Here! Send all of your non-DH related posts to this thread in the hopes of fostering DH-discussion in the other threads.

Favorite Arguments include:

-Why am I so disappointed in Second Edition/How dare you talk about being disappointed in Second Edition?

-I hate poster X and wish they would go away/I support poster X in all of their endeavors and believe it is actually you who should go away!

-I believe that game design is above criticism or at least above your criticism/everything about this or that game is terrible garbage

I think that sums up the greatest hits. Have at it, and feel free to link this thread to any off-topic discussions.

I want to point out that my beautiful thread got filled up with awful animes while I was on vacation and I'm not happy about it.

New end times baseless speculation: the admech finds a new, better fuel source for the astronomicon: animes and the 'people' who post them.

I want to point out that my beautiful thread got filled up with awful animes while I was on vacation and I'm not happy about it.

New end times baseless speculation: the admech finds a new, better fuel source for the astronomicon: animes and the 'people' who post them.

I will say that at least terrible anime 40K has kept the sense of humor that the source material seems to constantly be shying away from.

Edit:

Well, not the sense of humor of old 40K, but a sense of humor, terrible as it is.

I have a feeling my last comment in that thread has been misinterpreted or I failed to bring across what I wanted to express.

What, the one about the military not always being used for altruistic ends? I think your comment came off just fine, I just thought it was even less related to the topic of fsdfgd saying racist things than what I was talking about.

Oh, okay - I was worried there for a moment!

I'm kind of terrible when it comes to sticking to a topic if it's not being actively discussed. Or rather, my thought-train is quick to derail if someone even so much as touches that railway switch. I try to defend this flaw by reasoning that the original topic was pretty much dead, anyways, but I can see how others can still be annoyed by it.

At least now we have a sort-of OT area to chat about this stuff.

... thinking about it, it's kind of sad this page doesn't feature a chatroom, or address to some IRC channel. Could be fun.

I'm kind of terrible when it comes to sticking to a topic if it's not being actively discussed. Or rather, my thought-train is quick to derail if someone even so much as touches that railway switch. I try to defend this flaw by reasoning that the original topic was pretty much dead, anyways, but I can see how others can still be annoyed by it.

I totally understand. I've sent a train or two flying off the tracks myself.

Speaking of which, I do have one more thing that I'd like to add to the exchange from the last page of the New Supplement thread; I just don't want any misunderstanding as to where I was coming from...

The reason I get annoyed by the "punching up / punching down" mentality is that I very strongly believe that a critical component in working towards social equity is encouraging people to stop placing importance on differences that shouldn't matter. And while it's often perfectly well-intended; when you draw boxes around groups of people and say "it's ok to belittle this group but it's not ok to belittle that group", you're highlighting those differences and perpetuating the divide.

But that's just my point of view; and I make no claim to be a moral authority.

Could you give examples of what you see as punching up/down because I really didn't see any of that.

Could you give examples of what you see as punching up/down because I really didn't see any of that.

The 'New Supplement in the Works' thread, post #140: the assertion that disparaging Europeans is acceptable just because they're not being oppressed.

And let me be clear on something else: I'm not arguing whether or not it is, for example, more socially damaging to disparage Africans than it is to disparage Europeans (that's a whole 'nother issue altogether). My point is that, when you assert that it is wrong to disparage Africans but ok to disparage Europeans (rather than just asserting that it's wrong to disparage people based on what continent they were born on), then you are in fact encouraging people to treat others differently based on where they were born. I'm by no means saying that this is the greatest hurdle to human coexistence, but it sure as hell doesn't help anything.

Anyway I'm tired, I'm going to sleep, and I leave you with a quote from one of my all-time favorite musicians...

Lines are drawn upon the world

Before we get our flags unfurled

Whichever one we pick

It's just a self-deluding trick

Edit: the statement in question was me replying to a poster who said Americans are stupid about social issues because there are much more serious things going on in the world. And then bringing up that people should join the military and fight overseas before talking about social justice issues. I replied and asked if this person is European, and added that his line of thinking resembles a line of thinking that has been a problem in Europe before. Basically,making a joke that his statement sounds like the the whole forced enlistment aspect of fascism and then adding that fascism seems to have been a problem in what I assumed was the persons continent of origin.

I think they're referring to me making a joke about Europeans in response to someone claiming Americans are over sensitive about social issues. My reasoning for why it's okay for me to make that joke and it's not okay to make a racist joke is that there isn't a culture of systemic discrimination working against Europeans. I dont consider that "punching up" so much as punching sideways at what I assumed was someone taking a holier than thou tone about Americans. Of course, the person making fun of Americans is an American himself, so my bad. I still stand by my joke that the original posters implied "people should join the military and have to fight before they can voice an opinion on injustice" is a line of thinking leading to bad things. I'd also further clarify that making joke was 1) me going under the assumption that this person was taking the "holier than thou" attitude that many Europeans have toward America and 2) bringing up the historical connection to that line of thinking. It wasn't really a joke at the expense of Europeans or stereotypes unless you consider alluding to European fascists (something that is actually a current problem in Europe) to be the same as insulting an entire group of people.

