: the game is going to die mark my words
> [{quoted}](name=Sleep On Stream,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=mR1HAnPW,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-02-17T01:10:20.121+0000) > > the game is going to die mark my words Everything dies, young child.
GreenKnight (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EKjYY8pa,comment-id=000200000001,timestamp=2019-02-16T13:06:37.648+0000) > > Unless you go into quantum physics and things like the more abstract side of say, semiconductors, otherwise it should be pretty easy to visualise what you're doing in physics. Electronics are really easy to visualize though.
> [{quoted}](name=GreenKnight,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EKjYY8pa,comment-id=0002000000010000,timestamp=2019-02-16T13:09:27.675+0000) > > Electronics are really easy to visualize though. It took me some time to wrap my head around concepts like Fermi level and co, and trying to visualise what happens when you have more than 1 p-n junction. General electronics is alright though, that's why I singled out the "abstract side of semiconductors".
: > [{quoted}](name=GreenKnight,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EKjYY8pa,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-02-16T12:58:02.772+0000) > > I like physics much more than pure math. At least you get to visualize what is it that you are learning during it's courses. I mean that depends on how deep physics you take.
> [{quoted}](name=Timethief49,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EKjYY8pa,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-02-16T13:01:37.442+0000) > > I mean that depends on how deep physics you take. Unless you go into quantum physics and things like the more abstract side of say, semiconductors, otherwise it should be pretty easy to visualise what you're doing in physics.
: Dont take Physics
Make a shrine for Maxwell, Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg, Gauss, etc, and pray to them every day for maximum stat boost for physics.
: The No.1 Reason Why People Don't Main Nautilus is...
Garen used to punch people too (it was more like a slap, actually). That's the best part of the attack animation. And really, using your off-hand to pull a fast one every now and then is totally sound as a tactical choice, or at least for people of normal size against other people of normal sizes. But still, it adds some character, especially in the case of Nautilus who is supposed to be gigantic; it feels like Nautilus is getting in there to personally crush you like a bug.
: Obviously a bug but lets pretend that it was all intended because you guys hate yasuo so much.
> [{quoted}](name=Stars Shaper,realm=EUW,application-id=LqLKtMpN,discussion-id=kMuYQQXH,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2019-02-16T11:06:28.796+0000) > > Obviously a bug but lets pretend that it was all intended because you guys hate yasuo so much. OP said > [{quoted}](name=Hethalean,realm=NA,application-id=LqLKtMpN,discussion-id=kMuYQQXH,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-02-15T22:58:12.636+0000) > Yasuo can move while ulting now. Fun times > Riot's capabilities will never cease to impress me. ** Though I guess expecting a patch without 15 bugs in it is like expecting a star without fusion.**
: Riot Games is starting to become like Bethesda
I will never forgive Bethesda for the fact there is, or at least was, a gamebreaking bug within the first few minutes of the opening SCRIPTED sequence of Skyrim that made the tutorial unable to actually start because Alduin wouldn't land on the god damn tower and do his Fus-Ro-Dah thingy to kickstart the game, and you would be forced to remake a character (well technically you could try reloading the automatic save made at the end of the character creation, but my experience is that reloading it doesn't fix the issue and I had to restart the game completely fresh). That's just a special kind of 'not giving a shit', to release a game with a gamebreaking bug in the opening sequence that's entirely scripted. it's baffling.
Xano501 (NA)
: For making peoples ship Wukong/Ahri more, RIOT should make story of them
: marriage
> i had a dream, a dream to marry leona, that beautiful goddess, OP reminds me of this guy https://store.playstation.com/store/api/chihiro/00_09_000/container/TH/en/999/HP0700-CUSA08526_00-PREMIUMAVATAR005/1539737741000/image?w=240&h=240&bg_color=000000&opacity=100&_version=00_09_000
HàrrowR (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=00000000000000000002000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-14T16:28:52.075+0000) > > No, that study does not prove male and female "biologically" have different interests which leads to different hobbies. > Why dont you just watch the damn documentary before making a 2000 page essay. Its funny how you see what you want to see, the point of the documentary is that in a free and egalitarian country with tons of government backed incentives for woman to go into STEM they mostly opt out of it and choose HR, teaching or a career in medicine, how you managed to turn this around into a cultural thing beats me. I really couldnt be bothered to read all of your comments, "If I would rather anything, I'd rather live in a time of today where say, transgenders are finally recognised (which has ample both scientific and simple social decency reason for their acknowledgement" but this caught my eye. Why do people get so obsessed about transgeder issues when they make up maybe a 0.01% of the population is beyond me, the only reason SJWS like you focus on it so much is cause its linked to gender and sexual orientation, you know, the BASIS OF EVERYTHING in your universe. Maybe, just maybe, you'd be better off arguing for better ways to help and treat people with disabilities, there's blind,deaf,mute,handicaped people in the world and your side of the aisle is busy fighting for gender neutral bathrooms, just piss where you want there's fucking people in a wheelchair that can't go to places cause the damn building doesn't have a proper ramp .
I read about the study you mentioned and made a full assessment of the situation and raised counterarguments. I explained exactly how that came to be, and the very scope as well as conclusion of the research that showcased that phenomenon. Specifically, I conclusively proved that your claim that the researched showed "biological" factors to be entirely false, because the research never went anywhere near that. If we do a simple substitution thought experiment, the kind of argument you're putting up would be similar to if you claim that there is an innate difference between male and female for the former to like eating more meat and the latter more veggies, while attempting to support your claim you use a study that concludes girls in poorer and less egalitarian nations have more appetite for meat (because it's seen as more valuable) than the ones in more egalitarian and richer nations that have easy access to all kinds of food; claiming that it supports your belief that this observed difference ultimately comes down to intrinsic and innate factors and have little or nothing to do with social and cultural elements. Well no, that study does not prove anything innately different between the taste for food between male and female. All it does is showing it exists, and that it can be influenced based on circumstantial outlooks, and never went into explaining the beginning of the universe (in this case, why the difference exists) and focused on how it changes based on different circumstance. You see the drift? Ultimately, that bit with the "biological" was a tangent made by yourself on a research that is only loosely connected due to the mere subject matter involving male and female career choices. And really, as you can see with that analogy, just as it is dumb to say male and female dietary difference is mostly or entirely innate given we know for a fact it's mostly socially driven, it's equally dumb to say career choices between male and female is ultimately intrinsic to one's biological sex. ........ When you defend it and say "tons of government backed incentives" in the richer, more egalitarian nations... No, there isn't. The only real incentive in that setting is if they want to be the "STEM grill" and be worshiped by the mass media, and if they want to use the benefits of affirmative action that reduces systematic sexism but has the perverse effect of strengthening the social sexism because that's just how reactionary politics work. Of course the """"incentive"""" outlined above is absolutely dwarfed in comparison to the one in a poor nations where the incentive is for a chance at a better and more secured life in a shitty ass cut-throat environment. So why are you even wondering why girls, or people in general, in poorer nations have higher incentives to go into STEMs than girls in the richer, economically well-off nations? If I were to make any personal conclusion out of this: It's not that egalitarian nations are actually that much more gender equal in the grand scheme of things ESPECIALLY socially, or that women just has a "biological" thing towards non-STEM whatever. It's ultimately just that because more economically free nations have much more security in any and all career options, girls just couldn't be bothered with challenging the industries traditionally dominated by another sex (any industry traditionally dominated by a single sex is bound to be extremely sexist as a part of their industry culture) due to the lack of necessary incentive requiring them to try and swim up the waterfall; meanwhile those who live in poor nations with most career options lacking any forms of security and prospect, has this incentive to be there in spite of the possibly of being discriminated on the basis of sex, for instance. ........ Not to mention, if you look at any other "government backed incentives" in other industry for a change of pace, you'd quickly realise how bad the argument of bridging it to talk the supposed "biological" factor is in the first place. Let's take a look at another hot topic: Teaching. For many parts of the 'west' (or at least within the American-sphere), there is a big shortage of young teachers in that the amount of young individuals pursuing the career of teaching is now at a historic low. And out of this already sort of alarming situation, the amount of young and male would-be teacher-in-practice is even lower, and almost completely absent in areas of primary schools. Are there government back incentives trying to attract men into the teaching field? Well, there are. There are male-only scholarships and even affirmative action quotas to put a benchmark for male teachers (and funny that you don't hear girls complain about that). The talk is especially real around Australia where I reside, I'd imagine it's about the same in US too given Australia is super Americanised and together shares a few of its social problems. So why is the number of male teachers still so low? Could it be because men are just "biologically" different than women and innately not interested in teaching? Or is it more likely because of the kind of social conditioning we bring the children up with as well as the kind of culture within the teaching industry that is hostile to and thus pushes out men from the position and interest in pursuing it? I'm sure you know the answer already. And yes, it's the same for STEM. ........ What's more, equating legal and certain degree of social egalitarianism to complete and absolute social and cultural equality is just not paying attention. Since when there exists even a single nation in this world where both sexes are socially and culturally viewed as entirely equal? Tell me about it, because it'd be interested to hear about a nation where men and women are BOTH socially encouraged to seek help when in trouble and to rely on others, to solve problems preferably on your own as much as possible; to outwardly express their emotions, to bottle it up or to dismiss emotions; be expected to be pretty at all times, to be useful above all else; to aim to be high achievers, to aim to be helpful and cooperative supporter; to be the breadwinner of the household, to be the child carer of the household; to be aggressive and thrill seeking, to be reserved and cooperative; to be proud of being sexually active and sleep with many people, and to be chaste and be not as sexually active or at least don't tell people about it; etc etc. Tell me about a nation with a culture where both men and women are raised with absolutely no gendered bias/worldview whatsoever? Last time I checked, men can't even hold hands in public without being seen as gay while girls can do all sorts of intimate actions with each other barring sex and be doing just "girls things". The hell are you on about claiming that "free and egalitarian country" are actually "free and egalitarian" literally? Gendered beliefs and outlook definitely don't exist in the egalitarian countries, amirite? As I had said, the measures for the 'gender egalitarian index' are often overly materialistic and ultimately is just a measure of government policies and at the very most just the beliefs of the policy makers, rather than the actual prevalent culture in which the nation exists in and lived by the general public. And it's just dumb to assume the "egalitarian nations" actually just means literally the nation is entirely egalitarian not only in policies but also even the fundamental beliefs and worldview of its culture and most to all of its inhabitants. It takes a special kind of ignorance to utterly believe in the absence of social factors and jump straight into "innate" explanations before anything else. ........ Also, you spent half of your post whining about the trans bit I brought up as a part of a COMPARISON to illustrate a point, while ignoring the said point entirely. That's missing the point entirely. I only brought it up because you were whinging about """pc""" (which let's not play the fool, trans right is usually classified by reactionary individuals and fellas like you to be a part of the """pc"""), and moaning about how bad it is. And the comparison I made is to draw a parallel between today where you whine about trans rights like the worst thing ever, in comparison to the """less pc""" times when countless people literally died because the government refuses to treat people in an actual state-emergency epidemic because of some actually stupid agenda. Sorry and no offence, but I'd rather """pc""" times than not. But it doesn't matter, you just saw "trans" and then went off the tangent again. I did sort of anticipate this, actually; call it a masterful bait on my part, but I did put it out in that comparison specifically to see if you'd rather blast off the orbit with the first item of the comparison and ignore the actual comparison itself entirely. Well, it pays off. How does it feel, that you realise you're actually the one moaning about something that don't matter at all because you miss the actual argument entirely? And no, respecting trans right doesn't mean ignoring others in need such as the disabled. I always love (sarcastically) people who treat things as 0 sum game of 1 or the other. No, all it is about is caring 1 ADDITIONAL group that is socially disadvantaged. And it doesn't matter in number, if there are only 0.001% who are physically handicapped, they would still be cared for just as much; the same goes for trans. At least disabled people """only""" (and I use it loosely) suffer from lost of dignity if they don't get a bathroom they can use and things like job discrimination, meanwhile trans also deal with that as well as being the victim of trans hate crimes of being assaulted or even killed. That thing you spewed ultimately stems from the central belief that trans is "lesser" and is of less or even no importance to care, which is the problem itself. ........ Last but not least, you have yet to actually counter-argue the research I brought up earlier that definitively shows existence of social condition influencing one's psyche and decision making which directly contradict and disproves your claim of "biological" factors.
