase that merely clarifies what is meant by "Militia."
http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/11/dea_agent_says_he_was_told_not_to_enforce_drug_laws_in_white_areas.html
Yep, the war on drugs is a war on race and the poor.
First of all, IR doesn't just study the US. Diversionary War theory was first tested using Latin American countries, none of which have been Hegemons, so it holds true for more than just the Empire countries.
Secondly, Iran started trading in a basket of currencies well before Iraq did. Hell they were the ones to encourage Iraq to follow their lead. Ironic that you used that as an example... Hell Iran even started demanding that oil be purchased exclusively in non-dollar currencies.
Pretty much every single credible IR theory agrees that economic collapse greatly increases likelihood of conflict and global economic collapse nearly ensures large scale war.
It is highly likely to be accurate when Realism, Liberalism, Complexity Theory, and Complex Interdependence Theory all agree on something.
EDIT: Hell, even Critical Security Studies pretty much all but says the Diversionary War theory is 100% accurate.
See, people like Billy actually do this, and it's asinine. Recognizing that people are of a race and recognizing that someone else clearly did something based upon racial lines (and in this cases, ****ing stereotypes) is not racist. It's making a descriptive claim about someone else being racist.
Anyways, yes, it is blatantly racist because it plays upon caricatures of how Asian languages are spoken to mock an Asian airline accident.
And you think that ignoring racism will somehow make life better for anyone that isn't white.