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.

 vipoid wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're not, but the phrasing you use is what a lot of crypto-fascists, neo-nazi's and alt-right chuds use in order to escape real criticism or cover their asses (dogwhistling, look it up!).

So I take it you are straight up admitting to being a crypto-fascist, neo-nazi and/or alt-right chud?

Because the whole point of a dog-whistle is that it is inaudible to the ears of non-canines. Thus, if you can hear the whistle, then that makes you the dog.

Ergo, if people are 'dogwhistling' to crypto-fascists, neo-nazis and/or alt-right chuds, and you are hearing it, then you must be one of those yourself.

If you can't look it up yourself, then I'll happily accomodate you.

I mean obviously there absolutely loads of right wing people who are not fascists, I don't think that really needs to be said? Centre right views are pretty mainstream, I'd say they're the dominant views in most of Europe and in quite a lot of the US as well. I guess the problem is that we've all got pretty different ideas about what is centre right.

I think this thread is a really good example of why it's difficult for a woman or any other minority to get along at times though. Like a lot of even the helpful advice amounted to "be a better participant than all the other players there to try to limit any avenue for criticism", you know genuinely well meant advice like "paint your stuff really well" and the like, basically putting a higher standard on a woman so she's not as open to criticism. I see that kind of crap all the time with my wife in her professional life (the women basically have to be better than the men at everything and will be criticised really harshly for any feth up, more than men would be) and in my job as a teacher (girls are a lot more afraid of failure generally, and I think this is because they are criticised more heavily for failure than boys who generally get a more lax attitude from everyone. Now, you can argue that that lax attitude is in itself harmful to the boys, and I'd tend to agree to a certain extent. But I think the fear of failure is what keeps numbers of girls in my subject down based on a lot of conversations with boys and girls over the years. I can go into more detail on this if people want).

Women being expected to be better and to be more patient and to put up with weird behaviour from guys is exactly what we're talking about when we talk about gatekeeping. And a lot of it is subconscious and cultural rather than something that people do on purpose.

Anyway, I'm a guy and I feel uncomfortable talking about this because I don't have the experience. I'm sorta communicating what my wife said to me when I discussed this thread with her along with some of my experiences from my job.

Tiberias wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Tiberias wrote:By that logic a fething deadbeat piece of crap wife beater is justified in his feelings if he comes home drunk one night and feels angry towards his wife all of a sudden because she looked at him wrong. There is nothing justified about that.

But we're not talking about feelings of violence, we're talking about feeling excluded, or feeling intimidated, or a feeling that isn't "I get to cause other people harm". Similarly, within CONTEXT, you outright state that they're drunk, and therefore not of a right mind. There's no excuse for that, and my comment doesn't endorse those kinds of feelings or the responses to them.

Remember the context of the thread we're talking about here - OP feeling excluded is not the same as a drunk abuser.

No. You don't get to retreat to the detail that the wife beater might be drunk. Forget everything else for a second, this is way too important.

Sure - and then you can address the points you've so gracefully skipped over, when you're done moving the goalposts.

By your logic him feeling angry towards his wife because she looked at him in a way he did not like, is also valid if he is not drunk, it's just what he feels at that moment and not acknowledging that would be erasure would it not?

Wow, way to move the goalposts there! Being drunk, literally being intoxicated, is such a massive point of context here that it speaks for itself without saying, but you can't even stick by your own words! What are you finding so hard to understand about "don't be a dick and tell people that their own feelings are wrong"? If you can't understand that, or the WORLD of difference between being an abuse apologist and defending the feelings of someone who *does* feel abused, then this isn't worth talking about with you.

Like, you *do* realise that you're siding against the abused here with this, right? You're more concerned with being factually right than showing empathy or compassion - what kind of safe space and trusting environment does that foster?

The logic is exactly the same in both arguments, hence why I am so fervently opposed to it. Your feelings are not justified by default.

Your "logic" only works when devoid of context. Either you don't understand context or subtlety, or you're being obtuse deliberately. I suggest you consider which it is before continuing, and after you've addressed the rest of my comments about the onus on making a safe space being on the dominant group.

Da Boss wrote:Women being expected to be better and to be more patient and to put up with weird behaviour from guys is exactly what we're talking about when we talk about gatekeeping. And a lot of it is subconscious and cultural rather than something that people do on purpose.

Exactly this. The idea as well echoed by some users that it's down to the marginalised group to be the ones to expose themselves and be the ones to challenge the dominant forces isn't a million miles from this, and it entirely removes the core issue that if there's a feeling of being marginalised, it's coming from the dominant group, and therefore needs to be *their* responsibility to resolve.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Tiberias wrote:By that logic a fething deadbeat piece of crap wife beater is justified in his feelings if he comes home drunk one night and feels angry towards his wife all of a sudden because she looked at him wrong. There is nothing justified about that.

But we're not talking about feelings of violence, we're talking about feeling excluded, or feeling intimidated, or a feeling that isn't "I get to cause other people harm". Similarly, within CONTEXT, you outright state that they're drunk, and therefore not of a right mind. There's no excuse for that, and my comment doesn't endorse those kinds of feelings or the responses to them.

Remember the context of the thread we're talking about here - OP feeling excluded is not the same as a drunk abuser.

No. You don't get to retreat to the detail that the wife beater might be drunk. Forget everything else for a second, this is way too important.

Sure - and then you can address the points you've so gracefully skipped over, when you're done moving the goalposts.

By your logic him feeling angry towards his wife because she looked at him in a way he did not like, is also valid if he is not drunk, it's just what he feels at that moment and not acknowledging that would be erasure would it not?

Wow, way to move the goalposts there! Being drunk, literally being intoxicated, is such a massive point of context here that it speaks for itself without saying, but you can't even stick by your own words! What are you finding so hard to understand about "don't be a dick and tell people that their own feelings are wrong"? If you can't understand that, or the WORLD of difference between being an abuse apologist and defending the feelings of someone who *does* feel abused, then this isn't worth talking about with you.

Like, you *do* realise that you're siding against the abused here with this, right? You're more concerned with being factually right than showing empathy or compassion - what kind of safe space and trusting environment does that foster?

The logic is exactly the same in both arguments, hence why I am so fervently opposed to it. Your feelings are not justified by default.

Your "logic" only works when devoid of context. Either you don't understand context or subtlety, or you're being obtuse deliberately. I suggest you consider which it is before continuing, and after you've addressed the rest of my comments about the onus on making a safe space being on the dominant group.

Da Boss wrote:Women being expected to be better and to be more patient and to put up with weird behaviour from guys is exactly what we're talking about when we talk about gatekeeping. And a lot of it is subconscious and cultural rather than something that people do on purpose.

Exactly this. The idea as well echoed by some users that it's down to the marginalised group to be the ones to expose themselves and be the ones to challenge the dominant forces isn't a million miles from this, and it entirely removes the core issue that if there's a feeling of being marginalised, it's coming from the dominant group, and therefore needs to be *their* responsibility to resolve.

Well, that required some twisted mental gymnastics.

You made the initial argument that feeling angry or threatend when beeing looked at is valid regardless of context! That was YOUR argument! And now you come at me and say you can't evaluate such things without context? Get the hell outa here....

If your logic is: my feeling of being angry or threatened is valid in that moment no matter of context or whether the situation gets cleared up later.......then a piece of gak wife beater suddenly feeling angry towards his wife because she looked at him wrong is also valid in that moment. It's the same logic....hence why I find that train of thought so messed up!
Your feelings are not justified by default.

And you say that me pointing out that severely flawed logic, I would be siding against the hypothetically abused victim? Are you utterly out of your mind?

Tiberias wrote:Well, that required some twisted mental gymnastics.

No more than you taking "don't dismiss the feelings of someone who feels threatened" and twisting that to mean "abuse is okay if you feel like it!!" - after you moved your own goalposts about them being drunk, no less.

If you can't see the different in those two things, we're done with this. If you want to actually be constructive, you might want to look back on what I've said about creating a safe space, and see what you can do about it, instead of trying to silence disempowered voices.

(And actually, no, I didn't say anything about "feeling angry.. when beeing looked at is valid" - I explicitly said "threatened", and that certainly didn't encompass any excuse or justification for abuse. Don't go putting words in my mouth.)

 Bosskelot wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're not, but the phrasing you use is what a lot of crypto-fascists, neo-nazi's and alt-right chuds use in order to escape real criticism or cover their asses (dogwhistling, look it up!).

So I take it you are straight up admitting to being a crypto-fascist, neo-nazi and/or alt-right chud?

Because the whole point of a dog-whistle is that it is inaudible to the ears of non-canines. Thus, if you can hear the whistle, then that makes you the dog.

Ergo, if people are 'dogwhistling' to crypto-fascists, neo-nazis and/or alt-right chuds, and you are hearing it, then you must be one of those yourself.

If you can't look it up yourself, then I'll happily accomodate you.

Interesting that you didn't actually refute vipoid's point....

At the game store. Me and my wife brought our nephews for the first time. Our stores huge. Maybe 30-50 people. After sitting down for 20 min my nephew looks around and says loudly to my wife, "wow. Youre like the only girl here"

Couldn't stop laughing. Made me think of this thread. Hope you enjoy

Understanding and using are two different things. It's a pretty simple concept.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Tiberias wrote:Well, that required some twisted mental gymnastics.

No more than you taking "don't dismiss the feelings of someone who feels threatened" and twisting that to mean "abuse is okay if you feel like it!!" - after you moved your own goalposts about them being drunk, no less.

If you can't see the different in those two things, we're done with this. If you want to actually be constructive, you might want to look back on what I've said about creating a safe space, and see what you can do about it, instead of trying to silence disempowered voices.

(And actually, no, I didn't say anything about "feeling angry.. when beeing looked at is valid" - I explicitly said "threatened", and that certainly didn't encompass any excuse or justification for abuse. Don't go putting words in my mouth.)

I am not putting words in your mouth neither am I shifting the goalposts here, it's literally what you said. It's the same logical argument, the only one who is justifying abuse is you by sticking to that severely flawed train of thought.
I came into this conversation in good faith, but you not being able to handle getting your flawed logic pointed out to you is frankly not my problem.

For the last time:
scenario A: someone feels uncomfortable or threatened in a game store because someone looks at them.
You say their feelings are justified EVEN IF it gets cleared up that the whole thing was a misunderstanding. They felt uncomfortable in that moment, which is what matters and what shouldn't happen, right? So context did not matter here, remember?

Then it logically follows that in scenario B:
A piece of gak no good wife beater gets angry at his wife because she looked at him wrong. His feelings are also justified. Context doesn't matter here also if all your feelings apparently are valid by default.

That's some messed up logic to live your life by.

And you accuse me of being on the side of the abuser? Absolutely ridiculous.

After saying that calling someone a fascist is bad, you immediately turn around and call them a fascist? Just...confusing. I have no horse in the race, not going to bother looking at either of your posting histories, it just seems odd is all.

I was referring to the original Nazi topic he made where he threatened the DAKKA forums and the moderators by stating that he has alerted media about the collective fascist tendancies of the forums in an attempt to publicly force/shame behavior to align to his position.

He is perfectly allowed to assume anything he wants about me, or have an opinion, the moment he states it as fact in a public setting crosses the line.

 aphyon wrote:
my flames of war official game dice for my axis forces

 aphyon wrote:

 posermcbogus wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

'facts don't care about your feelings' rather or not you like the person(s) making valid points.

Cool out, swastika dice....

I see civil discourse is not your forte, not sure about your dice reference...

Aphyon is a liar. And I guess proud/not proud to have dice that would be illegal in germany?

Nice attempt at selective editing.


Taking quotes not only out of context but out of the linear timeline to make it look like i said something i did not say. try harder next time.

Making a Ben Shapiro joke does not make me a fascist, especially when it is true, making a reference to dice BEFORE i even knew what the subject was about, then conflating it with something that came up as a topic months later is dishonest at best IMHO.

P.S. Why the FETH do i care about the rules in a country i do not live in? i mean i love japan, speak Japanese and when i was there i followed the rules because i was there and not here, even if i did not like some of them.

So the actual Flames of War dice I see are some with the Iron Cross. NOT a swastika.

Maybe aphyon can take a picture of his dice

Back when FOW MK 1 came i out i built 2 armies as i often do when building a new game so i can involve new players.

One force was an armored company based on the 2nd SS panzer division "Viking" The logo on the dice and in history was the Finish swastika adopted by the Finish airforce in WWI predating the rise of the Nazi party and is still in use today.

The second was a mid-war British scout company for the desert rats British 7th armored division-


The dice look like so-


http://dicecollector.com/images/large/ef/c73ccf88143c3228b7908fb3e81721.jpg


http://dicecollector.com/images/large/ff/5be0ae28e13158fadb4e2fe1dcd66b.jpg



A full list of the unit specific dice made for FOW can be found here-

http://www.dicecollector.com/THE_DICE_THEME_BATTLEFRONT_MINIATURES.html


As i noted in my previous post i like to theme my forces this includes dice sets.

I have dice for battletech for my draconis combine, lyran allians and clan hells horse, Khador for war machine, Narn dice for B5 wars, Dwarven dice for my forge fathers, hinomaru/rising sun dice for my japanese imperial naval fleet in victory at sea etc.... just because i no longer play FOW doesn't mean i do not still use the dice sets i own.



Sorry about all the edits the ongoing script error on the forums messed up my original post and i had to sort it all out.

Jesus wept...
I am not seeing someone using literal SS dice saying it's fine to use SS dice because they use faction dice for fantasy armies.

Congratulations 14 pages of what can only be described as word vomit, you've made sure the OP will never ask for advice from this forum ever again and most women will never enter a hobby shop. The utter drivel you lot have been writing is mindboggling and actually worrying.

Tiberias wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Tiberias wrote:By that logic a fething deadbeat piece of crap wife beater is justified in his feelings if he comes home drunk one night and feels angry towards his wife all of a sudden because she looked at him wrong. There is nothing justified about that.

But we're not talking about feelings of violence, we're talking about feeling excluded, or feeling intimidated, or a feeling that isn't "I get to cause other people harm". Similarly, within CONTEXT, you outright state that they're drunk, and therefore not of a right mind. There's no excuse for that, and my comment doesn't endorse those kinds of feelings or the responses to them.

Remember the context of the thread we're talking about here - OP feeling excluded is not the same as a drunk abuser.

No. You don't get to retreat to the detail that the wife beater might be drunk. Forget everything else for a second, this is way too important.

Sure - and then you can address the points you've so gracefully skipped over, when you're done moving the goalposts.

By your logic him feeling angry towards his wife because she looked at him in a way he did not like, is also valid if he is not drunk, it's just what he feels at that moment and not acknowledging that would be erasure would it not?

Wow, way to move the goalposts there! Being drunk, literally being intoxicated, is such a massive point of context here that it speaks for itself without saying, but you can't even stick by your own words! What are you finding so hard to understand about "don't be a dick and tell people that their own feelings are wrong"? If you can't understand that, or the WORLD of difference between being an abuse apologist and defending the feelings of someone who *does* feel abused, then this isn't worth talking about with you.

Like, you *do* realise that you're siding against the abused here with this, right? You're more concerned with being factually right than showing empathy or compassion - what kind of safe space and trusting environment does that foster?

The logic is exactly the same in both arguments, hence why I am so fervently opposed to it. Your feelings are not justified by default.

Your "logic" only works when devoid of context. Either you don't understand context or subtlety, or you're being obtuse deliberately. I suggest you consider which it is before continuing, and after you've addressed the rest of my comments about the onus on making a safe space being on the dominant group.

Da Boss wrote:Women being expected to be better and to be more patient and to put up with weird behaviour from guys is exactly what we're talking about when we talk about gatekeeping. And a lot of it is subconscious and cultural rather than something that people do on purpose.

Exactly this. The idea as well echoed by some users that it's down to the marginalised group to be the ones to expose themselves and be the ones to challenge the dominant forces isn't a million miles from this, and it entirely removes the core issue that if there's a feeling of being marginalised, it's coming from the dominant group, and therefore needs to be *their* responsibility to resolve.

Well, that required some twisted mental gymnastics.

You made the initial argument that feeling angry or threatend when beeing looked at is valid regardless of context! That was YOUR argument! And now you come at me and say you can't evaluate such things without context? Get the hell outa here....

If your logic is: my feeling of being angry or threatened is valid in that moment no matter of context or whether the situation gets cleared up later.......then a piece of gak wife beater suddenly feeling angry towards his wife because she looked at him wrong is also valid in that moment. It's the same logic....hence why I find that train of thought so messed up!
Your feelings are not justified by default.

And you say that me pointing out that severely flawed logic, I would be siding against the hypothetically abused victim? Are you utterly out of your mind?

Feelings are valid.
Actions are not always.

If, in Smudge's example of thinking your friend stole something, you confront your friend, and yell at them, only to later find out that you just misplaced your possession, I'd expect you to feel bad about what you did to your friend. And, if this hypothetical person was better, they wouldn't've done that-they would've talked more calmly and made sure they were right (which they weren't) before doing anything even as drastic as yelling.
If, in the example of an abusive husband, the husband beats his wife because he's angry... That's not acceptable. That's never acceptable. It sure as hell ain't self-defense, it's just "I'm mad, I'll be violent." Feeling angry isn't the issue-attacking someone with your fists is.

I mean, to take an example from my life, I work retail. It's decent enough, but sometimes customers are freaking jerks. That's rude, and my mental monologue is often a non-stop litany of cusses aimed at them. Feeling that they're being rude to me and being mad at them for that is fine. Outwardly, though? I still help them. Because it's my job. I'm not rude to them, because that's not appropriate. My tone might not be nearly as warm or welcoming as it is with a customer that's polite and respectful, but I'm not causing them any harm. If I chose to take action on my feelings, such as cussing them out, I'd be reprimanded by my boss and with reason. If I chose to take extreme action and punched them or intentionally broke their laptop they're picking up or whatever, that'd be majorly wrong.

Reiterating...
Feelings are valid. Actions you take in response to your feelings aren't always.

 Rolsheen wrote:
Congratulations 14 pages of what can only be described as word vomit, you've made sure the OP will never ask for advice from this forum ever again and most women will never enter a hobby shop. The utter drivel you lot have been writing is mindboggling and actually worrying.

Keyboard warrior world does not always equal real life. some members have had bad experiences, some have not. our FLG has several regular female players who we welcome and game with just like everybody else. don't be a jerk, roll dice, move models and build a fun community of gamers.

 JNAProductions wrote:
.

Reiterating...
Feelings are valid. Actions you take in response to your feelings aren't always.

Just curious JNA,

So the wife beater who is always angry at his wife, (maybe based on his perceptions of her actions, looks towards him, words etc ) are his feelings valid?

I'm not sure I can get on board with that kind of thinking.

Oh stop it with the mental gymnastics. If you are angry with a friend because he stole some thing from you and you subsequently yell at him only to find out your friend had absolutely nothing to do with it....not only were your actions not justified in that scenario, but also your feeling of angriness directed towards your friend.

Why is it that hard to admit that thinking absolutely every feeling is valid not matter the context, is a seriously messed up way of thinking?

Deadnight wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
.

Reiterating...
Feelings are valid. Actions you take in response to your feelings aren't always.

So the wife beater who is always angry at his wife, based on his perceptions of her actions, looks, words etc - are his feelings valid?

I'm not sure I can get on board with that thinking.

Yes, they are.

Said person should 100% seek therapy and try to calm down, because being constantly angry isn't good for you or those you interact with.

But being angry is not a justification for hurting other people. You control your responses to your feelings-if the husband decides to seek a divorce, because being with his wife doesn't make him happy, she just makes him angry, that's an appropriate response. Attacking her is not.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
.

Reiterating...
Feelings are valid. Actions you take in response to your feelings aren't always.

So the wife beater who is always angry at his wife, based on his perceptions of her actions, looks, words etc - are his feelings valid?

I'm not sure I can get on board with that thinking.

Yes, they are.

Said person should 100% seek therapy and try to calm down, because being constantly angry isn't good for you or those you interact with.

But being angry is not a justification for hurting other people. You control your responses to your feelings-if the husband decides to seek a divorce, because being with his wife doesn't make him happy, she just makes him angry, that's an appropriate response. Attacking her is not.

Ffs that's not what sgt smudge argued. They specifically said that the feeling in that moment is what matters regardless of context. So the wife beater being constantly angry or horrible to his wife is valid and justifiable in the same way someone in a game store feels uncomfortable even though it might just be a misunderstanding.
Thats messed up.

Tiberias wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
.

Reiterating...
Feelings are valid. Actions you take in response to your feelings aren't always.

So the wife beater who is always angry at his wife, based on his perceptions of her actions, looks, words etc - are his feelings valid?

I'm not sure I can get on board with that thinking.

Yes, they are.

Said person should 100% seek therapy and try to calm down, because being constantly angry isn't good for you or those you interact with.

But being angry is not a justification for hurting other people. You control your responses to your feelings-if the husband decides to seek a divorce, because being with his wife doesn't make him happy, she just makes him angry, that's an appropriate response. Attacking her is not.

Ffs that's not what sgt smudge argued. They specifically said that the feeling in that moment is what matters regardless of context. So the wife beater being constantly angry or horrible to his wife is valid and justifiable in the same way someone in a game store feels uncomfortable even though it might just be a misunderstanding.
Thats messed up.

...

Yes, the feeling matters. But your response ALSO matters. What are you even arguing? Are you saying that having a pattern of unhealthy and potentially dangerous emotions (being constantly angry at people you should care about) is the same as a one-off bout of being mad that doesn't result in anyone being hurt?

Because Smudge said NOTHING about being horrible to someone being acceptable. They said the FEELINGS are valid, not the actions.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
.

Reiterating...
Feelings are valid. Actions you take in response to your feelings aren't always.

So the wife beater who is always angry at his wife, based on his perceptions of her actions, looks, words etc - are his feelings valid?

I'm not sure I can get on board with that thinking.

Yes, they are.

Said person should 100% seek therapy and try to calm down, because being constantly angry isn't good for you or those you interact with.

But being angry is not a justification for hurting other people. You control your responses to your feelings-if the husband decides to seek a divorce, because being with his wife doesn't make him happy, she just makes him angry, that's an appropriate response. Attacking her is not.

I disagree. I can't accept that they are valid.

'Valid' implies justified, having a sound basis in logic or fact etc. If you're saying theire "real", that's a different thing to "valid". And real =/= valid, for clarity.

I mean, folks like Elliot Rodgers also thought their feelings were valid. We can take this thinking to very dark places and I do not think this is a good thing..

Do you not understand the difference between feeling angry and actually hurting someone?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
.

Reiterating...
Feelings are valid. Actions you take in response to your feelings aren't always.

So the wife beater who is always angry at his wife, based on his perceptions of her actions, looks, words etc - are his feelings valid?

I'm not sure I can get on board with that thinking.

Yes, they are.

Said person should 100% seek therapy and try to calm down, because being constantly angry isn't good for you or those you interact with.

But being angry is not a justification for hurting other people. You control your responses to your feelings-if the husband decides to seek a divorce, because being with his wife doesn't make him happy, she just makes him angry, that's an appropriate response. Attacking her is not.

Ffs that's not what sgt smudge argued. They specifically said that the feeling in that moment is what matters regardless of context. So the wife beater being constantly angry or horrible to his wife is valid and justifiable in the same way someone in a game store feels uncomfortable even though it might just be a misunderstanding.
Thats messed up.

...

Yes, the feeling matters. But your response ALSO matters. What are you even arguing? Are you saying that having a pattern of unhealthy and potentially dangerous emotions (being constantly angry at people you should care about) is the same as a one-off bout of being mad that doesn't result in anyone being hurt?

Because Smudge said NOTHING about being horrible to someone being acceptable. They said the FEELINGS are valid, not the actions.

Oh jesus christ. What I am arguing for 3 pages is this:

If someone in a game store looks at you in a menacing way, it could just be that they didn't even mean to look specifically at you or meant somebody else, whatever. It could just be a misunderstanding. And I argued that aiming to clear up such potential misunderstandings in a civil manner is the way to go.

Sgt Smudge argued that it doesn't matter even if the situation gets completely cleared up as a misunderstanding it does not matter because the other person already felt targeted or threatened and their feelings have to be taken as valid, otherwise it's erasure. People shouldn't ever have to feel that way in the first place. This train of thought is absolutely ludicrous to me, hence my comparison with the piece of gak wife beater.

Edit: and for the last damn time, I am not saying every interaction like this is just a misunderstanding, that was never the point. If someone in a game store proclaims that this hobby is not for women or that women are not welcome then they should be called out as an idiot and politely asked to leave and/or excluded from game activities with other people.....but that was not the point.

 Gert wrote:
Jesus wept...
I am not seeing someone using literal SS dice saying it's fine to use SS dice because they use faction dice for fantasy armies.

It gives context, and context is important. He also has British "desert rat" dice. (Not a fantasy army).

So are we saying context is not important? Mel Brooks uses the swastika in The Producers. Obviousy Mel Brooks is not a nazi.

Aphyon collects dice that match his armies. Does that make him a nazi? I'd say no.

If the context was different, I might have a different view of that. But from what little I know, I'll err on "not a nazi", as owning dice does not a nazi make. Questionable choice? Yeah maybe. I wouldn't own them.

Incidentally the finnish military used a yellow on blue swastika (not even the curved one on the dice, but full on straight-arm) up until 2020, but I think it's fairly safe to say that the fins are not nazis either.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Do you not understand the difference between feeling angry and actually hurting someone?

Generally speaking, actually hurting someone is a bad thing - no disagreements (with the exception of, say, punching Hitler or Marvel villains or things like that).

However, to my mind, the reason 'why' someone is feeling angry is a huge component of whether thrm feeling angry is valid or not.

Some things are arguably justified. Some aren't. Context matters. Saying feelings are always valid confers legitimacy. In my mind, that's dangerous.

Deadnight wrote:
Context matters. Saying feelings are always valid confers legitimacy. In my mind, that's dangerous.

^100%

Seems like a huge chunk of maturity is learning how to keep feelings in check while you use other faculties to suss out what's actually going on.

I'd find those dice pretty tasteless for sure, and I'd raise my eyebrows. But I feel similarly about WW2 wargames in general, it's a bit too close for comfort in my view. I prefer stuff set further in the past or in fantastic settings.

I don't assume that people who play WW2 wargames and have Nazi armies are actually Nazis. But it's also true that if a Nazi sympathiser was gonna play wargames, I wouldn't be surprised if it was an SS army they went for.

I think there's a bit of mystique around the SS in any event and they get a bit overhyped in the games systems that I've seen.

This is a bit off topic for the thread though, isn't it?

Deadnight wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Do you not understand the difference between feeling angry and actually hurting someone?

Generally speaking, actually hurting someone is a bad thing - no disagreements (with the exception of, say, punching Hitler or Marvel villains or things like that).

However, to my mind, the reason 'why' someone is feeling angry is a huge component of whether thrm feeling angry is valid or not.

Some things are arguably justified. Some aren't. Context matters. Saying feelings are always valid confers legitimacy. In my mind, that's dangerous.

Thank you, someone gets it.

 Da Boss wrote:
I'd find those dice pretty tasteless for sure, and I'd raise my eyebrows. But I feel similarly about WW2 wargames in general, it's a bit too close for comfort in my view. I prefer stuff set further in the past or in fantastic settings.

I don't assume that people who play WW2 wargames and have Nazi armies are actually Nazis. But it's also true that if a Nazi sympathiser was gonna play wargames, I wouldn't be surprised if it was an SS army they went for.

I think there's a bit of mystique around the SS in any event and they get a bit overhyped in the games systems that I've seen.

This is a bit off topic for the thread though, isn't it?

Hollywood has done a great job at making them into captivating villains, for better or for worse.

But how it's related to the topic? It's just an example of how quickly the accusation of "nazi" comes out I think, and by extension how name calling becomes the talking point rather than the actual arguments being made. Case in point and all . . .

But at the base of it, even a nazi/bigot/commie/insert-label-here can make a salient point in a discussion. Not that I want them around, but a salient point remains something to be contented with regardless of the source. Grab the useful bit of info and discard any swill that might come along with it.

Tiberias wrote:Ffs that's not what sgt smudge argued. They specifically said that the feeling in that moment is what matters regardless of context.

When did I say "regardless of context"? I said that their feelings were valid - that wasn't, however, irrespective of context. *You* might choose to ignore context (such as the context in your prior example about the abuser being drunk, a goalpost you very hastily shifted, I might add), but *I* didn't ever say that.

Feelings are valid, but those feelings do have a context of their own. The feelings are real, the feelings are valid, but they *do* have context. Clearly, you don't know what I was actually arguing, do you?

So the wife beater being constantly angry or horrible to his wife is valid and justifiable in the same way someone in a game store feels uncomfortable even though it might just be a misunderstanding.
Thats messed up.

No, what's more messed up is that you thought that the two could be in any way related, and you chose to make that comparison. Why on earth did you think that was a smart thing to do?

JNAProductions wrote:Because Smudge said NOTHING about being horrible to someone being acceptable. They said the FEELINGS are valid, not the actions.

Thank you. There is no excuse for abuse, full stop. I have no idea how anyone read into what I wrote and took that away from it, but it honestly feels like people are just looking for a way to avoid listening to other people's testimony here.

Deadnight wrote:'Valid' implies justified, having a sound basis in logic or fact etc. If you're saying theire "real", that's a different thing to "valid". And real =/= valid, for clarity.

See, I don't think I agree with that. I don't agree with the implication that "valid" means "justified", and I put "valid" on a closer pegging to "real". A valid feeling *exists*, but isn't necessarily correct. My point is that the feeling definitely happened, and absolutely was real to the person experiencing it, and that that feeling should be respected. That doesn't mean it's always correct, but was that feeling felt? Yes.
I think we're using two very different definitions of what "valid" means here.

I think there may have been a miscommunication here, I feel. Which is exceptionally ironic, considering how easy Tiberias made resolving said miscommunications sound - before they started twisting my words into elaborate shapes.

Tiberias wrote:Oh jesus christ. What I am arguing for 3 pages is this:

If someone in a game store looks at you in a menacing way, it could just be that they didn't even mean to look specifically at you or meant somebody else, whatever. It could just be a misunderstanding. And I argued that aiming to clear up such potential misunderstandings in a civil manner is the way to go.

That's all well and good, except when people don't feel safe to talk in a civil manner.

It *could* be a misunderstanding, but the point is that THEY STILL DON'T FEEL SAFE. Do you understand that? And do you understand how to resolve that? I've mentioned it enough times by now.

Sgt Smudge argued that it doesn't matter even if the situation gets completely cleared up as a misunderstanding it does not matter because the other person already felt targeted or threatened and their feelings have to be taken as valid, otherwise it's erasure. People shouldn't ever have to feel that way in the first place. This train of thought is absolutely ludicrous to me, hence my comparison with the piece of gak wife beater.

You can't rewrite time, for feth's sake. As evidenced by this thread, there seems to very clearly have been a miscommunication, which I've addressed in Deadnight's post - but you know what? All the annoyance that you've undoubtedly felt about me in that time? That's also valid.

You felt annoyed and irritated by me, for sure - and even though this seems to be a hell of a misunderstanding of what "valid" even means and implies, you still felt that. You can't erase that, and shouldn't. But you *can* grow from it.

Deadnight wrote:However, to my mind, the reason 'why' someone is feeling angry is a huge component of whether thrm feeling angry is valid or not.

Absolutely - but I'm not talking about "someone looked at me so I'm angry" - in fact, that's not an example I used anywhere. The example I *actually* used was "I might feel threatened by someone looking at me in a certain way" - fear, not anger. Tiberias here decided to blow this out of context and put this absurd idea that I support abuse out there, in order to what? Continue this idea that we shouldn't listen to the testimony of marginalised folk? Who does that help?

Some things are arguably justified. Some aren't. Context matters. Saying feelings are always valid confers legitimacy. In my mind, that's dangerous.

I don't believe it does confer legitimacy in action at all - that sounds like an inference you've made, but which I don't infer myself.

And you're right - context does matter - Tiberias here, however, seems to miss that, and thought it was okay, in a thread where someone's feelings were being routinely gakked on for being illegitmate, to declare that having those feelings was akin to wanting to become an abuser. Talk about a lack of context.

Insectum7 wrote:Seems like a huge chunk of maturity is learning how to keep feelings in check while you use other faculties to suss out what's actually going on.

And that includes certain people keeping their gob shut before telling someone that their feelings aren't valid because they didn't speak out in a situation they didn't feel safe in.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
.

Deadnight wrote:'Valid' implies justified, having a sound basis in logic or fact etc. If you're saying theire "real", that's a different thing to "valid". And real =/= valid, for clarity.

See, I don't think I agree with that. I don't agree with the implication that "valid" means "justified", and I put "valid" on a closer pegging to "real". A valid feeling *exists*, but isn't necessarily correct. My point is that the feeling definitely happened, and absolutely was real to the person experiencing it, and that that feeling should be respected. That doesn't mean it's always correct, but was that feeling felt? Yes.
I think we're using two very different definitions of what "valid" means here.

A valid feeling exists, so does an invalid one. Real =/= valid.

With respect, Theres no implication to valid. I'm basing valid on what the dictionary says. It means legitimate, or correct like 'valid' results.it means things you can justify. We can't use invalid results, for example. Theyre worthless.

'Sound, just, well founded' was the first definition to pip up on a quick google.

I did think you were using valid to imply 'real'. I do think using valid in this manner is incorrect.

And go easy on Tiberias. Take a step back on this one- His points on this aren't exactly wrong and they came across to me like him having an issue with an inflexible position that can be twisted to confer legitimacy to badwrong things - 'all feelings are valid' justifies how hypothetical wife beater feels, if you consider the dictionary definition (and my) understanding of valid, and not 'real' as you've stated toy view it. It bothers me in exactly the same way. It justifies the likes of elliot Rodgers. Going from drunken wife beater to wife beater in his analogy isn't really 'moving goalposts'. And with respect it does expose a weakness of what you were saying.

And I'm sorry but I do agree with him, and if you consider their perception with regard to 'real'/'valid' you should consider going back and rereading their posts. The thrust of his argument does has merit.

And lets all be honest. We know its ridiculous to confer legitimacy on wife beater. Feelings can be wrong and improper. They can be overblown and they can be misplaced and misdirected. None of these is 'valid'. I've no doubt we've all been at the wrong end of this. Hypothetical Wife beaters feelings of anger might absolutely be real, they're not valid. You've said before I think you've seen or experienced abuse? Apologies for bringing this up, but their feelings fueling their acts are absolutely not valid.

Lets not go down that road..