Quote from: Shasarak;1100334PCs are equal opportunity murderers thats why they travel around.

This is true in most of my games, I like the hero for hire or hero by accident trope. Also when dealing with dystopias, post-apoc scenarios it makes more sense to have mercenaries than goody two shoes heroes.

Quote from: Pat;1100320By not responding, you're ceding the argument.

This isn't really how it works. Anyway SJWs do not 'argue'. Really they feed off attempts to argue with them in the classical-Liberal Marketplace of Ideas tradition - they are sort of mental vampires. They follow the Gramscian Long March Through the Institutions. They take over organisations, using a very standard playbook. Vox Day is a nasty sort but he sets out the process clearly in "SJWs Always Lie".

Talking about SJW witterings here is pointless and only gives them fuel. What is useful is making sure authority figures - which can be as minor as a Facebook group owner or bulletin board site owner, or organiser of a public Meetup - are aware of the tactics and know to look out for SJW infiltrators and deal with them swiftly. A 'no politics' rule can be effective, it worked on EN World for many years before the SJWs successfully Converged the site through appeal to Morrus & co's sense of male chivalry. Angry posts here don't do anything to protect neutral ground from SJW takeover.

Quote from: Haffrung;1100336It's not really the zealots who are the problem, it's the dupes who enable the zealots out of cowardice and opportunism. The forum admins and opinion-shapers who don't really buy this shit, but feel they need to go along with it to be seen to be a good person and not one of the Bad Guys.

Yes, indeed. Teaching those "nice liberals" about SJW infiltration and how to counter it in the bud is by far the most important task. That is not easy since SJW ideology is carefully crafted to mentally disarm and Converge the "nice liberal". The tactics were refined and developed by the Frankfurt School centred initially at Columbia University New York, and are most effective against the earnest Anglo-American mindset, but also work very well in bureaucratic systems -including large corporations as well as government - all over the Anglosphere.

Quote from: S'mon;1100348Talking about SJW witterings here is pointless and only gives them fuel. What is useful is making sure authority figures - which can be as minor as a Facebook group owner or bulletin board site owner, or organiser of a public Meetup - are aware of the tactics and know to look out for SJW infiltrators and deal with them swiftly. A 'no politics' rule can be effective, it worked on EN World for many years before the SJWs successfully Converged the site through appeal to Morrus & co's sense of male chivalry. Angry posts here don't do anything to protect neutral ground from SJW takeover.

Agreed.      

These threads do absolutely nothing to "change hearts and minds", simply because this is a small populated forum and people are preaching to the choir.  I agree about the "giving them fuel" aspect as well--threads like these either boost the opponents signal (especially when you bring attention to a blog that probably has little traffic), or somebody goes too far in the thread and they can cherry-pick that statement and make it look like this whole site is filled with "hateful folks" (like the guy who said he didn't like homosexuals in one recent thread).  Ignoring them isn't "ceding the argument", since there was never a debate here in the first place.

People complaining about these topics here are ranting or venting.  The "we should mock them" defense a few posters are using work if you were say a commentator or comedian with a large audience that could be swayed, but they do very little on a small message board with a micro-audience.

Quote from: JRT;1100355People complaining about these topics here are ranting or venting.  The "we should mock them" defense a few posters are using work if you were say a commentator or comedian with a large audience that could be swayed

I feel even then it can be counter productive. I recall how first wave Political Correctness entered the UK ca 1990. It came to public attention mostly with right-wing newspapers reporting "Look at what these crazy people are doing/saying!" Which greatly amplified the crazy people's signal as we all wondered whether we now had to do what they said. Some wondered if there was merit in what they were saying.  Perhaps they were left wing and naturally did the opposite of whatever the Daily Mail's view was. Soon enough we did indeed have to do what the PC Brigade said.

Quote from: Haffrung;1100336What's dismaying is how an extremely dedicated fraction of people in a hobby or sub-culture can effectively take over that culture and dictate its norms. It's not really the zealots who are the problem, it's the dupes who enable the zealots out of cowardice and opportunism. The forum admins and opinion-shapers who don't really buy this shit, but feel they need to go along with it to be seen to be a good person and not one of the Bad Guys.

Bad gaming is worse than no gaming.  If you make the gaming bad, good gamers will not invite you back.

Compared to 30 years ago; compared to 20 years ago, there is less stigma among gamers generally, but that doesn't mean there aren't gamers with absolutely no social skills who ruin it for everyone else.  If you find you're not welcome at the gaming table, you should take a good hard look at your behaviors and consider whether you might be the problem.

Quote from: S'mon;1100348This isn't really how it works. Anyway SJWs do not 'argue'.

Even when someone doesn't argue, you're ceding the ability to challenge their opinions by raising an argument. Look at how much the overall debate in some many areas has shifted in just the last half a dozen years. That's because fringe voices have dominated the conversation. They were dismissed until they became dominant, and after that people were afraid to speak up. It's inflection point politics.

I definitely agree that a board like this is small potatoes. And so is the voice of anyone who isn't a major "influencer", to adapt a rather toxic term. But it's like voting: Your vote? It doesn't matter, not even a little. No race of any importance in the modern era has been decided by one vote, and it unlikely to ever be the case. But collectively? Votes matter, and so does speaking out. The delusion that your vote matters is why democracy works, and the same is true in the marketplace of ideas.

"Social Justice" was a weasel phrase when it was first coined.*  Adding "warriors" to the end, especially in the context of people playing games, takes it from weasel phrase to something deserving nothing but mockery.

* an extended discussion of why it is a weasel phrase is way off topic here, but to explain what I mean, "Justice" admits no modifiers.  Things are either just or they aren't--though admittedly in the real world, humans trying to tell which is which is almost impossible at times.  Meanwhile, "Social" is just a backhand reference to society (AKA a community).  Skipping the off topic argument and jumping straight to the conclusion, "Social Justice" is an attempt to not talk about the distinction between Justice and Mercy, with which Society will always struggle.  

In gaming terms, try to be nice and pleasant and accommodating to people, but part of doing that is excluding assholes from the table.  That's messy and personal and best done locally.  You'll end up with a community that is somewhat forgiving, but has at least unwritten rules, and it will more or less work if maintained with a little effort.  However, that's more effort than SJW want to put forward.  Ergo, the best way to achieve what SJW say they want (not what they actually want, which is power and control) is to exclude people like SJW from the table.

Quote from: Brendan;1100256Obviously I don't believe that.  I was making a point.

My jab was at the content, not you. These people are insane.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1100361Compared to 30 years ago; compared to 20 years ago, there is less stigma among gamers generally, but that doesn't mean there aren't gamers with absolutely no social skills who ruin it for everyone else.  If you find you're not welcome at the gaming table, you should take a good hard look at your behaviors and consider whether you might be the problem.

I agree. Unfortunatley, Social Justice types often lack self-reflection.

Quote from: JRT;1100355Agreed.      

These threads do absolutely nothing to "change hearts and minds", simply because this is a small populated forum and people are preaching to the choir.  I agree about the "giving them fuel" aspect as well--threads like these either boost the opponents signal (especially when you bring attention to a blog that probably has little traffic), or somebody goes too far in the thread and they can cherry-pick that statement and make it look like this whole site is filled with "hateful folks" (like the guy who said he didn't like homosexuals in one recent thread).  Ignoring them isn't "ceding the argument", since there was never a debate here in the first place.

People complaining about these topics here are ranting or venting.  The "we should mock them" defense a few posters are using work if you were say a commentator or comedian with a large audience that could be swayed, but they do very little on a small message board with a micro-audience.

1. How many people are lurkers watching the internet drama?
2. If it is just a small message board with a micro-audience, what harm then to do some venting?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;11003711. How many people are lurkers watching the internet drama?
2. If it is just a small message board with a micro-audience, what harm then to do some venting?

Obvious concern troll is obvious. The aim is to silence criticism and mockery of the SocJus cult and it's zealots.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1100059My thoughts are that the concept of decolonization is a way for white progressive activists to control and monopolize conversation. This reddit post is a great example of that.

Thank you, you've well characterized a long-standing sentiment I've had that I've never been able to put to words.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Panjumanju;1100373Thank you, you've well characterized a long-standing sentiment I've had that I've never been able to put to words.

//Panjumanju

Thank you.
And, to me, that's why we bitch about SJWs. To get the ideas out there, discuss them, see if they have any merit, and hopefully be better equipped to deal with SJW hegemony.

Quote from: Panjumanju;1100373Thank you, you've well characterized a long-standing sentiment I've had that I've never been able to put to words.

//Panjumanju

Thank you.
And, to me, that's why we bitch about SJWs. To get the ideas out there, discuss them, see if they have any merit, and hopefully be better equipped to deal with SJW hegemony.