SaltSong

joined 4 months ago
[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 2 points 3 weeks ago

We dont want a military coup. People really need to understand this.

No, we don't. But I might prefer it to another three years of Trump, followed by whatever fascist replaces him.

If there is a third option, I'm happy to consider it.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Disagree. The DM should provide some sort of reason for the party to come together. Some sort of external influence, to bring in any characters that don't start the game together.

But it is the duty of the player to roll with it. Don't fight the plot hook. What's the point?

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 3 points 3 weeks ago

I could let her ambush me, if she was gentle about it.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 9 points 3 weeks ago

This is an abomination.

Put it in the pile with the others.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Is there some reason we want brands to join the conversation?

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 3 points 3 weeks ago

Working my way through Master and Commander again. I'm up to Truelove.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 6 points 3 weeks ago

Oh, you're gonna have a good time.

It's not flawless, (what is, after all) but it's quite good.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 5 points 3 weeks ago

More or less. No bonus points for me, I guess.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 8 points 3 weeks ago

You need some kind of cue to keep in step. If you can see the other guys feet, that helps, but often tinted you can't. The sound of yourself matching helps, but without some occasional cadence, or other governing factor, the speed of the match tends to change in a collective sort of way. My BMT platoon would get faster as we marched, unless the DI shouted at us occasionally.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 12 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Realistically, by way of being the political equivalent of a fleet-in-being.

Mostly, though, by way of ducking up anyone who looks like challenging our putative superiority.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 2 points 3 weeks ago

Some of this makes a bit of sense, but it still leans heavily on perception by others, rather than respecting what people know about themselves. This does not seem to be what many transgender persons want.

I'll think about it.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 3 points 3 weeks ago

using ciswomen and transwomen makes you sound like a TERF.

What would be a correct way to distinguish between the two?

  • "Woman" seems like it works refer to both, to be used in the majority of cases when the distinction is irrelevant.

  • I don't want to say "natural" women, or "real" women, as even someone as thick as me can see that's insulting.

  • It seems that using the prefix for both makes them equal.

What do you think world be more appropriate?

it’s impossible for Black people to not pass as Black because it’s been proven they experience racism based on an immutable characteristic.

But they would suggest that as soon as we discover a way to change that characteristic, transrace world be valid.

Further, while gender identity may not be based on appearance, the way one is treated is very much based on appearance. If I look male, I get treated as male. If I look female, I get treated as female. If I look like one, but insist I am the other, people tend to have disagreements between their deliberate and automatic behaviors. (Well, the same people do, anyway.)

I can't think of a good way to prove it, but I am legitimately curious about this topic. I'm never happy with the answer "because this one is right, and that one is wrong." There needs to be reasons why.

view more: ‹ prev next ›