: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Oleandervine,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=X7HKjKcW,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-09-02T15:40:55.048+0000) > > Epilepsy is generally triggered by quick, sudden flashing or strobing. I'm not certain the chains sprawling across the edges of your screen would qualify as an epilepsy trigger, and if they do, that person who it triggers is an extreme exception to the situation, and probably shouldn't be playing a video game like League at all. Right, so, whenever you see something like this...maybe, uh, IDK...assume that the person who is asking about such a thing probably knows what they're talking about because it affects them or someone close to them? And don't tell someone asking for an accessibility option to bugger off and deal without it.
: Buff Kindred - champ not statisfiying atm - reasons inside - give feedback pls
Here's a thread I wrote immediately following their rework in S7. I don't care how strong the champion is or isn't. They don't feel fun or rewarding to play. https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/mYiKyKE2-kindreds-rework-failed-their-fan-base-riotrepertoir
: > [{quoted}](name=DuskDaUmbreon,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=UGAAAnIJ,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-03-17T23:39:22.625+0000) > > Because it was a get out of jail free card for Ryze. R>Zhonya's for a free escape. > > Tbh though it needs to be removed on all champions like that. Kennen, Fiddle, tbh even Morgana. I mean. Ekko has a get out of jail free card just tossed into his kit. Why not the immobile caster?
> [{quoted}](name=The thigh guy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=UGAAAnIJ,comment-id=00010001,timestamp=2019-03-18T01:39:10.488+0000) > > I mean. Ekko has a get out of jail free card just tossed into his kit. Why not the immobile caster? Because Ekko doesn't do as much sustained damage, isn't as tanky, doesn't have point and click hard CC, doesn't have top tier waveclear, the inherent safety of range, and doesn't break the LCS.
: You have to gain charges in order to heal and all charges are consumed when you heal/shield someone. To gain charges you have to deal damage. Healing/shielding supports ({{champion:432}} {{champion:427}} {{champion:40}} {{champion:117}} {{champion:267}} {{champion:37}} {{champion:16}} ) deal decent damage at early game to gain charges but you should build {{item:3174}} at mid or late game and that time it's hard to gain charges with them. Mages with shields ({{champion:43}} {{champion:99}} {{champion:25}} {{champion:61}} ) can gain charges easier with their long ranged damaging abilities but it's not worth to build {{item:3174}} when you can build better items. (except for {{champion:43}} ) I think {{champion:43}} is the most suitable champion for {{item:3174}} because it synergizes well with her kit. But sadly she is also weak for a long time.
> [{quoted}](name=HP Crookshanks,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=3AmsAAeW,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-03-17T01:42:26.961+0000) > > You have to gain charges in order to heal and all charges are consumed when you heal/shield someone. To gain charges you have to deal damage. > Healing/shielding supports ({{champion:432}} {{champion:427}} {{champion:40}} {{champion:117}} {{champion:267}} {{champion:37}} {{champion:16}} ) deal decent damage at early game to gain charges but you should build {{item:3174}} at mid or late game and that time it's hard to gain charges with them. > Mages with shields ({{champion:43}} {{champion:99}} {{champion:25}} {{champion:61}} ) can gain charges easier with their long ranged damaging abilities but it's not worth to build {{item:3174}} when you can build better items. (except for {{champion:43}} ) > I think {{champion:43}} is the most suitable champion for {{item:3174}} because it synergizes well with her kit. But sadly she is also weak for a long time. Damaging an enemy champion charges Athene's for 35% of your _premitigation_ damage. **It's not affected by your target's resistances.** Let's see how difficult it is to charge it. We're going to assume that each support has 98 AP (18 from runes, 20 from Frostfang, 30 from Athene's, and 30 from Athene's % Base Mana Regen to AP passive) and that the given spell is Rank 5. Soraka's Q stores 92.5 charges _per champion hit._ Nami's self/enemy/ally W will store and immediately consume 90.3 charges. Bard's Q will store 113.3 charges _per champion hit._ Lulu's Q will store at least 75.7 charges _per champion hit _(assuming it goes through minions first). Karma's Q will store 111.6 charges _per champion hit._ Lux's E will store 104.6 charges _per champion hit._ Sona's Q will store 73.2 charges _per champion hit._ Rakan's W will store 118.5 charges _per champion hit._ That's the _bare minimum_ charge generation. You also generate charges from Frostfang's bonus damage, Redemption's active, runes like Summon Aery/Comet/Electrocute/Scorch, Ignite, basic attacks, and, obviously, your other spells. Say you, somehow, manage to get your shield / heal's value to an outrageous number like 800. Athene's is still worth 9.15% heal and shield power with 73.2 charges (the lowest charge value on the above list) and 31.25% heal and shield power at full charge. Even accounting for the fact that it only works on a single ally in the case of AoE heals and shields like those of Sona and Karma, it'd still be worth 2.3% to 7.8% heal and shield power. It's 114% gold efficient on its own, without counting the AP gained from other items' % Base Mana Regen, and, again, has its heal boosted by heal and shield power from other sources. Athene's is _disgustingly_ strong, and it's honestly absurd how few people seem to realize this.
: {{item:3174}} was a decent item when it had +20% cdr and mana regen was more common. Now it's a terrible item because it's stats are really weak and healing is not noticeable at all. It would be great if it came back as first item alternative to {{item:3285}} for mages because they keep building the same items over and over now.
> [{quoted}](name=HP Crookshanks,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=3AmsAAeW,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-03-16T20:12:55.436+0000) > > {{item:3174}} was a decent item when it had +20% cdr and mana regen was more common. Now it's a terrible item because it's stats are really weak and healing is not noticeable at all. It would be great if it came back as first item alternative to {{item:3285}} for mages because they keep building the same items over and over now. Lulu's E at level 7 provides a shield of 175 + 60% Ability Power. Athene's Unholy Grail will heal for up to 152 at that same level. That's...nearly doubling what the ability does. Athene's Unholy Grail also scales with heal and shield power, so it will actually be able to recover up to 120 to 300 health if you have both Ardent Censer and Redemption.
: Flamed for using Malphite Ultimate as a "fancy flash"
> [{quoted}](name=Ten Summer Suns,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=r2hozfFE,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-03-16T18:32:18.544+0000) > > I just got counter-picked by a Shyvana, and was put in a position where I had to Ult out or get torn up. My team didn't like that I was Ulting away from her instead of Ulting into her. Mind you it's only me and Shyv around, I have no vision to see if she has allies, my allies can't make it there, and I certainly can't 1v1. I've seen Malphite highlight plays where players were also forced to use his Ult to escape. > Am I in the wrong here? > > > **edit** When I tried explaining I'd seen Diamond players doing the same thing I just got mocked "you aint diamond youre wood" ... ummm okay? Whilst it's a bit of an oversimplification, think of it this way...If you would use your ultimate to secure a kill, you'd get 300 gold. If you use your ultimate to avoid certain death, you'd deny the enemy 300 gold. Either way, it's the same value.
: What's the point of Overheal?
> [{quoted}](name=TheWannabeAsian1,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7opGT61v,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-03-14T23:38:49.673+0000) > > As some of you may know, I've been watching the LCS as of recently, and a common trend I see among adcs is that overheal is preferred over triumph. I simply don't understand the point, as sure a small shield is always good, but triumph has saved my butt more times than I care to count.....Why would you take overheal over it's alternatives? Overheal effectively increases your maximum health by 10%. In order for you to have healed that much damage with a single instance of Triumph, you would have to be missing around 83% of your health. Whilst it's true that you can trigger it multiple times in a row, you'd still have to trigger twice whilst below 60% health to have gained as much effective health as you would gain from having Overheal. As Triumph is a heal, it is reduced by Grievous Wounds, which is common, where as Overheal's shield is not. Overheal also makes it harder to burst you, which is far more likely to happen with the kind of coordination you find at the highest level of play. And finally, Triumph gives you bonus gold on takedown, but as there are very few kills in competitive matches, this part of the rune goes almost completely to waste.
mack9112 (NA)
: They nerfed it
> [{quoted}](name=mack9112,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=guMaXNst,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-03-12T03:03:19.073+0000) > > They nerfed it No, not really. It went from 50/80/110/140/170 to 60/80/100/120/140, but the ratio went up by 10%. It's not that hard to have around 75 AP by level 7 which means the total healing lost from the change is more like 12.5 than 20, and at level 9 you can pretty easily have around 125 AP which gives you an actual loss of 17.5 healing instead of 30. Is that a nerf? Sure. But it's very minor. And if he gets an Infernal Dragon, starts Dark Seal and gets a couple of takedowns, otherwise has a lead, or the game goes past two items? It's a massive buff.
: Unpopular question: Why do people hate shorter games?
> [{quoted}](name=The entire team,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=E9El6TrL,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-03-10T20:11:31.911+0000) > > Legit question. > > Is it because it’s harder to rise back against other people? Or is it because snowballs and bounties? I liked Dominion, so it's not about the game length per se. It's about pacing. Imagine how awful Star Wars would be if you tried to fit all the movies into a single 30 minute episode. That's kind of what we've got going on now.
JuiceBoxP (EUNE)
: Why did Vi's E get an AP ratio?
Guinsoo's Rageblade.
: Gangplanks early game is not what needs buffing... its his scaling
> [{quoted}](name=RIP Gangplank,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=BV1H0tHB,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-03-05T18:18:32.907+0000) > > In the photo you can see his win rate steadily drops as the game goes on, gangplank is supposed to be a scaling champ and this chart should do the opposite. This shows that the only way to really win on gp is winning lane hard and ending the game with a huge gold lead that you built before other champs can catch up in items. Expecting gp to win lane as a win condition is thematically wrong. His late game needs buffs not his early game. HIs late game barrel damage and penetration need buffing as well as his ability to q farm needs to be brought back. He has been bombarded with nerfs over the last 3 seasons for various runes making him strong, TLd, klepto, and excelling in tank metas. This is not a tank meta and bruisers are easily out scaling him. lets try giving some damage to his late game barrel and some mana refund on q, not full mana refund maybe half. > > Id also like to note: the new shutdown system penalizes gangplank just for having his kit, he builds quicker than others then gives it right back if he gets killed due to his shutdown growing too big just from utilizing his passive. It's a little unfair to be punished just for having his passive in my opinion. _**What they need to do is increase the barrel duration and restore them granting vision. **_ The maximum number of barrels he can have out at one time with 45% CDR and Rank 5 Powder Keg is 7 if he starts with 3 charges and places those immediately and then place one every time he can. (He'll drop down to 4 barrels almost immediately after.) That's highly impractical, though, as GP has to keep at least 2 on him so that he can triple barrel on the spot. Because of that, the maximum amount he can have out on the field is, effectively, 6. And he only has three seconds until he drops down to 5. So, more realistically...he's got a maximum of 5 barrels to work with. Due to the mechanics of Powder Keg, he literally cannot land a barrel combo without connecting at least 2 (aside from the phantom barrel technique, which requires VERY precise spacing AND vision control, AND puts him within the threat range of many champions). This means that the only locations GP can possibly combo from are directly within his vicinity, from the 2 going on 3 charges he always holds, and then up to two other unknown locations. There's only so many places he can put barrels, anyways, since no one is going to let him keep barrels set up out in the open. So he has to hope the enemy team is actually going to walk near one of those two locations within 10 to 20 seconds...Except he doesn't always know where they have wards, and they won't go anywhere near it if they can see it. And even if someone does walk in range for him to land his combo, he doesn't know unless HE has wards there. AND those two locations are typically a few seconds away from each other. AND he might get zoned away from them. AND if he tries to set up another set after one expires he can't triple barrel for at least 5.5 seconds. AND that's assuming he has the chance to set up in the first place. AND that means he can't be using it for waveclear. AND that's assuming they can't just click on one the second he places it. 8.4 pretty much removed the only thing he can do.
D3m37r1 (NA)
: Morg didn't get reworked because nothing is wrong with her.
