The PPC Posting Board - Latest posts

But first:

Scene 18:
I shook my head slightly, taking completely off-guard by her breezy dismissal of what I'd thought was her entire point.
Shouldn’t that be "taken"?

And then you'll need to join me in in bed and put on an enthusiastic show of making up for it.
Cheating with the word count again?

Scene 19
It was even more distressing to know that the black shield that popped into existence to effortlessly fend off Golden Monglian energy-lashes had been under my control all along, had I only know it.
Shouldn’t these be "Mongolian" and "known"?

Scene 23
You've got another thing coming if you thing you can turn me over to your government.
Tell me that this is intentional!


Well, this guy obviously doesn’t speak Japanese, so they are in New Gondor? Small doubt, because it may be too far from the Australias, but it just fits too good. It may also be New Arnor, but the big city at the mouth of a river at the eastern coast looks like Christchurch.

HG

That the imaginary "happy birthday to the KKK!" cake is less like number 5 and more like (the first) number 2. The only way this particular cake can end up as a 5 is if either a) the costumer proceeds to advertise the fact that they bought this cake from you on top of every billboard in town or b) some nosy lowlife hires a private investigator in order to find dirt on you. Otherwise, it's just another cake.

So - at least from my point of view, there's something of a spectrum between "doing business with a person" and "supporting a person's belief system". To try to illustrate that spectrum, here's some examples, revolving around a fictitious coffee shop:

1: Selling a customer a cup of coffee.

2: Selling a group of customers coffee, which they then drink in the shop while talking about their politics.

2: Selling a group of customers coffee, which they then drink in the shop while talking loudly about their belief system.

3: Renting out the shop for an open-to-the-public political event.

4: Doing nothing while a customer stands up and lectures the shop at large about their ideology. (without forewarning)

5: Letting a customer leave a stack of pamphlets about their ideology in the shop.

6: Helping a customer plan (and perform) a lecture to the shop about their ideology.

Regardless of the ideology in question, I hope you can see the progression there. Denying someone the first example is pretty clearly discriminatory. Denying someone the last example is entirely legit - the right to free speech is a thing, but it's very specifically not the right to a venue or an audience.

So, when it comes to cake-baking, there's a lot of possible scenarios that fall on various parts of the board. A simple "happy birthday" cake is probably down towards example 1, really not something to be denied to anyone. On the other hand, decorating a cake with burning crosses and white hoods and "happy birthday to the KKK!" is, in my mind, very much closer to examples 5 and 6- you aren't just providing a service, at that point, you're using your skills and resources in a way that's inescapably glorifying an ideology of violence.

And that's where I'm very much okay with picking and choosing what ideologies should and shouldn't be supported. And comfortable applying value judgements to the ideologies in question - "don't hurt people", a quite universal rule, makes the comparable guideline of "I won't support ideologies that advocate hurting people" and value judgement of "ideologies that advocate hurting people are bad" pretty straightforward, in my mind.

The comparable guideline of "I won't support an expression of queerness" is a thing - but if you chase that one backwards towards a universal rule, it doesn't really go anywhere - the underlying rule seems to be "queer people are gross."

This is politics. In fact, not only is this politics, it's politics of the explosive sort.
I'm going to go into points-mode because it's getting confusing, so here goes:
1) I still don't see the distinction between "refusing to sell a gay couple a cake", "refusing to sell a cake to the WBC", "refusing to sell a cake to Jews" and "refusing to sell a cake to Klansmen". The distinction flies in the face of the "universality" bit of ethics, I think; how is not selling a cake to the KKK any different in essence than not selling it to the WBC, or to a Jew?
2) Comparing LGBT people and the KKK isn't wrong. It's a logical operation. Equating LGBT people and the KKK is a morally-repugnant action. I was doing the former.
...
That wasn't as many points as I've expected. Oh well.

...because this thread is attracting flies.

I don't disagree with you. I'm a soft Kantian, I agree that people are equal and rights are rights, regardless of how odious I find them personally.

That said, I was trying to A, explain where and how I draw the line that says that a business refusing to endorse a gay wedding (and conveniently oppressing my lgbt in-group) is wrong, but a business refusing to endorse an anniversary celebration for the kkk is right. And B, I was trying to make it absolutely crystal clear that trying to compare lgbt people and the kkk is a horrible thing to do.

I really shouldn't have pointed my anger on point B at you, and I'm sorry - that was out of place and not what you were saying.

And to cherry pick one of your points to respond to - no, I don't believe that being an oppressed minority magically makes me morally superior to other people. I've met far too many people who are minorities on one axis and yet totally terrible towards minorities on other axes to believe that. I'm still trying to un-learn my own terribleness on some of those, which has been a long battle. (Yaaaaay white southern baptist upbringing.)

Just getting the campaign seen by others is more than enough help. :)

Would it be possible to add to one of the American countries a mention in the likes of "Capital: Springfield. Nobody know where it is, it's always moving"? Or better, a country called Simpsonia,or something like that...

And yeah, MACUSA won't be able to keep him for long... should be fun seeing him break out.

The reveal of Grindenwald actually surprised me, and I got the feeling that he allowed himself to be captured. After all, he probably is capable of wandless magic.

Also, I like how the ending with Jacob hinted that he did remember something, probably with the help of Queenie.

Iximaz: Okay, I just want to start this off by saying I FRIGGIN' CALLED IT.

Aegis: Well of course you called it, you've been talking with the walking spoiler. And you still fell for the red herring.

Iximaz: Oh, shut up, you did too.

Aegis: DID NOT!

Iximaz: DID TOO.

Aegis: DID NOT, slander and calumny! Well, maybe a bit, but only for five minutes or so. Besides, around now people reading this probably haven't the slightest idea what we're talking about.

Iximaz: Fine, fine. We'll get on with the review. As a fair warning, spoilers ahead.

AHEM.

...
...
...

Oh my god, you guys, I can't believe they killed the niffler.

Aegis: Well, the reveal that it was actually Dumbledore more than made up for it. By now, the audience has probably gathered that we are, in fact, kidding. But if you don't want spoilers, leave now.

Iximaz: Okay, for real, you guys: I loved this movie. I can't say it enough. It was almost good enough to make up for the Cursed Child fiasco because nothing can really make up for that mess of a glorified fanfic NO I'M NOT STILL MAD ABOUT THAT. The humor was spot-on, the characters were likeable especially the niffler he was the best, the plot was engaging, and I had the stupidest grin on my face the whole time I was watching it. Almost nothing but overwhelming praise for it.

Aegis: Aw, now I can't fanboy over it. Hmm. I suppose the best place to start would be the format. Shush, Ix, I'm not talking about the niffler. You can do that. Something to note is that we both saw this in 3D, and it was worth it. There are several moments that are extremely immersive. A few even made me flinch, and the Apparition may well give you motion sickness- it's THAT cool.

Iximaz: Oh, yeah, the Apparation was really cool, especially how much it was used in the final showdown; it makes sense, considering they were both practiced wizards instead of students. BUT OKAY, CAN WE PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE OBSCURUS AND MY THEORY ABOUT ARIANA?

Aegis: No. We can't. Mostly because I agreed with it. Go on and explain.

Iximaz: Okay, for those of you who for whatever reason haven't seen the movie yet but want the spoilers anyway, an Obscurus is a dark force of magic that is created in young wizards when their magic is deliberately suppressed though constant abuse (theory as to why this didn't happen to Harry: the Dursleys only neglected him, never forcibly squashed his magic outbursts). *puts on tinfoil hat* Ariana Dumbledore, after her encounter with the Muggle boys who beat her, was kept locked up in the house and it was implied that Kendra Dumbledore abused her children, but that didn't prevent Ariana's now-damaged magic from randomly bursting out at times. What if Grindelwald first found out about Obscurials through Ariana before she was killed, because she was slowly turning into one? *removes tinfoil hat*

Aegis: Oh, go ahead and spoil the whole thing, why don't you! For those of you who don't know, there was a long-standing rumor that Grindelwald would be appearing. When it was announced that Johnny Depp would be portraying the wizard, and would be making an appearance in this film, the rumors flew thicker and faster than Dementors chasing Harry Potter that Grindelwald was a lot closer than most people believed. In fact, he was Graves. And, at long last, those rumors can finally be. . .
. . .
Confirmed! When Graves gives Credence a token to call him with- a token in the form of Grindelwald's logo? Both Ix and I got funny looks from the entire audience from the palpable squeeing. Dark wizard pimp aside, it was awesome.

Iximaz: ...Yeah, he totally looked like a wizard pimp and not Dumbledore's archnemesis. Which was a tad disappointing. But I still totally called what happened with Graves! HA! *clears throat* Anyway, the only major complaint I have about the movie is the resolution. Because frankly... that was kind of stupid.

Aegis: Oh, you mean the bit where the Thunderbird made venom rain over New York? Venom which failed to make contact with the majority of the populace, by virtue of their being indoors like EVERY SINGLE NEW YORKER, and ensuring that half of the Muggle- sorry, "No-Maj" population now recall an Obscurus wreaking havoc and devastation over all of New York? Yeah, that bit was moronic. However, it did make an interesting point when it noted that Muggle physiology differed from magic physiology, enough that the venom affected only the Muggle population. Just so long as they don't end up using Midichlorians, I'll be fine with it.

Iximaz: I still think they would've been better off calling in the Men in Black.

Aegis: Makes you wonder why they started off with a perfectly good shot of the Statue of Liberty if they didn't want to switch her torch with a neuralyzer, really.

Iximaz: But anyway, stupid resolution aside, the rest of the movie was... fantastic.

Aegis: *is too busy facepalming to respond at the moment*

Iximaz: >:) Alright, alright, joking aside, it really was a good movie; while I can understand why some people might not like the "gotta catch 'em all" vibe it had going, I think it was well-done and I loved seeing all the creatures in the book (and then some!) come to life on the big screen. It definitely would've been hard to convey just how cool they were in writing.

Aegis: Yep, I agree on pretty much all counts, though the Occamy tempts me to try. Those things were gorgeous. I have to say, it doesn't come off as a "gotta catch 'em all" premise. There's a nice emphasis placed on the political thriller aspect- namely, Grindelwald's rise to power, and on character development for our stars. Seeing the Eleventh Doctor with a TARDIS trunk was extremely amusing, even if he was posing as Newt Scamander.

Iximaz: Not to hate on Redmayne, but I just kept seeing Matt Smith in his performance. Which was pretty good, I gotta say. ^^; He was adorkable and basically everything a Hufflepuff should be.

Aegis: Makes him perfect for a "gotta catch 'em all" protagonist. Nobody else would be able to make the spot checks.

Iximaz: Especially for that niffler. Which was, hands-down, the best character. Any of you who say otherwise are wrong.

Aegis: *preferred the Occamy* Occamy are cool.

Iximaz: Except when you somehow manage to lob a cockroach across a room into a tiny little teapot to trap said Occamy.

Aegis: Honestly, I have no idea how it was even surviving on said cockroaches when it was the size of an apartment, but you've gotta admit, the giant blue serpent with shining scales was gorgeous. Not to mention a dead ringer for Quetzalcoatl.

foofooman3: One thing I have to ask: Grindelwald, the most powerful Dark wizard of the age, defeated over fifty aurors single-handedly but was taken out by a nerd with a bat?

Iximaz: Pff, pretty much. So, final verdict: 9/10 stars. Take one off for the ending. Otherwise: awesome movie and definitely worth the ticket money. I can't wait to see it again.

Aegis: More than worth the ticket movie. Overall, it was the best Pokemon story featuring the Doctor as a protagonist against a backdrop of Palpatine the Pimp's rise to power that I have ever seen. 8/10, would see again. One star for the ineffectual ending, one star for the arbitrary nature of the Obliviation of Jacob Kowalski. Seriously, Newt drops the case at his feat filled with silver eggshells that have obviously hatched, claims that they come from a magical creature, and this presents no problem. And yet his love interest walks in and suddenly he remembers everything?
*raises skeptical eyebrow*

Er, right. Ix says shut up, so I'll just go then, shall I?

I think it's because I've been working on this story for so long, but got so little done. Now it feels like I'm finally going to get that first draft out.

I know that feel.

Eh, what it has now is above my limits. Maybe I'll give it another go--I love the concept, and the alternate Earth--but I've got low tolerance for such things.

I have another addition for the map! The Democratic Republic of Yetis. This superstate's southern border stretches across the entirety of India and the Malay Peninsula. It borders the Persian Caliphate, Golden Mongolia, and the Chinese Folk Nation. Its northern border is the southern Mongolian border. This vast country began as tiny Nepal; however, due to an extremely beneficial alliance with the Tex-Mex Republic, it grew into what it is today.

(I chose Tex-Mex because apparently the Communist Party is very strong in Nepal, so I thought, hey, why not?)

-Alleb

Sadly, money's a bit tight right now, so I can't donate myself.

I have no regrets.

Congrats! A two-week NaNo is one of those elusive things - they happen very rarely, but when they do, you know you've really accomplished something.

As for me, I've stalled out a bit today, because I have to force them to actually do stuff instead of sitting around arguing. :-/ Dang plot.

I'm not sure whether Gravity's Embrace is above your limits or not, really. The innuendo sticks around, but it never gets any worse - actually, it decreases quite a bit as time goes by. And (minor spoilers) I made a conscious decision never to let it, y'know, actually lead to anything. (I don't think the first-person narration has actually described or even mentioned a single piece of Areatha's body - for all that she's only had clothes on for one chapter out of seven!) So if you were worried it would get worse, then you should be okay. If what was already there bothered you... then you probably don't want to read it.

hS

Quoting (and translating from Hebrew) what my friend said, "the word is solitudo which can mean both 'desolation' and 'desert' (in the 'there aren't any people there' sense). The original meaning is 'a lack of people or things around'."

First of all, the criminal thing. One of the ways a state (any state, not necessarily democratic) is different from a jungle is that a certain group of people has a (legitimate) monopoly on violence. Usually, the victim isn't in this group.
(There are, of course, exceptions, but they vary by place — for example, I know that self-defence is an admissible defence in an Israeli court, but not what flies in different states in the USA.)
So even if the KKK are criminals (not debating that, I don't have data) it's not your place to punish them or discriminate against them — assuming the existence of states (particularly, democratic ones) is something you want. Of course, that's where the ...ed-up-ness comes in: you're stuck between suffering for ideals or giving them up (at least partially).

Second, I'm not comparing the KKK to trans people, except in one important quality: KKK are people. If you're a believer in human rights, you cannot not give them the selfsame rights, no matter how horrible they are.

Third, I have it easy over here because I don't think human beings deserve something for being human. (Side note: "right" is a poorly-defined concept and "human rights" is even worse in that regard.)
I think that "justice" is an agreement between people; so it's very easy for me to say that since the KKK are going to treat me badly because I'm Jewish, I'm under no obligation to treat them well. Of course, if I'd go and look for Klansmen to beat up (as opposed to, IDK, self defence or coming to the defence of a victim) I don't have a lot of moral high ground, in my opinion.

Fourth: being a minority in and of itself doesn't make you automatically better. Being a decent human being is what makes you better than the KKK.

Fifth: "I'm more oppressed than you" doesn't fly with me. Pity isn't one of my strong points.

We are legion.

It means "Bastion of Christianity." I found it by googling "Bastion of Christianity," since it seemed like a good fit. ^^ <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AntemuraleChristianitatis">Here do be the Wiki article. Tl;dr version: It was a label applied to countries defending Europe against the Ottoman Empire.

Well... I won, actually. 0_0 I got to 50K the day before yesterday. This is my third year participating, and I have never worked so quickly. This fic practically gushed out of me. Also, apparently I need all of fifty thousand words to get me from Ithilien to Edoras, sooo I think this is gonna be a long story. But my viewpoint character is about to come down with pneumonia, so maybe I can gloss over a week or two via fever dream. NaNo! How's your NaNovel? I would read it on your LiveJournal, but from the first chapter or so--which were very well done, by the way--I think it might be a bit above my limits in terms of innuendo and such.

-Alleb

That "Antemurale Christianitatis" refers to a medieval concept of a "bulwark of Christianity" against outside invaders, usually Muslims. It's been variously applied to Albania, Croatia, and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; that some Americans have taken up the mantle is, er, let's go ahead and call it "presumptious". Or possibly "depressing". =]

(Which, with the Tex-Mex Republic, makes four Christian nations across North America... hey, if the boot fits!)

Question: what on Earth is up with that name? I'm using it, but still: whaaaat?

Also: how's the NaNo going?

hS

Thank you so much guys for getting the word out for me. I'm... I don't really know what to say other than I'm touched. It means a lot to me.

I'm now only $2000 away from my February goal. I think this could really happen. :D

You've perfectly illustrated the difference between the sides of the debate here: the unwashed cisgender majority can play ideological referee and talk about hypocrisy all they want because they aren't affected by this. The right-wing fundamentalists who rage against trans people do so because they feel that their gods tell them to. We on the trans side are fighting because people are literally trying to destroy us. The tools in question vary: legislation, economics, or violence, but the end goal is the same.

So, no, I reject your assumption that all sides are somehow equal in this. There is not a moral equal footing here. Nor is this a safe ideological debate for one of the involved parties. The Trans Day of Remembrance is coming up this weekend, where we mourn our dead. There are eighty-seven names on the list this year, and that's just counting people who we know were trans and we know were murdered.

That's what, a good-sized car bomb's worth?

So. Please stop trying to compare a violent hate group to people who are frequent victims of hate crimes. That is not terribly cool.

In case you haven't read Data Junkie's response, the kkk doesn't much care about civil rights. They exist to apply the law of the jungle to whoever they wish; in fact, membership requires stepping over legal bounds and committing hate crimes.

I reject your allegations of hypocrisy. I believe in simple things like "don't commit violent crime" and "don't support ideologies of hatred." Perhaps I'm ethically gerrymandering to protect my cause, but those seem to both censure the hypothetical kkk member and not say very much about queer people.

Because, once again, comparing people with a minority identity to a literal violent hate group is ridiculous.

If you want a better comparison, I, a hypothetical queer business owner, would not refuse to bake a cake / build a website / whatever for a christian wedding, even if it were, say, a baptist one. Even that is an ideology they have chosen to hold so it's not a fair comparison, but my dislike of what they believe isn't reason to deny them service.

However, I reserve the right to refuse service to all who hold an ideology of hatred. If there were a queer group that advocated and performed, say, church burnings, I would refuse then service too.

(And seriously, the usa is pretty messed up.)