1988 game accurately predicts America in 2020

[TGS]

39079

Pretty amazing they were able to identify it and nail it back in 1988.

[blues]

39079

Pretty amazing they were able to identify it and nail it back in 1988.



https://www.bl.uk/britishlibrary/~/media/bl/global/dl%2020th%20century/authors/george-orwell-people-page2.jpg?crop=1&cropX=101&cropY=125&cropW=1195&cropH=670&w=608&h=342&dispW=608&dispH=342

"Really?...Not at all shabby...but I'd ask someone to hold my beer if I hadn't died in 1950!"

[blues]

It is actually quite prescient if it has been vetted.

[TGS]

https://www.bl.uk/britishlibrary/~/media/bl/global/dl%2020th%20century/authors/george-orwell-people-page2.jpg?crop=1&cropX=101&cropY=125&cropW=1195&cropH=670&w=608&h=342&dispW=608&dispH=342

"Really?...Not at all shabby...but I'd ask someone to hold my beer if I hadn't died in 1950!"

I didn't think this was an character of Orwell's work, was it?

[blues]

I didn't think this was an character of Orwell's work, was it?

Prognostication my dear chap.

[Hambo]

I wasn't willing to investigate deeply, but this doesn't sound much like the OP.

https://talsorianstore.com/products/cyberpunk-2020


WELCOME TO THE DARK FUTURE

The Corporations control the world from their skyscraper fortresses, enforcing their rule with armies of cyborg assassins. On the Street, Boostergangs roam a shattered urban wilderness, killing and looting. The rest of the world is a perpetual party, as fashion-model beautiful techies rub biosculpt jobs with battle armored roadwarriors in the hottest clubs, sleaziest bars and meanest streets this side of the Postholocaust. The Future never looked so bad.

But you can change it. You've got interface plugs in your wrists, weapons in your arms, lasers in your eyes, bio-chip programs screaming in your brain. You're wired in, cyberenhanced and solid state as you can take it to the fatal Edge where only the toughest and coolest can go. Because you're CYBERPUNK.

Cyberpunk: the original roleplaying game of the dark future; a world of corporate assassins, heavy-metal heroes and brain burning cyberhackers, packed with cutting edge technology and intense urban action. Within this book, you'll find everything you need to tackle the mean streets of the 2000's -- in a game system that combines the best in realistic action and playability.

[Medusa]

So the answer is what. Homogeneity and a return to the supposed good old days of ....when. 1950? 40? 30? Before ?

Another option would be to embrace diversity, and really understand what “from many, one” really means. To understand what equality actually is.

Or not.

[JAD]

"Really?...Not at all shabby...but I'd ask someone to hold my beer if I hadn't died in 1950!"

‘old my beer.

[RoyGBiv]

So the answer is what. Homogeneity and a return to the supposed good old days of ....when. 1950? 40? 30? Before ?

Another option would be to embrace diversity, and really understand what “from many, one” really means. To understand what equality actually is.

Or not.
I believe we're closer than you feel.
I hope so.

[blues]

‘old my beer.

Noted. But he was born in India and of a different sort of family line...


Eric Arthur Blair was born on 25 June 1903 in Motihari, Bihar, British India.[8] His great-grandfather, Charles Blair, was a wealthy country gentleman in Dorset who married Lady Mary Fane, daughter of the Earl of Westmorland, and had income as an absentee landlord of plantations in Jamaica.[9] His grandfather, Thomas Richard Arthur Blair, was a clergyman.[10] Although the gentility passed down the generations, the prosperity did not; Eric Blair described his family as "lower-upper-middle class".

[TGS]

So the answer is what. Homogeneity and a return to the supposed good old days of ....when. 1950? 40? 30? Before ?

Another option would be to embrace diversity, and really understand what “from many, one” really means. To understand what equality actually is.

Or not.

triggered.

[blues]

triggered.

It's just becoming impossible to have a reasonable conversation around these parts that incorporates more than a simple "is" / "is not" dualism. Sad, really.

[JAD]

Noted. But he was born in India and of a different sort of family line...

I’m moderately familiar.

It is apparently ungoogleable, but Orwell once said in a speech in Britain, “"workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your haiches!"

I honestly thought it was a better-known quote.

[blues]

I’m moderately familiar.

It is apparently ungoogleable, but Orwell once said in a speech in Britain, “"workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your haiches!"

I honestly thought it was a better-known quote.


“We have nothing to lose but our aitches”
Ask Question

1


George Orwell ends his essay The Road to Wigan Pier (1937) with (emphasis mine):

And then perhaps this misery of class-prejudice will fade away, and we of the sinking middle class … may sink without further struggles into the working class where we belong, and probably when we get there it will not be so dreadful as we feared, for, after all, we have nothing to lose but our aitches.

Earlier in the same book, he comments that (again emphasis mine) In almost any revolt the leaders would tend to be people who could pronounce their aitches.

I am missing some context to understand this; probably both due to me not being a native speaker, and due to the comment relating to a situation 80 years ago. In both cases, Orwell is discussing class distinctions and class prejudice, so pronouncing the aitches is presumably a pars pro toto for a larger sociolect belonging to a particular class (and to non-linguistic class distinctions as well). But he chose to describe it by aitches, so that must be or have been a major characteristic.

How did the pronunciation of the h within England in the 1930s depend on class, and is still still true today?

Edit: (I am aware that this is a reference to Marx' they have nothing to lose but their chains , but my question is rather about the sociolect he is referring to than about the historical or political context)

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/348795/we-have-nothing-to-lose-but-our-aitches

[JAD]

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/348795/we-have-nothing-to-lose-but-our-aitches

My googlefu is no match for your Jeeveskata.

[Medusa]

triggered.

Yeah. Not so much. Amused would be a better choice.

[Totem Polar]

If we are going to exhume the bodies of great authors to take macabre selfies, may as well throw this vetted log on the pyre:

https://fsmedia.imgix.net/d3/75/43/e5/a8e8/4fb5/b2c2/aeb48989df7e/the-demon-haunted-world.jpeg

[0ddl0t]

Another option would be to embrace diversity, and really understand what “from many, one” really means. To understand what equality actually is.

Unless you see another's diversity as a threat to your own in which case you cry "Yank their pension!", right?


(I'm giving you a hard time on this because I think you are one of the few capable of fighting for someone else's rights, even when you disagree vehemently with them)

[Yung]

Strange to see certain things I think about overlap.

The context behind somebody bringing up the original tabletop game is because in the ongoing culture war there's a video game based on the tabletop game setting mentioned in OP, called Cyberpunk 2077. It's been controversial ever since a teaser was released around three? four years ago. Some of you may remember a CGI video in a future video setting where police officers are engaging a woman who'd just cut someone up in the street and in the last few seconds of the trailer said woman is being 'converted' into joining their ranks.

