Mawd

I love that movie ^ I tried to get my partner to watch it yesterday but he disliked how 'emo' everyone was, he wondered where the 'fun' in the movie was that would get him to want to watch it himself, and sympathised . As for Theory of Everything being Oscar Bait, may as well say the same of The Imitation Game.

I found out that my life is going to consist of a bit more compromise and financial struggle than it usually does.

I think the point is that it means either neither or both pronouns. Depending on how someone wants to interpret the usage.I guess there are people who view themselves as strictly gender neutral but usage in the way I initially presented was for the purpose of avoiding to misgender the person as explicitly he or she. I guess thinking about it they and them isn't so bad of a term. I didn't put it as the primary way to go about things more as a supplementary thing to consider. But if it is incorrect usage then I won't use/advocate for it.

From what I can remember by tv standards it was sort of subtle to watch her transition from being a naive young girl to a performer that wore that role like armour. From the show directly I think the point that transition became loud was late season 2 when the author rote the screenplay. It was easier with the books because of the internal monologue and a few moments cut from the show that built her character. I mean she goes through some hefty development while being an abuse victim and while saying and expressing the things her abusers expect of her. Which is why for the longest time she plays to the idea of being this immature mess who doesn't act for herself. She's hyper aware that her agency has been taken from her and that she can't rely on anyone to save her because she fully knows her status as political prize. That said I don't believe she was always acting. Plenty of times audiences have thought of her as a stupid little girl she was playing to expectation out of absolute desperation. At least that's my takeaway from experiencing similar forms of thought/behaviour abusive control.

From what I can tell ze is used like 'he' or 'she' and zir is used like 'her' or 'his'.

Well the last women related thing I heard the government was involved in was pulling the funding from NZ's Rape Crisis centres. I'm sure more things positive or otherwise have occurred. But I'm not sure if I can pat an accomplishment from 1893 if only four years ago it was seen as a sensible business/economic move (by the still incumbent GOVT) to pull a few million from a national rape support network. Especially given the frankly insulting allocation of money for other less 'socialist' projects. I hear Tony Abbott does wonderful work as the self appointed Minister for Women. Why I seem to remember he listed his greatest contribution for women in 2014 was to repeal the Carbon Tax. :/ "Well, you know, it is very important to do the right thing by families and households," Mr Abbott replied. "As many of us know, women are particularly focused on the household budget and the repeal of the carbon tax means a $550 a year benefit for the average family." Okay I'm trying to balance my above views with things I wasn't or am not aware of, but should be. So hear is an official report for the Status of Women in NZ from the latest (five years old) CEDAW report for my and anyone else's interest. Also the Ministry for Women has a good explanation for what their focus is on for women in NZ.

What do you think of a character like Sansa from Game of Thrones? She seems to get a lot of hate for either her femininity or her lack of agency. But I think she was portrayed as a very strong person (while still being a feminine woman) at least within the book well before the TV audience finally started to approve of her

The example I pulled came from a short article I glanced at on the subject. Most of the time someone's chosen name does imply their gender. My friend who was given the name Alan chose the name Allie because it better expressed herself. But the way I understand this conversation is that its advice on how to address people you either do not know very well or at all. If someone you do know well has informed you that they're trans then they have usually also told you what gender they are. There are plenty of ways to avoid using names or pronouns even both at the same time. But I chose to react to the situation as one where the person would prefer to use a pronoun rather than skip past it. Like neonrev implicates I guess the best advice would be to ask their name first . But there are still situations where interactions are short enough that knowing the person's name isn't usually expected e.g. working a till in a retail store. Gender neutral pronouns are not what I would prefer to open with as I would rather try to use the context I'm presented with or a direct question to figure things out. But I would think of it as handy to know them.

Well from what I understand "Ze" and "Zir" are words members of the transgender and genderqueer community have come up with. Granted that may only be from a small subset of the online community and some people might just look at you funny. But if they're a part of those online cultural spheres then they should have encountered the terms before and it would hopefully let you communicate that you're a Jehovah's Witness SJW.As for "they" and "their" I just really couldn't imagine using those terms to directly address someone or talking about someone with their name in the sentence e.g. "Laura tied their shoes". Also I'd worry that using those terms would denigrate their sense of personhood because those words are used for talking about someone and not to them. I think it would translate into adding social distance in my interaction with the person in front of me. You'd be better off taking the gamble that you've used the right gendered pronoun rather than use language that to me at least is a few steps away from 'it'. Like I said I'd be really happy if someone who has more experience in addressing trans people were to step in and share their experience.

What a complete asshole. You can't act like that and think you're excused because you were trying to pull a laugh out of somewhere. "Hurr Durr we're awesome boundary pushers; we're really clever amirite? Don't worry punter it's a joke, all for laughs, wait why are you acting so psycho to me? I can't believe you took that seriously. I told you it's a joke." I hope most people can understand and respect what receiving death threats, stalking, and harassment are like enough to not perpetrate that experience. Though from what I can tell their comedy comes from already having a marked lack of respect for people in general.

I'm not sure how many people in the academy are into Scientology but the titular Master is meant to be L. Ron Hubbard or closely like him. I found that movie pretty interesting because the exercises and types of people in it strongly reminded me of my time with the School of Philosophy and Economic Science -at the time of watching at least; I need to go back and re-evaluate it.

For the topic at hand I agree with Danielle. Even if it is pretty close to tokenism it can still be pretty nice to see characters in media that don't follow the usual stock characterisation. I am usually left a little conflicted though because it feels like the big mainstream media is still a few years off from equal distribution or even just a big main character beyond a few things that target overlapping audiences. I'll be a lot happier when media takes a similar approach to how shows like In The Flesh dealt with gender and sexuality within the show. ---------- Not to be that guy. But, are you sure? Both the Aussie and NZ governments let their primary industries drive them around a fair bit. We're both super interested in ripping up national parks for minerals; last I heard it was a green light to build a port that dredges onto the Great Barrier Reef, and it's A-OK to conduct deep sea drilling in NZ waters -its even illegal to protest it. ---------- As for corporations bending the world to their will NZ is introducing plenty of laws for the White House on behalf of corporations. Heck we have this wonderful thing called the TTPA on the horizon that will introduce a whole load of new social drivers that I'm just sure everyone will love. Like medicine costs rising, leading to fewer people going to a doctor unless it's "absolutely necessary", leading to lower health overall. Not that I try to be anti corporation. A lot of my growing up has been accepting the good that can come from mainstream sources while still being mindful of the problems they cause.

Well this could be completely wrong but you could assume based on what type of gendered clothing they wear. I'm not sure if it would hurt to ask them directly. I know that can piss people off because they might feel challenged or even put down for having to re-affirm their gender constantly but the alternative of misgendering someone can be cruel at worst and equally irritating at best. If you want to avoid that and assuming that you can tell they're transgender you could make a socially progressive nod with a gender neutral pronoun like ze and zir. It should let you come across as well meaning and the door is open for them to correct you if they wish to. That said I don't know if that's the completely correct way to go because anything I can think of saying can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. If people are put down and harassed long enough they tend to take a second look at anything said to them to make sure they're not being disrespected so there still could be some confusion. I'd be really glad if anyone else could jump in with their two sense so I can conduct myself better.

I saw Kingsman and it was pretty fun. It was big and dumb but the dumbest part was the climate scientist described as a doomsayer who had a Gaia theory that he was backing.

False alarm : ( We're due to get a kitten any day now! We're getting a fluffy 2 month old kitten from a breeder because my Mum's friend helped the breeder get a cheap car and the friend remembered that Mum was on the lookout for a new pet. Heh I'll post some kind of image once it appears though.

Here's some pretty chilled lyric-less hip hop which makes for good background beats. https://www.youtube.com/user/beckoningchannel/videos Bath's first album would make for good background music. I used to absently minecraft to it a lot. I wouldn't recommend his later albums though because they get really moody. Mac Demarco's album is an album that lends itself to easy listening. It mightn't be your thing though. As for actual video games music the soundtrack is a staple. I'd add Hyper Light Drifter's soundtrack to the list but it's still a while from release.

Getting a kitten sometime today :3

Okay. I'm still kind of cloaked in sleep which is why it's also pretty probable I just misread your question. I agree that's a bad precedent to set just to establish that this Anakin guy is super OP. After mentioning OP my brain is now thinking in Lords Management terms where the Jedi basically support their Anakin hard carry with everything they have because otherwise "they'll totally just feed". It certainly feels terrible to view that Yoda is so wise and powerful partially because he has more Force sensitive Plastids than anyone else. It's also a terrible sacrifice to make for the lore of Anakin's manifest destiny.

