VegHead

You're misconstruing two issues. One is social censorship, and the other is governmental censorship. If you want to make and do offensive things, literally nobody here is advocating that you shouldn't have the ability to do so if you please. You are just asking that we not be able to express our displeasure at said offensive things. That's not how a free society works. You get to do what you want, but you have to listen to the rest of us if we don't like it as we try to change your mind on continuing that behavior. Even so, nobody is advocating forced compliance. You can keep being an offensive part of society if you want, but society can then choose to ostracize and not deal with you. That's totally fair, and you can't force people to like you or your actions. That's a very immature view of society. What Australia did was a governmental ban, which is totally different. I wouldn't want that at all.

There are definitely people who thrive on the kinds of spite you're referencing, but we are mostly talking about interacting with every day people. It's easy to point at Corporation X or Group Z and rail against them, but most of us aren't in spheres of influence where such things have relative meaning. Lets talk about your neighbor or a coworker. If they're offended by something you say, and you have to see and interact with them everyday, are you going to be polite to them and adapt to their concerns, or go on a screed about how the world is silencing your offending speech?

Nobody is arguing the intent of Kinder, but accidents happen and there can be unintended consequences by not removing such a product from the market. I would be willing to be that while Kinder, as a corporate entity, was indifferent to the concerns of one particular woman's offense, they would be very concerned if their accident were co-opted by hate groups.

I'm not trying to be cheeky here, but you come off as really bothered by this woman's actions. Why does it matter if she and likeminded people chose to let a company know their toy was inadvertently a symbol of hate? What is it to you? Why does Kinder changing their toy matter?

Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but I have no problem with people discussing differing opinions on racism and gays getting married. I can tell by this thread alone we would agree on one topic and disagree on another. That said, there is a time and place to have intelligent and careful discussion of some topics, and a public message board lacks some of the nuance that more delicate subjects require. You actually have to be more open-minded on a board than face to face because the ability to misinterpret meaning and intent is high online, and it's also easy to vilify a person who is just a screen name and a wall of words.

You're right, in that almost anything can be construed as offensive. So, if you run into someone who is offended by something, don't do that thing to them. Is common courtesy so hard? Does being polite and kind ruin your day? If we cannot agree on basic standards of treatment toward one another, then arguing the more complex issues of racism and governance is beyond the scope we should be aiming at here.

What you are referring to here is the idea of freedom from consequences. People do have the right to create distasteful things, but it is also that same right which gives other people the ability to speak out at their displeasure. The First Amendment applies to government restrictions on speech, not on cultural backlash to unpopular expressions. There's a big difference between me saying what should not be done, and the government saying what cannot be done. Cultural pressure to conform is actually a good thing to a certain extent, although there is certainly vast room for abuse.

Yes, just because he's white. It makes sense because we should be kind to other people. I say kindness includes the children of the victors not reenacting part of the utter destruction of another culture. I think that's terrible, but the wrong acts of one group do not excuse the wrong acts of another. I can condemn Indians killing each other and also condemn Europeans killing Indians without being contradictory. I wouldn't recommend cosplaying an Indian. Games are not trivial things, though. Games are expressions of cultural values, and are crafted out of the mores of society. There's a reason war games are both so prevalent and popular in American culture because we have been and continue to be a very aggressive culture. Play teaches our children that. Yet, I think there are better ways to teach them games of winners and losers. Let me shift focus slightly with a different example: Cops and robbers. I mentioned earlier that was a game I saw no problem with. Cop is the good guy, robber is the bad guy. Cop is meant to win, and the game teaches a little something about right and wrong. Now, this assumes two kids of the same race playing the game. Give a white kid the role of cop and a black kid the role of robber, and the game becomes something different in a cultural context. The kids may not know the difference, and that is just fine, but any adult observing should notice how the game reflects real world issues of systemic racism by police against the black community. Swap the roles; give the black kid the role of the cop and the white kid the robber. What reaction does that dynamic invoke in an adult when the power role is reversed? Now, do I think you should stop a kid and explain the whole world to them every time they play? Of course not, that's ridiculous. It does provide for opportunities to teach a kid later on, though, about how people of different races have been treated by each other, even in today's world. Also, I have nothing against games that mimic violence provided that such is not the focus of the game. If kids want to play cops and robbers, and play act it with toy money and toy guns, I actually have nothing against that because real life encounters like those often require violence to stop and there is a moral lesson underlying it. I have a different feeling if kids are playing axe-murderer, and the goal is pretending to kill all your friends as the victims. There is no redeeming quality to that game. That would be where I, as a teacher or parent, would step in and correct their behavior.

The difference between the example of the Vikings and the Indians is where the romanticizing comes from. In the Vikings example, it largely comes from within cultures born of European decent; they are celebrating their own culture, and yes, romanticizing the past. That's very human and it's also one way we deal with the tragedies of history. I see no problem with that. In the Indians example, though, it largely comes from the victors reenacting their dominance and near-genocide of a continent of people. The Indians didn't win, the cowboys did. Also, to be clear, I am not trying to shame kids here. They are merely copying what they see the greater culture do, and that's where my criticism is leveled. Because we, as intelligent and rational adults can recognize that previous generations of Americans were horrible to the Native Americans, we should not be creating stories and toys and perpetuate a harmful or disrespectful narrative. When we recognize the faults of something and that there are more bad aspects than good aspects, we can stop making things for our kids that further ignorance. Like I stated previously, there are plenty of play options we can encourage our kids in that don't mimic historically tragic events.

The rules aren't different. I cannot speak to Ward Churchill because I don't know what he's about, but Elizabeth Warren and Rachel Dolezal do not get a pass at all. Elizabeth Warren's heritage and lifestyle are clearly and predominantly white American. Even if she has some small percentage of Native ancestry, her use of it for personal and political gain was wrong. Do we really need to discuss Rachel Dolezal? Of course she's in the wrong! She's done the worst kind of appropriation I can think of, trying to pass herself off as someone and something she's not from a position of cultural power. Her actions are inappropriate on so many levels, it really should be obvious to anyone with any sense that she should be ashamed of herself.

It's not a political statement because it has nothing to do with politics in the sense of governance. It's inappropriate because, as we learn more about our history and the ways different cultures have been treated through the actions of our predecessors, we should leave behind those kinds of activities which violate the dictum of respecting our fellow human beings. So, when we recognize that the current population of America greatly benefits from wiping out the majority of the original population that inhabited these lands, it stands to reason that dressing up as a caricature of them for the purposes of play is unkind. We can do better than disrespecting another people so that our children might have fun. People do take appropriation claims too far in some instances, and a person's intent has a lot to do with whether they are exploring and celebrating another culture, or if they are appropriating it for their own ends. For example, I attended a play at a college that was in the kabuki style. The actors were not Japanese, and yet they dressed as them and acted out the methods of another culture. I see no problem with that, as participation in a culture can be highly education and personally rewarding. Contrast this with a comedian who puts on blackface to get a laugh out of an audience for his/her own career advancement, and you can see the difference.

I didn't say it was a political statement at all, so I am not sure where that's coming from. I also didn't say anything about kids refraining from play-acting violence. I was specifically addressing dressing up as Indians. I think kids should play-act as they want; parents and society are the ones providing the tools which fuel their imagination. I have nothing against kids acting out battles in the yard, and I might even say it's a good first step in their education. There's a difference, though, in acting out a generic battle and acting out a more concrete part of history. Cops and Robbers? Great, have fun. Cowboys and Indians? Hmm, hold on a second. Also, I'm not sure why you think I'm attacking all forms of dressing up. I see nothing wrong with people dressing up as Vikings and having a laugh (or going to a football game) because there is a heavy Scandinavian heritage in the Midwest, and it's people celebrating that. I have a different reaction to people dressing up as Indians and going to a Cleveland baseball game or a Washington football game because those people largely aren't of that heritage and so their use of the imagery isn't a celebration of it but an appropriation. Lastly, with all due respect, if my words are causing drama for you, then I sincerely apologize. This thread is meant for discussion and debate, but you seem to be taking it quite personally. Nobody is attacking you; we are merely discussing ideas and the best ways to promote a better society.

A lot of the issues here boil down to one question. Should we treat other people decently? There should be a baseline for respecting an individual simply because they are a fellow human being. The fault of a kid dressing up as an Indian doesn't rest with a child, and maybe not even the parent; it rests with a culture that overlooks the centuries of devastation caused to Native Americans through European expansion into this continent. War, disease, murder, forced relocation, and forced assimilation have wiped out most of the Native nations and peoples of America. So, dressing up as one of them for play is, at best, an ignorant mockery by the very culture that caused all that pain. You don't attack the child, you educate them on why it's inappropriate. You question the parents on their understanding of the past and present situations that Native people are forced to live under. You should certainly speak out against companies that produce costumes like this and try to get them to stop or change what their doing. Cowboys and Indians is a fun game for kids, but only because the cowboys won and the cowboys are the ones acting out both sides in today's games.

Director of National Intelligence, although I'm not clear on the details since there are directors of the various intelligence services, too.

I mean, I don't think I have felt good about any of Trump's appointments off the top of my head, but yeah. Not great. I caught some headlines that he's really unpopular with our EU allies, too, although I have to do followup reading on that. It seems qualified people don't want to touch a position in Trump's administration, which is unfortunate. It seems we're also losing a lot of career bureaucrats, too. Those people are the real foundation of our government, and I don't want to think about what will happen when too many of the qualified people are out the door.

That's a good point that I didn't consider, and while I have not followed the appointments particularly closely, the few that I have seen are horrifyingly unqualified. It might be a bit conspiratorial of me, but I don't think most of those judges are primarily being put forward because of 2nd Amendment or pro-life stances. I assume they are being placed there as corporate puppets to rule in favor of Republican backers.

kuriatsu: Thanks. She was my sweetie. Kguillemette: To a certain extent, I am also pro 2nd Amendment and pro life, but I won't vote for Trump. The problem is that there are too many people that are basing their vote on a handful of issues and what a candidate says about them, whether or not that candidate end up doing anything about it. The Republicans had both the legislative and executive branch for two years, and they didn't do squat to change either of those issues. The only thing of note they accomplished was a tax cut for the wealthy, which goes to show you where their true priorities lie. I might vote Democratic, but most Dems would shun me for my Catholic views. My opinions on touchy subjects have nuance, but most people just respond to soundbites.

Hmm. I don't know if we are being trolled or not. Some people genuinely believe in Trump and his policies.

You know, you're right, I did just say kids in cages. That was my bad. Zero tolerance is really the policy I should have referenced.

I mean, kids in cages. That's really all anyone should have to say to make a judgment about Trump's presidency.

I mean, I'm happy to have you guys discuss here, but maybe only as I come to those points in the game and post about it? I don't know, it's a free message board. I can't stop you, LOL.

Yes, as much as I can. I remember the major beats of the story, but certainly not the details. For instance, I know which major character dies in the game, but a lot of the why's of it are lost to me right now. I remember the various big bads, but not necessarily their relationships. So on and so on.

LOL, this question alone suggests that I am wrong, but that was my impression. I haven't played this game through in 18 years, so my memory could be fuzzy. I will be happy to be proved wrong, though!

Day 2: 00:53 to 1:23 This was a whole lot of exposition. Talk about going from the action of the bombing mission to nothing! I like the story elements, but wow, you could spend forever going through all the tutorials. It was fun to hit on Tifa (gave her the flower I bought from Aerith), but I doubt it has any affect on the later interactions with her or Aerith. It would be fun if you could play the game in such a way that these choices had meaning. I know it's not a romance simulator, but more of a branching storyline with regards to the relationships would have been cool. We'll see if my continues attempts to woo Tifa over Aerith bear any fruit in this playthrough. Overall, a short play session. When I come back to it later this week, I am going to read the tutorials and head out on the second bombing mission.

Lol. The soundtrack is really great, although I haven't played the game. I just like stuff related to Kojima, which is why I jumped onboard.