Inside binary options - Britain’s biggest investment con ...

ORICO 16GB USB Flash Drive USB 3.0 £2.70 Delivered @ AliExpress Deals / ORICO SSD Store

The description of this deal was not provided by this subreddit and it's contributors.
£2.70 - AliExpress
Always handy to have, and at this price i've ordered a few for the house / keys etc. Used ORICO products before and been impressed, so figured it was worth a go!
Use the 79p coupon on the page to get the advertised price :)
Features:
  1. Supports hot plug & play, High speed USB 3.0 port 2. No physical drive required 3. Plug-and-play; no external power supply required, USB bus-powered 4. Support all current computer systems 5. Speeds vary depending on types of file being transferred and computer configuration. 6. Read Rate: 95Mb-125Mb/S Write Rate: 16-30Mb/S 7. Interface USB 3.0 8. Support OTG function 9.Zinc alloy design,anti-fall and durable
    About capacity:
    16GB=approximately 14.5GB-14.9GB 32GB=approximately 28.5GB-30GB 64GB=approximately 58.5GB-60GB 128GB=approximately 114.2GB-124GB Vendors are using Flash memory decimal arithmetic: 1 MB = 1000KB, 1G = 1000 MB Calculated, operating system with binary arithmetic: 1 MB = 1024KB, 1 GB = 1024 MB; So there are some differences between display capacity and nominal capacity of flash memory products
    Few things to consider before you go ahead
submitted by SuperHotUKDeals to HotUKGamingDeals [link] [comments]

Post your November 1 Predictions Here - Give Rationale for Your Prediction

Here's An American’s Prediction for November 1
TL:DR at the end
This prediction is based upon the assumption Parliament cannot oust the current government before October 31, due to the limited number of days Parliament will be in session to effectively stop Johnson.
The outcome is binary, either a deal or no deal, as there will be no extension; at least, not with Johnson as PM. The UK is out on October 31 to ensure ultra-wealthy businesses/trusts/individuals are NOT subject to EU Directive on Tax Avoidance. If having a deal in place prior to leaving, then the October 31 deadline would not matter. He would seek an extension as the backup plan.
I do believe Johnson wants to leave with a deal as a no-deal is disastrous for everyone,in the short term. However, he wants most of the benefits of being in the EU without paying membership dues! Of course this is unsuitable to the EU; no club will exist for long if they allow non-members the same benefits as members. Johnson has a bizarre, maniacal belief the UK can pick and choose the bits and pieces of membership that are beneficial to the UK, discard the remainder and absolve the UK from any obligation to the club. Unless Johnson is willingto bend or drop one or more of the UK redlines, a no-deal Brexit is the ONLY logical outcome. The EU has been consistent with its message the framework of the WA cannot change; however, the provisions with the framework are open to discussion and possible amendment. The EU, from my outsider perspective, has been super lax with the UK in the leave process as it had only 3 main concerns:
As far as I know, the first two have been resolved and it’s the NI/RoI border causing issues. This is where Johnson needs to bend or drop UK redlines to leave with a deal. Based on rhetoric, I do NOT see Johnson dropping any of the UK redlines. A no-deal Brexit is only other option. Hence, the prorogation of Parliament. Johnson left a few days before and after proroguing Parliament to allow for the political excuse of ‘doing business as usual.’ Parliament still has a voice, just a limited amount of time to exercise it.
What happens on November 1 on a no-deal Brexit? Does trade to and from the UK stop? No, of course not. WTO rules govern trade. The issue is whether the UK is prepared to efficiently process all the goods/services that were once tariff free? As far as I can tell, it is not. There will be shortages of all types of goods until the UK can catch up with the inevitable backlog. It’s not just shortages, it’s also jobs. For example, the Nissan plant in Sunderland relies upon ‘just in time’ shipping. If the plant does not receive the parts it needs, Nissan is NOT going to pay workers to stand around being idle. Furloughs or job loss will occur. Throughout the UK this will happen. The question is how much pain are Britains willing to withstand? It’s absolutely absurd to think a no-deal Brexit will have minimal impact to the UK and Britains.
The largestproblem with getting a WA past the Parliament is the NI/RoI border. Johnson will not bend/drop any UK redlines, there will be no agreeable WA to the UK and therefore a no-deal Brexit. What will Johnson do November 1? My guess is not a damn thing! It is political suicide to break the GFA. Many epithets can be hung on Johnson, but ‘suicidal’ is not one of them. I suspect he will do NOTHING, allowing lorries full of goods to traverse the border. The NI/RoI border is totally unenforceable will current technologies. There are approximately 208 border crossings! The whole of the EU itself only has 137 border crossings. The border between NI/RoI was NOT created to be a hard border between nations. It was constructed to ensure a maximum number of Loyalists were living within the UK. Logically, Johnson will do NOTHING, leaving border enforcement to Ireland and the EU. If there is to be political fallout with a hard border, it will not fall on Johnson. But, nations can’t just have an open border without some sort of border enforcement. This scenario will force Ireland/EU and UK into discussions for a workable solution OR pretend a border does not exist and UK will follow EU custom standards on a promise. In Johnson’s no-deal Brexit scenario, goods processed in both the UK and Ireland for cross border consumption will continue to flow without restriction UNTIL Ireland/EU ‘do something.’ Essentially, Johnson will go limpdick, forcing the otherside to generate a solution the UK finds acceptable.
This is my prediction for November 1.
TL:DR – Johnson crashes the UK out of the EU so the wealthy can avoid EU Directive on Tax Avoidance. Ports will be backlogged with goods waiting to be processed that were once tariff free causing slowdowns, shortages and job loss, until the UK has the ability to be efficient to handle the increased border traffic. Johnson does nothing on the NI/RoI border forcing the RoI and EU to enforce the border. Politically any fallout will be perceived to be the EU’s and RoI’s fault. The UK has no political balls!
submitted by MountainManC to brexit [link] [comments]

Kristi Winters' & Kevin Logan's Happy Hour w/ Sargon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x-D2G93Skg
So Kristi Winters and Kevin Logan held a stream recently, and Sargon appeared as a guest, essentially giving us a Youtube Kristi vs Sargon II after their initial debate on the Skeptic Feminist channel a while back, with Sargon joining this video at around the 10 minute mark. And sweet Jesus I think Kristi owned Sargon even heavier in this debate.
The starting point of this debate comes from a comment Sargon made on YouTube that stated the following:
The Democrats believe this is a referendum on their entire platform: Orange Man bad, Deplorables are Nazis, socialism is a gift from the Prophet Marx (pbuh (peace be upon him))
So basically, Sargon believes that the "far left" are taking over the Democratic Party. I figured I'd try and recap this debate, in case people can't quite stomach over an hour of Sargon's material.
1) Sargon attempts to back this up by bringing up the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Congress, but Kristi points out that this came from a progressive district that Cortez represents, and counters by bringing up right wing districts such as Steve King's, who despite his Neo-Nazi beliefs still nonetheless got elected by Republican voters in his district.
2) Sargon says there is a "whole slew of Justice Democrats" that have been elected recently in the US. Kristi challenges Sargon to name them. Sargon says there were "7 or 8", but bear in mind this is out of 228 so far, which hardly constitutes a "takeover".
3) Sargon says that it isn't that they aren't doing what he claims, it's that they haven't completed their "mission". Kristi counters and says maybe the reason these people are able to represent their districts is because they have more left leaning views, just as how a far right candidate was chosen to represent their district in Iowa even after saying that if a far right party in Austria would be Republicans in the US.
4) Kristi asks again for the evidence that "7 or 8" far left politicians were elected in the US, as well as asking for their corresponding districts. Sargon asks why she can't just Google it, but this was Sargon's empirical claim, so Kristi points out that he needs to substantiate it. Sargon accuses her of being pedantic, but actually it's quite considerably not "pedantry" to ask Sargon to back up his claims.
5) Sargon complains that he doesn't have a "sheet of notes" in front of him, but Kristi points out that she has her references ready, and Kevin lambasts Sargon for yet again not preparing for a debate. Sargon claims without evidence that a number of "corporate" Democrats were ousted, but he can't say how many also got in.
6) Fucking hell. We're only 6 minutes in and Sargon is threatening to not bother with this conversation if Kristi and Kevin aren't going to be "charitable" with his claims. Kevin points out the last time he chose to debate Kristi, he got annihilated, and when Sargon says that "things change", Kevin again highlights that Sargon seems to have done even less preparation for this debate.
7) Kristi points out that there is no reason to just take Sargon on his word about the "7 or 8 justice democrats" that were elected to Congress, when Sargon has only actually named one person, and Kevin doesn't care about Sargon's moral outrage over perceived "pedantry".
8) Kristi asks what exactly does it show that the one "justice Democrat" person Sargon could name got elected to Congress out of the potentially 230 Democrats, and says he can't show his claim, and Sargon seriously actually says "I can, I'm just not going to", which naturally justifiably provokes hysterical laughter from Kristi and Kevin. Sargon protests that he's not a scientist and even uses his lack of qualifications as a defence, not making this up, and that he just wanted to chat.
9) Kristi offers to show the exit polling data, and when Sargon agrees, Kevin brings up how Sargon wants them to show their sources, but he refuses to cite his own. It's pointed out that Sargon essentially desperately wanted a fight especially considering that Kristi's and Kevin's joint streams usually only get 70-80 viewers when live. Sargon's pretty much threatening to take his ball and go home because Kristi is making the shock horror request that he actually be accurate with his claims.
10) The chat moves on to the exit polling, and Sargon makes the claim now that "The Left is dying", despite claiming the existence of all those "justice Democrats" who got elected earlier. Sargon says they're not differentiating between the "Left" and "Far Left", to which Kevin asks why Sargon has a habit of steel-manning the far-right, but not giving even remotely charitable interpretations to the left, which Kristi and Kevin do actually have citations for unlike Carl.
11) Carl manages to find something which says "In the 2018 election, 26 of the 79 candidates endorsed by Justice Democrats won their respective Primary elections", but the problem here is that Kristi and Kevin were clearly taking about the General elections, and Sargon hasn't produced accurate figures for those.
12) At roughly the 22 minutes mark on the video, Kristi starts to go through the numbers on the Exit Polls according to CNN Politics which had 19,000 respondents (48% men, 52% women), and begins with the Gender gap, wherein while Republicans had a narrow 51%-47% advantage with men, Democrats had a considerably wider 59%-40% lead with women. This shows that women, who voted more than men, also skewed far more heavily Democrat and therefore produced a bigger effect on the election. She then brings up age, a real concern for the Republicans since Democrats lead 67%-32% with 18-29 year olds, and 58%-39% with 30-44 year olds. The other two brackets of 40-64 year olds and 65+ years old are more evenly split, albeit with a Republican lead.
13) Carl asks if Kristi feels confident about 2020, to which Kristi says she does, and Carl tries to bring the conversation to the 2020 race, but Kristi prevents Carl's attempt to change the subject since this is supposed to be about the mid-terms.
14) Kristi asks, based on the age and gender statistics she's cited, how Carl squares this with his thesis that the Left are "dying". Carl asks if those old people "started" as right wing, in other words expressing the old belief about how people become more right wing. Kristi counters with the nature of the party ID being stronger, as well as the fact that we would expect to see a stronger skew among older people than just basically 50%-50% if the belief about people being more conservative as they get older were to actually hold true, and that you'd expect considerably higher numbers in that age range for Republican than just 50% (like the 68% of the 18-29 year olds voting Democrat).
15) Kristi also brings up the importance of policies in how it affects how people vote, namely the deficit, tax cuts to the rich, and how McConnell hinted at going after social security and Medicaid.
16) Voter ID is talked about. Kristi talks about the issues surrounding this, for instance the problem with signatures, and how Voter ID affects minority groups. Kristi is in favour of Same Day Registration, and that voter ID should be free and not be something you are made to pay for, which I agree with. When Kristi brings up how women (who also statistically live longer) are affecting the vote, Carl responds by saying that Trump is still President. Popular Vote vs Electoral College comes up, Carl claims the victory was a landslide, when in actually it was the third narrowest victory since Reagan.
17) When pressed about what the points gap means for the long term sustainability of the Left, Carl, having no argument, sarcastically agrees, then derisively brings up Germany and France in terms of left wing parties. Carl again claims Trump's victory was a landslide, and even when Kristi brings up a page proving that Trump is actually in the bottom half of all time Presidential victories. Kristi says the definition of a statistical landslide is more than 4 points in percentage of the overall vote, and asks Carl for his definition of his landslide, which he doesn't provide.
18) Trump not attending the World War I centenary is brought up, as well as how Sargon, despite describing himself as centre-left, is so eager to support Trump. Carl attempts to get a definition of "Far-Right" and "tell me what I believe", but Kristi points out he's blatantly trying to straw-man her as he always does. Carl believes that he can say what a "far left" person believes, because he's totally able to read minds.
19) Kevin points out that the candidates that Carl supports are consistently the most right-wing in every election, and also the fact that Democrats now have the power to hold Trump even more to account, and Trump threatening counter-investigations, and the shitty way Trump appointed a replacement Attorney General. These are all things that Carl, as a supposed centre-left guy, should be concerned about, but he blatantly isn't, and Carl says that "I decide what I look into". Of course, this is false, since he actually has people send him stuff which he then covers in his videos, so he's not committed into looking into anything at all unless other people do his work for him.
20) At the 40 minutes mark, Kristi offers to look into the definition of "Far-Right" together on the stream, and points out that actual scholars use the working definitions. Carl refuses, and whines about how Kristi and Kevin are being totally mean, and appeals that there should be some decorum in this debate and Kristi and Kevin are in hysterical laughter at this point about Carl's tactics.
21) The previous debate is brought up, and Kevin asks if Carl was showing good "decorum" when he was seen giggling in his cam when Kristi brought up women waking up with spunk on their face after being raped. Carl claims to not remember this.
22) Carl claims that it matters more about what happens in the future, and also claims that Kristi and others in her field didn't see Brexit and Trump happening. Kristi points out that, actually, Brexit was within the margin of error for polling, and that Clinton did score 2 percentage points above Trump with the positioning of the Electoral College causing the issues. And in social science, including the markets, you use the statistical data from today to inform about how things are likely to be in the future.
23) Kristi says that positions consistent with "Far Right" leanings, as Carl has, are the espousing of misogyny and racism, as well as being willing to overthrow democratic institutions in order to protect their positions of power. When Carl queries if the Far Right is "basically fascism", Kristi responds that Carl's misogyny warms people up to the kind of rhetoric of fascism, with fascism being a very patriarchal, strict gender roles kind of ideology. Carl's attacks on women who challenge those gender roles justifies to his audience that those gender roles are right and should be forced on people.
24) Kristi points out that Carl's content often came up among white supremacists who support the strict gender roles, and Kevin points out that he can't think of a single Fascist society that wasn't based on a traditional view of gender relations. When Carl attempts a non-sequitur of trying to get Kristi to explain what his personal view on gender roles is, Kristi rebuts him by pointing out that he's best placed to explain that himself.
25) Carl says that gender roles are the expression of the necessary definition of the difference between biological sexes, varying from culture to culture, are socially constructed, have a particular reason for existing, and facilitate communication between the genders, for the purpose of procreation. While he admits they shouldn't be prescribed, he says that they should evolve over time, and jesus this is word salad. He says that these roles should be negotiated and agreed, and shouldn't be forced or deconstructed "from above"
26) Kristi queries what he means by "necessary characteristics" of biological differences between the sexes, and how modernity may affect the negating of this. Carl responds that the development of technology has facilitated the world-view in which the idea of masculinity being less important than it was, but that this comes with its own set of problems, and his example is of apparently high earning women who are single and childless which causes them unhappiness. Kristi points out that there's always the option of adoption, but Carl focuses on the "single" part, and says that the abandonment of male gender roles has been "bad" for women.
27) Kristi asks if the lessening of strength as a necessary requirement as well the better ability of women to control their reproductive organs therefore opens our society to more diverse and exploratory ways of expressing gender identity. Kristi points out through her research that things like gender isn't on a dichotomous spectrum, like her doctoral thesis which asked students about the attributes of an "ideal man" and "ideal woman", with men and masculine attributes being associated with "agency, competitiveness, aggression", and women and feminine attributes being associated with "caring, compassion, and helping others". When attribute tests were carried out on the students, men and women did not score strictly on the masculine and feminine attributes, and their scores were not determined by their sex, and some students had androgynous results with high masculine and feminine traits. Since we're no longer bound by physical limitations since we have technology, Kristi asks if re-exploration of gender roles based on societal needs is in order.
28) On the 1 hour mark on the video, Carl believes that technology hasn't changed us still being bound by physical limitations, and then asks what the reason for people self-identifying as compassionate was when the stereotype is of women being the compassionate sex. Kristi mentions a YouGov quota sample of 2800 respondents weighted to be nationally representative of the British population. Broken down by cohorts, younger men (18-29 year olds) were found to have the highest reported senses of agency, and that diminished over time, theorised to be as men getting to see the world and realising they're not as powerful as they thought they were. The drop off constituted either 1 or 2 points over time on average. Another interesting aspect is that men's self-reported compassion and communion with others went UP over time as they got older. Women on average started out with less agency and high communion, and for older women while the communion did stay the same, their agency went up over time as well as feelings of competitiveness and independence.
29) Carl asks if Kristi has correlated her findings with testosterone over lifetimes (don't worry, I don't think he's pulling a Davis Aurini to try and sell cream). Kristi says she can't do that because that would require access to medical data and those studies are very expensive and hard to get hold of as well to get approval for funding. Carl says that Kristi is going to skip that data, but Kristi points out that she would need to use people in her own sample, and this would require collection and storing of samples of testosterone, and her last study cost £10k. Carl concedes the real world restrictions of trying to do this test.
30) Carl says that while he does not have studies to hand, generally younger men have higher testosterone than older men. Kristi admits this could be correlated with a sense of self-efficacy, and that you could do a test of high and low testosterone of men of different ages. Carl says it wouldn't be surprising that young men with high amounts of testosterone who are fit and healthy would have high senses of agency. Kristi agrees. Huh, we're actually getting something of an engaging conversation here.
31) Carl mentions an interview with a "Hollywood actress" whose name he's forgotten, and she was apparently annoyed that older men "cultivated gravitas", and that women didn't have this, and Carl thinks that most women trade heavily on their looks, especially in Hollywood, mentioning the "attractive women going to Hollywood to get famous as actresses" cliche. He says that attractive men do this too, but claims that as women experience a decline in sexual attractiveness as they grow older, to which I would personally respond with many of the examples of women over 40 on this list as a counter-point: https://www.thetrendspotter.net/hottest-women-over-40/ . Get the hell outta here, Carl.
32) Anyway, Carl says that this doesn't seem to happen with men, and that they appear to get more attractive to the opposite sex as they get older. Kevin jokes that Carl must be drowning in women after him, but Carl is married apparently.
33) In Kristi's own data, she's found that for men or for women is that people who have jobs as managers and who own their own businesses, rate highly on measures of agency, and as women age they often get management positions, which is tied to having direct control, and that this kind of thing was statistically significant.
34) Okay, Carl's actually making insightful contributions, holy shit. Carl asks what accounts for the difference, since obviously young men aren't managers, so why do they score so highly on agency? Kristi speculates that young men from 18 onwards feel that they have the world ahead of them, and that if they set their minds to it then they can do things. She also explains that unemployed and home-bound disabled people, regardless of gender, have very low senses of agency and high senses of communion. So not having a job and/or being dependent on government assistance does have an effect on how you perceive yourself and your ability to get by. Long story short, with all this data where both men and women score high and low on particular cohorts and some things in life change those as well, she is very skeptical of putting gender into a binary.
35) Carl concedes that there could be something other than male and female gender roles and that they aren't universal across cultures, though he does think it has something to do with his "cultural negotiation" point from earlier. But he "postulates" (ugh) that there is "definitely some kind of biological impetus" behind all of those things, and thinks that Kristi's data is some kind of expression of that. He thinks there is some kind of causation there, even if he can't prove that though he would be surprised if there wasn't.
36) Kristi notes that men as a group rate consistently higher on agency than women, while the reverse is true for communion. Kristi says some of it is "probably definitely" biologically informed, though linking DNA to behaviour would be incredibly hard, while linking to chemicals like testosterone would be "easier".
37) Carl does not believe that gender roles are going away, or that the supposed "feminist push to get rid of them" is going to work. He says that he doesn't have a prescriptive standard about "how gender roles SHOULD be", noting it's good we rethink them, and talks about how some people will want "agender" relationship dynamics, and some patriarchal, and how couples will negotiate those things. He asks what the opposite of patriarchal is.
38) On the 1 hour 10 minutes part of the video Kristi comes back to Carl's claim of feminists attempting to "destroy" gender roles, but then later himself saying rethinking them. Carl says it's not bad to rethink anything, but believes in a push by the "radical left" to deconstruct gender roles. Kristi points out that to "deconstruct" means to unpack and ask why we are doing this and what is its value. Carl says there is a push against "masculinity", and talks about an article, maybe from Vice, in which the writer said something like "Can we just all admit that masculinity is toxic?", which Carl considers to be dangerous, since apparently a lot of women don't think that, such as "40 year old successful business-women who can't get husbands", and "they aren't thinking masculinity is awful, they're thinking masculinity is hot and I want some of it".
39) Kristi says that she wants a healthy, positive masculinity for boys and for girls and for everyone to have such role models. She emphasises personal honour and care and connectiveness, as well as parents providing regardless of their gender. She brings up Lin Manuel Miranda as someone she sees as a brilliant male role model. She says there are men out there who don't get enough credit for not only being dads and providing, but also for pushing strollers and changing nappies, and as a feminist Kristi wants to see more baby nappy changing stations in men's public bathrooms so fathers don't have to end up changing nappies on a bench outside.
40) As a father himself who has at times had to resort to what Kristi described, Carl appreciates the fact that there are some nappy changing stations in public male bathrooms that he knows of so he definitely is not against those.
41) Kevin brings up the fact that Carl earlier mentioned an article he apparently read from Vice, or possibly Buzzfeed. Kevin asks why anyone should care, and that Carl is picking up on the whole stupid minutia of "Oh this pink haired feminist wrote this thing on Tumblr or Vice released an article" as if those things represent anything. Carl says that we have such things as "public intellectuals", and Kristi expresses surprise at Carl's insinuation that Vice constitutes a "think paper". Carl concedes that Vice is not a stellar example of this, but that they have such "dimensions" to them, and brings up this as well as Buzzfeed and Teen Vogue that write "intersectional" articles as if they are authorities on intersectionality. He says he enjoys laughing at them for perceived mistakes, and believes that they consider themselves "thought leaders".
42) Kevin says that every publication that puts something out there is part of a larger conversation, and inquires about how if there are a few publications writing articles that Carl considers to be stupid, why does he focus on those few rather than the many more much more pressing things that could cause considerably more damage? Carl says it's because this is what he's interested in talking about, and says that it is "not outside of the logic that is being suggested, the difference is scale, not kind".
43) Kevin says that the scale is minute, but Carl believes Kevin doesn't have a good argument against the "radical feminists". Kevin responds that he isn't trying to, and that he considers the focus of Carl's ire to be a really tiny, insignificant group that Carl has been trying to paint as the Dreaded Cultural Marxists Taking Over Everything.
44) Carl asks when he's ever used the term "Cultural Marxist". Kevin points out that Carl has said that Cultural Marxism exists, Carl then accuses "intersectional feminism" of being this, but Kristi says that IF is definitely not Marxist. Carl says that's what "they" think it is with no evidence.
45) Kristi inquires whether it's surely the case that it's a bigger problem that men who are fathers are being discriminated against because companies expect women to do the nappy work which leaves fathers out in the cold, and points out that this is something that feminists like herself really care about and want equality in nappy changing access. Carl agrees there should be gender neutral nappy changing facilities in public places, but he doesn't see that as being a "feminist" issue. But Kristi rebuts him by saying that because if women are mothers and they're the ones that always have to be out with the baby, and also it discriminates against dads as they can't do as much of the parenting, so overall it's a family and distribution of labour issue.
46) Carl says the problem is that the distribution of labour is not being dictated broadly by men, but by women. Kristi says if that was really the case, then there'd already be all of those nappy changing places accessible to men as well as women and that this would all be taken care of, but it hasn't and it's not women running the corporations or governments to make such things policy.
47) Carl disagrees, and claims that women don't broadly want what feminists want, but Kevin points out this only applies to Carl's "Straw-Man Feminism" that he's invented. Carl claims that most women aren't feminists and are more "traditionally minded" than feminists apparently seem to think, but Kristi rebuts this by pointing out that statistically women's viewpoints are more likely to be feminist positions than for them to outright call themselves feminists, and that to claim as Carl says that women mostly don't have feminist values isn't borne out by the actual data.
48) Carl doesn't think feminism has the "monopoly" on those things, but Kristi brings up things like more equal pay, more balanced work life, and more women getting elected, and with most people agreeing with those positions then they're supporting feminist positions. Carl says they are "other people's positions" too, to which Kristi says that what defines them is that the positions challenge gender roles. Carl claims "not necessarily", to which Kristi asks how considering the history of women being paid less.
49) Kevin inquires that even if we are to take Carl's claim that most women aren't feminists as fact, then why is Carl so worried about them? Carl talks about institutions in society, and thinks that feminism should keep to itself like Scientology. Carl says the problem is "They (feminists) are in our institutions", and Kevin wants to clarify if Carl would be okay with feminism if it didn't try to do or achieve anything and just shut up. Carl denies this, and instead says that if it "kept to itself" and if it was "voluntary". Jesus fucking Christ.
50) An exasperated Kevin points that it IS voluntary and asks if Carl has been imprisoned or something. Carl asks what Kristi and Kevin think trying to make misogyny a hate crime is and whether that is voluntary, and claims this amounts to an attempt to make it so that "people have to accept feminism". Kristi and Kevin say that is not what feminism is, and Kevin says that there are loads of laws, and asks about murder laws using Carl's "voluntary" logic, and that crimes exist. Carl says he can't think of many ideologies that are "pro-murder", to which Kevin points out Carl's Far-Right friends for their views on Jewish people.
51) At the 1 hour 20 minutes part of the video, Kristi brings the conversation back to Carl's "feminists in institutions wielding power" claim and asks for clarification on this. Carl brings up the Women & Equalities Commission in the UK. Kristi asks how they wield power, Carl responds "the very nature of it, it's a Women & Equalities ... it's not an 'equalities' commission". Kristi presses him to clarify what it does and if it writes legislation, and Carl says he needs to Google it, and Kristi also points out it can't vote on anything, it can just make recommendations. Carl says it holds debates and meetings, what he describes as "partial free speech", and says it's controlled by feminists, and that apparently they "do actively block certain measures", and he brings up as an example the MP Philip Davies apparently being "shut down by Jess Phillips and her sisterhood as she calls it".
52) Kevin steps in here and calls Carl out on this lie, pointing out that Davies did have his debate and it did take place, just not in the main chamber of the House of Commons as most debates don't. Carl still takes issue with this, and again blames Jess Phillips and her "cronies". Kristi points out Davies is simply being treated like everyone else, and Kevin points out that Carl is mixing up the Women & Equalities Commission with the All Parliamentary Group, which isn't a commission. Carl concedes this, but still is critical of the W&EC, since it "still has the same people on it and still has these kinds of effects".
53) Kristi incredulously says the effect was a guy had to give a speech in a room other the one people usually give speeches in. Carl asks why he shouldn't have the main floor of the Chamber, and Kristi answers "because nobody else does" and asks why he should get special treatment, and Kevin points out that it is one room and there is a limited amount of time and they need to get through parliamentary business.
54) Carl again repeats the claim that Philip Davies got shut down because he's an MRA. Again Kevin points out this is bollocks, and that Davies did get his debate in a room where actually most of the debates take place within Westminster Hall. Carl attempts a pathetic fallacy of claiming Kevin doesn't care about male suicide, and Kevin again points out the debate actually took place and wasn't shut down at all. Carl alleges without evidence a "large number of attempts" to shut it down, but Kevin says this doesn't matter since it wasn't shut down and the debate happened and the system worked.
55) Carl alleges a "deliberate consequence of a network of feminists, that Jess Phillips talks about in her book, that deliberately go out of their way to shut down and block" various measures and debates, but Kristi again points out that in this instance Davies was simply treated equally to other Parliamentarians. Carl claims this is no different than if Republicans held whatever house and blocked Democratic proposals to get important things done, but Kristi again points out that Davies actually got to give his talk. Kevin points out that unlike Carl he has actually read the Hansard transcript of the debate and that it actually took place, and indeed that there were feminists there who took part in the debate. Carl again complains it wasn't in the main chamber and makes accusations of "stalling" by the feminists based on ideological reasons.
56) Kevin points out that Phillip Davies was one of the MPs who objected to the Upskirting Bill - which did take place in the main chamber - and he suggests that if this how Davies spends his time in the main chamber, then he doesn't deserve time in the main chamber and he should have his debates in other rooms where most debates take place just like everyone else. Carl tries to claim this is irrelevant, but it actually isn't because if one is a shit Parliamentarian, you can't expect entitlement for other Parliamentarians to take you seriously.
57) Kevin points out that there were lies told about Jess Phillips (a mother who has two sons) apparently laughing about male suicide, when in actuality she was laughing about the claim that male issues don't get talked about. Carl asks if Kevin thinks they do, to which Kevin replies in the affirmative in which he brings up an example of International Men's Day being debated in Parliament, and Kevin also highlights an old video on his channel about ICMI 2016 from his Descent of Manosphere series, in which Kevin uses screenshots from Hansard transcripts which show where male issues are directly referenced, including during a session of Prime Ministers Questions in which David Cameron addressed a question about false allegations of rape.
58) Carl claims there is "pushback" when these things are addressed, which Kevin points out is basic freedom of speech, and Carl again says that if Republicans were shutting down Democrat things then Kristi and Kevin would be complaining, again ignoring that nothing got shut down in this case.
59) Carl brings up corporations which have diversity officers, and asks who Kristi and Kevin think are running them and what their ideologies are. Kristi calls Carl out on the fact that all he's doing at this point is asking questions that she thought Carl would surely have the answers to, and that she thought he would actually be able to name all these people he had a problem with. Kristi points out that she'd have expected a list of at least 50 or 60 names that Carl could have brought up, and when Carl says that he's not an "inquisitor", Kristi compares his rhetoric to McCarthyism claiming a list of communists in the military but not actually showing who they actually are. Kevin points out that Carl has only been able to actually name one woman from the US (Cortez), and one woman from the UK (Phillips) which constitutes two women a continent apart from one another.
60) Oh it's Appeal to Incredulity Time as Carl asks how they can't see what's going on! He also whines about them apparently being immature for laughing at his tactics throughout the debate. They do compliment the parts of the discussion referenced earlier which actually seemed pretty insightful when they were talking about actual data, and they don't rule out another debate in future.
And that's it at the 1 hour 28 minute mark! But yeah Carl got absolutely destroyed here, and was even more exposed for being ridiculously paranoid and evidence-free on his claims.
I will reach out to Kristi Winters and Kevin Logan via Twitter with this recap, so that if I've reported anything inaccurately in this recap then through their feedback I can adjust my recap accordingly.
I've also stored this recap on a more permanent place on my newly created blogspot page: http://jon91919writes.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-kristi-winters-vs-carl-benjamin-ii.html
For those interested, I also did a recap of Sargon's debate with Jenni Goodchild in a post here a couple of years ago: https://np.reddit.com/GamerGhazi/comments/5a7pwh/revisiting_the_sargon_vs_jenni_goodchild_debate/
Hope you enjoy!
EDIT: Fixed some formatting issues.
submitted by J91919 to GamerGhazi [link] [comments]

