Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;868655Let's not forget Jerry Falwell and his "Moral Majority" declaring that disagreement is sin back in the 80s.  The Republican party is full of buttnuggets who refuse to try to compromise.

Declaring those with differing opinions to be irredeemably evil is far from an exclusively left-wing phenomenon in the US, speaking of kool-aid drinking.

The assumption that opponents must be duplicitous and/or evil is a standard feature of leftist rhetoric around the world going back for centuries.  They aren't the only people who engage in this sort of behavior and I never said they were in the first place.  However, there is a strong and enduring pattern of this sort of thing on the political left going way back.

Declaring something is sin, is not really the same as doing everything you can to destroy a person's life and career.  The president of Mozilla pops instantly to mind here.  There are several other examples as well.  I personally think ruining my life in the here and now is a much bigger problem than sending me to a fiery doom once I die (especially since 1. Said fiery doom may not be real and 2. The sender has no actual authority to send me).

Quote from: yosemitemike;868667The assumption that opponents must be duplicitous and/or evil is a standard feature of leftist rhetoric around the world going back for centuries.  They aren't the only people who engage in this sort of behavior and I never said they were in the first place.  However, there is a strong and enduring pattern of this sort of thing on the political left going way back.

It is very much so. Make it personal is a huge part of modern leftist operations.

 Falwell for all his flaws was coming from a   religious POV, the things he was railing about were in his way of thinking forbidden  by the creator of the Universe. Theologically Falwell wasn't terrible either or a hypocrite, he mostly followed a fairly Conservative form of the religion

On those grounds its pretty unreasonable to ask people to find conduct that is considered evil to be perfectly acceptable so we can all get along. And understand to the religious mind someone who does not do what the creator orders is doing evil. This isn't bullheadedness  but the way ordinary human societies work, a hierarchy with god/s at the top

Liberal, Leftists or Secular people in our  WEIRD (Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic) cultures don't see it and when we run into people like Jihadists or in a much "lighter" fashion Falwell or even secular nations where insulting the king can get you a prison stay, our brains lock up.

Quote from: oggsmash;868904Declaring something is sin, is not really the same as doing everything you can to destroy a person's life and career.  The president of Mozilla pops instantly to mind here.  There are several other examples as well.  I personally think ruining my life in the here and now is a much bigger problem than sending me to a fiery doom once I die (especially since 1. Said fiery doom may not be real and 2. The sender has no actual authority to send me).

That isn't what is going on. The bombast is a warning intended to say "the creator will punish you for that conduct, stop doing it and repent and be forgiven so you can avoid the consequence of an eternity of torture."

Ok so maybe I'm not grasping the picture here but the Blog writer suggest that if you see people acting like douchbags in a public area (like at a comic book store or other venue where wargaming takes place) you should let them know they're being douchbags instead of just ignoring it because there's a chance that people who would go to such events or locations might be offended by said dickbags?

And that's bad why?

Some people are frankly, just pieces of shit and when they make fun of homosexuals or transgender people or rape they probably should be told to fuck off when they're in a public place. I don't see why or how that is somehow wrong. If people want to be douchebags they can do that in their house or with their friends in some non-public venue.

The only thing with the article that I didn't particularly care for is the anger towards those that enjoy playing the Axis side of Axis and Allies. In the picture, a tank with an iron cross, didn't particularly come off as Pro-Nazi or anti-Jew. It wasn't a swastica and the Iron Cross represents more than just a symbol of the Nazi regime.

Quote from: Batman;880688Some people are frankly, just pieces of shit and when they make fun of homosexuals or transgender people or rape they probably should be told to fuck off when they're in a public place. I don't see why or how that is somehow wrong.

Because when you react with aggression (and risk violence in the process) by default to what seems like a case that could use Hanlon's Razor as the explanation, then you're not fixing anything. You're becoming part of the problem. Reducing everything to "they say something I don't like, therefore they MUST shut up" is wrong. More so, if it concerns a group you're not part of. The only thing it does is adding fuel to your "opponent's" flames and it suggests that you perceive said insulted groups as so weak, brittle and fragile that they need to be defended all the time and no one should be allowed to make any fun of them, no matter what, what furthermore does even more harm.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;880768Because when you react with aggression (and risk violence in the process) by default to what seems like a case that could use Hanlon's Razor as the explanation, then you're not fixing anything. You're becoming part of the problem.

I agree that starting up any dialog with "Go Fuck off" is probably wrong. Could it be handled better from the start? Yes. That doesn't mean that it's better to not react at all. Bullies and those who would say rape jokes or make fun of homosexuals and transgender people most often don't get reacted to, giving them the illusion that what they're saying is either Ok or at least tolerable. I'm saying it shouldn't.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;880768Reducing everything to "they say something I don't like, therefore they MUST shut up" is wrong.

I'm not talking about reducing everything. I'm talking about very specific examples here. Specific examples in a public place. And asking them to NOT use slurs, derogatory jokes, and open mocking ISN'T "shut up", it's asking them to have some common fucking courtesy.  

Quote from: JesterRaiin;880768More so, if it concerns a group you're not part of. The only thing it does is adding fuel to your "opponent's" flames and it suggests that you perceive said insulted groups as so weak, brittle and fragile that they need to be defended all the time and no one should be allowed to make any fun of them, no matter what, what furthermore does even more harm.

That's total bull shit. I don't have to apart of a specific group to be miffed at someone using racial slurs (which I really can't stand, no matter who says them) or saying rape jokes or using offensive language in a public space. It also certainly doesn't mean those people cannot defend themselves either. I'm not speaking "for them", I'm speaking for me. It's been my experiences that assholes that say shit like that out in the open aren't stood up to. They carry on and no one bats an eye because they don't want to get involved. And when they are confronted the majority of the time they do back down or stop. And when they don't, yep physical altercations can and do occur. Sometimes you need to physically put someone in their place.

Again, this whole thing is about using that sort of language at a place that's open to everyone. Not some dude's house or a secret meeting in someone's grandmothers basement. We're talking about your local FLGS or convention or some other place where ALL sorts of people are going to be around. If I go to New Dimension Comics, especially with my daughters, and I hear rape jokes or people using offensive terms for homosexuals you bet your ass I'm going to speak up and say something.

Quote from: yosemitemike;868645The behavior of the SJW crowd today is not substantially different from the behavior of campus radicals in the 1960s.  

Dude, no.

While African Americans may not have a picnic today, the plight of their community uber sucked ebola balls in the 1960s (and beforehand).

Civil Rights and the bloody meatgrinder of the Vietnam War were real issues, not today's wank off about triggering and safe spaces and not enough Oscar nods. Police brutality against blacks is bad stuff today, but compared to their treatment by police pre-Civil Rights?

Let's give credit where credit is due. The dirty hippies were Space Marines compared to the SJWs.

Quote from: oggsmash;868904Declaring something is sin, is not really the same as doing everything you can to destroy a person's life and career.  The president of Mozilla pops instantly to mind here.  There are several other examples as well.  I personally think ruining my life in the here and now is a much bigger problem than sending me to a fiery doom once I die (especially since 1. Said fiery doom may not be real and 2. The sender has no actual authority to send me).

Placing something in the category is sin isn't just an academic abstraction in the evangelical community. If you grew up in an evangelical area, being a 'sinner' had real impact on your life and your ability to have a social life or even a job. Heck this hobby was impacted by that kind of rhetoric in the 80s in a very real way.

Quote from: Spinachcat;881190Dude, no.

While African Americans may not have a picnic today, the plight of their community uber sucked ebola balls in the 1960s (and beforehand).

Civil Rights and the bloody meatgrinder of the Vietnam War were real issues, not today's wank off about triggering and safe spaces and not enough Oscar nods. Police brutality against blacks is bad stuff today, but compared to their treatment by police pre-Civil Rights?

Let's give credit where credit is due. The dirty hippies were Space Marines compared to the SJWs.

Yeah the hippies and activists of the civil rights era and 60s culture were definitely on the right side of history in my book.

Quote from: Spinachcat;881190Dude, no.

While African Americans may not have a picnic today, the plight of their community uber sucked ebola balls in the 1960s (and beforehand).

Civil Rights and the bloody meatgrinder of the Vietnam War were real issues, not today's wank off about triggering and safe spaces and not enough Oscar nods. Police brutality against blacks is bad stuff today, but compared to their treatment by police pre-Civil Rights?

Let's give credit where credit is due. The dirty hippies were Space Marines compared to the SJWs.

Dude, yes.

The idea that the campus radicals of the 60s were all crusading for worthy causes is bunk.  There was some of that and there are some real issues now but they were not all campaigning for such causes at all.  They were also pushing to change the curriculum to better suit their own politics much as campus SJWs are today.  There were cultural revolution-esque denouncement fests then as there are now.  There were protests to ban ROTC from campuses to suit their dislike of the military.  There were demands for campus diversity and Me Studies departments just like there are now.  There was a lot of bullshit alongside the stuff you are talking about.  The two groups are much more alike that you care to admit.  A lot of this same stuff was going on back then.

The greatest irony in such articles is, that while they are indeed usually laughably patronising and read as The Onion's parody of left, inevitably sooner or later a person from opposite spectrum shows up to bash it with rhetoric that appears to have been the source for author's essay.