It's not going to protect you from Covid. Aside, you should only be having a common flu vaccine if you're an at risk group or a front line worker. You don't want to deprive people who need it more than you.
Russian's claiming to have developed a vaccine, which is odd due to the endless resources the UK and US have been pouring into it. By the sounds of it they haven't gone through the proper procedures you would need to go through to ascertain it's effectiveness.
Found a trick that would make the game more bearable to TAS. Some of the forced encounters can be avoided by abusing the lock on mechanic. Essentially, while in targeting mode you cannot trigger a battle. However, there is an oversight to this where when you're targeting you're still moving for a short period of time thus can glide past certain loading zones.
Link to video
Funny how you've accused me of being dismissive, but have more or less done the same thing to me, but I digress. However, there was one bold assumption you made I take issue with.
I deleted that prior to your response, because I also thought it was unfair. The rest of the point still stands.
I would have deleted my response if I could, but what's done is done.
CoolHandMike wrote:
Ok so....how can I put this? You fail to understand how things from the past affect the present. And despite giving you evidence for economic discrimination you specifically ASKED is incredibly disingenuous.
The evidence you've used is instances of social discrimination; not economic. Much of which happened long before any of us were born. Where the cultural norms differed greatly. Being a believer in "economic discrimination" implies that you think giving a group of people money, or having some form of affirmative action policy is going to automatically solve the problem. You only have to look at what happened in post Apartheid South Africa to see what happened there. When an indigenous person was able to successfully prove that land was stolen from their ancestors. Did they choose to take the land or monetary compensation? They nearly always took the money. Treated it like a windfall and pissed much of it away.
If you're referring to hiring practises. It doesn't make much sense for a employer to do it. If they won't hire the best people for petty or political reasons, then their bottom line will suffer in the long run. Worse, people they should have employed end up working for their competitors. If government agencies are doing that, then it is a problem as they can escape the consequences of bad hiring practices.
Funny how you've accused me of being dismissive, but have more or less done the same thing to me, but I digress. However, there was one bold assumption you made I take issue with.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
The assumption is that our system of governance is fair and just, and good things happen to people who deserve good things, so if bad things are happening to you then you must be somehow bad.
I don't think it's just or fair. The fundamental reason I hate government as a whole is because it's a zero sum game. One group of people see it as vehicle to transfer wealth, power and property to themselves. The others want to use it to entrench their position in society (often unfairly at the expense of keeping other people down). If only poor people get to run government the former will happen; if only rich people get to run the government the latter will end up happening. There's a reason why wealthy people, unions and special interest groups are so heavily invested in politics and that's because government has the ability to dish out so many favors. As much as I don't like the people in government; the people who're trying to instigate race riots I have an even greater dislike for.
" Economic discrimination requires explanation"
You asked. Many of these massacres were white people being triggered by black people gaining status and wealth. WARNING some of these descriptions might be disturbing. https://listverse.com/2019/10/23/10-of-the-worst-massacres-of-african-americans-disturbing-images/
The US since the Emancipation Proclamation has had groups of people deliberately putting down African Americans. After being freed there was a deal to give former slaves wealth in the form of unoccupied land, but instead it was mostly rescinded then given to white people, with many blacks forced to leave the land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_acres_and_a_mule
More recently In WW2, blacks did not get the same benefits their fellow soldiers did. Millions were denied access to education and other benefits like lower mortgage rates. https://www.history.com/news/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans-benefits.
The real question should be how can we stop this discrimination? Not whether it exists. Because it is clear as day. If you have eyes and ears and listen to people and read their stories and what happened through history it should be OBVIOUS.
These are historical grievances that already have had laws and practices in place to prevent them. They have next to no relevance in the here and now. Other than those who see it as an excuse to burn. loot and riot.
If you've played Shining Force 3 and Panzer Dragoon Saga. You'll notice they're far worse for seizure inducing moments. AFAIK the seizure debate in Japan didn't come into prominence until 99. Thankfully no game post 2000 has those issues.
I wanted to wait a while before responding to Patashu. There was a couple of sources I wanted to take a closer look at. While I don't have much of issue in terms of the evidence he's used. I do take issue with the conclusions he's wilfully drawn from them i.e. trying to shift blame to the everyday person.
Patashu wrote:
Mitjitsu wrote:
Should black people be more concerned about being shot by a police officer of another race, or being killed by someone who looks and sounds like them?
Should trans people be more concerned about trans gender bathrooms or mental health issues that lead to them having high rates of depression and suicide?
* And yes, it is important for black people to be able to trust their local police officers, since they uphold the law and maintain the police - if you don't feel safe calling them to report a crime because you're worried that they won't take you as seriously as they would a white person, then who does that benefit? It's well known that black families have to give their sons 'the talk' on how to interact with police, because police officers are less likely to take black people seriously and more likely to use force. (source: https://news.wttw.com/2020/06/08/having-talk-how-families-prepare-black-children-police-interactions )
I'm sure most of us have been stopped and questioned by the police at some point. When we haven't done anything wrong. In that situation I believe the onus is on you to know how to deal them. That way you get it over and done with quickly and don't get fined or arrested. If you don't, then either you don't have much sense; don't listen to anyone; your parents or school haven't taught you or worse your peers or other people have given you terrible advice which either leads to some altercation or getting arrested. Some of it I attribute to those ghetto Al Sharpton's online running their mouths off about how cops are gangsters; members of the KKK and are death squads for black people. If a black person chooses to believe that they're going to start acting up or evading them. Which could escalate to them getting killed.
Patashu wrote:
* Yes, it's also a worthy cause to minimize black-on-black violence, and in large part we can help combat this by reducing incarceration and economic discrimination against black people, since poverty is a large part of what causes people to turn to crime and violence. But I find it a bit of an oddly chosen phrasing to say that a black person, and not a white or black police officer, is someone who 'looks and sounds like them'. Black people aren't inherently more violent, it's more like they're in a society where they're more likely to be poor, discriminated against and in improverished neighbourhoods, and if we did that to any other minority (and in some countries we do!) we'd see similar results.
I don't see how reducing incarceration is going to reduce crime. That's like saying if we abolish all laws then crime will be eradicated. Economic discrimination requires explanation. That kind of coded language requires explaining how they're being economically discriminated against. Only works if people are already on board with your lines of thinking. I suspect the reason you didn't go into more depth on that is any outcome you do find will likely either be hard to prove or have an innocent explanation for. You'll find crime being committed at all levels of society. Poorer people tend to engage in violent low level crime; middle class tend engage in organised crime; rich tend to engage in corruption knowing that they're for all intents and purposes are above the law. Fundamentally you're using the argument that poverty causes crime, which was the prevailing orthodoxy in the 60's. However, I think it may very well be the other other way round, because if an area is highly prone to theft and violence, then whose going to setup a business there, thus employ people?
Patashu wrote:
* Trans people don't want special trans-only bathrooms - they want to use THEIR preferred gender bathroom (a gender neutral bathroom also works!) and don't want to be judged or discriminated against for it. In that sense, they want to do the same thing you want to do - they want to pee and poop in peace.
The main issue caused here is women who're not trans, but cross dressers hiding in bathrooms so they can sexually assault other women. Fundamentally I don't like the idea of governments getting involved here dictating what's what. I went to a newly opened restaurant recently and noticed they had a half dozen individual cubical's. Makes me wonder if that debate had an influence here.
Patashu wrote:
* The source of 'mental health issues' that plague trans people is, for the most part, caused by bigotry against transgender people and obstacles in their way against transitioning. Transitioning and being accepted as your new gender identity IS what lowers the suicide rate of transgender people. It's not some weird, inexplicable mental issue about transness that makes them want to commit suicide, it's society's judgement that causes the problem.
This to me amounts to "it's your fault they feel that way". Much of the time it was likely a bad and unnecessary decision to go trans that may lead to them feeling depressed or suicidal. Seeking good and confidential advice or counselling may have been a better decision.
I don't see how showing your gender is really political. That's like showing your age, or showing your name. It's nothing more than a "stat" written on the birth certificate (most of the time). Showing off a stat is not political :P
You would be right were it not for TASvideos allowing you to select more than 2 genders.
UEFA has had a double standard when it comes to no politics in football. Very often it's used as a way for a rival domestic team to leevy fines in the hope it will weaken them in the transfer market the following season. A few years ago they allowed tributes to Nelson Mandela, which if you look into his life as a whole is a highly controversial figure (and don't get me started on his wife Winnie).
"All Lives Matter, and the only way evil can thrive is for good people to do nothing."
For the record, here is why people, including me, say Black Lives Matter and not All Lives Matter:
When a friend of ours is hurting, we don't console them and pledge to make them whole by saying that it's a bad thing when it happens to everyone, not just them. We acknowledge that they've been wronged and pledge to do something to make it better in the future.
