: Why is this character so hard to like?
The real explanation? There is a reason Carol Danvers's most notable achievement in the marvel universe is spending over 2 decades hospitalized in a coma whilst her powers are stolen by a much, much more popular character, Rogue.
JuiceBoxP (EUNE)
: How can yuumi have 46% winrate and 42% banrate?
well. given that she is sucky to play and sucky to play against and her art sucks and her sounds suck and her lore sucks and her concept sucks. and generally there is not a single decision regarding her design that was done well, or even marginally competently, I would say the answer to "why is she banned so much" is obvious.
: > [{quoted}](name=Melledoneus,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HiGhtsre,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-02-23T20:14:12.151+0000) > > Not sure what your exact argument is other than "people on deviantart sexualize stuff." Those are community-made, and one of those is a meme meant to satirize the whole trend of sexualizing characters not meant to be seen that way. However, we are talking about Riot here. > > Ok, let's backtrack for a moment here. Kayle is a character who used to look like this: > https://www.leagueofpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Classic-Kayle-Splash-Art-Old-league_of_papers.jpg > > https://ddragon.leagueoflegends.com/cdn/img/champion/splash/Kayle_0.jpg > > And now she looks like this: > https://static.altchar.com/live/media/images/625x416_ct/12792_Kayle_86c9ff598aa5cb94b2c41ed36ee2cf44.jpg > > I'm sorry to say it, but the difference is like night and day. Previous Kayle could weather a beating with that armor. Current Kayle would get impaled on the first strike. Have you seen A Knights Tale? Those that have will be able to tell where im going with this. Just because it is different, doesnt make it wrong or worse. Just because it is thinner doesnt mean it is weaker. The other armor looked like it was about 2x too big for her in quite a few splashes. Also, i do not see you complaining about Fiora's armor for having the same EXACT thing you are complaining here about. You and all the other people who actively look for a complaint just to complain need to settle down. Also. The people who normally are on deviantart are also players of games like this. Where do you think they get the ideas?
> [{quoted}](name=Silly Neeko,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=HiGhtsre,comment-id=000200000001,timestamp=2019-02-23T20:33:26.879+0000) > > Have you seen A Knights Tale? > > Just because it is different, doesnt make it wrong or worse. Just because it is thinner doesnt mean it is weaker. I LOL at your reply. The first picture is a coat of plates. The second is body paint with some braclets. "thinner but just as good" only works so far.
: > [{quoted}](name=Aptest,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AQvwHUbO,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-17T05:16:51.858+0000) > > When someone dies to a lane opponent 2-3 times, > and then gets tilted and plays really bad. > including forcing duels. > > The "that person should know" idea can not apply. Because "he is playing bad, so actually he doesn't know" explains it perfectly. > > In conclusion: does "soft inting" exist outside of your imagination? And this is exactly why we would not let Silver 4 people be the judges. Being tilted and forcing duels when you are faar behind might happen in lower ELO, if you are on higher elo, and have a minimal understanding of the game, you do NOT do this. Period. If you do this (while understanding how the game works), then you are soft inting.
> [{quoted}](name=Ph03n1xb1rd,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AQvwHUbO,comment-id=0000000000000002,timestamp=2018-11-25T23:51:19.218+0000) > > And this is exactly why we would not let Silver 4 people be the judges. > > Being tilted and forcing duels when you are faar behind might happen in lower ELO, if you are on higher elo, and have a minimal understanding of the game, you do NOT do this. Period. If you do this (while understanding how the game works), then you are soft inting. You lack understanding of how being tilted or having a bad game works. let me educate you: the part that is lost, is the player's skill. the "while understanding..." part goes away.
Mr Elessar (EUNE)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Mr Elessar,realm=EUNE,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=377FAlR2,comment-id=0015,timestamp=2018-11-23T21:40:28.956+0000) > > <Removed by Moderation> Funny you should mention garen. "Demacia..."? also: "sorry boys, i keep the fuzzy cuffs at home"?
: Most of the bad posts and comments were probably deleted because of bigotry, just because they arent here for us to see now doesnt mean they didnt exist.
> [{quoted}](name=ßasic ßitch,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=377FAlR2,comment-id=00020001000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-24T20:44:53.799+0000) > > Most of the bad posts and comments were probably deleted because of bigotry, just because they arent here for us to see now doesnt mean they didnt exist. IMHO it is more likely that they did not exist, than that they did.
Arcade Lulu (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Aptest,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=377FAlR2,comment-id=00020001,timestamp=2018-11-23T18:27:12.489+0000) > > I don&#x27;t have issues with whomever being whatever. > I do have issues with people playing the innocent. who's playing innocent?
> [{quoted}](name=Arcade Lulu,realm=EUNE,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=377FAlR2,comment-id=000200010000,timestamp=2018-11-23T18:49:29.785+0000) > > who&#x27;s playing innocent? "everyone triggered over Neeko being lesbian" This didn't happen. But there are a number of threads saying that it did. The threads saying that some people are upset exist. The threads of the upset people do not. Conclusion: people are not actually triggered. It is a lie. What accompanies this lie? The assertion hat some unreasonable people have a bad intent. And the OP writes herself in a position of a person defending against this unreasonableness. So, to answer your question: the OP, who is "playing the victim". And you. who is in support of her.
Arcade Lulu (EUNE)
: i honestly don't understand it either Like, league has 140 champs that don't have confirmed sexualities etc, then there's 1 champ that has few voice lines about being a lesbian and then getting confirmed to be a lesbian And people just get really mad at that. Why? {{item:3147}} {{item:3751}} {{item:1026}} {{item:3137}} {{item:3312}} {{item:3285}}
> [{quoted}](name=Arcade Lulu,realm=EUNE,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=377FAlR2,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-11-21T22:05:06.525+0000) > > i honestly don&#x27;t understand it either > > Like, league has 140 champs that don&#x27;t have confirmed sexualities etc, then there&#x27;s 1 champ that has few voice lines about being a lesbian and then getting confirmed to be a lesbian > And people just get really mad at that. Why? > > {{item:3147}} {{item:3751}} {{item:1026}} {{item:3137}} {{item:3312}} {{item:3285}} I don't have issues with whomever being whatever. I do have issues with people playing the innocent.
: Neeko is openly gay for a reason. You're just not used to it.
click-bait title nicely done. I clicked to see what you had to say, but you did a bait and switch instead of following up on the title. w/e
: Streamer needs advice
I don't know what to tell you, outside of wishing you the best of luck.
Qiyana V (NA)
: KDA Ahri Clothes
The main piece of clothing would be a corset.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Irelia Bot,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=LzvfmXPm,comment-id=00040000000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-27T06:32:57.208+0000) > > You are as stupid as the stereotype Homer suggest to be true iv you can not understand that he must be removed to promote males to stand up for their own well being in a systems that has causes homelessness and suicide to be dominated by over 75% males. > > Am I getting to real about the reality with this comment? I think I am. This doesn't have anything to do with anything we've talked about or the topic we are on. Homer was not made to shit on guys, Homer was made to shit on a trope used in traditional sit-com. And that is a far different dynamic to say, the conception of Abu. Not sure how you can jump so far from A to Z.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=LzvfmXPm,comment-id=000400000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-27T06:35:15.911+0000) > > This doesn&#x27;t have anything to do with anything we&#x27;ve talked about or the topic we are on. > > Homer was not made to shit on guys, Homer was made to shit on a trope used in traditional sit-com. And that is a far different dynamic to say, the conception of Abu. > > Not sure how you can jump so far from A to Z. The funny accented foreigner is also a common traditional sit com trop. If you afford homer the explanation that he is a parody of a common sit come trope, than the same should be said for Apu. It seems to me that Apu is definitely more than his stereotyped outward appearance, and that his character definitely grew into it's own over the course of the show.
