Recent content by ModusTollens

It doesn't work for me either right now. Most or all of the files have been transfered to Nexusmods some time ago. Don't know if it's the one you're looking for but there is an Indo-Persian Armor Pack there.

Eddarg said:

Das sind sehr gute Informationen die ich so noch nicht kannte. Ich bedanke mich für die Infos und werde dann mal heute Abend einige Schlachten führen und endlich mal wieder bei Tunieren mit machen. Diese habe ich in den letzten Erweiterungen immer vernachlässigt da es nichts gutes zu gewinnen gab. Danke.

Click to expand...

Bei Turnieren dürfte der Banner als Preis eher selten sein. Seit der letzten Version zahlen sich Turnierne allerdings monetär besonders am Spielbeginn wieder aus, insbesondere wenn ein Pferd der Preis ist - bringt schon mal 12 bis 16k.

Ich glaube nicht, dass man sie schmieden kann - weiß ich aber nicht mit Bestimmtheit. Bisher habe ich die meisten in Schlachten gewonnen, einen habe ich für einen Turniersieg erhalten.

Damit die Banner auch eine Funktion haben, müssen sie einerseits im neuen Inventarslot ausgerüstet werden, andererseits muss auch jene Person, die den Banner ausgerüstet hat, in einer Schlacht eine Formation anführen.

Hamster66 said:

Ich hatte es vorhin doch schon andersrum versucht, siehe mein erster Post

Click to expand...

Im angegebenen Pfad zwischen Warband und Modules steht ein Slash, kein Backslash. Keine Ahnung, ob das das nämliche Problem ist, syntaktisch falsch scheint es zu sein.

Hamster66 said:

export_dir = "D:\SteamLibrary\Steam\steamapps\common\Mount&Blade Warband/Modules\Prophesy of Pendor V3.9.5 - Kopie\"

Click to expand...

Ist noch immer ein \ verkehrt herum.

/ ist nicht gleich \

Eärendil Ardamírë said:

Wie kommst du auf Italien?

Click to expand...

Thread-Titel.

Was hat Italien damit zu tun?

eddiemccandless said:

Does it? This is the first result I hit looking that up from google.

Transgender Ideology Is Riddled With Contradictions. Here Are the Big Ones.

People say that we live in a postmodern age that has rejected metaphysics. That’s not quite true.

www.heritage.org

And anyone who has talked to me more than once in the offtopic section knows that this is not from my search history

(and to be fair, that is probably a good result, this sure looks like a good compendium of transphobic theories. I don't think it's what Monty had in mind tho)

Click to expand...

For me that's the 3rd link.
First: https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0102-71822020000100230&script=sci_arttext
Second: https://lgbt.libdems.org.uk/en/page/debunking-transphobic-talking-points-longer-version

Not that it matters - skimming over the first two sites of results seem to give sufficient viable links to further investigate the subject, if someone's actually interested in it. I just mentioned it since the 'discussion' seems to have completely ignored the possibility of actually googling some keywords even remotely associated with the subject, instead of doing whatever the last pages are about (Edit: and it seems to still go on that way).

eddiemccandless said:

What am I googling exactly?

Click to expand...

MadVader said:

"Index of Transphobic Claims (debunked)"

Click to expand...

Seems to actually work pretty well as a starting point.

BenKenobi said:

To have an identity (or group identity) built with it. Describe yourself in as few words as you can in a way that other people can tell it's you and what you're like. You know what else besides your skin color or political affiliation is bound to be there? Your name. Would you find a name scientifically tenable or non-arbitrary (whaterver that means) as a part of an idenity? Probably no. But mispronounce someone's name and you'll see how touchy people get.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about but I'm pretty sure that you're mixing completely different concepts, identity, group identity and personality. I would call the former, at least in the way you describe it here, personality - and would definitely disagree that the colour of one's skin is part of it. I also have no idea why, for example, political affiliation should be part of an identity, something that can change (at least in theory) rapidly and frequently. Does changing your political affiliation also change your identity? Is someone who, for example, voted for the KSČM and then voted for SPD or ANO not identical with himself anymore (or does he just change his identity, and where's the difference)? Is it sufficient to, another stupid example, go to a tanning salon to change one's identity? What's the purpose of identity other than to identify someone?

Just standing there, maybe pointing at myself, is completely sufficient to identify myself to others. No words needed. Even when I'm gone, the people could still identify me as 'the person who just stood there'. If I told them some name, it doesn't have to be my own, they could just use that in order to unambigiously identify me. Seriously I have no idea what your point is and even less what that has to do with a movie cast.

As can be seen you also lost me completely with the name example. That we seem to meet differently tempered kind of people is the only thing I gather from it.

BenKenobi said:

You are still ignoring the noticeableness, claiming it to be arbitrariness. Al Capone's biopic can be shot with a Mercedes-Benz 500K and it can be shot with a Dodge Charger. Both are wrong, one is wronger.

Click to expand...

I vehemently disagree with the notion that something can be "wronger" than something else.

I don't think that I'm ignoring the noticeableness, I tried to dismiss it to some degree with the example of a blind person. What I would claim though is that the things you notice 'more' are actually the result of you to judge them as more important (on whatever that judgement may be based on). And that that assessment is ultimately arbitrary (or that I see no valid reason why the skin colour should be deemed more important than anything else, or important at all for that matter). Again: I'm talking in the context of movie casts (as in: movies whose primary function is, I think, to entertain (even so-called historical ones), not inform, especially in comparison to documentaries, and, to a lesser degree, biopics).

Adorno said:

So if I object to a black actor playing Anne Boleyn in a historical film I should also object to everything else that's ahistorical?

Click to expand...

No. Just watch a documentation or read a book instead.

kurczak said:

Wow, if you close your eyes to a mostly visual medium, your perception changes significantly. That's some deep **** .

Click to expand...

And yet you use it to justify your conviction that the skin colour is significant in whether someone can play a Scotsman in the 11th century. And not, for example, his accent, pronounciation, intonation, general posture, suitable costume or something else. That's some shallow ****.

kurczak said:

Race is not the same as skin color.

Click to expand...

What's in your opinion the difference when it's being used in Angloamerican countries nowadays? I'm genuinely interested if I'm missing something obvious that isn't racist.

kurczak said:

It is acceptable for blackness to be seen as a defining trait and casting against is "whitewashing". But if a non-white actor is cast as a white character, then woah, woah, what do you mean race, we're all colorblind, what are you some sort of nazi?

Click to expand...

Do you seriously don't see or just aren't willing to acknowledge the imbalance between more than a hundred years of whitewashing, which has repeately happened, the actual debate about the skin colour of casted actors and actresses, which is happening, and your hypothetical example?

But to pick up your Martin Freeman example: In a counterfactual world where the colour of the skin was never relevant for the cast of a role, there wouldn't be any outcry. In the actual world it is considered relevant therefore the (hypothetical) outcry would be justified and necessary in that case. When set in relation to the other case it can only be seen as either unproportional dishonest or (when combined with playing the Nazi card) plainly idiotic.

That whitewashing in movies isn't necessarily founded in anything else but financial considerations is clear. That a white cast did and may raise the revenue (and that artificially creating controversy by casting a black cast for presumed white roles may be based on the same motivation) because of the comparitevly increased popularity of many white actors and actresses likewise. That this can be and is considered to be an aspect of systemic racism in the movie industry too. Most or all of that has already be mentioned by Jacob (in far less words).

To reiterate my actual point, which didn't seem to come across clearly: to claim that a movie, be it a historical one or one based on a historical setting, is ahistorical (or "hilarious") because of the skin colour of the cast, while ignoring everything else that differentiates it from its presumed or actual historicity, is either an aspect of complete arbitrariness, ignorance or simple racism.

To resort to some identity-establishing aspects of communities is, in my opinion, a completely different discussion. Even if I acknowledged that the colour of the skin is one identity-establishing aspect of imagined communities (which I do because it is), I don't see any reason whatsoever to use such an aspect of societal reality to justify or condemn the cast choices in movies. Especially not when I'm convinced that the basis of such an identity-establishing aspect is not only arbitrary, but untenable, fundamentally false and damaging.

BenKenobi said:

Suprising revelation indeed.

Click to expand...

What's surprising is that it seems necessary to reiterate such obvious things in the context of casting people of the supposedly "wrong" skin colour for movie parts. You know, what the whole thing was about before it descended into the spheres of identity-establishing theories.

BenKenobi said:

Skin color is an important part of one's (external) identity because it is so very noticeable*.

Click to expand...

Except when you're blind.

BenKenobi said:

Moreso, group identity (national one included) is constituted not only by what the members of the group share, but also by what distinguishes that group from the other ones. And since national identity is, to a degree, construed primarily along the traits (perceived as) most noticeable and most shared (and does not - especially when seen from without - interact much with internal identites of individual members of that nation; and very often not even with internal identity of that nation as a whole), skin color plays a fundamental role in a globalized society, as long as it remains a widely shared trait of that nation (looking at you, medieval Scotland).

Click to expand...

To choose basically randomly selected properties of a human being to establish and define some imagined communities with them can be seen as obvious and easy since it is. How it's more convenient than something else, as well as how it isn't fundamentally arbitrary doesn't disclose itself to me. Just because it obviously is the case doesn't make it right or acceptable and doesn't mean that it shouldn't be actively tried to be changed.

BenKenobi said:

Skin color is part of a (group) identity not because of some arbitrariness or some foul plot, but because it is obvious, easy and convenient.

Click to expand...

Obvious, easy and convenient for what? To ostracize - nothing else.

BenKenobi said:

Pretty much the same can be said for the language spoken.

Click to expand...

It most definitely can't. Languages at least change, especially the spoken ones (looking at you, medieval Scotland).

kurczak said:

There is an identity built around ethnicity and while you can plausibly have a Dane acting out an Englishman, you can't have a Black person act out an Englishman or a Scot.

Click to expand...

That's only the case if you prioritise skin colour over every other arbitrary factor. Close your eyes or just don't look at the screen and whoosh - you can't distinguish whoever's acting out the Scot or Englishman. Why you think that you can while seeing the actor/actress through human eyes is a matter of unfounded preconception. I'd definitely prefer Idris Elba or Takeshi Kitano over Keanue Reeves as Richard II. Then again I'd also prefer Kevin James over Keanue Reeves as Richard II.

Why one should refer back to some concept of ethnicity when thinking (about the cast of a movie) seems strange.

kurczak said:

There is no collective identity built around hair or eye color, pinky length or posture.

Click to expand...

That's not true, also: Who cares? That the skin colour (and not the length of the pinky) constitutes something like a "race" is still completely arbitrary and scientifically untenable. I'm not sure why anyone should base anything on such a misconception of identity foundation. It's of course your prerogative to do so, but that doesn't make it a sound or valid base for any argument.

kurczak said:

That ethnicity and race are not random incidentals is also obvious from the fact that the same "so what, he's Black" would lose their **** if Shaka Zulu was played by Martin Freeman.

Click to expand...

It's progress that Martin Freeman as Shaka Zulu is pretty unthinkable but a different point.

Captured Joe said:

If people really wanted a Shakespeare adaptation with a black guy why don't they just pick Othello...

Click to expand...

In 1965's movie version of 'Othello' Othello was played by Laurence Olivier btw. Whitewashing in films started with the movie industry itself and is still a thing nowadays.