|
Everybody please stop all of these insanely low-effort posts or I'm going to probate you.
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:Everybody please stop all of these insanely low-effort posts or I'm going to probate you. Might as well gas the thread then. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Totalizator posted:There are two different concepts here that are being mixed together. Social pressure is the "neutral" thing BravestOfTheLamps talked about which is essentially the pressure society has on you to act the way it expects you to, instead how would you want to. This can be good "do not hurt other people" or bad "we expect women to be passive and not speak out" Great, so you think that social pressure can be a good thing. You also agree that societal pressure exists and can take the form of sexist expectations for women, like the idea that women need to sexualize themselves no matter what else they do. This is what is being spoken out against, and presumably you now support this. I would like to remind you that this deviates quite a bit from what you previously said, which is why I've had so much confusion about what you mean. quote:People, in fact, react really poorly to propaganda, preaching and attempts of trying to "trick" them into thinking your way. Unless it's enforced by law they will reject you often driven by sheer contrarianism because nobody wants to be coerced into a viewpoint. People, obviously reacted positively and sedately for thousands of years to propaganda and preaching that said that women are inferior to men. They react positively to the idea that race exists and that some races are unequal, without force of law. That you now recognize this is great, but do you see how far you've shifted in this conversation? quote:
You're talking to me, not sedanchair, and there is no possible way to make what you fear happen actually happen. There is no way to 'make' people conform to those ideas regardless of their own individual thoughts and opinions, beyond the social pressure you identify in your first part here, the 'neutral' thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:People, obviously reacted positively and sedately for thousands of years to propaganda and preaching that said that women are inferior to men. They react positively to the idea that race exists and that some races are unequal, without force of law. That you now recognize this is great, but do you see how far you've shifted in this conversation? All those things were backed by draconic laws and implemented through violent conquest of native peoples and cultural imperialism. And lack of education other then propaganda received in the church. There is no reason to stick to these methods now that we have science, education and free speech.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Totalizator posted:All those things were backed by draconic laws and implemented through violent conquest of native peoples and cultural imperialism No, they really weren't. There weren't draconian laws saying "You've got to believe women are less intelligent than men". Why do you think there were? quote:And lack of education other then propaganda received in the church. Now compare that to this: quote:People, in fact, react really poorly to propaganda, preaching and attempts of trying to "trick" them into thinking your way. Do those sentences agree or disagree with each other? quote:There is no reason to stick to these methods now that we have science, education and free speech. I am not advocating those methods, so please stop pretending I am--it's foolish and makes you look either mendacious or as though you're not actually reading what I say. You are literally complaining about people's use of free speech, though, when you complain about people asking developers to change what they do. In addition, even though we have science and education, it is not like those are universal in our society, which you must know, right? Convincing someone who doesn't believe in evolution to believe in evolution for religious reasons, for example, can be very difficult, and evidence is not normally what does it. In addition, if you read the article on vaccine information, you'll find, as I said, that highly-educated anti-vaxxers were actually more opposed, not less, to the information they received. How does that fit into your theory? Again, have you actually studied research on this at all or are you just going with your own gut truthiness? What you hold to be true does deeply remind me of naive libertarian beliefs, which come from a very good place in the heart but don't actually match reality. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Totalizator posted:All those things were backed by draconic laws and implemented through violent conquest of native peoples and cultural imperialism. And lack of education other then propaganda received in the church. There is no reason to stick to these methods now that we have science, education and free speech. Again, you're impossibly naive. You contradict yourself: "propaganda used to make hitlers in the past, but now we educate people into being good." Your ideal human is a liberal consumer. You whinge about liberals pushing their opinions because you don't want to consider why they're able to push their opinions: because they embody your ideology the best. They're scientific, they're highly educated, they speak freely. They are exactly what you claim to support, they are the free-market liberals. They're not some perversion of modern liberalism, they're its natural outgrowth. Of course they're bad, but not for any of the reasons you think. They're bad because they're polluters and exploiters. But you support the exact same things as they do, so you can't disagree with them in any substantial way. You think freedom means standing against critics, that liberty is buying the products you choose to buy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, they really weren't. There weren't draconian laws saying "You've got to believe women are less intelligent than men". Why do you think there were? Women were restricted or banned from educating themselves alltogether for a long time, a lot of "women are subservient to man" poo poo comes directly from the Bible which was basically the most important moral law to people for a long, long time. Obdicut posted:Do those