MLMII

What? Just... what? Using the rhetoric of bigots is a predictor of being a bigot. Do you actually disagree with this? And do you acknowledge that the car analogy was terribad? Ohhh... That's very interesting. Please define this "hypersensitivity" that I am apparently guilty of. I read the thread that you linked to earlier and saw your reaction to people referring to Erika with the male pronoun and in this thread you are arguing that it's somehow reasonable to make an assumption that people are bigots if they use insensitive but nonhateful language. At best that is hypersensitivity and at worse it is simply using a label to group people whom you disagree with as "the lesser", which is would be actually rather ironic if you stop and think about it. Nope. Saying that *blank* (fill in any noun you like) is unnatural does not automatically have negative connotations as to be natural is not automatically good, and to be unnatural is not automatically bad. The car example was fine as it demonstrated that unnatural doesn't equal bad. I don't think I've ever seen a reference to people as unnatural that was explicitly non-judgemental and the converse is usually true. I briefly considered asking for clarification, but the prior for Striker genuinely not being aware of the connotations is just so incredibly low. Could you give an example of someone who isn't a bigot and who refers to people as unnatural? Yes I can actually, although for the most part their names wouldn't mean anything to you. Hells, until I see actual evidence of bigotry from the people using it here I'd also say that they probably qualify as well. Saying something is "unnatural" is simply an insensitive way of denoting that the speaker is uncomfortable with something and does not raise to the level of bigotry. Remember that tolerance is not the same as acceptance.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Have you been living under a rock? It's the language used by bigots when they advocate for making homosexuals second-class citizens. And people are not fricking cars. Using "unnatural" about a person is extremely loaded with negative connotations. Re underlined: Interesting qualifier. So you agree that prior experience could lead one to reasonably assume that people who refer to some particular group of people as unnatural are most likely bigots? You actually comprehend that context is a thing? Well, that's a pleasant surprise. As for insisting that the two sides must somehow be equal... Whatever. It's so ridiculous that I can't even feel insulted. Actually no, even with my "interesting qualifier" I do not find hypersensitivity in general to ever be reasonable. ... As for the rest, well, that's to be expected I suppose.

Although I can understand the frustration if one were trying to make a guide thread or the like I personally like the fact that after a certain point (How long is the actual cutoff by the way?) a poster that you are "discussing" something with is locked in stone.

Actually no, calling something unnatural or even using a pronoun that you don't agree with is insulting, insensitive, and quite frankly ... just plain rude ... but doesn't rise to the level of bigotry on its face. SJWs tend to forget that the righteous virtue of tolerance that everyone should strive for isn't necessarily the same as acceptance. So yeah, to use your metaphor, if GG has gotten the left sole comfortably broken in then the SJWs and you have done an equally fine job with the right.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Umm .... really? You do realize that I just posted both poems so outright lying about the content doesn't really work ... right? Joke fails if smiley is not included.. for some... Either that or you need to work on your delivery.

Umm .... really? You do realize that I just posted both poems so outright lying about the content doesn't really work ... right? As much as that mental image pleases me I can't quite bring myself to believe it.

For the benefit for those few that honestly may not have heard of the situation yet it goes like this... A kickstarter included a poem as one of the backer gravesites. A person on twitter found it to be offensive and tweeted Sawyer about it in addition to blowing twitter up. The devs talked to said kickstarter and the discussion ended with the kickstarter writing a new poem. The devs then replaced said poem but for whatever reason did not include it in the patch notes. The original Poem read; Here lies Firedorn, a hero in bed. He once was alive, but now he's dead. The last woman he bedded, turned out a man And crying in shame, off a cliff he ran. And the new one reads; Here lies Firedorn, a bard, a poet He was also a card, but most didn't know it A poem he wrote in jest was misread They asked for blood, so now he's just dead There, hopefully I managed to avoid my own bias in relaying the situation.

Actually it will be interesting to see whether there is a noticeable difference in future kickstarter funding ... I personally suspect that there won't be a major difference but I am curious. ... But then again I'm also curious what the reaction would have been had the poem's removal been included in the patch notes.

What's the difference? "Should have more credibility" and "shouldn't get to weigh in?" I mean the last guy who posted, your response was "were any of those people transgender?" You obviously are providing them with bias and giving their stance more weight. Everything I said more or less still applies. The "men are oppressors" line is on point with what I said a couple posts back about how giving any perceived differences in STEM the title of "sexism" only serves to escalate any emotionally-charged responses that may occur. That snippet was posted by someone else....who conveniently disappeared (as my debate partners so often seem to do these past few pages) when I posed the question of why he insists on labeling men as oppressors and what purpose it serves. My point was and still is that I see no definitive reason to label it as sexism, nor do I see why the term or phrases like "men are the oppressors" should be used since they contribute absolutely nothing and only serve to devolve discussions into petty quarrels. The second part of your post is indentical in tone. What ****ing purpose is there in asking me if I think only white heterosexuals should be allowed to voice their opinions? You knew damned well how that statement came off and you know damned well what the answer to that question is, and yet you ask it as though it's relevant, topical, or does anything for the discussion. Once again Bruce, this is why you have this reputation of being passive aggressive. And in general I find your "it's to give it context" point flawed. I find the people who "use context" are the same people who skim newspapers and develop their political stances based on what the democrats or the republicans think, without actually bothering to consider the issue themselves and critically think if they approve or not. The only relevance I believe such a question to hold is if the overwhelming majority (I'm talking 95%+) of a community is in agreement on something. Even this, I would expect to be applied more to communities and cultures, not sex orientations or the like. I would be interested what the black community thinks of the local police force vs. what the white community thinks, I would not be so interested in how community X perceives a joke vs. community Y. I do not expect that myself and other disabled people will come to a full-stop concensus on disabled issues, I do not expect the gay community to come to a full-stop concensus on gay issues, I certainly don't expect transgender people to have a concensus on....a ****ing joke. A joke is a matter of a personality, how sensitive the person is, their brand of humor and how much they appreciate humor in general, not sex orientation. I really cannot make this point any more clearer, I am not saying that people outside minority groups cannot comment on issues pertaining to minority groups. I make comments all the time about perceived and real issues that minority groups grapple with. So I would be a hypocrite if I was saying this now I am saying the opinions of minority groups should carry more credibility when discussions come up around points like " is this offensive " . And saying something has more credibility definitely doesn't mean " no one else can weigh in ". I don't equivocate, if I wanted to say " no one else should weigh in about LGBT issues except for the LGBT community " I would have said that. But I retract my comment " Do you think the best people to decide if certain jokes\comments are offensive are white, heterosexual males ?" , this was inappropriate because to be fair I don't think you believe that. So I apologize for that And context is very important when people make certain points. Since this discussion is going backwards and forwards with people saying " I find it offensive " or " I didn't find it offensive " so when he said " my friends didn't find it offensive " it seemed perfectly natural to me to ask " are your friends from the transgender community " Perhaps I could have worded that question better but it was just an initial exploratory point to understand where his comment was coming from . I had no idea if his friends are members of the LGBT community but I wanted to know so there was no assumed bias from me Um ... actually what you did was ask a question that considering simple demographics an honest answer would most likely fit into your narrative and provide you with the emotional ammo to "lessen" the perspective of him and his friends.

I kind of wish I was in the earlier threads, but as I noted in my first post here, there's not much else to say now that we have a definitive timeline and that Firedorn himself has spoken on the matter. Obsidian's made their decision, Firedorn is happy to leave things as they are. So a substantive discussion is difficult to start because the issue is essentially over. We just have to live with the results is all. See, I don't really believe that it wasn't more than a suggestion for him to change it when I see something like this: I've seen GamerGate reference this a dozen times over and I've called out the fallacy here a dozen times over, only to be downvoted on that subreddit because heaven forbid I speak out against the dominant narrative (yes yes, believe it or not, GamerGate can be subject to hugboxes too, and not everyone who criticizes your methods is your "enemy" or a "shill"). It's simple: he doesn't like the guy that complained. That's what the underlined is referring to. Nothing about that statement says "Obsidian forced me to change it at gunpoint." People are reading too much into that one snippet, taking it out of context and trying to suit their narrative. He's saying that he himself finds the complaint ridiculous, but given a choice between standing up against that person he disagrees with and consequently and inadvertedly making Obsidian "back" him, or removing the limerick entirely to save Obsidian some skin for his limerick and his opinion, he chose the rational choice of wanting to let Obsidian be absolved of involvement. Just because he chose to remove it doesn't mean he has to agree with the opinion of the person who raised the complaints to begin with, or even sympathize with them. I mean this is the guy who's replacement limerick was giving the finger to the people who led him to remove it, something Obsidian gave the green light to include. Check his post history, it's crystal clear this was his intent. You can even PM Firedorn yourself and ask him. It's not as if he's hiding; I myself PMed him on this matter because I got sick of seeing 20 different people interpret his posts 20 different ways to suit their own conspiracies and devices. I would actually ask YOU to explain how on earth that post proves it wasn't his decision, especially when other posts by Firedorn directly suggest the opposite. You are failing to apply Occam's Razor and failing to accept Firedorn's account as truth, instead clinging to some theory that he's lying to us and slipped up in that one underlined snippet (again taken out of context) which you have absolutely no proof for. People are just mad and want justification to direct their anger at Obsidian, and they're frustrated they lack such justification so they're making it up at this point, happy to cling to any half-hearted attempts to justify it. As stated, PM the guy yourself if you're so curious. Give him a week or so (that's about how long a response took for me) and don't be surprised when his response doesn't fit your narrative. Good point on the fact that no-one wants to hear things that are counter to their narrative, but for me at least what stands out in his post is that he "didn't even let it come to that point of the discussion". Perhaps you are right and I'm reading way too much into things but to me at least that post sounds like Firedorn felt that the discussion's tone would have ended with the poem being removed either way. Well to be fair then... it's a pretty legitimate concern. It's a bitch for you, yeah, but.. you can't blame the doctor for being concerned. Not only from a long line of addictive personalities, but also an addict yourself, you're probably about one dosage higher away from getting addicted to the prescription meds, whether they help or not. Prescription painkillers are ****ing insidious because you need them to function, but you need to up them because you build tolerance, and then when you taper it the pain gets even worse, and bing, boom, enjoy your new hardcore addiction. I do not envy you. D: My own fault, yes--but it was also over a decade ago, now. I've been homeless, I've watched people dealing coke in the parking lot, etc. My life hasn't been easy in the years since then--but I've never smoked meth again. I've never done any drug since then except smoke pot, smoke cigarettes, and drink tea. I haven't even been drunk in almost 8 years. I'm not looking for vicodins from the doctor to get high. If I wanted to get high, I'd go and get high. There's nothing stopping me from that but myself. There never has been. I go to the doctor because I'm in pain, and I don't want to hurt all the time. I go to the doctor because my hand is cramping into a claw and I can't do the dishes. I go to the doctor because I lost three days last week to curling up and crying in my room from a migraine. I guess my question is this: How long do I have to suffer to pay for one year of my teenage stupidity, and the failings of the family I was born into? Honest answer (And I'm sure that I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.); is until you are able to build up a good working relationship with a single primary physician who understands your medical history and that you really are in pain and not simply drug seeking. As I said before, I do sympathize with your situation for whatever that's worth though.

That is actually a really good point Svirfneblin although instead of being "fairly lucky" for not being fired I imagine that he must be "really good at his job" instead. --- It still doesn't make the SJW's temper tantrum about said shirt any less silly.

As we all know, the best way to carry through some questionable statement is to start it with "obviously", "naturally" or "as we all know". ...Ooops. I did it, didn't I? This thread is hilarious. Hmm? That jab meant for me or the poster whom I was quoting? Got it, it's good to know that as long as it's a joke, it's never offensive to anyone. Let me brush up these racist Mexican and Asian jokes that I saw on the internet and tell it to my Mexican and Asian co-workers tomorrow. I'm sure they'll be perfectly fine with it, because you said so. If we are on friendly terms and you can take what you dish out, as an Asian immigrant, you have my permission to make "racist" jokes. And although I understand that as a member of the "elite overlords" it won't have the same impact ... feel free to make as many "Mick" jokes as you wish. Start with asking me about "my people's" idea of a seven course meal.

Which is why I'd rather not see actual "pariah races" included as PCs in the first place as it isn't reasonable to expect them to be done right.

Except that the context is that the poem in question is not "obviously trans-misogynistic" at all. As for childish name calling, meh ... that's the pot calling the kettle black at best.

And thus we come around full circle, given that apparently diagnosing pain isn't as advanced as I believed (I'll have to try to remember to ask my doctor about it on my next appointment while getting an estimate of how many more years I have before being forced to take the next step towards becoming a cyborg.) we're back to the problem that one man's seven is another man's three. (Of course, no matter which "solution" is used, self medication will still remain a problem.)

Those charts actually exist because the pain cannot be measured, or verified. It's all subjective--what you say is an 8 might be a 5 to somebody else, etc. There is no "pain unit", no discreet measuring system. There is no way to objectively quantify pain. Yep. This is, incidentally, a large part of why people with chronic pain issues have such a hard time getting the regular medication they need without meeting with suspicion that they're junkies or the like. It's a pretty serious problem that leaves many people suffering needlessly when their doctors won't believe them on what they're experiencing. This is true. My fiance has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome; her main symptoms, beside dislocating joints and such, is simply severe chronic joint pain. I have a badly healed boxers fracture on my right hand and chronic arthritis in all of those knuckles, along with migraines. Both of us have real problems getting the pain medication we need because of this very issue. Because obviously you guys suffering from severe pain your whole life is just the price one has to pay to keep those dirty drug-seekers from getting their hands on medication they don't deserve! I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that fortune has smiled on you in the sense that drug addiction (especially the insidious "But RX is safer." strain) hasn't touched you or yours in a major way. --- Although I can sympathize with Katarack and their fiancé, cracking down on pill mills is the lesser of the two evils, even if it means extra hoops to jump through for people who's need is real.

Partially linguistic shorthand and also partially because in pretty much every video game the different "species" are really just the "people of the silly hats".

Those charts actually exist because the pain cannot be measured, or verified. It's all subjective--what you say is an 8 might be a 5 to somebody else, etc. There is no "pain unit", no discreet measuring system. There is no way to objectively quantify pain. Well to be fair it's my understanding that it is indeed possible, albeit extremely impractical to measure the activity in the pain centers of someone's brain. And although you are technically correct in saying that what I consider to be a nine, you might call a seven, or even a three, physical pain does cause physical reactions that can indeed be verified ... for instance, it's fairly difficult to walk into a clinic (that is doing their due diligence and isn't simply a RX Mill) and walk out with pain meds simply by pointing at the chart and claiming a ten. None of those physiological signs correlate directly; different people with the exact same symptoms can show different rates of acitivity in the "pain sensors", for example. A doctor or hospital judges your pain the same way you would somebody else, by looking for the signs of distress and emotional reaction, checking your physical symptoms to see if something could be causing the pain you claim, etc. They tend to be very cautious because there are laws about controlled substances; in general they will always err on the side of not giving you controlled drugs because of this. There really is absolutely no way to objectively measure pain. They're working on it, but it doesn't exist. Perhaps ... either way I think I'll revisit my response to sparklecat. *EDITED QUOTE* So rather like with physical pain, then? Not really because as subjective as those "1-10 pain scale charts" are, physical pain may can be it can be measured, verified and more importantly denotes an underlying condition. There .... now let's talk about the supposed "phychological trauma" instead.

Those charts actually exist because the pain cannot be measured, or verified. It's all subjective--what you say is an 8 might be a 5 to somebody else, etc. There is no "pain unit", no discreet measuring system. There is no way to objectively quantify pain. Well to be fair it's my understanding that it is indeed possible, albeit extremely impractical to measure the activity in the pain centers of someone's brain. And although you are technically correct in saying that what I consider to be a nine, you might call a seven, or even a three, physical pain does cause physical reactions that can indeed be verified ... for instance, it's fairly difficult to walk into a clinic (that is doing their due diligence and isn't simply a RX Mill) and walk out with pain meds simply by pointing at the chart and claiming a ten.

it can be measured, yes. Since pain no matter physical or mental is proccessed by the same areas of the brain. The pain climax however is a shock, not the issues that the ppl claim to lead to suicide or whatever. The so called "phychological trauma" is described by a gap in memory, not the other way around. Interesting, but it sounds to me like you are describing PTSD as opposed to the nonsense that is being championed by the SJW crowd. So rather like with physical pain, then? Not really because as subjective as those "1-10 pain scale charts" are, physical pain can be measured, verified and more importantly denotes an underlying condition. it can be measured, yes. Since pain no matter physical or mental is proccessed by the same areas of the brain. The pain climax however is a shock, not the issues that the ppl claim to lead to suicide or whatever. The so called "phychological trauma" is described by a gap in memory, not the other way around. It's psychological Trauma?Like being molested by your mama? There's no shame It's just a game But everyone loves a drama. Ok, ok, I'll stop now. Yeah ... let's stop comparing claiming to suffer trauma from reading a poem to being molested shall we? *EDIT* Katarack21 ... I don't know, why isn't there the same outrage when a gay bakery refuses to bake a "support traditional wedding" cake as there is when a Christian bakery refuses to bake a gay wedding cake?

I think it's more of a "why isn't there more of it" .... comment originally.

I think a large part of the issue is that by its very nature "phychological trauma" is subjective at best; I'm waiting for someone to provide me with an actual method to measure the "phychological trauma" that can be applied across the board to all groups, both those favored by the SJWs as well as those that aren't.

You see I would tend to disagree, if racial tensions are part of the background setting then being able to "fix them" just ... cheapens ... the entire concept to me.