Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
On the matter of the mod team, Manchu has been enabling this for years. Look into every thread he closed down right after his pal Adeptus Doritos shat up.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's in the thread title. You see the bit where it says "for women"? There's the gender aspect right there.
And what one person might view as sexism, might really just be a result of social awkwardness, as alluded to by many of the early responses. Sometimes it's hard to know what the situation really is, and even people IN the situation can mis-judge it.
Even eye-witness testimony is shown to be highly suspect in criminal court.
Always assume best intentions, but still don't automatically take everything at face value and based on one side of the story.
Even in the kindest of scenarios, it could be both.
Social awkwardness does not excuse or justify a sexist output. It may very well explain one, and be addressed through education.
Unless we shut that conversation right down because chicks be lyin' or some flavour of that gak that's being peddled here for the last ten pages, despite repeated instructions to stop pulling this bs.
Be fething better, Dakka.
Question: If the person accused of sexism displays the same antisocial behavior towards a man, is it still sexism?
.
In no way was any individual "accused" of "sexism" - all of this is a sad, desperate attempt to deny the n^x time this fething community has been called on their gak and retreated again into the no-wimminz zone. We have actual fascists like Aphyon (neo-nazi) running around because his mod-mates are deleting his white nationalist posting history so useful idiots like Formosa can continue to pollute the well. This socks, and we have to do better.
Fascists and neo-nazis aren't relevant to this discussion. OP title says "gatekeeping for women" which I'm pretty sure falls under the classic "sexism" umbrella. Am I wrong?
Lance845 wrote: Because a historical precedent is all the reason a person needs to not start the conversation of cleaning up a potential misunderstanding.
People, adults or otherwise, are not reasonable. The crowd won't back you (in general), and it's a risk to even start to engage that history says you are going to lose (at least in the sort term). You are asking why x person doesn't simply do y. Because I bet like all of us, they have a life time of experiences that tell them it's not worth our time just to lose.
No it's not good in the long run. But it's the facts of why things are the way they are.
Ok, I get all that. But clearing up a potential misunderstanding, any misunderstanding is just basic human interaction. Some coworker might look grumpy at you at work one morning, some friend might over-explain something to you because they are a stickler in that particular topic.
Where do you draw the line between normal human interaction and (hopefully) just clearing up basic misunderstandings, and having to fight for equal treatment?
Again, I'm not saying unequal treatment does not exist or that we should not do something against that.
If I had to guess most people draw the line based on the likelihood that they need to have repeat interactions with the person.
Co-worker? Your fethed. You need to see them 4-5 days a week, potentially for years. Risk vs reward vs cost.
Friend? Well then you have already assigned some value to the interactions with the person. When the cost is too high you are no longer friends and you stop speaking to them.
Rando feth at the store? What is the likelihood that you get any net value out of that interaction?
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Lance845 wrote: If I had to guess most people draw the line based on the likelihood that they need to have repeat interactions with the person.
Co-worker? Your fethed. You need to see them 4-5 days a week, potentially for years. Risk vs reward vs cost.
Friend? Well then you have already assigned some value to the interactions with the person. When the cost is too high you are no longer friends and you stop speaking to them.
Rando feth at the store? What is the likelihood that you get any net value out of that interaction?
Wouldn't the net value be to (hopefully) just clear up a misunderstanding and subsequently feel more comfortable in the game store where I want to engage withy hobby?
But that is kinda universal isn't it? If I was a guy, some other dude could look gloomy and aggressive towards me in the store.
Now I'm not saying that happens more often to men than to women, but you'd have to deal with it the same way
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's in the thread title. You see the bit where it says "for women"? There's the gender aspect right there.
And what one person might view as sexism, might really just be a result of social awkwardness, as alluded to by many of the early responses. Sometimes it's hard to know what the situation really is, and even people IN the situation can mis-judge it.
Even eye-witness testimony is shown to be highly suspect in criminal court.
Always assume best intentions, but still don't automatically take everything at face value and based on one side of the story.
Even in the kindest of scenarios, it could be both.
Social awkwardness does not excuse or justify a sexist output. It may very well explain one, and be addressed through education.
Unless we shut that conversation right down because chicks be lyin' or some flavour of that gak that's being peddled here for the last ten pages, despite repeated instructions to stop pulling this bs.
Be fething better, Dakka.
Question: If the person accused of sexism displays the same antisocial behavior towards a man, is it still sexism?
.
In no way was any individual "accused" of "sexism" - all of this is a sad, desperate attempt to deny the n^x time this fething community has been called on their gak and retreated again into the no-wimminz zone. We have actual fascists like Aphyon (neo-nazi) running around because his mod-mates are deleting his white nationalist posting history so useful idiots like Formosa can continue to pollute the well. This socks, and we have to do better.
Fascists and neo-nazis aren't relevant to this discussion. OP title says "gatekeeping for women" which I'm pretty sure falls under the classic "sexism" umbrella. Am I wrong?
I mean, they're famous for egalitarianism so sure "irrelevent."
I'd rather trust you than my lying eyes, after all.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's in the thread title. You see the bit where it says "for women"? There's the gender aspect right there.
And what one person might view as sexism, might really just be a result of social awkwardness, as alluded to by many of the early responses. Sometimes it's hard to know what the situation really is, and even people IN the situation can mis-judge it.
Even eye-witness testimony is shown to be highly suspect in criminal court.
Always assume best intentions, but still don't automatically take everything at face value and based on one side of the story.
Even in the kindest of scenarios, it could be both.
Social awkwardness does not excuse or justify a sexist output. It may very well explain one, and be addressed through education.
Unless we shut that conversation right down because chicks be lyin' or some flavour of that gak that's being peddled here for the last ten pages, despite repeated instructions to stop pulling this bs.
Be fething better, Dakka.
Question: If the person accused of sexism displays the same antisocial behavior towards a man, is it still sexism?
.
In no way was any individual "accused" of "sexism" - all of this is a sad, desperate attempt to deny the n^x time this fething community has been called on their gak and retreated again into the no-wimminz zone. We have actual fascists like Aphyon (neo-nazi) running around because his mod-mates are deleting his white nationalist posting history so useful idiots like Formosa can continue to pollute the well. This socks, and we have to do better.
