Female gamers having a hard time in gaming communites

[Gromnir]

In fact, to back up Gromnir's point, the Americans adopted French political traditions, an ersatz version of Napoleonic Code. The American justice system, for example, feels more familiar to a European than it does a Briton. The Americans don't have a Common Law system and deliberately chose not to have a Parliament. FFS their first dictionaries deliberately subverted the Mother countries' spelling to be less like that of the Colonial overlord (boo! Hiss!).

 

Nonetheless, there is a cohesive argument to be made that it was a Civil War of sorts.

 

as to civil war, that is indeed a valid point, given just how many o' the Populace viewed self as brits even during the war. however, as we said above, the revolution never were particular popular here in the USA... is something that gets skipped over in history books on this side of the pond. nevertheless,  the signers o' the declaration, and more important, the folks who agreed to articles of confederation, were quite clear that they weren't fighting as Brits.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps edit for weird double-post

Edited May 13, 2014 by Gromnir

[AwesomeOcelot]

It's as if the roles of France and John Locke were being erased from history.

[Gromnir]

It's as if the roles of France and John Locke were being erased from history.

as educated men, the the founders were much aware of John Locke, and we suspect they had at least heard of France previous Ben Franklin going there in 1776.  we got a nice copper statue from the french, but it kinda turned a funky shade o' green. 

 

insofar as current free speech standards which sparked this current debate, France is not all that relevant. France has some very strict hate speech laws. regarding the original direction o' the thread, and making women comfortable with their posting, am s'posing the French should be given their due.. am just not knowing what they is due in that regard.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[tajerio]

uh...

 

it definite were a revolution. 

 

previous government overthrown by those ruled and replaced with new government?  seems like that is covered. you know, with root of word being REVOLT and all. sociological revolution is a different thing altogether... will let you and others decide on that point. not change that the fledgling US government were a revolutionary government.

 

btw, while you is way oversimplifying how much US government owes to british checks and balances, that didn't occur til US Constitution o' 1787. articles o' confederation established the first government o' the united states, and it didn't genuine have checks and balances.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps actual worth reading articles o' confederation, or at least reading 'bout them. helps clarify the revolution thing a bit too as it makes clear how the revolutionaries viewed themselves.

 

"Previous government overthrown by those ruled and replaced with new government" is the historian's usual definition of a successful rebellion, not a revolution. But like I said, it's largely a semantic argument.  I subscribe to a very restrictive definition of revolution--you, obviously, do not.  That's cool. 

 

And of course I'm oversimplifying the dependence of the American system on the British system.  I didn't want to write a book on comparative poli sci in this thread, after all.  However, while I don't for one second argue that the Articles of Confederation government was in some respects quite innovative and transformative, the government of the United States today is based on a much more conservative document (the Constitution), which is in large part a reaction to the ineffectiveness of the Confederation government.  So to say, as you did above, that the US is a revolutionary government is to say that the 1789 government is revolutionary, which it most decidedly is not.

[Hurlshort]

This reminds me of an argument over the correct pronunciation of tomato.

[Gromnir]

 

uh...

 

it definite were a revolution. 

 

previous government overthrown by those ruled and replaced with new government?  seems like that is covered. you know, with root of word being REVOLT and all. sociological revolution is a different thing altogether... will let you and others decide on that point. not change that the fledgling US government were a revolutionary government.

 

btw, while you is way oversimplifying how much US government owes to british checks and balances, that didn't occur til US Constitution o' 1787. articles o' confederation established the first government o' the united states, and it didn't genuine have checks and balances.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps actual worth reading articles o' confederation, or at least reading 'bout them. helps clarify the revolution thing a bit too as it makes clear how the revolutionaries viewed themselves.

 

"Previous government overthrown by those ruled and replaced with new government" is the historian's usual definition of a successful rebellion, not a revolution. But like I said, it's largely a semantic argument.  I subscribe to a very restrictive definition of revolution--you, obviously, do not.  That's cool. 

 

And of course I'm oversimplifying the dependence of the American system on the British system.  I didn't want to write a book on comparative poli sci in this thread, after all.  However, while I don't for one second argue that the Articles of Confederation government was in some respects quite innovative and transformative, the government of the United States today is based on a much more conservative document (the Constitution), which is in large part a reaction to the ineffectiveness of the Confederation government.  So to say, as you did above, that the US is a revolutionary government is to say that the 1789 government is revolutionary, which it most decidedly is not.

 

how very strange. at one point you claims that you is inexplicably fighting a semantic argument, but later you is still claiming that the 1789 government is "decidedly" not revolutionary. curious. in any event, am thinking you is confusing revolutionary multiple meaning... and am not sure why. the Constitution were formed by the same revolutionaries as were the articles. the Constitution were meant to foster and support the revolutionary ideals that had been espoused back in 1776... and before. Bill of Rights, which actual contains the First Amendment, is actual from 1791. Bill of Rights is near universal recognized as a founding document by historians.

 

 

we got no need to argue sociological revolution or whether the Founders reinvented the wheel-- that is a complete separate issue from the one we brought up. am not sure why you want to argue that point, but is curious that you is seeming using the multiple definitions o' revolution interchangeable. bring up fact that checks and balances is from british (which is true in only the most limited way imaginable) got nothing to do with how we used revolution above... or how Brandeis used. am not seeing room for confusion.

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

This reminds me of an argument over the correct pronunciation of tomato.

agreed... but is more strange than that.  tajero seems at one point to recognize he is arguing over the pronunciation. at the same time, he is arguing that Gromnir is not presenting a good example o' a hot girl.

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tomato

 

is... peculiar.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[tajerio]

 

 

uh...

 

it definite were a revolution. 

 

previous government overthrown by those ruled and replaced with new government?  seems like that is covered. you know, with root of word being REVOLT and all. sociological revolution is a different thing altogether... will let you and others decide on that point. not change that the fledgling US government were a revolutionary government.

 

btw, while you is way oversimplifying how much US government owes to british checks and balances, that didn't occur til US Constitution o' 1787. articles o' confederation established the first government o' the united states, and it didn't genuine have checks and balances.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps actual worth reading articles o' confederation, or at least reading 'bout them. helps clarify the revolution thing a bit too as it makes clear how the revolutionaries viewed themselves.

 

"Previous government overthrown by those ruled and replaced with new government" is the historian's usual definition of a successful rebellion, not a revolution. But like I said, it's largely a semantic argument.  I subscribe to a very restrictive definition of revolution--you, obviously, do not.  That's cool. 

 

And of course I'm oversimplifying the dependence of the American system on the British system.  I didn't want to write a book on comparative poli sci in this thread, after all.  However, while I don't for one second argue that the Articles of Confederation government was in some respects quite innovative and transformative, the government of the United States today is based on a much more conservative document (the Constitution), which is in large part a reaction to the ineffectiveness of the Confederation government.  So to say, as you did above, that the US is a revolutionary government is to say that the 1789 government is revolutionary, which it most decidedly is not.

 

how very strange. at one point you claims that you is inexplicably fighting a semantic argument, but later you is still claiming that the 1789 government is "decidedly" not revolutionary. curious. in any event, am thinking you is confusing revolutionary multiple meaning... and am not sure why. the Constitution were formed by the same revolutionaries as were the articles. the Constitution were meant to foster and support the revolutionary ideals that had been espoused back in 1776... and before. Bill of Rights, which actual contains the First Amendment, is actual from 1791. Bill of Rights is near universal recognized as a founding document by historians.

 

The last sentence there is my opinion, not universally acknowledged fact, which is probably the confusing part.  Even with a broad definition of revolution I still think the historical facts tell a very different tale of the Constitution being a consolidating reaction against potential revolution, rather than a confirmation of an actual one.  Everyone is of course welcome to his own opinion, though I agree that this thread ain't the place to hash them out.

 

The reason I fight the argument is because the meanings of words are important, and "revolution" as presently used somehow encompasses both the Russian and American, which makes very little sense.  But I recognize the hopelessness of trying to get everyone to converge on one meaning--my intention is just to provoke some thought on something that Americans almost never challenge.

[ManifestedISO]

Well if it's misleading titles we're adjusting, our Civil War couldn't be more ironic. My ancestral-minded mother discovered relatives (from nearly 100 years after the Rebellion), fighting for both sides of The American Internal Armed Struggle Fought Largely Between North And South. Truly nothing civil about brothers killing brothers.   