The developers have a previous reputation for not playing along with the progressive agenda that you see being pushed everywhere. There's a recent industry expo called E3 where I think Keanu Reeves made a showing and is going to be in it and the game demo was released. So three of the cards being thrown by whiny folks on twitter are that

1) the megacorp aesthetics you see in cyberpunk are some mixture of anti-Asian xenophobia and/or appropriation
2) there's two enemy? factions in the game who are black and that's racist but take a look at the particular developer behind that who is most likely not very racist
3) there's an advertisement in the game with a transgender model, and player character generation has transgender options, which is somehow exploitative or tokenism despite the fact that it's unusually appropriate and a good idea considering the genre's subthemes of corporate exploitation (take a look at Pride month 2019!) and questions brought up by technology being so advanced that you can change every aspect of your entire body.

It's important to remember that most of the people who whine about this sorta thing don't actually play or enjoy video games or comics or whatever so much as they failed somewhere and have to write about it for a living or they're activists who care more about creative works as political statements over anything else, which includes being well-developed.

If I got some of this wrong or someone's got a significantly different take, have at it.

[Medusa]

Advocating genocide isn’t diversity. The paradox of tolerance is a thing, and should be well known to you. If for some reason it isn’t, and google doesn’t work for you, let me know.



Unless you see another's diversity as a threat to your own in which case you cry "Yank their pension!", right?


(I'm giving you a hard time on this because I think you are one of the few capable of fighting for someone else's rights, even when you disagree vehemently with them)

[Medusa]

My wife and I are avid gamers. She and I look forward to playing this one and drawing our own conclusions.

I read an interview with one of the designers and will give them the benefit of the doubt on some issues. We will see how it plays out when the glitzy previews stop and the game is in hand.



Strange to see certain things I think about overlap.

The context behind somebody bringing up the original tabletop game is because in the ongoing culture war there's a video game based on the tabletop game setting mentioned in OP, called Cyberpunk 2077. It's been controversial ever since a teaser was released around three? four years ago. Some of you may remember a CGI video in a future video setting where police officers are engaging a woman who'd just cut someone up in the street and in the last few seconds of the trailer said woman is being 'converted' into joining their ranks.

The developers have a previous reputation for not playing along with the progressive agenda that you see being pushed everywhere. There's a recent industry expo called E3 where I think Keanu Reeves made a showing and is going to be in it and the game demo was released. So three of the cards being thrown by whiny folks on twitter are that

1) the megacorp aesthetics you see in cyberpunk are some mixture of anti-Asian xenophobia and/or appropriation
2) there's two enemy? factions in the game who are black and that's racist but take a look at the particular developer behind that who is most likely not very racist
3) there's an advertisement in the game with a transgender model, and player character generation has transgender options, which is somehow exploitative or tokenism despite the fact that it's unusually appropriate and a good idea considering the genre's subthemes of corporate exploitation (take a look at Pride month 2019!) and questions brought up by technology being so advanced that you can change every aspect of your entire body.

It's important to remember that most of the people who whine about this sorta thing don't actually play or enjoy video games or comics or whatever so much as they failed somewhere and have to write about it for a living or they're activists who care more about creative works as political statements over anything else, which includes being well-developed.

If I got some of this wrong or someone's got a significantly different take, have at it.

[Stephanie B]

Unless you see another's diversity as a threat to your own in which case you cry "Yank their pension!", right?


(I'm giving you a hard time on this because I think you are one of the few capable of fighting for someone else's rights, even when you disagree vehemently with them)
I have a hard time granting someone who is advocating for the government to engage in mass murder any space to argue their twisted point.

Imagine this sermon by John Cardinal McIncest: "The Baptists are heretics. Scripture tells us that heretics should be put to death. Now, I am not telling you, as individuals, to do harm to Baptists. But I am saying that our government should enact legislation to round up all of the Baptists and put them to a fiery death and put their so-called "churches" to the torch, as the heretics that they are. In the name of Our Savior, amen."

I cannot imagine soon-to-be-ex-Knox County Deputy and Baptist Preacher Fritters saying: "I disagree with that, but it's a legitimate point of view."

Maybe I'm biased on this, but as someone who (a) that pulpit-pounding, two-legged vermin would seen put to death and (b) whose extended family tree was pruned by Germans and their eastern European lackeys, I draw the line at advocating murdering people because of their race, religion, creed or sexual orientation.

[HCountyGuy]

I think the resident social justice warriors seem to be missing the point and are interpreting the acknowledgement of the game's "prediction" as though some here are advocating for some Nazi-esque purge of today's "marginalized groups". I think that contempt demonstrates a lack of attempt at understanding the people you claim are supporting that sort of draconian behavior.

The issue being discussed is how there's this shift in overall American (and other civilized countries') culture that all of those groups are more special than the next yet their demands of equality are actually demands for preferential treatment. But God forbid you call them out on it, because then you're a bigot against those particular groups and must be wanting them purged. That is an extraordinarily naive presumption to be made by folks who are demonstrably highly educated and capable of rational thought. I certainly can't recall anyone here at PF advocating for the reversion of societal standards to where it was acceptable to accost (verbally or physically) any group based on race, gender or sexual orientation. I would imagine that would get shut down pretty quick if it did rear its ugly head as the folks here are quite more tolerant of diversity than those who claim to embrace it but only want surface diversity while insisting everyone think the same otherwise they're race-traitors and the like.

The sad reality of today is groups are getting preferential treatment because universities or employers are demanded to maintain a diverse populace, even if the folks admitted under such premises aren't suited to be there. Affirmative action is quite honestly screwing shit up.

You want equal treatment? I'm all for it.

What I and many others are getting tired of is the "poor pitiful me" perpetual victim mentality being used to advance the preferential treatment for one group while slighting another group. If you've had bad shit happen to you because you belong to a marginalized group, you have my sympathies because the perpetrators were obviously narrow-minded assholes. But don't stand on your soap box about it every time it's convenient to bring it up in order to shut down arguments from the other side.

[TGS]

I think the resident social justice warriors seem to be missing the point and are interpreting the acknowledgement of the game's "prediction" as though some here are advocating for some Nazi-esque purge of today's "marginalized groups". I think that contempt demonstrates a lack of attempt at understanding the people you claim are supporting that sort of draconian behavior.

The issue being discussed is how there's this shift in overall American (and other civilized countries') culture that all of those groups are more special than the next yet their demands of equality are actually demands for preferential treatment. But God forbid you call them out on it, because then you're a bigot against those particular groups and must be wanting them purged. That is an extraordinarily naive presumption to be made by folks who are demonstrably highly educated and capable of rational thought. I certainly can't recall anyone here at PF advocating for the reversion of societal standards to where it was acceptable to accost (verbally or physically) any group based on race, gender or sexual orientation. I would imagine that would get shut down pretty quick if it did rear its ugly head as the folks here are quite more tolerant of diversity than those who claim to embrace it but only want surface diversity while insisting everyone think the same otherwise they're race-traitors and the like.

The sad reality of today is groups are getting preferential treatment because universities or employers are demanded to maintain a diverse populace, even if the folks admitted under such premises aren't suited to be there. Affirmative action is quite honestly screwing shit up.

You want equal treatment? I'm all for it.

What I and many others are getting tired of is the "poor pitiful me" perpetual victim mentality being used to advance the preferential treatment for one group while slighting another group. If you've had bad shit happen to you because you belong to a marginalized group, you have my sympathies because the perpetrators were obviously narrow-minded assholes. But don't stand on your soap box about it every time it's convenient to bring it up in order to shut down arguments from the other side.

