Secretary of Eumenes

I saw his children's book at my niece's book fair. She wanted a diary though and the boychild had already picked something out earlier.

In DA2, I think, the Captain (or whatever) of their little refuge place says something like the Qunari breed folks without horns to be like ambassadors or something. That could be in the 3rd game, but I don't think so - I DEFINITELY know that that bit of dialogue exists somewhere in one of those games though. And I'm a big big fan of DA2. I like its story better than DA:O, again with acknowledgement of a lot of cracks in the final product. It just feels so much more interesting and novel than DA:O or DA:I

Well, we've all seen Putin compared to Roose Bolton... From a certain angle I suppose it makes sense; if the country needs a leeching then it needs a leeching

And? What would you call our system, if you wanna get right down to it? My Y'alls tax dollars pay for the security and solvency of your business elites. The only relevant difference is that China's state controls its corporations - effective fascism America's corporations control its state - larceners fascism

Oh, how did I know you were gonna say that? Scotty, scotty, scotty. My dear sweet scotty. Communism isn't some sterile university checklist. It's not even an economic system or values vehicle. It's a power structure. An ideological excuse to gain and retain authority. The fact that is pretends to promote socialism is just a black hole of superficiality that -not to be mean- procedurally minded folks just can't quite seem to wrap their minds around when they're looking from outside the system... Which I find ironic, because if you were born in the system I think you'd do quite well! China is what communism looks like. So is North Korea. The fact that China allowed ALLOWED for limited private ownership of property and supposedly free markets (when they couldn't afford to keep them out) isn't the great evidence against the efficacy of their communist system that you think it is- It's proof that their version of communism is better than any version we've seen before. I mean goddamn, look what they've accomplished in the last seventy years! It's amazing! They beat us at war in Korea before even catching their breath from the civil war. They beat us. US! U.S.A.! And that's after a hundred years of rape and poisoning -literal poisoning for profit- by the West. To say nothing of Japan. They turned that corner and are now 1 of 2. I know you can't be sexually attracted to a state (unless you're Josephine Boneparte, I suppose ) but goddamn if I don't think of China any time I'm feeling flaccid. Perks me right up in no time. Hey, when was China's last war? Y'know, that they actually did stuff in? What does their military look like? What is its capacities? What do you really know about the way their system works, besides the fact that it's remarkably stable? Especially compared to ours? How many school shooters has U.S.A. had this year? How many has China had? We'll never know the latter, but I'd still bet that it's probably fucking none The party has one objective: maintain power in order to project strength. It's really, really, fun to watch: in a fuck-you-robber-barons-maybe-I'll-see-you-burn-after-all: kinda way. 'Murica is all puffed up with pride at stopping a third-rate despotate from blitzkrieging their former province. It's fucking adorable, the military hards on (syntax). Meanwhile, our economy is a shambles. Our reputation in tatters, and diplomacy a forgotten word in the American language. MOAR SANCTIONS!!! MOAR MOAR, FOR IRAN AND RUSSIA BOTH! Because -clearly- the American hegemony is just too valuable a system for anyone to oppose eh? Yeah, that's what happened for sure. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, right? The end of history? We won! Behold all your victory, my fellow Americans.

I'm not a hater on Dragon Age III, I thought it was fun when I played it. But I've never finished a second playthrough after multiple attempts- never gotten to that DLC that's supposed to tie it to DA: IV, this could be a motivation to do so. I most-definitely love the Character Creator in DA: III, I just get board with resource gathering and stuff. Still, optimistic! Mass Effect: Andromeda (In IRL I make my disdain for this one known my pronouncing it " And Droh Me Dah"... that's a different story. I was very, very, optimistic about that one. But... wow. Talk about a game that felt empty and incomplete upon release! Ugh! To say nothing of the almost-antithetical story type when compared to the Orig-Trig. And I'll go to the mat to defend Mass Effect 3, stupid StarChild and all.

I'm sorry, but I don't care what some board or committee decides is or is not qualifying as a derrogatory. Neocon and neolib aren't words that will get shocked gasps if used in public- they're still used as derrogatories. Context matters. Sorry for calling you she, IlyaP. My bad. And I disagree about the utility, and implications, of your speech - I got nothing against you besides this argument we're having here. Arguing is important. It helps uncover truth Eta: Bean Picker is a job description, a real one. Call an Hispanic guy that in America and you're gonna have a problem.

