Man, this thread used to be cool...

Now its all heavy and stuff...

(Go right ahead, by the Way... I just have nothing productive to add and am feeling a little punchy )

We could choose to be even more insulted and start questioning one another's character. Then we can proceed to a full-scale flame war, in which we report one another to the mods, and get this thread locked or even deleted.

I know that FFG probably won't care as long as we keep it civil, but they've locked topics like this in the past.

That said, I think it's an important conversation to have in society. As forum friends we can choose to disagree as friends and learn from one another's point of view rather than vilifying one another as seems to be the norm in American social discourse these days.

This is mostly why I dropped out of the thread... It'll just degenerate as people play forum games (insult through implication but not an outright insult so it flies under the rules radar, people start grudge matches and it goes to other threads, Google wars, website validity challenges for the Google wars and so on)...

I spent years debating politics online but in 2008 after a personal loss, it all became pointless and I rarely do more than a small comment here and there.

I'd rather this forum stay civil and once we go down the road of politics then the days of civility will be gone imo.

We could choose to be even more insulted and start questioning one another's character. Then we can proceed to a full-scale flame war, in which we report one another to the mods, and get this thread locked or even deleted.

I know that FFG probably won't care as long as we keep it civil, but they've locked topics like this in the past.

That said, I think it's an important conversation to have in society. As forum friends we can choose to disagree as friends and learn from one another's point of view rather than vilifying one another as seems to be the norm in American social discourse these days.

This is mostly why I dropped out of the thread... It'll just degenerate as people play forum games (insult through implication but not an outright insult so it flies under the rules radar, people start grudge matches and it goes to other threads, Google wars, website validity challenges for the Google wars and so on)...

I spent years debating politics online but in 2008 after a personal loss, it all became pointless and I rarely do more than a small comment here and there.

I'd rather this forum stay civil and once we go down the road of politics then the days of civility will be gone imo.

It certainly takes self-control to remain civil, but it's not impossible. I've participated on some forums which had sub-boards for political discussion. You entered at your own risk. Those were also not corporate forums like this one. Sure, there were flame wars, but you could occasionally discuss quite rationally and with good humor with someone of the opposite view, and learn something about their motivations.

This morning I read an column by David Brooks (How to Fix Politics) which talks about social relations with people you disagree with, and the lack thereof is part of our social divisions (I'm expanding on Brooks' argument here). I'm not saying we have to debate this thing to death, but I think these discussions are entirely within the spirit of a civil society.

And when things get heated, we can always say: "But Han shot first, right?" because ultimately we're here out of a mutual love of Star Wars and gaming, and that means that we have a lot in common.

the 4 things never to mention in the pub/work /forum

women (or men)

money

politics

religion

why because it will ALWAYS cause arguments

the 4 things never to mention in the pub/work /forum

women (or men)

money

politics

religion

why because it will ALWAYS cause arguments

I like women.

I like money.

I dislike politics.

I'm not very religious.

I like lots of women.

I like plenty of money.

I live under a rock.

Who needs hokey religions?.

There. FTFY

That now describes me (and my opinion) too.

I like lots of women.

I like plenty of money.

I live under a rock.

Who needs hokey religions?.

There. FTFY

That now describes me (and my opinion) too.

I suppose I do like lots of women...but my wife has kind of vetoed this one.

I feel like I have plenty of money about once a month...but the next day most of it is gone.

I live in a "democracy". It's even "stable". And "transparent." But politicians are still bad, and corruption is endemic. So...maybe living under a rock wouldn't be so bad?

If I had a blaster I'd COMPLETELY do away with religion...if I had a lightsaber I would get all worked up over my "midichlorians".

Hadn't been on the forum for a couple of days. Logged in, saw this thread had new replies, thought "neat! More discussion of the new film! I wonder if anyone's noticed any other cool little details..."

"...Oh. Oh, we're still on that. Oh. Family values? Wait, really?"

I have to ask, though, Clon, what happens if an action film wants a female lead, and said female lead doesn't have kids / is not yet married? Do your "family values" mean that if a woman is not currently a wife and mother, she should only be working towards becoming a wife and mother? What if she doesn't want to? Does that mean she doesn't get to do much else? What if her husband died before they could have kids - must she therefore be working towards getting a new husband? Because if she isn't, then she's going against your family values, right? Because she's doing stuff other than being a wife and mother?

What if a woman has had kids, they've grown up and moved away, but they don't have kids of their own for her to grandmother? Her life basically ends there, right?

Are you actually saying that a woman who chooses not to have a family, or a woman who can't have a family for medical reasons, is being a bad woman? Because she's not striving to be a good mother?

Are you therefore saying that I'm not contributing to society because I, as a man, am not currently looking to enter a relationship and have children? Therefore denying a woman somewhere the sperm she needs to have the children to whom she can be a good mother?

Wait, hang on, what happens if a woman marries a man, and they find out later on that the man is sterile, so can't have kids? Is that woman less of a good woman if she chooses to stay with that man? Is she contributing less to society than a mother of three, unless she divorces that man and chooses to find a new husband with real sperm and who is, presumably, therefore more of a real man?

After all, "Mother is the MOST IMPORTANT and valuable Job achievable by Mankind", and "Women should strive to become Good mother's and as A Man our job needs to be to Support them and protect them".

Y'know, you're entitled to your opinion, we all are, and you have the right to express that opinion, but come on man, this is the 21st century. The planet is already overpopulated, especially by Westerners (a Western life consumes far more in terms of land and resources than a third-world life, unfortunately), contraception as a concept has been around for... hell, I think centuries now, and women have literally been contributing to the fields of science, engineering, art, music, hell, even space travel since the 1960s. And please bear in mind that, when you express your opinions on what a certain group of people "should be", you're potentially hurting the feelings of quite a few different people who lack either the desire or the ability to match your particular paradigm.

Having women represented equally to men in mainstream media is important, because whilst it may go against your "family values", it also teaches a lot of women, young and old, around the world, that whatever kind of oppression they're currently facing isn't how it has to be. It may seem a small thing, but there are countries in the world where a woman can be physically punished by the law for being raped by a man. There are countries where women don't have a vote, can't drive, where they can be attacked for trying to learn, and whilst I doubt 'Rogue One' is going to change that on its own, if we choose to limit a woman's possibilities ourselves then we risk indirectly supporting the beliefs of those same countries or, worse, we risk becoming those countries ourselves.

You've got to ask yourself, with the U.S. on the verge of having its first female president (Pakistan already having had a female head of state back in the '80s), with women all over the world contributing to scientific advancement and, of particular note on a Star Wars forum, many women contributing to space flight and its advancement, is "being a good mother" really the most important thing a woman could do at this particular point in human history?

Maybe you still think that, and that's fine, that's up to you, but please consider the effect your words might have on many of us here, especially those of us may be, or care deeply about, women who aren't willing or able to have children of their own and become the "good mothers" you so enshrine.

Oh, and, just to make sure this topic properly breaks Godwin's law, and to hammer home the extent to which I feel your views are unfortunately outdated, here's one of the few medals for which women were eligible during World War 2.

I'm actually going to triple-post here, because this topic really gets under my skin, apologies to you all. But I just wanted to add, as a final point:

Do you believe that the most important thing a woman can do is be a mother at home? Then Congratulations! You share the views of the many thousands of members of ISIS!

Perhaps I'm being unfair. Let's have a look at how other historical political groups have viewed women.

Oh... Oh dear. I'm - I'm sorry.

I'm actually going to triple-post here, because this topic really gets under my skin, apologies to you all. But I just wanted to add, as a final point:

Do you believe that the most important thing a woman can do is be a mother at home? Then Congratulations! You share the views of the many thousands of members of ISIS!

Perhaps I'm being unfair. Let's have a look at how other historical political groups have viewed women.

Oh... Oh dear. I'm - I'm sorry.

jhox, I can't speak for every person, but as a conservative, my take on it is this:

1. not that the most important thing a woman can do is be a mother (that is for her to decide)...

2. ...but rather, once you become a mother, it is by far and away the single most important role, duty, responsibility and everything (including your job, career aspirations, etc.) takes a back seat to that.

Following on point #2, above, then, my opinion is that the social/cultural message to women that "you can do any/every thing! You can have it all, be it all, there are no limitations! You are powerful and unlimited!" is (or can be) dangerous. It does not seem to be being realistically tempered by life's expectations. I think a lot of women are coming to realize that the idea of being a full-time mother and full-time career person is not merely difficult...it's *eff-ing* hard. And not because of a lack of male support/interaction (despite what one particular political camp resoundingly blares at every opportunity). My take on it, rather, is that the inherent difficulty of that is what prompted the marital division of labor in the first place, where both sexes fall into roles that seem to naturally, biologically synergize with their strengths, interests, and psychological predilections. That is my observation of what drives this, and what the danger is.

I am a Full-Time Stay at home Father of a 2 Year Old Bundle of Boyish Trouble.

My Wife works 2 Jobs, totaling 6-Days a Week.

We still get almost constant odd-looks from people when we explain that, like we're some sort of sideshow freaks doing the completely wrong thing.

I don't understand that.

Ah, the joys of the internet, where everyone is encouraged to express their opinion, which everyone else will then get offended and insulted by and stir up a storm of anger and vitriol, culminating in comparing a person to ISIS & Nazis.

This is why I keep my expressed opinions limited to what little cards I want to put on my plastic space ships.

... culminating in comparing a person to ISIS & Nazis.

I'm sorry, but despite me referencing Godwin's Law, I very specifically did not say that because anyone happens to have a certain viewpoint, that person is therefore comparable to any particular group. What I did do is point out that a particular viewpoint is shared by both the Nazis and ISIS. It's a small but important difference - "You think <x>, therefore you are a Jihadist Nazi!" is most definitely not the same as "You think <x>, and you ought to know that's a view that's shared by Jihadists and Nazis."