CLG ear (NA)
: why is everyone posting anime
> [{quoted}](name=CLG ear,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cElcv1rA,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-02-14T18:33:20.705+0000) > > why is everyone posting anime Because anime is the ultimate reality.
: Happy Valentine's Day
This is me on Valentine's Day https://i.imgur.com/rN6vv6F.jpg?noredirect
Saevum (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Hexs Fortune,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=OULvWEXU,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-02-12T18:29:33.473+0000) > > The beginning of the end for Fortnite? And League.
> [{quoted}](name=Saevum,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=OULvWEXU,comment-id=000b,timestamp=2019-02-14T17:28:32.309+0000) > > And League. Neither Hero Shooters and Battle Royale had managed to kill League, I doubt Apex which is a mix of those 2 genres would do the job imo.
: > And this is the usual tired drivel of gun fans when people questions whether guns should be widely available to the public. Stereotype much? You have used generalistation and stereotype several times in your attempt at showing stereotypes are bullshit but this one just shines brigthly to the point where I can no longer hold myself.
> [{quoted}](name=Velzard of Koz,realm=EUNE,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000000000010001,timestamp=2019-02-14T15:10:20.830+0000) > > Stereotype much? > You have used generalistation and stereotype several times in your attempt at showing stereotypes are bullshit but this one just shines brigthly to the point where I can no longer hold myself. Gun supporters using the argument of "it's not the gun; it's bad people" is about as "stereotype" as it is for anti-vaxxers to claim that vaccine is supposedly really bad for human body, or for flat-earthers to claim that earth is flat and surrounded by ice walls, make some conspiracy about airlines, and/or say the curve of the horizon from high altitudes and space is only resulted from the camera and not actually there. This isn't to say that gun supporters are equal to anti-vaxxers or flat-earthers, but the parallel is made to showcase that it is not a stereotype when the description is exactly what they do. Gun supporters may use "it's a constitutional right" as a platform occasionally and may bridge to topics related to self-defence and all that, but all of that is ultimately just the side dishes circling the main dish that has always been about "guns themselves aren't the problem".
HàrrowR (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=000000000000000000020000,timestamp=2019-02-14T03:25:23.315+0000) > > Since when pointing out the fact that social norms and social condition exists is me being "sexist" or whatever? > > I'm sorry but, people aren't born and grown in a vacuum. We are raised in an environment filled with many "old" values (it's a wrong way to put it, what I mean to say is more that the environment is full of traditional views and newer views that often were extension of the traditional views), ofc traditional gender role is just gonna be one of those things that condition us. I mean, for crying out loud, in just counting the largest THREE religions we're already talking about 70% (SEVENTY PERCENT) of the world's population, and you don't need me telling you that they tend to be a bit conservative when it comes to raising children; then we have to consider the people culturally influenced by religions, too. I'm sorry, but it's clear as day that most people are raised and conditioned by traditional views. > > Maybe your household weren't. Well, good for you. But projecting that onto the rest of the world is highly inaccurate. > > And if you have to make up some of those "innate differences", all your answers are found in this little study cheekly named > _"Checkmate? The role of gender stereotypes in the ultimate intellectual sport"._ > > In this study, 42 male and female player pairs (total 84 subjects) matched in chess online and offline, matched for ability, within a controlled environment. The 2 settings controlled go as follows: > > 1. When matched online and anonymous, female players were misled to believe they could be playing against either the male or female participants, when in reality they were only ever playing against male opponents. > 2. When playing offline and face to face, female players were only matched with other male players. > > In other words, the 2 setups are almost identical, but they get to control the switch of the gender stereotypes in the participant's psyche. > > And what do we get, female players play significantly worse in setting 2 than setting 1 despite facing the same set of opponents and sometimes even face the very same opponent they'd just had online. This definitively proves the existence of an influence from social conditioning regarding gender, which is deeply tied to stereotypes. The influence of gender stereotypes on someone's self esteem over certain subjects which in turn influence their choices such as what they're "into". > > ......... > > To chalk everything up to some major set-in-stone innate differences is just highly disingenuous, not to mention just silly. If you think you can prove everything you believe with one study then i'll just tell you to google "Norewegian Equality Paradox" and tell you i've won cause damn oxford,cambridge and harvard did studies confirming males and females biologically have different interests which leads to different hobbies. Also why do you speak of "traditional views" like its a bad thing and where do you even get the idea that most people are raised by following religous rules, in moder day there's really not a lot of true believers left, yes you can say that Europe and USA are christian and say that this is 1 billion christians but how many of them are really believers, followers of the bible, church goers etc. You are putting a big umbrella under all of them, hell maybe you could even say you're stereotyping about 70% of the Earths population (Christians,muslims,hindus, buddhist), shame on you man, this is why i hate liberals like you, hypocrisy at its finest. "DONT STEREOTYPE PEOPLE HE YELLED" As he was sterotyping 70% of the planet. And yes, i'm not religious, but i'd rather live in a monastery than a country like Sweden with Censorship, pc agenda, and crazy ideologies spewed as the ultimate truth, feminism and liberalism is your new religion, you just don't see it
> [{quoted}](name=HàrrowR,realm=EUW,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=0000000000000000000200000000,timestamp=2019-02-14T15:13:34.990+0000) > > If you think you can prove everything you believe with one study then i'll just tell you to google "Norewegian Equality Paradox" and tell you i've won cause damn oxford,cambridge and harvard did studies confirming males and females biologically have different interests which leads to different hobbies. > > Also why do you speak of "traditional views" like its a bad thing and where do you even get the idea that most people are raised by following religous rules, in moder day there's really not a lot of true believers left, yes you can say that Europe and USA are christian and say that this is 1 billion christians but how many of them are really believers, followers of the bible, church goers etc. You are putting a big umbrella under all of them, hell maybe you could even say you're stereotyping about 70% of the Earths population (Christians,muslims,hindus, buddhist), shame on you man, this is why i hate liberals like you, hypocrisy at its finest. > > "DONT STEREOTYPE PEOPLE HE YELLED" As he was sterotyping 70% of the planet. > > And yes, i'm not religious, but i'd rather live in a monastery than a country like Sweden with Censorship, pc agenda, and crazy ideologies spewed as the ultimate truth, feminism and liberalism is your new religion, you just don't see it No, that study does not prove male and female "biologically" have different interests which leads to different hobbies. And it also isn't done by either Oxford, Cambridge, nor Harvard, but by Leeds Beckett University and the University of Missouri last time I checked. The research as far as I know, makes ZERO mention, statement, or reaching conclusion of any sort that involves inherent and "biological" explanations. It only notes the career disparity observed between the 2 sexes, and makes no attempt looking into their causality due to being out of the scope of their research subject, being whether or not higher national gender equality index results in higher female participants in STEM. The causation could be biological, sociological, and anything in-between, and it's NOT within the scope of the study. The study actual conclusion however, finds that women participates in and graduates from STEM in higher percentages in nations with lower national gender equality index because the said nations are usually poorer, making the higher paying and more secure career prospects of STEM more attractive than they would in some welfare states where social security is high regardless. And by being more "gender equal", it's measured on the basis of work, health, time, money, knowledge, and power (something like that) as basis for whether the 2 sexes have "equal power to shape the society". Because they gotta quantise and measure it somehow. However, what it can not measure, is the degree of social conditioning and the influence of traditional views. A nation can entirely have men and women sport the same accessibility to all work options, same level of health and accessibility to medical attention, same amount of time in work, with the same wage prospects with no gendered pay gap, same level of access to education, and holding the same political and social power, or at least roughly equal in most of those regards (remember, it doesn't have to have the full mark to be #1, it just needs to have a higher mark than others), and still be rife with traditional views influencing people's career path and personal choices. Having higher securities, accessibility, options, etc doesn't mean social stigma, expectations, and pressure would cease to exist. If anything "gender equality index" measures the gender equality of government and policy makers given it's what the index is directly measuring, and less about measuring the given society and its culture. In the end of the day, none of this proves anything "biological". You invented this part from a study that's only tangentially related but was about something else that was only interested in discerning SPECIFICALLY why nations with lower gender equality index (that doesn't measure cultural equality as explained) has higher women pursuing STEM subjects than the otherwise. The study I raised does a far better job at showcasing the cultural aspect in action over the supposed biological factors. Because it's what the study was interested in researching, unlike this study which was about something else. ......... Lastly, you're using a fundamentalist talking point of what a religious person is supposed to be with your "there's really not a lot of true believers left [...] yes you can say that Europe and USA are christian and say that this is 1 billion christians but how many of them are really believers". No, if someone identifies as a religious person and a part of a given religion group, for all its worth, that's all it needs to say someone is religious. No one needs to pass a test in religion to be acknowledged as being religious. The real hypocrisy is denying someone's religion because you think they aren't religious enough, not someone identified as religious being counted as so. You might have a bit more ground if you were to question the reliability of the total number of Muslims instead, given afaik some Middle Eastern government for whatever reason has a tendency to default newborns as Muslims on their identity