| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to admit it, but I don't get the reference...No reference. Just memories of tenth grade.
EDIT - Don't worry. It ended quite happily. Got my first girlfriend the next year, and went through a string of psychos until I finally met my wonderfully sane wife, and put a ring on that as soon as she said yes...roughly four proposals and a year after the first time I asked. Seven years this month!
Sigh...I remember those years. Seems like forever ago. Been married to mine for 17, been a couple for 21, and it just seems like she's always been there. Still trying to figure out how I got by without her...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Damnit man, I've got to start waiting like five minutes to reply to stuff. Getting real tired of people editing crap before I comment, and then looking like a fool because I thought they were talking about my stupid alias's comment instead of another one.
Dammit GTG, you're gamer, not a perfectionist!!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people who believe that life can't possibly have not been created by a higher power are extraordinarily bizarre. But I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs.I agree. I believe in a higher power because of certain experiences of mine (which I will not detail here), but it is certainly believable to me that life exists somewhere from pure chance.
Besides, that greater power had to come from somewhere, it didn't just pop into existence for no reason.
I also find it very strange that the people who believe that there must be a Creator on the grounds that evolution without one is too unlikely....
...are completely happy to have the Creator not be created itself, but leave its existence unquestioned.
If you're comfortable with the idea that the Creator didn't need to be created, then it's even easier to be comfortable with the idea that life evolved without a Creator, because life started so simply but a Creator capable of creating, well, everything, must be infinitely more complex, and how much more unlikely is something like a Creator to spontaneously appear?
If you think that the Creator was itself created (by another Creator), where did the first Creator come from?
This post is not intended to insult Creationists, just sincerely trying to understand the logic behind the idea that life/the universe spontaneously appearing is too unlikely to be possible, while the Creator idea is not held up to the same criteria.
Alright marriage passing contests!
Been married 14 years almost, met in high school, different towns, a little over 23 years ago, went out for 8 months then, was the only person I did cliche high school stuff with like prom and stuff so I suppose you can say we were high school sweethearts, I love her more and more every day :-)
I think people who believe that life can't possibly have not been created by a higher power are extraordinarily bizarre. But I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs.I agree. I believe in a higher power because of certain experiences of mine (which I will not detail here), but it is certainly believable to me that life exists somewhere from pure chance.
Besides, that greater power had to come from somewhere, it didn't just pop into existence for no reason.
I also find it very strange that the people who believe that there must be a Creator on the grounds that evolution without one is too unlikely....
...are completely happy to have the Creator not be created itself, but leave its existence unquestioned.
If you're comfortable with the idea that the Creator didn't need to be created, then it's even easier to be comfortable with the idea that life evolved without a Creator, because life started so simply but a Creator capable of creating, well, everything, must be infinitely more complex, and how much more unlikely is something like a Creator to spontaneously appear?
If you think that the Creator was itself created (by another Creator), where did the first Creator come from?
This post is not intended to insult Creationists, just sincerely trying to understand the logic behind the idea that life/the universe spontaneously appearing is too unlikely to be possible, while the Creator idea is not held up to the same criteria.
The carbon units suppress the Creator...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You may have quantity, but I have quality.
My wife thinks flowers are a stupid waste of money, encourages me to hang out with my friends without her, loves comedies, never forces me to watch chick flicks with her, drops "That's What She Said" jokes, has parents that adore me, regularly calls out stereotypical "women drama" as some of the stupidest crap she's ever heard, and has the exact same opinion as myself in regard to not having kids.
That's not even counting the body. Hachi Machi, the body.
I win. :-P
The reason I give my right wing fundamentalist Christian views here is not to try to persuade anyone who won't agree with me anyway; it's to let those who do agree with me know that they're not alone.I figure it was more of a general thing. When someone expresses any opinion that's even vaguely right of center, a dozen posters will jump all over them. If they bother to respond to support their opinions, one of the Paizo mods generically comes to lock that thread down.1. Someone brought up a remotely close to right wing point. If I know my Paizo forums, that means this thread is destined for lock down in a page or so. No right wing opinions allowed here, unless they're purely economic in nature. (I'm a straight centrist independent, with rather across the board opinions that jump sides depending on specifics, but it doesn't mean I'm not blind to blatant favoritism.)Wait. A right wing point. And I missed it. Attack!!!
Or did you mean the evolution thing? A couple people, including me, commented, there was a lot of jokes about eating dinosaurs and it seems to have blown over.
I suppose we could argue about Paizo's supposed favoritism, if you'd like.
Oh how the times change, eh? The irony is delicious.
If you ask me, the religious fundamentalists have it coming to them, but that's just my opinion, man.
Don't worry, Right Wing Fundamentalist Christians...
You're not alone.
It gets better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please define "fundamentalist" so I know what group you think deserves hatred.
Because the literal definition of Christianity is anyone who self-identifies Jesus as the Christ, or anointed one sent from God, which if I last recall comprised roughly 1/3 of the earth and the overwhelming majority of America.
I just want to know exactly what characteristics that entails, because it's one of those labels like "evangelist" that people throw around without clearly defined limits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You may have quantity, but I have quality.
My wife thinks flowers are a stupid waste of money, encourages me to hang out with my friends without her, loves comedies, never forces me to watch chick flicks with her, drops "That's What She Said" jokes, has parents that adore me, and regularly calls out stereotypical "women drama" as some of the stupidest crap she's ever heard, and has the exact same opinion as myself in regard to not having kids.
That's not even counting the body. Hachi Machi, the body.
I win. :-P
Wasn't looking for a competition, but since you geared it that way:
My wife doesn't expect me to get her gifts or make romantic gestures for made up holidays, enjoys sci-fi, reads my comics and gets into discussions with me over plot, games in my group every week, points out other women when we're out and says "check her out" so I can, doesn't expect me to read her mind, even though its seems sometimes I can, and is as amazed and astounded by our little girl as I am.
Not saying mine's better, but I also have a quality marriage. I am very lucky.
Can we please stop with the b~**@!@$, there are plenty of other less entertaining threads you can get locked with this and honestly it's getting old, we get it, nerds are always right about whatever and everyone is oppressed by the man, or not, doesn't matter :-)
Edit: well that was an unfortunate series of getting Ninja'd, think I I'll just go back to my smurf den bow :-)
|
Contributor
|
Please define "fundamentalist" so I know what group you think deserves hatred.
Because the literal definition of Christianity is anyone who self-identifies Jesus as the Christ, or anointed one sent from God, which if I last recall comprised roughly 1/3 of the earth and the overwhelming majority of America.
I just want to know exactly what characteristics that entails, because it's one of those labels like "evangelist" that people throw around without clearly defined limits.
I suspect he was referring to the poster he was quoting - a self-described "right wing fundamentalist Christian".
Can we please stop with the b~&@%!*!, there are plenty of other less entertaining threads you can get locked with this and honestly it's getting old, we get it, nerds are always right about whatever and everyone is oppressed by the man, or not, doesn't matter :-)
Edit: well that was an unfortunate series of getting Ninja'd, think I I'll just go back to my sxxxf den bow :-)
Its dead Captain...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, how far could the concept have gone unfettered?
It's a thread about confessions that will be shunned - by it's very nature it's doomed for b***hing.
Wait...wait...
...when did they add a Q?
What's the Q?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The second Ghost Rider movie was a cinematic masterpiece.
Everyone wanted their own letter. I can understand it, but it gets cumbersome to reference.
See, darn it, I said I wasn't gonna get into it. Never mind. Look...just ignore what I said. I really don't want to jump down that rabbit hole. I REALLY don't. I don't care enough to fight about this. I really don't. I honestly am going to just delete the previous post. Fifty to one odds what I said has already been viscerally reacted to anyway.
EDIT - Holy crap, I managed to get this post out and the previous one deleted without being shyte upon.
....I may have underestimated a few things.
Have some tea. You'll feel better. Seriously.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen people suggest that certain groups should be treated as equals but yet refuse to discard their opinions that certain behavior actions were immoral (yet still insist upon treating those people equally) who have their throats jumped down for even saying that much.
Assuming you're talking about LGBTQ issues here I'll just say that one reason I'm not content with that is that I've known people who've been seriously hurt by growing up in groups that consider such actions immoral. As a child, navigating the awakening of sexuality is difficult enough when you conform to your society's norms. When you're different, it's vastly harder, even if it's theoretically accepted. When you're constantly being told that what you're coming to realize is your true nature is inherently immoral and any expression of it will be a sin it's even worse.
The suicide rate of LGBTQ youth is much higher than normal. The suicide rate of LGBTQ kids growing up in religious settings with strong anti-LGBTQ messages is even higher. I assume, but don't have direct evidence, that your "actions are immoral, but they should be treated equally" isn't as damaging as more extreme approaches, but would be shocked if it wasn't worse than a completely accepting approach.
I also suspect that most of time "have their throats jumped down" equates to being called prejudiced or homophobic or bigoted or some such, not to anything more extreme that LGBTQ people face just going about their lives.
Eh. It depends but there are many threads where it is just better to not speak at all. I've supported LGBTQ posters on threads and been told that they don't need my white male cis privileged opinion on anything. I've commented that I don't think cis is the greatest term and don't particularly like it being used, and was told to shut my cis mouth that I don't get a choice. I mentioned that being a white male doesn't give you a free ride to happy land and was told I didn't know pain or loss or anything and to shut my damned mouth.
Things of that nature don't make you feel warm and fuzzy towards people that are preaching equality and don't call me a name I don't like, you know?
I say!
Am I going have to bust the Bores of Tickwood to get you people in line, I'm a little rusty and I have no idea where Charles has gone off to but what the hell I'll give it an old Oxford go at it wut wut.
Hey man, you're an interesting character. Tell me your story. I could play you in my next film...
Bazinga!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Confession: I don't always hold meetings to have people vote on changes I plan for every world and game I run. Sometimes I make the decision myself like we used to in the Unenlightened Past.
So far no one has cared or voted me out of office or ran away screaming hatred at me.
In combat, my goal as a GM is to get every player except for 1 down to 1 point above negative their constitution score (stabilized), and have that last player just barely win the fight by the luckiest of rolls.
Preferably, that player has no access to healing, and it's all the more dramatic as the party must wait a few days in character to wake up and be like "WTF I'm alive!?"
Privilege is a really tricky concept to talk about, especially the intersection of different types of privilege, but we need to get better at it, since the concept is important.
The concept is too big to be meaningful, and ignores at least half of the interactions between people. You can't throw an insult that big, especially as its often used as an ad hom to render someone's opinions meaningless, at people and not have it derail the conversation.
By using privilege, which encompasses every interaction between people, you've made EVERYTHING a legitimate response point rather than a derail.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does happen and it shouldn't. Sometimes it depends on how you phrased things. Sometimes it's a blatant overreaction.
I'm also a privileged cis straight white male and it's damn rare that I get told that. When it has happened I've gotten support from other non- cis/straight/white/male people in the discussion.
Both the cis and the "white males don't always have it easy" are commonly used to derail discussion and even when not intended that way are easy to kneejerk react to. Which isn't good, but is understandable. Privilege is a really tricky concept to talk about, especially the intersection of different types of privilege, but we need to get better at it, since the concept is important.
It happens here with alarming frequency. Much of that is the Internet's need to overreact to everything (as mentioned all over the place.) I've worked to not derail conversation but often try to make a point that isn't as popular or put forth a personal anecdote that has something to do with the conversation. Neither were received well.
I've marched in LGBTQ rallies in college. I went to a predominately female college that had a rather large gay population. In the South. I'm familiar with how to conduct myself without ruffling feathers too much and yet here .. if you don't say the right thing to the right person or support the right poster, you are seen as The Enemy.
This isn't a woe is me, they won't care about my point. This is more a WTF is wrong with people. If you (any you) want support and compassion for whatever your plight is, from equal rights to free waffles, you have to be able to discern other posters words as less of an attack. That and realizing that not everyone supports every facet of your posts with 100% conviction.
If not, we're not having a discussion, we're listening to a speech.
Please take the "serious stuff" to other threads, the LGBT thread, for instance (there is one). This was a fun thread. WAS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please take the "serious stuff" to other threads, the LGBT thread, for instance (there is one). This was a fun thread. WAS.
I keep trying, but I'm being ignored.
My word! Ol' Chap,
It'll be nice again, just needs a bit of elbow grease is all, now where's Jeeves with the tea and crumpets, it's been hours and good Lord Foxglove has yet to return as promised, I fear soon we shall have to strike out on our own...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh. It depends but there are many threads where it is just better to not speak at all. I've supported LGBTQ posters on threads and been told that they don't need my white male cis privileged opinion on anything. I've commented that I don't think cis is the greatest term and don't particularly like it being used, and was told to shut my cis mouth that I don't get a choice. I mentioned that being a white male doesn't give you a free ride to happy land and was told I didn't know pain or loss or anything and to shut my damned mouth.
Things of that nature don't make you feel warm and fuzzy towards people that are preaching equality and don't call me a name I don't like, you know?
If you (any you) want support and compassion for whatever your plight is
If you only support equality when marginalized people are nice to you, you don't support equality.
Straight people, white people, men, neurotypical people, etc. -- all of us who enjoy privilege in some fashion -- get the fair shake that privilege represents regardless of whether we're nice people, good people, pleasant people, well-behaved people, etc. And marginalized people deserve that fair shake, too, regardless of whether they talk in ways you like or are offended by.
If you're only supporting marginalized people when they behave in ways you like, you're abusing the privilege you have, because you're essentially using your supposed allyship as a carrot/stick to compel certain behavior from them: "Sure, I'll treat you like an equal--as long as you only speak in these ways."
It's not about individual people and their behavior. It's about rights that a class of people are being denied.
That doesn't mean that you're not within your rights to set boundaries for how you'll interact with people. if you feel that someone's being abusive, you have the right to ask them to stop or not to interact with them, even if it happened in the context of a discussion about marginalization/rights. That doesn't make you a bad person or a racist or whatever. That makes you an individual with boundaries.
But that's different from conflating the worthiness of the cause with the behavior of individuals arguing for the cause.
Either you recognize and support the idea that equal treatment is an inherent right, not something that white people/men/cis people/etc. should get automatically and other people should have to earn by sucking up to privileged people, or you don't, and should stop pretending.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you (any you) want support and compassion for whatever your plight isIf you only support equality when marginalized people are nice to you, you don't support equality.
Straight people, white people, men, neurotypical people, etc. -- all of us who enjoy privilege in some fashion -- get the fair shake that privilege represents regardless of whether we're nice people, good people, pleasant people, well-behaved people, etc. And marginalized people deserve that fair shake, too, regardless of whether they talk in ways you like or are offended by.
If you're only supporting marginalized people when they behave in ways you like, you're abusing the privilege you have, because you're essentially using your supposed allyship as a carrot/stick to compel certain behavior from them: "Sure, I'll treat you like an equal--as long as you only speak in these ways."
It's not about individual people and their behavior. It's about rights that a class of people are being denied.
That doesn't mean that you're not within your rights to set boundaries for how you'll interact with people. if you feel that someone's being abusive, you have the right to ask them to stop or not to interact with them, even if it happened in the context of a discussion about marginalization/rights. That doesn't...
Good points.
Well, if Jessica is here, perhaps we're not headed for immediate lock-down city, but let's be nice folks, please. This has been fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh. It depends but there are many threads where it is just better to not speak at all. I've supported LGBTQ posters on threads and been told that they don't need my white male cis privileged opinion on anything. I've commented that I don't think cis is the greatest term and don't particularly like it being used, and was told to shut my cis mouth that I don't get a choice. I mentioned that being a white male doesn't give you a free ride to happy land and was told I didn't know pain or loss or anything and to shut my damned mouth.
Things of that nature don't make you feel warm and fuzzy towards people that are preaching equality and don't call me a name I don't like, you know?
If you (any you) want support and compassion for whatever your plight isIf you only support equality when marginalized people are nice to you, you don't support equality.
Straight people, white people, men, neurotypical people, etc. -- all of us who enjoy privilege in some fashion -- get the fair shake that privilege represents regardless of whether we're nice people, good people, pleasant people, well-behaved people, etc. And marginalized people deserve that fair shake, too, regardless of whether they talk in ways you like or are offended by.
If you're only supporting marginalized people when they behave in ways you like, you're abusing the privilege you have, because you're essentially using your supposed allyship as a carrot/stick to compel certain behavior from them: "Sure, I'll treat you like an equal--as long as you only speak in these ways."
It's not about individual people and their behavior. It's about rights that a class of people are being denied.
That doesn't mean that you're not within your rights to set boundaries for how you'll interact with people. if you feel that someone's being abusive, you have the right to ask them to stop or not to interact with them, even if it happened in the context of a discussion about marginalization/rights. That doesn't make you a bad person or a racist or whatever. That makes you an individual with boundaries.
But that's different from conflating the worthiness of the cause with the behavior of individuals arguing for the cause.
Either you recognize and support the idea that equal treatment is an inherent right, not something that white people/men/cis people/etc. should get automatically and other people should have to earn by sucking up to privileged people, or you don't, and should stop pretending.
I think you are misunderstanding me. I don't care if you are nice, mean, or whatever. I do care that you (the universal you) want respect but are not willing to give it. Bringing into question my level of support or willingness to give such is a cheap blow; I've not said anything in that manner.
My support for causes (whatever they may be) isn't based on a conversation on these forums. My post was about conversations being shut down and even the most polite conversation often being met with posts like this: attack, attack, attack. If it's mentioned, that post is attacked as well.
It isn't a matter of the worthiness of the cause. But with any idea, those speaking for it can often color people's perception of the whole idea/group/whatever.
tl;dr: It'd be nice if people could be less crappy on the boards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the happy fun thread now!
Confession: I like keeping track of arrows and other consumables.
Back to the happy fun thread now!
Confession: I like keeping track of arrows and other consumables.
I try to, but I always forget because of so much other stuff going on. When I'm an actual player it's easy to do, though.
I say! I might've gone too far foreshadowing a certain NPC in Rise of the Runelords, but it's not my fault really, Tangent101's typo gave me the idea of hunting Bores instead of boars, also I blame that Ice-T movie from back in the day, not to mention my parent's habit of associating with college professors, really everyone but me :-)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen people suggest that certain groups should be treated as equals but yet refuse to discard their opinions that certain behavior actions were immoral (yet still insist upon treating those people equally) who have their throats jumped down for even saying that much.
Assuming you're talking about LGBTQ issues here I'll just say that one reason I'm not content with that is that I've known people who've been seriously hurt by growing up in groups that consider such actions immoral. As a child, navigating the awakening of sexuality is difficult enough when you conform to your society's norms. When you're different, it's vastly harder, even if it's theoretically accepted. When you're constantly being told that what you're coming to realize is your true nature is inherently immoral and any expression of it will be a sin it's even worse.
The suicide rate of LGBTQ youth is much higher than normal. The suicide rate of LGBTQ kids growing up in religious settings with strong anti-LGBTQ messages is even higher. I assume, but don't have direct evidence, that your "actions are immoral, but they should be treated equally" isn't as damaging as more extreme approaches, but would be shocked if it wasn't worse than a completely accepting approach.
I also suspect that most of time "have their throats jumped down" equates to being called prejudiced or homophobic or bigoted or some such, not to anything more extreme that LGBTQ people face just going about their lives.Eh. It depends but there are many threads where it is just better to not speak at all. I've supported LGBTQ posters on threads and been told that they don't need my white male cis privileged opinion on anything. I've commented that I don't think cis is the greatest term and don't particularly like it being used, and was told to shut my cis mouth that I don't get a choice. I mentioned that being a white male doesn't give you a free ride to happy land and was told I didn't know pain or loss or anything and to shut my damned mouth.
Things of that nature don't make you feel warm and fuzzy towards people that are preaching equality and don't call me a name I don't like, you know?
The thing about 'cis' is that it fills a needed language niche. I remember when the term was first coming into use and the only real competition it had was non-trans, which IMO is worse. (It's bad form to describe people by what they *aren't*.) 'Cis' being a term from organic chemistry was a short, elegant word that didn't have any baggage associated with it. It really was about as good as you were going to get.
As for the other stuff...
I'm in a really weird position. Because I completely repressed my trans side until I was well into my 30s, I've been a married straight cis white male from the south with kids. I remember it very well. And now I'm a married lesbian transwoman with kids. I've seen both sides, and I can compare them.
Trust me...everything women tell you about male privelege is true. As an open-minded, well-intentioned, compassionate straight white male who doesn't have your head in the sand, you may think you understand...but you only know about half of it. And that's not your fault, it's not something you should feel any shame about, it's just life. And it just means that when women tell you about their experience that you should believe them.
Ditto with straight privelege. Ditto with cis privelege. I can't say anything about white privilege from experience, so as a policy I just believe what people of color tell me about their experiences.
Having said all that...do I think that people who have only ever experienced things from the queer, trans, and/or female side of things don't understand the truly crappy parts about being a straight cis white male? Yes, I do. Being a straight white male doesn't give you any *actual* power, all it does is give you the presumption in most circumstances that you can't be casually dismissed because you *might* have power. What that privilege really boils down to is that you get an extra few minutes to make your case. Now what that extra few minutes is worth in the long run...depends entirely on your circumstance. Sometimes it's nothing. Sometimes it's everything. But it's always better to have it than not to have it.
Personally, I think the elephant in the room is *class* privelege and I don't think that we will ever truly make progress on any of the other equality fronts until we get a handle on that. Because in the end, money is fungible and in the right quantities can overwhelm everything else.
EDIT: Sorry...this is what happens when it takes >30 mins to write a post. Feel free to ignore and move on. Or, you know, shun.
I'm just gonna take this thread out behind the chemical shed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My word! these woods are thick!... are... are those hounds i hear... I say!... where'd Charles go?...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
he thing about 'cis' is that it fills a needed language niche. I remember when the term was first coming into use and the only real competition it had was non-trans, which IMO is worse. (It's bad form to describe people by what they *aren't*.) 'Cis' being a term from organic chemistry was a short, elegant word that didn't have any baggage associated with it. It really was about as good as you were going to get.Technically cis (on or to this; the near side of; short of; before) comes from latin where it is the opposite preposition to trans (across, beyond; the other side of).
You are correct.
And because of that, in organic chemistry, different isomers with otherwise identical compositions would be labeled as cis- or trans- depending on the exact geometric orientation of the relevant atoms.
When cis- was being coined as an appropriate antonym to trans-, the people doing the coining were citing its usage in chemistry, rather than citing latin directly. So that's what I consider its origin to be.
EDIT: On further pondering...
I don't think I can clearly say where they were pulling the term from, so it may in fact have come from latin first. However, every *example* of its origin I ever saw was also accompanied with its use in the naming of isomers, so I at least consider those origins to be co-equal. (My training is in linguistics, so I actually pay attention to details like this when I see new coinages happening.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait...wait...
...when did they add a Q?
What's the Q?
It's worse than that. Now it's LGBTQRSTUV
The thing about 'cis' is that it fills a needed language niche. I remember when the term was first coming into use and the only real competition it had was non-trans, which IMO is worse. (It's bad form to describe people by what they *aren't*.) 'Cis' being a term from organic chemistry was a short, elegant word that didn't have any baggage associated with it. It really was about as good as you were going to get.
Oh I have no problem with the term and can see the where's and why's of its use. It just was jarring and came across as "We had a meeting and have made a decision. You are now this. No saving throw, no discussion."
Which, you know, rock on with your bad self. Just warn people when you decide to update the language! I'm still working out bad being good and the horrible mispronunciation of wretched that people insist on using. :)