Quote from: Spinachcat;1122877I truly have never understood the bias against quiche. I suspect its the weird name. It's a meat + cheese + eggs omelet in a savory tart shell. What's not to like?

But I've always been a proponent that Real Men Cook. Why? Because Fire and Blades! What's more manly than commanding fire and steel to do our bidding? :cool:

A lot of people don't like eggs in anything where they can still taste the egg itself.  But I think what put quiche over the top was that it had a wave of popularity in certain home cooking circles in the late '70s, when meat was so expensive and people were trying all kinds of substitutes.  The recipes were truly vile--even to someone like me that loves eggs.  Think "casserole with bitter, off taste mixed with egg texture."  

I've had quiche since that I don't mind or even enjoy, but the bad memories stay with me, almost like a flashback.  Plus, I'd rather have an omelet.  And like a lot of people, I'm the only one in my immediate family that enjoys such things.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1122886For me it's just a totally physical repugnance to the texture. I've always loathed eggs in just about any form. But I fully concede that's entirely personal and irrational.

Yeah, for me it's mainly the texture. Same reason I hate essentially any form of casserole.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1122902A lot of people don't like eggs in anything where they can still taste the egg itself.  But I think what put quiche over the top was that it had a wave of popularity in certain home cooking circles in the late '70s, when meat was so expensive and people were trying all kinds of substitutes.  The recipes were truly vile--even to someone like me that loves eggs.  Think "casserole with bitter, off taste mixed with egg texture."  

I've had quiche since that I don't mind or even enjoy, but the bad memories stay with me, almost like a flashback.  Plus, I'd rather have an omelet.  And like a lot of people, I'm the only one in my immediate family that enjoys such things.

I love eggs (preferably over-easy), and I like omelets well enough; oddly I think the fact that some quiche doesn't really taste like eggs puts me off it. The flashback thing you mention is pretty true IME; I have an aversion to specific combinations of cheeses and meats both texture and flavor-wise, due to my stepfather's love of "throw some macaroni+cheese and beef or whatever in a bowl, mix, heat, serve, repeat every day he has to cook dinner" habit. In fact pretty much any food that is a mush of multiple things is a no-go. If it feels like I'm eating something someone has pre-chewed and spit up for me I'm unlikely to enjoy it. Soups and chili are good though.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122908Yeah, for me it's mainly the texture. Same reason I hate essentially any form of casserole.

I love eggs (preferably over-easy), and I like omelets well enough; oddly I think the fact that some quiche doesn't really taste like eggs puts me off it. The flashback thing you mention is pretty true IME; I have an aversion to specific combinations of cheeses and meats both texture and flavor-wise, due to my stepfather's love of "throw some macaroni+cheese and beef or whatever in a bowl, mix, heat, serve, repeat every day he has to cook dinner" habit. In fact pretty much any food that is a mush of multiple things is a no-go. If it feels like I'm eating something someone has pre-chewed and spit up for me I'm unlikely to enjoy it. Soups and chili are good though.

Greetings!

"Pre chewed and spit up for me"--Oh my god. *Rolling*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

:cool: psst! Hey buster, Hamburger is "pre-chewed" steak! :eek: You monster! :mad:

Sometimes I forget how spoiled I am for having an old school Italian mother! Mea culpa. You could send my mother into a dollar store with 5 bucks and she'd cook a three course meal for four people equal to most good restaurants. We ate so well as kids that I had zero idea how amazingly mom was stretching pennies until I went to college and had to cook for myself.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1122886For me it's just a totally physical repugnance to the texture. I've always loathed eggs in just about any form. But I fully concede that's entirely personal and irrational.

I dont like certain sorts of egg prep. Im more a scrambled egg or omlete sort usually. But some of the quiche I've had has been pretty good and if there was egg or bread in it I never noticed. Was more like a spinach cheese cream dish saw most oft labeled as quiche. Which is not what most people are referring to as real quiche. Which apparently I make now and then without knowing it, sans the bread part.

Back on topic. Such as it is.

A few weeks ago we had some nuts over on BGG solemnly declare that "having in an RPG Dwarves liking beer... is racist".
I guess if you dont like quiche then to these sociopaths thats racist too.

Quote from: Omega;1123049A few weeks ago we had some nuts over on BGG solemnly declare that "having in an RPG Dwarves liking beer... is racist".

I'm gonna regret asking this, but...WHY???

The Fate books were largely non-political until The Fate Horror Toolkit showed up. And honestly? It puts me off. I don't buy gamebooks to be lectured to by authors who think they are more clever than anyone else.

The more I see of the Fate Accessibility Toolkit, the less I want to own it.

I've branched the discussion about how much we are what we pretend to be over here, as that rabbit hole is deep enough on its own.

So I found this quote from the work in question over on the GURPS forum...

Quote from: Fate Accessibility ToolkitAnd I realized I couldn't play myself and be as epic and badass as my peers. I wanted to explore what it meant to be disabled in fantastical settings without getting rid of the wheelchairs, or the hearing aids, or the sign language as a part of my play. I wanted to have tools at my disposal for characters like me. But the option just wasn't there.

...and while I get where they're coming from, as the post points out, I'm really not sure how GURPS doesn't provide that option.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122809OK that is pretty true.

Yet the author is wrong there too, as rules for muscle-powered wheelchairs are given on p B142, while High-Tech provides two electric wheelchairs on p226.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122809Good to know that disabilities just mean characterization I guess, rather than the reality that they are truly obstacles to the people afflicted with them.

At the very least they're suggesting those who do view their condition as an obstacle, or don't want it to be part of their identity, are somehow wrong.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122809my brother is gay, is that the first thing he tells people about himself? Or even the last? No. He's just gay.

***

I had an ex who was afflicted with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and even with its severe degenerative properties she would never introduce herself that way.

That's the problem with identity politics: It treats these two traits (one a sexuality, the other a debilitating illness) as equivalent. And this work does anything but challenge that assumption.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122809It's not uplifting, it's pandering and babying, it's talking down to people who have the unfortunate reality of being fucked up. If you have any sort of crippling disability you will know why it's so insulting.

And it's astounding to see people like Fred (a white able bodied cis man) telling those who do have these crippling disabilities that they're somehow wrong about how they feel; that if only they read the work the right way they'd understand.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122809has anyone ever told you how fucking difficult it is to reply to you because of your multi-quotes?

Can't be more difficult than composing the damn things

To wrap up, after digging deeper I actually consider this work potentially harmful, as the people who consider their disability to be part of their identity will never seek to overcome it, and through shame and policy make doing so more difficult for everyone, which is a recipe for offense and resentment if ever I saw one.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1123109IAt the very least they're suggesting those who do view their condition as an obstacle, or don't want it to be part of their identity, are somehow wrong.

That's the problem with identity politics: It treats these two traits (one a sexuality, the other a debilitating illness) as equivalent. And this work does anything but challenge that assumption.

In GURPS and all the GMing advice discussions about it on the forums, they do make the point that if it's never a disadvantage in play, it shouldn't be a Disadvantage in the game sense. For example, if your entire campaign is the lives of sentient mice, you don't get point for being weak, illiterate, etc - all the other mice are, too. But being the biggest mouse might cost you points, and being the smallest mouse might be worth points.

Likewise, if your entire campaign is people doing purely intellectual things - like, say, the internal politics of a university - then being wheelchair-bound isn't a Disadvantage. Of course, in reality it would still be an issue for the person every time they went to the toilet, and when they left the confines of the faculty, etc - but RPGs don't deal with that sort of things.

Roleplaying game systems deal with what happens on adventures, whatever the "adventure" is in that game setting. If it's not part of the adventure then it's just colour.

Now, what is and is not a disadvantage or advantage in this adventure we call life - well, that's another matter. In the gym I once worked with a guy with an incomplete spinal cord injury. It's funny how it works, for example this guy could contract his delts and biceps - but not triceps. So he could raise his arm and bring his hand closer to his body, but he couldn't straighten out his elbow. So he could feed himself with a spoon since it's essentially a pulling motion, but couldn't cut a steak since that's a pressing motion. Most importantly, he couldn't transfer himself from his chair, and wanted to be able to. If he could get in and out of his chair then he could sleep and go to the toilet on his own. This would take him from needing 24hr a day of care to needing 4 or at most 8hr of care.

He viewed his current ability to do things as disadvantageous, and felt that a greater ability to do things would be advantageous. I suspect the issue for many people in talking about this is the dis/advantage and dis/able talk, the either/or. But this is just the way people are. Consider rating attributes of character, we could have two scales, the first one is simply 1-5. Your character has an attribute of 2, this probably doesn't worry you. Now we change the scale to -2 to +2, your character's attribute changes to -1. Now you're probably a bit more worried about it. The in-game result is exactly the same, but having a -1 on a scale of -2 to +2 just feels different to having a 2 on a scale of 1 to 5.

Now we take these labels and put them on reality, and people really get upset.

Guys, please stay within the topic of RPGs only.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1123112In GURPS and all the GMing advice discussions about it on the forums, they do make the point that if it's never a disadvantage in play, it shouldn't be a Disadvantage in the game sense. For example, if your entire campaign is the lives of sentient mice, you don't get point for being weak, illiterate, etc - all the other mice are, too. But being the biggest mouse might cost you points, and being the smallest mouse might be worth points.

Likewise, if your entire campaign is people doing purely intellectual things - like, say, the internal politics of a university - then being wheelchair-bound isn't a Disadvantage. Of course, in reality it would still be an issue for the person every time they went to the toilet, and when they left the confines of the faculty, etc - but RPGs don't deal with that sort of things.

Context is everything. Problem is the people behind this work seem to only consider a single one in which to interpret things as valid, which is why they think white men have 'privilege' in every aspect of life among other things.

And ironically #Fate is designed with exactly this sort of context determinant play in mind. Fictional positioning as it were. You're supposed to take Aspects which are both detrimental and beneficial depending on the situation. So it should be as simple as putting 'blind' or 'wheelchair bound' on your sheet. Everything else is a matter of making sure the GM understands how to represent things the right way.

But what exactly is that? Because representing things respectfully, realistically, and in a way that's actually fun can be radically different, and they're all determined by individual interpretation. This work is attempting to present the only 'correct' interpretation however, which is another reason people find it so distasteful.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1123050I'm gonna regret asking this, but...WHY???

I have no clue. I just put them on ignore and walked away from the thread as I could see allready others were agreeing with this statement and I wanted no part of the loony bin about to happen.

Quote from: Omega;1123049A few weeks ago we had some nuts over on BGG solemnly declare that "having in an RPG Dwarves liking beer... is racist".

That makes perfect sense, if you accept the idea that racism = prejudice + power. After all, we interact with fiction via shared tropes, or prejudices; and can you imagine something with less power than an imaginary being? By that logic, fiction itself becomes a system of oppression, and the only way to fight the Literarchy is to stop reading and writing.

Quote from: Pat;1123234By that logic, fiction itself becomes a system of oppression, and the only way to fight the Literarchy is to stop reading and writing.

That's basically the plot of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. He wrote it in 1953 out of his fear of book burnings and people trading literature for vapid mass media. Apparently, we learned nothing!