Print

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

[G-Flex]

I don't know what to say, really.  I've tried my best to mediate between all of you.  But frankly, this is turning into an issue.  It seems that I can't be gone for twelve hours on a week night without everything exploding into projectile shit.  It seems that this thread is enjoying a position as a site of derision.  I, as its creator, am hurt by this and feel that it is uniquely my failing.  If the tone is whiny, that is my fault.

Honestly, I think you're inflating your importance here a bit. Yeah, you started this thread, and try to act as a mediator and all that, but you're still just another poster here. How we act isn't your fault or doing. This "I can't be gone for twelve hours without everything blowing up!" attitude makes it sound like you're trying to act as some parental figure, or otherwise in a position of authority that you really don't hold.

How can we improve this thread so that men will feel more comfortable in it, rather than threatened by the three-woman minority and their issues?  How do we evade this title of "angsty?"

I feel comfortable enough about that. Honestly, I feel more uncomfortable about the fact that the tea party movement is getting credence as something legitimate instead of being treated as the fringe group (albeit a popular one) that they are.

[kaijyuu]

Does anyone really think this thread is "angsty"? I don't


I don't think you have to do anything. This is "vector's" rage thread after all; there's another rage thread if people want to vent their own opinions. So long as everyone shows everyone else mutual respect there's no reason to change anything.

If there's a problem, just ask the whiny people to leave.


EDIT: Concerning the minority/majority thing, consider this: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Minority voices need to be heard, even if it means that individuals of a majority get less of a voice than individuals of a minority. Also, when it comes to discrimination, a lot can be said about intent. Yes, not allowing people that aren't of X group into a club is discriminatory. The question is, are they doing it out of hate/prejudice, or attempting a sort of unity with people similar to them? The KKK aren't considered racist because they don't let blacks join; they're considered racist because they pursue racial superiority.

[freeformschooler]

I feel comfortable enough about that. Honestly, I feel more uncomfortable about the fact that the tea party movement is getting credence as something legitimate instead of being treated as the fringe group (albeit a popular one) that they are.

I feel this is a problem. Legitimate or fringe, either way if people are insulting or threatening its members here that is not good. The legitimacy of the group is not the question here.

Not that you're doing the insulting or threatening, but others I've seen are.

I don't really think this thread is angsty. Posters gonna post, ragers gonna rage and all.

[sonerohi]

I've yet to feel threatened by anything in this thread. Then again, I've realized that any attacks aren't a personal thing on me. I've taken up for the majority once or twice here and even though I was getting out-debated at every turn, it wasn't people trying to hate-murder me with their responses, but it was all constructive and informative.

[G-Flex]

Yeah, the complaints about this being "angsty" are a little silly. I mean, this thread is about criticizing and bemoaning regressive elements of society, so of course it's going to come off as "angsty" sometimes; so what? It's a legitimate thing to do.

I feel this is a problem. Legitimate or fringe, either way if people are insulting or threatening its members here that is not good. The legitimacy of the group is not the question here.

In principle, I agree, and I also don't think that anyone deserves to be personally insulted or threatened.

In practice, though, groups still tend to be "legitimized" or not. You see this a lot in the news/media: When a group reaches some sort of critical mass, it's suddenly seen as legitimate and worthy of discussion as much as any other "legitimate" group. Sometimes, we need to be able to step back and see such a group for what it actually is, and note that something being popular enough doesn't mean that we need to consider it on equal footing with all others.

[Siquo]

Everybody shut up by themselves before things got out of hand, methinks. We're doing great

In practice, though, groups still tend to be "legitimized" or not. You see this a lot in the news/media: When a group reaches some sort of critical mass, it's suddenly seen as legitimate and worthy of discussion as much as any other "legitimate" group. Sometimes, we need to be able to step back and see such a group for what it actually is, and note that something being popular enough doesn't mean that we need to consider it on equal footing with all others.

Appallingly true. Mr Wilders in our country is getting away with statements that would've landed him in jail not 20 years ago. 

[kaijyuu]

Who are you to decide if a group is "legitimate" or not?

Attack the arguments, not the people.

[Bauglir]

Honestly, I feel more uncomfortable about the fact that the tea party movement is getting credence as something legitimate instead of being treated as the fringe group (albeit a popular one) that they are.

To be honest, comments like this do bother me. As a movement, they may be getting too much attention. However, when you're talking to a particular person who does ascribe to it, you don't assume that they're wrong because you think they're overrepresented, and you don't dismiss them as though they've already been proven wrong. Maybe those arguments have been refuted to you, but obviously the other person here doesn't believe that's the case; if you want to assert that the movement is wrong, that's fair enough, but you're obligated to provide evidence for that conclusion if you want anyone to agree with it. Otherwise, you don't really have much more to discuss.

In other words, you might think their policies shouldn't be implemented because they aren't an accurate reflection of American political will. That's reasonable enough. What isn't, though, is concluding that an individual's arguments have no merit because of that. Any position, no matter how seemingly ridiculous, is either not worth discrediting (in which case don't bother with calling them wrong) or is worth discussing rationally and thoroughly.

EDIT: Ninja'd by more succinct ninjas. DAMN YOUR... CONCISION? Is that a word? Firefox seems to think so.

FURTHER EDIT: I really do hate to drag this one on, but I feel like since apparently I've misread some of the attitudes here, some of my posts talking to Andir really were unjustified. So, I apologize for that.

[Vector]

All right.  Do I need to add that as rule zero, or something?  Attack arguments, not people?

[freeformschooler]

All right.  Do I need to add that as rule zero, or something?  Attack arguments, not people?

Sounds good to me. As I've discovered, Ad Hominem, debate or not, tends to just lead in progressively more frustrating circles.

[G-Flex]

I'm not even disagreeing with you there; I'm just talking about how it works in the real world, including, for some part, in this thread. Generally speaking, how a group is treated in general reflects whether or not they are, in general, seen as a legitimate political/social entity. The news and media treat groups very, very differently depending on this. If you have some fringe hate group nobody really cares about, the news won't treat them with much credence or respect at all (obviously), but if that same group were somehow politically in power and legitimized, they'd be treated as something worth considering.

It happens with ideas, too, not just groups or individuals. If enough people believe in a conspiracy theory, the story changes from "Some nutty people actually believe this!" to "43% of people believe this. What do YOU think, America?".

Basically, although I agree that groups and ideas need to be seen on their actual merits, my point is that how popular or influential an idea/group is does influence how people consider them and how my credence they give to them.

[Lysabild]

Nothing here is angsty and you misunderstand me completely(Probably because of the bullshit following right after) Vector, I am not in any way displeased with the thread.

I was just bothered by the rant of "No females are portrayed positively and realistically in games" when the fact is that no one is portrayed realistically, and whether it's positive is highly subjective.

( I am over generalizing here, of course there are a few successes, I just don't feel the gender inequality on this subject. )

I also have nothing to do with Andir and honestly wish he'd find somewhere else to make no sense while talking in circles saying nothing.

I think the same counts for Siquo aswell.

[Vector]

Ah-ha, okay.  Thanks a lot for the clarification, Lysabild.


I think I'm going to add a couple more "posting guidelines" in the OP, just as suggestions on how to avoid escalating, rather than defusing, conflict.

I would really appreciate it, though, if we could try to talk through the given subjects for a little bit longer, until all of our bad feelings are aired out and we feel we've got a rough consensus (or at least feel good enough to agree to some standards).  I'm not going to post on the subject right now because I'm emotionally exhausted, but I anticipate seeing what everyone has to say =)

[Heron TSG]

I certainly see the need for additional heroines, but also I wish that there was a bit more variety in heroes. I can't really relate at all to the stereotypical manhero. Then again, many action game heroes aren't pacifists.

[Vector]

It'd be cool to discuss that soon, Barbar, but I'd like it if we could keep all other discussion but the thread itself on hold for a little while.