The Harbinger of Ferocity

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Penny

What legitimate sufferings do these people have that are not eclipsed by greater concerns or agony, even by their own people? I have yet to hear one grievance from the vocal minority that cannot be addressed with, "Yes, and?" There are numerous places on this blue Earth where there is legitimate suffering for those of non-traditional sexuality where they are being thrown off buildings, set on fire or beheaded. Why is there need to "champion" them in first world nations where they have the exact same rights as anyone else? Where they are not under constant, actual threat of danger or death?

I could continue to pose question after question in that regard, but there is never going to be an answer other than "progressive values". Not everything under them is progressive - a great deal of them are regressive and are going retrograde. A great example being the conservative homosexuals who were turned away from participating in a pride parade. Can these paragons of social justice not see how they have unquestionably failed their own philosophy? Shouldn't it not matter who they back politically? They are all non-traditional sexualities, correct? All facing the same or similar struggles? The answer to these questions is yes. The "championing" and "ally" cause has done nothing but hurt the real people they are trying to protect - the infamous road to Hell made up of good intentions.

Returning to the focus, rights do they lack that everyone else has? This same question applies for "women's rights", "gay rights", trans rights", and "racial or ethnic discrimination". I have been all over the United States of America and worked with a great number of people, many of who would have openly disdained me if they knew any of my personal philosophies, beliefs, ethos or codes. The difference being, they cared nothing at all about it because I never made it some factor in my duties. I kept my mouth shut and only focused on what was to be done. I never took offense when someone addressed me by the wrong name or title, if during a speech they accidentally spoke down to me unknowingly because I fall in that audience they were opposed to, if anything it was harder not to laugh or find amusement in that. I was treated the exact same as anyone else there.

Changing topics, forcing your beliefs as the minority on the majority because you believe in social justice is unquestionably inherently wrong. It is the same level of wrong that it would be if I told you that you should be conscripted to perform services to the state because you are not a citizen and that you should have to pay your way to contribute with work. Both sound equally insane and unjust, because by their very nature they are. You as a lawful member of the United States are not under any obligation to "serve society" just as I am not.

You are free to support them and advocate their cause all you want, but when you too begin to preach to me about what I can or cannot do or say, or how I need adjust my life for others, you are out of your lane. The majority of us in the work force do not care about your social sensitivities or social justice programs. We do not want to sit in on lectures about being "more sensitive" or "more accommodating" for other people who may or may not even be present. There's no end to it once it begins. Such lecturing behavior might be applicable in a forum where those people are likely to be present en masse, but for the rest of us it is not relevant enough to be imposed on us. We, the greater, stand to lose more because of it when we could just act as mature men and women - or whatever you wish to identify as - and get on with our lives.

... but if we just stay the course, we can create a world that is more just, more kind and more progressive than that the one our mothers bequeathed to us.

Just for who? Those who take side with the morality police and progressive movement? Everyone else who opposes is just a bigot who has no other motives in life but to hate non-traditional sexuality? The world will never be just, with or without humanity. Nature itself is unforgiving and outright savage; it will eat you alive, as is its want. To assume you can somehow transcend it is hubris.

The real reason I highlight this quote is because it is entirely subjective and born of opinion. There's no amount of rationalization that can combat this in the very same way that one cannot argue with a true believer of any religion. It is a form of faith that transcends reasonability. No less, it is an entirely moral argument as many aspects of belief are. It helps to emphasize that line in the sand and essentially states, backing in principal, that "If you do not believe what we believe, you are the problem." and "If you are not with us, you are against us."

I will ignore the last smirking story presented because I cannot take it seriously to any extent. It personifies the issue I have with the Far Left in their supposed elitism and moral superiority. The same philosophical problem I take with the Alt Right who believe in "white superiority".

The Purifiers

@LokiLeo789
Without that requested change, I will not offer a new review or approval. A character that has reflective damage in that regard is too generally powerful to be within reason for the tiers we are gaming toward. There is still the issue of targeting specific locales for instantaneous and near unavoidable death.

Again, other Staff might disagree, but my opinion holds.

"You Are Your Avatar"

The pursuit was not some unnaturally fast effort, or at least to the eyes it would not be. In reality however, that apparent truth was nothing more than an illusion and the convict was right to flee its pursuer. It seemed to be nearer or further still at intervals that were inconsistent, but it remained running rather than whatever other presumable talent it had; after all, it had apported itself before and likely could again. Perhaps it was enjoying the thrill of the hunt? Fitting for any cat, so that was a reasonable conclusion.

When the man came to a halt, the great feral figure followed not long after, ending its bounding, lumbering stride. There it stood at the crossroads a few paces away, the very bristles of its hair on end and its jowls snarling with vicious display. It let him speak for a time before it began circling at a slow pace, elaborate fangs still displayed in threat with each paw laying itself quietly on the ruin of the street, barely set to disturbing any of the debris.

"The bag does not so much concern me as you." It paused, cupped ears drawn back, "You assume I had no distrust of you from the start."

"So either test your mettle against mine now or flee to face it later. Whichever you choose, it changes nothing for me." The snarling voice ended.

@BrokenPromise

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Question 29: Can a group or faction have non-player characters in Expanding Horizons?
Answer: Yes, they can have any number that faction can control, but that faction is still unofficial until it has five actual, active Roleplayer Guild members. Regardless, it has no actual power or influence on the greater story until it becomes official. In essence, it has not reached sufficient prominence.
- @The Harbinger of Ferocity

@Ashevelendar

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Penny

In address prior to this current change of conversation.

I would not put the various choices of sexuality under the same scrutiny and social battle as segregation or its clearly related struggles of interracial marriage. That comparison is so far off in scope that to equate the two is to demean a huge number of people who had legitimate grievances and experienced actual suffering and legally backed discrimination, despite being no different than skin tone. Members who suffer from sexual dysphoria are not treated as some rate of second class citizens because of their condition or personal orientations; they receive the exact same treatment as anyone else across the board. It goes without saying that they can engage in their activities covertly while race, the very comparison this was made against, simply cannot.

The issue with acceptability is not that they are different, but that a great number of them among their relatively small percentage of the actual population are demanding concessions, or in other words, that everyone else be willing to play by their rules... rather than them doing so themselves.

The answer to that is no. We all as persons give and take to play by societal rules if we wish to engage with the general population that surrounds us; we have the option not to and I myself am a prime example of that so I actively avoid other people. It is not the duty of the majority of people to answer to the minority when that group is already receiving fair treatment as human beings. I do not owe someone the "courtesy" of having to apologize for "mislabeling" their sexuality or using the wrong pronoun out of the great number that now exist. If one's personal code or condition is so flimsy that it legitimately hurts them beyond their adult ability to press on through conversational or interactive slights, then perhaps it is them who is wrong.

No less, it shows exceedingly poorly that so many of these people are characterized and personified by some of the least respectable human beings on this planet who also happen to be the most vocal. Not because of their sexuality, but because they use it as a weapon, a source of shielding through victimhood, and a tool to make themselves be "unique" or "different" from everyone else for the sake of attention and followers. I will restate that I care nothing, and I do mean nothing, about others' sexuality, but I cease being so tranquil when one attempts to impose their expectations on me and then label me a villain because I refuse to participate in childish games.

I should also note that homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality, and so forth ad infinitum, are not the mainstream and never have been, neither are they likely to ever be. They account for roughly 4% of the general population, which is statistically not even close to representing a majority or anything that resembles one. The other 96% or so should not be obligated to care or forced to comply to additional standards, no less ones that have an entire lexicon of mingled words and formal procedures that need to be memorized and carried out.

Lastly, you are taking issue with the conservatives for being... conservative? I am wording it that way intentionally because the remark seems to somehow imply they are "wrong" for doing so despite the overt fact they adhere to the traditional belief. Needless to say, that is their right and role to do so, otherwise they would not be conservatives.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

All of these will be responses in timeline order for the sake of completeness so that it does not give the illusion that I am ignoring you or avoiding your points.

On Faith

Eternity is a long time, especially towards the end.

Although the likelihood is we will wipe ourselves out before the heat death of the universe.

Hunger has also existed since prehistory. It dosent seem unreasonable that it could one day be conquered. There has been an enormous upsurge in atheistic sentiment in the past hundred years or so. With any luck it can continue. It might take millennia more, but I believe in us!

Humanity will have unquestionably been rendered extinct by itself or some greater force long before any semblance of "eternity" will ever be meted out. Anything that optimistic is hopelessly optimistic and cannot even be argued to; it is as "irrational" as the faith or religious systems you seem to hold aversion to. Mankind is a very, very new addition to the Earth, let alone the existence of the universe. Believing the human animal will somehow radically change will still being classifiable as human is unlikely.

With regard to hunger, I sincerely doubt that as well for any number of reasons. No less, I must admit I do not find myself readily concerned with it. Any sufficiently advanced ability to resolve that beyond reasonable failure has far more dangerous implications that would overshadow it. Namely that mankind has reached a point where there is no scarcity of resources, competition or internal conflict.

The atheistic upsurge is no different than any other faith. People traded their old gods for the new gods of "reason" and "logic", with the same willingness to blindly pursue them as they would anything else and or equally turn a blind eye to what does not fit their agenda. What I personally mean by this, is that religion or spirituality might falter in terms of raw numbers, but they are unlikely to ever become a factor of non-influence by being relegated to an irrelevant minority. I have stronger faith in the human desire to believe there's more to themselves than just assuming they appeared on this rock at absolute pure chance. Dealing with people, history suggests no less to me as well that people will turn to belief rather than fact when their realities falter, rather their perceptions or understandings of them.

Religion makes scientific claims. It always has. God created man, earth is the center of the universe and so on. In so much as religion makes false and baseless claims it IS the duty of science to disprove it. There are religions that have minimal supernaturalism which are less in conflict with a scientific world view but so long as religion makes claims about the nature of the universe it is advancing a hypothesis which can and should be tested in the realm of science.

I'll continue to hope that with enough time and education we can outgrow the training wheels of our species.

Religion makes claims based on its belief system and calls them fact. It is a factor of belief. If they did not believe that God created man, they would not exactly be adhering to their religious tenants. No less in such an argument, there's no victory to be had there. Science has to disprove god as much as believers have to prove god. This is no new problem either and it helps none that religious doctrine as of late has become so vast and varied that there is no way to account for all the different claims.

The "training wheels" of humanity is the foolish notion that it knows anything. Man should only know that it knows nothing and will be forever in pursuit of understanding it. It is the same train of logic that makes adolescents so loathed by adults. They are under the illusion they know anything and everything because they, somehow above all others, have all the answers; I've met more of those of faith who willingly admit they will never understand or think they know everything other than what they are taught to believe in their doctrine - I have met many others who believe in nothing but are convinced they somehow hold all the secrets to the universe.

To be blunt, I would rather take the religious "bible-thumping evangelist" than the "know-it-all pseudointellectual atheist", no matter how worthy of cringe either might be deserving of.

My Quote

I believe it to be a natural and needed reaction from Americans to restore order if law enforcement will not. At what point I find that to end, is when the police begin doing their job, albeit I still advocate the deployment of National Guard units to restore order and as a show of force regardless.

We were talking at one point about how universities were lawless places that needed intervention. Also we use the word national alot in this thread!

Yes, that is exactly what I said and the context is still important. If a university is having students not only break facility code, but break the law, and the police are being forced to stand down, the only reasonable option is to order the National Guard to restore control. This is a lawful execution of reasonable non-lethal force and a strong signal that violent outbursts will not be tolerated. I have backed this statement before in this topic in a myriad of ways. Please do not attempt to use my quote to somehow add misguided emphasis to an unrelated point.

In short, if your reaction as a student, in many cases a legal adult, is to riot, commit arson and or assault, as well as sympathize or support those that do, you are subject to penalty and should be without mercy. I would not feel an ounce of remorse if the guardsmen beat people senseless with asps, batons or rifle stocks for disorderly conduct. The person breaking the law was aware of the consequences from the moment they failed to comply.

To emphasize the difference, dissent in a reasonable, non-violent forum is acceptable in a college or university - as it should be by design - but if this cannot be respected on either side of the fence, any involved should be subject to reprimand.

Given the subject has changed again over the past few hours, I will throw my commentary on this in.

I am not obliged to entertain you or your specific desires or wants; there is no special treatment to be had here as you might already know of my ethos and code. There are two actual genders, sexes, or what have you in the context of human beings. Everything else is either a construct of a disorder or something artificially crafted. There's too much time wasted in going about acknowledging however many different identities people have. Until I know you, I have no personal or moral obligation to concede to your standards. No less, if you are even having any interaction with someone, just do what you need to do and get on with life. Unless you have somehow already endeared yourself to me or are something I cannot avoid, I am not going to expend time or resources making concessions. I hold myself to these same standards, in that I expect nothing from people and rather want nothing to do with people. I do not expect or want them to appeal to my personal issues or qualities, as nice as they might be, out of principal alone.

I will leave that to those I actually wish to spend time with, if any at all.

So that leaves only this.

Ah, such a lovely introduction to this forum. I absolutely love the smell of bigotry in the morning, I'm sure trans folks would feel absolutely welcomed on this forum!

Despite how much I might disdain a number of the opinions expressed and apparent desires of those in this forum, I will again say this has remained one of the most civil and relatively grounded topics I have ever seen on the internet involving any of these subjects, even among some locales that are notorious for their homogenous thinking. This is not to say it is perfect, but this is far from the dystopia that this comment venomously implies. No less, this is the exact thing I loathe more than anything else when taking part in these discussions. It is nothing short of some sickly, ill fated, completely baseless remark coming from a place of assumed superiority.

This is the exact sort of thinking that causes fewer and fewer people to take non-traditionalism seriously now. The smug virtue signaling is not endearing or beneficial.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Question 28: If a territory is a critical point, does it still count against your assets in Expanding Horizons?
Answer: Yes. Any critical point counts against your assets no matter what else it is.
- @The Harbinger of Ferocity

@Dark Light

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Religion has existed since the most primitive of days in human existence. No amount of effort to change or eliminate it will ever remove the spiritual question of mankind. It is naive to believe it will disappear; it will continue to change and adapt as it has, just not too radically as other questions of existence like the functions of the universe.

As it was said before, it is not the duty of science to disprove faith or the purpose of faith to ignore science. They are unrelated spheres that people have crossed. You can use one in the other and vice versa, but you dilute them both to varying extents.

The subject of faith, I might add, is as much a source of conflict as anything else - again going back to early humans. Even the relative in Neanderthal apparently had basic religion or spiritual practice. No less, it seems many of these early religions had violence in them as a recurring theme, but their entire life was violent be it escaping predators or going on the hunt; religion is not special in this regard and it is not some great Boogeyman in the dark of humanity's. People will kill one another in the name of anything or anyone as an attempt for justification. The difference with any faith based question, spirituality or not, is that it relies upon a mechanic that more or less cannot readily be beaten. That question is belief, or in essence the subject that deals whether one thinks it to be true or not. Their perceptions and convictions in that are everything.

Organized religion is just as much a tool of that predisposition to leverage belief as anything else, just as much as the rallying cry of some political doctrines or "scientific" efforts to exterminate people's or "purify" bloodlines.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Question 27: Is there a way to have Staff approve character sheets faster in Expanding Horizons?
Answer: The answer is, is that varies. Because none of the Staff are dedicated to a regular schedule of the process, as in only some of them have routines that enable this, it could take hours to a few days.
- @The Harbinger of Ferocity

@KarneeKarnay

"You Are Your Avatar"

"Flee while you can, as it gives life to the hunt and the chase." The retort came with bellowing might, another strike crushing the sickly dark before it. Sure their numbers were many and their "persons" inhibiting, but there was no shortage to the raging wrath they endured for it. They had stepped into the forward wind of a hurricane, one armed to the literal teeth.

The primal force crashed upon them despite their cascade of resistance, inky fingers reaching out in desperation to score a blow upon the avalanche. They did, but what good it would do them was... questionable. At most they phased through bits of spirit-stuff, sending its ethereal essence away and dispersed for a breath, only for it to reignite. Weakening the hewing claws and the force behind them was only delaying the inevitable.

"There is nowhere you can go that I cannot follow, not this life or even the next, as I have all eternity."

And delay they did until they could no more and it vanished without dim flicker or trace with ghostly fire. It waited a few prolonged moments before life, as it seemed, returned to it and it resumed its place not as the beast of legend but a fierce paragon of feline form.

From there, it quickly joined pursuit, seeing that its unexpected ally and that which seemed to be its most long-standing had split off. An unwise decision, but it now found there was no time but to pressure the break it had cut open.