Fertsa (NA)
: English and many other languages were made back when everybody was sexist huMAN HIStory a good number of occupations use male pronouns, even the word "Woman" has "man" in it. This is just how english works, if you want it to change it will probably take a pretty long time.
> [{quoted}](name=Fertsa,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=QxrREyI4,comment-id=002e,timestamp=2018-10-25T14:39:03.952+0000) > > English and many other languages were made back when everybody was sexist > > huMAN > HIStory > > a good number of occupations use male pronouns, even the word &quot;Woman&quot; has &quot;man&quot; in it. > > This is just how english works, if you want it to change it will probably take a pretty long time. I am happy to respond to this post however a short question beforehand, you serious, or trolling?
: > [{quoted}](name=Aptest,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Fv9EHO1f,comment-id=000400000000,timestamp=2018-10-20T06:34:57.549+0000) > > well that is what i believe in, given what i&#x27;ve read so far in pubmed There is a serious lack of quality research into the medical effects of cannabis. Some of the claims I've seen made sound like the exact sort of claims you'd expect to hear from a snake oil salesman. From a recreational standpoint, I really don't see any added benefit to legalization. Prohibition is problematic, but that's because it's a prohibition of an easily produced substance that is mostly harmless. Legalization is a good thing, but not because we get these massive, world-changing benefits. It's good because we never should have banned it in the first place. I believe that there are some therapeutic benefits, but they are overstated. You don't hear about the people that marijuana did nothing for, but if marijuana is effective treatment for someone you can bet that they will be vocal about it because their drug isn't perfectly legal.
> [{quoted}](name=notFREEfood,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Fv9EHO1f,comment-id=0004000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-20T07:48:20.692+0000) > > There is a serious lack of quality research into the medical effects of cannabis. Some of the claims I&#x27;ve seen made sound like the exact sort of claims you&#x27;d expect to hear from a snake oil salesman. > > From a recreational standpoint, I really don&#x27;t see any added benefit to legalization. Prohibition is problematic, but that&#x27;s because it&#x27;s a prohibition of an easily produced substance that is mostly harmless. > > Legalization is a good thing, but not because we get these massive, world-changing benefits. It&#x27;s good because we never should have banned it in the first place. I believe that there are some therapeutic benefits, but they are overstated. You don&#x27;t hear about the people that marijuana did nothing for, but if marijuana is effective treatment for someone you can bet that they will be vocal about it because their drug isn&#x27;t perfectly legal. I am a firm believer in research done through the scientific method, over anecdotal evidence. Because of that I turn to organizations like Pubmed / Nature / Springer to get information that's verified as opposed to "some people use this material for..." That being said I am willing to act on partial information, as long as that partial information is verified. For instance, I am willing to accept mouse model research as relevant evidence. Unfortunately some of the information regarding cannabis is very new. For instance, the research into GPR55 antagonistic canabinol is VERY promising, but as of yet not sufficiently developed.
: > [{quoted}](name=Aptest,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Fv9EHO1f,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2018-10-20T05:46:50.677+0000) > > cannabis should be legalized worldwide and this should be done yesterday. > the health benefits, as well as the sociological benefits to society, are enormous. I would hesitate to call the health benefits enormous. There's definite benefits, but I really feel that we need more research into the magnitude.
> [{quoted}](name=notFREEfood,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Fv9EHO1f,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2018-10-20T05:50:53.519+0000) > > I would hesitate to call the health benefits enormous. There&#x27;s definite benefits, but I really feel that we need more research into the magnitude. well that is what i believe in, given what i've read so far in pubmed
Loboshl (NA)
: Legalization off cannabis is effect LOL in a negative way.
cannabis should be legalized worldwide and this should be done yesterday. the health benefits, as well as the sociological benefits to society, are enormous.
: > [{quoted}](name=Aptest,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=TKjZARmP,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2018-10-18T18:41:39.065+0000) > > To be honest with you, these titles look like pink literature to me. > I.E. the for women version of soft core porn I mean, that's kind of been obvious as long as they've been around.
> [{quoted}](name=Oleandervine,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=TKjZARmP,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2018-10-18T18:47:00.918+0000) > > I mean, that&#x27;s kind of been obvious as long as they&#x27;ve been around. Call me captain and salute?
: How does those dimestore trash novels survive?
> [{quoted}](name=Ðeath XIII,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=TKjZARmP,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-10-18T17:35:40.113+0000) > > https://discourse-cloud-file-uploads.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/boingboing/original/3X/9/8/9889958ce60401940ae3739f07282afddac7125f.png > > https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51BkvyXRbmL._SX351_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg > > https://www.barnesandnoble.com/blog/barnesy/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CallieHuttonsTheElusiveWife.jpg > > Its like they have a dart board that they use to decide the titles. I know old ladies buy a ton of them at a time, but there can&amp;#039;t be enough old women to keep these books alive. To be honest with you, these titles look like pink literature to me. I.E. the for women version of soft core porn
l00gies (NA)
: Kalista Talk from a Kalista main
Kalista is intentionally dumpstered. the reason being that her passive mechanics allow her to hard-counter entire champion archetypes. not "outplay", but "hard counter". This puts her in the "we can't let her be a strong pick, otherwise udyr/trundle/.... cant be picked unless they know who the enemy ADC is". I.E. when kalista is strong the threat of kalista, removes a whole section of champions from being viable. So she can't be in that position.
: > [{quoted}](name=Aptest,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=lEKMaB4i,comment-id=000f00000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-12T08:24:14.128+0000) > > Noted. Then my observation is limited to my ecosystem. Idk but then again I can't say something doesn't exist just because I do not see it myself.
> [{quoted}](name=LeftyRaydy,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=lEKMaB4i,comment-id=000f000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-12T15:25:20.061+0000) > > Idk but then again I can&#x27;t say something doesn&#x27;t exist just because I do not see it myself. Falling on the scientific laws of observation, are we now? ;p
: > [{quoted}](name=Aptest,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=lEKMaB4i,comment-id=000f000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-11T19:58:26.129+0000) > > I do not think you are correct in stating that people do not do research. And, im sorry if i will disagree about the pay gap it does exist at least here, but not in the shape and form that it is portrayed: at least here, we are talking about discrimination in being hired, and in being promoted, and in some profession, inability to cope with office politics in situations where male to male (or female to female) bonding play a major role (again resulting in hiring and promotion discrimination). > > For instance, the philosophy majors out here have certainly put in the time and read a lot of source material. How is it then that the conclusions are all convoluted? that flimsy correlation is taken as causation, that examples are systematically mis-interpreted, that evidence is weighed based on whomever it is in favor, that &quot;might&quot; and &quot;can&quot; are taken as &quot;does&quot; and &quot;will&quot;? > > Disclaimer: the following is my _personal opinion_: > > If we take, as an example, the University of Michigan education degree, we see many courses there with an explicit agenda of re-working the &quot;cognitive lens&quot; of the student (Prof John Burkhardt gets extra points here for using the term &quot;re-cognize&quot; in his lectures), I.E. with course material designed to bias the student into false perception of ideas surrounding the topic of equity. Then we see grievance material, all painted in a positive light. Having only taken one course out of that degree, I must speculate on what this does to a person coming into such a curriculum without a hefty doze of skepticism. > > I was arguing a simple point of a certain article being bogus with someone here on the forums. I think i&#x27;ve made a decent case but i was not getting anywhere with the person and not on account of having a bad argument but on account of the other person just not accepting that the argument had any merit. I was facing a deny deny deny, deflect, exhaust and change the topic out of the other person. my eventual conclusion is that the other person does not care whether the article in question is true or not, the approach to whether it is used or not is purely utilitarian - it gets used if it promotes his cause and being true or false is simply irrelevant. > > it scares me that there is a section of society where people made up their minds and from that point on their policy is, &quot;we convince, not discuss&quot;. Stuff like what&#x27;s true or not is no longer relevant to them and what happens if some-when in the past they got the diversity/equity/inclusion treatment? how do you talk to, and how do you reach a disagreement with people who&#x27;s policy is, they don&#x27;t care about the truth or what you have to say, they care about you changing your mind and they care about them not changing theirs. How do you come to an agreement with someone, if you are the only side of the discussion who is allowed to cede anything and no argument you make will be recognized? I work in the Tech industry as a Lead of Enterprise Delivery for Los Angeles, CA. I can say for a fact that men and women have the same capability of getting hired within all industries. I have worked with many men and women and find its all based on the individual. There is more men than women in the tech industry but that is how it will be until more women go out and get either degrees in Computer science, or go to a coding school. My Ex was in the tech industry and a desktop support consultant. she did get hired and had no trouble finding work compared to men on the market. I will go out and say that women have a much better chance at being hired for multiple different positions here in my area of LA. I will state again there is much less women in the industry, but women are offered way more incentive to be in the industry as they have a better chance to get gender specific loans and grants that are not afforded to Men especially white men. I negotiate pay rates and ranges everyday and I can tell you for a fact from what I have seen men and women are generally in the same area with the same kind of work/experience. I am talking about Project Managers, Software Engineers, Business Analysts, Developers, and so on. The only way I can see getting more women into male dominated industries is if we forced them, because at the end of the day its their choice what industry they want to get into and what industry they aspire to be. I mean for example my ex started college off for engineering, thought it was too hard and switched to psychology, then was interested in tech so she got her A+ Certification, and finally did not like being in technical support after a few years and now has changed to accounts payable. Women have just as much choice in their careers as men it's up to the individual to pick and drive forward what they want to do in life.
> [{quoted}](name=LeftyRaydy,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=lEKMaB4i,comment-id=000f0000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-11T20:53:46.906+0000) > > ...I can say for a fact... Noted. Then my observation is limited to my ecosystem.
: > [{quoted}](name=Aptest,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=lEKMaB4i,comment-id=000f0000000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-11T15:54:31.759+0000) > > I think the existence of bias against women and bias against men in our society is plain to see. The only reason we are lacking a good observation of this circulating in our culture is that the people who are most sensitive to this are enthralled by a very vague idea of what the bias really looks like and are very visibly pushing a very diffuse idea of what this bias is. > > This allows them to not have to pick through the actual occurrence and separate the bias from other factors (hard) and instead use surface level differences s.a. &quot;% women employed&quot; as &quot;proof&quot;. > > I think this ultimately causes harm to everybody because not only it causes the actual bias to go untreated, but the remedies these people offer are to add bias to bias. And whereas the bias they seek to solve is presumed and unrecognized, the bias they suggest is codified and systemic. > > The core problem is that an ultimate, best case solution will take time to implement. how much time? more than one generation. And that is a something the pushers are not willing to go for: A solution that is the best, but it will not be for them or for their kids. Instead we push the pendulum to the other side? why? > > I realize everything i said here is completely diffuse. i can only really elaborate, with specific examples in mind. > > P.S. Yago, is trolling. The thing is people do not actually do the research and only listen to what they hear from Radicals. The pay gap is not what people think it is. It only counts what men and women have made total over all industries. It doesn't take into account hours worked, its not industry specific, and so on. Its frustrating because these people use this as a foundation to show inequality when its not true. Women have more rights than men here in the United States, Women receive more grants, loans, and are graduating college at much higher rates than men. If you ever have time you should watch the Red Pill I thought it would be very radical, but in reality it is a really well done documentary.
> [{quoted}](name=LeftyRaydy,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=lEKMaB4i,comment-id=000f00000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-11T17:04:57.845+0000) > > The thing is people do not actually do the research and only listen to what they hear from Radicals. The pay gap is not what people think it is. It only counts what men and women have made total over all industries. It doesn&#x27;t take into account hours worked, its not industry specific, and so on. Its frustrating because these people use this as a foundation to show inequality when its not true. Women have more rights than men here in the United States, Women receive more grants, loans, and are graduating college at much higher rates than men. If you ever have time you should watch the Red Pill I thought it would be very radical, but in reality it is a really well done documentary. I do not think you are correct in stating that people do not do research. And, im sorry if i will disagree about the pay gap it does exist at least here, but not in the shape and form that it is portrayed: at least here, we are talking about discrimination in being hired, and in being promoted, and in some profession, inability to cope with office politics in situations where male to male (or female to female) bonding play a major role (again resulting in hiring and promotion discrimination). For instance, the philosophy majors out here have certainly put in the time and read a lot of source material. How is it then that the conclusions are all convoluted? that flimsy correlation is taken as causation, that examples are systematically mis-interpreted, that evidence is weighed based on whomever it is in favor, that "might" and "can" are taken as "does" and "will"? Disclaimer: the following is my _personal opinion_: If we take, as an example, the University of Michigan education degree, we see many courses there with an explicit agenda of re-working the "cognitive lens" of the student (Prof John Burkhardt gets extra points here for using the term "re-cognize" in his lectures), I.E. with course material designed to bias the student into false perception of ideas surrounding the topic of equity. Then we see grievance material, all painted in a positive light. Having only taken one course out of that degree, I must speculate on what this does to a person coming into such a curriculum without a hefty doze of skepticism. I was arguing a simple point of a certain article being bogus with someone here on the forums. I think i've made a decent case but i was not getting anywhere with the person and not on account of having a bad argument but on account of the other person just not accepting that the argument had any merit. I was facing a deny deny deny, deflect, exhaust and change the topic out of the other person. my eventual conclusion is that the other person does not care whether the article in question is true or not, the approach to whether it is used or not is purely utilitarian - it gets used if it promotes his cause and being true or false is simply irrelevant. it scares me that there is a section of society where people made up their minds and from that point on their policy is, "we convince, not discuss". Stuff like what's true or not is no longer relevant to them and what happens if some-when in the past they got the diversity/equity/inclusion treatment? how do you talk to, and how do you reach a disagreement with people who's policy is, they don't care about the truth or what you have to say, they care about you changing your mind and they care about them not changing theirs. How do you come to an agreement with someone, if you are the only side of the discussion who is allowed to cede anything and no argument you make will be recognized?
: > [{quoted}](name=Aptest,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=lEKMaB4i,comment-id=000f00000000,timestamp=2018-10-10T20:08:46.339+0000) > > i think, these examples are different. > Trying to appeal to men, and rejecting women offhand are two different things. > > The advert clearly designates men as a target. But what is done if a woman shows up? Is she refused an interview because of her gender? is her CV dumped into a secret trash bin behind the recruiter&#x27;s desk and she is told some tale about the other candidate being more liked? I think not. The advert may target men, but the door is still open to women who will come in. > > Your second example, what are the entry conditions? is race and gender included in them? no, the test is, are you interested in a job and you yourself feel this job is unsuitable for you because of society&#x27;s prejudice. even though the subject matter is race and gender, the entry conditions to the program do not include race and gender. > > i think with respect to riot&#x27;s &quot;admitting&quot;, it is fair to say it was done under duress. Both duress derived from riot&#x27;s internal politics, and duress derived from the pr storm generated by an obviously agenda driven zine writer. Why are you referring to their admittance, rather then the kotaku article and the evidence contained therein? because it&#x27;s written black or white there whereas the article can be interpreted differently. i find the admittance to be suspect and lacking in credibility. > > as for the kotaku article. there is no dispute in my mind that it presents riot as a troubling work place. however, the alternative explanation of a stressfull, toxic workplace that is not sexist by nature is sufficiently plausible that i can not accept &quot;sexism against women at riot&quot; to be sufficiently proven (we do find a smoking gun on &quot;sexism against men at riot&quot; in the article though). > > because a plausible alternative explanation exists, the community is placated. in addition, what happens in riot within the gates of riot is also seen by the people as riot&#x27;s business - not the community&#x27;s business. Its nice to see other people can think for themselves instead of jumping on the SJW bandwagon.
