Quote from: 5 Stone Games;866894Most RPG's even now are about people  out  reaving, tomb robbing and killing

Not exactly SJW turf

Probably why those games and the people who like them for what they are get so much derision from the SJW crowd.

Quote from: 5 Stone Games;866894Softer games din't exists much till the 90's anyway  . Vampire the Masquerade was probably the first  big one with Werewolf the Apocalypse being one of the the most political games I've see.

That came out 23-24 years ago now.  A teenager entering the hobby when that sort of game was taking off would be in his mid to late 30s now.

It's articles like this that make me ashamed to be a liberal sometimes.

As a left-leaning person, I can proudly say "Fuck Social Justice Warriors!"

In all seriousness, SJW's do more harm than good and generally make the rational people on the left look bad.

Are there immature teenagers in the wargaming hobby? Yes. Are they in every hobby? Yes. Can you just simply ignore these douchebags and find a better, more mature gaming group instead of crusading at invisible monsters like you're Don Quixote? Uh, YES!

SJW's really are like Don Quixote fighting the windmill. It's all pointless aggression and wasted energy when there's actual problems in the world that can be solved.

Quote from: yosemitemike;867176Probably why those games and the people who like them for what they are get so much derision from the SJW crowd.

Aye true.

Quote from: yosemitemike;867176That came out 23-24 years ago now.  A teenager entering the hobby when that sort of game was taking off would be in his mid to late 30s now.

Oh yes of course but D&D had been fairly available since 1974-1975 and everywhere since 1979 to 1981. This means there was nearly as much time from the inception of D&D to VtM was released as from VtM to now.

Also if you look at the big selling games the top two are well D&D and knock off D&D (aka Pathfinder) Now yes Paizo has slipped a bit of tofu in for the Leftist crowd in its transgendered iconic shaman but on the whole the big boys are still the same type of game they always were.

Even really old retro-D&D is back and the old dogs  like Traveller and ultra simulationist GURPS that are still going strong  and are not fluffy.

Vampire and such are still around  sure but they don't have a fraction of the following they used too

And its not inertia, far from it. Its that gamers want pretty much what they have always wanted. If they didn't things like Wraethu would have been a bigger hit or there would be clamoring for a new release or similar things.  

Back in the day it was  even mocked on big purple quite often but of course the political climate there was changed it wouldn't get mocked, just ignored.

There certainly have been big pushes and subversion attempts  but the hobby basically being cells and small groups is highly resistant.  There is no leadership to subvert and as such the game  has changed only a  little,

 Heck one of my old groups with Balrog and the Limper and a rotating crew (including myself a few times) had played the same Hackamasterish D&D pretty  consistently since 1975. I think it was a terrific thing myself though I only played infrequently with them

I read that guy's write up and it started off seemingly concerned about creepers and their behavior towards women or minorities....but pretty quickly he noted his problem with how "accepting" the groups tend to be of right wing ideas.  He was challenged heavily about this in the comments section, and every time he said he was concerned with "extremist right wing views".  Then the commenters would point out he said right wing, not extreme, and he would roll with it and simply state right wing (period, not extreme) is the wrong way/bully/no progress/basically evil.

   I can not understand how a person, who seems intelligent enough to string sentences together and post them, can come to the conclusion that an ideology that differs from his own (yet isnt hurting people or attacking them) is automatically bad/evil/has to go.  I see extremes who simply want echo chambers, but I find it highly distasteful for a guy complaining to no end about inclusion and not offending point blank saying wanting lower taxes and people to want to do for themselves is outright evil.....    I have seen that sentiment a bit over at a certain forum though, where folks much prefer agreeing to what is "fact", facts that are often a consensus of feelings instead of fact, to discussions.

Quote from: oggsmash;867926I can not understand how a person, who seems intelligent enough to string sentences together and post them, can come to the conclusion that an ideology that differs from his own (yet isnt hurting people or attacking them) is automatically bad/evil/has to go.  I see extremes who simply want echo chambers, but I find it highly distasteful for a guy complaining to no end about inclusion and not offending point blank saying wanting lower taxes and people to want to do for themselves is outright evil.....    I have seen that sentiment a bit over at a certain forum though, where folks much prefer agreeing to what is "fact", facts that are often a consensus of feelings instead of fact, to discussions.

This is because the progressives have co-opted liberalism.

That person - and I admit I haven't read their blog - sounds like they've drunk very deeply from the kool-aid. Said kool-aid is based around the idea that the cardinal virtue of how "good" someone is can be measured by how much they support demographic minorities...the kicker is that these minorities are measured only in terms of factors that they can't control, e.g. their race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

For factors that can be controlled - such as religion or personal ideology - such tolerance is not to be found. In that case, the prevailing view is "they've deliberately chosen to belong to a viewpoint that holds minorities in less esteem than we do; ergo, they've chosen evil, and evil must not be tolerated."

Moreover, it's not hard to see how this particular ideology creates a sort of "internal inquisition" among its members. Ideological purity is lionized, and there's a sense of needing to push the boundaries in terms of showing how accepting someone is of those who aren't cis het white Christian males, etc. If someone doesn't keep up with those progressive views, no matter how extreme they become, they're accused of being a racist misogynistic homophobic cultural appropriator, etc.

That this position has gained a great deal of social traction in recent years is rather horrifying.

Yeah, it seems there is no air for debate or discussion or even considering the person or people such a person is speaking to has a good faith argument that might stand counter to their position.  Everything is a personal attack, or worse basically just marching orders from the lord of evil to defy the mantra they espouse.  I do not get it, or understand how people have become so polarized. First world problems I guess.

Quote from: oggsmash;867938Yeah, it seems there is no air for debate or discussion or even considering the person or people such a person is speaking to has a good faith argument that might stand counter to their position.  Everything is a personal attack, or worse basically just marching orders from the lord of evil to defy the mantra they espouse.  I do not get it, or understand how people have become so polarized. First world problems I guess.

Well, no.  A first world problem would be something like too many unpopped kernels in your microwave popcorn.  This kind of demagoguery can and has torn apart formerly peaceful countries.  Sri Lanka is a case in point.  Racial demagoguery not that unlike what we are seeing now caused formerly amiable race relationships to go downhill until a civil war that lasted decades broke out.

This dichotomy goes back to when the left referred to the side of a very literal aisle they sat on.  It arises from two basically different visions about how the world works.

Quote from: Alzrius;867937This is because the progressives have co-opted liberalism.

That person - and I admit I haven't read their blog - sounds like they've drunk very deeply from the kool-aid. Said kool-aid is based around the idea that the cardinal virtue of how "good" someone is can be measured by how much they support demographic minorities...the kicker is that these minorities are measured only in terms of factors that they can't control, e.g. their race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

For factors that can be controlled - such as religion or personal ideology - such tolerance is not to be found. In that case, the prevailing view is "they've deliberately chosen to belong to a viewpoint that holds minorities in less esteem than we do; ergo, they've chosen evil, and evil must not be tolerated."

Moreover, it's not hard to see how this particular ideology creates a sort of "internal inquisition" among its members. Ideological purity is lionized, and there's a sense of needing to push the boundaries in terms of showing how accepting someone is of those who aren't cis het white Christian males, etc. If someone doesn't keep up with those progressive views, no matter how extreme they become, they're accused of being a racist misogynistic homophobic cultural appropriator, etc.

That this position has gained a great deal of social traction in recent years is rather horrifying.

And you posted the link I was going to.

EDIT: As a total tangent, I just noticed I'm a Senor Member. STOP MISGENDERING ME YOU SHITLORDS. I'M TRIGGERED. THIS IS NOT A SAFE SPACE!

Had to be done. 😈

I went back and read that useless waste of server storage space, that pointless exercise in arranging electrons and what I gathered was:

Wah, we don't like right wingers.

It's the central, starting thesis to the whole thing and if you needed evidence that this isn't about any notions of equality but rather pushing a purely political agenda, there it is. I didn't say it, the article does.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;868442I went back and read that useless waste of server storage space, that pointless exercise in arranging electrons and what I gathered was:

Wah, we don't like right wingers.

It's the central, starting thesis to the whole thing and if you needed evidence that this isn't about any notions of equality but rather pushing a purely political agenda, there it is. I didn't say it, the article does.

I'm conservative, whereas my best friends are all lefties, and we get along great.  Must be an age thing.

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;868444I'm conservative, whereas my best friends are all lefties, and we get along great.  Must be an age thing.

Likely a maturity thing.

The majority of these progressive lefties have all the maturity of a kindergartener eating paste.

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;868444I'm conservative, whereas my best friends are all lefties, and we get along great.  Must be an age thing.

Yeah, same here.  Lots and lots of left-leaning if not outright left-wing friends.  But as you say...

Quote from: thedungeondelver;868454Yeah, same here.  Lots and lots of left-leaning if not outright left-wing friends.  But as you say...

As long as people don't have an idea in their head that to disagree with them makes someone morally repugnant, friendship with people of differing politics is more than possible.  Once people start thinking that anyone who disagrees with them is a moral shit stain, things go down hill.

The problem though is that standing in judgement on the moral failings of those who disagree is rising in popularity.  It's become a useful tactic to tar people with labels rather than deal with them as individuals.  Just like in the blog post that inspired this thread: "racists, misogynists, homophobes, right-wingers."

Quote from: NathanIW;868597As long as people don't have an idea in their head that to disagree with them makes someone morally repugnant, friendship with people of differing politics is more than possible.  Once people start thinking that anyone who disagrees with them is a moral shit stain, things go down hill.

The behavior of the SJW crowd today is not substantially different from the behavior of campus radicals in the 1960s.  Neither is really all that different from German youth politics in the early 20th century, This sort of thing has been a feature of leftist rhetoric since the French Revolution at the very least.

Let's not forget Jerry Falwell and his "Moral Majority" declaring that disagreement is sin back in the 80s.  The Republican party is full of buttnuggets who refuse to try to compromise.

Declaring those with differing opinions to be irredeemably evil is far from an exclusively left-wing phenomenon in the US, speaking of kool-aid drinking.