Johann

The systemic problems aren't being caused by people not liking the police. Even if everyone gave absolute, unbending love to every last police officer, we'd still have the same problems.

If a person has any good intent, they'll listen when other people let them know they're fucking up and doing something that promotes racism. You don't play a game of Wait & See with the impacts of racism. The irony is probably lost on you, but your wait and see mentality on this perfectly parallels the bad government response to the virus itself. Does this mean we should hold people like you responsible for the uptick in violence and harassment towards Asian people?

You reduced systemic racism to an issue of people not being nice to each other. I'm saying the entire system is hard-coded to weigh heavily against black people and minorities, including through laws and how easily exploitable it is, and that the solution requires a complete restructuring of the system. Bad cops and bad policing in general are symptoms of a failing system, and there's not enough oversight addressing it.

Explain the scope to me, then. I see the problem being systemic from the federal to the local level, including quotas, the war on drugs, deep-seeded long-term impacts of Jim Crow laws and slavery, stereotyping, racial profiling, intimidation (particularly during plea bargaining), evidence being planted or tampered with, bad/false testimonies, prison sentencing, the myriad of problems with the prison system itself, and so on.

It really is the fault of the police, 100%. Many people become police knowing they will have special power they can abuse with impunity (white supremacist groups encourage their members to become police as well). Meanwhile, black people know full well that they can and will be stopped, questioned, detained, and/or shot at for doing literally anything. Both sides also know the criminal justice system is weighed heavily against black people and heavily in favor of police. The problem with the idea that "police need to get better at policing themselves" is that they don't want to. There's no incentive to do so, no impetus at any level. Yet black people are constantly told to watch their behavior, whether by authorities wanting to keep them in line, or by their parents and friends who are pleading with them to not become another "_____ while black" headline. Saying there are behavior problems on both sides is an extremely thoughtless thing to say.

You're getting a bit off topic here, but the bottom line is that intent is irrelevant when determining if an act is racist, only the impacts matter. In this case, the impact is that calling the disease by where it was first identified, rather than by its actual name, reinforces stereotyped thinking in many people's minds about not only Chinese people, but East Asian people in general. It's a racist name. Stop defending an act of racism.

Nifl Felicia (Nifelicia?) would be extremely tempting. I've never liked the maid outfits.

While we're bumped, rumors had been floating around that this'll be a late Spring/early Summer release, though the Coronavirus stuff may have changed that. There is also a rumor of a Nintendo Direct happening in the very near future (like probably this week) with a release date.

It's not a matter of free speech, it's a matter of hate speech. Protesting this way is meaningless and stigmatizing Chinese people is harmful. Even when you criticize "China", as in the whole country, and not the government/Xi Jinping specifically, it's very likely that some readers (including lurkers) aren't aware that you're referring to only the later. You don't get a pass because you're afraid of how the virus might affect your family, or because you've arbitrarily decided it "has nothing to do with race" when it's 100% about race. You're running on assumptions. You can't be sure what anybody who reads your posts interprets your words to mean, even if you only factor those who post here regularly. Countless people misinterpret the meaning of phrases, etc, which is how Blue Lives Matter came about. This is a lot of effort on your part to explain why you think it's ok to use a racist term, when the simple option is to accept that it's racist, refrain from using it, and move on. This thread has had a Chinese person and a mod both explicitly say that it's racist and they don't want to hear it. Please listen to them.

Right on, this is what proper gun use looks like-- you know how to use it safely, and you don't have wild fantasies of using it to save people in Nakatomi Tower. A lot of gun rights proponents get it in their head that gun control is about taking away every single gun ever, which is not really the case and generally muddles the discussion. I don't begrudge anyone for feeling so uncomfortable around guns that they'd prefer a world where they didn't exist though.

You'll have to elaborate, especially when police regularly target black people for doing perfectly normal everyday things. The problem is squarely on police behavior/mentality.

By that same logic, we can call it the American Disease due to how poorly the Trump administration and many state governments have handled it. The disease already had a name, and giving it a new one isn't necessary, especially when the only reason to do so is to lump the blame onto how one nation responded to it. This whole situation is also showing how dumb a lot of people are, so expecting them to take a name like that as anything beyond blaming all of China is absurd. There are countless better ways to criticize a government. Naming a disease after the whole nation doesn't do that, it just makes life harder for the people and descendants of that nation.