> [{quoted}](name=D3m37r1,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=WEgT5AR5,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2019-03-04T21:57:20.703+0000) > > Morg didn't get reworked because nothing is wrong with her. Her passive is almost entirely irrelevant and her W probably does less damage in a match than her Spellthief's and Aery.
LTK KoRo (EUW)
: i stopped reading after you said that champions like zac or sejuani have a stronger lvl 2 than kindred. Just no. I'd say that: kindred kit overall is a mess. Just after she got released she was an early game powerhouse which could invade every jungler lvl 2 with just a redbuff and on top on that she outscaled every damage jungler. Kindred lacks any combat counterplay (im not talking about your marks, they're not in-combat). What can you do while fighting with kindred? Dodge any of her skills? NO. Counter her autoattacks? No. Kindred is a one of the most binary statchecks in the game. also your thread is basically complaining that pre-rework and post-rework kindred aren't the same. Woooo, seriously? Just wait for the moment when kindred will get an actual rework, so she wouldn't need to stay weak, because with kit like that no champion would be allowed to be strong
> [{quoted}](name=LTK KoRo,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=pqXpxwHp,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-03-02T09:43:51.067+0000) > > i stopped reading after you said that champions like zac or sejuani have a stronger lvl 2 than kindred. Just no. > > I'd say that: > > kindred kit overall is a mess. Just after she got released she was an early game powerhouse which could invade every jungler lvl 2 with just a redbuff and on top on that she outscaled every damage jungler. Kindred lacks any combat counterplay (im not talking about your marks, they're not in-combat). What can you do while fighting with kindred? Dodge any of her skills? NO. Counter her autoattacks? No. Kindred is a one of the most binary statchecks in the game. > > also your thread is basically complaining that pre-rework and post-rework kindred aren't the same. Woooo, seriously? > > Just wait for the moment when kindred will get an actual rework, so she wouldn't need to stay weak, because with kit like that no champion would be allowed to be strong The copied post was made by me and it was made **_quite_** some time ago. As a result, some of the things I said aren't applicable anymore: Kindred's rework was given _massive_ numerical buffs at a few points afterwards, the jungle has received substantial changes a couple of times, and Sejuani and Zac had just been reworked and were incredibly overpowered at the time of writing which is obviously no longer the case. The core complaints still stand, though, that the rework is full of anti-combos and that Kindred's scaling is awful in comparison to other Marksman (especially as the combination of Randuin's Omen + Ninja Tabi pretty much removes their damage potential).
Laçez (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=5A8Bz8dX,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-02-25T06:28:30.735+0000) > > During Season 6 I was one of the better Kindred players in NA, and played exclusively Kindred ADC/Mid. I was as much of a one-trick pony as someone can be. At a certain point in the season, I believe it was somewhere around March of that year, I was Platinum 3 promo-series into Platinum 2 with somewhere around Platinum I / Diamond V MMR and an 80% winrate with Kindred, though I might have the time frame mixed up a bit--it's been awhile. At the time, Kindred was disgustingly overpowered. I knew it, even though they weren't very popular, and I knew how to abuse it. Sometimes I'd get a complaint about the pick and I'd just link my op.gg and they'd see my stats and leave me alone. If I'd been given more time, I'd have made it to Diamond. You don't have to believe it, if you don't want to. It makes no difference to me. But you can look up some of the summoners I was playing with around that time, and you'll see a large percentage of them did, in fact, make it there. > > Anyways, Kindred got popular, especially in Challenger, Master, and Diamond. It started getting harder and harder to play them through the bans, and I struggled as a result. I expanded my champion pool from one to two, including pre-rework Urgot. Then the nerfs started. I shrugged it off, for the most part. I knew they needed to be nerfed, and I was just happy I'd be able to actually be able to play them again. My win percentage dropped to about 60-65%, but I was still climbing, even if much slower. Unfortunately, people stopped taking me seriously. It felt like almost every single game I'd get asked if I read the patch notes. I'd say yes. Then I'd get flamed for picking the champion anyways. If they didn't mind the champion pick, I'd get flamed for the role I took them to. I'd have junglers follow me around and smite my Marks to sabotage me. I'd have supports refuse to play with me. And I stopped taking myself seriously. If I was playing League, I was playing on tilt. It gets hard not to personalize the horrible things people spew at you, and quite frankly, my personal life was falling to pieces at the same time. > > At the very start of S7, ADC were pretty weak. So I chose to avoid the ADC role, and my favorite champion for awhile. By the time the meta had stabilized enough for me to feel comfortable switching back to ADC Kindred, Kindred's rework hit. > > And it hit hard. So hard, I don't play the champion anymore, and I try to stay out of Kindred discussions because every time I get into one I leave angry. It's not that I don't want to play them. It's not that I'm upset I didn't hit or that I can't hit Diamond... > > **It's just the champion isn't the same.** > > I used to be able to build almost whatever I wanted: Iceborn. Spirit Visage. Blade of the Ruined King. Infinity Edge. Essence Reaver. Muramana. Death's Dance. Black Cleaver. Wit's End. Guinsoo's Rageblade. Frozen Mallet. Trinity Force. Even Zhonya's Hourglass. > > **It was versatile. But you can't do that anymore.** > > You have to build the same items every game now with almost no room for variance. > > I used to FEEL like death. **If you got the Marks, you were able to kill anyone you caught out alone.** You were a powerhouse in teamfights. Now? Even if you do get the gold, and the Marks, what do you get out of it? You have no way to deal significant AoE damage, since the Runaan's Hurricane synergy is gone. Your single target damage is far less damage than a proper ADC would do. Your supposed damage steroid, the bonus attack speed, is hardly worth anything. After all, Kindred's Q is an auto-attack reset. It also has a fixed animation time, like Vayne's Tumble, which means that once you hit a certain point, you end up either losing damage by using the spell or you waste the attack speed to adjust your position. Even ignoring that, though, she has no reason to care about that kind of attack speed, like Kog'maw (Bio-Arcane Barrage) or Vayne (Silver Botls) or Xayah (Bladecaller) or Caitlyn (Headshot) do. I'm pretty certain Kennen does as much or more damage with his basic attacks than Kindred does with the same build, because he has higher base AD, far higher base AS and AS/level, and his W. > > > 'But what about the range!?' Well, your ultimate encourages people to come in close, at which point your range is useless. Your W radius doesn't scale like your attack range does, so when you try and use it the enemy will be at the edge and just walk out of it immediately. Unless, of course, you get up close which defeats the purpose of the range. Again. Oh, and then there's the fact that Twitch, Kog'maw, Tristana, Caitlyn, and Jinx ALL end up with or start out with BETTER RANGE than you'll probably ever reasonably achieve, even in a game where you're ahead...and every single one of those champions have additional steroids other than just their range, AND most of them have spells that are stronger and have far more utility than Kindred does. > > 'But Kindred can jungle!' First off: So can Twitch and Ezreal, and both of those do a lot more early damage than Kindred does. Second: It isn't 'But Kindred CAN jungle!' it's 'Kindred is FORCED to jungle.' Which actually further hurts the champion, because it starves her of the gold she wants AND ruins your team composition! A 2 for 1 special! This was less of an issue before, because A. She dealt damage even if she didn't build damage: This gave her a fallback option if things weren't going well, and offer some frontline potential. B. She was actually relevant early, which made it less of an issue to pick such a selfish champion. Seriously, if you want to play Kindred jungle, don't. Take Zac, or Sejuani, Jarvan IV, or Warwick. Watch as you carry the game without having to hunt for Marks! Be threatening starting at level 2! Enjoy your (multiple) crowd control abilities, and similar or better damage! Play from behind by protecting your teammates, rather than tickling your enemies! > > If Jungle is so bad, what about lane Kindred? Also ruined by the rework! Wolf's Frenzy used to deal almost as much damage, or more, as a basic attack at level 1. You could use this to basic attack an enemy, hit W, and force a trade or zone them off of the wave. This was especially useful in bottom lane, because if the first champion left the radius, it would automatically switch to the other one. Now its damage is less than it used to be, even counting the 1.5% Current Health damage, because they removed the .4 Total AD ratio in place of a pathetic .2 Bonus AD ratio! Keep in mind it wasn't amazing in lane before, it was merely what made them functional there. And if you try and leave lane to go get your Marks, unlike before, their gold value is absolutely awful in comparison to just staying in the lane! > > Seriously, go ahead and compare the values of a Mark before and a Mark now. You used to gain 1.25% Current HP damage On-Hit, .5% Current HP damage per hit of W, and 5 damage on Q. Now you gain 5% Attack Speed, 1% Current HP damage per hit of W, and .5% Missing HP damage on your E. > > That might not seem TOO bad of a loss at first...until you realize that the On-Hit damage had a minimum value of 8 PER MARK, which is actually HIGHER than 1.25% Current HP damage anytime the target has < 640 HP, which is pretty often for a decent chunk of the game...and that Kindred's Q is an auto-attack reset, which synergized with the On-Hit damage...and that triggering Kindred's E damage would require 3 applications of that On-Hit damage...and then it's apparent that the only ability that you have ANY sort of real significant 'improvement' to now, compared to before, is W. And it's still strictly worse than what you would have gotten before. > > Also, why does her slow, the ability you use to START a fight, do more damage the LOWER the target's health is? That's the OPPOSITE of synergy. They even increased the missile speed of the attack, which actually makes it even harder to use it to execute low health targets just after Lamb's Respite ends. And what's with the percent missing health damage on her E being generally way worse than the old maximum health damage on it? Seriously, your target has to be missing more than 60% of their HP before it does more damage now than it did before. If you manage to get into late game, it can put out some seriously high damage, but I promise you it isn't much more than you could have dealt before. And so much of that damage is literally wasted on overkill, anyways. > > Riot shoehorned in a bunch of 'features' that are counter-intuitive to the way the champion is played. They're not very good in the jungle, they're not very good in a lane, and even if they WERE no amount of raw numerical strength is going to make them feel good to play when half of their kit renders the other half of their kit useless or awkward at best. > > So, IDK, what's REALLY the point in picking Kindred? What's the point in anything in their kit, anymore? They're down to Shaco status. You know, where they don't REALLY bring anything that significant, but the few dedicated mains can make it work. But who really wants that for their champion? Who wants to sit there and master a champion with the knowledge that anything they could do on that champion could be done better and more easily on another? I thought about being one of those people, who keeps trying. But every time I try, I just get frustrated and angry and tilt off the face of the earth. How can I not be, when every single feature of the champion that I liked was tossed aside and replaced with things I don't care about, and then left to rot there? Literally, I hope you don't mind me ctrl-c&ving this...
> [{quoted}](name=Laçez,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=5A8Bz8dX,comment-id=00020001,timestamp=2019-03-02T00:31:54.863+0000) > > Literally, I hope you don't mind me ctrl-c&ving this... Go for it. You can also see a thread I specifically made talking about them which even got a response from Riot. https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/mYiKyKE2-kindreds-rework-failed-their-fan-base-riotrepertoir
: What exactly is Azir and how can a Melee play against him?
> [{quoted}](name=Maelrus,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=6aBP0AJi,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-02-28T17:23:42.277+0000) > > Why is Azir allowed to be an anti melee anti diver high safety hypercarry long range mage? Playing any melee champion with a reasonable amount of gap closers, I will use Diana as an example, means you are completely fucked. You will get bullied out of lane from level 1 to level 6 (alright, thats normal) and after you got your R which finally gives you some way of getting on top of him he still counters you because a)His ult is a free disengage that either knocks you back from him or into his turret, b)he can farm with his soldiers from a range that is higher then your QR combo (which you need to engage on him because of a and c) or c) he just dashes away to a soldier, putting him outside of your own range or he can just d)flash away when none of the other options are available. So even if you somehow managed to get on top of him, force him to use his R and then get onto him again thanks to your R reset he still gets away safely. > And following this he is stronger in every single stage of the game and at a 3 item point with Ludens, Nashors, Rylai it is completely impossible to fight him. Either he engages on you and perma slows you with soldiers or you engage on him, he dashes away and then perma slows and kites you. > > Tldr: What is a melee champion without 20 dashes and or blinks supposed to do against him? And dont say "wait for jungle ganks" since all of his escapes work against those too and we dont have a high range cc jungler every game to just lock him down. His champion design doesn't lend itself to any weaknesses. That's why Azir was nerfed into the ground. Unfortunately, he was released the way he was and players have grown attached to his kit which makes it hard for Riot to fix him.
