|
People complaining about "cancel culture" sound exactly like the shitheads whining about "political correctness" in the 90s, except that now they occasionally face meaningful consequences for their lovely behavior. Even individuals who aren't direct harassers complaining are doing so because they want to preserve the culture of privilege that insulated them. This also includes women they use as fig leaves, who are trying to win some degree of secondary privilege by being "the cool one," in much the way that marginalized people have often collaborated with oppressors to gain some sliver of advantage.
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
They sound like a bunch of Draculas talking about how dangerous crosses and garlic can be. E: Omnicrom posted:Another thing going on is an anger at what chuddy shitheads assume is them being unfairly singled out, because many chuddy shitheads assume EVERYONE is like them as something between an excuse, a justification, and a rationalization. This reminded me of a video I saw where a right-wing guy was accosting protesters and demanding to know who was paying them. There was no room in his worldview for someone to just say something was wrong or unfair for altruistic reasons. moths fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Aug 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
moths posted:While I can feel for a handful of tumblr fan-fic authors, I really feel no obligation to hug prickly cactus Roman Polanski or Michael Vick. Yeah, which is what I thought I said? Certainly it was my intent. If you're looking at a big time shithead going "Man we need to be careful about cancel culture" it's probably just concern trolling, in an environment where you probably recognise and potentially have personal experience with that among your peers, it might be a legitimate complaint, and the latter is almost entirely unrelated to the former except via the appropriation of the latter's terminology to confuse the issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
Sorry, I misread what you were communicating there. I agree with that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Don't forget they have a habit of dredging up something about a left wing personality and try to "both sides" the issue when more often than not the response is either "Oh wow, they are a shitheel, thanks for bringing it to our attention, regardless of your lovely motives." Or "that was twenty years ago when they were a literal teenager and now that they're aware of this thing they said they've apologized." Ah, the James Gunn Effect which did not exactly work out for ol' Crazy Mikey C as he had hoped.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
Kotaku has a long article up about Dave Arneson's role in creating D&D, and the efforts some people are starting to make to bring him out of Gygax's shadow: https://kotaku.com/dungeons-deceptions-the-first-d-d-players-push-back-1837516834
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
Gygax vs. Arneson aside, I'm kind of laughing at the revelation that the impetus to create TRPGs was driven by people who were disgusted that wargames were designed to be fully adjudicated by reference to the rules -- and decided to get around it by assigning total control and responsibility for the game world to a referee. It's like, of course, it's not surprising once you see it, but it explains so much of the dysfunction in traditional RPG design even among people and design philosophies that are nominally opposed to each other -- the hostility towards clear and complete rules as an invitation to rules lawyering on one hand, and the weird attempts to limit GM power by deploying player-facing rules as a shield on the other. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Aug 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
A friend of mine who writes games once also noted that it would take a certain kind of rear end in a top hat to see tabletop and think "What could make this better is if one guy did 90% of the talking and was explicitly right about everything."
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:A friend of mine who writes games once also noted that it would take a certain kind of rear end in a top hat to see tabletop and think "What could make this better is if one guy did 90% of the talking and was explicitly right about everything." That's a good point, although it's not quite what I'm focused on. I hate the emphasis on the GM-as-judge or -referee because it's less fun than GM-as-participant. I want to be my players' loyal opposition, a challenge for them to overcome and feel good about overcoming. But your ability to do that is in inverse proportion to the GM's ability to dictate the game world in an ad hoc manner. Conversely, the more you handle the war-gamey parts of TRPGs like a wargame, and the more you handle the freeform parts through group consensus rather than GM fiat, the less of an issue this becomes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Kotaku has a long article up about Dave Arneson's role in creating D&D, and the efforts some people are starting to make to bring him out of Gygax's shadow: https://kotaku.com/dungeons-deceptions-the-first-d-d-players-push-back-1837516834 I’m currently reading Peterson’s “Playing at the World” and this was certainly the idea I’m getting, that Dave was the Wozniak, and Gary was the Jobs of the team.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
also gary was routinely bribing his underage son with booze, and the two of them went on massive drug and booze benders and he was an absolute mess of a father and a man
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
Omnicrom posted:It's also the implied meaning of the insult "White Knighting", the assumption being a man defending a woman doesn't really give a poo poo about her beyond the desire to get into her pants. It can be this, yeah, but back when the term was relatively new I usually saw it as an expression of chauvinism - the idea that women are unable to fight their own battles and must be defended by men at all times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:I’m currently reading Peterson’s “Playing at the World” and this was certainly the idea I’m getting, that Dave was the Wozniak, and Gary was the Jobs of the team.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 04:02
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:I’m currently reading Peterson’s “Playing at the World” and this was certainly the idea I’m getting, that Dave was the Wozniak, and Gary was the Jobs of the team. any other good books like this, by the way? I just finished this and I'd love some more old time tabletop lore even if I know a lot of it, especially if the book is on audible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:any other good books like this, by the way? I just finished this and I'd love some more old time tabletop lore even if I know a lot of it, especially if the book is on audible. The Designers & Dragons series by Shannon Appelcline is probably the closest the hobby's ever going to get to something resembling a comprehensive history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:The Designers & Dragons series by Shannon Appelcline is probably the closest the hobby's ever going to get to something resembling a comprehensive history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I've seen it said that this idea is why shitheads came up with the concept of "virtue signalling". They can't imagine saying something without an agenda or to earn "points" with some group, so they can't imagine someone else would point out bad behavior without a self-serving ulterior motive. Shitheads didn't actually come up with that concept: they appropriated the term, which has legitimate use. When Bad Hair Man talks about how feminist he is and all the women friends whose voices he has elevated, that's him (dishonestly) signaling his virtue. The concept has use as a term for people who use their virtue as a shield for un-virtuous behaviour or to acquire disproportionate amounts of social capital in a group. Though because Extremely Online Reactionaries have appropriated the term, the popular term on the more left-leaning side of the Internet is now "performative wokeness": social justice values as (insincere) performance. Paolomania posted:"Cancel culture" is nothing new. How and when to ostracize is a question that has been asked for like the entire existence of humanity. There is definitely a right time to ostracize bad actors. In the 90s, the Riot Grrl scene had a phenomenon where people would publish page-long articles denouncing someone in the various Riot Grrl 'zines. It was common enough that it became a verb - to be "zined" - and reached a point where it was almost a rite of passage: hang around the Riot Grrl scene long enough, and someone, somewhere, would publish a page-long article on why you were literally the worst. Tuxedo Catfish posted:Gygax vs. Arneson aside, I'm kind of laughing at the revelation that the impetus to create TRPGs was driven by people who were disgusted that wargames were designed to be fully adjudicated by reference to the rules -- and decided to get around it by assigning total control and responsibility for the game world to a referee. This is an old debate going at least as far back as the original Prussian Kriegspiel: should the game use thick volumes of tables for resolving every situation, or should a lot of that be offloaded on a referee who adjudicated based on his holistic assessment?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
What the article actually said was that they were sick of the kind of tabletop wargamer who nitpicks and lawyers the rules constantly, and that's absolutely a thing still now. Especially given how lovely the rules typically are. Payback for that kind of thing is what's happening in this photo, in which a rules-exploiting warham is hoisted by his own petard:  story here https://imgur.com/gallery/V0gND Of course, it's also true that arneson's development of a story game was based on his personal revelation that you could do such a thing and it'd be good; but I think it's not quite accurate to say the development of RPGs was an act of rebelling against tabletop wargame rules in general. These guys did and continued to develop and play wargames lacking a referee.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:It can be this, yeah, but back when the term was relatively new I usually saw it as an expression of chauvinism - the idea that women are unable to fight their own battles and must be defended by men at all times. Funnily enough, much like "cancel cancel culture" or "virtue signalling" or "triggered", this is another thing that got used by progressives for a valid reason and then coopted by shitheads who defined it as a thing they didn't like instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 07:36
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Funnily enough, much like "cancel cancel culture" or "virtue signalling" or "triggered", this is another thing that got used by progressives for a valid reason and then coopted by shitheads who defined it as a thing they didn't like instead. Plus the entitlement and bigotry of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 08:16
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Throw all those misused terms into the problem attic! Holy poo poo every part of this article is awful, awful garbage. She wasn't a 'random nobody', she was an incredibly powerful head of PR of a massive corporation that owns hundreds of brands and specialises in communications in online media. Her entire job was to literally not do exactly what she did. Imagine comparing a rich racist who hosed up their job as hard as you possibly could getting fired to a woman literally being whipped and beaten for adultery, which is what that article does. My favourite part is where it glosses really quickly over the fact that one of the supposed 'cancellers' got a treatment about 10 times worse than any of the supposed 'cancelling victims'. Justine Sacco apparently got so traumatically cancelled that she's still incredibly rich and succesful and got to work international jobs that 99% of the population would kill for. Meanwhile the woman who tweeted about her coworker making a sexist joke got her company's website destroyed and was sent graphic rape threats with included pictures. This is why everyone who pearl clutches about 'cancel culture' is so disingenuous, you have to really reach, pay no attention to wider context and actively misrepresent facts and numbers to do it. Catfishenfuego fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Aug 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 12:14
|
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:I'm actually quite mad at that title, 'Hugging the Cactus' - it's about implying that the REAL problem is these prickly, unkind people, who respond to those who reach out to them by attacking with spikes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 12:44
|
|
|
Was it that "hope I don't get AIDS" woman behind the paywall? We can't cancel the rapists because some racists might get caught up in the momentum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 12:47
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Funnily enough, much like "cancel cancel culture" or "virtue signalling" or "triggered", this is another thing that got used by progressives for a valid reason and then coopted by shitheads who defined it as a thing they didn't like instead. Hell, "SJW" itself was originally a leftist term, to describe the kind of clicktivist who talked a tough game online, but was conspicuously absent from anything that meant leaving their comfy chair.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 14:37
|
|
|
moths posted:Was it that "hope I don't get AIDS" woman behind the paywall? I think part of what needs to be pushed back against is the idea conflating what happened to Justine Sacco and "cancel culture" in the first place. The right wing loves to cast every protest against them as a "mob", and the chuds have run with that specifically to conflate social media dogpiling and calling out serious and systematic abuse. Its not really that hard to disentangle the two though: on the one hand you have people gleefully trying to get a woman fired for a single lovely and racist tweet, and on the other you have people working collectively to spread awareness of bad actors in their professions, hobbies, and social groups. Aside from the medium of communication, they're two different things, and I think there's value in treating them as such. Because whatever we may think of Justine Sacco and her privileged position in society, her story raises plenty of questions about how going viral can lead to disproportionate response to mistakes. Which is what the chuds keep trying to imply is happening to them when people won't fund their projects because they're rapists. Its a debate that's unnecessary to have, because there's no disconnect between saying "getting fired because of a single lovely and poorly conceived tweet is an overreaction" and "getting fired for a long history of sex abuse, harassment, and terrible online behavior is reasonable".
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 14:59
|
|
|
Desiden posted:Hell, "SJW" itself was originally a leftist term, to describe the kind of clicktivist who talked a tough game online, but was conspicuously absent from anything that meant leaving their comfy chair. This poo poo is why I've been coming around to the conclusion that we shouldn't publically say poo poo about people on the left even if they do dumb stuff. Right wingers and liberal centrists will seize on any criticisms from the left of the left to try to concern troll and poo poo on good but flawed ideas to prop up the far worse status quo. Let's just keep making GBS threads on the chuds, the billionaires, the gerontocracy, and all their lovely "both sides" apologists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:This poo poo is why I've been coming around to the conclusion that we shouldn't publically say poo poo about people on the left even if they do dumb stuff. Right wingers and liberal centrists will seize on any criticisms from the left of the left to try to concern troll and poo poo on good but flawed ideas to prop up the far worse status quo. Let's just keep making GBS threads on the chuds, the billionaires, the gerontocracy, and all their lovely "both sides" apologists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:This poo poo is why I've been coming around to the conclusion that we shouldn't publically say poo poo about people on the left even if they do dumb stuff. Right wingers and liberal centrists will seize on any criticisms from the left of the left to try to concern troll and poo poo on good but flawed ideas to prop up the far worse status quo. Let's just keep making GBS threads on the chuds, the billionaires, the gerontocracy, and all their lovely "both sides" apologists. Being seen to clean your own house is the way to go, otherwise when other people call you out on it they kind of have a point. Look at what happened to the Socialist Worker Party in the UK when they decided to circle the wagons to defend against credible rape accusations against a lead figure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
Desiden posted:Hell, "SJW" itself was originally a leftist term, to describe the kind of clicktivist who talked a tough game online, but was conspicuously absent from anything that meant leaving their comfy chair. I thought that was "armchair activist"? My understanding of SJW's original meaning was that it was used by leftists to describe recent converts to the left, who tended to always dial their outrage to 11, even over relatively mild things. Kind of like, "Kid, you're heart's in the right place, but you need to chill out a bit. Wait until you've been around the block a few times, like we have." But yeah, it was pretty quickly coopted by shitheads regardless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
Desiden posted:Hell, "SJW" itself was originally a leftist term, to describe the kind of clicktivist who talked a tough game online, but was conspicuously absent from anything that meant leaving their comfy chair. I've always kind of liked SJW. Like, yes you are right I will fight for that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
