Total posts: 2,049
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I mostly agree. If the Democrats were smart, they would get rid of the filibuster after giving statehood to D.C. (and possibly Puerto Rico), solidifying voter enfranchisement, and ensuring the census quality is good enough to capture everyone properly. But they're not usually very savvy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
How does not wanting to change the filibuster rules make someone a DINO?
Does that mean Republicans who want to change the rules (like Donald Trump) are RINOs?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I think democrats should eliminate it,
So that when Republicans control government next, they have carte blanche to do whatever they want?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Nothing in that link says Jo Jorgenson wants government to subsidize nuclear power. It quotes her saying she wants to remove government barriers so that nuclear energy is an option where it is currently prohibited.
Do you think only murder victims should have a say in how their perpetrator is punished? Any idea on the government bureaucracy and associated costs such a thing would require?
Having lactose intolerance and not eating ice cream causes a different kind of pain. Therefore being "against pain" doesn't clarify if one should support a lactose intolerant person eating ice cream or not, since either choice would cause them pain. Nonetheless I have no interest in explaining why the equation of cancel culture with rape pregnancy is pretty outrageous (that's why I didn't tag you). Someone else might be inclined.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Libertarians do not support public subsidies for nuclear energy.
Best of luck to you communicating with dead murder victims :)
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Drinking milk causes people with lactose intolerance pain. Therefore, anyone who claims they do not like seeing others in pain must be against ice cream. I see your point.
Created:
Posted in:
This quiz doesn't have much depth compared to some others. I'm surprised that my results are the same as when I took this last.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The worst question in this quiz imo is this one:"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."That's just a fact...you don't have to support a one-party state (I don't) but that's obviously an advantage of a one-party state
I'm not sure it's a fact. The constitution upholds checks and balances specifically to prevent sweeping action, with the understanding that swift progress toward negative outcomes is not necessarily an advantage.
Created:
Democrats: We wish to minimize pain. Non consensual pregnency is painful and welfare minimizes pain.Me: Then why are you guys applying cancel culture on many people?
Comparing cancel culture to rape pregnancy. Very astute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@whiteflame
@oromagi
@Bringerofrain
Close game! I do think this game was really balanced. While I admittedly should have clarified to scum that the role PMs did not give explicit justifications for town, that was discussed at length on Day Phase 1 (MisterChris actually led that discussion) and Speed clarified it right off the bat, which everyone else confirmed. So it wasn't really bastard modding on my part so much as him forgetting and slipping (nice job by Pie to get that out of him btw) but I could have been more explicit. Note, however, that the OP of the game says you should NOT rely on PM structure -- and I promise I will go out of my way to trip up people with that in the future, because analyzing PMs/activity time and other stuff like that is so fucking lame. Valid but lame.
What was bastard modding was me telling Pie he was the Elite Bodyguard, when in reality his role was always meant to function as a regular Bodyguard just for the sake of balance. However I called him an elite bodyguard because it fit the character so well. That said, I wouldn't have changed anything about balance and think everyone sees the scum team could have easily won this game. Had Chris not slipped, it was very likely there would have been a mislynch on DP4 and they would have won.
Also, oromagi watched Bringerofrain target Speedrace, and if that hadn't happened then scum likely would have won also. The scum team thought it was dumb for oro to watch Speed but he seemed like an obvious target and indeed he was the target.
Btw - someone said I am "notorious" for making up roles in games lol is that true? I did it years ago (in fact I created a themed game around made up roles) but I hardly ever do that. In this game, the Lawyer role was very fitting for Speed's character and I thought that was a role with balanced (neutral) utility. I also wanted to have a Justice instead of Cop just to make things interesting, and because the Justice visits 2 people each night which increased the odds of the Watcher seeing him which could create confusion and cause a mislynch. Plus the mafia had a GF that could bypass the Justice. And of course that role fit the character as well.
All in all, I stand by the fact the game was really balanced as I accounted for different things and they seemed to have played out for the most part.
