TheRPGSite

So this call to action went out:

http://www.corehammer.com/social-wargaming-part-1-social-justice-wargamer/

Key quotes:

Quote"Geek culture" – if you can contain that idea in your mind without being violently ill - had a turning point in the last few years.

Quote{After the author brings up and attacks gamergate} We need that dialogue to start in the tabletop community...

QuoteThe reason there aren't many women doing it isn't because they're not interested, or because they can't, it's because of the environment that we've either created or have allowed to form, excluding them.

QuoteHomophobia is fucking rampant, mostly it's indirect and ignorant, but that doesn't mean it's not damaging.

QuoteAnother thing I think is a big part of the problem is how much right wing views are accepted, within the hobby. How much racism, homophobia, sexism and military fetishism is allowed to slide.

QuotePeople get offended, you're not 'hilarious'' edgy' 'comedian' Ricky Gervais, it's not your job to say ridiculously offensive things and then complain that those offended are being overly sensitive.

QuotePolitical correctness isn't a bad thing, unless you like beating up gay men and calling them queers.

QuoteYou know the types, period accurate Third Reich armies for Bolt Action and Flames of War, Iron Crosses everywhere, hatred of Jews. Again, it should be obvious that this is wrong.

QuoteSolidarity with hobbyists can make people see the error of their ways, or at least silence them, so more progressive people don't have to listen to their bollocks.

Quote(Image of a tank with an iron cross flag draped over its front edge) cut this shit right out.

Full disclosure, I'm a leftist, I'm not voting republican next year, and I'm pleased with recent supreme court decisions, but I find a lot of this article uncomfortably censorious, scolding, and inaccurate.

So is this where wargaming is headed? Am I wrong to be uncomfortable with things like "period accuracy" being interpreted in the worst possible way?

Jesus fucking Christ.

Well, that's one way to look at it I suppose.  On the other hand, many of the players at gaming stores are teenage boys who have issues.   I think teaching by example rather than excluding them would be more useful to society as a whole.

This guy is just one more embarrassing person who is embarrassed by his hobby and trying to change it to justify his presence therein.

I'm all for a better behaved and more inclusive hobby but that isn't achieved by excluding people.

They went after comic books, after that athiests, after that video games, they move on to metal, and now onto wargaming.  They are not going to stop unless they destroy these hobbies, or we give them the fucking boot to the ass.

As a miniatures wargamer since 1971, all these things are true... of certain people in the hobby, and always have been.

I tend to ignore them rather than "fight the bad guys" because I focus my activism elsewhere.  If somebody spouts off I may say something.

Yeah, they can go fuck themselves.

Any more, I see the words "social justice" together and it's like flipping the Interest Switch to the "off" position.

Quote from: Thornhammer;839711Any more, I see the words "social justice" together and it's like flipping the Interest Switch to the "off" position.

I echo this sentiment.

I love Big Brother.

Quote from: Thornhammer;839711Any more, I see the words "social justice" together and it's like flipping the Interest Switch to the "off" position.

I've still yet to hear a coherent definition of "Social Justice".

And the fact that it's somehow conceived as separate from "Justice" makes me suspicious, what is "Social Justice" if not "Justice"? Why the need for a seperate label?

Quote from: Piestrio;839765I've still yet to hear a coherent definition of "Social Justice".

And the fact that it's somehow conceived as separate from "Justice" makes me suspicious, what is "Social Justice" if not "Justice"? Why the need for a seperate label?

Here's the difference:

Justice is concerned with the behaviour.

Social Justice is concerned with the target.

With justice, if the behaviour is wrong, the circumstances are inconsequential.
With social justice, any behaviour is acceptable, as long as its the right target.


Thats why they have different definitions of racism and sexism.

I've played Warhammer over 20 years. Maybe dumbass needs new friends because I've very rarely encountered whatever dumbass is whining about.

Do teenage boys act like...teenage boys? Uh...yeah. Whether they are playing Halo, tiddly winks, spank a monkey or 40k.  Dear SJWs - good fucking luck with changing teenage boys. Finger wagging vs. raging hormones? Who's gonna win?

I'm not a historical wargamer, but I know some guys who really enjoy playing the Axis side and I'm pretty sure a couple I've met over the decades probably romanticize the Nazis, but making believe those few are common in the hobby is - as they say across the pond - just plain bollocks.

Quote from: Piestrio;839651Jesus fucking Christ.

Even he can't help these fucktards.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;839650So this call to action went out:

http://www.corehammer.com/social-wargaming-part-1-social-justice-wargamer/

What a weak-minded fool.

Best thing that could happen is to ignore this fucktard's blog.

Quote from: jeff37923;839784What a weak-minded fool.

Best thing that could happen is to ignore this fucktard's blog.

If you're a fan of the genre, better hope that other people ignore it too, and that the companies who make the stuff you want have the fortitude to tune out HuffPo/NYT running hit pieces on them.  Things got pretty far in videogameland before the social justice bigots got slaughtered by GG, and that took a lot of people standing up.

Quote from: Alathon;839978Things got pretty far in videogameland before the social justice bigots got slaughtered by GG...

Don't go sounding any victory fanfares yet, the "GG = unspeakable terrorist nazi, SJW = innocent pedestal-mounted martyr" narrative is still going and still the lens through which the mainstream perceives that issue. As one pro-GG guy put it, "Victory will be when neutral fence-sitters look at GG, then look at SJWs and declare both sides to be insufferable opinionated assholes."

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;839985Don't go sounding any victory fanfares yet, the "GG = unspeakable terrorist nazi, SJW = innocent pedestal-mounted martyr" narrative is still going and still the lens through which the mainstream perceives that issue. As one pro-GG guy put it, "Victory will be when neutral fence-sitters look at GG, then look at SJWs and declare both sides to be insufferable opinionated assholes."

There's truth to this, but I also think GG was intended by many of the people involved to stay scoped to the video game industry, and within that space the social justice bullies have been wedgied.  Their stuff doesn't sell, their mouthpieces are co-opted for free advertising to sell stuff that mocks them, and the AAA types who may have been worried about socjus compliance have been given ample evidence that it's needless.  Socjus infiltrators in the indie scene have been stripped of their capacity to exercise much in the way of coercive influence, and the idea that they're "on the right side of history" has been painfully disproven.

Now.. I'm of a mind that it's not just a video game industry thing and we should really wreck American academia and progressive news outlets for this bullshit.  What I'm not willing to do is try to drag people who just want to get back to their escapist pursuits into politics; that's precisely what the socjus thing was all about.  That means respecting their boundaries and ideas of what GG should or should not be.  I don't think it prevents me speaking to the importance of long term political action against authoritarian-progressives, but I shouldn't try to say "GG has to be about more than video games" either, I should say "GG was worth doing, and these causes over here are similarly worthy".

The middle called.  It feels lonely because everybody's excluding it.

Quote from: Old Geezer;840013The middle called.  It feels lonely because everybody's excluding it.

You can't engage with the perpetually outraged.

They are never happy with victory.

They. never. stop.

They're text-book totalitarians.

Quote from: Piestrio;839651Jesus fucking Christ.

+1, or is "ditto" more appropriate?

Quote from: Old Geezer;840013The middle called.  It feels lonely because everybody's excluding it.

So many people these days want to claim they're in the middle, that really both crowds are behind them pretty much.  It's kinda sad.  I get that "the middle" is pretty much Joe Zoloft, who follows lots of television series and takes his pills when he starts feeling too much, but I still hope for more.

Quote from: Alathon;839978If you're a fan of the genre, better hope that other people ignore it too, and that the companies who make the stuff you want have the fortitude to tune out HuffPo/NYT running hit pieces on them.  Things got pretty far in videogameland before the social justice bigots got slaughtered by GG, and that took a lot of people standing up.

Well, he's saying wargames should give up military fetishism. And basically said anyone who is rightwing politically is evil. lol. I don't think he has any idea of the audience for, history, or point of wargames. This won't go anywhere.

This sort of bollocks appears every so often on wargames websites, and usually gets a good kicking from both male and female wargamers.

It's true that far fewer women wargame than men, but I don't buy for a second that it's a more sexist environment than those other dens of iniquity, RPGs, comics, SF&F geekdom in general, where women are far more active.

Maybe ask some women or something?

The Sealed Knot and other historical societies have a good mix of male and female re-enactors (although the Sealed Knot in particular used to have something of a reputation for being a partner-swapping scene :eek:).

When the London Salute wargames show invited along some SS re-enactors a few years back, there was a huge backlash from gamers.  Anecdotally, wargames shows are VERY family friendly these days - I'm seeing a lot more mum+dad+kids than ten or fifteen years ago.

So this?  Fuck right off.

"The reason there aren't many women doing it isn't because they're not interested, or because they can't, it's because of the environment that we've either created or have allowed to form, excluding them." Yes! This must be true because I know that it's the awful/excluding behavior of the women in the scrapbooking hobby that has kept me from following my dream.

Then again, maybe a lot of this person's views formed after a few cursory visits to The Miniature's Page... which IS a gutter full of the elements he decries.

Quote from: Simlasa;840243"The reason there aren't many women doing it isn't because they're not interested, or because they can't, it's because of the environment that we've either created or have allowed to form, excluding them." Yes! This must be true because I know that it's the awful/excluding behavior of the women in the scrapbooking hobby that has kept me from following my dream.

Then again, maybe a lot of this person's views formed after a few cursory visits to The Miniature's Page... which IS a gutter full of the elements he decries.

Hence my comment about the middle.

There ARE people with such attitudes, and places where those attitudes predominate.


"THEY ARE ALL LIKE THIS" is just as wrong as "THERE ARE ONLY A FEW BAD APPLES."  The truth lies somewhere between "LIVE FREE OR DIE" and "FAMOUS POTATOES."

Quote from: Old Geezer;840259Hence my comment about the middle.

There ARE people with such attitudes, and places where those attitudes predominate.

"THEY ARE ALL LIKE THIS" is just as wrong as "THERE ARE ONLY A FEW BAD APPLES."  The truth lies somewhere between "LIVE FREE OR DIE" and "FAMOUS POTATOES."

"A gun is always loaded" is not a literal fact, but is nonetheless true enough to be worth saying, and worth insisting upon when handling firearms.

Also, the "truth in the middle" idea is a fallacy; sometimes one side is just plain full of shit.  There's no truth in the middle on anti-vaxx, and I'll bet with a little effort we could fish a hundred ideas out of history's dustbin which were heavily debated at one time, but nonetheless unequivocally false.  Running truth in the middle narrative empowers dishonest bargainers, who can use that false assumption to make dishonest opening statements/offers to drive the discussion.. or "push the frame", as it's sometimes called.

In the case of social justice, by going full-SJW at the start, by demanding concessions in twenty places and making every accusation under the sun, they make it emotionally easy to concede just one or two.  It's awful to deal with their baying mobs and their hyperbole and false accusations, giving just a little ground in hopes that they'll ease off starts to seem like a good idea, but do it and you've paid danegeld.  Bullying Tactics 101:  coerce concessions once, and not only is a habit of making concessions established, but everyone who's watching sees dominance established and has to peg the cost of opposition higher than it used to be.

The Miniatures Page? I don't read it regularly but web searches take me there sometimes. I guess I missed the reactionary political stuff. Distinct lack of polemic and a refreshing sense of camaraderie. Are there some offensive miniatures photos over there?

Quote from: Arminius;840448The Miniatures Page? I don't read it regularly but web searches take me there sometimes. I guess I missed the reactionary political stuff. Distinct lack of polemic and a refreshing sense of camaraderie. Are there some offensive miniatures photos over there?

Theres a few random threads about scantily clad female minis. They kind of thing a normal person would chuckle at and dismiss, but an SJW would see as the direct cause of all the rape and domestic violence in the world.

Quote from: Old Geezer;840259Hence my comment about the middle.

There ARE people with such attitudes, and places where those attitudes predominate.


"THEY ARE ALL LIKE THIS" is just as wrong as "THERE ARE ONLY A FEW BAD APPLES."  The truth lies somewhere between "LIVE FREE OR DIE" and "FAMOUS POTATOES."

The excluded middle doesn't sell click-through ad revenue.

TMP: safe for a casual user; internal politics are pretty toxic.  A lot of it is safely hidden in the paying members-only boards, but occasionally it spills over.  Occasional overt racism, and the "cameraderie" may be due to the sheer number of sockpuppets active (including a number belonging to the owner).

There's a 2000-page thread over on Frothers if you're bored.

Quote from: Alathon;840399Also, the "truth in the middle" idea is a fallacy; sometimes one side is just plain full of shit.  There's no truth in the middle on anti-vaxx

Sure, but that doesn't mean there is NEVER a middle.  This particular case is a good example of an excluded middle.  I have no problem telling people that I don't think their "unit filler" of naked female barbarians with boob jobs is funny or clever.  I also have no problem telling people that I don't think cultural appropriation is a big issue in Bob's Mongol-themed Space Marine army.

The real problem here is that people in the middle are unable to comment on these issues without being labeled as extremists.  It's getting as bad as the abortion debate, where saying that you don't like abortion but are glad it's available gets you labelled as both an oppressor of women's bodies and a killer of babies.  

I HATE how a minority of extremists on the internet get to dominate every fucking discussion by labeling people as "SJWs" or "Gamergaters" or whatever term is in vogue to imply that someone's opinion doesn't matter.

QuoteIn the case of social justice, by going full-SJW at the start, by demanding concessions in twenty places and making every accusation under the sun, they make it emotionally easy to concede just one or two.

I disagree.  By arguing a point too strongly, you either tend to entrench people in an opposed position, or discourage moderates from entering the debate at all.  In my experience, when people come out with guns blazing like this, everyone else either starts arguing against every single point or gets the hell out of the way.  The fact that some people in this thread are suggesting that the truth lies in the middle in this case is a rare exception to how these things usually play out.

Quote from: Ddogwood;840943The real problem here is that people in the middle are unable to comment on these issues without being labeled as extremists.  It's getting as bad as the abortion debate, where saying that you don't like abortion but are glad it's available gets you labelled as both an oppressor of women's bodies and a killer of babies.

Of course, "if you arent 100% with us in every way, you are against us and that makes you evil" is part and parcel of any extremist philosophy.

QuoteI HATE how a minority of extremists on the internet get to dominate every fucking discussion by labeling people as "SJWs" or "Gamergaters" or whatever term is in vogue to imply that someone's opinion doesn't matter.

My experience is only of people labelling themselves as "SJWs" or "gamergaters". OTOH, lots of people like to label others as "sexist" misogynist" or "racist". But I think what you're describing is the simplistic and dichotomous worldview of extremists where the world is divided into "them" and "not them". This is, in part I think, human nature. Its amusing how many primitive cultures wordlwide have a name for themselves which directly translates as "humans" or "people" and then names for everyone else, which largely mean "not people". The Other is dehumanized. This simplistic division can be seen everywhere from the modern political climate (liberals vs conservatives) to classic religious thought  (Christian vs heathen/pagan). Simplistic worldviews tend to be comforting, they dont require much thought and they excuse generalizations and prejudices rather than having to consider people as individuals.

Reminds me of the old joke: "There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are two types of people in the world, and everyone else"

Quote from: Piestrio;840019You can't engage with the perpetually outraged.

They are never happy with victory.

They. never. stop.

They're text-book totalitarians.

Yep, once they win they just shift to their next target.

How in the hell can you expect a middle ground when one side doesn't even want a middle ground at all and doing every thing in their power to push for "progress"?

Quote from: Ddogwood;840943I disagree.  By arguing a point too strongly, you either tend to entrench people in an opposed position, or discourage moderates from entering the debate at all.  In my experience, when people come out with guns blazing like this, everyone else either starts arguing against every single point or gets the hell out of the way.  The fact that some people in this thread are suggesting that the truth lies in the middle in this case is a rare exception to how these things usually play out.

I have observed things to be otherwise; most threads of any length on a contentious topic, not only will centrist positions be presented, but someone almost always explicitly runs a South Park style "truth in the middle" line.  I'm pretty sure that if you look through several threads that have discussed Gamergate on this board, for example, you will find that was the case.

Arguing a point too strongly and antagonizing someone doesn't matter when using bullying tactics to coerce compliance, rather than simply conversing with no expectation of altered behavior on the target's part.  The more antagonized the target, the more likely to feel threatened they are; this is what I perceive social justice bullies to desire.

There is a preponderance of good faith posters on this message board, and a lack of social justice allies with administrative authority to squelch discussion.  This makes such bullying tactics ineffective here when it comes to something like Gamergate or racist orcs.  Examine how such discussions take place on other forums, and you will find these tactics were effective at silencing dissent.

Quote from: Ddogwood;840943Sure, but that doesn't mean there is NEVER a middle.  This particular case is a good example of an excluded middle.  I have no problem telling people that I don't think their "unit filler" of naked female barbarians with boob jobs is funny or clever.  I also have no problem telling people that I don't think cultural appropriation is a big issue in Bob's Mongol-themed Space Marine army.

The real problem here is that people in the middle are unable to comment on these issues without being labeled as extremists.  It's getting as bad as the abortion debate, where saying that you don't like abortion but are glad it's available gets you labelled as both an oppressor of women's bodies and a killer of babies.  

I HATE how a minority of extremists on the internet get to dominate every fucking discussion by labeling people as "SJWs" or "Gamergaters" or whatever term is in vogue to imply that someone's opinion doesn't matter.

Yet, these centrist opinions have been voiced on this board, and have not been silenced.  I clearly don't think much of them, but somehow I suspect Old Geezer will get over it.  I don't have administrative power or a personality cult to leverage against him, wouldn't do it if I did (I hope), and in any case he's lived long enough that it probably wouldn't work.

I disagree with two things here, both the subject of the thread (an attempt at initiating an SJW bullying campaign), and what I perceived to be an invocation of the "two sides" fallacy, that because there were two sides quarreling both must be in the wrong.  Sure it takes two to tango, but only one of 'em has to want a fight to get a fight.  I don't think you or Old Geezer are extremists on this account, or SJWs, or anything of the sort, particularly because I don't see you using bullying tactics.  I just disagree with you.

The SJW thing is a big deal because SJW bullying tactics have been effective for many years now in America, and we are losing good and beautiful things on account of them! (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-33450391)

Quote from: Alathon;841018The SJW thing is a big deal because SJW bullying tactics have been effective for many years now in America, and we are losing good and beautiful things on account of them! (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-33450391)

What a bunch of maroons! I guess I missed their protests over the Japanese appropriation of America's favorite pastime, baseball. :rolleyes:

I'm surprised they haven't gone after nerd's loves for katanas.

All of this SJ stuff reminds me of my daughter telling me that many boys at school were pretending to be gay, only because it was seen as a fashionable thing, not because they were.

So my question is: how old is the author of this useless call for crusade?

Quote from: Turanil;841073All of this SJ stuff reminds me of my daughter telling me that many boys at school were pretending to be gay, only because it was seen as a fashionable thing, not because they were.

So my question is: how old is the author of this useless call for crusade?

Old enough to know better, but privileged enough not to care.

Quote from: Old Geezer;840259The truth lies somewhere between "LIVE FREE OR DIE" and "FAMOUS POTATOES."

Man, I miss George Carlin more and more.  We need him now more than ever.

See, it's funny, because I do know exactly what they're talking about.  I played 40K for a number of years, and our club (of 20 or so) was exclusively male, and there were three members who were INCREDIBLY good at keeping it that way.  Now one of those was just good at creeping people in general (if you told me he was a convicted serial killer, I wouldn't be surprised)  and the other two were sweaty balls of asshole, but they all spent special effort on creeping on women.  

The thing is though, I don't see a crusade to fix it being at all useful.  The club was dying even when I left, and I'd be surprised if there's more than 10 members now.  Wargames are just not doing well in general.  If you want a new club without the assholes, you have to build one, because kicking the assholes out would just collapse what's left of the hobby.  

(I mean it doesn't help Games Workshop is the largest wargame company, and remains confused as to what a female is and why such a thing might belong in the category 'target market', but the failings of Games Workshop are too long to list in any sensible manner)

I think you're mistaking limited personal experience with universal truth.

Quote from: Momotaro;840145Anecdotally, wargames shows are VERY family friendly these days - I'm seeing a lot more mum+dad+kids than ten or fifteen years ago.

And why the fuck do you think that is, the result of climate change or chemtrails?

No, it's because a lot of folks have put in a lot of effort over the past few decades in trying to widen the appeal of these hobbies, so it isn't just smelly neckbeards and spotty teenage horndogs. Wargaming still has a ways to go, but the most egregious stuff is mostly gone now, thank God.

Quote from: SnowyThey went after comic books, after that athiests, after that video games, they move on to metal, and now onto wargaming. They are not going to stop unless they destroy these hobbies, or we give them the fucking boot to the ass.

You mean, aside from the fact that all these hobbies are now more popular than they have ever been?  (Even wargaming, if you allow for the cross-over hobbies).

They are much more welcoming nowadays, without have destroyed what made them popular in the first place (good writing, good art, good escapism or commentary).


And yes, there are plenty of examples of patronizing idiocy from the crusaders.

Quote from: Motorskills;846255And why the fuck do you think that is, the result of climate change or chemtrails?

No, it's because a lot of folks have put in a lot of effort over the past few decades in trying to widen the appeal of these hobbies, so it isn't just smelly neckbeards and spotty teenage horndogs. Wargaming still has a ways to go, but the most egregious stuff is mostly gone now, thank God.

Gee, must have missed the great crusade.  

How about this - GW gamers grew up and had their own kids.  Maybe they just wanted better fucking catering and toilets?  Maybe when we go online and complain about dingy shows and poor facilities, the organisers have to listen now?

I think the Whites (Mr and Mrs Hasslefree Minis) have always brought their kids to help out on the stand.

There seems to be this... bollocks... going round that in the Bad Old Days, gaming was the preserve of some sub-race of stinking orcs.  Again anecdotally, I've come across a few oddballs and smellies (and some downright weirdos) but the majority of gamers I've encountered have been perfectly normal folks.

Quote from: Momotaro;846312Gee, must have missed the great crusade.  

How about this - GW gamers grew up and had their own kids.  Maybe they just wanted better fucking catering and toilets?  Maybe when we go online and complain about dingy shows and poor facilities, the organisers have to listen now?

I think the Whites (Mr and Mrs Hasslefree Minis) have always brought their kids to help out on the stand.

There seems to be this... bollocks... going round that in the Bad Old Days, gaming was the preserve of some sub-race of stinking orcs.  Again anecdotally, I've come across a few oddballs and smellies (and some downright weirdos) but the majority of gamers I've encountered have been perfectly normal folks.

Well the great crusade (wot?) was probably helped by two things. Molding technology brought prices down, so they gradually became more like commodity items, secondly Games Workshop came into being, which was marketed at a younger demographic from the get go.

Quote from: Motorskills;846318econdly Games Workshop came into being, which was marketed at a younger demographic from the get go.

No it wasnt.

GW was aimed at a younger demographic starting in the 90s, with the 4th edition of the fantasy game and 2nd iteration of the 40K game. Originally it was very much aimed at the middle aged wargame crowd, and one can easily tell this by the way the games were significantly altered to remove objectional material, the rules simplified and options removed, and the massive in-jokes that only older players would get replaced with "all-serious all-the-time" grimdark to appeal to adolescents that still took themselves very very seriously.

Oh. Yay. Now they want to tear apart wargaming.

Christ, can't these people at very least talk to the rpg and wargaming community itself rather than instantly labeling us monsters?

I know we're not perfect and that there are genuinely awful people who play these games but they are the minority.

My girlfriend has been wargaming longer than I have. I have LGBT-identifying friends who love it. Why don't these "SJWs" ever take their opinions into account?

Quote from: PerkytheDragon;847246My girlfriend has been wargaming longer than I have. I have LGBT-identifying friends who love it. Why don't these "SJWs" ever take their opinions into account?

They do. They call them "Uncle Toms" and dismiss them as having "Internalized Oppression".

Quote from: PerkytheDragon;847246Oh. Yay. Now they want to tear apart wargaming.

Christ, can't these people at very least talk to the rpg and wargaming community itself rather than instantly labeling us monsters?

I know we're not perfect and that there are genuinely awful people who play these games but they are the minority.

My girlfriend has been wargaming longer than I have. I have LGBT-identifying friends who love it. Why don't these "SJWs" ever take their opinions into account?

Because SJWs are bullies who high ride such a high horse they need to bring their own oxygen?

I am fairly certain that the people that go after the various hobbies we enjoy know very little about them, nor care to. They have a stick, see a target, and are going to go after until it get's boring, then go after the next one.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;847270They do. They call them "Uncle Toms" and dismiss them as having "Internalized Oppression".

Yep. And apparently we're the bigots...

Quote from: Warboss Squee;847271Because SJWs are bullies who high ride such a high horse they need to bring their own oxygen?

I am fairly certain that the people that go after the various hobbies we enjoy know very little about them, nor care to. They have a stick, see a target, and are going to go after until it get's boring, then go after the next one.

And I guess it's easier than going outside and attempting to solve real societal problems...

Quote from: PerkytheDragon;847274Yep. And apparently we're the bigots...



And I guess it's easier than going outside and attempting to solve real societal problems...

SJWs are like politicians is as much that actually solving a problem would strip them of the bludgeon that their platform needs to attempt to stay relevant.

Quote from: TristramEvans;847145No it wasnt.

GW was aimed at a younger demographic starting in the 90s, with the 4th edition of the fantasy game and 2nd iteration of the 40K game. Originally it was very much aimed at the middle aged wargame crowd, and one can easily tell this by the way the games were significantly altered to remove objectional material, the rules simplified and options removed, and the massive in-jokes that only older players would get replaced with "all-serious all-the-time" grimdark to appeal to adolescents that still took themselves very very seriously.

Well sure, but 1992 is still pretty far back as far as the general thing goes.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;847277SJWs are like politicians is as much that actually solving a problem would strip them of the bludgeon that their platform needs to attempt to stay relevant.

This, this 10^100 this.

"Ok, now that we've beaten you into submission on THIS issue, let's move on to the next one!"

Fuckers....

Are there actually women out there who really object sexy armor on female paladins for example? I never met them.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;847496Are there actually women out there who really object sexy armor on female paladins for example? I never met them.

Only in satire, I believe:
(http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_article_image/oogcpr8tjf9kxymtr27r.jpg)

The thing with a lot of these things is you go nodding along with stuff that makes sense until it starts really getting off the rails. It's like reading an interesting economic paper about long-term planning that's making all kinds of good points and then starts talking about the need to raise a temple of infant bones to the dark lords to ward off the apocalypse leaving you thinking "bwaaaaaah?"

In a lot of nerd hobbies creepy dudes show up and often people just kind of shrug, maybe call them on their worst behavior and maybe apologize for them instead of booting them out.

A lot of people would rather deal with the long slow bleed due to the creeps than the short term explosion of drama that you'd get from giving them the boot so a lot of creeps keep on hanging around, especially in larger less personal groups.

People can really do better.

But complaining about military fetishism in the context of war gaming? Seriously?

Quote from: Daztur;847996In a lot of nerd hobbies creepy dudes show up and often people just kind of shrug, maybe call them on their worst behavior and maybe apologize for them instead of booting them out.

A lot of people would rather deal with the long slow bleed due to the creeps than the short term explosion of drama that you'd get from giving them the boot so a lot of creeps keep on hanging around, especially in larger less personal groups.

People can really do better.

I use the bandaid comparison here to try and convince people, one good rip, right off. I have some standards when it comes to people I game with, so my group selections have generally made that a non-issue. When it has been an issue I have either taken the time to explain to someone what they're doing and why they shouldn't, in real simple terms not assigning the blame on the other person. Or I've just left the group figuring it a lost cause.

Apparently being willing to do this and stand behind it is rare in geek circles and most of the folks expected it to cause a melt down. Haven't had that problem, actually had a few people realize WHY they didn't have many friends after a few quick talks. Probably helps that I have to try to be sociable myself so I generally know what I'm talking about.

Individual solutions to individual problems, it works a whole lot better than screaming at a crowd they're wrong and all these horrible things. And to note, SJWs didn't win in atheism, they just scared a number of women away for a few years and then their own movement ate itself alive. There's a few notables left and their cliques, but that's about it outside of whatever subgroup private fortress they've climbed into. I should check the con numbers and see if they're coming back to parity with women like they were pre atheism+.

Quote from: Alathon;840399"A gun is always loaded" is not a literal fact, but is nonetheless true enough to be worth saying, and worth insisting upon when handling firearms.

Also, the "truth in the middle" idea is a fallacy; sometimes one side is just plain full of shit.  There's no truth in the middle on anti-vaxx, and I'll bet with a little effort we could fish a hundred ideas out of history's dustbin which were heavily debated at one time, but nonetheless unequivocally false.  Running truth in the middle narrative empowers dishonest bargainers, who can use that false assumption to make dishonest opening statements/offers to drive the discussion.. or "push the frame", as it's sometimes called.

In the case of social justice, by going full-SJW at the start, by demanding concessions in twenty places and making every accusation under the sun, they make it emotionally easy to concede just one or two.  It's awful to deal with their baying mobs and their hyperbole and false accusations, giving just a little ground in hopes that they'll ease off starts to seem like a good idea, but do it and you've paid danegeld.  Bullying Tactics 101:  coerce concessions once, and not only is a habit of making concessions established, but everyone who's watching sees dominance established and has to peg the cost of opposition higher than it used to be.

Well said.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;847496Are there actually women out there who really object sexy armor on female paladins for example? I never met them.

IME plenty of gamers don't want their own female paladin(s) to be wearing Playboy Bunny Armour, but few outside of Internet SJWs object to other peoples' female paladins doing so.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;839650So this call to action went out:

http://www.corehammer.com/social-wargaming-part-1-social-justice-wargamer/

As a wargamer, I have never found any of these observations to be correct in reality.  I play sci fi, fantasy and a smaller handful of historical periods.  I can see where someone might come to all of these conclusions if the entire breadth of their exposure to wargaming is limited to The Miniatures Page forums.  :/

To return to the thread title a bit, one of the things I think that sets off those inclined to outrage is that wargamers tend not to see history as something over which they are supposed to stand in judgement.  That the point of history is to learn about the past rather than set it up as an object of derision.  That the past isn't something that we're supposed to shit on in order to show how modern or progressive we are.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;847496Are there actually women out there who really object sexy armor on female paladins for example? I never met them.

About a quarter of the women I game with do, about a quarter like it, and the rest don't care.

The real question is not "are there sexist/racist/misogynistic/homophobic douchebags in wargaming."  Of course there are.

The question is "are they there in greater proportion than in the general population?"

Of course there are assholes in wargaming.  Any time you get a significant number of people together, you will get some assholes.  

One of the main problems with this sort of article is the way they people use terminology and build narratives.  They are full of indignant comments about misogyny, racism and homophobia but they apply those terms to a wide range of things that no reasonable person would ever apply them to.  From there they build a narrative where pervasive "misogyny" is supposedly a wide spread norm because behaviors and comments that no reasonable person would describe using that term are lumped in with the few behaviors or comments that a sane person would consider describing as indicating hatred of women.  The same goes for narratives about racism or homophobia or whatever other things they are trying to portray some group as being. There are assholes in wargaming and people say shitty things.  That's the case throughout society.  However, they misrepresent and distort to make it seem like some group has a particular problem with these things mostly by stretching the definition of terms like racism so far they become unrecognizable and doing the Battle of Roark's Drift becomes inexcusable KKK-esque racism calling for the murder of Africans or some absurd bullshit like that.

They also make these ridiculous assumptions about how people will react to things.  They basically assume that everyone will react to things in the same overwrought, overheated, hyperbolic and childish way they do.  The idea that a woman who is otherwise interested in a hobby will become so uncomfortable with someone looking at an image of a scantily clad woman that they will be excluded is utterly asinine.  Most women, or people in general, are just not that absurdly oversensitive and overwrought about stuff like that.  I don't know if this is just projection or deliberate bullshit to make their non-issues seem like real, weighty problems that matter to anyone but them.  This idea that women in general go around looking for things to be offended by and react to anything they find with a butthurt temper tantrum is more misogynist that anything I have ever heard any wargamer say.  

In my experience, men in male dominated hobbies are actually quite pleased when women take an interest in the hobby and want to participate.  Women who are interested in what people in the hobby are doing and who want to be a part of that activity and the subculture around it are welcomed.  This lasts right up until a relative handful of women start demanding that the space be changed to suit them and their sensibilities.  That's when the push back starts and it can catch other women who have been participating without a problem for a while before this.  It's not misogyny.  It's just people not wanting to be scolded and bullied in their own space.  Most of the women don't like it any better than the men. They are there because they like and want to participate in what everyone was doing and they don't want to be dictated to by scolds any more than the men do.

Welcome to the site and please keep on being honest because you nailed it in the head.

I actually can be honest here.

One thing I agree with this person on is that miniatures wargamers, particularly historical miniatures players, tend to lean more to the right politically than, say, role-play gamers.  We differ in how we think this should be responded to.  He seems to think that people being allowed to express political opinions to the right of the Huffington Post is some sort of dire problem that needs to be corrected and I think that is self-righteous bullshit.  He thinks that people who express political opinions he doesn't approve of should be cast out and I think that's a totalitarian, bullying mentality that should not be indulged.

The rest of his supposed points are just bullshit.  People who get into the hobby of historical wargaming are likely to be much more interested in military history than most people *Gasp*  Shocking.  Next you will be telling me that people who are big into crafting hobbies are likely to be people who enjoy making things more than most people.  He tries to make something obvious and mundane like people who are in a hobby being interested in the thing the hobby is about sound dire by calling it "fetishism".  He acts like every player who plays Germans in a WW2 game goosesteps in wearing a full SS uniform and carrying a Nazi flag, does a Heil Hitler salute and shoots a Jew before every game or something.  It's just hysterical bullshit.

Quote from: yosemitemike;866362I actually can be honest here.

One thing I agree with this person on is that miniatures wargamers, particularly historical miniatures players, tend to lean more to the right politically than, say, role-play gamers.  We differ in how we think this should be responded to.  He seems to think that people being allowed to express political opinions to the right of the Huffington Post is some sort of dire problem that needs to be corrected and I think that is self-righteous bullshit.  He thinks that people who express political opinions he doesn't approve of should be cast out and I think that's a totalitarian, bullying mentality that should not be indulged.

The rest of his supposed points are just bullshit.  People who get into the hobby of historical wargaming are likely to be much more interested in military history than most people *Gasp*  Shocking.  Next you will be telling me that people who are big into crafting hobbies are likely to be people who enjoy making things more than most people.  He tries to make something obvious and mundane like people who are in a hobby being interested in the thing the hobby is about sound dire by calling it "fetishism".  He acts like every player who plays Germans in a WW2 game goosesteps in wearing a full SS uniform and carrying a Nazi flag, does a Heil Hitler salute and shoots a Jew before every game or something.  It's just hysterical bullshit.

I'd be hard pressed to find an article condemning those "evil gamers" that wasn't bullshit.

It's a pry bar that gets used to beat gamers with to score points with their progressive brethren.

Quote from: yosemitemike;866352In my experience, men in male dominated hobbies are actually quite pleased when women take an interest in the hobby and want to participate.  Women who are interested in what people in the hobby are doing and who want to be a part of that activity and the subculture around it are welcomed.

Yeah, but this can also lead to problems when the welcome is a little too friendly, in an "I want to touch your boobies" kind of way.  Fortunately, most of us learn how to behave in mixed company by the time we get out of our teens or thereabouts, but there do seem to be some guys who continue to react that way for their entire lives and it tends to put women off pretty badly.

Of course, this isn't nearly as common as the hand-wringers like to portray it as being.

Quote from: nDervish;866373Yeah, but this can also lead to problems when the welcome is a little too friendly, in an "I want to touch your boobies" kind of way.  Fortunately, most of us learn how to behave in mixed company by the time we get out of our teens or thereabouts, but there do seem to be some guys who continue to react that way for their entire lives and it tends to put women off pretty badly.

Of course, this isn't nearly as common as the hand-wringers like to portray it as being.

You can find any sort of bad behavior in any group with any significant number of people in it.  That doesn't mean such behavior is more prevalent in that group than it is in the population at large.  You get together enough people and you will get some assholes.  I have been in and around wargaming circles since the 80s and I can count the number of times I have seen that on one hand with fingers left over.  I can only really think of one circumstance where a player was a little too interested in the underage daughter of another player and this behavior wasn't well received.

They want to pretend that this is some widespread and accepted thing among wargamers and it just isn't.

Of couse war gaming as a hobby has a huge problem with homophobia, racism and sexism.
It is dominated by teenage boys and old men.

However, that is still doing all the normal wargamers a disservice. Not everyone who owns a WW2 german army is a Nazi.

@scantily dressed women in illustration:
I have more of a problem with this than my wife. I see boobplate and go immediately "fuck you, I am not going to be manipulated into buying your shit because you put a pair of tits on the cover".
My wife on the other hand usually is fine with it and just rolls her eyes a little. For her pose of the female character is more important than what the character wears.

Even if wargamers are on the conservative side, what do people expect? Its about history (sometimes) tactics war and conquest and victory, that is going to attract pretty Right wing people.

Gaming and Wargaming aren't tools to teach cultural Marxism or whatever Left   values set is in vogue. They are hobbies.

Most of the ones I've met are polite, historical gamers being a bit standoffish and more modern gamers (warhammer and such) being quite friendly

However such games  aren't that hard to learn and play so if people are unhappy with the current scene they should create  a separate one instead of trying to infiltrate the existing one.

I'd suggest  a few starter boxes or whatever minis game interests you, put up an add and maybe a  sign with buzz words you need (progressive, inclusive, diverse,whatever)   than snag a table at the FLGS or somebodies house.

Play.

Easy peasey,

Of course most of this has diddly to do with The Hobby, its more the Left especially the SJW's totalitarian impulse, there can't be hobbies they don't control.

I only play historicals at conventions, not at home, so my experience is with strangers gathering in public.

The big difference I find with historical players vs. 40kers is there is an expectation that you know your history trivia, and that can lead to ostracizing of younger players.

Maybe its just my experience, but at the Bay Area cons, there was always some historical gamers who hosted newbie events to get young people interested in their hobby. Those gamers just cared about what you were planning to do with your tanks and your infantry, and they skip over the part of the game where everyone fantasizes about sucking Rommel's cock.

But hey I'm not a history guy so Rommel's cock may have been totally awesomely tasty so who am I to point fingers?

Quote from: 5 Stone Games;866570Even if wargamers are on the conservative side, what do people expect? Its about history (sometimes) tactics war and conquest and victory, that is going to attract pretty Right wing people.

It's a salient point to make, although it's curious that the 'touchy-feely, pseudo-hippy' roleplaying hobby grew out of the wargaming hobby.

For me, I guess I am more on the left-hand side of the political spectrum - which may be unusual in gaming, possibly, but I don't think so - and the general unspoken rule in most games I participate in is 'no religion, no politics'. If you are gaming in groups who know each other more, then the context may change and discussion may be more free. And of course, there are always times when you just HAVE to express a point as some things are important to your own values.
I respect that, and if other people are willing to at least tolerantly engage in discussion/debate with others who may have differing points of view then things can operate. It's when people aren't that things break down. For me, I tend to differentiate between expressed views of political preference eg. "I don't like President Obama because of X, Y and Z" and those that are designed to persecute "eg I hate gays" and so on. The former is fine by me, the latter not.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;866877It's a salient point to make, although it's curious that the 'touchy-feely, pseudo-hippy' roleplaying hobby grew out of the wargaming hobby.

For me, I guess I am more on the left-hand side of the political spectrum - which may be unusual in gaming, possibly, but I don't think so - and the general unspoken rule in most games I participate in is 'no religion, no politics'. If you are gaming in groups who know each other more, then the context may change and discussion may be more free. And of course, there are always times when you just HAVE to express a point as some things are important to your own values.
I respect that, and if other people are willing to at least tolerantly engage in discussion/debate with others who may have differing points of view then things can operate. It's when people aren't that things break down. For me, I tend to differentiate between expressed views of political preference eg. "I don't like President Obama because of X, Y and Z" and those that are designed to persecute "eg I hate gays" and so on. The former is fine by me, the latter not.

As I understand it there was back in the very early days some stoner culture crossover (late 70's very early 80's) however  D&D isn't really a hippie thing.

Gary and Dave were both devout Christians FWIW and the RPG is originally made was just a "play one guy" wargame.

Most RPG's even now are about people  out  reaving, tomb robbing and killing

Not exactly SJW turf

Softer 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.

 I think it would be a trip to play WTA with a bunch of eco-freak types but these days that's probably unwise,  here  "free American" and I don't need the agro or guilt by association or some idiot thinking our game session is a "planning session" or hell worse finding out it really is.

I've read a lot of  of the stuff  in Appendix N  and   Tolkien and Howard were quite Conservative . Other writers had difference views but very little in Appendix N was remotely political and none of it was Leftist  in tone, even Andrea Norton's work.

Quote from: 5 Stone Games;866894As I understand it there was back in the very early days some stoner culture crossover (late 70's very early 80's) however  D&D isn't really a hippie thing.

Not really what I'm trying to say.  What I was suggesting is that if we define the traits of gamers by the traits of the games they choose to play, then the strategist/conquest aspect of wargaming (nominally a right wing trait), could be countered by the collaborative, creative imagination aspects of RPGs which I'd nominate as more 'lefty' in effect.

In terms of the games and designers themselves, I've always considered that many of the first wave of RPGs (maybe those that were more directly evolved from wargames, perhaps) had slight right wing themes, but later alternative games progressed to more left wing world views.

D&D, for example, could be argued as being vaguely right wing because the characters are directly rewarded for their conquests of killing things and taking their stuff. The aim of the game is essentially capitalist, as is Traveller. If you compare this with later successful games, in their respective genres, then RuneQuest is less interested in conquest and more about spiritual ascension and cultural duality. Paranoia and Cyberpunk are, broadly, left wing satires.

Similarly, the early horror Call of Cthulhu RPG represents a fearful paradigm that desperately fears science and progression (as well as being xenophobic, racist, etc), whereas the later Vampire: The Masquerade generally tends to pit newly embraced vampires against elder, conservatives.

All of this may be nuanced and personal perspective, but hopefully you see what I mean!

Quote from: TrippyHippy;867004Not really what I'm trying to say.  What I was suggesting is that if we define the traits of gamers by the traits of the games they choose to play, then the strategist/conquest aspect of wargaming (nominally a right wing trait), could be countered by the collaborative, creative imagination aspects of RPGs which I'd nominate as more 'lefty' in effect.

In terms of the games and designers themselves, I've always considered that many of the first wave of RPGs (maybe those that were more directly evolved from wargames, perhaps) had slight right wing themes, but later alternative games progressed to more left wing world views.

D&D, for example, could be argued as being vaguely right wing because the characters are directly rewarded for their conquests of killing things and taking their stuff. The aim of the game is essentially capitalist, as is Traveller. If you compare this with later successful games, in their respective genres, then RuneQuest is less interested in conquest and more about spiritual ascension and cultural duality. Paranoia and Cyberpunk are, broadly, left wing satires.

Similarly, the early horror Call of Cthulhu RPG represents a fearful paradigm that desperately fears science and progression (as well as being xenophobic, racist, etc), whereas the later Vampire: The Masquerade generally tends to pit newly embraced vampires against elder, conservatives.

All of this may be nuanced and personal perspective, but hopefully you see what I mean!

I do and its actually a pretty interesting perspective. I would say though that while some games do have alternate designs most of them end up played much like D&D is.

Traveller is something of an exception but Mercantilism and Scouting twp of the main activities  are also  traditionally conservative ideas in the US . heck Noble is a character background !

I also slightly disagree with you on the issue of Cyberpunk. Its was a broad and gamable interpretation of the genre but never came off as satire. I've read most of the seminal books and they fit the CP2020 ethos well enough. Its ramped up to 11 in the game but theya re clearly close kin.

Also though most people haven't read it, the Land of the Free/Home of Brave supplements for the game were really good post-apoc also. Its a well developed, rational game world .

Heck played with limited cyberware its a very fine game.

The sense of satire comes from the amount of Min-Maxing . As you probably know the amount of bionics you can have is controlled by a stat called Empathy. The more bionics you have the crazier you get and combat PC's start with an Empathy that of Mr. Rodgers.

That was a dumb rule.

Bill Willington (IIRC) Underground however was pure satire, Tatsee Ghoul (a cannibal fast food chain) replace McDonalds that kind of thing

Sounds like a good blog to ignore and not read.

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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFnd6IS0DrY&list=PLM9L2W5aOI_1c9VBdAi6efQAZPoZ-UcdC).

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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGvYqaxSPp4) about how the world works.

Quote from: Alzrius;867937This is because the progressives have co-opted liberalism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFnd6IS0DrY&list=PLM9L2W5aOI_1c9VBdAi6efQAZPoZ-UcdC).

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.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;868655Let'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.

The assumption that opponents must be duplicitous and/or evil is a standard feature of leftist rhetoric around the world going back for centuries.  They aren't the only people who engage in this sort of behavior and I never said they were in the first place.  However, there is a strong and enduring pattern of this sort of thing on the political left going way back.

Declaring something is sin, is not really the same as doing everything you can to destroy a person's life and career.  The president of Mozilla pops instantly to mind here.  There are several other examples as well.  I personally think ruining my life in the here and now is a much bigger problem than sending me to a fiery doom once I die (especially since 1. Said fiery doom may not be real and 2. The sender has no actual authority to send me).

Quote from: yosemitemike;868667The assumption that opponents must be duplicitous and/or evil is a standard feature of leftist rhetoric around the world going back for centuries.  They aren't the only people who engage in this sort of behavior and I never said they were in the first place.  However, there is a strong and enduring pattern of this sort of thing on the political left going way back.

It is very much so. Make it personal is a huge part of modern leftist operations.

 Falwell for all his flaws was coming from a   religious POV, the things he was railing about were in his way of thinking forbidden  by the creator of the Universe. Theologically Falwell wasn't terrible either or a hypocrite, he mostly followed a fairly Conservative form of the religion

On those grounds its pretty unreasonable to ask people to find conduct that is considered evil to be perfectly acceptable so we can all get along. And understand to the religious mind someone who does not do what the creator orders is doing evil. This isn't bullheadedness  but the way ordinary human societies work, a hierarchy with god/s at the top

Liberal, Leftists or Secular people in our  WEIRD (Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic) cultures don't see it and when we run into people like Jihadists or in a much "lighter" fashion Falwell or even secular nations where insulting the king can get you a prison stay, our brains lock up.

Quote from: oggsmash;868904Declaring something is sin, is not really the same as doing everything you can to destroy a person's life and career.  The president of Mozilla pops instantly to mind here.  There are several other examples as well.  I personally think ruining my life in the here and now is a much bigger problem than sending me to a fiery doom once I die (especially since 1. Said fiery doom may not be real and 2. The sender has no actual authority to send me).

That isn't what is going on. The bombast is a warning intended to say "the creator will punish you for that conduct, stop doing it and repent and be forgiven so you can avoid the consequence of an eternity of torture."

Ok so maybe I'm not grasping the picture here but the Blog writer suggest that if you see people acting like douchbags in a public area (like at a comic book store or other venue where wargaming takes place) you should let them know they're being douchbags instead of just ignoring it because there's a chance that people who would go to such events or locations might be offended by said dickbags?

And that's bad why?

Some people are frankly, just pieces of shit and when they make fun of homosexuals or transgender people or rape they probably should be told to fuck off when they're in a public place. I don't see why or how that is somehow wrong. If people want to be douchebags they can do that in their house or with their friends in some non-public venue.

The only thing with the article that I didn't particularly care for is the anger towards those that enjoy playing the Axis side of Axis and Allies. In the picture, a tank with an iron cross, didn't particularly come off as Pro-Nazi or anti-Jew. It wasn't a swastica and the Iron Cross represents more than just a symbol of the Nazi regime.

Quote from: Batman;880688Some people are frankly, just pieces of shit and when they make fun of homosexuals or transgender people or rape they probably should be told to fuck off when they're in a public place. I don't see why or how that is somehow wrong.

Because when you react with aggression (and risk violence in the process) by default to what seems like a case that could use Hanlon's Razor as the explanation, then you're not fixing anything. You're becoming part of the problem. Reducing everything to "they say something I don't like, therefore they MUST shut up" is wrong. More so, if it concerns a group you're not part of. The only thing it does is adding fuel to your "opponent's" flames and it suggests that you perceive said insulted groups as so weak, brittle and fragile that they need to be defended all the time and no one should be allowed to make any fun of them, no matter what, what furthermore does even more harm.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;880768Because when you react with aggression (and risk violence in the process) by default to what seems like a case that could use Hanlon's Razor as the explanation, then you're not fixing anything. You're becoming part of the problem.

I agree that starting up any dialog with "Go Fuck off" is probably wrong. Could it be handled better from the start? Yes. That doesn't mean that it's better to not react at all. Bullies and those who would say rape jokes or make fun of homosexuals and transgender people most often don't get reacted to, giving them the illusion that what they're saying is either Ok or at least tolerable. I'm saying it shouldn't.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;880768Reducing everything to "they say something I don't like, therefore they MUST shut up" is wrong.

I'm not talking about reducing everything. I'm talking about very specific examples here. Specific examples in a public place. And asking them to NOT use slurs, derogatory jokes, and open mocking ISN'T "shut up", it's asking them to have some common fucking courtesy.  

Quote from: JesterRaiin;880768More so, if it concerns a group you're not part of. The only thing it does is adding fuel to your "opponent's" flames and it suggests that you perceive said insulted groups as so weak, brittle and fragile that they need to be defended all the time and no one should be allowed to make any fun of them, no matter what, what furthermore does even more harm.

That's total bull shit. I don't have to apart of a specific group to be miffed at someone using racial slurs (which I really can't stand, no matter who says them) or saying rape jokes or using offensive language in a public space. It also certainly doesn't mean those people cannot defend themselves either. I'm not speaking "for them", I'm speaking for me. It's been my experiences that assholes that say shit like that out in the open aren't stood up to. They carry on and no one bats an eye because they don't want to get involved. And when they are confronted the majority of the time they do back down or stop. And when they don't, yep physical altercations can and do occur. Sometimes you need to physically put someone in their place.

Again, this whole thing is about using that sort of language at a place that's open to everyone. Not some dude's house or a secret meeting in someone's grandmothers basement. We're talking about your local FLGS or convention or some other place where ALL sorts of people are going to be around. If I go to New Dimension Comics, especially with my daughters, and I hear rape jokes or people using offensive terms for homosexuals you bet your ass I'm going to speak up and say something.

Quote from: yosemitemike;868645The behavior of the SJW crowd today is not substantially different from the behavior of campus radicals in the 1960s.  

Dude, no.

While African Americans may not have a picnic today, the plight of their community uber sucked ebola balls in the 1960s (and beforehand).

Civil Rights and the bloody meatgrinder of the Vietnam War were real issues, not today's wank off about triggering and safe spaces and not enough Oscar nods. Police brutality against blacks is bad stuff today, but compared to their treatment by police pre-Civil Rights?

Let's give credit where credit is due. The dirty hippies were Space Marines compared to the SJWs.

Quote from: oggsmash;868904Declaring something is sin, is not really the same as doing everything you can to destroy a person's life and career.  The president of Mozilla pops instantly to mind here.  There are several other examples as well.  I personally think ruining my life in the here and now is a much bigger problem than sending me to a fiery doom once I die (especially since 1. Said fiery doom may not be real and 2. The sender has no actual authority to send me).

Placing something in the category is sin isn't just an academic abstraction in the evangelical community. If you grew up in an evangelical area, being a 'sinner' had real impact on your life and your ability to have a social life or even a job. Heck this hobby was impacted by that kind of rhetoric in the 80s in a very real way.

Quote from: Spinachcat;881190Dude, no.

While African Americans may not have a picnic today, the plight of their community uber sucked ebola balls in the 1960s (and beforehand).

Civil Rights and the bloody meatgrinder of the Vietnam War were real issues, not today's wank off about triggering and safe spaces and not enough Oscar nods. Police brutality against blacks is bad stuff today, but compared to their treatment by police pre-Civil Rights?

Let's give credit where credit is due. The dirty hippies were Space Marines compared to the SJWs.

Yeah the hippies and activists of the civil rights era and 60s culture were definitely on the right side of history in my book.

Quote from: Spinachcat;881190Dude, no.

While African Americans may not have a picnic today, the plight of their community uber sucked ebola balls in the 1960s (and beforehand).

Civil Rights and the bloody meatgrinder of the Vietnam War were real issues, not today's wank off about triggering and safe spaces and not enough Oscar nods. Police brutality against blacks is bad stuff today, but compared to their treatment by police pre-Civil Rights?

Let's give credit where credit is due. The dirty hippies were Space Marines compared to the SJWs.

Dude, yes.

The idea that the campus radicals of the 60s were all crusading for worthy causes is bunk.  There was some of that and there are some real issues now but they were not all campaigning for such causes at all.  They were also pushing to change the curriculum to better suit their own politics much as campus SJWs are today.  There were cultural revolution-esque denouncement fests then as there are now.  There were protests to ban ROTC from campuses to suit their dislike of the military.  There were demands for campus diversity and Me Studies departments just like there are now.  There was a lot of bullshit alongside the stuff you are talking about.  The two groups are much more alike that you care to admit.  A lot of this same stuff was going on back then.

The greatest irony in such articles is, that while they are indeed usually laughably patronising and read as The Onion's parody of left, inevitably sooner or later a person from opposite spectrum shows up to bash it with rhetoric that appears to have been the source for author's essay.