| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was rhetorical.
What do you think about this: Paizo should edit out every mention of homosexuality in PFS in states where gay marriage is outlawed and allow it in states where gay marriage is legal. Does that actually make sense to you?What you are proposing is not only unreasonable to request of writers, it actively makes things worse for people who need that representation even more.
And there's the backpedalling....
But seriously, if it really was rhetorical, you should realize that rhetorical questions and sarcasm don't translate over the internet. At least not with out some kind of emoticon to designate it as such. Like a winky face ;)
Which is why I asked the question, "Does that actually makes sense to you?" I don't like emoticons and most of the time they are more ambiguous than not.
I'll just state this: You have no idea who I am or what I am or where I've come from. By all of your comments, you don't deserve any knowledge of me or experience about me. You are not a safe person.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This was rhetorical.
What do you think about this: Paizo should edit out every mention of homosexuality in PFS in states where gay marriage is outlawed and allow it in states where gay marriage is legal. Does that actually make sense to you?What you are proposing is not only unreasonable to request of writers, it actively makes things worse for people who need that representation even more.
And there's the backpedalling....
But seriously, if it really was rhetorical, you should realize that rhetorical questions and sarcasm don't translate over the internet. At least not with out some kind of emoticon to designate it as such. Like a winky face ;)
Which is why I asked the question, "Does that actually makes sense to you?" I don't like emoticons and most of the time they are more ambiguous than not.
I'll just state this: You have no idea who I am or what I am or where I've come from. By all of your comments, you don't deserve any knowledge of me or experience about me. You are not a safe person.
Man, if I'm not safe, I gotta wonder how sheltered you really are... If you can't handle me, then hey, good luck on your travels elsewhere on the internet. Be glad you didn't talk to Gorbacz instead. He's much more sarcastic than I. ;)
Oh well. I suppose I'll have to live forever not knowing the truth and mystery behind Wolfgang. What a tragedy. How will I ever live with myself? ;)
Also, I favorited your post. It made me laugh. Such a silly person :p
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was rhetorical.
What do you think about this: Paizo should edit out every mention of homosexuality in PFS in states where gay marriage is outlawed and allow it in states where gay marriage is legal. Does that actually make sense to you?What you are proposing is not only unreasonable to request of writers, it actively makes things worse for people who need that representation even more.
And there's the backpedalling....
But seriously, if it really was rhetorical, you should realize that rhetorical questions and sarcasm don't translate over the internet. At least not with out some kind of emoticon to designate it as such. Like a winky face ;)
Which is why I asked the question, "Does that actually makes sense to you?" I don't like emoticons and most of the time they are more ambiguous than not.
I'll just state this: You have no idea who I am or what I am or where I've come from. By all of your comments, you don't deserve any knowledge of me or experience about me. You are not a safe person.
Man, if I'm not safe, I gotta wonder how sheltered you really are... If you can't handle me, then hey, good luck on your travels elsewhere on the internet. Be glad you didn't talk to Gorbacz instead. He's much more sarcastic than I. ;)
Oh well. I suppose I'll have to live forever not knowing the truth and mystery behind Wolfgang. What a tragedy. How will I ever live with myself? ;)
Micro pigs.
Micro pigs and pugs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Miniature giant space hamsters?
Micro pigs and pugs.Micro PUGS!
S#@$ son, I cannot handle that cuteness.
Also, I hope Chris Lambertz keeps Wolfgang's posts. They make me chuckle and I want to be able to bring them up to laugh some more.
I should show my girlfriend this. It'll make her laugh. Or facepalm. idk, I have an odd sense of humor.
|
|
Micro pigs and pugs.Micro PUGS!S%@& son, I cannot handle that cuteness.
Also, I hope Chris Lambertz keeps Wolfgang's post. They make me chuckle and I want to be able to bring them up to laugh some more.
I should show my girlfriend this. It'll make her laugh. Or facepalm. idk, I have an odd sense of humor.
Quick! Screencapture before the Rubit wakes up!
