薔薇語

You got to it before I could get back to my computer to mention it. The NYPD barred choke holds. In there training they are told NOT to do them. The fact that the officer used one as a means of not holding a perp but as a way to subdue the perp is clear evidence that he was not using the murky acceptable hold. This officer is on camera as being belligerent and using a technique that he is barred from using in a situation that did not require it to get compliance. He went WELL beyond his authority.And in the aftermath didn't show any regard for the human life that was squelched. And for what reason? Because some guy wasn't 'respectin' his authoritah!'. He deserves his day in court but he will not get it. Why? As a bit of speculation I am going to guess the prosecutor in this case did the exact same thing the Ferguson one did: as piss poor a job as reasonable to insure that as much doubt could be caste as possible. Let's get this clear: A grand jury is not there to decide guilt. That is in no way, shape, or form their function. The grand jury is also not there to hear the defense's side of the story. They exist purely as a check on the Prosecution. It is the Prosecution's sole job to present their best possible case. As I recall, they are even allowed to bring in evidence that would normally be barred from trial in the pursuit of their job. They are NOT there to make the defense's case. So, when the Ferguson Jack-@$$ did his best to weaken the state's case against the cop, he was NOT doing his job. Why was he not doing his job? Because he is a little ***** who didn't have the testicular fortitude to dismiss the case outright which is what he wanted to do. So, what did he do instead, present as flimsy a case as humanly possible against the officer as he has done for EVERY officer, so as to acquit himself of guilt by blaming the Grand Jury. There is a wondrous little legal institution in Japan where-in a special consul can be convened to review a prosecutor's job. They are allowed to tilt the hand of the prosecutor and force them to decide / re-decide a case, present / represent a case before a grand jury, and in rare cases force the prosecutor to proceed to trial regardless of the prosecutor's wishes. A trial where he is held to an even higher level of accountability for making the state's case and if he doesn't can actually face repercussions for not doing his due diligence. This is what we need in the US. It is absolutely despicable the level of collusion between police and prosecutors. It is absolutely despicable that one man's agenda can so easily impede the justice of even going to trial! I don't know how these two prosecutors sleep at night but I hope to dear god that they still have enough of a conscious to wake up in cold sweat at night for what they have done. La Rose.

Really, they couldn't even get this to trial. The prosecutor must be like.the Ferguson one and deliberately trying to prevent this from going to trial. La Rose.

Time for some good music with a cool music video. La Rose.

I haven't taken the time yet to read through all the other responses but here are some ideas I am thinking of as I am going through your post. Player 1: He could use the skill "Feint" which I think is in the Ultimate Skill. But it is basically a kind of acting skill check against perception (or other relevant) check to gain a temporary bonus against an opponent in close range combat. It would let the player have a situationally beneficial bonus that he can help earn by using graphic and evocative descriptions of his actions. Also, if this character is the sword master and wants to be a bit faster, maybe you can use an optional rule wherein the character buys half a point of speed and gets to act as if he was one speed faster every other round. This shouldn't be too game breaking as it is only every second round and most combat sessions don't make it past three rounds so he would only get it once. But that once can offer up a lot of variation. Player 2: What is the justification for the higher dex? It seems like it is not really needed for the character to be in keeping with what you described. Also, would Ventriloquism come up often enough to justify 3 points? It is about 2.5% of the character's cost - so are you as the GM and he as the player going to make it worth that 3 points? If not, then maybe just let him have it as part of a new Professional skill: entertainer. That way he has more chances to use the skill and thus gets overall much more bang for his buck. Next, how useful is an aid to presence? Especially since he needs to be able to perform to grant this bonus. How about having him grant an Overall Skill to the listeners. They could then use that OS to aid them however they see fit - Skill Checks, CV bonus, etc. As to giving this character a reason to fight - he is trying to craft stories of Heroes and Villains - Victories and Defeats. By latching onto the reputation of Player one, he can take a known figure who already has motivation enough to engage in the fight and aid him so as to bolster his own career as a words' smith. He will find himself able to tell the wondrous tales of bitter losses and sweet exaltation at the end of battles hard fought. Player 3: This character might have been scorned by some gang figure in the city and seeks revenge. Maybe the character is more like the Penguin from the current Gotham show and is seeking power. But his method of doing so is to feign being on the straight and narrow until the appropriate time arises. Until then, he weakens the competition. Hopefully working on the straight and narrow provides the character the right amount of personal satisfaction that once presented with the option to revert, they choose not to. That could be a significant plot point much later on. Build wise, that is a lot of base DCV. If you need to save a few points, dropping that even to a 5 would save 5 points and still let him be the most defensive character. And given that HERO uses a 3d6 system, even one point difference can be significant. Maybe an Area-Knowledge of the campaign city would be good. The character probably knows more 'shortcuts' than the others. Player 4: nothing to add. Player 5: I understand the Intimidating power you have but maybe you could rework it has being a version of "striking appearance". The character looks and acts in a "tough" way that most certainly lends itself to an altered perception of that character. That seems perfect for striking appearance. That should even save the guy some points. Also, given the concept, I don't know if Combat-Luck is the way to go. Maybe just buy straight PD and maybe not even worry about ED. Or if you do, make it be at a lower rate. La Rose.

Find the world's largest oven and get started on making a metric ton of stuffing. La Rose.

I feel like the next song really encapsulates my complex relationship with chocolate in a concise and stylish manner. ^^ La Rose.

Oh my gosh I feel so stupid and foolish for not catching that. Of course I know the three he mentioned, I personally use them all the time. Indeed, I concur with you in that we really need a sarcasm font. Mea culpa. La Rose.

The Young Turks did an interesting bit on that topic (Maybe NSFW) La Rose.

"and people see what they're expecting" is part of the problem I was talking about. If you go into the game expecting to see sexism you will see it. There is perhaps nothing so bland in our lives as to not have some loose shred of evidence of sexism. But that is the problem. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If the limits of your social critique are based on sexism, then everything is going to look sexist - regardless of the 'truth' of the matter. La Rose.

Interesting. I have never heard of any of those 5 pronouns. So I would doubt how 'widely used' they are. That said, as I noted "Standard US English" doesn't have a genderless pronoun but various dialects of English do. I for one use "they" typically when talking about something without gender or sometimes use "it" when I need to be more explicit on the number. I find those work just fine without creating some strange need to add to the English lexicon. La Rose.

First, that discussion is fine to have (the discussion regarding the gendering of the genderless) but it isn't quite relevant to the current issue; at least not to the extent of causing us to throw disrepute upon the product at hand. It is a common standard in Standard US English to use the male pronoun for the people and things that situationally lack clear gender. Robots without genitalia most certainly fit that description and thus referring to them as "he" or "him". There is a lack, in Standard US English, of a nominally acceptable genderless pronoun. As such, when a game developer (one who is doing what it can to be pro-diversity) uses a readily acceptable writing pattern, accusations against them of not acting appropriately or of trying to use the use of a throw-away pronoun as proof of non-diversity is quite frankly ridiculous. Next up, if you want to have the discussion about the use of a 'genderless pronoun' we can of course have that. But lets do it for its own sake and not try and tie it into this discussion where it does not really belong. It would be like us trying to caste sexist dispersion on Steve Long because in HERO 6th he followed a readily acceptable English pattern when writing the book. La Rose. Edit - The above text left something to be desired. Let me clarify something. I am not trying to say that you are making the argument that Blizzard's use of the genderless "he" is a sign of anything bad about them. Rather I am saying that a discussion about the use of the genderless "he" ought to be segregated out into its own discussion and not be tagged onto this issue. The principle reason being that there is a distinction between describing how language 'ought' to be used and what conclusions we can draw from how language 'is' used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhMw3SZ9xws&channel=animalvvideo La Rose.

That is a standard English writting pattern. When objects lack gender or the gender is unknow the He pronoun is used. And that brings me back to my initial point, robots aren't people, they lack sex and gender. So the sex distribution is still ５−５−２. La Rose

Most certainly it will have various PvP options like all other FPSs. But I was hearing that it might also have PvComp options as well. That is what I am waiting to hear get confirmed and what I was trying to mention. Sorry for my less than clear articulation on that. La Rose.

