V=ery good article.

outlines one of the reasons I love VO so much

All too true. <sigh> All the hottie blood elves DO turn out to be balding, middle-aged, married Ohio businessmen.

"hottie blood elves" roflmao

they look like anorexic crack addicts.

"Oh darn, all the balding, middle-aged ones are taken!"

An interesting article.

I suspect , more so as I age, that there is hard wired mechanism in the human mind that craves tribal affinities. We are constantly told that it is wrong to descriminate by race , ethnicity , religion , nationality , gender , age , sexuality , body type , political affiliation, ad nauseum . Since we are no longer permitted to descriminate in real life ( often by force of legislation ) we increasingly choose to do so by means of the artificial construct of taking a role in a "game" . No matter how hard we try to be fair some basic instinct forces us to behave tribally .

I observe that as what might be traditionally be regarded as tribal boundaries are dissolved as we as a species create new ones . Those who work in the service of government vs those who do not would be an example of the new tribalism . 27 years of living in Glasgow and regular visits to Belfast have taught me that the new tribalism is infinitely preferable to the old.

We are all aware of the tribal construct of VO , indeed without it the game would be pointless. I regard that as a relatively harmless outlet for humanities innate aggression : far better to kill in a game than to injure in reality . It does however suggest the human tendancy to form subgroups , the overall distinction being between the group that plays VO and the group that doesn't .......

It is surprising what triggers a train of thought ; Whistler feel free to boot my ramblings elsewhere . Oh , and the rest of you feel free to take potshots , I am after all of the tribe that mines, er from Nyrius, and erm likes a wee smoke and a wee dram ......

with apologies

Ecka

Discrimination, per se, is a bit different than bigotry, altho the two words are used interchangeably, they really do not mean the same thing.

We discriminate all the time. If we didn't, we wouldn't know the difference between 1 choice or the other.

I, for example, despise lazy bums who live on the government dole for no other reason than "because I can".

I also despise the kind of trash who would sue a widow because her deceased husband tragically, accidentally, flew his small plane into their apartment.

Remember the crash a little while after the destruction of the US World Trade Center, where a small plane crashed into an apartment building? The family that lived there (which none of which were home) is suing the widow of the pilot of that plane for 7 million US dollars.

I despise those kinds of people.

Does that make me a bad person? maybe, maybe not.

You choose restaurants based on your preferences. You are discriminately making a choice. This restaurant is better than that one.

Is that wrong? Not at all.

The problem is, when discrimination becomes bigotry.

Bigotry can come in *all* kinds of forms. From the KKK nut jobs, to the Black Panther nut jobs.. Both of these groups are prime examples of racial bigotry. "Whites are better than blacks because of x.y.z" or "Blacks are better than whites because of x.y.z"

Or, "He talks funny, he must be stupid"
or, "You're from where? Arkansas? You sleep with your sister?"

That is also bigotry. Denigrating someone because of something they cannot change.

Conservatives are constantly called "racists" and "hate-mongerers" by their liberal counterparts simply because they disagree about politics, and think the government should simply butt out of their lives, and that people should succeed, OR FAIL, on their own merits, and not need to have some outside agency come in to "save" them from themselves.

What does self-reliance, self-governance, and self-determination have to do with racism or hate?

This is another example of bigotry.. Denigrating someone, saying things that are untrue, putting them down, simply because you don't like the things they believe in.

I will say it. I am a (mostly)* white, southern conservative. I believe all people, no matter their circumstance, are capable of success in life. The choices they, themselves make, should be directly responsible for their own success or failure.

Get educated, apply yourself, give 110% to everything you do. You *WILL* succeed. Don't fall into the trap of expecting the government to fix your problems..

Grow a pair.. and fix them yourself.. if you have the courage and commitment to do so.

*I have some Native American in me as well, Alabama Creek tribe, but have no tribal affiliations as my family decided long ago to become AMERICANS, not slash-americans

"Remember the crash a little while after the destruction of the US World Trade Center, where a small plane crashed into an apartment building? The family that lived there (which none of which were home) is suing the widow of the pilot of that plane for 7 million US dollars."

I remember that and ive got mixed feelings on that issue, If the repairs to the building cost that much then the pilot's estate (if the pilot was at fault) should pay for them. but my guess is the repairs and replacement of lost property was less than half that wich makes it excessive.

"I suspect , more so as I age, that there is hard wired mechanism in the human mind that craves tribal affinities."

What's even more impressive is how incredibly broad the nature of tribalisms extends. Even into nature, discrimination has it's part. Any social animal, which is to say, any animal which interacts with those of it's own kind displays tribal behavior. Even those that don't seem to. Viruses, for example, tend to cluster with one another. The wart on my foot has spread to several distinct areas, forming different "tribes". And viruses can be considered to be not even their own creature. Which doesn't suprise me; rain tends to cluster into different "tribes" of water, such as the many lakes across the world. Some of those lakes are pretty big, and some are smaller than my foot, and last not even a day. Stardust apparently discriminates itself from one another by coalescing into planets and stars. And our understanding of discrimination, or bigotry, or just whatever you want to call the principle understanding that some things are differnet from others in certain ways, allows us to stare down at particles, and realize that even the fundemental building blocks of all matter discriminate from one another by some inexplicable force(s). The very system of nature is one where things which are similar organize themselves into patterns. That one thing is different from another is hardwired into reality, and it would be difficult to have any type of reality without doing so. Discrimination is not something we have a choice about. But making judgements on those differences is, and that's where alot of people can get touchy.

Judgements are a fine thing for people to make. However, it's considered rude to make a judgement based upon the assumption that all people think or work in accordance to that judgement. Judgement is what gives people unique personality. It's the human part of the equation in life, it's what makes people so good, or so bad. It's a concept tied well to beauty and art. It has it's place in the idea of perspective. To make a universal truth, from an obviously not universal point of view (such as your opinion, or making judgements without consideration of the whole of the topic) especially when not backed by any examples or evidence of your claim, is an excellent way to tick people off. For example, take a look at some of the things Cunjo is prone to saying. Anywho, judgements are essentially the naming of certain things as good, and the opposite of that thing as bad. Which is nifty. Personal preference is an excellent way to make choices in life. It is possible to live without personal preferance, but it makes doing things extremely hard, since doing anything is technically neither as good nor as bad as not doing that thing. Usually when you can't make a decision about something, you'll be stuck asking yourself why one choice is better than the next. There's a balance, however. A key to living in peace, and with courtesy, is to make no judgements about other people, and only judgements about yourself. Of course, then the concepts of self, and ownership get involved, which necessitate an act of judgement.

There are many ways to conceive of oneself. I prefer the purely physical method, the one that says you are you, because your body is obviously here. Now, we can tell that the core of a person starts somewhere around their head, because influencing that general area produces similar effects on the body. Electrical impulses that begin somewhere in the brain are the cause of physical change in the body. People are adept at using this method to make great changes in the world. With something as simple as a thought, and the push of a button, a person can set in motion the activiation of a nuclear warhead, and put a hefty dent in the actual, physical world. So where does line between the intellectual world, and the physical world begin and end? You could say that your body includes your hand, because you can move your hand at will, but another person can move portions the earth with their finger, and therefor can move the earth by will, and yet another person can lose a hand and still funtion. When you begin to examine the mechanisms of yourself, you begin to realize there's a grey area between where you end, and the rest of the world begins. Some people treat their property as an extension of their self; mistreat their land, and they'll take it personally. Some people treat their ideals as an extension, lovers tend to treat eachother as extensions of themselves.

So in order to have the motivation to do *anything* in this world, you first need to make the discrimination that you are one thing, and the world (along with other people who inhabit that world) is another. You then must make a judgement on where you end, and where the world begins. Knowing your place in the world, you can make a judgement on what is good, or what is bad, and then finally, act how you see fit in reaching those goals. The alternative is to decide that all things are equally good and bad in the end, and to remove your presence from your body. This can yield some interesting effects, as your body *can* act without a presence of self, but only acts as a mechanism of nature, functioning as it's been physically hardwired to do without a sense of personality to guide it. Apparently, this is the "right" thing to do, because discriminating others is "not" right. If you can conceive of this state of mind, consider how pleasant life would be for everyone. It wouldn't be bad. Wouldn't be great either. I imagine it'd be a sort of paradise, except people wouldn't be able to appreciate it. Ironic, isn't it?

break19 gives us another good example of bigotry, telling the liberals to "grow a pair", "fix stuff themselves", "Don't fall into the trap of expecting the government to fix your problems" and "stop picking on the conservatives", effectively calling them cowardly, unwilling, lazy, vindictive and spiteful. A most excellent example of "denigrating someone, saying things that are untrue, putting them down, simply because you don't like the things they believe in". It is also another example of a group attacking another, which is the norm.

From watching animals, scientists are very well aware of the tribal nature of human beings, and that tribes will invetiably enter into conflict; we all separate our group from other groups over the littlest things (chimps, for example, separate over who lives in what copse of trees, while we separate from something as trivial as which sports team you like or which OS you prefer; chimps and people both have killed others of their species over such matters). For animals the reasons are resources: a pride of lions will not allow any other pride within its territory because then the other pride might steal their kills and they'll go hungry. Of course, reproduction is another big factor for grouping up and attacking anyone outside the group: the more males there are around, the less chance for any of them to pass on their genes, so by no means should you allow that stranger to join the group! In higher primates, like chimps (again; these guys being 98% close to humans, DNA-wise, are an excellent example in many areas), a group of males finding a female from another group will either rape her or kill her, in effect attacking the other group's reproductive resources. Examples like these are endless, and they are all reflected on humans.

For all of our beliefs that we're a higher order than animals, we still cling to that need to determine borders, who's OK, who's not, who's with us, who's against us. Some of it is still about resources: our land, our water, our oceans; even when there's no danger of the resources being outplayed (except as always through gross abuse), we'll try to deny them to those outside our group. In order to do this, to differentiate between Us and Them, we will go to any lengths: when obvious things like skin color and gender fail we'll go for where they live (city, country, continent, and in a few centuries, no doubt, planet or colony), what language they speak, their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), how wealthy they are, how tall, their political views, which shows they watch, what games they play (and how they play them), which brands they prefer, how smart they are, their sexual preferences, the way they dress, the food they eat, etc. etc. etc. You name it, we can exclude people by it, and as humanity has advanced, so have new groups come into being and thus new ways to discriminate and segregate against.

Of course this part of human behavior has moved to the Internet, and has been seen since the very beginning, people polarizing themselves on both sides of a Usenet discussion, for example. Little wonder that it is now thriving in MMORPGs, particularly those that have PvP, where you can actually act out against Them simply because they are Them. This behavior won't away from the games any time soon.

Liddy, the owner of the building has (or should have) insurance, which pays for the repairs. If they didn't, then it's not the dead man's fault? Nor is it his widow, or his children who are now fatherless.

Jex, My statement says nothing about liberals.. It says something about people who expect to be treated as children, and have someone *else* do something for them, instead of being adults and taking matters into their own hands.

Look at the MS Gulf Coast, and compare it to N.O. The MS coast received a much more direct hit than New Orleans ever thought about. There were towns simply wiped off the map. Yet you rarely hear stories about citizens of MS complaining that "the government aint doing enough" Why? Simple.. The people there are extremely self-reliant, and quite capable of doing it themselves. They don't need the federal government coming in to "save them" (in reality, whenever ANY large beauracry becomes involved with anything, things get screwed up)

The problem many people fall in to is "We gotta save these people, get the government to do it" Why? Why does it have to be the government? The government has no business with charity work. That is the business of organizations like Red Cross and others.

Does this mean I'm a greedy capitalist pig? Not at all. Charity is a personal thing. It is a choice every individual should make. Some will help, others, unfortunately, will not.. But when the government does it, it takes out the personal nature of helping your neighbor, and places it squarely in the realm of beauracratic nightmares..

Time and time again, it has been proven that no government can do anything as effectively and efficiently as a private organization dedicated to that cause.

You can disagree with the above statement if you wish, but facts are facts.

/me does the badger dance in honor of break19

Let me say first that I completely agree with break19...

I'm all for healthy stereotyping. It's been ingrained into our tiny little human minds by aeons of evolution, to make snap judgements based on past personal experience ans shared "tribal" experience. You survive based on your snap judgements, and while it may be detrimental to an advanced politically-hypersensitive society, it's great for raw survival.

For example: It's silly to pretend that most islamist terrorists aren't 18-35, male and middle eastern. It's silly to believe that Barrack Obama being black doesn't change anyone's perception of him. Or to pretend that getting hit on by Carmen Electra is just as satisfying as getting hit on by Roseanne Barr.

It took centuries (if not aeons) to establish stereotypes, it's gonna take even longer to change them. Too bad, really.

Oh, and if anyone knows any real hottie blood elves, give them my email address...

You seem to be mixing facts and opinion. Fact is you hear a lot more about New Orleans than the MS Gulf Coast, yes, but I wonder how notable is the entire MS Gulf Coast in contrast to New Orleans, to say nothing of any one town or city in that area (I can't think of a single one); by default, people are going to be drawn more to news about a world-famous, distinctive city that has been the home and birthplace of many notable people,than an area such as the "MS Gulf Coast". Blame the media for this, but the fact is, whether good or bad, most coverage was going to be centered on New Orleans. So I don't see how lack of coverage on the MS Gulf Coast means they're more self-reliant; it certainly doesn't preclude it, but it doesn't prove it, either.

As for government organizations, well, first off, if I pay taxes to support one, I expect it to deliver. Second, and still going with the Katrina example, FEMA performed very well during the Oklahoma bombing, 9/11, and 2004's Florida hurricane season; in other words, so far it had a very good record for handling disasters in spite of being a government organization. That Bush effectively gutted it when he moved it into the DHS was something almost no one knew and those few who did weren't heard. So it's not like FEMA was ineffective by default simply because it's a government agency; it was MADE ineffective by sweeping changes that put terrorism ahead of natural disasters in the priority list. Not a fault of "government" as much as a fault of THIS government. Of course, that is not to say that the government of New Orleans was totally faultless; everyone from the major up f***d up in specatular ways that contributed to the tragedy. So, yes, a little initiative on their part would have helped a lot, but from there to say they did nothing, it's completely wrong and not corroborated by the facts; the facts clearly indicate they simply didn't do enough, and the catastrophe worsened as a result.

Lastly, even the charities failed at Katrina, the most famous incident being about the Red Cross keeping plenty of the donated money "for later emergencies" when all of it was clearly needed at that time. If they were as effective as you seem to claim, further messes like the one at the Astrodome wouldn't have happened.

The situation surrounding Katrina was a unique, disastrous mix of myopic government, political rivalries, a war draining away resources, and timing, with post 9-11 USA as the backdrop. It simply cannot be used to say "time and time again, it has been proven that no government can do anything as effectively and efficiently as a private organization dedicated to that cause" until it happens time and time again. Let's hope it doesn't.

So the facts don't bear out your conclusions; you are most certainly expressing opinion, and you seem very willing to make the facts fit.

Look at the MS Gulf Coast, and compare it to N.O. The MS coast received a much more direct hit than New Orleans ever thought about. There were towns simply wiped off the map. Yet you rarely hear stories about citizens of MS complaining that "the government aint doing enough" Why? Simple.. The people there are extremely self-reliant, and quite capable of doing it themselves. They don't need the federal government coming in to "save them" (in reality, whenever ANY large beauracry becomes involved with anything, things get screwed up).

I'd prefer to say that New Orleans was doomed from the very beginning, due the choice to build it below sea level. Why don't we sue the city's planners instead? Surely they're at fault for all the damage caused to New Orleans. I mean, what sort of intelligent person builds homes and buildings below sea level without properly protecting them from the water?

Call me an ass if you want, but part of me really thinks that New Orleans (the city, not the people) was just waiting for something like this to happen. It's like building a giant sandcastle in the sandbox when there's a really nasty bully around. If it gets knocked down and destroyed... did you really expect any different? You'd be justified to expect differently, but is it worth betting money and lives that that sandcastle won't be destroyed? It's the same thing here. The people who planned New Orleans built it below sea level, and over the years, nowhere near enough was done to prevent the "bully"--ie, tropical storms--from wrecking the sandcastle.

Miharu, large portions of the city currently below sea level were actually above sea level when they were built. So basically the city was sinking (it was doomed from the beginning). Ironically enough the area around it was sinking largely due to the levies protecting the city (figures). Originally back in the 1800's the city didn't need the levies, they were built as a precaution but it hosed the delta causing city and surrounding areas that might have naturally protected the city to slowly sink.

That being said, the guy who founded NO was a stubborn moron who basically said 'I don't care if it's below sea level this is where I want to build. As for the surrounding areas, I agree with Jex, the people of the surrounding towns were much more self reliant and generally less lazy. They got their shit in order real quick and started rebuilding. Also they didn't pull a lost city of Atlantis which helps a lot too.

And people living in Florida are just asking to have their home wrecked by a hurricane, eh? That reasoning doesn't make much sense. It's a calculated risk that they took, one which they knew about and one that (some) had the power to change but others didn't. Many of the people in the Astrodome in new orleans were too poor to afford to leave. And walking won't get you out of a hurricane's path.

As well, the city of New Orleans was built many a century ago by the French, who and how they built it is beyond the question, since we can't very well revive the French of the time and make them stand trial. What we can do is affect the here and now. The here and now is that FEMA blew it. I don't know enough about what Bush did to the agency, but I'm confident enough that they got their legs cut off.

At any rate, remember, government doesn't NEED to help you. The government doesn't NEED to have welfare, FEMA, social security. That is, according to the Constitution. But many of us WANT the government to help us and the disadvantaged. Hell, I'm a college student from a poor family. If government hadn't given me free money and subsidized loans, my part time janitor job might've been a full time career.

Our government exists to serve it's citizens, and if our government stopped serving us, we'd replace it with one that does. That's the beauty of the USA.

The flood plains of the midwest have been decimated many times by flood, many arguing that people ought to just stop rebuilding on the flood plain, because inevitably it will flood again and destroy everything. Still, people do. That said, did New Orleans court disaster? Probably, although not because of any of the reasons above. A city built on a vulnerable coast was bound to take damage from the environment eventually. If it didn't happen during katrina, it would have happened later. None of that negates the obvious economic value of a large port city at the bottom of the busiest, largest river in the United States.

How this thread got to this point, I really have no idea...