Town would have fared better if they were active. All roles were randomly assigned. XLAV actually placed himself into the scum team (I assign roles to numbers and then people sign up next to numbers) without me knowing his Discord name, so Chris spent the first day phase without a partner. And like I said with one or two different moves, they would have won. Nice job to all. The MVP = iLikePie5.
Created:
Posted in:
Still Alive
Born Malcolm Michaels Jr., Marcia P. Johnson (SupaDudz) was a gay liberation activist who decided on the drag queen name "Marsha P. Johnson. The Johnson came from the restaurant Howard Johnson's on 42nd Street, and the P stood for "pay it no mind." Johnson used the phrase sarcastically when questioned about gender, saying "it stands for pay it no mind." Johnson even said the phrase once to a judge, who was amused by it, leading to Johnson's release. Johnson's gender expression could perhaps most accurately be called gender non-conforming; Johnson never self-identified with the term transgender, but the term was also not in broad use while Johnson was alive. Known as an outspoken advocate for gay rights, Johnson was one of the prominent figures in the Stonewall Uprising of 1969: a series of spontaneous demonstrations by members of the LGBT community, who fought back against police raids back when police used to beat the shit out of people just for existing in gay bars. Johnson was a founding member of the Gay Liberation Front, and did a lot of work during the AIDS crisis. In this game, Johnson was a vanilla townsperson with no special abilities, but could influence the game with their voice and their vote.
Benjamin Banneker (oromagi) was a free black man living in a slave state in the eighteenth century - an anomaly for sure. As African-American homesteaders, his family experienced not just freedom but also a quintessentially American vision of independence and economic self-determination that was rarely possible for nonwhites. He became an almanac author, surveyor, landowner and farmer who had knowledge of mathematics and natural history. Banneker's knowledge of astronomy and star gazing helped him author a commercially successful series of almanacs. Around the age of 21, he reportedly completed a wooden clock that struck on the hour. He appears to have modeled his clock from a borrowed pocket watch by carving each piece to scale. The clock purportedly continued to work until his death. In this game, Benjamin Banneker was the town Watcher and could watch a player each night to see if they were visited by anyone.
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Mister Chris (oromagi, MisterChris) -- 2/2 votes
MisterChris was lynched. He was Guilty.
Town Wins!
Like white supremacists, revolutionary black nationalists deny that they are preaching hate, and blame the mainstream media for misrepresenting them. Some in the mainstream have even bought into RBN leaders, especially Marcus Garvey (MisterChris). Despite Garvey meeting with KKK leaders to undermine the NAACP, a Marcus Garvey Park sits right by Columbia University in Manhattan, and there is a Marcus Garvey Boulevard right here in Brooklyn. Pretty surreal for someone who praised Nazi Germany, right? I don't know why he is seen as a good guy. In this game, he was the mafia Godfather. He appeared as town-aligned to investigations or inquiries of any kind.
Created:
Posted in:
GRAVEYARD
Speedrace - town Lawyer
Bringerofrain - mafia Goon
iLikePie (1) - town Elite Bodyguard
whiteflame - town Vanilla
Constance Baker Motley (Crocodile/ilikePie-2) was an American lawyer and jurist; an effective legal advocate in the civil rights movement. She obtained a role with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund before entering law school as a staff attorney, and continued her work with the organization for more than twenty years. Baker Motley argued 12 landmark civil rights cases in front of the Supreme Court, winning nine of them. She was a law clerk to Thurgood Marshall, aiding him in the case Brown v. Board of Education. Baker Motley was also the first African American woman appointed to the federal judiciary. In this game, she was a town Justice. During the night phase she could submit the name of two players, and learn if they had the same alignment.
LIVING
01 MisterChris
02 SupaDudz
03 oromagi
The day phase will end on 12 pm noon (EST) tomorrow.
Created:
Posted in:
The day phase has ended in a No Lynch. Night actions not submitted by 9 am EST on 3/2/21 will be forfeited.
Vote Count
iLikePie (oromagi, MisterChris) -- 2/3 votes
MisterChris (Pie, Supa) --2/3 votes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
No doubt that conservative media also partakes in "cancel-culture," but that's not the same as firing someone for being gay. Then again, these neologisms always find ways to take on new forms.
You are not the arbiter of what cancel culture is. There is no set definition and there are many loose interpretations of what qualifies, including but not limiting to firing someone for a perceived moral transgression -- in which case firing someone for being gay absolutely does qualify. If you use another definition, that's okay.
No, you do not.
Yes, I do.
Actions, even sexual ones, are results of choices; and attraction is in someone's head.
Yep.
Was the passage of the Civil Rights Act informed by the notion that characteristics like race, sex, religion, etc. couldn't be changed?
Yes.
That wouldn't make sense given that they included religion which can be changed,
Right, I said that.
How does that make it immutable in comparison to the patrilineal structure of Christianity and Islam?
It was a good natured joke about Jewish people. That's why I said "lol." I don't feel the need to explain it if you don't get it.
Research both terms, and I assure you they'll lead to sex.
Little kids are not researching the terms and should not be privy to sexual knowledge prematurely. If they are, it is not the fault of gay people using the terms "husband" and "wife." Research the terms "mother" and "father" and they will lead to sex as well.
Yes, and many children are exposed to the PDA of their parents, even if they don't have an experienced adult's understanding of what it is they're seeing.
Yep.
They're not trying to protect them from heterosexuality; they're trying to protect them from homosexuality, which depending on their inclinations, they see as a perversion.
Little Johnny saying "I have two dads" doesn't imply anything sexual to his fellow children unless they equate their parents and fatherhood with sex and sexuality. That is inappropriate and again not the fault or responsibility of gay parents.
They're not trying to protect them from heterosexuality; they're trying to protect them from homosexuality, which depending on their inclinations, they see as a perversion.
What I said was if the terms "husband" and "wife" conjure up thoughts of sex, then the parent has already failed at protecting their kid from knowing what sex is. As in if I referenced my "wife," little kids should not be thinking about us fucking. The same goes if I referenced my husband.
Fair enough. But it isn't the concept of sex per se, but the "perversion of homosexuality."
Right, and that's as idiotic as a parent saying they don't want their kid to know deaf people exist. Again saying "this is Danielle's wife" is not any more risqué or sexual than saying "this is Danielle's husband." Drawing pictures of families in kindergarten and one student drawing two moms is not any more risqué or sexual than drawing a kid with a mother and father. You don't need to talk about sex when it comes to families or relationships. I doubt anyone is talking to young children about their parents having sex, and if they are they should be investigated.
Psychology =/= neuroscience.
I never said they were synonyms.
Should so-called "Blacks" be deprived privileges by the State commensurate to their deviation from the mean?
No.
Do so-called "Whites" get afforded more privileges?
Arguably, yes.
What about men and women, and their alleged psychological differences? What about adults and children?
What about them?
My point is, what use is there in citing "psychology" if it can be used just as easily as a metric to justify discrimination?
I still have no idea what your point is. I referenced psychology because the field has studied sexuality. Psychology research has been used to achieve civil rights victories. For example, the well-known Clark doll study was an integral part of the Brown v. Board of Education case as scientific evidence regarding the detrimental psychological consequences of segregation.
So once again, I ask: does it matter whether or not it's a choice? If it was choice, would that be justification to afford them fewer privileges by the State?
Yes, only because not being able to change something is the logic behind the CRA, and that is the topic of this thread. Most people believe it's okay to fire someone for being rude and other choices. However I recognize the inconsistencies of using this metric. In addition to the religion example I already highlighted, a person can still be fired for having freckles or being tall even though those are immutable characteristics as well.
And again, if the Republican base consist predominantly of Evangelical Christians, then why is psychology as opposed to Biblical doctrine not being explored as a rubric which informs the positions of conservatives?
Nobody wants to follow the Bible. We'd have to criminalize tattoos, shellfish and masturbation for consistency which conservatives never advocate. They support picking and choosing. The first amendment also prohibits it.
It isn't an appeal to authority; it's an appeal to consensus.
Yeah that's how people make educated and informed decisions: sensing, observation and research. What's your preferred alternative for finding the answer to this question? If you have nothing to offer explaining why sexuality (attraction) is a choice, then this useless tangent is boring me and a waste of my time.
So having sex with someone of one's own sex despite not being attracted to them can demonstrate "sexuality as a choice."
Thanks for pointing out that people can choose to have sex thereby demonstrating a choice in their sexuality. You must be very proud of yourself for that astute observation using one definition of the term, and you are indeed correct. But I said change your sexuality. You described having sex i.e. sexuality in action, which does not reference anything that you have changed or can change. The definition of sexuality includes a person's identity in relation to the sex or sexes to which they are typically attracted; one's sexual orientation. Choosing to have sex with someone you are not attracted to doesn't change whom you are attracted to.
***
I don't understand the point of you responding to me. You don't disagree that excluding sexuality comparative to the other metrics in the Civil Rights Act is nonsensical, but for some reason you want to argue useless points tit for tat as if you're turning my worldview (or even my view on this single issue) upside down which you're clearly not. It just looks like you're desperate to argue over nothing.
This thread is asking why sexuality should specifically be excluded from legislation that the majority of people support regarding non-discrimination. If you don't support it, that's okay but not relevant. The obvious answer to my question is that religious/conservative people find homosexuality to be an immoral choice as opposed to a morally legitimate, inherent identity. Mocking that notion or arguing against anyone dull enough to believe that notion would be on topic.
But you're here pointing out sExUaLiTy Is A cHoIcE bEcAuSe YoU cAn ChOoSe WhOm YoU hAvE sEx WiTh which is like... I don't even care enough to have this pointless conversation. Spare me. If you want me to pat you on the head for how smart you are in making these "accckchually" points, just pretend I have done that and hopefully that fulfills you for the day.
Created:
Posted in:
Edit: Day Phase 4 will end on Sunday 2/28 @ 10:30 am EST (I accidentally wrote Sat 2/28 before).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Cancel Culture generally refers to boycotts, shaming, de-platforming and firing for perceived offenses. Even assuming public backlash must be a prerequisite to qualify, we know conservatives use the media to evoke cancellations over sexuality all the time. Example: Mass Effect 2 was supposed to have a character that was pansexual, but the creators decided to scrap that after a segment on Fox News lamenting sexuality in video games -- or all the times Disney was shamed into scrapping families headed by gay couples in their programming due to conservative media whining about it.
Whether or not sexuality is a choice (I do know it isn't) does matter. The Civil Rights Act bans discrimination based on things one cannot change about themselves. I joked that being Jewish could arguably be an immutable characteristic because Jewish people follow matrilineality.
The terms husband and wife have nothing to do with sex. They only imply sex to those exposed or old enough to understand what sex is. In that case parents have already failed at protecting their kids from learning about sexuality, and therefore can't say acknowledging I have a wife is somehow what will expose their children to the concept of sex. They already know what sex is if the term "wife" leads to that thought process. Acknowledging one's husband or wife would not teach gay sex or advocate gay sex; it would highlight a fact about one's marital status.
Your gripes with psychology don't really interest me and are mostly untrue, especially as it pertains to neuroscience. I don't understand the questions you are asking me about it though. It seems you are making assumptions about me agreeing with non-discrimination orders by government. Obviously discrimination is justified in many instances, especially age discrimination, but regardless I don't understand your point nor your point in responding to me at all unless it is to argue that sexuality is not immutable.
My point was that I don't understand the right-wing argument for not accepting sexuality as a protected class. The best one I could think of is that sexuality is not an immutable characteristic. In that case you could have some type of hearing where people testify and present their arguments (since I am talking about government and law) which would likely include research done by psychologists, sexologists and others who study human behavior. There is a general consensus within these communities that sexuality is not a choice, and it would behoove a decision-making person or persons to consider this. But if someone wanted to misnomer this as nothing but an appeal to authority, I'm sure the testimony of many people's empirical anecdotes could be included in the hearing as well. I would start by asking the homophobes to change their sexuality to prove it can be done and go from there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Again, the Civil Rights Act was passed over 50 years ago which already makes it illegal to fire someone on the basis of an immutable characteristic. I think the best argument from a religious POV is that sexuality is not an immutable characteristic (they believe it is a choice). Of course that argument is, for the most part, wrong.
I never said conservatives were against Cancel Culture. I have been very clear that conservatives have been THE biggest proponents and advocates of Cancel Culture. History and even present day is filled of examples where conservatives wanted to cancel someone or some thing on the basis of not agreeing with or approving of it.
Yet they still whine incessantly when the market reacts to "cancel" someone and the government does not. Consider the firing of Roseanne as one example. They were very upset that the market decided to punish the actress (there were no legal repercussions).
I disagree conservatives do not want to get the government involved in cancelling people or things they disagree with either. Look at the FCC and how conservatives threw a hissy fit when there was even a tiny bit of cursing or lewd content on the airwaves. Howard Stern and others have been punished by this government body for offending people. I remember back in the early 2000s radio companies used to always get fined for playing Eminem songs that had curses in them.
Ted Cruz also wanted to launch a criminal investigation into Netflix for showing the movie "Cuties" because he didn't like the content. The Prime Minister of Israel tweeted about how along with US conservatives, they have supported U.S. laws that determine action should be taken against those that try to boycott Israel. So the Israeli government and its American lemmings push to criminalize dissent of Israel - even convincing some states to require loyalty oaths to Israel in order to get government contracts. These hypocrites obviously have no problem using government to cancel people and things they disagree with.
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
iLikePie (oromagi, MisterChris) -- 2/3 votes
MisterChris (Pie, Supa) --2/3 votes
g2g for now
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
iLikePie (MisterChris) -- 1/3 votes
MisterChris (Pie, Supa) --2/3 votes
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
iLikePie (oromagi) -- 1/3 votes
MisterChris (Pie) -- 1/3 votes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@ILikePie5
@oromagi
@MisterChris
It takes 3 votes to lynch. Day Phase 4 will end on Saturday 2/28 @ 10:30 am EST
Created:
Posted in:
GRAVEYARD
Speedrace - town Lawyer
Bringerofrain - mafia Goon
iLikePie (1) - town Elite Bodyguard
Most people know about Rosa Parks and the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott that began in 1955, but few know that there were a number of women who refused to give up their seats on the same bus system before Ms. Parks' famous story. One of those women was Claudette Colvin (whiteflame). When she was 15, she refused to move to the back of the bus and give up her seat to a white person — nine months before Rosa Parks did the very same thing. Rosa Parks was a bit older and had the right "image" to use as a symbol of the Civil Rights Movement, but it was often young people that made a lot of headway on the front lines. Claudette Colvin was one of four women plaintiffs in Browder v. Gayle, the court case that successfully overturned bus segregation laws in Montgomery and Alabama. In this game, she was a vanilla townsperson but could influence the game with her voice and her vote.
LIVING
01 iLikePie (2)
02 MisterChris
03 SupaDudz
04 oromagi
Created:
Posted in:
Whiteflame was lynched. He was Innocent.
No more posting in this thread.
Any night actions not submitted by 4:30 pm EST on Thursday, 2/25 will be forfeited.
Vote Count
Crocodile (Chris) -- 1/3 votes
whiteflame (oromagi, Supa, Pie) -- 3/3 votes
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Crocodile (Chris) -- 1/3 votes
whiteflame (oromagi, Supa) -- 2/3 votes
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Crocodile (Chris) -- 1/3 votes
whiteflame (oromagi) -- 1/3 votes
Created:
Posted in:
Due to inactivity, Crocodile has been replaced with iLikePie5.
To preserve the integrity of the game, he will not be able to answer any questions about how he may or may not have used his night action in his previous role.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@whiteflame
@oromagi
@MisterChris
@Crocodile
Note: anyone who doesn't make at least two posts within 24 hours is subject to replacement.
Created:
Posted in:
GRAVEYARD
While celebrating black achievements and helping to forge new ones are very important, Louis Farrakhan (Bringerofrain) is a revolutionary black nationalist that seeks to do this at the expense of others. RBNs believe in the inherent superiority of black people. They routinely preach hate, and share a lot in common with their white supremacist counterparts. Both white supremacists and RBNs embrace paranoid conspiracy theories. RBNs also promote bigotry, intolerance, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, pseudo-science, irrationality, dogmatic historical revisionism and violence. To forge new alliances with his group, the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan has even resorted to embracing Dianetics - the harmful practice of Scientology. So at this point it's unclear if he is more committed to his own status and the status of his group, then he is to ensuring the best opportunities for black people. In this game, Louis Farrakhan is indeed a mafia Goon. He had no special abilities, but could influence the game with his voice and his vote.
***
In February of 1956, Charles Gittens (iLikePie5) was sworn in as a special agent, becoming the first African American to serve in the Secret Service agency. His remarkable career included a number of undercover investigations that later became high profile victories. As a special agent, Mr. Gittens protected Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson, as well as Vice President Humphrey, Mrs. Kennedy, and President Johnson’s daughter. In this game, Mr. Gittens was a town aligned Elite Bodyguard. During the night phase he could submit the name of a player to protect. If they were targeted for a night kill, there was a 50% chance of dying in their place, and a 50% chance of killing the attacker instead.
LIVING
01 Crocodile
02 whiteflame
03 MisterChris
04 SupaDudz
05 oromagi
It takes 3 votes to lynch. Day Phase 3 will end on Friday 2/26 @ 3:00 pm EST.
Created:
Posted in:
The Day Phase Has Ended -- Bringerofrain was lynched. He was GUILTY.
No more posting in this thread.
Night actions that are not submitted by 3 pm EST on Tuesday, 2/23 will be forfeited.
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Bringerofrain (oromagi, whiteflame, Pie) -- 3/4 votes
Created:
Posted in:
DEAD
Known as "The Man Who Killed Jim Crow," Charles Hamilton Houston (Speedrace) was a black lawyer who helped play a role in dismantling the Jim Crow laws and helped train future Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall. Houston played a role in nearly every civil rights case before the Supreme Court between 1930 and Brown v. Board of Education (1954). His brilliant plan to attack and defeat Jim Crow segregation by using the inequality of the “separate but equal” doctrine (from the Supreme Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson decision) as it pertained to public education in the United States was the master stroke that brought about the landmark Brown decision. In this game, Charles Hamilton Houston was a town Lawyer that could defend other people's rights. During the night phase he could submit the name of a player he wished to protect from being lynched the following day phase.
LIVING
01 Bringerofrain
02 Crocodile
03 iLikePie5
04 whiteflame
05 MisterChris
06 SupaDudz
07 oromagi
It takes 4 votes to lynch. Day Phase 2 will end on Thursday 2/25 @ 3:00 pm EST.
Created:
Posted in:
The Day Phase Has Ended - No Lynch
No more talking or posting in this thread.
The night phase will end in 24 hours.
Any night action not submitted within that time will be forfeited.
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>
Vote Count
Bringerofrain (oromagi) -- 1/5 votes
Crocodile (Pie) -- 1/5 votes
SupaDudz (Speed) -- 1/5 votes
MisterChris (Bringer) -- 1/5 votes
Not voting: Supa, Chris, Crocodile, whiteflame
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Bringerofrain (oromagi) -- 1/5 votes
Crocodile (Pie) -- 1/5 votes
SupaDudz (Speed) -- 1/5 votes
MisterChris (Bringer) -- 1/5 votes
Not voting: Supa, Chris, Crocodile, whiteflame
About ~2 hours left in the day phase.
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Bringerofrain (oromagi) -- 1/5 votes
Crocodile (Pie) -- 1/5 votes
SupaDudz (whiteflame, Bringer, Speed) -- 3/5 votes
Not voting: Supa, Chris, Crocodile
About ~16 hours left in the day phase.
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Bringerofrain (oromagi) -- 1/5 votes
Crocodile (Pie, Speedrace) -- 2/5 votes
SupaDudz (whiteflame, Bringer) -- 2/5 votes
Not voting: Supa, Chris, Croc
About ~20 hours left in the day phase.
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Bringerofrain (oromagi) -- 1/5 votes
Crocodile (Pie) -- 1/5 votes
MisterChris (Bringer) -- 1/5 votes
About 26 hours left in the day phase.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
You can ask about role justifications.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
A game where you focus on trying to Lynch blacks just seems wrong.
History should make us uncomfortable :)
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Bringerofrain (oromagi, Pie) -- 2/5 votes
Crocodile (Bringer) -- 1/5 votes
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Bringerofrain (oromagi, Pie) -- 2/5 votes
Crocodile (Bringer) -- 1/5 votes
The day phase is still set to end on Monday 2/22 @ 9 am EST.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
Good morning, everyone.
As you know I don't get online much during the weekend. Today I will be visiting family and don't expect to get online until tonight. If you have an urgent question (doubtful) you can message me on Discord and @ me. I thought I turned off notifications, but I still get them sometimes so apparently not lol. Who knows. Anyway I will get online this evening to check on the game.
As noted I have replaced XLAV since he is the only player that hasn't posted. He will be replaced with Bringerofrain and I will update the vote count accordingly. I'm tagging Croc in this post because he only made one post, so if I need to replace him next I will get on that.
Have a good day!
Vote Count
Bringerofrain (oromagi, Pie) -- 2/5 votes
Created:
Posted in:
XLAV is the only one who hasn't posted. I will replace him tomorrow if he doesn't come online.
Created:
Yes
Created:
Posted in:
Today the Equality Act was reintroduced to Congress. The Equality Act would provide consistent and explicit anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people across key areas of life, including employment, housing, credit, education, federally funded programs and jury service. As it stands, LGBT people can be fired from their jobs, evicted from their homes, or denied service from businesses in the majority of states simply for being who they are (or who their parents are).
The Equality Act is expected to pass easily in the House, but struggle in the Senate. Ten Republicans would be needed to reach the 60 votes to end a filibuster on the legislation, and right now it doesn't look like they have the votes.
I don't understand why Republicans have a problem with this bill. Isn't firing someone for being gay CANCEL CULTURE? I assumed they would be eager to mitigate Cancel Culture and make sure people aren't discriminated against simply because you don't like them or the way they live, but surprise! It turns out conservatives feel very strongly about their right to discriminate and ban or cancel people at their discretion 🤪
The Civil Rights Act bans discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, etc. and I don't think anyone but libertarians (i.e. very few people) would say they believe you should be allowed to legally discriminate against someone's race -- so why is sexuality different? Sexual orientation is not a choice; it is an inherent part of one's identity. So unless you believe ALL discrimination should be legal, I don't understand the right-wing argument for excluding sexuality as a protected class.
At best there is the ridiculously bad argument about "not wanting kids to learn what sexuality is." Why would you have to talk about sex explicitly when acknowledging one's identity? "This is Danielle's wife" is not any more risqué or sexual than saying "this is Danielle's husband." Drawing pictures of families in kindergarten and one student drawing two moms is not any more risqué or sexual than drawing a kid with a mother and father. You don't need to talk about sex when it comes to families or relationships.
Since sexuality is an immutable characteristic which has been verified by psychologists for decades, why do Republicans cling to the idea that you can discriminate against gay people with impunity? If they think you should be able to fire someone for being gay, why is it wrong to fire them for being black or being Christian? Religion actually ISN'T inherent to one's identity (unless you're Jewish lol) so why is it wrong to fire someone for being Catholic? Why don't Republicans push to get rid of the Civil Rights Act entirely?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
I have a feeling you're an alt so I assume you know how to play. I will wait 2 days to ensure people know a game has started (lol - surprise!). If someone doesn't post by then, you can definitely be a replacement. Thanks for asking.
Created: