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.

 Nurglitch wrote:
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 was born on third? Please, tell me more about my life. I'd like to know about my ethnic background, too, since you've made it a point to assume my race, upbringing, economic background, heritage, family situation, etc.

Because you know what I love? People that assume that everyone else has it just as easy as they do, and then try to play White Male Messiah.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
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.

Just FYI, the 'who cares' generally meant, "Who cares if gays want to get married? What's the actual problem with that" but it's really cool that you assumed your friends didn't care about your feelings.

But we aren't talking about political discussion, or privilege, etc... in general context about life or debates in whatever place they may take.

We are talking about not allowing political discussion in a FLGS. Thats what many communities do to thrive.

Other option, that other communities do, of course, is to declare their intentions, what they acept and what they don't. Is another legitimate way of building a community.

That's the weird thing about privilege, is that it is the privilege of not having to trouble yourself with the problems of Others. It's a blind-spot. Telling someone to check their privilege isn't a left-PC way of telling someone to shut up, it's telling them to revise their comment with some consideration for the differences, nay inequalities, between us.

 Nurglitch wrote:
Telling someone to check their privilege isn't a left-PC way of telling someone to shut up....

No, it's telling them "I am assuming your entire life based on general factors, often with as little as your skin color as a basis, to discredit your opinion and silence and shame you." And no, I will not be checking any 'privilege'. Nor will I be seeking sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, or the Illuminati.

 Nurglitch wrote:
That's the weird thing about privilege, is that it is the privilege of not having to trouble yourself with the problems of Others. It's a blind-spot. Telling someone to check their privilege isn't a left-PC way of telling someone to shut up, it's telling them to revise their comment with some consideration for the differences, nay inequalities, between us.

I disagree. Telling someone to “check their privilege” is a bludgeon used to silence opposition. It’s just another way to say, “Your opinion doesn’t count because you’re X.”

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
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 was born on third? Please, tell me more about my life. I'd like to know about my ethnic background, too, since you've made it a point to assume my race, upbringing, economic background, heritage, family situation, etc.

Because you know what I love? People that assume that everyone else has it just as easy as they do, and then try to play White Male Messiah.

Perhaps you could revisit what you just wrote. Maybe consider what I said, and try to paraphrase in your own words. It might be interesting to you. It might not.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I disagree. Telling someone to “check their privilege” is a bludgeon used to silence opposition. It’s just another way to say, “Your opinion doesn’t count because you’re X.”

Yeah, I kinda thought we got rid of ridiculous ideas like "Your thoughts are only worth about 3/5 of someone else's". A long time ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Perhaps you could revisit what you just wrote. Maybe consider what I said, and try to paraphrase in your own words. It might be interesting to you. It might not.

What you said has been considered, and disregarded.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
That's the weird thing about privilege, is that it is the privilege of not having to trouble yourself with the problems of Others. It's a blind-spot. Telling someone to check their privilege isn't a left-PC way of telling someone to shut up, it's telling them to revise their comment with some consideration for the differences, nay inequalities, between us.

I disagree. Telling someone to “check their privilege” is a bludgeon used to silence opposition. It’s just another way to say, “Your opinion doesn’t count because you’re X.”

Nope. The appropriate response is to check how your privilege is not shared by the person saying that. Ask how you could have re-phrased your opinion. Ask about the person you're talking to and engage rather than presuming any commonality. Checking your privilege is like checking your work, not like checking your coat.

 Nurglitch wrote:
Nope. The appropriate response is to check how your privilege is not shared by the person saying that. Ask how you could have re-phrased your opinion. Ask about the person you're talking to and engage rather than presuming any commonality. Checking your privilege is like checking your work, not like checking your coat.

OK I checked. All of my points still stand.

Now what?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I disagree. Telling someone to “check their privilege” is a bludgeon used to silence opposition. It’s just another way to say, “Your opinion doesn’t count because you’re X.”

Yeah, I kinda thought we got rid of ridiculous ideas like "Your thoughts are only worth about 3/5 of someone else's". A long time ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Perhaps you could revisit what you just wrote. Maybe consider what I said, and try to paraphrase in your own words. It might be interesting to you. It might not.

What you said has been considered, and disregarded.

Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate the effort you've made.

 Nurglitch wrote:
Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate the effort you've made.

You're welcome. I'm sorry we didn't agree. Please have a nice day. We can discuss other things another time if you like, but I do not believe we will agree on this topic and will have to move on from it for fear of causing a disruption or rift where one is not warranted.