[Gromnir]

no, Gromnir is willing to concede that there is an argument that monte's pov is accurate and that the war were more accurate described as a civil war. the Founders wouldn't agree, and neither would the lion's share o' historians, but it is a valid argument and we suspect a large % of Americans living during the American Revolution would not have seen the war as a revolution per se. 'course this is all ultimately irrelevant in the present context. Revolutionary as we used above, coulda' been replaced by "A Government born out of rebellion," and post meaning woulda' been changed not one whit.

 

no, the thing that we don't get is the insistence in using multiple definitions o' revolutionary. even if you does not think the American Revolution were a "true" revolution, to bring up British checks and balances is revealing that you is trying to use multiple definitions o' "revolutionary" at same time and interchangeable. which is confusing and just plain wrong. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[tajerio]

no, the thing that we don't get is the insistence in using multiple definitions o' revolutionary. even if you does not think the American Revolution were a "true" revolution, to bring up British checks and balances is revealing that you is trying to use multiple definitions o' "revolutionary" at same time and interchangeable. which is confusing and just plain wrong. 

 

Oh dear me.  I'm not insisting upon it at all.  The definition I use does have multiple criteria relating to socioeconomic and political change, but I do not use multiple definitions.  The reference to the British system of the 18th century is merely to illustrate that the political system the Constitution put in place is not nearly so innovative as people tend to think, since it draws heavily on that British legacy, and is much more evolutionary than it is revolutionary.  

[Gromnir]

 

no, the thing that we don't get is the insistence in using multiple definitions o' revolutionary. even if you does not think the American Revolution were a "true" revolution, to bring up British checks and balances is revealing that you is trying to use multiple definitions o' "revolutionary" at same time and interchangeable. which is confusing and just plain wrong. 

 

Oh dear me.  I'm not insisting upon it at all.  The definition I use does have multiple criteria relating to socioeconomic and political change, but I do not use multiple definitions.  The reference to the British system of the 18th century is merely to illustrate that the political system the Constitution put in place is not nearly so innovative as people tend to think, since it draws heavily on that British legacy, and is much more evolutionary than it is revolutionary.  

 

which is why your comments is  unresponsive. a revolutionary war doesn't require innovation any more than a civil war requires polite and courteous behavior.  is not same revolution as is transistors or elastic in underwear. 

 

btw, with the exception o' the rare, complete and accidental discoveries, we would argue that virtual all revolutions (socioeconomic, political or otherwise) is evolutionary, but that is a topic for another thread. that being said, the James Burke series, Connections, could be enlightening for you.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 13, 2014 by Gromnir

[Hiro Protagonist II]

The definition I use does have multiple criteria relating to socioeconomic and political change, but I do not use multiple definitions.  

 

Sounds like if something doesn't fit your own personal multiple criteria, it's not a revolution. At least that's how your post comes across.

[tajerio]

 

 

no, the thing that we don't get is the insistence in using multiple definitions o' revolutionary. even if you does not think the American Revolution were a "true" revolution, to bring up British checks and balances is revealing that you is trying to use multiple definitions o' "revolutionary" at same time and interchangeable. which is confusing and just plain wrong. 

 

Oh dear me.  I'm not insisting upon it at all.  The definition I use does have multiple criteria relating to socioeconomic and political change, but I do not use multiple definitions.  The reference to the British system of the 18th century is merely to illustrate that the political system the Constitution put in place is not nearly so innovative as people tend to think, since it draws heavily on that British legacy, and is much more evolutionary than it is revolutionary.  

 

which is why your comments is  unresponsive. a revolutionary war doesn't require innovation any more than a civil war requires polite and courteous behavior.  is not same revolution as is transistors or elastic in underwear. 

 

btw, with the exception o' the rare, complete and accidental discoveries, we would argue that virtual all revolutions (socioeconomic, political or otherwise) is evolutionary, but that is a topic for another thread. that being said, the James Burke series, Connections, could be enlightening for you.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Fair enough.  Your definition is so different there's not much point in the two of us talking about it, though I would wonder why we have the words insurrection, rebellion, revolt, and revolution if no innovation is required for the last one.

 

Your point about virtually all so-called revolutions being evolutionary is one with which I generally agree, at least pre-20th century.

Edited May 13, 2014 by tajerio

[tajerio]

 

 

The definition I use does have multiple criteria relating to socioeconomic and political change, but I do not use multiple definitions.  

 

Sounds like if something doesn't fit your own personal multiple criteria, it's not a revolution. At least that's how your post comes across.

 

 

Well, if it didn't fit my criteria, then I wouldn't consider it a revolution--though I hew pretty closely to a definition used by a fairly large community of historians, so it's not just mine.  That said, clearly it's my opinion.  Everything I post is my opinion, besides clearly sourced and verified facts.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Well, if it didn't fit my criteria, then I wouldn't consider it a revolution--though I hew pretty closely to a definition used by a fairly large community of historians, so it's not just mine.  That said, clearly it's my opinion.  Everything I post is my opinion, besides clearly sourced and verified facts.

 

 

Okay. So it's a personal definition and nothing from a dictionary. I'll have to remember in future when discussing and debating on forums to make my own personal definitions, not tell anyone the criteria that fits into that definition and argue from that point.

[Hurlshort]

I worry about how tajerio sees the Scientific Revolution.  

 

 

I'm not at the forefront of History or anything, but as a teacher, having simple and clear labels for major historical events is very helpful.  It's hard enough trying to get my students to understand the difference between the Holy Roman Empire and the actual Roman Empire.  

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

no, the thing that we don't get is the insistence in using multiple definitions o' revolutionary. even if you does not think the American Revolution were a "true" revolution, to bring up British checks and balances is revealing that you is trying to use multiple definitions o' "revolutionary" at same time and interchangeable. which is confusing and just plain wrong. 

 

Oh dear me.  I'm not insisting upon it at all.  The definition I use does have multiple criteria relating to socioeconomic and political change, but I do not use multiple definitions.  The reference to the British system of the 18th century is merely to illustrate that the political system the Constitution put in place is not nearly so innovative as people tend to think, since it draws heavily on that British legacy, and is much more evolutionary than it is revolutionary.  

 

which is why your comments is  unresponsive. a revolutionary war doesn't require innovation any more than a civil war requires polite and courteous behavior.  is not same revolution as is transistors or elastic in underwear. 

 

btw, with the exception o' the rare, complete and accidental discoveries, we would argue that virtual all revolutions (socioeconomic, political or otherwise) is evolutionary, but that is a topic for another thread. that being said, the James Burke series, Connections, could be enlightening for you.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Fair enough.  Your definition is so different there's not much point in the two of us talking about it, though I would wonder why we have the words insurrection, rebellion, revolt, and revolution if no innovation is required for the last one.

 

Your point about virtually all so-called revolutions being evolutionary is one with which I generally agree, at least pre-20th century.

 

historically, "revolution" probable were a nice way of saying, "really bloody." more modern and it is gonna have to do with the scope of change, or perhaps how fundamental the change were.  not require any grand innovation. the abbasid revolution weren't particularly innovative. the siamese revolution of 1688 were probable more reactionary than anything. the haitian revolution saw the successful new regime establish serfdom? very innovative. look in a thesaurus and see how many words there is for "cold." is some very subtle differences 'tween some o' those synonyms. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

That's cold Gromnir. 

[tajerio]

I worry about how tajerio sees the Scientific Revolution.  

 

 

I'm not at the forefront of History or anything, but as a teacher, having simple and clear labels for major historical events is very helpful.  It's hard enough trying to get my students to understand the difference between the Holy Roman Empire and the actual Roman Empire.  

 

I'm not quite confident enough to say, because I deal with political and socioeconomic history, but I suspect that the shift towards empiricism as the primary mode of investigative thought is enough for it to be a revolution.

 

And I absolutely agree with you on that point.  I just think the best label for what we usually call "the American Revolution" would be "the American War of Independence."

 

 

Okay. So it's a personal definition and nothing from a dictionary. I'll have to remember in future when discussing and debating on forums to make my own personal definitions, not tell anyone the criteria that fits into that definition and argue from that point.

 

There's no need to be snarky.  I just didn't want to write several hundred words writing a specialist historian's encompassing definition of revolution.  A quick shorthand is broad changes in socioeconomic relations and a marked departure in political forms and culture, effected by the use of force, but that doesn't really capture the whole thing, and anyway I'm pretty sure that much was clear from what I wrote.

Edited May 14, 2014 by tajerio

[tajerio]

 

Fair enough.  Your definition is so different there's not much point in the two of us talking about it, though I would wonder why we have the words insurrection, rebellion, revolt, and revolution if no innovation is required for the last one.

 

Your point about virtually all so-called revolutions being evolutionary is one with which I generally agree, at least pre-20th century.

 

historically, "revolution" probable were a nice way of saying, "really bloody." more modern and it is gonna have to do with the scope of change, or perhaps how fundamental the change were.  not require any grand innovation. the abbasid revolution weren't particularly innovative. the siamese revolution of 1688 were probable more reactionary than anything. the haitian revolution saw the successful new regime establish serfdom? very innovative. look in a thesaurus and see how many words there is for "cold." is some very subtle differences 'tween some o' those synonyms. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Historically, "revolution" is a dirty word used to demonize people who were seeking change, since the vast majority of societies have traditionally been conservative.  But what you're saying there just speaks to my point.  If we can have so many subtle differences between words, why is the meaning of "revolution" so broad and inclusive of so many disparate historical phenomena?  I think it ought to be narrowed down.  And, just by the by, because of its very lack of innovation, the term "Abbasid Revolution" has fallen out of favor in the past fifteen years or so among historians, to be replaced by "Abbasid Revolt."

[Sensuki]

There are no women on the internet, particularly not RPG sites!

[Gromnir]

as an aside, am recalling our crane brinton from university. we don't remember innovation being an element o' revolution, but we does recall that the American Revolution were distinguished from other historic revolutions 'cause of absence o' the ... am forgetting the exact phrase... time of terror? in point o' fact, all o' the great political revolutions in history  brinton examined (english, french, russian and american) is having a surfeit o' innovation and lasting socioeconomic change you seems to think is fundamental to definition o' "revolution." conversely, am recalling that the forcible restoration o' post ww2 japan and the industrial revolution were examples o' the innovation and lasting socioeconomic change brinton found lacking in the political revolutions examined. perhaps brinton had too much influence 'pon us to be able to take your innovation notions to heart as they seem to be complete at odds with one o' the only works we has read that specific compares revolutions. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps brinton wrote before the soviet collapse, and were still not seeing innovation or lasting meaningful change from russian revolution. we were in school studying brinton in 1989, so failure o' the soviet were even more clear as we were able to actual watch the berlin wall being disassembled contemporaneous with our reading o' brinton. had actual visited soviet russia in 87 and would return when we were teaching in europe a few years later.  *chuckle* am recalling that not far from red square in 1987 we were offered a car for our sony walkman... although condoms were the real black market hot ticket item at the time. 

Edited May 14, 2014 by Gromnir

[nipsen]

There are no women on the internet, particularly not RPG sites!

A lot of people at least behave as if that was, and always will be, true.

 

Anyway. Problem I have with this discussion is that a lot of the time, internet people simply behave as if they can't get along with anyone who has a slightly different perspective than them, on anything.

 

And many gaming communities actively encourage people to behave like that. That doesn't have anything to do particularly with girls, colour or candy preferences, really. In my opinion, it doesn't have to do with mutual respect for all, or morality, education or upbringing either.

 

Instead it has all to do with people taking deliberate advantage of how there's no one else immediately present to force them to moderate themselves. Because games are power-trip fantasies. And you can see it in the way games are promoted, and how they're presented by community people. So how can you really clamp down on rude, random and annoying behavior on the forums, when the banner on the page basically reads: "Kill all enemies really fast with bros while swearing a lot"? Official sites often are the worst because of this.

 

And that's really the basic level we're stuck at.

[Meshugger]

Coming up next in this thread: Inspired by the dubious nature of the American 'Revolution', the people started to dwell upon the word 'Liberal'. Is it left or is it right? Is it pro-state or anti-state? What has history told us? Which liberal doctrine is more true to the other?

 

So many questions, so little answers.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Meshugger