paper and stuff to that nature, so you might make the argument and claim that offsets the population count of Muslims to some extent. But still in the end of the day, it still wouldn't change the fact a majority of the people in this world are directly religious, and more if we're also including ones being culturally religious (isn't directly religious, but have ideals influenced by it) which is kinda everywhere. And, I only bring the religions into this not only because the influences of the largest religions can be found in a good majority of all human population but also because the largest religions all have gendered worldview as per the relics of previous eras (the same reason why I bring up the term "traditional view"), and would inevitably either overly or covertly raise their children with those cultural and social biases either in the conscious or subconscious mind. ......... Finally, if Sweden has any "crazy ideologies" and for some reason undesirable to live in, it would be because it's a culturally deeply and insanely racist nation on par to even the more socially troubled developing nations despite being one of the most developed, that continues to deny it and make up nonsense trying to justify it. Sweden is only ""pc"" in their self-promotion propaganda. """PC""" is also just a dumb word anyway. It's only a word used today because many people have no idea how oppressive the governments and how heavy the social stigma/consequences for every trivial things were even in the freest of states just a couple years prior. These people are just nostalgic for a supposed better time period that never really existed, or at least obviously nowhere near the level of "cool" they think it was. If I would rather anything, I'd rather live in a time of today where say, transgenders are finally recognised (which has ample both scientific and simple social decency reason for their acknowledgement, just that people selectively ignore and diss sensibility, evidences and studies when it's on the topic and outcome they don't like; business as usual), and not in a time and place where even Monty Python can somehow ended up getting banned for nearly 30 years and well into the late 2000s, or in 1940s where even children's cartoon were insanely racist, or in the 80s and 90s where people die to HIV like flies like some fucking plague because governments convinced themselves that HIV only affect gay people (which is completely false) and utterly refused to treat the state-emergency epidemic for a decade.
: We really forgetting about Neeko out here
Neeko is definitely more of the more "meh" champion released recently. Mostly because her shapeshifting and deception aspects aren't really a part of her gameplay identity barring a few situational scenarios, and for most people they probably have the strongest impression on her root and AoE ulti which aren't exactly the newest ideas out there. Thus she doesn't last that long in people's memory. Though I could forgive Neeko, mostly because it's her designer's first new champ release after being occupied with rework up to this point.
venerdì (EUW)
: Petition to not change radiant wukong vfx
> [{quoted}](name=venerdì,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EUmMFEbR,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-02-13T09:24:40.873+0000) > > I understand the direction you are going with the wukong vfx is to reduce the clouds, but in the radiant wukong skin the clouds are the most unique and particular things, the whole skin is designed around its japanese-like drawing style. With that change the skin just feels watered down for no reason. Please leave radiant wukong alone, all his vfx are different than the base anyway, no need to apply a visual patch to something that isn't outdated. Radiant Wukong was inspired by both Chinese and Japanese traditional artworks, not exclusively the latter. But yes, Radiant Wukong's smoke is special. I think they try to keep the original design while updating it, which is cool. But I think they can use a bit more smoke since the current display may have it a little bit too reduced.
Dauye (EUW)
: 3 ARAM same character excuse me?
Quick! Buy the Lottery!
: Pluto? What's that? Some sort of comet or something?
> [{quoted}](name=SupaDevilJuice,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2K4ccUw5,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-02-14T07:32:57.562+0000) > > Pluto? > > What's that? Some sort of comet or something? It's a dwarf planet. > A dwarf planet is a planetary-mass object that is neither a true planet nor a natural satellite. That is, it is in direct orbit of a star, and is massive enough for its gravity to compress it into a hydrostatically equilibrious shape (usually a spheroid), but has not cleared the neighborhood of other material around its orbit.[1] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_planet
: What champ release cycle did you start playing in?
I started play around the time when the original Karma was released in early 2011. Been playing League with breaks here and there.
: So the N word isn't insta ban anymore?
You still have to report them. The ban system does nothing if there is no report to look at. This is done so it intervenes only on the basis of someone being offended and files an report, instead of just going around banning someone on its own; it's also to reduce its workload as it's easier to just tell players do reports instead of having the system monitor each and every single match there is and will be. If reported with perfect spelling and all, then idk.
: {{item:3139}} This is why this exists.
> [{quoted}](name=Lord Apex,realm=NA,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=nArgFzqI,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-02-14T05:10:38.921+0000) > > {{item:3139}} > This is why this exists. And some people say AP have better itemisation.
HàrrowR (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-12T18:59:07.614+0000) > > > Girls are far less present in video game competition scene simply because they not only have no social culture surrounding it owing to traditional gender roles that discourages them from participating, but also because the gaming culture have been actively pushing them out like the good ol' treehouse business. Can you prove this? Have you done research? is there any research except what you came up with your own? Video gaming started becoming popular only in the last 20 years, when i was a kid i was playing doom and i played SEGA with my sister, at some point she stopped playing and i continued gaming, no one forced her and she's the farthest thing from a "traditional gender role" whatever that made up bs term is. is it possible maybe that girls just aren't into video games as much? is it possible maybe that they are more into books or tv shows? My gf reads a lot and watches a lot of tv shows that i've never even heard off, she just likes it, i guess i was opressed by traditional gender roles when i was a kid so i was left out of the TV shows and books club. Does everything need to be a product of the tyranical patriarchy to you? Dont these girls have a will of their own and maybe most of them for some reason lean more towards other activities, especially social ones than video games? Maybe they just see it as a waste of time (like most of my female friends comment on when they hear me and my friends talk about video games) You sound pretty sexist bro, girls can stand up for themselves and aren't so weak minded that you need to step in and defend their honor by saying traditional gender roles are the cause of all of their problems ( problems percieved by you, i guarantee you 99% of the female population world wide don't give a rats ass about a women video game team)
> [{quoted}](name=HàrrowR,realm=EUW,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=00000000000000000002,timestamp=2019-02-14T01:11:59.629+0000) > > Can you prove this? Have you done research? is there any research except what you came up with your own? > > Video gaming started becoming popular only in the last 20 years, when i was a kid i was playing doom and i played SEGA with my sister, at some point she stopped playing and i continued gaming, no one forced her and she's the farthest thing from a "traditional gender role" whatever that made up bs term is. > > is it possible maybe that girls just aren't into video games as much? is it possible maybe that they are more into books or tv shows? My gf reads a lot and watches a lot of tv shows that i've never even heard off, she just likes it, i guess i was opressed by traditional gender roles when i was a kid so i was left out of the TV shows and books club. > > Does everything need to be a product of the tyranical patriarchy to you? Dont these girls have a will of their own and maybe most of them for some reason lean more towards other activities, especially social ones than video games? Maybe they just see it as a waste of time (like most of my female friends comment on when they hear me and my friends talk about video games) > > You sound pretty sexist bro, girls can stand up for themselves and aren't so weak minded that you need to step in and defend their honor by saying traditional gender roles are the cause of all of their problems ( problems percieved by you, i guarantee you 99% of the female population world wide don't give a rats ass about a women video game team) Since when pointing out the fact that social norms and social condition exists is me being "sexist" or whatever? I'm sorry but, people aren't born and grown in a vacuum. We are raised in an environment filled with many "old" values (it's a wrong way to put it, what I mean to say is more that the environment is full of traditional views and newer views that often were extension of the traditional views), ofc traditional gender role is just gonna be one of those things that condition us. I mean, for crying out loud, in just counting the largest THREE religions we're already talking about 70% (SEVENTY PERCENT) of the world's population, and you don't need me telling you that they tend to be a bit conservative when it comes to raising children; then we have to consider the people culturally influenced by religions, too. I'm sorry, but it's clear as day that most people are raised and conditioned by traditional views. Maybe your household weren't. Well, good for you. But projecting that onto the rest of the world is highly inaccurate. And if you have to make up some of those "innate differences", all your answers are found in this little study cheekly named _"Checkmate? The role of gender stereotypes in the ultimate intellectual sport"._ In this study, 42 male and female player pairs (total 84 subjects) matched in chess online and offline, matched for ability, within a controlled environment. The 2 settings controlled go as follows: 1. When matched online and anonymous, female players were misled to believe they could be playing against either the male or female participants, when in reality they were only ever playing against male opponents. 2. When playing offline and face to face, female players were only matched with other male players. In other words, the 2 setups are almost identical, but they get to control the switch of the gender stereotypes in the participant's psyche. And what do we get, female players play significantly worse in setting 2 than setting 1 despite facing the same set of opponents and sometimes even face the very same opponent they'd just had online. This definitively proves the existence of an influence from social conditioning regarding gender, which is deeply tied to stereotypes. The influence of gender stereotypes on someone's self esteem over certain subjects which in turn influence their choices such as what they're "into". ......... To chalk everything up to some major set-in-stone innate differences is just highly disingenuous, not to mention just silly.