sentences agree or disagree with each other? People reacted really poorly to christian propaganda until the church invaded their lands, burned their idols, co-opted or deposed their rulers then oppressed the remnants for multiple centuries until the native cultures and faiths died out. I'd say it took some effort. e: and they still couldn't prevent the enlightenment from happening with all that. Obdicut posted:You are literally complaining about people's use of free speech, though, when you complain about people asking developers to change what they do. I'm criticizing the critics. Obdicut posted:In addition, even though we have science and education, it is not like those are universal in our society, which you must know, right? Convincing someone who doesn't believe in evolution to believe in evolution for religious reasons, for example, can be very difficult, and evidence is not normally what does it. The answer is still more education. Religion (and extremist ideology) poisons the mind but educated people are less likely to be religious. Totalizator fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Bholder posted:Might as well gas the thread then. It's almost as if a thread superficially about the relatively immaterial topics of Misogyny, Ethics and Patriarchy in the Videogame Industry when its true central subject is silly opinions expressed on Twitter would've been better served in another forum. That is my own personal opinion but I must be wrong since, boy, does this thread have legs. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Totalizator posted:Women were restricted or banned from educating themselves alltogether for a long time, a lot of "women are subservient to man" poo poo comes directly from the Bible which was basically the most important moral law to people for a long, long time. Yes. You might even say the bible was 'propaganda' and that it was 'preached'. You have cause an effect somewhat backward here; women were restricted and banned because of a belief that women were intellectually inferior. Even when women did achieve an education, their achievements were dismissed--people found a way to rationalize away their success, because of the belief that women were inferior. quote:People reacted really poorly to christian propaganda until the church invaded their lands, burned their idols, co-opted or deposed their rulers then oppressed the remnants for multiple centuries until the native cultures and faiths died out. I'd say it took some effort. This is not true, though. There are some places it was true, there are other places where church propaganda simply took hold and spread without the use of violence. surely you can't be ignorant of this, right? Edit: And even that only accounts for the initial state of propaganda, not the later state, where people are still accepting the propaganda, absent draconian laws. quote:e: and they still couldn't prevent the enlightenment from happening with all that. And yet, even post-enlightenment, we still have many, many people who accept the word of the bible and their preacher's propaganda over science. Why? And post-enlightenment, people came up with specious theories about racial inferiority and used pseudoscience to back them up, even though these people were otherwise well-educated and should not have been swayed by racist propaganda. Why? quote:I'm criticizing the critics. Your criticism is that they should stop speaking what they are speaking, though, and--ironically--that their requests for others to alter their speech are wrong. quote:The answer is still more education. Religion (and extremist ideology) poisons the mind but educated people are less likely to be religious. People who are non-religious are still entirely capable of being swayed by propaganda--look at all the atheists who are MRAs, or racists. Blaming religion solely is foolish: does religion alone explain why racism is such a huge problem still? You also missed my edit: The educated anti-vaccers were actually more resistant, not less, to the rational and evidence-based arguments. how does your theory explain that? Junkfist posted:It's almost as if a thread superficially about the relatively immaterial topics of Misogyny, Ethics and Patriarchy in the Videogame Industry when its true central subject is silly opinions expressed on Twitter would've been better served in another forum. Of all the things to be mad about, the movement of a thread from one subforum to another seems pretty weird. I have no idea why you think the true central topic is silly twitter opinions, either. Could you explain? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Totalizator posted:The answer is still more education. Religion (and extremist ideology) poisons the mind but educated people are less likely to be religious. Oh my god, we have an honest-to-god Liberal here. You really think that we just scrape away the barnacles on the human soul and everything will be hunky dory. If we just teach those nasty fundamentalists to be nice, we'd all be happy. Slavoj Zizek posted:For liberalism, at least in its radical form, the desire to subject people to an ethical ideal - regarded as universal and thus universally binding - is the mother of all crimes, "the crime which contains all crimes," for it amounts to the brutal imposition of one's own view onto others, and is thus the root cause of civil disorder. This is why, liberals claim, if one wants to establish civil peace and tolerance, the first pre-condition is to get rid of any moral temptation: politics should be thoroughly purged of moral ideals and rendered "realistic," taking people as they are, counting on their true nature, not on moral exhortations. Where do you think fundamentalists come from? Why do you think they're called fundamentalists? They're a reaction to liberalism. They're produced by liberalism. They can't be educated away into nice little liberals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Short answer to all your questions: It was convenient for some people, especially those in power, to believe their bigotry was moral. If you believe bigotry has base in morality (or bunk science) then the only counterargument is empathy and intellectual curiosity, both of which were discouraged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
We just need to do a better job of taking their kids away. Fundamentalism is open acknowledgement that a certain way of life is no longer considered the majority or the default. The Fundamentals were written once it became clear that the christian establishment was going to stay liberal and keep rejecting biblical literalism. The whole premise of the fundamentalist movement is that they're abandoning the world in order to construct a parallel society for themselves with high walls that keeps everybody else out. But once their kids hear jazz or see a girl in shorts, the gig is up and they've lost another one. It's an apocalyptic culture at its core.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Totalizator posted:Short answer to all your questions: It was convenient for some people, especially those in power, to believe their bigotry was moral. If you believe bigotry has base in morality (or bunk science) then the only counterargument is empathy and intellectual curiosity, both of which were discouraged. That doesn't answer all my questions, actually. It was not only those in power who believes in their bigotry. I agree that empathy and intellectual curiosity were discouraged by social pressure, but the point is that even when people were very intellectually curious, they were still capable of being extreme bigots--to melding science with bigotry in ways that seem absurd to a rational person but were--and are--still believed by many. The Bell Curve, for example, is accepted by a lot of people despite its pseudoscience. Questions this did not approach answering were: quote:This is not true, though. There are some places it was true, there are other places where church propaganda simply took hold and spread without the use of violence. surely you can't be ignorant of this, right? quote:People who are non-religious are still entirely capable of being swayed by propaganda--look at all the atheists who are MRAs, or racists. Blaming religion solely is foolish: does religion alone explain why racism is such a huge problem still? Why did you think that answer addressed those?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Why did you think that answer addressed those? No, that still addresses all of your questions. I said ESPECIALLY those in power. If people are told that the fact their skin color and genitals make them more moral by default they will be more open to this ideology, to the point of intellectual dishonesty. Anti-vaccers are more the spiritual successor to other conspiracy theorists so the best thing you can do about them is make sure non-crazy people have accurate information available to know why their claims are false.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:We just need to do a better job of taking their kids away. Phrasing. Exclamation Marx posted:Everybody please stop all of these insanely low-effort posts or I'm going to probate you. This thread lends itself to it, and quite honestly I would much rather have a back in forth like that rather than a quagmire of etymology, semantics, and tangents arguing about tangents.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Of all the things to be mad about, the movement of a thread from one subforum to another seems pretty weird. I have no idea why you think the true central topic is silly twitter opinions, either. Could you explain? My nigh-tangible wrath is an inexplicable as it is elemental but to answer your question it's because I looked at #Gamergate on twitter, which is what it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Junkfist posted:My nigh-tangible wrath is an inexplicable as it is elemental but to answer your question it's because I looked at #Gamergate on twitter, which is what it is. This is my favourite video to explain gamergate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlPLEf5z-g4
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Totalizator posted:Anti-vaccers are more the spiritual successor to other conspiracy theorists so the best thing you can do about them is make sure non-crazy people have accurate information available to know why their claims are false. I think conspiracy theorists are a symptom of a larger problem: people very rarely feel in control of their own life. It's somewhat easy to see why in a society where quite a lot of people are marginalized, and their concerns not taken seriously, they are fundamentally unhappy with the way the world is. People seek answers to these questions, and they want to find a way to explain why it is they're so fundamentally unhappy. I think misinformation plays a large role in it, but the exact source of it can be hard to pinpoint, by design.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
It's really strange that Hellthread veterans are still moaning about the loss of a "safe space" to repost twitter messages. The entire point of Twitter and Hashtags is that a person can easily trace posts pertaining to the subject without additional assistance. If you find a funny twitter post then feel free to post it, people who dont find it funny will be free to ask what they dont find funny about it, because this is not a debate-free "safe space". Why object to a place where people can discuss movements and topics regarding games in a mature manner? You have 8chan and that weird sorta-journalism site if you just want Aggro-Gator but for gamergate things. If allowing people to criticize your jokes and your topics completely topples your thread and/or way of life, then perhaps it wasnt as great a thread as you thought?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It's really strange that Hellthread veterans are still moaning about the loss of a "safe space" to repost twitter messages. The entire point of Twitter and Hashtags is that a person can easily trace posts pertaining to the subject without additional assistance. If you find a funny twitter post then feel free to post it, people who dont find it funny will be free to ask what they dont find funny about it, because this is not a debate-free "safe space". Uh, this thread is doing ironman numbers. The only person who took issue (or as someone might gaslight it was "mad" or "moaned") was a mod who wanted everyone to be more serious about Gamergate. I kind of partially understand his opinion since this thread is in D&D, but the part where one can be very serious about Gamergate is tough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
This isn't Hellthread, or a chat thread, or a mock thread. You can Debate & Discuss gamergate or, and here's a revolutionary idea, not post about it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:This isn't Hellthread, or a chat thread, or a mock thread. You can Debate & Discuss gamergate or, and here's a revolutionary idea, not post about it at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeiKcYOkzq4 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
This thread is the living proof of why you don't want to talk seriously about Gamergate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:This isn't Hellthread, or a chat thread, or a mock thread. You can Debate & Discuss gamergate or, and here's a revolutionary idea, not post about it at all. Dude, if you want to gas/lock the thread, just do it. GG is not going to get much more than it's getting right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Bholder posted:This thread is the living proof of why you don't want to talk seriously about Gamergate. Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
e: nm
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Dude, if you want to gas/lock the thread, just do it. GG is not going to get much more than it's getting right now. Excuse me but I think there's a lot left to debate and discuss. We haven't even begun to untangle the semiotic, sociolinguistic and iconic minefield that is this Gamergate flag I found:  I think we're going to need another 500 pages, bare minimum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Totalizator posted:No, that still addresses all of your questions. I said ESPECIALLY those in power. If people are told that the fact their skin color and genitals make them more moral by default they will be more open to this ideology, to the point of intellectual dishonesty. Okay, so then you disagree with your earlier contention, that if you approach people with a well-thought out opinion backed with evidence that they will be swayed. They won't be, if they have a reason, like to believe they are superior, to believe the propaganda. Your argument is incoherent--when you shore up one part of it, another part of it collapses. You are fighting against a very simple and straightforward notion, and it's driving you to make a series of arguments that don't work, not on their own, or with each other. This began with you attempting to say that advocating that games move away from sexism and racism is somehow coercive or putting some sort of 'social pressure' which is doomed to failure. You'd have to constantly retreat from this position, erecting new levees against rationality and seeing them collapse over and over. You tried to say that propaganda doesn't work; then you said it doesn't work in the (very) long term, now you say that it does work when people have a vested interest in believing it. This is certainly true, though it's not the full story. People will believe in propaganda even when it actively harms them to do so, too, but we don't have to go into that here. It's enough that you've admitted that propaganda works, and that rational appeals are not necessarily successful. What is being asked for is that the propaganda of sexist and racist representations come to a purely voluntary end, by people making games that don't use sexist tropes, that have believable and non-sexualized female characters, and have some protagonists that are people of color. quote:Anti-vaccers are more the spiritual successor to other conspiracy theorists so the best thing you can do about them is make sure non-crazy people have accurate information available to know why their claims are false. No, you're wrong. Many anti-vaccers are not in the least bit crazy. It's comforting to think of them that way, I understand why you want to believe that, but it's not true, unless you use a purely circular method of reasoning. Junkfist posted:
Is this another objective truth handed down by Junkfist, the decider of what is and is not objective? I don't find it difficult to be serious about gamergate, or about games as a real cultural medium that's actually important, and not just shoot-em-kick-em games for kids.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Dude, if you want to gas/lock the thread, just do it. GG is not going to get much more than it's getting right now. There's a clear desire for discussion on the subject, given the 8,000 posts in a little over a week. I don't have an issue with that, so long as it abides by the rules of D&D and this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
circ dick soleil posted:Why is that? Because nothing of value has been said in this thread? It is just constant ego-boosting, empty blather about who's with which political side and how this is all the fault of our modern capitalistic society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Is this another objective truth handed down by Junkfist, the decider of what is and is not objective? That's objectively not how objective truth works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Junkfist posted:That's objectively not how objective truth works. Yes, that's true. Your earlier statements about what constitutes a game were not, actually, objective truth. Treating gamersgate as serious isn't really problematic at all--for some. Those who don't want to treat it seriously, I really don't get why they're posting in this thread. Treating games seriously seems to make them seriously mad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:I am playing Portal Stories: Mel, which is an awesome take on the Portal franchise Oh gently caress yea. I love me some more portal. Going to play this now. Thank!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What is being asked for is that the propaganda of sexist and racist representations come to a purely voluntary end, by people making games that don't use sexist tropes, that have believable and non-sexualized female characters, and have some protagonists that are people of color. That's not going to happen. Period. First of all because neither the majority of people who make games nor do majority of people who play games even see a problem to begin with, second of all because there is literally no reasonable limit to what can be deemed sexist or racist. Yes, you specifically may have such a limit or definition but someone will disagree and who are you to claim his offense is invalid? People who do literally nothing but argue about sexism and racism on the internet all day can't draw a reasonable line on where sexism or racism begins or ends and you're expecting people who spend 8 hours a day spouting buzzwords into conference rooms to somehow make a decision more nuanced then "people are moaning on the internet again, make sure nobody has boobs bigger then a B cup or they'll demand our heads on a pike". You're advocating for voluntary self-censorship to which I say: gently caress that. If someone makes a game where Hans Von Aryan saves DD cupped white women from brown-skinned ape men and finishes every level by fighting a jewish robot boss made from purestrain gold... well, I would probably buy that game, just to laugh at it. You are literally arguing against free expression for the purpose of enacting nebulous social change against the wishes of society you're trying to change (because apparently they won't be swayed by arguments), and I am completely not on board with that cause.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Totalizator posted:
What about a game where Anita von SJW saves regular women from nerds in fedoras?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What about a game where Anita von SJW saves regular women from nerds in fedoras? That would be the first time aGG made something funny or humorous so I'd be curious about that too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes, that's true. Your earlier statements about what constitutes a game were not, actually, objective truth. That does not follow. This is not how an argument works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What about a game where Anita von SJW saves regular women from nerds in fedoras? Great. Pretty sure no one except wierdo's who have purity tests for whether a game is 'allowed' or not would be against a new game coming out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Totalizator posted:That's not going to happen. Period. First of all because neither the majority of people who make games nor do majority of people who play games even see a problem to begin with, second of all because there is literally no reasonable limit to what can be deemed sexist or racist. Well, the first is solvable, by making the case to them that there is a problem--a lot of people have already seen there is a problem. My dev friends have, for example. The second is also obviously--and deeply bizarrely--wrong. This is weird kind of special pleading, that we can't possibly set limits with something like racism or sexism when we have no trouble coming to terms with other abstractions. quote:second of all because there is literally no reasonable limit to what can be deemed sexist or racist. Yes, you specifically may have such a limit or definition but someone will disagree and who are you to claim his offense is invalid? We can resolve it by discussing the topic. It's not a perfect system--it's grindingly slow, because, as you said, people with a vested interest in denying reality will fight back against obvious examples of sexism and racism--but a combination of advocacy and generational change works. If this weren't true, gay rights would not have advanced, women's rights would not have advanced, and we'd still be making movies like in the 1950s, where gays were invisible, separate single beds were the only things on screen even for a married couple, and films were lily-white. You are again arguing against yourself here. quote:you're expecting people who spend 8 hours a day spouting buzzwords into conference rooms to somehow make a decision more nuanced then "people are moaning on the internet again, make sure nobody has boobs bigger then a B cup or they'll demand our heads on a pike". You're advocating for voluntary self-censorship to which I say: gently caress that. Devs aren't just mindless robots, nor are producers. They may make highly imperfect games, but there is nothing stopping them from actually understanding issues--as I said, a lot of my friends do. The people who made Wolfenstein: The New Order largely do, even if the difficulty setting screen is typically dumb, the characters are really wonderfully crafted and almost free of typical sexism and racism--in fact, it subverts much of that. Voluntary self-censorship implies people really want to make racist or sexist games, but i don't think that's true. I think it's largely accidental, because they've been socialized to think it's the norm, and by slowly, grindingly showing the reality beneath that we can make eventual progress. I don't think it's a universal panacea, as you at one point argued, but progress is obviously possible because we have made progress on all these fronts. I will never understand people like you who somehow think we've made all the social progress we can and now it will stop. quote:If someone makes a game where Hans Von Aryan saves DD cupped white women from brown-skinned ape men and finishes every level by fighting a jewish robot boss made from purestrain gold... well, I would probably buy that game, just to laugh at it. You can buy a lot of racist stuff right now, if you want. Go for it. Why don't you? quote:You are literally arguing against free expression for the purpose of enacting nebulous social change against the wishes of society you're trying to change (because apparently they won't be swayed by arguments), and I am completely not on board with that cause. I'm not arguing against free expression in the least. There is nothing unfree about voluntarily choosing to avoid being sexist. This argument, like all of yours, collapses as soon as you unfold it. If someone is raised to believe that Jews are evil money-grubbers, and writes stories in which Jews are stereotypes, and then is convinced by an anti-racist advocate that he is wrong, and chooses to stop writing those characters, do you actually see that as a bad thing, as a limitation on free expression?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:There's a clear desire for discussion on the subject, given the 8,000 posts in a little over a week. I don't have an issue with that, so long as it abides by the rules of D&D and this thread. Why are the rules of this D&D thread different and more draconically enforced than any other thread in the subforum?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:06
|
|