: What is actually fun to play against?
> [{quoted}](name=CrakSmokinWarlok,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=3V8kFkoU,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-01-13T22:56:41.833+0000) > > Everyone talks about kits that are unfun to play against, and if you read the rework request thread in gameplay+, one quickly forms the impression that the word "unfun" is ascribed to any champion with a powerful or oppressive kit. Naturally it would seem that the opposite, something _fun _ to play against, would be whatever champions you can walk all over in lane, as no one enjoys losing. > The full list of champions that I almost always enjoy playing against: Ahri, Alistar, Amumu, Annie, Ashe, Bard, Blitzcrank, Brand, Cassiopeia, Cho'gath, Corki, Darius, Dr. Mundo, Draven, Ekko, Evelynn, Ezreal, Fiddlesticks, Fiora, Gangplank, Gnar, Gragas, Ivern, Janna, Jarvan IV, Jax, Jhin, Jinx, Karma, Kassadin, Katarina, Kayn, Kled, Lee Sin, Leona, Lissandra, Lucian, Lux, Master Yi, Miss Fortune, Morgana, Nami, Nautilus, Nidalee, Nunu, Olaf, Orianna, Poppy, Rakan, Rek'sai, Renekton, Riven, Rumble, Ryze, Shen, Singed, Sion, Sivir, Skarner, Sona, Soraka, Swain, Taric, Thresh, Trundle, Twisted Fate, Udyr, Varus, Vayne, Vel'koz, Vi, Viktor, Vladimir, Warwick, Xin Zhao, Zac, Zed, and Zilean. That's not to say that those champions are always fun to play against in every context. Darius is horrible to lane against for most melee champions, and Master Yi and Olaf are both awful to deal with if they have a substantial enough lead or your team composition has little crowd control... Generally, though, those champions have obvious strengths and weaknesses and you and/or your team are given ample opportunities to outplay them. Sometimes that means you can simply dodge their abilities, like Ahri or Vel'koz, and sometimes that means things like warding to avoid a surprise Crowstorm or Summon: Tibbers.
: > [{quoted}](name=Its All Skillzz,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Xs9xf62g,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-01-01T07:05:32.224+0000) > > i mean do you not know the hidden power in duskblade??? the damage is not what im talking about, im talking about the other broken ass passive that allows free clearing of wards for just walking near one. it literally removes all counterplay you have to a fed player cause they will clear your wards and either wait in that bush to gib someone or come back later, not to mention there is always 2-3 of these stupid things in 1 game. it makes preventing ambushes almost impossible. So then remove that ability as well? Or increase the cooldown of that passive in general? Duskblade currently has I think a 90sec cd for that passive. Not to mention, you get only what? One ward from the passive? By this point, you might as well complain about Sweeper and demand that be removed because you can get rid of multiple wards with that.
> [{quoted}](name=Ranmaru Kurosaki,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Xs9xf62g,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-01T08:31:00.695+0000) > > So then remove that ability as well? Or increase the cooldown of that passive in general? Duskblade currently has I think a 90sec cd for that passive. Not to mention, you get only what? One ward from the passive? By this point, you might as well complain about Sweeper and demand that be removed because you can get rid of multiple wards with that. Even when it is on CD it tells you when the enemy team can see you.
: Kha has been broken since season 7. Do you really believe this is going to change any time soon? Someone at riot must be a kha OTP.
> [{quoted}](name=GayFluffyUnicorn,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=O3ME7mBU,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-12-30T18:20:46.258+0000) > > Kha has been broken since season 7. > Do you really believe this is going to change any time soon? > > Someone at riot must be a kha OTP. Let's be real here, Kha'zix has been meta defining/game breaking at some point in almost every season since his release. He's had as many reworks as Ryze. Anyone remember when Kha'zix's passive applied to his evolved W and he was a staple mid laner? What about the Black Cleaver bruiser build when his ultimate granted him 50% damage reduction and he had % missing health damage on Q? And who could forget about his evolved ultimate allowing him to walk through literally the entire jungle whilst invisible?
: If a build is working really well for me is it still bad?
> [{quoted}](name=Hammermancer,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=2cdHlZAT,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-12-30T21:57:19.112+0000) > > seriously > > So i recently started picking up {{item:3004}} again on my main because my buddy wanted me to be the adc and i didn't want to > > so like I've been going manamune into triforce then cleaver botrk and stormrazor which is so many wasted stats but it's working and i'm somehow able to buy that much shit in my games on my alt, do i continue on or no? You're not obligated to play how other people want you to play. Play what you enjoy and perfect it. There are strengths and weaknesses to deviant builds. If you are willing to play around that you can usually perform just as well if not better than you can with a meta build.
: > [{quoted}](name=GrReaper96,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=c6lAApKT,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2018-12-28T23:14:40.233+0000) > > Oh dont worry theyre already debating on how to change it > > https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FX_10ciu4vo/XCZvtAcO5II/AAAAAAABM84/sAmNJaN7Zgs6D4FZXIlLQ6Oh0PMqz2zeQCLcBGAs/s320/thvRieDl.png > > For better or worse What is even the point of that change? All it does is make the effect less controllable.
> [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=c6lAApKT,comment-id=00030001,timestamp=2018-12-29T00:26:13.969+0000) > > What is even the point of that change? All it does is make the effect less controllable. It's **more** controllable in a lot of ways. Why? Because it isn't tied to a spell that you might use in situations where you can't use Essence Flare.
: Why wasn't Lee Sin knocked back in this clip?
> [{quoted}](name=Moist Seagull,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=XeZxMXZn,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-12-28T01:05:26.133+0000) > > My intention was to cancel his Q mid-flight, but obviously I casted it too late for that. But he should've been knocked back when I casted it anyway, right?. Is it a bug or just a weird interaction? You know how if Lee Sin hits you with Q2 and you Flash right after the damage is dealt sometimes he blinks with you? I'm going to guess that it also prevents him from being knocked away during that time.
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=d2uQsAdG,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-12-27T02:38:29.585+0000) > > Cheap Shot is worth ~18 to 90 AP for a single spell every 4 seconds. > Sudden Impact reduces the amount of damage needed to kill a target by 6 or 7 damage per 100 HP your target has. Cheap shot can only be procced if you CC the enemy. I'm sure that most CC abilities that have range have a cooldown of 4s. Taste of blood outheals cheap shot's dmg. Unless youre Annie or smth.
> [{quoted}](name=ankoanko19,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=d2uQsAdG,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2018-12-27T03:21:00.384+0000) > > Cheap shot can only be procced if you CC the enemy. I'm sure that most CC abilities that have range have a cooldown of 4s. Taste of blood outheals cheap shot's dmg. Unless youre Annie or smth. Taste of Blood heals an average of 1 HP per second at level 1. Cheap Shot does an average of 2 damage per second. Even with the bonus damage being situational, it isn't hard to have it deal more sustained damage than Taste of Blood could heal thanks to spells like Lux's E which trigger it automatically. The gap only widens as you gain levels as you can apply Cheap Shot's damage far more frequently with CDR and allies' CC.
Poske (EUNE)
: Taste of blood is the strongest rune in that Row -.-
> [{quoted}](name=Poske,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=d2uQsAdG,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-12-26T11:20:58.443+0000) > > Taste of blood is the strongest rune in that Row -.- Cheap Shot is worth ~18 to 90 AP for a single spell every 4 seconds. Sudden Impact reduces the amount of damage needed to kill a target by 6 or 7 damage per 100 HP your target has.
Madsin25 (NA)
: The description says "Damaging a champion". So if displacements and stasis is causing it to proc it is a bug.
> [{quoted}](name=Madsin25,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=ugkoJhsA,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-12-02T18:18:35.575+0000) > > The description says "Damaging a champion". > > So if displacements and stasis is causing it to proc it is a bug. Unless something has changed, Crystallize and Pillar of Ice cause a single point of True damage which explains that. Furthermore, Tempered Fate has triggered Elixir of Sorcery's bonus damage for a long time, so it doesn't surprise me that it also triggers Dark Harvest.
: When your botlane is a literal monkey
> [{quoted}](name=FCJAAAAGOOOO,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=wHPur7bR,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-11-14T20:33:14.377+0000) > > Is Wukong good botlane as an adc? > > I mean, he deletes people like marksmen would. His Q melts turrets like marksmen would. His kit is great vs. marksmen/squishies. Blitz/Thresh literally cannot grab him while he has W off of cooldown (or his teammate behind him for that matter). Also he gets a little mileage from his passive in a 2v2 lane so there's that I guess. > > On paper it sounds nice. ADCs aren't just for damage to objectives like turrets, dragon, or Baron Nashor. They're also for sieging enemies under their turrets, threatening tanks, and cleaning up fights. Wukong cannot reliably do any of those things. There are situations where you might be able to run Wukong bot, but there's never a real strategical advantage to doing so. Your best case scenarios are going to be those where it's merely permissible. That is, to say, the best you can hope for is that you're not _hindering_ your team. You will never be _helping_ your team by playing him there.
AR URF (NA)
: Kind of a rant on people who say "muh follow your laner"
> [{quoted}](name=AR URF,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=tVRdrhHL,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-11-01T02:50:01.443+0000) > > Or people who do follow their laner because they have that mentality,but they're too late. I know I'm a silver player, but that doesn't make what I'm about to say invalid. > > Ok anyway. Yes follow your laner, but if you're still in lane and your laner is already appeared at bot or top and you're still in lane. DON'T FOLLOW. instead take the tower or try. It's annoying for me to get 4 manned at bot or 3 manned at top and mid is just sitting there last hitting minions. Don't last hit minions and slow push. HARD PUSH THAT SHIT. > > Ok I'm ready for the down-vote squad. > > Edit: Fixing a few mistakes in my post for more {{summoner:13}} . I'm formerly the 69th best Viktor in NA. I was in but lost my Diamond promos filled with D5s and D4s three times this season, and eventually quit playing because I hate this season. I probably could have continued climbing if I gave a fuck, but since I do not, I have since decayed to Platinum V. So speaking as a higher elo player? **Don't** follow your fucking laner. If you don't have vision of their jungler and/or the enemy laner can solo kill you, all you are doing by following them is putting yourself at risk. If the enemy is roaming and they know what they're doing, you'll be missing minions and allowing your turret to take damage, too. That's not to say that you can't follow your laner or shouldn't ever do so, but it is heavily dependent upon the match up, what else is happening on the map, and so on and so forth. Most of the time, your best play is going to be to shove a wave, recall to buy items and gain tempo/lane control, pressure their turret, farm the jungle, get vision, or roam to the other side of the map. If you're Katarina against a Lux and the Lux goes missing you can probably follow her. She's an easy solo kill. But if Katarina roams and you're Lux? You're asking to feed the enemy assassin by blindly following them into the fog of war. Think about it, even if you do follow them and manage to turn a fight in another lane, the reason that happened is because the enemy overstayed and/or was too far out. You're expecting them to make that mistake. If they back off once they notice you are following your laner, you gain nothing, but the enemy team gains tempo. Ideally, your allies back off and play safe when they notice your laner has roamed. This wastes your laner's time on a pointless roam, meanwhile, you gain some CS, vision, wave control, etc. If your team won't play safe and dies to every roam it isn't your fault, it's theirs, and you shouldn't try and fix their mistakes. You're more than likely to get yourself killed trying to help them if they are that incompetent.