HàrrowR (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-02-12T18:00:29.901+0000) > > The fact some people have to break stereotypes is unfair in and of itself. > > You can make up stereotypes for basically any and everything and then have the audacity to demand the targets of those ""stereotypes"" to exert extra effort over complete nothing just to show you that they're an actual human and not a caricature that you MADE FOR YOURSELF. > > If I get insulted by some rando on the street, I am in no obligation to prove that their insult is incorrect nor would anyone say that I am assumed lesser just because I don't bother with the insult. Similarly, no one should be burdened with breaking stereotypes which they only ever exist as insults or worse, "positive" insults which is far more vile with its passive aggressive approach. > > The very existence of stereotype is stupid. They exist for a reason alright, for the reason that you're reaching for an excuse to dehumanise another person and that's it. You do realize there's no Stereotype Board Meeting that decides what stereotypes to come up with next? These things form naturally and most people know that they are mostly made up of anecdotal evidence and not a hard proven fact that X applies to all Y . Also every group of people ever in history has a stereotype to them, that doesn't mean that every person on this damn planet is a carricature, now im not defending stereotypes, they dont apply to all people of that group and are mostly negative and unwarranted, but asking for people not to stereotype is crazy, cause A) people don't sit down and make stereotypes up and B) Its going against human nature, 10k years ago a stereotype about some tribe or group could save your life, its a natural instinct to have information about a certain group, problem is our brain doesn't want to overcomplicate things so it doesn't tell you 3% of that group act this way, it just tells you hey that group is known for this and that, act accordingly
> [{quoted}](name=HàrrowR,realm=EUW,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=000000000002,timestamp=2019-02-14T01:00:40.342+0000) > > You do realize there's no Stereotype Board Meeting that decides what stereotypes to come up with next? These things form naturally and most people know that they are mostly made up of anecdotal evidence and not a hard proven fact that X applies to all Y . > > Also every group of people ever in history has a stereotype to them, that doesn't mean that every person on this damn planet is a carricature, now im not defending stereotypes, they dont apply to all people of that group and are mostly negative and unwarranted, but asking for people not to stereotype is crazy, cause A) people don't sit down and make stereotypes up and B) Its going against human nature, 10k years ago a stereotype about some tribe or group could save your life, its a natural instinct to have information about a certain group, problem is our brain doesn't want to overcomplicate things so it doesn't tell you 3% of that group act this way, it just tells you hey that group is known for this and that, act accordingly The naturalistic fallacy of "it's our nature" is dumb because: Just because we have our nature, it doesn't mean it's something worth keeping today. Humans have a lot of innate things that raise concerns if we assess them, stereotypes is one, but there are things like cannibalism, too. Cannibalism is a useful trait to have in the wild, which is why it's so prevalent in the animal kingdom and is also possessed and practiced by humans since our inception; why fuss over food when there's one right next to you, amiright? But ofc, it would be wrong of me to assume such trait natural to humans is something worth keeping in our society. Same deal. Stereotype is the act of making up your own answers based on your immediate observation via almost-baseless generalisation and assumption, and you don't need me to tell you just how stupid it is. Assumption is the direct opposite of investigation, it's inherently an anti-intellectual process. It may have existed as a convenience but only just that, an utterly dumb convenience that ultimately means very little in use unless you thrive by dwelling in intellectual mediocrity. There is also a very BIG difference between BEING AWARE OF stereotypes and be the one that use stereotypes which are likely to have been made by someone else in the first place. You can imagine which one of the 2 make better decisions if you believe stereotypes could be used as a part of the decision making. And the worst part of stereotype is not stereotype itself because then we'd at least be just talking about something that's ultimately "meh". But rather, the worst part is how it's how abused. A lot of the "stereotypes" are not only highly untrue but a lot of times it's straight up fabricated to serve an ulterior motive, usually in an attempt to slander and paving way for other nasties. They can be actively fabricated by via good ol' bullshitting ("black people are dumber because this skull shape and that" blah blah blah), or they can be passively fabricated by being selective based on a bias (where due to a historically preconceived and surviving stereotypes against say, black people, the black druggies get busted multiple times more often despite doing drugs in the same rate as say, white in USA, and is laser-focused despite being of a smaller population constituting only 10% of the total population. And we're not even gonna talk about how unproportionally high rate black people in US get wrongly convicted or that police seems to get unusually trigger-jumpy when around black people). Then there's the opportunists that benefit from the abuse of stereotypes, notably the media and the news; especially news and their highly stereotype-driven and biased selection process on which news to even report, as well as how they are reported when they finally choose to report it (For an example: Do you know that say, Muslims in the US alone, receive about 7000 hate crimes in 2017 and is on the rise by about 1000 every year for the last few years, with the only point of reference being the hate crimes against black and jewish people numbering at """only"" 2000 and 900 respectively? Well, me neither until I searched it up myself, because the news is too busy portraying Muslims as bad people). The result is that stereotypes only ever increase in number, and they also become more enforced COVERTLY due to the sheer amount of subconscious exposure. That's the problem.
: > [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=9NyIew4K,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-02-13T22:44:48.306+0000) > > As a Kobold, it worries me that my people are always racially profiled as being raiders and bandits. > > We have wonderful people and culture, too. > > ...... > > The backstory is good though. That being said, more development on how his gears and techs actually work as well as more development on his motivation and state of mind (such as why is he going on an adventure) would be nice, too. A lot of that stuff will be addressed as we play. We're starting tonight, and I like to make my character's backstories fit the world they're in, so I just develop a backstory that can be the backbone to every campaign he's in
> [{quoted}](name=robochicken7,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=9NyIew4K,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-02-13T22:52:49.895+0000) > > A lot of that stuff will be addressed as we play. We're starting tonight, and I like to make my character's backstories fit the world they're in, so I just develop a backstory that can be the backbone to every campaign he's in Makes sense. Have fun in the session.
: Rate my DnD 5e character
As a Kobold, it worries me that my people are always racially profiled as being raiders and bandits. We have wonderful people and culture, too. ...... The backstory is good though. That being said, more development on how his gears and techs actually work as well as more development on his motivation and state of mind (such as why is he going on an adventure) would be nice, too.
Morgentau (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=aALwQ8f9,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-02-13T22:10:18.954+0000) > > Sent on a 90 day mission, it lasted 15 years. > > F Feels like my time in low elo.
> [{quoted}](name=Morgentau,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=aALwQ8f9,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-02-13T22:30:11.854+0000) > > "Sent on a 90 day mission, it lasted 15 years. > > "F" > > Feels like my time in low elo. And a degree.
: Just send someone to go dust it off and it can run another 15. Yeah, it's a one-way trip, but who wouldn't want to be the first human on Mars?
> [{quoted}](name=Reaper Soraka,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=aALwQ8f9,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-02-13T22:24:25.501+0000) > > Just send someone to go dust it off and it can run another 15. Would this be the premise and plot of a soft reboot to The Martian movie?
usul1202 (NA)
: The Opportunity rover finally died
Opportunity lived up to and far beyond its name. A real hero no one deserves.
: is jhin hard?
Once you get around understanding his passive, his kit is very easy to play with because of how straightforward they are. Jhin is not harder to easier, I wouldn't say. Though he is different, primarily because of his 4-shot mechanic which makes ammo counting and conservation important unlike other ADC champs where you just use AA whenever you please. And unlike Graves who also has ammo AAs, Jhin doesn't have an on-command instant ammo reset mechanic or a dash, but he gets MS every time he crits (either because 4th shot or from crit chance) or lands his W on an enemy champion. A good Jhin player is someone with good map sense and sniping prowess (unless you play "The Fast" style). Those are definitely not aspects that are ""easy"". That said, a fed Jhin can be pretty braindead tho especially in the game's burst meta, as when fed he could overkill squishier champs with 2 AAs, even without the 4th shot. Jhin trades sustained firing power of the usual ADCs with more burst on a fixed fire rate and stuck and slapped with reload, sure. But still, sometimes I do wonder if his burst may be a bit too high.
: why do mages have the most badazz attack quotes
You still AA in early game, especially Ryze and the fact he's always OOM in the first 7 min of the game because you dared to rotate your spell once.
: Remember, apples are a sin.
> [{quoted}](name=oOBestEveNAOo,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=KZLaAIKE,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-02-13T02:17:04.014+0000) > > And it is strictly forbidden to post images of girls holding an apple. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1d/Twilightbook.jpg/220px-Twilightbook.jpg
AIQ (NA)
: OKAY. This conversation is now officially over. Your fallacies for examples I give are getting annoying. I will only explain this one, one last time. It is the principle behind "guns don't kill people, people do." that was my concern. It was indicating that people using stereotype maliciously are the problem, not the stereotype itself. Likewise people using guns maliciously are the problem not guns. Yes, you can remove guns but the idiots that abuse them still exist. I really don't care about that issue. MY WHOLE POINT. Was that the belief/view/stereotype/feeling/logic that female gamers are bad is **100% valid**. And irrefutable until a female gamer proves otherwise. Whatever female team decides to be a pro must overcome this hurdle. Is it fair? Is it right? NO. But it is accurate and as I've stated the ONLY thing I care about here are the facts. PrisonNightmare and myself are not saying, we don't want them to succeed, but we are not going to lie to ourselves and say that history favors them. Have a great day, I will not reply to anything you say.
> [{quoted}](name=AIQ,realm=NA,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-02-12T22:58:31.236+0000) > > Whatever female team decides to be a pro must overcome this hurdle. Is it fair? Is it right? NO. But it is accurate and as I've stated the ONLY thing I care about here are the facts. If it's not right, then don't fucking propagate it which you've been happily doing. > NO. But it is accurate and as I've stated the ONLY thing I care about here are the facts. Yes, yes. The self-proclaimed fact-believer that is either oblivious to or just straight up ignore facts, including the ones you just said.
AIQ (NA)
: Standardization: the process of making something conform to a **standard**. Standard: adjective; **used or ACCEPTED as normal or average** Stereotype: a widely held ~~ but fixed and oversimplified ~~ **normal or average** image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. Come on bro, I don't care about your feelings. You will not con-volute facts because you feel stereotypes are bad. As in your example, they made that the standard based on practical changes. Then it was a widely accepted stereotype. The negative connotation with the word doesn't make it inaccurate. Conflicts...i think that's the least of their worries, but I can see where you couldn't detect the primary issue of a bunch of hormone driven sexually active single guys and girls in a house would cause. I'll give you a million dollars if you can fine 10 legal attorney that will support a coed gaming home. Like bro have you been to college, or at least heard about it? It's crazy at the dorms. For your examples, The CSGO team had no gaming house, based on my google search. Remillia was a male. Just because he is transgender does not disregard his biological origin. He can't say that he was a female because he got breast implants. Also, they still did not have a gaming house. Again this is a legal issue not a "we just want to keep ladies out" thing. Couldn't take the pressure? Sounds like a personal problem. I don't see faker crying about the pressure of being the best. Maybe he does IDK, but he hasn't quit. Vicious cycle? Well until 15+ females successfully become pros and remain such right. Then it's the norm and the stereotype dies. No? Especially if they win worlds or something. Just like when I root for NA teams. I can root for female teams despite know they have to prove they are good. I'm not a pro. The stereotype for me is that I can't compete with pros, that's true until I prove other wise. It's no different for them. Why should it be? Because they are female? Wouldn't that be sexist?
> [{quoted}](name=AIQ,realm=NA,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-12T22:33:58.176+0000) > > Standardization: the process of making something conform to a **standard**. > Standard: adjective; **used or ACCEPTED as normal or average** > Stereotype: a widely held ~~ but fixed and oversimplified ~~ **normal or average** image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. > > Come on bro, I don't care about your feelings. You will not con-volute facts because you feel stereotypes are bad. As in your example, they made that the standard based on practical changes. Then it was a widely accepted stereotype. The negative connotation with the word doesn't make it inaccurate. > > > Conflicts...i think that's the least of their worries, but I can see where you couldn't detect the primary issue of a bunch of hormone driven sexually active single guys and girls in a house would cause. I'll give you a million dollars if you can fine 10 legal attorney that will support a coed gaming home. Like bro have you been to college, or at least heard about it? It's crazy at the dorms. > > For your examples, The CSGO team had no gaming house, based on my google search. > Remillia was a male. Just because he is transgender does not disregard his biological origin. He can't say that he was a female because he got breast implants. Also, they still did not have a gaming house. Again this is a legal issue not a "we just want to keep ladies out" thing. > > Couldn't take the pressure? Sounds like a personal problem. I don't see faker crying about the pressure of being the best. Maybe he does IDK, but he hasn't quit. > > Vicious cycle? Well until 15+ females successfully become pros and remain such right. Then it's the norm and the stereotype dies. No? Especially if they win worlds or something. > > Just like when I root for NA teams. I can root for female teams despite know they have to prove they are good. I'm not a pro. The stereotype for me is that I can't compete with pros, that's true until I prove other wise. It's no different for them. Why should it be? Because they are female? Wouldn't that be sexist? This post is utter idiocy. 1. Standardisation is not based on social norm, it is based on what is useful which then may become a part of the social norm who couldn't be bothered to think (such as instructions and procedures to labourers, which they generally don't understand the practical reasons why they come to be, but they follow them as per the rule and order). 2. Transgender girl is a girl. Because if it isn't the case, then a man who lost his penis in an accident wouldn't be a man, a man castrated or have male hormones suppressed to treat prostate cancer wouldn't be a man, a man born without a penis or it was born disfigured wouldn't be a man, a man born with hormone insensitivity syndrome wouldn't be a man, a man born with intersex wouldn't be a man, a man born with multiple X chromosomes wouldn't be a man, etc; but ofc, they are all men like any other men, regardless of their chromosomes or their penis' status or whatever, because what ultimately matters is that they IDENTIFY as men. Similarly, transgender girl IS a girl because they identify as such; they may not the most biologically textbook girl ever, but they are still god damn girls. 3. You brush off double standard and unrealistic expectation as FUCKING "PERSONAL PROBLEM". Nice fucking job. As per my analogy, imagine walking into a bar, assuming you're a white (idk, but you can work around the analogy) in say an asian club, and the instant you step in you're required to dance a really hard dance, sing one of the hardest song to perform, and drink booze like water without going down or else the entire club will laugh at you and say all kinds of racist shit at you for "not being good enough" or some shit. Would you love such an experience in this shitty ass club? Most people wouldn't for obvious reasons, but I guess it's right up your fucking alley, Mr "I can take the pressure". * The difference between her and Faker is that Faker is the world's #1 expected to be the world's #1; Remilia is a mid-tier pro player being placed significantly higher expectations than she could realistically chew on no other basis than her being a girl and a trans. And UNLIKE FAKER, whose defeat loses his and his team's reputation alone, Remilia is expected to carry and be responsible for the reputation of BOTH HERSELF, HER TEAM, AND ALL OF THE FEMALE AND TRANS PEOPLE. I'm sure you can see the stark contrast.
AIQ (NA)
: Lol are you so pathetic that you can only refute the traffic light? The example? First off lets reiterate what a stereotype is. Stereotype: A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. The "widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea" of a traffic light IS each light is red/yellow/green. If you can find 10 people out of 1000 and ask them what are is your view on what a traffic lights colors are and they don't say Red/Yellow/Green. Next you need to find me a unicorn. Guess what you base those standardization are based on? STEREOTYPES! We will make this traffic light red/yellow/Green because "widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea" of a Traffic light is that they are these colors. No one is sitting in their factory saying. We should make the standard purple now because we want to break he stereotype that all lights are these colors. I don't know what the original colors where for lights nor why they changed. Regardless that's not the point. you organized your clothes on the "widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea" that shirts go on your torso. (granted you organize your clothes unlike my brother) These generalizations and standardization come from these ideas manifested by stereotypes of what is the standard. > You refuse to understand why female gamers are barely present in video game competitive scene and laser focus on the "female" section instead of the "why". Umm.... I gave you a solid reason. Gaming houses. You cannot put a bunch of young girls and boys in a house to live. It will be a disaster. (Yes that's a stereotype that could be disproven, but I'm sure even you agree with.) Therefore the team must be all female. Who puts them down? Me? Brah, I want a good all female team so bad. I'd be that crazy guy with their logo plastered on my face. I want them to succeed. But TSM/Echo Fox/ C9 and anyone else with a gaming house won touch them with a ten foot pole. Since the repercussion would be huge. Or they'd have to provide housing for the females outside of the home, then what's the point of taking on that expense unless she was okay with them taking it from her check. This is just one issue. Side note: You are a hypocrite since you are using the stereotype that stereotypes are malicious. Let's sum this up. 1. I want them to succeed. 2. They are "held down" due to legal issues such as gaming homes. 3. An all female team fixes issues in number 2, but the problem is a lot of the high caliber female players don't play things like jungle. 4. Stereotypes are essential for human language, standardization, and generalization. Edit 4.5 People are the problem not stereotypes. Same thing with guns. Guns don't kill people, people use them to kill people. 5. Everyone thinking traffic lights are red/yellow/green is a stereotype ( A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. ), as this is not always the case I have a blue one in my garage.
> [{quoted}](name=AIQ,realm=NA,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-12T21:17:26.412+0000) > > Guns don't kill people, people use them to kill people. And this is the usual tired drivel of gun fans when people questions whether guns should be widely available to the public. The problem isn't guns, nor people. The problem is why a tool so easily able to take lives at a literal flick of a finger and conduct high casualties in seconds with 0 "counterplay" in close range, and as a tool with NO OTHER PURPOSE OTHER THAN KILLING ANOTHER PERSON (not even something that COULD be used to kill a person which is dime a dozen and most of which are nowhere near as efficient as firearms, but that it ONLY EXISTS to kill people/lives), is available for and easily accessible to civilians. It's also like if governments were to make fucking landmines accessible to the public via purchase. It's completely insane. What is this, a zombie post-apocalyptic world? But whatever.