I hate living in Israel

I moved to Israel six years ago.
How that happened:
I am Jewish (you probably guessed) and bought into the idea that it is our ancestral homeland.
After being taken on one of those free two weeks tours, I became captivated by the country and planned to move there. It took a few years of planning for that wish to come to fruition.
To be honest, I still believe in Jewish people's right to be here and that a Jewish country is the only natural environment for a Jew (particularly an observant one) to live in. I just happen not to like the one country that fits that criteria very much, or many of its citizens - and that also happens to be the country I live in!
I also believe that is Israel's responsibility to help realize a just and lasting solution to the Palestinian "problem". In my view, that is not reconcilable with endlessly occupying the land they live on and subjecting them to military law. But that aside...
The Israel I visited as a tourist and the Israel I live in as a citizen are like two completely countries. So much so that if I were a conspiracy theorist (I am not!), I would practically believe the whole thing was an illusion.

Manners (Or Lack Thereof)

For whatever reason, manners are virtually absent here.
The stereotypes are 100% true.
Maybe I missed that earlier? I'm not sure, because some people with parents who were born here have told me that people have become ruder and more aggressive over the years. I tend to believe it.
You buy stuff in the market and shopkeepers just glare at you and slam your change on the counter without even bothering to say "thank you".
I feel like if someone tried that in NYC they might be asking for a fight!
Not a single person in my building knows how to close their door. My table jars every few minutes from the vibration of people slamming their doors.
People play music at all hours. And blare private conversations over their phone's loudspeakers because they can't be bothered bringing the handset to their ears. This varies a little by city (Tel Aviv is slightly more refined), but in general the culture is incredibly inconsiderate. Shouting is very commonplace (of course, it's just a "friendly argument"), honking on the roads is incessant, and people are too inpatient and inconsiderate to be able to form a queue. People will push grandmothers out of the way to get on a bus sooner. If it weren't sad, it would be funny.
Social cohesion is sorely lacking, IMO, as evidenced by the massive amount of splinter and minority parties that form before every election.
Everybody is in a tribe or, if not, an "enemy" (read: an Arab).
The sad and blunt truth is that it's a crude, racist society that even has a problem with some of its own (see: treatment of Ethiopian Jews).
(BTW, this is something that gets discussed a lot among Jews that voluntarily move here. People come up with all manner of BS excuses to justify it. "It's directness." No, it's atrocious manners. "There are no words for basic courtesies in Hebrew". Yes, there are - open a dictionary! "It's Middle Eastern". Travel to Egypt and Jordan. People have manners there. Unfortunately, most people that have negative things to say about the country get silenced by the aggressive "nothing can be wrong here" brigade.)

Prices

Prices are insanely high and, as far as I can tell, the situation is only getting worse.
Generally, those prices are for crappy products imported from China and heavily marked up. Or the local stuff sold by a company that is part of an oligopoly and would never survive in a free market environment. Customer service is almost non-existent - or at least, has the local twist which is "the customer is always wrong". And of course - those wonderful overpriced products and services are sold to you by often rude ungrateful people.
Working here also flat out sucks, IMO.
The world has bought into the myth that Israel is a land of amazing startups where everybody is swimming in opportunity.
The reality is that more than 90% of the economy is employed in protectionist dysfunctional companies and Israel has one of the lowest per-capita productivity rates in the OECD (feel free to check the numbers - it's late at night here and I'm trying not to lose the 'flow' of this). It's capitalism with all the benefits taken out. The socialist/kibbutznik backbone that formed the society is dead. Income inequality, as measured by the Geni coefficient, is among the highest in the world.
If you're not a Java developer or help run one of the ports (don't ask - monopoly!) you can expect to be paid a salary roughly a third lower than the West - while living in one of the most expensive countries in the world. A good chunk of immigrants here are employed in scam industries, including (but not limited to) binary, forex, and other international "scams." They attempted to regulate these, but due to corruption and cronyism, largely failed. Just as they attempted to pass a fair rental law which had about the same result.
To add insult to injury ****, Israelis are C-H-E-A-P***\* in my opinion (given the pejorative Jewish-money stereotypes, I realize that this is something that would be problematic/difficult for a non-Jew to assert).
You see this in the workplace. You're expected to work like a slave while your miserly employer tries his best haggling skills to pay you as little as possible. Unsurprisingly, Israelis founded Fiverr and have proven very eager exponents of the offshoring model, where they can find people willing to work for even less than olim hadashim (Jewish immigrants). Israelis love bargaining and will treat anything that involves money as a game whereby they attempt to keep as much of it as possible.
In terms of conditions - the minimum number of vacation days are 12 while the working week is 45 hours. Again, for pretty miserable salaries. Public holidays, which are relatively few, do not roll over if they fall out on a weekend. In general, a cultural of professionalism is sorely lacking. My strongly held opinion is that the best have already left.
Also: a bunch of Israelis sponge off their families until well over their forties. The country is also awash with Jewish immigrants who mysteriously seem to survive despite never having held a job in their life. The explanation? Their familiar are sponsoring them.

Religious Coercion / Weekends

Because of the Jewish Sabbath (during which public transport does not run; shops start closing half-way through Friday), you never even really feel like you've had a proper weekend.
Property is the worst of all. Astronomically expensive.
Taxes on new cars are almost 100% so almost everybody drives beat-up second hand ones, if they have one at all (it's considered a luxury). And the standards of housing - from anybody comparing it to the West - is relatively abysmal. There's a great Facebook page with some photos of the worst rentals on the market. Even if you don't read Hebrew, just take a look at some of the photos.
The first generations that came here have done a nice job at monopolizing large segments of the market and housing stock so are well taken care of.
For virtually anybody else, their future is renting (from rude slumlords!)
Hotel prices are also outrageous, and there's the added insult of having to pay more for rooms if you're from the country. People here literally fly to Europe because it's cheaper than staycationing in this ripoff!
Want to console yourself about that with a nice mango? Even fruit here has become expensive recently. The only thing that's cheaper here than the West is healthcare and public transport. It's a great country to be on the breadline in. To thrive financially? Not so much.

Politics

The public endlessly votes for a lying, corrupt prime minister who has just let the parliament dissolve in his pathetic bid to avoid fraud charges.
The country is apparently rapidly descending into a religious dictatorship and nobody seems to care - yet it still has the nerve to call itself "the only democracy in the Middle East."
The school system is failing and a segment of the population which doesn't work or paid taxes (the ultra-Orthodox) have somehow wound up in the position where they pull all the political strings.
People, for a reason I can never understand, generally seem to simply accept the status quo.
They are content with simply surviving and not being obliterated by Iran/Hamas/Hizbullah. As someone that didn't grow up in that security environment, this seems baffling to me. I feel like grabbing hold of one of Netanyahu's voters and asking him/her "That's truly all you aspire towards?"
The most that happens is some journalist (automatically branded a "leftist" by the right-wing majority) writes some article in the Opinion section of Ha'aretz. The last time people got out on the street to protest in significant numbers was years ago (remember the cottage cheese protests?). In Greece, the riot police get called out to put down mass protests. Here, people are happy to simply survive (sort of).
Why does the average person here vote for Netanyahu?
You know, because things are so great here and some third-world tycoon has been to visit (this is advertised as "unprecedented diplomatic achievements.").
Oh, and the economy has "never been stronger" (even though the country also has an enormous poverty problem and many people are struggling to simply get by).
I have a bad habit of checking Google News every few hours.
Reading those articles just makes me angry.
But it's really nothing more than a reflection of how people are on the street.
Rude. Aggressive. Argumentative. Demanding. Always in the fricking right. Also locals here literally never apologize for anything (that would be considered too "weak" to fit in with the local culture).
There's also this weird fetish with strength and the military here that I find disturbing. You see it in slang a lot (an "explosion" also means a good thing, like "that party was an explosion" is an idiom for "that party was a great time").
Being human (such as letting somebody cut ahead of you in line at the supermarket because they only have a couple of items) is branded as "weakness" and frowned upon. As is having manners. To be honest, I believe that the culture here is best described as "sick".
Israel has made me feel like an old man, even though I'm far from that.
All I want, at this point, is a basic quality of life.
Things like a non-minuscule apartment in which to live. Decent professional opportunities that don't involve working for some (usually shady) startup simply trying to use my English to get some investor to pump money into them so they can offshore everything to the US. The possibility of a week's vacation in somewhere that isn't a dingy ripoff staffed by rude people! And to hear somebody say "thank you, have a nice day" when I buy an apple from them!
I travel abroad a couple of times a year and usually feel like I've stepped into another planet. It's like somebody is dispersing a fine mist of Valium from the air. Hard to put my finger on it but people just seem kind of sedate and relaxed!
People are less direct (I'll admit, I actually like the directness here!), but know basic manners, everything isn't overpriced, and people enjoy a real weekend! You can order stuff from Amazon and it actually arrives on time! Somehow, there's no shouting! People know how to actually form a line! You don't have to stand up for yourself simply to not be pushed over!
I'm planning my escape (among other things), but I have to hold this in every day until I get out. I don't feel comfortable telling this to my friends (I rebrand it as "I'm finding it difficult here" without going into details) and I can't exactly broadcast my feelings to the average person on the street.
The truth is that I'm not as miserable as I sound.
I've been doing some self-work recently just to cope with living here. Stress and all that.
My mindset has taken a shift to the positive. And I'm really grateful by how much it has helped.
But it doesn't make living here any less distasteful and actually made me much more inclined to write this here (why wouldn't I tell the world like it is - at least as I see it?).
BTW, I'm a real Reddit user but, because I'm paranoid about privacy, I set up a new account just to write this post.
So thank you, Reddit, for giving me the chance to put this into writing!
If you're also living, or have lived here, feel free to let me know your thoughts in the comments.
And if you haven't and are considering doing so, please take everything you have read and heard about the country with a pinch (actually, make that the entire carton-full) of salt!

Some Links / Further Reading:

submitted by unhappyoleh to offmychest [link] [comments]

Solving the Brexit Problem with the help of a simple analogy

Solving the Brexit problem with the help of a simple analogy
Definitions :
The Brexit problem : How to best assess and implement the will of the people relating to the UK’s future relationship with the EU.
The will of the people : The desires of those of the electorate who choose to vote.
________________________
The nub of the problem is that the Brexit referendum was incorrectly presented as a binary choice, on the face of it this appears reasonable, yes/no, black/white, 1/0, remain/leave are all simple binary choices, right?Wrong!With a bit of nuanced thought you can see the choice to leave or remain was far from binary.Think of the following analogy :
A communal household currently located in leafy suburbia has a vote :
Shall we move house or stay put?
60% vote to move 40% vote to stay put.On first glance it seems obvious, to follow the will of the household surely they must move?However of the 60% who voted to move half of them wanted to move to the centre of London, the other half to a remote Scottish island.
All of those who voted for a move to the city centre would rather stay in suburbia than move to a remote Island and vice versa.
Before the true will of the commune can be followed this household needs a second vote of : Shall we move to a specific house in a specific location or shall we stay put in this specific house at this specific location?If we apply the analogy more directly to the actual Brexit referendum we should think of the UK as a large communal household of 66 people instead of a nation of 66 million.House UK had a vote on whether to move house or stay put. 47 of the 66 were eligible to vote.Of the 47 who could vote 17 voted to move house, 16 voted to stay put and 14 did not vote.
There was a debate before the vote was cast and those who wanted to move listed many benefits of moving and several different houses they could move to.
It now appears that some of the promised benefits of moving will not come to pass and that some people who wanted to move to house X would rather stay put than move to house Y.Would it not be prudent to have a vote on whether to move to a particular house or stay in the current home? As the initial vote was so close this seems a sensible approach if the goal is to best represent the will of the people.
________________________
Notes on the analogy :
NB : The analogy is of course an imperfect representation of the Brexit debate, the communal house is meant to represent a diverse group with a territorial bond. The moving house decision is seen as analogous to Brexit, not because Brexit is exactly like moving house, but because it is a complex decision that will impact the entire population. Instead of the decision to move, the household could have voted on other things such as :
The analogy can be expanded to consider more detailed analysis of the Brexit problem, perhaps the commune is made up of 4 families of different sizes (the English, the Scots, the Welsh, the Nirish). Perhaps the EU could be seen as the landlord etc. However :
The main purpose of the analogy is to illustrate that a binary vote will not necessarily reflect the true will of the people if the question asked does not have a binary answer.
______________________________
FAQ
Q1) But the Brexit question was binary, surely leave vs. remain is a binary choice?
A1) There are many types of Brexit, here are a few examples :
The above sample of possible brexit types indicates that the choice was far from binary. i.e. It is entirely plausible that someone who voted for a soft Brexit would rather remain than proceed with a no deal Brexit etc.You can also consider remain a non binary option. With this in mind before the second vote occurs it should be explained that remain represents the status quo, i.e. staying in the EU with our future relationship within the EU influenced by the government of the day.
Q2) But in the analogy leave won, so surely they must leave?
A2) The problem is that if you are trying to determine the will of the people, you can’t be sure who won (in terms of best following the will of the people) if you provide only a binary choice for what is a non binary question.E.g. In the analogy the vote was 40% remain, 60% leave, of those who wanted to leave half wanted to go to a Scottish island and half wanted to move to central London. So in terms of will of the people the results were 40% remain in Suburbia, 30% move to London, 30% move to Scotland.
If all of those who wanted to move to Scotland would rather stay in Suburbia than move to London and vice versa the vote on a binary choice would have been as follows :
Remain in Suburbia vs Move to Scotland : 70% Remain, 30% Move
Remain in Suburbia vs Move to London : 70% Remain, 30% Move
If we apply reductio ad absurdum to the analogy then if the initial vote had been 2% remain and 98% leave then it’s still technically possible that the will of the people is to remain, providing those who wanted to leave were evenly split between London & Scotland and all of those who wanted to move to Scotland would rather stay in Suburbia than move to London and vice versa :
The above would give a vote of 2% remain in Suburbia, 49% move to London, 49% move to Scotland. But with a binary choice :
Remain in Suburbia vs Move to Scotland : 51% Remain, 49% Move
Remain in Suburbia vs Move to London : 51% Remain, 49% Move
This mirrors the uncomfortable but unavoidable situation in life that sometimes you have to decide on the least bad option.
Q3) As leave won, surely only leave voters should decide the next step?
A3) This is about the will of the people, not the will of the ‘winners’. Those who lost the first vote are still part of the people so they are still entitled to express their will.
Also see Q2 for an explanation of why it is difficult to determine exactly who won if you provide a binary choice for what is a non binary question.
Q4) Surely a second referendum is unfair? We were told by our then Prime Minister that the Brexit referendum was a one off binding choice, our current Prime minister tells us leave means leave and Brexit means Brexit.
A4) The most charitable answer to this is that Mr Cameron and Mrs May have failed to realise that you cannot necessarily enact the will of the people based on a binary vote for a non binary issue. This explains why many Conservative Brexiteers do not support the May deal.
Q5) Nobody has changed their mind so why bother having another vote?
A5) It may be the case that a significant majority have not changed their view, but this cannot really be adequately tested without there being a second vote on a binary choice. Here are some reasons why people may have changed their minds :
________________________
What should happen next ?
To determine the actual will of the people we need a second referendum of :
Remain (maintain the status quo) Vs Leave (in a specific way)The problem of course is deciding what specific version of leave to have on the ballot paper…..
Suggestions please.
________________________
Healing the divide
If you apply the communal house analogy to the Brexit referendum question you can see that the Brexit process was fundamentally flawed in its ability to clearly and accurately express the will of the people.
The British people are broadly united behind a sense of fair play and the desire that the will of the people is followed regarding Brexit. If people can accept that you need a binary answer to a binary question then the idea that a second referendum will cause widespread outrage and would somehow be a betrayal of democracy can be dismissed.
Instead of thinking that people who voted differently to yourself are wrong, accept that they voted differently because they have different priorities, values and opinions to your own. Their priorities, values and opinions are just as valid to them as yours are to you. It is entirely reasonable to expect most individuals to vote based on their individual concerns.
In terms of the analogy don’t think that those who want to move to a remote Scottish island are misguided due to the lack of employment in the region, but accept that local employment opportunities may not be a major priority for those who desire the island lifestyle (perhaps they are retired / can work from home / etc.).
________________________
submitted by Mister_Loon to unitedkingdom [link] [comments]

Three years of full-time solo development: making a story-driven 3d point-and-click game in Unity

Hello, everyone! I’m Dmitry, a 28-year-old guy from Russia, and I’d like to share with you my solo, no-budget, three-year-long journey of making a sci-fi adventure game called Supposedly Wonderful Future on Unity. It turned into quite a lengthy beast, but I hope you will find it interesting and engaging enough to justify a long read. Though I don’t consider myself an authority on anything, I’d be glad to respond to every comment, answer any question, and write some smaller, accompanying walls of text below. Thanks!
Let me start by saying that I have very specific gaming tastes. More precisely: I need a good plot. With twists and intrigue, ideas and messages, well-written dialogues, careful world-building, witty jokes, with characters that make you care, drama that sends you riding the feels train, and so on, and all that jazz. I wouldn’t say “no” to quality gameplay either, and I believe that interactivity is one of the video games’ strongest assets, but the story comes first.
All of the above can be considered a theoretical ideal I set my sights on as a developer. Story-driven games aren’t a very common choice among indies (there are visual novels, but they kinda exist in their own world, and even they frequently concentrate on dating simulation rather than on deep complex stories); even so, there was no doubt in my mind as to what kind of game I wanted to make. After all, if you plan to spend three years creating something, you’d better maximize your chances of loving it personally, right?

Three years? How about money to buy food and stuff?

Good question. Though by no means unique or even exceedingly rare in this day and age (I’ve seen folks who’ve been soloing much longer than me on this very subreddit in the last few weeks alone), it’s still not the most popular career decision in the world, and I want to state clearly from the start that I only did so because: a) I could afford it; b) that’s how the circumstances turned out to be.
I was writing a commercial web app with .NET MVC, employed remotely by a British software development company while living in Russia, and the difference in average salaries made it a very good job for saving up. At the same time, that job was starting to slowly but surely fall apart, while searching for a replacement turned into a hella lengthy process, so I spent a few months in a rather bored state of mind – and we all know that boredom is a good fuel for unexpected wild ideas.
Furthermore, I was lucky enough to find myself with a number of useful gamedev-related skills on my hands. My university degree had nothing to do with games, only with programming, yet my graduation project about e-learning went for gamification angle and ended up featuring a 3d web build made in Unity, so I was already familiar with the engine. English, though not my native language, was ingrained in my mind after a decade of constant exposure, so I was fairly confident about my ability to write decent dialogues and cohesive narratives.
Last but not least, analyzing video games’ stories in my head was one of my favorite pastimes, and extensive browsing of a great place called TV Tropes helped me to better understand common story-building blocks without succumbing to a cynical, “it’s all just a bunch of cliches” attitude. There were still areas where I had to start from scratch, mostly related to visuals (more on this in the lower parts), but at least it didn’t feel like I was trying to get another degree all by myself.

On game design and focus

During those boring months, I thought a lot about my idea of an “ideal job”. How I enjoy programming but always see it as a tool to reach specific goals, rather than an exciting field all by itself. How fascinated I am with storytelling in modern media, and its ever-growing effect on our daily lives. How I myself was supported, inspired, and motivated by fictional stories every step of the way, and wanted to give back. How I always genuinely liked video games and toyed with an idea of making my own, only to conclude that it’s just unrealistic for a one-man effort to include all those things a serious story-driven game should have…
…except that, with 2014 on the calendar, it kinda wasn’t. There was a shift in how people approached game design now; a certain new level of maturity video games achieved as a medium. Or maybe it mostly happened in my head, but it was an important thought to me nonetheless. I remember playing Russian games from the early 2000s and seeing diamonds in the rough buried under bugs and deadlines; labors of love whose reach invariably exceeded their grasp.
Single-player, multiplayer, innovative gameplay, thoughtful stories, elaborate visuals, vast 3d environments, cutscenes, voice acting – they did it all with mixed success, and not necessarily because they wanted to include that much, but because a game was SUPPOSED to include that much. Publishers preferred it this way too, I imagine; when “shipping a game” means actual shipping of thousands of physical copies (!) to individual stores all across this ridiculously big country, there’s a natural limit to the risks you might want to take.
But the broadband kept rolling, the software was advancing, the indie games have bloomed, and a different kind of approach started to occupy my mind. You start with a question – “Why, what’s the point?” – and answer with one short sentence. You go in as modest as possible, focusing solely on that sentence, and then you polish it day in and day out like a samurai, without cutting corners, as much as real life allows you.
Now, that approach is quite suitable for a one-man band, isn’t it? So I thought to myself: as much as I’d like to release my own Mass Effect tomorrow, let’s follow this route. Let’s try to excel at one specific thing, and discard everything that doesn’t directly affect it. Let’s tell a story worth telling.

So what kind of story is it?

A young man is invited to skip his own untimely death by time traveling into 2046 – if only he does some work for a megacorporation first… That’s the logline I wrote for it, anyway. Why this particular premise? Surprisingly enough, I don’t have a clear answer. I could explain you the reasoning behind 99% of the story in excruciating detail, but the basic framework, the “why it starts and how it ends” stuff? That was more like a spontaneous idea than a carefully planned action, popping into my head one day and then growing and growing until it affected everything, like in that Inception movie.
There is an interesting thought among writers: the story writes itself, driven by characters’ personalities, basic setting, and other things outlined from the start, while you are merely discovering the details. I’m not sure I can embrace the notion, but I definitely felt the power of internal logic throughout my writing experience.
Then again, internal or not, I was always big on logic. My university education, though mostly related to automation and programming, had a number of more theoretical courses on math, logic, and systems thinking, which heavily influenced the way I view the world. Computer software is not the only kind of complex systems – a fictional narrative is too, as is human society, as is the entire universe. Everything around us is a system with its variables, elements, interconnections, and dependencies. That might the reason why I went for sci-fi, and why I enjoyed building the plot up until it resembled a decently-structured system on its own.
On a somewhat related note, I wanted it to be psychological and existential enough too. It sounds awkward when I put it so bluntly, like I’m snobbishly trying to elevate my stuff to a higher level where “serious art” resides, but if I’m being honest with myself, art or not, that’s just the kind of stories I like. There are complicated, uncomfortable things inherent to human condition that affect our reasoning and influence even our most mundane decisions, and if you’re in a business of writing believable stories with realistic characters, I don’t think you can afford to ignore it – on the contrary, you need to stare it directly in the eyes.
Depression and anxiety, self-doubt and escapism, clashing worldviews, social tensions, and our eternal quest for the ever-elusive happiness – all of this is explored in the game to some capacity, and though it will probably limit my audience (“I have enough of this crap in real life, thank you very much”, some might say, and who can blame them?), I still wouldn’t have it any other way.
Having said that, I really don’t want my game to come across as moody, pretentious, or oh-so-deep. I tried to keep my writing as casual and down-to-earth as possible, and there’s a decent share of light-hearted or downright silly stuff in it as well. There’s a character who always talks like Doc Brown from Back to the Future. There’s an agile management framework called SCREW and its 12-rule manifesto (I’ve been following those guidelines myself, and let me assure you, it’s a killer). There’s a penguin and a badger who try to stop Betelgeuse from going supernova by using their waffle (it makes sense in the context… sort of). I guess one way to put it is to call it a story that doesn’t get too serious – until it does.

Constants and variables and choice

Another far-reaching thing was my decision to tell the story through RPG-like conversations. You know, those old-school dialogue trees like in Dragon Age or Neverwinter Nights where every chunk of text from NPCs is followed by a numbered list of possible responses for you to choose from. My reasoning was simple: if you have a fixed narrative but still want to make the experience more involving and engaging than reading a book, dialogue options is one of the easiest and most natural ways to do it. “Choices matter” is a tag I will never see next to my game, but a smart illusion of choice? The one that eventually leads to the same outcome but still puts you in characters’ shoes and makes you consider their options? That was something I could try.
Then again, I’ve gotten rather fascinated with illusions, whether they were visual or narrative. I used to play games like Mass Effect and think: why even allow the player to act as a total jerk if they still have to do all the noble, heroic, world-saving stuff in the end? Now I believe that such options are important regardless of whether you actually use them or not; that they achieve their purpose simply by being there. I mean, sure, you can easily shatter the illusion to pieces if you reload or google some videos, but during that first, most important try, doesn’t it feel remarkably similar to real life?
After all, we can never truly predict the importance of our daily decisions; we just choose one of many options, while all other doors remain closed and unexplored. Maybe they could lead you to a whole different life. Or maybe there was a solid wall behind all of them, and you never really had any other choice. So I decided to stick to my guns and give every conversation a negative or ambivalent option, superficial as it might be. I even came up with a line for my bullet-pointed list of features: “Neat roleplaying opportunities! Be a compassionate smartass, a cynical smartass, or just plain “hey look how funny I am” smartass. Or don’t be a smartass at all, I guess, but why would anyone want that?” It sounds extremely cheeky, so I decided against using it, but to be honest, it’s kinda accurate.
Consequently, implementing my own dialogue tree graphs was the very first – and probably the most exciting – bit of programming I did. It turned out simple and manageable enough: just a bunch of XML files storing text lines with IDs, coupled with binary files containing the logic of how those IDs should connect. Building a customizable, decent-looking UI to support it all was a much longer endeavor (Unity UI system has a number of idiosyncrasies and not-so-obvious details), and became the longest block of code in the game. The rest was more or less straightforward and consisted mostly of OnClick behavior scripts – after all, mechanic-wise, I was making an extremely simplistic game.
Even with all the simplicity around, however, I was thoroughly reminded just how quickly your variables can pile up and spawn bugs. It took me about 2-3 months to go from “all the content is there and should be theoretically working” to “I think I’m confident enough to release it”, and every testing session supplied me with at least a couple of freshly discovered bugs. Trying to predict user actions is something that any software engineer should try to do, but I think video games take the cake here, probably because of how many different buttons players can press at any given moment (as opposed to, say, websites, where you mostly just click on stuff).
I can only imagine how freaking hard it is to properly stabilize vast, open-world RPGs full of interconnected quests and NPC lines (all those buggy releases I played feel even more relatable now, that’s for sure). I also have to wonder if there are some good programming practices that can help you to tackle this complexity and mitigate bug-related immersion breaking, because I sure didn’t use any of that. Hell, I barely even used exception handling. The way I see it, if something goes unexpectedly wrong, you’re screwed either way.

