Print

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

[MDFification]

I've expressed this earlier but my feeling is it is a bad suggestion overall. Dealing with gender roles in real life is bad enough, and it would be rather restrictive to have to divy out professions based on gender, etc.

I prefer it as it is, with no gender roles.

I agree that it would be a pain in my hairy dwarven behind to have, say, 50% of the population no longer allowed to be masons. I'd rather not have professions restricted by gender or sex.
Thankfully, Toady didn't implement discrimination alongside non-hetero sexualities, so there's hope that gender roles can be implemented without wrecking things.

If I were designing the system, I'd link gender with what civilian clothes one wore and basically just that.

[smeeprocket]

Even that would be rather inconvenient, and somewhat unrealistic.

If I'm going to make clothes for my dwarves, I don't want to have to make them based on gender, or I get stuck micromanaging the whole industry (which is not one of the more exciting parts.)

Gender roles can't really be introduced without discrimination because they are the very definition of discrimination.

[GoblinCookie]

I find it interesting when bigots try to act like they are the victim.

I don't think you understand the term blackmail, because even if you think I'm bullying you, that wouldn't be blackmail. I can't even figure out, even twisting it up, how that word would be applicable.

It seems to be a trend for the oppressor to cry foul when confronted by their actions, and pretend that they are the injured party. No, you are not being blackmailed, and I don't really care if I hurt your feelings or you feel I am bullying you.

That is because oppressors do not normally actually see themselves as oppressors.  This includes people who justify oppressing others in the name of fighting oppression. 

Blackmail is a form of violence by which you attempt to use the threat of destruction of something valuable in order to compel the other party to do something or refrain from doing something.  In this case you are using the lives of transexuals in order to compel people to agree with whatever you believe in. 

What is clever about this particular trick is that if a person does not succumb to it you can still make them look bad because they 'obviously' do not care about that which is being used to threaten them. 

Your opinions are formed from you own prejudices and have no bearing on reality. You have no experience with this, other than a visceral feeling that transgendered people are "not right." Presumably because they are different and you are engineered to believe that different things are bad.

I am rather different from everyone else, that is why your blackmailing tactics fail to work on me.  So I am quite proud of my abnormality, indeed if I *were* normal you would have intimidated me into compliance.  Indeed you could even say that I am speaking on behalf of those normal people that your vicious intellectual tactics would otherwise intimidate into compliance. 

I have presented very clear evidence that insisting over and over that a person is a different gender than their own will make them suicidal. I showed you an example of this happening with a cis-gendered individual, who exhibited the same problems transgendered individuals face.

A single individual that was mutilated at a young age was able to eventually figure out that they were not actually the gender assigned to them.  As opposed to a person who was never ever the opposite gender deciding that they were actually something they had never been and demonstrably *are* not. 

This is why I say that transexuality depends upon dualism.  The only way that (biological) men can actually be women is if at some extra-physical level they can be the opposite of what they physically are.  This reflects the actual distinction between biological sex and social gender roles that exists in society. 

What this means is that were social gender roles to dissapear so would transexuality, since it relies on that dualism in order to exist. 

I have made the point that if you do this to gay people, the same things happen. It is painfully obvious, to anyone but the most dense and intentionally obtuse person, that telling someone they are mentally ill because of their gender or sexuality is wrong and bad.

If some people cannot handle the truth then too bad; the truth kills whom the truth kills.  The rest of world does owe you to lie on your behalf in order sustain your own illusions.

So please, get off the cross. I don't have to defend myself to you when you bring nothing to the table but a lot of crying over how "mean" I'm being and zero evidence of the ridiculous claims you, or Urist, whom I assume you agree with, bring.

You were not defending.  You were attacking others with vicious blackmailing tactics. 

[MDFification]

GoblinCookie this thread isn't your INTERNET FIGHT arena. If you don't have anything constructive to contribute, just stop posting here. Smee's gone back to discussing the actual suggestion and so should you.

[GoblinCookie]

GoblinCookie this thread isn't your INTERNET FIGHT arena. If you don't have anything constructive to contribute, just stop posting here. Smee's gone back to discussing the actual suggestion and so should you.

I don't agree with the core idea of this thread.  I do not see why the gender system should be changed at all.  I think that the status quo is fine.  I also do not think transexuals make sense in the status quo gender roles.

[smeeprocket]

Jesus christ.

That has to be satire.

Incidentally, because this, at the least, must be said you still have the definition of blackmail wrong.

[Orange Wizard]

GoblinCookie this thread isn't your INTERNET FIGHT arena. If you don't have anything constructive to contribute, just stop posting here. Smee's gone back to discussing the actual suggestion and so should you.

I don't agree with the core idea of this thread. I do not see why the gender system should be changed at all. I think that the status quo is fine.  I also do not think transexuals make sense in the status quo gender roles.

I agree with you on the bolded point - and that point only. Opinions are fine. Dragging it out into accusations of bullying and blackmail when someone doesn't like your opinion, however, is not fine.

Stop what you're doing.

Please.

Continuing to belabour the point is going to achieve nothing other than getting the thread locked and you yourself banned.

[Dirst]

Wandering back into Suggestionland, the caste system allows for "sub-creatures" within a creature definition.  Some tags are creature-level, but a surprising variety of things can be different between castes of the same creature (e.g., could have a humanoid caste and an arachnid caste).

One way to institute social roles would be to implement a caste system within the entity definition.  This is actually closer to the common meaning of a caste anyway.  There could be any number of social castes defined, and they could be restricted to specific subsets of the population similar to how noble positions are defined.  This system would be fairly rigid (although with randomization the rigid system here will be different than the rigid system over there).  Similar to a creature caste, the castes within an entity could be quite different from one another (values, allowed professions, etc.)

Another way would be to define several, for lack of a better term, stereotypes.  These would be defined by personality traits and preferences and possibly some physical characteristics.  The values, professions, etc. "allowed" for each stereotype would be seen as normal by members of that civ.  Someone who did not fit well into any of the stereotypes would be odd, and social reactions would depend on the person's tolerance traits.  I'm sure there's some mathy way to differentiate between "this person just doesn't fit in any of the buckets" and "this person has several traits from A and several other traits from B."  My instinct is that the second would be more disturbing (sort of like the Uncanny Valley).

[smeeprocket]

social pressure and reactions to stereotypes sound like it would be a real pita to implement, tbh.

Also, isn't toady working on a caste sort of system for jobs anyway? I seriously doubt it would be gender based, which, as I said, would be annoying at best, offensive at worst, but it does fulfill this niche to some degree.

[Dirst]

social pressure and reactions to stereotypes sound like it would be a real pita to implement, tbh.

Also, isn't toady working on a caste sort of system for jobs anyway? I seriously doubt it would be gender based, which, as I said, would be annoying at best, offensive at worst, but it does fulfill this niche to some degree.

The design issue is where to define the personality traits: creature or entity?  Possibly even both (innate from the creature and modified by the entity).

You could construct an entity that has completely unrealistic expectations for its members, and everyone will be miserable.  It should also be possible to recreate the vanilla Dwarves with their single stereotype.

It's worth remembering that this will be adding constraints to the game, so it only makes sense if there is some corresponding payoff in depth and/or fun.

[smeeprocket]

That could be an interesting psychological experiment.

Most of the members of the species would have to fit within the constraints of what is "normal" for there to really be an abnormal to work off of and be made a pariah for.

For extra fun, bullying could be thrown in somewhat randomly (a particular child is marked and has to experience it, or an adult, possibly,) causing distress in the victim and maybe even modifying the personality to be less able to manage stress as a whole.

I can't think of an upside to this, though, other than tormenting the sentients of your society for arbitrary reasons.

[Graknorke]

Random wouldn't be exactly in the spirit of the game. And there's already a system in place for generating what a soul thinks about various things like materials and foods, you could easily stick some things in there for people too. Eye, hair, skin, ear shape, all of that stuff is already generated and there's a structure to accommodate it.
Then a bit of expansion on how relationship works so that there's social pressure from friends to change relationships with others and you've got one person's judgements turning a group of friends against one person.

[MDFification]

Random wouldn't be exactly in the spirit of the game.

Except for clowns, FBs, worldgen, names, artifacts...

[GoblinCookie]

Jesus christ.

That has to be satire.

Incidentally, because this, at the least, must be said you still have the definition of blackmail wrong.

1.
the act of attempting to obtain money by intimidation, as by threats to disclose discreditable information
2.
the exertion of pressure or threats, esp unfairly, in an attempt to influence someone's actions
verb (transitive)
3.
to exact or attempt to exact (money or anything of value) from (a person) by threats or intimidation; extort
4.
to attempt to influence the actions of (a person), esp by unfair pressure or threats

Based upon this I have my definition quite right.  Your entire argument was indeed based upon one huge blackmail.

The whole of it consisted of, agree with X rather than Z or else Y will kill themselves. The threat of Y killing themselves is definately being used to blackmail people into intellectual compliance with X point of view. 

The thing is that Z is not saying that Y should be killed nor do the words themselves have the power to kill. Instead Y is reacting to Z by killing themselves, the mere fact that someone holds Z view is not directly causing Y's death but instead Y freely chooses to kill themselves in response to Z view. 

You can indeed blackmail people with suicide, either your own suicide or someone else's. The latter is what you are doing, using other people's suicides to blackmail for ideological gain; and I called you out on this 'technique'.  It is not agree with me or I will myself but rather agree with me or THEY will kill themselves, but it is the same thing essentially.

[smeeprocket]

Jesus christ.

That has to be satire.

Incidentally, because this, at the least, must be said you still have the definition of blackmail wrong.

1.
the act of attempting to obtain money by intimidation, as by threats to disclose discreditable information
2.
the exertion of pressure or threats, esp unfairly, in an attempt to influence someone's actions
verb (transitive)
3.
to exact or attempt to exact (money or anything of value) from (a person) by threats or intimidation; extort
4.
to attempt to influence the actions of (a person), esp by unfair pressure or threats

Based upon this I have my definition quite right.  Your entire argument was indeed based upon one huge blackmail.

The whole of it consisted of, agree with X rather than Z or else Y will kill themselves. The threat of Y killing themselves is definately being used to blackmail people into intellectual compliance with X point of view. 

The thing is that Z is not saying that Y should be killed nor do the words themselves have the power to kill. Instead Y is reacting to Z by killing themselves, the mere fact that someone holds Z view is not directly causing Y's death but instead Y freely chooses to kill themselves in response to Z view. 

You can indeed blackmail people with suicide, either your own suicide or someone else's. The latter is what you are doing, using other people's suicides to blackmail for ideological gain; and I called you out on this 'technique'.  It is not agree with me or I will myself but rather agree with me or THEY will kill themselves, but it is the same thing essentially.

You just need to stop. I am not holding a knife to a transgendered person's throat and saying I will kill them (or make them do it,) if you don't respect them. That would not be blackmail, it would be a a threat of violence.

Stop accusing people who disagree with you of victimizing you in some way. That just distracts from the actual issue, because then everyone has to pander to your hurt feelings or your accusations. It is infantile.

You also continue to derail the thread with this garbage. Just. Stop.