AIQ (NA)
: Lol are you so pathetic that you can only refute the traffic light? The example? First off lets reiterate what a stereotype is. Stereotype: A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. The "widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea" of a traffic light IS each light is red/yellow/green. If you can find 10 people out of 1000 and ask them what are is your view on what a traffic lights colors are and they don't say Red/Yellow/Green. Next you need to find me a unicorn. Guess what you base those standardization are based on? STEREOTYPES! We will make this traffic light red/yellow/Green because "widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea" of a Traffic light is that they are these colors. No one is sitting in their factory saying. We should make the standard purple now because we want to break he stereotype that all lights are these colors. I don't know what the original colors where for lights nor why they changed. Regardless that's not the point. you organized your clothes on the "widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea" that shirts go on your torso. (granted you organize your clothes unlike my brother) These generalizations and standardization come from these ideas manifested by stereotypes of what is the standard. > You refuse to understand why female gamers are barely present in video game competitive scene and laser focus on the "female" section instead of the "why". Umm.... I gave you a solid reason. Gaming houses. You cannot put a bunch of young girls and boys in a house to live. It will be a disaster. (Yes that's a stereotype that could be disproven, but I'm sure even you agree with.) Therefore the team must be all female. Who puts them down? Me? Brah, I want a good all female team so bad. I'd be that crazy guy with their logo plastered on my face. I want them to succeed. But TSM/Echo Fox/ C9 and anyone else with a gaming house won touch them with a ten foot pole. Since the repercussion would be huge. Or they'd have to provide housing for the females outside of the home, then what's the point of taking on that expense unless she was okay with them taking it from her check. This is just one issue. Side note: You are a hypocrite since you are using the stereotype that stereotypes are malicious. Let's sum this up. 1. I want them to succeed. 2. They are "held down" due to legal issues such as gaming homes. 3. An all female team fixes issues in number 2, but the problem is a lot of the high caliber female players don't play things like jungle. 4. Stereotypes are essential for human language, standardization, and generalization. Edit 4.5 People are the problem not stereotypes. Same thing with guns. Guns don't kill people, people use them to kill people. 5. Everyone thinking traffic lights are red/yellow/green is a stereotype ( A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. ), as this is not always the case I have a blue one in my garage.
Standardisation is not based on stereotype. Standardisation are established basing on whether or not certain attributes is useful, and harmful or useless designs or other elements would be eliminated over time. The red light in traffic lights are standardised because it's the most useful in doing its job (the most crucial one in the light system, as the one that tells people to STOP), and is thus kept over the course of the traffic light's several redesigns for this reason, while other colours never stole its crown. And not because there is some "stereotype" that determine that it just has to be red. Similarly, the other colours that was used for other features of the traffic lights were discarded because better solutions have been found. The colour red is not sacred held by preconceived notion of stereotype, it survived because it's the most suitable and has nothing to do with stereotype; if it wasn't, it would just be replaced. It is only a "stereotype" to those to don't understand. Or rather, stereotype itself is a product of the lack of understanding. Hence why stereotype is pointless, which was outlined in higher detail in my very first post. And other element, the major one, is that social stereotype are instruments used to enforce double standard. > Gaming houses. You cannot put a bunch of young girls and boys in a house to live. It will be a disaster. (Yes that's a stereotype that could be disproven, but I'm sure even you agree with.) Therefore the team must be all female. I do not agree. It's a perceived notion of disaster, presumably on the basis of certain culture's tendency to divide and run into conflicts merely for the sake of it, such as on the basis of gender. The reality is that there ARE mixed gender team working just fine. Made in Thailand that compete in CSGO is 1 example, or Renegade when they still had Remilia, etc. The issue is more about a severe lack of female players in the gaming scene in the first place, which as explained multiple times is a result of social and culture influences, both in and out of gaming community, that discourage or even bully them out of playing, let alone trying to play to compete; and not specific to do with anything male or female related. There is a reason why Remilia quit Renegade. She couldn't stand the kind of pressure being put on her as League's first female and transgender professional player in a high stake scene. Simply put, the kind of "impress me before anything" rationale is the major reason why female gamers couldn't be bothered with competitive gaming for real. Any nail that sticks out is immediately hammered with extreme laser focus and unrealistically high standard/benchmark and expectation, because you desperately want them to prove you wrong on the stereotype that girls are bad at games which was a false reality born from the ignorance towards the social and cultural reasons why girls are not that into as well as have been pushed out of competitive subjects (especially games) in the first place. It's an utter vicious cycle. A hand that feeds itself in a never-ending cycle of being hostile towards non-male gamers without understanding why, which in turn enforces the said hostility. And then you wonder why no girls bother to join the club; well, I wouldn't too, if the instant I walk into a club people expect me to fucking dance like Michael Jackson and sing like Pavarotti as a bare minimum of acknowledgement. If you truly want girl gamers to actually go pro and succeed like you say you do. Then just let them play however they want without subjecting them to some ridiculous double standard to "prove you wrong" ffs.
: master yi is a gimick champion
Yi is a gimmick champion, I'd consider. He's entire deal revolves around him being a flying object that does a lot of damage when fed, which with the sole exception of his W all of his kit provides and contributes to nothing but offensive damage source or steroid. The gimmick is a game about whether Yi gets to snowball or if he's destroyed, a completely binary result which often work against his favour against any team of competence as well as the game design itself. Or at least in theory. Similar to how Blitzcrank is a gimmick champion given his entire relevance is banked on whether he lands his Q or can run in close enough to use E or R, Yi's entire relevance is determined by whether or not he could get fed and deal tons of damage and only damage via mostly AA.
: He's already not only a low Elo pub stomper, but an annoyance in high Elo too. I've watched plenty of Master+ streamers lose games to master yi. Largely because he requires so much attention early that he creates loads of pressure even when not getting fed, then late even if not fed still needs to be a priority target for your team. Adding anything even half as strong as what you're suggesting would absolutely bust him.
> [{quoted}](name=ValyrianBlade,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BQuEFZ6f,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-02-12T16:35:43.976+0000) > > He's already not only a low Elo pub stomper, but an annoyance in high Elo too. I've watched plenty of Master+ streamers lose games to master yi. Largely because he requires so much attention early that he creates loads of pressure even when not getting fed, then late even if not fed still needs to be a priority target for your team. > > Adding anything even half as strong as what you're suggesting would absolutely bust him. https://lolalytics.com/ranked/worldwide/platinum/plus/champion/MasterYi/graphs/ He has medium ban rate, with okay play rate, and average to low win rate (around 50% in plat, and 46-47% in Diamond) in high elo. Nothing tells me he's a big deal in Plat and above.
AIQ (NA)
: Since you can't answer a basic question because you know it refutes your argument to answer I'll do it for you I'm sure no one will disagree with the FACTUAL answer. If you have evidence that supports otherwise to the answers I'm giving you please share it. No No 10-15 Now... Actual stereotypes are based solely on the context of what is at hand. A stop light has a stereotype that it WILL have a red light. They generalize things into categories for organization. Again Stoplights will have a red/yellow/green light. Nothing prevents them from having a blue orange and purple light, but this is the standard. Imagine if it wasn't. I would LOVE to see more female pros. One prevention is the existence of gaming homes, which are the go to method to train teams. Can you imagine having a home of males and females? lol. Lawsuits galore. So at this point there are possibly some female gamers out there good enough to take on pros, but as it stands with gaming houses alone. It's not possible unless it's ALL female. So no I don't think people are discriminating due to this stereotype, it's more for the legal factors. Ehh... politics suck. Not going to go into this over something non related to female gamers. Now that we have established that NO females have been successful in league. We can confidently say that "All females that have tried to play league have failed." Any female from this point forward must PROVE otherwise in order to NOT be consumed by this stereotype and PROVE to everyone that this statement is NO LONGER true. Since ATM it still is. That is the only way Lets use a positive and negative example. "Korea wins worlds." A sterotype that existed for Koreans and oh boy was it true. Teams like SKT/SSG etc. crushed everyone even the 3rd place Korean teams smashed the competition. I HATED this stereotype, but just because I didn't like does not mean it doesn't exist. It was not until China proved them wrong that this stereotype was broken. Even NA shut them down. China had to PROVE this stereotype wrong before it was classified as wrong. NA sucks internationally. While C9 almost changed this stereotype. Until NA wins worlds or has a more dominate performance. It's still correct. Do I like it? No, but again this does not make it wrong. The Groups one is proven wrong as C9 has made it out twice now. So yes, you must PROVE any stereotype wrong. For our basic example. I'm sure you assume based on the stereotype that all lights have a Red light. If I show you that is not the case I have PROVEN it wrong. It's just how logic works here. Yes, people question western teams (all male) all the time. The only reason no one says "all male teams suck" is because they are losing to ALL MALE TEAMS. If all Korean teams were all Female and smashing everyone. I'm 99% sure it would be "Man male teams suck." There is no double standard. Female teams suck. (Period) Until PROVEN otherwise. And don't misinterpret that I don't like female gamers. I'll be the first person to jump on the bandwagon of an all female team and buy a t-shirt, but the stereotype exist because it's true. It will cease to exist when a female team proves it false. Just to reiterate one thing. Stereotypes exist for organizational and standardization aspects. People, like with all things, use them maliciously. Stereotypes are not the problem the people abusing them are. Your black example is perfect, people used that stereotype maliciously based on oppressed evidence (black people not being allowed) as a reason to vote for them over another. That's just not whats going on here. Most players want the female team to succeed and break the stereotype. No one is oppressing females from joining on the basis "females suck." This particular stereotypes does one thing, state a fact. Nothing more.
