
bookrat |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Simon Legrande wrote:Rynjin wrote:And this is a perfect demonstration of how the Paizo forums are different. You have to be crazy to think that the majority of posters around here aren't openly hostile to Christianity. It always makes me cringe when such unadulterated hate gets spewed against people I don't even agree with. It's like people can't just be civil about the topic.I find it hilarious that you feel the need to do that. As if right wing fundamentalist Christians are some kind of oppressed minority who need to show solidarity.
You have your own news station. The most widely viewed one in the US.
"openly hostile to Christianity"? Really.
I think creationism is nonsense and rejecting evolution is at best willful ignorance.
I think that being anti-LGBTQ is bigoted and harmful.
Is that openly hostile to Christianity? Because it's gotten me accused of it.I also know that there are plenty of Christians who agree with me on both of those.
I've met more than my fair share of folk who believe that simple disagreement is equivalent to oppression. Of course, this view point should go both ways, but for some reason is always means that they are the ones being oppressed if someone else disagrees with them. It's quite baffling to see it in person (on forums it's a bit more understanding, as people tend to read the parts they want and interpret the tone how they want).

thegreenteagamer |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Disagreement isn't hostility or oppression.
Responding to an opinion with a page full of "bwahaha" ad nauseam repeated and nothing else to say in an effort to state such an opinion is not only laughable, but unworthy of response, both in an obviously mocking tone and dismissiveness of one's future opinions by "adding to a list" very much is, and is right about par for the course.
I've seen people suggest that certain groups should be treated as equals but yet refuse to discard their opinions that certain behavior actions were immoral (yet still insist upon treating those people equally) who have their throats jumped down for even saying that much.
I've never seen a thread locked for bringing up a left wing topic, but I sure have seen it happen in under a page for a right winger.
...and don't give me that "well that's because they're trying to keep in on topic." Succubus in a Grapple is in the Rules Questions forum still, and it hasn't been a rules question since page 1. It's just dozens of pages of innuendo jokes. FaWtL has no discernable topic. I can point out dozens upon dozens upon dozens of threads that go off topic and keep going. It's not until the argument gets personal or someone brings up a right-wing non-economic point (which ALWAYS leads to a personal attack) that feathers get ruffled and locks happen.

captain yesterday |

And do you really want to shut down FaWtL and unleash the insanity contained within unto the general forum population, I bet we could derail half the rules forums just with talking about our kids :-)
Not to mention the pet stories, food stories, naked dragons, worshipping European mattresses... if you thought the Korean spammers were bad... :-D
And that's just the stuff I post on FaWtL:-)

PathlessBeth |
Randarak wrote:I've never bought a third party, Pathfinder related book.No worries. I'll make my own RPG eventually to tap the market that you represent :D
YES! And with something based on composition magic and Omnyji magic in the core rules, it will be the best system yet. Heck, you've written far more of your own game mechanics than Paizo ever has.

ElterAgo |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

And this way of thinking (disagreement=oppression) seems to be becoming more prevalent. Its troubling, to say the least.
In my opinion, at least some of that is the way it is handled. Especially on the internet.
In person I can have a discussion, even a heated discussion, on a topic such as E vs C and can expect it to be civilized and at least semi-rational.
On the internet, I can almost guarantee it won't be civilized and won't be rational (by either side). It will be full of viscous personal attacks as well as multiple people jumping in with walls of text to try and drown out anyone that disagrees with them. (I've seen at least a few cases on these boards where someone was posting with multiple aliases just to make it look like it was a bunch of people.)
If it doesn't get locked will probably eventually devolve into actual threats.
While agree that it is not, at times, that can certainly feel like oppression to some.
So now, even if I have a well thought out, reasonable, and supported decision; I won't get involved because it won't make any difference and I will at best be ignored. But most likely I will be vilified for disagreeing with some 'obviously' perfect point of view.

BigNorseWolf |

...and don't give me that "well that's because they're trying to keep in on topic." Succubus in a Grapple is in the Rules Questions forum still, and it hasn't been a rules question since page 1. It's just dozens of pages of innuendo jokes. FaWtL has no discernable topic. I can point out dozens upon dozens upon dozens of threads that go off topic and keep going. It's not until the argument gets personal or someone brings up a right-wing non-economic point (which ALWAYS leads to a personal attack) that feathers get ruffled and locks happen
Its pretty rare to find a white wing "point" that isn't a thinly veiled ad hom and insult.