> [{quoted}](name=LeftyRaydy,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=lEKMaB4i,comment-id=000f000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-10T20:46:38.495+0000) > > Its nice to see other people can think for themselves instead of jumping on the SJW bandwagon. I think the existence of bias against women and bias against men in our society is plain to see. The only reason we are lacking a good observation of this circulating in our culture is that the people who are most sensitive to this are enthralled by a very vague idea of what the bias really looks like and are very visibly pushing a very diffuse idea of what this bias is. This allows them to not have to pick through the actual occurrence and separate the bias from other factors (hard) and instead use surface level differences s.a. "% women employed" as "proof". I think this ultimately causes harm to everybody because not only it causes the actual bias to go untreated, but the remedies these people offer are to add bias to bias. And whereas the bias they seek to solve is presumed and unrecognized, the bias they suggest is codified and systemic. The core problem is that an ultimate, best case solution will take time to implement. how much time? more than one generation. And that is a something the pushers are not willing to go for: A solution that is the best, but it will not be for them or for their kids. Instead we push the pendulum to the other side? why? I realize everything i said here is completely diffuse. i can only really elaborate, with specific examples in mind. P.S. Yago, is trolling.
: Charge them for every minion that tries to leave their country... and charge even extra for the big ones. XD
> [{quoted}](name=SirWinsalooot,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=QWJ0zm6Q,comment-id=00120001000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-11T15:24:39.365+0000) > > Charge them for every minion that tries to leave their country... and charge even extra for the big ones. XD they can just... not pay ?
Flyrr (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=LeftyRaydy,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=lEKMaB4i,comment-id=000f,timestamp=2018-10-08T16:05:32.909+0000) > > You know what I would believe 100% that there was good intentions if the same things were done to industries. You do not see industries that are dominated by women such as teaching and nursing trying to do men only panels. Second you do not see women on panels for industries dominated by men that are not appealing such as waste disposal or plumbing(which is a good paying job actually). The fact of the matter you can advertise to women all damn day but in the end it is their decision to be in the industry and to go for it. I see men and women at high level positions all the time I work in the tech industry I find Developers, Project Managers, and Technical Architects. Women and men have the same chance at getting an opportunity and I have never seen this Pay gap that has been discussed as well. > > I think I got off topic a bit, but Pax was 100% Discriminatory and what you are comparing is apples and oranges. I've seen quite a few ads for the female dominated industries that you mentioned trying to recruit and hire specifically males. For instance this ad, just what I could find off of a very quick google search: https://slanderson2015.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/are-you-man-enough-2.jpg (let's nevermind about the implications of "are you man enough" as a general shit thing to say but the ad shows what I'm talking about) Also when I was in college, my school talked to guys and girls about jobs that were seen as specific to them and offered counselling specifically for people who were interested in those fields and how to apply, what to expect and how to get help in those classes if they felt worried about discrimination. The school also held focus groups with the professors of those classes to see how they could combat the stereotypes and problems that they were having. I know this because a female friend of mine went to one for the engineering/trades meeting and another male friend of mine went to one for the early childhood education degree they offered. To be fair I don't necessarily think these were advertised necessarily as WOMEN or MEN only, but they did say in the ads/emails "Do you feel uncomfortable in ____ because of you are (insert whichever gender stereotypically would)? Please come to our meeting" *edit to note: I don't necessarily agree with how Riot handled the event but I don't necessarily see it as harmful as others are making it out to be. Especially with the expansive problems Riot has admitted themselves they are having with sexism and inappropriateness in the workplace. I personally am struggling to see how this is the major issue still being brought up everyday and yet the self-admitted sexism that was happening has been seemingly forgotten. I suppose that's normal human behaviour to be more concerned with something that may directly affect you.
> [{quoted}](name=Flyrr,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=lEKMaB4i,comment-id=000f0000,timestamp=2018-10-10T19:29:43.616+0000) > > I&#x27;ve seen quite a few ads for the female dominated industries that you mentioned trying to recruit and hire specifically males. For instance this ad, just what I could find off of a very quick google search: > > https://slanderson2015.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/are-you-man-enough-2.jpg > (let&#x27;s nevermind about the implications of &quot;are you man enough&quot; as a general shit thing to say but the ad shows what I&#x27;m talking about) > > Also when I was in college, my school talked to guys and girls about jobs that were seen as specific to them and offered counselling specifically for people who were interested in those fields and how to apply, what to expect and how to get help in those classes if they felt worried about discrimination. The school also held focus groups with the professors of those classes to see how they could combat the stereotypes and problems that they were having. I know this because a female friend of mine went to one for the engineering/trades meeting and another male friend of mine went to one for the early childhood education degree they offered. > > To be fair I don&#x27;t necessarily think these were advertised necessarily as WOMEN or MEN only, but they did say in the ads/emails &quot;Do you feel uncomfortable in ____ because of you are (insert whichever gender stereotypically would)? Please come to our meeting&quot; > > *edit to note: I don&#x27;t necessarily agree with how Riot handled the event but I don&#x27;t necessarily see it as harmful as others are making it out to be. Especially with the expansive problems Riot has admitted themselves they are having with sexism and inappropriateness in the workplace. I personally am struggling to see how this is the major issue still being brought up everyday and yet the self-admitted sexism that was happening has been seemingly forgotten. I suppose that&#x27;s normal human behaviour to be more concerned with something that may directly affect you. i think, these examples are different. Trying to appeal to men, and rejecting women offhand are two different things. The advert clearly designates men as a target. But what is done if a woman shows up? Is she refused an interview because of her gender? is her CV dumped into a secret trash bin behind the recruiter's desk and she is told some tale about the other candidate being more liked? I think not. The advert may target men, but the door is still open to women who will come in. Your second example, what are the entry conditions? is race and gender included in them? no, the test is, are you interested in a job and you yourself feel this job is unsuitable for you because of society's prejudice. even though the subject matter is race and gender, the entry conditions to the program do not include race and gender. i think with respect to riot's "admitting", it is fair to say it was done under duress. Both duress derived from riot's internal politics, and duress derived from the pr storm generated by an obviously agenda driven zine writer. Why are you referring to their admittance, rather then the kotaku article and the evidence contained therein? because it's written black or white there whereas the article can be interpreted differently. i find the admittance to be suspect and lacking in credibility. as for the kotaku article. there is no dispute in my mind that it presents riot as a troubling work place. however, the alternative explanation of a stressfull, toxic workplace that is not sexist by nature is sufficiently plausible that i can not accept "sexism against women at riot" to be sufficiently proven (we do find a smoking gun on "sexism against men at riot" in the article though). because a plausible alternative explanation exists, the community is placated. in addition, what happens in riot within the gates of riot is also seen by the people as riot's business - not the community's business.
: I don't think the idea behind this event is wrong, it's just worded badly; rather than saying they banned men from entering the room, it's more of an event that granted women extra opportunity, and sometimes engaging with only those who share things in common can be entertaining, and this could be a good opportunity for that. The reason why it turned out the way it did and was discussed so negatively was, like a lot of others have said, the poor execution. The event was fine, the idea was fine, but not letting paid participants know about it beforehand and on the pax day suddenly tell them "you can't enter" at the door when they were expecting to is where it went wrong. If everyone was told about it, there wouldn't have been a problem. Men wouldn't be disappointed because they'd know it's a ~~yuri~~ ladies-encouraged event, and women who welcomed the opportunity would look forward to participate. As things turned out, men were turned away at the door, and kind ladies who couldn't abandon their male companies had to turn away as well. I'm sure that wasn't what riot was hoping to achieve either.