It has been done.
So I wonder, before she left, what Kelsey had in mind for Homosexuality in the Pathfinder Core Rules. Admittedly, aside from artwork, I can't really think of any way to incorporate it. The Core Rules are strictly mechanics, and one's background is more fluff. Unless there's a background generator which could have that option. But the Ultimate Campaign version is better since it keeps the whole "lover" thing ambiguous and up to the Player.
Hope she posts again. I'd like to read her thoughts.
@Odraude - That's kind of what I was getting at
@Albatoonoe - If you play PFS please don't admit being homosexual around Wolfgang's son since if he's sexually attracted to men he might think you were an OK guy, take you on as a positive role model, and become openly gay rather than repressing his feelings and living with guilt and denial. This would deny Wolfgang the inherent human right of choosing what sexual orientation his children should have.
I'm not sure which emoticon would be most appropriate, so I'll just flat out state that was sarcastic. I realize that Wolfgang might have a daughter rather than a son or be a woman instead of a man. I can't be sure since we don't deserve any knowledge of Wolfgang.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you wrote was very hateful and insensitive. I sent you a detailed message. You need to speak with your supervisor and apologize publicly.As a parent, I do not want any sexually explicit or promotion of sexual lifestyles in PFS. Is Pathfinder going to have a rating system as in movies? I should hope not if it is for an open gaming community. PF at home... fine, do whatever you want, but keep the PFS kid friendly. One person wrote that she wanted homosexuality to be there so the kids would experience that lifestyle. No, keep it out of the game.
I am frustrated at the hateful posts in these discussions. In other discussions, it's been to the point of sexual harassment. It is sexual harassment. I want no part of people forcing their sexuality on me or my kids - I don't care if you are straight, gay or both. Don't write about it, don't include it in the game.
As someone who's been on the receiving end of sexual harassment, I'd like to point out that people disagreeing with you about the ethics of portraying relationships you may not approve of is not at all the same as having someone force verbal and physical sexual attention on you and use coercion and threats to keep you silent about it.
They are not remotely similar.
And not only are you not helping your argument by attempting to appropriate that experience, you're also trivializing my experience and that of anyone else who's had to deal with it.
Stop it.
No, she doesn't. Can you really not see a difference between responses to your posts on the internet, and threats of physical violence by a person in the same room?
So I wonder, before she left, what Kelsey had in mind for Homosexuality in the Pathfinder Core Rules.
I understood it as "in the homosexuality in golarion thread, people are often told that a discussion is OT because it doesn't directly relate to Golarion. here we can discuss it in general in pathfinder". That's what I got from it.
So for example, discussing IQTBGL issues in a custom, homemade setting would fit in this topic but not the other. Or these various flame wars.
(Personally, I think the mods should be much harder against various anti-IQTBGL statements, not just against hate speech and slurs but also trivializing and clearly implied messages. I think someone like Wolfang should've been shown the door already. But I'm no mod and I get why they do it how they do it, just not my preferred standard)
And there are people who don't agree with it. That doesn't mean you have to force lifestyle choices on others through any and every medium.
I agreed with your first post, I don't think that the core rule books should include anything overly sexualized. This post is where I start getting a bit confused though.
What exactly are you saying with the above? Are you saying that Pathfinder products should never be able to mention that someone happens to be gay, or have two same-sex NPCs a in relationship with one another?
Exactly what I stated above. Like I stated, there was a huge amount of sexually explicit content on another discussion thread (LGBT specific) - which was supported by one of the moderators. Not only that, but huge amounts of hate speech of anyone that disagreed or of anything that didn't support it. That is completely unacceptable for any company.
A couple of things. 1.) the forums are not published materials. They will not be held to the same standard. 2.) Paizo is very LBGT-friendly, so I don't doubt that some of the moderators may grant such threads/topics more leeway than you're used to seeing
Forcing sexual ideologies in games where children are involved is completely unacceptable. You would not want to have an ideology introduced to your kids without your consent, so don't give that double standard.
I think everyone is jumping to conclusions. Can you please provide an example of what you mean here? I think some people are reading this to mean that if Paizo makes mention that two NPCs are in a same-sex relationship, you feel that constitutes "forcing sexual ideologies." Is that what you intend to say, or not?
A lot of times in my experience, these issues come down to a mis-communication.
So I wonder, before she left, what Kelsey had in mind for Homosexuality in the Pathfinder Core Rules.
I understood it as "in the homosexuality in golarion thread, people are often told that a discussion is OT because it doesn't directly relate to Golarion. here we can discuss it in general in pathfinder". That's what I got from it.
So for example, discussing IQTBGL issues in a custom, homemade setting would fit in this topic but not the other. Or these various flame wars.
(Personally, I think the mods should be much harder against various anti-IQTBGL statements, not just against hate speech and slurs but also trivializing and clearly implied messages. I think someone like Wolfang should've been shown the door already. But I'm no mod and I get why they do it how they do it, just not my preferred standard)
Fair enough. Personally, I'm more of a fan of light modding, but I'm used to LUELinks and 4chan's style of "anythings goes as long as it's funny". ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Personally, I think the mods should be much harder against various anti-IQTBGL statements, not just against hate speech and slurs but also trivializing and clearly implied messages. I think someone like Wolfang should've been shown the door already. But I'm no mod and I get why they do it how they do it, just not my preferred standard)
I disagree with you about Wolfang. So far some unclear statements have been made, and people have made some guesses at what they mean and replied to them.
Even assuming Wolfang thinks that any mention of gay life styles should never be shown in any RPG products, that's simply an opinion. Its not a reason to lock posts or ban users.
Lastly, based on some of my interactions with a few of the moderators, they tend to slant very heavily on the pro-LGBT side. Meaning that they are very permissive of LGBT topics, and are generally quick to delete posts/reprimand posters who cross the line into being hateful.
So, let's have at it. I'll start out by expressing my deep affection for Paizo and it's open minded and egalitarian view towards LGBT issues, and I don't believe LGBT themes as presented in Paizo products are at all inappropriate for young children (It's probably better for kids to be exposed to than a lot of the themes in Pathfinder we don't argue about, in fact).
I quite agree. Having kids exposed to it and it certainly isn't graphic in any situation I have seen. If anything, one thing a father had mentioned on here for advice was that as his daughter was interested in the pictures he was worried about certain descriptions, especially on the Ogre's entry.
It also is more of a DM thing of how much of whatever element they put in the campaign. There is a member of the Iron Maidens who was born a man, but put on a cursed belt to change his sex to infiltrate the group and save his sister, but finds he enjoys being a woman more and that can be seen as a Transgender character. This doesn't spoil anything, as it's fluff in the Iron Maiden section on a list of potential iron maidens, found in AP #62, Curse of the Lady's Light.
There are other NPCs too, such as a few in CotCT, but I can't say I've read of many other members of LGBT community, though I am sure there are others.
In my current PFS game, my character is a female Bard(Sound Striker, Songhealer) of Arshea who is Bi, but so far every flirtatious advance to females doesn't work for the moment. Not to mention, Arshea herself (in the Inner Sea Guide) is depicted as androgynous and that one's gender and role in society are not tied to their physical form. A very interesting deity indeed. She's also a Musetouched Aasimar and I really quite like the character. First time I've played a bard and so far she's 6th and done fairly well at using inspire courage and enhanced healing via Songhealer.
When I was recruiting for one campaign, someone threw out a idea (either just brainstorming a interesting idea or actually building a character. Was never clear on that.) about having a hermaphrodite rogue. Looks female, but has something only men have which gives a twist to the stereotype of rescuing a princess scenario. Certainly a interesting idea as hermaphrodites do exist in this world and as Aboleths in the pathfinder one.
I am certainly glad that they are open-minded on the situation and I believe the themes present (as I've seen) are fully appropriate.
Fair enough. Personally, I'm more of a fan of light modding, but I'm used to LUELinks and 4chan's style of "anythings goes as long as it's funny". ;)
Well, I can't stand 4chan and similar, and on some forums I prefer light modding, but the Paizo boards already have - in my opinion - a quite high standard. People can be rude, but behavior that reinforces structural oppression is not seen eye to eye with. I like that solution.
Though of course, I'm very biased, and want to see practically no moderation on stuff that fights structural oppression, nearly regardless of severity.
I disagree with you about Wolfang. So far some unclear statements have been made, and people have made some guesses at what they mean and replied to them.
I think he's been pretty clear on his viewpoints, and their trivialization of IQTBGL issues is very obvious, especially after their treatment of Jessica Price.
Lastly, based on some of my interactions with a few of the moderators, they tend to slant very heavily on the pro-LGBT side.
I don't mean this in a confrontative or aggressive manner, but I... don't like the term "pro-LGBT" at all, honestly. I'll spoiler the rant, and keep in mind, this is not mean as an attack on you in any way, I'm just kind of tired of the term.
Like, "you should have sex with people of the same gender" - that's pro-LGBT.
"you shouldn't talk negatively about people because they have sex with people of the same gender" - that's pro-acceptance or anti-bigotry.
Just like I'm in favor of the woman's right to her own body, that doesn't mean I take a "pro-abortion" stance. Or I don't think it's right to criminalize people for being drug dependant, that doesn't mean I'm "pro-drugs".
I think he's been pretty clear on his viewpoints, and his trivialization of IQTBGL issues is very obvious, especially after his treatment of Jessica Price.
Jessica's aggressive posting style may have something to do with Wolfang's post. Again, not supporting Wolfang at this point, but I would like clarification on his/her point (I don't recall if Wolfang mentioned if he/she was a man/woman.)
I don't mean this in a confrontative or aggressive manner, but I... don't like the term "pro-LGBT" at all, honestly. I'll spoiler the rant, and keep in mind, this is not mean as an attack on you in any way, I'm just kind of tired of the term.
Pro-acceptance or anti-bigotry fits better. "pro-LGBT" sounds like they advocate LGBT - rather than advocating equal treatment of people who are LGBT.
Like, "you should have sex with people of the same gender" - that's pro-LGBT.
"you shouldn't talk negatively about people because they have sex with people of the same gender" - that's pro-acceptance or anti-bigotry.
Just like I'm in favor of the woman's right to her own body, that doesn't mean I take a "pro-abortion" stance. Or I don't think it's right to criminalize people for being drug dependant, that doesn't mean I'm "pro-drugs".
Fair enough. How about LGBT-friendly? Point being, the moderators on these forums have done a good job of eliminating things that cross the line. At times, I've felt that they may have errored too much on the side of political correctness and squashed some speech that was otherwise worth investigating/debating.
The fact that you think they're not going far enough and I think that at some times they're going to far means they're probably doing it just about right.
Jessica's aggressive posting style may have something to do with Wolfang's post. Again, not supporting Wolfang at this point, but I would like clarification on his/her point (I don't recall if Wolfang mentioned if he/she was a man/woman.)
I didn't find Jessica's style the least aggressive. Firm, but not in any way aggressive. Oh, but on pronouns, you're right on that, changed pronouns. I generally tend to use the pronoun usually connected to the username and avatar of the user. It's a bad habit and I need to stop it. Thanks for pointing it out.
Fair enough. How about LGBT-friendly? Point being, the moderators on these forums have done a good job of eliminating things that cross the line. At times, I've felt that they may have errored too much on the side of political correctness and squashed some speech that was otherwise worth investigating/debating.
The fact that you think they're not going far enough and I think that at some times they're going to far means they're probably doing it just about right.
Very well then :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, will never be paying any money for any Paizo product based in part on this advice, and will default to looking to other systems for my future gaming needs (if any). I have no interest in subsidizing ideologies by playing a tabletop RPG.
That's unavoidable. People own companies, people have ideologies. Any time you purchase a product, you're subsidizing an ideology. I think what you mean is that you don't want to subsidize a company that publicly embraces an ideology that you disagree with.
That is of course your choice. I would imagine that the number of customers Paizo has gained based on this stance is greater than the number of customers that they have lost. Generally the RPG community is LGBT-friendly.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, will never be paying any money for any Paizo product based in part on this advice, and will default to looking to other systems for my future gaming needs (if any). I have no interest in subsidizing ideologies by playing a tabletop RPG.
All Paizo does is portray the occasional LGBT+ NPCs as characters with the same capacity for love/compassion, heroics/evil, and growth as all the other NPCs. If that tiny bit of fairness and inclusiveness is a "subsidized ideology" to some, I'm really kind of speechless.
I, for one, will never be paying any money for any Paizo product based in part on this advice, and will default to looking to other systems for my future gaming needs (if any). I have no interest in subsidizing ideologies by playing a tabletop RPG.That's unavoidable. People own companies, people have ideologies. Any time you purchase a product, you're subsidizing an ideology.
Jeez. That is a crazy line of logic. If an owner of a restaurant hates something, I'm not supporting his hatred unless he's using the money I spent at the restaurant to further that goal.
A more proper statement would be "People own companies, people have ideologies. Any time you purchase a product, you only subsidize an ideology if that person turns around and uses that money to promote that ideology."
Intelligent people keep these separate for a reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jeez. That is a crazy line of logic. If an owner of a restaurant hates something, I'm not supporting his hatred unless he's using the money I spent at the restaurant to further that goal.
Insult aside, that always happens. If I own a restaurant and you're patronizing my establishment, then your money is going to support my lifestyle. If my lifestyle includes supporting x candidate or protesting against y issue or hating z type of people, your money in part helped me to continue these activities.
Jeez. That is a crazy line of logic. If an owner of a restaurant hates something, I'm not supporting his hatred unless he's using the money I spent at the restaurant to further that goal.Insult aside, that always happens. If I own a restaurant and you're patronizing my establishment, then your money is going to support my lifestyle. If my lifestyle includes supporting x candidate or protesting against y issue or hating z type of people, your money in part helped me to continue these activities.
Not an insult. Just pointing out that your argument is flawed.
Not "always." You choose to support x, y or z. If you don't actively support a cause and just keep to yourself(Something I admire very much, live and let live) there's no issue.
If I own a restaurant and hate x, but don't support that with income, then you don't support me hating x by eating at my restaurant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Personally, I think the mods should be much harder against various anti-IQTBGL statements, not just against hate speech and slurs but also trivializing and clearly implied messages. I think someone like Wolfang should've been shown the door already. But I'm no mod and I get why they do it how they do it, just not my preferred standard)
Hopefuly not.
If he is not breaking paizo forum rules then his post shoudl not be erased, people should not be banned for disagreeing.
If he is not breaking paizo forum rules then his post shoudl not be erased, people should not be banned for disagreeing.
Granted, I see why that's not the approach used, and I don't want to get into backseat moderating, it's just an approach I'd prefer. Many good forums have that approach, other a bit looser like Paizo, and others even more loose where all kind of crappy behaviour is accepted.
This is not in any way a jab at the moderators - they're doing a great job - it's just a bit different standard than I prefer.
Paizo is, of course, free to do what they want with their money. Before reading what JJ had to say, I was unaware that they were promoting any sort of agenda with their game.
Have you missed that they explicitly state in the core rulebook that it's good to protect innocent life? They very explicitly through their whole game design enforce ideological stances, such as murder for sports being evil.
For the record, I don't particularly care if Paizo puts LGBT NPCs in its stories, or if players play LGBT characters. Purposefully excluding them based on an agenda is just as bad as purposefully including hem based on an agenda.
So what is your preferred alternative? Adventure path creation made randomly? Everything in an AP is made for a purpose. Even a randomly generated system (such as the devs rolling a dice to see gender or orientation of character) has purposefully created variables.
Personally, I like campaigns where a bit of thought have been put into the characters, but I guess YMMV.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Insult aside, that always happens. If I own a restaurant and you're patronizing my establishment, then your money is going to support my lifestyle. If my lifestyle includes supporting x candidate or protesting against y issue or hating z type of people, your money in part helped me to continue these activities.Jeez. That is a crazy line of logic. If an owner of a restaurant hates something, I'm not supporting his hatred unless he's using the money I spent at the restaurant to further that goal.
A more proper statement would be "People own companies, people have ideologies. Any time you purchase a product, you only subsidize an ideology if that person turns around and uses that money to promote that ideology."
Intelligent people keep these separate for a reason.
Not an insult. Just pointing out that your argument is flawed.
Not "always." You choose to support x, y or z. If you don't actively support a cause and just keep to yourself(Something I admire very much, live and let live) there's no issue.
If I own a restaurant and hate x, but don't support that with income, then you don't support me hating x by eating at my restaurant.
If you say intelligent people keep these separate, you are implying people who don't, such as the poster you were responding to, are not intelligent, by not keeping them separate. There's your insult right there, unless you consider telling people that they are not intelligent isn't insulting.
And he didn't say support it with income. He said support it. If they've ever attended a rally (without spending a cent), voted for a politician (without donating to his campaign), attended a fundraiser (even if they didn't personally raise funds), or engaged in positive discussion of their ideology with peers who may or may not share it, they have supported that ideology. They wouldn't be able to do some of these things, and may be discouraged from those they still could do, if doing them hurt their business lives.
To once again edit the original quote, "People own companies, people have ideologies. Any time you purchase a product, you're subsidizing an ideology, by providing income which subsidizes the life and lifestyle of those people that hold it."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the choice between two systems both publicly supporting some agenda, I'd of course choose the one with the agenda I prefer. Is it really so hard to believe, though, that I'd prefer a game system that didn't try to play social justice warrior? Is it so hard to believe that I'd rather give up tabletop RPGs altogether than to play one that spreads a message?
Even if that message is that "LGBT+/QUILTBAG people are just like everyone else"? Even when you consider that depression, homelessness, unemployment, verbal and physical abuse, violence, murder, and suicide--all symptoms of a real world intolerant society--are several times higher for LGBT+/QUILTBAG people than the rest of the population? "Tolerance" is message that shouldn't be spread?
Most LGBT+/QUILTBAG people had very few fictional characters they could relate to/identify with while growing up. Is it trying to "play social justice warrior" when some of those very same people and their allies, now grown up, decide to include a few non-hetero characters in the RPG and fiction products they produce? Was it trying to "play social justice warrior" when Paizo, and WotC before them, decided to include people of color as Iconics?
Given the choice between two systems both publicly supporting some agenda, I'd of course choose the one with the agenda I prefer. Is it really so hard to believe, though, that I'd prefer a game system that didn't try to play social justice warrior? Is it so hard to believe that I'd rather give up tabletop RPGs altogether than to play one that spreads a message?Even if that message is that "LGBT+/QUILTBAG people are just like everyone else"? Even when you consider that depression, homelessness, unemployment, verbal and physical abuse, violence, murder, and suicide--all symptoms of a real world intolerant society--are several times higher for LGBT+/QUILTBAG people than the rest of the population? "Tolerance" is message that shouldn't be spread?
Most LGBT+/QUILTBAG people had very few fictional characters they could relate to/identify with while growing up. Is it trying to "play social justice warrior" when some of those very same people and their allies, now grown up, decide to include a few non-hetero characters in the RPG and fiction products they produce? Was it trying to "play social justice warrior" when Paizo, and WotC before them, decided to include people of color as Iconics?
Sorry but, can you quote me a source on those depression, murder, etc figures you mentioned? 'Cause that's pretty bad.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the choice between two systems both publicly supporting some agenda, I'd of course choose the one with the agenda I prefer.
And I think most everyone would agree on this point. People will prefer their preferences, and go with things they like. I don't think there's any disagreement here.
Is it really so hard to believe, though, that I'd prefer a game system that didn't try to play social justice warrior?
And I think this is where disagreement starts. What do you define as social justice? Or playing social justice warrior?
JJ said was that diversity was a good thing, and if you don't like diversity, then don't buy Paizo. Is diversity, then, social justice? Is encouraging diversity playing social justice warrior?
I'm not trying to be condescending or insulting, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.
Is it so hard to believe that I'd rather give up tabletop RPGs altogether than to play one that spreads a message?
As someone who enjoys TTRPG's, yes. I mean, I suppose it would depend on the message. I hate to invoke Godwin's Law, but if the message in question was that particular message, and there was no choice but no longer play TTRPG's or support one that spread that message, then I suppose I would give them up, with much sorrow. But, over the message that LGBT people are, in fact, people? That seems like a very benign message to give up TTRPG's over.
For the record, I don't particularly care if Paizo puts LGBT NPCs in its stories, or if players play LGBT characters. Purposefully excluding them based on an agenda is just as bad as purposefully including hem based on an agenda. When I hear "diversity" and "tolerance" in these contexts, I often find myself wondering whether people even know what those words mean (stupid, made-up newspeak meanings aside).
Wait, so, it's not the inclusion of LGBT characters that bothers you, but the fact that they're included as part of Paizo's LGBT-friendly agenda? But not including them would also be part of an agenda. I mean, in case you didn't know, many of Paizo's own staff fall into the various categories of the LGBT community, so excluding them would have had to be intentional, and hence part of the counter agenda.
While we're at it, let's check those definitions quickly.
di·ver·si·ty (dĭ-vûr′sĭ-tē, dī-)
n. pl. di·ver·si·ties
1.
a. The fact or quality of being diverse; difference.
b. A point or respect in which things differ.
2. Variety or multiformity: "Charles Darwin saw in the diversity of species the principles of evolution that operated to generate the species: variation, competition and selection" (Scientific American).
So, the quality of having a variety of different things. Having more than one race, having more than one class, more than one gender, more than one religion, more than one sexuality, more than one skin colour, more than one spell, etc, etc. Ergo, including LGBT characters increases diversity.
tol·er·ance (tŏl′ər-əns)
n.
1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
2.
a. Leeway for variation from a standard.
b. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.
3. The capacity to endure hardship or pain.
4. Medicine
a. Physiological resistance to a toxin.
b. Diminution in the physiological response to a drug that occurs after continued use, necessitating larger doses to produce a given response.
5.
a. Acceptance of a tissue graft or transplant without immunological rejection.
b. Unresponsiveness to an antigen that normally produces an immunological reaction.
6. The ability of an organism to resist or survive infection by a parasitic or pathogenic organism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you say intelligent people keep these separate, you are implying people who don't, such as the poster you were responding to, are not intelligent, by not keeping them separate.
Sure. I assume most folks are intelligent from the get go. Economically, it's smarter to take no position than to take one. If you want to argue that, that's fine. I imagine it'd be quite difficult.
And he didn't say support it with income. He said support it. If they've ever attended a rally (without spending a cent), voted for a politician (without donating to his campaign), attended a fundraiser (even if they didn't personally raise funds), or engaged in positive discussion of their ideology with peers who may or may not share it, they have supported that ideology. They wouldn't be able to do some of these things, and may be discouraged from those they still could do, if doing them hurt their business lives.
Okay heres something interesting. Say theres a person who works at a restaurant. He hates X. He does all the things you mentioned. The restaurant owner nor the restaurant have a stated opinion on X. Do you now not eat at that restaurant since that one worker who is paid by the restaurant since eating there would support his lifestyle and apparently therefore his ideology? This is without considering the rest of the people employed there of course whom have many varying opinions that you couldn't hope to gauge all of. I find that argument quite weak and ultimately pointless. If the business itself isn't contributing then the owner's personal contributions are negligible compared to the ideologies and potential contributions of all the other people working there. To not eat there based on one person's personal opinion and ignoring all the other people who work there is idiotic.
I'm still not going to eat at the restaurant with the "God Hates F!$$" sign in the window.
That would be an example of using your restaurant as a means to push your ideology which I pointedly said that doesn't have to be the case.
The second really seems to be a mask for "I don't like gays, but don't want to admit it, so I'll pretend I don't want any ideology."
Excuse me?
Personally I don't give a damn about sexual orientation. What people do behind closed doors is their own business. I find that choosing to be as vague about the issue as possible is the most inclusive without outright promoting it(Which I find tasteless).
Because then the Status Quo on relationships in Pathfinder is "Whatever you want it to be."
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given the choice between two systems both publicly supporting some agenda, I'd of course choose the one with the agenda I prefer. Is it really so hard to believe, though, that I'd prefer a game system that didn't try to play social justice warrior? Is it so hard to believe that I'd rather give up tabletop RPGs altogether than to play one that spreads a message?Even if that message is that "LGBT+/QUILTBAG people are just like everyone else"? Even when you consider that depression, homelessness, unemployment, verbal and physical abuse, violence, murder, and suicide--all symptoms of a real world intolerant society--are several times higher for LGBT+/QUILTBAG people than the rest of the population? "Tolerance" is message that shouldn't be spread?
Most LGBT+/QUILTBAG people had very few fictional characters they could relate to/identify with while growing up. Is it trying to "play social justice warrior" when some of those very same people and their allies, now grown up, decide to include a few non-hetero characters in the RPG and fiction products they produce? Was it trying to "play social justice warrior" when Paizo, and WotC before them, decided to include people of color as Iconics?
That right there is why it is genuinely upsetting at times when inclusiveness is derided as pushing an agenda or being political.
It is not a matter of politics. It's a matter of compassion and basic human decency.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd prefer the company not have a political agenda. LGBT is a political issue right now. Murdering innocents is not, for example.
I'd have been happy to stick with Paizo if they'd simply included or excluded LGBT characters as they saw fit without weighing in on the moral implications thereof. I'd have preferred they not had any agenda at all, but even if they had an agenda, we wouldn't be having this discussion if they didn't advertise it. I'm not sure what they could do now to change my mind; even if they wanted to, a certain innocence has been lost.
At this point, think whatever you want about me. JJ has made clear Paizo's position (I assume he speaks for the company there) and I am simply taking his advice.
Hold the phone a sec. Anything can be political, if it's currently mainstream. People of colour, as has been mentioned, are political. Paizo has Iconics of colour. Should those be removed now too?
The fact is, Paizo has had this LGBT-friendly agenda since the company formed (as far as I'm aware anyhow), as quite a few of the people involved fall into the QUILTBAG umbrella, in one way or another. This was before same sex marriage became the current political issue that is it. LGBT+ is not political, it's humanitarian. They're human beings, like you and I, and including them as such is not a political issue, agenda, or statement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't "play social justice warrior" would that mean you "play social injustice warrior"? That doesn't have a good ring to it, but I think if Paizo represents people as they are that's just realism.
It is not a matter of politics. It's a matter of compassion and basic human decency.
Social change is politics. Hell it's one of the leading factors.
That doesn't make it not a matter of human decency too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they're wrong... That's awesome right there. Please tell me that you aren't insinuating that someone's personal opinion can be wrong.I know a good deal of libertarians myself, so let me ask you this question: Do you find it acceptable to force others to accept your beliefs?Of course not. But if they're wrong, I certainly attempt to point that out, and convince them of that with logic and discussion. As is occurring here...
Every post like this simply boils down to "I'm more oppressed than you!"Actually, my point was that I'm not more oppressed than you, I'm about equally oppressed...and it's not a lot, and shouldn't be compared to people who really are pretty oppressed.
Of course it can be. There are people whose 'personal opinion' is that the Earth is flat and 6000 years old, and that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, or that the moon landing was faked, or that virtually every authority figure in the world is secretly a shape-shifting reptilian alien.