Added. Hope you don't mind, but I also quoted what you said about misnaming the virus, to better ensure people know that it's the official mod position on that matter. The problem with calling it that is that it puts the blame on ALL people of China, or Chinese descent. There's no distinguishing the government, and it's very ineffectual as a means of criticizing said government. That name spreads ill will towards Chinese people and nothing more. Don't use it. The government plays the most crucial role in preparation, education, response, recovery, relief, etc. Arguing about the failings in their response is absolutely necessary to ensure that the problems are addressed. This whole situation is testing our government, our economies, and effectively all other systems, and it's essential that we learn from whatever failings we see.

There's definitely a few things to think about: Why do people think/feel they're safer with a gun around? It's certainly not necessary and there are plenty of instances of people accidentally shooting family members. If criminals desire guns, then doesn't it make sense to look at what factors increase levels of crime? The most significant factor I've seen is economic hardship/poverty, and so by looking at what causes and perpetuates poverty, we can address it, and subsequently reduce crime. Do police need guns, and if so, at what point should they be used? Police are trained to use lethal force as a last resort, but many instances (notably situations with unarmed black people) show it's often completely uncalled for. Among other issues with police, it seems it's not only a matter of capacity for violence, but willingness.

It's an extremely bad way to voice political dissent, in part because it's racist, and also because it's not clear what you're criticizing. Having a clear message that isn't misunderstood or co-opted (especially by an already racist/xenophobic audience) is incredibly important here.

It inherently carries a negative racial connotation. Don't do it, and encourage others to stop if you can.

With enough of an installation base and battery/reserve systems, it wouldn't be a problem. It's common for people with photovoltaic systems on their houses to get credited for their excess energy production. There's also a lot that can be done in terms of efficiency, with decentralized energy systems helping against losses from transmission being one example.

How so? Surely it could tarnish a person's legacy, or affect people who happen to have a similar name.

Yeah, it's a bit complicated since there's no universally agreed definition, even by the US government: US government does legally defines a "mass killing" as follows (note that this does not exclude violence from other means): By either definition, there's still plenty of data to contradict @Jason-SilverStarApple's claim that there's only one every few years. In 2018, there were 27 instances that the FBI deemed "active shooter" incidents, with 85 people directly killed and 128 were wounded (these numbers exclude the shooters themselves).

@XRay Naming a disease/virus after locations, people, food, species, cultural things (such as jobs, industries), or generally fear-inciting terms is bad since they're both misleading and stigmatizing. This is the standard set by both the CDC and WHO. Helpful sources: WHO Best Practices for the Naming of New Human Infectious Diseases (pdf) CDC COVID-19 -- Reducing Stigma

The demo is now available! Pretty sure it's out for all platforms, I'm downloading it now from the Switch NA e-shop. Lets you try any party combo and goes up to the first boss.

Continuing from the other thread-- I'm literally explaining to you the best practices used by police nationwide, the Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI; when the situation involves a random person running around with a gun, the last thing you want is another random person also running around with a gun. The police and other responders can't tell if this "good guy" is a good guy or actually another shooter. They have to treat anyone with a weapon as another shooter. The example you brought up of the old man at church is an outlier, not the norm. He was the church's head of security, not a random guy who happened to bring his gun to the service. Also, the gunman had already killed two people before being stopped. With some very basic gun laws, it's very likely that the gunman wouldn't have been able to get a gun in the first place, while the old man who saved the day would likely still have his. In a nightclub, if a person starts shooting, it doesn't matter if other people have guns, nightclubs are too crowded to get any kind of accuracy. A "good guy with a gun" who actually takes a shot in a nightclub will more than likely end up hitting another innocent person.

It basically comes down to how quickly they were on top of the problem. Some governments went all in on it immediately, while others waited for it to spread thoroughly before admitting it was a problem and doing anything about it. Slower responses lead to a wider outbreaks.

@Jason-SilverStarApple I'll wait to see what happens in the thread you made before responding. If the mods keep it closed, I'll respond in the US Politics thread. Hope you don't mind the delayed response, but continuing the discussion here would directly contradict @eclipse's post. It's mostly about how some countries responded with immediate action (testing, closures, etc), while others acted like it wasn't an issue (little or no testing, downplaying the impacts). This is deliberate in an effort to seem like there's no problem, that they've got it all under control, and that they wouldn't have to do the hard but necessary actions like closing schools and businesses. Basically, it's that sort of "tough guy" ineffectual leadership. Here's a timeline for COVID-19 events in Iran, if that helps

Rutger's one of my best units. Considering all of these units can, with time, become free +10 units with either great stats/BST or (eventual) weapon refines, they're really great. I'll gladly take my favorites as Grail units since it means as long as I keep playing, they'll eventually be +10.