> [{quoted}](name=No flash no life,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=aKEuZNtg,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2018-09-22T02:46:51.300+0000) > > I don&#x27;t think the idea behind this event is wrong, it&#x27;s just worded badly; rather than saying they banned men from entering the room, it&#x27;s more of an event that granted women extra opportunity, and sometimes engaging with only those who share things in common can be entertaining, and this could be a good opportunity for that. > > The reason why it turned out the way it did and was discussed so negatively was, like a lot of others have said, the poor execution. The event was fine, the idea was fine, but not letting paid participants know about it beforehand and on the pax day suddenly tell them &quot;you can&#x27;t enter&quot; at the door when they were expecting to is where it went wrong. > > If everyone was told about it, there wouldn&#x27;t have been a problem. Men wouldn&#x27;t be disappointed because they&#x27;d know it&#x27;s a ~~yuri~~ ladies-encouraged event, and women who welcomed the opportunity would look forward to participate. As things turned out, men were turned away at the door, and kind ladies who couldn&#x27;t abandon their male companies had to turn away as well. I&#x27;m sure that wasn&#x27;t what riot was hoping to achieve either. You are correct in saying that better communication would have made the frog slide down everybody's throat batter. It would still be a frog though. It is wrong to offer an extra opportunity to only one race or gender, or to offer an extra opportunity to all but one race or gender. That is a wrong thing to do.
: So who is Bowser Jr's mom?
bowser jr is not peach's kid?
: > [{quoted}](name=DotEleven,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Es4ZPEpE,comment-id=000800000000,timestamp=2018-10-05T23:41:05.926+0000)All they needed to do was when it first came up go &quot;We understand that although our intentions were in the right place, the way we went about promoting female empowerment through the exclusion of men was wrong.&quot; That&#x27;s all we want. That&#x27;s it. I don&#x27;t want Riot to be the bad guys, but the hypocrisy and sexism displayed is something that they need to recognize in order to move forward. I guess that's part of my point -- the need for this specific response implies an assumption that a specific viewpoint is the only correct one, when, as these boards show, there is general disagreement on that (although the loudest voices are -- as is usual -- those opposed to the current state of affairs). I don't pretend to have the answer to what the course of action should have been, but I wonder if the community would accept something like this: "We understand that although our intentions were in the right place, the communication and specific implementation could have been handled better, and we understand that this left many people feeling excluded, ignored, or left out. We will strive to do better going forward." Legitimate question: would this be an acceptable compromise to you?
> [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Es4ZPEpE,comment-id=0008000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-05T23:46:55.122+0000) > > &quot;We understand that although our intentions were in the right place, the communication and specific implementation could have been handled better, and we understand that this left many people feeling excluded, ignored, or left out. We will strive to do better going forward.&quot; > > Legitimate question: would this be an acceptable compromise to you? I understand this question is not for me. however, please allow me to also answer. For me to accept an apology, it must have: 1. specific reference to the actions or motivations that offended me. 2. acceptance that the actions and the motivations (not their consequences) were wrong. 3. specific mention of the actions the offending party took that caused the offence, and specific reference of the causal relationship between action and offence. 4. recognition that I am justified in taking offence. How many of these elements does your statement contain? 0.
resumed (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Aptest,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=IIVKWNgs,comment-id=001400010000,timestamp=2018-10-06T14:58:09.872+0000) > > Rest assured that when you say &quot;to the rest of us&quot;, you mean just the small enclave of like minded people surrounding you. you and the 2-3 friends you have that also care about league are definitely not representative of the rest of us. actually "the rest of us" refers to us people with our heads not up our own asses
> [{quoted}](name=resumed,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=IIVKWNgs,comment-id=0014000100000000,timestamp=2018-10-06T16:23:38.828+0000) > > actually > > &quot;the rest of us&quot; refers to us people with our heads not up our own asses ah. is this a good time to ask you to pull head out of ass ?
resumed (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=NotSid,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=IIVKWNgs,comment-id=0014,timestamp=2018-10-06T13:28:54.359+0000) > > Lol back when the community was pretending to care about this issue. > > Nice to see 90% of people just wanted to get a dude fired rather than care what the uproar was actually about. what was it actually about to you? because to the rest of us it just looks like they were mad about women and nonbinary people being given tools to get work opportunities in the gaming industry
> [{quoted}](name=resumed,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=IIVKWNgs,comment-id=00140001,timestamp=2018-10-06T13:48:18.637+0000) > > what was it actually about to you? > > because to the rest of us it just looks like they were mad about women and nonbinary people being given tools to get work opportunities in the gaming industry Rest assured that when you say "to the rest of us", you mean just the small enclave of like minded people surrounding you. you and the 2-3 friends you have that also care about league are definitely not representative of the rest of us.
Malza (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Aptest,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=E5OepGwQ,comment-id=000c00000000,timestamp=2018-10-06T11:32:44.864+0000) > > and im not going to. > im not playing the game of &quot;I have more links than you have time, follow them all or accept my point, btw each of my links are a 100 link cluster&quot; with you. > be reliable from the get-go, please, and don&#x27;t do &quot;bait (with inflammatory bad source&quot; and switch (to your desired talking point while deflecting)&quot; on me also. So don't try to refute saying the Reddit thread is conflicting where if you read a few more lines it literally says about the same thing. You didn't even properly refute (nor prove noncredible) the first source you were trying to in the first place.
> [{quoted}](name=Malza,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=E5OepGwQ,comment-id=000c000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-06T11:34:39.218+0000) > > So don&#x27;t try to refute saying the Reddit thread is conflicting where if you read a few more lines it literally says about the same thing. > > You didn&#x27;t even properly refute (nor prove noncredible) the first source you were trying to in the first place. denying it does not make it less true. ...just read your own source all the way through please.
Malza (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Aptest,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=E5OepGwQ,comment-id=000c,timestamp=2018-10-06T10:56:38.678+0000) > for instance, let&#x27;s check how the in question article compares with the &quot;reddit thread&quot; you posted: > article: &quot;This puts the actual false allegation figure closer to 0.005 percent &quot; > reddit: &quot;Most experts agree that false rape accusations make the total of 2-10% of the total accusations of rape&quot; > > See the problem ??? You didn't fully read the Reddit thread before replying obviously, since it comes about the same conclusion.
> [{quoted}](name=Malza,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=E5OepGwQ,comment-id=000c0000,timestamp=2018-10-06T11:15:16.587+0000) > > You didn&#x27;t fully read the Reddit thread before replying obviously, since it comes about the same conclusion. and im not going to. im not playing the game of "I have more links than you have time, follow them all or accept my point, btw each of my links are a 100 link cluster" with you. be reliable from the get-go, please.
NotSid (NA)
: What will it take for the rest of you to get upset?
> [{quoted}](name=Malza,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=E5OepGwQ,comment-id=00010001000000020001000100010000000000000000000000000006,timestamp=2018-10-06T10:26:30.539+0000) > > The only reason you have to fact check to the nth degree is so you can refute it in your head (even though they are still factually true) so you don&#x27;t have to change your opinion. > > I also noticed you didn&#x27;t seem to attack the other articles, for some reason. I was hoping you'd write your previous responses with that in mind. And I was really disappointed that you did not. From my perspective, I am not discussing with you the issue of rape. I am not discussing with the issue of false rape accusations. I am discussing with you the issue of this bad source being used by you. Not "bad sources" in general. This specific source being bad. Me not having addressed the other articles simply means: I did not choose to discuss them. You are not ok to infer that they are ok in my mind. You are not ok to infer that they are bad in my mind. You are not ok to infer that I have an opinion about them, or that I lack an opinion about them. EDIT: for instance, let's check how the in question article compares with the "reddit thread" you posted: article: "This puts the actual false allegation figure closer to 0.005 percent " reddit: "Most experts agree that false rape accusations make the total of 2-10% of the total accusations of rape" See the problem ???
Aptest (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Malza,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=E5OepGwQ,comment-id=000100010000000200010001000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-06T06:50:45.699+0000) > > Statistics and probability are fact based and not feels before reals which is pretty important to me.... A short question to you about the following link (currently i'm reading it) > https://www.thecut.com/article/false-rape-accusations.html The article is obviously Spin over spin and bending the numbers into a pretzel and doing all sorts of false connections one after another. How can you accept this article to be saying anything?
> [{quoted}](name=Malza,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=E5OepGwQ,comment-id=00010001000000020001000100010000000000000000000000000004,timestamp=2018-10-06T09:18:35.774+0000) > > It doesn&#x27;t. These sources include links to peer reviewed academic journals / studies. There is no reason for me to just dismiss their data and outright believe your claims instead. > > Yeah it does (explained later in post). > > &quot;May or may not&quot; is factually wrong. You&#x27;re also ignoring that &quot;false false allegations&quot; are a HUGE problem (Arguably a much larger one than false allegations in the first place) where police outright dismisses rapes for the worst reasons or pressures rape victims into recanting their story. In fact most rape allegations considered false by the police that contribute to the 5% statistic are not proven to be false, and the police just FEEL that they are false. > I do not agree that factually I am wrong here. These un-reported cases, there is not sufficient information available to us, to determine whether they are credible? Is it reasonable to count these cases en mass as rapes that happened? or as rapes that didn't happen? I am not counting these as rapes that didn't happen. I am arguing that they can't be lumed in with the rapes that are regarded to have happened, in order to skew the conclusion towards "false rape allegations are a nonissue happens 0.0000000% of times". investigation > In any studies you will look up about the topic you will find that the vast majority of rapists go unpunished, the vast majority of rapes go unreported, and also that for the vast majority of rapes they&#x27;re unable to reach a conviction if reported even though it actually happened. > I think that any study presenting a conclusion of cases where "unable to reach a conviction if reported even though it actually happened" has to be looked at with the utmost scrutiny. At first glance I would say, that the chances the writers had better investigative process than whatever local police are extremely flimsy. I am inclined to dismiss any such study on that basis alone. > You&#x27;re making an intellectually dishonest claim that you can&#x27;t count a rape as happening unless there was actually a conviction for it, which would automatically mean that 99%+ of rape allegations are false (which is actually a claim a senator from Mississippi made recently). > No that is not what I have said. > Is an individual case not as important? Not necessarily, but there are factually hundreds of many times as rapes as there are false allegations of rapes towards anyone. You have not reached a sufficient burned of proof to be claiming that. The actual number should be in the 5% false claims region, skewd either upwards or downwards to some extent by whatever we end up encountering if we manage to get all the unreported rapes to get reported: I think it is reasonable to assume the unreported cases are weaker than the reported cases and therefore the % is likely to go up, not down. If one million people in the United States had a drug problem, it&#x27;d obviously be much less of a problem for the USA than if 300 million people had a drug problem. > > This is the opposite of true. Rape and sexually assault are statistically harder to convict for than pretty much any other type of crime. Please actually look into the statistics. > > From the registry for exonerations- http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/detaillist.aspx you can see that it is much more likely for you to be falsely convicted of something like murder instead of sexual assault. > You are conflating the level of evidence required for a conviction, with the level of evidence generally available in a rape case. Both statements are true, and one does not disprove the other. > Again they&#x27;re not lies, you automatically assuming that because a rape isn&#x27;t reported or a rapist isn&#x27;t convicted means it can&#x27;t be part of the data is an extremely dishonest argument. > not true. I am saying that this specific instance of estimating the number this process is bad. I'm not making any kind of general claim im saying Katie Heaney isn't doing math the right way and you shouldn't be citing her. The reason being, that the bulk of the data point have an unjustified assumption of "rape happened" attached to them which skewd the conclusion. Katie Heaney has done is: of reported, 5% assumed false, reported X. of not reported, 0% assumed false, reported 9X. total assumed false (5*1+0*9)/10 = 0.5% This is also false: of reported, 5% assumed false, reported X. of not reported, 100% assumed false, reported 9X. total assumed false (5*1+0*9)/10 = 10.5% See problem? the assumption of rape happened made on large untested data set pushes the result massively towards whatever you assume. Basically Katie Heaney has created a huge artifact in her assessment. > You didn&#x27;t fact check properly, those articles list academic journals / studies which you dismiss outright for some reason even though virtually all academic journals / studies that research this topic come to extremely similar conclusions. > ok, so the article is bad and in bad faith, but it has good sources, and i have to follow everything up to it's absolute end until i either agree our of being convinced or concede the point because i am exhausted? **my point**: If I have to fact check everything you post to the nth degree, than we can't talk to one another. Your usage of Katie Heaney's bad faith article specifically makes me have to fact check everything you post. Your usage of Katie Heaney's bad faith article specifically makes you have the reputation of someone who is not assumed to be telling the truth or refer to good faith sources.
Aptest (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Malza,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=E5OepGwQ,comment-id=000100010000000200010001000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-06T06:50:45.699+0000) > > Statistics and probability are fact based and not feels before reals which is pretty important to me.... A short question to you about the following link (currently i'm reading it) > https://www.thecut.com/article/false-rape-accusations.html The article is obviously Spin over spin and bending the numbers into a pretzel and doing all sorts of false connections one after another. How can you accept this article to be saying anything?
> [{quoted}](name=Malza,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=E5OepGwQ,comment-id=00010001000000020001000100010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-06T07:39:38.550+0000) > TL;DR: Let's put the issue of women and rapes aside for a moment and talk about basic credibility. If you want to convince me of anything, you need me to believe what you say. If anything you say requires extensive fact checking the entire mechanism of the two of us reaching any kind of understanding becomes so bogged down that we're not likely to get anything done. We'll both have to resort to sticking with our respective tribes because discussion will simply not be possible. I ask you again: why do you present a source that dumps your credibility as a speaker into the trash can? > I&#x27;ll admit that this articles numbers may not seem extremely relevant as it&#x27;s comparing the number of real rapes to the number of false rape allegations (and doesn&#x27;t give more context about false rapes as the other article does). no, the article does not do that. The article compares the number of events that may or may not have been real rapes, to the number of rape allegations regarded to be fictitious by the police / prosecutor / court. Because the article regards these cases as rapes, it massively over-estimates the ratio of rapes to false allegations with the purpose of supporting a fictitious claim (at least from the article's point of view. it is possible that the claim is not fictitious, if actual evidence is presented) that false rape claims are a nonissue. >...it is that being so obsessively concerned with false rape accusations when sexual assault / rape or hell or many other things are so much more of a problem.... How do you know? How do you determine that false rape accusations are less important than actual sexual assault? Forgive me for asking an insensitive question. But both issues are grave for the accused. And in addition to that, the relative quantity of false accusation is relevant to the default credence we as society can afford an accuser. Rape law is relatively lax in terms of it's requirement of proof, compared to other kinds of law. The burden of evidence is much lower and because of that, the reliability of the accuser is of importance. Therefore the amount of false reporting is very relevant. > The attitude that false rape allegations are extremely prevalent, common, and that we shouldn&#x27;t believe women actually helps rapists and makes this worse. As long as this attitude is false. And we as society need to have an opinion based on a truthful assessment on whether it is false or not false. The problem I have with this article is this. Having read it, I can not accept any of it's claims to be factually true. Because they are all built on pretzeling the truth. Because I can not accept it's claims factually, I also can not accept any of it's conclusions on society. And if you gobble up the article because the conclusions support your point of view, regardless of whether it is telling the truth or not, because "sexual assault / rape or hell or many other things are so much more of a problem" and that is what you aim to promote, than you have allowed lies to become part of your argument and then how can i believe you? Let's put the issue of women and rapes aside for a moment and talk about basic credibility. If you want to convince me of anything, you need me to believe what you say. If anything you say requires extensive fact checking the entire mechanism of the two of us reaching any kind of understanding becomes so bogged down that we're not likely to get anything done. We'll both have to resort to sticking with our respective tribes because discussion will simply not be possible. Even if you bring out articles like _D. Lisak, P. M. Miller, Violence and Victims, Vol. 17, No.1, 2002 _that im inclined to believe, the inclusion of sources such as original article in your argument makes you look like someone who will firstly be biased in their presentation of information and will cherry pick sources based on their support of your line, and secondly someone who will present false sources as long as they are good enough at hiding their lies. In both cases I have to fact check you properly with every claim and therefore we can't go anywhere with our discussion. > The attitude that false rape allegations are extremely prevalent, common, and that we shouldn't believe women What makes this attitude exist? It is the mixing of bad sources with good ones by the people who are trying to promote "believe women". It is the cherry picking and biased presentation of information which is afterwards discovered: Just as I've done with you. "I'll admit that.... but rapes are more important" is not an argument that allows you to retain your credibility as a participant of the discussion. This action by you makes me: 1 biased against whatever you say, and more inclined to reject your argument off hand. 2 more inclined to seek out competing explanations on my own whenever you make an argument, and accept them over your ideas.
Malza (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=NotSid,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=E5OepGwQ,comment-id=00010001000000020001000100010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-06T06:01:47.628+0000) > > I just don&#x27;t like this &quot;spin the wheel of probability&quot; logic you use to determine guilt. > Statistics and probability are fact based and not feels before reals which is pretty important to me. There's nothing wrong with having feelings, but you shouldn't base your world view on false accusations on that. I know you PROBABLY aren't going to put the effort into reading these even though it may make you understand, but I hope you will: https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story (Anecdote and somewhat disturbing story, consider this a warning for anyone disturbed by these themes) https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/ https://www.thecut.com/article/false-rape-accusations.html > Do you use RNG to decide if someone is guilty? Of course not, not really relevant. > Who cares how likely or not something is? How is that a factor? Because alibi testified under oath starts with "After I finished flipping a coin 1,000 times in a row and coming up heads every time- this woman broke into my house, stole my tissue with 'DNA samples' on it, and started beating herself savagely before falsely accusing me of rape" it should be pretty obvious that his testimony isn't credible.
> [{quoted}](name=Malza,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=E5OepGwQ,comment-id=000100010000000200010001000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-06T06:50:45.699+0000) > > Statistics and probability are fact based and not feels before reals which is pretty important to me.... A short question to you about the following link (currently i'm reading it) > https://www.thecut.com/article/false-rape-accusations.html The article is obviously Spin over spin and bending the numbers into a pretzel and doing all sorts of false connections one after another. How can you accept this article to be saying anything?
NotSid (NA)
: What will it take for the rest of you to get upset?
1 I consider the kotaku article to be describing true events and the evidence presented in it can be taken at face value. However, I do not consider The narrative presented in the kotaku article to meet a reasonable standard of proof with respect to it’s core allegations of sexism VS women. Therefore Kotaku’s claims in this article, and kotaku’s interpretation of the testimonies should be discounted. I.E. kotaku did manage to uncover in riot a toxic, purposefully stressful work environment, and workplace harassment. It did not manage to show workplace harassment on the basis of sex, that is not an isolated incident. It did not manage to show that riot as a work place is specifically designed to provide a structural advantage to men. Moreover, it did manage to show that riot as a workplace is specifically designed to provide a structural advantage to women. Therefore, according to the kotaku article, there is workplace sexism in riot, however it is not against women, but rather it is against men. Caveat: I do feel that several cases shown in the kotaku article are women who are damaged because of a clash between pro-vagina HR people who push for their promotion, and pro-competence managers who reject these women after some trial period. 2 “except they still had rioters doing most activities” This specific panel was of special interest because it is a professional entry point into the industry. An additional panel showcasing some champion’s design process does not make up for the special function of this specific panel. The rest of the panels are for the most part leisure and informative activities. This panel is a professional activity. There is a distinct advantage and distinct reason to being in this panel specifically rather than another panel. It does not matter if the guys had otherwise full access, when the one panel that has special and important significance is not available. 3 “…maybe start by boycotting and fighting when the systematic sexism and harassment comes to light, not a month later…” This is exactly what was done. The previous events are not generally accepted to be sexism and harassment. People don’t agree with you regarding the previous events being sexism and harassment. Why can’t you understand that? 4 “If Riot's own statements aren't enough” Firstly, I don’t consider testimony done under duress and at the point of a PR gun (and probably with the full encouragement of an anti-riot agenda driven HR and DI managers at riot HQ) to be reliable, sorry. Secondly, I don’t read it as an admission of guilt, I read it as a preparation for future sexism. The steps going forward mentioned in it generally increase the amount of sexism and workplace harassment in riot’s offices. Secondly, it is not sufficient that riot issued statement. The statement has to also corroborate the article. If you read the statement, where does it state that riot has been sexist? It sais that they will not stand for sexism and that they will stamp it out, but it does not in truth corroborate that there was sexism at riot. So, maybe I would consider their own statements to be enough, had their statements referred to the cases presented in the kotaku article. However their statement is too much general purpose PR saynothing to be sufficient corroboration.
: The point is why can I not have one role I climb on? I’ve chosen to spend my time mastering one role and I’m not being rewarded for it because of the amount of times I have to go to top lane.
> [{quoted}](name=Pax au Telemanus,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=53AdrKqO,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-10-05T14:15:12.419+0000) > > The point is why can I not have one role I climb on? I’ve chosen to spend my time mastering one role and I’m not being rewarded for it because of the amount of times I have to go to top lane. I cant speak to whether it is better for you or for the game to pick 1 role over 2. Certainly that would be a popular preference. However given that, when people have their choice of role, the less popular roles are not picked sufficiently, some quantity of enforced roles must exist. Would you prefer some amount of this forced roles to exist in the shape of a secondary role you must select, or in the shape of a much higher frequency of being auto-filled? i think these are your options. What is better?
: Default Female Announcer 99% pickrate in all regions
Kled or TK announcer would definitely be popular. given that Kled would be uncensored, that is.
: My roommate is using W,A,X,D instead of W,A,S,D and it makes my OCD flair up
> [{quoted}](name=T3H UB3RN07,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=NpboTta8,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-10-05T01:07:34.100+0000) > > How the hell? That&amp;#039;s worse than Flash on D, like F is for Flash your friend is correct. his posture allows for quicker, more accurate transitions than yours.
: > [{quoted}](name=Aptest,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=8IaEKZEJ,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-10-05T06:22:59.975+0000) > > PSA: > > if i get auto filled, the game is now officially my leisurely practice time. > Welcome to (my) casual land, team mate. You’re mistaken friend, that only happens for fun in NA
> [{quoted}](name=HateDaddy,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=8IaEKZEJ,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2018-10-05T11:17:09.856+0000) > > You’re mistaken friend, that only happens for fun in NA You are an NA elitist now?
: PSA: if you get auto filled
PSA: if i get auto filled, the game is now officially my leisurely practice time. Welcome to (my) casual land, team mate.
: Why the usual PAX argument is terrible.
CJ, I was going to respond to your thread but then i realized, You made Alistar into straw man and had Ahri just have a monologue instead of engaging with him. You could have written a nice dialogue to present your case instead, ahri is just endlessly pushing out hot air through her lips, and Alistar is just standing there like a mook.