Fascists and neo-nazis aren't relevant to this discussion. OP title says "gatekeeping for women" which I'm pretty sure falls under the classic "sexism" umbrella. Am I wrong?
I mean, they're famous for egalitarianism so sure "irrelevent."
I'd rather trust you than my lying eyes, after all.
"Anyone who disagrees with me is a nazi"? Is that really where we're at?
"We have to do better" seems pretty applicable here too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/18 03:45:54
Lance845 wrote: If I had to guess most people draw the line based on the likelihood that they need to have repeat interactions with the person.
Co-worker? Your fethed. You need to see them 4-5 days a week, potentially for years. Risk vs reward vs cost.
Friend? Well then you have already assigned some value to the interactions with the person. When the cost is too high you are no longer friends and you stop speaking to them.
Rando feth at the store? What is the likelihood that you get any net value out of that interaction?
Wouldn't the net value be to (hopefully) just clear up a misunderstanding and subsequently feel more comfortable in the game store where I want to engage withy hobby?
But that is kinda universal isn't it? If I was a guy, some other dude could look gloomy and aggressive towards me in the store.
Now I'm not saying that happens more often to men than to women, but you'd have to deal with it the same way
Well, no, actually. Sure, two red blooded males can deal with aggression with words or fists and then settle down with a brew or a smoke and be cool about it afterwards. But anyone who isn't the right gender, social class, economic status, religion, etc. automatically forfeits those options by existing. When met with unasked aggression, even in a public space (or sometimes especially in a public space) anyone Otherized has to approach the aggressor with a lot more care and discretion. Often to the point of just accepting it exists and walking away, lest something worse happens.
Insectum7 wrote:"Anyone who disagrees with me is a nazi"? Is that really where we're at?
"We have to do better" seems pretty applicable here too.
Accountability is definitely part of being better. It isn't 'anyone who disagrees,' its a specific group of usual suspects that repeatedly demonstrate the same horrid behavior over and over again, and openly come out against anyone or anything... well, that doesn't fit whatever purity test exists in their heads. Its never subtle, but it keeps getting a pass.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/18 04:01:38
We have actual fascists like Aphyon (neo-nazi) running around because his mod-mates are deleting his white nationalist posting history
This is a violation of rule 1, it is also legally actionable slander. none of my posts have been deleted, the reason you cannot find any said material is because it does not exist.
By your own description you describe yourself as a leftist activist, i surmise, though i do not know you so i cannot claim it as fact that you have socialist/communist leanings. what i do gather from your posts is that you see nazi's under every rock IE anybody who may happen to disagree with you.
1.my love of my Scandinavian heritage (4th generation Swedish) and Norse mythology does not make me a nazi
2. my flames of war official game dice for my axis forces do not make me a nazi any more than my hammer/sickle dice for my SSU DUST army make me a communist, or my hinomaru dice i use for my Japanese fleet in victory at sea make me part of the imperial Japanese government or ideology, nor does my British desert rats dice make me an English monarchist.
3. I am unequivocally not a Nazi, neo-Nazi or white supremacist, if i were i would be really bad at it considering i regularly associate with and count as close friends' gamers who are practicing Jews, Leninists, homosexuals, atheists and just about every ethnic minority you can imagine.
The only person here i see acting in a manner of a classic fascist is you. In fact, one of my Jewish friends well versed is Marxist theory/history took one look at your posts and said you are one (his opinion, not mine).
This post has been reported and I request you cease and desist making these slanderous statements, you do not know me, or anything about me, you are quite literally talking GAK out your
GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear
Lance845 wrote: If I had to guess most people draw the line based on the likelihood that they need to have repeat interactions with the person.
Co-worker? Your fethed. You need to see them 4-5 days a week, potentially for years. Risk vs reward vs cost.
Friend? Well then you have already assigned some value to the interactions with the person. When the cost is too high you are no longer friends and you stop speaking to them.
Rando feth at the store? What is the likelihood that you get any net value out of that interaction?
Wouldn't the net value be to (hopefully) just clear up a misunderstanding and subsequently feel more comfortable in the game store where I want to engage withy hobby?
But that is kinda universal isn't it? If I was a guy, some other dude could look gloomy and aggressive towards me in the store.
Now I'm not saying that happens more often to men than to women, but you'd have to deal with it the same way
Well, no, actually. Sure, two red blooded males can deal with aggression with words or fists and then settle down with a brew or a smoke and be cool about it afterwards. But anyone who isn't the right gender, social class, economic status, religion, etc. automatically forfeits those options by existing. When met with unasked aggression, even in a public space (or sometimes especially in a public space) anyone Otherized has to approach the aggressor with a lot more care and discretion. Often to the point of just accepting it exists and walking away, lest something worse happens.
What would happen differently for those groups you describe? And again, in that hypothetical example I keep referring to, which we were discussing, how do you know the other person is actually an aggressor unless you clear up the situation.
Edit: imo you just can't pre describe someone who might look at you in a funny way in a game store as an aggressor.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/18 09:17:20
Insectum7 wrote:"Anyone who disagrees with me is a nazi"? Is that really where we're at?
"We have to do better" seems pretty applicable here too.
Accountability is definitely part of being better. It isn't 'anyone who disagrees,' its a specific group of usual suspects that repeatedly demonstrate the same horrid behavior over and over again, and openly come out against anyone or anything... well, that doesn't fit whatever purity test exists in their heads. Its never subtle, but it keeps getting a pass.
Ok, but pointing out bad actors does not make an argument or observation invalid, regardless. The idea that one persons social awkwardness might be incorrectly interpreted as sexism can still be true.
Now can that observation be abused by bad-faith actors? Sure. But likewise so can "believe all women". Getting one side of a story is rarely enough if you're looking for something actionable, which the OP is. That said, it's not like I have reason to disbelieve the premise behind the OPs post, etc. But sometimes an awkward situation can leave people with the wrong impression about things.
The solution, as others have pointed out, is civil discourse and building mutual understanding if possible. If not possible, leave and find a better group of people.
"usual suspects that repeatedly demonstrate the same horrid behavior over and over again, and openly come out against anyone or anything... well, that doesn't fit whatever purity test exists in their heads." That there is a statement and a half. Does that apply to anyone who "sees fascists" everywhere?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/18 09:47:44
Insectum7 wrote: Fascists and neo-nazis aren't relevant to this discussion. OP title says "gatekeeping for women" which I'm pretty sure falls under the classic "sexism" umbrella. Am I wrong?
No, but both are just a part of the pattern of this forum fostering all sort of bigots and bigot apologists which makes it rather unwelcoming place to a lot of people.
Tiberias wrote:Ok, but I don't understand how you create more of a safe space in a game store as to where you can openly discuss and express your opinions.
As I've said - ensuring that voices and concerns are heard, and the avenue for those voices to be spoken is clear. It's not enough to say "if people have a problem, they should just say it" when their problem is that they don't feel safe to speak. You need to be proactive, you need to reinforce the safety of the environment, and you need to build that relationship. You can't just expect people to immediately share all their problems, because real people don't do that without first feeling safe to do so.
Thats simply how human interaction works, doesn't it?
No, it isn't - definitely not for marginalised groups. This isn't just a women thing, this is people of colour, this is neurodivergent folks, this is trans and enby folks, this is LGBTQ+ folks, this is people who are just shy or socially anxious/awkward - because in so many cases their experiences have been of being marginalised and their voices not respected, or worse, having been abused for not being part of the majority group, they may very well not feel safe to speak up about problems.
This idea that people can always go up and speak their mind is very simply is *not* how human interaction works in the real world.
And if some immature douche throws a hissy fit, it probably won't be just one person with a spine in that store who opposes him. And I can only speak for my game store here, but if someone were to attack a woman or a man for that matter in the game store...let alone for just asking a simple question...that guy would have at least 3 guys on top of him, beating his ass, then the police would arrest that idiot and he'd likely be charged with aggravated assault. I seriously hope though that everyone on this forum lives in a place where such things don't happen or happen exceedingly rarely.
I'm sorry, but you really can only speak for your store there. Yes, attacking someone is absolutely going to be out of line in most places, but the intimidation and threat towards marginalised folks is still pervasive, and it's unfortunately rare that anyone steps in on them. Unfortunately, in the wider world, onlookers are more common than any of us would like.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But what is that saying? By saying there may have been a misunderstanding, you are *still* implying that their account is false, and that their feelings aren't valid. It doesn't reassure them, it doesn't offer any real help, and all it really helps to do is make people doubt their own senses and experiences, and that's an incredibly messy thing.
There's a tactful way to do it, but it definitely doesn't spring from making people question their own experiences in a thread where they talk about them.
That one I don't understand. If in that hypothetical scenario it was just an honest misunderstanding then their feeling can be invalid.
No, their feeling isn't invalid. It may have been a mistake or a misunderstanding, but how they felt wasn't.
Take it this way - you think that your friend has stolen something of yours, something precious and valuable. You would understandably feel betrayed, angry, upset, or mad, or all of the above. You talk to them about it, and you find out that you actually just lost it. You misunderstood the situation, but everything you felt was real still. That's what I mean by "feelings are valid" - it doesn't matter if you were ultimately right or wrong, you still felt that way, and you really shouldn't have needed to feel those things.
It was cleared up that person B didn't even target person A with their looks, but was rather just in thought. So person As feelings about beeing uncomfortable were not valid in that case.
No, their feelings very much were valid. They still felt everything, and experienced all those concerns. They can be misunderstood, but their feelings can be valid at the same time. Both parties should have to evaluate that situation and both work out how to avoid that in the future, what behaviours either one can do that can avoid such a misunderstanding in the future.
And people should definitely question their experiences when interacting with other people, or at least try to clear them up.
Again, lovely idea in theory, simply impractical when you factor in the severe mistrust and lack of faith that many marginalised groups have, and the difficulty in navigating social situations that many neurodivergent people have.
It really isn't as simple as "clear up how you interact with people", because not everyone has the luxury of feeling safe to do that. Hence why establishing safe spaces is so important to maintaining communication. Or, as Voss so well puts it:
Voss wrote:...two red blooded males can deal with aggression with words or fists and then settle down with a brew or a smoke and be cool about it afterwards. But anyone who isn't the right gender, social class, economic status, religion, etc. automatically forfeits those options by existing. When met with unasked aggression, even in a public space (or sometimes especially in a public space) anyone Otherized has to approach the aggressor with a lot more care and discretion. Often to the point of just accepting it exists and walking away, lest something worse happens.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/18 13:30:01
Tiberias wrote:Ok, but I don't understand how you create more of a safe space in a game store as to where you can openly discuss and express your opinions.
As I've said - ensuring that voices and concerns are heard, and the avenue for those voices to be spoken is clear. It's not enough to say "if people have a problem, they should just say it" when their problem is that they don't feel safe to speak. You need to be proactive, you need to reinforce the safety of the environment, and you need to build that relationship. You can't just expect people to immediately share all their problems, because real people don't do that without first feeling safe to do so.
Thats simply how human interaction works, doesn't it?
No, it isn't - definitely not for marginalised groups. This isn't just a women thing, this is people of colour, this is neurodivergent folks, this is trans and enby folks, this is LGBTQ+ folks, this is people who are just shy or socially anxious/awkward - because in so many cases their experiences have been of being marginalised and their voices not respected, or worse, having been abused for not being part of the majority group, they may very well not feel safe to speak up about problems.
This idea that people can always go up and speak their mind is very simply is *not* how human interaction works in the real world.
Ok, I'm trying to learn here. What do I do to make someone feel safe other than try to engage them in (hopefully) honest conversation and treat them with a normal level of courtesy?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But what is that saying? By saying there may have been a misunderstanding, you are *still* implying that their account is false, and that their feelings aren't valid. It doesn't reassure them, it doesn't offer any real help, and all it really helps to do is make people doubt their own senses and experiences, and that's an incredibly messy thing.
There's a tactful way to do it, but it definitely doesn't spring from making people question their own experiences in a thread where they talk about them.
Tiberias wrote:That one I don't understand. If in that hypothetical scenario it was just an honest misunderstanding then their feeling can be invalid.
No, their feeling isn't invalid. It may have been a mistake or a misunderstanding, but how they felt wasn't.
Take it this way - you think that your friend has stolen something of yours, something precious and valuable. You would understandably feel betrayed, angry, upset, or mad, or all of the above. You talk to them about it, and you find out that you actually just lost it. You misunderstood the situation, but everything you felt was real still. That's what I mean by "feelings are valid" - it doesn't matter if you were ultimately right or wrong, you still felt that way, and you really shouldn't have needed to feel those things.
Tiberias wrote:It was cleared up that person B didn't even target person A with their looks, but was rather just in thought. So person As feelings about beeing uncomfortable were not valid in that case.
No, their feelings very much were valid. They still felt everything, and experienced all those concerns. They can be misunderstood, but their feelings can be valid at the same time. Both parties should have to evaluate that situation and both work out how to avoid that in the future, what behaviours either one can do that can avoid such a misunderstanding in the future.
That doesn't make any sense to me. You shouldn't have needed to feel bad when you initially thought your friend stole something from you, when it then turned out that the thing wasn't even stolen in the first place, just lost? Shouldn't you feel relieved? How is your hypothetical friend supposed to change his behavior here, when they demonstrably didn't do anything wrong? "Sorry because you felt bad for thinking that I stole from you, which you now know I didn't do in the first place" I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
And again, how do you ever protect someone from that? That example you gave is just a simple part of life. Misunderstanding will always happen in human interaction, you can't prevent that....just try to clear it up.
Lance845 wrote: If I had to guess most people draw the line based on the likelihood that they need to have repeat interactions with the person.
Co-worker? Your fethed. You need to see them 4-5 days a week, potentially for years. Risk vs reward vs cost.
Friend? Well then you have already assigned some value to the interactions with the person. When the cost is too high you are no longer friends and you stop speaking to them.
Rando feth at the store? What is the likelihood that you get any net value out of that interaction?
Wouldn't the net value be to (hopefully) just clear up a misunderstanding and subsequently feel more comfortable in the game store where I want to engage withy hobby?
But that is kinda universal isn't it? If I was a guy, some other dude could look gloomy and aggressive towards me in the store.
Now I'm not saying that happens more often to men than to women, but you'd have to deal with it the same way
Well, no, actually. Sure, two red blooded males can deal with aggression with words or fists and then settle down with a brew or a smoke and be cool about it afterwards. But anyone who isn't the right gender, social class, economic status, religion, etc. automatically forfeits those options by existing. When met with unasked aggression, even in a public space (or sometimes especially in a public space) anyone Otherized has to approach the aggressor with a lot more care and discretion. Often to the point of just accepting it exists and walking away, lest something worse happens.
What would happen differently for those groups you describe? And again, in that hypothetical example I keep referring to, which we were discussing, how do you know the other person is actually an aggressor unless you clear up the situation.
Edit: imo you just can't pre describe someone who might look at you in a funny way in a game store as an aggressor.
I missed some of the context, but is this in reference to the person OP said just silently glared at her the entire game? It really depends. In an ideal world it can be easy to talk it out yes, but sometimes speaking up can create its own unpleasantness. There are people who will just grin and bear it through these kinds of situations afraid to kick the metaphorical bee hive - you get stung once you aren't likely to try kicking it again, even if this time it is a misunderstanding.
I think the best case would be to have a group greeter so to speak, someone newcomers can come to and feel safe around. The safe space like smudge talked about. Someone who can maybe help explain the quirks of the group to a newcomer to help with misunderstandings. Like "oh that is X, he is a nice guy but shy, he probably won't talk to you until you've been around a few weeks but once he warms up to you he is very nice." On top of that, also to help set the expectations of the newcomer to the group and vice versa, so they all know roughly what they are getting in to and have a shared understanding of everything.
The big thing is being understanding and willing to talk it out, and making sure the other parties are aware of it. Like I said, kicking the beehive - there are people who do not feel the unpleasantness of kicking the beehive is worth the chance of it being a misunderstanding. But with an open environment based on communal trust, well, it doesn't completely get rid of the risk, but it does help ease the fear and tension.
aphyon wrote:
The only person here i see acting in a manner of a classic fascist is you. In fact, one of my Jewish friends well versed is Marxist theory/history took one look at your posts and said you are one (his opinion, not mine).
After saying that calling someone a fascist is bad, you immediately turn around and call them a fascist? Just...confusing. I have no horse in the race, not going to bother looking at either of your posting histories, it just seems odd is all.
Crimson wrote:
Insectum7 wrote: Fascists and neo-nazis aren't relevant to this discussion. OP title says "gatekeeping for women" which I'm pretty sure falls under the classic "sexism" umbrella. Am I wrong?
No, but both are just a part of the pattern of this forum fostering all sort of bigots and bigot apologists which makes it rather unwelcoming place to a lot of people.
Yeah, the thread on the guy who went to tourney decked out that kind of gear really was an eye opener, with people rushing to defend the guy (or throwing lots of shade around with whataboutisms). Its also the kind of stuff that makes people uncomfortable and just not want to interact with a group.
Put in terms of a gaming concept, if someone were to tell me about an amazing friend they had, who is hilarious and great to be around, we should have them over for D&D next time we get together - and then the person shows up in a confederate flag shirt. Yeah - that is an immediate red flag and I will disengage at the earliest opportunity. Life is too short to spend free time with an open bigot. Moreover, it would start to make me question the friend who brought them. And on the flip side, if the group would keep the person, suddenly the group is now the local one open to racists, which pretty much by default would close it to most other groups.
Tiberias wrote:Ok, but I don't understand how you create more of a safe space in a game store as to where you can openly discuss and express your opinions.
As I've said - ensuring that voices and concerns are heard, and the avenue for those voices to be spoken is clear. It's not enough to say "if people have a problem, they should just say it" when their problem is that they don't feel safe to speak. You need to be proactive, you need to reinforce the safety of the environment, and you need to build that relationship. You can't just expect people to immediately share all their problems, because real people don't do that without first feeling safe to do so.
Thats simply how human interaction works, doesn't it?
No, it isn't - definitely not for marginalised groups. This isn't just a women thing, this is people of colour, this is neurodivergent folks, this is trans and enby folks, this is LGBTQ+ folks, this is people who are just shy or socially anxious/awkward - because in so many cases their experiences have been of being marginalised and their voices not respected, or worse, having been abused for not being part of the majority group, they may very well not feel safe to speak up about problems.
This idea that people can always go up and speak their mind is very simply is *not* how human interaction works in the real world.
Ok, I'm trying to learn here. What do I do to make someone feel safe other than try to engage them in (hopefully) honest conversation and treat them with a normal level of courtesy?
I've repeated myself enough times stating exactly how to do that.
Ask them first what you can do. Present yourself in a way, with how you speak, act, and interact with others, that indicates that you are someone who is receptive and open to other people's concerns. Find ways to include them in things first, but *always ask if they're comfortable*. Ask how you can make things more comfortable for others.
If you have power or are part of the "norm" in a group, it's on you to take initiative and make the newcomers feel welcome, not the other way around. And most importantly, don't stop doing that. Maintain that alertness and receptiveness to all members of the group, even when they become the new norm.
That doesn't make any sense to me. You shouldn't have needed to feel bad when you initially thought your friend stole something from you, when it then turned out that the thing wasn't even stolen in the first place, just lost?
But you didn't know that it was just lost, and you had reason - at that moment - to believe that your friend had stolen it. Your feelings were valid, even if they were later proven misplaced. No matter what actually happened, if you felt angry or betrayed, you had a right to feel that way because what you knew and felt at the time was real.
Shouldn't you feel relieved?
After the fact? Yes, of course! But that doesn't change how you felt beforehand.
How is your hypothetical friend supposed to change his behavior here, when they demonstrably didn't do anything wrong? "Sorry because you felt bad for thinking that I stole from you, which you now know I didn't do in the first place" I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
That example was to demonstrate how your feelings are valid, not in how your people are supposed to change their behaviour. That example wasn't a 1:1 analogy of the OP's example, but it did exist to illustrate how someone's feelings are valid, even if they are later known to be misinformed.
Now, if you KNEW that your friend couldn't have stolen it, and you *still* felt angry towards them, that *would* be invalid, but under the given circumstances and situation, your feelings would have been valid, even if they were later shown to be misinformed. The bottom line, however, is that you don't try and negate or shoot down those feelings, because that helps no-one.
And again, how do you ever protect someone from that? That example you gave is just a simple part of life. Misunderstanding will always happen in human interaction, you can't prevent that....just try to clear it up.
Yes, you absolutely *can* prevent it - can you prevent all of it? No. But you can certainly try.
I'm sorry, but I don't accept the idea that "it is what it is, can't do anything about it", because it's simply not true. Again - the example I gave wasn't to be a perfect replica or analogy, it was ONLY to illustrate that your feelings can be valid and later shown to be misinformed.
Tiberias wrote:Ok, but I don't understand how you create more of a safe space in a game store as to where you can openly discuss and express your opinions.
As I've said - ensuring that voices and concerns are heard, and the avenue for those voices to be spoken is clear. It's not enough to say "if people have a problem, they should just say it" when their problem is that they don't feel safe to speak. You need to be proactive, you need to reinforce the safety of the environment, and you need to build that relationship. You can't just expect people to immediately share all their problems, because real people don't do that without first feeling safe to do so.
Thats simply how human interaction works, doesn't it?
No, it isn't - definitely not for marginalised groups. This isn't just a women thing, this is people of colour, this is neurodivergent folks, this is trans and enby folks, this is LGBTQ+ folks, this is people who are just shy or socially anxious/awkward - because in so many cases their experiences have been of being marginalised and their voices not respected, or worse, having been abused for not being part of the majority group, they may very well not feel safe to speak up about problems.
This idea that people can always go up and speak their mind is very simply is *not* how human interaction works in the real world.
Ok, I'm trying to learn here. What do I do to make someone feel safe other than try to engage them in (hopefully) honest conversation and treat them with a normal level of courtesy?
I've repeated myself enough times stating exactly how to do that.
Ask them first what you can do. Present yourself in a way, with how you speak, act, and interact with others, that indicates that you are someone who is receptive and open to other people's concerns. Find ways to include them in things first, but *always ask if they're comfortable*. Ask how you can make things more comfortable for others.
If you have power or are part of the "norm" in a group, it's on you to take initiative and make the newcomers feel welcome, not the other way around. And most importantly, don't stop doing that. Maintain that alertness and receptiveness to all members of the group, even when they become the new norm.
That doesn't make any sense to me. You shouldn't have needed to feel bad when you initially thought your friend stole something from you, when it then turned out that the thing wasn't even stolen in the first place, just lost?
But you didn't know that it was just lost, and you had reason - at that moment - to believe that your friend had stolen it. Your feelings were valid, even if they were later proven misplaced. No matter what actually happened, if you felt angry or betrayed, you had a right to feel that way because what you knew and felt at the time was real.
Shouldn't you feel relieved?
After the fact? Yes, of course! But that doesn't change how you felt beforehand.
How is your hypothetical friend supposed to change his behavior here, when they demonstrably didn't do anything wrong? "Sorry because you felt bad for thinking that I stole from you, which you now know I didn't do in the first place" I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
That example was to demonstrate how your feelings are valid, not in how your people are supposed to change their behaviour. That example wasn't a 1:1 analogy of the OP's example, but it did exist to illustrate how someone's feelings are valid, even if they are later known to be misinformed.
Now, if you KNEW that your friend couldn't have stolen it, and you *still* felt angry towards them, that *would* be invalid, but under the given circumstances and situation, your feelings would have been valid, even if they were later shown to be misinformed. The bottom line, however, is that you don't try and negate or shoot down those feelings, because that helps no-one.
And again, how do you ever protect someone from that? That example you gave is just a simple part of life. Misunderstanding will always happen in human interaction, you can't prevent that....just try to clear it up.
Yes, you absolutely *can* prevent it - can you prevent all of it? No. But you can certainly try.
I'm sorry, but I don't accept the idea that "it is what it is, can't do anything about it", because it's simply not true. Again - the example I gave wasn't to be a perfect replica or analogy, it was ONLY to illustrate that your feelings can be valid and later shown to be misinformed.
Does that make sense?
BlackoCatto wrote:We are still on this?
Do you have anything else to add?
I think we have different definitions of "valid". A feeling being valid to me means it's justified. So if you are angry at your friend because you think something was stolen from you and you then find out your friend didn't do it, you being angry was not a valid feeling. Saying that is not denying that you actually felt being angry.
I also didn't throw out a blanket statement that you can't do anything about "it" (the general issue at hand I presume), just that you can't protect people from feeling angry/sad etc. and them sometimes unjustly feeling that way, once a misunderstanding gets cleared up. How would you even do that? You'd have to cease any human interaction.
Edit: Also your hypothetical example of thinking a friend stole from you is not that different from thinking someone looks menacingly towards you. Your feelings can be unjustified there aswell, if that person was just looking in your general direction and maybe didn't even want to interact with you at all in that moment. So feeling angry/threatend or whatever would have been unjustified.
But you can only get to that point once you clear up such a misunderstanding and you can only do that by proactively talking.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/18 15:12:54
We have actual fascists like Aphyon (neo-nazi) running around because his mod-mates are deleting his white nationalist posting history
This is a violation of rule 1, it is also legally actionable slander.
Er...
(Not trying to disagree with anything else you're saying, Aphyon, I just thought I'd try to add a little humour. Because by god this thread could use some. )
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Tiberias wrote: I think we have different definitions of "valid". A feeling being valid to me means it's justified. So if you are angry at your friend because you think something was stolen from you and you then find out your friend didn't do it, you being angry was not a valid feeling. Saying that is not denying that you actually felt being angry.
It *is* a justified feeling, from the information that you knew at that time - you don't get to retroactively remove those feelings. Your feelings can *change*, and I'd hope that they did, but your feelings at that time absolutely were valid, and it would be wrong to tell someone any different.
I also didn't throw out a blanket statement that you can't do anything about "it" (the general issue at hand I presume), just that you can't protect people from feeling angry/sad etc. and them sometimes unjustly feeling that way, once a misunderstanding gets cleared up. How would you even do that? You'd have to cease any human interaction.
That simply isn't true. You don't need to "cease human interaction" to prevent instances of people feeling hurt - it's an ongoing process, but it is absolutely possible, and not something to be handwaved away. It takes time, and it takes effort. I'm not acting like it'll fix itself overnight.
Edit: Also your hypothetical example of thinking a friend stole from you is not that different from thinking someone looks menacingly towards you. Your feelings can be unjustified there aswell, if that person was just looking in your general direction and maybe didn't even want to interact with you at all in that moment. So feeling angry/threatend or whatever would have been unjustified.
But that's not even true - because at that point in time, with the information you had, those feelings were valid. There's no need to rewrite how you felt, or to sweep that under the rug. You grow and develop from those feelings, but you don't invalidate them.
If someone's shooting me daggers across the room, and I feel intimidated by them, I don't care if they later come up and say "oh yeah, sorry, I thought you were someone else, sorry for doing that", I was still intimidated by them. Now, I can grow and develop from those feelings, I can move on, but it doesn't change that I felt intimidated by their actions, and acting otherwise would be erasure.
But you can only get to that point once you clear up such a misunderstanding and you can only do that by proactively talking.
And the responsibility for proactively talking and providing the bridge for that potential misunderstanding to be cleared isn't on the newcomer to do - it's on the dominant power in the setting. The threatened/marginalised party shouldn't have to make the harder steps of getting over their own anxieties and concerns of an unsafe space to make the space safer, it's on the people already in the space to make it welcoming and safe, and they can only do that by listening to any signs (verbal or non-verbal) from newcomers, from opening themselves up to newcomers, and in themselves being the ones to ask how they can better integrate newcomers: not the other way around.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/18 16:04:40
Insectum7 wrote: Fascists and neo-nazis aren't relevant to this discussion. OP title says "gatekeeping for women" which I'm pretty sure falls under the classic "sexism" umbrella. Am I wrong?
No, but both are just a part of the pattern of this forum fostering all sort of bigots and bigot apologists which makes it rather unwelcoming place to a lot of people.
I've seen a few posts that were real doosies, absolutely. But when you say "bigot apologists" I wonder about the validity of such a statement considering how quickly some are to throw labels like "bigot" or "nazi" around.
But also, this isn't arguing the point and is just slinging more mud. And overuse of hate-labels doesn't exactly make for a welcoming community either.
'facts don't care about your feelings' rather or not you like the person(s) making valid points.
Cool out, swastika dice....
I see civil discourse is not your forte, not sure about your dice reference...
Aphyon is a liar. And I guess proud/not proud to have dice that would be illegal in germany?
Do the flames of war official game dice have swastikas on them?
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Tiberias wrote: I think we have different definitions of "valid". A feeling being valid to me means it's justified. So if you are angry at your friend because you think something was stolen from you and you then find out your friend didn't do it, you being angry was not a valid feeling. Saying that is not denying that you actually felt being angry.
It *is* a justified feeling, from the information that you knew at that time - you don't get to retroactively remove those feelings. Your feelings can *change*, and I'd hope that they did, but your feelings at that time absolutely were valid, and it would be wrong to tell someone any different.
No, I absolutely refute that logic, because it goes both ways. By that logic a fething deadbeat piece of crap wife beater is justified in his feelings if he comes home drunk one night and feels angry towards his wife all of a sudden because she looked at him wrong. There is nothing justified about that.
So in that hypothetical scenario where you thought your friend stole from you, you might be angry at first? Ok, so what? If the situation clears itself up and your friend didn't steal, you being angry was unjustified. If he did indeed steal from you, you being angry was justified.
I also didn't throw out a blanket statement that you can't do anything about "it" (the general issue at hand I presume), just that you can't protect people from feeling angry/sad etc. and them sometimes unjustly feeling that way, once a misunderstanding gets cleared up. How would you even do that? You'd have to cease any human interaction.
That simply isn't true. You don't need to "cease human interaction" to prevent instances of people feeling hurt - it's an ongoing process, but it is absolutely possible, and not something to be handwaved away. It takes time, and it takes effort. I'm not acting like it'll fix itself overnight.
Am I acting like it'll fix itself over night? We keep coming back to that you kinda need to talk to people if you want to improve something. You say thats hard for some people, I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that you have to talk to people.
Edit: Also your hypothetical example of thinking a friend stole from you is not that different from thinking someone looks menacingly towards you. Your feelings can be unjustified there aswell, if that person was just looking in your general direction and maybe didn't even want to interact with you at all in that moment. So feeling angry/threatend or whatever would have been unjustified.
But that's not even true - because at that point in time, with the information you had, those feelings were valid. There's no need to rewrite how you felt, or to sweep that under the rug. You grow and develop from those feelings, but you don't invalidate them.
If someone's shooting me daggers across the room, and I feel intimidated by them, I don't care if they later come up and say "oh yeah, sorry, I thought you were someone else, sorry for doing that", I was still intimidated by them. Now, I can grow and develop from those feelings, I can move on, but it doesn't change that I felt intimidated by their actions, and acting otherwise would be erasure.
I'm sorry, but what does erasure mean in that context?
Tiberias wrote: I think we have different definitions of "valid". A feeling being valid to me means it's justified. So if you are angry at your friend because you think something was stolen from you and you then find out your friend didn't do it, you being angry was not a valid feeling. Saying that is not denying that you actually felt being angry.
It *is* a justified feeling, from the information that you knew at that time - you don't get to retroactively remove those feelings. Your feelings can *change*, and I'd hope that they did, but your feelings at that time absolutely were valid, and it would be wrong to tell someone any different.
No, I absolutely refute that logic, because it goes both ways. By that logic a fething deadbeat piece of crap wife beater is justified in his feelings if he comes home drunk one night and feels angry towards his wife all of a sudden because she looked at him wrong. There is nothing justified about that.
But we're not talking about feelings of violence, we're talking about feeling excluded, or feeling intimidated, or a feeling that isn't "I get to cause other people harm". Similarly, within CONTEXT, you outright state that they're drunk, and therefore not of a right mind. There's no excuse for that, and my comment doesn't endorse those kinds of feelings or the responses to them.
Remember the context of the thread we're talking about here - OP feeling excluded is not the same as a drunk abuser.
So in that hypothetical scenario where you thought your friend stole from you, you might be angry at first? Ok, so what? If the situation clears itself up and your friend didn't steal, you being angry was unjustified. If he did indeed steal from you, you being angry was justified.
No, me feeling betrayed and angry *was* justified at the time because there was no additional context. You need to be aware that people can feel things without knowing all the information, and that suddenly, with that change in information, they don't just lose those feelings. They can work and move on from them, but to negate them is erasing their lived experiences.
I also didn't throw out a blanket statement that you can't do anything about "it" (the general issue at hand I presume), just that you can't protect people from feeling angry/sad etc. and them sometimes unjustly feeling that way, once a misunderstanding gets cleared up. How would you even do that? You'd have to cease any human interaction.
That simply isn't true. You don't need to "cease human interaction" to prevent instances of people feeling hurt - it's an ongoing process, but it is absolutely possible, and not something to be handwaved away. It takes time, and it takes effort. I'm not acting like it'll fix itself overnight.
Am I acting like it'll fix itself over night? We keep coming back to that you kinda need to talk to people if you want to improve something. You say thats hard for some people, I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that you have to talk to people.
And that's not on the marginalised group to do - that's the responsibility of the dominant group to do, because *they're* the ones who are supposed to make it a safe space.
I'm not saying that you don't need to talk to people, but I am saying that you certainly implied in earlier posts that the onus for that is on the marginalised group, which is certainly isn't.
Edit: Also your hypothetical example of thinking a friend stole from you is not that different from thinking someone looks menacingly towards you. Your feelings can be unjustified there aswell, if that person was just looking in your general direction and maybe didn't even want to interact with you at all in that moment. So feeling angry/threatend or whatever would have been unjustified.
But that's not even true - because at that point in time, with the information you had, those feelings were valid. There's no need to rewrite how you felt, or to sweep that under the rug. You grow and develop from those feelings, but you don't invalidate them.
If someone's shooting me daggers across the room, and I feel intimidated by them, I don't care if they later come up and say "oh yeah, sorry, I thought you were someone else, sorry for doing that", I was still intimidated by them. Now, I can grow and develop from those feelings, I can move on, but it doesn't change that I felt intimidated by their actions, and acting otherwise would be erasure.
I'm sorry, but what does erasure mean in that context?
Erasure would be removal in retrospect, it would be denying my own lived experience, it would be self-censorship, and it would honestly be a form of gaslighting behaviour, in that I could not trust my own thoughts and feelings. It would be erasing my own thoughts and how I felt in that situation.
Insectum7 wrote: Fascists and neo-nazis aren't relevant to this discussion. OP title says "gatekeeping for women" which I'm pretty sure falls under the classic "sexism" umbrella. Am I wrong?
No, but both are just a part of the pattern of this forum fostering all sort of bigots and bigot apologists which makes it rather unwelcoming place to a lot of people.
I've seen a few posts that were real doosies, absolutely. But when you say "bigot apologists" I wonder about the validity of such a statement considering how quickly some are to throw labels like "bigot" or "nazi" around.
But also, this isn't arguing the point and is just slinging more mud. And overuse of hate-labels doesn't exactly make for a welcoming community either.
People are usually quick to throw those terms around.... because they basically in 99% of cases do apply.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're not, but the phrasing you use is what a lot of crypto-fascists, neo-nazi's and alt-right chuds use in order to escape real criticism or cover their asses (dogwhistling, look it up!). It's the whole "hey I'm just asking questions..." thing that you see them do. What's worse is that in modern Western culture we have been conditioned to only consider fascism, or bigotry in general, to be really extreme actions like rounding people up into camps to exterminate them, or segregating different races of people and treating them as lesser class humans than others. In other words, you can easily be a Nazi without actively standing guard at Auschwitz.
Not to get all Banality of Evil on everyone, but abhorrent views are often defined by how bland and ordinary and casual they can be expressed, either consciously or unconsciously.
But really, if you're throwing out the "defence" of people throwing around the word bigot/fascist too much, then you're basically parroting things that people like Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Priti Patel, Boris Johnson and the 45th President of the United States say. And hey, these people are not innocuous moderate Right-Wingers that just y'know, love private property and the Free Market (my cousins husband is one of those kinds of people and they are certainly not a fascist or a bigot), they actively hold and promote incredibly dangerous ideas and wear their love of exclusionary Authoritarianism on their sleeves without any shame.
For more somewhat related reading on this matter, these videos go into some of it a little and the one about the UC Berkeley research into the Authoritarian personality type is interesting on its own.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/18 17:09:48
Tiberias wrote: I think we have different definitions of "valid". A feeling being valid to me means it's justified. So if you are angry at your friend because you think something was stolen from you and you then find out your friend didn't do it, you being angry was not a valid feeling. Saying that is not denying that you actually felt being angry.
It *is* a justified feeling, from the information that you knew at that time - you don't get to retroactively remove those feelings. Your feelings can *change*, and I'd hope that they did, but your feelings at that time absolutely were valid, and it would be wrong to tell someone any different.
No, I absolutely refute that logic, because it goes both ways. By that logic a fething deadbeat piece of crap wife beater is justified in his feelings if he comes home drunk one night and feels angry towards his wife all of a sudden because she looked at him wrong. There is nothing justified about that.
But we're not talking about feelings of violence, we're talking about feeling excluded, or feeling intimidated, or a feeling that isn't "I get to cause other people harm". Similarly, within CONTEXT, you outright state that they're drunk, and therefore not of a right mind. There's no excuse for that, and my comment doesn't endorse those kinds of feelings or the responses to them.
Remember the context of the thread we're talking about here - OP feeling excluded is not the same as a drunk abuser.
No. You don't get to retreat to the detail that the wife beater might be drunk. Forget everything else for a second, this is way too important.
By your logic him feeling angry towards his wife because she looked at him in a way he did not like, is also valid if he is not drunk, it's just what he feels at that moment and not acknowledging that would be erasure would it not? The logic is exactly the same in both arguments, hence why I am so fervently opposed to it. Your feelings are not justified by default.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/18 17:23:22
Insectum7 wrote: Fascists and neo-nazis aren't relevant to this discussion. OP title says "gatekeeping for women" which I'm pretty sure falls under the classic "sexism" umbrella. Am I wrong?
No, but both are just a part of the pattern of this forum fostering all sort of bigots and bigot apologists which makes it rather unwelcoming place to a lot of people.
I've seen a few posts that were real doosies, absolutely. But when you say "bigot apologists" I wonder about the validity of such a statement considering how quickly some are to throw labels like "bigot" or "nazi" around.
But also, this isn't arguing the point and is just slinging more mud. And overuse of hate-labels doesn't exactly make for a welcoming community either.
People are usually quick to throw those terms around.... because they basically in 99% of cases do apply.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're not, but the phrasing you use is what a lot of crypto-fascists, neo-nazi's and alt-right chuds use in order to escape real criticism or cover their asses (dogwhistling, look it up!). It's the whole "hey I'm just asking questions..." thing that you see them do. What's worse is that in modern Western culture we have been conditioned to only consider fascism, or bigotry in general, to be really extreme actions like rounding people up into camps to exterminate them, or segregating different races of people and treating them as lesser class humans than others. In other words, you can easily be a Nazi without actively standing guard at Auschwitz.
Not to get all Banality of Evil on everyone, but abhorrent views are often defined by how bland and ordinary and casual they can be expressed, either consciously or unconsciously.
But really, if you're throwing out the "defence" of people throwing around the word bigot/fascist too much, then you're basically parroting things that people like Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Priti Patel, Boris Johnson and the 45th President of the United States say. And hey, these people are not innocuous moderate Right-Wingers that just y'know, love private property and the Free Market (my cousins husband is one of those kinds of people and they are certainly not a fascist or a bigot), they actively hold and promote incredibly dangerous ideas and wear their love of exclusionary Authoritarianism on their sleeves without any shame.
For more somewhat related reading on this matter, these videos go into some of it a little and the one about the UC Berkeley research into the Authoritarian personality type is interesting on its own.
@Bosskelot:
"In 99% of cases it applies . . ." Riiiiiiiiggggght. I'm not inclined to go along with that assertion.
Btw, I'm a big fan of contrapoints. I've watched probably most of her vids, certainly those ones. Not that I always agree, I just think it's great content. Not a fan of Tucker and no. 45.
Sorry I can't make a better response atm, life calls. I might have something later.
But I'd point out that you admit to knowing a right-wing-fan who is neither a fascist or bigot, your words.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/12/18 17:45:06
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're not, but the phrasing you use is what a lot of crypto-fascists, neo-nazi's and alt-right chuds use in order to escape real criticism or cover their asses (dogwhistling, look it up!).
So I take it you are straight up admitting to being a crypto-fascist, neo-nazi and/or alt-right chud?
Because the whole point of a dog-whistle is that it is inaudible to the ears of non-canines. Thus, if you can hear the whistle, then that makes you the dog.
Ergo, if people are 'dogwhistling' to crypto-fascists, neo-nazis and/or alt-right chuds, and you are hearing it, then you must be one of those yourself.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
)
