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.

So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?

 Formosa wrote:
Even as a liberal I would do exactly the same thing.

I don't know why people can't just leave this crap at home or in their private groups. FFS, I have a private gaming club and we don't bring this stuff up. We just want some escapism, and in a world where things are volatile and divisive can't we just have something where I can sit across the table from another human being and my only concern be how familiar he is with his Codex?

No, we can't and I'll tell you why. Exactly why.

We have elements of our society that know that they CANNOT cope with other human beings and put aside their differences. They know good and well that as long as people are around that think differently than they do, that their ideas are in danger of being challenged. So they make it a point to harass and bully and make a scene until the only people left are a toxic cesspit of people that no one else wants to be around.

Then, they get on the internet and realize there are actually places that *gasp* don't take their beliefs as the gospel and standard of 'right'. And they have meltdowns.

We see it here quite a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?

Yes, but being pro-life or pro-choice isn't one of them. If he was an actual literal Nazi, or racist, or bigot then that'd be one thing. Or someone who demonstrated an attitude like Peregrine's. Socialist? Democrat? Libertarian? Republican? Christian? Atheist? Jew? Pro-gun? Anti-gun? Anti-Military (and I'm a veteran)? I do not give a damn. Keep it to yourself, and if you mention it I'll politely remind you I'm playing to escape the quarrels of reality. Keep it up, and I'll make it a point to have you shown the door. Permanently. And laugh while it happens, too.

But unless they're voicing their politics, I won't know it and won't care. See, I tend to judge persons by the content of their character and not so much by how they vote. Must be doing something right, I've got wonderful friends with a variety of backgrounds and opinions and we can all manage to get along.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?

Unless they're yelling racial slurs at me across the table or antagonizing me people around me not really. It's not my place to judge them or their beliefs as long as they're not bombarding me with them for no reason.

 Galas wrote:
Of course during Gamergate many things happened. That, nobody claims isn't true.

The point here is... now that we are years in the future after gamergate... what, lasting change has she made, or gamergate made, to the gaming community?

Just a technicality, but GamerGate doesn't really have anything to do with Sarkeesian. It was a response to the progressive agenda, sure, but it came along well after Sarkeesian had already changed the industry. It was mostly arguing with indie developers, like Zoe Quinn and Phil Fish, and journalists, like Ben Kuchera, Leah Alexander, or anybody who has ever written for Polygon. Honestly, I think GamerGate was afraid to even mention Sarkeesian.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?

The nicest way I can put it to you is like this:

If someone is being an actual terrible human being- as in, openly being a bigot of some sort or actively harassing people- then yeah, that's a really solid reason to not want to play with them. But that's less a matter of 'politics' and more a matter of 'someone who shouldn't be in this establishment'. Get 'em booted, instead of sitting on the sidelines and letting the problem persist.

Now, if you just can't play with someone who votes, prays, or thinks differently than you, then I strongly recommend making a private gaming club and recruiting people based on any criteria you like. Otherwise not only is your gaming going to be a difficult experience, but life's gonna come at you fast and hard.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?

There are always lines where behaviors/beliefs will get to such a level that you wouldn't want to associate a person, even at such a low level as "playing a game with." It depends on the person and context, though, to determine where a reasonable person would draw that line.

For me personally, if I was halfway through a game and my opponent mentioned having voted for the idiot we have in office, I wouldn't stop the game or anything - hell, I'd try to win harder - but by that same measure, I would definitely not be looking to ask a guy in a MAGA hat to start a game in the first place, even if he were the only one looking for a game - they're not the kind of person I would want to associate with to begin with and I'd consider their personality/reasonableness inherently compromised, which affects my gameplay experience. Conversely, if I'm mid-game with a mega-liberal guy and catch him significantly cheating, that might well be grounds to end it right then and there. Again, that's me personally, and I think acting politely and reasonably is determined in large part by the context. I do think we've wandered pretty far off-topic by now, though.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?

Yes, but being pro-life or pro-choice isn't one of them. If he was an actual literal Nazi, or racist, or bigot then that'd be one thing. Or someone who demonstrated an attitude like Peregrine's. Socialist? Democrat? Libertarian? Republican? Christian? Atheist? Jew? Pro-gun? Anti-gun? Anti-Military (and I'm a veteran)? I do not give a damn. Keep it to yourself, and if you mention it I'll politely remind you I'm playing to escape the quarrels of reality. Keep it up, and I'll make it a point to have you shown the door. Permanently. And laugh while it happens, too.

But unless they're voicing their politics, I won't know it and won't care. See, I tend to judge persons by the content of their character and not so much by how they vote. Must be doing something right, I've got wonderful friends with a variety of backgrounds and opinions and we can all manage to get along.

