Luftmensch

Well that basically sounds like my experience riding a bicycle anywhere. Except I assume it's drivers wanting to be intimidating douchebags and scare cyclists off the road. Also I'm not a woman. Relating back to that article, it might be worth taking that same gender-switching app and applying it to the same page: "Emile Heist Moss is sick and tired of the women who harass him and make him feel unsafe in public spaces." Whatever the point is they were trying to make, I reckon the bias goes both ways. Not sure I'm trying to prove any point, that just caught my eye and I thought I'd make a note.

Abandoning the topic of whether education is valuable, I think it's fair to blame the NRA for a lot of our problems, because it's a very large and powerful lobby. By constitutional rights of course, the NRA has the right to assemble and lobby. People are free to associate. Whether you like it or not, money is considered free expression and a whole heckuvalot goes into supporting the NRA. I was talking to a friend who works with Planned Parenthood, on the fundraising side, and he noted that talks about changing fund raising and lobbying laws is unappealing to him and his organization because they happen to work very effectively in the current model, and they do a lot of good. For people within the system doing good, it ain't broke, and fixing it would only make it harder to do the good they already do. PP can only keep getting funding if they continue to do things that people, especially powerful people, think is valuable. If Planned Parenthood funding were democratic, it might not even exist in most of the southeast. Now the fact that in the US the sorts of people who seem to be rich also seem to be the types that thing Ayn Rand was on to something isn't very encouraging, but my friend would argue that the NRA isn't magically powerful because it's big and evil, it's powerful because people, especially rich people, think it's doing valuable work. Idealist kooks like the Koch brothers. Rifle enthusiasts. Firearm manufacturers. As it is, lots of very influential people today grew up in a culture that has the same values as the NRA. But, as you note, 70% of today's youth think it's a load of bull. I don't know that the NRA will shrivel up and die completely--nonprofits are very good at surviving--but the culture is shifting to not value them. Sure, there's a lot of old money in its pockets, but what about the new entrepreneurs? What about the software companies, the 3D printer developers, the electric car manufacturers? The Koch family got a fortune in fossil oil, which will be valuable for a long time, but we've got alternative energies growing in viability and information technology is more powerful than ever. Values will change from the bottom up, guns will be dismissed for new national pasttimes, and the global trend of decreasing violence will continue its 10,000 year course.

As you pointed out, even though you weren't interested in using the rifles and everything turned out okay, just tossing them in the closet is still irresponsible. Part of the point is to have public awareness that firearms, if you have them, need to be locked away in case young you happened to be the sort of person who would gladly grab and play with rifles or go on a rampage. As was the case at Sandy Hook. If Adam Lanza went through the same education program you and apparently millions of Americans have, clearly the point not to touch firearms was lost on him. I don't disagree with that necessarily, and I wouldn't stand in the way of measures to restrict gun ownership because I think there's too damned many guns. My point is just that gun control laws have been used around the world and even within the US with no statistically significant effect. Your logic is simple, but it's a hypothesis, and the numbers don't show gun control laws have any effect. Not by themselves at any rate. Yes, fewer guns does mean less gun violence, but you can't just wave the magical legislative law and make guns stop existing. In your argument's defense, I'll note that gun control is one essential step towards making a society that values guns less. As a member of that younger generation, I agree whole-heartedly. I still don't thing that legislative say-so will magically fix things. As Gormongous said, monocausotaxophilia isn't the way to reform.

I remember playing this game a while ago. I didn't really think too much about the whole theme of religious dogma, I just thought it was a brilliant take on the sadistic designer woven into the narrative, like Portal. Besides, if you're trying to make a game that shows that burdensome rules are bad, why would the game be so much damned fun?

That's good to hear, although frankly if you literally make the decision to have your assassin pole-dance and put that as a normal in-game animation, I'm still going to have some reservations after you take it out, and the explanations of why the characters are dressed the way they are isn't very encouraging. I don't want to put too much emphasis on that because it's completely superficial, but for me it's a little repulsive. Yeah looking around I've seen Dota v LoL debates and comparisons, but they've seemed to focus mainly on the perceived learning curve. I'm intrigued about the gameplay arc and how the experience feels once you know the game well. And yeah, the Incubus is part of why I call bullshit on succubuses being inherently sexist. I do think it's interesting that a succubus is traditionally a temptress, while an incubus is usually a rapist.

Your proposal: children should be terrified of guns because knowing how to use guns will make you kill people. What I said: people should understand what proper firearm safety is, be aware whether their family is storing their firearms safely where they can't be reached by the wrong hands, and know what to do in the event of a shooting. Never watched TV growing up. You seem to have trouble grasping that I did not grow up with gun education. Whatever exists, I've never seen.

What the hell

Arguably, but his point was that targeting ARs specifically won't make a difference, because mass shootings are done with whatever is available. There's a perception that ARs kill more people, but the Binghamton shooting was done with berettas, Campo Delgado used a handgun and a knife, Luby's Massacre was done with two handguns, San Ysidro McDonald's massacre was done with an SMG, a pistol, and a shotgun, the Walk of Death was done with a Luger, and the GMAC Massacre was done with a semiautomatic rifle (I just went to the List of rampage killers: America to get these stats). While I don't think you're wrong necessarily, there's a robust argument to be made that no one class of firearm is responsible for mass shootings. Aye, the point is that you have to have better mental health services and better gun license screening. Individually they aren't effective enough. Education isn't zero-sum, I think we can manage to teach weapon safety alongside gym without somehow magically making our science programs weaker. As for being enamored, there's a few things I could say about that but the sum of it is I think that's a pretty ignorant assumption. Not necessarily, the point was just that if you required everyone with a gun to be in the militia, you'd have a militia full of the sorts of people who own guns, which is downright frightening. I never experienced gun safety programs growing up. Never had D.A.R.E. or Scruff McGruff. And none of those certainly existed when my father was growing up in the 60s. Which is to say, I have no basis to know whether what programs we have in place already are sufficient. Maybe they are. The point is, if there's a public fear of gun violence, then there's a public interest for public education of guns and how to deal with gun violence. That's how you treat fear. When my dad and I were talking, the topics we agreed made sense were to address safe gun storage (make sure your family has a gun locker kids!), what to do if you find a gun, and how you should react if someone tries to shoot you. Whether it's appropriate to teach students how to properly and safely handle guns, that's debatable (and wasn't what I was getting at). Unlike sex, like you say, not everybody's going to have a gun, not even most people. But living in the US, you've lived a very sheltered life if you don't encounter guns. Some areas might demand that gun education demand gun handling and use. Some might demand that it emphasizes the dangers and risks. But in any case it is education. Maybe what exists is just fine.

Saw this skit from Portlandia http://youtu.be/Ir3v5yDk9Ws Some people were accusing this video of being nerd-shaming, which is kind of dumb. I think it frames the "fake nerd girl" complaints in a more sympathetic light. Also it's funny.

That's good that they at least did that. I bet it would be obnoxious for parents, but if you had a program that taught kids to be conscious of their home gun safety, you could have kids pester their parents to keep the guns locked safe. I mean hell, have you ever ridden in a car with a kid without putting on your seat belt? That kid will nag your ass until you strap in. It's not a pleasant experience, but I suspect it's better for public safety. Kind of along the same lines as "friends don't let friends drive drunk"

I was driving with my dad upstate and on the way we were talking about gun control. He made these points: Targeting assault weapons doesn't make sense because mass shootings are still done with shotguns and handguns, and are perfectly effective at killing people More mental health care availability might help, but even if Adam Lanza had been seen by a psychologist, nothing in his psychological profile would have prevented him from acquiring his own guns legally under current ownership laws (although proper psychological counseling may have prevented him shooting) If Adam Lanza's mother took proper care to keep her weapons locked safe, she might still be alive. If there is a public concern about gun violence, public schools should offer gun safety and defense classes aimed at teaching what to do if you find a gun, how to safely handle and store firearms, as well as personal defense if you're attacked by someone with a firearm (if this idea bothers you, keep in mind the idea of "abstinence sex education" and what a mess that is. It's better to teach kids something you don't think they should need to know than not to teach them the essential facts) People talk a lot about the militia clause, but they tend to forget about the militia movement of the 80s and how scary that shit was. I'd also like to point out that mass shootings tend to follow widespread reports of mass shootings. I think that's becoming clear to the public right now.

I watched some videos of and about LoL and it didn't really appeal to me. Aesthetically, it's far too bright and saturated for my tastes, and LoL pretty bluntly gives all of its female characters skimpy clothes and boob socks, which I personally think is really obnoxious and tiresome. Dota 2 still has a lot more cleavage than makes sense, but given the number of shirtless dudes in the roster, I can forgive most of it, especially when I compare this to this (that's not to say it's all better*. I don't know how well Riot responds to its community, since I'm not involved, but I have heard that Valve is very attentive to being accused of sexism and tries to change). On a less superficial level, I've gotten the impression from watching games and from people's descriptions that the games between Dota and LoL take much less dramatic swings. It seems like Dota is a very high-adrenaline tense experience, while LoL is much more forgiving and comparatively relaxed. Is this at all an accurate impression? Personally, what really drew me into Dota 2 was the tension. When I play games, sometimes my goal is to unwind, like with TF2, Torchlight, or Solitaire, but more often what I really want is a game that really pushes and challenges me, like Super Meat Boy, Offspring Fling (when you're trying for the best times), and VVVVVV. I don't think I'm great, and I certainly never come out on top when I play Dota (and I'm just in the first tier), but it's damned exciting. To be honest, since I'm already playing Dota, I don't really want to switch over to LoL anyway, but is my prejudice justified or is it all confirmation bias? *Despite what people say, I don't think the concept of the succubus is inherently sexist, but it makes for some really silly character designs

From what I hear, technically the structure of the crown places her at the head of the government and the church for some silly bullshit historical reason. What I meant was less that she had direct control, which she doesn't, and more that you actually have living people representing the crown which your whole government is historically based on, going back for centuries upon centuries. You even have the queen's face on your money. All we have is very stately portraits of 200-years-dead statesmen and rebels. Retail idea: Home Despot. A warehouse store for all your ruling needs. (in case you're not American)

Found this banner ad on Wikia. It has wizards and video games, so you know it's advertising something cool.

I would also like to thank Chris for starting to mix up the intro music a little bit. It's pretty classy. By the way, what is it about podcasts where bay area dudes get together and talk that makes them so great? I also listen to You Look Nice Today which is super well produced and goddamned hilarious.

I think it helps that you have a queen who can wave her royal scepter and tell both the government and the church that dudes marrying dudes is totally okay. You may not know about this, but here in South Carolina, we had two Episcopalian diocese, based out of Columbia and out of Charleston, but the diocese of Charleston actually seceded because it didn't like that the Church of England supports gay marriage. I'm not a member of the Church of England but hearing about that weird schism makes me sad to be from this state. Dammit, first you secede from England, then from the Union, and now from England again??

Nope. I just think the assumption that a Neanderthal isn't "human" stinks heavily of old-timey race taxonomy. Go back a half-dozen decades and you'll find people testifying to congress that mixed-race couples are immoral in the same way and for the same reason as bestiality. I'm saying that A.) your personal judgment on whether someone qualifies as human has no bearing on their right to live and that B.) it's not your business what a woman decides to grow in her uterus. Taxonomy is not an exact science. There aren't clear sharp breaks in speciation. Sometimes we draw a speciation lines simply because two populations never mate in the wild (even if they produce viable offspring by artificial fertilization), sometimes the lines are so fuzzy people debate it for decades (I think people still argue over whether wolves and domesticated dogs are the same species). Taxonomy is so flexible and imprecise that it can and has been used to justify political ends. If a neanderthal was born, grew up acting like a more-or-less typical human, had healthy relationships with other humans, and could have children with other humans, then there would be no reason to consider neanderthals non-humans. All we have now to base our taxonomy on is fossils that are about as different from the average European H. s. sapiens as a typical Mbenga is from an average Maasai.