Yeah, Overwatch is Blizzard's first real foray into first person shooters. They had started to do so once before with StarCraft-Ghost but that never got out of development. As to the question about whether or not it will all be PvP, I think it won't be. I have heard that it might also have various team missions where you aim to achieve an object (Think FPS version of WoW) but that was speculative so I am not sure. But time will tell. I might actually pick it up and try the FPS genre again. Golden Eye was the last FPS I actually played and liked. Of course I would look forward to seeing these characters appearing in Blizzard's crossover continuity in Heroes of the Storm. That might even be a selling point for them (buy early, get X Overwatch character unlocked in HotS). Blizzard has such a good graphics team that it is almost a shame they don't make actual movies or TV shows (other than the WoW one that is being made). La Rose.

First, I am going to have to call you out a bit on this, Sociotard. Of the known characters there are 5 female characters, 5 male characters and two robots. A 5:5 ratio is pretty darn good. Also assuming the two Robot characters are male is a bit of a stretch I think. Even more so since given the way they are arranged on the main lineup, one of the robots would seem to be female if anything since all other character follow a f-m-f-m ordering. So, on the diversity point, the complaint you have seem to boil down to "one of the guys is a Gorilla! There should be a female animal too!" Next, the way you characterize the female characters I think is inaccurate. I think the inaccuracy comes from preconceived notions on how to view things. If you enter into the situation with a preconceived notion that women will be sexualized and that "tall, thin, etc" are artifacts of it, then you are going to look for those points and find them. But if you take a step back from that notion you can see that the female characters bring a lot more diversity than that. First, no two seem to have the same nationality or racial background. One is quite short. One is quite tall with armor shaped in a way as to suggest a well defined upper body (classically male trait). The body stances and facial expressions also tell a story of diversity, too. The blue armored one seems rather stoic and no-nonsense. The purple one seems ruthless. The orange one seems playful. The other two strike me as being a bit bland. But since we are getting into the business of reading gender stereotypes into media, lets look at the guys. The typical image of men is that of the mindless aggressor. Every man to a tee is taking up a strong and aggressive stance. The only one that we know to be quite intelligent from the trailer is also shown to have an extreme angry issue. Heck, his superior intellect can't hide the true beast that lies within, literally! The ostensibly Japanese one is apparently in the Yakuza (large tattoo down his side). Heck the only "male" who isn't taking up such terrible male-stereotypes is the one that isn't even human. It would seem that I could easily read from this that the only way for men to not be aggressors is to not be human at all (read: impossible). Now is my assertion about the men in that picture absolutely true? Probably not. But is it a reasonable way to look at the image? Yes, it is. The only thing that that reading relies on is my pre-existing notions of how males are portrayed. The same holds true for people trying to read sexist ideas into the women in the picture. La Rose.

For some reason I can't open the link. La Rose.

Really? Not enough playable self sacrificing mothers in games? I almost feel like I just read an Onion post given the claim. Granted I am not the greatest consumer of games in the world, but I think I can point to more mother figures in games than I can of father figures. Heck just look through the main console titles and I bet we will find more positive mother figures than father figures. What mothers can I name off hand: Jun Kazama - Super skilled fighter in the Tekken series. Jun is in my top 3 picks from Tekken characters. Sophitia - I can't recall who she is the mother of in soulcaliber, but she is one. And in my top 3 picks from that game series. Impa was a motherly figure to Zelda in various Legend of Zelda games. So powerful was her impact on Zelda that Zelda took up the mystique of Shiek almost as tribute to Impa. Rosalina talks about her mother quite fondly and we can safely assume she is Princess Peach. Kerrigan in StarCraft is the Queen of Blades and quite aptly is the matriarchal head of an entire species. And her story line is amazingly complicated. I can name all of those easily and I am most certainly a casual gamer with quite limited experience. Imagine how many more I could come up with if I actually played games on a regular basis. Some people like to complain and will find absolutely any reason to do so. La Rose.

Wow. That looks like an amazing game from the trailer: I wonder if we could get that turned into a TV show. ^^ La Rose.