Get this heteronormative cis-gendered fascist fuck face a beer.

[blues]

^^^Well said, HCG. Pretty much nailed it.

[Stephanie B]

I think the resident social justice warriors ...
Well, I'll tell you this much: I know a dismissive insult when I see it.

For decades, if not centuries, there was preferential treatment for white Christian males. Do you deny that?

[TGS]

Well, I'll tell you this much: I know a dismissive insult when I see it.

For decades, if not centuries, there was preferential treatment for white Christian males. Do you deny that?

Yes, there definitely was. And in the northeast the treatment ran preferential for Catholics, and in the south you'd be chased out of town if you asked at the local Waffle House if there were a Catholic mass in town.

The fuck does it have to do with anything in this thread? Nothing.

[blues]

Since we can't go back and revise history...(except in books and other media both online and off), why not mark an "x" on the current day and say from this day forward we treat everyone with the same level of respect and rights regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, beliefs, etc etc etc?

Constant harping about the ills of the past does not make the current day and future any better, especially when equal isn't good enough. "Some more equal than others" is not only a crappy starting point, its proving to be a non-starter. Of course if backlash is what is sought, have at it. We've already proven that result is always waiting in the wings.

Advancing one group by marginalizing another is hardly the path to progress.

[breakingtime91]

Whether people want to accept it or not, the world is the most peaceful its been in basically forever. This is especially true in the west where it is more accepting, less racist, and violent crime against minorities is a low probability instead of the expectation. Click bait media and misleading data may try to show a different narrative but its completely false. Where I see the major issue with this country right now, as an educator who works with low income families and children from broken homes, is the lack of individual responsibility of the parents. There is nothing wrong with the children compared to the their peers, they are intelligent, hard working, and social kids who need a little extra help because they didn't get breakfast (read maslow's hierarchy of needs if curious why I said that) but more often then not the parents don't rise to the challenge of being a parent. If I fail in life, its my fault. If my children are not set up to succeed in life, its my fault. Try to tell that to the majority of people on a certain ideological bend right now, you will get called privileged or worst without them knowing one single thing about you.


It drives me crazy. Most Americans embrace diversity, most don't even give a shit what you do with your life so people need to stop acting like victims and focus on bettering themselves.

[HCountyGuy]

Well, I'll tell you this much: I know a dismissive insult when I see it.

For decades, if not centuries, there was preferential treatment for white Christian males. Do you deny that?

No, I don’t deny it. Not saying it was right either.

There’s the old saying “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Which is essentially what’s going on these days, the previously discriminated have turned the tables and are looking to marginalize the white Christian males but all the while they’re screaming “equality”.

[blues]

No, I don’t deny it. Not saying it was right either.

There’s the old saying “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Which is essentially what’s going on these days, the previously discriminated have turned the tables and are looking to marginalize the white Christian males but all the while they’re screaming “equality”.

I thought it was just plain ol' "white males". Damn group keeps on getting more exclusive on me. There goes that elusive privilege I was hoping for...sigh...:rolleyes:

[Totem Polar]

Since we can't go back and revise history...(except in books and other media both online and off), why not mark an "x" on the current day and say from this day forward we treat everyone with the same level of respect and rights regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, beliefs, etc etc etc?

This is what I try to do in my life. I’m still developing the attribute, but by and large, it works pretty well on an interpersonal level.

I have the intellectual luxury of being able to trace some ancestry back to the Mayflower, and other ancestry back through Africans brought over on slave ships, along with the occasional Native American forced into prostitution. Coming therefore from millennia-long lines of "doers unto others" and "been done dirty," I find it pretty reasonable to advocate for the same tack you do. Best part, as already observed: this is both the age, and the country to best try and behave this way, as a society.

I can get along with most, untill they go full retard on harming others. Telling wholesale lies in print about a 5th-gen business? Fuck those people with a sideways judgement. Advocating for genocide in a speech? A rear naked choke might slow that down a bit. Unwarranted violence against the innocent? I think most are on the same page here on that.

Otherwise, tend your own backyard, and be courteous to your neighbor, and ask for the same in return. Simple, not always easy. JMO.

[blues]

^^^^Truth be told, Sidhe, there's no group that hasn't "done unto others"...whether the other group looked like them, acted like them, lived like them or not. It's all a matter of degree (of carnage and fallout).

[Stephanie B]

I thought it was just plain ol' "white males". Damn group keeps on getting more exclusive on me. There goes that elusive privilege I was hoping for...sigh...:rolleyes:

Back in the day, universities had quota limits on Jews, because the Christian males otherwise weren't competitive. My dad's generation dealt with quite a bit of subtle prejudice. Sometimes not so subtle.

[Stephanie B]

Well, I'll tell you this much: I know a dismissive insult when I see it.

For decades, if not centuries, there was preferential treatment for white Christian males. Do you deny that?

Yes, there definitely was. And in the northeast the treatment ran preferential for Catholics, and in the south you'd be chased out of town if you asked at the local Waffle House if there were a Catholic mass in town.

The fuck does it have to do with anything in this thread? Nothing.
The fuck it doesn't.

It's funny how people who, for generations, benefited from discrimination in their favor, now wail and gnash their teeth when attempts are made to try and level the playing field.

[blues]

Back in the day, universities had quota limits on Jews, because the Christian males otherwise weren't competitive. My dad's generation dealt with quite a bit of subtle prejudice. Sometimes not so subtle.

I was trying to be a bit ironic, Steph. Let's not totally lose our sense of humor and perspective. (This prejudice is not unknown to me.)

[Stephanie B]

No, I don’t deny it. Not saying it was right either.

There’s the old saying “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Which is essentially what’s going on these days, the previously discriminated have turned the tables and are looking to marginalize the white Christian males but all the while they’re screaming “equality”.
Right, pity the poor, marginalized Christian white males. Out of 44 men who have been president, 41 have been Christian white men. (As to the Christian part, I'm not sure of Jefferson or Trump.) Of the 535 Senators and Congressmen, 474 are Christian (https://www.pewforum.org/2019/01/03/faith-on-the-hill-116/), which is overrepresentation. 78% are white, also overrepresentation (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/08/for-the-fifth-time-in-a-row-the-new-congress-is-the-most-racially-and-ethnically-diverse-ever/).

We could probably play this game for everything except the NHL, MLB and the NBA and come to roughly the same result.

So tell me, how are white guys feeling the lash of discrimination?

[Yung]

Since we can't go back and revise history...(except in books and other media both online and off), why not mark an "x" on the current day and say from this day forward we treat everyone with the same level of respect and rights regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, beliefs, etc etc etc?

Constant harping about the ills of the past does not make the current day and future any better, especially when equal isn't good enough. "Some more equal than others" is not only a crappy starting point, its proving to be a non-starter. Of course if backlash is what is sought, have at it. We've already proven that result is always waiting in the wings.

Advancing one group by marginalizing another is hardly the path to progress.

We're familiar with rights and responsibilities going hand in hand. I think it was you who said in an earlier thread that it can't be much of a surprise that people don't vote in favor of personal responsibility if they haven't been raised with it to begin with.