> [{quoted}](name=AIQ,realm=NA,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-12T20:07:54.731+0000) > > Actual stereotypes are based solely on the context of what is at hand. A stop light has a stereotype that it WILL have a red light. > [...] > Again Stoplights will have a red/yellow/green light. Nothing prevents them from having a blue orange and purple light, but this is the standard. Imagine if it wasn't. No, it's called a standardisation. The general design of the modern traffic light is almost unchanged from the very first one designed nearly 200 years ago; and traffic light was based on the lights used by rail engineers prior to even that time (if you're clueless, engineers have a LONG history of using colour codes to communicate messages in very concise and fast manner). And I mentioned that "modern traffic light is ALMOST unchanged from the very first one designed" because the colour code also evolves over time. I don't need to "imagine", because the original and the earlier iterations of the traffic lights do NOT use red(stop)/yellow(caution)/green(go) scheme, and instead it was schemes like red(stop)/green(caution)/white(go) and went through several redesigns over many years by other designers in different implementations before the first implementation of red/yellow/green which also was not widely adopted until even more recent years. That being said, traffic light have red light is NOT a stereotype, it is a standard. A stereotype is an oversimplified outlook based on observation. There is no traffic light found in the wild that was observed before the creation of modern traffic lights, traffic lights are DESIGNED to carry red light specifically because the colour has long been used to signal urgency and danger and widely used in sign communication due to the colour's property of being able to travel the longest distance without scatter. Unless you are a child who has 0 concept of the world, having a "stereotype" of traffic light is utterly incorrect. ...... This little example is emblematic of your understanding, or rather lack of understanding, of stereotypes. But what's more, that's not even the argument. The argument is that stereotypes exist as an expression and enforcement of double standards. You refuse to understand why female gamers are barely present in video game competitive scene and laser focus on the "female" section instead of the "why". You then based on your highly corrupted worldview and challenge female gamers to perform better than male gamers WHILE in an environment and culture that actively puts them down and rejects them, and only upon completing this loaded bullshit trial would you give them the slimmest of your care. That is a very clear case of double standard, and essence of the issue with stereotypes. And THAT is the reason to why I argue against the usage of stereotypes, especially in a social setting. ...... Also, people like to pretend positive stereotypes are a good thing. They aren't. Because all of them come with a "kick" which is the actual main dish of the said stereotype (like how say, Asians supposed are "good at study, but lack ""true learning"" and only good at memorisation" and some utter nonsense). Remember, the point and intended usage of social stereotype is first and foremost, a weapon.
: > [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-02-12T18:00:29.901+0000) > > The fact some people have to break stereotypes is unfair in and of itself. > > You can make up stereotypes for basically any and everything and then have the audacity to demand the targets of those ""stereotypes"" to exert extra effort over complete nothing just to show you that they're an actual human and not a caricature that you MADE FOR YOURSELF. > > If I get insulted by some rando on the street, I am in no obligation to prove that their insult is incorrect nor would anyone say that I am assumed lesser just because I don't bother with the insult. Similarly, no one should be burdened with breaking stereotypes which they only ever exist as insults or worse, "positive" insults which is far more vile with its passive aggressive approach. > > The very existence of stereotype is stupid. They exist for a reason alright, for the reason that you're reaching for an excuse to dehumanise another person and that's it. bruh don't start. You know what he meant
> [{quoted}](name=PTZekrom69,realm=EUW,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=000000000001,timestamp=2019-02-12T19:50:06.530+0000) > > bruh don't start. You know what he meant I am challenging directly at their hope that this team "breaks the stereotype" and say that no team should have any such burden in the first place. Stereotype itself is an expression of double standard. No one should be responsible for representing the image of their entire associated demographic as an individual, and judge the entire demographic based on this individual alone. And no one should be forced to put up with it or be expected to play with the folly of such double standard, with a significantly elevated performance benchmark than others, just to earn the barest minimum of respect.
AIQ (NA)
: Questions: And I want straight answers only. Has a female team/player ever been "good" / "Professional level" at LoL? Has a female/team been successful? With that how many have tried? (You can guess)
> [{quoted}](name=AIQ,realm=NA,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-12T19:12:08.484+0000) > > Questions: And I want straight answers only. > > Has a female team/player ever been "good" / "Professional level" at LoL? > > Has a female/team been successful? > > With that how many have tried? (You can guess) That's a loaded question and you know it. It's like if you were in the early 1800s in the US and ask "And I want straight answers only. Has a black person ever been a congressman in USA? Was there a black candidate that was successful? With how many had tried?" in some random attempt to justify some random highly racist stereotype that existed in that time, despite knowing the answer to all of them was that black people in USA literally didn't even have human rights and were kept as slaves so ofc the figures approach null but it proves absolutely nothing beyond the fuckery of the system and social climate of that time. This is the same, or at least similar, for this case too. The straight answer is that "you're ignoring context", which I have ALREADY answered and explained in detail in the post you're supposedly replying to. And it's not even like there are absolutely 0 female professional or high elo gamers, I mean hit the twitch stream or do a simple good research or something ffs; just that girls are highly underrepresented in the gaming scene, which is explained via the social expectation and other rooted problems in the gaming social circles that prevent it from occurring. But I guess you can just go "I wand a straight answer" and toss out a loaded question and pretend that's it.
Dynikus (NA)
: > the gaming culture have been actively pushing them out like the good ol' treehouse business "well that's because girls are just naturally and forever bad at games" Which things like this team only help reinforce. An all female team of people frankly not fit for the role that will likely do very poorly only perpetuates that "boys rule, girls drool" mentality. No organization would ever sign an all-male team with low diamond support mains in every position. It's purely because they're "gril gamers!!1!". Shit like this is why YeoChoeMi got so much hate even though she's actually _very good_.
> [{quoted}](name=Dynikus,realm=NA,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=00000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-02-12T19:12:57.231+0000) > > "well that's because girls are just naturally and forever bad at games" > > Which things like this team only help reinforce. An all female team of people frankly not fit for the role that will likely do very poorly only perpetuates that "boys rule, girls drool" mentality. > No organization would ever sign an all-male team with low diamond support mains in every position. It's purely because they're "gril gamers!!1!". Shit like this is why YeoChoeMi got so much hate even though she's actually _very good_. No, YOU (well, not just you) are reinforcing that. If an all male team consisted entirely of goofball bronzies fail miserably in some regional tournaments somewhere, would anyone give a shit in that their supposed play off disgrace the male gamer as some monolithic entity? No. People just say it's a team that failed. I mean, let's supposed that this all-girl team goes out of their way to suck (hypothetically), why is this even a problem? I'm sure many "for fun" teams are created daily, which definitely weren't form on the basis of meritocracy, and they obviously do not perform well, so what of it if this one happen to be all girl players? Even if they meant to aim high and end up failing, so what? Why should a girl team be tasked with representing not only themselves, but all the other teams with girls in it? And why are they held in a higher standard to receive the lowest of acknowledgement? Can't they just play the game and if they lose, it's just the team is not good enough and that's that (I guess nothing like a good meritocracy with guilt by association, oh wait!)? Last time I checked, an all-male team sucking balls is just 1 sucky team; but I guess if some girl team sucks it means all girls suck amiright? And you wonder why girls couldn't be bothered to enter gaming. No one wants to be held at a double standard all the time. Girls don't hate themselves that much. As I'd said, this is the "treehouse" business. It is virtually no different.
Dynikus (NA)
: Just because they can, doesn't mean they should. Make a team of players based on their own merit, not what's between their legs. All stuff like this does if the team doesn't do well (which while we haven't seen anything yet, I really don't have high hopes for them) is further enforce the stereotype and make it harder for female players to be taken seriously. They were picked for a team because they're girls, not because they're professional level players. I'm all for women in esports, but not like this.
> [{quoted}](name=Dynikus,realm=NA,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2019-02-12T18:26:52.420+0000) > > Just because they can, doesn't mean they should. Make a team of players based on their own merit, not what's between their legs. All stuff like this does if the team doesn't do well (which while we haven't seen anything yet, I really don't have high hopes for them) is further enforce the stereotype and make it harder for female players to be taken seriously. They were picked for a team because they're girls, not because they're professional level players. I'm all for women in esports, but not like this. Is there anyone stopping people from forming a team entirely filled with boys? No there isn't. Unless you aren't being an outwardly ass about it and claim that female gamers forever suck while doing it or some shit, no one will bat an eye if you form a team consisted entirely of boys on purpose. It isn't just sex and gender, players are also picked or rejected based on other non-merit based factors such as nationality (which some teams have a hard on for) even if LoL is NOT a natioanlised game topic. And I am also sure as hell with countless teams out there falling out of the competitive ladder before the real thing even begin, their team leader has a VERY GOOD idea on just how utter trash their teams are and many of whom, such as highschool and university teams, play entirely for fun with 0 hard selection criteria. But ofc, they go with it because they can. So where's your complaint that they should "make a team of players based on their own merit"? Well, ofc, they don't have to care. And no one gives a shit if they don't. So why is an all-girl team suddenly need to consider whether or not they "should" form a team just because they can? And who are you even to say that this team has simply no merit whatsoever for you to exclude out the "merit" part entirely anyway?
AIQ (NA)
: Slow down buddy. Stereo type: A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or ***thing***. That ***thing*** being, ***all female teams are really bad****. He's not wrong. Please tell me the all female team that won anything in LoL. If that's not the case. They must break this Stereotype for others to see them as different. Unfair? Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that it's true. Yes, they must make the effort to destroy this stereo type, not only for their sake, but also for all female gamer proving that it's possible to compete at the highest level regardless of gender. Unfortunately, I don't think these are the girls to do it, but I hope I'm wrong. No one is insulting them.... (yet). We just know based on history how this goes. That's the stereotype. Quick example: If you go passed a stop light, the stereotype is Red\Yellow\Green. If one of those lights are blue that is breaking the stereotype. Their is nothing insulting/dehumanizing about this, it's just a fact. Likewise there is nothing insulting/dehumanizing about hoping they break the stereotype that all female gamer teams fail. (If anything it's the opposite hes hoping for the best.)
> [{quoted}](name=AIQ,realm=NA,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-12T18:22:41.101+0000) > > Slow down buddy. > Stereo type: A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or ***thing***. > > That ***thing*** being, ***all female teams are really bad****. He's not wrong. Please tell me the all female team that won anything in LoL. If that's not the case. > > They must break this Stereotype for others to see them as different. Unfair? Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that it's true. > Yes, they must make the effort to destroy this stereo type, not only for their sake, but also for all female gamer proving that it's possible to compete at the highest level regardless of gender. > Unfortunately, I don't think these are the girls to do it, but I hope I'm wrong. > > No one is insulting them.... (yet). We just know based on history how this goes. That's the stereotype. > > Quick example: If you go passed a stop light, the stereotype is Red\Yellow\Green. If one of those lights are blue that is breaking the stereotype. Their is nothing insulting/dehumanizing about this, it's just a fact. > Likewise there is nothing insulting/dehumanizing about hoping they break the stereotype that all female gamer teams fail. (If anything it's the opposite hes hoping for the best.) Stereotype utterly ignores context, and often is used as the context itself in a self-referencing way. Or they just made up nonsense to fill in the gaps and rationalise their way around things. Stereotypes are almost entirely made up by bullshit. Girls are far less present in video game competition scene simply because they not only have no social culture surrounding it owing to traditional gender roles that discourages them from participating, but also because the gaming culture have been actively pushing them out like the good ol' treehouse business. Stereotypes see nothing of this, it just links the already shallow observation to be the cause itself and goes "why girls not in game competition? Must because they aren't made to be" or simply tread into the realm of fiction and fill in the blank by going "well that's because girls are just naturally and forever bad at games" and ringing to some pseudoscience if they are bothered enough (but not enough to actually be bothered with reality). By ignoring context entirely, stereotypes are a highly reductionist worldview that is both invalid and high dishonest and thus pointless. Outside of its pointlessness, many stereotypes are weapons created as political vehicles and have little to no basis in reality. Eastern Asian's stereotypes for instance, have gone from "hypermusculine" to "hyperfeminine" in a handful of decades and currently exists in this limbo where they simultaneously and somehow only have the worst aspects of both. The "Jewish nose" has so little basis in reality that not even 1 quarter of the Jewish population has the said nose nor is it even a unique trait of them. The concept of race has no scientific basis as evident by the fact there is a higher genetic variance WITHIN the so called "races" than in-between, and it gets even stupider if you look at how the classification metric have arbitrarily changed from its initial already arbitrary inception over the centuries. The higher crime rates of say, black people in US is often chalked up to their "nature" by stereotypes while utterly ignoring historical, social and economical reasons, as well as the very simple fact that a heavy bias exists in the US culture and by extension, the police force where they dedicate a significantly higher amount of resource targeting black criminals which ofc leads to more black criminals arrested but it doesn't mean that blacks are that more likely to be criminals (this is also why despite white and black people smoking weed in roughly the same rate, black people are statistically 3 times more likely to be arrested for it). Etc etc etc. Then worst of all, stereotypes place the burden of "prove me wrong" onto individuals subjected to stereotypes (which as we've already explored, don't bother a single bit with context and is also often created for political purposes with little to 0 basis in reality), effectively charging someone as guilty until proven innocence in social terms. A person has to go out of their way to prove that stereotypes don't apply to them or else they would be seen as nothing but a caricature and not an actual person. Now questions arise, WHY SHOULD someone break a stereotype, THAT YOU CREATED, for your amusement? Why should anyone be required to impress you first before anything? Why should individuals be representatives of those who have the slimmest to no connection with them, and not be representatives of just themselves? And why should the whatever subject chosen as a part of the stereotype, which as discussed often entirely arbitrary, be avoided in the first place, just because you said so? Etc etc. Why can't girls just have a team and play in the pro scene, but no instead they have to go somewhere with it to "prove their worth"? Does anyone question all the countless all male team failing to make out anything of worth in every single video game competition, and charge them to prove their worth as make gamers? So why is this on the girl gamers? #If you haven't noticed, the problem with stereotypes is precisely because it's a product of smearing and DOUBLE STANDARD. There is no rational reason whatsoever, to even bother with stereotypes.
: **Top** - [L9Tr1ggered](https://ru.op.gg/summoner/userName=l9tr1ggered) Diamond ??? Support main. Over past seasons has finished Diamond 3, Diamond 5, and is currently Diamond 1 with 20 games. **Jungler** - [Merao](https://ru.op.gg/summoner/userName=Merao) Diamond 4 Support Main, no questions asked. **Mid** - [VioletFairy](https://ru.op.gg/summoner/userName=VioletFairy) Diamond 5 Mid/Support, who prefers Kat. If op.gg is anything to go off of (no smurf accounts anywhere) actually has more Jungle experience than the Jungler. **Support** - [Ankote](https://ru.op.gg/summoner/userName=Ankote) Diamond 4 Support/Mid. I'd hold of judgement until knowing for certain if they've got other accounts that they've played on and what the ADC plays, but I'll agree it doesn't look super promising on paper. One other thing I'm noticing is a lack of ranked play in general. It looks like the accounts we've found do a lot of their practice in Normals.
> [{quoted}](name=DrCyanide,realm=NA,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-02-12T18:19:52.240+0000) > > [...] It looks like the accounts we've found do a lot of their practice in Normals. To be fair, who wants to practice in Ranked in Season9 with its broken position rank and matchmaking?
: Kindred I haven't won a game with her, I mean she's considered one of the hardest champion, if not the hardest but still I've won games with the other champions that are being considered bad.
> [{quoted}](name=Magnesium14,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=6QBNT2Q4,comment-id=0011,timestamp=2019-02-12T18:13:00.736+0000) > > Kindred > I haven't won a game with her, I mean she's considered one of the hardest champion, if not the hardest but still I've won games with the other champions that are being considered bad. Why is this thread still being necroed? The OP is TWO YEARS OLD ffs.
Arcade Lulu (EUNE)
: I don't understand why people try so hard to make a female team people just need to accept that there isn't many challenger lvl girl players and that's ok Ngl i think these female teams are made just to attract guys' attention. Because you know, good looking girls It would be cool to have female pro players, but c'mon
> [{quoted}](name=Arcade Lulu,realm=EUNE,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-02-12T18:03:40.029+0000) > > I don't understand why people try so hard to make a female team Because they can.
: Lets hope they can break the stereotype/curse these types of teams have had in the past, doesnt look like they did though. EDIT: I'm not saying this to be sexist, but every time there has been an all female team in high-competitive Esports they fail miserably. It's not only in LoL as far as I know as well. It would be really cool to see a competent all female pro team in LoL, but so far there hasn't been. Each and every time there has been an all girl team they fall flat on their faces. I really wish the best for this team, and I hope they succeed in whatever tournaments they go in, but judging from their player SKILL level, I doubt they are going to go far.
> [{quoted}](name=PrisonNightmare,realm=NA,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=Nsx0WJHb,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-02-12T17:57:42.469+0000) > > Lets hope they can break the stereotype/curse these types of teams have had in the past. The fact some people have to break stereotypes is unfair in and of itself. You can make up stereotypes for basically any and everything and then have the audacity to demand the targets of those ""stereotypes"" to exert extra effort over complete nothing just to show you that they're an actual human and not a caricature that you MADE FOR YOURSELF. If I get insulted by some rando on the street, I am in no obligation to prove that their insult is incorrect nor would anyone say that I am assumed lesser just because I don't bother with the insult. Similarly, no one should be burdened with breaking stereotypes which they only ever exist as insults or worse, "positive" insults which is far more vile with its passive aggressive approach. The very existence of stereotype is stupid. They exist for a reason alright, for the reason that you're reaching for an excuse to dehumanise another person and that's it.
: Yes, but it disappears with no telling. It's basically: You use your Q, there is then a space of worked ground for 45 seconds, but it vanished without giving you any heads up, so you basically would have to keep the 45 seconds in minds for every worked ground you placed. Imagine it like that, you want to throw 1 (one) single rock to a minion to last hit, but then suddenly the worked ground disappears, because the 45 seconds are over. You couldn't tell beforehand, unless you kept these 45 seconds in minds and paid close attention to it. So you throw 5 instead and might mess up your entire lane. That's why an indicator would be very useful that has a small circle around the worked ground that shows that it will disappear soon.
> [{quoted}](name=Loa Erebonius,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=0rcAY1Zu,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-02-12T17:14:39.349+0000) > > Yes, but it disappears with no telling. > > It's basically: You use your Q, there is then a space of worked ground for 45 seconds, but it vanished without giving you any heads up, so you basically would have to keep the 45 seconds in minds for every worked ground you placed. > > Imagine it like that, you want to throw 1 (one) single rock to a minion to last hit, but then suddenly the worked ground disappears, because the 45 seconds are over. You couldn't tell beforehand, unless you kept these 45 seconds in minds and paid close attention to it. So you throw 5 instead and might mess up your entire lane. > > That's why an indicator would be very useful that has a small circle around the worked ground that shows that it will disappear soon. I see. I agree with and support this.
: Can we finally get an indicator for Taliyah's Q worked ground
I'd thought the worked ground itself is already a good indication especially that changes colour scheme to a more vibrant and highly visible version when you step into it?
Show more

SEKAI

Level 126 (OCE)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion