|
ReidRansom posted:Julian Castro is HUD secretary. Ah yes, my talking points are outdated. I forgot about Castro's appointment in July. LolitaSama fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Oct 6, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Julian Castro is HUD secretary. I miss my mayor. Still, nice to see he got a job that I think he'll be fantastic in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Nah, there is definitely a new angle to it as well. People are identifying themselves by the media consume and thus any criticism of that media is a criticism of them. It is a level of brand identification/ in group-outgroup thinking that didn't pop up until the late 90s. It's not just internet pissants either, look at the way creationism, geocentricism, and antivaxxers spikes in polling when a Democrat is in office. People knee jerk to certain beliefs to say "I am not like them" and criticizing those beliefs, even when they agree with those criticisms when their "side" is in power, is now a criticism of them, rather than of the statement. And it is met with the level of vitriol as a result. Counterpoint: Ford vs Chevy vs import. And, of course the granddaddy of them all, sports. People have been identifying themselves via brand since the hippodrome. Capitalism has been accelerating and expanding on that basic principle since the 50s due to major developments in the science of advertising. Couple this with the decline in the role of religion (and the related trend of the commoditization of religion), a more transient, mobile population and the elimination of life-long careers and what we have left to define us is our consumption.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Nah, there is definitely a new angle to it as well. People are identifying themselves by the media consume and thus any criticism of that media is a criticism of them. It is a level of brand identification/ in group-outgroup thinking that didn't pop up until the late 90s. It's not just internet pissants either, look at the way creationism, geocentricism, and antivaxxers spikes in polling when a Democrat is in office. People knee jerk to certain beliefs to say "I am not like them" and criticizing those beliefs, even when they agree with those criticisms when their "side" is in power, is now a criticism of them, rather than of the statement. And it is met with the level of vitriol as a result. I read a really interesting article about in-group/out-group thinking in America last night.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Counterpoint: Ford vs Chevy vs import. And, of course the granddaddy of them all, sports. People have been identifying themselves via brand since the hippodrome. Capitalism has been accelerating and expanding on that basic principle since the 50s due to major developments in the science of advertising. Couple this with the decline in the role of religion (and the related trend of the commoditization of religion), a more transient, mobile population and the elimination of life-long careers and what we have left to define us is our consumption. Actually, I think it's closer to how car or gun enthusiasts react to the idea of legislation in those areas. You're correct that the underlying dynamic is far older than the 90s, though. e: although to be fair, for all that guns look like fancy dicks, gun nuts seem to be okay with the idea of women participating in their hobby. On the other hand, I used to think that gamers actually cared about getting more women to play games. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:On the other hand, I used to think that gamers actually cared about getting more women to play games. I think they do on at least some level; it gives their hobby legitimacy and makes them look inclusive. They just don't want them to speak up or lead or help define the culture. Like republicans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Counterpoint: Ford vs Chevy vs import. And, of course the granddaddy of them all, sports. People have been identifying themselves via brand since the hippodrome. Capitalism has been accelerating and expanding on that basic principle since the 50s due to major developments in the science of advertising. Couple this with the decline in the role of religion (and the related trend of the commoditization of religion), a more transient, mobile population and the elimination of life-long careers and what we have left to define us is our consumption. True. It still seems like it is worse to me though, like there has been a sharp rise in apocalyptic thinking, where it isn't enough to make your point, or rebut the other person's points or reach some sort of conciliation with them. Instead they must be completely destroyed. And it seems like this really kicked up in the past 20 years between the appearance of Fox News segregating media sources, the millennium giving rise to "end of the world" thinking, 9/11 prompting "clash of cultures" thinking, and the rise of Dominionism in pop media and politics. I don't know, maybe I'm talking out my rear end here, but it really seems like the idea that any disagreement is an attack on your person, and thus any disagreement must be eliminated has really sped up lately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Actually, I think it's closer to how car or gun enthusiasts react to the idea of legislation in those areas. You're correct that the underlying dynamic is far older than the 90s, though. Gun nuts are no less likely than gamers (referring, in both cases, to people who self-identify using either term) to talk down to women and treat them like they don't know anything about a stereotypically male hobby, though I guess the most direct comparison here would be if... women were complaining the industry didn't make enough guns friendly to women, but I don't know what would make a gun unfriendly to women.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:I think they do on at least some level; it gives their hobby legitimacy and makes them look inclusive. They just don't want them to speak up or lead or help define the culture. Like republicans. A major issue is that women don't like the same games as men. There's been an outcry for almost a decade now about how "hardcore" games (read: shooters, stuff that appeals to 17 year olds) are going to go away because companies are going to target "casuals" (read: women and older people) because there's so much more of them now. It's the same line of logic as the "is gaming Art?" argument - people want their hobby to be recognized as something socially acceptable, but they also don't want it to change in any way whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Isn't that a logical outgrowth of the splintering of media? When there are fewer choices, people are better exposed to the views of others. Right now when I'm talking to a conservative, it is like I am talking to someone from Space. We do not occupy the same umwelt. In a closed echo-chamber like that, maintaining group cohesion and excluding outsiders is going to get ratcheted up since crazy people talking crazy talk should be ostracized for being crazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Gun nuts are no less likely than gamers (referring, in both cases, to people who self-identify using either term) to talk down to women and treat them like they don't know anything about a stereotypically male hobby, though I guess the most direct comparison here would be if... women were complaining the industry didn't make enough guns friendly to women, but I don't know what would make a gun unfriendly to women.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Isn't that a logical outgrowth of the splintering of media? When there are fewer choices, people are better exposed to the views of others. Right now when I'm talking to a conservative, it is like I am talking to someone from Space. We do not occupy the same umwelt. In a closed echo-chamber like that, maintaining group cohesion and excluding outsiders is going to get ratcheted up since crazy people talking crazy talk should be ostracized for being crazy. There's never really been "cohesive" media (except arguably a few decades during the post WW2 era). Before the Telegraph you had massive decentralization for news where people could spin stuff, and even up into the 20th Century you had massive media empires that literally forced the US to go to war to achieve colonialist ambitions. If anything, what we're seeing now is a return to the status quo, where there's heavy in-group tendencies, although in earlier times they would be divided by regions, whereas today it's less geographically divided.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
In not lovely news, the SCOTUS has refused to hear all 7 appeals on marriage equality rulings, letting the lower court rulings stand. That's 13 states that will have legalized gay marriage in a matter of days
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Funny story: some competitive shooting used to be open (men and women shot together). Then women started outshooting the men and all of a sudden it was decided that shooting should be segregated. So now these particular competitions have a men and women's division. This was at very high levels, too. edit: Fried Chicken posted:In not lovely news, the SCOTUS has refused to hear all 7 appeals on marriage equality rulings, letting the lower court rulings stand. That's 13 states that will have legalized gay marriage in a matter of days Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Funny story: some competitive shooting used to be open (men and women shot together). Then women started outshooting the men and all of a sudden it was decided that shooting should be segregated. So now these particular competitions have a men and women's division. This was at very high levels, too. This also happened in Soccer in England. During the first world war when there were no men to play games the women took up the torch and started playing more seriously. After the war when the men came back the women were thrashing them and drawing larger crowds so women were banned from playing in the men's division.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:I feel like there's been a pretty strong wave of anti-feminism on the internet lately, and I think it really does deserve a thread of its own. I read a good portion of the feminism threads in both D&D and in EN, and I'm not really convinced that they were any worse than, say, this thread. So I've been mulling over making a thread for a while, but I'm not sure I'm knowledgeable enough to do the OP justice. If no one else makes one soon though I probably will. You should make this thread. Then add sub-topics of gun control, pornography, food and atheism. I can see it going places. Bad places.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's never really been "cohesive" media (except arguably a few decades during the post WW2 era). Before the Telegraph you had massive decentralization for news where people could spin stuff, and even up into the 20th Century you had massive media empires that literally forced the US to go to war to achieve colonialist ambitions. On the other hand, the #gamersgate thing is a reaction by people who are used to defining their hobby being confronted with alternative perspectives. Although that, in turn, is the result of those perspectives having spaces in which to define themselves and the potential to then be targeted as a potential market. It is a collision, though, rather than the result of pure isolation. I really don't think the outcome is going to be that different from what we see in music, where no one really gives a poo poo what you like or dislike, but there is room to identify oneself with a specific form of the medium. And yes, that would mean that ultimately gamers would be more socially acceptable and much more likely to meet women on common ground, without actually losing anything. Unfortunately, the movement has already been outed as being at least in part a mask for people who "hate SJWs" rather than anything to do with what gamers actually want. That and involving real life are what make it a problem rather than an exchange of ideas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Nah he always posts that way, it just got a little out of control this time, thus the month-long breather. I seriously think he only posts while wicked hammered. My Imaginary GF posted:You were watching a literal bear on a sugar high from jam stolen from a pickanick basket during the national park shutdown have a bit of fun posting in D&D Okay. I remember having a serious coke habit myself at one time and, from my recollections, the way he posts is how I used to sound and act.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's never really been "cohesive" media (except arguably a few decades during the post WW2 era). Before the Telegraph you had massive decentralization for news where people could spin stuff, and even up into the 20th Century you had massive media empires that literally forced the US to go to war to achieve colonialist ambitions. Not really. Pre-WWII advertising wasn't as developed a science and you had other forces acting as a vehicle for identity. Plus, there was a lot less travel and a lot less mass media. Sure, you have a million different newspapers but if you lived in Boise, you read one of the three Boise papers (plus maybe your local Union newsletter) that all basically said the same thing, and maybe the erudite folks would also read the New York Times. It doesn't matter that the next town over has their own paper and the next city over has several. From a local perspective, there were relatively few options all producing relatively coherent messaging. The lack of geographic divide is part of what makes this so very, very different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Wow, that's pretty...not lovely. The  part of my brain is thinking that they're just buying cover for a few really awful decisions next year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Not really. Pre-WWII advertising wasn't as developed a science and you had other forces acting as a vehicle for identity. Plus, there was a lot less travel and a lot less mass media. There is a geographic divide though, it's just not (eg) "the South versus the North", it's urban areas versus rural areas, regardless of where in the US they are. That has been a factor for a long time (in the late 19th century the Democrats were the farmers' party and the Republicans were the urban big business party). The main difference now is the demographics of that urban rural split.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:The More likely they are buying cover of not having to formally rule on it. I mean, incredibly lovely decisions are coming, but it's more Roberts & Co don't want to take the heat for ruling in favor of marriage equality
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I think the problem is that this is a topic which would bring people here from GBS. Which is probably the most damning thing I can say about the issue, and a good reason to drop it. You lost me in the last 7 words. You appear to be saying that anyone who wishes to discuss the topic go to gbs where you admit no productive discussion can possibly be had.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Gun nuts are no less likely than gamers (referring, in both cases, to people who self-identify using either term) to talk down to women and treat them like they don't know anything about a stereotypically male hobby, though I guess the most direct comparison here would be if... women were complaining the industry didn't make enough guns friendly to women, but I don't know what would make a gun unfriendly to women. Women average lower body mass and smaller grip size. So basically the same things that make guns unfriendly to smaller-than-average men like wide grips resulting from double-stack mags being less comfortable to grip properly with smaller hands, etc. "Guns for women" is a whole  with the NRA crowd, however, because they can't wrap their heads around a penis not granting magical gun powers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:More likely they are buying cover of not having to formally rule on it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:You should make this thread. Then add sub-topics of gun control, pornography, food and atheism. I can see it going places. Bad places. As long as it's not in D&D and all we have to do is sit back and watch, it could be glorious. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
McAlister posted:You lost me in the last 7 words. You appear to be saying that anyone who wishes to discuss the topic go to gbs where you admit no productive discussion can possibly be had. I am saying that the topic has a good chance of bringing in people from GBS, expanding a normal derail into a thread-wrecking disaster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:That's part of a whole series on rampant fraud and abuse in the construction industry: Wow, I knew about the pay and tax windfalls from misclassifying but I didn't know that it was being used as a loophole to allow hiring undocumented workers you don't have to verify the legal status of someone if they are an "independent contractor".
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I am saying that the topic has a good chance of bringing in people from GBS, expanding a normal derail into a thread-wrecking disaster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:More likely they are buying cover of not having to formally rule on it. Yeah. If they hold off on a ruling for another couple years (until they get a circuit split or just until they're down to the last few states) then they're going to look a lot less controversial putting the final nail in the coffin of anti-marriage legal dreams. Chokes McGee posted:As long as it's not in D&D and all we have to do is sit back and watch, it could be glorious. Implying that we're all somehow obligated to post in every thread in D&D? Like how does it hurt the rest of us if a thread we don't read is lovely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Good. Maybe then they'll actually get punished for being horrible. My understanding is that discussion of feminism, particularly in the context of gaming, has been a shitshow in the past. I'm not sure if that really matters in D&D, but it would be better to make a dedicated thread for the subject rather than risking a massive derail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
The thing about a feminism thread is that it's going to bring in assholes from other forums who will not get banned for lovely opinions, but they will successfully troll the poo poo out of the thread in an attempt to get other people banned. They will also create a massive target for off-site people to start digging through people's personal lives and dox them. This happens literally every time, it will not stop, the people who are assholes will continue to be assholes and no one is going to learn anything or change in a measurable way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:I think they do on at least some level; it gives their hobby legitimacy and makes them look inclusive. They just don't want them to speak up or lead or help define the culture. Like republicans. Or win. The transformation in some guys from attracted to me to hating my guts and sincerely wanting to physically hurt me is very simple to observe. All I have to do is win. There is an odd dynamic that's much more easy to observe in face to face gaming like chess or Magic the Gathering but I suspect holds true to online gaming. It goes like this: 1: Woah, she's hot. 2: Wow! She like the game I love! I'll bet she'll be impressed if I'm good at it. 3: Starts boasting of his prowess in the game. Note, boasting about how awesome you are to an opponent before you start playing is Bad Sportsmanship and not something you should ever do. But it never occurs to him that I/she love the game just as much, have been playing as long or longer, and are quite good at it. He never asks any questions that would provide this sort of information so he never discovers that I've been playing chess since age 3, for example ( parents were half assing the chess program that made those three sisters grandmasters). 4: Loses the game. After boasting expansively about how good he is at it. In front of/To the girl he was trying to impress. 5: Loses his loving mind. I see this happen when I try to get more women playing magic all the time. Everyone loves them to pieces till they start winning. The about 5% of the male players start being really mean to them. They love the "me being awesome explaining things to the clueless newb girl" social dynamic but when she starts to come into her own and spotting their play mistakes or suggesting alternate builds ... Holy poo poo. The amount of poo poo Hillary has to deal with for leading while female is astounding. A sideline cheerleader like Bachman or Palin are the "good" kind of woman. But a Clinton or a Pelosi ... They are winners/leaders. That she is able to compartmentalize it, ignore it, and tactically approach any legislative problem without holding grudges for previous ill treatment is impressive. I'm reading her book right now and she'll talk about working with various GOP people because she identified a way to get them onboard for something and never mention the horrible things they have done and said to/about her or slight them. She just focuses on the task at hand and getting it done. I could never do that. What keeps me coming back to the table in the face of the 5 percents vitriol is the opportunity to smite them again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I am saying that the topic has a good chance of bringing in people from GBS, expanding a normal derail into a thread-wrecking disaster. And I'm asking what other issues of fundamental equality you'd rather not discuss for fear of discomfort.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:This happens literally every time, it will not stop, the people who are assholes will continue to be assholes and no one is going to learn anything or change in a measurable way. Not unless the mods do their loving jobs, anyway. But point taken. Edit: People in GBS are posting that god drat "Happy Merchant" picture almost hourly now. It's god damned disgraceful. "Racism is still bannable" my rear end. A Shitty Reporter fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
These threads move too fast. What did Biden do now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Not unless the mods do their loving jobs, anyway. But point taken. We're still not allowed to name names, but the last feminism thread had a huge scandal involving collusion between two people who were once mods and are not mods now. One person was deliberately trolling the thread and the other was protecting him from punishment. Since they don't post anymore, a new feminism thread has a better chance of success, so I say go for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A major issue is that women don't like the same games as men. Unless you are talking about porn/rape games I'm calling bullshit on that. And I doubt many men seriously play those frankly. They are kind of sad and pathetic. Men and women alike enjoy puzzle games, building games, racing games, platformers, card games, MMOs, and yes, FSPs. Women and men alike don't enjoy harassment, stalking, bad sportsmanship, or being hated for winning. Women alone are subjected to the latter in certain types of games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
chairface posted:Women average lower body mass and smaller grip size. So basically the same things that make guns unfriendly to smaller-than-average men like wide grips resulting from double-stack mags being less comfortable to grip properly with smaller hands, etc. "Guns for women" is a whole Also when people say "guns for women" they want to give women the smallest (worst recoil) guns and put pink grips on them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
Cheekio posted:These threads move too fast. What did Biden do now? The usual, told the truth in a public place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:41
|
|