Rexxiee (NA)
: Jhin mains trying to get items nerfed instead of their champ
> [{quoted}](name=Rexxiee,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=2cUjzvFP,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-09-23T21:20:35.940+0000) > > Why am i not surprised? > > Lets nerf stormrazor so caitlyn/tristana becomes even worse, and nerf other stormrazor users that are balanced (like jinx). > > Or we could, you know, nerf the issue, that iS JHIN, he is the problem, his passive is giving him too much mobility for someone whos supposed to not have it. Because the problem is Hail of Blades/Lethal Tempo + Stormrazor? It has absolutely nothing to do with Jhin. He was largely garbage before that combo. Stormrazor is also a pretty poor item design in general. It grants burst damage, target access and pseudo-mobility, raw AD, and attack speed. If the item had lifesteal, it would have literally every single thing that an AD champion wants.
Octahedron (EUNE)
: Power + prejudice racism/sexism is one of several academic **stipulative** definitions and painting it as the only real one is kinda baffling especially that it is used only in context of academic research to simplify things and not to replace other definitions (especially when people in academic world still argue different theories and definitions constantly and there seems to be no consensus on the matter). There are some precising definitions that extend traditional definition of racism by adding the institutional racism into it but they do not neglect traditional meaning. You're both arguing semantics and downplay what the other side means essentially just shouting at each other from your castles.
> [{quoted}](name=Octahedron,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=000500000000000000010001,timestamp=2018-09-11T18:57:00.633+0000) > > Power + prejudice racism/sexism is one of several academic **stipulative** definitions and painting it as the only real one is kinda baffling especially that it is used only in context of academic research to simplify things and not to replace other definitions (especially when people in academic world still argue different theories and definitions constantly and there seems to be no consensus on the matter). Yeah, I know. This is the Ledge o' Legos forms. It's not my job to educate the sea lions here. I'm speaking casually. This isn't my dissertation. The rudimentary outline I've provided is more than enough to serve as an introduction to these matters. I don't really care to have a discussion on the minutia of the various stipulative definitions of sexism or any other system of oppression. Not here, anyways. I'm just acknowledging that there's been a concerted effort to reframe the colloquial definition to recognize the asymmetrical power dynamic, and the resistance to this is inherently sexist. It's not about the definitions, though. I've had these conversations using entirely their terms and still don't get anywhere. They're asinine and so devoted to their ignorance that they reject the findings of decades worth of research from multiple academic fields. >There are some precising definitions that extend traditional definition of racism by adding the institutional racism into it but they do not neglect traditional meaning. > You're both arguing semantics and downplay what the other side means essentially just shouting at each other from your castles. This sort of tone policing and 'both sides'-ing is cantankerous for the sake of it. Quite frankly, I'm not the one barking for citations on shit that's easily Google-able and has been common knowledge for decades or whining about a space for women/NBs because I am feel uncomfortable when we are not about me? So, like...I don't really give a fuck, tbh. Their opinions are bad and rooted in bigotry and they don't want to learn.
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=00050000000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-11T14:11:13.376+0000) > > Quit drinking the alt-right Kool-Aid. "I'm going to dismiss your argument rather than counter it." > You want sources? Find them yourself. "You do my homework for me!" > White people weren't enslaved for hundreds of years nor subject to Jim Crow. White people were enslaved in the Barbary slave trade and the slave trade in Africa is run by black people, and I'm sure they don't give a damn what color their slaves are. > You managed to look up the definitions of those words and still not understand what they mean. I'm actually impressed. Find someone else to tutor you, though. "I'm going to offer a feint argument in an attempt to dismiss that you used them correctly because I can't otherwise argue back." > I honestly won't deign to respond to this. "I can't argue against this, so I'll pretend it's not valid." > Vapid. "I'm going to pretend this is nonsense despite being grammatically correct, functional and correctly using every word."
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=000500000000000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-11T14:29:04.004+0000) > > "I'm going to dismiss your argument rather than counter it." > > "You do my homework for me!" > > White people were enslaved in the Barbary slave trade and the slave trade in Africa is run by black people, and I'm sure they don't give a damn what color their slaves are. > > "I'm going to offer a feint argument in an attempt to dismiss that you used them correctly because I can't otherwise argue back." > > "I can't argue against this, so I'll pretend it's not valid." > > "I'm going to pretend this is nonsense despite being grammatically correct, functional and correctly using every word." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZF4yRlASX8
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=000500000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-11T12:41:17.143+0000) > > They're women. They work in the industry. They're literally the definition of a primary source. Do they have to track their experiences in a fucking spreadsheet for you to take them seriously? Because it's on individual/singular entity basis and not an industry-wide one. There's also the fact that some people use subjective words in different ways. Sadly, sexism and racism are not subjective terms. There are different levels and types. You can have someone slightly racist where it will take a white person longer to earn his trust than a black person. You can have a very racist person who automatically distrusts any black people he comes across. > You're damn right. I literally studied this. I'm an authority on the topic. I spent the time and effort required to qualify my opinion. You're not in the position to challenge me. If you want your arguments to be respected, they need to be worthy of respect. You could have a fucking doctorate in a field and you can still be utterly devoid of all common sense. Take Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory. Smart as fuck to where he could design and engineer devices for astronauts. But when it comes to relationships and general social interactions, he doesn't usually pick up. It's relatable because it shows how he's imperfect and doesn't always get it. Unfortunately, your field of study is based on hypocrisy and it doesn't matter what level of degree you have in it. Because those classes are designed to brainwash others into destroying progress with "justice for previous history". You are no exception here. > I said that the problem was rampant in the industry. I said that, even if it wasn't, it's still a problem for Riot, specifically. Those two things are not contradictory. And you'd need to prove that it's a problem on a larger scale, not simply within a few select companies of varying sizes. That means you're going to need to research and prove it for the majority of companies/the industry for each and every nation. > No, but expanding your vocabulary and learning a more accurate and nuanced definition does. The only reason ANYONE needs a more nuanced definition for those terms is so they don't feel guilty harming others. > It only goes one way. The things which appear to go the other way belie inequality the same way 'separate but equal' does. A white person and a black person bump into each other. Here are their reactions: Black person to white: "watch your step cracker!" White person to black: "watch your step n\*\*\*\*\*!" Tell me how these are not equally racist. > Look closely. The word is systemic. There's no A. There's a massive difference between systematic and systemic. They are not synonyms. This is why I told you that I don't think you understand what the word means. **_You clearly do not._** > > Systemic means...of a system...in a general way...systemic things usually are both supported by and reinforce other things in that system. The system is racism. Racism is the oppression of non-white people. It's a broad collection of all the ways that non-white people are unfairly treated which ultimately works to the advantage of white people. Does the n-word relate to that? Yes. The only purpose of hate speech is dehumanization. Definition of Systematic: done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical Definition of Systemic: relating to a system, the full system as opposed to a particular part Oh, look, they ARE synonyms in this context! Why? Because your definition applies to the entire system, the whole picture. And guess what, if the SYSTEM is designed to keep everyone not white and not male down, it doesn't matter which one you use. FYI, we abolished systemic separation and favoritism in 1954. Remember what that was called? "Safe Spaces for White People from Black People." And if you think I'm wrong, you gotta remember that it was born out of systematically ingrained racism by culture. And guess what you and many other complete morons are pushing for? "Safe spaces for minorities from white people." And this is born out of systematic teachings that racism and sexism only go one way, rather than using the appropriate definitions where sexism and racism will always wrong somebody. Don't you dare tell me that my vocabulary is somehow deprived and requiring augmentation for facilitation of comprehension to your interpretation based on delusion and fostered by a willing lack of awareness. And if you need help understanding that above sentence, my point exactly.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=0005000000000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-11T13:11:39.393+0000) > Unfortunately, your field of study is based on hypocrisy and it doesn't matter what level of degree you have in it. Because those classes are designed to brainwash others into destroying progress with "justice for previous history". You are no exception here. Quit drinking the alt-right Kool-Aid. > And you'd need to prove that it's a problem on a larger scale, not simply within a few select companies of varying sizes. That means you're going to need to research and prove it for the majority of companies/the industry for each and every nation. You want sources? Find them yourself. > The only reason ANYONE needs a more nuanced definition for those terms is so they don't feel guilty harming others. > > A white person and a black person bump into each other. Here are their reactions: > > Black person to white: "watch your step cracker!" > White person to black: "watch your step n\*\*\*\*\*!" > > Tell me how these are not equally racist. White people weren't enslaved for hundreds of years nor subject to Jim Crow. > Definition of Systematic: > done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical > > Definition of Systemic: > relating to a system, the full system as opposed to a particular part > > Oh, look, they ARE synonyms in this context! Why? Because your definition applies to the entire system, the whole picture. And guess what, if the SYSTEM is designed to keep everyone not white and not male down, it doesn't matter which one you use. You managed to look up the definitions of those words and still not understand what they mean. I'm actually impressed. Find someone else to tutor you, though. > FYI, we abolished systemic separation and favoritism in 1954. Remember what that was called? "Safe Spaces for White People from Black People." And if you think I'm wrong, you gotta remember that it was born out of systematically ingrained racism by culture. And guess what you and many other complete morons are pushing for? "Safe spaces for minorities from white people." And this is born out of systematic teachings that racism and sexism only go one way, rather than using the appropriate definitions where sexism and racism will always wrong somebody. I honestly won't deign to respond to this. > Don't you dare tell me that my vocabulary is somehow deprived and requiring augmentation for facilitation of comprehension to your interpretation based on delusion and fostered by a willing lack of awareness. > > And if you need help understanding that above sentence, my point exactly. Vapid.
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=0005000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-09-11T10:50:57.627+0000) > > ...Except the testimony of like...dozens of female developers? Dozens of individual developers? How does that illustrate that the ENTIRE FUCKING INDUSTRY has that problem? > Look, if you want common knowledge spoon fed to you and proved, you're asking the wrong person. Do your own damn research. I'm not fucking Google. It's literally not my damn job to educate your ignorant ass. See, now there's less reason to believe you have anything worth listening to because you're making yourself sound like you won't take any argument other than your own. > Either way, this panel was held by Riot which was outed as sexist in the Kotaku article. Even if the industry wasn't sexist, the relevant party in this case most certainly is. And yet, Riot's base argument was "this industry is hostile to women". Even you said "a field hostile to women". So make up your mind. It's either one company or almost all of them. And stick to that definition. > Yup. I know, it's strange, right? People with an education actually use it, the blasphemy! How dare we show solidarity with women by acknowledging that we understand their experiences!? Because twisting the definition doesn't help anyone. And anyone who thinks that's the educated version is a complete moron. If you want to discuss how racism/sexism had an impact on culture, go ahead. But don't you dare tell me that it only applies one way at any given time. > LMAO > > Yeah, that's physics. I'm not really sure where you got that hilarious notion from. Equality isn't zero sum. You truly have no idea what you're saying anymore. And that's additionally clear from the next portion. > I don't think you actually understand what's being talked about. That's...still an example of systemic oppression. I...don't think you understand the word systemic. That's really the only thing you've proved. How is it systematic? How is it outright oppression? It's a white guy angry at people being on his lawn but because they're black he's using an offensive word instead of "dumb kids". The only way it's oppression is if he pulls out a shotgun (or other firearm) and legitimately tries to kill them. Sure as hell isn't systematic in any way either.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=00050000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-11T11:21:14.368+0000) > > Dozens of individual developers? How does that illustrate that the ENTIRE FUCKING INDUSTRY has that problem? They're women. They work in the industry. They're literally the definition of a primary source. Do they have to track their experiences in a fucking spreadsheet for you to take them seriously? > See, now there's less reason to believe you have anything worth listening to because you're making yourself sound like you won't take any argument other than your own. You're damn right. I literally studied this. I'm an authority on the topic. I spent the time and effort required to qualify my opinion. You're not in the position to challenge me. If you want your arguments to be respected, they need to be worthy of respect. > And yet, Riot's base argument was "this industry is hostile to women". Even you said "a field hostile to women". So make up your mind. It's either one company or almost all of them. And stick to that definition. I said that the problem was rampant in the industry. I said that, even if it wasn't, it's still a problem for Riot, specifically. Those two things are not contradictory. > Because twisting the definition doesn't help anyone. No, but expanding your vocabulary and learning a more accurate and nuanced definition does. > And anyone who thinks that's the educated version is a complete moron. If you want to discuss how racism/sexism had an impact on culture, go ahead. But don't you dare tell me that it only applies one way at any given time. It only goes one way. The things which appear to go the other way belie inequality the same way 'separate but equal' does. > You truly have no idea what you're saying anymore. And that's additionally clear from the next portion. > > How is it systematic? How is it outright oppression? It's a white guy angry at people being on his lawn but because they're black he's using an offensive word instead of "dumb kids". The only way it's oppression is if he pulls out a shotgun (or other firearm) and legitimately tries to kill them. Sure as hell isn't systematic in any way either. Look closely. The word is systemic. There's no A. There's a massive difference between systematic and systemic. They are not synonyms. This is why I told you that I don't think you understand what the word means. **_You clearly do not._** Systemic means...of a system...in a general way...systemic things usually are both supported by and reinforce other things in that system. The system is racism. Racism is the oppression of non-white people. It's a broad collection of all the ways that non-white people are unfairly treated which ultimately works to the advantage of white people. Does the n-word relate to that? Yes. The only purpose of hate speech is dehumanization.
Hutch (NA)
: Oh wow, more people of a certain demographic apply when they know there will be less competition, I'm shocked. Clearly discriminating against people based on unchangeable attributes they were born with is the best way to fight against discrimination! /sarcasmoff This is stupid and sexist.
> [{quoted}](name=Hutch,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=0014,timestamp=2018-09-11T10:16:28.129+0000) > > Oh wow, more people of a certain demographic apply when they know there will be less competition, I'm shocked. Clearly discriminating against people based on unchangeable attributes they were born with is the best way to fight against discrimination! > > /sarcasmoff > > This is stupid and sexist. There wasn't any less competition! Those were applications being sent in for actual jobs. Riot never excluded men from applying for those positions. They 'excluded' men from a panel. What the fuck are you on?
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=00050000000000000001,timestamp=2018-09-11T09:35:25.234+0000) > > The panel was for women/NBs and DIRECTLY RELATED to their careers and inclusion in a field HOSTILE to women/NBs. That's not discriminatory any more than a gynecologist is discriminatory. > > "We've had maybe four women apply to any of our casting or esports programs ever, but as soon as we advertised that one would be women only, we got over 400 in one hit. Because in that moment they knew they wouldn't be excluded." @chhopsky on Twitter > > It's blatantly obvious that the most effective way to encourage women/NBs to work in the games industry is to create programs that only they are eligible for. If you have a problem with that, what you're actually saying is that you're only willing to support them when it's convenient and useful for you. > > And that's fucking disrespectful. > > Seriously. > > We have actual data. We can turn this into a math problem. > > Women/NBs who apply when everyone is welcome **= 4 ** > Women/NBs who apply when everyone is welcome, when Riot announces that "Women and NBs are encouraged to join us!" **= X** > Women/NBs who apply when only women/NBs are welcome **= 400** > > I think we can agree that X will never be more than 400. So how big does the difference between 400 and X have to be for you to think it's fair to exclude men? Huh? > > 0 > > That's the fucking answer. > > If you got something else...what you're saying is that it's acceptable that someone felt they shouldn't apply because they'd be overlooked on account of their gender. Because that's precisely why there's such a massive difference between the 4 who applied when everyone was welcome and the 400 who applied whenever only women/NBs were welcome. That's the only thing to change. > > There are five men who play League for every one woman who does. Any man who chooses not to apply because of this instance of 'sexism' isn't the sort of person who deserves the job in the first place. After being informed that they didn't get the job, men don't have to worry that maybe they were rejected because of their gender. > > The larger volume of women/NBs applying does nothing to stop the bias that will likely cause them to be overlooked after their interview, if those same biases even let them get that far. It does nothing to stop the bias that runs rampant in the industry which will likely cause them to quit or end up mashed against the glass ceiling. > > Again, if you have a problem with Riot's decision to make the panel women/NB exclusive, what you're actually saying is that you're only willing to support them when it's convenient and useful for you. > > Riot's relative silence is actually damning. If they were to deny the allegations and it were to be discovered that they were aware that such things were happening, but did not fire or reprimand the employee(s) in question...they are liable not only for that, but also for covering it up. This is especially true if things continued to escalate after Riot was made aware of the situation. Obviously, if they were to admit the allegations were true they'd be accepting liability. You know how they mentioned consulting a lawyer or two? The ones they're working with are known for union busting and being anti-employee. Quite frankly? Riot's trying to avoid getting sued, because they damn well know they could be...and that they'd lose if it happened. > > The reason that the definition of sexism refers only to the institutionalized oppression of women and non-men...is because that's the way it has always existed historically. It saves a lot of time in academic fields not having to tack on asterisks clarifying that a given assertion doesn't apply to men. It also serves as a reminder just how one-sided things are and how long it has been that way. > > That's it. It's that fucking simple. It's not a grand conspiracy theory. It doesn't ignore that men can be unfairly discriminated against in some contexts. It doesn't try to! _It just doesn't call it sexism._ It calls it prejudice or discrimination. You already acknowledge that it isn't fair to compare the PAX panel to what women go through. You know a good way to do that without having to point that out? Don't call it sexism! > > That entire 'debate' is just y'all being too fucking stubborn to accept the academic definition because one or more of the following: > > 1. You don't actually understand WHAT the academic definition is. > 2. You don't actually understand WHY the academic definition is what it is. > 3. You think that it's fair to compare the 'sexism' that men experience to what women experience. > 4. You think that it's part of some kind of misandrist conspiracy theory. > 5. You're being deliberately obtuse. > > Those things are all caused by ignorance, willful or otherwise. > > _**Look, if your stance can be easily co-opted by literal nazis and bigots that deny sexism even exists...there's probably a fucking problem with your stance!**_ Two major problems with your post that lead me to dismiss 2/3 of your arguments. First: You decree that the game development industry is hostile to women. First off, you need to outright prove that. You need to prove that virtually every company in game development has somehow had problems with sexism against women. THAT is what makes an industry hostile to women, not "oh, there's 4 men for every woman in the field." Do you want to know why that's the difference? Because that means women are actively harassed no matter where they go within the field. And yes, I stand by "you need to prove it" because I haven't seen jack proving that women are actively unwelcomed. Second: You deliberately insist on the "academic definition" of sexism. Anytime you show preference for females or males, you are being sexist. And, basic law of physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This applies to sexism and racism. For every preferential treatment you give, there's a negative treatment you give. But what separates sexism/racism from physics is that the scale between positive/negative isn't always one for one. This is because unlike physics, sexism and racism isn't stuck in a vacuum. Do not give me this bullshit on "institutionalized is the only true form" because then it's not racism for some white man to go "get off my lawn (insert the N word)". And if you're going to disagree with my statement/example, then you're only proving my point that you're a hypocrite. You don't get to change definitions when you want to make yourself look good. You stick to one definition or you're a hypocritical idiot.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=000500000000000000010000,timestamp=2018-09-11T09:59:13.739+0000) > > Two major problems with your post that lead me to dismiss 2/3 of your arguments. > > First: You decree that the game development industry is hostile to women. > > First off, you need to outright prove that. You need to prove that virtually every company in game development has somehow had problems with sexism against women. THAT is what makes an industry hostile to women, not "oh, there's 4 men for every woman in the field." Do you want to know why that's the difference? Because that means women are actively harassed no matter where they go within the field. And yes, I stand by "you need to prove it" because I haven't seen jack proving that women are actively unwelcomed. ...Except the testimony of like...dozens of female developers? Look, if you want common knowledge spoon fed to you and proved, you're asking the wrong person. Do your own damn research. I'm not fucking Google. It's literally not my damn job to educate your ignorant ass. Either way, this panel was held by Riot which was outed as sexist in the Kotaku article. Even if the industry wasn't sexist, the relevant party in this case most certainly is. > Second: You deliberately insist on the "academic definition" of sexism. Yup. I know, it's strange, right? People with an education actually use it, the blasphemy! How dare we show solidarity with women by acknowledging that we understand their experiences!? > Anytime you show preference for females or males, you are being sexist. And, basic law of physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This applies to sexism and racism. For every preferential treatment you give, there's a negative treatment you give. But what separates sexism/racism from physics is that the scale between positive/negative isn't always one for one. This is because unlike physics, sexism and racism isn't stuck in a vacuum. LMAO Yeah, that's physics. I'm not really sure where you got that hilarious notion from. Equality isn't zero sum. > Do not give me this bullshit on "institutionalized is the only true form" because then it's not racism for some white man to go "get off my lawn (insert the N word)". And if you're going to disagree with my statement/example, then you're only proving my point that you're a hypocrite. You don't get to change definitions when you want to make yourself look good. You stick to one definition or you're a hypocritical idiot. I don't think you actually understand what's being talked about. That's...still an example of systemic oppression. I...don't think you understand the word systemic. That's really the only thing you've proved.
: > [{quoted}](name=DotEleven,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2018-09-10T23:32:25.052+0000) > > Well the thing is, the Kotaku article provided no hard evidence. Everything was "unnamed his, unnamed that." from Kotaku of all places which from just looking at the DZK piece they did you can see how biased they are. I’m willing to acknowledge that they are known for being incredibly far left leaning - to the point where I’m skepitcal. However, Riot did not deny these allegations and simply played along the classical lines of “here at corporation X, we are against these behaviors and condemn them and will do everything in our power to address it.” See, all things being equal, Riot has a ton of resources to smash an organization like Kotaku and yet they didn’t, even when Kotaku refused to release the evidence. As riot has also initiated PR stunts to make themselves look more “progressive,” this indicates to me that a large majority of these allegations are true. >But it's not just about the outrage but about the people willing to defend what the outrage is about. After women started stepping forward how many people were like "that's not sexist." Meanwhile you have a dictionary definition of sexism in this event and you STILL have people defending it saying "you can't be sexist against men." The only people who will defend against verified sexism against women are assholes, but you have tons of good people who wholeheartedly believe that you can't discriminate against men. Just look how divisive this was. Crazy far left libs say that kind of stuff. They are the minority but the vocal minority. All of the sane folks like myself acknowledge in a heartbeat that men can be victims of sexism (look at custody cases and the disproportionate amount of women awarded custody). Nevertheless, it’s inportant for people to dismiss and move on from crazy, not breath life into it by fueling it. That’s why this board ran wild for the last two weeks about this while not even realizing or acknowledging the real problem in the first place. And dot, I don’t know you but we’ve been around here for a long time. I know you’re a smart dude and I know you aren’t a bigot. But you also don’t post things along the lines of “sjw feminazis mad that they aren’t actually oppressed, etc.” And I’ve seen a TON of that garbage here and on other boards get modded out. That’s why I felt the need for this thread and that’s why I think it’s important to keep my points in mind. We can have a civilized discussion against male sexism, but what has taken place on boards over the last two weeks has been hyperbole and in many cases, agenda pushing: something those same pepeople accused feminists of in the first place. Let’s leave it with this: Riot has some soul searching. They’ve had a bad culture, a frat-boy like culture apparently. And when they got called out, they knee-jerked and went the complete opposite direction and ended up catering to sexism against males in an attempt to make up for what did wrong. Both are wrong, the former was worse than the ladder but clearly they’ve got some problems.
> [{quoted}](name=HateDaddy,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2018-09-10T22:29:37.003+0000) > > I don’t really care honestly. And let me be clear, I’m not saying what Riot did was right. It was wrong. It was sexist. They need to answer for that, too. However, let’s be real and call this what it is: the anti-SJW crowd hijacked this issue and made it about themselves. And that’s wrong, too. We can acknowledge that sexism took place both ways but let’s not pretend it’s even close to being the same in terms of severity of mistreatment. Because it’s not. The panel was for women/NBs and DIRECTLY RELATED to their careers and inclusion in a field HOSTILE to women/NBs. That's not discriminatory any more than a gynecologist is discriminatory. "We've had maybe four women apply to any of our casting or esports programs ever, but as soon as we advertised that one would be women only, we got over 400 in one hit. Because in that moment they knew they wouldn't be excluded." @chhopsky on Twitter It's blatantly obvious that the most effective way to encourage women/NBs to work in the games industry is to create programs that only they are eligible for. If you have a problem with that, what you're actually saying is that you're only willing to support them when it's convenient and useful for you. And that's fucking disrespectful. Seriously. We have actual data. We can turn this into a math problem. Women/NBs who apply when everyone is welcome **= 4 ** Women/NBs who apply when everyone is welcome, when Riot announces that "Women and NBs are encouraged to join us!" **= X** Women/NBs who apply when only women/NBs are welcome **= 400** I think we can agree that X will never be more than 400. So how big does the difference between 400 and X have to be for you to think it's fair to exclude men? Huh? 0 That's the fucking answer. If you got something else...what you're saying is that it's acceptable that someone felt they shouldn't apply because they'd be overlooked on account of their gender. Because that's precisely why there's such a massive difference between the 4 who applied when everyone was welcome and the 400 who applied whenever only women/NBs were welcome. That's the only thing to change. There are five men who play League for every one woman who does. Any man who chooses not to apply because of this instance of 'sexism' isn't the sort of person who deserves the job in the first place. After being informed that they didn't get the job, men don't have to worry that maybe they were rejected because of their gender. The larger volume of women/NBs applying does nothing to stop the bias that will likely cause them to be overlooked after their interview, if those same biases even let them get that far. It does nothing to stop the bias that runs rampant in the industry which will likely cause them to quit or end up mashed against the glass ceiling. Again, if you have a problem with Riot's decision to make the panel women/NB exclusive, what you're actually saying is that you're only willing to support them when it's convenient and useful for you. > [{quoted}](name=HateDaddy,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZT2M0T5,comment-id=0005000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-10T23:50:41.534+0000) > >this indicates to me that a large majority of these allegations are true. Riot's relative silence is actually damning. If they were to deny the allegations and it were to be discovered that they were aware that such things were happening, but did not fire or reprimand the employee(s) in question...they are liable not only for that, but also for covering it up. This is especially true if things continued to escalate after Riot was made aware of the situation. Obviously, if they were to admit the allegations were true they'd be accepting liability. You know how they mentioned consulting a lawyer or two? The ones they're working with are known for union busting and being anti-employee. Quite frankly? Riot's trying to avoid getting sued, because they damn well know they could be...and that they'd lose if it happened. > Crazy far left libs say that kind of stuff. They are the minority but the vocal minority. All of the sane folks like myself acknowledge in a heartbeat that men can be victims of sexism (look at custody cases and the disproportionate amount of women awarded custody). The reason that the definition of sexism refers only to the institutionalized oppression of women and non-men...is because that's the way it has always existed historically. It saves a lot of time in academic fields not having to tack on asterisks clarifying that a given assertion doesn't apply to men. It also serves as a reminder just how one-sided things are and how long it has been that way. That's it. It's that fucking simple. It's not a grand conspiracy theory. It doesn't ignore that men can be unfairly discriminated against in some contexts. It doesn't try to! _It just doesn't call it sexism._ It calls it prejudice or discrimination. You already acknowledge that it isn't fair to compare the PAX panel to what women go through. You know a good way to do that without having to point that out? Don't call it sexism! That entire 'debate' is just y'all being too fucking stubborn to accept the academic definition because one or more of the following: 1. You don't actually understand WHAT the academic definition is. 2. You don't actually understand WHY the academic definition is what it is. 3. You think that it's fair to compare the 'sexism' that men experience to what women experience. 4. You think that it's part of some kind of misandrist conspiracy theory. 5. You're being deliberately obtuse. Those things are all caused by ignorance, willful or otherwise. >But you also don’t post things along the lines of “sjw feminazis mad that they aren’t actually oppressed, etc.” And I’ve seen a TON of that garbage here and on other boards get modded out. _**Look, if your stance can be easily co-opted by literal nazis and bigots that deny sexism even exists...there's probably a fucking problem with your stance!**_
Bârd (NA)
: So if Nexus Blitz is being considered for a permanent game mode, why not Dominion?
> [{quoted}](name=Bârd,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=036Jwa86,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-09-10T05:18:20.115+0000) > > Honestly, if you guys had put **half** the effort into saving Dominion that you put into making Nexus Blitz into what it is, **we'd still have Dominion**. > > The mode was fun and had tons of potential, and it would have probably retained a decent player base if you hadn't abandoned it entirely. The first two years I played League I spent the vast majority of my time in Dominion or the old Twisted Treeline. The reason I quit playing Dominion was because there were too many bots and balance changes never came.
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ogtY6I7v,comment-id=0009000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-09T20:42:50.028+0000) > > The reason why I brought up the previous is to highlight that unless an area is made specifically for women, they often do not feel like they belong. **What is neutral for you is often masculine to them.** > What kind of asinine argument is this? Who the fuck cares? Just because they don't **want** to do it doesn't mean that you should fuck over other groups in an attempt to make something more appealing to a group it doesn't appeal to. If they want to join they're welcome, but fuck off with this "toxic masculinity" shit. Honestly you don't even make anything resembling a decent argument. Just the same bullshit talking points SJW's and their white knights pander and throw around like monkeys and their own shit.
> [{quoted}](name=Theorchero,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ogtY6I7v,comment-id=00090000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-10T07:27:25.462+0000) > > What kind of asinine argument is this? Who the fuck cares? > > Just because they don't **want** to do it doesn't mean that you should fuck over other groups in an attempt to make something more appealing to a group it doesn't appeal to. If they want to join they're welcome, but fuck off with this "toxic masculinity" shit. How droll. You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with 'it doesn't appeal to them'. It's that it _does_ appeal to them, and _they don't feel welcome_. That's also without looking at the ways men often treat women in gaming spaces...which is really horrible. See: Kotaku article that led to Riot's public apology. > Honestly you don't even make anything resembling a decent argument. Just the same bullshit talking points SJW's and their white knights pander and throw around like monkeys and their own shit. LMAO Yes, you're a bastion of reason with points like...'Who the fuck cares?' > [{quoted}](name=TeCoolMage,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ogtY6I7v,comment-id=0009000000000001,timestamp=2018-09-10T06:56:17.334+0000) > > People who identify as males but still have working ovaries and all should have the right to visit a gynecologist. > Those visiting for advice regarding their daughters as well yeah, but he's not trans also a lot of trans people hate 'identify as X' just call them men or women
nGio (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=NRsaEyys,comment-id=000000000002000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-10T02:58:44.236+0000) > > http://wondermark.com/c/2014-09-19-1062sea.png > > http://wondermark.com/c/2014-09-19-1062sea.png > > I mean, you can also just look at your own behavior critically and be willing to admit when you're called out for being racist and do better...or you just throw a fit about how being called a racist is so much worse than being the victim of racism that works too iguess rofl > > lol > > white fragility is real > > i mean last i checked the highest suicide rate was in like sri lanka which i'm pretty certain isn't white but but you know > > k > > LOLOLOLno > > i mean mb not be a bigot like yes there's such a thing as being responsible for your bad takes > > getting pulled over once =/= harassed by the police lmao gtfo > > yeah being suicidal sucks and you should seek help for that but like you're also not special for those things > > like i'm white and it doesn't bother me 'cause i don't need to be the center of the universe other people have it far worse in pretty much every other way > > lmao like no??? you control your actions just don't be racist the fuck > > there's no such thing as race baiting hello what in the actual fuck does this mean > > i mean the world's been progressing away from your hogwash ideals sooo kthen bye I guess that I left you nowhere to go, because this is just sad. All of your SJW rhetoric and talking points completely crushed out, and you're left with a bunch of "lol" sprinkled with some more hypotheticals. Your biggest downfall was burning your race card too soon. You're supposed have your opinions crushed with fact and THEN race card me. I guess it's time to hit up your college professor for some more ammunition kiddo. Seriously, don't go out like this. Get some more material and come back.
> [{quoted}](name=nGio,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=NRsaEyys,comment-id=0000000000020000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-10T03:58:19.758+0000) > > I guess that I left you nowhere to go, because this is just sad. All of your SJW rhetoric and talking points completely crushed out, and you're left with a bunch of "lol" sprinkled with some more hypotheticals. Your biggest downfall was burning your race card too soon. You're supposed have your opinions crushed with fact and THEN race card me. I guess it's time to hit up your college professor for some more ammunition kiddo. Seriously, don't go out like this. Get some more material and come back. no it's not that i don't have more i could say, it's that either you're so ignorant you literally wouldn't understand me or that you're deliberately acting in bad faith (or both)
nGio (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=NRsaEyys,comment-id=0000000000020000,timestamp=2018-09-09T04:31:07.836+0000) > > MLK advocated for the same things that "SJW:s do. He realized that to achieve equality those who have benefited from oppression must pay reparations. Some examples are safe spaces, financial restitution, affirmative action programs, historical monuments, and public education. > > **He explicitly endorsed that.** > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NNvzVCVhIM No one is arguing that 'everyone has always been treated great'. MLK was fighting for injustice in a time injustice. Who has benefited from the oppression? Do you have a list of names? Does it include immigrants new to this country, and minorities as well, or is it just blanket political rhetoric racism of 'all white people get cool toys that no one else does'? > > In that video, you can hear him criticize the government for offering land and subsidies to white farmers, whose descendants still benefit from those things, when they will not do the same for the descendants of the slaves who tended those very same farms. What about descendants of the Chinese, Irish, Russian, and every other place on the globe who were treated as livestock building this country? What about the white slaves? What about the descendants of the whites who fought and died to end slavery? What about the children of whites killed by blacks, and the children of women who were slain by men? The list would be fucking endless if you were to compensate every human being on this planet who had a descendant wronged by someone else's descendant. Seriously, what a crock of shit. > > There's more to being a bigot than identifying as one. Many people think they would never do such a thing, but still do so without realizing it. If the only people to discriminate were those who intended to, it would be far less of a problem than it is. So EVERYONE white is a racist now? You either admit you're racist, or you are labeled as a closet racist. There isn't a single decent white human being on the planet by your standards. Racism exists today because you force it down the throats of everyone, starting at childhood. > > The ignorant ideologies of days long past still affect many of us to this very day. > > If the past no longer affects the present, as you have previously asserted, why would this matter? > > _Answer: Because you're trying to deny the privilege you know you have._ > > There's no other reason to note that your ancestors were treated unfairly, but insist that minorities aren't affected by what happened to theirs. You're talking in circles here bud. I already said that other peoples' ancestors were treated unfairly, like mine were. > Wealth is a privilege. It is far from the only privilege. It's the only tangible one that isn't created by fear mongering. Do you think that my son has more 'privilege', opportunity, and his quality of life will be better than Will Smith's son, because my son is white? This is pure incompetence. > > If you are not black you do not and will not ever fear the police the way many blacks do. **That is privilege.** > > If you are not a Muslim you do not and will not be stopped at airports the way many Muslims are. **That is privilege. ** > > If you are not a woman you do not and will not fear being groped by your boss the way many women do. **That is privilege.** > > If you are not gay or a lesbian you do not and will not fear being unjustly fired from your job the way that many gays and lesbians do. **That is privilege. > ** > > If you are not trans or non-binary you do not and will not fear being denied life-saving medical care the way that many trans and non-binary people do. **That is privilege.** If you are not a white male you do not and will not know the pressures that give to deep depression that leads to the highest suicide rate on planet earth, like white males do. **That is privilege.** Unlike half of your examples, mine is a fact. I'm sure that you'll find some way to tell me that white male suicide is tied into having so much privilege and big houses and yachts everywhere, that they kill themselves of boredom. You know what most of your examples have in common? They're excuses. If I get fired for my beliefs or my lifestyles, it's "shut up you're white". If I get pulled over and harassed by a cop, again "shut up you're white". If I have a shitty day at work, or I'm contemplating suicide, "shut up you're white". Imagine being beaten down with this shit morning til night for your entire life. At some point, you're going to rubber band, and that's what the race baiters are banking on. You want to beat people into submission with decades of rhetoric, then say "see, he's mad now, told you he was a racist". People just aren't buying this shit anymore, and the SJW army will eventually have to turn on each other when everyone stops listening to you cry.
