@Arkandel said in Bump In The Night: A Chronicles of Darkness MUX:
@Coin Your mom is a Tolkien nerd.
Actually, she's not. I think she watched like the first half of The Fellowship of the Ring once and fell asleep. And this is a woman who delights in watching Midsummer Murders, so you know it wasn't the pace...
[eyerolls]
Tolkien nerds.
So, opinion: social upheaval and change is substantially different than social progress; and the latter occurs where the oppressed become part of the majority, and re-define the construct of power and meaning.
Except this can't really happen without social change coming first. It's folly to think that social progress will happen without an upheaval first. In fact, any American country that today benefits from democracy at any level progresses only by the grace of the social--and often, I might wager universally, violent--change brought forth by their revolution for independence. Let's not pretend these two things are so distinct and separate, when in truth they're steps that build upon each other.
No, you!
(It's also Comebacks Friday)
Apparently you lose at those, too.
@Roz ... I lose.
That's because it's Friday (i.e. a day ending in Y).
(You're a loser. I'm calling you a loser.)
@Ganymede said:
If you're one of the marginalized, it's okay to be tired and frustrated at being asked to explain your motivations and beliefs for the umpteenth time. There are people who genuinely want to help, who, by way of privilege, known or unknown, may not entirely understand or connect with what you're saying. Being frustrated with meeting an otherwise-intelligent person with this ignorance is reasonable.
@Kanye_Qwest said:
If you want me to listen to your thoughts and consider them seriously, you should take some time and respond when you aren't so hysterical. It's impossible to have a logical discussion with you when you are telling me to grow dicks and fuck myself.
For me, this is the entire discussion, right here. These two statements.
At the end of the day, as shitty as this may sound, if you are in a group that you feel deserves equal attention and recognition? The way you get that is by getting the people in the majority (or, you know, the ones with the proverbial boot on your neck, or whatever) on your side, so that they can help to enact the changes you wish to see. Not by pissing them off and asserting you don't need them to understand, or agree. Because that will get you a kneejerk response that is basically the opposite of the goal you are seeking.
Except this is exactly the problem: the people in the majority expecting the minority and the oppressed to be nice and civil about it because they are a minority and they should behave better if they want our help. Uh, no. Absolutely not.
More flies with honey. Etc. If someone is trying to help you, accept their help, give them your story calmly and reasonably. You damage no one but yourself when you react with vitriole. It may be reasonable from, like, a philosophical standpoint, but it's not reasonable as far as 'what are the best logical ways to try and enact the changes I want to see, if the problem is me vs. the rest of the world'.
Actually, historically, socialc hange comes from the oppressed being angry enough to act beyond the constraints and acceptance of the oppressors. Martin Luther King may have been non-violent, but the white people who decided to follow him and help him didn't do it because he was polite--they did it because they recognized a struggle and joined in without demanding he sit down with them and tell them about it in terms they can understand and don't you raise your voice to me while you do it.
Social upheavels don't happen when you tell the subjugated to behave and be nice. And every time I see someone saying "this is why you're not getting anywhere, because you're rude to people trying to help", I get even angrier, because if those people were really trying to help they would be angry too.
@Songtress said in I will design you a MUX:
A combination game:
Post- Apocolyptic CoD 'Rome".
Humanity screwed up and now Vampires 'rule' and some of the oldest have decided that the way Rome was might be better.
Oh wait... nevermind @Bobotron and I have this convered it seemeds.
I would actually play the fuck out of this. I have been kind of jonesing for a Lords and Ladies-type game that is also set in modern times (kind of like the ill-fated one-season series Kings). Modern conveniences and technology, but with antiquated governmental structure? Now that sounds interesting.
Then I learned that the only way I could be helpful was to participate in a great societal revolution to
revamp and overturn western civilization and the patriarchy.
Sorry I'm not really on board for all that.
Sucks to be you.
I do have some advice though.
If you find yourself playing tabletop role-playing games with creeps.
Go find another gaming group or start your own.
Or maybe, if there are people who aren't creeps at the table, the creeps could leave. That would be swell.
On a bright note there is great news for feminists today.
I read we're going to put a gun-toting evangelical Christian Republican woman on the twenty dollar bill.
Yeah!
All right, let's break this down.
Harriet Tubman toted guns. What the fuck do you expect a woman fighting to free hundreds of slaves to tote? A broomstick? Do you really believe that revolution and the fight for civil liberties is won by walking around with your hands in the air saying "please let us go / give us rights, we promise we ain't gonna misuse them [like you do]?"
Harriet Tubman was an evangelical Christian. So what? I'm a communist. I don't actually like religion, and I especially don't like the church, but that doesn't mean I automatically brand everyone who believes in god and preaches as someone incapable of doing good things. Could I, and would I, criticize her beliefs? Of course. But I would do it respectfully and more importantly separately from her achievements as a civil rights activist and successful abolitionist, and finally, I would do so in context, given her upbringing and what surrounded her. For fuck's sake the woman fought against slavery at a time when that's pretty much all her people knew--the concept of God being righteous and having her back was probably one of the only things that kept her going.
Harriet Tubman was a Republican. I'm not bothering to look up if this is accurate. I will do you a solid and take it at face value. Even so, she was born in 1822 and died in 1913. The Republican and Democratic parties switch sides [i.e. the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power] somewhere between the late 1860s and 1936. So essentially, you're saying she was part of a transitioning party. Given her ideals and, more importantly, her actions, I am confident in saying that I think Tubman would have been a modern Democrat, if we go as far as to claim she'd join either party, which I'm not sure she would. She joined the more liberal party during a time in which she needed support to achieve her abolitionist goals. (In contrast, Andrew Jackson is one of the founders of the original Democratic Party, which as we've covered, had the values of the current Republican party at the time. So your actual argument, if applied within context, works against the previous face of the $20 bill.)
Now sit down and shut the fuck up, you're embarrassing yourself.
@Karmageddon said in Dead Celebrity Thread:
@Coin said in Dead Celebrity Thread:
Prince was just announced dead.
Turns out that Vanity died on February 15: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/entertainment/vanity-denise-matthews-dead/index.html
We still have Morris Day... for now.
jfc. sigh.
@Thenomain said in RL Anger:
I lied.
DOUBLEPOST.
P.S. Are you saying that #notallmen isnt' the sort of thing that is distracting and derails a conversation regarding this topic?
Are you telling me that 141 characters isn't enough to have a nuanced conversation? Or that using self-identifying labels instead of clarifying your position is likely to cause harmful miscommunication, because I'm pretty sure it's both.
Also, I don't know what this #notallmen movement is, but I'm pretty sure I already hate them.
#notallmen is just the hashtag men were using for a while. I didn't use it as representative of a movement, just as representative of saying "not all men". It was just a figure of speech. Though yes, the people who used it were pretty much dumbasses.
TOPIC CHANGE
People who "were all Paris", but aren't Ecuador (just to pick one instance of each out of random). I hate this facebook trend, and some of my good friends do it and I know they're doing it from a place of empathy but it still chafes.
You can't distill that into something as niche as your example, especially because your example lacks the social bias of privilege that one group has over the other. You're stripping that aspect from the conversation with your example and thus making your example moot.
"Moot" isn't the word your looking for here; "inapplicable" or "not analogous" are better choices.
I was going for "having little or no practical relevance". But sure, your suggestions are more applicable.
DOUBLEPOST.
P.S. Are you saying that #notallmen isnt' the sort of thing that is distracting and derails a conversation regarding this topic? Because I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it is and what it does.
Well, if you are pretty sure then I guess that's the end of the debate.
You're absolutely right. I'm sorry I was vague.
I'm downright fucking positive.
/debate
DOUBLEPOST.
P.S. Are you saying that #notallmen isnt' the sort of thing that is distracting and derails a conversation regarding this topic? Because I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it is and what it does.
@Misadventure said in RL Anger:
Saying it is dismissive, hurtful, or anything where you assign a motive, without asking the intent? That is bullshit. You don't get to say what someone else feels. And doing so is distracting. Derailing. Not helpful.
What? saying something is dismissive and hurtful is perfectly within the purview of this sort of conversation. Intent doesn't preclude dismissiveness or hurtfulness. What are you even talking about? Since when are intent and result inexorably matched? I call bullshit. Plenty of things are intended in ways that do not actually match said intention, and being called on it is pretty much the only way that perception can be changed so that those things can be viewd in the light of the results they attain rather than their intent.
Seriously, what?
Since this is a gaming forum I hope you don't mind if I frame the same thing in slightly different terms to perhaps better portray where I'm getting at, @Apos.
Let's say you were treated horribly by staff at a MU*. You came here and made a post about it, to which I responded "oh, that sucks. Yeah, that happens and it shouldn't. At least on the game I play I haven't noticed it happening, and if it did I'd have said something and done what I could to fix it - or walked away".
To begin with this is not in any way a dismissal if I immediately acknowledge such things do happen, they are undeserved, wrong, and should stop. It's a fact there are places where staff is made of terrible and possibly mentally unstable people.
Now... your concern still makes me think - and isn't that the point of raising it in the first place? To make people question what they think they know? So I start wondering that perhaps even on the game I happen to be playing bad things also happen that have escaped my notice; so I ask if you could tell me what I should be watching for. What forms does abuse take? How is it perpetuated, what would be a good way for me to be involved in actively trying to make it happen less?
And in response you tell me I'm part of the problem. Any argument, question or statement I make that doesn't agree 100% with exactly what you think I should be saying results in a condemnation (or a lol-downvote) on general principle.
Obviously such things won't make me care less. No matter what anyone says on either side (?) of this matter I won't suddenly go 'hey, people who have been treated like shit by staff are treating me like I'm the enemy so I'll side with the abusers', since that'd be dumb. But it does make me want to participate in the conversation less - who wants to be painted in such a light? - and it doesn't accomplish what I came to the thread asking for in the first place; information, insights and honest dialogue.
</endExample>
Except the example is by and large inapplicable, because of scope and, more readily, because it lacks the systemic backdrop that the topic at hand does.
This isn't just "Male Gamers Treat Female Gamers Badly" and thinking it is, is missing the forest for the trees.
This is "Yet Another Instance of the Male Population in the World Being Shitty to the Female Population of the World, as Represented and Exemplified within Gaming".
You can't distill that into something as niche as your example, especially because your example lacks the social bias of privilege that one group has over the other. You're stripping that aspect from the conversation with your example and thus making your example moot.
