Gwazi Magnum

sorcery

K-97 said I'm impressed Magnum, you've managed to start an argument in one post. That's a record.

sorcery

Walker of Darkness said
Let me explain...no, there is too much. Let me sum up.The dot is just a focus for your eyes, gazing at the focus during the inverted color time locks those colors in your eyes. When the colors are then muted, the brain has to take a moment to realize this, and instead places the correct colors over the black and white second image. The inverted color's natural shades.Visual trick.

Tried it again with that considered.
It didn't happen.

American, not African American?

I've always found the term 'Minorities' works in that sense. It's more accurate generally too cause it's always the people lesser in number geographically you have these issues (Save women in 3rd world countries) and not the majority of the people there.

Young and Old

I thought the joke was obvious so it didn't need any mentioning. :/

Young and Old

Young

Old

sorcery

You added a colour shader.

The dot could easily be photoshopped on top of both afterwards.
I don't see the sorcery, unless if lazy photoshopping is now worthy of being called magic. :/

American, not African American?

Yog Sothoth said In my opinion black is almost as flawed of a term as people of color, the skin color variation from dark to light makes that term just dumb.

I have to agree. The idea of there being a group of 'coloured' people seriously annoys me. It implies/suggests that White people are the best/default and everyone is some sort of variation/difference from the norm.

It's the same reason I try to use the term "Heterosexual" rather than "Straight" (Though, I do slip up often cause it's the term we're all raised with >.<).
Because it implies Hetero people are 'right', 'normal', that their 'straight' in the sense there is nothing off or odd about it. But every other sexuality is some kind of variance.

I mean, I'm all for terms to help better clarify/describe what someone is.
So bring on the LGBT terms, feel free to say someone has _______ coloured skin.
But for heavens sake don't set the tone to imply that one's the normal/default and everything else is somehow different.

Gaming Journalism

Vanq said What? In what way have major companies bowed to the pressures of SJWs?

Bioware for one when it comes to Anita.
SJW don't legitimately sit there is pay cheques to pay the developers with, but they've gain enough pull and support that they easily have the power to boycott sales or rep a lot simply by declaring ________ to be sexist.

Granted, losing support of gamers (who aren't SJW) is an even bigger hit to money/profits, but it doesn't take one criticism/protest to cause a boycott.
Most gamer's take their own research and effort into forming an opinion, there's no cases where it simply takes one person saying "This is a bad game" for gamers to universally shun it.
People would like to think otherwise because of the reputation of people like Anita or Zoe Quinn, going "Well if Gamer's weren't organized, they wouldn't be so much universal hate/backlash against them".
But gamer's acting independently doesn't mean they're immune to having a majority opinion, if someone is clearly spreading bullshit, if someone is clearly being dishonest the majority of gamers will be able to recognize this. And then you will get the majority of gamers against them, not because of some movement but because Gamer's aren't fools and can recognize crap when they see it.

Vanq said Also, forcing gamers to buy games they don't want? What do you mean?

I was highlighting how games such as say "Depression Quest" or Journalist from sites like Kotaku are making far less money because of all the people that are now boycotting/avoiding them for their dishonest tactics. But someone people were using this to claim there was some organized plot/scheme to silence them and I was highlighting how that's not a plot or scheme, that's just the consumers avoiding a shitty product. And how gamers should not be expected to pay for shitty products simply so the creators can keep producing more shitty products, and that's where the whole "And I highly doubt forcing gamers to buy games they don't want" thing was going.

Vanq said I don't know many people, if any, who will pay for a game simply because some reviewer somewhere said it was good.

Regardless, no one is forcing anyone. And since the internet exists, there are tons of not paid by the company shills who review games. Take each review with a grain of salt, look at the trend of comments, decide for yourself if its worth it. No one is forcing you to buy anything.

It's not that simple, reviewers will often times go into detail about how good or bad a game is and why. Some dishonestly (Kotaku, IGN) and some honestly (Totalbiscuit, Angry Joe).

For example, there's been two cases with Angry Joe where he really liked games and I went out and bought them because all the reasoning he gave for it seemed solid, but I ended up less than satisfied with the purchase.
He didn't simply say "This is good, buy it" he went "This is good, here's a long explanation as to why", but through play I just found myself not sharing the same opinions. I could see why he liked it, where his points came from. He wasn't lying, it just turned out after the purchase we had different perceptions/likes in regards to it.

But honestly? That will happen sometimes with games, even if the critic is honest, even if the majority of people like it you yourself may find yourself getting it because of all the great reviews and then find it's something you personally don't like. But even if that happens we still want critics to be honest about their reviews, most people recognize going in that a review is an opinion piece that you may not always agree with. But we want the opinion to be sincere and to have actually considered the quality of the game in question, not for the rating to be completely dishonest because of a behind the door deal.

It's why people like Totalbiscuit and Angry Joe get so much praise, but places like Kotaku and IGN don't. If you end up disagreeing with the former two it's usually just a difference of opinion, you weren't purposely misled into buying the game, but IGN and Kotaku would have never even bothered to give you honest reasons, they spewed bullshit so you'd buy it. So no, no one is forcing anyone to buy games. You're right, but when we go looking for reviews, opinions, impressions etc we at least want them to be sincere, and not outright lies.

American, not African American?

Kidd said Exactly. But that doesn't make them difference races. Just like an African-American isn't a different race than you.

This is honestly just me being a Grammar Nazi right now, but if your argument is that there is no such thing as race you probably shouldn't say things like "They aren't a different race". Because that implies there are cases where people can be of a different race, it's just that the case in question isn't one of them.

Kidd said Yes, you did. However, if something is this flawed, then it doesn't work on a scientific level. People, on average, cannot guess a person's race correctly over 80% of the time. That's a 20% if this was a test--a test that would quickly fail. To further this point, I recommend checking this quiz out. It asks you to sort people into races and I can almost guarantee that you'll fail.

I gave it a shot, and yes I did end up scoring pretty low, point proven.

Kidd said No, but heterosexuals like the opposite gender.

*Sex

There's a difference between Sex and Gender.
Sex = Biological Body (Basically, what genitalia you posses)
Gender = How to feel, relate and identify as. This where cases of stuff like "A man trapped in a womans body" comes from.
This does actually expand even further into Identity & Expression, but I don't think there's a need to go into a long winded explanation/lecture here. All I needed to address was the sex/gender difference.

Kidd said Bisexuals like both men and women. And asexuals are just not interested in anyone sexually. This is a given. You cannot do that with race. There is not a single universal trait or gene that applies to a single race. Not all African-Americans have dark skin (refer to the twins for example--the white one is still descended from a black parent). Not all Caucasians have narrow noses.

You're absolutely right that your sexuality doesn't define who you are but it isn't comparable to race. Labels with human sexuality work very, very well. Labels with human diversity do not.

The point I was making was that the existent of these labels (however flawed/broken they may be) doesn't suddenly take away the rest of us, or turn us into 1-Dimensional people/personalities.
Are the race labels severally flawed? Definitely, you've more than proven that here. But we are not removings one individuality by using it, at best we're just making a gross generalization when it comes to one physical aspect about them.

Kidd said Though I'm cautious about doing so via the internet because people are quick to dismiss it as bull shit or trying to "win points."

Most of those people would of done it regardless because you bothered to bring up your education at all.
So if you're going to use it, at least make it clear from the start.

+Using it later on usually indicates that they're doing it because they feel cornered/back to a wall, are simply being desperate for victory.

Holy Effing Shit

You mean the sperm wasn't already digested enough to not be able to work?
I'm going to expect whatever kid get's born from this to have some serious birth defects.

Nevermind, said that just by looking at the article name (was feeling to tired to read atm, but I had to stay up for something regardless so I figured I should give it a better peek while waiting).

Apparently sperm really is hardy... cause the kid was apparently healthy.