Ranxerox

Watched the latest episode last night. Interesting development.
 
 
 

Dude, no.  Just no.
 
I played all the way through the first Baldur's Gate game and have read a number of the Forgotten Realms novels, and I can say with great confidence that it is not a medieval setting.  How do I know?  Well one, in actual medieval times living dragons weren't a thing and magic didn't work, and two, the Forgotten Realms doesn't have the Catholic church or any obvious stand-ins for it.  The Catholic church was huge during the medieval period and influenced every aspect of medieval life.  Remove the church with its deeply hierarchical and patriarchal customs, and replace it with a multiple polytheist pantheons each with powerful female deities as well as male deities and that is going have tremendous social impacts.
 
Now combine this magic that will make pregnancy and childbirth much safer than they were in medieval Europe and also the likely existence of reliable magical birth control, and it is little wonder that woman in the Forgotten Realms are able to become power warriors and magic-users as they have been shown many times in Forgotten Realms canon.
 
So why in such a world where ones sex is no barrier or power or prestige would they be as hung up on gender as the patriarchal cluster**** that was medieval Europe?  We live in a world that in which there are lots of people who if you take the right path on the dialogue tree with them, they will happily tell you about about the trans experience.  But just because the Forgotten Realms not counting there magic (which is a large thing not to count) shares a technological sophistication with the medieval period, we must necessarily assume that trans people are the subject of endless persecution wherever they go and would never share there trans status with a stranger?
 
No, I have to call complete and total, heaping BS on that.  Show me where in Forgotten Realms canon it makes it plan that the citizens of Realms from one end to the other are a bunch of violent homophobes and I will concede the point, but the whole medieval comparison carries no water.

Dude, no.  Just no.
 
I played all the way through the first Baldur's Gate game and have read a number of the Forgotten Realms novels, and I can say with great confidence that it is not a medieval setting.  How do I know?  Well one, in actual medieval times living dragons weren't a thing and magic didn't work, and two, the Forgotten Realms doesn't have the Catholic church or any obvious stand-ins for it.  The Catholic church was huge during the medieval period and influenced every aspect of medieval life.  Remove the church with its deeply hierarchical and patriarchal customs, and replace it with a multiple polytheist pantheons each with powerful female deities as well as male deities and that is going have tremendous social impacts.
 
Now combine this magic that will make pregnancy and childbirth much safer than they were in medieval Europe and also the likely existence of reliable magical birth control, and it is little wonder that woman in the Forgotten Realms are able to become power warriors and magic-users as they have been shown many times in Forgotten Realms canon.
 
So why in such a world where ones sex is no barrier or power or prestige would they be as hung up on gender as the patriarchal cluster**** that was medieval Europe?  We live in a world that in which there are lots of people who if you take the right path on the dialogue tree with them, they will happily tell you about about the trans experience.  But just because the Forgotten Realms not counting there magic (which is a large thing not to count) shares a technological sophistication with the medieval period, we must necessarily assume that trans people are the subject of endless persecution wherever they go and would never share there trans status with a stranger?
 
No, I have to call complete and total, heaping BS on that.  Show me where in Forgotten Realms canon it makes it plan that the citizens of Realms from one end to the other are a bunch of violent homophobes and I will concede the point, but the whole medieval comparison carries no water.

Dude, no.  Just no.
 
I played all the way through the first Baldur's Gate game and have read a number of the Forgotten Realms novels, and I can say with great confidence that it is not a medieval setting.  How do I know?  Well one, in actual medieval times living dragons weren't a thing and magic didn't work, and two, the Forgotten Realms doesn't have the Catholic church or any obvious stand-ins for it.  The Catholic church was huge during the medieval period and influenced every aspect of medieval life.  Remove the church with its deeply hierarchical and patriarchal customs, and replace it with a multiple polytheist pantheons each with powerful female deities as well as male deities and that is going have tremendous social impacts.
 
Now combine this magic that will make pregnancy and childbirth much safer than they were in medieval Europe and also the likely existence of reliable magical birth control, and it is little wonder that woman in the Forgotten Realms are able to become power warriors and magic-users as they have been shown many times in Forgotten Realms canon.
 
So why in such a world where ones sex is no barrier or power or prestige would they be as hung up on gender as the patriarchal cluster**** that was medieval Europe?  We live in a world that in which there are lots of people who if you take the right path on the dialogue tree with them, they will happily tell you about about the trans experience.  But just because the Forgotten Realms not counting there magic (which is a large thing not to count) shares a technological sophistication with the medieval period, we must necessarily assume that trans people are the subject of endless persecution wherever they go and would never share there trans status with a stranger?
 
No, I have to call complete and total, heaping BS on that.  Show me where in Forgotten Realms canon it makes it plan that the citizens of Realms from one end to the other are a bunch of violent homophobes and I will concede the point, but the whole medieval comparison carries no water.

My beautiful, yet deadly bodyguards do not just make themselves.

Whom I'm going to be happily voting for in the June 6th California primary.  Still, you seem to have gotten lost on your way to 2016 election thread.

Whom I'm going to be happily voting for in the June 6th California primary.  Still, you seem to have gotten lost on your way to 2016 election thread.

Merlin has murdered hundreds of people including some very close to Oliver.  There should never be any non-hate blooming between the two of them.

^^
 
Soar. 

You forgot Atom.

In response to just these sorts of criticisms they added Zarya.
 

 
So being vocal can help.  Now if they just added a couple more not overtly sexualized* female characters to the line-up the game wouldn't be embarrassing to play.
 
 
 
 
* - Disclaimer: I find Zarya totally bloody hot whereas the original female cast I just found meh, so maybe she is just differently sexualized.

This has been going viral in Aussie social media, worth a watch (5 mins)
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXUZjyZVj6s

Hey he bought it as a multipower and not an elemental control.  It not his fault; when you can do everything, you have to save points where you can.  

I must disagree.  Yes, Playboy has had, and undoubtedly will continue to have, world class articles and fiction. But that wasn't the reason the magazine became such a huge hit.  And it wasn't just the nudes in and of themselves that made Playboy a hit--granted, they were what got people's attention to begin with, and certainly there are more explicit images of female nudity, both still and moving, which can be found quite easily on the Internet or almost anywhere else. That does not mean there is not a place for Playboy in men's entertainment--or in society for that matter.
 
One of the things that Playboy did when they first started photographing their own Playmates and models was that they depicted the women as enjoying sex and being with men as much the men enjoyed being with them. This was done through the choice of props to reflect, as I understand how Hefner put it, "the presence of a man." A necktie draped across a chairback, the woman wearing a man's shirt, two half-full cocktail glasses rather than one--all that and more (especially in the cartoons) were part of cultivating this idea, which at the time seemed quite revolutionary, and even in an age where it seems like everyone and her sister has a page on a webcam site, it's an idea which to my mind is still worthy of attention.
 
I don't know what Playboy hopes to accomplish by getting rid of the idea that made it a hit in the first place, and no matter how they attempt to spin it, it still seems like a win for the anti-sex activists who have dogged Playboy since its inception. I remember an interview with Hefner in which he described the history of sexual liberation in America as being "two steps forward, one step backward." It always seemed to me like Hefner and Playboy were the ones leading the two steps forward, and I don't know who, if anyone, will take their place.
 
Just my thoughts on the subject--take them as you will.

I haven't actually looked at a Playboy in decades. So my views could be out of date.
 
But there has always been this idea of "I only read it for the articles" being a joke. I always figured anyone who thought that was a joke was someone who never ever actually looked at the magazine. There WAS no other reason I could see to read it except for the articles and fiction. You could have taken the nudity and sexual matter out and 90% of the magazine would still be there and it would still have been a world class magazine. If I wanted sexy pictures, I looked at Cosmopolitan or at one of the men's magazines that really specialized in that sort of thing - which playboy didn't.
 
So my reaction to the news they're dropping nudes is - who's going to miss 'em? I suspect they long ago passed the point at which having nudity was driving away more readers than it was drawing in. All they did was draw attention away from everything else the magazine had to offer.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
I doubt anyone reads my posts just looking for the palindromedary tagline either

I'm in agreement with Markdoc on this, the arguments in this article are rubbish.  Yes, you can't be the ideal specimen of masculinity but really you can't be the ideal specimen of any abstract concept from the ideal catholic to the ideal doctor to the ideal teacher to the ideal feminist (Laci Green of MTV's Braless has nice piece on how becoming a better feminist is the work of a lifetime which I can link to if you like).  This is not surprising because human beings aren't abstract concepts and therefore we can't epitomize them.  However, contrary to the writer's assertions this is not something that most people lose much sleep over.  Men know that can't be the ideal specimen specimen of masculinity and are generally okay with this as long as they feel they doing a reasonable job being men.
 
Where you see a lot of anxiety about masculinity is in males that suspect that they aren't measuring up as men.  This is most common in young males, because of course they aren't measuring up as men; they are still just boys.  However, having the concept masculinity points them in the direction that society expects them to go and this can be very helpful.  People like clear expectations.  In recent decades, though, as lifestyles have changed so the the duties and responsibilities of men.  Concepts of masculinity have shifted in response to changing needs and expectations, but still they have lagged behind the pace of social change.  This has led to a certain amount of navel gazing concerning what it means to be a man in the modern age.  Nonetheless, calling masculinity an anxiety disorder is a gross mischaracterization.  The vast majority of males in time take up the responsibilities of manhood and find peace with their own sense of masculinity.
 
Of course finding peace with the concepts of masculinity and femininity is a harder row to hoe for the queer.  Therefore I can sympathize with the author's rejection of concept of masculinity as it was never likely to be a good fit for him.  It is a very good thing that the mental health community has finally pulled their collective heads far enough out of their rumps to stop classifying queerness as a mental disorder.  That doesn't mean that now is the time make a mental disorder out of traditional masculinity or femininity.   

I'm in agreement with Markdoc on this, the arguments in this article are rubbish.  Yes, you can't be the ideal specimen of masculinity but really you can't be the ideal specimen of any abstract concept from the ideal catholic to the ideal doctor to the ideal teacher to the ideal feminist (Laci Green of MTV's Braless has nice piece on how becoming a better feminist is the work of a lifetime which I can link to if you like).  This is not surprising because human beings aren't abstract concepts and therefore we can't epitomize them.  However, contrary to the writer's assertions this is not something that most people lose much sleep over.  Men know that can't be the ideal specimen specimen of masculinity and are generally okay with this as long as they feel they doing a reasonable job being men.
 
Where you see a lot of anxiety about masculinity is in males that suspect that they aren't measuring up as men.  This is most common in young males, because of course they aren't measuring up as men; they are still just boys.  However, having the concept masculinity points them in the direction that society expects them to go and this can be very helpful.  People like clear expectations.  In recent decades, though, as lifestyles have changed so the the duties and responsibilities of men.  Concepts of masculinity have shifted in response to changing needs and expectations, but still they have lagged behind the pace of social change.  This has led to a certain amount of navel gazing concerning what it means to be a man in the modern age.  Nonetheless, calling masculinity an anxiety disorder is a gross mischaracterization.  The vast majority of males in time take up the responsibilities of manhood and find peace with their own sense of masculinity.
 
Of course finding peace with the concepts of masculinity and femininity is a harder row to hoe for the queer.  Therefore I can sympathize with the author's rejection of concept of masculinity as it was never likely to be a good fit for him.  It is a very good thing that the mental health community has finally pulled their collective heads far enough out of their rumps to stop classifying queerness as a mental disorder.  That doesn't mean that now is the time make a mental disorder out of traditional masculinity or femininity.   

I'm in agreement with Markdoc on this, the arguments in this article are rubbish.  Yes, you can't be the ideal specimen of masculinity but really you can't be the ideal specimen of any abstract concept from the ideal catholic to the ideal doctor to the ideal teacher to the ideal feminist (Laci Green of MTV's Braless has nice piece on how becoming a better feminist is the work of a lifetime which I can link to if you like).  This is not surprising because human beings aren't abstract concepts and therefore we can't epitomize them.  However, contrary to the writer's assertions this is not something that most people lose much sleep over.  Men know that can't be the ideal specimen specimen of masculinity and are generally okay with this as long as they feel they doing a reasonable job being men.
 
Where you see a lot of anxiety about masculinity is in males that suspect that they aren't measuring up as men.  This is most common in young males, because of course they aren't measuring up as men; they are still just boys.  However, having the concept masculinity points them in the direction that society expects them to go and this can be very helpful.  People like clear expectations.  In recent decades, though, as lifestyles have changed so the the duties and responsibilities of men.  Concepts of masculinity have shifted in response to changing needs and expectations, but still they have lagged behind the pace of social change.  This has led to a certain amount of navel gazing concerning what it means to be a man in the modern age.  Nonetheless, calling masculinity an anxiety disorder is a gross mischaracterization.  The vast majority of males in time take up the responsibilities of manhood and find peace with their own sense of masculinity.
 
Of course finding peace with the concepts of masculinity and femininity is a harder row to hoe for the queer.  Therefore I can sympathize with the author's rejection of concept of masculinity as it was never likely to be a good fit for him.  It is a very good thing that the mental health community has finally pulled their collective heads far enough out of their rumps to stop classifying queerness as a mental disorder.  That doesn't mean that now is the time make a mental disorder out of traditional masculinity or femininity.   

Actually, your long history here has everything to do with my response on multiple levels.  If I did not like you or care about you, I wouldn't have bothered.  Really, I don't get in long drawn out arguments with people on discussion boards.  It's not my style.  I say whatever it is that I wanted to say and walk away.  Occasionally, I will make a second post when I feel that I did a poor job expressing myself in the first post, however, it is very rare for me to make a third response. So the fact that I have pursued the conversation this far is due to your history here and the fact that it has led me to consider you worth my time. No, I don't expect you to feel honored by this or even believe me, but there it is.
 
The other thing about your post history here that factored into my response, is that in the past you have shown sympathy for the MRA movement.  They have a narrative about how men are the real victims, and I thought that a saw in your skepticism about women facing more online harassment a shadow of this view.  Because when you have two groups and one of them is complaining about a problem and the other isn't, the most straightforward assumption is that the group that is complaining is experiencing the problem and the group that isn't complaining either isn't experiencing the problem or is experiencing it to a lesser degree.  Yes, there are other possible reasons why one group might complain and the other group not, but these wouldn't be my initial go to assumptions.
 
Women (and not just the ones who make headlines) are complaining about the online threats they receive, and these threats are often very specific in the types of harm that is being threatened.  Furthermore, a lot of these threads seems to have more to do with femaleness as opposed to something specific that they are doing.  So sure abortion doctors both male and female get threats but female game designers get threats and male game designers not so much, and the threats they get seem be very focused on their status as females.  The studies that I have seen haven't been perfect (few studies are), but they are in line with the anecdotal evidence that I have heard, and at this time I have no reason to doubt them.  Maybe, a good study will come out that supports the counter intuitive view, but until one does I am incline to believe that the duck is a duck.
 
As for John the consumer seeking romance in the most straightforward manner possible, I am going to reply with John Nash.
 

Except I'm not buying your claims of being a skeptical, neutral observer trying to find out whether online violence is gendered.  I believe that you have a position on the subject, but don't wish to state it.  After all, if you really wanted to know the answer to the question of whether online violence is gendered, you wouldn't come here with the question; that is what Google is for. It is this refusal to state your position and defend it that I see as a form of intellectual dishonesty.  
 
Also, I take issue with the notion that the threats need be "creditable".  If you point gun at someone and threaten there life, you have assaulted them with a deadly weapon even if the gun is unloaded.  That isn't my opinion; it is the opinion of the law.  I imagine this is because judges got tired of having people commit armed robbery and then claim after the fact that the weapon had no bullets.  So maybe the person sending the death threat lives in another state and has a heart condition and can't travel.  How is the person he is threatening suppose to know that and why are they suppose to be sanguine about the death threat just because it is coming from a stranger over the internet?
 
Now back to the chatroom study (yes, I know that I am answering post in the reverse order from how it was written), a chatroom is not a bar.  When a man approaches a woman in a bar, he can see her, if he he is not a total meathead he can pick up what sort of signals she is sending and since they are both there something could potentially come of his approaching her.  In a chatroom none of this is the case.  The chances of "Jill" being an attractive female living nearby are less than the chances of "Jill" being a married man living in another state.   Now, I grant you that there are lots of lonely, stupid guys out there, so maybe some of the time these sexual advances are just pathetic attempts to hook up. However, given the low chance of these pick ups succeeding versus the high chance of them offending and possibly driving off the recipient of the comment, I am inclined to think that most of these "come ons" are actually aggressive, displays of dominance.  So I support the study's decision to categorize these messages as malicious. 

Cut the guy some slack.  He was drunk.  I'm sure that if he sober he would have hit what or whoever it was that he was actually aiming at.

Grandstanding?  They had some committee hearings and they wrote a paper.   It has had plenty of committee hearings and written many papers about despots filling mass graves. Having meetings and writing paper is what the UN does.  It is basically all that the nations of the world have given them the power and mandate to do.  So given that they don't have power or the mandate to stop the despots of the world from filling mass graves, it seems unfair to blame them for failing to do so.
 
Internet harassment is not just a problem in the US, but is international like the internet itself.  Since the biggest function of the UN, IMHO, is to give people space to talk on the record about problems that cross international boundaries, it would seem to be exactly the place to talk about internet harassment.  YMMV.

Except I'm not buying your claims of being a skeptical, neutral observer trying to find out whether online violence is gendered.  I believe that you have a position on the subject, but don't wish to state it.  After all, if you really wanted to know the answer to the question of whether online violence is gendered, you wouldn't come here with the question; that is what Google is for. It is this refusal to state your position and defend it that I see as a form of intellectual dishonesty.  
 
Also, I take issue with the notion that the threats need be "creditable".  If you point gun at someone and threaten there life, you have assaulted them with a deadly weapon even if the gun is unloaded.  That isn't my opinion; it is the opinion of the law.  I imagine this is because judges got tired of having people commit armed robbery and then claim after the fact that the weapon had no bullets.  So maybe the person sending the death threat lives in another state and has a heart condition and can't travel.  How is the person he is threatening suppose to know that and why are they suppose to be sanguine about the death threat just because it is coming from a stranger over the internet?
 
Now back to the chatroom study (yes, I know that I am answering post in the reverse order from how it was written), a chatroom is not a bar.  When a man approaches a woman in a bar, he can see her, if he he is not a total meathead he can pick up what sort of signals she is sending and since they are both there something could potentially come of his approaching her.  In a chatroom none of this is the case.  The chances of "Jill" being an attractive female living nearby are less than the chances of "Jill" being a married man living in another state.   Now, I grant you that there are lots of lonely, stupid guys out there, so maybe some of the time these sexual advances are just pathetic attempts to hook up. However, given the low chance of these pick ups succeeding versus the high chance of them offending and possibly driving off the recipient of the comment, I am inclined to think that most of these "come ons" are actually aggressive, displays of dominance.  So I support the study's decision to categorize these messages as malicious. 

Glad that the link was helpful.  Here is another one. http://time.com/3305466/male-female-harassment-online/
 
 
 

Grandstanding?  They had some committee hearings and they wrote a paper.   It has had plenty of committee hearings and written many papers about despots filling mass graves. Having meetings and writing paper is what the UN does.  It is basically all that the nations of the world have given them the power and mandate to do.  So given that they don't have power or the mandate to stop the despots of the world from filling mass graves, it seems unfair to blame them for failing to do so.
 
Internet harassment is not just a problem in the US, but is international like the internet itself.  Since the biggest function of the UN, IMHO, is to give people space to talk on the record about problems that cross international boundaries, it would seem to be exactly the place to talk about internet harassment.  YMMV.