Trouble with Racists


Website Feedback

101 to 150 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RocMeAsmodeus wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

I'm feeling terribly sad about the loss of the political threads. The latest incident feels like all of us losing some very educational threads because of trolling. I wish the troll had been removed, not the discussion.

But, along with everyone else, I'm 100% behind the staff decision. I just hope that the LGBQT thread continues to stay open. In these times, that issue is very political and already draws people who post a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with those issues.

Accolades to staff for the skillful management of the previous threads.

I'm optimistic that the closing of political threads is the first step in Paizo's full departure from works related to real-life politics.

Also I doubt the LGBQT thread will go down, as it seems to be more about community support than partisan politics.

Though it's had its share of heated debates and deleted posts over the years. Sadly, the mere existence of LGBTQ people is a partisan political issue.

I'm also not sure how Paizo could depart from works related to real-life politics, other than to stop including LGBTQ characters in their works, which they won't do. It's not as if other modern political issues come up beyond their commitment to representation and equality. It's not like there are adventures revolving around government health care or budget debates

Sovereign Court

14 people marked this as a favorite.

Look, the question about whether something is a "slur" becomes really apparent when you think about why a word would have started as a slur and what its intended use was.

When people use slurs - pejorative terms about various races, ethnicities, and lifestyles - it's a power move. It's designed to show their power (as someone who is not a member of that group) over the other group, because they can say something that is used as an insult and a pejorative and expect that the target is powerless to do anything about it. When marginalized groups have no power in society, people can deploy insults and violence against them without fear of retribution. So slurs come from that kind of power imbalance - they are words designed to remind oppressed groups of their lack of power.

Today, we live in an era in which people get called out for saying these things. Oppressed groups speak up against this kind of abuse, and other people who recognize this as abuse speak up with them. When you use one of these words against someone from one of these groups, you are tacitly re-asserting that power relationship. This is not just about oppressed groups being offended. It's about the use of these words as reminders that oppressed groups are oppressed and that other people are reinforcing that power imbalance, and reminding them that they are "put in their place."

So when you use a slur against, say, Roma people, even if you don't think it's a slur, you are invoking - whether knowingly or not - the history of oppression that the Roma suffered (and in some places continue to suffer) throughout Europe. It is a solid reminder that they are people who are/were not afforded the same rights and protections as other people, and a reminder that they do not have the power to make you stop. Thus it's on you to learn and to stop it for yourself - to realize that what you are doing is hurtful and to believe people who say it is hurtful, and then to not do it.

This is also why some slurs get repatriated by marginalized groups - because the context of "person from oppressed group talking to person from oppressed group" is different from the context of "person from group with cultural power talking to person from oppressed group."

A slur is not just "offensive" or an insult. It is a reminder that, in the right time and place, the speaker could hurt or kill the target without social repercussions because society would allow it. We're struggling toward a society where we don't tolerate that any more - we, as a society, are no longer permissive of lynchings of people just because of their color - so racists use these slurs because they no longer have the power to oppress people by direct physical violence. (Usually - it does still happen.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Fergie wrote:
Paizo has THE most well moderated messageboards on the internet. That is not some magical result of code writing,- it takes lots of hard, thankless work. Moderation is very difficult and can be extremely draining. The mods have gone above and beyond, and I give them my highest respect for everything.

Hear hear.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Teiidae wrote:
Muse. wrote:

Teiidae - you have restored my faith in the PFS Boards... I clicked on this thread hoping to find some material for use with my PCs. Instead I found... something less enjoyable.

Here, let me leave with a quote on a famous Racist...

"Rincewind had always been happy to think of himself as a racist. The One Hundred Meters, the Mile, the Marathon -- he'd run them all."

I've never read anything by Terry Pratchett, I've been meaning too.

That being said I'm glad someone enjoyed my tongue in cheek antics. Great quote by the way.

"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em."

"He's going to go totally Librarian-poo."
"Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life."
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad."
"Let's just say that if complete and utter chaos was lightning, he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'."
-discworld (yeah, I love Terry Pratchetts novels)


7 people marked this as a favorite.

So I can finally chime in with my thoughts on the issue

First, I understand Moderation is difficult, and probably more difficult if there is any staff turnover. So the criticism is valid.

But it doesn't stop me from being profoundly dissapointed in the closure of the politics thread. It was a great place to discuss issues with folks, and I am going to miss TheJeff's insightful remarks, and the often hilarious comments from Anklebiter. Even folks I disagreed with I still appreciated, such as Guy Humal and Fergie. Also they have for the most part been hugely informative. I first heard the term "cis" here, was introduced to the concept of privilege, and I was given quite a bit to chew over regarding LGBTQ issues.

Personally, from my observations...I don't think it was the nature of politics, even the current hyper-partisan nature of politics right now, that have led to this policy.

I have been posting here since sometime around 2011, and as I have commented elsewhere, the overall messageboard environment has changed drastically. Playtests have completely disappeared, and staff involvement has steadily declined, to the point that even "Ask James Jacobs" thread has been at least temporarily put on hold. Other thread topic areas feel like they have slowed to a crawl...I used to post pretty regularly in the CS setting subforum but posts seem much fewer.

I've been around the internet long enough that I have seen parallel examples. A messageboard I frequented on cryptozoology quite a while ago went through a parallel cycle. Hostility from certain segments of the userbase rose, which drove people away, to the point where the only place I was paying attention ended up being the offtopic area, until that place also received a politics ban.

I think hostility levels have declined here in the forums recently, but I think an argument could be made that the hostility has already done its job. And certainly other factors such as messageboard organization, the popularity of 5E, and the maturity of the game have also had an influence. I just don't feel like there is nearly as much of a "community" here as when I first started, and the off topic forum was one of the few places here where I still felt that vibe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also want to add that I think it was very...unfortunate...to do a major change in moderation while the website seemed to be having seizures. This is the first day since Sunday I have actually been able to post here from a computer.

Dark Archive

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Ending the politics section in off topic comes too late and the damage has been done.

Jawa, the reason why the hostility dropped down in recent years on the forums is because all the OT section had turned into an echo chamber - everyone with a divergent view already being driven off years ago.

If you weren't some stripe of left wing you were ostracized if not downright attacked. The fact that the staff injected themselves in the politics and social debate didn't help.

Anyway.

Edit to add: My opinion of course as a long time poster and someone who eventually disconnected from this wonderful and welcoming "community".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just have to say that the tone of this entire conversation has made me happy. It is hard to pull friends into the community when they see much of what is on computer gamer boards, snarky comments on these boards, and they see table top groups of players with little diversity.

Very proud that the overall voice of the community is thoughtful and considerate on what is more often than not an extremely sensitive subject.

The Exchange

Jesse Heinig wrote:

Look, the question about whether something is a "slur" becomes really apparent when you think about why a word would have started as a slur and what its intended use was.

When people use slurs - pejorative terms about various races, ethnicities, and lifestyles - it's a power move. It's designed to show their power (as someone who is not a member of that group) over the other group, because they can say something that is used as an insult and a pejorative and expect that the target is powerless to do anything about it. When marginalized groups have no power in society, people can deploy insults and violence against them without fear of retribution. So slurs come from that kind of power imbalance - they are words designed to remind oppressed groups of their lack of power.

... snipping for space...

I don't think the bolded part is actually the entire picture.

Often Slurs are used as "labels" by people who have no power in the situation.

For example, groups with no power in their situation will often refer to the police (collectively or individually) by so many different terms (in my youth, it was "Pigs", in my fathers time it was "bulls" - "Bobbies" might have been a term used, or Cossacks ... etc) all of which are "slurs". All these terms were used as slurs by people who would often be powerless, or would be considered "marginalized groups having no power in society".

IMHO Slurs are often used to separate people into different groups - and are often used by would-be leaders of "groups" to give their hoped for "followers" a sense of belonging. To establish a "group identity". To establish a line between "us" (not referred to by a slur) and "them" (identified with the use of a slur). It can often be used as a way of manipulating large groups of people. Of establishing "leadership" of a group of persons who had little or no "group identity" before.

Over time, the term used as a slur MIGHT even be picked up and used for a time by the target group as a sort of "badge of belonging". Another way to separate "us" from "them". "I embrace my identity as a nerd - and in so doing establish my mantle of leadership in my group."

Just my 2c.p. - I'll return to lurking now

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Auxmaulous wrote:
Edit to add: My opinion of course as a long time poster and someone who eventually disconnected from this wonderful and welcoming "community".

I think you air-quoted the wrong word, Aux old chum. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
RocMeAsmodeus wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

I'm feeling terribly sad about the loss of the political threads. The latest incident feels like all of us losing some very educational threads because of trolling. I wish the troll had been removed, not the discussion.

But, along with everyone else, I'm 100% behind the staff decision. I just hope that the LGBQT thread continues to stay open. In these times, that issue is very political and already draws people who post a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with those issues.

Accolades to staff for the skillful management of the previous threads.

I'm optimistic that the closing of political threads is the first step in Paizo's full departure from works related to real-life politics.

Also I doubt the LGBQT thread will go down, as it seems to be more about community support than partisan politics.

Though it's had its share of heated debates and deleted posts over the years. Sadly, the mere existence of LGBTQ people is a partisan political issue.

I'm also not sure how Paizo could depart from works related to real-life politics, other than to stop including LGBTQ characters in their works, which they won't do. It's not as if other modern political issues come up beyond their commitment to representation and equality. It's not like there are adventures revolving around government health care or budget debates

Well... Any recounting of a person's experiences at a gaming table where they feel they were treated differently for being a minority, those are political discussions.

Any conversation about the appropriateness of including prostitution, slavery, sexual assault, racially motivated violence, or genocide in a game is a political discussion.

That some people assign fantasy races as analogues for real world societies/ethnicities and enact real world stereotypes with them, or the use of real world cultural beliefs and traditions absent their context, can turn any discussion into a political discussion.

In addition to LGBTQ+ characters, any consideration of inclusion or representation is a political discussion.

In conclusion, I hope everybody enjoys the arguments in the Rules forum, they're usually apolitical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You forgot every movie thread now must turn political by page 2.


Well, maybe if Hollywood would cast every movie in rainbows and unicorns we wouldn't have that problem would we. :-)


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
You forgot every movie thread now must turn political by page 2.

Some of the T.V. shows definitely have. (A few books too.)


Scythia wrote:
thejeff wrote:
RocMeAsmodeus wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

I'm feeling terribly sad about the loss of the political threads. The latest incident feels like all of us losing some very educational threads because of trolling. I wish the troll had been removed, not the discussion.

But, along with everyone else, I'm 100% behind the staff decision. I just hope that the LGBQT thread continues to stay open. In these times, that issue is very political and already draws people who post a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with those issues.

Accolades to staff for the skillful management of the previous threads.

I'm optimistic that the closing of political threads is the first step in Paizo's full departure from works related to real-life politics.

Also I doubt the LGBQT thread will go down, as it seems to be more about community support than partisan politics.

Though it's had its share of heated debates and deleted posts over the years. Sadly, the mere existence of LGBTQ people is a partisan political issue.

I'm also not sure how Paizo could depart from works related to real-life politics, other than to stop including LGBTQ characters in their works, which they won't do. It's not as if other modern political issues come up beyond their commitment to representation and equality. It's not like there are adventures revolving around government health care or budget debates

Well... Any recounting of a person's experiences at a gaming table where they feel they were treated differently for being a minority, those are political discussions.

Any conversation about the appropriateness of including prostitution, slavery, sexual assault, racially motivated violence, or genocide in a game is a political discussion.

That some people assign fantasy races as analogues for real world societies/ethnicities and enact real world stereotypes with them, or the use of real world cultural beliefs and traditions absent their context, can turn any discussion into a...

Though I think their attempted ban on politics is more on specific actual modern political issues. Not on everything that has any political implications - which is pretty much everything.


thejeff wrote:
Though I think their attempted ban on politics is more on specific actual modern political issues. Not on everything that has any political implications - which is pretty much everything.

Many of those things I listed either are modern political issues, and the current trajectory suggests many will be specific issues soon.

Community & Digital Content Director

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:

Ending the politics section in off topic comes too late and the damage has been done.

Jawa, the reason why the hostility dropped down in recent years on the forums is because all the OT section had turned into an echo chamber - everyone with a divergent view already being driven off years ago.

If you weren't some stripe of left wing you were ostracized if not downright attacked. The fact that the staff injected themselves in the politics and social debate didn't help.

Anyway.

Edit to add: My opinion of course as a long time poster and someone who eventually disconnected from this wonderful and welcoming "community".

Online communities are shaped by the people in them, and are only guided by moderators who adjust to the needs of the folks in that community. It is impossible to run a community that pleases everyone. If you're dissatisfied with the paizo.com forums at large, it's entirely possible that they may not be for you. If you have any constructive suggestions, we welcome them.

Community & Digital Content Director

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought I had made this pretty clear in the sticky, but it seems like it's not coming across as well as I'd anticipated. We do not consider LGBTQ+ gamer support threads or in-game threads discussing LGBTQ+ characters to be political in nature. Discussion of politics as they affect your games, or material considered to be political that is published in gaming products is not what's being restricted here. The topics which we find have been unwieldy for our staff to keep up with and support appropriately are found in the sticky thread in Off-Topic, and is limited to those topics specifically at this point. I hope this helps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Teiidae wrote:

Wait, does that mean my greyhawk dwarf needs to be kind to those filthy knife ears?

Opps I meant to say, those woodland humanoids.

Heh, funny :-)


Jesse Heinig wrote:

Look, the question about whether something is a "slur" becomes really apparent when you think about why a word would have started as a slur and what its intended use was.

When people use slurs - pejorative terms about various races, ethnicities, and lifestyles - it's a power move. It's designed to show their power (as someone who is not a member of that group) over the other group, because they can say something that is used as an insult and a pejorative and expect that the target is powerless to do anything about it. When marginalized groups have no power in society, people can deploy insults and violence against them without fear of retribution. So slurs come from that kind of power imbalance - they are words designed to remind oppressed groups of their lack of power.

Today, we live in an era in which people get called out for saying these things. Oppressed groups speak up against this kind of abuse, and other people who recognize this as abuse speak up with them. When you use one of these words against someone from one of these groups, you are tacitly re-asserting that power relationship. This is not just about oppressed groups being offended. It's about the use of these words as reminders that oppressed groups are oppressed and that other people are reinforcing that power imbalance, and reminding them that they are "put in their place."

So when you use a slur against, say, Roma people, even if you don't think it's a slur, you are invoking - whether knowingly or not - the history of oppression that the Roma suffered (and in some places continue to suffer) throughout Europe. It is a solid reminder that they are people who are/were not afforded the same rights and protections as other people, and a reminder that they do not have the power to make you stop. Thus it's on you to learn and to stop it for yourself - to realize that what you are doing is hurtful and to believe people who say it is hurtful, and then to not do it.

This is also why some slurs get repatriated by...

Well stated Jesse!

Dark Archive

Chris Lambertz wrote:
Online communities are shaped by the people in them, and are only guided by moderators who adjust to the needs of the folks in that community.

Not entirely true. Moderation as it skews towards the moderators/website owners bias goes beyond "guided" shaping of the community. Every political website - left or right, have their base determined by the owners of the website and how those sites are moderated and what is allowed. Paizo is no different than any other political website and the embarrassing (and moribund) OT political forums and the current "community" here reflect that.

Paizo has only recently stepped up moderation because the toxic political environment here has driven away customers. The level of vitriol that passes for political discourse (with selective moderation) tells its own story.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
If you're dissatisfied with the paizo.com forums at large, it's entirely possible that they may not be for you.

I used to contribute to try to help other posters here with ideas, support and content. I was a subscriber to all the big PF lines for several years.

Not anymore.

So this is something that we can agree on.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Online communities are shaped by the people in them, and are only guided by moderators who adjust to the needs of the folks in that community.

Not entirely true. Moderation as it skews towards the moderators/website owners bias goes beyond "guided" shaping of the community. Every political website - left or right, have their base determined by the owners of the website and how those sites are moderated and what is allowed. Paizo is no different than any other political website and the embarrassing (and moribund) OT political forums and the current "community" here reflect that.

Paizo has only recently stepped up moderation because the toxic political environment here has driven away customers. The level of vitriol that passes for political discourse (with selective moderation) tells its own story.

Obviously, I disagree.

First Paizo isn't a political website, though, as with any site that isn't moderated to death, there is some political discussion. The vast majority of discussion here is non-political and game related.

I'm unaware of any evidence that their change in stance on moderation was due to losing customers. Their public statements have claimed it was more that it was taking up too much moderator time. Obviously, they could be spinning the real reasons, but just because you know some who were doesn't mean that's a major trend. As far as I can tell the drastic changes in moderation were really in response to increased vitriol during and after the election.

As far as this being a toxic political environment, I really do think it's been one of the least toxic I've been involved in. Not just because I'm on the left - that includes several far more openly liberal/Democratic sites. A good part of the reason for that is the at best thankless work of the moderators reining us in when we get out of line.


Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In all honesty I agree with Paizo's decision to pull back from the political threads. In recent times, from my perspective, politics in the USA have become increasingly bleak and violent.

As I like to tell my friends when they ask me why I started open carrying, it started becoming socially acceptable for some reason for people to let out the crazy and I prefer something obvious to help dissuade the crazy from coming out around me.

To add some context to that statement: Due to my work I'm in a position where I am occasionally on site in some locations which are decidedly unfriendly. Initially I felt comfortable walking into these areas unarmed, primarily because I grew up in a very unfriendly neighborhood, however with recent political changes I observed an uptick in violence in those less than friendly locations as did a number of my coworkers, up to and including at least one coworker requesting company issued body armor on top of armed escort and open carry when in such unfriendly locations.

It also may not help that my personal political views are mostly in direct contrast with the political majority of where I live and work. Said political majority are quite vocal about their political opinions.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I've gone back and forth on saying this.

My hesitation stems from the fact that I have people I consider friends on the boards, who have very different views from me.

I am a conservative with some libertarian leanings. And I have seen and felt some of what Auxmaulous has been discribing. There have been a lot of times that I have felt unwelcome. But I have sucked it up, kept my mouth shut and kept posting and playing, because frankly, I enjoy the game. And the people with whom I disagree, I consider friends (some going on years here).

I wish the community was more welcoming to those of us who do not share the majority view. In many ways it has become an echo chamber.

I'm not asking that anyone stop sharing their views (in anyway you wish). But for those who wish this to be a place of tolerance and openness, don't demonize those with whom you disagree. Don't assume bigotry, fascism, stupidity, ect. Try to understand those with whom you disagree, especially their motivations.

As to the locking of political threads, as a libertarian leaning conservative, I support the idea of free and open discussions, but fully recognize Paizo's right to set whatever limitations they wish on their own website. And I certainly recognize the fact that they may have become overly burdensome.


@Auxmaulous: I could not disagree with you more. I kinda lean right on issues and when I have stated them I never had any of them removed or even got a warning. So I do not see where you are coming from.

Though I am glad that Pazio has removed political threads...I think text based communication causes unneeded problems and causes too much extreme positions.

As for banning somebody outright for using racial slurs....I do not like it for one reason...

Here is a question...do you think once a racist(or any ists for that matter) is always a that way? That there is no way to change them? I think there is a way to...with education and exposure. If you ban them...they just continue to live in their ignorant world...where their views are reinforced.

Attacking them does not help either.

just my two cents.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:


As for banning somebody outright for using racial slurs....I do not like it for one reason...

Here is a question...do you think once a racist(or any ists for that matter) is always a that way? That there is no way to change them? I think there is a way to...with education and exposure. If you ban them...they just continue to live in their ignorant world...where their views are reinforced.

Attacking them does not help either.

just my two cents.

But allowing them to repeatedly attack others is a greater disservice. Community should be protected above the individual. Someone says something racist, they should be called out, warned, given the opportunity to explain. Maybe it's ignorance.

But should it happen more than once, after being addressed and clearly labeled as unacceptable behavior, they can learn to be a decent human somewhere else. Forcing others to be continually exposed to it in the hopes that one day they'll become less of a monster is a disservice to everyone else.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
John Kretzer wrote:
Here is a question...do you think once a racist (or any ists for that matter) is always that way?

For the most part? YES. Those who change, truly change, are few and far between. I personally used to believe that education and exposure and kindness and patience would mad could change that. I used to practice that when I ran into racist views that directly affected me as well as ones that didnt. I don't anymore.

John Kretzer wrote:
That there is no way to change them? I think there is a way to...with education and exposure.

It's not my job to change to them. When someone shows you who they are?

BELIEVE THEM. If in 2017 they choose to be racist/sexist a**hats? That's entirely their prerogative. Just do it *points* OVER THERE SOMEWHERE.

John Kretzer wrote:
If you ban them...they just continue to live in their ignorant world...where their views are reinforced.

*points* OVER THERE.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let them. Eventually they learn. Even if it's going to be a long Richard Spencery road to gain that knowledge.


I can see that. The one thing That I have I still think about however is If you disintegrate an enemy its a 1 for 1 trade if you convert an enemy to your side its a 2 for 1 because now you have one less enemy and one more ally.

Some people can't be converted true. I highly doubt a Gaming forum is the right place to do it but hey it could work on some.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's like letting a wolf into your home. If he can be converting to stand by you, you gain an ally who can bring the same intensity to defending that which the once stood against.

But making an ally of an enemy isn't worth exposing those you already value, to harm on the chance that it may accomplish some good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:

I can see that. The one thing That I have I still think about however is If you disintegrate an enemy its a 1 for 1 trade if you convert an enemy to your side its a 2 for 1 because now you have one less enemy and one more ally.

When the amount of effort put into something like converting doesn't even begin to equal the return? It's not worth it.

If 8 out of 10 people are racist a**hats, and I try to convert those 8 and only convert ONE? The effort was not worth it.

I've always said this: I LIKE knowing who the racists are. I know EXACTLY where I stand with them and who to keep away from and invest absolutely no effort in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like to imagine the numbers are a little better then 8 out of 10 but i'm an optimist at heart. also keep in mind if its you against 8 the odds are 1-8 if you convert 1 now the odds are 1-3.5

I do see what your saying and that is fine for you but I'll keep trying besides i'm a good judge of character and can usually tell which ones are gonna waste my time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Thomas 66 wrote:

It's like letting a wolf into your home. If he can be converting to stand by you, you gain an ally who can bring the same intensity to defending that which the once stood against.

But making an ally of an enemy isn't worth exposing those you already value, to harm on the chance that it may accomplish some good.

(pre)Historically speaking, letting wolves into our homes may have been a major step in our conquest of the planet.

Of course, it's probably best to start with the wolf puppies, not the adults.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:

@Auxmaulous: I could not disagree with you more. I kinda lean right on issues and when I have stated them I never had any of them removed or even got a warning. So I do not see where you are coming from.

Though I am glad that Pazio has removed political threads...I think text based communication causes unneeded problems and causes too much extreme positions.

As for banning somebody outright for using racial slurs....I do not like it for one reason...

Here is a question...do you think once a racist(or any ists for that matter) is always a that way? That there is no way to change them? I think there is a way to...with education and exposure. If you ban them...they just continue to live in their ignorant world...where their views are reinforced.

Attacking them does not help either.

just my two cents.

it is not my job to change them. Truth be told, I can't. If I could change people without effort, my day job would be scads easier. Talk about a 5 minute work day.

They have to challenge their own views themselves. All I can do is be something other than the horrid stereotype they believe me to be (outside of one arena, perhaps).

Now if you'll excuse me, I feel the curse of ham calling me to deal every drug imaginable(hell, I'll make up some new ones) and rob or kill everyone I encounter today. Gotta keep those crime numbers up.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MichaelCullen wrote:

I've gone back and forth on saying this.

My hesitation stems from the fact that I have people I consider friends on the boards, who have very different views from me.

I am a conservative with some libertarian leanings. And I have seen and felt some of what Auxmaulous has been discribing. There have been a lot of times that I have felt unwelcome. But I have sucked it up, kept my mouth shut and kept posting and playing, because frankly, I enjoy the game. And the people with whom I disagree, I consider friends (some going on years here).

I wish the community was more welcoming to those of us who do not share the majority view. In many ways it has become an echo chamber.

I'm not asking that anyone stop sharing their views (in anyway you wish). But for those who wish this to be a place of tolerance and openness, don't demonize those with whom you disagree. Don't assume bigotry, fascism, stupidity, ect. Try to understand those with whom you disagree, especially their motivations.

As to the locking of political threads, as a libertarian leaning conservative, I support the idea of free and open discussions, but fully recognize Paizo's right to set whatever limitations they wish on their own website. And I certainly recognize the fact that they may have become overly burdensome.

if they are screaming disgusting "statistics" and stating how much they miss segregation, that's not something I am going to tolerate with hugs and such. It's hard to not assume bigotry when it is in front of your face.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MichaelCullen wrote:

I wish the community was more welcoming to those of us who do not share the majority view. In many ways it has become an echo chamber.

I'm not asking that anyone stop sharing their views (in anyway you wish). But for those who wish this to be a place of tolerance and openness, don't demonize those with whom you disagree. Don't assume bigotry, fascism, stupidity, ect. Try to understand those with whom you disagree, especially their motivations.

While I certainly agree with not demonizing those with whom you disagree, it depends on the disagreement. I often see this complaint in general terms and I won't deny it's sometimes valid, but it seems that very often when there's a specific opinion being disagreed on, it is something pretty damn horrible, usually bigoted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

I can see that. The one thing That I have I still think about however is If you disintegrate an enemy its a 1 for 1 trade if you convert an enemy to your side its a 2 for 1 because now you have one less enemy and one more ally.

When the amount of effort put into something like converting doesn't even begin to equal the return? It's not worth it.

If 8 out of 10 people are racist a**hats, and I try to convert those 8 and only convert ONE? The effort was not worth it.

I've always said this: I LIKE knowing who the racists are. I know EXACTLY where I stand with them and who to keep away from and invest absolutely no effort in.

"Racist" is also a very broad category and it matters very much where someone stands on the spectrum. The guy wearing the white sheet and burning crosses is in a far different place than the one who's absorbed some stereotypes. It's pretty hard to grow up in America without picking up at least some racism. It's a question of how much and how you deal with it.


Freehold DM wrote:
If they are screaming disgusting "statistics" and stating how much they miss segregation, that's not something I am going to tolerate with hugs and such. It's hard to not assume bigotry when it is in front of your face.

I tired to keep my comment generally broad, because I don't know specifically what was said. I was simply trying to affirm what Aux was saying. That and my desire for less divisiveness here on the forums. Even in this thread, people are calling others "enemies". For expressing a distasteful/hurtful view? That makes a person an enemy?

Too often we look at others we disagree with with hate, viewing them as enemies to be destroyed. This seems to have gotten worse over the past few years, though maybe that is just my limited perspective. Heck, I'm sure it was worse leading up to the civil war. You even had congressman beating a senator on the floor of the Senate. Perhaps it is human nature.

I like you guys, and I enjoy gaming with you.
Much love,
Michael


9 people marked this as a favorite.
MichaelCullen wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
If they are screaming disgusting "statistics" and stating how much they miss segregation, that's not something I am going to tolerate with hugs and such. It's hard to not assume bigotry when it is in front of your face.

I tired to keep my comment generally broad, because I don't know specifically what was said. I was simply trying to affirm what Aux was saying. That and my desire for less divisiveness here on the forums. Even in this thread, people are calling others "enemies". For expressing a distasteful/hurtful view? That makes a person an enemy?

Too often we look at others we disagree with with hate, viewing them as enemies to be destroyed. This seems to have gotten worse over the past few years, though maybe that is just my limited perspective. Heck, I'm sure it was worse leading up to the civil war. You even had congressman beating a senator on the floor of the Senate. Perhaps it is human nature.

When that "distasteful/hurtful view" is something like "people of your race/gender/orientation don't deserve basic human rights", yes.

That's an enemy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MichaelCullen wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
If they are screaming disgusting "statistics" and stating how much they miss segregation, that's not something I am going to tolerate with hugs and such. It's hard to not assume bigotry when it is in front of your face.

I tired to keep my comment generally broad, because I don't know specifically what was said. I was simply trying to affirm what Aux was saying. That and my desire for less divisiveness here on the forums. Even in this thread, people are calling others "enemies". For expressing a distasteful/hurtful view? That makes a person an enemy?

Too often we look at others we disagree with with hate, viewing them as enemies to be destroyed. This seems to have gotten worse over the past few years, though maybe that is just my limited perspective. Heck, I'm sure it was worse leading up to the civil war. You even had congressman beating a senator on the floor of the Senate. Perhaps it is human nature.

I like you guys, and I enjoy gaming with you.
Much love,
Michael

nothing wrong with a fight breaking out on the Senate floor during a time of civil war.

In fact, I'm surprised there weren't more.

Everything wrong with holding up the pieces of the stick(yes, it broke while it was being used to beat him. He then beat him with the stump until restrained by others) used to beat a man half to death as a national treasure and allowing people to pose with it and take pictures of it.

101 to 150 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Website Feedback / Trouble with Racists All Messageboards