Non-responsive Non-responsive Selectively non-responsive Still love ya. Appreciate that you care about trying to support/defend people like me.

Obviously the speaker isn't talking about J.K. Rowling, isn't discussing "TERFs". Absolutely not intended to repurpose the speakers' words to inherently support my position as stated here: This is not a one-to-one comparison. I have no idea about how the speaker would reply specifically to this specific conversation. But here's an example of how you might use your language to disagree with people of a vulnerable class without calling them names or encouraging (even 'unconsciously') death threats against them: <You may recognize the speaker!>

If a team signs him to an offer sheet after the draft they give up their 2024 and 2025 picks instead of this years' pick. Patience is a virtue.

And now it's a derogative. Only ever used by 'leftists' to browbeat others into joining in -or at least not challenging- stone throwing. I think that's scummy and underhanded. When IllyaP calls J.K. Rowling a TERF that is an attempt to checkmate me into either not defending my appreciation of an artistic expression or risking implication that I might be a TERF too, or TERF-defending. Evangelizing speech. An attempt to convert or shame my opinion away from me by condensing of information into binary. One can either enable TERF or oppose TERF. Words don't just mean things, statements do too. Y'all can throw stones at whomever you please. I throw stones at Disney and would throw a brick through the head of a certain traitor who tried to steal my government away from me and my fellow citizens if given a seconds' opportunity. I don't argue, or let lazy copycat speech techniques imply for me, that folks who are being manipulated by Disney are doing anything wrong. I don't even do that about Trumpies anymore, because I want to accomplish things beyond making myself look or feel superior to folks I'd rather get along with. And I don't -think- Harry Potter isn't exclusionary. I know it isn't. Gimme your reasons why it is. I've already explained why it isn't. I mean, seriously. Do you not see how lazy that second statement of yours is? "... not remotely a shared experience or agreement." What does that even mean? That the earth isn't round isn't a remotely shared experience or agreement- not anymore That transwomen aren't women isn't a remotely shared experience or agreement - I thought they were still wrong, eh?

Again, there's nothing wrong with not liking Rowling or not wanting to play a game associated with her; for any reason. Well, there are some reasons that are stupid. Like being anti-witchcraft or anti-women's literacy... but nobody here is arguing shit like that... When IllyaP responded to me recommending the game to Rhom by saying that she didn't have interest in the books or movies we had absolutely no conflict between us. This is what I wrote in response: And then I went on to describe to Rhom why I was so excited about the game. There's no conflict at this point, nothing. IllyaP expressed she's not interested and I had a three-word cheeky acknowledgement. It was over. Buuuut... Yo, I take offense. I I I, ME Take offense, and don't want to take offense quietly anymore, at the supplemental use of evangelizing and whole cloth words -one in particular- that tell me how I'm supposed to feel about art or an artist. "Trans-Exclusionary" (I'm not even going to get into the imbecility of supposedly-liberals deriding people for being "Radical Feminists") < But real quick, while we're here; the word you're looking for is "Reactionary", nice edumacations y'all dun gotted, huh?> I've made very clear why Harry Potter is not exclusionary to anybody. With clear and functional language, including personal anecdotes that I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SHARE in order to defend my right to have a positive, or even neutral, opinion about somebody or their art.

Never let nobody make you do something you don't want- least of all me I only ever was excited to have a game that was playable and engaging from the second I bought it. It's the first time in a long, long, while that I didn't have to wait for the game to be made playable via patch or completed through extra payments. And I take issue with certain made-up words that, by their very use, imply that I ain't supposed to like something. I don't want you to feel compelled to play the game. I just wanted to share that I am enjoying it and others might also. My niece was absolutely taken in by it yesterday.

I've really cut back on the soda this year. Like, a lot. Just the other day I was trying to get a 12 pack of the Pepsi Zero Sugar, but it was $7.99 for a 12 pack... AND it was Buy-Three-For $14.99 That's just plain manipulative. Literally leaning on peoples' wallets to make it harder to be self-disciplined.

I think there's some confusion: I'm not telling you you should like, or even not-dislike J.K. Rowling for her opinions. Please don't think I'm doing that. I don't like J.K. Rowling- I've never met her, and if I ever do meet her by then I'll be the young writing phenom and she can feel however she wants about me. I don't need her approval to be an awesome writer. And I don't need her approval to cherish her stories. I don't need anyone's approval, because I make up my own mind. Based on what I feel, what I believe, and what I know. And what I know is that there is nothing in a Harry Potter book that should make anybody but a Death Eater feel unwelcome to them. There is nothing -barring some kinda horrid final boss or something, I haven't beaten it- in the Hogwarts game that should make anybody but a School Shooter feel unwelcome to it. The thing that irks me about this is that there IS an implicit pressure -on this subject- to condemn Rowling. I'm not talking about Death of the Author or whatever, neither. Where you're giving me permission to like the books while disliking the woman. Nah, no thanks. I don't know her. I don't have to condemn or dislike her just because it's three-on-one. Even bad, failed, or perhaps just wrong (maybe she's just wrong!) people are capable of good and noble deeds. That's, like, one of the great messages of the later books. Reinforced many times over. You have to let people be wrong. You have to let them fail, and sometimes to have even been actively bad. You have to remember that not everybody's life was your life, that people can change and become better for it. But they won't if you never give them a chance. Why would they? Why SHOULD they? And giving people a chance to become better, or to maybe just learn better, should not come with prerequisites to apologies and grovelings in the "public square"- not in any interaction I wanna be a part of. Ms. Rowling is entitled to her opinions and her writings- ESPECIALLY if I don't like them. I won't hate her for it. I don't have to. Frankly, I looked at the GLAAD list of charges against her and the only thing that I really even gave half-a-fuck about was that she wrote that book with the crossdressing serial killer. Which is cringe, and I already knew about- but... Well... I'm writing a book right now in which an character is dehumanized and psychologically conditioned to stop seeing himself as a person, and instead as a thing. While being tortured and sensory nulled. Later, the evil scientist in charge of the program collects this... thing... and on the super-secret mission decides it still has enough going on sentience/personality-wise to treat them like a pet instead of a thing. Gives their new pet a name and decides it's gonna be a girl pet, because the evil scientist is fucking evil Am I not allowed to write my story, or try to have it published, because that depicts a transition in a bad light or something? Even though that poor, abused, character is secretly the hero. The only hero in the entire story? Or because I might suggest that a scientist/authority figure might not have a gender-nonconforming person's best interests at heart? Because that's what the GLAAD report on Ms. Rowling reads like. Block after block of text that really boils down to "She said or wrote THIS and if we had said or wrote it we would have said THAT." And frankly, my response is that if they want THAT then they should go fucking write THAT. Prolly can't tho huh? Not in a way people wanna read, eh? It takes nothing to say "I woulda wrote it like thiiiiiiis" Mr. Martin stole my name for a Hellenic princeling in my Magnum Opus. He stole it by beating me to get his art completed and produced/published. That's a challenge for me to make sure he doesn't beat me again. If you're so concerned with Rowling's productions, that they're anti-trans and whatnot, beat her to the ball. Being anti-Rowling isn't going to give anybody anywhere anything except a feeling of righteousness and/or rage. Being pro-trans, POSITIVE actually gives people something on which they can build instead of destroy. J.K. Rowling is not the First Order. She isn't a Nazi and she isn't Donald Trump or an elected official. She's a person. You credit her with too much power, that's why her game has power over you. It's less that I haven't heard of it. I've just never heard of anything worth the seething hate I see in response to the woman's name. Sorry, that's just how I feel. Also, Bloomberg said... Now the whole Trans-Raping-in-Bathrooms thing? Yeah, it doesn't happen. But you are allowed to be afraid of things, even irrationally. I'll remind that Ms. Rowling was raped. She's allowed to be wrong without having people send her death threats. Stating her opinion, and writing about the influences on said opinion, is NOT THE SAME as causing harm. I ain't really got much else to say, just that I don't identify with any Potterverse or what have you. I cherish the books, adore the films, and... Yeah, that's it. Those things, plus refuse to join in the tearing down of somebody I don't know and -surely- don't fully understand when I have thousands and thousands of pages of their art to reference that however wrong, misinformed, or outright irrational they may be about something: that doesn't define her on everything