I heavily identify with this point of view, which may very well be the dividing point here.
There are two dividing lines. You and I are on the same side of only one of them.
I strongly believe that introducing a female stranger with a rape scenario is totally beyond the pale. It goes so far past that the only two desciptions that might apply are either "total drooling idiocy" or "severe antisocial pathology." In that particular case, it would be nearly insane NOT to be offended, and it would be very hard to over-react.
Actually, you went a little farther.You strated that such actions on one hand are just as socially acceptavle as actions on the other hand (emphasis added mine):
I personally don't think that's "farther", but rather that it falls quite short of defining a negative reaction as "wrong".
There are two dividing lines. I strongly believe that introducing a female stranger with a rape scenario is totally beyond the pale. It goes so far past that the only two words that might apply are either "total drooling idiocy" or "severe antisocial pathology."
Well, yes. I've never contested that. I simply think that the player in question was more justified to leave out of lack of choice than she was to leave over it being offensive. I stated as much quite clearly.
I simply think that the player in question was more justified to leave out of lack of choice than she was to leave over it being offensive.
Lack of choice (in terms of game railroading) is, to me, less of a big deal than being in the company of demonstrated sociopaths. YMMV.
|
Ah, I begin to see. Thanks, Jess.
Np.
Let me offer this, then:
- Some people have had horrible experiences with mysogonistic pricks, and that establishes some context for their reaction. In some cases, they might overreact to statements that seem as if they might be sexist as well (and I can't really blame them for that).
- Some people have had horrible experiences with sadistically eager scorched-earth retaliation wrapped in overly-rightous self-justification. In some cases, they (I) might overreact to statements that closely mirror those used by those who habitually indulge in such over-retaliation.
In my case, because of past experiences, I am pre-conditioned to see a disntinction between "I think I was justified, in this case," vs. "And I was perfectly justified!" The former is a statement of opinion; the latter dares anyone to have the gall to disagree.
I understand. I didn't realize how sensitive I was to the "You're a girl, you can't be a programmer. Or at least, you can't be a good one. You must've just been hired as a programmer because of some sort of affirmative action." attitude until I came to Texas from Michigan and, miraculously, almost never ran into that attitude anymore. I'm now working on getting over my reflexive tendency to counterattack even when not warranted. It's why I spoke up...it's easier to recognize when you're not in the midst of your own reflexive reaction...well, at least over that particular post. Heh.
I personally don't think that's "farther", but rather that it falls quite short of defining a negative reaction as "wrong".I never said it was socially acceptable. I also never said that reacting negatively was 'wrong", simply that whether to react negatively or be offended is a personal choice.Actually, you went a little farther.
You strated that such actions on one hand are just as socially acceptavle as actions on the other hand (emphasis added mine):
I did not state that you defined a negative reaction as wrong.
I stated that you argued that the acts being labeled as offensive are as socially acceptable as other acts (hygiene Product advertisement) that have been accepted by society and then contradicted yourself by saying you are not arguing they are socially acceptable.
That is exactly what your argument was based upon.
Well, I don't know that anything was flagworthy. Just bizarre. But yes, I did fail my will save. Apologies.
If i was acting trollish, I sincerely apologize.
I stated that you argued that the acts being labeled as offensive are as socially acceptable as other acts (hygiene Product advertisement) that have been accepted by society and then contradicted yourself by saying you are not arguing they are socially acceptable.
That is exactly what your argument was based upon.
Ah. Gotcha.
Yes, you are correct. I do not think that there is a dividing line. Offensive material is offensive material.
The initial version came across much more as a response to Lindisty herself (quoting her directly, liberal use of 'you', that sort of thing), which is what I considered poor form. I think it's clear you didn't mean it that way and there was some unfortunate phrasing and that's fine.
I agree on all counts. Your post, and Jess Door's, convinced me that what I was aiming for, and what was being perceived as the target, were pretty far afield of one another. I can only apologize and plead temporary laspe in communication skills. I would thank both of you for actually explaining where I went wrong, instead of using it as a pretext for some form of verbal assault -- you both demonstrated the kind of response that I, personally, am pleading is more useful than escalation.
|
|
Grr. Post eaten. Trying again.
Ah, I begin to see. Thanks, Jess.
Np.
Let me offer this, then:
- Some people have had horrible experiences with mysogonistic pricks, and that establishes some context for their reaction. In some cases, they might overreact to statements that seem as if they might be sexist as well (and I can't really blame them for that).
- Some people have had horrible experiences with sadistically eager scorched-earth retaliation wrapped in overly-rightous self-justification, and that hopefully helps establish a context for theior (my) reaction. In some cases, they (I) might overreact to statements that closely mirror those used by those who habitually indulge in such over-retaliation.
In my case, because of past experiences, I am pre-conditioned to see a disntinction between "I think I was justified, in this case," vs. "And I was perfectly justified!" The former is a statement of opinion; the latter dares anyone to have the gall to disagree.
I understand. I have the same issue with the attitude "You're a girl, you can't be a competent programmer. You must have been hired as part of some affirmative action thingamy." I didn't realize how sensitive I was to that until I came to Texas from Michigan, and people didn't have that attitude. I'm still working on suppressing my reflexive desire to counterattack against attacks that haven't been made.
I have the same issue with the attitude "You're a girl, you can't be a competent programmer.
I will never understand this kind of idea. Then again, like I said, I've seen the margins by which younger girls dominate most their male classmates on standardized math and science scores...
I simply think that the player in question was more justified to leave out of lack of choice than she was to leave over it being offensive.Lack of choice (in terms of game railroading) is, to me, less of a big deal than being in the company of demonstrated sociopaths. YMMV.
I don't think the lack of choice thing (at least, as I read it) is exactly about railroading in the traditional sense as doing something questionable with someone's character without their consent. And really, if the GM had asked, "Hey, can I introduce you this way?" ahead of time and been declined it really heads off 90% of the weirdness of that scenario.
People have different sore spots, and, yeah, anyone who isn't a sociopath should be aware that that might well be one.
I don't think the lack of choice thing (at least, as I read it) is exactly about railroading in the traditional sense as doing something questionable with someone's character without their consent. And really, if the GM had asked, "Hey, can I introduce you this way?" ahead of time and been declined it really heads off 90% of the weirdness of that scenario.
Thank you for making it more clear than I have.
** spoiler omitted **
Threadjack continues...
|
|
** spoiler omitted **Threadjack continues...** spoiler omitted **
lol, sorry, I thought a total threadjack would be a bad idea on the thread, but it's no fair to have your response up without the original:
I have the same issue with the attitude "You're a girl, you can't be a competent programmer.I will never understand this kind of idea. Then again, like I said, I've seen the margins by which younger girls dominate most their male classmates on standardized math and science scores...** spoiler omitted **
Fortunately my usually automatic ctrl-A ctrl-C copy of the previous post was still on the clipboard.
THIS IS NOT GODDAMN ROCKET SURGERY. IT'S CALLED NOT BEING A SOCIOPATH.
Tell that to the rocket that's trying to kill me!!!!
Grr. Post eaten. Trying again.
Ah, I begin to see. Thanks, Jess.Np.
I understand. I have the same issue with the attitude "You're a girl, you can't be a competent programmer. You must have been hired as part of some affirmative action thingamy." I didn't realize how sensitive I was to that until I came to Texas from Michigan, and people didn't have that attitude. I'm still working on suppressing my reflexive desire to counterattack against attacks that haven't been made.Let me offer this, then:
- Some people have had horrible experiences with mysogonistic pricks, and that establishes some context for their reaction. In some cases, they might overreact to statements that seem as if they might be sexist as well (and I can't really blame them for that).
- Some people have had horrible experiences with sadistically eager scorched-earth retaliation wrapped in overly-rightous self-justification, and that hopefully helps establish a context for theior (my) reaction. In some cases, they (I) might overreact to statements that closely mirror those used by those who habitually indulge in such over-retaliation.
In my case, because of past experiences, I am pre-conditioned to see a disntinction between "I think I was justified, in this case," vs. "And I was perfectly justified!" The former is a statement of opinion; the latter dares anyone to have the gall to disagree.
I honestly dont' get that. What does gender have to do with programming skill?
I honestly dont' get that. What does gender have to do with programming skill?
I believe the preconception follows thusly:
1. Only nerds know how to program.
2. Nerds are predominantly adult males with no social skills.
3. Ergo, the likelihood of finding a female programmer is slim to none.
Not saying I look at it that way, just that it seems to be the logic behind the reaction, if one can call it logic.
|
|
I honestly dont' get that. What does gender have to do with programming skill?
Girls can't do math. Girls can't do science. Girls are too emotional, they can't think logically.
Take your pick, really.
I don't think it's just specific to West Michigan culture, because I got the same thing in college in Ohio. But recently here in Houston while interviewing some potential programming interns, one asked me "And what's your position with the company?"
"I'm the programmer. I'll be your surpervisor."
A very surprised "...oh!"
And my reaction was amusement rather than resentment. So I'm hoping I'm getting rid of most of the chip on my shoulder, anyway.
I don't know how easy it would be to go back to West Michigan at this point, though.
Well, I don't know that anything was flagworthy. Just bizarre. But yes, I did fail my will save. Apologies.Could you all please stop feeding that troll? Flag his posts, put him on ignore, and move on.
You should know by now how this works. If you feed them, you just encourage them.
It was basically stating that since offense is in the eye of the beholder, nothing anyone could say is really offensive.
That's obvious troll bait. "Come on, nothing's offensive. Make jokes about (derogatory term deleted) and (derogatory term deleted) and (derogatory term deleted).
It basically baits us into Michael Richardsing ourselves.
It was basically stating that since offense is in the eye of the beholder, nothing anyone could say is really offensive.
You mean to tell me offense isn't in the eye of the beholder? Offense is a thing that will never be objective.
I honestly dont' get that. What does gender have to do with programming skill?Girls can't do math. Girls can't do science. Girls are too emotional, they can't think logically.
Take your pick, really.
I don't think it's just specific to West Michigan culture, because I got the same thing in college in Ohio. But recently here in Houston while interviewing some potential programming interns, one asked me "And what's your position with the company?"
"I'm the programmer. I'll be your surpervisor."
A very surprised "...oh!"
And my reaction was amusement rather than resentment. So I'm hoping I'm getting rid of most of the chip on my shoulder, anyway.
I don't know how easy it would be to go back to West Michigan at this point, though.
The most I've ever found is that girls are quite overly emotional and a bit irrational, only rarely straying into illogical. If anything, girls can be a bit over-logical when getting overly emotional. Still, none of this affects job performance in a negative fashion, I've seen it affect it positively, however.
Well, I don't know that anything was flagworthy. Just bizarre. But yes, I did fail my will save. Apologies.Could you all please stop feeding that troll? Flag his posts, put him on ignore, and move on.
You should know by now how this works. If you feed them, you just encourage them.
It was basically stating that since offense is in the eye of the beholder, nothing anyone could say is really offensive.
That's obvious troll bait. "Come on, nothing's offensive. Make jokes about (derogatory term deleted) and (derogatory term deleted) and (derogatory term deleted).
It basically baits us into Michael Richardsing ourselves.
I find it analogous to the mud puddle pacific ocean analogy.
A mud puddle in your backyard is a body of water.
The pacific ocean is a body of water.
Therefore, they are comparable.
Statements one and two are true but the third is useless semantics.
They don't really like you...you're just the catnip pusher...Depends on the cat. What you say is often true. On the flip side, I had a cat some years ago that would bring me a carefully eviscerated offering every morning, without fail. If she couldn't find a mouse, it would be a mole. Once, she somehow managed to kill and drag an entire groundhog up to the front door. I've never seen consistent loyalty like that in humans or even dogs, much less cats.
That's unusual. The reason cats bring you dead or half dead animals is because they are contributing to the communal food stockpile. Cats are descended from a kind of small pack hunting feline who live in packs but hunt alone. A successful hunter pretty much takes the choice morsels of the kill on the spot but, after easting its fill, then drags the rest of the kill back to the pack for others to share. Successful behavior because most hunters miss or fail most of the time so here unlucky hunters will tend to get something allowing everyone to have much longer strings of bad hunts before any individual cat risks real starvation.
Pretty much our house cats are involved in this basic behavior. They go on hunts and when they make a kill they drag it back to the rest of the pack - which, as far as they are concerned included you, their owner. Usually the animal has had few actual bits consumed because your cat is extremely well fed. After all you feed it every day.
As for the hygiene of cats, I don't worry too much about my cats not being antiseptic. We've spent our entire history as a species living with animals and dirt, and I worry that over-sterilizing our lives leads to more problems than it solves. Cleanliness is good. Sterilized living spaces I fear will cause more problems than they solve.Go ahead and eat that mud pie; those germs will toughen you up, kid! Just don't offer me any.
Having pets in a household can reduce a child's chance of developing asthma.
My dad's cat liked to eat the mice she caught, but would always at least leave some organ meats or some other tender vittle of the beastie at the doorstep to make sure we got our share.Not always pleasant to look at, but very thoughtful from the cat's perspective.
Generally indicative of a hungry cat. Might just be unusually greedy but it could also be not getting enough food. You should see this also if the cat is overweight but you have put it on a diet.
...And really, if the GM had asked, "Hey, can I introduce you this way?" ahead of time and been declined it really heads off 90% of the weirdness of that scenario.
While this is a better response then just going ahead with the rape scene without asking I'd still contend that its both weird and really in poor form. This is a stranger we are talking about, as a basic matter of any kind of rational social etiquette you don't bring rape up in the topic of conversation. Its just never really appropriate. Later - if this person is a close personal friend or at least there is a well trusted player-GM dynamic then maybe asking 'hey is this emotionally powerful scene' acceptable in the story line may be alright. At that point the player may be willing to go deeper down the rabbit hole in search of emotionally powerful stories and will take the idea and evaluate it presuming the best of intentions instead of the worst. Even this is pretty dangerous territory. For a lot of players the answer is always 'no - I don't want to deal with this them in my fantasy role playing' and the DM and other players need to respect that - its part of any successful social dynamic, certianly one at a game table.
I've read that one of the biggest differences in trends between male and female standardised test performance is that the bell curve for male is wider. The extremes of intelligence for men (both high and low) have a larger portion of the population than for women. In other words, a larger proportion of women than men test closer to the average, and a larger proportion of men than women test in the very high or very low range.
This is certianly what I was taught when I was doing a course on IQ tests and how they are made.
They don't really like you...you're just the catnip pusher...Depends on the cat. What you say is often true. On the flip side, I had a cat some years ago that would bring me a carefully eviscerated offering every morning, without fail. If she couldn't find a mouse, it would be a mole. Once, she somehow managed to kill and drag an entire groundhog up to the front door. I've never seen consistent loyalty like that in humans or even dogs, much less cats.That's unusual. The reason cats bring you dead or half dead animals is because they are contributing to the communal food stockpile. Cats are descended from a kind of small pack hunting feline who live in packs but hunt alone. A successful hunter pretty much takes the choice morsels of the kill on the spot but, after easting its fill, then drags the rest of the kill back to the pack for others to share. Successful behavior because most hunters miss or fail most of the time so here unlucky hunters will tend to get something allowing everyone to have much longer strings of bad hunts before any individual cat risks real starvation.
Pretty much our house cats are involved in this basic behavior. They go on hunts and when they make a kill they drag it back to the rest of the pack - which, as far as they are concerned included you, their owner. Usually the animal has had few actual bits consumed because your cat is extremely well fed. After all you feed it every day.
When I was young our cat (its name was Big Cat) used to bring home half dead snakes, brown snakes, taipans, death adders... all lethal to humans (and cats) dad kept a spade at the back door to chop their heads off so none of us kids would get bit.
|
Isn't he dead now? Practically everyone in FR is, after all.It's alright. Both the Neverwinter Knight and the Lords of the Underdark forgive you! :DI dunno, I hear the Lard of the Undermountain can be a right bastard. Why did Halaster get so fat?
I think that the FR thing will end up being a lot like Marvel's "House of M"...a chance to drasatically reduce the number of characters that will be rendered utterly ineffectual as all of the characters get written into the new storyline by authors that just have to have their favorites.
Maybe Lefear is a woman and is basing it on comparisons between herself and the male gamers she knows?GARY GYGAX WAS RIGHT ABOUT WOMEN! ABSOLUTELY, 100% RIGHT!!!...females do not derive the same inner satisfaction from playing games as a hobby that males do.So you don't believe that women derive the same satisfaction from gaming as men?
What has led you to draw this conclusion?
Indeed! The possibility is one reason why I asked. I would like to hear Lefear answer for him or herself, however. :)
I like to ask questions to understand things better. Unfortunately, this has not gone so well at his board. I don't know how to do it better. :(
I agree on all counts. Your post, and Jess Door's, convinced me that what I was aiming for, and what was being perceived as the target, were pretty far afield of one another. I can only apologize and plead temporary laspe in communication skills. I would thank both of you for actually explaining where I went wrong, instead of using it as a pretext for some form of verbal assault -- you both demonstrated the kind of response that I, personally, am pleading is more useful than escalation.
If the bolded statement is directed toward me, I sincerely apologize for my statements coming off as an assault. I had no interest in personally attacking you--I felt the words you chose were poorly done so and ill timed (and that I believe you are capable of both better diction and timing. Should I not believe such a thing? ;) ). I do know I worded my statement strongly, but I did my best to show that I objected to the comment, and not you personally (which is where an "assault" would have come in). I also unfortunately tend toward White Knight habits, and I perceived that you were indeed attacking someone else and felt the need to come to that person's defense (I also recognize that Lindisty is perfectly capable of coming to her own defense). Alas, poor windmill.
Thank you for your subsequent clarification and apology (and Berik and Jess for saying things better than I could).
Generally indicative of a hungry cat. Might just be unusually greedy but it could also be not getting enough food. You should see this also if the cat is overweight but you have put it on a diet.
My dad's cat liked to eat the mice she caught, but would always at least leave some organ meats or some other tender vittle of the beastie at the doorstep to make sure we got our share.Not always pleasant to look at, but very thoughtful from the cat's perspective.
She was a stray when they took her in, and we think she probably started life as a barn cat, for whom eating mice is a pretty typical method of getting food. She used to cry for food in the morning, but then leave it untouched in her bowl and go out to hunt instead (and eat the food in her bowl later in the day). I think she liked to be assured that food was there, but also wanted to do her own thing (or maybe she preferred mouse to cat food, I don't know). She never had a weight problem in the under or over capacity, but she certainly had all the food she wanted if she wanted it.
She is an old cat now and doesn't hunt any more, and seems just fine living off her canned food and kibble these days.
I took a break from this thread yesterday, and I'm not going to comment on most of what's been posted, but I felt I had to reply to this.
Premise: If a person is intentionally offended, through no fault of their own, then that person has been wronged.
On this point, almost all of us except JS14 agree, correct?
Follow-Up Question: Is the offended party therefore justified in absolutely anything they say or do, from then on?
For what it's worth, my answer to that question would be a resounding "No!" Being offended doesn't exempt one from basic human decency, in my opinion.
(I would, however, relax that standard some when a person has suffered severe trauma-- as with assault, abuse, etc.-- and a social situation triggers those memories and emotions and causes the person to act out in unpredictable ways. Recovering from those kinds of trauma is hard, and it's sometimes hard to know what's going to be a trigger, so avoidance isn't always possible. And people deserve some slack when they're healing from that kind of thing.)
"You were in a horrible situation, and I agree you were absolutely justified in what you did. I am however going to now take up the bulk of the post complaining about how I think your statement comes across as pretty self-righteous. Even though it wasn't in this case I'm going to warn the other people in this thread against using such language in the future because it has often been, in my experience, indicative of someone anxious to be offended so as to be justified in starting a fight."If it came across otherwise, apologies. But I think my follow-up question, above, shouldn't be buried and/or censored.
Thank you for this rephrasing. I was taken aback (and felt pretty defensive) when I read the original phrasing, which I interpreted very similarly to Berik. I'm glad that what you meant is something different than I interpreted when I first read it.
This turned into the Privileged Power Hour pretty hard.
In fact there's literally a Privilege Denying Dude specifically for this!
This turned into the Privileged Power Hour pretty hard.
In fact there's literally a Privilege Denying Dude specifically for this!
Wow... My internet worlds are colliding.
I would never have expected to see someone here link to Privilege Denying Dude, but that particular one is a perfect reflection of certain attitudes expressed in this thread. :)
Ah, so if someone gets legitimately offended by culturally unacceptable behavior, the victim should just get over it? Or choose to somehow magically never be exposed to it again?
Really?
Yep.
You control what offends you. Not anyone or anything else. You.
Sorry, but offensive is offensive. Read the meaning of the word if you have any doubts. Offensive comments are an attack, an intrusion - you do not choose to bleed or not if somebody punches you in the face, do you? You only get to choose how you react to being offended.
Your comment is analogous to saying that the victim of an assault should be arrested for wasting police time if they try and report it.
If somebody says something that hurts your feelings you have a right to call them on it. They have a right to defend their words or actions if they intended no offence. You both have a duty to respect one another's limits. That how it works.
I am posting to inform you that you keep using the word "sociopath" and I do not think it means what you think it means.
I am posting to inform you that you keep using the word "sociopath" and I do not think it means what you think it means.
Are you, Cartigan, refering to a specific poster or addressing all the posters that have used the word?
I am curious, because I do not see it used overmuch, but in both cases I saw, it matched the cultural literacy definition. Not certain if it matchs a medical definition...but pretty sure most of us are not psychiatrists.
As to being persons of culture....well, I can understand an opposing argument. :P
sociopath [( soh -see-uh-path, soh -shee-uh-path)]
Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
If somebody says something that hurts your feelings you have a right to call them on it. They have a right to defend their words or actions if they intended no offence. You both have a duty to respect one another's limits. That how it works.
Well said, Dabbler.
When I was young our cat (its name was Big Cat) used to bring home half dead snakes, brown snakes, taipans, death adders... all lethal to humans (and cats) dad kept a spade at the back door to chop their heads off so none of us kids would get bit.
Ah! I wondered what went wrong with our feline operative! ;-P
|
She used to cry for food in the morning, but then leave it untouched in her bowl and go out to hunt instead (and eat the food in her bowl later in the day). I think she liked to be assured that food was there, but also wanted to do her own thing (or maybe she preferred mouse to cat food, I don't know)
Nah, I think she just wanted you to know your place, not get ideas above your station. Give those humans the idea that they can decide when to get out of bed and they might get funny ideas like they run the place. Slaves can be like that.
They don't really like you...you're just the catnip pusher...Depends on the cat. What you say is often true. On the flip side, I had a cat some years ago that would bring me a carefully eviscerated offering every morning, without fail. If she couldn't find a mouse, it would be a mole. Once, she somehow managed to kill and drag an entire groundhog up to the front door. I've never seen consistent loyalty like that in humans or even dogs, much less cats.That's unusual. The reason cats bring you dead or half dead animals is because they are contributing to the communal food stockpile. Cats are descended from a kind of small pack hunting feline who live in packs but hunt alone. A successful hunter pretty much takes the choice morsels of the kill on the spot but, after easting its fill, then drags the rest of the kill back to the pack for others to share. Successful behavior because most hunters miss or fail most of the time so here unlucky hunters will tend to get something allowing everyone to have much longer strings of bad hunts before any individual cat risks real starvation.
Pretty much our house cats are involved in this basic behavior. They go on hunts and when they make a kill they drag it back to the rest of the pack - which, as far as they are concerned included you, their owner. Usually the animal has had few actual bits consumed because your cat is extremely well fed. After all you feed it every day.
When I was young our cat (its name was Big Cat) used to bring home half dead snakes, brown snakes, taipans, death adders... all lethal to humans (and cats) dad kept a spade at the back door to chop their heads off so none of us kids would get bit.
Pound for pound, cats are perhaps the most lethal non-poisonous predator of their size. Even things slightly larger than they are not safe around them.
Pound for pound, cats are perhaps the most lethal non-poisonous predator of their size. Even things slightly larger than they are not safe around them.
Unless they happen to be my cats, whose response to mice cavorting in the kitchen is to run back and forth between the dining room (where I happened to be) and the kitchen while meowing at the tops of their lungs until I went to see what was wrong...
They were utterly unimpressed when I told them that dealing with small rodents was supposed to be their job. *sigh*
I am posting to inform you that you keep using the word "sociopath" and I do not think it means what you think it means.Are you, Cartigan, refering to a specific poster or addressing all the posters that have used the word?
I am curious, because I do not see it used overmuch, but in both cases I saw, it matched the cultural literacy definition. Not certain if it matchs a medical definition...but pretty sure most of us are not psychiatrists.
As to being persons of culture....well, I can understand an opposing argument. :P
** spoiler omitted **
Being socially inept and insensitive != sociopath. "They included rape in a game because a female gamer was present?! Sociopaths!" Uh. No.
|
|
Being socially inept and insensitive != sociopath. "They included rape in a game because a female gamer was present?! Sociopaths!" Uh. No.I am posting to inform you that you keep using the word "sociopath" and I do not think it means what you think it means.Are you, Cartigan, refering to a specific poster or addressing all the posters that have used the word?
I am curious, because I do not see it used overmuch, but in both cases I saw, it matched the cultural literacy definition. Not certain if it matchs a medical definition...but pretty sure most of us are not psychiatrists.
As to being persons of culture....well, I can understand an opposing argument. :P
** spoiler omitted **
I believe another option, drooling idiocy, was presented as an option in that post.
I think that informing a player they are not allowed to object to such an introduction because it "ruins the DM's story" is approaching that point, though.
Ah! I wondered what went wrong with our feline operative! ;-P
When I was young our cat (its name was Big Cat) used to bring home half dead snakes, brown snakes, taipans, death adders... all lethal to humans (and cats) dad kept a spade at the back door to chop their heads off so none of us kids would get bit.
Big Cat died of old age... he was good at his hobby.