> [{quoted}](name=nGio,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=NRsaEyys,comment-id=00000000000200000000,timestamp=2018-09-10T02:17:48.658+0000) > > No one is arguing that 'everyone has always been treated great'. MLK was fighting for injustice in a time injustice. Who has benefited from the oppression? Do you have a list of names? Does it include immigrants new to this country, and minorities as well, or is it just blanket political rhetoric racism of 'all white people get cool toys that no one else does'? http://wondermark.com/c/2014-09-19-1062sea.png > What about descendants of the Chinese, Irish, Russian, and every other place on the globe who were treated as livestock building this country? What about the white slaves? What about the descendants of the whites who fought and died to end slavery? What about the children of whites killed by blacks, and the children of women who were slain by men? The list would be fucking endless if you were to compensate every human being on this planet who had a descendant wronged by someone else's descendant. Seriously, what a crock of shit. http://wondermark.com/c/2014-09-19-1062sea.png > So EVERYONE white is a racist now? You either admit you're racist, or you are labeled as a closet racist. There isn't a single decent white human being on the planet by your standards. Racism exists today because you force it down the throats of everyone, starting at childhood. I mean, you can also just look at your own behavior critically and be willing to admit when you're called out for being racist and do better...or you just throw a fit about how being called a racist is so much worse than being the victim of racism that works too iguess rofl > You're talking in circles here bud. I already said that other peoples' ancestors were treated unfairly, like mine were. lol > It's the only tangible one that isn't created by fear mongering. Do you think that my son has more 'privilege', opportunity, and his quality of life will be better than Will Smith's son, because my son is white? This is pure incompetence. white fragility is real > If you are not a white male you do not and will not know the pressures that give to deep depression that leads to the highest suicide rate on planet earth, like white males do. **That is privilege.** i mean last i checked the highest suicide rate was in like sri lanka which i'm pretty certain isn't white but but you know > Unlike half of your examples, mine is a fact. I'm sure that you'll find some way to tell me that white male suicide is tied into having so much privilege and big houses and yachts everywhere, that they kill themselves of boredom. k > You know what most of your examples have in common? They're excuses. LOLOLOLno >If I get fired for my beliefs or my lifestyles, it's "shut up you're white". i mean mb not be a bigot like yes there's such a thing as being responsible for your bad takes >If I get pulled over and harassed by a cop, again "shut up you're white". getting pulled over once =/= harassed by the police lmao gtfo >If I have a shitty day at work, or I'm contemplating suicide, "shut up you're white". Imagine being beaten down with this shit morning til night for your entire life. yeah being suicidal sucks and you should seek help for that but like you're also not special for those things like i'm white and it doesn't bother me 'cause i don't need to be the center of the universe other people have it far worse in pretty much every other way >At some point, you're going to rubber band, and that's what the race baiters are banking on. You want to beat people into submission with decades of rhetoric, then say "see, he's mad now, told you he was a racist". lmao like no??? you control your actions just don't be racist the fuck there's no such thing as race baiting hello what in the actual fuck does this mean >People just aren't buying this shit anymore, and the SJW army will eventually have to turn on each other when everyone stops listening to you cry. i mean the world's been progressing away from your hogwash ideals sooo kthen bye
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ogtY6I7v,comment-id=00090000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-09T17:23:05.086+0000) > > You can't decide a [red alligator] is not both red and an alligator merely because [red] and [alligator] are independent concepts. You can conceive of a panel on [game development] separately from a [panel for women/NBs], but the the panel that was actually held was on _[game development for women/NBs]_. > > _Could_ it have been for you? Yes, conceivably. _It still was not, and it never was._ > > You can't be banned from a panel that is conceivable but never actually existed. The panel was literally on something anyone would be interested. It was a panel on game development. The only thing marketing it for women was the fact it banned men. Let's put another real world spin on this. Toys are marketed for gender, but it's available for anyone. Action figures are particularly marketed towards boys but it's not like there's not a giant sign saying "Girls cannot buy this toy." The same for Barbie dolls marketed towards girls. If a boy really wants one, he can buy one. Literally the only thing that made this a panel for women was the fact they banned men.
> [{quoted}](name=DotEleven,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ogtY6I7v,comment-id=000900000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-09T18:37:47.914+0000) >Let's put another real world spin on this. Toys are marketed for gender, but it's available for anyone. Action figures are particularly marketed towards boys but it's not like there's not a giant sign saying "Girls cannot buy this toy." The same for Barbie dolls marketed towards girls. If a boy really wants one, he can buy one. If you walk through the toy aisles in Walmart you should immediately notice just how uniformly pink the girls' section is. The other aisles are not like this. There are far more colors represented. Gender neutral toys are rarely pink, and masculine toys are never pink. Girls are taught that they own everything in that one color. Boys are taught that they can own everything that is NOT in that one color. You know as well as I do that 'technically all toys are for everyone' doesn't matter. Children internalize what they're told about gender at a young age. > The panel was literally on something anyone would be interested. It was a panel on game development. The only thing marketing it for women was the fact it banned men. The reason why I brought up the previous is to highlight that unless an area is made specifically for women, they often do not feel like they belong. What is neutral for you is often masculine to them. There are a lot of really subtle things which can have a huge effect on how we react. For example, many teachers receive far more questions from their students when they ask "What are you questions?" as opposed to "Do you have any questions?"
Myrmiron (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GlyL5EMG,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2018-09-09T13:05:40.805+0000) > > Last I checked the series wasn't set in Europe, and there's never anything wrong with encouraging representation. Ciri isn't just some fucking rando you can make black without any consequences, both her parents as well as her grandparent which raised her were white.
> [{quoted}](name=Myrmiron,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GlyL5EMG,comment-id=00090001,timestamp=2018-09-09T13:12:27.852+0000) > > Ciri isn't just some fucking rando you can make black without any consequences, both her parents as well as her grandparent which raised her were white. You can honestly do this pretty easily. > [{quoted}](name=Tharizdûn,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GlyL5EMG,comment-id=00090000,timestamp=2018-09-09T13:10:59.107+0000) > > I'm assuming that you haven't read the books since you're making such a statement. Ciri is described as white-skinned and explained as carrying the genes of elven sorceress Lara Dorren within her. Besides Ciri's biological parents, the Aen Elle (elves) are also pale-skinned. We've put white actors in positions they have no business being in for decades. It's not that big of a deal to do the reverse. The context is entirely different. I'm sure that there are a lot of people of color who would enjoy seeing a Ciri that looks like them. A lot of minorities imagine charterers that appear in books in ways that are nothing like what they are actually described as. There are a lot of PoC who cosplay as characters who are not the same race as they are, and they often face a lot of scrutiny for it. Regardless of who they choose to cast, what really matters is whether or not she does a good job at playing the role. If they chose a BAME actress, that's great! If they choose a white actress, that's fine, too! I'm sure the writers are perfectly capable of bridging the differences between the source material and the actress' appearance.
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ogtY6I7v,comment-id=000900000000,timestamp=2018-09-09T12:58:09.589+0000) > > Are you going to demand an appointment with a gynecologist, too? I have literally 0 use for a gynecologist. I absolutely could use insider perspective on game development.
> [{quoted}](name=DotEleven,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ogtY6I7v,comment-id=0009000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-09T13:54:18.265+0000) > > I have literally 0 use for a gynecologist. I absolutely could use insider perspective on game development. You can't decide a [red alligator] is not both red and an alligator merely because [red] and [alligator] are independent concepts. You can conceive of a panel on [game development] separately from a [panel for women/NBs], but the the panel that was actually held was on _[game development for women/NBs]_. _Could_ it have been for you? Yes, conceivably. _It still was not, and it never was._ You can't be banned from a panel that is conceivable but never actually existed.
Myrmiron (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GlyL5EMG,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2018-09-09T13:05:40.805+0000) > > Last I checked the series wasn't set in Europe, and there's never anything wrong with encouraging representation. Ciri isn't just some fucking rando you can make black without any consequences, both her parents as well as her grandparent which raised her were white.
> [{quoted}](name=Myrmiron,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GlyL5EMG,comment-id=00090001,timestamp=2018-09-09T13:12:27.852+0000) > > Ciri isn't just some fucking rando you can make black without any consequences, both her parents as well as her grandparent which raised her were white. You totally can, actually. It's really not that hard to deal with. There's no reason to think that fantasy universes have the same races or ideas about race that we do. > [{quoted}](name=Tharizdûn,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GlyL5EMG,comment-id=00090000,timestamp=2018-09-09T13:10:59.107+0000) > > Then let me just make a TV series based on Hinduism and make Vishnu Chinese. I'm sure there won't be any problems if it's a fictional world and for the sake of represenation, right? There's a pretty big difference between a mundane human character and a revered god. There's a pretty big difference between Ciri, who is, more or less, an entirely fictional character, and Vishnu, who is a god of a major religion. There's a pretty big difference between a religion still widely practiced today and...Norse/various other European mythologies which are not so much. There's also a pretty big difference between giving a white role to a black actor and giving an Indian role to a Chinese actor...you know what with hundreds of years of racism and colonialism and cultural appropriation and all. The fact that you ask that question whilst deliberately ignoring all of those things is pretty indicative of your acting in bad faith. That said, if you did manage to create your own cohesive world respectfully based upon, but very clearly distinct and distant from, Hinduism...and acknowledged the source of your inspiration with the requisite level of tact, dignity, and compensation...You probably_ could_, though I can't fathom any argument strong enough to make the case that you _should_. An Indian actor would still probably be best.
Pale Mask (EUW)
: So, Netflix is supposedly going to cast a non-white actress as Ciri for their Witcher show
> [{quoted}](name=Tharizdûn,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GlyL5EMG,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-09-09T12:13:11.861+0000) > > https://i.imgur.com/V5svMW9.png > > ???? > > What? > > Really? Why? What is the point of this? Do we really need #diversity in a purely European fantasy series that already heavily deals with racism, prejudice, ancestry and discrimination? Cirilla is even described as having an ashen white complexion, and she's supposed to look similar to Geralt. > > This is just a rumor, but I don't expect anything better from Netflix, so this is legitimately triggering me. Last I checked the series wasn't set in Europe, and there's never anything wrong with encouraging representation.
: > [{quoted}](name=Noor Sakata,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ogtY6I7v,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2018-09-09T12:41:19.288+0000) > > Why do you keep opening the case again ? for the love of god why don't you forget about it already and move on? > I'm honestly sick about those threads everywhere. Because if Riot won't admit that it was the wrong thing to do there's no problem with them doing it again and again. No one should be banned from joining an event due to their natural state of being.