Like, I agree that people need to unite on things more than divide, but that's not done by ignoring differences. Only by acknowledging and embracing people's diversity of experience and differences between each other will people be successfully united. Sometimes that means bringing up the fact that people have a bad past or a bad present. The difference between me ragging on European problems versus, for example, Africa's is that the former is not defined by its problems for most people whereas the latter is. Part of fairness is not just suddenly treating everything equally, as that ignore centuries of disadvantage or advantage. In an ideal world, everyone has a sense of humor about themselves and everyone can joke about everything. In the real world, the same joke said about different groups has vastly different effects and contexts. This is not to say that stereotyping people is okay. But making a joke that is essentially "oh hey, that line of thinking something sounds a little too close to fascism, and isn't fascism already kind of an issue in your presumed continent of origin?"

In other words, if someone is using their privileged background to try erasing any criticism of themselves, they're inviting that background to be criticized.

Reading this garbage I am glad Nimsim made a post for all these stupid discussions, good thinking sir and lets hope it clears up the rest of the forum for far more intelligent, interesting and most importantly topically related discussions.....

I know this one is about youtube but you might get the idea.....

Edit: the statement in question was me replying to a poster who said Americans are stupid about social issues because there are much more serious things going on in the world. And then bringing up that people should join the military and fight overseas before talking about social justice issues. I replied and asked if this person is European, and added that his line of thinking resembles a line of thinking that has been a problem in Europe before. Basically,making a joke that his statement sounds like the the whole forced enlistment aspect of fascism and then adding that fascism seems to have been a problem in what I assumed was the persons continent of origin.

I'm going to have to correct you here. My views are heavily biasd Militarism, not Fascism. While I get why you are upset, sort of, you need to stop overlapping idealogies to make your point.

I'd also further clarify that making joke was 1) me going under the assumption that this person was taking the "holier than thou" attitude that many Europeans have toward America and 2) bringing up the historical connection to that line of thinking. It wasn't really a joke at the expense of Europeans or stereotypes unless you consider alluding to European fascists (something that is actually a current problem in Europe) to be the same as insulting an entire group of people.

I was actually very interested in your responses last night while I was at work. It's always interesting to see how one percieves differently than intended. My jab at joining the service and going overseas was meant to be a jive about learning to differentiate important issues from non-essential ones. To see the leap to fascism was a bit of a jump in logic I hadn't anticipated.

I'm not going to go into specifics now, as this conversations has run it's course and I'm honestly just not invested enough to care about gamergate as a legitimate issue and I don't believe fsdfsg was racist at all, or his comments so bad as to warrant action against.

In other words, if someone is using their privileged background to try erasing any criticism of themselves, they're inviting that background to be criticized.

I'm really not sure if that was meant towards me or not. Do you consider an optional, volunteered service in the military as a privileged background? I'm more or less certain it's an earned honor. Regardless of Lynata's points made earlier, the military serves the country, which is run by the people the voters (or lack of voters who are distracted by mundane and trivial things) have chosen to lead us.

With that said, I have nothing against anyone on this board. I rather enjoy this forum alot. And my views aside, I'd like to say i'd continue to talk more with you if you wish about your views and your perceptions of the world, but if you want to have that conversation let's do it via private message.

I'm really not sure if that was meant towards me or not. Do you consider an optional, volunteered service in the military as a privileged background?

If you use this background as an ostensibly required qualification to decide what is or is not a "relevant social issue", I can see how he could arrive at this notion.

The kicker is: Just because you don't think it's a serious thing - because you are not affected by it - does not mean it's not a big problem for someone else. Even more if they are confronted by its effects during the very time they do follow your advice and enlist.

The kicker is: Just because you don't think it's a serious thing - because you are not affected by it - does not mean it's not a big problem for someone else. Even more if they are confronted by its effects during the very time they do follow your advice and enlist.

That seems to be a recurring theme here. "Guys this isn't a big deal (because I personally have never experienced it)"

edit: actually that's kind of how it is everywhere so I don't know why here should be any different.

Oh, okay - I was worried there for a moment!

I'm kind of terrible when it comes to sticking to a topic if it's not being actively discussed. Or rather, my thought-train is quick to derail if someone even so much as touches that railway switch. I try to defend this flaw by reasoning that the original topic was pretty much dead, anyways, but I can see how others can still be annoyed by it.

At least now we have a sort-of OT area to chat about this stuff.

... thinking about it, it's kind of sad this page doesn't feature a chatroom, or address to some IRC channel. Could be fun.

You can always come to the oT one on the x-wing forum: We got BACON!

I have no problem with thread going off topic. It's like a conversation; eventualy it's gonna branch away from the starting topic and be about something related to it/something else, it might even loop back towards the original subject after a while.

Edit: the statement in question was me replying to a poster who said Americans are stupid about social issues because there are much more serious things going on in the world. And then bringing up that people should join the military and fight overseas before talking about social justice issues. I replied and asked if this person is European, and added that his line of thinking resembles a line of thinking that has been a problem in Europe before. Basically,making a joke that his statement sounds like the the whole forced enlistment aspect of fascism and then adding that fascism seems to have been a problem in what I assumed was the persons continent of origin.

I'm going to have to correct you here. My views are heavily biasd Militarism, not Fascism. While I get why you are upset, sort of, you need to stop overlapping idealogies to make your point.

I'd also further clarify that making joke was 1) me going under the assumption that this person was taking the "holier than thou" attitude that many Europeans have toward America and 2) bringing up the historical connection to that line of thinking. It wasn't really a joke at the expense of Europeans or stereotypes unless you consider alluding to European fascists (something that is actually a current problem in Europe) to be the same as insulting an entire group of people.

I was actually very interested in your responses last night while I was at work. It's always interesting to see how one percieves differently than intended. My jab at joining the service and going overseas was meant to be a jive about learning to differentiate important issues from non-essential ones. To see the leap to fascism was a bit of a jump in logic I hadn't anticipated.

I'm not going to go into specifics now, as this conversations has run it's course and I'm honestly just not invested enough to care about gamergate as a legitimate issue and I don't believe fsdfsg was racist at all, or his comments so bad as to warrant action against.

In other words, if someone is using their privileged background to try erasing any criticism of themselves, they're inviting that background to be criticized.

I'm really not sure if that was meant towards me or not. Do you consider an optional, volunteered service in the military as a privileged background? I'm more or less certain it's an earned honor. Regardless of Lynata's points made earlier, the military serves the country, which is run by the people the voters (or lack of voters who are distracted by mundane and trivial things) have chosen to lead us.

With that said, I have nothing against anyone on this board. I rather enjoy this forum alot. And my views aside, I'd like to say i'd continue to talk more with you if you wish about your views and your perceptions of the world, but if you want to have that conversation let's do it via private message.

That was me mistakenly thinking you were european because you were criticizing Americans. The position of privilege refers to Europeans criticizing Americans because our racial/class issues tend to be much more visible in popular media.

Also, fascism is strongly militaristic. I don't know much about militarism, but I would guess that it probably shares a lot of things in common due to the military focus.

Edit: the statement in question was me replying to a poster who said Americans are stupid about social issues because there are much more serious things going on in the world. And then bringing up that people should join the military and fight overseas before talking about social justice issues.

I think they're referring to me making a joke about Europeans in response to someone claiming Americans are over sensitive about social issues.

So you were responding to someone making a belittling generalization about a nation. Did you find that comment offensive? If so, you kinda illustrated my point that it's offensive to make belittling generalizations based on nationality; regardless of that nation's 'privilege' or lack thereof. If you didn't find it offensive, I'm curious as to why you bothered to site it twice.

Basically,making a joke that his statement sounds like the the whole forced enlistment aspect of fascism and then adding that fascism seems to have been a problem in what I assumed was the persons continent of origin.

Forced enlistment isn't even remotely exclusive to fascism. Nor is racial genocide. Nor is raising the identity of the nation above the rights of its citizens. All of these things are happening all over the world. Right now. Not just in Europe.

I still stand by my joke that the original posters implied "people should join the military and have to fight before they can voice an opinion on injustice" is a line of thinking leading to bad things.

But you didn't stop at implying that it was a line of thinking that led to bad things. If you had, I wouldn't have taken issue with it. You implied that the person was probably European because of that thinking. If you thought that poster's line of thinking was fascist, why didn't you just ask him if he was fascist? Why did you even feel the need to bring up Europe?

the "holier than thou" attitude that many Europeans have toward America

*sigh* And in defending yourself for making a sweeping generalization about Europeans, you go on to make another sweeping generalization about Europeans. There are plenty of Europeans with no gripe towards the US and tons of people who have a "hollier than thou" attitude towards the US who come from other places all over the world (including, in fact, the US).

It wasn't really a joke at the expense of Europeans or stereotypes unless you consider alluding to European fascists (something that is actually a current problem in Europe) to be the same as insulting an entire group of people.

Religiously-motivated mass murder is "something that is actually a currently problem" in the Middle East. If someone were to imply that they supported religiously-motivated ethnic cleansing, it would be egregiously offensive (not to mention ban-worthy) if someone were to ask, "Are you by any chance a Muslim? I mean, there's that whole ISIS thing going on right now so I was just curious." (and then later say that it was just a joke)

If someone is a Nazi, call them out for being a Nazi. If someone is a terrorist, call them out for being a terrorist. If someone is a racist, a misogynist, or a homophobe; call them out for being a racist, a misogynist, or a homophone. But don't pin their bull**** on an entire nation, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc.; because that is exactly what they're doing. It's stupid, it's offensive, and it's counterproductive.

I want to point out that my beautiful thread got filled up with awful animes while I was on vacation and I'm not happy about it.New end times baseless speculation: the admech finds a new, better fuel source for the astronomicon: animes and the 'people' who post them.

Umm, if this is about my post on Lolicron and Lofn, then I'm sorry. But just so you know, they really do feature in my big-eyes anime version of The End Times. XP

I rather take Robin's point of view about conversations. When I think of all the threads I've started, the ones that stayed on topic usually died in about twenty posts or less, and that was that. Then they fell into the endless abyss of pages beyond the first page and became lost. True, I'd get annoyed when my precious topics got derailed, but if it's a choice between thread death and off-topic tangents, I'd rather keep talking with all of my fellow 40fanatics.

I want to point out that my beautiful thread got filled up with awful animes while I was on vacation and I'm not happy about it.New end times baseless speculation: the admech finds a new, better fuel source for the astronomicon: animes and the 'people' who post them.

Umm, if this is about my post on Lolicron and Lofn, then I'm sorry. But just so you know, they really do feature in my big-eyes anime version of The End Times. XP

I rather take Robin's point of view about conversations. When I think of all the threads I've started, the ones that stayed on topic usually died in about twenty posts or less, and that was that. Then they fell into the endless abyss of pages beyond the first page and became lost. True, I'd got annoyed when my precious topics got derailed, but if it's a choice between thread death and off-topic tangents, I'd rather keep talking with all of my fellow 40fanatics.

Well said!

Quick off-topic question for Lynata ...

A short while back there was a link in your signature to some kind of countdown. Now it's gone, and I'm curious what it was counting down to.

Also, fascism is strongly militaristic. I don't know much about militarism, but I would guess that it probably shares a lot of things in common due to the military focus.

Rome and the British Empire also had heavy influences of Militarism. Militarism is not mutually exclusive of Fascism.

I think a little research would be beneficial on the topic. It's more in line with a meritocracy line of thinking than the fully fledged governmental structure of Fascism.

I'm really not sure if that was meant towards me or not. Do you consider an optional, volunteered service in the military as a privileged background?

If you use this background as an ostensibly required qualification to decide what is or is not a "relevant social issue", I can see how he could arrive at this notion.

The kicker is: Just because you don't think it's a serious thing - because you are not affected by it - does not mean it's not a big problem for someone else. Even more if they are confronted by its effects during the very time they do follow your advice and enlist.

I'm sure some people online consider it serious enough to tweet about it. But social media activist are hardly worth the investment. When people take to the streets and/or put actual effort into an issue, then it becomes important. No amount of philosophical debate online will change that.

Quick off-topic question for Lynata ...

A short while back there was a link in your signature to some kind of countdown. Now it's gone, and I'm curious what it was counting down to.

Rome and the British Empire also had heavy influences of Militarism. Militarism is not mutually exclusive of Fascism.

I think a little research would be beneficial on the topic. It's more in line with a meritocracy line of thinking than the fully fledged governmental structure of Fascism.

Both the Roman and the British Empire also featured facets of fascism. You are correct when you say that it's not the same thing, but it's not wrong to point out that there is a certain proximity. And I say that whilst being pro-military myself.

Also, a meritocracy would confer right to be heard to any civil servant, not just the ones in the military. Even Starship Troopers got that right.

I'm sure some people online consider it serious enough to tweet about it. But social media activist are hardly worth the investment. When people take to the streets and/or put actual effort into an issue, then it becomes important. No amount of philosophical debate online will change that.

Uh ... but these things have and are being taken to the streets. That they also show up in social media a lot just means that, obviously, a lot of people are talking about it. Which is merely a natural side-effect of, or a first step for things being taken to the streets, or into the courts, et cetera.

You meantioned the conditions in the Middle East - ironically, social media were centric to the Arab Spring, so by playing the importance of social media as an indicator of current cultural climate down you are more or less arguing against your own position.

Hell, I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that if Martin Luther King had access to Twitter, he'd have used it too.

Evidence? Im genuinely intersted in it lynata.