| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't be too certain that digital media will outlive humanity.
The ultimate problem is that digital media itself tends to be prone to physical degradation; the data may be perfectly fine, but the CD can degrade to the point that it cannot be used and the data might as well not exist at all.
Hmm. Perhaps it's time to start making plastic punched cards... :)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find these boards typically to be incredibly rude, hostile, full of people who demean others, littered with offensive slurs (This or that is "for queer" which was allowed to stand even after a moderator looked at the thread).
I've greatly cut back my actual money expenditure on this game since I started coming to the boards; its a pretty hostile environment to be perfectly honest.
Nathaneal, if you're still reading this thread, I'd like to say that, yes, there are occasionally rude or hostile people on here, but I've found them to be in the minority. (I haven't dug deep into many of the more intense rules debates threads, so maybe things are different there.)
Generally speaking, this is an LGBT friendly space (though one does occasionally have to fight to preserve that space), and I feel more comfortable being out as a queer person (I do self-identify as queer) than on most discussion boards I've been on. I wouldn't be surprised if other LGBT posters felt the same. The mods are generally pretty LGBT-positive, both in their postings and in their low tolerance for homophobic or transphobic remarks. It's actually led me to spend more money on their products than I might have otherwise.
(Check out the LGBT Community Gamer Thread to see what I mean about this board providing a good space for LGBT people.)
If I understand which post you're talking about correctly (Rynjin's post in the Full BAB thread), I actually do find the use of the word there a little offensive.
I understand that he wasn't attempting to be offensive, and was simply referencing and old video gamer phrase, but video game culture has a history of incorporating offensiveness into its language (as in its use of the R-word), and the phrase itself is offensive since it uses "queer" in a negative and derogatory fashion, as a point of negative comparison. It's a bit offensive, despite Rynjin's intentions.
Without recognizing that reference, however, I'd have read it as if Rynjin was mocking someone else, someone specific in the thread, who'd used the term in that fashion. If the mods read it that way, I can understand why they might have let it stand. All the same, knowing what it does reference, I'd kind of like to see the post deleted (or the parenthetical if not the entire post - it's not necessary for the point Rynjin was making).
It still seems to me a small hiccup in the moderation rather than indicative of a larger negative trend. Are there other examples you've seen where the derogatory use of "queer" was unmoderated?
As for the term "queer" itself, and its uses, since that seems to be under debate here at the moment, I'll add my three dollar bill and say I do self-identify as queer. I like the term. And I use it regularly with other LGBT people I know.
In the right context, I'm okay with non-LGBT people using it as well. To me, this is part of the reclamation of the term, which is far along but not yet complete. If it's used by non-LGBT person as a simple descriptor (as in "queer cinema" or "a queer reading of a text"), or to discuss or ask about my experiences as a queer person, or something like that, I'm good with it. And I think, (again speaking only for myself) that if we're going to adopt it as a term (as in LGBTQ), we should expect that non-LGBTQ people will start using the term in a non-derogatory fashion as well.
But that's me. Other LGBT people may feel differently, and as Tirisfal notes, it does have a lot of baggage, and shouldn't be used carelessly. It certainly shouldn't be used as Rynjin used it, even if only as a reference to an outdated phrase.
I haven't had a chance to read them yet (just found them), but here are a couple of articles over at Autostraddle on the history of the term. From a quick skim, it's worth a read. There's a good bit in the conclusion that reads:
These days, people come across the term in all different ways, love it or hate it to all different degrees, and use it or eschew it in all different situations for all different reasons (and sometimes for the same ones). Among those who have been personally harmed by “queer” in the past, some see its reclamation as part of a healing process, while others think the word will always be too loaded. Many proponents of the word are drawn to it as a linguistic catchall, an alternative to the tongue-twisting “alphabet soup” that makes so many college Pride group websites look like they’ve been hacked by a rogue Sesame Street operative. But plenty of people don’t fully connect with the word “queer,” or are opposed to it, and therefore aren’t happy standing under it (others are fine with the umbrella, but don’t want “queer” written on their rainboots). Contributing Editor Vanessa calls herself queer partially because she “came out in an academic setting and that is the word that was used most;” others don’t like the word precisely because they don’t want to fly their rainbow flag from an ivory tower. Some readers have commented that they don’t use “queer” because they don’t consider their sexuality to be strange; Editor Riese says it feels right to her “because I like girls and because I’m a f+&%ing weirdo.” Editor Rachel likes “queer” because to her it is “a way for me and my queer politics to say that I’d prefer to define myself by my work and my accomplishments than by who I do or don’t sleep with,” a radical thing partly because “women have been defined by others solely in terms of their relationships for a long time.” Meanwhile, theorist David M. Halperin thinks that “the lack of specifically homosexual content” inherent in the word queer makes it “treacherous as a label.”
I find these boards typically to be incredibly rude, hostile, full of people who demean others, littered with offensive slurs (This or that is "for queer" which was allowed to stand even after a moderator looked at the thread).
I've greatly cut back my actual money expenditure on this game since I started coming to the boards; its a pretty hostile environment to be perfectly honest.
Nathaneal, if you're still reading this thread, I'd like to say that, yes, there are occasionally rude or hostile people on here, but I've found them to be in the minority. (I haven't dug deep into many of the more intense rules debates threads, so maybe things are different there.)
If I understand which post you're talking about correctly (Rynjin's post in the Full BAB thread), I actually do find the use of the word there a little offensive.
I understand that he wasn't attempting to be offensive, and was simply referencing and old video gamer phrase, but video game culture has a history of incorporating offensiveness into its language (as in its use of the R-word), and the phrase itself is offensive since it uses "queer" in a negative and derogatory fashion, as a point of negative comparison. It's a bit offensive, despite Rynjin's intentions.
Nathaneal has been really slammed recently. And altho Rynjin and I often disagree, I am also sure he had no intolerant intentions, as you surmised.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the term "queer" itself, and its uses, since that seems to be under debate here at the moment, I'll add my three dollar bill and say I do self-identify as queer.
I see what you did there, KSF!
I'll only add that debating whether or not a term is "offensive" is always going to be a little silly, because it's always the intent behind the utterance that matters much, much more than what is actually said.
If homosexuals collectively decided that they wanted to be called "smoo", it wouldn't be five minutes before homophobes started using the term in a derogatory manner ("What are you, a SMOO?") and twisted it into something that could be called "offensive". But it wouldn't be the word "smoo" that means "we hate homosexuals", it would be the intent behind its use.
All of this is true, and none of it will resolve anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, and some of my Black friends call each other by the "n-word"
They literally call each other "n-word"?
As in, "What up, my n-words?"
That's hilarious.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks to the moderators for keeping the SKR thread clean.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks to the moderators for keeping the SKR thread clean.
What's sad is how much effort it's taking. I hate to suggest draconian measures, but the problem posters in that thread should simply be banned, and I think that would make these boards a nicer place for everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But how are people supposed to register their unrelenting irrational hatred of a person they've never met?
EDITED thanks for the catch, Kryzbyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You forgot irrational.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems that Paizo here do have a anti-male bias of sorts.
Just at the LGBT thread here a post of mine was just deleted because I "dare" bring up male circumcision and because I suggested that the alteration of the genitals of anyone without their consent (male and female) is wrong.
It seems Paizo, in their stance to be diverse and inclusive, failed to see that they uphold our own prejudices without even knowing it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems that Paizo here do have a anti-male bias of sorts.
A lot of the moderation proceeds from the assumption that hard-line post-modern feminism is the gold standard of social justice. Better to just expect that and accept it; complaining is pointless at best and actively counterproductive at worst, IMHO. The staff are under no obligation to accept your ideas of equality over their own.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. In fact, refer to Kirth's own post, seen previously in this thread:
In fairness, I have noticed that when the conversation veers to "Reeking-of-Privilege Barbaric Men should cross the street to avoid women on the sidewalk, and bow their heads so as not to subject Perfect Women to their Evil Lustful Gazes" (generally posited by a sycophantic male participant), we do get the rest of the White Knight cheering squad full-on telling everyone to STFU if they believe gender-neutral sidewalks could potentially be a thing. And they're supported in that. But -- so what? With no sarcasm -- totally seriously -- that's OK. Because, as noted many times, Paizo is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to "present both sides" of ANYTHING. If people don't like that, there are plenty of other threads to debate things in, if that's what one is after -- so why make oneself look like even more of a boor by complaining?
Paizo does indeed have "stealth rules" on top of their normal messageboard rules, and it would do people best if they try to figure them out as fast as possible to avoid future pain for everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems that Paizo here do have a anti-male bias of sorts.A lot of the moderation proceeds from the assumption that hard-line post-modern feminism is the gold standard of social justice. Better to just expect that and accept it; complaining is pointless at best and actively counterproductive at worst, IMHO. The staff are under no obligation to accept your ideas of equality over their own.
I have seen nothing like that in the moderation. Some few posts by the staff are quite liberal and modern, yes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems that Paizo here do have a anti-male bias of sorts.
Just at the LGBT thread here a post of mine was just deleted because I "dare" bring up male circumcision and because I suggested that the alteration of the genitals of anyone without their consent (male and female) is wrong.
It seems Paizo, in their stance to be diverse and inclusive, failed to see that they uphold our own prejudices without even knowing it.
I apologize that this was interpreted this way. The post and replies were removed because they were veering off-topic into a very graphic and heated debate that paizo.com really isn't the most appropriate venue for.
Ah, man. Admit it, Chris, it's because I'm a right-wing, isn't it. I'm always kept down by the man!
(But no, really, I see why you removed those. At least now I know the gist of what was being removed before. Really odd to see all those "removed posts" and have no idea what it's about.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
C-C-C-Combo Breaker!
...Sorry, couldn't resist.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Start a thread to complain about over-moderation in the thread complaining about over-moderation.
Start a thread to complain about over-moderation in the thread complaining about over-moderation.
I would say over-moderation on complaints about over-moderation derails the purpose of this thread. As I say, some people can't handle when hypocrisy is exposed.
Now I wonder how long this post will last.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes it isn't what you say, it is how you say it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes it isn't what you say, it is how you say it.
Well, there was nothing objectionable or even snarky in my post, I even made a point about how its not incumbent on Paizo as a private company to cater to anyone's social agenda... but it still got the axe.
While your statement is often true, its become apparent to me that in this case it is indeed what you say - how you say it is little more than justification to be silenced.