Doesn't the very fact that this and similar threads exist prove that perhaps Paizo advocating on behalf of LGBTQX.etc might not be the best decision for them as a company to take?
I'm not seeing how that conclusion follows from your premise.
At a guess, I'd say they're doing fine financially. At a guess, the employees feel they're doing fine creatively.
How has this been "not the best decision" for them? Outside of some arguments on a message board (heavens! people on the message board are arguing over game content! oh dear!) where is the negative impact for Paizo?
Doesn't the very fact that this and similar threads exist prove that perhaps Paizo advocating on behalf of LGBTQX.etc might not be the best decision for them as a company to take?I'm not seeing how that conclusion follows from your premise.
At a guess, I'd say they're doing fine financially. At a guess, the employees feel they're doing fine creatively.
How has this been "not the best decision" for them? Outside of some arguments on a message board (heavens! people on the message board are arguing over game content! oh dear!) where is the negative impact for Paizo?
Uh, people not buying that content? I'm waiting on next AP, not buying world wound due to content and changes I'd need to make for my younger, preteen players.
Uh, people not buying that content? I'm waiting on next AP, not buying world wound due to content and changes I'd need to make for my younger, preteen players.Doesn't the very fact that this and similar threads exist prove that perhaps Paizo advocating on behalf of LGBTQX.etc might not be the best decision for them as a company to take?I'm not seeing how that conclusion follows from your premise.
At a guess, I'd say they're doing fine financially. At a guess, the employees feel they're doing fine creatively.
How has this been "not the best decision" for them? Outside of some arguments on a message board (heavens! people on the message board are arguing over game content! oh dear!) where is the negative impact for Paizo?
Sure, some people will choose not to buy that content, which is fine and is up to them (or in this case, up to you). But I'd guess Paizo is generally not losing enough customers to affect the bottom line. And may even pick up some customers as a result.
And if this does negatively affect the bottom line, maybe Paizo feels it's worth it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand for example US supreme court a few months ago decided against a law that received direct majority support from Californians and the court majority effictively said that people who are against gay marriage - meaning a majority of cals and besides vast majorities of the 96 senate and representative members - are bigoted a!##%!@s. So this is a political issue in paizo markets and actually one in which neither side is acting nicely.
Carn, I don't want to derail the actual point of this thread, but I feel it's important to point out a big flaw in this line of thinking.
There have been countless laws throughout history that have been voted through legally that were, nonetheless, flat out wrong. The majority of those laws were eventually overturned because it became self-evident that their sole purpose was to disenfranchise a certain group.
Just because a population voted on a law doesn't mean the law is just.
In fact, the reason we have things like the Bill of Rights is to make it clear that certain things should never be put up to a vote. That's why they're called rights.
To touch on a point you brought up earlier, to say that a voting populous should have the ability to create a behavioral doctrine for any group is how a Lawful Evil society would handle things, and how they would argue the legitimacy of the situation.
So if you have actual statistics or a swaying argument to back up your position, please present it. Please don't commit a Bandwagon Fallacy, or an Appeal to Authority to try to back up your thoughts. It undermines your position.
As to whether or not Paizo will continue to include issues that are currently politicized in their books, I certainly hope so. Anything that sparks discussions like this is a tool for positive change.
Uh, people not buying that content? I'm waiting on next AP, not buying world wound due to content and changes I'd need to make for my younger, preteen players.Doesn't the very fact that this and similar threads exist prove that perhaps Paizo advocating on behalf of LGBTQX.etc might not be the best decision for them as a company to take?I'm not seeing how that conclusion follows from your premise.
At a guess, I'd say they're doing fine financially. At a guess, the employees feel they're doing fine creatively.
How has this been "not the best decision" for them? Outside of some arguments on a message board (heavens! people on the message board are arguing over game content! oh dear!) where is the negative impact for Paizo?