This is the same kind of thing - while it is true that the world is full of problems and forms of discrimination, when people say Black Lives Matter, they are fighting for the cause that hurts them and their friends, that they want to see fought and fixed. To hear that and say All Lives Matter is like saying that their cause is not as important as they say it is - to say that they're shouting too hard, protesting too much, that they should calm down and be reasonable and civil. But being quiet and waiting your turn historically does not get results; sometimes it takes protesting and hooting and hollering and not getting drowned out in the backdrop. Protests like this get national attention - they start a debate - they get people thinking about the issues, why people would be so fired up about this, and it actually sways people's opinion and gets legislation written and passed, and it's the actual results that are the goal.
Should black people be more concerned about being shot by a police officer of another race, or being killed by someone who looks and sounds like them?
Should trans people be more concerned about trans gender bathrooms or mental health issues that lead to them having high rates of depression and suicide?
I didn't want to hijack Upthorn's submission just for the sake of pointing out parts that I took issue with. Yes, I agree issues surrounding policing aren't relegated to black people. However, people need to accept they're disproportional poor and more prone to committing crime than other groups. Leading to more confrontations with the police. Where either they or the officers involved do something which leads to them getting brutalised or killed.
As for this part
Police have responded to peaceable protests of their excessive use of force by committing literal war crimes against the protesters, driving their cars into peaceful crowds, and refusing to arrest other people who attempt to murder these protesters.
You'll likely find wrong doing from both police and protesters in this instance. If you're going to get into calling responses war crimes. That's going to take some serious evidence. Not just conformation biases.
Massive reforms are necessary, and they cannot happen soon enough.
Can't disagree with that other than who be making the reforms, and what ulterior motives they may have.
Up until then most of my disagreements were minor, but here's where I took the main issue with.
In issues like this, refusal to speak is implicit support of the status quo. Avoiding comment is equivalent to saying "nothing about this needs to change."
There is not much that I have the power to do regarding these issues, but I do have the power to say: Black Lives Matter, and Silence is Violence.
There's good reasons not to say anything. There's plenty of forums I've stayed well clear of saying anything, because of how unreasonable in general the people who frequent these places are. The fact I'm posting on here about it means I have a great deal more respect for the average user who posts here.
All Lives Matter, and the only way evil can thrive is for good people to do nothing.
Now we're having a discussion complaining about people complaining about other people complaining about having a political discussion. Now this is getting interesting...
The irony is that your post in the bundle topic is what triggered this entire fork of discussion, so, you really only have yourself to blame at this point.
That's like a person with anger management issues blaming everyone else for triggering them.
Lol, Endrift outed himself as a cowardly debater. He already deep down knew he was about to do what I'd predicted.
CoolHandMike wrote:
Mijitsu I like how you believe everything is fine right now and racism does not really exist. This most likely means you yourself are not racist either. Unfortunately in a lot of areas, racism is pervasive here. It may not be headline grabbing, but it is there. Also...where do you live? Most people in the US would say that rights come from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, NOT from any UN charter.
Racism is always going to exist, but you've got to prove it's actually a wide scale problem. I never said rights came from a UN charter. Other than where the term originates from, and how it's being misused. I don't even agree with the existence of that organisation.
Patashu is one of the few who gets it, but the solutions he hinted at don't fundamentally address the problem.
As for Spikestuff. He's edited out a couple of statements that would put what I'm saying into context.
<Mitjitsu> However, I will say the problem fundamentally lies with the police unions more than anything else.
After a series of blind cop bashing in response to what him and others had said
<Mitjitsu> Personally I think TASvideos should start its own vigilante group
<Spikestuff> You wouldn't be apart of it.
<Mitjitsu> Common Spikestuff, you get to beat up anyone who isn't Australian 😉
<Spikestuff> Shove off it.
That's pretty deep if you're going begin from when Columbus first discovered America, and claim that's somehow a major contributing cause for whats happening now. Other than simply race baiting I demand you back up your claims.
Mitjitsu -
How is that helpful at all? Noone here is saying anything absurd, certainly least of all the goals of the charity work.
I'll try and break down what EZ is saying because he's using semantics (knowingly or unknowingly)
He said that standing up for human rights shouldn't be considered political. Yes, I agree it's generally honorable to campaign on it, but it's is nearly always done in a partisan way to spite someone else or a group.
He then followed up with this statement
It's about Justice for black people, who are in fact, humans. So yeah it's human rights.
The first part of that means nothing without context, as that would involve explaining where the injustice is. Human Rights stems from the name of an international agreement created by the UN in 1948. Most of it I can agree with apart from the equality and non-discrimination bit, which is vague and impossible to define in most cases. Yet activists and politicians love to stoke flames and cry wolf claiming there is some kind of human rights violation in relation to that section. For the purposes of personal or political gain.
