A place to talk about the future of political threads


Website Feedback

201 to 250 of 281 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

The people who voted for Trump either A) supported what he did and is doing or B) weren't bothered by the things he did and will do.

I don't want to play with either.

Though I've said similar things myself, I don't think that's actually true. It's entirely possible to be very bothered by something a candidate does or says, but still believe that candidate is, on the balance, the best choice available. At most, I think you might say that nothing the candidate did or said was a deal-breaker (which, in fairness, is probably quite damning in some cases).

But again, I think we're crossing the line here, so I'm going to bow out. I hope we can finish this discussion in the future without breaking the rules.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.
But amazingly, insinuating that specific people on the boards are an imminent physical threat based on who they voted for doesn't violate the Community Guidelines

I did not intend to imply "imminent physical threat". I can see how it could have been taken that way and I apologize for that.

I also don't think they're boogeymen.

I think there is a level well below that, where there is reason to not want to deal with people.

But is it okay to choose to not deal with them simply off of stereotypes and assumptions?

No. It's okay to choose to not deal with them based off their actions. Voting is an action. A conscious, intentional choice.

Now, if I'd said "I choose not to deal with rural, white men because they're probably bigots", that would be "simply off of stereotypes and assumptions". But I didn't say that.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
finish this discussion

Have you ever seen a discussion on politics between anonymous people on the Internet which finishes without tears, blood, death, permabans, Godwin and somebody walking away with the feeling that the very core of their identity came under attack?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.
But amazingly, insinuating that specific people on the boards are an imminent physical threat based on who they voted for doesn't violate the Community Guidelines

I did not intend to imply "imminent physical threat". I can see how it could have been taken that way and I apologize for that.

I also don't think they're boogeymen.

I think there is a level well below that, where there is reason to not want to deal with people.

But is it okay to choose to not deal with them simply off of stereotypes and assumptions?

No. It's okay to choose to not deal with them based off their actions. Voting is an action. A conscious, intentional choice.

Now, if I'd said "I choose not to deal with rural, white men because they're probably bigots", that would be "simply off of stereotypes and assumptions". But I didn't say that.

But your assigning a motive to voting for Trump that based off that choice a person is either racist/sexist/homophobic, or is 100% okay with those beliefs. In much the same way that idiots on the right assume everyone who voted for Hillary or Bernie wanted lots of free stuff, all guns taken away, are okay with muslims killing gays, and how idiots assumed if you voted Johnson you just wanted legal weed.


Talonhawke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.
But amazingly, insinuating that specific people on the boards are an imminent physical threat based on who they voted for doesn't violate the Community Guidelines

I did not intend to imply "imminent physical threat". I can see how it could have been taken that way and I apologize for that.

I also don't think they're boogeymen.

I think there is a level well below that, where there is reason to not want to deal with people.

But is it okay to choose to not deal with them simply off of stereotypes and assumptions?

No. It's okay to choose to not deal with them based off their actions. Voting is an action. A conscious, intentional choice.

Now, if I'd said "I choose not to deal with rural, white men because they're probably bigots", that would be "simply off of stereotypes and assumptions". But I didn't say that.

But your assigning a motive to voting for Trump that based off that choice a person is either racist/sexist/homophobic, or is 100% okay with those beliefs. In much the same way that idiots on the right assume everyone who voted for Hillary or Bernie wanted lots of free stuff, all guns taken away, are okay with muslims killing gays, and how idiots assumed if you voted Johnson you just wanted legal weed.

I am? I wasn't aware that I'd said that. Certainly not in such strict terms.

We're now reaching the point I really can't argue without crossing the line, assuming I'm not long past it already. :)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.
But amazingly, insinuating that specific people on the boards are an imminent physical threat based on who they voted for doesn't violate the Community Guidelines

I did not intend to imply "imminent physical threat". I can see how it could have been taken that way and I apologize for that.

I also don't think they're boogeymen.

I think there is a level well below that, where there is reason to not want to deal with people.

But is it okay to choose to not deal with them simply off of stereotypes and assumptions?

No. It's okay to choose to not deal with them based off their actions. Voting is an action. A conscious, intentional choice.

Now, if I'd said "I choose not to deal with rural, white men because they're probably bigots", that would be "simply off of stereotypes and assumptions". But I didn't say that.

But your assigning a motive to voting for Trump that based off that choice a person is either racist/sexist/homophobic, or is 100% okay with those beliefs. In much the same way that idiots on the right assume everyone who voted for Hillary or Bernie wanted lots of free stuff, all guns taken away, are okay with muslims killing gays, and how idiots assumed if you voted Johnson you just wanted legal weed.

Those arent remotely the same. There's unfoundead fears and assumptions and then there's things the person actually did.

Sovereign Court

Gorbacz wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
finish this discussion
Have you ever seen a discussion on politics between anonymous people on the Internet which finishes without tears, blood, death, permabans, Godwin and somebody walking away with the feeling that the very core of their identity came under attack?

I know you didn't ask me but, actually, quite often outside election years I do.


Gorbacz wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
finish this discussion
Have you ever seen a discussion on politics between anonymous people on the Internet which finishes without tears, blood, death, permabans, Godwin and somebody walking away with the feeling that the very core of their identity came under attack?

Sure. That one time I was riding a unicorn...

Look, I have no illusions about "finishing" every political discussion. I do think it may be possible to agree that voting for someone doesn't necessarily mean supporting ALL of his or her positions, statements, etc. But I am -- spoiler alert -- extremely pedantic by nature, and therefore see value in even so trivial an agreement. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's just a bad idea to assign motives to other people rather than respond to their statements.

I'd like to see political threads reopened on these boards, but fully understand Paizo's inability/unwillingness to provide the moderation necessary to keep them civil.

The Exchange

Melkiador wrote:
I suspect you were being cheeky, but I was referring to the load times, which often seem to take up to 5 seconds, during peak hours.

Ah sorry, in this case, I just misunderstood what you were talking about


Gorbacz wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
finish this discussion
Have you ever seen a discussion on politics between anonymous people on the Internet which finishes without tears, blood, death, permabans, Godwin and somebody walking away with the feeling that the very core of their identity came under attack?

Yes.

Community & Digital Content Director

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Temp locking as my attention needs to be focused on assisting with the site's current state and don't want this getting too hairy.

Quick update: I have not forgotten this thread, but given the site downtime eating up the majority of the day, it will be addressed tomorrow morning when I return to the office.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Folks, quick update, I know Chris would like to have a chance to respond specifically to the things being brought up here, however currently both she and I have a number of fairly large projects in desperate need of attention, including things needed for the website for Starfinder, PaizoCon and other large projects.

I can reopen this thread with the understanding that this is a meta discussion about politics on paizo.com and not a place for actual political discussion to happen and certainly not a place for fighting about politics.


bugleyman wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Muzzled is when they throw you off the boards completely. At the moment, politics is simply being asked to stay in the corner for an indefinite period. And like I said, it's not that we're short of places for political partisans to shout at each other. Paizo simply doesn't want to be one of them, any more than a gaming shop would.

1. I've never been in a gaming shop that regulated patron's discussions. Have you?

2. It is reductive to characterize all political discussion as "partisans shouting at each other."

3. Muzzled literally means "unable to speak." That's pretty much the definition of a ban, temporary or otherwise.

1. Is it typical in the shops you go to where the non-gaming debates become so heated they are heard from one end of the store to another? If such happens, I'm very sure that the store owner will intervene to cool things down, or if necessary, eject folks that won't behave.

2. You obviously have never been on facebook, redit, or followed some of the threads here.

3. This board is a private venue. Freedom of speech is not guaranteed in a private venue. The owners have full rights to circumscribe what discussion takes place here. None of the rights of expression are guaranteed without limits.


Talonhawke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.
But amazingly, insinuating that specific people on the boards are an imminent physical threat based on who they voted for doesn't violate the Community Guidelines

I did not intend to imply "imminent physical threat". I can see how it could have been taken that way and I apologize for that.

I also don't think they're boogeymen.

I think there is a level well below that, where there is reason to not want to deal with people.

But is it okay to choose to not deal with them simply off of stereotypes and assumptions?

a damned good question.

I would argue the line of "do not engage" is in different places for different people. There is always going to be a space where it isn't a stereotype or assumption- there is actual, demonstrable evidence that someone feels the way they do. In a text based forum where unless something is deleted it is up forever, this is especially true.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Muzzled is when they throw you off the boards completely. At the moment, politics is simply being asked to stay in the corner for an indefinite period. And like I said, it's not that we're short of places for political partisans to shout at each other. Paizo simply doesn't want to be one of them, any more than a gaming shop would.

1. I've never been in a gaming shop that regulated patron's discussions. Have you?

2. It is reductive to characterize all political discussion as "partisans shouting at each other."

3. Muzzled literally means "unable to speak." That's pretty much the definition of a ban, temporary or otherwise.

1. Is it typical in the shops you go to where the non-gaming debates become so heated they are heard from one end of the store to another? If such happens, I'm very sure that the store owner will intervene to cool things down, or if necessary, eject folks that won't behave.

