Kitten · of · Doom

Anyways, I've gotten a peek at the new Dungeons and Dragons. Know what? It actually looks rather good. I still haven't really had the time to look closely at it, but my impressions are these:

- There are somewhat less options to choose from when making your character, but they are all much more significant. Thus, we might have a system that is easier to teach and get the hang of, but with more possibilities for different character concepts. Of course, it might be that it only makes all characters do the same, but with different flavor texts, but I don't think so.

- Combat will only be marginally faster than before, and then only because the players options will be clearer to them.

- Races other than Humans will _not_ actually cripple your character completely munchkin-wise.

- All females depicted are still big breasted scantilly clad 20-something super models. Even the dwarves.

- DM-ing will be a breeze compared to what it was earlier. I think it will actually be quite manageable to dm a session without planning any of the encounters ahead of time, and with only minimal delay in reading encounters in the books. More and easier improvisations? Yay!

- The World of warcraft-ness I was afraid of seems to have been largely pessimism. Won't know until We've played a session or two, though... Who's with me? This weekend, for example? Who? Speak up!

Artist:
Someone who creates art. Now, defining art is really difficult, but I'm pretty certain the makeup in some Hollywood-persons face isn't it. Thus, the term "Make up artist" is pretentious, stupid, and silly. There are other examples.

Design(er):
Design is the art (sic.) of purposefully planning the form, function, production and aesthetics of a product you want to make. It's not another word for "looks" (nor for aesthetic properties). Someone who polishes peoples nails and then glues little plastic flowers on them is not a designer.

Terrorist/Terrorism:
Terrorism is instilling fear with the aim of reaching political goals. Perhaps the definition also has to include a clause about violence, but I'm not certain of it. However, really violent robberies are not terrorism whichever way you look at it. Neither is Guerilla attacks on military targets. Hiding amongst civilians might be unethical, but it doesn't make you a terrorist. It's calmed down a bit, but terror is still one of the most misused words I know.

Feminist/Feminism:
Feminism is about realizing that society is treating men and women unequally, realizing that most of the inequality favors men, and wanting to do something about it. It's not a word for describing financially successful women. Thus, being rich or successful, and a woman, does _not_ automatically  make you a feminist. _Especially_ if the way you made those money was by having someone take pictures of your newly enlarged breasts. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against porn in itself, but making money the one way women have always been able to make money, no matter how patriarchal(or whatever)  the society was, is _not_ an expression of feminism. (Of course, one can be a pornstar/prostitute/housewife _and_ a feminist. But the career-choice in itself, and the potential success in that field can not be seen as an expression of that feminism).

Oh my. That last one is the result of a discussion I had on the internet about some boob-chick claiming her doing what se did was the "modern" feminism, and much cooler and hipper than that boring old unshaved-armpit-feminism from the seventies.
Word thieves must die.

Then again, I think it's sad that groups like Ottar only get media attention when harassing porn-dealers. Now, I get their arguments even though I disagree with them, that's not the problem.

The problem is young girls saying "Feminism? Urgh, that's like that horrible stuff when I can't watch porn or shave my armpits, right? I'm against that shit!". Hopefully, these same girls would object if they were forces to do all the housework our being denied equal opportunity in the workplace (or anywhere else), but still. When the word itself has become... dirty, in some peoples minds, there is a problem.

Current Mood:

determined

Well, the violence bit is already maxed, so in that regard the evil influence of games has no effect on me (or rather, has effected me to the full extent possible years ago), but the following little anecdote ,or rather the events which it describes, managed to scare me a bit (Ah, well no, not scare, but shake me up a bit, perhaps).

Walking from the train to work, I cross a little plaza. Today, there was a seemingly abandoned police squad car there, and no uniformed police in sight . They were probably having breakfast at a nearby café or something, I dunno. The police station is about 100m away, so it could really have been anything. Point is, in my mind for about two seconds, the following thought process went unhindered:

"Ohh, a police car, those are fast and real easy to steer. I'll get to work a bit faster if I "borrow" this. Then again, I'm not sure how easy it will be to loose my wanted level here, a bit difficult to navigate, isn't it? But ooh, no cops in it! That means I won't get shot at while i hotwire it, great!"

Then, luckily, my sense returned, and I steered away from it.

Current Mood:

amused

Thus, when the not at all very good but very lesbian band warming up for the better band where my mates friend where singing sung a song about menstruation, I was slightly shocked, but in the good, fun way, and laughed. Same goes for really horrible un-PC jokes, too-detailed accounts of sexual exploits/perversions and so on.

Then there's the other one. The bad way of being shocked (and often outraged): Fucktards. Surprisingly (or perhaps not) the most shocking, outrageous people and statements are often a result of not being able to handle the things I put in the "good" category. People who wants to dictate what other people have a right to do in private because they cannot bear thinking someone might do something they themselves think is disgusting and outrageous. People trying to decide what language is acceptable. People seeing it as a given that they should not have to wash their own floors because they have a good enough income to pay some poor guy to do it for them. People actually judging people from their appearance alone (be it an expensive bimbo-look or a drunkards rags). Racists, of course.

Of course, I'm sure I've shocked people both in ways I myself would characterize as good _and_ bad. And even more obviously, ways they see as bad. I guess the difference is whether we see that the fact that we let ourselves get shaken by something is silly or not. I might not be able to remain completely unshaken if someone went into detail on [whatever], but I'd see that my reaction was silly, and probably find the situation funny enough to laugh. (Of course, you can claim that I'm merely laughing as a defense mechanism to an uncomfortable situation, as a way of not having to deal, but I rally don't think so). Now, the people I characterize as fucktards would get angry. Actually, they'd react the same way I do when confronted with them.

____________

I read an interview with Galtung the other day. He has a model of how societies coexist with each other. There are several levels, from "Intolerance", trough "Tolerance" to  "Dialog" and  "Learning". He says tolerance is only slightly better than intolerance, because it implies that the ones doing the tolerating are better than the ones being tolerated. "Sure. Our way is better than yours, but since we are so damned enlightened, we tolerate your pitiful and morally objectionable ways anyways." Now, for one thing, I'm not sure how applicable his model is on an individual level. Hey, for all I know, I've misunderstood the hole thing, and he was talking about tolerating/not tolerating an entire culture. If so, I have no quarrel. I do not agree however, that tolerance has to be condescending. When faced with a different view than our own, it should be completely legitimate to accept that the views are different, but not necessarily better or worse than each other. (Although, perhaps such a conclusion is impossible without dialog?) Also, there are things that is not learnable that some people manage to be intolerant towards. Race, Sexual orientation, gender... I'm guessing I'm being unnecessaryily difficult, but I really don't see how we can do more than tolerate (if at least, by tolerate we mean accept as equal (aha, I guess Galtung does not in his model. That would explain it.) such differences.

So either we have to define "tolerance" as "we are not trying to stop you, but we see you as less worthy" and put acceptance as a necessity for dialog, or we have to put in acceptance as another level (with the added meaning of  "accept as equal", or we have to realize that the model is meant as a tool for peace-work and not as a means of looking at personal relations.

Hmm, either way. I think it's easier to get someone to keep their damned opinions to themselves and stop letting their moral outrage spill out on whoever outrages them than to actually have them talk to and learn from whoever shocks them so. Then again, the latter might actually teach them to stop being outraged.

Enough thinking. My head is starting to hurt again. If someone can actually follow my thoughts here, I'd be happy to hear from you.

Current Mood:

thoughtful

What might be a lot worse is the fact that after having been fooled thoroughly, I've guessed every outrageous story in the paper is another joke. They can't seriously mean that?! What the... This is to horrible, it has to be a joke...
Sadly, though, I'm afraid a lot of these stories are factual. I hope not, but unless all the papers I read have 3-4 jokes today, bad stuff has happened and people in power are bastards. Damn.

On a completely unrelated topic:
A dear friend of ours, martinemonster, has hurriedly decided to permanently vacate the country. She has asked me to announce that as she is unable to take her stuff with her, it's all up for grabs. 45hasle and yours truly have already secured the best stuff for ourselves, but there's still some nice items left, including most of her wardrobe. Run up to Sinsen and see if you find anything you'd like!

Also, I've just won the lottery. As my calculations indicate that I'll only need 90%, or about 18 million of the money (in Kroner), I've decided to give the rest away evenly amongst the people who'll visit me later today (after five pm) completely naked and able to tell me how much money all such visitors will get to share.

Current Mood:

amused

My problem is, it seems, that a lot of people also seems to have trouble getting it when I us it verbally. This means they think I'm saying the opposite of what I'm actually trying to say. Since I usually use irony only (well, mostly) when it should be clear what I really think (since the opposite would make me an asshole) i find this provoking, which again leads me to shovel even more heinous opinions into the debate (to make them understand I'm not serious). Sadly, as often as not, the image whoever I'm talking to have made up of me is already that of a complete asshole, one of which they'd believe anything, and we have a loop of badness going.

Example:
Me: Argghh, the problem we are facing is that our parents are too many compared to us. The only way we can bear the burden of supporting their retirements is to withhold medical care, so that we save money both on pensions since they will die faster and on our healthcare system, since we won't waste it on unproductive members of society.

Someone: What?! Are you a fascist or something? That would be horrible, how can you say... Perhaps we could incerase the age of retirement, but what you're suggesting is...

Me: [mentally wondering who this idiot is.] Hmm, yes, letting old people die sick and alone would be inhumane. We should make a system based on how long they kept working, how much taxes they paid throughout their lives and how important their jobs were, and from that calculate how long we want to keep them alive. And even if it's a bit more expensive, we should have "death homes", where we will help these formerly productive members of society die in humane and controlled circumstances... And I think the cost of the homes will even out with the savings on pensions.

Someone: [stares] But, but, you can't  mean that...

Me: [slaps Someone]: No I can't, you fool! I was trying to emphasize my point by using sarcasm.

.........

Whatever.
Some times, however, I don't get the chance to explain that I'm not serious, and i people will keep thinking I'm an idiot.

As I see it, I have 4 alternatives:
1: I can start laughing or smiling or something when I'm being ironic, to make it clear that I'm not serious.
2: I can stop and explain it if someone misunderstand me.
3: I can stop trying to be witty all the time.
4: I can keep going as I have, sometimes making people think I'm an idiot.

Number three would probably be best. one of the two first ones would probably be ok. Knowing myself though, I'll keep choosing #4.

Woe.

Current Mood:

angry

Stilletid:

Støy skal ikke forekomme etter klokken 21.00. Med støy menes lyder av ubehagelig karakter høye nok til å høres utenfor rommet lyden stammer fra. Det er lytteren som bestemmer hvorvidt en lyd er av ubehagelig karakter. Overskridelser av denne regelen fører til slag mot bar rumpe med visp. Antall slag  bestemmes av lytter.

Rydding:

De enkelte beboere er selv ansvarlige for sitt rot i fellesarealer. I tilfeller hvor de er forhindret av godkjente årsaker (Sykdom, Arbeid, Latskap eller Overdreven prokrastinasjon) tilfaller oppgaven de kvinnelige beboerne. Om det ikke finnes kvinnelige beboere tilfaller oppgaven den yngste mannlige beboeren.

Vask:

Bad, gang og kjøkken skal rengjøres med støvsuger/feiekost hver uke og såpevask 2 ganger pr. måned. Kvinnelige beboere er ansvarlige for denne vasken. Er det ingen kvinnelige beboere blir den yngste mannlige beboeren ansvarlig.

De enkelte hyblene er den enkelte beboers ansvar, men i tilfeller hvor dette ansvaret ikke tas er det opp til vaskeansvarlig (les: kvinne(ne)) å holde renholdet også her på et anstendig nivå.

Sikkerhet:

Begge utganger skal være låst til enhver tid. I tilfeller hvor uvedkommende forsøker å skaffe seg adgang til leiligheten er det de mannlige beboeres oppgave å hindre denne adgangen med vold. Om det ikke finnes mannlige beboere tilfaller dette ansvaret den eldste kvinnelige beboeren.

I tilfeller hvor autoriserte gjester (uvedkommende som en av beboerne har gitt midlertidig adgang til leiligheten) forsøker å øve vold mot eller tilrane seg eierskap over leilighet, eiendom eller andre beboere eller autoriserte gjester plikter den nermeste mannlige beboeren å stoppe gjesten med vold. Om ingen mannlige beboere er til stede tilfaller plikten den eldste kvinnelige beboeren.

Mangelfull utførelse av plikter:

Mangelfull utførelse av pliktene medfører straff. Straffen avhenger av alvorlighetsgraden i unnasluntringen, men ”Cruel and Unusual” bør være stikkord for utformingen.

Konflikter mellom beboere:

Konflikter mellom beboere løses ved å ta dem opp med megleren. Meglerrollen går på rundgang ut fra kinesiske stjernetegn I 2008 er megleren er den av de blonde mannlige beboerne som er eldst. De to sidene i konflikten legger fram sine synspunkter, og megleren dikterer hvilke straff som utdeles. Om en av sidene i konflikten ikke føyer seg etter denne avgjørelsen dobles straffen.

Konflikter som involverer megleren løses på samme måte, bortsett fra at megleren strafes firedobbelt om han nekter å føye seg etter avgjørelsen.