The graphics are probably cheap and lame, though

That’s what I was ready for. Braced myself for, even. I knew from the start that visuals were my weakest spot, and although I made some decisions to lower the difficulty settings (like confining the story to just a handful of small rooms or settling on the fixed camera), my design skills were still close to zero, and I hadn’t even modeled a simple table in Blender before.
At first I thought I’d just cobble up whatever I can from free assets – and indeed, some of the Asset Store’s most popular free items made it to the final build and now sit proudly in the middle of my screenshots. However, as I went ahead and familiarized myself with the basics of 3d modeling, I found out they had more to do with math than with design or drawing. Now, math, not only did I have experience in it – math was like a good old friend.
So I took my trusty ruler that was going back to my high school days (though I’m sure any other ruler could do fine too… it just happened to be lying around, really) and started measuring the furniture in my apartment, using real world as my definitive reference. To my delight, soon I was able to model a table, and a bookshelf, and a sofa, and even an office chair too. I even found myself preferring to make simple models from scratch rather than searching for good free versions online – as long as I could manipulate vertices individually and rely strictly on coordinates rather than on any kind of artistry, I was fine.
As for the colors and lighting and general aesthetics, I mostly decided to just grind for it, i.e. to keep googling for cool interior design ideas and then moving stuff around until my internal critic stops hating it. To a certain extent it worked, though I certainly wouldn’t recommend this approach to anyone who needs more than a handful of small indoor areas. I have also utterly failed at utilizing any of the modern graphic enhancements like linear color space, post-rendering effects, or Unity 5 lightmapping, but even without it the environments look more or less pleasing, and that is certainly more than I hoped for in the beginning.
The character models, however… oh, boy, the character models are a whole different matter. I used an open-source thing called MakeHuman, which is honestly awesome and takes care of the base models and rigs, but I still had to do stuff like clothing and skin texturing, which took ages, and frankly, I’m still dissatisfied with the results.
They just aren’t appealing. Some of them look old and tired and beaten and functioning on way too little amount of sleep. You might even call them ugly. Granted, some of those folks are supposed to look ugly and tired and beaten, but justifying your lack of artistic sense with the story can only take you that far. Right now, though, I don’t think I can improve them any further – not without spending many more months on polishing my skills, anyway. There are points in time when one just has to accept one’s own limitations.

It’s not a bug, it’s a feature

Some of those story-based justifications, though? Some of them I’m pretty proud of. They felt less like excuses and more like genuine opportunities, helping me to turn my limitations into strengths in ways I couldn’t even consider beforehand.
For one, despite the fact that the game is set in the future, none of my environments were very futuristic. On the contrary, apart from the screens hanging in mid-air, one Minority Report-wannabe character waving his hands at them, and holographic keyboards that detect your touches without any gloves (which should be possible thanks to that smart thing I googled called “acoustic radiation force”), they looked just like something you’d encounter today.
At first I thought it was an inevitable restriction, since recreating real-life objects from reference images was the best I could do, but then I realized: doesn’t it actually make perfect sense story-wise? Isn’t it realistic for the not-so-distant future to look almost exactly the same as the present? I took my 30-year time jump from Back to the Future II, but didn’t we just recently muse how 2015 turned out much more boring and mundane than they imagined in 1985?
What started as a limitation of my design skills suddenly turned into a statement I now support with all my heart: it’s not about the looks. The science fiction of the past depicted us in weird garments riding flying cars filled with flashy technology, but when the time came, we were wearing the same clothes, living in the same houses, eating the same food, yet, thanks to the internet, our way of interacting with reality – how we learn, socialize, make decisions – was fundamentally changed. It will never be about flying cars. The most profound changes can’t be seen with the naked eye.
Another example would be my quest for the perfect urban vista. Very early in the development I decided that I’d need an image of a fancy metropolis seen from a high point – just one shot, but it’d have to satisfy a number of conditions:
So, after a lot of internet searching (dictated, of course, by the fact that I couldn’t even begin to imagine how to make one from scratch myself) only one example satisfied my needs: the famous view from Victoria Peak in Hong Kong.
Now, using an image from 2010s for a story set in 2040s wasn’t an issue thanks to my convenient realization from before (there’s even an optional in-game explanation I shoehorned in that talks how Hong Kong’s bay area was already densely developed by 2010s and therefore didn’t see much construction work since then, and how you should totally visit Shenzhen or Guangzhou nearby to see a real difference). However, it posed a problem of a different kind: the game’s events would need to be set in Hong Kong. Meanwhile, I didn’t want to set my events anywhere at all – I wanted to just skip mentioning places, since it wasn’t important to the story, and to avoid any semblance of politics; to show a world so united and interconnected that your geographical location didn’t really matter.
However, as I turned to write another thing I really wanted to include – text articles imitating real news but describing hypothetical events that might happen in 2046 – I realized that freedom to talk about specific places makes it so much easier. Before long, I was mentioning Jakarta and Minsk and Addis Ababa and Istanbul, but not in a political, “this region still has such-and-such problems” way, but in a positive, “look how huge the world is, and how great it is to be aware of it” way. It really turned into an all-around better world-building, and it was a seemingly unrelated design challenge that helped to arrive there.

The pure awesomeness that is Creative Commons

My use of free assets went well beyond Hong Kong photos and 3d models from Unity Asset Store. I know there’s a number of reasons why one might want to avoid such things (like sacrificing your game’s uniqueness or accidentally violating somebody else’s intellectual rights), but since I was going into this alone and with no budget, embracing it instead felt like the only sensible course of action. I counted on the great collective consciousness of the internet to help me every step of the way – and boy, was I not disappointed. It’s absolutely amazing how much cool stuff people share online not just for free, but free for commercial use too.
First of all, you might already know this, but the amount of mind-blowingly beautiful photos in public domain these days is staggering. At first I came across an American photographer Jay Mantri, looking for a window view from my protagonist’s little office, and was seriously impressed with his work. Then I found Unsplash, where dozens of photographers share even more dazzling stuff. Then there was Pixabay, which might just be the definitive library of free images that collects all shots from the guys above and much more.
Since then, these places managed to satisfy 90% of my needs. I wanted images to illustrate abstract topics like dangers of immortality, emergence of artificial intelligence, ever-growing corporate power, or huge economic inequality – Pixabay had them. I wanted creepy child drawings – Pixabay had dozens. I wanted 10-15 black-and-white photos that look like a part of the same collection – Pixabay delivered. I wanted crisp, breath-taking shots full of vivid colors to decorate a bright orange room – probably half of the stuff at Unsplash is like that.
I also have to mention freesound.org, though using free sounds is probably much more common for indie video games, since coming up with necessary audio in your own studio is one heck of a weird creative challenge (at least that’s what I started to think after this video stuck with me).
But my greatest find is undoubtedly the soundtrack. Initially I had a naive thought of trying to create one myself (not properly composing, of course, since I had zero experience in that, but maybe playing around with loops and presets to come up with some simple yet pleasing tunes), and I even treated myself to a cheap synthesizer under the pretense of wanting to pick up music as a hobby anyway.
Naturally, this idea quickly died down once I realized that I’m incapable of “simply playing around” without understanding the basics, and understanding the basics would delay my release for another year at the very least. So I left the synthesizer standing in the corner (though I’m going back to practicing any day now, promise), turned to my old friend Google, and emerged more powerful than I could possibly imagine.
Mind you, it wasn’t a fast process, but as long as I was willing to spend hours upon hours carefully sifting through all instrumental music of suitable genres, I was repeatedly rewarded with truly awesome finds. Forget just “pleasing tunes” – with this amount of content I could start only with the tracks I personally loved, and then pick them to specifically fit the current mood of the story. After about 6 months of on-and-off searching and thousands of little choices (which probably sounds cooler than it was; most of them were made in 20-30 seconds, after all) I ended up with 2.5-hour-long soundtrack; a pretty extensive selection for a game that will last you 8-9 hours tops.
Of course, I don’t want to sound too one-sided; there are definitely upsides to composing your music from scratch, as well as downsides to using free music I might not be aware of (if my game gets decent exposure, maybe some of those creators will eventually ask me to remove their work, who knows). At the moment, however, I still feel mightily impressed with just how much quality material is already willingly shared online, and what a win-win it could be to use it in your indie game.
My biggest treasure trove was Free Music Archive, followed by ccMixter. Bandcamp and Soundcloud have even more stuff, but I don’t think there’s any way to filter that stuff by license. Your friendly neighborhood ccmusic is totally awesome too, with both creators and dedicated searchers constantly posting new links to wherever the music might be.
And, you might already know this too, but the main license to look for is CC-BY, or attribution-only. CC-BY-NC (non-commercial) is pretty self-explanatory, unless it’s F2P games with optional purchases; then I have no idea. CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-ND are probably a no-go, though it’s all very vague and depends on how you apply “adaptation” and “collection” terms to video games, but music is more of a no-go than the rest, since synchronizing audio to video is specifically defined as adaptation. There’s also CC0, or Public Domain (rare for music but quite common for photos and images), which may be useful if you are unable to give credit for some reason, but otherwise it’s probably a good idea to mention the original author regardless.

Any thoughts on time management and work-life balance?

I’m afraid I can mostly just repeat the obvious here. Listening to your body and respecting its natural rhythms is good. Burning out is bad: it affects not only you personally but the quality of everything you make as well. I’m a big fan of adding work to your hours instead of adding hours to your work; a fan to a fault, really, since it always makes me stressed if I spend even one day on something ultimately useless, but it also helps to keep my wastefulness to a relative minimum.
Another classic I can personally attest to is the importance of exercising (or just staying active if you already have physical activity incorporated into your daily routine or your hobbies). I had countless days when my thinking was kickstarted by a jog on a treadmill, taking me from “ugh, kinda not feeling it today” to “wait, I think I got this” in a matter of hours, helping me from the first drafts of the story to this very article. Some of it probably was just endorphins changing my perspective to a more positive one, but not all of it, and I can say with certainty that the line between a well-functioning body and a well-functioning mind is incredibly thin.
I turned into quite a running addict these past years, not in a sense of how much I do it (in fact, it’s the opposite: I do it only twice a week, and I barely even meet the recommended guidelines), but because of my body’s increased reliance on it, and its immediate symptomatic revolt if I dare to delay my scheduled fix even for a few days. It made me think just how good we are at getting utterly dependent on various stuff (whether it’s smoking, exercise, smartphones, or electricity), and how many psychological similarities can be found between self-destructive behavior and the so-called “healthy” habits. On the plus side, these ideas helped to shape Chapter 4 of my game, the one I completed the last and now feel the most proud of.
One common notion I could probably challenge a bit is the idea of working fixed hours. Most sources highlight the importance of picking a schedule and sticking to it, and while it’s definitely a great way to prevent burn-out and reduce the taxing amount of decisions one has to make every day, I never really felt comfortable with the “sticking” part. Isn’t it ultimately incompatible with how creative thinking works, and isn’t it better to take advantage of the “indie” part and stay as flexible as possible? So if you feel on fire, maybe allow yourself to get overworked a bit, since you could finish in hours what otherwise would take you days. And if you feel the opposite, just let it all go for a few days. We are not machines, after all; we are a chaotic unpredictable mess of thoughts, and that’s probably okay.

How about marketing or community building?

During the years of actual development? None whatsoever. In fact, you might have already noticed that I went against quite a few of common wisdoms, like:
  1. start spreading the word early, write blogs, share stuff;
  2. get a lot of feedback, bounce ideas, talk with people;
  3. don’t go all out with your first game, make it small and manageable;
Was it the right decision to ignore points 1 and 2? Who knows. But, being painfully aware of my own strengths and weaknesses, I believe it was the most realistic decision for me. To be honest, I’m a somewhat obsessive person prone to overthinking stuff, and once I really start a thing, I have trouble stopping (it’s even there in the username). I knew for a fact I wouldn’t be able to write a really good story if I started to do marketing – I’d be too distracted by that tweet I should write this Saturday or that feedback somebody left me on Friday.
Most people, I imagine, have different modes of writing. They can think carefully about every word if it’s something important, or just type it as it comes. Me, I only have one. It doesn’t matter if you’re an old friend getting in touch or a potential employer defining years of my future – chances are, I’ll stare at the screen for 20-30 minutes before I hit “Send”. I imagine most people are also trying to fight these manifestations of excessive perfectionism, since it’s kind of a pain and a drain on your time. As for me, well, after years of stressing out I now mostly just accept it. It has its upsides, and working on a single game for years seems like a good way to put them to use.
To my defense, though, I was really planning to stick with point 3. I thought that I had a fairly realistic plan on my hands; a game with a singular focus that doesn’t even dare to excel at anything else. My first and most naive estimates included finishing it all in nary 6 months. But, of course, software development doesn’t work this way, and writing novel-long cohesive texts apparently don’t either. 6 months quickly turned into 12, 12 into 18, and then kept slowly but surely expanding every step of the way.
Interestingly enough, though, at no point did I feel like I was going out of scope or getting buried by feature creep. Frustrated by how long everything takes and what a slowpoke I am? Sure, more times than I can remember. But I always felt it had more to do with the nature of any sufficiently complex project rather than my unrealistic planning, and countless examples of noteworthy gamedev teams going out of time or budget seemed to support that. As Lord Gaben famously said, these things, they take time.
There’s a quote by Neil Gaiman (who has a ton of great advice that’s applicable not only to book writing but any kind of creative endeavor), and it goes like this: “Finish what you started. Whatever you have to do to finish it, finish it.” I think it’s one of the quotes that really managed to motivate me. A kind of a mindset I was for the majority of my development time, even. I already started. Set the wheels in motion. And once the wheels are in motion, you only have 2 options: finish it, and then maybe nobody else will care, or drop it, and then definitely nobody else will care. When you put it that way, it’s a very easy choice, right?

Fascinating, but let’s wrap this up already

So there you have it. A significant amount of something, followed by something else. I’m sure the second “something” will be even more unpredictable than the first one, but will ostensibly include months of marketing attempts, good old post-project depression, as well as some hopefully not-completely-pointless job-searching (indie freedom is intoxicating, but I think it would do me good to work in a team for a change).
Even if it all turns out to be as frustrating as possible, though, I think I’m stubborn enough to not let it diminish the first part’s value. As the great Neil Peart from the great band Rush said in one of their many great songs, the point of the journey is not to arrive. So if you don’t mind a cheesy one-liner to send this wall of text off, it goes something like this:
I guess that’s all we can do in this random world. Make the journey count.
P.S. If any of this sounds like a game you might like, please consider supporting it on Greenlight, or check it out on itch.io where both demo and full versions for Windows are available. You can also follow me on Twitter, where I post gifs and images coupled with oh-so-mysterious quotes from the game, or on Facebook (where I haven’t posted a single thing yet, to be honest, but will certainly rectify that sooner or later). Thanks!
submitted by gamblingDostoevsky to gamedev [link] [comments]

[Dev Blog] Corp Little Things & Friendly Fire Control ~CCP Punkturis

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/corp-little-things-friendly-fire-control/
Hi! Im CCP Punkturis and on behalf of Team Five 0 I want to tell you about some of the changes related to corporations that weve been working on for Tiamat, which will be released on February 17, 2015!
We know the effort and time that CEOs and directors spend on managing their corporations is very valuable, and we want to make things easier for them. Thats why we went to the forums and asked for your corp little things. A lot of good ideas surfaced and we tried to prioritize targeting them and hope youll like the things were bringing you this time.
We also have further changes that are in-development aimed at improving the corporation UI. These are planned for later release, so keep an eye out for more information on those in the future and read through to the end for a sneak hint of a work-in-progress!
Setting friendly fire as legal or illegal
We are going to give player corporations the ability to configure whether 'friendly fire' within the corporation is considered legal, or if it will carry criminal penalties (specifically CONCORD punishment in high-sec , security status hits, Suspect/Criminal flagging etc).
Duels, kill-rights, outlaw flagging and similar situational events will always provide a way to legally attack corp-mates, and will override the friendly fire setting. The safety system will respect the current crimewatch rules and allow/prevent module activation as expected in any given situation. In null-sec and wormhole space, everyone is always a valid target, so nothing will change here.
Before we get in to the mechanics of this change, there are a few design motivations that are worth discussing:
With hangar access permissions, you can make choices about how much you wish to expose your corp to the risk of theft. As your confidence and trust in your members grows, so you can give them more access to assets. Conversely, as a would-be corp-thief, you have the challenge of manipulating your way in to a position where you can clear out the vaults.
However with aggression rules, there is no such spectrum of decisions. The only choice is the binary option of either joining a corp where other players can shoot you, or simply not joining a corp with others at all. For many players, their optimal choice is therefore to avoid signing up to a corp altogether, and so they inevitably miss out on many of the meaningful social interactions that make EVE unique.
Similarly, as a player interested in running a corp for others, you have no ability to choose the level of aggression-related risk that you want for your members. Again the optimal choice for some becomes running a corp containing only alts, or just staying in an NPC corp.
We want to add an intermediate choice to these options. One that allows a player to find a corporation where being a member doesnt require automatically enabling others to legally attack him, but where he can still enjoy the social dynamics that come from being part of a group. It also allows corporations to recruit newer riskier characters in to the group whilst still having some degree of control over what they can and cannot legally do to other members.
Initially we were planning to simply remove the exception allowing friendly fire in player corps and make them observe the same rule as NPC corps, without any optional setting (as discussed in the CSM 9 summer summit [page 77]). After concerns were raised from the summit about the impact of this proposal (such as eliminating the free-for-all events within groups like RvB), we postponed implementing it to allow further consideration. This resulted in a revised design giving the individual corps the choice to enable the setting as they see fit.
So how is this going to work?
The friendly fire setting can be configured by the CEO or a director from the corporation management window in the same way you configure tax levels and such. The change will require 24 hours to become active, after which it will apply to all corp members. All members will be sent notifications at the start and completion of this timer, which will explain the change and include the name of the responsible character.
When friendly fire is set to legal, aggression between two corp-mates will behave exactly as it does now in a player corp. When set to Illegal, aggressive acts will follow the same rules as they currently do in NPC corporations: attacks will invoke CONCORD (in high sec), trigger a security status penalty and also a Criminal/Suspect flag. You are still able to take advantage of limited engagements, kill-rights, outlaw flags and so on to aggress corp-mates if the situation arises these override the friendly fire rules.
The friendly fire status of a corporation is always publicly visible to all players. It will be displayed in the various places such as the corps 'Show-Info' window as well as in adverts shown in the Corporation Finder. If youre searching for your next corp, youll be able to set a filter to only show corps where friendly fire is disabled. When creating a new corporation, you will choose how you want to set the initial friendly fire state (but of course youll be free to change it again later, subject to the 24 hour delay).
Existing player corporations will default to friendly fire being Legal so they will behave exactly the same as they currently do with no action required. It will be up to the CEO/directors to transition to making it Illegal if they wish to do so.
image
(click to enlarge)
As well as the friendly fire change, we've got several more improvements coming along in Tiamat:
Upping limit on mailing lists
Your communities keep getting bigger and more popular, with groups such as Spectre Fleet and RvB Ganked getting close to the maximum mailing list size. To enable them to keep growing, weve upped the limit on mailing list membership from 3000 people to 5000.
Adding a filter to the member list
When you have a corporation with a few thousand members we get that its near impossible to find a specific member. Thats why weve added a filter to the member list.
image
Corp details improvements
You can now resize the corp details window and make a better description of you corp with customizable font and links and what not.
image
Unrenting offices made more obvious
The option to unrent an office is currently in a rather too-well hidden spot. When viewing your list of offices, a button will be displayed for each office giving an easy way to unrent it. Dont worry about accidently clicking it though, it does check for confirmation first!
image
Inviting a character from the applications tab
Wouldnt it make sense to be able to find a character and send him an invitation to join your corp directly from the corp window? Yes we thought so too, thats why we added a button in the applications tab to search for a character and then send them an invitation.
image
Custom message with rejection mails
Finding a character after youve rejected his application to send him an EVE mail with the reason why is not the greatest usability experience for our beloved players. Thats why we added an option to send a custom message with the corp rejection mail, and of course we know that you will only be sending those people love letters and kind words.
image
submitted by new_eden_news_bot to Eve [link] [comments]

Theresa May has just fallen foul of WTO Subsidy Rules--and this is why she has indirectly confirmed a Single Market Brexit

Unable to read the nuances in Theresa May's conference speech, the media and its political fellow travellers have been consistently misreading the picture in the ongoing Brexit saga.
Determined to reduce its complexities to the mind-numbing simplicity of a binary choice between a big, bad "hard Brexit" and a "soft" opposite, they have been unable to understand that there are more than two options. They have thus failed to realise that May's careful ambiguity has left her more than enough wriggle-room to stay in the Single Market after Brexit, without exposing herself to the charge of duplicity.
This, then, has been very much a question of the media hearing what it wanted to hear. But, when it comes to the car industry, they are being told the same words. Equally obviously, they are hearing something different.
Such is evident from yesterday's announcement by Nissan, conveyed by the Financial Times and others. The company has committed to manufacturing two new car models at its plant at Sunderland, the Qashqai SUV and the X-Trail SUV, currently built in Japan. This is taken to be a "vote of confidence" in the UK following the Brexit referendum, but it is much, much more. (https://www.ft.com/content/eabd6152-9c29-11e6-8324-be63473ce146)
Essentially, with an international supply chain and just-in-time deliveries, the Nissan plant is described as a "European plant based in Britain". It is not conceivable that the company would take such a risk if there was any significant probability of the UK going for the WTO option, otherwise known as the "hard Brexit".
Nissan chief executive Carlos Ghosn – no friend of an independent Britain – is putting his faith in the Prime Minister after receiving "assurances" that the company would be protected from any adverse effects of Brexit.
The UK Government, Ghosn has been told, will ensure that the Sunderland plant remains "competitive", while Mrs May has promised to develop a national industrial strategy, which will secure a stable business environment for car makers.
The assurances have enabled Carlos Ghosn to tell his Sunderland workers that continue with the same trade conditions after Brexit that they enjoy now. But Downing Street denies that any specific promises have been made about tariffs or related matters. Publicly, all the Downing Street spokesman will say is that, "we will get the best possible deal for Britain as we leave the European Union".
According to Reuters, though, the UK government has promised Nissan some more tangible support which, it says, "could prove expensive". (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-nissan-support-idUKKCN12R2FI)
Nissan, the agency reminds us, said in September that it would commit to new UK investment if it got a promise of compensation should Brexit lead to new taxes on car exports. From the UK it is selling vehicles worth £5.3 billion a year, selling 55 percent of it production to other European countries, putting their value at an estimated £2.9 billion.
Should the UK adopt a "hard Brexit", the EU could apply tariffs of 10 percent on passenger vehicles imported from the UK, theoretically adding tariff bill of £290 million to the costs of European buyers. Yet that is probably an exaggeration, as each car is built from components sourced from European plants, for which duty would be recoverable.
However, the idea of compensation is likely to be a hypothetical situation as the UK government has said it is confident of striking a "free trade deal with Europe" after Brexit. In that case, Nissan may face few if any additional tax costs. Thus, Mr May's spokesman has conformed that Britain has not offered a "compensation package" to Nissan.
In fact, it if the UK did pay compensation, it would be seen as a subsidy which could fall foul of WTO subsidy rules, especially as there is no provision made in the EU's schedule of commitments, on which the UK would initially rely. (https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/negs_bkgrnd08_export_e.htm)
Should such subsidies distort trade, the EU could invoke the rules and take countervailing measures, which could mean punitive levies on UK produce, in addition to the base ten percent. (https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm8_e.htm)
However, this is a fiendishly complex subject and it would a brave man who could predict the cost of trading under the "WTO option". But with yesterday's announcement, the possibility of the UK committing economic suicide is receding into oblivion.
The core issue here, though, is not tariffs. Outside the Single Market, the non-tariff barriers affecting exports to Europe would be such that Nissan (and any other vehicle manufacturer) would find it impossible to trade on the basis that it currently enjoys. And these barriers are far more significant and potentially more expense than any tariffs.
By convincing Nissan to invest in a post-Brexit UK, therefore, Mrs May has sent the clearest signal that she intends to keep us in the Single Market.
Dr. North http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86260
submitted by A_Chemistry_A to ukpolitics [link] [comments]

I Don't Need Your Belief, I Need Your Solidarity: A Story of Sexual Assault, Public Accusations and the Limits of #BelieveWomen

https://medium.com/@allisonckruk/i-dont-need-your-belief-i-need-your-solidarity-517b445bf1b

I Don’t Need Your Belief, I Need Your Solidarity

A Story About Sexual Assault, Public Accusations, and The Limits of #BelieveWomen

Ever since the #MeToo movement gained steam, multiple men (mostly cisgendered, heterosexual, and white) have taken it upon themselves to tell me that they “believe women.”
Bizarrely, it’s been happening a lot on first dates, which probably says something about my Tinder profile (though the jury’s still out on that one).
I’m never sure what these men want from me after such a declaration — a cookie? An “atta boy”? That ever-elusive feminist gold star?
It’s never been made clear.
Recently, I’ve taken to responding: “Yes, I know. You believe women. That and $7 will cover the cost of my tampons this month.”
I kid. The cost is closer to $7.44 since most of the country insists on taxing people for having a uterus.
Either way, none of these “women-believing” men have actually given me $7, leading me to assume that they are all staunch environmentalists and are sending me an eco-friendly tampon alternative in the mail…any day now…probably.
More to the point, the concept of “believe women” is as tone deaf as it is damaging.
It posits sexual violence in heteronormative, cisnormative terms, despite the fact that trans and nonbinary people are more likely to experience sexual assault than cisgender men and women.
Moreover, “believe women” reinforces the heterosexist assumption that men cannot experience sexual violence, further marginalizing the one in six menwho are victims of sexual assault and abuse.
Finally, there is the uncomfortable reality that “believe women” ignores: women can lie because people can lie and people are women and women are people.
There is a long history of white women fabricating rape at the hands of Black men in order to uphold white supremacy and its violent power-hoarding. Black communities carry the trauma of this past and present — the lynch mobs, the reign of extrajudicial terror, the mass incarcerations.
“Believe women” trivializes this history, uplifting a singular (white) understanding of how to stop sexual violence in the form of an easy-to-digest hashtag.
It’s not that false reports of sexual assault happen all the time or even the majority of the time. Experts agree the rate of false reports lies between 2% and 10%, and it is comparable to the rates of false reports for most other crimes.
As a society, we tend to make a “big deal” out of unfounded sexual assault allegations because it fits into sexist assumption that women’s experiences are not to be trusted.
But the answer to dismantling that assumption is not to put women on a pedestal, presenting them as inerrant goddesses of all things belief-worthy.
Personal experience would come to show me that that kind of “benevolent”dehumanization is just as sexist and just as harmful.

The Personal Is Political

Four months ago, my boyfriend at the time told me we needed to talk. I remember thinking he was going to tell me that he wanted to see other people and guarded myself for the inevitable breakup.
Instead, he told me that he had been banned from a comedy theater because of several “disturbing allegations” regarding his “behavior towards women.”
Immediately, I felt like the the air had been sucked out of the room.
“What does that even mean your ‘behavior towards women’? Who’s accusing you of this? What did you do?
I asked, but he didn’t have answers because the theater in question had not disclosed the particulars of the allegations to him.
This was the person who asked to kiss me before doing so on our first date. The person who worked to make enthusiastic, spoken consent part and parcel of our relationship.
My mind raced. Memories of past traumas began crawling out of the dark corners of my brain, bubbling to the surface like boiling water.
I felt defensive. I felt protective. I questioned my safety. I questioned my sanity.
Very few familiar with the situation would speak in details. Euphemisms for sexual assault abounded, and everyone seemed to be talking in redacted sentences: “one accuser.” “did not choose to move forward with an investigation.” “cannot disclose.”
In the weeks that followed, I did end up reading the accusations, chronicled on social media by an ex-partner of his.
I didn’t eat. I didn’t sleep. I lost five pounds over the course of five days. I could not make sense of the contradictory thoughts running through my head.
“He has never violated your boundaries.” “But she says he violated hers.”
“He says this wasn’t how this happened.” “But she says that it was.”
The echoes of “believe women” reverberated in my brain like an incantation.
I felt haunted.
So, unable to do anything else, I fell back on what I know: Act like a journalist. Lay out the facts. Double and triple source your evidence. Check the receipts.
Then came the text messages exchanged between the two of them evidently contradicting her account of what had transpired — the past written words seemingly at odds with her present recollection.
I was at a loss.
But that’s the problem with “belief”: it doesn’t leave room for nuance. For contradiction. For the complexity of memory during flashbulb moments. For the messiness of the human condition.
Instead, I was left with impossible binaries — to believe or not believe, total fact or total fiction.
One month later, a stranger allegedly raped me outside my apartment while that same boyfriend was out of town. The irony had not been lost on me.
I say “allegedly” because I was unconscious at the time, and I only know about the “sexual contact” because while in police custody, my (alleged) rapist admitted to having what he termed “consensual sex” with me. I do not remember this version of events, nor do I remember having “sex” with him at all.
I remember telling him to stop kissing me. I remember pushing him away. I remember waking up on the ground outside my apartment door — my bra off, my cell phone and my credit cards missing.
When I realized what had happened, I thought my only options were to go to the police or to forget the entire thing. I chose the former. He was arrested, and a court date was set.
I thought this would make me feel vindicated. It didn’t.
More than the pain and anger I felt over what had happened, I felt disdain for the dearth of choices afterwards: stay silent and excuse what occurred or choose the oppression of the criminal “justice” system (for him) over the oppression of sexual violence (for me).
It was all very dichotomous — no room for gray areas, let alone room for accountability and futurity.
At this point, the last thing I wanted was to be held up as some kind of icon of strength and believability.
When well-meaning people (mostly men) heard my story and (unprompted) said, “I believe you,” I thought I would feel relieved. That was how the “believe women” formula was supposed to work, right? Speak your truth. Be believed. Feel validated. Dismantle rape culture.
Instead, I couldn’t help but think about the axis of privilege underpinning their “belief.”
I was a white woman with a white boyfriend. I was monogamous. I was well-educated and had a job in a “respectable” profession. The accused was a man of color. He was a stranger, so the assault fit into the dominant societal understanding of what rape looks like (despite the fact that most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim).
I was not a sex worker. I was not using illegal substances. I was not living with the diagnosis of a psychotic disorder or a cognitive disability. No one told me I was too fat or too ugly to be considered “rape-able.”
In many ways, belief was bestowed on me not because what I said was true but because of how my story and my identity lined up with dominant notions of respectability and belief-worthiness.
I didn’t ask for that type of unquestioning endorsement and quite frankly, I didn’t need it.
Ronan Farrow, the journalist who first broke the Harvey Weinstein story, once said:
“The best way to do justice to any person coming forward with a difficult story is to interrogate it as thoroughly as possible and to lend credence where it’s due.”
To lend credence where it’s due. That’s what I wanted — the acknowledgement that I was a person, deserving of having my story taken seriously and capable of having my story (and the evidence) speak for itself.
I didn’t need belief. I needed solidarity.

Motion, Forward

After I testified in court about my alleged assault, the district attorney handling my case approached me to say that several “supporters of the defendant” were in the hallway and that I could wait in another room if they “made me feel uncomfortable.”
I chose to walk out into the hallway. Loud enough for me to hear, a woman said, “I’ll never understand why she would choose to ruin his life like that.” It was clear that I was the “she” to whom the woman was referring.
I recognized the anger, the sadness, the protectiveness, the feeling of being deceived. Those emotions had been mine when my loved one had been accused of sexual assault.
I froze.
Then, the rhetorical guillotine dropped, and I heard the following four words: “I don’t believe her.”
I thought this kind of invalidation would be devastating. That was the flip side of “believe women,” wasn’t it? Caring when someone didn’t believe women?
Instead, I felt utter apathy. I didn’t need this woman’s belief or anyone else’s for that matter. I had been believed and the patriarchy persisted just like any other day.
I got quiet.
And then, in a voice louder than my usual tone, I started talking about what I did need: accountability outside the incarceration system. Justice beyond bars.
For my alleged rapist to be integrated back into society. For him to be fully present with his infant son. For him to be able to teach that child about undoing the toxic masculinity that brought us here in the first place.
I didn’t need it for him per say, but rather, for my own humanity. For my own future. For my own healing.
Rape culture has never been about individual men or about believing and disbelieving. It’s been about the patriarchal insistence that cisgendered heterosexual able-bodied white men are deserving of full personhood while the rest of humanity is somehow “less than.”
“Believe women” reinforces this limiting dichotomy, uplifting “belief” for one (cis)gender identity at the expense of all others.
It upholds the two-sided logic of domination (belief/disbelief, men/women, victim/perpetrator) when the reality of sexual assault defies such superficial categorizations.
It fails to recognize that women (and men and nonbinary folks) are people — fraught with contradiction, defiant of facile binaries, and capable of experiencing the full spectrum of what it means to be human.
The “believe women” dogma hurts. The orthodoxy excludes. It trivializes. It shuns.
And yet, I understand its appeal. After decades of silencing, stifling un-belief, it seems like the ultimate form of retributive justice — for once, just believe us. For once, be on “our side.”
But sexual assault and rape culture do not lend themselves to “sides” that fall along a tidy — albeit socially constructed — gender binary.
It isn’t a matter of “believing” women (and disbelieving men) but rather, taking people and their experiences seriously. Working to dismantle the violent systems that enable violent outcomes. Making mistakes. Trying to move forward.
Undoing sexism is gritty, and it’s complicated by the fact that rape culture doesn’t disappear with a two-word hashtag.
The work is messy because the work is human.
Come experience it for yourself. You don’t have to believe me.
submitted by allisonkruk to Feminism [link] [comments]

I Don’t Need Your Belief, I Need Your Solidarity: A Story About Sexual Assault, Public Accusations, and The Limits of #BelieveWomen

I Don’t Need Your Belief, I Need Your Solidarity

A Story About Sexual Assault, Public Accusations, and The Limits of #BelieveWomen

Ever since the #MeToo movement gained steam, multiple men (mostly cisgendered, heterosexual, and white) have taken it upon themselves to tell me that they “believe women.”
Bizarrely, it’s been happening a lot on first dates, which probably says something about my Tinder profile (though the jury’s still out on that one).
I’m never sure what these men want from me after such a declaration — a cookie? An “atta boy”? That ever-elusive feminist gold star?
It’s never been made clear.
Recently, I’ve taken to responding: “Yes, I know. You believe women. That and $7 will cover the cost of my tampons this month.”
I kid. The cost is closer to $7.44 since most of the country insists on taxing people for having a uterus.
Either way, none of these “women-believing” men have actually given me $7, leading me to assume that they are all staunch environmentalists and are sending me an eco-friendly tampon alternative in the mail…any day now…probably.
More to the point, the concept of “believe women” is as tone deaf as it is damaging.
It posits sexual violence in heteronormative, cisnormative terms, despite the fact that trans and nonbinary people are more likely to experience sexual assault than cisgender men and women.
Moreover, “believe women” reinforces the heterosexist assumption that men cannot experience sexual violence, further marginalizing the one in six menwho are victims of sexual assault and abuse.
Finally, there is the uncomfortable reality that “believe women” ignores: women can lie because people can lie and people are women and women are people.
There is a long history of white women fabricating rape at the hands of Black men in order to uphold white supremacy and its violent power-hoarding. Black communities carry the trauma of this past and present — the lynch mobs, the reign of extrajudicial terror, the mass incarcerations.
“Believe women” trivializes this history, uplifting a singular (white) understanding of how to stop sexual violence in the form of an easy-to-digest hashtag.
It’s not that false reports of sexual assault happen all the time or even the majority of the time. Experts agree the rate of false reports lies between 2% and 10%, and it is comparable to the rates of false reports for most other crimes.
As a society, we tend to make a “big deal” out of unfounded sexual assault allegations because it fits into sexist assumption that women’s experiences are not to be trusted.
But the answer to dismantling that assumption is not to put women on a pedestal, presenting them as inerrant goddesses of all things belief-worthy.
Personal experience would come to show me that that kind of “benevolent”dehumanization is just as sexist and just as harmful.

The Personal Is Political

Four months ago, my boyfriend at the time told me we needed to talk. I remember thinking he was going to tell me that he wanted to see other people and guarded myself for the inevitable breakup.
Instead, he told me that he had been banned from a comedy theater because of several “disturbing allegations” regarding his “behavior towards women.”
Immediately, I felt like the the air had been sucked out of the room.
“What does that even mean your ‘behavior towards women’? Who’s accusing you of this? What did you do?
I asked, but he didn’t have answers because the theater in question had not disclosed the particulars of the allegations to him.
This was the person who asked to kiss me before doing so on our first date. The person who worked to make enthusiastic, spoken consent part and parcel of our relationship.
My mind raced. Memories of past traumas began crawling out of the dark corners of my brain, bubbling to the surface like boiling water.
I felt defensive. I felt protective. I questioned my safety. I questioned my sanity.
Very few familiar with the situation would speak in details. Euphemisms for sexual assault abounded, and everyone seemed to be talking in redacted sentences: “one accuser.” “did not choose to move forward with an investigation.” “cannot disclose.”
In the weeks that followed, I did end up reading the accusations, chronicled on social media by an ex-partner of his.
I didn’t eat. I didn’t sleep. I lost five pounds over the course of five days. I could not make sense of the contradictory thoughts running through my head.
“He has never violated your boundaries.” “But she says he violated hers.”
“He says this wasn’t how this happened.” “But she says that it was.”
The echoes of “believe women” reverberated in my brain like an incantation.
I felt haunted.
So, unable to do anything else, I fell back on what I know: Act like a journalist. Lay out the facts. Double and triple source your evidence. Check the receipts.
Then came the text messages exchanged between the two of them evidently contradicting her account of what had transpired — the past written words seemingly at odds with her present recollection.
I was at a loss.
But that’s the problem with “belief”: it doesn’t leave room for nuance. For contradiction. For the complexity of memory during flashbulb moments. For the messiness of the human condition.
Instead, I was left with impossible binaries — to believe or not believe, total fact or total fiction.
One month later, a stranger allegedly raped me outside my apartment while that same boyfriend was out of town. The irony had not been lost on me.
I say “allegedly” because I was unconscious at the time, and I only know about the “sexual contact” because while in police custody, my (alleged) rapist admitted to having what he termed “consensual sex” with me. I do not remember this version of events, nor do I remember having “sex” with him at all.
I remember telling him to stop kissing me. I remember pushing him away. I remember waking up on the ground outside my apartment door — my bra off, my cell phone and my credit cards missing.
When I realized what had happened, I thought my only options were to go to the police or to forget the entire thing. I chose the former. He was arrested, and a court date was set.
I thought this would make me feel vindicated. It didn’t.
More than the pain and anger I felt over what had happened, I felt disdain for the dearth of choices afterwards: stay silent and excuse what occurred or choose the oppression of the criminal “justice” system (for him) over the oppression of sexual violence (for me).
It was all very dichotomous — no room for gray areas, let alone room for accountability and futurity.
At this point, the last thing I wanted was to be held up as some kind of icon of strength and believability.
When well-meaning people (mostly men) heard my story and (unprompted) said, “I believe you,” I thought I would feel relieved. That was how the “believe women” formula was supposed to work, right? Speak your truth. Be believed. Feel validated. Dismantle rape culture.
Instead, I couldn’t help but think about the axis of privilege underpinning their “belief.”
I was a white woman with a white boyfriend. I was monogamous. I was well-educated and had a job in a “respectable” profession. The accused was a man of color. He was a stranger, so the assault fit into the dominant societal understanding of what rape looks like (despite the fact that most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim).
I was not a sex worker. I was not using illegal substances. I was not living with the diagnosis of a psychotic disorder or a cognitive disability. No one told me I was too fat or too ugly to be considered “rape-able.”
In many ways, belief was bestowed on me not because what I said was true but because of how my story and my identity lined up with dominant notions of respectability and belief-worthiness.
I didn’t ask for that type of unquestioning endorsement and quite frankly, I didn’t need it.
Ronan Farrow, the journalist who first broke the Harvey Weinstein story, once said:
“The best way to do justice to any person coming forward with a difficult story is to interrogate it as thoroughly as possible and to lend credence where it’s due.”
To lend credence where it’s due. That’s what I wanted — the acknowledgement that I was a person, deserving of having my story taken seriously and capable of having my story (and the evidence) speak for itself.
I didn’t need belief. I needed solidarity.

Motion, Forward

After I testified in court about my alleged assault, the district attorney handling my case approached me to say that several “supporters of the defendant” were in the hallway and that I could wait in another room if they “made me feel uncomfortable.”
I chose to walk out into the hallway. Loud enough for me to hear, a woman said, “I’ll never understand why she would choose to ruin his life like that.” It was clear that I was the “she” to whom the woman was referring.
I recognized the anger, the sadness, the protectiveness, the feeling of being deceived. Those emotions had been mine when my loved one had been accused of sexual assault.
I froze.
Then, the rhetorical guillotine dropped, and I heard the following four words: “I don’t believe her.”
I thought this kind of invalidation would be devastating. That was the flip side of “believe women,” wasn’t it? Caring when someone didn’t believe women?
Instead, I felt utter apathy. I didn’t need this woman’s belief or anyone else’s for that matter. I had been believed and the patriarchy persisted just like any other day.
I got quiet.
And then, in a voice louder than my usual tone, I started talking about what I did need: accountability outside the incarceration system. Justice beyond bars.
For my alleged rapist to be integrated back into society. For him to be fully present with his infant son. For him to be able to teach that child about undoing the toxic masculinity that brought us here in the first place.
I didn’t need it for him per say, but rather, for my own humanity. For my own future. For my own healing.
Rape culture has never been about individual men or about believing and disbelieving. It’s been about the patriarchal insistence that cisgendered heterosexual able-bodied white men are deserving of full personhood while the rest of humanity is somehow “less than.”
“Believe women” reinforces this limiting dichotomy, uplifting “belief” for one (cis)gender identity at the expense of all others.
It upholds the two-sided logic of domination (belief/disbelief, men/women, victim/perpetrator) when the reality of sexual assault defies such superficial categorizations.
It fails to recognize that women (and men and nonbinary folks) are people — fraught with contradiction, defiant of facile binaries, and capable of experiencing the full spectrum of what it means to be human.
The “believe women” dogma hurts. The orthodoxy excludes. It trivializes. It shuns.
And yet, I understand its appeal. After decades of silencing, stifling un-belief, it seems like the ultimate form of retributive justice — for once, just believe us. For once, be on “our side.”
But sexual assault and rape culture do not lend themselves to “sides” that fall along a tidy — albeit socially constructed — gender binary.
It isn’t a matter of “believing” women (and disbelieving men) but rather, taking people and their experiences seriously. Working to dismantle the violent systems that enable violent outcomes. Making mistakes. Trying to move forward.
Undoing sexism is gritty, and it’s complicated by the fact that rape culture doesn’t disappear with a two-word hashtag.
The work is messy because the work is human.
Come experience it for yourself. You don’t have to believe me.
submitted by allisonkruk to story [link] [comments]

[Op-Ed for Model Stonewall] Stonewall Reviews: Holyrood Manifestos

CLASSICAL LIBERALS MANIFESTO:
Now, I must admit, the thing that irked me the most about this manifesto isn’t based on its equalities policies… It’s the fact that it had a table of content telling me that the equalities section was on Page 20, but none of the pages in the book were numbered. Terrible oversight for those of us who like to own physical copies of manifestos.
Policies:
The first policy is pretty standard, pretty much exactly what I expected from the Classical Liberals. A guarantee to continue supporting rights for same-sex couples, which is nice, but there is little here regarding problems faced by the LGBT+ community.
The second policy is something that I am far more amicable to. With 9 in 10 British LGBT+ students claiming to have experienced bullying in their learning environment, bullying in schools is an issue that should be tackled urgently. Although, this being said… Similar to the above point, a statement of support is lovely, but what are you actually going to do about it?
Stonewall rating: 3/10
CONSERVATIVE MANIFESTO:
Now, this is what I like to see in an equalities section. A big fat rainbow flag. While myself and my colleagues at Stonewall have been disappointed by the lack of LGBT+ legislation coming from this Conservative government currently sitting in the Commons, I remain optimistic that this will bring forth something encouraging.
Policies:
Here we see some clearly well-developed policy points, but I’m afraid I must start with a critique of the second and third policy points.
Sex education has already been reformed to make it LGBT+ inclusive, and this bill was introduced in our very own House of Commons in 2014, with it extending to the entirety of the United Kingdom. Sex education in the UK has been fully inclusive of LGBT+ issues after this bill reached Royal Assent in February 2015. Furthermore, it is a compulsory curriculum for all schools.
This is a bad oversight, and while I understand that not every member has been around the house since 2014, it’s still a shame. So really, the Conservative party only has four policy points for LGBT+ rights.
However, I do like the rest of what I’ve seen, for example taking LGBT+ hate crimes more seriously in the justice system. I especially like the policy point to record LGBT+ discrimination incidents in schools, and I think that this is probably one of the best policy points I’ve seen out of all of the manifestos I’ve read. The grammar mistake in the last policy point is a bit irksome, but not the end of the world. Overall, it’s fine, and a step in the right direction.
Stonewall rating: 6/10, would have been a 7 if not for the error.
SNP MANIFESTO:
Holding the SNP manifesto in my hand, the most noticeable issue is how thin it is. Without even opening the document, this doesn’t really fill me with the greatest confidence that this will be filled to the brim with policies for the LGBT+ community. I hope that they can prove me wrong.
Policies:
Spoiler alert: I was not proved wrong.
In all honesty, I expected far more from the Scottish National Party. While I have no doubts that this left-leaning party will support legislation that comes through with the intention of bettering circumstances for the LGBT+ community, this is just embarrassing. This was the only policy point that I found that I could relate to the LGBT+ community. Despite this, I did appreciate their call to take mental health issues more seriously in their health section. Mental illnesses are a big problem in the LGBT+ community, and hopefully taking this problem more seriously will benefit all of society.
Stonewall rating: 1/10
Thankfully, after reading the SNP manifesto, I was greeted with the manifesto of the Liberal Democrats, and I must say that it gave me far more confidence.
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS MANIFESTO:
It’s a very pleasing manifesto to look at nice. Nice fonts, bold and colourful pictures… Stonewall has worked with the Liberal Democrats on LGBT+ policies in the past, so I’m hopeful here.
Policies:
I think that their first policy point is an excellent one, as I wholeheartedly believe that individuals should always have a choice in choosing when to disclose their gender identity whenever possible. Making gender registration obsolete/optional on government forms where this information isn’t necessary is an excellent idea, and I highly commend the Liberal Democrats for coming up with this.
The second policy point is assuring, albeit a little broad, but we do sincerely appreciate the shoutout. (<3). Here at Stonewall we are always open to brainstorming legislation or motions with whoever comes through the door of our offices, and we are looking forward to cooperating with whichever parties happen to come to power in Holyrood.
Unfortunately, this is still a thin set of policies. One or two more policy points on LGBT+ issues would’ve been spectacular, but I have no doubt that the Liberal Democrats will bring forward high-quality legislation to Holyrood, so I’m not terribly worried about them.
Stonewall rating: 5/10
LABOUR MANIFESTO:
I’ve heard a lot of shouting from the Labour party about LGBT+ rights, so I really hope that they come out with some good things here! Mentioning LGBT+ rights in the foreword is encouraging, apart from the fact that the page was titled ‘forward’. I’ve said this before, but I think I’m going to have to deduct a mark just for that terrible oversight. This is meant to be a professional document, Labour. Step your proofreading game up.
At the end of the justice section, a summary of policies wasn’t provided like the other sections, which, again, was a bit frustrating. Apart from nitpicky details, here are the actual policies.
Policies:
This is a highly comprehensive set of policies. Apart from grammar issues on the first page and the lack of a summary of policies at the end of the section, I think that these policy points are well thought-out, developed, and a realistic set of policies that can be passed through Holyrood. Working with young LGBT+ people is especially important, as I would say that they are some of the most vulnerable members of the LGBT+ community.
Furthermore, I think that the call for NHS Scotland to develop a comprehensive working plan for treating transgender patients is very good. Hospitals can be an intimidating place for anyone, but especially so if you are a transgender individual. I think that this is an excellent policy, and all other parties should be taking note of innovative ideas such as this.
Overall, I am very content with Labour’s policy points. Whoever wrote these deserves a well-deserved break… But not for too long, because I want to see legislation being written to introduce these policies ASAP.
Stonewall rating: 9/10
SUP MANIFESTO:
Opening the contents page of the manifesto, the first thing that I noticed was the fact that there was no clearly labelled section for equalities, but this isn’t the end of the world. Although it took more time to find points relating to the LGBT+ community, I expected this.
Policies:
The SUP desires to see a “Strong Scotland” within the UK, but here, all I am seeing is active discrimination and policies that will be extremely damaging to the LGBT+ community. When I saw the first policy point, for a moment, I felt a glimmer of positivity. Therapy programmes relating to gender dysphoria are overwhelmed due to a lack of available therapists to support the demand, so Stonewall fully supports increasing funding.
The biggest problem I have is the removal of gender reassignment surgery from the NHS. The SUP claim that people pursue gender reassignment surgery wrongly, but this is a sweeping generalisation. NHS guidelines ensure that patients through months of therapy as well as “Social Gender Role Transition” before surgery is even brought into the equation. Multiple members of a medical care team have to greenlight the surgical procedure, meaning that while there are occasions where people come to regret their transitions, the NHS goes to maximum lengths in order to reduce the possibility of this. Removing gender reassignment as a free service is not an adequate way of fixing the problem of people regretting surgeries, and instead, will leave thousands of transgender people unable to afford surgery suffering mentally as well as socially for being unable to ‘pass’ by societal standards.
The proposal to remove sex education lessons in primary schools and make them opt-out for secondary schools is just embarrassing. It’s a step backwards for Scotland, and any attempt to introduce any legislation like this will be met with laughters from other MSPs, I’m sure.
Furthermore, possibly the magnum opus of bad legislation, “protecting” traditional marriages and making all same-sex “marriages” void. I suspect this would involve legalising marriage once more, but we’re here to talk about homophobia. In these turbulent times, I’m not quite sure why the SUP has decided to make an enemy of the LGBT+ community as if they are causing some sort of horrific harm to British society. These policies are outdated, and as if that weren’t bad enough, the backwards ‘gay tax’ would make the UK a laughing stock.
I felt myself physically cringe as I read these policies. I hope the Scottish electorate tries to rise above this nonsense, and choose to vote for parties which will guarantee human rights for all.
Stonewall rating: 0/10
GREEN PARTY MANIFESTO:
(meta: I helped to write sections of this manifesto, however, the Equality section was one of the sections that I didn't write.) The Stonewall group has had a very positive relationship with the Green Party in the past, so when we received a copy of the Green Party manifesto for Holyrood, we were expecting big things.
Policies:
Now, while all of these policies are perfectly amicable and progressive; It’s a thin set of policies for equality, an area that the Green Party usually takes pride in. There isn’t really any sort of coherent policy to support the LGBT+ community apart from the final point, but even then it’s very vague. The Green Party has always been known for being supporters of the LGBT+ community, with many LGBT+ members within their ranks, so it’s surprising to not see many policy points here.
It’s a fine set of policies, but so much more could (and should have) been done.
Stonewall rating: 6/10.
submitted by eli116 to MHOCPress [link] [comments]

Binary Options Strategy 2020  100% WIN GUARANTEED ... BINARY OPTIONS UK - YouTube THE TRUTH ABOUT BINARY OPTIONS - YouTube Free Signals $ alpari uk binary options - YouTube 99% PROFIT - FREE BOT - DOUBLE ZIGZAG - binary options ... Free Signals $ best binary options trading platform uk ... Tax Free Forex Trading This is how to trade Binary Options Full Time! - YouTube Free Signals $ binary options canada tax - YouTube

Being clued up on tax is part of this, which is why we’ve made direct enquiries with HMRC to bring you this guide to binary options and UK tax, which can then be used to help you make your own assessment of your trading activity. Links to relevant official guidelines are also included. Regulation of binary options in the UK, has moved from the UK Gambling Commission, to the Financial Conduct ... Binary options tax free uk Since its feature-rich, and verify that particular budget allocation when tails of the ranking online. However new traders to do your strategy because you can also believe that many of cryptocurrency accounts. Instead of course will rise by which the market turns, a huge profits when the best charts. Buy and test trades multiple different trading system that this ... UK Tax on Binary options explained with HMRC. Written by: Jonathan Clarkson. Both in the case of trading Binary Options, as well as regarding any other lucrative activity, taxes have to be met. However, the tax on binary options will often depend on the state you are living in and the legislation that covers it. The main problem with the income generated in the trading business is that it is ... Spread Betting and Binary Options Spread Betting. The UK has a long tradition of betting, and winnings are tax-free. The US does not have the same regulations, which is why spread betting is not found in America. Financial spread betting came about in England in the 1970s when a sports bookmaker started taking bets on the direction of market indices. You can place a bet on the FTSE index for ... Binary options trading might be quite commonplace at the moment but it is still considered somewhat of a new arrival. Furthermore, the actual conditions surrounding this form of trading muddies this murky water a little more. Binary Options UK Tax While binary options trading is relatively simple to understand and manage, this is not necessarily […] Binary Options Tax Forms in USA. There are two income tax forms USA traders have to fill if you have more than $10,000 in your balance. Form 8938 should be filed if the total you earn meets the threshold of $50,000 on the last day to file the income tax or the total reach $75,000 at anytime within the tax year. You should fill the FinCEN Form 114 if your total earnings reach $10,000 at anytime ... What could be at great risk binary options tax free uk of losing capital to a minimum. The probability And Gaining Practice using an automated system must be knowledge is the very first decision no matter which option you should understanding of how the market with The Best Memberships. These chart and “ATM” devices. Also you can considered when you believe the prediction for the financial ... For UK investors, trading with binary options is a tax free form of investment with very quick results – minutes rather than months or years. The word binary is used because there are just two possible outcomes – either the trade is successful, and the investor gains a significant return (usually between 75% to 95%) – or the trade is unsuccessful, and the full investment amount is lost ... Binary options earnings in the UK is grouped under different classes of income. Traders based in India must register for their own companies if they want to report binary options trading as a permanent income source. Traders in Canada can get lesser tax on binary options trading if they become incorporated companies. If you are uncertain ... Binary options are one of the fastest growing financial products in the world, but in most cases they’re quite simply a fraud. UK investors have reported losses of more than £50m to binary options scammers, according to the police, including £18m in the first half of 2017 alone.

[index] [4995] [1227] [18512] [19248] [15260] [8395] [4703] [11602] [25871] [18060]

Binary Options Strategy 2020 100% WIN GUARANTEED ...

The road to success through trading IQ option Best Bot Reviews Iq Option 2020 ,We make videos using this softwhere bot which aims to make it easier for you t... Full info about Tax Free Forex Trading: http://forex-millionaire-strategy.blogspot.com/2012/11/tax-free-forex-trading.html Hello everyone!:) My name is Anastasia, but it's too hard to pronounce, that's why you may call me just ANA. I'm a pro trader for more than 2 years already a... Are binary options a good idea? If you're thinking about trading binary options, watch this video first. Check out our FREE training for traders https://bi... This is how I have traded Binary for the past 3 years. Thank you for watching my videos, hit the subscribe button for more content. Check out our members res... Hello everyone!:) My name is Anastasia, but it's too hard to pronounce, that's why you may call me just ANA. I'm a pro trader for more than 2 years already a... DOWNLOAD FREE http://bit.ly/2CSd0C0orCONECT WITH ME TO GET IT https://goo.gl/7tRX2nBINARY BOT FREE DOWNLOADbinary robot downloadbinary robot freebinary robot ... How I Make $500 daily http://goo.gl/E5FAmf how are binary options taxed in uk I live in UK and I see that there are taxes when trading CGT to be Please not t... i will show the best trading strategy Hello everyone!:) My name is Anastasia, but it's too hard to pronounce, that's why you may call me just ANA. I'm a pro trader for more than 2 years already a...

http://binary-optiontrade.navihu.tk