TheRPGSite

This may be an odd question, but I was curious having just seen so much about "Women's issues" and such.

Has there ever been a rpg marketed to female gamers? Like a game "By women, for women" or something like that?

I can't ever remember hearing of one, and wondered if there ever had been one.

I've seen a lot of book lines and other media aimed at the female market, so it just made me wonder if the rpg field had ever tried it.

I don't need or want stupid, snarky answers, just a basic "yes" or No" will do fine.

There have been a few games marketed specifically to women, yes. Unfortunately, all such efforts (at least all that I can think of right now) tend to fall into the "girls like pink ponies" camp and assume that women are looking for completely different things in an RPG than men.

Vampire is pretty blatantly aimed at the female market segment and enjoys huge popularity with my female players, so at least around here, the aiming is working.

I think Blue Rose was.

I think Blue Rose was intended to be more appealing to women than other RPGs, if not aimed at women exclusively.

Quote from: GrimGent;249263There have been a few games marketed specifically to women, yes. Unfortunately, all such efforts (at least all that I can think of right now) tend to fall into the "girls like pink ponies" camp and assume that women are looking for completely different things in an RPG than men.

You're trying to pretend girls don't like pink ponies?

Quote from: noisms;249273You're trying to pretend girls don't like pink ponies?

Some do. So do some guys. It varies. But basing a marketing campaign on the curious notion that all women or men must be alike in their tastes or preferences is pretty much doomed to failure. For instance, the various games out there that have been influenced by shoujo anime (like Sailor Moon RPG, HeartQuest, or even Maid) could perhaps be expected to appeal to a female audience, but there's no doubt that they also have their fair share of male players as well.

But hey, when you get right down to it, who doesn't like ponies?

According to amazon.com, people who look at Blue Rose go on to buy

Blue Rose (51%)
Naughty but Dice: an Adult Gamers' Guide to Sexual Situations (26%), or
The Book of Erotic Fantasy (23%).

Which makes me think of some guy going "OK, I'll reel them in with Blue Rose - then, when the time is right..."

Quote from: Age of Fable;249278Naughty but Dice: an Adult Gamers' Guide to Sexual Situations (26%), or
The Book of Erotic Fantasy (23%).

Well, most of the material in those two books was at least written by women, although not exclusively for women. In a recent trainwreck of a thread elsewhere, the author of Naughty and Dice dropped by to caution the developer of a hentai website that he was making "smut in gaming" look bad, if memory serves me right.

Quote from: noisms;249273You're trying to pretend girls don't like pink ponies?

Jkim seems fond of them, at least if they have horns.

Based on what I see at the store the two most popular games with women are DUNGEONS & DRAGONS and RIFTS, with maybe GURPS coming in a close 3rd place.

Whats really interesting (maybe unusual) we're starting to get women gamers who are trying, then playing WARHAMMER 40K on our terrain tables. They seem to get a kick out of beating the guys at the game. (doesn't happen every game)


- Ed C.

Quote from: Saphim;249268Vampire is pretty blatantly aimed at the female market segment and enjoys huge popularity with my female players, so at least around here, the aiming is working.

That was always my impression.

My own campaigns seem popular with women, almost always across the decades have had a good percentage of female players (1/3 to 1/2). But those aren't "aimed" at them as such.

Just curious... Are there any RPGs written primarily or exclusively by women?

I can't think of any off the top of my head, but there must be at least several out there.

Quote from: ConanMK;249314Just curious... Are there any RPGs written primarily or exclusively by women?

Cartoon Action Hour by Cynthia Celeste Miller, Breaking the Ice by Emily Care Boss, and Nobilis by Rebecca Borgstrom are the first ones that come to mind. The production teams for any number of other RPG books also include women, of course, but those are written by single authors.

Quote from: ConanMK;249314Just curious... Are there any RPGs written primarily or exclusively by women?

Anything by Emily Care Boss (http://www.blackgreengames.com/), Meg Baker (http://www.nightskygames.com/), Julia Ellingboe (http://www.stone-baby.com/), Willow Palecek (http://www.lulu.com/content/2085636), or any other female game designer.  Lisa J. Steele's (http://index.rpg.net/display-generalinfo.phtml?key=contributor&value=Lisa+J.+Steele&match=precise) written a bunch of stuff for GURPS.    Off the top of my head.

Thanks for the examples. Lots of Indie games so far, plus Nobilis. I forgot about Nobilis.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;249322Lisa J. Steele's[/URL] written a bunch of stuff for GURPS.

But she didn't write GURPS. I was wondering about RPGs, not supplements. Your other examples fit though. Awesome Adventures looks interesting.

Quote from: Koltar;249308Whats really interesting (maybe unusual) we're starting to get women gamers who are trying, then playing WARHAMMER 40K on our terrain tables. They seem to get a kick out of beating the guys at the game. (doesn't happen every game)

I wouldn't be able to not let a woman win in a situation like that. Maybe that's horribly sexist, I dunno. I suppose it would depend on how hot she was.

Quote from: gleichman;249309That was always my impression.

My own campaigns seem popular with women, almost always across the decades have had a good percentage of female players (1/3 to 1/2). But those aren't "aimed" at them as such.

I'm starting a new vampire game currently and 3 of the 4 players are female. I think the books of miss rice have a lot to do with that.
I would never get them to play anything like GURPS, Dungeons and Dragons or RIFTS.
Sci Fi is a rather big turnoff for most of them as is Dungeons and Dragons - even though two of them like the fighting they don't like "standard fantasy" as in lord of the rings or a song of ice and fire. GURPS they never heard of, but really, imho people are better off not having heard of it - terrible system.

Of any game I've ever run Vampire always attracted the most attention from girls who were new to gaming.  A lot of them made Toreador.  I think Anne Rice definitely had something to do with almost every case but I never ran Vampire with a heavy focus on fancy clothes and tea parties.  Vampires eat people, it's what they do.  They're zombies with better looking bodies.  I always focused on the monstrous side of the game.  After a few sessions the games were more popular with guys, although I did have one female friend play a bitchin' Tzimisce.

EDIT:  I guess I should add that a lot of other games ended up appealing to the female gamers in my groups more than Vampire after we tried new things.  DnD, Unknown Armies, and Call of Cthulhu all were very well recieved by the ladies.

The girls in my game like Hackmaster. Seriously. They're some bloodthirsty bitches, too. Good thing they never took advantage of their Hackmaster Association memberships or there'd have been some throw downs at the tourneys. Maybe some in the game too. I think if I tried to get them to play a game with ponies or anything they'd make them cannibalistic ponies that want all the hay for themselves, probably with Contacts: Glue Factory to remove their foes.

Nothing is worse than getting the "Girl pissed off glare" in unison from three women because of a GM call you made. It's fucking intimidating.

-=Grim=-

I'm not sure we need game titles aimed at women.  I think we just need to run games with our particular female players' tastes in mind.

For instance, the three things that my wife most enjoys in gameplay are, in no particular order:

• Character interaction;
• Fantastic situations/settings; and
• beating the shit outta bad guys.

When you consider that none of those aspects or activities is unique to any one certain published title, setting or system, the idea comes quickly: "Well, hell, I'll just run a game with all the elements she wants to enjoy."  

If your girl likes pink ponies, well...there's room for 'em in lots of games, so stick 'em in.

Wasn't Dragonlance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonlance) written primarily by Margaret Weis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Weis) and Tracy Hickman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy_Hickman)? My wife, and a lot of her friends love the series. Maybe that's just anecdotal on my part, but I've also noticed that in my area (Grand Rapids) there seem to be a lot of women who like D&D, Vampire, and something called BeSM. (I don't know what that is.)

I guess I figure the gender divide shouldn't be important to game designer, rather just designing excellent games should be their priority. People will play a quality product regardless of their gender, or other individual factors.

Quote from: Serious Paul;249372in my area (Grand Rapids)

No kidding. My brother lives in Grand Rappids MI. I'm up north in Mount Pleasant.

Quote from: Serious Paul;249372(I don't know what that is.)

Big Eyes, Small Mouth: a generic anime RPG based on the Tri-Stat system. There have been three editions of the game, and it's also compatible with Sailor Moon RPG which I happen to own.

Yup, we have a pretty decent game scene here. (I think.) It's definitely growing.

Likes the pink ponies does she ay? Ay? Ay? Pink ponies eh guv? Phwoaar. Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.

(as Albert Schweitzer put it).

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;249370I'm not sure we need game titles aimed at women.  I think we just need to run games with our particular female players' tastes in mind.

I agree with you there, I don't even think we need to necessarily focus on "particular female players' tastes" but instead just focus on running well rounded games that appeal to a variety of tastes.

That's why I don't run Vampire anymore, I just suck at running what could be considered a well rounded Vampire game.

Once again, Dr Rotwang! speaks the Truth.

Oh, and you keep that wife until the end of time, you hear me? ;)

Just a note:

Rebecca Borgstrom has done much work in Exalted and other mainstream games as well.

My groups tend to have women. They love the games I run usually. It doesn't matter the system. (Although one has said she likes simpler systems, and wants to know "everything she can do", in some games like D&D4E.)

The most popular I've seen in my years of gaming was White Wolf's Vampire. Followed by D&D.

Now, I'm not sure that's a fair way of looking at it, is very few women I've known got into RPG's on their own, they were mostly influenced by the people around them. From my soon to be 9 year old niece, on up to the 69 year old woman who once shopped for D&D at the bookstore I had been employed at.

Now some Forgie games try and focus on a specific audience (more specific than just Forgie gamers.) I don't know how effective that has been.

Silverlion: Nicotine Girls maybe...? But I think it predates forge or something...

Quote from: Serious Paul;249372I guess I figure the gender divide shouldn't be important to game designer, rather just designing excellent games should be their priority. People will play a quality product regardless of their gender, or other individual factors.

I think so too.

Here's something about 4E.

http://cerise.theirisnetwork.org/archives/534

Regards,
David R

There have been several failed attempts to market role-playing games  specifically to women.  Most of these have failed because they make the mistake of confusing women with women's studies majors, of which which Blue Rose is the most amazingly glaring example.  Generally games which are attempting (for no explicable reason) to cash in on the nearly non-existent market of women gamers appeal to the sensibilities displayed by prominent women fantasy authors.

This is why they fail.  The majority of women who game are not women's studies majors, nor do they read feminist fantasy.  They are female fans of primarily male mediums.  The majority of women who like that stuff have no experience or connection to gaming, so they never learn of these games and are turned off by the learning curve (a point I will return to shortly), and the majority of women who are connected to gaming like "robot ninjas and explosions" as Willow Palecek once told me.

These games would do better if there were more women gamers, but there are not.  Why not?  Because no one has ever attempted to sell a role-playing game to girls.  Nobody has ever tried to market rpgs to the slumber-party crowd, to 13 year old girls who love The Little Mermaid and have made Disney Princesses a cultural phenomenon.

Imagine Disney put their muscle behind a Disney Princesses RPG, and marketed it with ads on Disney Channel and in their magazines.  Sure, it wouldn't attract any women to gaming, but it would have secured their mental control over the imaginations of teenyboppers, and once those girls grew up and their tastes matured, they would graduate to other games.

If Disney had released an RPG ten years ago, then Blue Rose might have been a huge success, and the Blue Rose haters would call it Advanced Disney Princesses.

Trollbabe is aimed at the gamer girlfriend who wants to try some gaming. Some criticise it for being rooted in a seventies-grown form of feminism.

Quote from: droog;249523Trollbabe is aimed at the gamer girlfriend who wants to try some gaming. Some criticise it for being rooted in a seventies-grown form of feminism.

o_O wtf/[citation needed]/srsly!?

QuoteNow, I'm not sure that's a fair way of looking at it, is very few women I've known got into RPG's on their own, they were mostly influenced by the people around them.

This has been my experience as well.  In fact most gamer girls I hang out with play RPG's because their boyfriends or I introduced them to a certain game, and then they have tried to venture into other RPG systems from there.  That is how I started RPGing.  I was raised by my uncles and male cousins, and I was one of two girls in the family.  My sister took the Disney princess route, and I ended up fighting Orcs and Dragons when I hit preteens.

Personally I never got into the Vampire RPG, because it wasn't raw enough for me, and I never found the right crowd to fit in with.   I have never had a hard time finding a good game with any D&D system, or GURPS.  Like Dr. Rotwang said "I'm not sure we need game titles aimed at women. I think we just need to run games with our particular female players' tastes in mind."

Wow.

I'm just totally shocked by this thread.

Not in a bad way, understand. Not in a "WTF did all this shit come from?" kind of way, but in a pleasant manner.

It just surprised me to the point of shock that A. the thread got more than 3-4 replies, B. not a single one was actually snarky and C. not one was an attack or crack at the OP (me). No "Only a fag would ask this sorta question!" comments.

Like I said, I'm shocked at how successful this thread is, defining successful as getting useful, on topic replies with no flames attached.

I was not trolling, but I was expecting a lot fewer replies and a lot of snark when I posted it, but I was curious and said "to hell with the dicks who will flame me for this."

Amazingly mature and numerous replies. Great job, everyone.

As to games that might appeal to women, I was wondering if wraethu might appeal to woman because it kind of "levels the playing field" in sexual terms and basically makes everyone a pitched and a catcher. But then again maybe very, very few people are interested in sexual situations in gaming so that might not apply.

I also guessed if I asked if wraethu appealed to women I'd get replies like "Wraethu's repulsiveness transcends gender." or something like that.

Anyway, this thread turned out several orders of magnitude better than I'd expected, and I'm glad to see it do so.

EDIT: As I looked over this message I decided there was about a 25% chance that "Wraethu's repulsiveness transcends gender." would become someone's tagline someday. If anyone sees it as a tagline, let me know, ok?

Or maybe it will be "Wraethu offends both genders equally." :)

QuoteAs to games that might appeal to women, I was wondering if wraethu might appeal to woman because it kind of "levels the playing field" in sexual terms and basically makes everyone a pitched and a catcher. But then again maybe very, very few people are interested in sexual situations in gaming so that might not apply.

To be quiet honest, I have always found any sexual situations added to a game, seems to lead the game off track, and pushes it into a different direction.  Not that having any sexual element is bad, but I am not aware of the game you speak of.  I will have to check it out and maybe give you a an opinion later.  It can be appealing, but I guess I would like to see how in depth the content is, and how the DM introduces it and furthers the game with the element.  I mean I have heard of the famous words of   "Ale and Whores"....and it seems that is where some games eventually lead to, but I have never played a game where a sex element was really needed.   Just kickin the crap out of the bad guys and taken their treasure was always good enough for me.

Quote from: Vaecrius;249555o_O wtf/[citation needed]/srsly!?

As far as I can see Ron Edwards is a sort of unreconstructed Second Wave feminist. This is a feminist image, then, for him:

(http://www.adept-press.com/trollbabe/images/bw-with-axe.gif)

Gutsy woman goes out and does it for herself. "I am Woman, hear me roar!"

But some people think it's problematic in the same way 'booth babes' are problematic. Objectifying gaze and so forth. You'll see it sprinkled across a bunch of threads.


Or are you asking about the 'aimed at the gamer girlfriend' part of what I said? I've had a look, but I can't find a direct cite for that yet.

Not sure the feminism would be welcomed by the females in my group. None of them seems to be thinking that she needs feminism to pave the way or something.
One of them even prefers playing guys. Well she never said so but she played only one female character in 5 different campaigns so far.
One, my fiance, plays men and women equal parts depending on the character concept she imagines and the third only plays female characters.
None of them plays characters which are likely to become part of plots with overly sexual content - though romance and tragic romance are well recieved, they usually like it gritty.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;249412I agree with you there, I don't even think we need to necessarily focus on "particular female players' tastes" but instead just focus on running well rounded games that appeal to a variety of tastes.

I should clarify -- I mean the particular female players at your table, as well as, you know, everyone you're playing with.  Is that what you mean, too?

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;249602I should clarify -- I mean the particular female players at your table, as well as, you know, everyone you're playing with.  Is that what you mean, too?

Pretty much yes.  I was aiming more at gaming in general rather than anyone's own specific group, and that we don't need games which focus on a specific audience but rather games that are well rounded and appeal to a wide variety of players.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;249607(W)e don't need games which focus on a specific audience but rather games that are well rounded and appeal to a wide variety of players.

Ah.  OK.  I'd put that more in the GM's hands than in the designers', though.

Quote from: Venosha;249569To be quiet honest, I have always found any sexual situations added to a game, seems to lead the game off track, and pushes it into a different direction.  Not that having any sexual element is bad, but I am not aware of the game you speak of.  I will have to check it out and maybe give you a an opinion later.  It can be appealing, but I guess I would like to see how in depth the content is, and how the DM introduces it and furthers the game with the element.  I mean I have heard of the famous words of   "Ale and Whores"....and it seems that is where some games eventually lead to, but I have never played a game where a sex element was really needed.   Just kickin the crap out of the bad guys and taken their treasure was always good enough for me.

Yes, I would think, given the appearance of the average male gamer in north america at least, that women gamers would be particularly wary of any kind of sexual innuendo developing in their group.

RPGPundit

Yeah...there is that cliche that a lot of gamers want to think their characters and themselves look and act like Errol Flynn - when really they have more in common with Flynn's drinking buddy Alan Hale. *


- Ed C.






* For those of you NOT into classic movies, Alan Hale played Little John (THE BIG GUY) in the classic 1939 Robin Hood movie and was the father of Alan Hale Jr. - "Skipper" of Gilliagan's Island.

Quote from: GrimGent;249321Nobilis by Rebecca Borgstrom are the first ones that come to mind.

Are we allowed to point out that a previously-male transsexual is unlikely to have the mindset of a typical woman?

Vampire seems like the classic example of a game successfully aimed at women, specifically Anne Rice fans, also played by men.  3e D&D went to a lot of effort to appeal to women, and I've seen a lot more female D&D players in the last 8 years than previously.

The best thing to about it, in this case, really is nothing.  The women that want to play will play because they're into it.  Let the rest go their own way and do their own thing.  Everyone in the world doesn't dig our hobby; let's not cause trouble by insisting upon it.

Quote from: S'mon;249658Are we allowed to point out that a previously-male transsexual is unlikely to have the mindset of a typical woman?