When group identities take precedence over the identity of the smallest minority, which is the individual, everyone becomes beholden to destructive behaviors and beliefs based on any number of characteristics whether mutable or immutable. If history is not only written but can be rewritten by the current victors, there is an undeniable incentive in making everyone inherit the sins of their fathers.

Concepts like 'progress' become subverted as weapons to disguise the word 'power'. Destroy the marketplace of ideas and suppress individual thought, and we will have an infinite amount of compassion and emotion to justify and rationalize atrocities forever and ever.

Since this thread is talking about older games predicting stuff, I'll post a relevant video from Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, which was published in 2001.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-00nDI9fsc

[Stephanie B]

I was trying to be a bit ironic, Steph. Let's not totally lose our sense of humor and perspective. (This prejudice is not unknown to me.)

Irony is a hard thing to detect. So is sarcasm.

So here are a few helpful things:


39098

39097

39099

39100

[blues]

The fuck it doesn't.

It's funny how people who, for generations, benefited from discrimination in their favor, now wail and gnash their teeth when attempts are made to try and level the playing field.

With all due respect, I'm not picking up any gnashing of teeth over people being treated equally...just the opposite.

Now, you might argue whether the statements being made are sincere or not, but I don't see anyone recommending disparity or separate treatment.

Now, if someone wants to argue that it's now "their turn", then I'd have to disagree. Parity is the goal, imho.

[Totem Polar]

^^^^Truth be told, Sidhe, there's no group that hasn't "done unto others"...whether the other group looked like them, acted like them, lived like them or not. It's all a matter of degree (of carnage and fallout).

Indeed. I am forever in the habit of pointing out that whitey pretty much stole the same land that the comanches stole from a bunch of other tribes first, mostly by exterminating them and driving them to exile before superior tech. History is a long line of people effing other people over for resources; on occasion, the bag wrapped around the souls involved along the way changes color temporarily—yet the conflicts remain the same.

I’m also fond of pointing out stop action videos of plants grappling for space and light as an analogy of the human condition. I’m a lot of fun at parties. Especially ones with vegan friends present.

:)

[breakingtime91]

The fuck it doesn't.

It's funny how people who, for generations, benefited from discrimination in their favor, now wail and gnash their teeth when attempts are made to try and level the playing field.

Have you read the Gulag Archipelago? Or ever head of the famine in the Ukraine 1930? That all took place because people tried to "level the playing field." The idea behind that simple comment can be incredibly murderous. I am all about equality of opportunity but equality of outcome is what current attempts to level of the playing field are and that can be disastrous for everyone involved.

Also you can openly bash Christianity in conversations and at universities now. If you bring up the civil war in Islam right now or their prosecution of minorities (gays, women, race) or Christians your a bigot. This whole idea of identity based of race, religion, or sexual orientation is going to fuck all of us in the end. All it is doing is bringing back tribalism, which is a strange thing in its self. My wife and I are not strangers to discrimination, we are in a biracial relationship where neither ethnic group we come from fully agrees with us being together in certain areas of the world and sometimes this country. But at the end of the day if I can not rise above that and continue on.. jeebus

[blues]

Indeed. I am forever in the habit of pointing out that whitey pretty much stole the same land that the comanches stole from a bunch of other tribes first, mostly by exterminating them and driving them to exile before superior tech. History is a long line of people effing other people over for resources; on occasion, the bag wrapped around the souls involved along the way changes color temporarily—yet the conflicts remain the same.

I’m also fond of pointing out stop action videos of plants grappling for space and light as an analogy of the human condition. I’m a lot of fun at parties. Especially ones with vegan friends present.

:)

I like the way you roll, bro'. I was commenting to the missus just last night on the atrocities perpetrated between the Comanches and Apache.

Yep...in the end, (usually unfortunately), the power to enforce one's will is the ultimate arbiter.

[BehindBlueI's]

So tell me, how are white guys feeling the lash of discrimination?

Recently and locally?


https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20120813768


The Consent Decree was viewed by many within the City and IPD as either requiring or permitting the Chief of IPD to make recommendations for promotion out-of-rank order for the benefit of officers of African American race and based on and because of their race.


If you were the real #11 on the list and #26 got your slot based on race, you'd likely think you just felt the "lash of discrimination".

Note that as a result of the lawsuit race is no longer supposed to be considered in promotions. An outside firm does the testing and no points are applied based on race. Opinions differ on how successful that's been, but I personally have no complaints or evidence it's not neutral.

[Cypher]

Right, pity the poor, marginalized Christian white males. Out of 44 men who have been president, 41 have been Christian white men. (As to the Christian part, I'm not sure of Jefferson or Trump.) Of the 535 Senators and Congressmen, 474 are Christian (https://www.pewforum.org/2019/01/03/faith-on-the-hill-116/), which is overrepresentation. 78% are white, also overrepresentation (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/08/for-the-fifth-time-in-a-row-the-new-congress-is-the-most-racially-and-ethnically-diverse-ever/).

We could probably play this game for everything except the NHL, MLB and the NBA and come to roughly the same result.

So tell me, how are white guys feeling the lash of discrimination?

So do you want a quota system on our elected representatives? We only get to elect so many white guys (I don't care who says they're a Christian I want to see some fruit) regardless of the will of the people?

[TGS]

Right, pity the poor, marginalized Christian white males. Out of 44 men who have been president, 41 have been Christian white men. (As to the Christian part, I'm not sure of Jefferson or Trump.) Of the 535 Senators and Congressmen, 474 are Christian (https://www.pewforum.org/2019/01/03/faith-on-the-hill-116/), which is overrepresentation. 78% are white, also overrepresentation (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/08/for-the-fifth-time-in-a-row-the-new-congress-is-the-most-racially-and-ethnically-diverse-ever/).

We could probably play this game for everything except the NHL, MLB and the NBA and come to roughly the same result.

So tell me, how are white guys feeling the lash of discrimination?

Well, to be fair nobody is gnashing about it like Blues pointed out, and you're the one who has taken issue in this thread and brought the entire subject up (a related yet tangential one).

Respectfully, to answer your question: when I got out of the Marines I had a job lined up to make $80k/year. A buddy who worked there referred me, the manager wanted me, the hiring rep wanted me, and when it got to final approval I was turned down even though there were no candidates.

The manager leveled with me offline and said, "Sorry man, the truth is that the lady you were replacing was black, and HR decided that hiring you regardless of the fact there weren't any other qualified candidates would skew the affirmative action numbers. There would be too many white people in the company".

In my current job, a couple years ago a promotion list came out with 25 people. The entire list was women, with the exception of 1 who had a feminine name.,....quite a bold move on HRs part, given they've admitted to artificially advancing women over men as a purposed cause. A couple years ago, a recruiter for the greater department came in and said to my field office, "it's too male, pale, and Yale in here, and we need to change that." That one really shocked us, as it's overt admission to racism and all sorts of other prejudices, but because we're white males it's okay to be prejudiced against us. It finally got to a breaking point where even my Teletubby agency couldn't hide how wrong it was, and they've started making incremental changes to promotion panels, like hiding the names/genders of candidates instead giving preference to "underrepresented minorities", which is how it should be.

Now, listen, I'm telling you because you asked, not because I'm looking for sympathy. I'm not trying to give you a "boo-boo white people are oppressed and can't make it" deal. I'm doing quite well regardless....I chalked it up to "life ain't fair" and drove on. I certainly don't feel that I have some sort of plight as a white man. The fact remains that I was deselected from a job that I was not only qualified for, but the preferred candidate for, for no reason other than my skin color.

As Blues and some others have addressed, that isn't the America we should be aiming for. And, like they've also said, nobody is gnashing at the teeth at you. We don't give a fuck that you're lesbian. You do you, drive on, have fun and love who you want. We don't give a shit, we aren't trying to oppress you. I think people would just be happier if you and Rapid Butterfly would stop force-feeding us bullshit, is all.

Now I'm off to paint some American flag motifs on cop cars to oppress the shit out of you guys, because that's obviously what is wrong with America, and not people trying to favor intersectional identities over other groups for a manufactured social justice.

[blues]

Almost a great post, T, but though I love ya like a brother I'd have quit while I made my points cogently...and left out the unnecessarily snarky reference to sexual preference. It demeaned her, and imho, demeaned your otherwise well stated points. Just my two cents. Take it for what it's worth.

[TGS]

Almost a great post, T, but though I love ya like a brother I'd have quit while I made my points cogently...and left out the unnecessarily snarky reference to sexual preference. It demeaned her, and imho, demeaned your otherwise well stated points. Just my two cents. Take it for what it's worth.

Good point, I edited it out as I wasn't intentionally trying to be demeaning, I'm just a crude person like, nobody cares whether you like eating hot dogs or roast beef, is my point.

:p

[Cypher]

Well, to be fair nobody is gnashing about it like Blues pointed out, and you're the one who has taken issue in this thread and brought the entire subject up (a related yet tangential one).

Respectfully, to answer your question: when I got out of the Marines I had a job lined up to make $80k/year. A buddy who worked there referred me, the manager wanted me, the hiring rep wanted me, and when it got to final approval I was turned down even though there were no candidates.

The manager leveled with me offline and said, "Sorry man, the truth is that the lady you were replacing was black, and HR decided that hiring you regardless of the fact there weren't any other qualified candidates would skew the affirmative action numbers. There would be too many white people in the company".

In my current job, a couple years ago a promotion list came out with 25 people. The entire list was women, with the exception of 1 who had a feminine name.,....quite a bold move on HRs part, given they've admitted to artificially advancing women over men as a purposed cause. A couple years ago, a recruiter for the greater department came in and said to my field office, "it's too male, pale, and Yale in here, and we need to change that." That one really shocked us, as it's overt admission to racism and all sorts of other prejudices, but because we're white males it's okay to be prejudiced against us. It finally got to a breaking point where even my Teletubby agency couldn't hide how wrong it was, and they've started making incremental changes to promotion panels, like hiding the names/genders of candidates instead giving preference to "underrepresented minorities", which is how it should be.

Now, listen, I'm telling you because you asked, not because I'm looking for sympathy. I'm not trying to give you a "boo-boo white people are oppressed and can't make it" deal. I'm doing quite well regardless....I chalked it up to "life ain't fair" and drove on. I certainly don't feel that I have some sort of plight as a white man. The fact remains that I was deselected from a job that I was not only qualified for, but the preferred candidate for, for no reason other than my skin color.

As Blues and some others have addressed, that isn't the America we should be aiming for. And, like they've also said, nobody is gnashing at the teeth at you. We don't give a fuck that you're lesbian. You do you, drive on, have fun and love who you want. We don't give a shit, we aren't trying to oppress you. I think people would just be happier if you and Rapid Butterfly would stop force-feeding us bullshit, is all.

Now I'm off to paint some American flag motifs on cop cars to oppress the shit out of you guys, because that's obviously what is wrong with America, and not people trying to favor intersectional identities over other groups for a manufactured social justice.

https://i.postimg.cc/KvFfgHMT/FB_IMG_1503678004649.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

In the interest of full disclosure I like the original better

[BaiHu]

I like the way you roll, bro'. I was commenting to the missus just last night on the atrocities perpetrated between the Comanches and Apache.

Yep...in the end, (usually unfortunately), the power to enforce one's will is the ultimate arbiter.

I believe it was John Stuart Mill who said something along the lines of:
Man is only equal in his ability to do each other in.

[TGS]

https://i.postimg.cc/KvFfgHMT/FB_IMG_1503678004649.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

In the interest of full disclosure I like the original better

You shouldn't have said that, now both of our retirements are in danger of being garnished by the thought police.

[blues]

Good point, I edited it out as I wasn't intentionally trying to be demeaning, I'm just a crude person like, nobody cares whether you like eating hot dogs or roast beef, is my point.

:p

I knew that and I swear like a sailor and am pretty crude myself...but it's different when we're getting a point across, especially where hearts and minds are involved.

Glad you took no offense as none was intended.

[Cypher]

You shouldn't have said that, now both of our retirements are in danger of being garnished by the thought police.


https://youtu.be/BsKbwR7WXN4

[MistWolf]

https://pistol-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=39079&d=1560632347

Pretty amazing they were able to identify it and nail it back in 1988.

It's been awhile since I cracked open any CyberPunk rulebooks, but I don't recall that type of language being used anywhere. It doesn't even reflect the theme of Cyberpunk. The theme of Cyberpunk was wildly diverse individuals forming loose alliances to wage guerrilla warfare against the impersonal corporate juggernauts and the rigid social structure forced upon their employees. I'm filing this one under "Fake News".

[fixer]

..., and not people trying to favor intersectional identities over other groups for a manufactured social justice.

Excellent.

[fixer]

Well, I'll tell you this much: I know a dismissive insult when I see it.

For decades, if not centuries, there was preferential treatment for white Christian males. Do you deny that?



Assuming preferential treatment of white Christian males was done intentionally to suppress advancement of every single other human being on the planet, such "hierarchical errors" are now proven to be ineffective at many things over the long run. Such hierarchies are not selecting for competence, instead selecting for an identity. The writing is on the wall here...for failure.

As you point out down-thread, there was some injustice imparted to Jewish doctors. Right now there is an Ivy-League school facing an interesting lawsuit from Asians because they faced ostensibly a higher standard of admittance, due to their over-representation.

So if an institution has an over-representation of Jews or Asians are we to assume there is an over-representation that needs to be addressed? Or do we assume the institution ( a modern-hierarchy) has selected for competence?

Currently, the over-representation charge only applies to the intersection applying to whites, men, and apparently Christians.


The problem as I see it is when we prioritize identity over competence, our hierarchies underperform to the detriment of everyone.

So when folks trot out the white-Christian-male-had preferential-treatment dogma, I must assume that the general opinion here is that there is nothing redeeming at all about such people; that competence in this intersection is so low they aren't worthy of considering them for anything. This is an ironic view point by the people who espouse such things because their favorite intersection of humanity can also be equally scrutinized based exclusively on identity. There is two edges on a sword.

So if equal representation of identities is the objective, I must ask--equal outcomes or equal opportunities--which do you prefer?

If equal outcomes are the objective, to what extent are you willing to promote retributive systems to advance equal outcomes?

[Stephanie B]

So do you want a quota system on our elected representatives? We only get to elect so many white guys (I don't care who says they're a Christian I want to see some fruit) regardless of the will of the people?
No, I don't. You've missed my point.

[Stephanie B]

As Blues and some others have addressed, that isn't the America we should be aiming for. And, like they've also said, nobody is gnashing at the teeth at you. We don't give a fuck that you're lesbian. You do you, drive on, have fun and love who you want. We don't give a shit, we aren't trying to oppress you. I think people would just be happier if you and Rapid Butterfly would stop force-feeding us bullshit, is all.
If what I write bothers you, then use the forum tools that Tom has provided. You can put anyone on "ignore".

I'm sorry that the hiring dude said he wasn't going to hire you. On the other hand, I spent a couple of years at a job agitating for the company to stop slotting people into jobs based on their genders.

[Cypher]

No, I don't. You've missed my point.

So what is your point? I mean your statement wasn't ambiguous there's too many white dudes in Congress. What do you propose to rectify that? Do you think somebody should be disqualified for public office based on their race gender or age?

[pooty]

Right, pity the poor, marginalized Christian white males. Out of 44 men who have been president, 41 have been Christian white men. (As to the Christian part, I'm not sure of Jefferson or Trump.) Of the 535 Senators and Congressmen, 474 are Christian (https://www.pewforum.org/2019/01/03/faith-on-the-hill-116/), which is overrepresentation. 78% are white, also overrepresentation (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/08/for-the-fifth-time-in-a-row-the-new-congress-is-the-most-racially-and-ethnically-diverse-ever/).

We could probably play this game for everything except the NHL, MLB and the NBA and come to roughly the same result.

So tell me, how are white guys feeling the lash of discrimination?

This is why all those young Christian White Men stormed Omaha beach 75 years ago. That a rich 1st world lawyer brawd, one of the most privileged and protected creatures on our planet, could have the Freedom to wail about how life ain't fair... that the government should further discriminate against the descendants of those soldiers.

[Stephanie B]

Assuming preferential treatment of white Christian males was done intentionally to suppress advancement of every single other human being on the planet, such "hierarchical errors" are now proven to be ineffective at many things over the long run. Such hierarchies are not selecting for competence, instead selecting for an identity. The writing is on the wall here...for failure.

As you point out down-thread, there was some injustice imparted to Jewish doctors. Right now there is an Ivy-League school facing an interesting lawsuit from Asians because they faced ostensibly a higher standard of admittance, due to their over-representation.

So if an institution has an over-representation of Jews or Asians are we to assume there is an over-representation that needs to be addressed? Or do we assume the institution ( a modern-hierarchy) has selected for competence?

Currently, the over-representation charge only applies to the intersection applying to whites, men, and apparently Christians.

The problem as I see it is when we prioritize identity over competence, our hierarchies underperform to the detriment of everyone.

So when folks trot out the white-Christian-male-had preferential-treatment dogma, I must assume that the general opinion here is that there is nothing redeeming at all about such people; that competence in this intersection is so low they aren't worthy of considering them for anything. This is an ironic view point by the people who espouse such things because their favorite intersection of humanity can also be equally scrutinized based exclusively on identity. There is two edges on a sword.

So if equal representation of identities is the objective, I must ask--equal outcomes or equal opportunities--which do you prefer?

If equal outcomes are the objective, to what extent are you willing to promote retributive systems to advance equal outcomes?
The problem is that saying at, say, the college level, "we're going to judge everyone by their qualifications for admission", however that's determined, isn't terribly fair, either. In the St. Louis area, a kid coming out of the Kirkwood school system is, on average, going to be better prepared for college than a kid coming out of the Normandy school system.

Perceptions are everywhere. People are going to assume that the kids in Normandy are ill-housed and ill-fed. But in the rural/exurban county that I was in, a hell of a lot of kids were coming to school hungry, so many that the school systems were serving breakfast. A lot of those kids were in the backpack program (http://www.actionforhealthykids.org/tools-for-schools/find-challenges/at-home-challenges/1276-backpack-programs). I'll bet that people assumed that kids in the inner-city were growing up in roach-infested homes, amid crime and drug-dealing. Not many thought that rural kids had neighbors, if not parents, growing pot for sale and cooking meth. Some of the homes (I did some child negelct cases) were horrible; garbage everywhere, roach infestations, rotting food, not a clean spot to be found. But if those kids made it to college, people aren't going to assume that, because they grew up in a rural area, that they grew up among pot-growers and meth cooks.

If some reverse-tilting is done, then the kids who do get in are assumed to be EO admittees, with no thought given that maybe the kid in Physics 101 was better qualified than 80% of the other kids in the class. Or, as to the bored kid from a prep school rocking the "C = degree" strategy, nobody assumes that if his father and grandfather hadn't been graduates of the college, that he would have not been admitted.

I watched two kids from my law school apply for jobs. David, who was near the bottom of his class and who failed the bar exam at least once, had no problem landing jobs. Kareem, who was near the top of his class and blew away the bar exam, could not even get to an interview.

I don't know how we get to the point where people are judged by their ability and character. But I damn sure know that we aren't anywhere near there.

[Stephanie B]

This is why all those young Christian White Men stormed Omaha beach 75 years ago. That a rich 1st world lawyer brawd, one of the most privileged and protected creatures on our planet, could have the Freedom to wail about how life ain't fair... that the government should further discriminate against the descendants of those soldiers.
You're really going to bring up World War II, when the armed forces were segregated, as a point in this discussion? Really? That takes some balls, dude.

[HCountyGuy]

If what I write bothers you, then use the forum tools that Tom has provided. You can put anyone on "ignore".

I'm sorry that the hiring dude said he wasn't going to hire you. On the other hand, I spent a couple of years at a job agitating for the company to stop slotting people into jobs based on their genders.

While I don’t pretend to speak for TGS, I imagine he was lamenting the stance that you and Rapid take whenever this sort of topic comes up.

It seems whenever topics here get on to the subject of diversity or discussion of unfairly discriminated groups, there’s a tendency for the two of you to lump the folks here in with the sort of assholes that were and are out to oppress those folks. This, despite any significant evidence that anyone here supports that sort of behavior and some who actually have worked to obtain justice for victims belonging to those minority groups.

I don’t care what your race, gender, sexual orientation or any other such identifiers are. I only care if someone’s an asshole, a detriment to society or possesses other such unsavory characteristics. I like to judge people on the content of their character, and most of the folks around here seem to operate on the same idea.

You admitted to going after an employer for always promoting based on gender, presumably because they were promoting based on that versus an individual’s merit so it seems we’re already reading from the same book.

[Cypher]

The problem is that saying at, say, the college level, "we're going to judge everyone by their qualifications for admission", however that's determined, isn't terribly fair, either. In the St. Louis area, a kid coming out of the Kirkwood school system is, on average, going to be better prepared for college than a kid coming out of the Normandy school system.

Perceptions are everywhere. People are going to assume that the kids in Normandy are ill-housed and ill-fed. But in the rural/exurban county that I was in, a hell of a lot of kids were coming to school hungry, so many that the school systems were serving breakfast. A lot of those kids were in the backpack program (http://www.actionforhealthykids.org/tools-for-schools/find-challenges/at-home-challenges/1276-backpack-programs). I'll bet that people assumed that kids in the inner-city were growing up in roach-infested homes, amid crime and drug-dealing. Not many thought that rural kids had neighbors, if not parents, growing pot for sale and cooking meth. Some of the homes (I did some child negelct cases) were horrible; garbage everywhere, roach infestations, rotting food, not a clean spot to be found. But if those kids made it to college, people aren't going to assume that, because they grew up in a rural area, that they grew up among pot-growers and meth cooks.

If some reverse-tilting is done, then the kids who do get in are assumed to be EO admittees, with no thought given that maybe the kid in Physics 101 was better qualified than 80% of the other kids in the class. Or, as to the bored kid from a prep school rocking the "C = degree" strategy, nobody assumes that if his father and grandfather hadn't been graduates of the college, that he would have not been admitted.

I watched two kids from my law school apply for jobs. David, who was near the bottom of his class and who failed the bar exam at least once, had no problem landing jobs. Kareem, who was near the top of his class and blew away the bar exam, could not even get to an interview.

I don't know how we get to the point where people are judged by their ability and character. But I damn sure know that we aren't anywhere near there.

This just in, life's not fair

[BehindBlueI's]

But if those kids made it to college, people aren't going to assume that, because they grew up in a rural area, that they grew up among pot-growers and meth cooks.


I don't know what time frame we're talking about, but when people find out where I'm from "meth country" came up pretty quick, although it's now "pill country". It's been highly publicized in the media for years, now. Meth wasn't really a thing when I was a kid. Pot was, and I had no idea running a still was illegal until I'd been a cop a few years. Several of my friends "back home" are managers or supervisors at local factories and constantly lament two things. The normal "millennials suck at everything" our generation complains about, and how few of any generation pass drug screenings. I'm not super popular when I point out that I'm sure lots of people can pass a drug screening, but those folks aren't looking for jobs in the income brackets those local factories pay. Everybody with transportation, a GED, and clean urine is crossing the county line or state line to work unless they can get on in one of the few union jobs in town.

My ex-wife was black and grew up in the projects of Jersey City. Her father, despite being mentally ill and a complete fuck up, did at least instill in her the value of education. She put herself through Rutgers and got a BS in Chemistry but ended up going for Nursing later on. We compared notes quite a bit on urban vs rural poverty. The biggest differences were exposure to violence and hunger. We had enough land to subsistence farm and weren't hungry, and there was nobody close enough for violence to really be a thing. We both were raised in an environment that taught us to educate ourselves to do better, and that seems to be a pretty common thread. I think when, as a group, certain folks do better than others looking at the culture and home life matters a shit ton more than looking at the zip code.

[Jeep]

Back in the day, universities had quota limits on Jews, because the Christian males otherwise weren't competitive. My dad's generation dealt with quite a bit of subtle prejudice. Sometimes not so subtle.

And back in the day (and that was a day long after the civil rights acts were enacted), Ivy League schools only allowed in Catholics who were athletes. And back in the day the white, Christian males taken by the Ivies were overwhelmingly WASPS--Scotch Irish and Southern Baptists need not apply. And back in the day an Italian American had almost no chance of getting into Harvard or Yale--but an Italian from Italy (with sufficient "breeding," of course, was welcome).

If we are going to insist on measuring historic victimhood, then crude measures ("white males") really need to be modified to take into account what was really happening. The Ivies took in people like those who had created the Ivies--namely WASPs, only gradually began opening up, and still discriminate (based on statistics at least) against Asians, Southern Baptists and Catholics (and particularly Italian Catholics).

But historic victimhood (if, for example, not being admitted to an Ivy League school was/is truly "victimhood") has nothing to say about present treatment.

Nor is life "fair." It can't be fair. One can never remove much of the injustice in life. The Harvard-educated Supreme Court justice who had a gilded career, for example (and here I'm thinking of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who did have a gilded career after a rough start) lost the husband she adored after a long, agonizing, illness and now suffers from multiple illnesses herself. High flying investment bankers with JD's from Yale have children lost in autism or raped and murdered by deranged psychos who should never have been let out of jail. But while life isn't fair, we can--and often do--make it worse

Saying something like "white men have ruled the roost for too long--it is the turn of others--only increases injustice because it is an attempt to reward/penalize people for things that did not involve them. It is a form of group rights--and the concept of group rights is the source of, no the solution to, many of these problems.

My mother was denied jobs and was paid less because she was a woman (during an era in which it was widely believed to be acceptable to set paychecks based on what an employee "needed" rather than his or her performance). I have known more than a few "white men" who were denied jobs, pay increases and promotions because of their race and sex--generally in government jobs or jobs in large, supposedly "woke" corporations. It would be nice if we could return to the idea of hiring/paying and promoting on merit despite the unfairness of prior generations.

[Sensei]

So the answer is what. Homogeneity and a return to the supposed good old days of ....when. 1950? 40? 30? Before ?

Another option would be to embrace diversity, and really understand what “from many, one” really means. To understand what equality actually is.

Or not.

Productive societies require a hierarchy and it is generally on built on competence since those built on tyranny typically crumble under their own incompetence. It is common to assume that most hierarchies are founded on tyranny and equality is the ideal state, but doing so neglects the thousands of daily interactions in our lives that support hierarchies based on competence. For example, you supported a hierarchy and created inequality when you hired the male bricklayer with great skill and price to build your house instead of the more expensive female bricklayer (who happens to represent less that 1% of all bricklayers). You perform similar hundreds of processes that create hierarchy and inequality on a daily basis which is a good thing.

I won’t deny that hierarchies based on tyranny have existed and continue to this day. At the same time, I prefer to let them collapse under the weight of their own incompetence and be replaced by a hierarchy of competence (a processes that is admittedly slow and clumsy at times) rather than rely on government imposed “equality.” Far too often, those government measures simply lead to yet another hierarchy of tyranny that is stronger that the original. This is why the most tyrannical regimes in history began with a fundamental desire to impose equality and uniformity.

[Sensei]

So the answer is what. Homogeneity and a return to the supposed good old days of ....when. 1950? 40? 30? Before ?

Another option would be to embrace diversity, and really understand what “from many, one” really means. To understand what equality actually is.

Or not.

There are roughly 25,000 different human genes. Yet, not one of them will allow you to survive a close encounters with certain viruses having less than 10 genes.

Diversity is only rewarded when it brings to the surface USEFUL traits to deal with the environment. Something tells me that this obsession with identity traits (race, sexual orientation, gender identity) will not be a deciding factor for humanity when those polar icecaps finally melt. I mean, nobody ever said, “Oh gee, those poor people in Pompeii - if only they had more gender queers.”

Moreover, inequality is what drives nature’s systems. Do you think that you will ever tire of arguing with evolution (a principle founded on inherent inequality of natural systems), or is the plan to go out of this life screaming “E-Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y” on the internet like William Wallace with his head on a block?

