The Harbinger of Ferocity

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Ha good one!

@Penny

I had requested you share your testimony with us and you declined, as you may, but until you provide anything suggesting contrary to my statement, I cannot take the argument of "Ha, that's such a lie it's funny to me!" seriously. I do not see it or encounter it. I supervise seven women at the moment and am overseen by two and then one far above us all in her station and role. I have however, seen reverse sexism as I stated and was directly affected by, but that was born of policy, not the people enforcing it.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I almost am loathe to mention it, but if you cannot acquire government identification, you probably should not be voting in the first place. Identification is not that hard to gain or utilize and is more or less mandatory to function regularly in life. If one cannot be bothered to ensure they have one, then I would be surprised they have the will at all to see themselves to the voting booth. As a whole that argument is very unreliable and is, beyond a doubt, more a threat than a benefit to the populace; I would rather have a potentially smaller voter turn out with less fraud than I would with a larger voter turn out with potentially more fraud, @Penny.

On another note, it is not clear that the modern Republicans are responsible for the Jim Crow legacy, but I will leave @mdk to that and the rest of their conversation.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Iuniper

For myself I view "disadvantages" and compensation for them too close to actual privileges, as you likely noted in my musings above. I do not believe the myth that white men are some how privileged and that other races are marginalized into "disadvantage". Are there those who do in fact hold racial biases? Yes, that's no secret. I find that more rare than the reality presented, adding on that I do not believe people need to have added "equality"; the reason why I find modern "feminism" lacking in basis, for example. There is nothing to indicate to me that women are unfairly treated compared to men.

From my own experiences, the opposite is often true because of the concept of affirmative action or that people are at all "socially disadvantaged". In fact, I myself have been affected by that, where I have been passed over despite my qualifications, work ethics, history and reputation simply because someone else was at a "disadvantage", of which was their gender and skin color. I do not believe in artificially "balancing" the system as socialism so highly vaunts out time and time again. If anything that example is actual reverse racism and sexism, because they superseded qualifications to fit the desire of "diversity" based on race and sex, rather than allow the diversity to foster naturally.

In regard to the other comment, I assume you are speaking about Thomas' Hobbes and his theories, some of which I do agree with and then those I do not.

For myself, I do indeed conscribe to the notion that humans are inherently selfish, as with any other animal. In spite of this belief, I too hold the understanding that people have the ability to overcome this area of weakness, with examples being charity, compassion, and honor among, many, many others which we frequently view as moral high ground. It takes control, effort and dedication to minimize the weaknesses of simply being, but the truth is, is that those admirable traits only come through one's own volition, and should be nothing less than through that means alone. To further elaborate on what I mean I will use a well known sample; charity ceases to be meaningful when it becomes mandatory as either a person gives of their own desire to do good or they do not at all.

I do concede that life is "... solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” in nature, both that wild and that of which Hobbes meant in the state of man. What I differ on, as with my earlier philosophy, that this too can be changed, as some see view them in "contracts"; you trade something for the other and this happens naturally at all levels. Even earlier I confirmed I believe one at times must trade "liberty" with "safety", but such a process must be carefully supervised and a balance established, let one trade too much. However, I add that there are some conditions that are inherent to all things, such as the right of self defense. In that I mean I do not pity a hunter killed by a rampant boar just as I do not show pity on the criminal killed by the police. To me they are facts of life and essential elements of what makes a living thing just that.

To conclude in brief, as I know little more beyond this about Hobbes, is that I do not believe mankind should be ever managed by any single person or construct and follow it unquestioningly. I believe a system of representatives with varying purposes and objectives and no less duties, is essential. While the United States' system from the base to the top does have some flaws, I too think it a remarkable example of what can be achieved and that it functions so well even in an imperfect and dynamic environment.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Iuniper, it still does not change my opinion that people should not receive special compensation or consideration to somehow "make it even" and I do believe it can be argued. The notion otherwise invents an environment similar to the one we see today where people want to be marginalized in some cases so they receive more benefits or even worse because it is "trendy". No less, in a number of situations some of the fixes and solutions are counterproductive to the intended and desired end state. Lastly, it develops an air of "competition of oppression" or a "comparison of lacking" by which I mean these various "socially disadvantaged" people try to measure their various areas of weakness in life against each other, in addition to the normal populace, and go, "Why do they get that? I want that too." or even more foolishly, attempt to argue they are the most "burdened" by whatever status they claim.

