See I thought a wheelchair accessible dungeon would be for torturers or interrogators with those disabilities to get around the room easier rather than, you know, the people you're horribly maiming and eventually murdering but I guess like a tracer round, accessibility measures work both ways.
Affirmative Action Privilege, and Other Reasons Human Life Is Complicated
Ibram Kendi recently committed a classic “Jesse Jackson gaffe”—he slipped and told the truth...fairforall.substack.com
https://fairforall.substack.com/p/the-little-mermaid-and-the-question (Not woke, but I think it's worth a read.)
"Okay Jimmy, we've made the dungeon wheelchair accessible for you, even though tomorrow you'll be taken out of the dungeon and executed."
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
"Wheelchair accessible" dungeons probably make a certain sense. Much easier to drag unconscious people or corpses up or down a slope than stairs, or even just wheelbarrows for carting loot.
Also, have some consideration for various forms of monster that might find stairs awkward (you might notice that dogs, for instance, often can find stairs tricky) because of whatever anatomy, even not having legs & feet, etc. Think of it, for instance, as a "naga accessible" dungeon.
God forbid they publish adventures with ramps in them. Culture war whining in ttrpgs is the most pathetic form of culture war wh8ng, I swear to god
The problem I see with it, is like the "trans people in faerun" thing it's applying real world issues and solutions to a fantasy world, rather than thinking about how people in that fantasy world would deal with such issues within the context of that world and its conceits. Which leads to shoehorning, a general lack of organic storytelling, and lost verisimiltude.
"We've made this secret door and trap-laden dungeon inaccessible in every conceivable way, and as dangerous as we can manage. It is after all, a place where people could theoretically get in, but we've done our best to ensure they never get out.
Except for paraplegics."
"We've made this secret door and trap-laden dungeon inaccessible in every conceivable way, and as dangerous as we can manage. It is after all, a place where people could theoretically get in, but we've done our best to ensure they never get out.
Except for paraplegics."
Sigh.
There’s only one “Way of Knowing”: Science.
I’m in New Zealand, climax to my antipodean speaking tour, where I walked headlong into a raging controversy.richarddawkins.substack.com
Indigenous New Zealand “moon school” runs on superstition and astrology
This is what will happen if the “indigenization” of New Zealand’s public education proceeds apace, accompanied by the view that “other ways of knowing” are to be given…whyevolutionistrue.com
(Hate to pick on NZ, but I'm reminded of when we had to do ID in science via Aboriginal myths. So far, not seeing the difference.)
Richard Dawkins is an intelligent person with good points to make. He's correct that science should not be denigrated by downplaying it's universal nature or implying it has an equal footing with other modes of learning.
It's a pity he feels the need to package that point along with bizarre social kneejerk bullshit, like dismissing valid criticism of J.K. Rowling or whining about the fact that documents were written to include Maori translation.
But those things are science and can't possibly be social issues
Edit: I'd note that Dawkins has been exactly the same way for decades, likes to insult people he doesn't like and sometimes doesn't bother making arguments and just insults people
What are you talking about, we really don't have an accurate number of how many wild cows there were. Then you go on to argue that you can't compare American buffalo numbers to the rest of the world because of the landscape of it. While true obviously, you also can't dismiss that the rest of the world could have had good numbers of wild cows either. I easily got to a high enough number of cows and elephants to get to at least half the methane emission of today's cows when you paper said IIRC, it was at least 3 times more methane. I questioned that because it doesn't make logical sense, which you act that doesn't happen in science when it indeed does. Cows aren't the only things that emit methane either, and the animal count in the world now is obviously less than it used to be. Ideally, you'd need the methane emission of all of the world's animals before humans and after humans. The fact is people throw out the fact that cows emit like 14.5% (IIRC) of methane when that number literally means nothing without context and they then act like milk, cheese, beef are so bad for the climate. We probably do have too many cows and probably could lower the population by 20-25% quite easily and still have enough dairy and beef for people because we definitely overproduce the dairy side of things (especially in the US), not sure about the beef (but probably that too based on how many hamburger places there are). Acting like we need to stop eating beef and dairy because of the climate is just a completely asinine position.
"Prior to human arrival, Britain was likely covered in a mosaic of grassy plains, shrublands and scattered and more extensive woodlands. It was the ideal habitat for aurochs. They would have formed herds and wandered vast, wild landscapes, moving from open grassland plains to sunny glades in summer, and into shrublands and woodlands to browse woody vegetation in autumn and winter."
Logical sense?
This is a comparison between scientists making estimates for animal populations with the benefits of their expertise, and you pulling numbers out of your arse. Inasmuch as logic applies, we should probably believe the scientists who have some expert opinion, not you.
As to the rest, it is mostly just changing the subject.
Wherever you got that from, it's at best a minority view. Based on the available data, the prevailing belief of the landscape of Britain before the post-glacial humans is that it was overwhelmingly a huge (if not necessarily always very dense) forest, with only very modest amounts of open space.
Maybe it's just because I grew up in Montana, but I don't think the island of Britain is big enough to have a vast anything.
It easily beats most of the world on sense of self-importance.
Partisan bickering overshadows Lina Khan’s GOP appearance
FTC Chair Lina Khan faced GOP criticism against her alleged ethical violations and the agency’s recent losing streak in court.
www.politico.com
Every GOPer hates Lina Khan because she does what they can't do despite lying about saying they could do it: hold tech and other companies to account for corporate mergers. But just because you have the will does not mean you have the power to do so. Her failure at first glance is because government lawyers suck, and corporate lawyers don't. But a deeper look would reveal that she cannot break up or stop corporate mergers for one sole reason she should already know. Power. She does not have enough economic, or political power to break up Amazon, or Microsoft or even stop COD from being excluded from Sony.
These are people that pay billions to lobbyists, lawyers, and corrupt people just to maintain their power away from government oversight. It was not going to be as easy as Biden will appoint a firebrand to the FTC chair, and companies will sit back and do nothing. The federalist society has institutional power in its training of lawyers, judges and future judges. The Powell memorandum establishment wasn't going to be taken down by someone who is just smart which she is.
There is no such thing as voting being a substitute for revolution. It's a bias embedded in every movie, and Marvel, and Disney dribble that if you can simply out-argue, outvoted, out organized you can win. Power requires money, it requires force. Of which she has neither.
It’d be nice if someone could remind my DM of that so I stop getting trodden on by Drow foot soldiers.
Children told racism started 'when white people wanted more control'
A book titled 'My Skin, Your Skin' is aimed at children aged between four and seven. It includes a definition of racism which focuses only on alleged wrongdoing committed by white people.
Ah yes, of course...
By sheer chance, I actually encountered this attitude on the train today with an exchange that included:
Woman 1: "You Asian *****!"
Woman 2: That's racist!
Woman 1: I'm black, I can't be racist!
Woman 2: That's racist!
Woman 1: I'm black, I can't be racist!
I can sadly say that I've seen similar interactions on and off over the last six years since I began working in western Sydney, I never thought I'd see the "I'm X, I can't be racist" excuse.
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,557
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
The island of Britain is gigantic, there's room for anything there.
I'm so swiss.
We've got quite a lot of space really, but most of it has been mentally fenced off by NIMBYs who cry out 'What about our green spaces?' when they mean 'What about our house values?'
It's a damn magical world. You could have some evil mage float them down. Teleport them down. Hell have some animated stone servant do it.
The whole "Wheelchair accessible dungeons" shit is weird as fuck to me because it's a fantasy world so you're telling people other people with IRL issues want those to carry over if they were in a fantasy world? I sure as shit wouldn't and I've only got mild issues not related to mobility. This just seems like some idiots who want to play pretend that they're disabled characters but don't want to you know face actual drawbacks from it. They want to wear it like a costume and nothing else.
To be clear in the UK there's a load of weird laws and stuff so you're right it's icky but then again you're talking about the UK where it's technically legal to pose for (and for publications to use) topless pictures from the age 16 up however the publication can't publish until the person in question is 18 I believe so they just sort of have to hold onto the pictures.
As far as The Sun being liable it depends on the evidence they were given by the party making the accusation and how reliable it seemed.
Why, when it's more practical to just build a ramp instead of a staircase?
You've got to understand that it makes you the crazy one when you're dreaming up unnecessarily complex solutions just to arbitrarily deny a simple one.
Magically shape earth and rock into a ramp.
Vs poof and they're downstairs.
Also ramps in places that aren't exactly damp proof would be a great slip and slide but not very practical for traversal. Steps even if you fall general provide a thing that can stop you just sliding all the way back down. I know this from having had to deal with frozen slopes before vs steps a short away away which still not great were at least passable.