Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Skyrunner]

And here I was naïvely thinking that this would be a thread on the topic of games and how to balance fun and sandboxiness...

[scrdest]

You omitted an interesting flipside to the tree story. The tree might have very well been a liberal and the children Nazis (sorry for the Godwin), and it would work the exact same way. So, it only works for good if you assume the society is always right, which I find an absurdly big assumption.

[Gatleos]

And here I was naïvely thinking that this would be a thread on the topic of games and how to balance fun and sandboxiness...

There is only pain to be had here. FLEE

[Neonivek]

And here I was naïvely thinking that this would be a thread on the topic of games and how to balance fun and sandboxiness...

The issue is mostly that right now Sandbox is being used in replacement for fun.

And trust me I tried... people just want to change the topics of threads.

I am not exactly sure how the current topic is related. Gender issues sure, after all they are an "implied minority" (I hate that term).

You say that like rapists who don't get reported or charged aren't already proven to be repeat offenders.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Well... I know with murder the vast majority of murderers are people who would never do it again in all likeliness. But let me see... While the results are contradictory it says it can be 50-80% (surprisingly high). I BELIEVE it means to commit another sex crime (since "repeat offender" just means a criminal who does another crime, not necessarily the same crime)

It also says offenders who receive treatment are far less likely to reoffend... AND that community ostrisization laws might have overall had the opposite effect but that they are not studied. (As well Sex offenders is also a rather... wide scope. It includes anything from public urination to rape)

But then again that is just basic psychology anyhow. There is a reason why our society has less recovery rates from psychological ailments WITH drugs, then less advanced societies with less drugs.

I am not saying don't punish a sex offender or to be ignorant of their crimes mind you.

[BFEL]

You omitted an interesting flipside to the tree story. The tree might have very well been a liberal and the children Nazis (sorry for the Godwin), and it would work the exact same way. So, it only works for good if you assume the society is always right, which I find an absurdly big assumption.

This. This was the point I was making.

Not only are you trying to change people who dislike LGBTs, the people who are against you are trying to change YOU.
How likely do you think you would be to magically change your opinions and convictions just because lots of people tried to make you feel bad about them GG?
 
I know I'm not changing the things I feel the strongest about just because society decides to hate them, and I fully expect that everyone else is equally stubborn. So ostracizing people just makes more problems, it gets everyone really mad at each other and then it moves from debate to open aggression.

*Smacks GlyphGryph* SEE?!

[misko27]

You omitted an interesting flipside to the tree story. The tree might have very well been a liberal and the children Nazis (sorry for the Godwin), and it would work the exact same way. So, it only works for good if you assume the society is always right, which I find an absurdly big assumption.

This. This was the point I was making.

Not only are you trying to change people who dislike LGBTs, the people who are against you are trying to change YOU.
How likely do you think you would be to magically change your opinions and convictions just because lots of people tried to make you feel bad about them GG?
 
I know I'm not changing the things I feel the strongest about just because society decides to hate them, and I fully expect that everyone else is equally stubborn. So ostracizing people just makes more problems, it gets everyone really mad at each other and then it moves from debate to open aggression.

*Smacks GlyphGryph* SEE?!

It still reeks of saying laws shouldn't be enforced because laws can be unfair. The only justification for allowing everyone to speak their mind is that you are not a bigot, but then at the same time you are forcing your views on non-bigotry on everyone else. Hypocrisy!

 Allowing people who do hate to be equally represented then is itself an offense against the hated. And I'm sure bigots think the same for themselves. The situation you describe is both fanciful and unpleasant. The rest of the internet is a testament to what happens when bigotry is tolerated, and I bet no one can ever want to bring such an attitude into the real world where ego isn't the only thing at harm. You are here on this forum where rules that are definitely bigoted against bigotry are strictly enforced and the forum is universally thought better for it.

Saying we were wrong once does not mean we cannot act on what we believe now.

And here I was naïvely thinking that this would be a thread on the topic of games and how to balance fun and sandboxiness...

I was imagining something similar, like people who enjoy shallow games as fun vs, say DF players and similar. Now that would be a good thread.

[BlindKitty]

Here just to promote my world-view, because I've only read the first page, and I actually think there is not much to discuss here.

It is *obvious* to me that a private company has only one interest, and this interest is to earn money. While I could accept the possibility of some laws regarding special cases of industries (like water pipes, classic example, but I've actually been thinking about how to go full free market on those, too), there is certainly absolutely no need to create any sort of such law for game industry, on any pressure whatsoever, other then economic one. By which I mean - buy what you like. People will make what most people like. Bam, magic of the free market.

Were there enough people willing to not buy a good game for lack of a <put anything here>, every game would contain <put the same thing here>...

[Neonivek]

Allowing people who do hate to be equally represented then is itself an offense against the hated

To me it is an offense that must be stomached. As well... the people who hate quite easily sink themselves.

There is a reason no one takes Peta seriously anymore for example... or heck Green Peace (Heck, I am sure some people don't even remember who Green Peace is)

You are here on this forum where rules that are definitely bigoted against bigotry are strictly enforced and the forum is universally thought better for it.

That is because there are limitations.

No one is asking for bigots to suddenly be given the license to do what they want. Only so much that no one should be punished for simply being bigoted.

I'm sure bigots think the same for themselves

It is kind of what I say. You already have the "your right button". Well congratulations you are privileged enough to have the answer given to you on a golden platter. I am sure your opulence and upbringing justifies your attitude.

Note: I am half-joking. I know what I wrote is pretty much a "Argument ender", so don't take it that seriously. The serious part is, yes you are basically speaking in a position of "already knowing" you are right.

[misko27]

Allowing people who do hate to be equally represented then is itself an offense against the hated

To me it is an offense that must be stomached. As well... the people who hate quite easily sink themselves.

There is a reason no one takes Peta seriously anymore for example... or heck Green Peace (Heck, I am sure some people don't even remember who Green Peace is)

Actually that right there is my point. People ostracize PETA. They ostracize the ever-loving hell out PETA. They deserve it. They've proven themselves too far beyond the norm. Are we wrong for ostracizing them?

And of course they are rather harmless. The same cannot be said for other fringe groups.

[Neonivek]

Peta is ostracized because they constantly act like morons.

I said we shouldn't go out of our way to punish the punished. Not create a world where there are no consequences for your actions.

I mean of COURSE few people unbigoted would even want to hang out with a bigot.

But if all of a sudden someone was creating a group entirely dedicated to the removal of that bigot from society, I'd feel very uncomfortable.

[misko27]

Peta is ostracized because they constantly act like morons.

I said we shouldn't go out of our way to punish the punished. Not create a world where there are no consequences for your actions.

I mean of COURSE few people unbigoted would even want to hang out with a bigot.

But if all of a sudden someone was creating a group entirely dedicated to the removal of that bigot from society, I'd feel very uncomfortable.

And I didn't say you should go out of your way to ostracize (although you can). I intend that if it so happens that people don't like your beliefs, society doesn't, because society is nothing more then an aggregate of everyone's opinions. No one is purposely working against them. It just works out like that.

Again this isn't necessarily moral, but it is ethical. I'm not advising anyone to actively ostracize people they disagree with, I am defending it as an option. A stupid option, but it is your right to remain ignorant.

[scrdest]

You omitted an interesting flipside to the tree story. The tree might have very well been a liberal and the children Nazis (sorry for the Godwin), and it would work the exact same way. So, it only works for good if you assume the society is always right, which I find an absurdly big assumption.

This. This was the point I was making.

Not only are you trying to change people who dislike LGBTs, the people who are against you are trying to change YOU.
How likely do you think you would be to magically change your opinions and convictions just because lots of people tried to make you feel bad about them GG?
 
I know I'm not changing the things I feel the strongest about just because society decides to hate them, and I fully expect that everyone else is equally stubborn. So ostracizing people just makes more problems, it gets everyone really mad at each other and then it moves from debate to open aggression.

*Smacks GlyphGryph* SEE?!

It still reeks of saying laws shouldn't be enforced because laws can be unfair. The only justification for allowing everyone to speak their mind is that you are not a bigot, but then at the same time you are forcing your views on non-bigotry on everyone else. Hypocrisy!

 Allowing people who do hate to be equally represented then is itself an offense against the hated. And I'm sure bigots think the same for themselves. The situation you describe is both fanciful and unpleasant. The rest of the internet is a testament to what happens when bigotry is tolerated, and I bet no one can ever want to bring such an attitude into the real world where ego isn't the only thing at harm. You are here on this forum where rules that are definitely bigoted against bigotry are strictly enforced and the forum is universally thought better for it.

Saying we were wrong once does not mean we cannot act on what we believe now.

You hadn't addressed the point. Society is not always right. According to your position, having individuals adjust to society's beliefs is desirable. Therefore, according to you it is desirable to sometimes have individuals adjust their correct beliefs to wrong ones due to societal pressure.

It's not an unthinkable situation - hell, not even improbable. Getting to the point where we are now society-wise was pretty much a several centuries' worth of a constant uphill battle against the current beliefs of the society. I would even say that it's a constant as long as you don't have a perfect society - human minds are naturally resistant towards any change, in either direction.

[Gatleos]

There's a difference between ostracizing a group and letting them ostracize themselves. The question though is whether open discourse is powerful enough to enact social change on its own. I'd say sometimes it is, but many^[who?] would argue that it takes more of a push.

Then there's the point scrdest made: why would you assume society is always right? Looking at it from a liberal perspective, it's easy to say society is always moving "forward" in the united states. What about places in the middle east where the next generation has been polled as more conservative than their parents?

[Vector]

.

[Graknorke]

for example "Don't tolerate rapists" also has its own terrible logical conclusion... and that is that ostricisation is a great way to make them reoffend.

I am pretty sure you would not say that about "don't tolerate murderers."

I would. I was the one saying that punishment is a bad system in that thread about the death penalty that died or got locked I forget.
There is a difference between a person and what they do.