Rainbow atmospheric decoration for dojos?

[Inichor]

Any chance of getting a rainbow as an atmospheric decoration for dojos? Seems a glaring lighting omission (heh) just for making pretty waterfalls and stuff, if nothing else.

That's really it.

Cheers.

[Loza03]

I usually feel stuff like this is better implemented, well, practically with characters such as Ticker who are actually LGBT. But... rainbow lights. That's pretty bloody cool regardless.

[Inichor]

[null]

[KochDerFrettchen]

I can't say I'm a huge fan of the rainbow motif, even if some sort of 'pride' item would be neat. Though, like you say, some kinda color-shifting or prismatic lighting fixture for the orbiter would probably be really cool.

Off the wall: A prism that lets you display one of the posters with a new filter, that makes it look like one of those scratch-paper sheets with a black/desaturated 'background' and colorful 'outlines', if you know what I mean ^^

[LuckyCharm]

I dunno.. A rainbow ephemera would be pretty awesome to leave a lil rainbow trail like they do in LoL

[5H4DE]

Putting aside you reason for wanting it, I do think a rainbow atmospheric would be nice, I also want rain (maybe as a whole room-size thing, weather category anyone? Snow? Ash fall?), I have rooms that would go great with actual rain.

[bejuizb]

It'd be nice but there's a lot of people who think providing people with rep for pride or ackonwledging systemic issues is not welcome in their video games. 

Funny, because I wonder what they think about Fortuna, the Solaris, and all the politics in Warframe. But no, gay agenda and all that rubbish. 

 

[MagPrime]

Let the players pick their colors, I would love to have a blue/purple/pink waterfall.

[CuChulainnWD]

Humbly, I would suggest that Veterans also get some recognition in game. It is through their sacrifice, either through putting themselves in harms way or losing their life, that anyone else has the freedom to push their interests. Keep in mind those same Veterans were of all colours, and all sexualities.

I suggest that this November 11th, we have some sort of Tenno Remembrance day, complete with a Red Lotus bloom. Plus a dojo memorial or a memorial located on one of the Relays. Lots of unused rooms and sections on those relays after all. It would be a nice way to add some Lore to the Orokin/Tenno history.

[(PSN)GEN-Son_17]

While I think it's a good idea, I'd caution DE to tread lightly when it comes to adding any specifics to the game. The issue comes when someone eventually yells out "what about this awareness month or that awareness day". It can become a VERY charged situation for them and people are demonic enough to attack DE's attempt at good will. Perhaps creating generic designs would allow those who support gay pride in creating the desired look?

[DrivaMain]

Adding LGBT stuff will invoke political discussions wether we want it or not. Remember, not every country in the world accept the LGBT movement. The BLM movement? It’s more neutral to everyone so DE can take their stance on this one.

[(PSN)IndianChiefJeff]

Just do it, who even cares anymore? It's not worth the dozens of pointless arguments & name-calling that ensues on both sides.

[Althaline]

See, you could've just asked for a rainbow/shimmer decoration option, and none of this would have happened. But noooo, we had to go into the whole "Pride Month" thing again. We get it, some people are gay, why do we need an entire month devoted to telling people about it? It's almost as bad as vegans at this point.

On topic, rainbows are cool. I'm not opposed.

[(NSW)Matt-S]

Don't see why not. Rainbows are cool.

[Inichor]

[null]

[KochDerFrettchen]

On 2020-06-14 at 5:55 AM, Iamabearlulz said:

See, you could've just asked for a rainbow/shimmer decoration option, and none of this would have happened. But noooo, we had to go into the whole "Pride Month" thing again. We get it, some people are gay, why do we need an entire month devoted to telling people about it? It's almost as bad as vegans at this point.

On topic, rainbows are cool. I'm not opposed.

Because overall... people don't get it. In the number of minority groups I am a member of, inherent or via hobby/interest, every hostile person I have encountered on the topics have just straight up never honestly interacted with a person of that group. They may have in some childish vocal sparring match, or claim to have when in reality they just watched some 'cringe compilation' or was told some stories by friends/family of theirs,  but no real understanding of the group they criticize so harshly.

Do you get tired of it, not into the pride rallies? Me too, sometimes, but that celebratory showy part of 'pride' holidays isn't the real point. They exist as a reminder to be ourselves, even in the face of people that would normally overreact or misunderstand in a way that may lead to an uncomfortable conversation. Hence the way I originally responded to this post above. I would view adding some rainbow cosmetic as a part of that celebratory aspect of 'pride' holidays.

It's awesome that you get it, and I'm sorry it comes off as grating for you. I understand completely, it can be irritating being a non-member of a group that has these sorts of awareness events and having people around you act as though some revolutionary piece of information is being shared with you when you feel you understand already. But, well, people mention it because that's the whole point. 🙂

(This door was already opened with the Leukemia ribbon. Sure, those ribbons don't directly compare to a 'pride' celebration, but it was certainly a nod to real-world events in the game.)

[Inichor]

On 2020-06-14 at 2:55 AM, Iamabearlulz said:

We get it, some people are gay, why do we need an entire month devoted to telling people about it?

First, all I ever said was 'Happy Pride Month.' This should not be controversial. It was an officially-declared event in the US until 2017.

Why is it needed? And I do honestly mean these questions literally; calmly; not facetiously. I ask you to give them honest thought. Have you considered that your viewpoint may be limited? That you are not seeing the oppression and hostility or, say... what happened in this thread which used to be twice as long, just from those three words? Just from mentioning a national observance? Have you  considered your own assumptions about my meaning, or what you think Pride is about? For it's not just, 'Hey, we're queer!' It's, 'Hey, despite what countless people still think, it's okay that we're queer; we're humans who deserve equal rights, do not need to feel the shame that is still foisted upon us simply for existing, and these issues do in fact still exist.' For you do realize that queer people do not have equal rights in most of the world? That same-sex relationships are considered legally inferior? Heck, it only just became illegal to fire people for being queer in the US. So until we have equality, that is what Pride is for.

(P.S. Note to mods: if that comment was allowed to remain, responding to its dismissive question civilly must logically be allowed. If you disagree, the community guidelines say to contact the moderator if you have a problem with how you were moderated. I was unable to do so as my other posts were phantom-edited, so please, I ask, make it clear who I am to contact if this is similarly edited.)

[Althaline]

6 hours ago, Inichor said:

Have you considered that your viewpoint may be limited? That you are not seeing the oppression and hostility or, say... what happened in this thread which used to be twice as long, just from those three words?

I must say, I've never actually seen the oppression and hostility, only open arms and pandering by most governments and organisations. If it exists, I suppose my view must just be missing it. I'm sorry that you felt my comment was aggressive, I'm just tired of having this stuff shoved at me and I guess I took it out on you.

 

6 hours ago, Inichor said:

For you do realize that queer people do not have equal rights in most of the world?

I'm pretty sure they do have equal rights in every country that celebrates Pride Month (though don't quote me on that one). Do we need a "Women's Month" to oppose all the countries that don't have equal rights for women? What about a "Christian Month" in response to faith-based persecutions in certain areas of the world (and I don't really think Christmas counts here, that seems to be mostly about Santa) or even an "Atheist Month" for the same reason? I'm just pointing out the double-standard here. Equality is a worthy cause, but glorifying non-standard sexualities for a month each year isn't really the most useful thing.

Wow, really went at it there. Apologies. I'm still on board for multi-colour/prismatic lighting though.

[Inichor]

7 hours ago, Iamabearlulz said:

I must say, I've never actually seen the oppression and hostility, only open arms and pandering by most governments and organisations.

A key word here is 'most.' If you are willing to dismiss ones which are oppressive or hostile as somehow not counting, well, that makes it much easier to ignore. And even then you must be one year old, as the last US states and counties only gave in and started issuing marriage licenses last year. Much of the EU still does not recognize same-sex marriage. And if you think the current political majority of the US panders to queer people... this discussion would need to include a lot more than it already will.

And then there's conversion therapy. Torturing children for pretty much any reason other than their sexual orientation or gender identity is illegal. It is not illegal everywhere in the case of those traits. It is still done. Even in countries which celebrate(d) Pride Month officially.

Lastly, this carries the equation of 'equal legal rights' (which don't exist everywhere anyway) with 'equality.' Legality was only one aspect of my argument. The other was social. Many of the issues facing queer people are illegal to perpetrate upon us, but they happen anyway. Many are not illegal but social, yet still worth addressing. Increased risk of suicide. Bullying. Familial ostracism. Thus, homelessness. Violence. Sexual violence. Equality is more than legality. It is being treated as equal by your fellow human beings.

These facts and statistics can be easily looked up if you care to educate yourself. The anecdotal evidence I am willing to provide myself, in private, if you wish to give that empathy a go and want some help. I truly mean that. I don't believe you're hateful. I believe you're ignorant about some things. That's fine. Everyone is. Everyone's view is limited. Working to remedy that is never-ending.

7 hours ago, Iamabearlulz said:

If it exists, I suppose my view must just be missing it. I'm sorry that you felt my comment was aggressive, I'm just tired of having this stuff shoved at me and I guess I took it out on you.

It does. You are not in the position to see it. Good of you to sort of admit, however that is a non-apology. 'I'm sorry you felt' places the fault upon me. And 'I'm frustrated because of x, so I'll take it out on queer people' is a bit too common. When the x is also queer people... that's even more not a defense. I don't think you did this on purpose, so that's another to think about.

(Edit: Though, by the way, I didn't feel your comment was aggressive. I did think it was dismissive, which is at least not nearly so bad at all. When speaking of aggression and hostility, I meant others. Still. Not an apology.)

7 hours ago, Iamabearlulz said:

I'm pretty sure they do have equal rights in every country that celebrates Pride Month (though don't quote me on that one).

Quoted! More seriously: if you are saying something publicly, why would you bother saying it if you know it might be untrue? Which it is, as mentioned above. It's easy enough to check. But it's also a false dichotomy. It implies that Pride is only worth having in countries...  which probably wouldn't allow it anyway. And then back to non-legal forms of oppression and such. 'You're not oppressed; it's illegal to oppress you!" has a rather large flaw in it.

7 hours ago, Iamabearlulz said:

I'm just pointing out the double-standard here.

No. You're not. These are not all equivalent, and even if they were, for it to be a double-standard, I'd have to oppose them. Also... we have International Women's Day. But I will not engage in further derailing the topic of discussion, in at least one instance with a false equivalence.

7 hours ago, Iamabearlulz said:

Equality is a worthy cause, but glorifying non-standard sexualities for a month each year isn't really the most useful thing.

Need something be 'the most useful' to still be worth doing? Is your annoyance more important than the equality you claim to recognize is a worthy cause? Emphasized because I really, really mean that question. Please answer it, if only to yourself. Think on it.

Anyway, I take issue with the term 'non-standard.' It is just about the textbook definition of heteronormative. A word I understand carries connotations to many of PC run amuck, but is rather unavoidable when you use such language.

You are placing me as your inferior by it. A deviant. A freak. And necessarily dismissing or demonizing the existence of trans and intersex people, besides.

Further, it presupposes that the majority; the norm; is somehow inherently more worthy. If the ridiculousness of this needs to be pointed out, and avoiding... current events (though they're clearly acceptable to post about as DE did it themselves, but still), we shouldn't scorn people who prefer sausage to bacon just because the former is more popular. Garth Brooks isn't objectively good just because he's popular. The majority view isn't always the correct one. There isn't always a correct one. And if the assumption of a 'default' weren't being made here, it wouldn't be being brought up.

And, 'non-standard' according to whom? Because throughout history, the conception of sexual orientation has changed dramatically. You'd be an outlier in ancient Rome, for example. So by implying the current norm is more valid you're also necessarily saying that it's valid to say whatever comes next is more valid.

'Glorifying' is also an interesting choice of word. Glory implies being higher; being better. We're just trying to get to equal.

I think I understand the place you're coming from, but I'd like to stick to the one issue, as it's the one that was left open by mods not removing your comment. If I go any further, it would no longer necessarily be illogical to remove mine but leave yours untouched once more. So I will say that I've been in a similar place. A social and political majority, who did not see any direct benefits from that position, so reacted from defensiveness and jealousy due to my limited worldview. This is perhaps why I'm not angry at you.

[Althaline]

13 hours ago, Inichor said:

Quoted! More seriously: if you are saying something publicly, why would you bother saying it if you know it might be untrue?

Alright, I'll deal with this one first: I know anything I say might be untrue, but some things are more likely to be untrue than others. I don't have the best memory, nor do I have a comprehensive list of all things by my right hand at all times. I will say what I believe to be true, and it may happen that I am wrong. In those cases, where I can be objectively proven wrong, I am more than willing to be corrected (and I certainly have been before).

Honestly, it's comments like this that make me paranoid about doing anything ever...

 

13 hours ago, Inichor said:

A key word here is 'most.' If you are willing to dismiss ones which are oppressive or hostile as somehow not counting, well, that makes it much easier to ignore.

The countries that persecute people based on sexual orientation are generally the countries that will persecute people for any number of reasons, up to and including not liking somebody's face. Such countries are a human rights issue and it's hard to make those with absolute power give that power away. I suppose I subconsciously don't count certain countries' governments when dealing with rights issues, because they don't have any legally required rights to begin with (and the US isn't much better, now that I think about it).

 

13 hours ago, Inichor said:

It does. You are not in the position to see it. Good of you to sort of admit, however that is a non-apology. 'I'm sorry you felt' places the fault upon me.

It is indeed a non-apology (or at least, not a true apology) because I was using the phrasing as a sort of peacemaking device. I truly believed that you had misinterpreted my comment and was attempting to correct your perceived error without being condescending or offensive.

 

13 hours ago, Inichor said:

And 'I'm frustrated because of x, so I'll take it out on queer people' is a bit too common. When the x is also queer people... that's even more not a defense. I don't think you did this on purpose, so that's another to think about.

This... this seems a bit of a stretch. Since when did I attack 'queer people' as a whole, and not just the excessive advertisement of Pride Month? I'm not frustrated at queer people, I'm frustrated at society at large, for a number of reasons that happen to include Pride Month. Finally, that last sentence bears the stench of "Accidental Racism", which is one of the phrases I truly dislike.

 

13 hours ago, Inichor said:

No. You're not. These are not all equivalent, and even if they were, for it to be a double-standard, I'd have to oppose them. Also... we have International Women's Day. But I will not engage in further derailing the topic of discussion, in at least one instance with a false equivalence.

I think it says a lot about their relative perceived importances by society that I'm tired of hearing about Pride Month but didn't even remember Women's Day (and that the one for less than 5% of the population gets an entire month but the one for 50% gets 1 day). I must question why you think oppression due to sexuality is more important to deal with than oppression for any other reason. However, I'm willing to drop this point if you are.

 

13 hours ago, Inichor said:

Need something be 'the most useful' to still be worth doing? Is your annoyance more important than the equality you claim to recognize is a worthy cause?

It does not need to be 'the most useful', but it does need to cause more good than harm. As you can see from the very discussion we are having, the extreme overcelebration of Pride Month has frustrated certain groups. The chances that I am alone in this viewpoint are slim.

 

13 hours ago, Inichor said:

Anyway, I take issue with the term 'non-standard.' It is just about the textbook definition of heteronormative. A word I understand carries connotations to many of PC run amuck, but is rather unavoidable when you use such language.

You are placing me as your inferior by it. A deviant. A freak. And necessarily dismissing or demonizing the existence of trans and intersex people, besides.

Further, it presupposes that the majority; the norm; is somehow inherently more worthy. If the ridiculousness of this needs to be pointed out, and avoiding... current events (though they're clearly acceptable to post about as DE did it themselves, but still), we shouldn't scorn people who prefer sausage to bacon just because the former is more popular. Garth Brooks isn't objectively good just because he's popular. The majority view isn't always the correct one. There isn't always a correct one. And if the assumption of a 'default' weren't being made here, it wouldn't be being brought up.

Non-standard. Anything that is not 'standard'. I really did try for the most polite way to put things, I promise I did, but it seems to have hit a nerve. I'll try to go through my thoughts on that nerve as logically as I can.

There is nothing wrong with being non-standard, and in fact I would be very bored if everything and everyone was standard. I myself am Neurodivergent/Neuroatypical/(I don't actually know what my side of the coin is called, anyone who isn't "Neurotypical").

Of course people are going to be heteronormative, because hetero is normal (if I've missed an extra definition there, please correct me).

I said nothing about superiority/inferiority, your own experiences seem to have coloured certain words in that way. Proof by Majority is a truly great logical fallacy, one that I try to avoid. The views held by the majority cannot be correct, because the majority does not always hold the same views. However, I disagree that there isn't a correct view. We may never see the correct one, and the majority may eventually throw out the correct view in favour of a view that suits their current agenda better, but in the end somebody is right and somebody is wrong (or everybody's wrong and it's something completely different).

There is a 'default' though. There's always a 'default' and there always will be, no matter how much attention you bring to the different options.

13 hours ago, Inichor said:

And, 'non-standard' according to whom? Because throughout history, the conception of sexual orientation has changed dramatically. You'd be an outlier in ancient Rome, for example. So by implying the current norm is more valid you're also necessarily saying that it's valid to say whatever comes next is more valid.

Non-standard according to what is the current standard. Generally that is what people mean. When a legendary general comes up with new tactics, those are "non-standard" for their time, but once other generals begin to copy those tactics and counter them, they become the new "standard". When a master chef devises a new recipe, it spends a time being "non-standard". Any number of things can be "non-standard", and it does not detract from their value. It is simply another marker for what they currently are.

I also said nothing about the relative validity of normality and nonconformity. I would be incredibly offended if somebody told me that normal things were more valid than abnormals, because that would invalidate me, and probably every human who did anything other than try their hardest to conform (there are some great thoughts in this vein about the whole "vaccines cause autism" debacle).

 

14 hours ago, Inichor said:

A social and political majority, who did not see any direct benefits from that position, so reacted from defensiveness and jealousy due to my limited worldview.

I think this is an important point to highlight. My main worry is that this movement will go down the path of Neo-Feminism, though my paranoia is probably baseless here. Spend enough time with a celebration, and eventually the subjects of it will think that they deserve that celebration for some reason or another. Maybe. I cant see the future, but I can guess and it truly concerns me. Though I suppose that my concerns are likely to be mitigated by the very fact that I bring them up.

[Inichor]

Again you do not address many of my points. And too much of that was making the same arguments in a different way. Your conclusion was a conflation and a slippery slope argument you admit is paranoid and probably baseless. So seems you've admitted you're wrong, I guess. Though it doesn't really feel like it.

I consider the point of heteronormativity to be worth addressing anyway, as it's a new one. If you were not implying that 'non-standard' was 'less-valid' then why would you bring it up? Why would it matter? If you truly thought of sexualities as equal, why wouldn't you say 'one orientation' rather than 'non-standard'?

27 minutes ago, Iamabearlulz said:

I must question why you think oppression due to sexuality is more important to deal with than oppression for any other reason.

This is truly egregious. I never said I did. Assuming that I do, twice, despite my implication that I don't, shows, one way or another, that this is not a discussion.

So I am done. I can only hope you do as I ask and think on what I've said. I've tried.

P.S. Neurodivergent is generally the opposite of neurotypical. I tend not to use either, personally (though don't begrudge their use) due to my experience with many fellow autistics [or people who have self-diagnosed themselves with Asperger's] using them to make themselves feel special. I could tie the arguments together and say how, in my opinion, that speaks to the desire for straight cis white males to place themselves in a minority group so that they don't feel cast as 'the bad guy' and get to have an identity they're 'allowed' to be proud of... and I suppose I just did. So I should also say how yes, straight cis white men are the most privileged group on the planet, whether or not they see that benefit personally, but only fringe lunatics condemn them all. If you feel that fringe disproportionately, congratulations! You have the foundation for understanding what it's like to be a minority in place.

[Althaline]

53 minutes ago, Inichor said:

Again you do not address many of my points. And too much of that was making the same arguments in a different way. Your conclusion was a conflation and a slippery slope argument you admit is paranoid and probably baseless. So seems you've admitted you're wrong, I guess. Though it doesn't really feel like it.

It's a pattern of speech I've developed from disliking lies, I feel the need to cover all my bases when talking (especially in written form). Most members of a movement won't go down that slope, but there will always be a fringe group that wants more. I will be proven right in the end, it's only a question of how right I'll be proven. I maintain that the "Slippery Slope" is not a fallacy, but the argument derived from extrapolation. "If we perform (x), why should we not perform (y) under the same reasoning?" is too often dismissed as the SS and ignored.

 

59 minutes ago, Inichor said:

I consider the point of heteronormativity to be worth addressing anyway, as it's a new one. If you were not implying that 'non-standard' was 'less-valid' then why would you bring it up? Why would it matter? If you truly thought of sexualities as equal, why wouldn't you say 'one orientation' rather than 'non-standard'?

I didn't truly bring it up, and meant no harm by the phrase. I used non-standard to imply that it was not standard, nothing more and nothing less. If I had used "deviant", "abnormal", "different", or any other of the host of words that could describe the various states of mind that were encompassed by it, I find it likely that either you or somebody coming later and reading this would find it even more offensive. I simply used the word that I thought would be the most neutral and least offensive. Apparently I was mistaken and there was an entire essay of meaning behind a seemingly harmless phrase. I'll admit, it's not the first time I've encountered this problem (All Lives Matter springs to mind...).

 

1 hour ago, Inichor said:

This is truly egregious. I never said I did. Assuming that I do, twice, despite my implication that I don't, shows, one way or another, that this is not a discussion.

It seems that I have misconstrued one of your points in a previous response then. You claimed that the other oppressions I mentioned were not equivalent and thus not worthy of being compared as a double-standard. You did not explain why, at least not in a manner that I could read out of your responses. I would appreciate learning why you think this way, and why that is not the same as considering some types of oppression more important to deal with than others.

 

1 hour ago, Inichor said:

P.S. Neurodivergent is generally the opposite of neurotypical. I tend not to use either, personally (though don't begrudge their use) due to my experience with many fellow autistics [or people who have self-diagnosed themselves with Asperger's] using them to make themselves feel special. I could tie the arguments together and say how, in my opinion, that speaks to the desire for straight cis white males to place themselves in a minority group so that they don't feel cast as 'the bad guy' and get to have an identity they're 'allowed' to be proud of... and I suppose I just did. So I should also say how yes, straight cis white men are the most privileged group on the planet, whether or not they see that benefit personally, but only fringe lunatics condemn them all. If you feel that fringe disproportionately, congratulations! You have the foundation for understanding what it's like to be a minority in place.

Now this is interesting. I'm especially noting this part in particular:

1 hour ago, Inichor said:

that speaks to the desire for straight cis white males to place themselves in a minority group so that they don't feel cast as 'the bad guy' and get to have an identity they're 'allowed' to be proud of

Why should non-minorities feel cast as 'the bad guy' in the first place? Why should anyone need to scramble for a minority to be a part of just so they aren't persecuted by the Warriors of Social Justice? It seems like exactly the kind of thing that got us to this situation in the first place.

I also don't like how this feels like an attack on Neurodivergents in general. I know that's probably not what you meant to do, but something about this just hits wrong.

[Inichor]

On 2020-06-20 at 12:04 PM, Iamabearlulz said:

Why should non-minorities feel cast as 'the bad guy' in the first place? Why should anyone need to scramble for a minority to be a part of just so they aren't persecuted by the Warriors of Social Justice? It seems like exactly the kind of thing that got us to this situation in the first place.

I also don't like how this feels like an attack on Neurodivergents in general. I know that's probably not what you meant to do, but something about this just hits wrong.

Oi. I didn't mean to reply to this due to the continued misrepresentation, such as this. But it popped into my head sudenly, based on how i realised something i said could be interpreted as me calling people stupid when i meant only that I'm autistic (and if that wasn't clear enough: I AM AUTISTIC!). So i thought hey, maybe that was the case here. Maybe i was wrong. But rereading my words: no, i don't see a reasonable way to misinterpret them here. So yeah: that's not what i meant to do. It hits you wrong because you're wrong. To a degree it boggles the mind to try to believe you weren't deliberately misinterpreting my words.

I also can't see how my words that some people have a feeling of faux-oppression could be interpreted as that faux-oppression existing. Or me endorsing that supposed oppression.

So let's clarify. Cis white males shouldn't be oppressed. The issue is that some feel oppressed. Which is entirely on them. There's a problem there, to be sure. It's just with the minority of people who can't stand to not be the political supermajority anymore. They feel cast as 'the bad guy' because... their ancestors were. Unless you're defending slavery, that's a fact. And they've benefited from that systemic oppression. Also a fact. Unless you think that the child of a slave and the child of a plantation owner had equal opportunities. I'd show how... no, if necessary, but somehow i still don't think it'll come to that, and if it did... i can't be asked, after all this. I've gone far enough. I'm advocating for no political action here, just stating facts, as i see them.

I don't think anyone should be punished for the crimes of their ancestors. I can't believe i have to say that, but the evidence shows me that if i don't, you'll pretend i did think they should be. That's all i've got for now. God it seems absurd to me now that a light-hearted bit of a thread title for a nationally-recognised event could ever have seemed innocent; flippant; uncontroversial to me. I'm so tired.