Luftmensch. The avatar's the same as the one I use on the forums. Add me, dammit!

That sounds suspiciously similar to the 19th century style of racism that literally classified non-European races as "subhuman". Whether a neanderthal qualifies as a human is a bit of a fuzzy line, but a neanderthal, regardless of whether her genetic parents are still alive or went extinct millennia ago, is still a person. Anyway. I reckon you're assuming he'd be born just to be studied. Isn't that jumping to conclusions a bit? Personally, I don't begrudge my parents or call them unethical because I'm just an accident (I'm not, but bear with me). I'm happy to exist. My life isn't defined by whatever thought went through my parents head when they were screwing 22 1/2 years ago. If you have anything to be concerned about, it's if, after he's born and being raised, he's not treated with the same personal dignity any person deserves. If you find this immoral, that' s just an emotional reaction. it's not invalid, but it's not wrong just because it rustles your jimmies.

Soon, my friend.

Good to hear, I was hoping it'd come down to something like that. I remember one time when I was at rehearsal at the local community playhouse, and as I left, the cast of Rent was taking a smoke break on the fire escape. I overheard a young lady in her early-mid 20s comment: "Man, you think that high school drama is supposed to be over, but it never ends." I've been happy to find both in my life and in the lives of my peers, that that high school drama only follows you if you decide to act like a high school student.

Reviving this because a friend on Facebook posted this article: Wanted: 'Adventurous woman' to give birth to Neanderthal man - Harvard professor seeks mother for cloned cave baby Basically they got some Neanderthal DNA and want to clone one. My friend's response is this: I thought that was an interesting comment, since the first two sentences could be taken out of context and applied to any pregnancy you find distasteful (maybe a celebrity teen pregnancy?). Hell, take the whole comment and you simply might be talking about anything that hasn't been done before. I could see one of my local bigots making the same comment about a same-sex couple arranging a surrogate pregnancy (not that that's a totally new thing but it's not common, especially in these parts). This reply caught my attention: So the argument against having a Neanderthal child is preemptive eugenics? That's interesting.

I had no clue what it was, but I accidentally bought Neufchâtel cheese instead of the cream cheese I meant to buy. Turns out it's the same thing, except it has a softer texture, spreads more easily, and has less fat. Apparently Neufchâtel is a real cheese that doesn't resemble what I bought, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the thing that comes in little rectangular boxes and wrapped in foil.

Sounds to me like you think that successful art is X, then you see successful art that is Y, and you're having trouble accepting that model X is wrong. Since art can be approached in an unlimited number of ways, I think ultimately the success of most art has less to do with how it's made and more to do with the reactions it gets, but that's a fuzzy explanation.

I think as far as procedural story generation, it makes sense if you're not trying to make an exclusively narrative game. I mean, even in improv or role-playing games that are about telling a story, part of the fun is pitting two wits against each other trying to be the most clever, which is something that's mighty difficult to code. Ostensibly, improv games, even if they have win conditions, can't actually be lost unless someone decides to quit: all the participants have to support the others and work each other towards the end-game. Same with games like Microscope RPG. So one problem I figure games like Facade have is that they're strictly trying to be something new from the ground up, instead of working off of a formula that exists and has been proven. There's no grounding. If you want a procedural story, why not base it on emergent gameplay? I really liked how it was handled in Mount & Blade. It was rudimentary, but for the most part the relationships were obvious and developed mostly in the choices you make in-game (whom you side with, whom you aid in battle, what missions you do, where you start your business, &c.), rather than as part of the dialogue trees. Its not much, but there's an obvious story going on when a lord won't give you the time of day, until he hears you helped his son fight off some bandits, and he decides to offer you a quest. If you were to build a few more nuanced relationships into that system, you'd have a full-fledged procedural storytelling engine.