I am a bit confused by the question you are posing. You have two characters: each is from a different reality. Being from different realities, they obviously will not have the exact same parents nor be raised in the exact same environments but you are wondering how similar they will end up being. Well, the answer to that question is that they will likely only be as similar as you and I are. Now, if your question is that if you take two people will the exact same genetic makeup but raise them in different places, how similar will they be, then your answer is much more confused. They will obviously share a great deal of basic physical features, assuming neither receives wildly different diets and such will play a MAJOR roll in physical development. They might even end up looking very similar to each other. But their beliefs and mannerisms are going to have some strong cultural influences. Perhaps they might develop similar ticks and such, but that might be the extent of their similarities in that realm. Now, if your question is that if you take two people with identical upbringings but different genetic backgrounds (potentially widely different), how similar will they be, then your answer is going to be even more confused. Sure some basic like their native language, religious beliefs, etc will be largely cultural artifacts, but their genetics will dictate in large part a great many things; not only the speed at which they develop taught and untaught skills, but their predispositions towards the myriad of diseases, addictions, if they become savants, etc. If you want two characters to look alike, then you can just handwave things and say the two look alike. There are people in this world for whom you will never meet but will most certainly look quite a bit like you. Not because of ingenious planning and manipulation but out of sheer statistical luck. And if you aren't demanding identical copies, then your room for error, and thus your room for success, is widened a good deal. But if you like the idea of having two individuals have some kind of linkage, there are lots of things you could do. One such example is to have a set of twins separated at birth; one was abandoned in Dimension X and the other in D. Y. Maybe you could have them be literal genetic clones of some progenitor (think of the Clones from StarWars) that were intentionally separated for some reason. Heck, maybe it was even more controlled than that. Maybe the "family doctor" for the two would regularly tweek them as they developed (make sure their bio-chems are matching, implanting similar memories, etc). La Rose.

One can define a group of things as being X and then from that subset highlight one part. For example: Army Core of Engineers Army Intel Army Infantry While it is possible to infer from the above that the speaker realizes that there is a "core of engineers" who are not also members of the Army, the natural reading is that speaker is using compounding nouns to enunciate with clarity the referenced group. It is in this way that one can read the above. It comes from a notion that Masculinity is naturally toxic and non-masculinity is the non-toxic alternative (be it femininity or something else, it is simply "non-Masculine"). Whether that is a fair reading of Ms. Anita's words or not is in the eye of the beholder; I for one am disinclined to think it is. But as Cancer points out, there are those who use the phrase "toxic masculinity" in that way. La Rose. PS: Other versions of "toxic" being used in the above way: Toxic hatred - All hatred is toxic, but by using the compound, the image the speaker wishes to express is more clear. Toxic hate speech - All hate speech likely be considered toxic but by using the compound the feelings of the speaker are expressed my clearly.

It is extremely oversimplified. It is contentious. And her "toxic masculinity" shtick is less oriented in "not seeking help" and more in "men hate women". So, it is an unrelated issue unless one does some mental gymnastics to try and reason her out of the corner she built up. And I am just going to quote myself, "[W]hile I understand she has a predisposition to think men and masculinity are the great evils of this world, she is jumping the gun on her conclusion. The presupposition that somehow these mass murderers are driven by sexist intentions or that masculinity is to blame, is a big leap of faith. While I can understand her concerns about the unfortunate prevalence of these individuals being male, that does not mean that masculinity, or more aptly, society's concept of masculinity is the root or even most compounding factor. Rather there may be more ingrained biological reasons for it that far outweigh any social constructs" Lastly, believe it or not, not every issue needs to be hashed out on Twitter. Twitter does not provide the ability to make nuanced arguments - the kind this topic needs. So, given the choice of rampant over simplification of an issue for the sake of stirring up controversy, and of fully articulating one's case for the sake of clarity, Ms. Anita chose the former. Again, trolling behavior. La Rose.

It seems to in the US. ^^ --- As to the question, perhaps 'deep cover' would be applicable for Heroes who are not quite so public with their lives. Concealed weapon's permit could be fitting. Assuming the PCs don't have immunity from damages, then having some kind of insurance would be nice. But you can just slap that in as part of the Money Perk. Depending on your setting, maybe a licensed Meta-Human with allowances to practice in public would be apropos. La Rose.

