Do we come here because every other forum is a wasteland?

[Zinegata]

I would use this thread more as an example:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=144159

Immigration issue. In a board where the Salvation War is hosted, people are free to say "You cannot trust the Republicans". And you can say "I'm fine with modifying the constitution to close loopholes in illegal immigration" without being called an anti-Hispanic racist.

Or how about the News and Politics forum itself?

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewforum.php?f=22

One article detailing how evil, evil corporations are refusing to hire people despite record profits. Another praising CEOs because 40 billionaires just promised to give away half of their money to charity.

That's tolerance. Not this bullshit situation in the Den.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Intolerance isn't justifiable. Hitler had his own justifications for being intolerant to Jews, but it doesn't make them right.

It wasn't justifiable because his justifications were bullshit, and it takes more than a few made-up diatribes to justify the elimination of an entire culture through murder. That doesn't make intolerance unjustifiable. In fact, it suggests that intolerance of Hitler and his followers was quite justifiable.

Right. I say that all forms of intolerance is not acceptable. I say intolerance is not justifiable.

And your conclusion is "You support Hitler!"

You're a fucking moron.

In an ideal world, all intolerance is not acceptable. In an ideal world, what PR said is not justifiable. But neither is him being stalked by Ceiling Cat.

But no, you want a world where only the issues you cherry-pick are not justifiable.

I am not speaking of moral relativism. I'm speaking of moral absolutes. You cannot cherry-pick issues if you want to rail against intolerance. All or nothing. Not just sexism because you feel like it. Otherwise you're just an ass and a hypocrite.

And since moral absolutes are impossible to uphold anyway in the face of blatant hypocrisy and assholes everywhere, the simplest philosophy is this: If somebody says "Fuck you" to you, you say "Fuck you" right back.

That's how the Den works.

My conclusion isn't that you support Hitler. It's that you either have a different definition of intolerance than me, or that you believe a person should tolerate the existence of Nazis (along with any other kind of person). From your latest post I've inferred that you're basically OK with Nazis (along with anyone else) until they get all up in your grill.

You seem to believe that being intolerant of racism is hypocritical when I am not intolerant of all forms of intolerance. No only is that a logical contradiction, it doesn't even make sense. But if what you say is true, being a hypocrite seems like a much less severe crime than you imagine.


Also: threadlock in 5... 4... 3...

[Zinegata]

Like talk radio, private gaming websites are often havens of conservative thought.

Really? Why do you suppose this is the case?

I honestly don't know. It's curious because, as Zinegata already mentioned, it seems weirdly incongruent and I just don't get it. Maybe it's entirely my perception? ::shrug::

edit: @PR--That's funny, I don't feel mad.

To be frank, it's probably simply untrue.

Again, three biggest RPG forums - WoTC, Enworld, and RPG.net do not push any particular political position. They do in fact try to avoid ANY political discussion.

I go to a lot of other gaming sites. Most of them are just filled with kids who want to have fun. They're not political sites.

The most political sites are Wargamer, Grongard, and Consimworld. But that's because their members are old guys.

So I don't really understand this "gaming sites are controlled by the right wing like talk radio". It seems to me that people here (as I have been saying all along) are so left-wing biased they think even centrist sites lean conservative.

[Zinegata]

You seem to believe that being intolerant of racism is hypocritical when I am not intolerant of all forms of intolerance.

Because it is hypocritical.

You can't say that racism is taboo while sexism is not. They're both forms of intolerance. If you make it part of your character to believe that it is unacceptable to use slurs against a particular group, then it is also unacceptable to use slurs against everyone. Because otherwise you're just being biased and cherry-picking who you support.

That means, BTW, condemning CeilingCat if she did stalk and harass PR. Just because CeilingCat is a girl doesn't excuse her from bad behavior.

[CatharzGodfoot]

You seem to believe that being intolerant of racism is hypocritical when I am not intolerant of all forms of intolerance.

Because it is hypocritical.

You can't say that racism is taboo while sexism is not. They're both forms of intolerance. If you make it part of your character to believe that it is unacceptable to use slurs against a particular group, then it is also unacceptable to use slurs against everyone. Because otherwise you're just being biased and cherry-picking who you support.

That means, BTW, condemning CeilingCat if she did stalk and harass PR. Just because CeilingCat is a girl doesn't excuse her from bad behavior.

Let me just quote myself to reiterate my opinion on that:

A person being a bitch to you never justifies sexism against them. No matter what. Michael Richards learned the same lesson about racism. As soon as you devolve into a bigot, you loose any high ground you may have once had.

I am being biased and cherry-picking what causes I support. I believe that racism is wrong. I believe that almost all forms of sexism are wrong (saying "only women can get pregnant" is fine with me). There are other forms of intolerance I don't rail against, because I don't believe those forms of intolerance are wrong. Believing that some thing are wrong and others aren't is called 'having an (at least semi-) coherent moral framework'.

---

Hell. People are still high-fiving over driving away Tzor just because he's a right-wing guy.

Tzor is a good guy, and I was sorry to see him go. However, he had mostly stopped participating in gaming debate by that point, and was instead engaging in religious and political debate. Which is fine, but being the lone Christian Conservative on the Den is not an easy role. He was being hounded at the end, and that was shitty.

[Prak]

Malak->

Gee, finally, some justification for your positions instead of trying to be snarky and score brownie points.

You say intolerance is justifiable. Therefore, Hitler's intolerance is justifiable. So you're actually the one who's saying it's totally cool for Hitler to hate Jews .

Actually, yeah. It's totally cool for Hitler to hate Jews. You can hate whoever the fuck you want. Magical hate rays from your mind are not going to do harm, it's when you act on your hate that it's a problem. So if Hitler had stayed a painter who just ranted about jews while painting happy little trees, not a problem. Had he stayed a painter, and one night beat the shit out of some guy at the bar because the guy was a jew, that's less ok (though honestly, beating the shit out of one guy<<<<holocaust....).

Thoughts should not be punished, actions should be.

You seem to believe that being intolerant of racism is hypocritical when I am not intolerant of all forms of intolerance

Yes. Jesus Zine, I figured that shit out when I was like 12, some forms of intolerance are acceptable, such as intolerance of bigotry and sexism.

[Crissa]

Thoughts should not be punished, actions should be.

However, evidence of thoughts accompanying actions should be. But that's a fine point that many conservatives forget about. We have different types of murder based upon 'thoughts'; therefore there is no crime under any 'hate crime' law that has thoughts without an accompanying action that is already a crime.

Here in the Den? Nope. You've got people accusing others of being Teabaggers just for saying "Dude, the Healthcare bill is crazy expensive".

However, this is specifically different:

1) Teabaggers chose that name, originally. It is very well established now they've figured out that 'tea partiers' is what they want to be called, now that they realize that sounded stupid.

2) That's an opinion held by tea partiers nearly exclusively.

3) That opinion is not based upon facts in evidence. AKA, it's wrong.

So you're not giving an example of intolerance.

No, in an ideal world intolerance is never justifiable. Not just sexism or racism. Intolerance.

There are many things to be intolerant of. Famine, crime, murder, violations of rights and ethics. Being intolerant of being wrong on the facts in evidence is a bad thing in your book?

Prak said it better, anyhow.

Just something I noticed.
[irony]
Crissa, often when you postulate things are being conspired by "priveleged" white males, you use the derogatory term "boys". Yet, when speaking of females, you use the term "women". Your meaning is obviously derogatory and dismissive, and makes you appear biggoted and sexist. Please stop using the term "boy", it is offensive.

Refer to us as "men" or "male" as these are more nuetral, accepted, and less offensive term.

[/irony]

It is true I don't use the words 'men' and 'boys' or 'women' and 'girls' interchangeably.

However, I take offense to the suggestion I should call immature people 'men' or 'women'.

So in that sense, I'm not actually being biased. But the point it true, it looks that way. Or does it? I don't know. I don't want to ever make a statement inferring childish behavior to 'men' or 'women' and somehow end up being apparently sexist yet another way.

-Crissa

[Kaelik]

Except I just showed how the admin is rather right-wing biased. He is vehemently against communism. His forum hosts the Salvation War. Where George W. Bush is a genius hero.

OTOH, Wong is also an ardent opponent of Creationist Theory, hates racism in all its forms, and thinks religion is silly. But none of those contradict an anti left-wing bent. They do however, very much NOT make him an extreme bible-thumper.

And again, despite this, the board is rather even-handed. The only thing they do not tolerate are people who lie, who refuse to cite sources, and people who use racial, homophobic, or sexual slurs. Because decent people do not need to call each other names to have a direct conversation.

Great. Good for you and him. Did I say he was right? No, I said that he wasn't claiming that it's impossible to be conservative and tolerant. Now drink your tall glass of Shut the Fuck Up.

Bullshit. The fact is extremists in this board take pride in driving away anybody who isn't left-wing crazy. And they take advantage of the liberal moderating style to be assholes to people whose beliefs contradict them.

No, the fact is that extremists on this board argue their favorite issues, and it just so happens that people's favorite issues are liberal. I am fairly "conservative" in my views on gun ownership, by which I mean that I am liberal about who can have one. But I don't care about that very much. I do care about religion/supernatural shit and baby killing. So I say very liberal things about that. And I don't try to drive away everyone who is less opposed to religion than I am, because that would be everyone on this board.

Hell. People are still high-fiving over driving away Tzor just because he's a right-wing guy.

Alternatively, they might be high fiving on driving away Tzor because he was crazy, a liar, and his favorite debate tactic was to randomly shift topic every fucking post and refuse to address any counterargument to something he was not currently talking about.

But I say they for a reason, because they is probably two people, and I'm not one of them. I liked having Tzor around. Because I like arguing.

People in SD.net though? They high-five each other for mocking stupid people, but that's it. Political affiliation has nothing to do with it.

Right, and you know with your half cocked judgmento gun that these people on TGD are not mocking Tzor because he said stupid things, but only because he's right wing.

Fact is, like always, you're just making excuses for your own asshole behavior. TGD doesn't have to be an extreme place. But frankly, the whole thesis of this thread seems to be most of the people here are giant Internet dicks who can't hack it anywhere else.

Like always, I'm not making excuses for my asshole behavior, I'm continuing to point out just like I have to with Crissa, that my asshole behavior is just being an asshole to people when they are wrong. Your baseless assertion that I go out of the way to drive conservatives away is just as wrong and stupid as Crissa's baseless assertion that I call her names because she's a girl.

And these same people go whiny and accuse gaming sites of having a right-wing bias instead of looking at how loony left their positions are. Really, again, you're telling me that bible-thumpers own gaming sites like they own talk radio? That most D&D fan sites are run by people who think D&D is the route to a satanic cult?

'Cause I'm gonna have to point out that all the examples cited so far seem to involve individuals in those mysterious unnamed sites and not the site itself. You just assume that there's right wing bias because they let "crazy people like that there".

Wow, could you point to the part where anyone besides vitm thinks that most sites are conservative again? Just checking, because of course, you are full of shit.

Once again. vitm says some things. I say some things. Crissa says some things. Frank says some things.

What you are doing is taking the things Crissa says that you most disagree with, the things I say that you most disagree with, ect, and then placing the entire bundle at the feat of the Den Hive Mind.

Every time you take something Crissa says, take the part where I disagree too.

Every time I advocate baby killing just for baby killing, take note of Maj silently disapproving. The Den Hive Mind is much less of one when you stop pretending that everything you object to comes from the same universal source, and recognize that you disagree with people over different things.

"These same people" have not whined about conservative bias on other forums. One single individual did.

[Prak]

Thoughts should not be punished, actions should be.

However, evidence of thoughts accompanying actions should be. But that's a fine point that many conservatives forget about. We have different types of murder based upon 'thoughts'; therefore there is no crime under any 'hate crime' law that has thoughts without an accompanying action that is already a crime.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying, what I got is "crimes committed with hate in the mind should be punished because there was a crime, and it was motivated by hate"
is that right?

if so, I'm not entirely sure I personally agree...

[Psychic Robot]

Alternatively, they might be high fiving on driving away Tzor because he was crazy, a liar, and his favorite debate tactic was to randomly shift topic every fucking post and refuse to address any counterargument to something he was not currently talking about.

So he had a lot in common with you.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Not being called "girl" was in important first step in the language of equal rights for women, just as not being called "boy" (or "girl") was an important first step in the language of equal rights for blacks. Immaturity is a trait often ascribed to group which 'need no be oppressed for their own good'.

It's one of those situations where, regardless of your intentions, you can easily seem biased when you use the language of oppression. At the same time, outside of the context of oppression the words are usually completely harmless (and in our youth-craving culture, can even be considered positive).

[Kaelik]

Because it is hypocritical.

You can't say that racism is taboo while sexism is not. They're both forms of intolerance. If you make it part of your character to believe that it is unacceptable to use slurs against a particular group, then it is also unacceptable to use slurs against everyone. Because otherwise you're just being biased and cherry-picking who you support.

You can't say that you like Apples and hate Pears. They are both fruit.

Oh wait, you can. What you have to learn Zine, is that intolerance is not a bad thing. Intolerance is like a good killing. Sometimes, it's deserved.

I'm intolerant of racists. I'm intolerant of people who choose to base beliefs and decisions on things besides facts.

I'm not intolerant of racists because they are intolerant. I am intolerant of them because they are wrong. And their beliefs are baseless or based on false premises.

[Kaelik]

Alternatively, they might be high fiving on driving away Tzor because he was crazy, a liar, and his favorite debate tactic was to randomly shift topic every fucking post and refuse to address any counterargument to something he was not currently talking about.

So he had a lot in common with you.

I don't know if two thirds counts as a lot. But I did say I liked him didn't I?

[Psychic Robot]

Fair enough.

[Juton]

Hell. People are still high-fiving over driving away Tzor just because he's a right-wing guy.

Tzor is a good guy, and I was sorry to see him go. However, he had mostly stopped participating in gaming debate by that point, and was instead engaging in religious and political debate. Which is fine, but being the lone Christian Conservative on the Den is not an easy role. He was being hounded at the end, and that was shitty.

The thread that induced Tzor to depart was one where Frank challenged to board to show that any one policy backed by the Republicans had a basis in logic ir reason. On a lot of other boards that debate would have been stopped early on, but here it was allowed to come to a conclusion. Tzor wasn't able to show a reasoned policy, and instead of admitting he was wrong he left. I think that's a message board working as intended, instead of forcing someone to apologize or banning someone people where free to proceed how they chose to.

[PoliteNewb]

Actually, yeah. It's totally cool for Hitler to hate Jews. You can hate whoever the fuck you want. Magical hate rays from your mind are not going to do harm, it's when you act on your hate that it's a problem. So if Hitler had stayed a painter who just ranted about jews while painting happy little trees, not a problem. Had he stayed a painter, and one night beat the shit out of some guy at the bar because the guy was a jew, that's less ok (though honestly, beating the shit out of one guy<<<<holocaust....).

Thoughts should not be punished, actions should be.

Actually, I disagree in a way.

"Punish acts, not thoughts" is a valid legal standpoint, one I agree with. But while "punishment" = "intolerance", "intolerance" does not necessarily equal "punishment".

I don't believe you should jail people for hating jews, or expressing unkind remarks about jews...but I sure as hell am not going to tolerate it as an individual, and I think it's perfectly fine for me to refuse to associate with such people, refuse to do business with them, etc. I firmly believe in being intolerant of racists and bigots.

No, I don't believe it's "cool" for Hitler (or anybody) to hate jews...I think allowing and encouraging (even tacitly) people to hold negative views of people based on race/religion/sexual orientation/etc. will only encourage them to act on those thoughts.

I know it might seem like a slippery slope from "I hate [EDITED]" to "I will punch [EDITED] in the face", but it's a societal thing. If someone who hates [EDITED] knows that he will be put in jail for punching one, he won't act on it. But if everybody he meets agrees with him and has no problems with him expressing his hatred verbally, he will start to figure that there are no repercussions to taking it to the next level, because everybody agrees with him.

Social sanction is one of the best weapons against bigotry. Use it.

[Prak]

I don't believe you should jail people for hating jews, or expressing unkind remarks about jews...but I sure as hell am not going to tolerate it as an individual, and I think it's perfectly fine for me to refuse to associate with such people, refuse to do business with them, etc. I firmly believe in being intolerant of racists and bigots.

Oh, hell, no. I mean, "you want to hate someone, fine, that's your choice, and I honestly don't give a shit" not "you go man for hating jews!" I would make it clear that I disagree with the person, but honestly don't give a shit what goes on in his head.

[Gnosticism Is A Hoot]

Really? Why do you suppose this is the case?

I honestly don't know. It's curious because, as Zinegata already mentioned, it seems weirdly incongruent and I just don't get it. Maybe it's entirely my perception? ::shrug::

edit: @PR--That's funny, I don't feel mad.

To be frank, it's probably simply untrue.

Again, three biggest RPG forums - WoTC, Enworld, and RPG.net do not push any particular political position. They do in fact try to avoid ANY political discussion.

Minor nitpick - RPG.net has an off-topic section called 'Tangency', where most of the posters are (by American political standards) extremely left-wing. The mods have a fairly even mix of political positions IIRC, but the majority of the user base is certainly not conservative.

Also, I'm pretty sure Enworld has a spin-off site where they discuss politics and religion and other flamey topics, but I couldn't comment on its political spectrum.

[Maj]

Sometimes, [intolerance]'s deserved.

Yes. I, for example, am entirely intolerant of my child throwing temper tantrums in public.

[Crissa]

I liked having Tzor around. Because I like arguing.

Me too. I was genuinely hoping he'd bring a point I hadn't thought of or decide to better his cause because of it. Having value judgement differences - like valuing fetuses over women or dying people over starving people - is one thing. Reason and facts are another. But Republicans have been going to crazy camp, and I truly hoped he would help pull them back.

what I got is "crimes committed with hate in the mind should be punished because there was a crime, and it was motivated by hate"

Crime should be mitigated. One method of mitigation is punishment. Mostly, I'm more concerned with rehabilitation and safety. However, we 'punish' not just according to the act, but with the motive behind it. Motives are thoughts. Hence, we already punish people for what they were thinking when they committed the crime. So their personal views and how they expressed them are relevant to punishment. The idea is the same as the beginning of every Law and Order: SVU: We find such crimes to be abhorrent to a civilized society, and so punish them differently.

-Crissa

Darnit, noun sentence not.

[Maj]

I liked having Tzor around. Because I like arguing.

Me too. I was genuinely hoping he'd bring a point hadn't thought of or decide to better his cause. Having value judgement differences - like valuing fetuses over women or dying people over starving people - is one thing. But Republicans have been going to crazy camp, and I truly hoped he would help pull them back.

I'm with you two there. Tzor seemed to be relatively level-headed in an argument, the problem was that what he was arguing was almost always insane. But it was different, and he was passionate about his causes.

[Prak]

ok, makes a certain amount of sense.

[Morzas]

I like watching the rage.

[Zinegata]

Yes. Jesus Zine, I figured that shit out when I was like 12, some forms of intolerance are acceptable, such as intolerance of bigotry and sexism.

Carthaz, Prak, until the both of you stop being idiots and figure out what malak already has (Hint: "Ideal world scenario") and that you're both just castigating me by taking on statement out of context, I'm gonna have to say you're both no better than Fox News idiots who attack Obama.

Read all of what I actually wrote, as opposed to taking the first sentence and running with it.

[Zinegata]

Minor nitpick - RPG.net has an off-topic section called 'Tangency', where most of the posters are (by American political standards) extremely left-wing. The mods have a fairly even mix of political positions IIRC, but the majority of the user base is certainly not conservative.

I didn't think Tangency was hugely left wing. While I detect that some members are left-wing, I didn't feel the board is actively political and Tangency was more of a standard "venting" board.