Messages

Scavenger should have said: "some of their stories approach the truth in the most roundabout way." Then he wouldn't have been guilty of inflammatory exaggeration of the sort that upsets Breitbart readers so much.

Being a feminist is sexist. Ignorance is strength. We can all read Orwell, some of us understood it.

EDIT: And in case a mod feels like this is off topic, I would argue it's not. Many people are living in a fact-free fantasy world, oppressed by evil feminists and tyrannical Black Lives Matter activists, and those people just voted for an orange fascist. It's relevant.

Oh no, am I being sexist against men? OH NO!

Cuiki and Jack, you're talking like Philip J. Fry: "It's a widely believed fact".

If a woman is "widely regarded" as being corrupt, when she's no more corrupt than the next man, there's a good chance that misogyny has a hand in it. I have no idea what Zuma or Samuel L. Jackson have to do with this.

There is a notable overlap between 'politically incorrect' and 'factually incorrect'.

I don't care that Jack 'labelled' Clinton female - she is female. I object to him calling her the "most openly corrupt female politician in history."

The vast majority of politicians in history are men, and all the people who've held the office of President are men. Clinton should be compared to them. By comparing Clinton to other female politicians, rather than other politicians, he was holding her to a different, in this case higher, standard because of her sex. That is a sexist thing to do. He should try to make his argument without relying on implicit prejudices.

I don't mind you singling me out, but I don't see anything bigoted in dactylopus's quote.

What I meant by political correctness, personally, was things like Ali saying that Jack shouldn't use the word female when refering to Hillary being corrupt. I mean, I get it's a label, and her gender shouldn't have anything to do with being corrupt, but from a pragmatic point of view, someone who demonizes such labeling could do more harm than someone who casually uses it. Don't get me wrong Ali, I am definitely on your side in the bigger picture, but maybe it's not just people like me who should be more careful with their words.

I'm all for being polite and trying to understand other people's views, although my intemperate post is not the best example of that. But the left and Jonathan Pie are beating themselves up for demonising Trump supporters. The names we used, the labels we threw around are to blame for his victory.

I don't think Trump supporters are all evil, but there's this idea that 60 million people can't be racist, can't be sexist, can't be homophobic. 60 million people CAN be all those things. Anyone can, it's very easy. I've been guilty of each of them, to my shame.

But if we can't name bigotry for fear of causing offence, for fear of 'labelling' someone, then where does that get us? How does it help the left to tiptoe around the feelings of people who want to BE racist, but don't want to be CALLED racist? Millions of people decided that they were prepared to at least *tolerate* Trump's racism.

Perhaps articles which call racist people racist should have a 'label' warning at the top to prevent anyone from getting *labelled*.

But the idea that she is exceptionally corrupt in comparison with the men who have previously held the office of President takes a spoonful of sexism to go down.

I used the word female because I assumed there must've been male politicians more openly corrupt than her. Your assumption that I used the word female pejoratively is... Yes...

If there are male politicians more corrupt than her, then she is not exceptionally corrupt! She belongs to the group 'politicians', not 'female politicians'. Your use of the word was sexist and you cannot get out of that by ending sentences... with ellipses...

I'm no fan of Clinton, she is way too far to the right for me. But the idea that she is exceptionally corrupt in comparison with the men who have previously held the office of President takes a spoonful of sexism to go down.

Anyway: https://xkcd.com/386/

And that's more drivel directly from the MSM.

If you don't like me you're a mysogynist/antisemite/racist!!!

My rule is more like: if you don't like women/jews/black people you're a mysogynist/antisemite/racist. (Though there is an amazing intersection between mysogynists/antisemites/racists and people I don't like.)

You absolutely should remove the word female from that sentence, because her femaleness is utterly irrelevant to her level of corruption. You're probably right that Clinton lost more than Trump won. But the idea that she is any more corrupt than other career politicians with her prominence and experience is a conspiratorial fantasy with misogynist overtones.

I admire Andail and others for trying to understand the white, disenfranchised, less educated, white, lower-middle class, white communities that came out for Trump. But we've been tolerating and indulging the 'valid concerns' of ignorant, culturally atavistic white folk since the 2008 crash (which had bugger all to do with immigrants) and that's given us Brexit and Brexit x5. Hopefully not the first two links in a dangerous chain-reaction.

I also apologise for misunderstanding.

They insisted on lifting up the most openly corrupt female politician in history.

The key word in this sentence is 'female'.

I am disappointed to see people using the term SJW on these forums. On the internet, of all places.

Social JUSTICE Warrior. If that sounds like a bad thing to you, you should strongly reconsider. If you feel comforted by Trump's illiterate jingoism, you should strongly reconsider. If you think people have no reason to be frightened, you should strongly reconsider. If you don't see the racism and misogyny, it is either because you choose not to or because you are a racist misogynist.

You're the ones that future generations will look back on in utter bewilderment. How could ostensibly decent people have been so wrong?

EDIT: To comply with forum rules, I have replaced abusive language in the above post with the phrase "strongly reconsider". Yes, it has affected the scansion.

Thanks for posting that, Cat. There are also full breakdowns of the talks by Rebecca (Azure) here:
http://www.adventurexpo.org/sat-19th-guide/
http://www.adventurexpo.org/sun-20th-guide/

Also, in case you missed it, we are looking for game trailers to play on the livestream (and possibly on screens at the event). All the details are here:
http://www.adventurexpo.org/want-narrative-game-trailers/

By the way, if you have any questions you'd like us to put to the panellists, now would be a great time to suggest them!

Can I recommend the flawed gem that is Culpa Innata: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpa_Innata

It's an bad game in many ways - unfinished, ugly, confusing. But it's very original, mature and intelligent in others. I have no regrets

None of William Blake's contemporaries though he was a poet either. But he was - a poet and a painter far behind his rightful times.

If I set the game's actual size to 320x200, then 1280x720 is not listed. As you say, it only seems to appear as 'Game resolution' when the game is 1280x720.

I just checked, and it is actually running at 1280x720. Neither Direct Draw 5 nor Direct3D show all the resolutions for me.

I meant the setup programme. That's interesting, because my list doesn't show 1600x900, 1280x720, both of which I use regularly and are in the list of resolutions I can choose for Windows. They're also also available when I play other games.

As far as I can tell, there aren't any 16:9 resolutions in the setup list, apart from 1920x1080. (1360x768 is there, but it's not quite 16:9).

I can create a 1280x720 game, and set it to run at 'game resolution'. This runs 1280x720 successfully, however when I run setup again, it defaults back to 'desktop resolution'.

Is there a way to change the list of available resolutions in the setup? I have a 16:9 monitor, and 1280x720 (which is a resolution I use all the time) isn't in the list.

If I recall... in the UK, Broken Sword was number 2 when one of the first GTA games was number 1. That's an achievement that won't be repeated because games like GTA have become MASSIVELY more popular in the last 20 years, while adventure games have stayed in kind of the same place. But if you look at the difference between the original GTA and the latest installments - other genres have come a lot further than graphical adventures have in that time. In spite of that, I still think more (and often better) adventure games are being made today than were in the 90s.