Quote from: GnomeWorks;1081503Removal of history - no matter how distasteful someone may find it - is downright Orwellian. There are plenty of folk who have no particular horse in the race that is remembering the Confederacy that have strong opinions regarding statue removal.

I agree. But I'm talking about silent, peaceful protesting, not history.

Whether the statues are in a museum or displayed prominently in a town square, is a whole other debate and has nothing to do with RPGs, nor do any of these random NFL rants. Besides, I already stated earlier that I agree with Trump's point about the statues and the Founding Fathers, etc. so hopefully that's extra clear now.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1081501SHARK thinks far too highly of the military, but as he is a military dude that is not surprising.

I think there is also something of a cultural element there (and SHARK can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - but preferably with brevity, I don't want to read a wall of text) in which there seems to be a sense that the military is emblematic of the US as a whole. If I had to guess I'd probably say that given that military service is presently voluntary, there is a strong patriotic element there, so military folk view disrespect towards the flag as disrespect to the military as well as to the nation as a whole.

You have this logic backwards.

Right now, anyone who touts a right-of-center political view in their place of employment will almost assuredly get shown the door. People can and absolutely have been fired for having right-wing political beliefs.

In that greater societal context, it is entirely fair of people on the right to demand that outward displays of left-leaning political beliefs be shown the same treatment. Hence the response to the NFL kneeling.

If you want to be able to can people for their political beliefs, and for expression of said beliefs in a work environment, that needs to cut both ways. Similarly, if you want free speech to be an inviolate right, then firing somebody for political expression even while on the job should be illegal (and unconstitutional, though I'm not sure if that's relevant here).

But right now there is pretty clear favoritism, and that's where the problem comes from. Personally I'm not sure which way I lean (in terms of whether or not folk should be reprimanded in the workplace for voicing their political views - I can see both sides, and have a very strong "no politics, no religion" thing when I'm at work), but the inequity of the situation is what bothers me the most.

I don't think my logic is backwards (maybe it is), since I agree with this entirely. You make my point in a much more eloquent manner than I. I think this is a worthy debate and it should cut both ways. I lean towards freedom of individual expression myself. If you can be fired for "wrongthink" that's certainly a topic worth discussing.

I love the military and come from a military family. I won't go into more detail because I see no reason to virtue-signal the way Shark does. But above all else, I'm pro-freedom of the individual and people that get their little feelings hurt over a protest are sensitive and weak.

I don't like the hypocrisy of whining when the left do it, and then frothing at the mouth to get the right to behave in kind. That kind of ideological warfare annoys me greatly.

Quote from: Kael;1081502Good thing I never claimed that he did say that, right? He said the folks protesting the removal of Confederate statues are "very fine people." Those protestors are shown in the meme, some of which also happen to be those he denounced. TRD strikes again. It illustrates his conflicting views on protesters. No more, no less.

Then why show a picture of NEo Nazis and claim that POTUS said that they were fine people?  That is just a lie he never said that neo Nazis were fine people.  

Now you are just spreading fake news.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1081501SHARK thinks far too highly of the military, but as he is a military dude that is not surprising.

I think there is also something of a cultural element there (and SHARK can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - but preferably with brevity, I don't want to read a wall of text) in which there seems to be a sense that the military is emblematic of the US as a whole. If I had to guess I'd probably say that given that military service is presently voluntary, there is a strong patriotic element there, so military folk view disrespect towards the flag as disrespect to the military as well as to the nation as a whole.



You have this logic backwards.

Right now, anyone who touts a right-of-center political view in their place of employment will almost assuredly get shown the door. People can and absolutely have been fired for having right-wing political beliefs.

In that greater societal context, it is entirely fair of people on the right to demand that outward displays of left-leaning political beliefs be shown the same treatment. Hence the response to the NFL kneeling.

If you want to be able to can people for their political beliefs, and for expression of said beliefs in a work environment, that needs to cut both ways. Similarly, if you want free speech to be an inviolate right, then firing somebody for political expression even while on the job should be illegal (and unconstitutional, though I'm not sure if that's relevant here).

But right now there is pretty clear favoritism, and that's where the problem comes from. Personally I'm not sure which way I lean (in terms of whether or not folk should be reprimanded in the workplace for voicing their political views - I can see both sides, and have a very strong "no politics, no religion" thing when I'm at work), but the inequity of the situation is what bothers me the most.

Greetings!

Exactly, Gnomeworks. Thank you. You understand perfectly. I'm certainly not some "perpetually offended snowflake" as Kael accused me of. Every veteran I know that sees the football players "taking a knee" believe the same way I do. The players are being rude, insulting, and disrespectful to our Flag, our National Anthem, and our military. They all believe that the owners should not tolerate such behavior, and that such players should be disciplined, and fired. Every veteran I know that is also a football fan is offended that such players are seeking to bring politics into the game. They don't want to hear about politics of "X". They want to watch a good football game without politics involved. Every veteran I know thinks such behavior is absolutely inappropriate, and disrespectful. Such players are free to speak and march or protest whatever they want--ON THEIR OFF TIME. Come game day, they should be entirely professional, respectful, and dignified.

Salute!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Kael;1081483Yes I know. He said both things. Which is true and my point. And again, it's just a joke to point out inconsistencies in messaging when it comes to his views on protests. Don't let a picture of a swastika trigger you.

You're talking to a guy who, on this very forum, had an avatar of a Nazi Dinosaur with a swastika on it's flank and machine guns strapped to it's horns.
I assure you, a swastika isn't going to trigger me.

Addendum for anyone fancying same trick. The mods told me to change it, and I did.

Quote from: Kael;1081506I think this is a worthy debate and it should cut both ways. I lean towards freedom of individual expression myself. If you can be fired for "wrongthink" that's certainly a topic worth discussing.

I think it was at... Google, if I recall, that some right-wing folk got in hot water for their political leanings. Meanwhile those upset with the organization's dealings with the Pentagon (and thereby presumably left-wing) were rewarded by Google backing out of those arrangements.

Ultimately it comes down to the double standard. Either people need to keep their politics at home, or everybody can speak their mind and it's cool (within reason). I can see both sides of the argument, and while I personally lean towards a policy of leaving political and religious discussions at the door, I don't particularly mind either way, so long as it's applied equally.

QuoteI'm pro-freedom of the individual and people that get their little feelings hurt over a protest are sensitive and weak.

I get it, but again I think it comes down to the double standard.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081511You're talking to a guy who, on this very forum, had an avatar of a Nazi Dinosaur with a swastika on it's flank and machine guns strapped to it's horns.
I assure you, a swastika isn't going to trigger me.

Addendum for anyone fancying same trick. The mods told me to change it, and I did.

LOL. Fair enough! I'm honestly too scared to ask any follow-up questions...(goes to watch some cat videos...)

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1081512I get it, but again I think it comes down to the double standard.

Yes, very much agree.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081480Analogies of murder vs. genocide have nothing to do with with self-defense.

Sure they do. What you're advocating is analogous to murder.

The analogy to self defense would be removing an SJW from your game.

Your right to self defense ends when you're actively hunting down the opposition.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081465Personally, I welcome SJWs. I would never have realized how terrible their arguments and tactics are if they hadn't tried to shoehorn them into the "community". It gave me an opportunity to recognize the flaws and pitfalls of identity politics, and refine my arguments against it.

I dont mind talking with SJWs but you would need to make sure that they were not Mods though.  Never known a people as thin skinned desperately clutching their X card.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1081512I think it was at... Google, if I recall, that some right-wing folk got in hot water for their political leanings. Meanwhile those upset with the organization's dealings with the Pentagon (and thereby presumably left-wing) were rewarded by Google backing out of those arrangements.

It does not get much worse then Google.  They are literally helping the Chinese Government to oppress their people which is as Left as you can get without swinging all the way round to being a Nazi.

But... they're only doing it for money! (Detect the sarcasm.)

Can we take the NFL or other stuff to a separate thread in Pundit's forum, or just drop it? It really doesn't belong here in the RPG forum.

Quote from: jhkimFair enough. So, what do you think would happen if you sat down to a convention game with Stacey D? What do you think they would do, or you would do?

Quote from: S'mon;1081504I don't want to find out! I'm sure I would be too frightened and anxious to enjoy whatever the game was. Maybe I'd say something she objected to and she'd do a blog write up on me afterwards so I'd be the target of an Internet harassment campaign.

Edit: For instance, reading over your query reminds me that she currently goes by 'they', so if I called her 'her' that'd be a speech crime. I could end up like this guy -  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/court-orders-christian-to-pay-55000-to-trans-politician-for-calling-him-biological-male

OK, so you're afraid of potentially being harassed, so you wouldn't want to sit down and game with Stacey. That's your choice. However, it seems to run counter to your earlier claim that "If someone of left wing views is happy to sit down and play a regular game of D&D with me then by definition they are not an SJW."

By what you initially said, if Stacey is willing to sit down and play a regular game of D&D with you, then you claimed that by definition they would not be an SJW. But I think that isn't the case. Even if they were happy to sit down and play D&D with you, you'd be afraid and refuse to play with them - and presumably you'd still consider them an SJW.


As for the latter, I mess up pronouns all the time. With a bunch of transgender friends and acquaintances, it's hard not to. I've sometimes been mildly embarrassed about it, but that's about it. The point seems to buy into the idea that transgender people are so well protected now, that really it's the conservative people who have to fear the stigma if they use the wrong pronouns or otherwise cross them. I find that ridiculous. I've before suggested people try it for a day or so - just dress in opposite-gender clothing and go around doing normal things. For men in women's clothing, it has really crushing stigma to it - even in liberal areas. Overwhelmingly, most trans people just want to the relief of being treated like just another person.

Quote from: jhkim;1081500The problem here is that essentially everyone *claims* they are in favor of free speech. However, nearly everyone shows bias in terms of what they consider being made unwelcome or what are the limits of free speech. So, for example, conservatives would find reason to ban - say, Matt Loter, who is accused but not convicted of of attacked Jeremy Hambly near GenCon. Others might say that he has not been convicted of any crime and so should be allowed until the charges are proven. Conversely, liberals might want to ban Bill Webb for alleged harassment - but others claim that the charges have not been proven.

Who is banned - and thus limits on free speech - show up in bias and excuses, and almost never as saying "I oppose free speech."

Yes.  Which is why it should be a strict standard.  (By "strict standard" I mean roughly in the sense of the legal term, but IANAL and may be missing some technical details.)

Specifically, the strict standard would be actions, not merely speech.  As you say, people can say anything.  And yes, this would apply across the board, to any group.  It might clarify to say that my stance on this is essential Kantian, and not inline with either English common law nor the US Constitution.  In my view, it would require an amendment to the Constitution to have such a policy as a legal option, though I think voluntary groups could impose it with more freedom.  

For an example, let's assume I'm starting a new mostly free speech store front for RPGs.  It's got a forum.  If some guy Joe goes onto the forum and says that he thinks that the Hobbits and Houses RPG should be banned because of its exclusion of tall people, then that's not enough to hit the strict standard.  Everyone tells Joe he is an idiot; that we don't do that here.  If Joe turns into a single-issue troll over it, he might get suspended or banned eventually for that behavior, but not because of his speech.

OTOH, if Joe organizes an effort to get H&H banned everywhere, slanders the author, and so forth, then by the categorical imperative, Joe has said that he thinks that such a ban over such disagreements are just and warranted.  Therefore, we take Joe at his word and ban him.  He's crossed the line into active attempts to achieve the ban.  He's demonstrated by his actions that he does not believe in free speech.  

Now admittedly, that's still leaving some room for error.  I'd be much more hesitant to put that into law than into particular society, but I'm not worried about it since no such amendment would ever pass.  (I also am thankful I can't control the weather.)  

At any given time, such a policy might disproportionately affect "liberals" or "conservatives" or any number of groups.  That's because typically people that start throwing their weight around in this manner are the ones with some kind of cultural power.  That's fine with me.  I'd prefer the underdog win those arguments more often than not.  Also, I think it would be educational, and thus cut down on the worst of the excesses (from everyone) over time.

Quote from: Shasarak;1081520...  as Left as you can get without swinging all the way round to being a Nazi.

Yes! I always love it when I'm reminded that the political spectrum is circular.

Swing hard to the left and you end up in a socialist and communist single party system run by a dictator. See: Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and North Korea, Nazi Germany, etc.

Swing hard to the right and you end up in pure capitalist and anarchist system run by a warlord/druglord acting as a dictator. See: pretty much all of Africa and South/Central America.

Go old school and you end up with feudalism, empires, monarchies, papalities, etc. run by ... wait for it ...  a dictator. The ultimate goal of any modern society should be the avoidance of those things that lead to a dictatorship (single person in charge with absolute authority.)

It's not even a left/right issue at all. It's a "avoid the extremes" thing.