Quote from: Shasarak;1096707Its just a Memetic virus like Communism.

Good point about communism.

That's another genius move spawned by "white race" that proves we've got zero claim to racial supremacy. No "superior race" would have created, let alone implemented, the utter asinine stupidity of communism. Even dumber, after a century proving communism is a total failure, we have universities graduating "white people" clamoring for more communism. That alone has gotta drop from IQ points off the honky tally!

Quote from: Spinachcat;1096710Good point about communism.

That's another genius move spawned by "white race" that proves we've got zero claim to racial supremacy. No "superior race" would have created, let alone implemented, the utter asinine stupidity of communism. Even dumber, after a century proving communism is a total failure, we have universities graduating "white people" clamoring for more communism. That alone has gotta drop from IQ points off the honky tally!

I would not give old Whitey too much of a hard time, even the Asians fell for it.  Turns out the smarter you are the better you are at justifying bad ideas to yourself.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1096703100% endorsement from me.

I'm the guy who says SJWs are the proof "white supremacy" can't exist. No superior race would spawn such garbage. But since the "white race" has not only birthed SJWs, but coddled them in academia and exalted them in the media, any claims to "white supremacy" is laughable.

I'm also the guy who happily and regularly shat upon the Religious Right during the 80s and beyond for their self-serving hypocrisy, and their Neo-Con bastard spawn and neither group was known for their "diversity".

I'm a free speech advocate. My allies come in all colors, creeds and both genders. A core element of free speech is honest speech, real words with visceral definitions, not the laughable and lifeless bullshit of PC speech.

Also, I empathize with Carlin's anger at "white people" as his was the last generation who could remember the low population USA of dirt roads and vast natural spaces, before the paving over of the beauty of the continent with endless highways, housing tracts and mini-malls.

Truth

...but I have the feeling that you might as well be talking to a wall, unfortunately.  
Anyone who can actually grasp the concept wouldn't need it explained to them.

Quote from: jhkim;1096651
Gagarth's examples are about minority (esp. LGBT) representation in media. People like to argue statistics because it gives some impression of being more objective and concrete, but ultimately representation is about subjective message - not statistics. LGBT advocates push for more representation, while conversely, anti-LGBT advocates claim that there are too many or too prominent LGBT characters. The problem is that focusing primarily on the statistics is flawed because it results in an attitude of just fulfilling the stats rather than addressing the causes.[/QUOTEIt is not just a about faces on the screen (They have already won that battle. Not that there was much of fight since the media corporations had already been thoroughly infiltrated)  it is about who gets employed.  The  intersectionalists and their cis/straight white allies  have already decided every single place of work or institution should have the same demographics as Atlanta, San Francisco  or a sanctuary city in the U.S. or London in the UK. They are already campaigning  for employers to automatically hire  a minority if there are a number of equally qualified applicants.  Not sure about the U.S. but in U.K. this would be perfectly legal already as it his been enshrined in Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010.  How long before the intersectionalists demand that it be legally mandatory the minority automatically get hired..

Quote from: jhkimGagarth's examples are about minority (esp. LGBT) representation in media. People like to argue statistics because it gives some impression of being more objective and concrete, but ultimately representation is about subjective message - not statistics. LGBT advocates push for more representation, while conversely, anti-LGBT advocates claim that there are too many or too prominent LGBT characters. The problem is that focusing primarily on the statistics is flawed because it results in an attitude of just fulfilling the stats rather than addressing the causes.

Quote from: Gagarth;1096730It is not just a about faces on the screen (They have already won that battle. Not that there was much of fight since the media corporations had already been thoroughly infiltrated)  it is about who gets employed.  The  intersectionalists and their cis/straight white allies  have already decided every single place of work or institution should have the same demographics as Atlanta, San Francisco  or a sanctuary city in the U.S. or London in the UK. They are already campaigning  for employers to automatically hire  a minority if there are a number of equally qualified applicants.  Not sure about the U.S. but in U.K. this would be perfectly legal already as it his been enshrined in Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010.  How long before the intersectionalists demand that it be legally mandatory the minority automatically get hired..

Here within the U.S., about 1 in 4 people think that gay or lesbian relations should be illegal between consenting adults. (Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx ) That's a minority of the overall population, but still a whole lot of people. And since LGBT acceptance is lower among the older generation, it's almost certainly more than 1 in 4 bosses. Furthermore, there is no national law against employment discrimination based on sexuality, though a minority of states (22) have such a law. So bosses in most states can openly and legally fire someone simply for being gay.

I am opposed to forcing employers to hire LGBT workers, but I also don't think that it's a leading problem among LGBT issues.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1096605Depends on which smug, greedy, well-fed white people you think he's reffering to. Carlin was an equal opportunity offender. His bit about feminism is pretty great.

(Removed the video from the quote; see the linked post if you need more context.)

Offend feminists by going to NOW headquarters or Ms. magazine and asking them to make a meal and provide sex while calling them names? It just seems rude and excessive. Lots of posters here get offended by my polite mainstream opinions. (I am a little disturbed at how many men would apparently think "blow job" when seeing a woman eat a banana; everyone I've ever seen eat a banana takes small bites off the end.)

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1096620We see some of that here, but probably not the people you think it refers to.

Quote from: tenbones;1096631Why? It's true. White-leftist guilt-ridden, moralizing, self-loathing assholes are the ones that pushed all this. Carlin was spot-on.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1096703I'm the guy who says SJWs are the proof "white supremacy" can't exist. No superior race would spawn such garbage. But since the "white race" has not only birthed SJWs, but coddled them in academia and exalted them in the media, any claims to "white supremacy" is laughable.

Well, it didn't take long for the secret decoder rings to come out! And lo! it is revealed that the only white guys Carlin's talking about are the SJWs! Well, no need to put that revelation inside spoiler tags.

The soft language clip was from 1990, and Carlin generally "punched up"; the smug, greedy, well-fed white people he's talking about are clearly those in positions of power. The only change in language that might have been activism driven would be replacing "cripple" with euphemisms; most of his examples are driven by marketing (preowned transportation instead of used cars), by propaganda (the contras as freedom fighters), euphemisms to spare either the listener's or speaker's feelings (the former for circumlocutions and the latter to soften bad news), or to disguise disagreeable actions ("sunshine units" dates from the days when the US government was trying to pretend its nuclear testing had no negative consequences; similarly, the Reagan administration called ketchup a vegetable to downplay its efforts to gut school lunch programs). So businesses promoted running shoes over sneakers because more profit. And legislators and bureaucrats love stilted language (sometimes for precision's sake; a health care provider might be a doctor, a physician's assistant, a registered nurse, etc, or maybe even a clinic or hospital; but an HMO is an insurance entity, not a hospital). "Human Resources" loves to puff up titles rather than pay, and hide ugly things like "firings" behind cheery terms. None of these institutions are or were controlled by progressives, let alone social justice warriors.

QuoteAlso, I empathize with Carlin's anger at "white people" as his was the last generation who could remember the low population USA of dirt roads and vast natural spaces, before the paving over of the beauty of the continent with endless highways, housing tracts and mini-malls.

Your mastery of the secret decoder ring is so great that you circle round to something that's actually bordering on true. But who were the "white people" who ruined this beauty?

Quote from: Shasarak;1096715I would not give old Whitey too much of a hard time, even the Asians fell for it.  Turns out the smarter you are the better you are at justifying bad ideas to yourself.

Wait, did you just suggest that whites or Asians are smarter? Or only the ones who went in for communism? Either way, :eek:

Quote from: rawma;1096800(Removed the video from the quote; see the linked post if you need more context.)

Offend feminists by going to NOW headquarters or Ms. magazine and asking them to make a meal and provide sex while calling them names? It just seems rude and excessive.

The joke is that feminists (and the larger groups) are easy to offend.

QuoteLots of posters here get offended by my polite mainstream opinions.

I don't think "offended" is an accurate term, perhaps amused or frustrated.

Quote from: rawma;1096800Wait, did you just suggest that whites or Asians are smarter? Or only the ones who went in for communism? Either way, :eek:

No of course I would not say that science has proven Asians are smarter.  I dont want to be hounded off the internet.

Quote from: jhkim;1096651tenbones, let me try this again. You brought up the topic of quotas. I said that I didn't agree with them - that statistics could be an indication of prejudice, but weren't definitive.

You then accused me of claiming that *no one else* ever believed in quotas. If you continue to maintain this - please point the post where I say such.

I'm saying that by you questioning the current status-quo of the RPG industry, you're playing stupid to the realities of the very motives of why things are, currently, the way they are. You're asking questions as if the demand for "diversity" by the marketing departments of WotC (and all the other indy-companies) right along with the rest of the various entertainment industries - forcing *their* views of "diverity" upon everyone because no one else's standard is enough.

That is a *defacto* call for "quotas". That's precisely why I ask you: if you believe that that the RPG industry isn't "diverse" enough - which is the point of this thread - then I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you this is a damnable lie. If not - then either you're playing some kind of rhetorical game/and/or playing stupid. Or in fact you are stupid. (which I don't believe you are.)

WHO gets to decide what is "sufficient" diversity if not the people that choose to partake in the endeavor of gaming itself? I extend this to all things. I don't believe for one second that a company gets to make that call for us as individuals. Much less exact social punishment on those that don't cater to such asinine beliefs.

Quote from: jhkim;1096651Gagarth's examples are about minority (esp. LGBT) representation in media. People like to argue statistics because it gives some impression of being more objective and concrete, but ultimately representation is about subjective message - not statistics. LGBT advocates push for more representation, while conversely, anti-LGBT advocates claim that there are too many or too prominent LGBT characters. The problem is that focusing primarily on the statistics is flawed because it results in an attitude of just fulfilling the stats rather than addressing the causes.

I'm actually not arguing statistics. I think it's a fool's errand to try to push for "representation" in anything. NO ONE is gate-keeping but SJW's. So which is it for you? Are you just discussing both sides? The point of the thread is self-explanatory. Are you pretending that the push for representation in the RPG industry is necessary or not?

Quote from: tenbones;1096820You're asking questions as if the demand for "diversity" by the marketing departments of WotC (and all the other indy-companies) right along with the rest of the various entertainment industries - forcing *their* views of "diverity" upon everyone because no one else's standard is enough.

That is a *defacto* call for "quotas". That's precisely why I ask you: if you believe that that the RPG industry isn't "diverse" enough - which is the point of this thread - then I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you this is a damnable lie. If not - then either you're playing some kind of rhetorical game/and/or playing stupid. Or in fact you are stupid. (which I don't believe you are.)

tenbones, this doesn't parse as English - particularly the part about giving me the benefit of the doubt. I can't tell what that means. But I'll try to comment on the topic.

There is no objectively correct standard of diversity. If 100% of RPG designers were straight white men, that isn't objectively wrong - but conversely, it isn't objectively right. People could try to change it according to their preferences.

What the RPG statistics can't show directly is bigotry. But from other evidence, it's clear that bigotry exists in society. For example, as I noted in another thread, in opinion polls, 1 in 4 Americans think that homosexual relationships should be illegal. I don't think that RPGs are particularly more bigoted than the rest of society, but degrees of bigotry are common everywhere. And the objectively correct standard of bigotry is zero percent.


So I approve of the goal of eliminating bigotry, but I understand that people can make impractical and/or unethical efforts to do so, like calling for quotas or doxxing suspected bigots. However, regarding WotC marketing departments - I don't see how they're immorally forcing views on anyone. They make products and advertisements with a given view. That's not mind control - that's capitalism.

Quote from: jhkim;1096754Here within the U.S., about 1 in 4 people think that gay or lesbian relations should be illegal between consenting adults. (Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx ) That's a minority of the overall population, but still a whole lot of people. And since LGBT acceptance is lower among the older generation, it's almost certainly more than 1 in 4 bosses. Furthermore, there is no national law against employment discrimination based on sexuality, though a minority of states (22) have such a law. So bosses in most states can openly and legally fire someone simply for being gay.

Likewise someone can be fired for being straight/cis or are you trying to say non CIS/Straight and their allies can't own businesses. But you are probably blind to that the way your blind to the effects of the hostility generated towards white people and things considered white in poc communities.  If there was a law based on sexuality it would  still be ok to discriminate against a straight/cis people since attitudes such as those of Jordan Peele are prevalent amongst intersectionalists.  Also nice cheery pick of the LGBT the whole point is there a concerted drive for quotas (quotas based on the demographics I listed above)  for all non-white and /or non-straight/cis.

Quote from: jhkim;1096827tenbones, this doesn't parse as English - particularly the part about giving me the benefit of the doubt. I can't tell what that means. But I'll try to comment on the topic.

There is no objectively correct standard of diversity. If 100% of RPG designers were straight white men, that isn't objectively wrong - but conversely, it isn't objectively right. People could try to change it according to their preferences.

Objectivity cannot have a 'right' or 'wrong'.  It can only be true/correct or false/incorrect.  If 100% of RPG designers were straight white men...that would simply be correct or incorrect.  People cannot 'try' to change that...it is a do or do not situation.  As soon as someone who designs a game is not a straight white male, you have diversity.

Quote from: jhkim;1096827What the RPG statistics can't show directly is bigotry. But from other evidence, it's clear that bigotry exists in society. For example, as I noted in another thread, in opinion polls, 1 in 4 Americans think that homosexual relationships should be illegal. I don't think that RPGs are particularly more bigoted than the rest of society, but degrees of bigotry are common everywhere. And the objectively correct standard of bigotry is zero percent.


So I approve of the goal of eliminating bigotry, but I understand that people can make impractical and/or unethical efforts to do so, like calling for quotas or doxxing suspected bigots. However, regarding WotC marketing departments - I don't see how they're immorally forcing views on anyone. They make products and advertisements with a given view. That's not mind control - that's capitalism.

As soon as I finish throwing up from the sheer audacity of you making this statement, I think I'm gonna go reread your comments from a certain Colorado bakery thread in the other part of the forum.

Quote from: jhkim;1096827So I approve of the goal of eliminating bigotry, but I understand that people can make impractical and/or unethical efforts to do so, like calling for quotas or doxxing suspected bigots. However, regarding WotC marketing departments - I don't see how they're immorally forcing views on anyone. They make products and advertisements with a given view. That's not mind control - that's capitalism.

Now I finally understand the bone of contention since you and Tenbones started this part of the wrangle.  

If that's your point, then I'd say you've made a more sweeping condemnation of SJW popular practices than anyone else here.  If it's positive effect that we are going to measure against, then they've done more to enhance bigotry than anyone since Woodrow Wilson.  

My practical experience with actual bigots in real life (as opposed to, say, reading bigotry into someone else because they disagree with you on some point), is that only the approach taken by Dr. King has any positive effect.  Of course that assumes that the goal is zero bigotry--i.e. actual conversion of bigots to non bigots.   I've seen it from inside a circle of people where the bigots were candid:  All the other arguments (and screaming and rioting and lying and so forth) get peoples' backs up, including bigots.  Whereas I've seen bigots confronted with King's arguments stop, reflect, and then say, "Yes, he is correct."  And then start to change.

For games, one would then assume if I am correct that Pundit's approach is the correct one for reducing bigotry in games (to the extent that there is any).  Everyone gets a voice.  Everyone gets credited as being a person.  And that includes taking the slams when they say something stupid.

Edit:  Replace, a forceful "I am a man!" with "I am a player!".  Get people to say that and mean it.  Then we are done.

I might be an actual bigot but in no way do I represent other people on this forum. I am not against gay marriage. I'm against marriage. Period. I am against same sex parents having children though (for instance via adoption). I think that every child deserves a father and a mother. I'm also against abortions used as birth control. Use contraceptives or fist-fucking, I don't care what. Just don't be a lazy bitch like above. I'm also against quotas in any line of work. Well, more transpeople and bluehaired lesbians would be fun to watch slave in African diamond mines, I might be persuaded out of that bigotry. Oh, and I'm also atheist in the proper sense (without a god, I have no need for gods) and I have a most rational fear of islam and great white sharks.

Quote from: jhkim;1096827tenbones, this doesn't parse as English - particularly the part about giving me the benefit of the doubt. I can't tell what that means. But I'll try to comment on the topic.

There is no objectively correct standard of diversity. If 100% of RPG designers were straight white men, that isn't objectively wrong - but conversely, it isn't objectively right. People could try to change it according to their preferences.

But according to the SJW's, which this thread is *about*, their claim is that the RPG industry (and I extend this out based on the multitudes of "news" stories, social-media "movements", etc. to all of entertainment - arguably beyond) is racist, white-male dominated for the express purposes of oppression of minorities, under their code-terms of "patriarchy" and blanket racist/bigoted views of Caucasians that are heterosexual and in particular, male.

But you *know* this. We've all been talking about it for *years* now. It's completely devoured RPGnet... we could argue it's the grain of sand in many, if not most, threads here which YOU participate in. The SJW's are the ones claiming there is no diversity - the reason why you are talking past me (and others) is because the idea of "diversity" has been co-opted to only mean what they want to define it as. Much like they are blind to their own inherent biases and bigotry as they propose their claims.

Quote from: jhkim;1096827What the RPG statistics can't show directly is bigotry. But from other evidence, it's clear that bigotry exists in society. For example, as I noted in another thread, in opinion polls, 1 in 4 Americans think that homosexual relationships should be illegal. I don't think that RPGs are particularly more bigoted than the rest of society, but degrees of bigotry are common everywhere. And the objectively correct standard of bigotry is zero percent.

I make no claims about society at large. Nothing about what you're saying here 1) is germane to this topic 2) seems to conflate the topic to such a grand scale it ignores the other nuances of looking at reality at this scale 3) the issue is not whether bigotry exists in society - it is whether or not SJW's themselves are the bigots they pretend non-SJW's are in the confines of the spaces we're currently inhabiting. The FACT we're on this forum discussing it, and the fact most of us are banned for having this kind of discussion on one of the largest RPG forums on the net, is probably significant evidence of the problem being on the SJW's not those of us here who largely dismiss the SJW's claims outright.

Quote from: jhkim;1096827So I approve of the goal of eliminating bigotry, but I understand that people can make impractical and/or unethical efforts to do so, like calling for quotas or doxxing suspected bigots. However, regarding WotC marketing departments - I don't see how they're immorally forcing views on anyone. They make products and advertisements with a given view. That's not mind control - that's capitalism.

So are you making the claim that within the confines of social-media WotC and their employees only do "marketing" for the purposes of capitalism? They don't engage in bigotry, or political pandering? Or social-engineering against the very base of fandom that put them on the map? Are you fucking serious? THIS is that point where I make the claim you're being willfully ignorant and obtuse.