RDM42 |
thegreenteagamer wrote:...and don't give me that "well that's because they're trying to keep in on topic." Succubus in a Grapple is in the Rules Questions forum still, and it hasn't been a rules question since page 1. It's just dozens of pages of innuendo jokes. FaWtL has no discernable topic. I can point out dozens upon dozens upon dozens of threads that go off topic and keep going. It's not until the argument gets personal or someone brings up a right-wing non-economic point (which ALWAYS leads to a personal attack) that feathers get ruffled and locks happenIts pretty rare to find a white wing "point" that isn't a thinly veiled ad hom and insult.
Is that sort of similar to using the appellation 'white wing' or do standards of civility not apply equally?

BigNorseWolf |

BigNorseWolf wrote:Is that sort of similar to using the appellation 'white wing' or do standards of civility not apply equally?thegreenteagamer wrote:...and don't give me that "well that's because they're trying to keep in on topic." Succubus in a Grapple is in the Rules Questions forum still, and it hasn't been a rules question since page 1. It's just dozens of pages of innuendo jokes. FaWtL has no discernable topic. I can point out dozens upon dozens upon dozens of threads that go off topic and keep going. It's not until the argument gets personal or someone brings up a right-wing non-economic point (which ALWAYS leads to a personal attack) that feathers get ruffled and locks happenIts pretty rare to find a white wing "point" that isn't a thinly veiled ad hom and insult.
Just a typo while I'm hopped up on cold medicine. Don't read into it. (that's the lefts thing, they'll sue!)

Zhangar |

Randarak wrote:And this way of thinking (disagreement=oppression) seems to be becoming more prevalent. Its troubling, to say the least.In my opinion, at least some of that is the way it is handled. Especially on the internet.
In person I can have a discussion, even a heated discussion, on a topic such as E vs C and can expect it to be civilized and at least semi-rational.
On the internet, I can almost guarantee it won't be civilized and won't be rational (by either side). It will be full of viscous personal attacks as well as multiple people jumping in with walls of text to try and drown out anyone that disagrees with them. (I've seen at least a few cases on these boards where someone was posting with multiple aliases just to make it look like it was a bunch of people.)
If it doesn't get locked will probably eventually devolve into actual threats.While agree that it is not, at times, that can certainly feel like oppression to some.
So now, even if I have a well thought out, reasonable, and supported decision; I won't get involved because it won't make any difference and I will at best be ignored. But most likely I will be vilified for disagreeing with some 'obviously' perfect point of view.
As succinctly summed up by Penny Arcade. (NSFW) (When in doubt, always assume Penny Arcade is NSFW =P)

thegreenteagamer |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

thegreenteagamer wrote:...and don't give me that "well that's because they're trying to keep in on topic." Succubus in a Grapple is in the Rules Questions forum still, and it hasn't been a rules question since page 1. It's just dozens of pages of innuendo jokes. FaWtL has no discernable topic. I can point out dozens upon dozens upon dozens of threads that go off topic and keep going. It's not until the argument gets personal or someone brings up a right-wing non-economic point (which ALWAYS leads to a personal attack) that feathers get ruffled and locks happenIts pretty rare to find a white wing "point" that isn't a thinly veiled ad hom and insult.
For the most part you're right. I'd say about, eh, 70% or so of that's true.
I'd point out some examples otherwise, but I'm dangerously close to making you people think I'm a conservative republican or some other such nonsense right winger, and I can't be having with that.
Quick, tgtg, say something left winged you believe in.
No death penalty! Legalize weed!! Tax the living crap out of anyone who makes a million a year or more and give it to people below the poverty line!!!

Randarak |

BigNorseWolf wrote:thegreenteagamer wrote:...and don't give me that "well that's because they're trying to keep in on topic." Succubus in a Grapple is in the Rules Questions forum still, and it hasn't been a rules question since page 1. It's just dozens of pages of innuendo jokes. FaWtL has no discernable topic. I can point out dozens upon dozens upon dozens of threads that go off topic and keep going. It's not until the argument gets personal or someone brings up a right-wing non-economic point (which ALWAYS leads to a personal attack) that feathers get ruffled and locks happenIts pretty rare to find a white wing "point" that isn't a thinly veiled ad hom and insult.For the most part you're right. I'd say about, eh, 70% or so of that's true.
I'd point out some examples otherwise, but I'm dangerously close to making you people think I'm a conservative republican or some other such nonsense right winger, and I can't be having with that.
Quick, tgtg, say something left winged you believe in.
No death penalty! Legalize weed!! Tax the living crap out of anyone who makes a million a year or more and give it to people below the poverty line!!!
Perhaps a "Devil's Advocate" alias would help...?

knightnday |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Too many times, on politics or really most topics, people tend to take disagreement as a personal insult that can only be fixed by bathing in the tears or blood of the opposing point. The internet just makes it worse.
That said, things here are a bit better than other places I frequent, where not thinking "Obummer" is the height of insulting humor and saying anything vaguely liberal is a good way to get banned.
I just shrug and complain to my wife and otherwise don't get bent out of shape by Words on the Screen. Someone disagreed with me! Oh no! Everyone has the right to be wrong. :)

The Demon's Advocate |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

thegreenteagamer wrote:Perhaps a "Devil's Advocate" alias would help...?BigNorseWolf wrote:thegreenteagamer wrote:...and don't give me that "well that's because they're trying to keep in on topic." Succubus in a Grapple is in the Rules Questions forum still, and it hasn't been a rules question since page 1. It's just dozens of pages of innuendo jokes. FaWtL has no discernable topic. I can point out dozens upon dozens upon dozens of threads that go off topic and keep going. It's not until the argument gets personal or someone brings up a right-wing non-economic point (which ALWAYS leads to a personal attack) that feathers get ruffled and locks happenIts pretty rare to find a white wing "point" that isn't a thinly veiled ad hom and insult.For the most part you're right. I'd say about, eh, 70% or so of that's true.
I'd point out some examples otherwise, but I'm dangerously close to making you people think I'm a conservative republican or some other such nonsense right winger, and I can't be having with that.
Quick, tgtg, say something left winged you believe in.
No death penalty! Legalize weed!! Tax the living crap out of anyone who makes a million a year or more and give it to people below the poverty line!!!
That's lawful propaganda. If anyone would be likely to provide the contrary point of view simply for the point of stirring up an argument that will inevitably have no positive conclusion and sew chaos, I posit it would be a demon, not a devil. We're just as intelligent, if not more so than devils. Their ability to "organize", or rather rely upon others because they're too weak to handle things themselves is contrary to the very idea of the advocate position for the purpose of providing a contrary view.

Dr. Kreiger |

thegreenteagamer wrote:Anybody have a GOOD script I can use...?The Obvious Guy wrote:I find that alias to look a frickin' LOT like Nick Cage.captain yesterday wrote:I find people that use lots of aliases tiresome :-)I find this intensely hypocritical...
You've never needed one before, oh great and powerful Lord of Darkness!

The Demon's Advocate |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

The Demon's Advocate wrote:Little too quick with the clicky button there Doublepost?Randarak wrote:That's lawful propaganda. If anyone would be likely to provide the contrary point of view simply for the point of stirring up an argument that will inevitably have no positive conclusion and sew chaos, I posit it would be a demon, not a devil. We're just as intelligent, if not more so than devils. Their ability to "organize", or rather rely upon others because they're too weak to handle things themselves is contrary to the very idea of the advocate position for the purpose of providing a contrary view.thegreenteagamer wrote:Perhaps a "Devil's Advocate" alias would help...?BigNorseWolf wrote:thegreenteagamer wrote:...and don't give me that "well that's because they're trying to keep in on topic." Succubus in a Grapple is in the Rules Questions forum still, and it hasn't been a rules question since page 1. It's just dozens of pages of innuendo jokes. FaWtL has no discernable topic. I can point out dozens upon dozens upon dozens of threads that go off topic and keep going. It's not until the argument gets personal or someone brings up a right-wing non-economic point (which ALWAYS leads to a personal attack) that feathers get ruffled and locks happenIts pretty rare to find a white wing "point" that isn't a thinly veiled ad hom and insult.For the most part you're right. I'd say about, eh, 70% or so of that's true.
I'd point out some examples otherwise, but I'm dangerously close to making you people think I'm a conservative republican or some other such nonsense right winger, and I can't be having with that.
Quick, tgtg, say something left winged you believe in.
No death penalty! Legalize weed!! Tax the living crap out of anyone who makes a million a year or more and give it to people below the poverty line!!!
You have no proof. It doesn't exist anymore, therefore it never did. Like in law, the burden of proof is on the accuser, and therefore the flaw of the system. Glorious, glorious flaws; delicious as baby flesh and the tears of friendzoned teenage boys with crushes on teenage girls dating college guys.

Cheryl Tunt |

Cheryl Tunt wrote:No, but I'll be playing your supervisor in my next film.The Obvious Guy wrote:You're not my supervisor!!!!!captain yesterday wrote:I find people that use lots of aliases tiresome :-)I find this intensely hypocritical...
Not after having a role in Jurassic World, pretty sure I'll be playing your supervisor!
Better get ready, it'll get a lot darker before it gets better...

Randarak |

Nicholas Cage wrote:You've never needed one before, oh great and powerful Lord of Darkness!thegreenteagamer wrote:Anybody have a GOOD script I can use...?The Obvious Guy wrote:I find that alias to look a frickin' LOT like Nick Cage.captain yesterday wrote:I find people that use lots of aliases tiresome :-)I find this intensely hypocritical...
I hate to admit it, but I don't get the reference....