| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The people who voted for Trump either A) supported what he did and is doing or B) weren't bothered by the things he did and will do.
I don't want to play with either.
Though I've said similar things myself, I don't think that's actually true. It's entirely possible to be very bothered by something a candidate does or says, but still believe that candidate is, on the balance, the best choice available. At most, I think you might say that nothing the candidate did or said was a deal-breaker (which, in fairness, is probably quite damning in some cases).
But again, I think we're crossing the line here, so I'm going to bow out. I hope we can finish this discussion in the future without breaking the rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
finish this discussion
Have you ever seen a discussion on politics between anonymous people on the Internet which finishes without tears, blood, death, permabans, Godwin and somebody walking away with the feeling that the very core of their identity came under attack?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But is it okay to choose to not deal with them simply off of stereotypes and assumptions?Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.But amazingly, insinuating that specific people on the boards are an imminent physical threat based on who they voted for doesn't violate the Community GuidelinesI did not intend to imply "imminent physical threat". I can see how it could have been taken that way and I apologize for that.
I also don't think they're boogeymen.
I think there is a level well below that, where there is reason to not want to deal with people.
No. It's okay to choose to not deal with them based off their actions. Voting is an action. A conscious, intentional choice.
Now, if I'd said "I choose not to deal with rural, white men because they're probably bigots", that would be "simply off of stereotypes and assumptions". But I didn't say that.
But your assigning a motive to voting for Trump that based off that choice a person is either racist/sexist/homophobic, or is 100% okay with those beliefs. In much the same way that idiots on the right assume everyone who voted for Hillary or Bernie wanted lots of free stuff, all guns taken away, are okay with muslims killing gays, and how idiots assumed if you voted Johnson you just wanted legal weed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But your assigning a motive to voting for Trump that based off that choice a person is either racist/sexist/homophobic, or is 100% okay with those beliefs. In much the same way that idiots on the right assume everyone who voted for Hillary or Bernie wanted lots of free stuff, all guns taken away, are okay with muslims killing gays, and how idiots assumed if you voted Johnson you just wanted legal weed.But is it okay to choose to not deal with them simply off of stereotypes and assumptions?Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.But amazingly, insinuating that specific people on the boards are an imminent physical threat based on who they voted for doesn't violate the Community GuidelinesI did not intend to imply "imminent physical threat". I can see how it could have been taken that way and I apologize for that.
I also don't think they're boogeymen.
I think there is a level well below that, where there is reason to not want to deal with people.
No. It's okay to choose to not deal with them based off their actions. Voting is an action. A conscious, intentional choice.
Now, if I'd said "I choose not to deal with rural, white men because they're probably bigots", that would be "simply off of stereotypes and assumptions". But I didn't say that.
Those arent remotely the same. There's unfoundead fears and assumptions and then there's things the person actually did.
|
finish this discussionHave you ever seen a discussion on politics between anonymous people on the Internet which finishes without tears, blood, death, permabans, Godwin and somebody walking away with the feeling that the very core of their identity came under attack?
I know you didn't ask me but, actually, quite often outside election years I do.
finish this discussionHave you ever seen a discussion on politics between anonymous people on the Internet which finishes without tears, blood, death, permabans, Godwin and somebody walking away with the feeling that the very core of their identity came under attack?
Sure. That one time I was riding a unicorn...
Look, I have no illusions about "finishing" every political discussion. I do think it may be possible to agree that voting for someone doesn't necessarily mean supporting ALL of his or her positions, statements, etc. But I am -- spoiler alert -- extremely pedantic by nature, and therefore see value in even so trivial an agreement. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just a bad idea to assign motives to other people rather than respond to their statements.
I'd like to see political threads reopened on these boards, but fully understand Paizo's inability/unwillingness to provide the moderation necessary to keep them civil.
finish this discussionHave you ever seen a discussion on politics between anonymous people on the Internet which finishes without tears, blood, death, permabans, Godwin and somebody walking away with the feeling that the very core of their identity came under attack?
Yes.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quick update: I have not forgotten this thread, but given the site downtime eating up the majority of the day, it will be addressed tomorrow morning when I return to the office.
Muzzled is when they throw you off the boards completely. At the moment, politics is simply being asked to stay in the corner for an indefinite period. And like I said, it's not that we're short of places for political partisans to shout at each other. Paizo simply doesn't want to be one of them, any more than a gaming shop would.1. I've never been in a gaming shop that regulated patron's discussions. Have you?
2. It is reductive to characterize all political discussion as "partisans shouting at each other."
3. Muzzled literally means "unable to speak." That's pretty much the definition of a ban, temporary or otherwise.
1. Is it typical in the shops you go to where the non-gaming debates become so heated they are heard from one end of the store to another? If such happens, I'm very sure that the store owner will intervene to cool things down, or if necessary, eject folks that won't behave.
2. You obviously have never been on facebook, redit, or followed some of the threads here.
3. This board is a private venue. Freedom of speech is not guaranteed in a private venue. The owners have full rights to circumscribe what discussion takes place here. None of the rights of expression are guaranteed without limits.
But is it okay to choose to not deal with them simply off of stereotypes and assumptions?Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.But amazingly, insinuating that specific people on the boards are an imminent physical threat based on who they voted for doesn't violate the Community GuidelinesI did not intend to imply "imminent physical threat". I can see how it could have been taken that way and I apologize for that.
I also don't think they're boogeymen.
I think there is a level well below that, where there is reason to not want to deal with people.
a damned good question.
I would argue the line of "do not engage" is in different places for different people. There is always going to be a space where it isn't a stereotype or assumption- there is actual, demonstrable evidence that someone feels the way they do. In a text based forum where unless something is deleted it is up forever, this is especially true.
|
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why we're discussing the hope they will allow it, rather than filing lawsuits to force it.Excuse you?
Translation: "We know that this is something we have no legal basis to sue for, due to it being a private site, so we're trying to convince them to allow the discussion."
He's not saying he's going to sue Paizo. ^_^
|
|
That's why we're discussing the hope they will allow it, rather than filing lawsuits to force it.Excuse you?Translation: "We know that this is something we have no legal basis to sue for, due to it being a private site, so we're trying to convince them to allow the discussion."
He's not saying he's going to sue Paizo. ^_^
Okies.
We can always get a circle jerk of lawsuits going on, they can sue Paizo for not talking politics, you can sue them, and I can sue Hollywood, for copyright infringement. On account of them using all my aliases in t.v. shows and movies.
Do a Google search for Captain Yesterday, I think you'll be surprised. :-)
But is it okay to choose to not deal with them simply off of stereotypes and assumptions?Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.But amazingly, insinuating that specific people on the boards are an imminent physical threat based on who they voted for doesn't violate the Community GuidelinesI did not intend to imply "imminent physical threat". I can see how it could have been taken that way and I apologize for that.
I also don't think they're boogeymen.
I think there is a level well below that, where there is reason to not want to deal with people.
a damned good question.
I would argue the line of "do not engage" is in different places for different people. There is always going to be a space where it isn't a stereotype or assumption- there is actual, demonstrable evidence that someone feels the way they do. In a text based forum where unless something is deleted it is up forever, this is especially true.
I agree there are Trump supporters out there who most Trump supporters wouldn't sit a gaming table with after knowing where they stand, I'm only advocating knowing more about a person than a D or an R before making choices, the same thing I push for when I talk to people about voting.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree there are Trump supporters out there who most Trump supporters wouldn't sit a gaming table with after knowing where they stand, I'm only advocating knowing more about a person than a D or an R before making choices, the same thing I push for when I talk to people about voting.But is it okay to choose to not deal with them simply off of stereotypes and assumptions?Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.But amazingly, insinuating that specific people on the boards are an imminent physical threat based on who they voted for doesn't violate the Community GuidelinesI did not intend to imply "imminent physical threat". I can see how it could have been taken that way and I apologize for that.
I also don't think they're boogeymen.
I think there is a level well below that, where there is reason to not want to deal with people.
a damned good question.
I would argue the line of "do not engage" is in different places for different people. There is always going to be a space where it isn't a stereotype or assumption- there is actual, demonstrable evidence that someone feels the way they do. In a text based forum where unless something is deleted it is up forever, this is especially true.
This goes way beyond whether you're a D or an R. Supporting and Advocating for Trump puts you on a completely different field.
Could you please honor the Sentiment behind the reopening of this thread and stop talking about Trump? Please?
Sorry.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This goes way beyond whether you're a D or an R. Supporting and Advocating for Trump puts you on a completely different field.
There is a vast difference between actively supporting and advocating a candidate, and just showing up at the booth and simply choosing not to vote for their opponent. Don't read too much into things.
Anyway, seeing as how this is still a sensitive issue for some, I say we at least keep the moratorium on these threads in place a bit longer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's currently a thread in Off-Topic about the Scientists' March on Washington, which has been open for a day and a half without being locked.
Can I presume then that the ban on political topics has been lifted, and I would be free to create a thread about, say, the March for Life going on right now?
Good luck with that, man.
|
|
This goes way beyond whether you're a D or an R. Supporting and Advocating for Trump puts you on a completely different field.There is a vast difference between actively supporting and advocating a candidate, and just showing up at the booth and simply choosing not to vote for their opponent. Don't read too much into things.
Anyway, seeing as how this is still a sensitive issue for some, I say we at least keep the moratorium on these threads in place a bit longer.
Edited my response.
IF you want the conversation to drop, it helps if you also don't tack on a continuation of the conversation right before your request.
Goes back to the question about what qualifies as politics,There's currently a thread in Off-Topic about the Scientists' March on Washington, which has been open for a day and a half without being locked.
Can I presume then that the ban on political topics has been lifted, and I would be free to create a thread about, say, the March for Life going on right now?
Exactly while defiantly politically related is it political enough to warrant inclusion in the moratorium or is it more current events?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most likely no one has flagged it yet, and they've been pretty busy fixing the website (that I didn't break) and rolling out Starfinder.
I wouldn't take it as an endorsement.
(that I didn't break)
*eyes suspiciously*
This goes way beyond whether you're a D or an R. Supporting and Advocating for Trump puts you on a completely different field.There is a vast difference between actively supporting and advocating a candidate, and just showing up at the booth and simply choosing not to vote for their opponent. Don't read too much into things.
Anyway, seeing as how this is still a sensitive issue for some, I say we at least keep the moratorium on these threads in place a bit longer.
Edited my response.
IF you want the conversation to drop, it helps if you also don't tack on a continuation of the conversation right before your request.
I don't wish to silence you. If you have something more to say feel free to PM me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most likely no one has flagged it yet, and they've been pretty busy fixing the website (that I didn't break) and rolling out Starfinder.
I wouldn't take it as an endorsement.
FWIW, I flagged it yesterday.
Yeah, and yesterday they were rolling out Starfinder and fixing the website (that I didn't break).
Patience, yo.
It sounds like you need to take a break.
Then take it up with the Mods, RainyDay.
Edit: That is, I have rather huge problems with equating the two, but given the spirit and/or letter of the polithread ban, don't feel it's appropriate to go into them here. In addition, Paizo staffers themselves recommend contacting them over issues with board moderation rather than playing "NO YOU!" with other posters, so that's what I'd recommend.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The two topics should (in general) not be equated in terms of fact vs. opinion, however I do agree that the march is definitely political. Don't misunderstand, I fully support the march, but RDN is correct in describing it as a march meant to influence political policy and discourse. That's a good thing, in my opinion, but it's absolutely political.
There's currently a thread in Off-Topic about the Scientists' March on Washington, which has been open for a day and a half without being locked.
Can I presume then that the ban on political topics has been lifted, and I would be free to create a thread about, say, the March for Life going on right now?
It's most likely that due to a lessening of moderating resources that the thread you're talking about hasn't shown up on the radar. Or that discussing a news event has not been designated as a "political thread".
Take your pick. I would however assume that the answer to your question is a definitive no.
Did that second Duterte thread end up getting locked or did it just peter out? I don't recall.