My stance is that I do not feel obligated to encourage it.

You could argue, "What about wheelchair access to a government building?" Fair point, but depending on the building and its function, it may or may not have a need. Some of those laws may have already been in the books as well. I have seen plenty of buildings that have no need for it, as with the above example these facilities do not allow people with that kind of disability in them by virtue of their function, having them only at all because regulation mandates they do; the same can be said for a handicapped parking space. For me, that is a waste of time and resources.

If no such law existed, it should have been up to that state to make that determination for themselves through their population. Why? Because if someone does not like it, they can simply move somewhere else and should.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I first have to remark that the issue I take with this is, nothing against you personally as this is only referring to the text itself, but the notion people who have "different skin color" or a "different sexual orientation" or "economic status" are somehow disadvantaged. Again, as I have stated before, I do not conscribe to the theory of privilege. I do not equate someone's lack of legs, either born or incurred later, to be something that cannot be overcome or even used to their advantage.

To share a brief story, for the sake of more insight, I came from a background of "haves" and fell hard into the "have nots". There was a point in my life where I had nothing to my name; all the wealth I had been given I gave back to my family so they could buy food and pay rent. It cost me my future education at one of the most critical times of a young person's life and in the depths of an economic recession all while it saddled me with debt I could not reasonably pay. No less, I had been obese for the entirety of my existence and am affected by a few unrelated non-preventable chronic conditions. I spent an entire year and a half turning it all around, then another six (to this day), and doing all the things people told me I would never be capable of. None of the above statements are true to me or my family anymore, barring those non-preventable conditions which I still live with.

You are whoever you make yourself to be with whatever hand you are dealt.

I never once asked for or received a handout from anyone or from the government. It is not their job to do it and I believe that because I lived it.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

No, I do not believe they should cater to anyone, no matter how seemingly intentionally loaded that question is, @Iuniper.

If you are the caliber of person who does not sympathize or assist those with legitimate disabilities that is your own prerogative as far as I am concerned. I believe I know the caliber of person who would behave that way. To me, they are the same type of people who do not hold a door for anyone; the same type of people too preoccupied with themselves and their life not to get off their phones will driving; the same type of people who won't give up their seat on an airplane; the same type of people who kneel during the American anthem or refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. In my eyes, that is morally wrong, but too in my eyes, it is their right to make that decision no matter how much I disdain it. If anything it motivates me to never be like them and to this day, it still does.

The tail end of your question is also potentially baiting, but because I have nothing to be ashamed of in stating my opinion, I will say it plainly. No, I do not believe it is the job of society or the government to "help facilitate minorities who are systematically disadvantaged".

I added this in post, but that question alone begs from me these thoughts, "Who determines what is or is not 'systematically disadvantaged'?", "Who decides what benefits they need in particular?", "When does someone cease being 'systematically disadvantaged'?", "Does someone who falls under multiple spectrums of 'systematic disadvantage' gain more benefits than those with fewer? Doesn't that put those people at their own disadvantage?", "What about those who are not 'systematically disadvantaged', what is their role? Do they need to take on the burden of other people? Is it by option or force?"

You needn't answer those, as they were added for the sake of understanding my character and thus my statement, but it goes to show that is such a vast amount of people could have it applied to them that it could be just about anyone and anything. People do not need special grants of anything to "cheat the odds" or gain "social justice". You are already a person, no less an American citizen.

The Forgotten Basics

@JBRam2002, I actually argue for the dozen some-odd posts provided they still have useful content, are appropriate in forwarding the character or story's plot, and are of reasonable length. If they are rapid, short and to the point that they could make up one reasonably long post, that I would take more issue with; a collaborative project would work best there. The reason I say this in whole as I do is because activity on a topic is an enormous uphill battle. You not only need a proactive Game Master who keeps the plot moving and interacts with small details, in-character and out-of-character, but a cast of participants who are willing to be active and also are active.

You are right about the scenarios when they should be employed; a scenario wherein no one else has reasonable ground for interruption, there's not much issue to be had. In an environment where there are multiple participants who are in some proximity, or have the likelihood of walking in on the conversation or event, that is where it should be avoided.

I have still yet to see them done well with any frequency.

The Forgotten Basics

I might have to comment on one thing in particular, as otherwise the majority of my comments are said by @BrokenPromise and it relates explicitly to how collaborative posts are done. The remark is simple, but it is the absolute root of my own disdain for it because while it is a good tool for character and plot development, I seldom see it employed correctly; I still have not in my three plus years here. So, without further delay, the one addition I have to make.

If you are going to do a collaborative post, do not make it all about you and whoever else is involved. Removing the opportunity to engage, involve, act or react by non-participants is not fun; not everyone wants to passively read your joint, multiple page essay that denies their involvement. That is just as bad as assuming control of their character, because by proxy your prevention of their actions is control. Having the metaphorical door closed on the opportunity and ability to interrupt or reply becomes tiresome.

"You Are Your Avatar"

"In honesty, I have not an idea of what it is you are speaking to or on..." The whiskered lips slowed for a moment as the rest of the body recalled the ever changing woman's name, "Junko."

The yelling forth and now back had the enormous beast's attention throughout, even when he had spoken, but was slightly more skeptical of the pale serpent of which had mutually discovered them rather than the long, angered shout. There was no shortage of, for lack of better words, unusual exceptions to the rule here at a school of all places, but that struck most deeply that the appearances of things were deceiving. The flame-kissed mage was a safe assumption, as was the naga-like entity, but a few others were unexpected. Little did the sabertooth know however, just how their reception was received, instead left to continue on, albeit at what still felt as a fair and safe ways away.

"Are you suggesting we contend with the machine?"

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Penny

Martial law is reserved and designed for scenarios wherein the entire system has collapsed. A reasonable execution of armed action to stand up the fallen government would be in an extreme such as in the event of terror employing a weapon of mass destruction. Why? Because the local, tribal and or state government, have mostly if not completely have failed and there is anarchy among the populace. The police are unable to effectively respond, emergency medical treatment is at levels almost exclusive to triage if at all, fire control is dedicated to critical infrastructure, engineering projects - like nuclear reactors which are national assets - are under threat because of becoming derelict. The execution of such an order would be to recapture and recover the affected areas and restore order.

Mobilizing the National Guard to step in, in place of the police who are forced to stand down, is how you maintain discipline and enforce the law. If the police are being forced, as they are in some of these cases, to disobey their code and being prevented from carrying out their role in society, no less their occupation for which they are paid, by someone who is morally and politically compromised and allowing the public to skirmish amongst itself, there is a pretty distinct failure to uphold the law.

The American public is not aware that the largest intrusions that happen to them still occur daily out of sight and out of mind, at times in areas of actual and legitimate questionability in law. This is one of the reasons the populace was so reactive to the National Security Agency and Homeland Security Agency electronic monitoring, among others, because while it was and is critical to countering threats, it has in some cases - as we have seen - proven to be unlawful in of itself.

The argument of police checkpoints appearing every few weeks at random, or in specific static locations, is a "police state" is hollow in comparison and contrast to other, historically well known police states. For the moment I will refer you to Venezuela as an excellent example of an actual police state, where the government arranged a specific policing force to seize command and control of privately owned resources, then redistributed them as it saw fit under the new law. No less, the police then turned on its own populace and behaves as a means of oppression rather than protection. It has no other greater purpose at the moment than to control the population; law enforcement is a distant secondary objective, if that.

@Vilageidiotx

You would be correct we do not have a "major" problem of terrorism in the United States, but it is essential that efforts be made to become proactive over reactive. Coming from an element of counter terror, it was much easier to defeat terror its low level, lone wolf lanings when it focused so heavily on improvised explosives yet incidents like the Boston Marathon Bombing prove that it is still possible. Today, knife attacks and vehicle ramming attacks have become, and will continue to rise as, the new standard, owing to the reality that they are cheaper and easier to execute, significantly more difficult to detect and hard to prevent; although the former is more readily defeated by a populace that is allowed to better exercise their right of arms. The latter is unfortunately, almost impossible to efficiently protect against.

I specifically prefaced my statement by saying "I would say." because I do, just as I disagree that "America is what we make it."; I contrarily believe that America has some fundamentals that cannot be compromised, especially not in the name of socialism and its foundations in social justice.

You can however, entirely rationally argue that my advocating for elevated security across the board might lead down a slippery slope to a police state. That I would agree with for if it was not implemented properly and in conjunction with other critical concepts such as dual electronic authorization when making a purchase (both a driver's license or similar identification and a credit card, or at minimum being carded if you are buying with cash), it is ripe for potential abuse. That is an argument I can believe and empathize with. Despite this note, I will never concede communism as anything less than an actual, not hypothetical, enemy of the free world, namely the United States.

To the next topic, I do not believe there is any issue in semantics. A natural bell curve exists in that the further you get from what is considered "centrist" the more you become an extreme by that virtue. If the center right is "Republican" and the center left is "Democrat" that reasonably moves the Right Wing, "Alt-Right" and Alt-Right to the fringes in that order, just as it does in mirror with the left. Political motives become deeper and stronger the further you go to either side and the reasonability of violence to achieve those wants becomes more likely. The extremes of the left are made up of everything from communists to anarchists who have and do advocate violence; they are the more recent propagators. The real Alt-Right is notorious for this too because they so strongly cling to the ability to maintain arms - it is a cliché of their faction that they are all supposedly skin headed and surrounded by "assault rifles".

Again I will repeat that they are not automatically rendered all violent by association, but that they have the ability to sympathize with or accidentally allow a dangerous extremist into their movement. Because of their more consolidated, condensed and heightened motives, it makes it more likely they will provide assistance to them in that regard. It is the same reason that sympathetic moderates of any movement can become knowing bystanders to a violent movement; they have the power to avert harm, yet instead do not act on it because they are compromised and unwilling to betray those they view as their friends or at least their allies.

Personally I think gendered bathrooms is kinda silly, but I pretty much keep quiet about it because I figure as a guy I am getting me some juicy privilege by keeping bathrooms gendered, since, like, have you ever seen the line for a womans bathroom at a major event?

Vilageidiotx

I do not believe in the notion of privilege, be it the now cringe worthy "CIS White Male" stereotype to the Alt-Right's counter stereotype that minorities receive privilege just because they are always somehow made out to be the downtrodden.

The cost in this circumstance is the comfort of the remaining 99.7% of the regular populace, a noteworthy portion being roughly half of which disagrees with the concept, or that a law needs to enforce it. It is not the duty of the populace to bow to or cater to a minority, especially an extremely small minority. It is the duty of that minority to integrate and become part of the rest of the population and explain to those who are misinformed on it. Here there is no misinformation, as this is a largely out of proportion issue, just as the "Women's Rights" argument that somehow women in America are not equal to their male counterparts; they're both Americans.

Again, while I find the notion of "helping make people more functional" to be a nice one and what I would want to see in any circumstance, I do not believe they are obligated to, especially not by law. Hypothetically, if I owned a company and found that to be an issue - let us say the fluorescent lighting - I would purchase and maintain an alternative to it. I as the owner made that choice to accommodate people; I was not forced by the government to do so. No less, as a tax payer, even one who falls into these categories that are considered other than normal, I do not agree with paying taxes to front or enforce these changes or policies, even if they would specifically benefit me; it isn't my job or my business to do so and certainly not the average American's. It is my job as a representative of my minorities to adapt and overcome my personal difficulties.

To the other topic, there are those who are flying Nazi flags, but then there are those across the line - who you actually consistently see - flying the Hammer and Sickle unironically; both massacred and murdered their populace and those that they held dominion over and both are the symbols of the worst of humanity. No less, the former is extremely uncommon to the point that from everything I have seen in these riots, there has not been one flown.

I disagree that Bike-Lock Guy is somehow not a representative of the Black Bloc, of which promotes violence and allowed him to execute it; no less against a person who was trying to prevent violence as a whole between the two groups. It was not as though he attacked an antagonizer. No less, hitting one person with a bike-lock, while it is assault with a deadly weapon, is not the same as actually murdering a group of people as Dylan Roof did; the two are beyond comparison. My point being that there are more notable cases of the Far Left promoting and acting on the opportunity to commit violence.