2. You obviously have never been on facebook, redit, or followed some of the threads here.

3. This board is a private venue. Freedom of speech is not guaranteed in a private venue. The owners have full rights to circumscribe what discussion takes place here. None of the rights of expression are guaranteed without limits.

1) Debates, even heated ones, on one subsection of the boards don't directly affect the rest of the boards. I don't have to shout over the din of the political thread to make my point heard on the paladin falls thread.

2) Facebook and reddit are not "all political discussion". Nor have all political threads here been such. Some are. Some have.
3) True, but largely irrelevant to his point. Paizo are certainly within their rights to ban or muzzle such discussion. I don't believe he would dispute that. That's why we're discussing the hope they will allow it, rather than filing lawsuits to force it.


Sara Marie wrote:

Folks, quick update, I know Chris would like to have a chance to respond specifically to the things being brought up here, however currently both she and I have a number of fairly large projects in desperate need of attention, including things needed for the website for Starfinder, PaizoCon and other large projects.

I can reopen this thread with the understanding that this is a meta discussion about politics on paizo.com and not a place for actual political discussion to happen and certainly not a place for fighting about politics.

Thanks for reopening it. Hopefully that means we haven't already proven we can't be trusted. :)

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
That's why we're discussing the hope they will allow it, rather than filing lawsuits to force it.

Excuse you?

Silver Crusade Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
That's why we're discussing the hope they will allow it, rather than filing lawsuits to force it.
Excuse you?

Translation: "We know that this is something we have no legal basis to sue for, due to it being a private site, so we're trying to convince them to allow the discussion."

He's not saying he's going to sue Paizo. ^_^


So much delicious irony in this thread. I'm so glad it's been opened back up.

Silver Crusade

Kalindlara wrote:
Rysky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
That's why we're discussing the hope they will allow it, rather than filing lawsuits to force it.
Excuse you?

Translation: "We know that this is something we have no legal basis to sue for, due to it being a private site, so we're trying to convince them to allow the discussion."

He's not saying he's going to sue Paizo. ^_^

Okies.


We can always get a circle jerk of lawsuits going on, they can sue Paizo for not talking politics, you can sue them, and I can sue Hollywood, for copyright infringement. On account of them using all my aliases in t.v. shows and movies.

Silver Crusade

"CAPTAIN YESTERDAY" would make an awesome name for a superhero movie.


Do a Google search for Captain Yesterday, I think you'll be surprised. :-)


Freehold DM wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.
But amazingly, insinuating that specific people on the boards are an imminent physical threat based on who they voted for doesn't violate the Community Guidelines

I did not intend to imply "imminent physical threat". I can see how it could have been taken that way and I apologize for that.

I also don't think they're boogeymen.

I think there is a level well below that, where there is reason to not want to deal with people.

But is it okay to choose to not deal with them simply off of stereotypes and assumptions?

a damned good question.

I would argue the line of "do not engage" is in different places for different people. There is always going to be a space where it isn't a stereotype or assumption- there is actual, demonstrable evidence that someone feels the way they do. In a text based forum where unless something is deleted it is up forever, this is especially true.

I agree there are Trump supporters out there who most Trump supporters wouldn't sit a gaming table with after knowing where they stand, I'm only advocating knowing more about a person than a D or an R before making choices, the same thing I push for when I talk to people about voting.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.
But amazingly, insinuating that specific people on the boards are an imminent physical threat based on who they voted for doesn't violate the Community Guidelines

I did not intend to imply "imminent physical threat". I can see how it could have been taken that way and I apologize for that.

I also don't think they're boogeymen.

I think there is a level well below that, where there is reason to not want to deal with people.

But is it okay to choose to not deal with them simply off of stereotypes and assumptions?

a damned good question.

I would argue the line of "do not engage" is in different places for different people. There is always going to be a space where it isn't a stereotype or assumption- there is actual, demonstrable evidence that someone feels the way they do. In a text based forum where unless something is deleted it is up forever, this is especially true.

I agree there are Trump supporters out there who most Trump supporters wouldn't sit a gaming table with after knowing where they stand, I'm only advocating knowing more about a person than a D or an R before making choices, the same thing I push for when I talk to people about voting.

This goes way beyond whether you're a D or an R. Supporting and Advocating for Trump puts you on a completely different field.

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Sara Marie wrote:
I can reopen this thread with the understanding that this is a meta discussion about politics on paizo.com and not a place for actual political discussion to happen and certainly not a place for fighting about politics.

Could you please honor the Sentiment behind the reopening of this thread and stop talking about Trump? Please?


WormysQueue wrote:
Sara Marie wrote:
I can reopen this thread with the understanding that this is a meta discussion about politics on paizo.com and not a place for actual political discussion to happen and certainly not a place for fighting about politics.
Could you please honor the Sentiment behind the reopening of this thread and stop talking about Trump? Please?

Sorry.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
This goes way beyond whether you're a D or an R. Supporting and Advocating for Trump puts you on a completely different field.

There is a vast difference between actively supporting and advocating a candidate, and just showing up at the booth and simply choosing not to vote for their opponent. Don't read too much into things.

Anyway, seeing as how this is still a sensitive issue for some, I say we at least keep the moratorium on these threads in place a bit longer.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's currently a thread in Off-Topic about the Scientists' March on Washington, which has been open for a day and a half without being locked.

Can I presume then that the ban on political topics has been lifted, and I would be free to create a thread about, say, the March for Life going on right now?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Good luck with that, man.

Silver Crusade

Kryzbyn wrote:
Rysky wrote:
This goes way beyond whether you're a D or an R. Supporting and Advocating for Trump puts you on a completely different field.

There is a vast difference between actively supporting and advocating a candidate, and just showing up at the booth and simply choosing not to vote for their opponent. Don't read too much into things.

Anyway, seeing as how this is still a sensitive issue for some, I say we at least keep the moratorium on these threads in place a bit longer.

Edited my response.

IF you want the conversation to drop, it helps if you also don't tack on a continuation of the conversation right before your request.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RainyDayNinja wrote:

There's currently a thread in Off-Topic about the Scientists' March on Washington, which has been open for a day and a half without being locked.

Can I presume then that the ban on political topics has been lifted, and I would be free to create a thread about, say, the March for Life going on right now?

Goes back to the question about what qualifies as politics,


thejeff wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:

There's currently a thread in Off-Topic about the Scientists' March on Washington, which has been open for a day and a half without being locked.

Can I presume then that the ban on political topics has been lifted, and I would be free to create a thread about, say, the March for Life going on right now?

Goes back to the question about what qualifies as politics,

Exactly while defiantly politically related is it political enough to warrant inclusion in the moratorium or is it more current events?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Most likely no one has flagged it yet, and they've been pretty busy fixing the website (that I didn't break) and rolling out Starfinder.

I wouldn't take it as an endorsement.


captain yesterday wrote:
(that I didn't break)

*eyes suspiciously*


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Rysky wrote:
This goes way beyond whether you're a D or an R. Supporting and Advocating for Trump puts you on a completely different field.

There is a vast difference between actively supporting and advocating a candidate, and just showing up at the booth and simply choosing not to vote for their opponent. Don't read too much into things.

Anyway, seeing as how this is still a sensitive issue for some, I say we at least keep the moratorium on these threads in place a bit longer.

Edited my response.

IF you want the conversation to drop, it helps if you also don't tack on a continuation of the conversation right before your request.

I don't wish to silence you. If you have something more to say feel free to PM me.

Dark Archive

captain yesterday wrote:
(that I didn't break)

Or DID you?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

Most likely no one has flagged it yet, and they've been pretty busy fixing the website (that I didn't break) and rolling out Starfinder.

I wouldn't take it as an endorsement.

FWIW, I flagged it yesterday.


Yeah, and yesterday they were rolling out Starfinder and fixing the website (that I didn't break).

Patience, yo.

It sounds like you need to take a break.


Then take it up with the Mods, RainyDay.

Edit: That is, I have rather huge problems with equating the two, but given the spirit and/or letter of the polithread ban, don't feel it's appropriate to go into them here. In addition, Paizo staffers themselves recommend contacting them over issues with board moderation rather than playing "NO YOU!" with other posters, so that's what I'd recommend.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The two topics should (in general) not be equated in terms of fact vs. opinion, however I do agree that the march is definitely political. Don't misunderstand, I fully support the march, but RDN is correct in describing it as a march meant to influence political policy and discourse. That's a good thing, in my opinion, but it's absolutely political.


RainyDayNinja wrote:

There's currently a thread in Off-Topic about the Scientists' March on Washington, which has been open for a day and a half without being locked.

Can I presume then that the ban on political topics has been lifted, and I would be free to create a thread about, say, the March for Life going on right now?

It's most likely that due to a lessening of moderating resources that the thread you're talking about hasn't shown up on the radar. Or that discussing a news event has not been designated as a "political thread".

Take your pick. I would however assume that the answer to your question is a definitive no.


Did that second Duterte thread end up getting locked or did it just peter out? I don't recall.

201 to 250 of 281 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Website Feedback / A place to talk about the future of political threads All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.