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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
I feel like real-world politics has every place in a fictional world, and that one of the purposes of politics is to figure out with whom you stand in solidarity.

A large part of my design for Titanomachina, for example, was driven by my feminist political affiliation, and I appreciate comments I get noting that I left out sexist tropes, both positive and negative. I figure there's enough weird sexism in the industry that an alternative is a positive thing for everyone.

Now it does make a difference about how I engage with people. When the opinions they express are sufficiently unappealing to me in one area, then I don't see why I'd want to bother with more of the same in another. I don't want to engage with flat-earthers, homeopaths, creationists, and so on regarding the topic of the sexist Leman Russ because they've already informed me that they're not worth my time.

This is such a closed minded, awful way of thinking it boggles my mind. So I suppose a mechanic's opinion on your car is invalid because he believes in God?

No, because God doesn't have anything to do with cars. Now if the well-educated and informed mechanic feels like telling me racist jokes when he's supposed to be telling me about what he did to my vehicle you're quite correct in assuming that I'll disregard his opinion and take my business elsewhere.

But he's still knowledgeable on a subject that doesn't involve his politics and even if he was a massive racist he would still be correct about your car regardless (unless you're black and he's lying to you). If I told you that I'm pro-<thing you dislike> that doesn't effect my opinion on Space Marines because the two topics are unrelated. You're willing to dismiss me as a person entirely because you disagree with a few of my political views which, to bring it back round to the topic, is why people dislike that Anita is speaking at Gencon. She doesn't invite discussion because she notoriously doesn't engage in any. To her and a lot of her followers, this is a zero sum game. Either you fall in line or you're to be black listed as a racist/misogynist/transphobe etc.

The mechanic is a false equivalance. We can assume through study the mechanic is an authority on cars. You on the other hand are no more an authority on 40k than any of the guys on this forum. So say if someone turned out to be a misogynist in real life, wouldn't you start second guessing that person when he starts arguing that female imperial guard are not realistic. Whether we like it or not, 40k touches on the subject of women frequently enough and political views bleed through.

Fair enough it is. But my point was that people are knowledgeable about more than one subject and many are unrelated to other things. I know a lot about photography but that's unrelated to my knowledge of Warhammer. 40k has a defined world. You can't argue that female guardsmen are unrealistic because we have loads of fluff and evidence for it. You CAN argue that female space marines are unrealistic because it's baked into the fluff and hasn't been mentioned before. Wether or not it's politically correct is a seperate issue.

Now if you want to read something really interesting, head over to BoardGameGeek and check out their thread on GenCon...

Sure, but photography is not really something acknowledged in 40K. And really, people have argued against female guardsmen in the 40K background because "women aren't biologically suitable to combat" and "women are needed to breed more guardsmen, not to die in combat that would be unrealistic in the Imperium" etc. We have had these discussions multiple times on Dakka. Sometimes they try to dress it up in a fluffy dress, but not always.

The SM issues is also more complicated due to the fluff, but not all arguments about women in 40K go for the Female SM immediately.

 Nurglitch wrote:
Now if you want to read something really interesting, head over to BoardGameGeek and check out their thread on GenCon...

Got a link, or TLDR?

 Nurglitch wrote:
I don't think anyone is arguing that your toys aren't important to you.

I come from a video game background. About 15-20 years ago (so, about two moral panics ago), there was this guy called Jack Thompson who was very much worried that violent video games were corrupting the minds of children. At that time, video games were seen as toys for children, and it was incredibly hard to defend them against accusations such as his. After all, why would you create something for kids that has dismemberment in it? As a result, the ESRB was created to rate games, so that games could definitely state that hey buddy, this game is not intended for children.

The ESRB was not a net win for video games. Like the movie ratings board, they are secretive and have no accountability for the ratings they assign. It's very expensive to get a rating, keeping smaller indies from being able to get their games on store shelves or consoles. Consoles won't put anything without a rating on their systems, nor will they put anything rated Adults-Only. This has created a chilling effect where companies preemptively censor their games before release, either out of fear that the ESRB will give them a higher rating or because the ESRB has said they would. In some cases, games like Oblivion and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas had content that the ESRB later decided to rerate, and it cost millions to the developers to recall all the copies and print up new ones. Worse yet, the ESRB was susceptible to Sarkeesian's message of sexism and started rating things they deemed as sexist in a harsher light.

The appearance that a hobby is a toy, or meant for children, is dangerous to the hobby, not my self esteem. I don't care if you think I'm childish, but the miniature gaming industry is so small, with margins that aren't particularly large, that in most cases, an extra step of bureaucracy in time and cost would be devastating to everything that wasn't FFG or Games Workshop. A ratings system for miniature games would require each and every new release to be reviewed and rated, at some cost, meaning that we'd ultimately get fewer, more expensive miniatures less often. Plus, fear of getting high ratings will cause miniature companies to second guess their own design sensibilities. Is this model too violent? Is this pose too sexual? And they'd err on the side of safety and produce lower quality goods that were compromised versions of their true vision. Moreover, places with different standards than the US may have difficulty bringing their products over due to these standards being a requirement for release (see also, certain video games which have been banned from sale in Australia for drug use, or Japanese games banned from the UK for perceived sexist content).

It is important, I think, to remember that these aren't products for young kids. They require adult supervision. They require hobby blades and clippers, glue and magnets, and the models themselves are not tested against child safety standards (nothing GW produces passes the puncture test). If we start acting like these things are meant for children, then these things will start being held to the standards we have for children's products. I'm talking physically, but it also applies to things like the model design, game art, novel contents, and so on.

I know what the point of the original comment was. It was an attempt to poke fun at the fact that we are being way to serious about something that is ultimately trivial in the grand scheme of things. Maybe it is, but there is a difference between trivial and childish, and I happen to like my miniature games with sharp edges. The best defense against someone trying to censor your hobby is to say, this is a hobby for serious people who take all aspects of it seriously. If the wrong person interacts with it the wrong way, it is not due to negligence on the industry's part, but a personal choice that they made against common sense.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Worse yet, the ESRB was susceptible to Sarkeesian's message of sexism and started rating things they deemed as sexist in a harsher light.

On this point. It is hard to argue that Sarkeesian would have gotten this done on her own merit if it wasn't for the absolute gakton of vitriol thrown her way. This is more of a self inflicted injury by part of the community than a demonstration of her influence.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
On this point. It is hard to argue that Sarkeesian would have gotten this done on her own merit if it wasn't for the absolute gakton of vitriol thrown her way. This is more of a self inflicted injury by part of the community than a demonstration of her influence.

Allegedly. I have still not seen any evidence that the harassment she received was more threatening, damaging, or sexist than what every public internet personality receives. She built a platform by saying her harassers were sexist, not on having harassers in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Now if you want to read something really interesting, head over to BoardGameGeek and check out their thread on GenCon...

Got a link, or TLDR?

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2003189/anita-sarkeesian-and-gen-con-why (I assume. Haven't read it)

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
On this point. It is hard to argue that Sarkeesian would have gotten this done on her own merit if it wasn't for the absolute gakton of vitriol thrown her way. This is more of a self inflicted injury by part of the community than a demonstration of her influence.

Allegedly. I have still not seen any evidence that the harassment she received was more threatening, damaging, or sexist than what every public internet personality receives. She built a platform by saying her harassers were sexist, not on having harassers in general.

Nothing alleged about it. The harassment she received, regardless of any disputed amount is what helped push her into the general spotlight. But because some idiots couldn't keep it in their keyboards they gave her the power to do this. And rape threats are pretty sexists, your regular male internet personality doesn't receive the same amount of rape threats based on studies into male/female online harassment. And even if it wasn't sexist, the harassment in general still gave her the spotlight. It is self inflicted.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
I don't think anyone is arguing that your toys aren't important to you.

I come from a video game background. About 15-20 years ago (so, about two moral panics ago), there was this guy called Jack Thompson who was very much worried that violent video games were corrupting the minds of children. At that time, video games were seen as toys for children, and it was incredibly hard to defend them against accusations such as his. After all, why would you create something for kids that has dismemberment in it? As a result, the ESRB was created to rate games, so that games could definitely state that hey buddy, this game is not intended for children.

The ESRB was not a net win for video games. Like the movie ratings board, they are secretive and have no accountability for the ratings they assign. It's very expensive to get a rating, keeping smaller indies from being able to get their games on store shelves or consoles. Consoles won't put anything without a rating on their systems, nor will they put anything rated Adults-Only. This has created a chilling effect where companies preemptively censor their games before release, either out of fear that the ESRB will give them a higher rating or because the ESRB has said they would. In some cases, games like Oblivion and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas had content that the ESRB later decided to rerate, and it cost millions to the developers to recall all the copies and print up new ones. Worse yet, the ESRB was susceptible to Sarkeesian's message of sexism and started rating things they deemed as sexist in a harsher light.

The appearance that a hobby is a toy, or meant for children, is dangerous to the hobby, not my self esteem. I don't care if you think I'm childish, but the miniature gaming industry is so small, with margins that aren't particularly large, that in most cases, an extra step of bureaucracy in time and cost would be devastating to everything that wasn't FFG or Games Workshop. A ratings system for miniature games would require each and every new release to be reviewed and rated, at some cost, meaning that we'd ultimately get fewer, more expensive miniatures less often. Plus, fear of getting high ratings will cause miniature companies to second guess their own design sensibilities. Is this model too violent? Is this pose too sexual? And they'd err on the side of safety and produce lower quality goods that were compromised versions of their true vision. Moreover, places with different standards than the US may have difficulty bringing their products over due to these standards being a requirement for release (see also, certain video games which have been banned from sale in Australia for drug use, or Japanese games banned from the UK for perceived sexist content).

It is important, I think, to remember that these aren't products for young kids. They require adult supervision. They require hobby blades and clippers, glue and magnets, and the models themselves are not tested against child safety standards (nothing GW produces passes the puncture test). If we start acting like these things are meant for children, then these things will start being held to the standards we have for children's products. I'm talking physically, but it also applies to things like the model design, game art, novel contents, and so on.

I know what the point of the original comment was. It was an attempt to poke fun at the fact that we are being way to serious about something that is ultimately trivial in the grand scheme of things. Maybe it is, but there is a difference between trivial and childish, and I happen to like my miniature games with sharp edges. The best defense against someone trying to censor your hobby is to say, this is a hobby for serious people who take all aspects of it seriously. If the wrong person interacts with it the wrong way, it is not due to negligence on the industry's part, but a personal choice that they made against common sense.

Thank you for a well thought out and fair response and I agree, I too take my hobby seriously and am against anything I see as a detriment to it, while that of course is subjective, it is still something that should be talked about, for a very long time I saw GW as bad for ITS OWN HOBBY, and critiqued then because of it, Sarkeesian is no different and doesn’t get a pass just because she is a woman, in the same manner that I push back against people trying to force politics into My hobby, politics and political speakers have no place within something that is supposed to be a form of escapism.

If these people keep pushing their agenda and are not stopped, we will have lost yet another way to escape from the crap hole that is real life and that would have some serious ramifications.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I guess I should ask, what's the downside for this person appearing?

I wouldn't call it a downside, but there's a good chance Sarkeesian is going to address the thorny issue of six sided dice. It's come up in some of her other addresses to gaming conventions, the ubiquitous racism emerging from a standard gameplay device employed by so many tabletop games.

IIRC, the last time she brought up this topic, her argument was the standard six-sided die is a collection of facings that include a number of tiny black pips surrounded by fields of white. The lower the value of a roll, the more marginalized each pip becomes. And a roll of 1, the most isolated value possible, occurs approximately 16% of the time. It's associated with the worst possible outcome, sending a message that a singular, isolated, dark member of the community of dice facings should be avoided at all costs.

She had a problem with reversing the colors as well. The designers working for the Big Dice industry always opt for maximum contrast, and there are no generally-available dice that are more inclusive of other colors - white is always there. You have to have such dice specially manufactured and face ostracism / social isolation for trying to use them in games. Not to mention charges from opponents that you are selecting dice to gain an unfair advantage.

Fighting systemic racism in dice selection matters. I'm hoping she talks more about the idea, which I support, of replacing six-sided dice with 20-sided dice to maximize the diversity of possible outcomes and equity amongst players. I would personally boycott any tabletop game that does not adopt a d20 dice system in recognition of support for marginalized persons and eliminating systemic racism / sexism in the broader tabletop gaming community.

Is this true? It's almost like the movement has exceeded sarcasm. I really can't tell.

 Nurglitch wrote:
Now if you want to read something really interesting, head over to BoardGameGeek and check out their thread on GenCon...

That thread is like a microcosm of everything wrong with modern political discussion on the internet. It is at once depressing and amazing.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And rape threats are pretty sexists, your regular male internet personality doesn't receive the same amount of rape threats based on studies into male/female online harassment.

I've received rape threats. More than a few people threatened to bend me over a barrel or to skull feth me. It happens. Also had a number of people threaten to cut my dick off. That's kind of sexist, I guess, though I don't see it that way.

See, the thing you have to understand is that the people who send you death threats are trying to piss you off or scare you. They are going to target you using the weapon that is the most effective. And if you have shown that you are particularly susceptible to a certain type of threat, you can bet your ass that the number of those types of threats will increase by a lot. If you are sensitive about race issues, you are going to get racist emails because it will hit your weak spot for maximum damage. Sarkeesian showed, repeatedly and publicly, that rape threats affected her the most. Those were the ones she retweeted and complained about. It isn't because these people are racist or sexist or that they mean what they are threatening. It is because they have low self esteem, feel very weak and insignificant, and the more you hurt, the more powerful it makes them feel.

The secret to reducing the amount of harassment you get is to shut the feth up. Don't show people that it affects you. Don't respond to it at all. Keep doing what you were already doing without commenting on it. Sarkeesian did the exact opposite of this and basically invited additional harassment. Repeatedly. Over and over again. The amount of harassment she got could've been stopped within a week if she didn't immediately start talking about how much harassment she got, how sexist it was, and how deeply it was troubling her.

So, no, I don't think she received more harassment than anyone else, or more actually sexist harassment. And I haven't seen any evidence that it was either. In fact, based on the harassing tweets that she pointed out, I'd argue that many of them were simply disagreeing with her, which she interpreted as harassment. I think she got the same amount of harassment as every semi-public figure gets, but handled it really poorly, and increased the severity of it as a result.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And rape threats are pretty sexists, your regular male internet personality doesn't receive the same amount of rape threats based on studies into male/female online harassment.

I've received rape threats. More than a few people threatened to bend me over a barrel or to skull feth me. It happens. Also had a number of people threaten to cut my dick off. That's kind of sexist, I guess, though I don't see it that way.

See, the thing you have to understand is that the people who send you death threats are trying to piss you off or scare you. They are going to target you using the weapon that is the most effective. And if you have shown that you are particularly susceptible to a certain type of threat, you can bet your ass that the number of those types of threats will increase by a lot. If you are sensitive about race issues, you are going to get racist emails because it will hit your weak spot for maximum damage. Sarkeesian showed, repeatedly and publicly, that rape threats affected her the most. Those were the ones she retweeted and complained about. It isn't because these people are racist or sexist or that they mean what they are threatening. It is because they have low self esteem, feel very weak and insignificant, and the more you hurt, the more powerful it makes them feel.