Warthur posted:Being seen to clean your own house is the way to go, otherwise when other people call you out on it they kind of have a point. OTOH, Franken fell on his sword for a photo where he mimed groping a woman - largely out of fairness to a side that collectively supports a man who brags about actually grabbing vaginas. The optics are a mess, (and IMO stepping down was the right decision,) but it's infuriating when only one 'side' actually cares about ethics. E: I think what we've started to see is psychological pathology writ large into all aspects of life. Gamer jerks, nazis, chuds, grifters, all these shits share so much DNA that the overlap is approaching a perfect circle. Hell, Crowder was trying to rules-lawyer consent on Twitter yesterday, and it's basically like watching the world receed into a dark age for the benefit of our feudal-capitalist lords. moths fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Aug 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
moths posted:OTOH, Franken fell on his sword for a photo where he mimed groping a woman - largely out of fairness to a side that collectively supports a man who brags about actually grabbing vaginas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
moths posted:OTOH, Franken fell on his sword for a photo where he mimed groping a woman - largely out of fairness to a side that collectively supports a man who brags about actually grabbing vaginas. Eight different women accused him of inappropriate physical contact. It was more than a photo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
 I won't say that's better, but that feels like a more appropriate response then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:This poo poo is why I've been coming around to the conclusion that we shouldn't publically say poo poo about people on the left even if they do dumb stuff. Right wingers and liberal centrists will seize on any criticisms from the left of the left to try to concern troll and poo poo on good but flawed ideas to prop up the far worse status quo. Let's just keep making GBS threads on the chuds, the billionaires, the gerontocracy, and all their lovely "both sides" apologists. You assume doing this is going to stop the chuds from railing against people on the left? Trump's legion has had absolutely no problems contriving random stupid made-up bullshit claims to pretend to be morally outraged about. Anyone remember the bizarre explosive hateboner chuds had for Saul Alinsky a couple years back, and how they raved about how everyone to the left of them was secretly worshiping some guy and used his existence to lambast their political foes, many of whom hadn't heard of him before he became a rallying point among the tiki torch brigade? Not calling out poo poo on the left isn't going to stop the alt-right from invented stupid nonsense bullshit to tar people, all it's going to do is let people get away with poo poo they shouldn't get away with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
That's the thing: abusers are always followed around by their pattern of behavior. It's like with an alcoholic; you can always identify the difference between a guy who gets too drunk from time to time and a drunk. Alcoholics and abusers leave a wake of pain, suffering, and disaster that is unmistakeable. Franken was a creep from day one (his female compatriots on SNL were not terribly quiet about that) but it was only recently that people started listening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:In the 90s, the Riot Grrl scene had a phenomenon where people would publish page-long articles denouncing someone in the various Riot Grrl 'zines. It was common enough that it became a verb - to be "zined" - and reached a point where it was almost a rite of passage: hang around the Riot Grrl scene long enough, and someone, somewhere, would publish a page-long article on why you were literally the worst. Early 2000s at my college this took the form of flyers taped around campus, ranging from passive-aggressive to actively-aggressive. Often with counter-flyers and counter-counter flyers, BBS in real life. "Tape tape" became a phrase for impotent whining. Which is a shame, because among the people complaining about the pool hall changing to smoke-free (as were pretty much all indoor spaces at the time, they just weren't being given a pass) or John saying something in Humanities that totally deserved a three-page public rebuttal there were some legit call-outs lost in the noise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
Loomis passing is still just such a cringe for posterity considering all he pulled off even if he managed to hang in there a fair while---exactly how many of the formative pioneers are even left at this point? A dozen or so tops?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
I thought I was being clear about what I meant, but obviously not. I didn't mean not to call out actual abusers on the left. Obviously we should do that. I just mean that if I have a problem with some part of cancel culture or if I have concerns about some other part of the left, I should just keep it to myself, because: a) the things I have concerns about are overall very good and my concerns are minor. I'd like to see some things tweaked or fixed but support the overall goals. (e.g. cancelling rapists is very good and we should keep doing it). b) people on the right will point to my concerns and try to use them to delegitimize the entire project instead of just making fixes to it. c) people who don't know me will think I'm one of those right wing assholes and accuse me of concern trolling, misogyny, etc. (And because they don't know me and right wing shitheads do concern troll over this poo poo constantly, I can't really blame them for thinking this way). I can't stand when this happens and don't need that kind of stress in my life. d) because of the right wingers poisoning the well with their fake criticisms, nobody will take the concerns seriously anyway, so why bother.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Nessus posted:It is almost farcial how very near to the surface in all of this is basically just the eighth grade: "you care about something, LOL, that's so loving lame" Basically it's South Park's fault.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 19:21
|
|