Sure, some people will choose not to buy that content, which is fine and is up to them (or in this case, up to you). But I'd guess Paizo is generally not losing enough customers to affect the bottom line. And may even pick up some customers as a result.
And if this does negatively affect the bottom line, maybe Paizo feels it's worth it.
Funny how you brush aside my very real example of a negative impact for them. You asked where it was, and I showed you. You hand waive it away and say it doesn't matter.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, if this stuff bothers you in a Paizo product, stop buying their products.
Or change your mind. You're not going to change theirs.
Seriously, if this stuff bothers you in a Paizo product, stop buying their products.
Or change your mind. You're not going to change theirs.
Not even trying to change their mind. I will buy some of there products and not others, as I assume everyone does.
I was merely pointing out to this discussion that people do make buying decisions based on the content of the material. Those buying decisions have an impact on Paizo - positive and negative.
Uh, people not buying that content? I'm waiting on next AP, not buying world wound due to content and changes I'd need to make for my younger, preteen players.Sure, some people will choose not to buy that content, which is fine and is up to them (or in this case, up to you). But I'd guess Paizo is generally not losing enough customers to affect the bottom line. And may even pick up some customers as a result.
And if this does negatively affect the bottom line, maybe Paizo feels it's worth it.
Funny how you brush aside my very real example of a negative impact for them. You asked where it was, and I showed you. You hand waive it away and say it doesn't matter.
KSF never said it didn't matter. Just that it probably isn't enough to override the negative impact from not promoting equality. That's not hand waiving, it's just pointing out that your particular case is unlikely to be enough to sway Paizo's decision.
All things considered, there's likely to be some kind of content in every AP that someone, somewhere, is going to either find offensive or simply not fun to play. I've seen people who want to skip anything that feels sci-fi related, for example, but it would appear enough people will still be interested that it'll be worth producing it anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny how you brush aside my very real example of a negative impact for them. You asked where it was, and I showed you. You hand waive it away and say it doesn't matter.
I said I figured they were doing fine financially. The loss of a single sale, or even a few sales on an AP will probably not put them in bad financial condition. They already knew they might lose a few sales on this one due to the use of the Mythic rules. I'd guess that the loss of sales over the inclusion of LGBT content is probably less than the loss due to the inclusion of Mythic.
I'm pretty sure they expect that people occasionally skip an AP and wait for the next one. I'm pretty sure that's built into their business model.
I'm not brushing you aside. I'm saying the negative impact of the sort you're talking about is negligible in terms of the overall financial picture.
And to make things clear, in saying that, I am not saying that your decision to not buy the AP is negligible. If you feel it best not to run it for your players for the reason you state, that's what you should do. As in our previous exchange, I wish you no ill will.
Edit: Ninja'd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The existence of gay NPCs = political? That's homophobia, plain and simple.
I'm waiting on next AP, not buying world wound due to content and changes I'd need to make for my younger, preteen players.And just to add to this: Depending on how many of these younger players you have, there's a good chance at least one of them is gay. Depending on how young they are, he might even suspect it already. They will almost certainly soon know people who are openly gay if they don't already, either their peers in few years or adults.
Censoring the concept is pointless and presenting it in a positive light might even help.
Of course, your right I'm wrong. I'm making the wrong decision period. Thanks for making a pointless comment without even knowing my gaming group, parents of the people, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It appears to be the view of this community that supporting "homosexual marriage" is a requirement for being part of it. Is that accurate, and does Paizo feel that way as well? Because it sure looks that way. I want to know this before I decide whether to run my PBP game here or elsewhere.
Are you also arguing that the existence of Cheliax means the community is therefore pro-slavery and that supporting slavery is a requirement for being part of it?
Are you also arguing that the existence of Cayden means the community os pro-alcoholism and that being an alcoholic is a requirement for being part of it?
Are you also arguing...
I could go on all day.
YOU don't have to support anything, but you might need to learn to accept the fact that no matter how much you might dislike them certain things will continue to exist, and not every culture that will be portrayed in the game is just going to be your own preference with a thin veneer of fantasy wrapper over the top.
I'm waiting on next AP, not buying world wound due to content and changes I'd need to make for my younger, preteen players.And just to add to this: Depending on how many of these younger players you have, there's a good chance at least one of them is gay. Depending on how young they are, he might even suspect it already. They will almost certainly soon know people who are openly gay if they don't already, either their peers in few years or adults.
Censoring the concept is pointless and presenting it in a positive light might even help.
I'm not understanding. Wouldn't it be "Depending on how old they are"?
I'm not understanding. Wouldn't it be "Depending on how old they are"?I'm waiting on next AP, not buying world wound due to content and changes I'd need to make for my younger, preteen players.And just to add to this: Depending on how many of these younger players you have, there's a good chance at least one of them is gay. Depending on how young they are, he might even suspect it already. They will almost certainly soon know people who are openly gay if they don't already, either their peers in few years or adults.
Censoring the concept is pointless and presenting it in a positive light might even help.
Stuffy Grammarian could probably answer this better than me, but I'll take a stab at it:
It's equally valid, even if it reads a bit odd to some people. The dependency is "how young" and the required answer for a chance of one of them suspecting they are gay is "not that young", so technically it is grammatically correct.
What's really sad is that it is 2013 and we are still having these types of conversations. Will the day ever come when bigotry (in sheep's clothing) has gone the way of the dodo bird?
No.
It will simply change form as other ways become "Immoral" or passe. While tribalism and other related -isms are on the down swing or -isms will take their place. The current trending form of "They are not us" is "They just don't have the same amount of education I do" or if they have a same amount its "Clearly their education is inferior to my own."
I'm not understanding. Wouldn't it be "Depending on how old they are"?Whichever way. Just an inverse dependency my way. :)
Oh, o.k. *Does a positive hand gesture*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm waiting on next AP, not buying world wound due to content and changes I'd need to make for my younger, preteen players.And just to add to this: Depending on how many of these younger players you have, there's a good chance at least one of them is gay. Depending on how young they are, he might even suspect it already. They will almost certainly soon know people who are openly gay if they don't already, either their peers in few years or adults.
Censoring the concept is pointless and presenting it in a positive light might even help.Of course, your right I'm wrong. I'm making the wrong decision period. Thanks for making a pointless comment without even knowing my gaming group, parents of the people, etc.
I don't think that's what he was trying to say. I think he was saying that there's nothing harmful about the LGBT content in the AP, and that said content could actually prove to be a positive thing if any the younger members of your gaming group are gay. And that, given that a percentage of the population is gay, and that that percentage includes young people, there's a chance that a member of your group is gay.
It's your right to run the game the way you want to, and to run the AP the way you want to.
But I think what TheJeff is pointing out that a) some young people are gay (or more generally LBGT), and b) playing in an adventure in which there are positive LGBT characters would be quite helpful for such a person, and c) if they're not LGBT, there's a good chance they'll have LGBT friends within a few years, so it's not like it's possible to prevent them from being aware of LGBT people.
Speaking personally, if my old AD&D group (1st ed.) had ever gone through a module with a positive trans character in it, like Anevia, it would have helped me immensely when I was a kid. And if I never encountered any trans people in any of the games (which I didn't, outside of a certain cursed item), and then later found out that someone had subtracted them, I'd be a bit unhappy about it.
But you should do as you see fit. And as The Jeff says in a later post, you should obey whatever content guidelines are laid down by their parents.
Couple of questions (which, of course, you don't have to answer):
1) Have you actually read any of the AP? The LGBT content is pretty innocuous.
2) The young players in your group, if they are at all into sci-fi and fantasy, have in all probability watched at least one movie trilogy featuring a gay actor. (And the follow-up to that trilogy, also featuring the same gay actor.) And they've probably watched at least one film (possibly three, if they watched the whole trilogy) co-directed by a trans woman. Do you find this to be okay? If they wanted to learn more about that actor, or that director, would you allow them to do so, or would you attempt to restrict them in that regard? If you were not aware of the LGBT participation in the films in question, and are now aware of them, would you now prevent the young people from viewing them?
(Edit to add: I'm talking about the Lord of the Rings films and the Matrix films, if that wasn't clear.)
I'm not judging you or saying I know the answers to any of these questions. I'm just wondering how you'd respond to them, should you choose to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's really sad is that it is 2013 and we are still having these types of conversations. Will the day ever come when bigotry (in sheep's clothing) has gone the way of the dodo bird?No.
It will simply change form as other ways become "Immoral" or passe. While tribalism and other related -isms are on the down swing or -isms will take their place. The current trending form of "They are not us" is "They just don't have the same amount of education I do" or if they have a same amount its "Clearly their education is inferior to my own."
That seems like a positive trend to me. It moves away from saying "There's something wrong with you" and moves toward "There's a possibility that you can gain a better and more accurate understanding if you're willing to put some effort into it."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually thought about mentioning trans in that post, but decided against on the grounds of multiplying parenthetical expressions.
While the chances of one of the kids being trans are much lower, from what little I know, they're far more likely to be aware of it. Or at least aware of the conflict between their apparent gender and their actual gender, even if they don't have a name for that yet.Apologies if I phrased any of that badly.
No worries. I just wanted to add a personal anecdote to support the point you were making. (And yeah, I didn't know the name for it until later.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's really sad is that it is 2013 and we are still having these types of conversations. Will the day ever come when bigotry (in sheep's clothing) has gone the way of the dodo bird?
So you're speciest against wolves AND dodo birds!! I see how this goes...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use Pathfinder because I like the product. I don't particularly care about their political or moral views. My question, and I suspect I know the answer, is whether or not this community feels that supporting homosexual marriage is or should be a requirement for being in it.
I think the answer is, a) Paizo's products are going to continue to support the idea of homosexual marriage when and where the developers think is appropriate, and that position will not change. And b) if you're going to state that you're against gay marriage on the boards, you should probably expect that a number of people will disagree with you and will let you know that they disagree with you, and perhaps engage you in debate about it.
Is that the answer you suspected?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use Pathfinder because I like the product. I don't particularly care about their political or moral views. My question, and I suspect I know the answer, is whether or not this community feels that supporting homosexual marriage is or should be a requirement for being in it.
My personal opinion:
I would expect anyone with anti-equality views (by which I mean the "You're not my equal, and don't deserve the same rights and privileges as I do" type) to keep them to themselves. That's about the only requirement I would expect.
that's being very selective with your answer. The game is not portraying same sex-marriage in a 'positive light', it is simply portraying that same-sex marriage happens to exist; what you make of it from there is up to you.
Cheliax is portrayed as pro-slavery, and whilst some cultures in the region are against it (and some for it), Paizo doe not direct you on which side you are required to come down in the debate. If it was to be portrayed in a bad light then they would insist you had to be evil to be Cheliaxian and not include them as a playable faction in PFS.
You can be pro or against homosexual marriage in this community just fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion (I know, I have enough of them) however where people draw the line is when someone starts dumping on someone else because of it. The same way they don't cop to racism, sexism, etc.
That said, if you put an opinion out into the open, expect that people might challenge it, and if you can't back up why you are telling people what they can and cannot do then be prepared to have a tough time or be laughed at.
If you don't want it in your game then don't put it there, plain as that, I am unsure how this would affect any PbP that you were considering tunning on these boards. There isn't a gay marriage quota in any pbp games that I have seen mate, you should be fine.
That seems like a positive trend to me. It moves away from saying "There's something wrong with you" and moves toward "There's a possibility that you can gain a better and more accurate understanding if you're willing to put some effort into it."What's really sad is that it is 2013 and we are still having these types of conversations. Will the day ever come when bigotry (in sheep's clothing) has gone the way of the dodo bird?No.
It will simply change form as other ways become "Immoral" or passe. While tribalism and other related -isms are on the down swing or -isms will take their place. The current trending form of "They are not us" is "They just don't have the same amount of education I do" or if they have a same amount its "Clearly their education is inferior to my own."
You'd think so but that "They're not us mentality" is still there and as I said if you have an equal amount of education they'll still find fault with it.
I'm waiting on next AP, not buying world wound due to content and changes I'd need to make for my younger, preteen players.And just to add to this: Depending on how many of these younger players you have, there's a good chance at least one of them is gay. Depending on how young they are, he might even suspect it already. They will almost certainly soon know people who are openly gay if they don't already, either their peers in few years or adults.
Censoring the concept is pointless and presenting it in a positive light might even help.Of course, your right I'm wrong. I'm making the wrong decision period. Thanks for making a pointless comment without even knowing my gaming group, parents of the people, etc.
.....
1) Have you actually read any of the AP? The LGBT content is pretty innocuous.
2) The young players in your group, if they are at all into sci-fi and fantasy, have in all probability watched at least one movie trilogy featuring a gay actor. (And the follow-up to that trilogy, also featuring the same gay actor.) And they've probably watched at least one film (possibly three, if they watched the whole trilogy) co-directed by a trans woman. Do you find this to be okay? If they wanted to learn more about that actor, or that director, would you allow them to do so, or would you attempt to restrict them in that regard? If you were not aware of the LGBT participation in the films in question, and are now aware of them, would you now prevent the young people from viewing them?
1) I skimmed it in B&N
2) I loved LOTR, and all the actors, whatever their preference.3) I loved the Matrix, the other two movies got a little lost if you ask me.
4) I can only speak for my own children, who have watched them all. They can ask and learn what they want to learn.
5) I have no problem with my children watching them or learning about them. I won't usurp the parental rights of the other children's parents. The decision for those choices are up to them.
1) I skimmed it in B&N
2) I loved LOTR, and all the actors, whatever their preference.
3) I loved the Matrix, the other two movies got a little lost if you ask me.
4) I can only speak for my own children, who have watched them all. They can ask and learn what they want to learn.
5) I have no problem with my children watching them or learning about them. I won't usurp the parental rights of the other children's parents. The decision for those choices are up to them.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it. It helps me get a better idea of where you're coming from. (And I agree to a degree on Matrix 2 and 3.)
5) I have no problem with my children watching them or learning about them. I won't usurp the parental rights of the other children's parents. The decision for those choices are up to them.
I think everyone will support you (or at least, I'd hope so) on this, and understand that it isn't your call to make.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, I can understand that dealing with 'prickly issues' is not something you want to have to worry about in your off time when it should all be about some soda & pretzels entertainment, so just handwave all that stuff and get to the worry free and lighthearted parts where you can just sweep through a dungeon and take out its denizens with a well placed mace to the temple whilst they were sitting down to a nice pot noodle.
Who wants to deal with any of that 'uncomfortable issue' stuff amirite?
Kids should just be able to be kids, exacting righteous carnage and mayhem on 'those Orcs who had it coming' since 1977.
I think everyone will support you (or at least, I'd hope so) on this, and understand that it isn't your call to make.
5) I have no problem with my children watching them or learning about them. I won't usurp the parental rights of the other children's parents. The decision for those choices are up to them.
Yeah, I agree with that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The discomfort over loving consensual commitment rituals scoring higher than a graphic description of killing a sentient being for flattened circles of metal is all based on the value system of the individuals in the game, which makes the water of culture more observable and testable than everyday life.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why did I click on a thread with politics on the label lol?
I feel the need to add 2 copper pieces to this.
I am not a homosexual person, I'm a hypersexualixed heterosexual. I personally would not engage in homosexual acts, both because of personal preference and my chosen religious doctrine. HOWEVER, whether other people do so is not really an issue for me, unless they infringe on my rights in a certain way by doing so. If others want to stand up and shout their sexual preference all day long, it matters little to me, as I have made my choice on the matter and everyone else has to make theirs. This viewpoint has brought me some criticism, as I live in the Deep South U.S. and holding an accepting view of these subjects brings me much criticism from some people.
Simply put, I do not see the problem with including such characters. They are not, in my opinion, the focus of adventures anymore than heterosexual characters, perhaps even less so in some cases. If homosexuals/transsexuals in an AP offend you, simply change the nature of their relationship, as the APs are designed as semi-flexible, linked modules, not as set-in-stone monuments of how the games have to be run. I usually find out what a particular group's boundaries are sexually, morally, ect., and make the change before the game even begins. My home group does not particularly care about sexuality distinctions, as that's just what they are, distinctions, no more political or controversial than hair or eye color, race, ect.
What I'm saying is this: if it offends you then gloss over it, ignore it, or change it. Don't discourage authors from crafting masterful stories simply because you disagree with the inclusion of personally uncomfortable subject matter. To counter the inevitable reply of 'it's the way they're included', I'll simply state that they are shown less often than their 'traditional' counterparts in the same story capacity and any claims of them given 'pet positions' are somewhat illogical.
I apologize to anyone I have offended, for my intent is not to offend, but to offer constructive input on the matter which hopefully helps mend any pre-existing rifts over the subject. Harmony and community after all, the goals of civilization, to take disparate groups of people and join them together into a coalition working towards a common good if you will indulge a slight derailment and bit of poetic exposition.
In terms of doing more politics in the game, it would be col to have a kit set up for different political systems. For example if you wandered into a fascist country in golarion, what special assumptions are most npcs living under? What is a foreign adventurer going to face when conspicuously succeeding in public? Etc... I can see it in sort of an ultimate campaign book. Then I could justify its eager use in an educational setting!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal opinion:
I would expect anyone with anti-equality views (by which I mean the "You're not my equal, and don't deserve the same rights and privileges as I do" type) to keep them to themselves. That's about the only requirement I would expect.
Anti-equality? What the hell does that mean? Does everything need to be equal between different people or just what YOU think needs to be equal?
Anyway, your opinion sounds very condescending imo. A stance like that comes across as - "Since you are not for equality for everyone you are a mean-spirited, bigoted, homophobic, racist jerk! Oh, and keep your mouth shut too since your opinion doesn't agree with mine!" Wow! So much for free speech and demonizing people who disagree with you in this thread by using the word ANTI-equality.
You telling people with opposing views to keep their opinions to themselves while telling them what your opinion is in a public forum is just....wow!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anti-equality? What the hell does that mean?
It means what they say it means in the bracketed part of their post, the same bracketed part that you reposted. You did read the part in brackets right?
Why did I click on a thread with politics on the label lol?
I feel the need to add 2 copper pieces to this.
I am not a homosexual person, I'm a hypersexualixed heterosexual. I personally would not engage in homosexual acts, both because of personal preference and my chosen religious doctrine. HOWEVER, whether other people do so is not really an issue for me, unless they infringe on my rights in a certain way by doing so. If others want to stand up and shout their sexual preference all day long, it matters little to me, as I have made my choice on the matter and everyone else has to make theirs. This viewpoint has brought me some criticism, as I live in the Deep South U.S. and holding an accepting view of these subjects brings me much criticism from some people.
Simply put, I do not see the problem with including such characters. They are not, in my opinion, the focus of adventures anymore than heterosexual characters, perhaps even less so in some cases. If homosexuals/transsexuals in an AP offend you, simply change the nature of their relationship, as the APs are designed as semi-flexible, linked modules, not as set-in-stone monuments of how the games have to be run. I usually find out what a particular group's boundaries are sexually, morally, ect., and make the change before the game even begins. My home group does not particularly care about sexuality distinctions, as that's just what they are, distinctions, no more political or controversial than hair or eye color, race, ect.
What I'm saying is this: if it offends you then gloss over it, ignore it, or change it. Don't discourage authors from crafting masterful stories simply because you disagree with the inclusion of personally uncomfortable subject matter. To counter the inevitable reply of 'it's the way they're included', I'll simply state that they are shown less often than their 'traditional' counterparts in the same story capacity and any claims of them given 'pet positions' are somewhat illogical.
I apologize to anyone I have offended,...
Why would you or anyone want to support a company with their money if they do things that you strongly disagree with?
This applies to anything in life, not just sexual relationships.
It means what they say it means in the bracketed part of their post, the same bracketed part that you reposted. You did read the part in brackets right?Anti-equality? What the hell does that mean?
"You're not my equal, and don't deserve the same rights and privileges as I do"
Again, in regards to what? Everything or some things? Are we dealing with behavior, wealth, morals, laws, or whatever?
Anti-equality? What the hell does that mean? Does everything need to be equal between different people or just what YOU think needs to be equal?My personal opinion:
I would expect anyone with anti-equality views (by which I mean the "You're not my equal, and don't deserve the same rights and privileges as I do" type) to keep them to themselves. That's about the only requirement I would expect.
Go back and read his other posts in the thread. Matt Thomason, in his posts, comes across (to me anyways) as the opposite of condescending. He is very firm in what he believes, and in expressing that, but that's not the same as condescending.
I'd also suggest you consider the context of the post. Look at the post he is responding to.
Anyway, your opinion sounds very condescending imo. A stance like that comes across as - "Since you are not for equality for everyone you are a mean-spirited, bigoted, homophobic, racist jerk! Oh, and keep your mouth shut too since your opinion doesn't agree with mine!" Wow! So much for free speech and demonizing people who disagree with you in this thread by using the word ANTI-equality.
Do you feel that people who are against gay marriage and its depiction in Paizo APs, or who are against the depiction of LGBT people in Paizo APs, are anti-equality or pro-equality?
Note that I'm not talking about people like Wiggz and BryonD, who are disagreeing with the how rather than the what of equal representation. I'm talking about people like the original poster, who have made their views on these matters clear.
Or are you trying to say that an accurate descriptor for the sentiments expressed in the original post (and that poster's follow-up posts) is "equality"?
You telling people with opposing views to keep their opinions to themselves while telling them what your opinion is in a public forum is just....wow!
Again, note the context of his post, and the post he was responding to. The poster that MT responded to was trying to suggest that there is a pro-gay marriage sentiment on this board, and that people with a different view are not welcome. MT was saying that, yes, there are many people on the board with that view, and that if one expresses an anti-gay marriage view, one should expect to receive criticism for it.
Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the mean-spirited and the racist part. Homophobic and bigoted, on the other hand, seem to be accurate descriptions of people who are against gay marriage, or people who express homophobic or bigoted views.
It means what they say it means in the bracketed part of their post, the same bracketed part that you reposted. You did read the part in brackets right?Anti-equality? What the hell does that mean?
"You're not my equal, and don't deserve the same rights and privileges as I do"
Again, in regards to what? Everything or some things? Are we dealing with behavior, wealth, morals, laws, or whatever?
Read the entire thread. The meaning of that statement is relatively clear in context.
So far I have seen people from both sides in this thread act like bigots, just like reading the WoW forums.
I've seen maybe one person on the pro-gay marriage side, or pro-LGBT side get outright angry on this thread. I haven't seen any of those people act like bigots. Are you sure you understand what that word means?
This "anti-equality" tagline is just attack speech imo. It demonizes people you don't agree with while making yourself feel superior.
If you take the time to read the thread, and others like it, you will see that many substantive arguments have been offered against those expressing anti-LGBT views.
Btw, did attacking me by calling me a bigot make you feel better about yourself?
Where did he call you a bigot?
And do you have any views on the topic of this thread, besides comments on the tone of the thread?