> [{quoted}](name=DotEleven,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ogtY6I7v,comment-id=00090000,timestamp=2018-09-09T12:43:13.173+0000) > > Because if Riot won't admit that it was the wrong thing to do there's no problem with them doing it again and again. No one should be banned from joining an event due to their natural state of being. Are you going to demand an appointment with a gynecologist, too?
nGio (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=NRsaEyys,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-09-08T01:34:52.429+0000) > > Where do these takes come from? MLK was a radical leftist. You'd place him in the "SJW" camp if he were still alive today. Umm no. MLK was for equality, not turning racism on it's fucking head. I am in my 30's, and I have never treated a single person on this planet like shit because of their race/sex/religion/etc. I also won't get on my knees or bend over backwards apologizing for some shit that one guy did to another guy. I don't care that some hateful turds that aren't alive anymore were shitty to a group of others that aren't alive anymore. It has absolutely nothing to do with me or with you. And before you drop the talking point rhetoric about how great MY ancestors had it, they came here from Italy and Ireland, and worked as slaves building this country's infrastructure, where most of them died to heart attacks in their 40's so that we could all have the awesome lives we get to live in this modern era. A lot of people suffered for us to get here, but instead of embracing it and enjoying each day as a gift, the nutjobs want to keep bitching about how certain groups couldn't have nice things in a different time. The only 'privilege' in modern society is wealth. The ones with the wealth are smarter than us though, and they keep us at war with each other, so we can't focus on the wealth privilege that keeps us of all ethnicities and genders running on a fucking hamster wheel.
> [{quoted}](name=nGio,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=NRsaEyys,comment-id=000000000002,timestamp=2018-09-09T02:25:45.285+0000) > > Umm no. MLK was for equality, not turning racism on it's fucking head. MLK advocated for the same things that "SJW:s do. He realized that to achieve equality those who have benefited from oppression must pay reparations. Some examples are safe spaces, financial restitution, affirmative action programs, historical monuments, and public education. **He explicitly endorsed that.** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NNvzVCVhIM In that video, you can hear him criticize the government for offering land and subsidies to white farmers, whose descendants still benefit from those things, when they will not do the same for the descendants of the slaves who tended those very same farms. >I am in my 30's, and I have never treated a single person on this planet like shit because of their race/sex/religion/etc. I also won't get on my knees or bend over backwards apologizing for some shit that one guy did to another guy. There's more to being a bigot than identifying as one. Many people think they would never do such a thing, but still do so without realizing it. If the only people to discriminate were those who intended to, it would be far less of a problem than it is. > I don't care that some hateful turds that aren't alive anymore were shitty to a group of others that aren't alive anymore. It has absolutely nothing to do with me or with you. The ignorant ideologies of days long past still affect many of us to this very day. >And before you drop the talking point rhetoric about how great MY ancestors had it, they came here from Italy and Ireland If the past no longer affects the present, as you have previously asserted, why would this matter? _Answer: Because you're trying to deny the privilege you know you have._ There's no other reason to note that your ancestors were treated unfairly, but insist that minorities aren't affected by what happened to theirs. > A lot of people suffered for us to get here, but instead of embracing it and enjoying each day as a gift, the nutjobs want to keep bitching about how certain groups couldn't have nice things in a different time. "Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation." - _Letter from a Birmingham Jail_ - **Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.** _It does not matter how long it has been. We still have not made up for past wrongs. We cannot achieve justice until we do so._ > The only 'privilege' in modern society is wealth. The ones with the wealth are smarter than us though, and they keep us at war with each other, so we can't focus on the wealth privilege that keeps us of all ethnicities and genders running on a fucking hamster wheel. Wealth is a privilege. It is far from the only privilege. If you are not black you do not and will not ever fear the police the way many blacks do. **That is privilege.** If you are not a Muslim you do not and will not be stopped at airports the way many Muslims are. **That is privilege. ** If you are not a woman you do not and will not fear being groped by your boss the way many women do. **That is privilege.** If you are not gay or a lesbian you do not and will not fear being unjustly fired from your job the way that many gays and lesbians do. **That is privilege. ** If you are not trans or non-binary you do not and will not fear being denied life-saving medical care the way that many trans and non-binary people do. **That is privilege.**
IainG10 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=NRsaEyys,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-09-08T01:34:52.429+0000) > > Where do these takes come from? MLK was a radical leftist. You'd place him in the "SJW" camp if he were still alive today. No, we wouldn't, because his message was 'stop segregating the black man because we're all the same under the skin', not a completely unironic 'it's time to rise up and overthrow the white man!' His was a message born of love rather than hate, and ultimately that is where the difference between a sane person and an SJW comes in. MLK never called for 'quotas' or 'safe spaces' or, as far as I'm aware (long before he came around the UK had stopped segregation based on race, so we get little about him over here) anything that would disadvantage the everyday working man/woman/other. You want a good example of the difference between an activist and an SJW, go watch Black Panther, and look at the difference between T'Chala and Killmonger at the end of the film (after T'Chala has his epiphany in the ice).
> [{quoted}](name=IainG10,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=NRsaEyys,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-08T10:41:27.623+0000) > > No, we wouldn't, _**Yes. You would!**_ >because his message was 'stop segregating the black man because we're all the same under the skin', not a completely unironic 'it's time to rise up and overthrow the white man!' His was a message born of love rather than hate, and ultimately that is where the difference between a sane person and an SJW comes in. MLK's message was born of justice. Which means doing the right thing...AND...punishing those who have done wrong. >MLK never called for 'quotas' or 'safe spaces' or, as far as I'm aware (long before he came around the UK had stopped segregation based on race, so we get little about him over here) The fuck? He explicitly stated that legal equality wouldn't make up for the massive socioeconomic gap between blacks and whites, and that blacks and other disadvantaged groups/races **deserved compensation**. He most definitely would support quotas and safe spaces. He was a socialist! >anything that would disadvantage the everyday working man/woman/other. This is blatantly false. He was extremely critical of white moderates who favored the absence of conflict over actual justice. He encouraged peaceful protest methods, but that doesn't mean he didn't want to "disadvantage the everyday working". Do you think sit-ins didn't disadvantage the everyday working? What about mass arrests? THE SCLC AND MLK DEFENDED MANY WHO BELIEVED IN ARMED PROTEST AND SELF-DEFENSE, EVEN THOUGH MLK FELT THAT PEACEFUL PROTEST WAS THE BETTER APPROACH! He was inspired by Ghandi! _A man who ALSO favored protest by non-violent means, but who recognized that violence is better than inaction. _
: So one of two problems is "solved" now. Woohoo. Can you see my... "enthusiasm"? The original "issue" persists. And I doubt that there will be a solution to that, to be honest. Whatever you do, excluding anybody based on gender is always a bad idea. For obvious reasons. A lot of people have a wrong sense of fairness, mixed with a bit of egoism, which leads them to a mindset like this: "If I as a man have to get excluded from somewhere, women and non-binary people will have to as well". It's a... less-than-ideal mindset, but it's there for a lot of people still. And this mindset makes exclusion (and, in worst cases, sexism) bounce back and forth forever. People need to get off this mindset. Just to be clear: I'm not defending the execution of the panel here. It was even below sub-optimal. I'm criticizing the people with the explained mindset. Opening up a separate room for men (at the same time) would've been a much better solution in my book (even though still not a very good one at that), although I couldn't trust the whole idea to begin with. Non-Binary people were included, but to be quite honest, I'm not even sure if they maybe even denied access to those if they looked too "male". But that could be just me, of course.
> [{quoted}](name=Kinky Kengúra,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=MAMENhTM,comment-id=000d,timestamp=2018-09-08T01:03:07.502+0000) > Whatever you do, excluding anybody based on gender is always a bad idea. For obvious reasons. _It's not._ If you're marketing a product to women...you ask women what they're interested in. Men's opinion doesn't matter. They're not the one you're trying to sell it to. Asking them is going to waste your time on irrelevant market research. > It's a... less-than-ideal mindset, but it's there for a lot of people still. And this mindset makes exclusion (and, in worst cases, sexism) bounce back and forth forever. People need to get off this mindset. That mindset is directly caused by the 'it's always bad to exclude people' nonsense. Sometimes you need or want to work with one particular group. That's fine! You don't need every single person to chime in on an issue that isn't about them. You're not being unfair. You don't have to take turns doing this! Different people have different needs! Some are more pressing than others!
: We need another civil rights leader like MLK to pop up. Vengeance isn't the path to progress, but every SJW seems to think otherwise for some reason
> [{quoted}](name=SugeMinPikk,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=NRsaEyys,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-09-07T21:02:36.803+0000) > > We need another civil rights leader like MLK to pop up. Vengeance isn't the path to progress, but every SJW seems to think otherwise for some reason Where do these takes come from? MLK was a radical leftist. You'd place him in the "SJW" camp if he were still alive today.
DearPear (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZUjPIiN,comment-id=000800000003000000000000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2018-09-06T13:47:32.809+0000) > > To the death. Gender and sexism have _everything_ to do with what happened. Concerts are public, but that's not an invitation to get up on stage after the first song and immediately open up with, "Allow me to disagree *slightly*". He wasn't asking a question. He was trying to correct her and directly contradict her _professional opinion_. And you are assming his intention because... of what, exactly? Also, your analogy sucks donkey balls, to say the least. At a concert, unless invited to, You are **expected** not to go on stage. Twitter, on the other hand, invites you to react, discuss and share threads. The whole thing started because miss Price felt offended at having a **man** reply to her thread. If the replier was a woman, none of this would have happened. But hell, go on and defend miss Price, despite her own blatant sexism and aggressivity. Whatever floats your ideology and twists reality.
> [{quoted}](name=Octahedron,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZUjPIiN,comment-id=00080000000300000000000000000000000000000001000000000003,timestamp=2018-09-07T13:44:20.901+0000) > > I'm not DearPear but it probably has something to do with no compelling evidence for him being sexist and at least two more explanations that are much more likely to be true (and which he pointed out clearly). You honestly must have very strong ill will to focus on the worst possible scenario and consider it to be true without any scepticism whatsoever. > > EDIT: It is adressed to Yago but Riot's forum directs message to other people, dunno why. She's a professional. If you respect her competence as one, you should trust that she can identify unqualified and disrespectful responses. She's a woman. If you respect her competence as one, you should trust that she can identify sexism. There's nothing to suggest she's not credible. She's not asserting that pigs can fly or that she's found a unicorn. Sexism isn't a rare occurrence. Even if it were, she doesn't gain anything by throwing the claim around flippantly! You should be the one justifying your skepticism. > [{quoted}](name=DearPear,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZUjPIiN,comment-id=00080000000300000000000000000000000000000001000000000004,timestamp=2018-09-07T14:34:51.865+0000) > > Because of the lack of evidence and the amount of assumptions one has to make to come to that conclusion? It's not sexist that a man disagrees with a woman. It's sexist because a man who is NOT a professional disagrees with a woman who IS...on the topic she's THE PROFESSIONAL IN. They didn't just meet, either. He KNOWS he is NOT a professional. He KNOWS she IS. How do you not realize how massively disrespectful that is? They aren't equals! Why does he try and treat her like one!? Just look at his language... He only responds to her directly...once. _And it's in a parenthetical...and challenges her wording._ Both of the compliments he gives are aimed at the thread without any indication that he's even aware who wrote it. He lectures like one of those reporters on the Discovery channel giving a lecture about a lion in the background. Do you two think that it sexism requires intent, or something?
DearPear (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Yago,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZUjPIiN,comment-id=000800000003000000000000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2018-09-06T13:47:32.809+0000) > > To the death. Gender and sexism have _everything_ to do with what happened. Concerts are public, but that's not an invitation to get up on stage after the first song and immediately open up with, "Allow me to disagree *slightly*". He wasn't asking a question. He was trying to correct her and directly contradict her _professional opinion_. And you are assming his intention because... of what, exactly? Also, your analogy sucks donkey balls, to say the least. At a concert, unless invited to, You are **expected** not to go on stage. Twitter, on the other hand, invites you to react, discuss and share threads. The whole thing started because miss Price felt offended at having a **man** reply to her thread. If the replier was a woman, none of this would have happened. But hell, go on and defend miss Price, despite her own blatant sexism and aggressivity. Whatever floats your ideology and twists reality.
> [{quoted}](name=DearPear,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AZUjPIiN,comment-id=00080000000300000000000000000000000000000001000000000001,timestamp=2018-09-07T03:07:15.291+0000) >snip Why are you doubting her claim that he's being sexist?
Show more

Yago

Level 176 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion