Obsidian devs after the Limerick controversy..

[PrimeJunta]

@Longknife At least I've bowed out of the "serious" discussion a while ago simply because I'm really bored of it. From where I'm at there's approximately zero give-and-take here; each side is simply talking past one another. It's only fun to say the same thing so many times.

 

So I write stupid verse instead. It's more amusing and about as useful.

[evensong]

Jokes are part of culture. Culture helps shape opinion. If you don't understand this you're either rather ignorant or wilfully blind to it.

[Crusty]

See how the thread goes dead silent the moment anyone's actually addressing the subject matter seriously?

 

Exactly what I've been talking about...

 

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.

[BruceVC]

Have you guys considered the threads get locked because they devolve into childish mudslinging rather than productive discussion?

 

Cuz dats what happens.

 

Please stop telling people what you consider to be childish or lacking intellectually

 

You keep doing this yet you comment yourself, once again ...no is forcing you to participate in this discussion

 

Considering how much you post in the GG thread which most of us think is utterly pointless any lectures from you about what is productive just seems moot and inconsequential 

[MistarDurk]

 

See how the thread goes dead silent the moment anyone's actually addressing the subject matter seriously?

 

Exactly what I've been talking about...

 

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:

 

Edited April 10, 2015 by MistarDurk

[achaye]

What argument are you trying to make here? It's ridiculously vague. I assume you made it vague on purpose in case you need to backpedal or move the goalposts.

 

So again, you think that references to things like rape should be removed from the game as well, correct? And then murder, because people who played this game have lost loved ones to murder.

 

Please, I am not that sinister.

 

You asked me if "the game should be completely overhauled and cut to pieces because there are parts that contain things like rape?"

 

No.

 

I am saying that I am against rape, and that rape portrayed in context is actually helpful to show the injustices that linger (and, unfortunately, often times thrive) in the world, hence, the point about Schindler's List. I am against genocide, and Schindler's List is a very good film at portraying genocide in the proper context, as it properly shows the inhumanity of the Holocaust. I've not heard of a single Holocaust survivor (or relative of a Holocaust survivor) be offended by Schindler's List, because it's filmed in the proper context, so your point about someone having lost a loved one due to a murder is moot.

 

The limerick, unlike Schindler's List, is nothing of the sort; it's just a cheap, thinly-veiled, transmisogynistic jab.

[Longknife]

Please stop telling people what you consider to be childish or lacking intellectually

 

You keep doing this yet you comment yourself, once again ...no is forcing you to participate in this discussion

 

Considering how much you post in the GG thread which most of us think is utterly pointless any lectures from you about what is productive just seems moot and inconsequential 

 

 

Bruce if you wonder why half the forum community gets this weird passive-aggressive vibe from you and why my post about how you're "like that guy who's all pleasant and polite and invites you over to his perfect house with his perfect family to have a perfect dinner, and then when you accidently use the salad fork on your main entree, he pulls a gun on you for ruining his perfect life" got upvoted, this is it.

 

 

  I claim discussion in these threads gets childish because it does. Empty statements that point the finger and smugly regard the opposing side as idiots, without highlighting any points at all. Flip back through the pages and the threads and you'll clearly see this.

 

No worries, my claim that conversations with a person are a complete waste of time will remain exclusive to you, as that's not a claim I throw about lightly.

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.    

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.

I can't speak for them, but I have. My mothers a crack head. That's not hyperbole, I mean that as a statement of literal truth. My mother smokes crack; she is an actual crack head. Drug addiction is rampant through her side of the family; cocaine, heroin, alcohol. It hit my brother and sister, too; I'm the only one who ended up without a major monkey on their back, and it was mostly by luck.

 

The reason I have a hard time getting prescription pain killers is because I was heavily into meth amphetamine for about a year when I was 19. I moved half-way across the country to live with my dad and entered treatment, and I haven't done it since. But all of that is in my medical records, and as far as any doctor is concerned I'm just a druggy looking for a fix.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Katarack21

[Luckmann]

They should have left the limerick as is and say harden up. The "sensitive" group, should come play eve online for a while.

No, no. No. Not EVE Online. I know I joked about people wanting to put SJW:s into a diesel truck with a reverb exhaust pipe earlier, but not even I would subject them to EVE Online.

 

 

 

 

Somehow, pointing this "sexism" out - which no-one would reasonable even care about -

I stopped reading after about this point. Despite the mountains of complaints by many (women and men), such as astrophysicist Katie Mack, the fact that you can say "no one would reasonably care about" the blatant sexism sure reeks of a lack of empathy. What would you say to Katie Mack face-to-face if you had the chance? That she's unreasonable for pointing out blatant sexism in the science fields?

 

I would tell her to Wo-Man Up. Seriously though, really, you seem to be under the assumption that just because I'm face-to-face with someone, I would have a problem talking to them like a reasonable human being. I would, in fact, not.

 

I'm not familiar with her level of hysteria on the subject, so where it would go from there, I have no idea, but that's really beside the point. She doesn't get an automatic shield made out of implied offense any more than you do.

 

 

Incredible, though not surprising. I doubt anyone even read the numerous links I've posted of systemic sexism against women in the science fields, which includes plenty of actual sexual harassment, so it's not surprising that you would not be empathetic to their plight, that you would just tell them to "wo-man" up. Spoken like a true individual in a position of privilege.

 

 

Most of your links you've posted are not actually sources, they're just articles that discusses issues, sometimes from basis of a paper, and invariably from a biased POV. The belief as to whether there is systemic () "sexism" against women in the science fields is completely irrelevant to the point I was making, and you're basically just hurling accusations and trying to deflect whenever anything you say is actually directly addressed.

 

First, you defend SJW:s completely demolishing a human being and his achievements and that you can't understand why people consider this a "lack of empathy and perspective".

 

When you have it explained to you exactly why this is so, why people think that this is a flagrant display of a lack of empathy and perspective, you say that you actually stopped reading, remaining wilfully ignorant. You then start talking about the "mountains of complaints" by "many" - completely beside the point and the answer you first asked for - and ask me what I would tell Katie Mack face-to-face in a discussion on the topic.

 

I indulged you and told you that I would really do no different than I am doing here, I would say that she'd be unreasonable if she considered the bullying of a man due to his choice of shirt, however tacky, at the height of his career and who's contribution to mankind is incalculable.

 

You then deflect again and start talking about how people probably aren't even reading your links about the systemic sexism in the science fields, and then call me non-empathethic to their "plight" because of my "privilege" ().

 

By this point, this is where I'd expect all the other people that support your general position would start facepalming and whine "stop defending us..." to themselves. Except that this behaviour is so common amongst self-appointed SJW:s (which I always found ironic, considering that "SJW" is dripping of irony since it's creation as a concept, yet people now wear it willingly like a clown suit) that I honestly would be surprised if your cohorts aren't sitting by the keyboards cheering you on.

[Gaunt]

Im against giving the perpetually outrage ground to demand change at any perceived sligth. They complained of the joke replacement too. And they will keep coming for more.  

[evensong]

So... Still no argument against the points I made earlier, Luckmann?

 

Just asking. Because thus far you've just made "that's not true, because I say so" responses.

[BruceVC]

 

Please stop telling people what you consider to be childish or lacking intellectually

 

You keep doing this yet you comment yourself, once again ...no is forcing you to participate in this discussion

 

Considering how much you post in the GG thread which most of us think is utterly pointless any lectures from you about what is productive just seems moot and inconsequential 

 

 

Bruce if you wonder why half the forum community gets this weird passive-aggressive vibe from you and why my post about how you're "like that guy who's all pleasant and polite and invites you over to his perfect house with his perfect family to have a perfect dinner, and then when you accidently use the salad fork on your main entree, he pulls a gun on you for ruining his perfect life" got upvoted, this is it.

 

 

  I claim discussion in these threads gets childish because it does. Empty statements that point the finger and smugly regard the opposing side as idiots, without highlighting any points at all. Flip back through the pages and the threads and you'll clearly see this.

 

No worries, my claim that conversations with a person are a complete waste of time will remain exclusive to you, as that's not a claim I throw about lightly.

 

 

I doubt  anyone  cares if you think our discussions are childish, its irrelevant and irritating to have you lecture people 

 

You have no idea how many times i have wanted to comment how childish some of your posts in the GG thread are..but I don't 

 

So try to extend to people the same respect that they give to you when you constantly bring to our attention " corruption in the gaming industry" 

 

And I'm not being passive-aggressive...I  am displaying unequivocal annoyance because that's exactly how I feel  

Edited April 10, 2015 by BruceVC

[Longknife]

 

 

See how the thread goes dead silent the moment anyone's actually addressing the subject matter seriously?

 

Exactly what I've been talking about...

 

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.

[Luckmann]

I can't speak for them, but I have. My mothers a crack head. That's not hyperbole, I mean that as a statement of literal truth. My mother smokes crack; she is an actual crack head. Drug addiction is rampant through her side of the family; cocaine, heroin, alcohol. It hit my brother and sister, too; I'm the only one who ended up without a major monkey on their back, and it was mostly by luck.

 

The reason I have a hard time getting prescription pain killers is because I was heavily into meth amphetamine for about a year when I was 19. I moved half-way across the country to live with my dad and entered treatment, and I haven't done it since. But all of that is in my medical records, and as far as any doctor is concerned I'm just a druggy looking for a fix.

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:

[MistarDurk]

 

What argument are you trying to make here? It's ridiculously vague. I assume you made it vague on purpose in case you need to backpedal or move the goalposts.

 

So again, you think that references to things like rape should be removed from the game as well, correct? And then murder, because people who played this game have lost loved ones to murder.

 

Please, I am not that sinister.

 

You asked me if "the game should be completely overhauled and cut to pieces because there are parts that contain things like rape?"

 

No.

 

I am saying that I am against rape, and that rape portrayed in context is actually helpful to show the injustices that linger (and, unfortunately, often times thrive) in the world, hence, the point about Schindler's List. I am against genocide, and Schindler's List is a very good film at portraying genocide in the proper context, as it properly shows the inhumanity of the Holocaust. I've not heard of a single Holocaust survivor (or relative of a Holocaust survivor) be offended by Schindler's List, because it's filmed in the proper context, so your point about someone having lost a loved one due to a murder is moot.

 

The limerick, unlike Schindler's List, is nothing of the sort; it's just a cheap, thinly-veiled, transmisogynistic jab.

 

 

So then my original post, of which you only quoted a portion of originally, was correct. In which I said:

 

A group of people that don't mind the risque as long as it follows their particular set of morals, otherwise it's too offensive and should be censored?

 

As long as you're the one who is against it or as long as you, personally, can justify the existence of any other atrocity in the game then it's kosher. As long as you can contextualize the event there isn't a problem. Otherwise it needs to be censored because you disagree with it.

 

And again, since you're only quoting portions of my argument that you think you can argue I'll reiterate that I am again correct when I say: 

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

 

 

And one more thing I'd like to point out to anyone reading this: Notice how the speech changes in this post compared to the other one. In the initial response Achaye claimed that the limerick was obviously tranmisogynistic. And in this response then it's suddenly a cheap, thinly-veiled, transmisogynistic jab.

 

It's because the initial argument can't be defended, so the goalposts are starting to slowly shift. No, no, it's not obvious now. Now it's underhanded. They're subconsciously manipulating the masses. It's a conspiracy to destroy transgenders.

Edited April 10, 2015 by MistarDurk

[Longknife]

I doubt  anyone  cares if you think our discussions are childish, its irrelevant and irritating to have you lecture people 

 

You have no idea how many times i have wanted to comment how childish some of your posts in the GG thread are..but I don't

 

 

 

Bruce, have you considered that I, with my law studies, might be well versed and practiced in what makes a productive discussion/debate when I need to be, and that you might be speaking from a place of ignorance? I don't mean this to sound snobby, but what I mean is that if you wanted, I could very well explain to you things that others are doing wrong if our interest is in actually having a serious discussion. Or have you considered that it may be proof I have a point when the entire thread seemingly shuts down the moment I start providing what I call a productive debate while calling out what I refer to do-nothing posts? Don't you think if I were just talking out my ass, there'd be more people agreeing with you instead of posts such as PrimeJunta's where he admits that he's posting nothing serious at this point cause he sees no reason to?

 

 

  So the ball is in your court: explain to me how I'm wrong about limericks taking jabs at one another, smug senses of superiority, exaggerations, strawmans and overreactions are not childish and can infact bring about productive debate and discussion.

 

Or are you going to make a meaningless, empty statement about how there is no objectively superior way to discuss things and "muh feels" (or rather your feels) are just as meaningful and important?

[Gaunt]

Just dont let people derail the discussion by continous insult throwing , some have done so purposefully to force the closing of discussion.

[achaye]

 

 

 

 

Somehow, pointing this "sexism" out - which no-one would reasonable even care about -

I stopped reading after about this point. Despite the mountains of complaints by many (women and men), such as astrophysicist Katie Mack, the fact that you can say "no one would reasonably care about" the blatant sexism sure reeks of a lack of empathy. What would you say to Katie Mack face-to-face if you had the chance? That she's unreasonable for pointing out blatant sexism in the science fields?

I would tell her to Wo-Man Up. Seriously though, really, you seem to be under the assumption that just because I'm face-to-face with someone, I would have a problem talking to them like a reasonable human being. I would, in fact, not.

 

I'm not familiar with her level of hysteria on the subject, so where it would go from there, I have no idea, but that's really beside the point. She doesn't get an automatic shield made out of implied offense any more than you do.

 

Incredible, though not surprising. I doubt anyone even read the numerous links I've posted of systemic sexism against women in the science fields, which includes plenty of actual sexual harassment, so it's not surprising that you would not be empathetic to their plight, that you would just tell them to "wo-man" up. Spoken like a true individual in a position of privilege.

 

Most of your links you've posted are not actually sources, they're just articles that discusses issues, sometimes from basis of a paper, and invariably from a biased POV. The belief as to whether there is systemic ( ) "sexism" against women in the science fields is completely irrelevant to the point I was making, and you're basically just hurling accusations and trying to deflect whenever anything you say is actually directly addressed.

 

You then deflect again and start talking about how people probably aren't even reading your links about the systemic sexism in the science fields, and then call me non-empathethic to their "plight" because of my "privilege" ( ).

 

By this point, this is where I'd expect all the other people that support your general position would start facepalming and whine "stop defending us..." to themselves. Except that this behaviour is so common amongst self-appointed SJW:s (which I always found ironic, considering that "SJW" is dripping of irony since it's creation as a concept, yet people now wear it willingly like a clown suit) that I honestly would be surprised if your cohorts aren't sitting by the keyboards cheering you on.

 

Ah, ending with more insults, it's a classic repertoire of your posts in this thread, I've noticed. I don't really understand the whole "self-appointed SJW" stuff, as I've never even heard of the term prior to the whole gamergate mess; I'm just someone who is well aware of discrimination and social injustices, having been on the receiving end of it (in real life), and not just of the simple racist name-calling type. Somehow, that I care about social justice, makes me "self-appointed" and to be ridiculed?

 

If you deny that systemic sexism does not exist, or that you do not believe in male privilege, there really is not much to discuss, no more than what a geologist can discuss with a flat-Earth creationist. I only participate in these threads to show, for whoever is reading, that there are people that do care about addressing things like sexism and social injustices, and that *GASP* they're friggin gamers.

[Katarack21]

 

I can't speak for them, but I have. My mothers a crack head. That's not hyperbole, I mean that as a statement of literal truth. My mother smokes crack; she is an actual crack head. Drug addiction is rampant through her side of the family; cocaine, heroin, alcohol. It hit my brother and sister, too; I'm the only one who ended up without a major monkey on their back, and it was mostly by luck.

 

The reason I have a hard time getting prescription pain killers is because I was heavily into meth amphetamine for about a year when I was 19. I moved half-way across the country to live with my dad and entered treatment, and I haven't done it since. But all of that is in my medical records, and as far as any doctor is concerned I'm just a druggy looking for a fix.

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?

Edited April 10, 2015 by Katarack21

[MistarDurk]

 

 

 

See how the thread goes dead silent the moment anyone's actually addressing the subject matter seriously?

 

Exactly what I've been talking about...

 

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.

 

 

I didn't say it proved anything one way or the other. I said I didn't believe it was as simple as a quick PM. I've read his other posts as well. I'm not saying he isn't fine with the changes, but I am saying that it appeared as if there wasn't a gigantic huff about this then his preference would have been to leave in what he originally had.

 

But I'll go ahead and PM him anyway and we can compare notes.

Edited April 10, 2015 by MistarDurk

[Longknife]

Just dont let people derail the discussion by continous insult throwing , some have done so purposefully to force the closing of discussion.

 

 

I just wish we could see serious debate attempts from both sides for once, but I just tried that and the thread died after I did. xD

[achaye]

And one more thing I'd like to point out to anyone reading this: Notice how the speech changes in this post compared to the other one. In the initial response Achaye claimed that the limerick was obviously tranmisogynistic. And in this response then it's suddenly a cheap, thinly-veiled, transmisogynistic jab.

 

It's because the initial argument can't be defended, so the goalposts are starting to slowly shift. No, no, it's not obvious now. Now it's underhanded. They're subconsciously manipulating the masses. It's a conspiracy to destroy transgenders.

 

Sorry, I've been juggling like half a dozen of you guys, and my adjectives may be off, (and I lack the effort to go back and edit my previous posts), so let me state, unequivocally: the limerick is a blatant piece of transmisogynism, because it has no purpose and no context by which to elevate a deeper understanding of ridiculing trans-individuals.

[BruceVC]

 

I doubt  anyone  cares if you think our discussions are childish, its irrelevant and irritating to have you lecture people 

 

You have no idea how many times i have wanted to comment how childish some of your posts in the GG thread are..but I don't

 

 

 

Bruce, have you considered that I, with my law studies, might be well versed and practiced in what makes a productive discussion/debate when I need to be, and that you might be speaking from a place of ignorance? I don't mean this to sound snobby, but what I mean is that if you wanted, I could very well explain to you things that others are doing wrong if our interest is in actually having a serious discussion. Or have you considered that it may be proof I have a point when the entire thread seemingly shuts down the moment I start providing what I call a productive debate while calling out what I refer to do-nothing posts? Don't you think if I were just talking out my ass, there'd be more people agreeing with you instead of posts such as PrimeJunta's where he admits that he's posting nothing serious at this point cause he sees no reason to?

 

 

  So the ball is in your court: explain to me how I'm wrong about limericks taking jabs at one another, smug senses of superiority, exaggerations, strawmans and overreactions are not childish and can infact bring about productive debate and discussion.

 

Or are you going to make a meaningless, empty statement about how there is no objectively superior way to discuss things and "muh feels" (or rather your feels) are just as meaningful and important?

 

 

Once again its irrelevant if person x or  person y doesn't want to post in this thread or feels its pointless

 

There are people who are posting in good faith and are enjoying the debate and the perspectives. I have no idea what are all the motivations for the various limericks but for some it could just be to  lesson the mood and seriousness

 

But none of that changes the fact its annoying to have you lecture people about what is childish or productive , this is your subjective view of this debate and once again I don't think anyone cares what you think is acceptable

 

Don't comment in this thread if you don't want to...its not hard to understand this principle. You are not a Moderator and even then I have never known a Moderator to say things like " this thread is childish and so are the comments " 

 

Anyway I understand you are trying to improve the general posting etiquette so I apologize for being so critical of your views but as I said I do find it annoying 

Edited April 10, 2015 by BruceVC

[Longknife]

 

 

I didn't say it proved anything one way or the other. I said I didn't believe it was as simple as a quick PM. I've read his other posts as well. I'm not saying he isn't fine with the changes, but I am saying that it appeared as if there wasn't a gigantic huff about this then his preference would have been to leave in what he originally had.

 

But I'll go ahead and PM him anyway and we can compare notes.

 

 

 

As I said, there's not much more to it than what's in his posts. Your point is he's not COMPLETELY happy about it, but there's no real affordance or attempt to understand why that is. If you wish to state he's not happy about it cause he's not happy with the person who complained fine. If your desire however is to say that Firedorn is upset with Obsidian and very begrudgingly agreed to change it against his own desires or the like, then I don't think he'll provide you with support for that.

 

It's just a simple scenario of the practical choice vs. the emotional one. Firedorn, I think, would've loved to keep it in as a "**** you" to the guy who complained, but also understood the ramnifications of doing so and believed the removal was a kinder choice on behalf of Obsidian (which it seems he may have been wrong about, but that's besides the point). Overall, he decided keeping it in wasn't worth the hassle. I think we would've seen different action from Firedorn were it his game and were he on the receiving end of the hate mail instead of Obsidian on his behalf.

[MistarDurk]

 

 

 

I didn't say it proved anything one way or the other. I said I didn't believe it was as simple as a quick PM. I've read his other posts as well. I'm not saying he isn't fine with the changes, but I am saying that it appeared as if there wasn't a gigantic huff about this then his preference would have been to leave in what he originally had.

 

But I'll go ahead and PM him anyway and we can compare notes.

 

 

 

As I said, there's not much more to it than what's in his posts. Your point is he's not COMPLETELY happy about it, but there's no real affordance or attempt to understand why that is. If you wish to state he's not happy about it cause he's not happy with the person who complained fine. If your desire however is to say that Firedorn is upset with Obsidian and very begrudgingly agreed to change it against his own desires or the like, then I don't think he'll provide you with support for that.

 

It's just a simple scenario of the practical choice vs. the emotional one. Firedorn, I think, would've loved to keep it in as a "**** you" to the guy who complained, but also understood the ramnifications of doing so and believed the removal was a kinder choice on behalf of Obsidian (which it seems he may have been wrong about, but that's besides the point). Overall, he decided keeping it in wasn't worth the hassle. I think we would've seen different action from Firedorn were it his game and were he on the receiving end of the hate mail instead of Obsidian on his behalf.

 

 

Seems to me like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. My point is my point because of the reason I already showed. I said I agree with you that he said he is fine with the change. The fact that he stated that he preferred for the original to stay is the reason I'm saying I don't think he was 100% satisfied with the resolution. If I go into Subway for a turkey sandwich and they tell me they only have ham then I'll have ham, no big deal. I'm not upset. But I would have preferred turkey if they had it.