 Nurglitch wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
That's the weird thing about privilege, is that it is the privilege of not having to trouble yourself with the problems of Others. It's a blind-spot. Telling someone to check their privilege isn't a left-PC way of telling someone to shut up, it's telling them to revise their comment with some consideration for the differences, nay inequalities, between us.

I disagree. Telling someone to “check their privilege” is a bludgeon used to silence opposition. It’s just another way to say, “Your opinion doesn’t count because you’re X.”

Nope. The appropriate response is to check how your privilege is not shared by the person saying that. Ask how you could have re-phrased your opinion. Ask about the person you're talking to and engage rather than presuming any commonality. Checking your privilege is like checking your work, not like checking your coat.

In my experience, I have not encountered the phrase used that way. Based upon that I must disagree.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Just FYI, the 'who cares' generally meant, "Who cares if gays want to get married? What's the actual problem with that" but it's really cool that you assumed your friends didn't care about your feelings.

Just FYI, I love that you assume you knew the context and intent of conversations you didn't hear with people you never met...and then come down on other people for making assumptions. Really paints you in a great light...but it does set a nice example for everyone reading this thinking, "Hey, I wonder if those anti-SJW types like Doritos have a point...oh. Nvm." All it does it throw more dirt on your own grave.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Just FYI, I love that you assume you knew the context and intent of conversations you didn't hear with people you never met...and then come down on other people for making assumptions. Really paints you in a great light.

Well, I didn't want to just flat-out say your friends were jerks, and I was speaking from personal experience, just as you were. But it sounds to me like you did quite a bit of presumption as well based on your own personal experience. Neither of ours are universal.

But it sounds to me like your statement implies that you didn't understand much of the context. Believe what you like, if the interpretation you take bothers you- then that's on you to deal with. If anything, I was trying to be helpful. But choose your own adventure here.

 Nurglitch wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I disagree. Telling someone to “check their privilege” is a bludgeon used to silence opposition. It’s just another way to say, “Your opinion doesn’t count because you’re X.”

Yeah, I kinda thought we got rid of ridiculous ideas like "Your thoughts are only worth about 3/5 of someone else's". A long time ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Perhaps you could revisit what you just wrote. Maybe consider what I said, and try to paraphrase in your own words. It might be interesting to you. It might not.

What you said has been considered, and disregarded.

Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate the effort you've made.

You're far more kind to the troll than you need to be, but I thank you for your well-worded points here.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Nope. The appropriate response is to check how your privilege is not shared by the person saying that. Ask how you could have re-phrased your opinion. Ask about the person you're talking to and engage rather than presuming any commonality. Checking your privilege is like checking your work, not like checking your coat.

OK I checked. All of my points still stand.

Now what?

Checking your privilege is something you do with someone, the person who you're talking to, not some moment of introspection where you decide that you were right after all. Checking your own word is like being your own editor or lawyer or whatever - it doesn't work well. What's your background? I'm a white middle-aged Canadian guy, second-generation immigrant of Anglo-Irish parents. I'm married with kids, I work as a technical writer, and while my family managed to achieve upper-middle class economically I'm moved down to what I suppose can be called lumpen-proleteriat, or office-worker working-class. I play a bunch of board games and war-gamers, and I'm trying to combine the two in a game project called Titanomachina. I first encountered feminism through my mother, but it took an elective during my undergraduate degree to really realize just how good I had it. I've been a feminist ever since, and like I said it's a bit like the sun-glasses from They Live in that when I have it forefront of my mind I notice all of those little things that both white feminists and intersectional feminists point out. As you can see, I have a lot of privilege despite failing economically with the deck stacked in my favour.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
You're far more kind to the troll than you need to be, but I thank you for your well-worded points here.

I like how you call people names when people don't give you the answer or response you want. It must be so productive.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Just FYI, I love that you assume you knew the context and intent of conversations you didn't hear with people you never met...and then come down on other people for making assumptions. Really paints you in a great light.

Well, I didn't want to just flat-out say your friends were jerks, and I was speaking from personal experience, just as you were. But it sounds to me like you did quite a bit of presumption as well based on your own personal experience. Neither of ours are universal.

But it sounds to me like your statement implies that you didn't understand much of the context. Believe what you like, if the interpretation you take bothers you- then that's on you to deal with. If anything, I was trying to be helpful. But choose your own adventure here.

No, you weren't trying to be helpful, you were trying to troll or incite. If you were trying to be helpful, you would've said something like, "Usually when I've heard it, it's meant X. Could that have been what was up?" and I would've explained that no, I was paraphrasing conversations for convenience and the intent was as I originally intended. What you did was the literal opposite of "trying to be helpful." If it was an honest mistake, okay, but you need to check your writing (in addition to priviledge? lol).

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
That's the weird thing about privilege, is that it is the privilege of not having to trouble yourself with the problems of Others. It's a blind-spot. Telling someone to check their privilege isn't a left-PC way of telling someone to shut up, it's telling them to revise their comment with some consideration for the differences, nay inequalities, between us.

I disagree. Telling someone to “check their privilege” is a bludgeon used to silence opposition. It’s just another way to say, “Your opinion doesn’t count because you’re X.”

Nope. The appropriate response is to check how your privilege is not shared by the person saying that. Ask how you could have re-phrased your opinion. Ask about the person you're talking to and engage rather than presuming any commonality. Checking your privilege is like checking your work, not like checking your coat.

In my experience, I have not encountered the phrase used that way. Based upon that I must disagree.

I also have that issue where the dictionary definition of a word or phrase doesn't match the way I've heard it used in everyday life. It can make things confusing. I blame descriptivist approaches to language.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 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.

That only works if no one never ever lets personal views slip into amy conversation, which seems pretty impossible.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 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.

And here is the start of a toxic group. One person starts believing the group is letting baby murderers stay in and the other person someone that treats women as second class people. The rift has just been plastered over, how are you going to avoid people privately starting to take sides? If it really is that important to them its going to eventually come to a head again. And whoever gets kicked out is going to paint the group as whoever stays in. A certain level of politics is impossible to avoid just because you don't have absolute control over what individuals do.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 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.

Sure, but what you feel like would be crossing the line isn't objective is what I'm saying. Most of us agree rascism is bad and give the above description, but there certainly seems to be wiggle room between people on when it actually crosses into said description. For the Netherlands there are certain issues related to a specific rascism debate that have a pretty strong majority going for the tradition route because culture/heritage. Some people say it should be obvious, but it sure as hell isn't.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 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'.

Haha, you say that. But I know someone in a different community for which it really isn't easy and it sorts of flops out each time. He still is in the group, I don't know whether that is because they think its just stupidity or they don't care.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 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.

Exactly, luckily enough I haven't seen that kind of sentiment here (and to be fair Dakka would quickly kick that to the curb). This is the issue the gamergate 'community' faced, they inadvertendly ended up in the same camp as people doing that. Its problematic and the "hobby" community should avoid crossing into that at all cost.

Over on boardgamegeek its already devolved in certain posters arguing that rape threats are just jokes or not a big deal/don't be so sensitive in relation to Sarkeesian speaking up. I haven't heard about any threats yet, knock on wood people.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 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.

Well as they saying goes, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

 Nurglitch wrote:

Checking your privilege is something you do with someone, the person who you're talking to, not some moment of introspection where you decide that you were right after all.

In other words, ask someone you disagree with what you can do to agree with them.

Sorry, I don't like this game. I'll be standing by my points.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
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.

Well said, you get an exalt.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
That only works if no one never ever lets personal views slip into amy conversation, which seems pretty impossible.

No, it only fails if the peoples' only passion in life are political views. Find new interests- cars, movies, food, vacation spots, beer, something. Life is full of things. Crazy thought- you're playing a game with some of the richest lore and plenty of points of debate exist in that. Focus there.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And here is the start of a toxic group. One person starts believing the group is letting baby murderers stay in and the other person someone that treats women as second class people. The rift has just been plastered over, how are you going to avoid people privately starting to take sides? If it really is that important to them its going to eventually come to a head again. And whoever gets kicked out is going to paint the group as whoever stays in. A certain level of politics is impossible to avoid just because you don't have absolute control over what individuals do.

No, here is the start of a smaller group with less drama. Again, you paint them like they're both lunatics that can't stow it. Toss 'em both out and everyone else can enjoy some peace and fun.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Sure, but what you feel like would be crossing the line isn't objective is what I'm saying. Most of us agree rascism is bad and give the above description, but there certainly seems to be wiggle room between people on when it actually crosses into said description. For the Netherlands there are certain issues related to a specific rascism debate that have a pretty strong majority going for the tradition route because culture/heritage. Some people say it should be obvious, but it sure as hell isn't.

How about this: If it's racist, by definition, then it's racist. If some white guy says, "I'm white, I suck at basketball" then that's probably not really on the same level.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Haha, you say that. But I know someone in a different community for which it really isn't easy and it sorts of flops out each time. He still is in the group, I don't know whether that is because they think its just stupidity or they don't care.

Everyone has an 'idiot cousin', dude. That's the truth.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Exactly, luckily enough I haven't seen that kind of sentiment here (and to be fair Dakka would quickly kick that to the curb). This is the issue the gamergate 'community' faced, they inadvertendly ended up in the same camp as people doing that. Its problematic and the "hobby" community should avoid crossing into that at all cost.

And yes, I fully agree- Anita may deserve a lot of ridicule, at most- but not threats. At no point should anyone, no matter what their beliefs are, be threatened with violence of any sort. However, as I said before, "Everyone has an idiot cousin". Let's not say 'Gamergate' should be painted the same because a small handful of morons did something stupid (that was, as a matter of record, a problem for most Gamergate participants and supporters- they encouraged the release of the names and information and offered to cooperate with authorities).

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Over on boardgamegeek its already devolved in certain posters arguing that rape threats are just jokes or not a big deal/don't be so sensitive in relation to Sarkeesian speaking up. I haven't heard about any threats yet, knock on wood people.

They're 'jokes' with your buddies in a private place, at most. I'll look at my bestie and tell him I'm going to rape him if he sticks his hand in my chip bag. He threatens it right back. Now, we're not making these 'jokes' in public. Because 'know your audience'.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well as they saying goes, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Absolutely. I think nothing short of people saying, "Look, this is how the woman conducted herself on previous panels" should be all that is needed as a 'case' against her speaking. But people are gonna fire up the flames, and I honestly think that's the intent here.

 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?
Gamer journalists are as corrupt as unprofesional as ever, and the "culture war" is still raging on because the world hasn't really change in that regard.

Really good points.
I think that was what I was trying to get at: no sustainable change really occurred after all that turmoil, somehow celebrity still lends some weight to her arguments.

It is like a reverse ad hominem fallacy where by attacking her arguments automatically nulls them since she is a member of the wronged group (at least if you happen to be male).

Speaking of fallacies, it would be the good old "slippery slope" to think her going to Gencon could "ruin" or greatly improve the experience, it would be largely based on your preference.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:

Checking your privilege is something you do with someone, the person who you're talking to, not some moment of introspection where you decide that you were right after all.

In other words, ask someone you disagree with what you can do to agree with them.

Sorry, I don't like this game. I'll be standing by my points.

I think it's moreso about being considerate of others, although coming to an agreement or find common ground seems more constructive than some sort of medieval scholarly competition. I suggest it's preferable to a game in which we dogmatically reiterate that we are Right and therefore Justified. I mean, if you were playing a game would you rather get on with the game or rules-lawyer it for everyone?

Gamergate had nothing to do with ethics in games journalism. Gamergate started when someone posted their unsubstantiated claim that their ex-girlfriend cheated on them with 5 other men and that had apparently done so for favourable coverage of her game (even though none of the people she supposedly slept with ever reviewed her game or even mentioned her except one who included her game in a list of games coming out in the future).

How many actual instances of corruption did gamergate uncover and expose?

 Nurglitch wrote:
I think it's moreso about being considerate of others, although coming to an agreement or find common ground seems more constructive than some sort of medieval scholarly competition. I suggest it's preferable to a game in which we dogmatically reiterate that we are Right and therefore Justified. I mean, if you were playing a game would you rather get on with the game or rules-lawyer it for everyone?

It is. And don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with being 'considerate' to someone else's position, but at the same time we're not discussing debate- we're discussing the matter of keeping an open establishment civil and peaceful. At a certain point, you can't worry yourself with an individual being buttmad because their personal feelings weren't taken into consideration when they breached the peace and wouldn't stow it.

It takes a bit of maturity to come to terms with a place not being 'your spot' for whatever reason. I've had to do it, you just up and find a new place to play where people either see things more your way or where no one makes a big deal out of their beliefs.

 Nurglitch wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:

Checking your privilege is something you do with someone, the person who you're talking to, not some moment of introspection where you decide that you were right after all.

In other words, ask someone you disagree with what you can do to agree with them.

Sorry, I don't like this game. I'll be standing by my points.

I mean, if you were playing a game would you rather get on with the game or rules-lawyer it for everyone?

I think you might reconsider that question considering that you're posting on Dakka.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
How many actual instances of corruption did gamergate uncover and expose?

Didn't that girl end up coming out and admitting to an affair with one of the employees of the publication? Or was it the man himself when his spouse caught him.

And not long after, quite a few publications were disclosing their conflicts of interest.

You're still wrong about how it started. It started because as soon as that happened, publications started pissing all over gamers. But hey, interpret it how you like. I think their passion was misguided on an already dead industry that has been well-known to be incestuous and shady.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
That only works if no one never ever lets personal views slip into amy conversation, which seems pretty impossible.

No, it only fails if the peoples' only passion in life are political views. Find new interests- cars, movies, food, vacation spots, beer, something. Life is full of things. Crazy thought- you're playing a game with some of the richest lore and plenty of points of debate exist in that. Focus there.

Issue is, even inside the lore debate you come across it, we have had discussions on the realism of female guardsmen in 40K on Dakka. People drag politics into everything if the want to, nothing is safe. One follow up sentence on how you feel about a certain lore aspect can quickly slip into the political. Remember the debate on Grey Knights when they suddenly started to wear the latest fashion made from 100% Sister of Battle?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And here is the start of a toxic group. One person starts believing the group is letting baby murderers stay in and the other person someone that treats women as second class people. The rift has just been plastered over, how are you going to avoid people privately starting to take sides? If it really is that important to them its going to eventually come to a head again. And whoever gets kicked out is going to paint the group as whoever stays in. A certain level of politics is impossible to avoid just because you don't have absolute control over what individuals do.

No, here is the start of a smaller group with less drama. Again, you paint them like they're both lunatics that can't stow it. Toss 'em both out and everyone else can enjoy some peace and fun.

And ends in both sides trying to paint your little group as bad to the general public. People are dramatic, I've seen it happen. And this is how the general public came to view the gamergate 'community' as bad so easily, people went "look, they're shutting me out" and showing the bad eggs to them.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Sure, but what you feel like would be crossing the line isn't objective is what I'm saying. Most of us agree rascism is bad and give the above description, but there certainly seems to be wiggle room between people on when it actually crosses into said description. For the Netherlands there are certain issues related to a specific rascism debate that have a pretty strong majority going for the tradition route because culture/heritage. Some people say it should be obvious, but it sure as hell isn't.

How about this: If it's racist, by definition, then it's racist. If some white guy says, "I'm white, I suck at basketball" then that's probably not really on the same level.

But you decide the level for yourself, rascists can still believe they aren't rascists and there certainly isn't always objective agreement by everyone on whether someone is.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Haha, you say that. But I know someone in a different community for which it really isn't easy and it sorts of flops out each time. He still is in the group, I don't know whether that is because they think its just stupidity or they don't care.

Everyone has an 'idiot cousin', dude. That's the truth.

Yes, but he is still part of a community in the wider hobby. He is a bad egg tolerated in his group. But its really easy to use him to make all of us look bad. He is part of the hobby. And when people like Sarkeesian point those out, its hard to argue that they aren't bad people. For the good of the overal community he should not be in it, yet he is.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Over on boardgamegeek its already devolved in certain posters arguing that rape threats are just jokes or not a big deal/don't be so sensitive in relation to Sarkeesian speaking up. I haven't heard about any threats yet, knock on wood people.

They're 'jokes' with your buddies in a private place, at most. I'll look at my bestie and tell him I'm going to rape him if he sticks his hand in my chip bag. He threatens it right back. Now, we're not making these 'jokes' in public. Because 'know your audience'.

But they literally are arguing that rape threats are a joke and not a big deal on a publically viewable hobby forum in relation fi her speaking role. I still don't agree with the use in private, but as said, what you don't know you can't adress.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Gamergate had nothing to do with ethics in games journalism. Gamergate started when someone posted their unsubstantiated claim that their ex-girlfriend cheated on them with 5 other men and that had apparently done so for favourable coverage of her game (even though none of the people she supposedly slept with ever reviewed her game or even mentioned her except one who included her game in a list of games coming out in the future).

How many actual instances of corruption did gamergate uncover and expose?

Yeah, you mean you think you uncovered a conflict of interest in an journalistic industry that is dependent on the game industry's good will for survival and being paid by the game industry to go to reveals and conventions? Say it ain't so!