To be fair, Peregrine never said anything about pro-life, that's just what someone else brought up not commented on directly by Peregrine.

And rascist, mysogynist or bigot are highly subjective to a lot of people as evidenced by 1.5 years of Trump debates and this thread right here. The line is an arbitrary concept that would see you chased out of Peregrine's community and vice versa. If anything that is what gamergate showed, people just move into two different armed camps. Even the line you draw will be criticized by those you exclude or people that feel excluded because they feel that the line still allows for some horrible people. That is exactly what Sarkeesian is doing, she is trying to get this response and people are willingly giving in by saying things like cancer and HIV. I draw the line there, does that make me the same 'problem' to the group if I point that out?

These topics go far beyond something as simple as checking a box on a voting form or your current religious affiliation.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Just a technicality, but GamerGate doesn't really have anything to do with Sarkeesian. It was a response to the progressive agenda, sure, but it came along well after Sarkeesian had already changed the industry. It was mostly arguing with indie developers, like Zoe Quinn and Phil Fish, and journalists, like Ben Kuchera, Leah Alexander, or anybody who has ever written for Polygon. Honestly, I think GamerGate was afraid to even mention Sarkeesian.

The general attitude toward Anita I observed was the same attitude people have toward Alex Jones- they would just chuckle and roll their eyes. People who wanted to make a big deal about her often got told that "No one cares" and that she should be simply ridiculed into obscurity.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?

I can only speak for myself but it should never get to that point during a game, now if after we get to know each other and they say something... I don’t know anything specifically, maybe they eat babies, but that is the time and place to talk about the merits of baby eating or whatever, at that time I will decide if I want to associate with that person, or even go further and be mates.

I understand that’s a really simplistic way to explain it but to me, it’s that simple, if they want to talk politics while playing I will politely decline, if they keep pushing it and ignore my wishes, I will politely explain that I am not interested in political discourse and insist they stop while we play, I may even offer to talk about it after, again if they insist on talking about it, one of two things will happen.

1: if they have been fairly polite up to that point then I will concede the game and explain why.

2: if they have been trying to aggressively insist upon the subject, they will be asked to leave in as expedient a manner as possible and informed why.

I have put this into practice fairly often as there is a gentleman at my local club who I would describe as a classic SJW stereotype, we but heads very often even though we are both considered liberals, usually over how he chooses to push his Liberalism, while we play however we have a blast and all that crap goes out the window until drinks after the game where we usually end up debating this or that, he knows there is a time and place for such talk.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?

Unless they're yelling racial slurs at me across the table or antagonizing me people around me not really. It's not my place to judge them or their beliefs as long as they're not bombarding me with them for no reason.

And what if he isn't slinging them at you but off handedly inserting them into the game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

Spoiler:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?

I can only speak for myself but it should never get to that point during a game, now if after we get to know each other and they say something... I don’t know anything specifically, maybe they eat babies, but that is the time and place to talk about the merits of baby eating or whatever, at that time I will decide if I want to associate with that person, or even go further and be mates.

I understand that’s a really simplistic way to explain it but to me, it’s that simple, if they want to talk politics while playing I will politely decline, if they keep pushing it and ignore my wishes, I will politely explain that I am not interested in political discourse and insist they stop while we play, I may even offer to talk about it after, again if they insist on talking about it, one of two things will happen.

1: if they have been fairly polite up to that point then I will concede the game and explain why.

2: if they have been trying to aggressively insist upon the subject, they will be asked to leave in as expedient a manner as possible and informed why.

I have put this into practice fairly often as there is a gentleman at my local club who I would describe as a classic SJW stereotype, we but heads very often even though we are both considered liberals, usually over how he chooses to push his Liberalism, while we play however we have a blast and all that crap goes out the window until drinks after the game where we usually end up debating this or that, he knows there is a time and place for such talk.

But this still means that you have politics in your hobby, not just directly in the game itself.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
[To be fair, Peregrine never said anything about pro-life, that's just what someone else brought up not commented on directly by Peregrine.

Well, dude, that was the point he chose to tackle and the hill he chose to die on, so yes. That's the issue he tackled and that's the kind of person he is, based on my experience with him.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
[And rascist, mysogynist or bigot are highly subjective to a lot of people as evidenced by 1.5 years of Trump debates and this thread right here.

Yes, often idealogues do move the goalposts but there are clear and commonly accepted standards for this. In fact, if someone votes for Trump and that makes them 'racist' in your eyes, then perhaps you should be the one ejected from the community for making baseless accusations. (Not 'you' but the proverbial, general 'you').

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
[The line is an arbitrary concept that would see you chased out of Peregrine's community and vice versa.

If "I don't want to discuss politics" gets me removed from a community, I'm pretty sure that's the same collective cesspit of toxic tumors I was referencing before. Zero loss. In fact, it's a den of TFG's that probably needs to be exposed to the greater community.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
[If anything that is what gamergate showed, people just move into two different armed camps. Even the line you draw will be criticized by those you exclude or people that feel excluded because they feel that the line still allows for some horrible people. That is exactly what Sarkeesian is doing, she is trying to get this response and people are willingly giving in by saying things like cancer and HIV. I draw the line there, does that make me the same 'problem' to the group if I point that out?

She's a huckster, you've got that right. She needs the outrage. Granted, my actual strategy (that no one wants to listen to) is to hold her accountable for her behavior on previous panels and then consider her removal. Ignore her altogether. The thing about insane ideologues is usually if you just snicker at them or ignore them altogether, they'll ramp up the rhetoric and do the work for you to make themselves look like absolute lunatics.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
[These topics go far beyond something as simple as checking a box on a voting form or your current religious affiliation.

Only if you can't control your emotions like an adult. The majority of human society manages to work, play, cooperate, and even cohabitate despite these trivial little differences.

I'll even say this- if you are genuinely passionate about this hobby and are a healthy, rational adult human being- then you can sit/stand across from someone and have plenty of discussions that aren't politics. If 'politics' is the only topic you can manage to discuss, I mean... you probably need to meet a woman (or man, however you roll) or go see some movies or something. Maybe try some new food. (again, not 'you' specifically).

Also one thing about the people that always bring politics into everything? I've never really seen them with many friends. People get sick of it.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?

Unless they're yelling racial slurs at me across the table or antagonizing me people around me not really. It's not my place to judge them or their beliefs as long as they're not bombarding me with them for no reason.

And what if he isn't slinging them at you but off handedly inserting them into the game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

Spoiler:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?

I can only speak for myself but it should never get to that point during a game, now if after we get to know each other and they say something... I don’t know anything specifically, maybe they eat babies, but that is the time and place to talk about the merits of baby eating or whatever, at that time I will decide if I want to associate with that person, or even go further and be mates.

I understand that’s a really simplistic way to explain it but to me, it’s that simple, if they want to talk politics while playing I will politely decline, if they keep pushing it and ignore my wishes, I will politely explain that I am not interested in political discourse and insist they stop while we play, I may even offer to talk about it after, again if they insist on talking about it, one of two things will happen.

1: if they have been fairly polite up to that point then I will concede the game and explain why.

2: if they have been trying to aggressively insist upon the subject, they will be asked to leave in as expedient a manner as possible and informed why.

I have put this into practice fairly often as there is a gentleman at my local club who I would describe as a classic SJW stereotype, we but heads very often even though we are both considered liberals, usually over how he chooses to push his Liberalism, while we play however we have a blast and all that crap goes out the window until drinks after the game where we usually end up debating this or that, he knows there is a time and place for such talk.

But this still means that you have politics in your hobby, not just directly in the game itself.

Sweet Jebus and all the orphans

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
[To be fair, Peregrine never said anything about pro-life, that's just what someone else brought up not commented on directly by Peregrine.

Well, dude, that was the point he chose to tackle and the hill he chose to die on, so yes. That's the issue he tackled and that's the kind of person he is, based on my experience with him.

I'm familiar with Peregrine. But being pro-life can be a BIG deal, certainly to women amd the opinions your opponent holds can absolutely influence willingness to play. For example a women being pro-choice feeling like the beliefs her opponents hold devalue her as a person. Its incredibly personal where the line falls, there is no clear right and wrong we can all agree one.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
[And rascist, mysogynist or bigot are highly subjective to a lot of people as evidenced by 1.5 years of Trump debates and this thread right here.

Yes, often idealogues do move the goalposts but there are clear and commonly accepted standards for this. In fact, if someone votes for Trump and that makes them 'racist' in your eyes, then perhaps you should be the one ejected from the community for making baseless accusations. (Not 'you' but the proverbial, general 'you').

You say that there are clear and commonly accepted standards, but the fact that these debates have been raging for years show that it isn't the case. Even if the person get labelled as not a something, to what extent does their tolerance towards that something come into play then. For example, if someone wasn't a mysogynist themselves but had no problem hanging out with them or being friends with them, would the company they keep not affect your view of them?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
[The line is an arbitrary concept that would see you chased out of Peregrine's community and vice versa.

If "I don't want to discuss politics" gets me removed from a community, I'm pretty sure that's the same collective cesspit of toxic tumors I was referencing before. Zero loss. In fact, it's a den of TFG's that probably needs to be exposed to the greater community.

I think blanket banning any real life politics just to preserve "the hobby" doesn't work. Should a community be frozen in time and then not evolve because it would be too political? There are obviously some gakky people in the community that skirt the line, when people like Sarkeesian draw them out shouldn't we clean house at times?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
[These topics go far beyond something as simple as checking a box on a voting form or your current religious affiliation.

Only if you can't control your emotions like an adult. The majority of human society manages to work, play, cooperate, and even cohabitate despite these trivial little differences.

And that is exactly the issue with part of the community when people like Sarkeesian show up. Even if she had valid points in your opinion, would you expect any less vitriol from part of the community?

The hobby isn't set in stone, but each time topics like this come up certain people act like it should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?

Unless they're yelling racial slurs at me across the table or antagonizing me people around me not really. It's not my place to judge them or their beliefs as long as they're not bombarding me with them for no reason.

And what if he isn't slinging them at you but off handedly inserting them into the game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

Spoiler:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?

I can only speak for myself but it should never get to that point during a game, now if after we get to know each other and they say something... I don’t know anything specifically, maybe they eat babies, but that is the time and place to talk about the merits of baby eating or whatever, at that time I will decide if I want to associate with that person, or even go further and be mates.

I understand that’s a really simplistic way to explain it but to me, it’s that simple, if they want to talk politics while playing I will politely decline, if they keep pushing it and ignore my wishes, I will politely explain that I am not interested in political discourse and insist they stop while we play, I may even offer to talk about it after, again if they insist on talking about it, one of two things will happen.

1: if they have been fairly polite up to that point then I will concede the game and explain why.

2: if they have been trying to aggressively insist upon the subject, they will be asked to leave in as expedient a manner as possible and informed why.

I have put this into practice fairly often as there is a gentleman at my local club who I would describe as a classic SJW stereotype, we but heads very often even though we are both considered liberals, usually over how he chooses to push his Liberalism, while we play however we have a blast and all that crap goes out the window until drinks after the game where we usually end up debating this or that, he knows there is a time and place for such talk.

But this still means that you have politics in your hobby, not just directly in the game itself.

Sweet Jebus and all the orphans

Really? You yourself admit you have a "classic SJW stereotype" that you debate with and going by your description you're not going to be friends with the guy outside of the hobby. That man is clearly part of the hobby community/enviroment as you describe it. How does that not make politics part of the overal hobby? Is the hobby just narrowed down to the physical act of pushing miniatures around for two hours and nothing else? So adressing all the topics is perfectly fine if you just don't do it directly during the game itself?

Go ahead and ignore the rest of my post disciple, the whole thing that gives it context and not the small part you have quoted that fits your agenda.

Bad show mate, bad show.

I'm familiar with Peregrine. But being pro-life can be a BIG deal, certainly to women amd the opinions your opponent holds can absolutely influence willingness to play. For example a women being pro-choice feeling like the beliefs her opponents hold devalue her as a person. Its incredibly personal where the line falls, there is no clear right and wrong we can all agree one.

Exactly, the whole "no politics" stance is coming from a place of privilege that's not being accounted for. It's easy to say "oh well I don't do politics, you should tolerate your opponent" when the people calling for mass murder don't have you or people like you on their list.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I'm familiar with Peregrine. But being pro-life can be a BIG deal, certainly to women amd the opinions your opponent holds can absolutely influence willingness to play. For example a women being pro-choice feeling like the beliefs her opponents hold devalue her as a person. Its incredibly personal where the line falls, there is no clear right and wrong we can all agree one.

Then let me put this bluntly, and I am not flaming you: Gaming communities are not a hugbox, therapy session, safe space, or anything other than a place for people to get together and have fun. If the idea that someone in your community may have different feelings than you is such a troubling and traumatic experience, then you need to stay at home or create your own private gaming group. Gaming should be inclusive, and that means even people who don't like abortion and people who don't like guns should be allowed to enjoy it in the FLGS.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
You say that there are clear and commonly accepted standards, but the fact that these debates have been raging for years show that it isn't the case. Even if the person get labelled as not a something, to what extent does their tolerance towards that something come into play then. For example, if someone wasn't a mysogynist themselves but had no problem hanging out with them or being friends with them, would the company they keep not affect your view of them?

If they are unaware of it, then I would make them aware. However, in a PUG I'm less concerned than I would be if they were always together. And you would have to demonstrate some clear evidence they were a bigot, and even then it's on the storekeeper/owner to determine who uses his facilities. If you choose not to play with someone, freedom of association and all, that's on you. For whatever reason you choose. Just don't be expecting everyone to adhere to a fringe definition of 'bigot' when you start accusing someone of hating minorities and women because he had a MAGA hat in his car.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think blanket banning any real life politics just to preserve "the hobby" doesn't work. Should a community be frozen in time and then not evolve because it would be too political? There are obviously some gakky people in the community that skirt the line, when people like Sarkeesian draw them out shouldn't we clean house at times?

I think blanket banning politics works really well, I just think there are some people who can't shut the hell up about their personal politics and it upsets them when they come to realize they're just as unwelcome as the crazy Bible-beaters and fascists.

And yes, there's gakky people in the community. But criticizing Mrs. Sarkeesian's work- and as a public figure, people will hate her just like they hate any other public figure. If you believe people should be 'purged' for hating and mocking Mrs. Sarkeesian, then should not the same standard be held to those that hate Donald Trump or Jordan Petersen? Remember that any little regulation, law, or policy you come up with can always be used against you.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
The hobby isn't set in stone, but each time topics like this come up certain people act like it should be.

And certain people go absolutely bananas when they realize the world isn't all as left or right wing as they are. Every side has its idiots, and we do our best to keep them out. But there is not, nor will their ever be a zero sum solution.

 Formosa wrote:
Go ahead and ignore the rest of my post disciple, the whole thing that gives it context and not the small part you have quoted that fits your agenda.

Bad show mate, bad show.

I did, you stated multiple times you don't want to talk politics while playing. So I'm asking if that means you're ok with politics in the hobby itself or not.

 ScarletRose wrote:
Exactly, the whole "no politics" stance is coming from a place of privilege that's not being accounted for. It's easy to say "oh well I don't do politics, you should tolerate your opponent" when the people calling for mass murder don't have you or people like you on their list.

"Privilege". That's a lame, cheap, and intellectually dishonest position to take. "Oh well, the only reason you're able to look past this is because you're privileged and you don't count!"

You mean 'maturity'. I think most rational adults know an actual Nazi when they see one. If there's Nazis at your local PUG, I will honestly say something is certainly wrong with your community and I have to ask what you've done to purge them. If you've made it this far in life and you don't know how to deal with something as pathetic and comical as a modern-day Nazi, then I can't help you. I'm sorry but you'll have to just suffer through this one until you figure it out.

I've been gaming since the 1990's, and the only place I've ever seen Nazis is inside Achtung! Cthulu or Bolt-Action.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Go ahead and ignore the rest of my post disciple, the whole thing that gives it context and not the small part you have quoted that fits your agenda.

Bad show mate, bad show.

I did, you stated multiple times you don't want to talk politics while playing. So I'm asking if that means you're ok with politics in the hobby itself or not.

And I answered, you chose to wilfully ignore it and quote me out of context and make an assertion based on that snippet, while ignoring my answer.

“can only speak for myself but it should never get to that point during a game, now if after we get to know each other and they say something... I don’t know anything specifically, maybe they eat babies, but that is the time and place to talk about the merits of baby eating or whatever, at that time I will decide if I want to associate with that person, or even go further and be mates.”

That adequately explains my thought process on it, during the game it’s a no go, after it’s fine, I’ve covered in previous posts my opinion on whether or not current real world politics belongs in the fluff.

You’ve been pretty decent so far mate so don’t go down the road of trying to cherry pick parts of replies to try and suit your narrative, it’s beneath you.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:
Exactly, the whole "no politics" stance is coming from a place of privilege that's not being accounted for. It's easy to say "oh well I don't do politics, you should tolerate your opponent" when the people calling for mass murder don't have you or people like you on their list.

"Privilege".

You mean 'maturity'. I think most rational adults know an actual Nazi when they see one. If there's Nazis at your local PUG, I will honestly say something is certainly wrong with your community and I have to ask what you've done to purge them.

I've been gaming since the 1990's, and the only place I've ever seen Nazis is inside Achtung! Cthulu or Bolt-Action.

I mean privilege. I'm sure some people aren't up on the world of women's healthcare, but it was not an unpopular statement when a prominent anti-choice politician said women who have had abortions should all be hung. Or I could list any of number of similarly bad anti-LGBT sentiments out there.

Strawmanning that it's always obvious by the brownshirts and armbands is pretty ridiculous.

But since those don't effect the majority of gamers some can pretend to be "mature" and "tolerant" of the people who advocate for those types of actions. Like I said it's easy when you're not on the kill list.

That's a lame, cheap, and intellectually dishonest position to take.

lol "maturity" at it's finest folks. I don't like your position so I'm gonna name call and pretend that's a stance

We expelled a couple of guys that where genuinely creeps towards women, and once a woman that did make fun of a MTG player, a typical player of the store, that its in a whellchair after she lost agaisnt him.

But outside of that I have never encounter anyone as radical as people describe here playing games in a FLGS.

Of course, thats like "But he was so nice!" when people discover their neighbour was a serial killer or a pedophile, but if they keep that to themselves is not like you can do anything about that.

Then theres the more normal "You have political ideas that I believe go agaisnt the interest of my economical group/race/gender/religion/nationality".
And to avoid that is that we have the "No politics, no football, no religion". But if you know that person has ideas you that make yourself unconfortable... normally theres other people you can play with.

I actually agree with Adeptus Doritos that if in your FLGS you have people that has said things like women that have had an abortion should be hung, you have a big problem.

The biggest political statement I have saw in 10 years of gaming was once a militar enginer of the army that said "My space marines never run! Only heretics and communist run!" in a game, and clearly joking. He could have been an absolute homophobe, I don't know, and yeah, I wouldn't have been comfortable playing with people that has very hatefull ideas... but the fact we don't share those ideas makes things easier.

If one is internally bigot but never tells anybody and doesnt do anything to reflect that bigotry... does it make a sound?

double post

 ScarletRose wrote:
I mean privilege. I'm sure some people aren't up on the world of women's healthcare, but it was not an unpopular statement when a prominent anti-choice politician said women who have had abortions should all be hung. Or I could list any of number of similarly bad anti-LGBT sentiments out there.

And where were you at the point where I mentioned something about being able to push out 'actual bigots'? I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to your imaginary concept of 'privilege' being used as a convenient means to discount and discredit an argument. Sure, you can 'What about' all day long. What about child molesters? Rapists? People with Swine Flu?

And yes, that was a pretty damned unpopular statement unless your only source of information was extreme left-wing publications with the credibility of a Bill Cosby Cocktail.

 ScarletRose wrote:
Strawmanning that it's always obvious by the brownshirts and armbands is pretty ridiculous.

Pretending that you are surrounded by invisible Nazis is pretty ridiculous, too. What do you suggest, witch hunts? Interrogations? Background checks? If you live in some absurd state of paranoia where ANYONE could be a super secret Nazi in my cereal, then I honestly mean this when I say it: Go get some professional counseling, because this cannot be a healthy way to live your life.

Seriously, just how many Nazis are there stomping into your FLGS? I'm dying to know, I'll make a trip up there on my way to Jersey and snap photographs.

 ScarletRose wrote:
But since those don't effect the majority of gamers some can pretend to be "mature" and "tolerant" of the people who advocate for those types of actions. Like I said it's easy when you're not on the kill list.

Do you encounter this a lot? Because if you are, then all I can say is that your community is flat-out terrible and you're apparently dealing with more bigots than I've seen even in the deep south. Or, you know, exaggerating a very minor problem to make a very weak point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScarletRose wrote:
lol "maturity" at it's finest folks. I don't like your position so I'm gonna name call and pretend that's a stance

"Maturity" is knowing the difference between attacking your position and statement, and name-calling. I suggest you do the research on that before throwing out more baseless accusations.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I'm familiar with Peregrine. But being pro-life can be a BIG deal, certainly to women amd the opinions your opponent holds can absolutely influence willingness to play. For example a women being pro-choice feeling like the beliefs her opponents hold devalue her as a person. Its incredibly personal where the line falls, there is no clear right and wrong we can all agree one.

Then let me put this bluntly, and I am not flaming you: Gaming communities are not a hugbox, therapy session, safe space, or anything other than a place for people to get together and have fun. If the idea that someone in your community may have different feelings than you is such a troubling and traumatic experience, then you need to stay at home or create your own private gaming group. Gaming should be inclusive, and that means even people who don't like abortion and people who don't like guns should be allowed to enjoy it in the FLGS.

From the reverse, if gaming communities aren't "safe spaces", why can people expect to have their opinions go unchallenged? Why does the opinion they hold trump your (as in general) opinion on what counts as inclusive?

Abortion is a lot different from guns in that respect. Guns are divisive, but they don't go to the core of a significant part of the identity of women like abortion. That's the issue. If you have one player that feels like abortion should be illegal and the other that this would devalue them as a person, which person are you going to side with? Or do you throw them both out? Making these decisions already makes it political, regardless of the fact that you might agree with neither. Its almost unavoidable. There is no line as such, one group would kick one out and the next group the other. It doesn't matter how toxic either person might have been, its already made the group political from the outside.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
You say that there are clear and commonly accepted standards, but the fact that these debates have been raging for years show that it isn't the case. Even if the person get labelled as not a something, to what extent does their tolerance towards that something come into play then. For example, if someone wasn't a mysogynist themselves but had no problem hanging out with them or being friends with them, would the company they keep not affect your view of them?

If they are unaware of it, then I would make them aware. However, in a PUG I'm less concerned than I would be if they were always together. And you would have to demonstrate some clear evidence they were a bigot, and even then it's on the storekeeper/owner to determine who uses his facilities. If you choose not to play with someone, freedom of association and all, that's on you. For whatever reason you choose. Just don't be expecting everyone to adhere to a fringe definition of 'bigot' when you start accusing someone of hating minorities and women because he had a MAGA hat in his car.

Problem is, depending on the political color of the majority, the 'fringe' opinion might actually be the majority one. This swings both ways. You might try to keep it as neutral as possible, but making these decisions is going to start moving you towards a box from the outside.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think blanket banning any real life politics just to preserve "the hobby" doesn't work. Should a community be frozen in time and then not evolve because it would be too political? There are obviously some gakky people in the community that skirt the line, when people like Sarkeesian draw them out shouldn't we clean house at times?

I think blanket banning politics works really well, I just think there are some people who can't shut the hell up about their personal politics and it upsets them when they come to realize they're just as unwelcome as the crazy Bible-beaters and fascists.

And yes, there's gakky people in the community. But criticizing Mrs. Sarkeesian's work- and as a public figure, people will hate her just like they hate any other public figure. If you believe people should be 'purged' for hating and mocking Mrs. Sarkeesian, then should not the same standard be held to those that hate Donald Trump or Jordan Petersen? Remember that any little regulation, law, or policy you come up with can always be used against you.

I think it is really hard for people to police everything they say to avoid showing their colors. It might work for some groups with regulars I guess.

People can hate and mock her, the issue I have is when this crosses the line into rape and death threats. Personally I dislike Trump and Peterson for many reasons, but it crosses the line when people go their and start wishing violence upon them. Do we really want people sending rape and death threats in the community?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The hobby isn't set in stone, but each time topics like this come up certain people act like it should be.

And certain people go absolutely bananas when they realize the world isn't all as left or right wing as they are. Every side has its idiots, and we do our best to keep them out. But there is not, nor will their ever be a zero sum solution.

I think the great irony is that the most emotional defenders end up doing the most damage. Lets see how Sarkeesians visit turns out on that front.

 ScarletRose wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:
Exactly, the whole "no politics" stance is coming from a place of privilege that's not being accounted for. It's easy to say "oh well I don't do politics, you should tolerate your opponent" when the people calling for mass murder don't have you or people like you on their list.

"Privilege".

You mean 'maturity'. I think most rational adults know an actual Nazi when they see one. If there's Nazis at your local PUG, I will honestly say something is certainly wrong with your community and I have to ask what you've done to purge them.

I've been gaming since the 1990's, and the only place I've ever seen Nazis is inside Achtung! Cthulu or Bolt-Action.

I mean privilege. I'm sure some people aren't up on the world of women's healthcare, but it was not an unpopular statement when a prominent anti-choice politician said women who have had abortions should all be hung. Or I could list any of number of similarly bad anti-LGBT sentiments out there.

Strawmanning that it's always obvious by the brownshirts and armbands is pretty ridiculous.

That's a lame, cheap, and intellectually dishonest position to take.

lol "maturity" at it's finest folks. I don't like so I'm gonna name call and pretend that's a stance

But since those don't effect the majority of gamers some can pretend to be "mature" and "tolerant" of the people who advocate for those types of actions. Like I said it's easy when you're not on the kill list.

It’s pretty obvious you’re using the word “privilege” to shut down conversation here. The background of the poster is irrelevant to the topic at hand. For all you know Adeptus Doritos is a black transperson. Keep the privilege-posting out of it.

 Galas wrote:
If one is internally bigot but never tells anybody and doesnt do anything to reflect that bigotry... does it make a sound?

No, it doesn't. And to be fair, my policy has always been that if you keep whatever radical or insane ideas you have to yourself around me, I'll never know and can't judge you for them.

 Formosa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Go ahead and ignore the rest of my post disciple, the whole thing that gives it context and not the small part you have quoted that fits your agenda.

Bad show mate, bad show.

I did, you stated multiple times you don't want to talk politics while playing. So I'm asking if that means you're ok with politics in the hobby itself or not.

And I answered, you chose to wilfully ignore it and quote me out of context and make an assertion based on that snippet, while ignoring my answer.

“can only speak for myself but it should never get to that point during a game, now if after we get to know each other and they say something... I don’t know anything specifically, maybe they eat babies, but that is the time and place to talk about the merits of baby eating or whatever, at that time I will decide if I want to associate with that person, or even go further and be mates.”

That adequately explains my thought process on it, during the game it’s a no go, after it’s fine, I’ve covered in previous posts my opinion on whether or not current real world politics belongs in the fluff.

You’ve been pretty decent so far mate so don’t go down the road of trying to cherry pick parts of replies to try and suit your narrative, it’s beneath you.

I didn't do it based on the snippit, I'm spoilering to avoid huge quote blocks on my phone.

What you're saying there is that you decide if the person is too horrible too engage with, not that you don't want to engage in politics at all. Based on you other example it shows that you do allow for a certain amount of politics in the 'hobby' at large, just nothing too extreme. You don't want it in your fluff, but for example can it be taken into the company's future if nothing is retroactively changed and depending on the subject matter. I'm trying to figure out the limits of no politics in the hobby.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
From the reverse, if gaming communities aren't "safe spaces", why can people expect to have their opinions go unchallenged? Why does the opinion they hold trump your (as in general) opinion on what counts as inclusive?

Who said your opinion was going unchallenged? No one can talk about your penis if you don't take it out and wave it at people, however.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Abortion is a lot different from guns in that respect. Guns are divisive, but they don't go to the core of a significant part of the identity of women like abortion. That's the issue. If you have one player that feels like abortion should be illegal and the other that this would devalue them as a person, which person are you going to side with? Or do you throw them both out? Making these decisions already makes it political, regardless of the fact that you might agree with neither. Its almost unavoidable. There is no line as such, one group would kick one out and the next group the other. It doesn't matter how toxic either person might have been, its already made the group political from the outside.

Simple, I'm going to throw out the one that doesn't shut up about it after they'e been warned to keep it to themselves and avoid one another.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Problem is, depending on the political color of the majority, the 'fringe' opinion might actually be the majority one. This swings both ways. You might try to keep it as neutral as possible, but making these decisions is going to start moving you towards a box from the outside.

Well, considering I've lived from one end of the US to the other, I've never seen any large group of people that believes 'racism' is anything other than 'discriminating or harassing someone based on their race'. Maybe individuals in small groups, but I'm pretty sure in all of them if you run in there cracking jokes about ANY race, you'll find yourself out in the street. And generally banned from ALL local establishments.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think it is really hard for people to police everything they say to avoid showing their colors. It might work for some groups with regulars I guess.

I think it's really easy to keep things to yourself and not act out whenever you hear someone voted a different way or suspect they hold different beliefs. It's called 'being civil' and most places that aren't surrounded by barbed wire or Nannies tend to do fine with 'being civil'.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
People can hate and mock her, the issue I have is when this crosses the line into rape and death threats. Personally I dislike Trump and Peterson for many reasons, but it crosses the line when people go their and start wishing violence upon them. Do we really want people sending rape and death threats in the community?

Challenge: Find me people making threats and I'll wholeheartedly support punishing them to the fullest extent of the law. No, we don't. This is not related to ridiculing, disagreeing, or disliking the speaker in question.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the great irony is that the most emotional defenders end up doing the most damage. Lets see how Sarkeesians visit turns out on that front.

As it stands now, it's not a popular decision- even among left-leaning feminists.

 ScarletRose wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:
Exactly, the whole "no politics" stance is coming from a place of privilege that's not being accounted for. It's easy to say "oh well I don't do politics, you should tolerate your opponent" when the people calling for mass murder don't have you or people like you on their list.

"Privilege".

You mean 'maturity'. I think most rational adults know an actual Nazi when they see one. If there's Nazis at your local PUG, I will honestly say something is certainly wrong with your community and I have to ask what you've done to purge them.

I've been gaming since the 1990's, and the only place I've ever seen Nazis is inside Achtung! Cthulu or Bolt-Action.

I mean privilege. I'm sure some people aren't up on the world of women's healthcare, but it was not an unpopular statement when a prominent anti-choice politician said women who have had abortions should all be hung. Or I could list any of number of similarly bad anti-LGBT sentiments out there.

Strawmanning that it's always obvious by the brownshirts and armbands is pretty ridiculous.

But since those don't effect the majority of gamers some can pretend to be "mature" and "tolerant" of the people who advocate for those types of actions. Like I said it's easy when you're not on the kill list.

That's a lame, cheap, and intellectually dishonest position to take.

lol "maturity" at it's finest folks. I don't like your position so I'm gonna name call and pretend that's a stance

I always like it when people that were born on third and think they hit a home run lecture women and minorities that there isn't a problem because it's not their problem.

I do have to say: when we talk about “privilege,” it is more often than not the ability to *not* engage in things. For example, I’m a gay guy. When the marriage debate was happening, I’d hear my straight friends often say, “Who cares? It’s not a big deal” because it wasn’t...for them. They had the ability to not engage with the issue because it didn’t affect them. And it was infuriating, because it does affect *me*, their friend, massively. The LGBT community had no choice but to engage to try and get equal treatment, where they could just check out. That’s what people often mean when they say “privilege” - the ability to check out and not have your life made harder by those sorts of things.

I think often times “privilege” gets tossed around as a buzzword that people either latch onto or see it and instantly toss it aside. Neither does justice to the reality.