[Zincwarrior]

I wasn't willing to investigate deeply, but this doesn't sound much like the OP.

https://talsorianstore.com/products/cyberpunk-2020

Fun game. Future style DnD. Not as dark as 40K.

Reading the thread, I am sad. The thread has nothing to do with the game. CYberpunk, shadowrun, DnD, there was a spy one and a space version (or maybe that was Shadowrun, its been decades). All were just early pre-LARPS for fun. All the babble babble posts made have nothing to do with them.

[pooty]

So the answer is what. Homogeneity and a return to the supposed good old days of ....when. 1950? 40? 30? Before ?

Another option would be to embrace diversity, and really understand what “from many, one” really means. To understand what equality actually is.

Or not.

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t320/Nyles303/Handguns/SDC10080.jpg

[Zincwarrior]

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t320/Nyles303/Handguns/SDC10080.jpg

That's a lot of diversity.

[TDA]

Fun game. Future style DnD. Not as dark as 40K.

Reading the thread, I am sad. The thread has nothing to do with the game. CYberpunk, shadowrun, DnD, there was a spy one and a space version (or maybe that was Shadowrun, its been decades). All were just early pre-LARPS for fun. All the babble babble posts made have nothing to do with them.

Right? I’m apparently just the right age where none of this is a good proxy for some political abstraction because I still remember playing the actual stupid pen and paper RPG.

[Zincwarrior]

The irony, my adult daughter just referenced cyberpunk in a conversation at dinner ...

[JAD]

I was obsessed with cyberpunk and played shadowrun extensively. Gibson’s Nipponophilia got the best of his predictive capabilities, though.

[Yung]

Reading the thread, I am sad. The thread has nothing to do with the game.

I'm also sad about it. I stopped playing games or reading fiction or watching shows or whatever a long time ago. I did enjoy the conversation that some of the folks here had about that Highwaymen movie, and along those lines, I guess what passes in my life for entertainment nowadays is reading about the interactions between the fanbase communities, content creators, and the industry medias. Given most developments and subsequent reactions are just about always negative I suppose it's not the healthiest thing to pay attention to.

[fixer]

If some reverse-tilting is done, then the kids who do get in are assumed to be EO admittees, with no thought given that maybe the kid in Physics 101 was better qualified than 80% of the other kids in the class. Or, as to the bored kid from a prep school rocking the "C = degree" strategy, nobody assumes that if his father and grandfather hadn't been graduates of the college, that he would have not been admitted.

I watched two kids from my law school apply for jobs. David, who was near the bottom of his class and who failed the bar exam at least once, had no problem landing jobs. Kareem, who was near the top of his class and blew away the bar exam, could not even get to an interview.

I don't know how we get to the point where people are judged by their ability and character. But I damn sure know that we aren't anywhere near there.

Thanks for the good response.

I can empathize with the Kareem fellow. I had similar experience with getting hired out of college. I literally, no joke, full-legit, went on 103 interviews in my last semester. Only one offer.

I was pretty sure I interview well. I mean after 100 interviews I should be good at it...My main problem was that although my work experience was good, it was only "slightly" relevant to what I was hiring for. Most of the recruiters were looking for a very specific, excruciatingly narrow, set of work experiences or internships. Only one employer out of 100 had the capability of looking outside the box to see my skills were transferable and desirable.

So the anecdote I have here and lived through could have been something I blamed on some personal or identity related issue. Maybe it was...not sure if I wasn't the 'diverse' candidate they were looking for (BTW the " too male, yale, pale" thing is real and I've heard it at my employer too), or I was too old. But in hindsight its likely my work experiences not matching up to what was being selected for.

By analogy maybe the firms Kareen was interviewing with weren't the right ones. Not sure how many firms he interviewed with either. There could be a lot of variables there besides identity. Plus who knows how well Kareem interviews...I've too seen 4.0 GPA engineers whose social skills are reminiscent of Ted Kaczynski, I'm sure their interviews were wonderful.

[Hambo]

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t320/Nyles303/Handguns/SDC10080.jpg

Upper left corner. It looks Bodeo-ish but is break open. WTF is it?

[Stephanie B]

By analogy maybe the firms Kareen was interviewing with weren't the right ones. Not sure how many firms he interviewed with either. There could be a lot of variables there besides identity. Plus who knows how well Kareem interviews...I've too seen 4.0 GPA engineers whose social skills are reminiscent of Ted Kaczynski, I'm sure their interviews were wonderful.
Kareem couldn't get an interview. The other guy, the guy near the bottom of the class, got interviews and landed jobs. He was as dumb as a rock, though, and he couldn't keep them.

Both moved out of state. I lost track of them.

[Guerrero]

I was obsessed with cyberpunk and played shadowrun extensively. Gibson’s Nipponophilia got the best of his predictive capabilities, though.

You're looking at it the wrong way: Gibson's "Sprawl" trilogy is merely the 80's projected into the future, similarly his "bridge" trilogy is the 90's projected into the future.


I can see that I am among my people here, having wasted a bunch of my youth in RPG's, including Shadowrun and the aforementioned Cyberpunk 2020 (which I don't remember ever mentioning "woke" culture).

[Wondering Beard]

Upper left corner. It looks Bodeo-ish but is break open. WTF is it?

Looks like a Montenegrin Gasser, perhaps in 44-40 (https://www.icollector.com/Montenegrin-Gasser-44-40-WIN-Caliber-Revolver-RARE_i26868186)

[Clusterfrack]

That's a lot of diversity.

Forkin A. There’s a lot to catch up on on this thread, but I hope that picture is a good way to sum it up because I’m not reading all the posts.

Here’s my personal perspective. I don’t care about diversity very much. I also don’t like bullies, thugs, or judgmental douchenozzles.
So: I don’t care who/what you are, but don’t be a dick to people or try to make me do things your way.

[TDA]

You're looking at it the wrong way: Gibson's "Sprawl" trilogy is merely the 80's projected into the future, similarly his "bridge" trilogy is the 90's projected into the future.


I can see that I am among my people here, having wasted a bunch of my youth in RPG's, including Shadowrun and the aforementioned Cyberpunk 2020 (which I don't remember ever mentioning "woke" culture).

Gibson himself has said a number of times that his science fiction stories are "about" the periods in which they were written. Pithy Gibson Quote:

"I think the least important thing about science fiction for me is its predictive capacity. Its record for being accurately predictive is really, really poor! If you look at the whole history of science fiction, what people have said is going to happen, what writers have said is going to happen, and what actually happened - it's terrible."

Paraphrasing S.M. Stirling to bring it all back home, the point of the setting (of a book, or Cyberpunk 2020) is to set the stage on which some major swash can be buckled. Different stories need different backgrounds, and an RPG about combat between lots of balkanized factions is going to need lots of balkanization, fighting, and factions.

I'm totally willing to entertain discussion of retrocausation and unintentionally precognitive works of fiction, as I've already revealed myself to be the kind of person who remembers when that was the kind of thing the internet was for but 1) Cyberpunk 2020 is probably not an example, and 2) it may not amuse the mods.