Ulanopo (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=5Percenter,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=nT7ZLWQI,comment-id=00020000000100000000,timestamp=2018-10-05T00:41:51.165+0000) > > Actually it is exactly how it works. If you want something you get it yourself, not wait for a handout. Basically what the person I responded to was saying is that Susan isn&#x27;t capable of getting 3 apples on her own, so she needs Bob to get them for her. Kinda of counter productive to the whole equality thing, but _**I&#x27;m not the one that brought it up**_, I was merely pointing out the flaw in the metaphor he used. I'll grant it's a crappy metaphor, but your argument is worse. Much, much worse. I say that because it completely disregards barriers to entry. How is Susan supposed to get apples if men own all the orchards? If men get to choose who is allowed to pick apples? If all her life she's been told that picking apples is not women's work? If orchard owners give men more apples because they expect Susan to quit to bear and raise children, making them a "better investment"? Of course you can translate those issues to many other characteristics. What if Susan isn't allowed to pick apples because she's not white? Because she's gay? Because she's Muslim? Because she has an "ethnic sounding" name? What if Susan doesn't know how to pick apples because she grew up in a poor neighborhood with crappy schools? What if she had to settle for a community college? Keep in mind these qualities also apply to someone who is not female, so we have to look at the intersection of factors. Hence the term intersectionality. Basically, what you're saying is that you expect Susan to compete on your terms in an environment specifically designed to provide a structural advantage to others and she needs to be okay with that. {{sticker:zombie-brand-mindblown}}
> [{quoted}](name=Ulanopo,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=nT7ZLWQI,comment-id=000200000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-05T01:46:14.050+0000) > > I&#x27;ll grant it&#x27;s a crappy metaphor, but your argument is worse. Much, much worse. > > I say that because it completely disregards barriers to entry. How is Susan supposed to get apples if men own all the orchards? If men get to choose who is allowed to pick apples? If all her life she&#x27;s been told that picking apples is not women&#x27;s work? If orchard owners give men more apples because they expect Susan to quit to bear and raise children, making them a &quot;better investment&quot;? > > Of course you can translate those issues to many other characteristics. What if Susan isn&#x27;t allowed to pick apples because she&#x27;s not white? Because she&#x27;s gay? Because she&#x27;s Muslim? Because she has an &quot;ethnic sounding&quot; name? What if Susan doesn&#x27;t know how to pick apples because she grew up in a poor neighborhood with crappy schools? What if she had to settle for a community college? > > Keep in mind these qualities also apply to someone who is not female, so we have to look at the intersection of factors. Hence the term intersectionality. > > Basically, what you&#x27;re saying is that you expect Susan to compete on your terms in an environment specifically designed to provide a structural advantage to others and she needs to be okay with that. > > {{sticker:zombie-brand-mindblown}} In our PAX example, Susan is not allowed to pick apples because she is a man. Basically, you expect men to compete on riot's terms in an environment specifically designed to provide a structural advantage to "not men", and they need to be ok with it. That is the core problem with intersectionality. It invariably creates environments specifically designed to provide structural advantages to favored groups. Hence, intersectionality is wrong.
Ulanopo (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=nT7ZLWQI,comment-id=0000000100010000,timestamp=2018-10-04T17:14:05.828+0000) > > Do you think it&#x27;s sexist to hire a man over a woman just because he&#x27;s a man? Red Herring. Riot did not make the decision to hire or fire anyone at PAX. Riot opened up a recruitment opportunity in the hopes of finding people with a specific perspective or skill set. This is no different from going to a technical college to find someone with specific engineering skills.
> [{quoted}](name=Ulanopo,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=nT7ZLWQI,comment-id=00000001000100000002,timestamp=2018-10-04T22:39:50.073+0000) > > Red Herring. Riot did not make the decision to hire or fire anyone at PAX. Riot opened up a recruitment opportunity in the hopes of finding people with a specific perspective or skill set. This is no different from going to a technical college to find someone with specific engineering skills. This statement bears some technical and factual correction. In the interest of accuracy, I have done those for you: Riot opened up a recruitment opportunity in the hopes of finding people with a specific SEX AND GENDER. It is different from that because the specific skill of being a woman is something that is immoral to search for.
: Me singing Now We Are Free from Gladiator OST :D
good job and good show. personally this isn't a correct fit for what i would enjoy, unfortunately.
Chermorg (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=NotSid,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=nT7ZLWQI,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-10-04T16:22:47.442+0000) > > How is banning a gender from attending an event &quot;doing the right thing&quot;? > > And they did not give a statement. A tweet is not a statement. I already said that. This has been explained multiple times already. Equity sometimes requires more opportunity be given to a disadvantaged group. They aren't going to give you what you want just too save your fragile masculinity.
> [{quoted}](name=Chermorg,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=nT7ZLWQI,comment-id=000000000002,timestamp=2018-10-04T16:27:54.433+0000) > > This has been explained multiple times already. Equity sometimes requires more opportunity be given to a disadvantaged group. > > They aren&#x27;t going to give you what you want just too save your fragile masculinity. therefore: the pursuit of equity is not a legitimate goal.
: > [{quoted}](name=Aptest,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=NZ9GlWoh,comment-id=0015,timestamp=2018-09-29T12:21:01.963+0000) > > Here is my theory. > > Emotional investment + lack of control + negative outcome =&gt; Resentment. > Emotional investment + Resentment + Visible failing of team mate. =&gt; Feeling of being subject to injustice. > Negative outcome + subject to injustice =&gt; call to action against injustice =&gt; lashing out. > > PvP is inherently greater than PvE in emotional investment because > 1 the game is not built to allow you to win. it is not a puzzle, it is a contest. > 2 losing reflects on yourself. people view their value in comparison to opponent, not in comparison to puzzle. > 3 availability of &quot;I deserve to win&quot; scenario. > 4 consequences of &quot;walking away&quot;. > > Ultimately &quot;celebration of stats&quot; isn&#x27;t effective against the ultimate proof of (lack of) competence that is losing a match. > Therefore I do not believe &quot;you did well, you have great healing&quot; celebration s.a. seen in overwatch and hots is effective in any degree. Interesting thought process. So in your eyes, you (as a game dev) have to figure out a way to convey to the player that PvP is really players trying to accomplish a goal together first, and beating other players second? That's rough to do
> [{quoted}](name=Mounting Dread,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=NZ9GlWoh,comment-id=00150000,timestamp=2018-09-29T21:28:47.601+0000) > > Interesting thought process. So in your eyes, you (as a game dev) have to figure out a way to convey to the player that PvP is really players trying to accomplish a goal together first, and beating other players second? > > That&#x27;s rough to do Not a relevant idea. What is the goal in PvP? "accomplish a goal" and "beating other players" are not separate ideas. In a PvP game these two ideas are one idea. In PvE you contest against a puzzle set fourth by the developers but in PvP the challenge is the other player, not the environment. The goal you are trying to accomplish is the beating of the other players. Therefore: "convey... trying to accomplish a goal together first, and beating other players second" - The devs are not going to be able to find such a way, because it can not exist. If you want to reduce toxicity, you can do it in two ways. Either you reduce the impetus of toxicity, meaning either to reduce the emotional investment of players in the game (becomes a casual game), reduce the lack of control (only way is to usurp control from the other players and create OP lanes such as we had in seasons 3-4. This reduces toxicity because it gives the OP players the control and the other players enter their roles without expecting control, but it drastically reduces to popularity of UP roles see season 3-4 ADC and support) or reduce the negative outcome (considering "I did well but my team lost the game" is a big gripe, highlighting your strong moments in a lost game is likely to aggravate the situation for some players.). Or, you break the interpretation of the players of losing as injustice done to them by somehow encouraging them to take responsibility for their own emotions.... ...which, admittingly, im not sure how to do.
: the materials used for ranked have nothing to dow ith how strong/dense they are (I.E. Bronze/Silver)
: Gaming mentality is a weird thing.
Here is my theory. Emotional investment + lack of control + negative outcome => Resentment. Emotional investment + Resentment + Visible failing of team mate. => Feeling of being subject to injustice. Negative outcome + subject to injustice => call to action against injustice => lashing out. PvP is inherently greater than PvE in emotional investment because 1 the game is not built to allow you to win. it is not a puzzle, it is a contest. 2 losing reflects on yourself. people view their value in comparison to opponent, not in comparison to puzzle. 3 availability of "I deserve to win" scenario. 4 consequences of "walking away". Ultimately "celebration of stats" isn't effective against the ultimate proof of (lack of) competence that is losing a match. Therefore I do not believe "you did well, you have great healing" celebration s.a. seen in overwatch and hots is effective in any degree.
Show more

Aptest

Level 48 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion