Quote from: AsenRG;874805Well, that's what I assumed Pundit to mean, except with added lack of hygiene and equal lack of decent looks, for emphasis;). And because we were talking about eroticism (which, for some reason, Pundit assumes to mean "descriptive sex". It's the descriptive part that's wrong).
?

I wasn't really commenting on what any one poster here said specifically. I was reacting to the general flow of the discussions and it prompted me to share my thoughts on the whole geek social fallacy issue, because it is something I see across the board on social media from a wide range of sources.

For the record: I think people should take showers. There are times, like when someone is in the final days of writing a great novel or something, where I get not showering. But if you are going to be around people, you should bathe. I am more talking about an inability in these discussions for people to find the mean. Where its either all comers are always welcome, or we start getting really exclusive and only let the cool kids in. For me one of the strengths of gaming has been it doesn't judge folks for being different in ways that are obviously beyond their control (for example the kid who stuttered a lot, the one who was just kind of spastic and excitable, the guy who only knew how to talk about the thing that intensely interested him in that moment). There are behaviors that become a problem in any group. I'm saying let's not cast that net too widely. Showering, leering, being mean or hostile, these are all things you can basically control.

Quote from: Nexus;874736Why do you say that?

Because actual autistic people are, on the whole, more courteous, polite, intelligent, imaginative, and engaging than an atypical NT.

Quote from: TristramEvans;874821Because actual autistic people are, on the whole, more courteous, polite, intelligent, imaginative, and engaging than an atypical NT.

Those are the ones that can operate reasonably well in society. The more extreme cases are often in care facility of some kind, simply because they cannot operate in a social situation.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;874806I never really encountered this sort of thing until the internet. Maybe I was lucky. Personally I think the net tends to accelerate and intensify ideas.

The net intensifies fads.

QuoteBut I do want to be clear with what I am saying.

I think you were clear.

Let me also be clear. No one is entitled to a seat at my table. Or anyone else's table. This is a leisure activity not a public service or a paid job so we get to choose with whom we want to spend our leisure time. Based on 40+ years of experience gaming in a lot of places, times, states, and countries this "problem" is blown way out of proportion, I don't see this so-called problem anywhere other than public venues like cons or FLGS open game events. And it is rare there. But if you want to go to open events, you should know that one hazard of an open event is that it is, by definition, open. So you may run into someone you'd rather not interact with there just like if you stop by McDonald's, Walmart, Denny's, or a five-star Hotel you may run into someone you'd rather not see, hear, talk to, or smell. Get over it.

But to your point Brendan, just because one finds someone else objectionable that doesn't give one the right to be an ass towards them. But some people seem to feel a burning need to create some category of untouchable people that the rest of us (whoever "us" is) are allowed to treat terribly and towards whom it is OK to be an ass. I see that as part of the nerd pecking order urge of the insecure.

Both Bren and Brendan are approaching being humane through two different facets of the practice. Compassionate patience with the underserved other, versus equanimous respect for those deemed 'othered'. It is like watching Lawful Goods have an argument. Let's observe for that moment where crockery is thrown!
:popcorn:

Quote from: Opaopajr;874851Both Bren and Brendan are approaching being humane through two different facets of the practice. Compassionate patience with the underserved other, versus equanimous respect for those deemed 'othered'. It is like watching Lawful Goods have an argument. Let's observe for that moment where crockery is thrown!
:popcorn:

I don't think either of us are debating (unless I am misreading Bren's posts). I actually typed up a response to Bren's post but it just wasn't clear to me where we disagree exactly so figured, best to let his post stand.  

I don't know about 'othered'. To me it is just about being nice to people, being fair and being accepting of differences, but knowing how to draw boundaries. All I am basically saying aligns with what Bren seems to be saying: we can deal with bad behavior as it comes up, but I don't like the idea of giving ourselves the green light to vent our rage at a particular group within the hobby.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;874824Those are the ones that can operate reasonably well in society. The more extreme cases are often in care facility of some kind, simply because they cannot operate in a social situation.

Hence they don't enter into the equation

Quote from: Willie the Duck;874791I'm pretty sure that they don't mean actual autistic people (I don't know if that makes it better or worse). I think it's the stereotypical gamer who is socially stunted and clueless (particularly with regards to annoying others). It's part and parcel with the nerd-gamer stereotype along with mouth-breather, fat, greasy, pervy, basement dwelling, fedora and flames/oriental dragon shirt, etc. etc. that may or may not ever come together in real life. It's not a healthy stereotype (and not one I like seeing associated more with American gamers). However, we've all known that guy-- the one that you say, "that's where the stereotype comes from."

I remember shortly after moving to Texas as a teen encountering the very first real life racists I'd ever met in my life. These guys I was hanging out with starting going off about " nigger-this" and "nigger-that" and I was like "What the hell?" And they explained to me that when they said nigger they didn't really mean all black people,  there was "normal" black people and there were "niggers". And my reaction to that is the exact same as this explanation.

Yeah there are dumbasses online who have self diagnosed themselves as having Aspergers because they think it's an excuse for them being socially inept assholes

That doesn't excuse people using autism as a derogatory term If anything its worse because its basically acknowledging those fuckers and giving a big fuck you to actual autistics, who as a whole, of ANY group of people on earth, least deserve that shit

IME, I've found autistic to be a very mixed bag. Some have been quite nice if sometimes odd individuals that were occasionally difficult to deal, not too different from most folks at the end of the day except by degree. Others, well, not so much. More imaginative and engaging? I can't really say one way or the other. From past experience I'd imagine gming for an entire group might be difficult.

It definitely doesn't seem connected to the "Catpiss Man" thing though.

Quote from: S'mon;874785I only mind fat people if they break my chairs. The only thing I don't like is players with bad hygiene, and these are extremely rare IME. You seem to think the USA is full of gross players but I am doubtful.

I attended meetings at the University of Minnesota gaming club every week for fourteen years, helped put on numerous TwinCities gaming cons, and spent several years traveling all summer to GenCon, Origins, and every other con I could.

The number of "catpiss men" I encountered in all those years and cons could be counted on one hand.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;874824Those are the ones that can operate reasonably well in society. The more extreme cases are often in care facility of some kind, simply because they cannot operate in a social situation.

One that seems to stand is the autistic people I've personally met that acknowledge their condition and work with people tend to be much easier to deal with than the ones that seem to feel its everyone else's that has a problem. Or that have have brought into the idea that their condition makes them superior not just different. But yeah, they're not allot of Sheldon Coopers out there but those are the ones that probably stick in people's memories. Like Catpiss Men.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;874886The number of "catpiss men" I encountered in all those years and cons could be counted on one hand.

One cat piss man goes a long way, though. I've only met one, long ago, but even now I cannot scoff at the stereotype. The nearby game store has several signs promising to boot players with offensive odor; I don't know if they have ever had to carry through on that.

And I don't think "narrate your character's sexual activity" (or "listen to other players do that") would be made any more comfortable with lean, clean, genial players of either gender, Uruguayan or not. (As the Pundit more or less said.)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;874853I don't know about 'othered'. To me it is just about being nice to people, being fair and being accepting of differences, but knowing how to draw boundaries. All I am basically saying aligns with what Bren seems to be saying: we can deal with bad behavior as it comes up, but I don't like the idea of giving ourselves the green light to vent our rage at a particular group within the hobby.

You and I are in agreement.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;874794One of the things I like about this hobby, that really made it a great place for me growing up, was there was a tolerance of people who were awkward, nerdy, and a little strange. Sometimes I feel like we are losing that in the internet age, where we're suddenly expecting gamers to act like jocks or something. My feeling here is there are two kinds of strange. There are people who are genuinely toxic that are mean, rude, etc. That sort of behavior I've never really tolerated at my game table. I just don't want to spend time with someone who insults me all the time. But most gamers I've played with are quirky to some degree (whether it is because they'd rather talk about life in Ancient Rome for an hour than talk about the latest sitcom or football game, or because they are shy and not particularly good with words). To me this largely boils down to intent. There is a big difference between someone who unknowingly does things that are a annoying (but is otherwise kind and trying to be nice) and someone who knocks others down to build themselves up or tries to uspset the social dynamics at the table for whatever reason. There is definitely behavior that you have to call out and not accept. But I feel like we are starting to fold a lot into that and the people that are going to be getting the short end of the stick are a lot of well-intentioned, awkward people the hobby has traditionally embraced.

Amen.

JG

This is a long thread that seems to have morphed into something other than what it was initially about.  I know...SHOCKING!  lol...


As far as erotic content at the gaming table goes, I'm a "fade to black" guy for sure.  That sort of thing gets uncomfortable pretty quick.  I haven't read the entire thread but it was noted early on that there is a dichotomy of sorts in the fact that we're OK with all sorts of violence a the table but sex is taboo.  True to an extent, but I don't think it's as big a dichotomy as some think.  In my experience, most of the violence is handled off screen too.  "I lopped off the Orc's head!" is fine, but "I sliced open his gut causing his innards to tumble out onto the floor in a steaming mess.  He screams in agony and falls to his knees desperately trying to collect his entrails and shove them back in at which point I lop off his head sending a geyser of blood up to the ceiling!"  is perhaps less OK...particularly if everything is being described in that sort of gory detail.  Ftmp, the violence in games I've played has been pretty cartoonish and it doesn't take long before the detail gets to be too much...so many of us are OK with "action movie violence" but not so OK with realistic portrayals of violence.  

Also, while on the surface it seems pretty odd that violence is "more acceptable" than sex, it makes a certain amount of sense to me.  I mean for the vast majority of us, violence exists in the realm of pure fantasy.  None of us (or at least very very few of us) are going to go home after a game night and start shooting guns and swinging swords at anyone.  I'm 49 and haven't had so much as a fist fight since maybe grade 3.  Sex otoh is a very real part of many of our lives.  It's actually something that we do...or at least we want to do, lol.  When you have someone at the table describing sex acts in detail, there's much more of a sense that they are describing actions that might be something they might actually want to do.  There's a higher degree of "squickishness" to the whole thing.  It pretty quickly morphs into a "too much information" situation...