The sequel to reducing the amount of harassment you get is to shut the feth up. Don't show people that it affects you. Don't respond to it at all. Keep doing what you were already doing without commenting on it. Sarkeesian did the exact opposite of this and basically invited additional harassment. Repeatedly. Over and over again. The amount of harassment she got could've been stopped within a week if she didn't immediately start talking about how much harassment she got, how sexist it was, and how deeply it was troubling her.

So, no, I don't think she received more harassment than anyone else, or more actually sexist harassment. And I haven't seen any evidence that it was either. In fact, based on the harassing tweets that she pointed out, I'd argue that many of them were simply disagreeing with her, which she interpreted as harassment.

You don't think I understand why people send death threats? I have received death threats IRL, not just the internet. And everyone responds to those differently and you have no clue what each and every person's motivation for sending threats is, it can make a real fething difference between a person making an offhanded threat or one accompanied by personal information. I can't honestly believe you're moving on to how a person should respond and that its her fault that people kept going after her and downplaying death threats. Good for you for keeping a cool head and all, but the fault lies with the people who do this. They created her, without these people she would be raking in a few thousands views on YT like all the others.

As for rape threats, twice as many women receive rape threats online than men. Just because men also receive rape threats because it became the cool lingo for edgy kids does not mean its on the same level as women.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I can't honestly believe you're moving on to how a person should respond and that its her fault that people kept going after her and downplaying death threats. Good for you for keeping a cool head and all, but the fault lies with the people who do this.

I didn't keep a cool head. This is knowledge earned the hard way.

There's this really good book called The Gift of Fear. It's actually a book they give out at women's support centers. Basically, it was written by a guy who runs a business that provides help for celebrities who are threatened. The author developed a series of rules for determining the validity of threats that I think, if I'm remembering correctly, is used by the FBI now or something. I recommend the book for a whole bunch of reasons, but there's one part of the book that always stuck with me.

People who are threatening, aren't doing. People who want to hurt you won't tell you first. Generally speaking, threats can escalate into violence over time in a very repeatable and demonstrable way, but the vast, vast majority of threats are nonsense, and obviously so. This book was written before the internet was really a thing and was mostly talking about letters - something that takes time and money to write and send. Over the internet, it is easier than ever to send an empty threat. Generally speaking, the ones to be worried about are the ones seeking to develop a personal relationship with you.

Obviously, in public situations, like at talks and what not, people can act out through a mob mentality. Hostile mobs have certainly done stuff like throw rocks, set trashcans on fire, block exits, break windows, throw jars of piss, and whatnot. For public appearances in the presence of hostile crowds (something that has really only recently been a problem), I would ask for a security presence, sure. But I don't think Jordan Peterson, who I assure you is getting plenty of threats, is all to worried about his well being.

As for rape threats, twice as many women receive rape threats online than men.

That's because it is more effective on women. Men receive threats to their genitals because that is more effective on men. It has nothing to do with sexism. At all.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I can't honestly believe you're moving on to how a person should respond and that its her fault that people kept going after her and downplaying death threats. Good for you for keeping a cool head and all, but the fault lies with the people who do this.

I didn't keep a cool head. This is knowledge earned the hard way.

There's this really good book called The Gift of Fear. It's actually a book they give out at women's support centers. Basically, it was written by a guy who runs a business that provides help for celebrities who are threatened. The author developed a series of rules for determining the validity of threats that I think, if I'm remembering correctly, is used by the FBI now or something. I recommend the book for a whole bunch of reasons, but there's one part of the book that always stuck with me.

People who are threatening, aren't doing. People who want to hurt you won't tell you first. Generally speaking, threats can escalate into violence over time in a very repeatable and demonstrable way, but the vast, vast majority of threats are nonsense, and obviously so. This book was written before the internet was really a thing and was mostly talking about letters - something that takes time and money to write and send. Over the internet, it is easier than ever to send an empty threat. Generally speaking, the ones to be worried about are the ones seeking to develop a personal relationship with you.

Obviously, in public situations, like at talks and what not, people can act out through a mob mentality. Hostile mobs have certainly done stuff like throw rocks, set trashcans on fire, block exits, break windows, throw jars of piss, and whatnot. For public appearances in the presence of hostile crowds (something that has really only recently been a problem), I would ask for a security presence, sure. But I don't think Jordan Peterson, who I assure you is getting plenty of threats, is all to worried about his well being.

See, the sentiment of "People who are threatening, aren't doing." sounds really nice and all but it only takes one crazy person to follow through. Even if most threats are nonsense and that is something that can be agreed upon, it still doesn't have to be easy for the recipient to be logical or rational in their approach. The issue with the internet is that doxing and placing personal information for any crazy person to see also became a thing. The reach and intensity change.

But this is going into the rationality of death threats,not the fact that the rationality doesn't matter, it gave her a larger platform regardless of the reasoning of the senders.

 Sqorgar wrote:

As for rape threats, twice as many women receive rape threats online than men.

That's because it is more effective on women. Men receive threats to their genitals because that is more effective on men. It has nothing to do with sexism. At all.

Its more effective because they are women but it isn't sexist is a direct contradiction.

 Formosa wrote:
in the same manner that I push back against people trying to force politics into My hobby, politics and political speakers have no place within something that is supposed to be a form of escapism.

This is more of an aside than anything serious but the narative of 40K in particular was founded on the politics of 80's Britain. Many of these creative people have things they want to say and express them through various means. Rick Priestley channeled the humour and politics of 2000AD into his futuristic wargame. You might want to escape politics in your hobby time but much of that hobby material is intricately linked with the politics of the day.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its more effective because they are women but it isn't sexist is a direct contradiction.

Um, no it isn't. Not everything that includes gender is sexist. That's like saying giving hysterectomies to only women is sexist. The people choosing the threat are doing so because it is most effective, not because they have opinions on the qualities or abilities of that person as a member of the lesser sex.

 Henry wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
in the same manner that I push back against people trying to force politics into My hobby, politics and political speakers have no place within something that is supposed to be a form of escapism.

This is more of an aside than anything serious but the narative of 40K in particular was founded on the politics of 80's Britain. Many of these creative people have things they want to say and express them through various means. Rick Priestley channeled the humour and politics of 2000AD into his futuristic wargame. You might want to escape politics in your hobby time but much of that hobby material is intricately linked with the politics of the day.

A parody OF THE DAY, not today, and 40k has some small elements of that left true, but these days it’s not and that disconnect is a good thing, just because Is WAS influenced 30 years ago by some political influence, doesn’t mean it should be now, but that’s the fluff, a whole different subject, politics has no place whatsoever within the gaming community and should be left at the door, if people must talk about it, it should be in an appropriate setting.

 Henry wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
in the same manner that I push back against people trying to force politics into My hobby, politics and political speakers have no place within something that is supposed to be a form of escapism.

This is more of an aside than anything serious but the narative of 40K in particular was founded on the politics of 80's Britain. Many of these creative people have things they want to say and express them through various means. Rick Priestley channeled the humour and politics of 2000AD into his futuristic wargame. You might want to escape politics in your hobby time but much of that hobby material is intricately linked with the politics of the day.

There's a good YouTube channel called Professor Geek. In one of his videos, he makes a point out of the difference between telling people what to think and recontextualizing the values and beliefs within the fiction as a way to give those themes relevance to both the real world and fictional one.

In other words, saying "You should believe this and if you disagree with me, you are a bad person" is annoying. If you created, for example, an episode of Roseanne where her initial beliefs that a muslim neighbor is a terrorist are challenged through a series of events and she ultimately comes to the rescue of the character later, that contextualizes the beliefs in such a way as to allow conflict, resolution, and character growth in a satisfying and fulfilling way.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its more effective because they are women but it isn't sexist is a direct contradiction.

Um, no it isn't. Not everything that includes gender is sexist. That's like saying giving hysterectomies to only women is sexist. The people choosing the threat are doing so because it is most effective, not because they have opinions on the qualities or abilities of that person as a member of the lesser sex.

I'm sorry, but you can't be serious. Using rape threats specifically against women because you know that it terrifies them is sexist. It trivializes sexual assault women face. The CDC once estimated that 1 in 5 women had faced attempted or actual rape compared to 1 in 71 men. It is an issue faced overwhelmingly by women.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

This thread is still going?!? Good read though, never seen people so animated by someone who literally has no influence on me or gaming in general unless they let her.

 Formosa wrote:
A parody OF THE DAY, not today, and 40k has some small elements of that left true, but these days it’s not and that disconnect is a good thing, just because Is WAS influenced 30 years ago by some political influence, doesn’t mean it should be now, but that’s the fluff, a whole different subject, politics has no place whatsoever within the gaming community and should be left at the door, if people must talk about it, it should be in an appropriate setting.

I will disagree. Many modern games are finding ways to inject modern political discussions into their gaming narative. I only used 40K as an example as it is one of the most prominent examples to cite.
And whether the creators of these fantasy realms intend it or not, many of the choices for their games are driven by current politics. You don't have to discuss the cross section of politics and gaming if you choose not to, but I don't think I'll be taking your advice that they have no place together. I think anything which involves creating a narrative, telling a story or representing people in any medium is only naturally going to have real world parallels that are worth discussion. Whether its books, films, music or shuffling people shaped toys around a table.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You're no victim in this scenario.you're whining about someoe you don't like being invited to a toy convention. Are you serious?

Dude. Toy convention? Don't denigrate other people's passion for the things that bring them happiness, community, and purpose. You don't have to share that passion, but you don't have to be an donkey-cave about it either.

Wait a minute, for the first 10 odd pages of this thread, you had a guy generalizing the tabletop gaming community as smelly, disgusting incels who would do anything for a "a pair of teats" who would "potentially give them a peepee touch", and that was pretty much OK, but one dude refers to tabletop games as toys and you pop your monocle and call for your fainting couch?

what the actual hell, man.

 Henry wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
A parody OF THE DAY, not today, and 40k has some small elements of that left true, but these days it’s not and that disconnect is a good thing, just because Is WAS influenced 30 years ago by some political influence, doesn’t mean it should be now, but that’s the fluff, a whole different subject, politics has no place whatsoever within the gaming community and should be left at the door, if people must talk about it, it should be in an appropriate setting.

I will disagree. Many modern games are finding ways to inject modern political discussions into their gaming narative. I only used 40K as an example as it is one of the most prominent examples to cite.
And whether the creators of these fantasy realms intend it or not, many of the choices for their games are driven by current politics. You don't have to discuss the cross section of politics and gaming if you choose not to, but I don't think I'll be taking your advice that they have no place together. I think anything which involves creating a narrative, telling a story or representing people in any medium is only naturally going to have real world parallels that are worth discussion. Whether its books, films, music or shuffling people shaped toys around a table.

Hey that’s fine if you disagree, I’m not trying to convince you to come over to my way of thinking, just stating how I see the issue, if you want modern politics in your fluff, cool, it’s a subjective thing, I’d rather not have it in 40k fluff, if I do want it, as you say, there are other games with suitable fluff, which is also fine, I won’t try to change your fluff to suit my political tastes, all I ask is that you have the same respect and don’t try to change my fluff to suit yours, whatever that May be.

On the subject of leaving your politics at the door, no, flat no, you leave it at the door or you leave full stop, one of, if not THE best thing about this hobby is how inclusive it is, I have traveled the world extensively and continue to do so and this game has made me friendships in many counties, with so many varied people and creeds, why? Because we instantly have something in common, you start talking about religions, politics or race... suddenly lines are drawn, people pick sides and what would have otherwise been a good encounter turns sour, so I will not shift on this particular subject, politics has no place within the community, if it needs to be talked about, choose and appropriate time and place.

 Sasquatch wrote:

I'm not a fan of her myself, because I think she addresses the topic in a divisive and weak manner. But I do think the community has certain issues, as its nothing but a smaller reflection of society overall so it makes sense the issues are reflected and addressing them in anyway is always going to catch flak. Do I think she is the best person to address them? No. Do I think trying to polarize the debate for financial gain regardless of the side it happens on is beneficial? No. Do I think the response about this is in any way proportional to the issue? Hell no.

As Frazzled said, its about Sarkeesian speaking at an event you don't even have to attend.

Well there's been no death threats and for the internet I think that counts as a win! But for me this thread has been an interesting read usually things go down hill a lot harder and faster! That may be because while most people share differing views on what Anita bring to the table they seem to for the most part agree she's about as much use in gaming circles as a nipple on a breastplate!

And yeah there's been a lot of stupidity and hyperbole and of course the usual accusations thrown back and forth but at least this thread got to a place where people pulled some evidence out to backup what they were saying and while no conclusions are ever gonna be reached in an arena like this there was some back and forth and some good points were made. I think its been an interesting one so far.

On the proportionality of it. Its a thread online, one that people can choose to or not engage with. Unless people are making threats or organising a disruption to the event I don't see how it could go to far.

Dammit, we settled this! If a breastplate has abs, nipples are fine. Otherwise, they're cheesy at best.

Do not Google "cheesy nipples".

 Ouze wrote:

Wait a minute, for the first 10 odd pages of this thread, you had a guy generalizing the tabletop gaming community as smelly, disgusting incels who would do anything for a "a pair of teats" who would "potentially give them a peepee touch", and that was pretty much OK, but one dude refers to tabletop games as toys and you pop your monocle and call for your fainting couch?

what the actual hell, man.

I explained why I consider referring to the hobby as childish is potentially dangerous to its future in a previous post. At some length and consideration. As for the peepee comment, I kind of expected a mod to take care of it, honestly. I didn't think anybody actually agreed with him on the incel thing and that he was being purposefully over the top, while I suspect that many people here are okay with referring to this hobby as childish.

No football, no religion, no politics.

The triunvirate of prohibitions if you want to maintain a focused community for your hobby.

 Galas wrote:
No football, no religion, no politics.

The triunvirate of prohibitions if you want to maintain a focused community for your hobby.

How could I forget no football

Anyways, damn straight!

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Wait a minute, for the first 10 odd pages of this thread, you had a guy generalizing the tabletop gaming community as smelly, disgusting incels who would do anything for a "a pair of teats" who would "potentially give them a peepee touch", and that was pretty much OK, but one dude refers to tabletop games as toys and you pop your monocle and call for your fainting couch?

what the actual hell, man.

I explained why I consider referring to the hobby as childish is potentially dangerous to its future in a previous post. At some length and consideration. As for the peepee comment, I kind of expected a mod to take care of it, honestly. I didn't think anybody actually agreed with him on the incel thing and that he was being purposefully over the top, while I suspect that many people here are okay with referring to this hobby as childish.

OK, that's a fair rationale.

 Frazzled wrote:
I guess I should ask, what's the downside for this person appearing?

She is taking up a space that a much more "qualified" woman could be taking. She is sitting on a panel about a subject that she is not considered an "industry expert" where there are many more women who actually are industry experts who could provide valuable insight on gaming. In the past she has displayed toxic behavior and her main contribution seems to be social and not industry at all.