What's the mindset of a typical women ? Maybe Borgstrom has some insight which is of a different kind than the average straight male into the mindset of women. But why does it really matter ? Borgstrom's name was brought up in connection with rpgs designed by women.

QuoteVampire seems like the classic example of a game successfully aimed at women, specifically Anne Rice fans, also played by men.

Vampire was aimed at goths more than anything else.There are a lot more women in this particular subculture.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: S'mon;249658Are we allowed to point out that a previously-male transsexual is unlikely to have the mindset of a typical woman?

Even if that is the case (considering that it's idle speculation based on two of her research publications from the 90s being attributed to "Ryan" rather than "Rebecca"), I'd still hesitate to make any generalized blanket assumptions about how "typical women" think. What, I'm supposed to share a similar mindset with you, complete with preferences and psychological approaches to relationships or solving problems, just because the two of us happen to be biologically male? That's unlikely, to say the least, and faintly amusing in the same way as someone expecting me to show an interest in cars or guns or sports all because of this little quirk of birth.

Quote from: S'mon;249658Are we allowed to point out that a previously-male transsexual is unlikely to have the mindset of a typical woman?

You knew the answer would be "no", didn't you?

Quote from: S'mon;249658the mindset of a typical woman?

I have yet to meet one of those and strongly doubt that there is a "typical" woman in any meaningful sense.

:rolleyes:

There are archetypal male and female experiences that shape who we are.  Men and women experience the world in different ways, not only because of the vast differences in our bodies, but also because of the radically different ways our societies perceive us.

The common experiences form the core of gendered identity, and they are the reason why men tend to find it easiest to identify and relate to other men, while women find it easiest to identify and relate to other men.

The vast majority of men here have had typically male experiences:  getting a boner in the middle of class and having to hide it, getting rejected and humiliated by women, comparing yourself to your father, feeling the pressure to measure up against the great men of history, etc.  

Likewise, the vast majority of women have had typically female experiences: getting your first period, dealing with the interest of uninteresting boys, being afraid of rape and sexual assault, feeling the pressure to become a mother and wife, etc.

Being a man or being a woman isn't a matter of gross anatomy.  You can cut a man's penis off and make a vagina out of it, but that doesn't change history, that doesn't mean that the person suddenly has had female experiences, doesn't mean they haven't had male experiences.  Gender is more than biology, far more than anatomy, it's culture and history as well.

Male transsexuals and female transsexuals have more in common with each other, in terms of experience, than male-to-female transsexuals do with women or men.  They are a third gender, and it is entirely reasonable and rational "to point out that a previously-male transsexual is unlikely to have the mindset of a typical woman?"

It's a fact.  There should be no shame in pointing it out.

Quote from: Jackalope;249822The vast majority of men here have had typically male experiences:  getting a boner in the middle of class and having to hide it, getting rejected and humiliated by women, comparing yourself to your father, feeling the pressure to measure up against the great men of history, etc.  

Likewise, the vast majority of women have had typically female experiences: getting your first period, dealing with the interest of uninteresting boys, being afraid of rape and sexual assault, feeling the pressure to become a mother and wife, etc.

But ultimately all of those boil down to the same little problems of life spiced with a bit of biological and cultural variety thrown in: coping with akward physiological changes during puberty, coming to terms with rejection by whichever sex you prefer, avoiding your grandparents' questions about when you are going to marry and have children... Men feel the pressure to become fathers, too. Women compare themselves to their mothers, as well. Their personal experiences are not separated by some unimaginably vast gulf which no one can ever hope to cross.

Quote from: Jackalope;249822:rolleyes:

There are archetypal male and female experiences that shape who we are.  Men and women experience the world in different ways, not only because of the vast differences in our bodies, but also because of the radically different ways our societies perceive us.

The common experiences form the core of gendered identity, and they are the reason why men tend to find it easiest to identify and relate to other men, while women find it easiest to identify and relate to other men.

The vast majority of men here have had typically male experiences:  getting a boner in the middle of class and having to hide it, getting rejected and humiliated by women, comparing yourself to your father, feeling the pressure to measure up against the great men of history, etc.  

Likewise, the vast majority of women have had typically female experiences: getting your first period, dealing with the interest of uninteresting boys, being afraid of rape and sexual assault, feeling the pressure to become a mother and wife, etc.

Being a man or being a woman isn't a matter of gross anatomy.  You can cut a man's penis off and make a vagina out of it, but that doesn't change history, that doesn't mean that the person suddenly has had female experiences, doesn't mean they haven't had male experiences.  Gender is more than biology, far more than anatomy, it's culture and history as well.

Male transsexuals and female transsexuals have more in common with each other, in terms of experience, than male-to-female transsexuals do with women or men.  They are a third gender, and it is entirely reasonable and rational "to point out that a previously-male transsexual is unlikely to have the mindset of a typical woman?"

It's a fact.  There should be no shame in pointing it out.

That is all fine and good, but irrelevant unless playing an RPG is about the embarassment over your first boner or some other gender-specific experience, of which there are none I am aware.

If the author of Nobilis is a transexual, I don't see that as an impediment to them being able to design a game that others of either gender can relate to UNLESS the game were to focus primarily on experiences that only a transexual would understand or relate to. I have not read Nobilis, but I have not been lead to believe that this is the case.

My point about there being no "typical woman" was simply stating that despite the similar experiences you mention that most women share, individual differences render the concept of a "typical woman" useless when dealing with the subject matter found in most mainstream RPGs. If there is a "typical woman" as you suggest, she probably has no interest in RPGs in the first place (the same probably goes for a hypothetical "typical man").

Quote from: GrimGent;249832But ultimately all of those boil down to the same little problems of life spiced with a bit of biological and cultural variety thrown in: coping with akward physiological changes during puberty, coming to terms with rejection by whichever sex you prefer, avoiding your grandparents' questions about when you are going to marry and have children... Men feel the pressure to become fathers, too. Women compare themselves to their mothers, as well.

The pressure on men to become father is nothing like the pressure on women to become mothers.  Fatherhood is always secondary to the real pressure on men: to find a career.  To make something of yourself.  Being a father is something you do on the side, it doesn't define men.  No one sees being a fatherhood as a career in the way that society sees motherhood as a career.

Likewise, women's experience of being rejected pales in comparison to men's experience of rejection.  Women are far more likely to experience being passed over and ignored by men, but there is no expectation on women to go ask men out.  A woman who asks a man out is daring and courageous, a man who doesn't ask women out is a castrated coward.

QuoteTheir personal experiences are not separated by some unimaginably vast gulf which no one can ever hope to cross.

I never said they were, though I understand the desire to make an extreme straw man out of a mild observation.

Quote from: ConanMK;249839If the author of Nobilis is a transexual, I don't see that as an impediment to them being able to design a game that others of either gender can relate to UNLESS the game were to focus primarily on experiences that only a transexual would understand or relate to. I have not read Nobilis, but I have not been lead to believe that this is the case.

No one has made that claim.  No one is discussing the role of gender on content, and certainly no one has made any claims about gender (of any sort) being an impediment to game design.

QuoteMy point about there being no "typical woman" was simply stating that despite the similar experiences you mention that most women share, individual differences render the concept of a "typical woman" useless when dealing with the subject matter found in most mainstream RPGs. If there is a "typical woman" as you suggest, she probably has no interest in RPGs in the first place (the same probably goes for a hypothetical "typical man").

I wasn't addressing your claim Conan.  I was making an argument in support of S'mon.  I agree with him that citing Nobilis as an example of a game written by a woman is of questionable validity, because it's highly questionable whether a male-to-female transsexual is a woman.

Quote from: Jackalope;249844The pressure on men to become father is nothing like the pressure on women to become mothers.  Fatherhood is always secondary to the real pressure on men: to find a career.  To make something of yourself.  Being a father is something you do on the side, it doesn't define men.  No one sees being a fatherhood as a career in the way that society sees motherhood as a career.

On the other hand, in this society no one particularly cares that our president wasn't married when she was elected, or draws any conclusions based on whether she might have children or not. Her political career overshadows everything else in her life: in this, she's no different from any man who might have claimed the position.

Half a century ago a woman might have been regarded as exceptionally bold for taking the initiative in approaching someone she fancied, incidentally, but those days are long gone.

Quote from: GrimGent;249849On the other hand, in this society no one particularly cares that our president wasn't married when she was elected, or draws any conclusions based on whether she might have children or not. Her political career overshadows everything else in her life: in this, she's no different from any man who might have claimed the position.

Half a century ago a woman might have been regarded as exceptionally bold for taking the initiative in approaching someone she fancied, incidentally, but those days are long gone.

Huzzawhat now?

Quote from: Jackalope;249851Huzzawhat now?

I'm Finnish. Tell any woman around here that she should be treated differently from men, and there's a good chance that she'll bite your head off. We take equality seriously in these parts.

Quote from: GrimGent;249852I'm Finnish. Tell any woman around here that she should be treated differently from men, and there's a good chance that she'll bite your head off. We take equality seriously in these parts.

Good for you.  You're now the second Finnish person I've met online.  The other one was also obnoxiously feminist.

I'll cut you some slack since English is presumably not your first language, but no one has said anything about telling any woman she should be treated differently.

Keep trying though, eventually you'll respond to something that someone actually said.

Quote from: Jackalope;249873Good for you.  You're now the second Finnish person I've met online.  The other one was also obnoxiously feminist.

I'll cut you some slack since English is presumably not your first language, but no one has said anything about telling any woman she should be treated differently.

Keep trying though, eventually you'll respond to something that someone actually said.

 
Her English is better than your Finnish.

Quote from: Jackalope;249873I'll cut you some slack since English is presumably not your first language, but no one has said anything about telling any woman she should be treated differently.

"Men and women experience the world in different ways, not only because of the vast differences in our bodies, but also because of the radically different ways our societies perceive us."

"No one sees being a fatherhood as a career in the way that society sees motherhood as a career."

What is that if not society collectively telling women that they cannot help but be treated differently, even when plausible alternatives do in fact exist? Don't make the mistake of considering the attitudes and conventions prevalent in your own local social structures as a somehow universal yardstick by which all the others can be measured as well. Those "typically female experiences" won't be all that typical or restricted to women even everywhere in your own country, let alone in the rest of the world.

Quote from: Jackalope;249845I wasn't addressing your claim Conan.  I was making an argument in support of S'mon.  I agree with him that citing Nobilis as an example of a game written by a woman is of questionable validity, because it's highly questionable whether a male-to-female transsexual is a woman.

Except S'mon was not questioning the legal status of Borgstrom. He was implying that a male to female transexual didn't have the mindset of a typical woman. Since we can all (well most of us) agree that there really isn't a typical mindset, the question is irrelevent.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: GrimGent;249852I'm Finnish. Tell any woman around here that she should be treated differently from men, and there's a good chance that she'll bite your head off. We take equality seriously in these parts.

So speaks a man who having had his head bitten off (a powerfully Freudian image) is now the zealous enforcer of the mores of his conqueror.

Finnish society, for those who don't know, is one of the most feminised on earth. Sadly, the women there have succeeded in psychological castration of many of their menfolk. Resulting in much sub-standard sex for both genders, the guilty indulgence of trips across the Baltic to less liberated and shorter-skirted shores by the men, and women having secret flings with such unreconstructed neanderthals as still survive, to the cuckoldment of their earnestly feminist brethren.

My sympathies, and now we know why you are so grim.

Quote from: The_Shadow;249887Finnish society, for those who don't know, is one of the most feminised on earth.

Well, no: there's still discrimination and inequality despite the best efforts to scrub them out. But for instance that notion of "motherhood as a career" being actually expected of women feels somewhat foreign, when the vast majority of women in this country simply return right back to work after their few months of maternity leave.

Quote from: The_ShadowFinnish society, for those who don't know, is one of the most feminised on earth.

Quote from: GrimGent;249892Well, no: there's still discrimination and inequality despite the best efforts to scrub them out. But for instance that notion of "motherhood as a career" being actually expected of women feels somewhat foreign, when the vast majority of women in this country simply return right back to work after their few months of maternity leave.

These two statements aren't contradictory.  It seems quite possible for Finland to be one of the countries where women's rights have advanced the furthest out of the world's current countries, and yet for there to still be discrimination and inequality in it.

Quote from: David R;249877Except S'mon was not questioning the legal status of Borgstrom. He was implying that a male to female transexual didn't have the mindset of a typical woman. Since we can all (well most of us) agree that there really isn't a typical mindset, the question is irrelevent.

I'm not questioning the legal status of Borgstrom either.  I don't agree that there isn't a "typical mindset."  I don't think most demographers would agree either.

Quote from: Jackalope;249943I'm not questioning the legal status of Borgstrom either.  I don't agree that there isn't a "typical mindset."  I don't think most demographers would agree either.

Actually you were - "I agree with him that citing Nobilis as an example of a game written by a woman is of questionable validity, because it's highly questionable whether a male-to-female transsexual is a woman." As for demographers, I'm sure there are very good at identifying trends but nothing as complex as mindsets.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;249952Actually you were - "I agree with him that citing Nobilis as an example of a game written by a woman is of questionable validity, because it's highly questionable whether a male-to-female transsexual is a woman."

No, I wasn't David.  I don't see what that statement has to do with legal status.

QuoteAs for demographers, I'm sure there are very good at identifying trends but nothing as complex as mindsets.

I'm not sure what you mean by mindset then.  I assume the term means something to the effect of "a habitual or characteristic mental attitude that determines how you will interpret and respond to situations."  I don't see the difficulty in discussing typical mindsets, and I'm pretty sure that is exactly what demographers attempt to discern.

Quote from: Jackalope;249984No, I wasn't David.  I don't see what that statement has to do with legal status.

You are a legal scholar, right? Or were you talking biologically ? Because that (depending on the law of the land) really does not matter when it comes to gender reassignment (at least in theory)

QuoteI'm not sure what you mean by mindset then.  I assume the term means something to the effect of "a habitual or characteristic mental attitude that determines how you will interpret and respond to situations."  I don't see the difficulty in discussing typical mindsets, and I'm pretty sure that is exactly what demographers attempt to discern.

I don't think demographers do what you have defined above : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography , but if you could give me some examples where they do discern "mindset" as you have defined it, I'd appreciate it.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Jackalope;249943I don't agree that there isn't a "typical mindset."

The relevant point might be that there isn't just one typical mindset, which is commonly understood to be a set of assumptions and habits shaped by earlier experiences or cultural indoctrination: external circumstances, that is, which may vary wildly from one person to the next regardless of sex or gender. To some extent they can be analyzed and charted through sociological research, certainly, but the results will always depend on which exact sample that study is based on. The data won't be broadly applicable to every man or woman elsewhere, even if it reveals temporary trends and tendencies within a given social group. "Every X reacts to Y with Z" is a fallacy: the human species is far more diverse than that.

Oh, and just to bring the thread closer to the original topic...

Quote from: ConanMKIf the author of Nobilis is a transexual, I don't see that as an impediment to them being able to design a game that others of either gender can relate to UNLESS the game were to focus primarily on experiences that only a transexual would understand or relate to. I have not read Nobilis, but I have not been lead to believe that this is the case.

Nobilis as written doesn't actually deal with gender issues in any sense, as mentioned during an earlier discussion. The fiction in the book contains some discreet nods to sexual minorities along with a few moments of ambiguity ("'I have come from Germany,' he said, 'where my love lies dying. I have come to ask you to spare him, great Lady,'" or the way in which you can't really tell whether "the fool in my bed" in one of Ianthe's anecdotes is a guy or a gal), but the game doesn't make meaningful distinctions based on personal details like that, or explicitly address the role of sexuality in the setting, or include TG characters. At best you could say that petty prejudices against someone with such power might prove apocalyptic, and assuming that Ianthe Falls-Short or Ada Willamette are any less competent than their male colleagues might land your PC into trouble very quickly indeed. Their society cannot afford pointless discrimination when the fate of the universe is at stake.

Quote from: David R;249998You are a legal scholar, right? Or were you talking biologically ? Because that (depending on the law of the land) really does not matter when it comes to gender reassignment (at least in theory)

I was speaking in broad philosophical terms, I was speaking of the is of identity (http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/identity.htm).  

QuoteI don't think demographers do what you have defined above : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography , but if you could give me some examples where they do discern "mindset" as you have defined it, I'd appreciate it.

Well, as an example here (http://people-press.org/report/325/) is a Pew study on American women's attitudes towards motherhood.  From these findings, we can make various assertions like:  The typical American woman thinks motherhood is more challenging now than 30 years ago, and is more concerned about external social pressures on children than any other factor.

Quote from: Jackalope;250060I was speaking in broad philosophical terms, I was speaking of the is of identity (http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/identity.htm).  

I don't have the time to decipher what you linked to. A summary of the position would be helpful.

QuoteWell, as an example here (http://people-press.org/report/325/) is a Pew study on American women's attitudes towards motherhood.  From these findings, we can make various assertions like:  The typical American woman thinks motherhood is more challenging now than 30 years ago, and is more concerned about external social pressures on children than any other factor.

Well this is sociology rather than demography. Again this relates to trends within the context of specific periods and focus groups rather than any real insight into the mindset of women in general.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;250066I don't have the time to decipher what you linked to. A summary of the position would be helpful.

Maybe later, but I haven't had my coffee and I don't know if I can sum up the concept of the is of identity.  It's what Bill Clinton was talking about when he said "It depends on what the definition of is is.'   Basically it's the is used to identify one thing as another, as opposed to the is of prediction, which is used to identify what a thing is doing.   is of prediction:  David R is reading this post.  David R is online.  David R is breathing oxygen.  David R's heart is pumping blood through his cardiovascular system.
And is of identity is: David R is a member of this forum.  David R is a gamer.

The is of identity becomes much trickier when one starts making claims that rely on terms that don't have clear meanings and definitions, like:   David R is a good guy.  David R is an evil bad man.  David R is smart.  David R is stupid.  

The is of identity says that one thing (A) is the equal of another thing (B).

So what I'm questioning, and what I think S'mon is questioning, is the assumption "A male-to-female transexxual is a woman."

This is actually a fairly important issue, as I think if you accept the premise that "A male-to-female transexxual is a woman" is true, then it can be argued fairly easily that "woman" is a meaningless term that doesn't tell you anything.

And I can see that result in the argument in this thread.  Part of the reason y'all are arguing that there is no "typical woman" is because you have (possibly without realizing it) embraced a definition of woman that is so broad as to be utterly meaningless.

Quote from: David R;250066Well this is sociology rather than demography. Again this relates to trends within the context of specific periods and focus groups rather than any real insight into the mindset of women in general.

See, right there you are arguing that the Pew center's research is sociology, not demography.  I think you are splitting hairs, and the point stands whether you call it sociology or demography.

Quote from: Jackalope;250075See, right there you are arguing that the Pew center's research is sociology, not demography.  I think you are splitting hairs, and the point stands whether you call it sociology or demography.

There is a big difference between sociology and demography. The former (sometimes) attempts to discern the mindset of men/women with less than satisfactory results. In fact the PEW site has separate categories for demography surveys and their sociological ones - both include articles, etc. If you meant sociology fair enough. But demography as a field of research and study has nothing to with the definition of mindset that you gave in an earlier post.

I'll respond to your other post a little later. I'll skip your summary of is and deal with the second half of the post.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Jackalope;250074So what I'm questioning, and what I think S'mon is questioning, is the assumption "A male-to-female transexxual is a woman."

You may have been questioning this but not S'mon (and hopefully he will correct me if I'm mistaken) What he questioned was would a male to female transexual be able to understand the mindset of a typical woman and not if a male to female transexual was in fact a woman.

QuoteThis is actually a fairly important issue, as I think if you accept the premise that "A male-to-female transexxual is a woman" is true, then it can be argued fairly easily that "woman" is a meaningless term that doesn't tell you anything.

Well actually if one accepts this premise it means that the definition of woman is far more complex than conventional thinking would suggest. I realize now that you were approaching this subject from a more opaque philosophical angle rather than a legal one. Unnecessary IMO because if Borgstrom is indeed a transexual - I have no idea - then she would be a woman (if she went through the required legal processes) in the eyes of the law.

QuoteAnd I can see that result in the argument in this thread.  Part of the reason y'all are arguing that there is no "typical woman" is because you have (possibly without realizing it) embraced a definition of woman that is so broad as to be utterly meaningless.

Except nobody here is arguing that there is no typical woman. What I have been arguing is that there is no typical mindset. Physiology is far more typical and predictable than pyschology.

Regards,
David R

Ok, this has clearly long since stopped being about RPGs.  Feel free to start a new one about RPGs on the RPG board, but this particular thread is off to Off-topic.

RPGPundit

Quote from: David R;250132You may have been questioning this but not S'mon (and hopefully he will correct me if I'm mistaken) What he questioned was would a male to female transexual be able to understand the mindset of a typical woman and not if a male to female transexual was in fact a woman.

I think you are misreading S'mon's comment, which was:   Are we allowed to point out that a previously-male transsexual is unlikely to have the mindset of a typical woman?If we clarify for S'mon's weasel-wording, he is essentially asserting "A male-to-female transsexual is unlikely to have the mindset of a typical woman."

Note that he is not saying that a male-to-female transsexual is unlikely to understand the mindset of a typical woman, he is saying that male-to-female transsexual is unlikely to have the mindset of a typical woman.

And why would a male-to-female transsexual have the mindset of a typical woman?  A male-to-female transsexual certainly isn't a typical woman, if a woman at all.  That's implicit in S'mon's question.

   Well actually if one accepts this premise it means that the definition of woman is far more complex than conventional thinking would suggest. I realize now that you were approaching this subject from a more opaque philosophical angle rather than a legal one. Unnecessary IMO because if Borgstrom is indeed a transexual - I have no idea - then she would be a woman (if she went through the required legal processes) in the eyes of the law.

If one accepts the premise that a male-to-female transsexual is a woman, then the definition of woman doesn't become "far more complex than conventional thinking would suggest," it becomes useless.  The definition of a woman becomes "any person that thinks it is a woman."

QuoteExcept nobody here is arguing that there is no typical woman. What I have been arguing is that there is no typical mindset. Physiology is far more typical and predictable than pyschology.

There is no bright line between physiology and psychology David, the two are very much interconnected.  The mind is embodied in the brain, and the brain is subject of physiology.

I don't really get how you can argue that there is a typical woman but not a typical woman's mindset.  The typical woman does have a mindset, yes?  That mindset would then, necessarily, be the typical woman's mindset, right?

Quote from: Jackalope;250157I think you are misreading S'mon's comment, which was:   Are we allowed to point out that a previously-male transsexual is unlikely to have the mindset of a typical woman?If we clarify for S'mon's weasel-wording, he is essentially asserting "A male-to-female transsexual is unlikely to have the mindset of a typical woman."

Well I think on this point we won't really resolve anything. I take what S'mon says at face value. Unless he chooses to clarify what he actually meant, it's pretty pointless debating what he could have meant.

QuoteIf one accepts the premise that a male-to-female transsexual is a woman, then the definition of woman doesn't become "far more complex than conventional thinking would suggest," it becomes useless.  The definition of a woman becomes "any person that thinks it is a woman."

Actually it does become more complex.  If we do accept this premise, the definition of a woman (or a man) goes beyond the biological into the psychological.

QuoteThere is no bright line between physiology and psychology David, the two are very much interconnected.  The mind is embodied in the brain, and the brain is subject of physiology.
I don't really get how you can argue that there is a typical woman but not a typical woman's mindset.  The typical woman does have a mindset, yes?  That mindset would then, necessarily, be the typical woman's mindset, right?

Jackalope, it is far easier to discern physiological characteristics than pyschological ones. Acknowledging the typical physiological characteristics of women is one thing. Attempting to discern typical psychological characteristics is another. In other words what you're saying is, that because women look the same, they must think the same.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;250180Well I think on this point we won't really resolve anything. I take what S'mon says at face value. Unless he chooses to clarify what he actually meant, it's pretty pointless debating what he could have meant.

You most certainly did not take him at face value.  You completely changed the obvious meaning of his statement, and now you're weaseling out of it. :rolleyes:

QuoteActually it does become more complex.  If we do accept this premise, the definition of a woman (or a man) goes beyond the biological into the psychological.

Exactly!  That's what I just said.  The definition of a woman becomes "Anyone who thinks they are a woman."

Look man, I know exactly where this argument is going.  It ends with us at a point where you are claiming that physiology doesn't make one a woman, history doesn't make on a woman, but rather psychology make sone a woman.  Then I ask what are the psychological characteristics of a woman, and you tell me that there is no specific female psychology, no "mind of a woman" that all women have.

And where does that leave us?  With woman being defined as "anything that thinks like a woman", and thinking like a woman left undefinable.

QuoteJackalope, it is far easier to discern physiological characteristics than pyschological ones. Acknowledging the typical physiological characteristics of women is one thing. Attempting to discern typical pychological characterics is another. In other words what you're saying, is that because women look the same, they must think the same.

See!  This is what I'm talking about!

You're arguing that we can't discern women's mindset, but we can define who is a woman by their mindset.

This is why I fucking hate third-wave feminism.  It's such irrational bullshit.  Gender theory is nothing but pseudoscientific garbage.

Quote from: Jackalope;250190You most certainly did not take him at face value.  You completely changed the obvious meaning of his statement, and now you're weaseling out of it. :rolleyes:

No, I took him at face value, you chose to clarify his....how did you phrase it..."weasel wording". If it was so obvious, why the need for clarification?

QuoteExactly!  That's what I just said.  The definition of a woman becomes "Anyone who thinks they are a woman."

Yes and the end result in your view is that the definition of woman becomes meaningless, whereas I think the definition becomes more complex.

QuoteLook man, I know exactly where this argument is going.  It ends with us at a point where you are claiming that physiology doesn't make one a woman, history doesn't make on a woman, but rather psychology make sone a woman.  Then I ask what are the psychological characteristics of a woman, and you tell me that there is no specific female psychology, no "mind of a woman" that all women have.

This is your problem right here. You assume too much. You create arguments which nobody has made and then expect the person you arguing with to defend said arguments.

QuoteYou're arguing that we can't discern women's mindset,

I'm arguing that we can't define the typical mindset of a women.

Quote...but we can define who is a woman by their mindset.

As far as the differences between male and female pyschological states, yes.

QuoteThis is why I fucking hate third-wave feminism.  It's such irrational bullshit.  Gender theory is nothing but pseudoscientific garbage.

This is relevent how....oh yeah, let me guess, after this, is where you start flinging insults, right ?

Regards,
David R

Well, this thread went good for a while before degenerating into a flamefest, so I guess I can't be disappointed.

Quote from: Serious Paul;249372Wasn't Dragonlance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonlance) written primarily by Margaret Weis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Weis) and Tracy Hickman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy_Hickman)? My wife, and a lot of her friends love the series. Maybe that's just anecdotal on my part, but I've also noticed that in my area (Grand Rapids) there seem to be a lot of women who like D&D, Vampire, and something called BeSM. (I don't know what that is.)

Dragonlance is why I wanted to start gaming. First picked the books up in the early 90s, and I still can't get anyone to run it for me :/

I played vampire once, and din't really like it. For the record, I chose gangrel :)

I wou;dn't want a Wraethulu game - I don't like the dynamic that sex usually brings to a group. I just want to be able to kill bad things, fix wrongs, maybe dabble with intrigue, and eventually become a god. Or have a game that's comedy gold (like the wizard that got pissed, turned a guy into a pig and served bacon the next morning). Crazy game, that was.

Quote from: David R;250202No, I took him at face value, you chose to clarify his....how did you phrase it..."weasel wording". If it was so obvious, why the need for clarification?

Because technically S'mon didn't assert anything, he asked a question.  Of course, it was a rhetorical question.  He also included the passive-aggressive "is it okay to" framing to his rhetorical question to subtly implicate others in the conversation to being close-minded and hostile to disagreement.

You on the other hand took his statement of "to have the mindset of..." and rather than take that at face value as you claim, changed it to "to understand the mindset of..."

Also, weasel wording (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words) is not my invention.

QuoteI'm arguing that we can't define the typical mindset of a women.

So you claim that we can't define the typical mindset of a women.

QuoteAs far as the differences between male and female pyschological states, yes.

But we can define the differences between male and female psychological states.

That's a neat trick.  How do you do that?  Define the differences between male and female "psychological states" without defining a male or female "psychological state."  And how exactly is a mindset different from a psychological state?

QuoteThis is relevent how....oh yeah, let me guess, after this, is where you start flinging insults, right ?

It's relevant because that is the position you are arguing.  You are arguing a position first articulated bu Judith Butler in Gender Trouble.  It was silly postmodernist tripe in 1990, and it's silly postmodern tripe in 2008.

QuoteThis is your problem right here. You assume too much. You create arguments which nobody has made and then expect the person you arguing with to defend said arguments.

You mean like how you said "In other words what you're saying is, that because women look the same, they must think the same."   Is that how you mean?

Quote from: Jackalope;250308Because technically S'mon didn't assert anything, he asked a question.  Of course, it was a rhetorical question.  He also included the passive-aggressive "is it okay to" framing to his rhetorical question to subtly implicate others in the conversation to being close-minded and hostile to disagreement.
You on the other hand took his statement of "to have the mindset of..." and rather than take that at face value as you claim, changed it to "to understand the mindset of..."

No, this was what I said -

QuoteHe was implying that a male to female transexual didn't have the mindset of a typical woman.

 - here: http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=249877&postcount=62

So I was taking his statement at face value. Your accusation that I changed the statement to "understand the mindset of "  happened here:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=250132&postcount=76

were I said :

QuoteWhat he questioned was would a male to female transexual be able to understand the mindset of a typical woman and not if a male to female transexual was in fact a woman

This was a mistake on my part which. So, if you want to make a meal of it, go ahead. However my original statement or rather my reading of his original statement at face value stands.

And yes technically he asked a question. It's you who have been asserting that his question means your question, that is, can a transsexual be considered a woman.

QuoteAlso, weasel wording (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words) is not my invention.

I never said it was your invention, I said your "phrasing".

QuoteSo you claim that we can't define the typical mindset of a women.
But we can define the differences between male and female psychological states.
That's a neat trick.  How do you do that?  Define the differences between male and female "psychological states" without defining a male or female "psychological state."  

It's not really a trick. It entirely possible to demonstrate that men and women think differently but extremely diffcult to assess the patterns within each different psychological state. Hence the problem with defining how each typically thinks.

QuoteAnd how exactly is a mindset different from a psychological state?

I don't think there's much of a difference which is why I have used both casually. It's you have defined "mindset" and pointed to a survey which you claim supports your definition.

QuoteYou mean like how you said "In other words what you're saying is, that because women look the same, they must think the same."   Is that how you mean?

No, more like how you assume that I'm arguing the postion articulated by Judith Butler and hence make counter arguments to points I never raised.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;250319It's not really a trick. It entirely possible to demonstrate that men and women think differently but extremely diffcult to assess the patterns within each different psychological state. Hence the problem with defining how each typically thinks.

No, that's a really impressive trick.  In fact, it is an impossible trick.  You cannot compare the differences between two unknown qualities.  That is an impossible feat.  You can't say "Men think like X, while women think like Y." without knowing X and Y, and if you know X and Y, then you must know something about men and women.

However let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you can somehow compare and contrast the differences in how men and women think without defining how men and women think.  No matter how impossible that is.

How do you define who the women are and who the men are without knowing their psychological state?  How do you compare the differences between men and women's mindsets without

Because remember, you are defining women as people with a woman's mindset, without defining what a women's mindset is.

Surely you can see how very circular that definition is, right?  That a woman is any person with a woman's mindset?

QuoteNo, more like how you assume that I'm arguing the postion articulated by Judith Butler and hence make counter arguments to points I never raised.

I haven't made any counter-arguments to points you haven't made.  And you are arguing a position first articulated by Judith Butler.  The line of argument that gender is a mental state rather than a matter of physiology comes from Judith Butler's Gender Trouble.  You may not recognize the source, but that is where the argument comes from.

Quote from: Jackalope;250379No, that's a really impressive trick.  In fact, it is an impossible trick.  You cannot compare the differences between two unknown qualities.  That is an impossible feat.  You can't say "Men think like X, while women think like Y." without knowing X and Y, and if you know X and Y, then you must know something about men and women.

Again it's not really a trick. You take situation Z and compare how X and Y react to it. So simplistically (using this example) you come away with Men think like X , while women think like Y when it comes to situation Z. With regards to the latter, if I'm not mistaken this was more or less what you summarized with your example of the PEW research.

QuoteHowever let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you can somehow compare and contrast the differences in how men and women think without defining how men and women think.  No matter how impossible that is.
How do you define who the women are and who the men are without knowing their psychological state?  How do you compare the differences between men and women's mindsets without

I never argued that there was no psychological state. I've maintained that there is no typical mindset in either gender. There are qualified trends, but no typical mindsets.

Also, IMO I don't think there's been much research into the psychological states of women (all this is thankfully changing now). Hang on, I'll go further I don't think there's been enough research based on their ethnicity. For instance I assume - and this is based on the research done on the different ethnic groups of the women in my country - there are differences in the psychological states between hispanic, white , black and native American women. Of course all this relates only on tangetially to your question.

QuoteBecause remember, you are defining women as people with a woman's mindset, without defining what a women's mindset is.

Again I never said there was no women's mindset, I have been arguing there's no typical woman's mindset.

QuoteSurely you can see how very circular that definition is, right?  That a woman is any person with a woman's mindset?

Again...oh never mind by now you should have gotten it.

QuoteI haven't made any counter-arguments to points you haven't made.  And you are arguing a position first articulated by Judith Butler.  The line of argument that gender is a mental state rather than a matter of physiology comes from Judith Butler's Gender Trouble.  You may not recognize the source, but that is where the argument comes from.

See I never made that argument. You claimed everyone had or was influenced by it. It started here:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=250074&postcount=73

where you said this:

QuoteAnd I can see that result in the argument in this thread. Part of the reason y'all are arguing that there is no "typical woman" is because you have (possibly without realizing it) embraced a definition of woman that is so broad as to be utterly meaningless.

then you tried to frame it again here :

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=250157&postcount=78

where you said :

QuoteIf one accepts the premise that a male-to-female transsexual is a woman, then the definition of woman doesn't become "far more complex than conventional thinking would suggest," it becomes useless. The definition of a woman becomes "any person that thinks it is a woman."

So, I certainly never made the argument that gender is a mental state. I merely said that if one accepts your premise the situation would become complex.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;250385Again it's not really a trick. You take situation Z and compare how X and Y react to it. So simplistically (using this example) you come away with Men think like X , while women think like Y when it comes to situation Z. With regards to the latter, if I'm not mistaken this was more or less what you summarized with your example of the PEW research.

Now you're just being frustrating David.  You have changed your position in every single post you've made.  First you claim that we can't define how men and women think, but we can define the differences.   Now you are claiming that we can define the differences by comparing how men and women think, so your claim that we can't define how men and women think seems to have gone up in smoke.

QuoteI never argued that there was no psychological state. I've maintained that there is no typical mindset in either gender. There are qualified trends, but no typical mindsets.

Also, IMO I don't think there's been much research into the psychological states of women (all this is thankfully changing now). Hang on, I'll go further I don't think there's been enough research based on their ethnicity. For instance I assume - and this is based on the research done on the different ethnic groups of the women in my country - there are differences in the psychological states between hispanic, white , black and native American women. Of course all this relates only on tangetially to your question.

So...basically you're totally ignoring my questions and just saying stuff that has nothing to do with anything that's been said.

QuoteAgain I never said there was no women's mindset, I have been arguing there's no typical woman's mindset.

And you are making no sense at all.

QuoteSo, I certainly never made the argument that gender is a mental state. I merely said that if one accepts your premise the situation would become complex.

Dude, you are so full of shit.

Jack: If one accepts the premise that a male-to-female transsexual is a woman, then the definition of woman doesn't become "far more complex than conventional thinking would suggest," it becomes useless. The definition of a woman becomes "any person that thinks it is a woman."

David: Actually it does become more complex. If we do accept this premise, the definition of a woman (or a man) goes beyond the biological into the psychological.

Jack: Exactly! That's what I just said. The definition of a woman becomes "Anyone who thinks they are a woman."

David: Yes and the end result in your view is that the definition of woman becomes meaningless, whereas I think the definition becomes more complex.

Then later:

David: I certainly never made the argument that gender is a mental state.

What the fuck ever.  You're a fucking tool David, and you can go fuck yourself for wasting my time.  Don't bother responding, you are clearly incapable of participating in an argument and making a fucking lick of sense.  I don't know what the fuck your game is, but it's fucking OBNOXIOUS.

I haven't been really following this, but has anyone made a distinction between "sex" and "gender" at this point?

Quote from: Vaecrius;250456I haven't been really following this, but has anyone made a distinction between "sex" and "gender" at this point?

No, not yet.

Quote from: Jackalope;250454Now you're just being frustrating David.  You have changed your position in every single post you've made.

By all means point out these posts where I changed my position.

QuoteFirst you claim that we can't define how men and women think, but we can define the differences.   Now you are claiming that we can define the differences by comparing how men and women think, so your claim that we can't define how men and women think seems to have gone up in smoke.

Not at all. I have said that there are no typical mindsets. I have acknowledged that one can discern qualified trends. When you asked is there a difference between the way men and women think I said yes. So please point out where I said that we cant define how men and women think. I'll say it again. We can define how men and women think but we can't without certain qualifications discern any typical patterns.

QuoteSo...basically you're totally ignoring my questions and just saying stuff that has nothing to do with anything that's been said.

This was your question:

QuoteHow do you define who the women are and who the men are without knowing their psychological state? How do you compare the differences between men and women's mindsets without

This was my answer:

QuoteI never argued that there was no psychological state. I've maintained that there is no typical mindset in either gender. There are qualified trends, but no typical mindsets.

Looking back at what I added now seems relevent in terms of the possible diverse psychological states of women. BTW saying stuff that has nothing to do with anything that's been said is more your style.

QuoteAnd you are making no sense at all.

Right. You say this to everyone you argue with. It's getting old.

And finally, the usual Jackalope ending spiel...

QuoteDude, you are so full of shit.
Jack: If one accepts the premise that a male-to-female transsexual is a woman, then the definition of woman doesn't become "far more complex than conventional thinking would suggest," it becomes useless. The definition of a woman becomes "any person that thinks it is a woman."
David: Actually it does become more complex. If we do accept this premise, the definition of a woman (or a man) goes beyond the biological into the psychological.
Jack: Exactly! That's what I just said. The definition of a woman becomes "Anyone who thinks they are a woman."
David: Yes and the end result in your view is that the definition of woman becomes meaningless, whereas I think the definition becomes more complex.
Then later:
David: I certainly never made the argument that gender is a mental state.

So in others words if I offer an opinion about your premise, this means that I made the argument in the first place ? What part of "if one accepts the premise" don't you understand ?

All this is pretty strange. It's as though you want me to have made this argument. You first accuse everyone of excepting  Judith Butler's arguments but then are outraged when nobody makes it accept you in a vain attempt to demonstrate that the argument is in fact being made.

QuoteWhat the fuck ever.  You're a fucking tool David, and you can go fuck yourself for wasting my time.  Don't bother responding, you are clearly incapable of participating in an argument and making a fucking lick of sense.  I don't know what the fuck your game is, but it's fucking OBNOXIOUS.

If I wanted to I could probably to link to about a dozen posts where you have ended your arguments in a similar manner. But that would be a waste of my time. As it stands, you have demonstrated the worst traits you accuse others of.

Regards,
David R

Yeah, David, we're done.  I have no idea what your position is, why you are arguing it, what you end goal is, or why we're even talking.  I have no real interest in trying to figure it out.

You're being insulting and you've spent this entire conversation accusing me of doing the very things you are doing, and like most idiots, I don't think you'll benefit any from me trying to point that out.  It'll just get more confused.

So go piss off.

Yes Jackalope, you have said this to...everyone before. It's always the other person's fault never yours. You throw around insults, accuse the person you are arguing with of advocating a position that suits whatever preconceived notions that you have at the moment and when that fails, flame out in a barrage of insults.

You are pathetic.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;250507Yes Jackalope, you have said this to...everyone before.

This statement is simply untrue.  This statement is a gross oversimplification of reality that fails to adequately account for all facts.  However, I have noted that all of the people on this forum who are incapable of holding up their end of an argument make this accusation towards me when I point out that they can't hold up their end of the argument.

QuoteIt's always the other person's fault never yours.

This statement is also untrue, and is also a gross oversimplification of reality that fails to adequately account for all facts.  For example, yesterday I took Bill to task for something I thought he was arguing, but it turned out I had not properly read all of the post he was commenting to.  I acknowledged my mistake and we moved on.

QuoteYou throw around insults, accuse the person you are arguing with of advocating a position that suits whatever preconceived notions that you have at the moment and when that fails, flame out in a barrage of insults.

No, that's you.

QuoteYou are pathetic.

And you're a liar.

I once heard that insanity could be defined as being 'A Majority of One'.  

It made a lot of sense at the time, and given the context it makes a lot of sense now... though I'll be damned if I can explain it here.

Quote from: Jackalope;250513This statement is simply untrue.  This statement is a gross oversimplification of reality that fails to adequately account for all facts.  However, I have noted that all of the people on this forum who are incapable of holding up their end of an argument make this accusation towards me when I point out that they can't hold up their end of the argument.

Go look up any discussion you have had with John Morrow , Spike, Cavscout - just to name a few. Most everyone here is capable of holding up an argument with you. This accusation is leveled at you after you have flamed out and are throwing a hissy fit. After you have accused the person of being a racist. After you have accused the person of misrepresenting you. After you have accused the person of not understanding you.

QuoteThis statement is also untrue, and is also a gross oversimplification of reality that fails to adequately account for all facts.  For example, yesterday I took Bill to task for something I thought he was arguing, but it turned out I had not properly read all of the post he was commenting to.  I acknowledged my mistake and we moved on.

That's true. It's probably the only time you have done this. I could be wrong but most times you are content to call people shit weasels etc.

QuoteNo, that's you.

Sorry, that's you. On this thread it was the whole Judith Butler "you are making her argument even though you don't realize it" nonsense.

QuoteAnd you're a liar.

Show me were I lied. Seriously, prove it. What have I said on this thread which is a lie. See, just more shit throwing on your part.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;250525Go look up any discussion you have had with John Morrow , Spike, Cavscout -just to name a few.

You just named three guys who are admitted trolls.  Three people who consistently refuse to defend their positions and make disingenuous attacks on other's arguments.

QuoteMost everyone here is capable of holding up an argument with you. This accusation is leveled at you after you have flamed out and are throwing a hissy fit. After you have accused the person of being a racist. After you have accused the person of misrepresenting you. After you have accused the person of not understanding you.

Yes, exactly, this accusation is thrown at me whenever the person I'm debating with as reached a point where their argument consists of nothing but distortions, misrepresentations and other disingenuous tricks.

QuoteThat's true. It's probably the only time you have done this. I could be wrong but most times you are content to call people shit weasels etc.

You are wrong.

QuoteSorry, that's you. On this thread it was the whole Judith Butler "you are making her argument even though you don't realize it" nonsense.

I'll admit now that you may not have been making that argument, since I am no longer clear want argument you were making,m or if you were even attempting to make a rational argument.

If you are arguing that a male-to-female transsexual is a woman because a male-to-female transsexual has a "female mindset," then you must be using some variation on Butler's argument.  But I no longer know what you are arguing, as you have consistently changed your position with each post.

QuoteShow me were I lied. Seriously, prove it. What have I said on this thread which is a lie. See, just more shit throwing on your part.

David:Yes Jackalope, you have said ["I have no idea what your position is, why you are arguing it, what your end goal is, or why we're even talking. I have no real interest in trying to figure it out.  You're being insulting and you've spent this entire conversation accusing me of doing the very things you are doing, and like most idiots, I don't think you'll benefit any from me trying to point that out. It'll just get more confused."] to...everyone before. It's always the other person's fault never yours.

That's a lie.  You know it's not true, I know it's not true, but you are asserting it despite it's untruth in order to attempt to take a superior position.   You are slandering me because you cannot actually argue with me.

You are pathetic.  So is Spike, so is John Morrow, and so is CavScout.

I mean seriously, we have two possibilities:
1) I managed to make it through 16 years of schooling getting nothing but straight A's in English, never scoring less than 100% on reading comprehension test, getting a perfect score on the English portion of the SATs, and continue to be regularly complimented on my intelligence and insight -- even by people who freaking hate me -- and yet I am somehow a complete idiot who can't hold his own in a debate.  OR

2) There are a handful of idiots on every internet forum who are incapable of recognizing the limits of their own knowledge, and incapable of participating in a reasonable discussion, and I sometimes find myself getting frustrated by them and telling them off.

Hmm.

Quote from: Jackalope;250536You just named three guys who are admitted trolls.  Three people who consistently refuse to defend their positions and make disingenuous attacks on other's arguments.

Cavscout maybe....but JOHN MORROW and SPIKE. You gotta be kidding me. If anything these guys defend their postion to the death...I should know, I've been a few brawls with them. And no, they don't make disingenuos attacks on other peoples arguments - they do though have their own agendas, but don't we all.

QuoteYes, exactly, this accusation is thrown at me whenever the person I'm debating with as reached a point where their argument consists of nothing but distortions, misrepresentations and other disingenuous tricks.

You keep saying this and yet you do it yourself.

QuoteYou are wrong.

Maybe. I hope your posting style changes as evidenced by your exchange with Bill.

QuoteI'll admit now that you may not have been making that argument, since I am no longer clear want argument you were making,m or if you were even attempting to make a rational argument.

If you are arguing that a male-to-female transsexual is a woman because a male-to-female transsexual has a "female mindset," then you must be using some variation on Butler's argument.  But I no longer know what you are arguing, as you have consistently changed your position with each post.

Yeah you keep saying this. Whatever.

QuoteThat's a lie.  You know it's not true, I know it's not true, but you are asserting it despite it's untruth in order to attempt to take a superior position.   You are slandering me because you cannot actually argue with me.

No that's the truth. At a certain point of any discussion you revert to form. Anyway, if it was a lie, I'm sure someone will call me out on it.

QuoteYou are pathetic.  So is Spike, so is John Morrow, and so is CavScout.

I can't help but laugh at this. I mean it's pretty funny. Even Cavscout doesn't try to pull this shit.

QuoteI mean seriously, we have two possibilities:
1) I managed to make it through 16 years of schooling getting nothing but straight A's in English, never scoring less than 100% on reading comprehension test, getting a perfect score on the English portion of the SATs, and continue to be regularly complimented on my intelligence and insight -- even by people who freaking hate me -- and yet I am somehow a complete idiot who can't hold his own in a debate.  OR

2) There are a handful of idiots on every internet forum who are incapable of recognizing the limits of their own knowledge, and incapable of participating in a reasonable discussion, and I sometimes find myself getting frustrated by them and telling them off.

This is so heartfelt. Tell you what, it's late in my area... I'll get back to you on this.

Regards,
David R

Now I feel really bad I didn't jump in last night to defend you, David...

... damned agenda got in the way, sorry. :(

Quote from: David R;250546Cavscout maybe....but JOHN MORROW and SPIKE. You gotta be kidding me. If anything these guys defend their postion to the death...I should know, I've been a few brawls with them. And no, they don't make disingenuos attacks on other peoples arguments - they do though have their own agendas, but don't we all.

John repeatedly refused to actually state his position in the recent abortion debate.  Spike refused to take a position in my recent attempt to engage with him, and pointedly admitted that he is an untrustworthy and dishonest person who is more interested in humiliating others than defending a position.  He also refused to take a position.

I mean seriously dude, Spike flat out said he is not to be trusted and that he argues only to make other people look stupid.  That is the very defintion of being disingenuous.

QuoteYou keep saying this and yet you do it yourself.

No, point of fact, I have never done that.

QuoteMaybe. I hope your posting style changes as evidenced by your exchange with Bill.

My posting style depends on whom I'm talking to.  Despite the fact that Bill and I disagree on just about any point you can name, Bill is a competent and reasonable person who doesn't engage in disingeneous tactics.  If you ask Bill his position, Bill won't give you a song and dance, he'll tell you his fucking position.

QuoteYeah you keep saying this. Whatever.

My david, what a stunning refutation of the point.

QuoteNo that's the truth. At a certain point of any discussion you revert to form. Anyway, if it was a lie, I'm sure someone will call me out on it.

I'm calling you out on it.  An it's not the truth.  You've already has much as acknowledged that I don't interact with Bill the same way I interact with Spike, CavScout and John Morrow.  

At a certain point in any conversation with a person who is being disingenuous I do eventually give up on trying to be reasonable and simply express my frustration with them.  You are attempting to claim that I always do this, and that I am doing it because I have "lost" the argument.  But that is simply not the case.

QuoteI can't help but laugh at this. I mean it's pretty funny. Even Cavscout doesn't try to pull this shit.

You yourself pulled it.  You called me pathetic, I called you pathetic in response.

So apparently you try to pull this shit.

QuoteThis is so heartfelt. Tell you what, it's late in my area... I'll get back to you on this.

No you won't.  You'll come back later with more bullshit.

And I notice that you didn't respond to my example of you lying, and that you are no longer arguing the point.   I will take this as a concession of the point that you are a liar and your argument is nothing but an ad homeniem attack against me based on lies.

Quote from: Jackalope;250586I mean seriously dude, Spike flat out said he is not to be trusted and that he argues only to make other people look stupid.  That is the very defintion of being disingenuous.
.

I'd say that makes me the most honest, reasonable person here.

If I wasn't lying about lying all the time, that is.

*sigh* This thread went so well for several pages, now this.

Really, what was it about asking if there'd ever been a RPG oriented towards women that got this flamefest going?

The weird thing is that I halfway expected some people to attack me just for asking, which I'm glad didn't happen, but then they start hosing each other.

Quote from: Demonoid;250625Really, what was it about asking if there'd ever been a RPG oriented towards women that got this flamefest going?

Bitches, man! They're trouble!

Quote from: Jackalope;250586John repeatedly refused to actually state his position in the recent abortion debate.  Spike refused to take a position in my recent attempt to engage with him, and pointedly admitted that he is an untrustworthy and dishonest person who is more interested in humiliating others than defending a position.  He also refused to take a position.

Care to point out where spike did this. On the thread you started where half way through you accused him of the things you're accusing me of and walked away in a huff after failing to respond to the points he raised ? As for Morrow, not stating his position was a dumbass thing to do, but his history on this board shows he's more honest than you. I may not agree with his positions but at least (this one incident aside) he has always stated his position and defended it, even though his opponents have heaped abuse upon him.

QuoteI mean seriously dude, Spike flat out said he is not to be trusted and that he argues only to make other people look stupid.  That is the very defintion of being disingenuous.

So what, he like you have stated that you have online personas. Should we take it that you are the very definition of being disingenuos ? At least spike does not start troll threads and whine when folks flame him for it.

QuoteNo, point of fact, I have never done that.

You're doing it now. This little derail which has nothing to do with the subject of this thread is proof of the behaviour I'm accusing you off.

QuoteMy posting style depends on whom I'm talking to.  Despite the fact that Bill and I disagree on just about any point you can name, Bill is a competent and reasonable person who doesn't engage in disingeneous tactics.  If you ask Bill his position, Bill won't give you a song and dance, he'll tell you his fucking position.

Everyone here with the exception of that one time with Morrow states their position. Most of your interactions with posters here have been hostile. What did Engine say on Koltar's soul thread - reading your post even for those who agree with you is a cringe inducing affair.

QuoteMy david, what a stunning refutation of the point.

Most of my post on this thread have been a refutation of this point.

QuoteI'm calling you out on it.  An it's not the truth.  You've already has much as acknowledged that I don't interact with Bill the same way I interact with Spike, CavScout and John Morrow.  

Yeah Bill again. How is it not the truth ?

QuoteAt a certain point in any conversation with a person who is being disingenuous I do eventually give up on trying to be reasonable and simply express my frustration with them.  You are attempting to claim that I always do this, and that I am doing it because I have "lost" the argument.  But that is simply not the case.

See where did I claim you're doing it because you lost the argument. I believe you do it because you can't sustain your arguments. As I said you always claim your opponents are being disingenuos but yet others who have argued with these same people don't raise this criticism or behave the way you do.

QuoteYou yourself pulled it.  You called me pathetic, I called you pathetic in response. So apparently you try to pull this shit.

See, I responded to your "piss off" post. During this whole thread I never once insulted you or claimed you were weasling etc. You wanted to have the last word but are now throwing a hissy fit because I responded. You started with the insults and are now claiming I did. Very , very disingenuos.

QuoteNo you won't.  You'll come back later with more bullshit.

Actually I kinda off feel sorry for you. Whenever someone gives a so-called history of their acadaminc qualifications it normally means they are insecure about their position. I mean really, what is more plausible, that you throw hissy fits when you can't sustain your arguments or that everyone you insult is really a dick (even though these same people seem to get on well with most everyone else) ?

QuoteAnd I notice that you didn't respond to my example of you lying, and that you are no longer arguing the point.   I will take this as a concession of the point that you are a liar and your argument is nothing but an ad homeniem attack against me based on lies.

I did respond but I mean you didn't actually offer any proof that I was lying, just your opinion that I was. See, it's like when you got confused with what demographers do and I linked you to a definition of  what their work involves. I'm surprised they didn't teach you this in law school. It really doesn't matter does it? You will carry on calling people racists and liars.

Regards,
David R

Be careful, Davey... reading your post I got the impression you've been looking into this particular abyss a bit too long... your writing and syntax is starting to read a bit more like his...

You dirty racist you... obviously you've gained too much priviledge from your whiteness and must be punished so that the underpriviledged can be thus elevated by your suffering. Unwilling martyrs work just fine, you know...

And may I, for once, say that I've liked the Collateral quote in your sig ever since you put it up?  Gonna have to rewatch that movie soon.

David:  Suck a shotgun, you stupid cocksmoking son of whore.

I'm not going to play this point by point refutation with a fuckwit like you.  You're a disingenuous shit-sucking craphound, and I have better things to do that let you waste another fucking moment of my time.

Here's why you aren't worth arguing with.  You are a liar.  You made a claim about me that is not true, a claim that was easily refuted -- you claimed I ALWAYS do this one thing, and then admitted that I had not done that one thing regarding Bill, and thus I have successfully refuted the claim.

Now you are claiming that you did not lie, and that me showing that you made an untrue statement is just "my opinion."  Well fuck you very much Dave. Fuck you right to hell.

Here's my opinion Dave:  if you had a brain embolism right now, and died in HORRIBLE FUCKING PAIN, that would make me happy.  If your entire family died of a slow, horrible disease leaving you financially ruined, I would be happy.  If you have children, I hope they are raped, murdered, and buried in a shallow grave.  I hope that your entire family ends in ruin and destruction.  

I hope God himself exists SOLELY so that you can be thrown into a burning lake of fire and spend eternity in suffering in torment.

And I think ALL OF THIS simply because you're being a dick on the internet.

That's a fucking opinion, you pathetic creep.

Quote from: Demonoid;250625The weird thing is that I halfway expected some people to attack me just for asking, which I'm glad didn't happen, but then they start hosing each other.

I didn't attack you, but did insult you - by not even bothering to reply to the thread. The whole concept of rpgs specifically for some particular group in society, whether women, homosexuals, heterosexuals, Jews, Christians or whatever, the whole idea is so fucking stupid that it's only barely worthy of derision, and not of discussion.

And Jackalope, if talking with someone as harmless as David gets you so upset, you seriously need to get out more. You are not meeting enough annoying people. Obviously the 21st century is making you miserable (http://www.cracked.com/article_15231_7-reasons-21st-century-making-you-miserable.html).

Jackalope,

 Please get some help.

 My God all that bile and mean-spiritedness...its a bit much.

 Kyle Aaron's post was right.


- Ed C.

Jackalope you really are pathetic. If you go back to the thread you'll note that I did acknowledge that Bill is probably the only poster who has not been the recepient of your childish behaviour. And going by his (Bill's) last post on the Obama thread maybe a lengthy discussion with you is not really a good idea, since you probably will revert to form. But a lie it was certainly not. At least not like the lying and slandering you do when you call people racists and yeah liars. But whatever , you're taking this way too seriously probably because you have self esteem issues.  

Regards,
David R

Get raped by an elephant David.

I'm not the one with self-esteem issues.  it's you pathetic creeps who haunt the internet, acting like big shots and hiding your ignorance and idiocy behind bad arguments, bad rhetoric, and disingenuous tricks.

You want to talk about self-esteeem issues, let's talk about the thing you, CavScout, Spike and John Morrow all have in common:  a desperate, overwhelming need to assert your superiority over other people. A need to talk down to others, and present yourself as people's betters.

It's because you are a sad, pathetic creep.  In real life you would never talk to anyone with the sort of condescension that drips off your every post.  You delude yourself into thinking that you don't insult others, but it's your BEHAVIOR that is insulting.  All four of you are unable to accept the limits of your own knowledge and ignorance, and rather than have CONFIDENCE in your ideas, you HIDE THEM.  Because you know they are crap, and you know you can't defend them, so instead you attack me.

It's like John Morrow attacking Bill Ayers because he can't defend the right wing hate machine.  It's like you changing your argument in every post (first we can't discern mindstates, then we can discern them but can't define them, blah blah).  It's like Spike's desperate attempt to dismiss me because he can't dismiss my arguments.  it's like CavScout's absolute inability to ever clarify a single thing he says.

None of you are just flat out stupid, like Koltar -- who can't follow a conversation to save his fat life -- but all four of you are disingenuous little weasels.

This is why you stupid, lame fucks turn every argument with me into an argument ABOUT me.  Because you can't actually make reasoned arguments, you can't actually follow a line of thought consistently over several posts, you can't even acknowledge when you're changed your position.

Pathetic, cretinous creeps.

This just in: Jackass declares war against the internet!


News at 11...

What makes you, Jackalope, pathetic is not that you are a liar or that you are a misogynist or even that you resort to slander when you can't sustain your arguments (even though you are all those things). No, what makes you pathetic is the fact that you project your self esteem issues on others - Morrow , Cavscout , Spike and me - when your rhetoric which only seems to consist of misdirection, selective reading  filtered through the lens of ideology, a week grasp of history and of course childish insults does not get you very far with us.

Blacks who don't susbscribe to your views - Uncle Toms. All the women you have ever met - devious and manipulative. Posters who don't agree with you -stupid or disingenuos. In this thread alone, you were the one who resorted to insults when you found yourself in a tough spot.

You don't respond to actual points raised prefering instead to paint your opponents as disingenuos , racist or ignorant when in fact, it's you who are who are all those. You derail discussions - like this one - when you realize that that you have painted yourself into a corner and you have got nothing left to say except maybe fling shit around hoping that people will forget the original purpose of the thread or the very dubious claims in your arguments.

It's really pathetic the way how you are the only one who feels that some are attempting to display their superiority over others. You must really be a loser in real life. A shit throwing threatening loser who at the end of the day deludes himself into thinking that his online persona will boost his self worth.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;251002What makes you, Jackalope, pathetic is not that you are a liar or that you are a misogynist or even that you resort to slander when you can't sustain your arguments (even though you are all those things). No, what makes you pathetic is the fact that you project your self esteem issues on others - Morrow , Cavscout , Spike and me - when your rhetoric which only seems to consist of misdirection, selective reading  filtered through the lens of ideology, a week grasp of history and of course childish insults does not get you very far with us.

Yeah David, I've heard the "The problem is you." speech a million times before.  Always from the disingenuous cocksuckers that can't scare me off with bullshit.

Next you will list my sins, but of course you won't provide examples.  You won't cite anything.  You'll just present some gross distortions, straw-men that vaguely and distantly resemble something I said.

QuoteBlacks who don't susbscribe to your views - Uncle Toms. All the women you have ever met - devious and manipulative. Posters who don't agree with you -stupid or disingenuos. In this thread alone, you were the one who resorted to insults when you found yourself in a tough spot.

No, actually I resorted to insults because you were changing your argument at every turn, and then rather insultingly followed up your nonsensical blather with the suggestion that "This is relevent how....oh yeah, let me guess, after this, is where you start flinging insults, right?"

QuoteYou don't respond to actual points raised prefering instead to paint your opponents as disingenuos , racist or ignorant when in fact, it's you who are who are all those. You derail discussions - like this one - when you realize that that you have painted yourself into a corner and you have got nothing left to say except maybe fling shit around hoping that people will forget the original purpose of the thread or the very dubious claims in your arguments.

:rolleyes:  You're the one who attacked me first dude.  

QuoteIt's really pathetic the way how you are the only one who feels that some are attempting to display their superiority over others. You must really be a loser in real life. A shit throwing threatening loser who at the end of the day deludes himself into thinking that his online persona will boost his self worth.

Dude, look at what you are doing right now.  You are talking down to me.  You start off by calling me pathetic, and then you just go on and talk shit about me while acting like a complete and total hypocritical douchebag.  This is classic primate behavior, the attempt to dominate and assume superiority.  You do it because I'm new, you're weak, and you're scared of me.

You think my accusations disingenuousness, racism and ignorance are unfounded, but your only defense is to attack me.  You call me a slandering, lying, ideological and ignorant misogynistic racist (and yet, delude yourself into thinking you aren't insulting me) and can offer no proof.

:emot-words:

Like I said, get raped by an elephant, you useless fuck.

Quote from: Demonoid;250625*sigh* This thread went so well for several pages, now this.

Really, what was it about asking if there'd ever been a RPG oriented towards women that got this flamefest going?

The weird thing is that I halfway expected some people to attack me just for asking, which I'm glad didn't happen, but then they start hosing each other.

Your question was legit and worth talking about. It's just that the thread got hijacked by one of those huge line-by-line retort exchanges between Jackalope and some person or other (mostly CavScout on the last couple threads before this) that are a perfectly normal danger for any thread on this forum.

Quote from: Jackalope;250468No, not yet.

Well it's well past the point for addressing it anyway, so I'll keep it in mind to bring it up if it comes up again.

So much for not playing the point by point refutation game. Guess you were lying, huh.

Quote from: Jackalope;251064Yeah David, I've heard the "The problem is you." speech a million times before.  Always from the disingenuous cocksuckers that can't scare me off with bullshit.

This coming from the guy who posted the identity of is bullshit. Hate to dissapoint you Jackalope but your tactic of throwing around shit will not get you very far. Not here and certainly not with me.

QuoteNext you will list my sins, but of course you won't provide examples.  You won't cite anything.  You'll just present some gross distortions, straw-men that vaguely and distantly resemble something I said.

You haven't called Morrow a racist ? You haven't said that every women you have met is devious and manipulative ? You have not accused your opponents of being disingenuos after a few rounds and they don't accept your BS arguments ? You have not said that blacks who express a conservative position are Uncle Toms ? You want quotes ? I could do that. I did in this thread when you tried to distort what I said.

QuoteNo, actually I resorted to insults because you were changing your argument at every turn, and then rather insultingly followed up your nonsensical blather with the suggestion that "This is relevent how....oh yeah, let me guess, after this, is where you start flinging insults, right?"

Point out where I changed my argument. Also "this is relevent how" was my response to this:

QuoteThis is why I fucking hate third-wave feminism. It's such irrational bullshit. Gender theory is nothing but pseudoscientific garbage.

Your ongoing belief at the time that I was making....wait hold on....that everyone in the thread was under the influence of Judith Butler's writings.

Quote:rolleyes:  You're the one who attacked me first dude.  

Where ? Show me and none of this you're being disingenuos shit. Because it would seem disingenuos for you merely means not agreeing with you.

QuoteDude, look at what you are doing right now.  You are talking down to me.  You start off by calling me pathetic, and then you just go on and talk shit about me while acting like a complete and total hypocritical douchebag.  This is classic primate behavior, the attempt to dominate and assume superiority.  You do it because I'm new, you're weak, and you're scared of me.

Are you on crack ? I mean, look at what you said to me before I said you were pathetic. Jesus, what the hell man. You say the most vile things about me and when I comment that you are pathetic for saying so, you claim I'm talking down to you. And I'm doing this to you because you are new? What the fuck ? "You are weak"....no you are pathetic, vile even in your speech but really man, I can honestly say nobody here is scared of you.

QuoteYou think my accusations disingenuousness, racism and ignorance are unfounded, but your only defense is to attack me.  You call me a slandering, lying, ideological and ignorant misogynistic racist (and yet, delude yourself into thinking you aren't insulting me) and can offer no proof.
:emot-words:

I think your accusations are unfounded because you have offered no proof that they are legitimate. My attacks are based on comments you have made about Morrow, women in general, posters on other sites. If you want me to dredge it up and post them for all to see, just say the word. Or better yet, you can claim that you never called anyone a racist, never made any misogynist statements or behaved like a douchebag on other sites. At which point I'll be forced to dredge up some (more) of your vile comments....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Jackalope;250754You want to talk about self-esteeem issues..

:rotfl:

This from the guy who has a habit of telling everyone how smart he is (what was it? Upper 5% you claimed), how his college degree makes him the expert on some topic being discussed here, how his Green Beret dad roughed him up when he was younger and how that made him into the "man" he is today?

You spend more time telling others how great and better you are than anyone else, on this forum, that I've come across.

Top 5% huh?

I'm in the top 2%  - I qualified for MENSA and was a dues-paying member for awhile.


Original topic? Think I said somewhere in the earlier pages that women tend to like the same RPGs as everyone else....but it all depends what group or GM they meet.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;251201Top 5% huh?

Someone is bragging about their IQ? Must be Jackalope...

How lame. And what possible reason do we have to believe him? Certainly not from the quality of his postings...

Quote from: Koltar;251201I'm in the top 3%  - I qualified for MENSA and was a dues-paying member for awhile.

Heh, MENSA.

I know about them from the in-laws, the stories are mostly about drinking parties and setting around naked in a hot tube. I don't like my in-laws, those stories make me cringe.

No reflection intended upon you Koltar.

No offense taken, Gleichman - every city or region's local version of that group is a little bit different in how they behave or do parties.

Generally tho, the MENSA people in the Midwest states are pretty nice people.


- Ed C.

My german shepherd is president of MENSA. You should hear his barked lectures on quantom string theory. He can fit shapes into holes too.

Quote from: One Horse Town;251208My german shepherd is president of MENSA. You should hear his barked lectures on quantom string theory. He can fit shapes into holes too.

Given that dogs only make 10 vocal sounds (according to my Get Fuzzy desk calendar for today, what could be a better source?), I imagine he must using volume modulation to handle the fine details.

Impressive, and certainly worthy of being in charge of MENSA, may he long serve.

:)

Quote from: David R;251091This coming from the guy who posted the identity of is bullshit. Hate to dissapoint you Jackalope but your tactic of throwing around shit will not get you very far. Not here and certainly not with me.

I'm sorry that you think semantics is bullshit.  It certainly does explain why you are such an unreasonable person though.

QuoteYou haven't called Morrow a racist?

John Morrow is a racist.  He has argued that racism exist, that it affects black people disportionately, but that black people are to blame for their own poverty, and that black people have no right to their own culture.  he has denigrated black culture at every opportunity, refusing to draw any distinction between black culture and poverty culture.  I am hardly the only person here who thinks John is racist.  I'm not even the one who first applied the crypto-bigot label to him.

QuoteYou haven't said that every women you have met is devious and manipulative?

I have never said anything remotely resembling that comment.

QuoteYou have not accused your opponents of being disingenuos after a few rounds and they don't accept your BS arguments?

The word is disingenuous.  You keep misspelling it despite having plenty of examples of the word spelled correctly on this page.  That's lazy.

I have accuse my opponents of being disingenuous when they are being disingenuous.

QuoteYou have not said that blacks who express a conservative position are Uncle Toms?

This would be an example of you being disingenuous.  First you claimed I believe "Blacks who don't susbscribe to your views - Uncle Toms."  Now you change your meaning to "blacks who express a conservative position."  That comes closer to being what I said.

QuoteYou want quotes ? I could do that. I did in this thread when you tried to distort what I said.

No, because you'll just misquote me, quote me out of context, and ignore the nuance of my comments so you can attack a straw-man, just like you disingenuous shits always do.

QuotePoint out where I changed my argument. Also "this is relevent how" was my response to this:

Here's a good example.   Jackalope: There is no bright line between physiology and psychology David, the two are very much interconnected. The mind is embodied in the brain, and the brain is subject of physiology.  I don't really get how you can argue that there is a typical woman but not a typical woman's mindset. The typical woman does have a mindset, yes? That mindset would then, necessarily, be the typical woman's mindset, right?

David: Jackalope, it is far easier to discern physiological characteristics than pyschological ones. Acknowledging the typical physiological characteristics of women is one thing. Attempting to discern typical pychological characterics is another. In other words what you're saying, is that because women look the same, they must think the same.

Jackalope: You're arguing that we can't discern women's mindset, but we can define who is a woman by their mindset.

David: I'm arguing that we can't define the typical mindset of a women.See what you did there?  First you claimed that discerning psychological characteristics (mindstates) is difficult or impossible (your weasel wording makes it unclear exactly what you mean).  

And of course, there is the example of your summary of my argument ("In other words what you're saying, is that because women look the same, they must think the same.") which is a gross and disingenuous distortion of what I actually said.  Apparently you think people's BRAINS are on the outside of their heads.

I mean seriously, this is why you aren't worth talking to.  I'm talking about the role physiology plays in shaping psychology, making an oblique reference to the vast differences in brain structures and hormone levels between men and women, and you reduce my argument to "because women look alike they think alike."

What the fuck?  That's just dumb.

QuoteWhere ? Show me and none of this you're being disingenuos shit. Because it would seem disingenuos for you merely means not agreeing with you.

"This is relevent how....oh yeah, let me guess, after this, is where you start flinging insults, right?"

QuoteAre you on crack ? I mean, look at what you said to me before I said you were pathetic. Jesus, what the hell man. You say the most vile things about me and when I comment that you are pathetic for saying so, you claim I'm talking down to you. And I'm doing this to you because you are new? What the fuck ? "You are weak"....no you are pathetic, vile even in your speech but really man, I can honestly say nobody here is scared of you.

Dude, you called me pathetic before I unloaded on you.  You called me pathetic when I said I was done with the conversation.  That's why I said I hope you have kids and they get raped, murdered and buried in a shallow grave.

Quote from: Koltar;251201Top 5% huh?

I'm in the top 2%  - I qualified for MENSA and was a dues-paying member for awhile.

Yes, top 5%.  Though I actually threw that number out because I didn't want to look up the exact percentile.  Now I've actually looked the figures up again (hadn't checked them in years), and I wasn't giving myself sufficient credit.

My IQ -- which is 154 -- actually puts me in the top 0.1%, on the same level as Lincoln, Copernicus, and Jefferson, but shy of Einstein, Spinoza and Newton.

In the top 3% you'd have an IQ of over 125, which I don't believe at all.  You display a consistent pattern of failing to follow along in the threads, your arguments are invaraibly confused and muddled, and you are incapable of defending any of the points you make.  I suspect your IQ is, at best, around 100.  And I am extending you an olive branch by saying you are of average IQ.

Not that you will respond to this in an intelligible manner.

IQ.

Like penis length, only you can't prove it with a tape measure.

Quote from: Vaecrius;251283IQ.

Like penis length, only you can't prove it with a tape measure.

I know one thing about people that actually do have high IQs.

They don't go around claiming they have high IQs on Internet boards...

Quote from: Vaecrius;251283IQ.

Like penis length, only you can't prove it with a tape measure.

True, and I would never try to win an argument by saying "I have a high IQ, therefore I win."  Nor would I ever claim that IQ is a particularly relevant statistic outside of very limited contexts.  IQ measures ones spatial reasoning and aptitude with analogies.  It's culturally biased, and of limited value in most situations.

But when someone tries to convince me that my perception of their posts as being confused and incomprehensible is a result of me being oh so very, very dumb, then I think it's not unreasonable for me to point out that by every measure our society has available, I'm at the very least a prodigiously good reader.  My ability to read with comprehension and to follow a logical argument has been vetted by every socially acknowledge standard there is.

Thus, I think it's reasonable of me to suggest that when I read something and it makes absolutely no sense, it is not because I am a poor reader, but rather that the author I am reading is a crappy writer and sloppy thinker.

Quote from: gleichman;251292I know one thing about people that actually do have high IQs.

They don't go around claiming they have high IQs on Internet boards...

Most people with IQs won't admit it, because admitting you have a IQ opens one up to mockery and taunting by others.  The knee-jerk hatred our society has for people of intelligence is incredible.  It's no surprise that most intelligent people are afraid to be honest about their own intelligence.  The average person hates the very concept of IQ, because knowing that others are smarter than you is hard to cope with.

I myself am such an incredibly misanthropic and anti-social jerk that I simply don't care if it makes you insecure to know that I have stronger spatial reasoning and analytical skills than you.  I find the false modesty demanded of intelligent people to be pointless.

I, of course, are not smart like Jackalope, and I can't read a word.

But I am a body builder, concert violinist, training for a triathalon and I've shot people to death.

None of these things are true, but none of these things are false.  

Jackalope is a prodigious reader, has AMAZING comprehension, but can't understand a word we say to him.

Quote from: Spike;251328I, of course, are not smart like Jackalope, and I can't read a word.

But I am a body builder, concert violinist, training for a triathalon and I've shot people to death.

None of these things are true, but none of these things are false.  

Jackalope is a prodigious reader, has AMAZING comprehension, but can't understand a word we say to him.

This is the sort of nonsense I'm talking about.  This is an example of Spike being disingenuous.

He's not actually coming out and making an actual argument, just sort of dancing around one.  That works to his benefit, because no matter how I interpret this comment -- which can be interpreted many ways -- he will say I'm wrong.

Who knows what he actually means.  He doesn't actually draw a connection between the first three paragraphs and his conclusion.

This is argument:   P: Spike is not smart like Jackalope.
P: Spike lies about his capabilities.
C: Jackalope cannot follow Spike's arguments.
It's bizarro land.  Taken at face value, Spike has just agreed with me entirely, and explained why I'm right -- he's dumb and disingenuous, and thus hard to follow.  He has repeated all my claims, that he isn't as smart as I am, that he lies, and that he makes irrational and incomprehensible arguments.

Yet, I don't get the sense that Spike is agreeing with me.  Does anyone else get the sense that he's agreeing with me?  Smart as I am, I still don't know how to deal with someone who this full of shit, except to point and say "Hey, you're totally full of shit."

I mean how the hell are you supposed to argue with someone who is repeating your points, and then drawing your conclusions from those points, but won't admit that you are right?  This is the very meaning of disingenuous.  When someone says "The sky is blue." and then someone else responds, "No, you're wrong.  The sky is blue."

What the fuck.

Somehow, somewhere - one of those two people has failed his "grasp & comprehend Sarcasm" roll.


- Ed C.

OK, this thread has served it's purpose. I.E. it's established there have been no real "women oriented" RPGs.

After a great start, it has now drifted so far OT that even I didn't object to it being moved.

I wouldn't mind it being closed now.

Quote from: Koltar;251346Somehow, somewhere - one of those two people has failed his "grasp & comprehend Sarcasm" roll.

Thanks for demonstrating your complete lack of intelligence yet again Ed.

I totally get that Spike is being sarcastic.  That's why I said "Yet, I don't get the sense that Spike is agreeing with me. Does anyone else get the sense that he's agreeing with me?"  If you weren't such a waterhead dolt, you would have caught that.

What you don't get is that sarcasm is not a rational argument.  A sarcastic response does not make me wrong.  Spike is using sarcasm to mock me -- the typical intent of sarcasm -- but he is also using it to avoid actually making an argument.

He's trying to create appearance that he has the upper hand, without actually doing anything that would give him the upper hand.  It's disingenuous bullshit.

But Spike does have the upper hand.

He's actually fun to read when he posts stuff.

 You can have mostly rational discussions with the guy.

Unlike others.....


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;251357But Spike does have the upper hand.

Not by any measure that is reasonable or rational.

QuoteHe's actually fun to read when he posts stuff.

This, for example, is not a rational reason.

You think Spike's post are fun to read because he shares your biases and doesn't challenge your beliefs.  He makes fun of me, I make fun of you, thus you think he has the upper hand on me.  In reality, you only support Spike because I so regularly point out that you are an idiot.

QuoteYou can have mostly rational discussions with the guy.

No Ed, you can't.  I understand that you think Spike is capable of rational discussions, but you yourself are an irrational person.  You don't understand the difference between a rational discussion and mutual intellectual masturbation.

You think Spike has the upper hand because you don't operate on a rational level, you operate entirely on emotional level.  You think people are being reasonable when they limit themselves to unchallenging, vague statements that don't provoke real thought from you.  You confuse the level of discourse you are comfortable engaging in with reasoned discourse.

This is why you argument consists of bland assertion (Spike does have the upper hand) and your evidence in support of your assertion consist entirely of opinion statements (I think he's fun to read, I can have rational discussion with him).

You could have rational discussions with me, but that won't happen until you recognize that I am smarter than you, and that you will frequently need to stop and ask me to clarify things for you, and to teach you new ideas, in order for you to keep up.  because honestly, I am operating at a level way above your pay grade.  You would have to acknowledge to yourself the limits of your own understanding, and be willing to learn new things.

But you won't do that, because you're fat, lazy fuck who is happy to wallow in his own ignorance.  You're an idiot, and given that you're old, it's probably far too late for you to ever develop a smart attitude.  Instead, you will remain a perpetual mental child, only willing to consider ideas you have already accepted.

Quote from: Vaecrius;251283IQ.

Like penis length, only you can't prove it with a tape measure.

I LOL'ed. :hatsoff:

Quote from: Jackalope;251344This is the sort of nonsense I'm talking about.  This is an example of Spike being disingenuous.

Its not my job to explain what I mean to my intellectual superiors. Obviously, any attempt to do so would be doomed to failure, and a gross misunderstanding of my place.  

QuoteHe's not actually coming out and making an actual argument, just sort of dancing around one.  That works to his benefit, because no matter how I interpret this comment -- which can be interpreted many ways -- he will say I'm wrong.

Still, I can't help myself... What we  have here is a failure to communicate. Which is the way you wants it. Well, you gets it.  I don't like this any more than you do...

Who said I was making an argument? Who said you HAD to respond?  Take, for example, the Religion thread. Its not enough for you to go in and express that you don't believe and that the people who do are, in your opinion, fools... no, you  had to take every pro-soul/god response as a personal affront to what you considered a closed case... all because you posted.  

QuoteWho knows what he actually means.  He doesn't actually draw a connection between the first three paragraphs and his conclusion.

You so smart? You figure it out. Me go play with sticks now.

QuoteThis is argument:   P: Spike is not smart like Jackalope.
P: Spike lies about his capabilities.
C: Jackalope cannot follow Spike's arguments.

Yup. That certainly is one way to read it. Silly me, I thought a smart fella like you would be able to read layers of meaning and context, but obviously it was too stupid for you to grasp.  Never mind that your perfect reading comprehension missed half a line... or could your literal interpretation not handle a self contradictory statement?  

QuoteIt's bizarro land.  Taken at face value, Spike has just agreed with me entirely, and explained why I'm right -- he's dumb and disingenuous, and thus hard to follow.  He has repeated all my claims, that he isn't as smart as I am, that he lies, and that he makes irrational and incomprehensible arguments.

I know. Its tragic, isn't it?

QuoteYet, I don't get the sense that Spike is agreeing with me.  Does anyone else get the sense that he's agreeing with me?  Smart as I am, I still don't know how to deal with someone who this full of shit, except to point and say "Hey, you're totally full of shit."

Again: Who said I was talking to you?

QuoteI mean how the hell are you supposed to argue with someone who is repeating your points, and then drawing your conclusions from those points, but won't admit that you are right?  This is the very meaning of disingenuous.  When someone says "The sky is blue." and then someone else responds, "No, you're wrong.  The sky is blue."

You so smart, you figure it out. Me go play with sticks now.

QuoteWhat the fuck.

That's what I say.

QuoteJohn Morrow is a racist.  He has argued that racism exist, that it affects black people disportionately,

Yes and I have argued the same thing. Am I a racist too ?

Quote…. but that black people are to blame for their own poverty, and that black people have no right to their own culture.  he has denigrated black culture at every opportunity, refusing to draw any distinction between black culture and poverty culture.  I am hardly the only person here who thinks John is racist.  I'm not even the one who first applied the crypto-bigot label to him.

Point out where he argued that they are to be blamed for their own poverty –in fact he has argued that whites should take responsibility for their own poverty too. Point out where he has denigrated black culture at every opportunity and refused to draw any distinction between black culture and poverty culture.

Yes Ian’s crypto –bigot comment. I admire Ian’s posting style and am normally impressed by his arguments but in this instance he is wrong. The cryto label is used by folks who can’t prove that their opponents are what they accuse them of , so the term becomes a convenient label to slander your opponent with.

So here’s an opportunity for you to prove Morrow’s racism. Link me to threads where he displays such racism.

QuoteI have never said anything remotely resembling that comment.

Devious and manipulative.

From this rpgnet thread :

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=386065

QuoteOf the women I've met who I would consider gamers, the vast majority were people I would not want to associate with for any length of time. Let's see....yeah, not counting women at cons, of the eight women gamers I've met, seven were on and off the welfare system, had mental health issues, had odious personal habits, and were some of the worst whiners I've ever met. Three of them were also obnoxious flirts who tried to use sex appeal to get their way, despite all being overweight and highly unattractive (like missing/rotting teeth sort of unattractive).

QuoteExcuse me? Are you saying it's my fault that seven out of the eight women gamers I've met had a history of mental health issues?

QuoteI mean women have a real gift for playing social ostracizing games, and I watch you and some of the other women on this forum play those games every single time issues related to women and gaming come up.

From this thread here:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=11350

QuoteI know that I have, on many, many occasions, witnessed guys who I knew could see through their girlfriend's logical errors and emotional reasoning to allow such statements to pass unquestioned, accepted simply as stated, for no reason other than to avoid an argument. It doesn't help that women will do things like sulk for days while denying a male partner sex if
he corrects a mistake she makes.

Also just for kicks I’ll link to this thread here :

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=11913

Where droog said :

QuoteDoes Wise have anything to say about male privilege?

Does this mean you are operating under male privilege when you go on your rants against women?

QuoteThe word is disingenuous.  You keep misspelling it despite having plenty of examples of the word spelled correctly on this page.  That's lazy.

Wow correcting my spelling. Getting desperate are we ?

QuoteI have accuse my opponents of being disingenuous when they are being disingenuous.
This would be an example of you being disingenuous.  First you claimed I believe "Blacks who don't susbscribe to your views - Uncle Toms."  Now you change your meaning to "blacks who express a conservative position."  That comes closer to being what I said.

See your quote below about semantics . But I’ll play.

Quote from: Jackalope;251254I'm sorry that you think semantics is bullshit.  It certainly does explain why you are such an unreasonable person though

There’s a difference between saying blacks who don’t subscribe to your views and blacks who subscribe to conservative views ? Do you subscribe to conservative views ? Then whats the difference ? How am I being disingenuous ? Surely the context is obvious ? Surely the links I provided on the numerous threads where race has been discussed and you a participant clearly shows that they are blacks who don’t subscribe to your views.

And you do realize that by calling blacks who subscribe to conservative views Uncle Toms you are also implying that every conservative poster here is racist…..since you seem to think despite evidence to the contrary that conservatism is anathema to the black community.

So now I get it, not only is Morrow a racist, but Gliechman, Cavscout, Jeff (number sorry Jeff), werekoala, wulgar….who else is conservative here…..

QuoteNo, because you'll just misquote me, quote me out of context, and ignore the nuance of my comments so you can attack a straw-man, just like you disingenuous shits always do.

Really ? Together with the quotes I provided above I also provided links to your original posts. I bolded the sections of your posts which best describes the accusations I have thrown at you. Feel free to dispute them if you think I misquoted you or distorted what you said.

QuoteHere's a good example.   Jackalope: There is no bright line between physiology and psychology David, the two are very much interconnected. The mind is embodied in the brain, and the brain is subject of physiology.  I don't really get how you can argue that there is a typical woman but not a typical woman's mindset. The typical woman does have a mindset, yes? That mindset would then, necessarily, be the typical woman's mindset, right?

David: Jackalope, it is far easier to discern physiological characteristics than pyschological ones. Acknowledging the typical physiological characteristics of women is one thing. Attempting to discern typical pychological characterics is another. In other words what you're saying, is that because women look the same, they must think the same.

Jackalope: You're arguing that we can't discern women's mindset, but we can define who is a woman by their mindset.

David: I'm arguing that we can't define the typical mindset of a women.

See what you did there?  First you claimed that discerning psychological characteristics (mindstates) is difficult or impossible (your weasel wording makes it unclear exactly what you mean).  

Wait how am I’m being disingenuous again. My first post out I said that it’s possible to establish trends in mindsets but not identify typical mindsets. I never said there were no psychological differences between men and women.

QuoteAnd of course, there is the example of your summary of my argument ("In other words what you're saying, is that because women look the same, they must think the same.") which is a gross and disingenuous distortion of what I actually said.  Apparently you think people's BRAINS are on the outside of their heads.

I mean seriously, this is why you aren't worth talking to.  I'm talking about the role physiology plays in shaping psychology, making an oblique reference to the vast differences in brain structures and hormone levels between men and women, and you reduce my argument to "because women look alike they think alike."

Point out where I disputed that they were no pyschological differences between men and women. I always maintained there were but besides qualified trends there were no typical mindsets.

Quote"This is relevent how....oh yeah, let me guess, after this, is where you start flinging insults, right?"

Haven’t we covered this before. Like I said before this quote was in response to your quote about third wave feminism which you accused everyone in the thread of being influenced by. How exactly does this prove I was being disingenuous ?

QuoteDude, you called me pathetic before I unloaded on you.  You called me pathetic when I said I was done with the conversation.  That's why I said I hope you have kids and they get raped, murdered and buried in a shallow grave.

Really, so me calling you pathetic after you calling me an indiot was unwarranted ? Look back here :

QuoteYou're being insulting and you've spent this entire conversation accusing me of doing the very things you are doing, and like most idiots, I don't think you'll benefit any from me trying to point that out. It'll just get more confused.
So go piss off.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Spike;251377Its not my job to explain what I mean to my intellectual superiors. Obviously, any attempt to do so would be doomed to failure, and a gross misunderstanding of my place.

:emot-words:  Yeah, I know the fake sufi bullshit.  Pretensions of wisdom.

QuoteStill, I can't help myself... What we  have here is a failure to communicate. Which is the way you wants it. Well, you gets it.  I don't like this any more than you do...

It's not your job to explain what you mean, but I'm the one who wants communication to fail?  

QuoteWho said I was making an argument?

The nature of language?  What kind of a question is this?  Are you claiming that you did not present a set of statements intended to make a point of some sort?  Were you writing poetry?

How would you characterize your statements, if not as an argument (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument)?

QuoteWho said you HAD to respond?  Take, for example, the Religion thread. Its not enough for you to go in and express that you don't believe and that the people who do are, in your opinion, fools... no, you  had to take every pro-soul/god response as a personal affront to what you considered a closed case... all because you posted.

That is not how I interpret those events.  I posted my opinion in response to Koltar's question.  The thread kept popping up, and was fairly boring.  Most people were answering "1. Yes/No 2. Yes/No" with no explanation or examination.  Totally dull and meaningless data.  So I posted a controversial opinion, and it provoked an actual discussion, instead of a pointless roll call of Yes/Nos.

QuoteYup. That certainly is one way to read it. Silly me, I thought a smart fella like you would be able to read layers of meaning and context, but obviously it was too stupid for you to grasp.

Was your statement artwork then, that it is open to multiple layers of meaning and context?  Again, I am confused how you can claim that I'm the one who wants communication to fail.

QuoteNever mind that your perfect reading comprehension missed half a line... or could your literal interpretation not handle a self contradictory statement?

Oh, I didn't take you literally.  I know fake sufi bullshit when I see it.  You aren't a concert violinist (or you are, but I'd put money on not).  You probably have some nice sophisticated piece of bullshit that explains how you are both, but basically all you're doing is being obnoxious and making an effort to be as unclear as possible.

It's a defense mechanism.  You do it because you lack confidence in your ability to actual defend your beliefs.  So you give us this song and dance about "self contradictory statement" and "a gross misunderstanding of my place," like it's not a smokescreen for a preening wanna-be psuedointellectual jackass.

QuoteAgain: Who said I was talking to you?

Who said I was talking to you?  I didn't address you once in my comment.  I was talking about you, not to you.  Now I am talking to you.  Understand the difference?

Quote from: Jackalope;251353Thanks for demonstrating your complete lack of intelligence yet again Ed.

I've come to attribute charlton's lack of intelligence to oxygen deprivation caused from all the time he probably spends 69ing with the guy in his avatar picture.

Quote from: David R;251435Point out where he argued that they are to be blamed for their own poverty –in fact he has argued that whites should take responsibility for their own poverty too. Point out where he has denigrated black culture at every opportunity and refused to draw any distinction between black culture and poverty culture.

John made the following claims (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=239507) in an argument against affirmative action:

QuoteI'm asserting that [racism is] not an insurmountable problem, as demonstrated by the individual African Americans who succeed as well as the widespread successes of various black immigrant groups.

and

QuoteIf African Americans want to succeed and want to reduce racism, they should reject or change the elements of their prevailing culture that are detrimental to success (e.g., single motherhood, disdain for academic achievement, romanticization of gangs and thugs, etc.) and the easiest way to do that is via assimilation.

Of course, what John is advocating doesn't work, because the elements of "their prevailing culture" he identifies as problematic are common to all people.  These are elements of white culture as well as black culture, because they are elements of poverty culture.  One cannot assimilate out of poverty culture, as poverty culture is not something that people embraced willingly.

This is what Ian and I both refer to as crypto-bigotry.  John blames the disproportionate wealth disparity between the white and black communities on elements that blacks and whites in poverty share in common, while dismissing the very real hurdle of actual racism -- black are laid off and downsized more often than whites, blacks have seen more jobs shipped overseas than whites, blacks with no criminal record are less likely to be hired than equally qualified whites with criminal records, etc. -- and the historical basis of the disparity.

QuoteThe cryto label is used by folks who can't prove that their opponents are what they accuse them of , so the term becomes a convenient label to slander your opponent with.

That is certainly one way to look at it.  Another way to look at is this:  After twenty years of consciousness raising, it is no longer socially acceptable to be an overt racist.  No one will take you seriously if you say "Fuck the niggers, I'm white and I don't have to deal with the effects of racism."

So instead, you get people arguing that the vast disparities in wealth are caused by attitudes that many black people -- even black people in poverty -- reject, and that many white people -- including white people not in poverty -- embrace.

QuoteDevious and manipulative.

Yeah, you found some examples of me talking about devious and manipulative women.  Not even remotely the same thing as claiming that all woman are devious and manipulative.

QuoteThere's a difference between saying blacks who don't subscribe to your views and blacks who subscribe to conservative views?

Yes, very much so.  Jesse Jackson, for example, does not subscribe to my views.  Neither does Al Sharpton.  Barack Obama comes very close.

QuoteDo you subscribe to conservative views?

Depends on how you define conservative views.  Not really.  I admit pretty freely that I think conservative ideas are absolute crap with little or no redeeming value.

QuoteAnd you do realize that by calling blacks who subscribe to conservative views Uncle Toms you are also implying that every conservative poster here is racist.....since you seem to think despite evidence to the contrary that conservatism is anathema to the black community.

Well, yeah.  Crypto-bigotry is a big part of the conservative movement.

QuoteSo now I get it, not only is Morrow a racist, but Gliechman, Cavscout, Jeff (number sorry Jeff), werekoala, wulgar....who else is conservative here.....

Yeah, pretty much.  I do subscribe to the belief that if you aren't willing to make any active commitment to reparations, then you are a de facto racist.  I do believe that racism is self-perpetuating, and that people of color will continue to consist of both a local and international underclass until racism is actively addressed and countered.

QuoteWait how am I'm being disingenuous again. My first post out I said that it's possible to establish trends in mindsets but not identify typical mindsets. I never said there were no psychological differences between men and women.

I bolded it for you.  Look for your use of discern, and then the immediate claim that you didn't say it.

QuotePoint out where I disputed that they were no pyschological differences between men and women. I always maintained there were but besides qualified trends there were no typical mindsets.

That's not the point David!  See, you're being disingenuous AGAIN.  You're not responding to the point I'm raising, you're changing the subject.  The point is that you reduced my argument to "because women look the same, they must think the same," and that's ridiculous.

Seriously dude, I'm done.  This point by point shit is ridiculous and obnoxious.

Quote from: Demonoid;251465I've come to attribute charlton's lack of intelligence to oxygen deprivation caused from all the time he probably spends 69ing with the guy in his avatar picture.

Pithy. No give us your excuse for your own lack of intelligence.

Quote from: Jackalope;251481Yeah, you found some examples of me talking about devious and manipulative women.  Not even remotely the same thing as claiming that all woman are devious and manipulative.

I suspect that some of your comments on female gamers might prove more relevant to the original topic, as seen here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=11090) a few months ago...

QuoteStupid is more like the women I've gamed with who had a lot of gaming experience. Every woman I've ever met, with one exception, who had enough gaming experience to be reasonably called "a gamer" was a strange hybrid of walking, talking carnival freak show and natural disaster.

Basically imagine the worst stereotypes of gamers: overweight, pale, obsessive, socially retarded, general failures at life, and then add all the worst stereotypes of feminists: bitter, irrational, hypersensitive, controlling, misandrist, misogynistic. Combine them in one person. That is pretty much all of the women I've met through gaming. A few of them weren't fat, they were anorexic.

I kind of agree with Gary Gygax and with AoS: Gaming is, for the most part, something guys are into. Now if you've got a game like Engines, which is very pretentious and elitist...wait, sorry, no, I mean story and character focused with a heavy emphasis on in-character role-playing (Engine & SP: aren't y'all amateur actors or something like that?), and less emphasis on "kill things and take their stuff while quoting one-liners from action movies", then that's going to appeal to women more. It's going to naturally be more of tea & biscuits affair than beer & pretzels.

QuoteI mostly just don't think normal well-adjusted women are attracted to the style of gaming support by most of the industry. I don't think they get much out of it.

QuoteSeriously, when you say "women gamers" the first thing I think of is a fat socially maladjusted feminist chick who thinks she's a lot smarter than she is.

QuoteIf the number of women using this forum were to grow, you would rapidly see this forum degenerate into the same sort of soft-headed, idiotic travesty that rpg.net is.

The other Guy in my current avatar picture is DR. Rotwang. Picture was taken at GenCon this year.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Jackalope;251481John made the following claims (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=239507) in an argument against affirmative action:
and Of course, what John is advocating doesn't work, because the elements of "their prevailing culture" he identifies as problematic are common to all people.  These are elements of white culture as well as black culture, because they are elements of poverty culture.  One cannot assimilate out of poverty culture, as poverty culture is not something that people embraced willingly.
This is what Ian and I both refer to as crypto-bigotry.  John blames the disproportionate wealth disparity between the white and black communities on elements that blacks and whites in poverty share in common, while dismissing the very real hurdle of actual racism -- black are laid off and downsized more often than whites, blacks have seen more jobs shipped overseas than whites, blacks with no criminal record are less likely to be hired than equally qualified whites with criminal records, etc. -- and the historical basis of the disparity.

Again how does this prove that Morrow is a racist ? I'm not going into the specifics of the thread you linked to because I have already addressed them in that thread itself. If anyone is interested you can check out the thread in question and my discussion with Morrow which deals with most of these issues.

What of black conservatives who hold the same view as Morrow ? What of black conservatives - I'm talking about the early work of Thomas Sowell for instance that highlighted the fact that the so-called numbers on racism were highly inflated and subject to political maipulation. Are they racist too?

And where are the links of John Morrow denigrating black culture at every opportunity ?

QuoteThat is certainly one way to look at it.  Another way to look at is this:  After twenty years of consciousness raising, it is no longer socially acceptable to be an overt racist.  No one will take you seriously if you say "Fuck the niggers, I'm white and I don't have to deal with the effects of racism."

Or another way to look at it as black conservatives do is that it's akin to political correctness meant to put a stop to any honest communication between blacks and whites thereby condemning blacks to victimhood and maintaining the status quo of perpetual poverty.

QuoteYeah, you found some examples of me talking about devious and manipulative women.  Not even remotely the same thing as claiming that all woman are devious and manipulative.

Really ? I said :

QuoteYou haven't said that every women you have met is devious and manipulative?

You said :

QuoteI have never said anything remotely resembling that comment.

Included in those quotes was this :

QuoteExcuse me? Are you saying it's my fault that seven out of the eight women gamers I've met had a history of mental health issues?

And you still claim that this resembles nothing you have ever said ? (Also for further reading check out GrimGent's quotes)

QuoteYes, very much so.  Jesse Jackson, for example, does not subscribe to my views.  Neither does Al Sharpton.  Barack Obama comes very close.

Fair enough.

QuoteDepends on how you define conservative views.  Not really.  I admit pretty freely that I think conservative ideas are absolute crap with little or no redeeming value.

So this includes black conservative views of people like Alveda King, John McWhorter , Michele Bernard. And if these names are not familiar perhaps you should do a little research.

QuoteWell, yeah.  Crypto-bigotry is a big part of the conservative movement.

I'm sure black conservatives would disagree with you. In fact they would say that the bigotry on the left is far more insidious because of the many years it has crippled black advancement.

QuoteYeah, pretty much.  I do subscribe to the belief that if you aren't willing to make any active commitment to reparations, then you are a de facto racist.  .

So in other words every white poster here who does not share your views about active reparations is a racist. I'm a bit freaked out that I could be surrounded by so many racists.

QuoteI do believe that racism is self-perpetuating, and that people of color will continue to consist of both a local and international underclass until racism is actively addressed and countered

So long as you define whats good for them. I mean you dismiss any dissent from blacks who don't tow the party line. One could argue that this is a form of racism.

QuoteI bolded it for you.  Look for your use of discern, and then the immediate claim that you didn't say it.

This is bullshit. Look at the quote. Throughout the whole discussion you were claiming that I was arguing that we can't discern a woman's mindset. This was never the case. I argued that it was difficult discern the mindset of a typical woman.  

QuoteThat's not the point David!  See, you're being disingenuous AGAIN.  You're not responding to the point I'm raising, you're changing the subject.  The point is that you reduced my argument to "because women look the same, they must think the same," and that's ridiculous.

No you were...are.. being disingenuos by claiming that I was changing my point in every post. Claiming I was making an argument based on Judith Butler's work. And now distorting my arguments. I never once changed the subject.

QuoteSeriously dude, I'm done.  This point by point shit is ridiculous and obnoxious.

This is the second time you have said this. If you don't want to respond this way, don't. You started this point by point nonsense after I assumed we were through. Would you like me to point it out for you?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: GrimGent;251516I suspect that some of your comments on female gamers might prove more relevant to the original topic, as seen here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=11090) a few months ago...

Wow... :eek:

Quote from: Jackalopeas poverty culture is not something that people embraced willingly.

Strange, how those rich white kids embrance some aspects of poverty culture.

Anyway, what exactly was this thread about, before in devolved into "sausagefest"...?

This thread is amazing.

Quote from: Koltar;251530The other Guy in my current avatar picture is DR. Rotwang. Picture was taken at GenCon this year.

Which makes the 69 comment even funnier. :D

Also, I make a motion that there be a "Jackalope VS" subforum for threads that have gone derailed like this.

Quote from: Fritzs;251617Anyway, what exactly was this thread about, before in devolved into "sausagefest"...?

De wemen. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4UQWY-5UKE)

Quote from: David R;251539Again how does this prove that Morrow is a racist ? I'm not going into the specifics of the thread you linked to because I have already addressed them in that thread itself. If anyone is interested you can check out the thread in question and my discussion with Morrow which deals with most of these issues.

David, I will never be able to prove John's racism to you, because you are a racist the same as he is.  You have convinced yourself that doing something to address the ongoing effects of racism is racist.

There is no chance that I will convince you that John Morrow is racist, because you and I mean very different things by racism.  I use a definition of racism that I was exposed to in college, the definition of racism used in academic circles.  This is a definition far more complex and in-depth than the simple definition given in the dictionary.

QuoteOr another way to look at it as black conservatives do is that it's akin to political correctness meant to put a stop to any honest communication between blacks and whites thereby condemning blacks to victimhood and maintaining the status quo of perpetual poverty.

I'm not sure exactly what this means.  Your grammar is horribly confused, and the meaning of this sentence is very unclear.  The fragment "another way to look at it as black conservatives do is that it's akin" in particular is bewildering.

Are you attempting to make the argument that liberals, by working towards addressing racism, are the cause of the "victimhood and maintaining the status quo of perpetual poverty?"

This is crypto-bigotry David.  You are blaming the people seeking a solution to the problem for the problem, and crediting the people actively opposed to finding solutions for the problem for...opposing finding solutions.

QuoteAnd you still claim that this resembles nothing you have ever said ? (Also for further reading check out GrimGent's quotes)

That's right.  Only if you make the utterly bizarre assumption that women gamers are representative of all the women I know, or even a larger fraction of the women I've met.

If you're point is that I think gaming is a male-interest oriented hobby and that most of the female gamers I've met are weird, then fine, that's true.  But to make the leap from that to "You think all women are devious and manipulative." is ridiculous.


Fair enough.

QuoteSo in other words every white poster here who does not share your views about active reparations is a racist. I'm a bit freaked out that I could be surrounded by so many racists.

That's right.  It's not my job to make you comfortable.

QuoteSo long as you define whats good for them. I mean you dismiss any dissent from blacks who don't tow the party line. One could argue that this is a form of racism.

Yes, one could argue that, but then one would be a disingenuous sophist.

QuoteThis is the second time you have said this. If you don't want to respond this way, don't. You started this point by point nonsense after I assumed we were through. Would you like me to point it out for you?

Yeah, because I just re-read the thread and you started it.  You make it worse by asking tons of non-rhetorical questions, each of which then spawns a little sub-conversation.

Quote from: Jackalope;251262My IQ -- which is 154...

Really. Which test did you take, and when?

Quote from: Engine;251771Really. Which test did you take, and when?

I'm not sure which tests they were, I'd have to check my school records at my parent's place.  Which I have to admit is not going to make it onto my priorities list.  I was tested twice, once at 7 and once at 13.  Both were administered by the Seattle school system.

Quote from: Jackalope;251657David, I will never be able to prove John's racism to you, because you are a racist the same as he is.  You have convinced yourself that doing something to address the ongoing effects of racism is racist.

Anyone who has read my discussions with John Morrow (esp on the thread you linked to) will know that neither of us are racist. The problem here is not that I have convinced myself that doing something about racism is a racist act but rather your inability to realize that yours is not the only way to do something about racism. The fact that you label others - I'm including  minorities in this group as well - who have other solutions as racists says more about your attitude to minorities than the remarks Morrow has made.

QuoteThere is no chance that I will convince you that John Morrow is racist, because you and I mean very different things by racism.  I use a definition of racism that I was exposed to in college, the definition of racism used in academic circles.  This is a definition far more complex and in-depth than the simple definition given in the dictionary.

This is the problem right here. You conflate acadamic knowledge with real world experience. To say nothing of the fact that academia is riddled with intellectual dishonesty and partisan politics, so one has to prowl about very carefully. Perhaps if you listened to the diverse experiences , paying close attention to the discourse of minorities from the frontlines (who operate in the fringes) you would realize that racism as defined by colleges is a far different beast then racism defined by people living with it. And the liberal ideas of combatting it are not the only legitimate ones.

QuoteI'm not sure exactly what this means.  Your grammar is horribly confused, and the meaning of this sentence is very unclear.  The fragment "another way to look at it as black conservatives do is that it's akin" in particular is bewildering.

Let me clarify then. For many black conservatives the term crypto bigotry is very much like the concept of political correctness. It's used to silence dissent and manipulate the discourse.

QuoteAre you attempting to make the argument that liberals, by working towards addressing racism, are the cause of the "victimhood and maintaining the status quo of perpetual poverty?"

Sometimes yes. I don't know how familiar you are with the works of black conservatives....any minority conservative for that matter. Policies like affirmative action, goverment handouts etc are viewed by them as perpetuating the vicitmhood of minorities.  (I don't necessarily subscibe to these views - see my discussion with Morrow)

You must remember that the ideas of blacks as an underclass is fraught with misconceptions. As many conservatives have pointed out, in the bad old days they owned property, banks and generally sustained themselves by their own intiative. Some feel that the community has lost this spirit.

Here's a comment from a liberal website - it's about white feminism  but appropriate for this thread don't you think ?- that may you give an idea of what I'm talking about when I say, that liberals although well meaning may be causing more harm than good.

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/81260/on_prisons%2C_borders%2C_safety%2C_and_privilege%3A_an_open_letter_to_white_feminists/?page=1

QuoteThis is crypto-bigotry David.  You are blaming the people seeking a solution to the problem for the problem, and crediting the people actively opposed to finding solutions for the problem for...opposing finding solutions.

Not at all. This is a sophist argument. What I'm objecting to is your contention that there can only be one way to address the problems of racism. That anyone (even though they may be the very minorities you are seeking to help) who does not share your ideas of what the solution is, is racists.

Check out any of the links I have posted on threads about race in America for the diverse solutions offered by many blacks who don't subscribe to the traditional liberal solutions.

QuoteThat's right.  Only if you make the utterly bizarre assumption that women gamers are representative of all the women I know, or even a larger fraction of the women I've met.

QuoteOf the women I've met who I would consider gamers, the vast majority were people I would not want to associate with for any length of time.

QuoteI mean women have a real gift for playing social ostracizing games

QuoteIt doesn't help that women will do things like sulk for days while denying a male partner sex if

You were talking about women in general.

QuoteIf you're point is that I think gaming is a male-interest oriented hobby and that most of the female gamers I've met are weird, then fine, that's true.  But to make the leap from that to "You think all women are devious and manipulative." is ridiculous.

That's not my point at all.

QuoteThat's right.  It's not my job to make you comfortable.

But if you ever feel the need to make any of your liberal friends uncomfortable, expose them to some diverse views from minorities, like some of the ones I have linked to here on therpgsite.

QuoteYes, one could argue that, but then one would be a disingenuous sophist.

For an example of a disingenuous sophist I refer you to "this is crypto bigotry David.." post. Start acknowledging the diversity out there Jackalope.

QuoteYeah, because I just re-read the thread and you started it.  You make it worse by asking tons of non-rhetorical questions, each of which then spawns a little sub-conversation.

Says the guy who assumed that everyone was influenced by the dogma of Judith Butler. Who distorts arguments. Who claims he does not want point by point refutation but starts it twice for post totally unrelated to the subject of the thread.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;251843Anyone who has read my discussions with John Morrow (esp on the thread you linked to) will know that neither of us are racist. The problem here is not that I have convinced myself that doing something about racism is a racist act but rather your inability to realize that yours is not the only way to do something about racism. The fact that you label others - I'm including  minorities in this group as well - who have other solutions as racists says more about your attitude to minorities than the remarks Morrow has made.

What is your solution then?  John's solution is for black people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.  What's yours?

QuoteHere's a comment from a liberal website - it's about white feminism  but appropriate for this thread don't you think ?- that may you give an idea of what I'm talking about when I say, that liberals although well meaning may be causing more harm than good.

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/81260/on_prisons%2C_borders%2C_safety%2C_and_privilege%3A_an_open_letter_to_white_feminists/?page=1

Dude...dude.  You blow me away.  You can see the racism in white feminism, but you can't see in in the conservative movement and Republican party?

Read this:   Yet it doesn't look to me like you've really reckoned with those critiques. It looks more like you appropriate or tokenize them, using their language while continuing to center white, class-privileged women's experiences in your "feminism" and engaging in political work that upholds and strengthens white supremacy and economic exploitation -- sometimes directly undermining the social-change work of feminists of color.I mean seriously, you -- coming from the position you are -- citing this article without seeing how it applies to YOU is simply mind-blowing.

Don't you get that this is EXACTLY what I'm accusing you of?  When you cite Thomas Sowell's critiques of affirmative action you are appropriating and tokenizing them, using their language while continuing to center white, class-privileged men's experiences in your "conservatism" and engaging in political work that upholds and strengthens white supremacy and economic exploitation.

QuoteNot at all. This is a sophist argument. What I'm objecting to is your contention that there can only be one way to address the problems of racism. That anyone (even though they may be the very minorities you are seeking to help) who does not share your ideas of what the solution is, is racists.

I've never made that contention.  I have only argued that doing nothing will not address the problems of racism, and that conservative solutions amount to doing nothing.

Quote from: Jackalope;251853What is your solution then?  John's solution is for black people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.  What's yours?

Pretty much the same as John's although your language is unnecessarily inflamatory. If you bothered to read the thread you linked to, you would realize that I got into trouble with my fellow racists Morrow, Gleichman and spike (I think) because I suggested that perhaps it was time for blacks to engage in solidarity. You would also have discovered that part of this would be to take into account both liberal and conservative views that are a part of the black community . Furthermore I gave a link to such a project being carried out in New York which was an example of this. Not a perfect example because funding came from the govenrment besides corporations.

QuoteDude...dude.  You blow me away.  You can see the racism in white feminism, but you can't see in in the conservative movement and Republican party?

Not at all. I see the racism in the conservative movement and the Republican party...more in the latter because the conservative movement has been hijacked by the Republican agenda. Again if you read any of the black conservative links I posted you would realize that this angers many black conservatives and is why people like Sowell who have since become Republican shills have lost credibility with many conservatives, black and white.

QuoteDon't you get that this is EXACTLY what I'm accusing you of?  When you cite Thomas Sowell's critiques of affirmative action you are appropriating and tokenizing them, using their language while continuing to center white, class-privileged men's experiences in your "conservatism" and engaging in political work that upholds and strengthens white supremacy and economic exploitation.

Then I put it to you that you have never studied Sowell - early Sowell - in any great depth. If anything he was a fierce advocate of minority self reliance and rejected the uplifting of race through political parties which he found riddled with partisan politics and displaying an almost contemptible and cynical view of race relations.

He was dangerous to white supremacist because he made them irrelevent and his appeal to the marignalized including whites, took away from their power and influence. Furthermore esp during the early days Sowell did not indentify with conservatism....he tried to establish that he was a libertarian....which let's face it, is a pretty dodgy idoelogy.

Please try to understand that Sowell's work esp his early work appealed to many subaltern cultures in Asia , Africa and the Middle East because of his rejection of established power structures and his call for self reliance. All this has changed now of course since he has become a lapdog for the Republican warmachine.

Again if you read any of the comment pieces I have linked to, you would see this.

QuoteI've never made that contention.  I have only argued that doing nothing will not address the problems of racism, and that conservative solutions amount to doing nothing.

Cute. But therein lies the rub. You are rejecting the voices of minorities, esp those who hold conservative views, in the belief that your way is superior. I don't think that you are a white supremacist but talk like this reeks of white supremacy and privilege.

The last few posts have been pretty civil and I think we both managed to salvage some of the dignity we lost. Are we done here ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;251861Cute. But therein lies the rub. You are rejecting the voices of minorities, esp those who hold conservative views, in the belief that your way is superior. I don't think that you are a white supremacist but talk like this reeks of white supremacy and privilege.

Wait...wait...wait.  Because I've called a handful of black conservatives strongly associated with the Republican party -- Sowell, Rice, Thomas, Keyes --  "Uncle Toms" you think I rejecting the voices of minorities, but you your self say about Sowell:

QuoteRepublican shill...lost credibility...a lapdog for the Republican warmachine.

What exactly do you think I meant when I called Sowell a Uncle Tom?  Did you think I was referring to Sowel of years ago, or Sowell now?  You and I seem to have pretty much the exact same opinion of Sowell, we just use different words.

And look, I get that you draw a distinction between the conservative movement and the Republicans, but I don't.  The conservative movement has been wedded to the Republican party since it's inception, and to outsider the two are largely indistinguishable.

Quote from: Jackalope;251870Because I've called a handful of black conservatives strongly associated with the Republican party -- Sowell, Rice, Thomas, Keyes -- "Uncle Toms" you think I rejecting the voices of minorities...

That you think using a using a racial pejorative is ok as long as it is against your ideology is rather enlightening.

Quote from: Jackalope;251870Wait...wait...wait.  Because I've called a handful of black conservatives strongly associated with the Republican party -- Sowell, Rice, Thomas, Keyes --  "Uncle Toms" you think I rejecting the voices of minorities, but you your self say about Sowell:

I think you are rejecting the voices of minorities with conservative views because many of them who have since abandoned Sowell still advocate his views about race. I disagree with the term Uncle Tom in general ...for me it's kinda of like the term feminazi.

QuoteWhat exactly do you think I meant when I called Sowell a Uncle Tom?  Did you think I was referring to Sowel of years ago, or Sowell now?  You and I seem to have pretty much the exact same opinion of Sowell, we just use different words.

I think we have the same view on a great many things. I have no idea which era Sowell you are refering to because many of his ideas you seem to reject when they come up in discussions about race esp when people like Morrow and Gliechman use them. That's when the term crypto bigot gets thrown around. Don't get me wrong I'm sure his ideas are used by bigots too.....I remember a friend linking me to a white hate site where elements of Sowell's theories inspired a "separate but equal" thread.

QuoteAnd look, I get that you draw a distinction between the conservative movement and the Republicans, but I don't.  The conservative movement has been wedded to the Republican party since it's inception, and to outsider the two are largely indistinguishable.

I think those with a more indepth knowledge of conservative philosophies would disagree with you but I'm not going to debate this with you. You may be right or wrong. I can just point out situations where conservative thinking departs from Republican dogma esp when it comes to minorities.

Regards,
David R

How did this go from a discussion of women's RPGs to one about racism? Does every discussion have to come down to racism?

Quote from: Demonoid;251885How did this go from a discussion of women's RPGs to one about racism? Does every discussion have to come down to racism?

Anyone who debates Jackie is racist, you haven't caught on? ;)

Quote from: Jackalope;251775I'm not sure which tests they were, I'd have to check my school records at my parent's place.  Which I have to admit is not going to make it onto my priorities list.

Yes, of course.

You'll have to forgive my skepticism. Nothing in my previous experience would lead me to have anticipated that you had an IQ at 7 or 13 which was roughly analogous to that projected for Copernicus at his prime. Did you suffer some sort of brain damage between then and now, or do you simply not communicate your intellect particularly well?

Quote from: Engine;252694You'll have to forgive my skepticism. Nothing in my previous experience would lead me to have anticipated that you had an IQ at 7 or 13 which was roughly analogous to that projected for Copernicus at his prime. Did you suffer some sort of brain damage between then and now, or do you simply not communicate your intellect particularly well?

It's the internet.  Do you know what I'm usually doing while I'm arguing on the internet?

:emot-350:

It's the intellectual equivalent of dueling with a blindfold on.

Also, and this will sound conceited, but it's true: when you're arguing with people who aren't particular rational or reasonable -- which is most people, in my experience -- there isn't much pressure to try one's hardest.  

I mean seriously, if I put real effort into making an argument, and truly focus in on the problem, and show every faulty assumption and questionable conclusion made by the person I'm arguing with, do you know what happens?

A bunch of obfuscation, double-talk and just plain old obtuse denial.  Look at the argument with CavScout about age discrimination.  Why on Earth would anyone make a full effort to argue the difference between age discrimination and considering John McCain's age to someone who cites "age discrimination laws" without any understanding of them, for what are clearly disingenuous reasons?

I mean, given sufficient time and energy, I could make an incredibly powerful argument that CavScout is racist.  And I don't mean a little bit racist, I mean his entire opposition to Barack Obama is rooted in his absolutely irrational hatred of black people.  I could show you the pattern in his comments that I see, the mechanics of his mind, how he connects pieces of information, how he reacts to accusations of racism.  I could link the lines of thought in his posts to statements by other racists.

But what's the point?

It won't convince Koltar, gleichman, John Morrow, Spike or CavScout of anything.  They wouldn't even read it.  The people who would be open to being convinced don't need me to make anywhere near that effort, and the people who need to be convinced won't appreciate the effort.

Most of the time, there's no actual possibility of convincing anyone who is wrong that they are wrong.  Irrational people can't recognize when they are being irrational -- if they could, they would be rational people!  That's why the civil rights movement only achieved broad success amongst white people when the media started showing them the violence being perpetuated.  It was the emotional reaction to things like little girls getting blown up in church bombings that mobilized people to change their minds, not rational arguments.

Did he just say his arguments suck because he's so smart and his opponents are not?

Quote from: jackalopeIt's the intellectual equivalent of dueling with a blindfold on.

So discussion on internet (or in general) is only about showing these less manly than you, who's da boss...? I allways throught, that it's about exchanging ideas...

Quote from: CavScoutDid he just say his arguments suck because he's so smart and his opponents are not?

Quote from: FritzsSo discussion on internet (or in general) is only about showing these less manly than you, who's da boss...? I allways throught, that it's about exchanging ideas...

Thanks for illustrating my point.

CavScout gives us a rhetorical question with a loaded assumption that completely fails to comprehend the point.  If CavScout is interested in the exchange of ideas, he makes no effort to understand other peoples.  So clearly he's only interested in a one-way exchange, where we listen to him.

Fritzs' comment seems less disingenuous and more simply confused.  The conclusion he draws ("discussion is only about superiority") is not supported in any way by statements, he pulled it out of left field.  I always wished internet forums were only about the exchange of ideas, but sadly most people aren't actually very open to new ideas.

I'd be glad to hear CavScout's ideas, for example.  But he has no interest in sharing them -- notice his absolute evasion of requests for his opinion of Sarah Palin, or any request for clarification -- because he's not interested in exchanging ideas, he's interested in grinding axes and having people pay attention to him.

I could beat up Jackie Chan, climb Mt. Everest, win the Nobel Prize in Physics and write a bestselling novel if I wanted to. I just don't feel like it. Know what I mean?

Quote from: noisms;252948I could beat up Jackie Chan, climb Mt. Everest, win the Nobel Prize in Physics and write a bestselling novel if I wanted to. I just don't feel like it. Know what I mean?

Racist!  ;)

Quote from: CavScout;252960Racist!  ;)

Shit! You're on to me and my hitherto secret fascist tendencies!!

Quote from: noisms;253008Shit! You're on to me and my hitherto secret fascist tendencies!!

Your aversion to watching GI Joe was the key factor tipping your hand. ;)

Quote from: CavScout;252809Did he just say his arguments suck because he's so smart and his opponents are not?

No, I think he said his arguments suck because he's getting high while he's posting, and can't be bothered to make his best arguments because he has no respect for the rationality of the persons to whom he's speaking. Which severely limits my desire to ever engage him in conversation again: he's made a strong case for the inability of certain persons to be convinced of the wrongness of their thinking; he just hasn't made the case about the persons he desired to.

Quote from: Engine;253018No, I think he said his arguments suck because he's getting high while he's posting, and can't be bothered to make his best arguments because he has no respect for the rationality of the persons to whom he's speaking. Which severely limits my desire to ever engage him in conversation again: he's made a strong case for the inability of certain persons to be convinced of the wrongness of their thinking; he just hasn't made the case about the persons he desired to.

I stand corrected! :D

Jackalope: You misunderstood me... probably on purpose, but whatever...

Quote from: JackalopeThe conclusion he draws ("discussion is only about superiority") is not supported in any way by statements

That's called irony, you can use your superior intelectual abilities to understand what it is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony)... well, unless you are being ironic in your post, but after I don't think so... anyway, my IQ isn't as hight as yours, so I might not understand suble irony of everything you write...

Quote from: JackalopeI always wished internet forums were only about the exchange of ideas, but sadly most people aren't actually very open to new ideas.

Exchanging ideas=/=blindly accepting ideas of someone who claims to be intelectualy superior.

Quote from: Jackalopehe's interested in grinding axes and having people pay attention to him.

You too.

Quote from: Fritzs;253069Jackalope: You misunderstood me... probably on purpose, but whatever...

I didn't misunderstand you at all.  I understood exactly what you wrote.  You may be a bit confused though, and might be under the impression you are saying something different than what you actually said.

QuoteThat's called irony, you can use your superior intelectual abilities to understand what it is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony)... well, unless you are being ironic in your post, but after I don't think so... anyway, my IQ isn't as hight as yours, so I might not understand suble irony of everything you write...

The only ironic thing about your comment is how thoroughly you are illustrating my point.

QuoteExchanging ideas=/=blindly accepting ideas of someone who claims to be intelectualy superior.

:rolleyes:  Yes Fritzs, that's correct.  Exchanging ideas is not the same thing as blindly accepting the ideas of someone who claims to be intellectually superior.  I never said it was.

Is this your idea of exchanging ideas?  Peppering me with poorly spelled statements of the obvious?

Quote from: Jackalope;253087I didn't misunderstand you at all.  I understood exactly what you wrote.  You may be a bit confused though, and might be under the impression you are saying something different than what you actually said.

Dude, you are so high right now.

Quote from: Engine;253096Dude, you are so high right now.

Um, no, actually I'm not.  I will be in like five minutes though.

But hey, I don't expect anyone to give me anything at all resembling an honest reaction to what I'm saying.  You'll snicker, you'll laugh at me, you'll make confused and illogical arguments that are only thinly veiled attacks, and by doing so lull yourselves back into a stupor.

Once again confirming that the internet isn't worth making a real effort.

Quote from: Jackalope;253159Once again confirming that the internet isn't worth making a real effort.

I think that's often a self-fulfilling prophecy. Someone goes out on the internet, tries their best, doesn't get the results they hoped, and thus gives up altogether, sacrificing the possibility of getting any results at all, and becoming part of the problem, since they think any amount of solution is impossible.

But shit, who cares? We're going to get a lot of mileage out of your "I sound less intelligent than I am because I'm high and you're not worth me sounding intelligent" speech. I'll probably get as much amusement from that as CavScout gets from your GI Joe fascination.

Quote from: Engine;253167I think that's often a self-fulfilling prophecy. Someone goes out on the internet, tries their best, doesn't get the results they hoped, and thus gives up altogether, sacrificing the possibility of getting any results at all, and becoming part of the problem, since they think any amount of solution is impossible.

:rolleyes:

QuoteBut shit, who cares? We're going to get a lot of mileage out of your "I sound less intelligent than I am because I'm high and you're not worth me sounding intelligent" speech. I'll probably get as much amusement from that as CavScout gets from your GI Joe fascination.

Now you're pretty much proving my point.  I mean, you're not making an effort to understand where I'm coming from, you're just looking for things to make fun of.  You're being an asshole, and that leads me to believe that this whole line of argument is just disingenuous bullshit.  You have no real interest in understanding where I'm coming from.  You just want opportunities to inflate your own ego at my expense, just like most people.

That casts a dark light all of your advice-like comments, such as the self-fulfilling prophecy comment above.  Even your advice comes off as condescending and patronizing, more for your benefit than for mine.

It's a turn-off.  It doesn't make me want to keep talking to you, it makes me want to point out that you're an obnoxious, self-important fuckwit.

Quote from: Jackalope;253182It doesn't make me want to keep talking to you...

My relief is palpable.

Quote from: Engine;253184My relief is palpable.

I will guess short-lived. ;)

Quote from: JackalopeBut hey, I don't expect anyone to give me anything at all resembling an honest reaction to what I'm saying.

honest reaction=/="Hey, Jackalope's right by the virtue of being Jackalope"

Actually Jack, you were first one, that pulled the "superior IQ" argument (without proving it) and "I am high, cos you aren't worth my attention" argument, so don't be suprised at other people's reaction...

Oh, I just remembered something, you wrote, that your IQ was measured when you were 13 years old... acording to my limited knowledge, test for adults are different from tests for kids and tests for kids tend to show higher IQ than your actuall IQ is. So I really don't think you fall into that particular 0,5% of population, because otherwise, you would have allready realised the futility of arguing over shit on the net...

Quote from: Fritzs;253198honest reaction=/="Hey, Jackalope's right by the virtue of being Jackalope"

Again Fritzs, you are entirely correct.

QuoteOh, I just remembered something, you wrote, that your IQ was measured when you were 13 years old... acording to my limited knowledge, test for adults are different from tests for kids and tests for kids tend to show higher IQ than your actuall IQ is. So I really don't think you fall into that particular 0,5% of population, because otherwise, you would have allready realised the futility of arguing over shit on the net...

This comment is hilarious.  I'm not sure of your claim, I've never heard that but I'm open to seeing evidence if you can provide some.

But your argument is simply ludicrous.  Here I am, talking about the futility of arguing over the internet, and there you are, telling me that if I were so smart, I'd recognize the futility of arguing over the internet.

It's mind-blowing how stupid an argument that is.  "If you were so smart, you would have reached the conclusion you reached."

Moron.

Jackalope: You are indeed very awesome... If you were so smart you would indeed realise futility of arguing over the internet. If something is futile, then where is the point with continuing to do so (so, to say it the way you can comprehend it, you won't be there answering my stupid posts, but doing something more worthwhile, like for example watching porn), so you haven't yet realised futility of arguing over the net, which leads to you not being as smart as you think you are.

And anyway, could you provide some evidence of your high IQ?

Genius.

Quote from: Fritzs;253386Jackalope: You are indeed very awesome... If you were so smart you would indeed realise futility of arguing over the internet.

And I do realize the futility of such.

QuoteIf something is futile, then where is the point with continuing to do so, so you haven't yet realised futility of arguing over the net, which leads to you not being as smart as you think you are.

More confused blather.

Your conclusion assumes an answer to your question without actually acknowledging that you have answered your own question.  You assume that because something is futile, there is no point to doing it.  This is a highly questionable premise.

Quote from: JackalopeYou assume that because something is futile, there is no point to doing it. This is a highly questionable premise.

That is also the definition of futility... grab the definition there (http://dictionary.die.net/futility).

Quote from: Fritzs;253399That is also the definition of futility... grab the definition there (http://dictionary.die.net/futility).

No, actually, it's not.  Having no practical result and having no point are not the same thing.  The point could be, for example, an impractical result.

Of course, I won't convince you that you're wrong.  You want to believe that your argument holds water, and so you'll convince yourself that it does.

Jackalope: So, what's the point...? Wasting time with typing...?

Do you know what the definition of sophistry is, Jackalope?

I'm so glad therpgsite automatically subscribes people to the threads they post on. If it didn't, I never would have got to hear this - the most idiotic and mind-numbingly depressing argument in the history of the internet.

It looks like another woman has joined this forum, guys.

Now I just gotta e-mail Tehanna and tell her that the one poster who flamed in her thread has been banned.

Welcome RPGsite, Buttercup!!!



- Ed C.