Since it is a bit harder to respond in-line, I am going to keep the whole quotation below and then also break our your quotes as needed for my response. "But as a nation we aren't grieving... not compared [to] how a parent feels over the death of a child." You are most certainly correct in your assesment that the kind of grief that we feel on an individual level and the kind we feel on a social / societal level are not the same. That, however, does not mean that we as a society do not grieve. After 911, the nation as a whole grieved. The nation as a whole had to come face to face with the reality that bad things (terrorist acts in this case) can happen to us when we least expect it. The nation as a whole struggled with this. And while on a personal level you (maybe?) or I did not lose anyone in 9/11 and thus didn't feel the sting of the event, we as nominally empathetic beings who were part of the greater American society felt the impact of the event. Being forced to confront the idea that any one of our children could be shot and killed by another young adult is a frightening realization. One that even despite the luxury of distance, spacial and relational, we feel and must face. "So, I don't see her comments as being disrespectful to the parents." But the issue isn't "did the parents hear her comments" but that she made them in the first place. I am never likely to meet one of the victim's family members and nor are any of my comments ever going to reach their ears, but if I were to say something ill of the victim, we here would all be rightfully enraged by my repugnant comments. Moreover, the assumption that the only victims of the tragedy are the literal victims plus their parents is to misunderstand human nature. Ms. Sarkeesian's comments were rude because they sought to use the deaths of these victims to generate sympathy for her pre-existing belief; a contentious belief at that. And to so casually disregard their (the victim's) humanity and use them as mere prop pieces to push an agenda is morally repugnant. "So, after the tragedy in Benghazi FOX news pushed their agenda... It may be unbecoming..." So, you can I can easily agree that using the deaths of individuals to push a contentious agenda is "unbecoming", right? Perhaps you won't go so far as to join me in saying it is morally repugnant, but certainly unbecoming / rude. So, since you and I can meet at least on this point, can you understand why I and PatternGhost called Ms. Sarkeesian's actions out as being bad? "It may be unbecoming but it is a game that everyone plays..." Is it a game anyone should play is the question. The fact that an action occurs is by no means evidence that it should occur. "[A]nd singling Ms Sarkeesian out... for playing the game strikes me as arbitrary." While you are free to feel such, I think you would find yourself hard pressed to claim such is true. If you think there is some hypocrisy on this issue, then feel free to find evidence for it and state that case but I think you will find yourself struggling with an uphill battle. Moreover, and certainly more relevant, it is not the character of the people making the claim that Ms. Anita's actions were in bad-taste, but statements / arguments that Ms. Anita's actions were in bad taste that is important Moving beyond your exact quoted text, allow me to give an example of why we should not yield to such comments like Ms. Sarkeesian's. Pre-911 there were many bills put forth to expand state power. But they could never generate support because wiser-minds prevailed. But in the aftershock of 911 the same bills that were shot down before passed. Why? Because the people pushing them fed on the public's grieving and fears. They understood that in such situations people find it harder to make good-rational decisions. While there is most certainly a difference in scale between between pushing forward federal law and the potentially insidious idea that masculinity is the root of these issues, they ultimately operate on the same idea: take a tragedy such the horrid deaths of individuals and use it to push a pre-existing and / or unrelated agenda through the public conscious. Ms. Anita has her beliefs about men, manhood, society, and masculinity and she is welcome to them. She has even made a career of talking about them. But the moment she tries to hijack the deaths of 2 young individuals, she is being a troll. And we should recognize that and yield to our better sides and not feed the troll. La Rose.

Is it not rude to do it in some of the cases you listed? People seem to generally accept that we need to show deference to the dead and grieving after tragic events; the length of that deference can vary of course, but surely even waiting 1 day is a bare minimum. Next, on the occasions where we do move into discussions about the tragic event while people are still in critical condition and / or grieving, there tends to be a very widespread agreement on the issue. It is not a contentious position to say that air travel ought to be safe, that terrorist acts are not acceptable, or that we should stop epidemics. It is a contentious position to say that we ought to monitor all Americans, that masculinity is the root of evil, that gun laws are too lax / strict, and so forth. Given that there isn't a sense of widespread agreement, people pushing forward such points are seeking to capitalize on the raw emotions of the public rather than simply appeal to better judgement. The idea that 'no crisis ought to go to waste' is a toxic idea because it enables individuals to push forward ideas that we otherwise would look down upon. Ms. Anita is being disrespectful to those who have passed by trying to use their deaths as a way of galvanizing support for a contentious position. It flies in the face of one of the basic principles that Kant put forward about treating people as people and not mere means to get what you want. It is akin to a life insurance agent trying to get a family to shove out lots of extra money for life insurance right after one of their children dies. We instinctively know that the parents are not in the best state of mind to make decisions and the insurance agent is being a morally repugnant predator. La Rose.