Hey this is a little off topic but I'm reading The Recluce Saga and it shows an emperical balance between two sources of magic without coming off as a weak work. Essentially the more order or chaos in the world then the stronger one side or the other will get as an attempt to up a balance. Which is why when champions of each arise neither side truly 'wins' and the true greats from each side must heavily weigh their actions against a context of how that will empower their foes. Also while chaos users are often portrayed as far more evil there are some hints that the wizards chaos or order ties does not make them evil. Linking back to Star Wars I'd say that these ideas were what strongly drew me to Knights of The Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. Anyway there's always this talk I balancing the force but that doesn't usually mean more than banishing the Sith because they're bent on the total annihilation of everything, and racism usually. I wonder how long it is until we get a story from either side that isn't bent on exterminating the other (or without such a strong moral contrast). Also is anyone following Star Wars Rebels? It's pretty fun so far. I think the show's missing a street wise antagonist to keep the gang on their toes but I'm hoping that's an escalation that'll come onto the horizon in time.

Honestly I saw a similarity with Birdman to the 1995 film Living In Oblivion although it wasn't until mentions of dwarves and dream sequences that it really clicked. I think you could call both films shallow But I don't think their relationship with each other is. Has anyone else seen both? Am I just seeing things? Edit: Actually to me they are essentially the same take with a different context. Still I don't think that's something to fault either movie on. I enjoy both immensely. I think despite being considered shallow both films were rewarding experiences even if they weren't in the end meant to make a statement and be 'about' something 'bigger'. I read Roderick's review the other day and thinking about it both have beat ish soundtracks (though I don't remember if that Dominate's Living in Oblivion's soundscape in the same way) and both are likely the products of people in the film industry who are frustrated with the process and writing and decided to produce films highlighting absurdity. I think I'm drawing a very rough parallel but I don't really have the energy to articulate it. Or the certainty to judge where what I'm saying needs more words. Yes that scene Wow so this article on Killscreen is interesting. TORRENT CULTURE REALIZED AS A TERRIFYING CINEMATIC MASHUP

Wow that's really nice! Reminds me slightly of what I like about Opeth. Liking this a bunch.

Ugh well that's crap for me. DS2 was my one big purchase of last year. What I have for my gaming budget this year isn't going to go into rebuying the same game despite the promise of an enjoyable experience. I'll have to hope that they do discount for previous owners. It might be a shitty way to frame it but I don't want to pay for work they've already done on the project twice. Perfectly happy to pay for the new work costs though. Edit: okay the article above kind of fixes that dilemma for me but it's still hard to justify the purchase with my constraints specifically.

I enjoyed B&W2 I remember browsing through Dad's collection of Mac Addict and seeing adverts for the precious few games coming out for Macintosh back then and Black and White really caught my eye. I never got to experience it for myself but I really loved the concept and I think it became a favoured setting for daydreams for a while. When I did play B&W2 a lot of the enthusiasm was still there. There were a few problems and it really lacked a needed sandbox mode but it was still really fun! Fun enough to sink 50 hours into across multiple playthroughs. I mean that's a mark of a good game right? At least in terms of just playing the damn thing. As for shifting in house staff into the development of a new IP I totally get it! I mean honestly its smart to not let your pre production staff leave and have them instead work on a new IP. Right? As for building things on mobile. Yeah I understand its a major bummer for a lot of people. Heck I wasn't invested in GODUS at all and I still felt like that would surely kill my interest in the game for a while. But it makes sense as a revenue booster without having to completely rely on a publisher or more crowdfunded investment money. In a way there's a similar change of direction in another studio I know called Unknown Worlds. Both studios are relatively recent. Both were seen as one game companies. But after trying to find revenue streams within the existing player base they found that they had to start working on a new IP to bring in more revenue to the studio. I know it's not the most overlapping of stories but both studios tried to find income while just working on the one game their player base expected them to and both found that their customer base was not big enough to sustain that focus. The backlash was mildly similar as well but of course UW doesn't have a big name like 22cans. Still players felt like they were being left with a broken game that was alienating half of the original fanbase due to platform requirements and the state of the builds. UW has attempted to smooth the issue over by taking on a Community Development Team and in a way 22Cans has done a similar thing in a much smaller capacity (but UW's CDT is unpaid).

Edit: silly phone fooling my noodle brain into thinking my post would be the one just after Tegan's. Never played it. But you had a free amount of taps on the blocks a day before you ran out. So some people decided to but more uses or faster taps. Something like that.

I'm all for challenging interviews. Confrontational ones even. But when your interview starts to go in circles and things are feeling nasty something should change to break that pattern. Even if its just a reprieve before heading back into the previous issue. Also I did end up thinking that the idea of Walker or another RPS staffer checking out or being embedded into 22cans would be a far more interesting find than that interview. It left me with a bad impression of both parties. Which was a bit uncomfortable since RPS has been my almost sole form of sustenance for the past five years.