Jump to content

TheDarkness

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    1,336
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

TheDarkness last won the day on February 18 2017

TheDarkness had the most liked content!

About TheDarkness

  • Rank
    Negative of His Only Known Picture

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    From Chicago, currently in China, live in KC
  • Interests
    Martial arts, guitar and songwriting, fiction writing, tabletop rpg design, movies, Mandarin, Chinese philosophy, politics(grudgingly), helping my wife sleep by way of long monologues about any of the previous entries
  • Biography
    Born, survived 2016
  • Occupation
    Teacher, Eastern Civ, currently teaching ESL
  1. So far, everyone saved by the Lord of Light died when their goal was achieved. Which leaves Arya and Jon as the last two left to die who the lord of light apparently directly saved. Which would be for the best. Jon was never a good leader, he is a good man, but he is awful at politics, which is kind of a prerequisite for the job, and he is more competent at getting competing groups to fight together than in actually planning those fights. Tywin was a rotten individual, but he was right about a King needing more than goodness to rule. Conversely, Danaerys may not be mad at all. She literally summed up what sway she had correctly, fear, and maximized that. I'm not betting on it, but, to break the wheel, there can't be thrones, in King's Landing or Winterfell or anywhere else. These people need to come from this time of suffering and establish a thriving democracy with a free press that exports all war and violence to Dhorne in the name of Freedom. To me, that is the lesson the whole show has been moving toward.
  2. Actually, the newspapers of the South almost universally wrote about the danger of slave violence on innocent Southerners during the time of the war and especially in the lead up to it. There really is no safe harbor from racism in this one. It was literally everyone's legal responsibility to turn in runaway slaves. Every single citizens. And, the lead up to the war has, as a major cornerstone, the North's refusal to accept that legal responsibility and how that played out in the courts and the responses. And then, the Northern citizenry's support of John Brown. And then the election of Lincoln, which every Southern politician of that time knew to be an abolitionist, irrespective of politics he played in speeches. The War of Northern Aggression is a post war, post reconstruction narrative more than it was a narrative pushed befores and during the actual war. Sure, Southern leaders painted it as the North's fault, but they also made clear it was about slavery at every level of leadership, and the papers at the time in the South descended into such rank racism that the post-reconstruction attempts at distancing the whole thing from slaver appear silly. Before and during, slavery and the bogeyman of violent freed black Americans ravaging the innocent was the dominant media portrayal leading up to the war and during in the South. I'm not sure how much I would want to deal with that as a player to just play a game. My entertainment need does not weigh very heavily in that equation.
  3. You guys argue like you're the Asian market that actually makes these movies profitable or something.
  4. Great post. That said, I can't think of many people from when I started playing who didn't get much of their early rpg experience from D&D, and didn't get their early wargaming experience from Warhammer. Becoming the legacy brand has its advantages. Those two have most of the experienced gamers familiar with their game, and more money and exposure at any one time. That said, their market ebbs and flows, because eventually, every consumer gets tired of adding bells and whistles to solve problems from the last bells and whistles and eventually tends to settle on a particular product/edition. As a kid, I knew more people who read comics than read fantasy. And there are clearly tons of fans of super hero movies. Basically, I think inertia has more to do with the why one is more popular than the other. The first I saw supers games marketed at even near the level of D&D was at a point when the market was flooded with games, and that wasn't Champions, so Champions, really the legacy supers game, couldn't gain the same advantages as a game like D&D, because it was already magically placed from its inception of being a niche in a niche, and not long after, had a fair number of competitors. I do, however, think your power levels argument is a great one. I think there's a lot of elements to it in supers. However, I think that supers games had more influence on the culture of game creation and tastes, from a focus more on scenarios rather than modules full of questions as to why none of the denizens of this castle heard the ninety two sword fights that lead us to this room, and supers always had the actual codification by choice of weaknesses for a players character. Literally 80% of the advice I see to GMs online could have been gleamed from any of a number of super hero game modules and systems from the late eighties, and certainly were less common in the popular fantasy games of the time. Part of that is the medium. Supers has detectives and street fights, and a dungeon crawl only works when the people in the dungeon can't burn holes in all the walls and take a direct route, so the interplay and story really was more up front, because there was no choice.
  5. "original public meaning, of course informed by history and tradition and precedent." That last word is why originalism is silly. You can't have both common law and originalism, the very idea of precedent invalidates any claim to original meanings' power over jurist interpretation.
  6. There is a difference between "The electoral system should be a system that balances the rights of smaller populations and larger ones" and "The electoral system we have is the only way to do this, or even effectively does so". And "There is no more functional way" is false, the system is outdated, and needs adjusting. The idea that losing any of that power is a fair cause for uprisings is overblown.
  7. You're skipping the part of the post you're responding to that points out he solely does his virtue signalling when he's trying to undermine claims of drinking and/or rape allegations. You might want to consider that while you claim others have a bias, you might not be exempt. Also, I was actually trying to clarify when I asked what what 'Nor is being supportive of women exclusive with flirting. ' have to do with rape accusations? This statement seems out of nowhere,
  8. You forgot the other quote I put in the post you pulled that from. " I spent most of my time in high school focused on academics, sports, church, and service." THAT one he specifically stresses while downplaying the drinking, but people on both sides who knew him during that time have painted him during that time as a heavy drinker, and no one gets labelled as a heavy drinker for a few beers. Either he is in denial, which pretty much only happens when one is still a heavy drinker, or he's lying. He repeatedly brings up stuff like the quote above in response to the drinking thing to minimize it, and it's not everyone else's fault that apparently, he can't even admit to drinking in excess in high school when he obviously did. I'm sorry, but he does not come off as credible. Further, she seems entirely credible, and the whole idea that she is misremembering seems a bit of a stretch, trying to make the problem with eyewitness testimony apply to aspects that it simply doesn't apply to. He's trying to dodge both any claim that he was a heavy drinker and that he was a rapist, and it's almost like he's fighting against the first harder than the second, which is really, really not helping his cause. People on both sides seem to have a clearer memory of what kind of drinker he was, and none of those match his claims in a public hearing before senate. And what on earth does 'Nor is being supportive of women exclusive with flirting. ' have to do with rape accusations?
  9. His words, "The allegation of misconduct is completely inconsistent with the rest of my life. The record of my life, from my days in grade school through the present day, shows that I have always promoted the equality and dignity of women." Also, his words during part of that time he says he was doing the above, was the yearbook quote about hitting women. There's more compelling cases to take to the innocence project.
  10. And he did paint himself this way, specifically stating that his life at that time was church, studies, and family as the central narrative. He has totally done this, saying , "I spent most of my time in high school focused on academics, sports, church, and service." and repainting his drinking then as an occasional thing, when even his friends from then paint an entirely different picture. A few beers. He's caught in a clear lie there, the fact that he's fighting to continue that lie does not make a reasonable listener want to go to the line believing him on other issues. And, again, his chief supporters were supporters of Roy Moore, people who have entirely different reasons for supporting him than their belief in him. The fact that the GOP is so quick to jump this same shark again so soon after Moore is a another blunder on their part.
  11. Cavanaugh literally said he was a virgin as a defense and attempted to portray himself at that time as not being a heavy drinker. Everyone on all sides of the issue from that period seems to say that's not true at all, and that heavy drinking was a major thing for him and his circle back then. I think his own conduct in defending himself is suspect, because it clearly involves obfuscation and an attempt to cover up the drinking. I'm not sure why one would only look in the accusor's accounts for inconsistencies, that's not how investigations work. A lot of people get caught in crimes because of their response to the accusations. I'll again cite Roy Moore, with his whole 'I had the parent's permission'. Are you saying Brett Cavanaugh has been honest about his and his friends' behavior back then? If you do, how do reconcile that his friends paint an entirely different picture?
  12. One the last page, yes, there is exactly that claim. I'm missing what bearing your second sentence has on things, I was suggesting that it's easy to confirm that claiming rape is not easy, I don't think attempted rape is any different, and statistics seem to back me on that. There's a non-insignificant number of people who are horrible to claims of rape and predatory actions towards women. The fact is, these women are successful and have little to gain from this. The idea that they are such pro democrat voters that they, women old enough to have seen what kind of garbage rape victims often have to put up with, decided to do this for the party, it is so patently ridiculous. These aren't twenty year olds out for attention who have no idea how bad this will get. And, it doesn't do him much good that his main supporters were playing the same routine for Roy Moore not so long ago, not because anyone actually believed he wasn't a creeper, but for the votes. Or that his friend refuses to testify. Or that he just called himself a virgin back then, but everyone else, even the people on his side, are painting a different picture of him during those days than the one he is. There's just a point where some of the 'he saids' don't make him look very good. Literally one page ago someone said, barring a lineup of claims, he'd be put through, and already there's a lineup. Not a week ago, people were saying it was only one claim, everyone else describes him as not being that way, and now we have stories that describe a potentially consistent behavior. Further, the descriptions we have of the women making the claims are not exactly giving much support for the idea that they are somehow doing this for other reasons.
  13. Kindly, the people who keep claiming how easy it is to claim you were raped, think about what you're saying, because it's verifiably false. I can't think of another claim so heavily weighted against the claimant.
  14. To clarify, the dicking over continued until 1979, and, in fact, part of the reason that Khomeini ended up in power was also tied to how we tended to support far right nutjobs in the region, and at best turned a blind eye to, and at worst, encouraged their brutal suppression of anyone left of far, far right. By the time the revolution occurred, the left in Iran was crushed to such an extent that it was child's play for the religious extremists to co-opt the revolution that they were only a part of, and then deal the final blow to the left. There are some good state department papers on this process across the middle east, they were mostly written in relation to the rise of politicized Islam, before the rise of militant branches.
×
×
  • Create New...