I know that if I expressed an opinion that was shared by, like, Khmer Rouge or something, I'd want to know. I might still believe that it was a valid opinion - broken clock right twice a day and all that - but I'd like to know.

Following on point #2, above, then, my opinion is that the social/cultural message to women that "you can do any/every thing! You can have it all, be it all, there are no limitations! You are powerful and unlimited!" is (or can be) dangerous. It does not seem to be being realistically tempered by life's expectations. I think a lot of women are coming to realize that the idea of being a full-time mother and full-time career person is not merely difficult...it's *eff-ing* hard. And not because of a lack of male support/interaction (despite what one particular political camp resoundingly blares at every opportunity). My take on it, rather, is that the inherent difficulty of that is what prompted the marital division of labor in the first place, where both sexes fall into roles that seem to naturally, biologically synergize with their strengths, interests, and psychological predilections. That is my observation of what drives this, and what the danger is.

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that it is possible to be both a full-time parent and fully committed to a consuming and challenging career. I certainly wouldn't make that argument, and haven't seen anyone else here making it. But I don't see how having female leads in action movies is "dangerous" - Jyn Erso isn't depicted as a mother with two kids trying to be a violent revolutionary - so I'm not sure why you're saying it's "dangerous" for her to be the lead of the movie. She's chosen a particular life that involves fighting and doesn't involve babies.

So, what is the "danger" you reference? A danger to society? To women? Do you believe that by having women as leads in movies, or having them do things beyond raising kids and being at home and being mothers, is going to be harmful to society?

I'm sorry, but pointing out perceived similarities between two parties is very much comparing them. You can dance around that all you like, but in your anger at someone else having a different viewpoint than you, you specifically chose to bring both ISIS and Nazis into the conversation. It can be perceived no other way than that.

I think it is time to let this thread die.

... culminating in comparing a person to ISIS & Nazis.

I'm sorry, but despite me referencing Godwin's Law, I very specifically did not say that because anyone happens to have a certain viewpoint, that person is therefore comparable to any particular group. What I did do is point out that a particular viewpoint is shared by both the Nazis and ISIS. It's a small but important difference - "You think <x>, therefore you are a Jihadist Nazi!" is most definitely not the same as "You think <x>, and you ought to know that's a view that's shared by Jihadists and Nazis."

I know that if I expressed an opinion that was shared by, like, Khmer Rouge or something, I'd want to know. I might still believe that it was a valid opinion - broken clock right twice a day and all that - but I'd like to know.

You may be able to feel better because you make a differentiation, but the point remains the same. You wished to demonize your opponent via a comparison with an "evil" group. One could point out that Communist regime in the USSR had similar views on women to you in the 1920s. While this is true, it doesn't mean that you are a communist (just as you said it doesn't mean the other person is a Nazi). Why bring it up then? Because it demonizes them. You ignore the issue.

This is a logical fallacy which falls under non sequitor. It is the association fallacy.

Do we need the mods, or will you guys take it to PMs? Because, honestly, this is getting too salty.

In other news, Rogue One trailer came out. Disney looks to be delivering an awesome movie. Star Destroyers, Death Star, explosions!!!!!!!

Hang on guys, I'm not saying here that "you wear grey, the Nazis wear grey, therefore you are a Nazi." I get that kind of things is complete rubbish. But when it comes to actual policies, saying "your views are shared by by some very horrible people in the world" is absolutely a valid concern. Assuming that someone is a fascist because they have a toothbrush moustache is the height of absurdity, but a person's views on women in society are not a fashion choice.

Put another way, when Anakin decides to wear black one day, Obi Wan would be a bit out of line to suddenly accuse him of being a Sith. But if Anakin expresses views akin to tyranny, Padme would be well within the bounds of reasons to react "Anakin, you sound like a Nazi, are you sure that's how you want to express yourself?"

If Luke flourishes his lightsaber in a similar way to Darth Maul, it would be unfair to compare the two and then make the accusation that Luke must be trained by the Sith. But if Luke turns up and force-chokes Jabba's guards, it's pretty bloody fair for Han to perhaps point out that, "y'know, dude, that's some dark Sith stuff going on right there, do you not think you're on a bit of a dark path?"

Hang on guys, I'm not saying here that "you wear grey, the Nazis wear grey, therefore you are a Nazi." I get that kind of things is complete rubbish. But when it comes to actual policies, saying "your views are shared by by some very horrible people in the world" is absolutely a valid concern. Assuming that someone is a fascist because they have a toothbrush moustache is the height of absurdity, but a person's views on women in society are not a fashion choice.

Put another way, when Anakin decides to wear black one day, Obi Wan would be a bit out of line to suddenly accuse him of being a Sith. But if Anakin expresses views akin to tyranny, Padme would be well within the bounds of reasons to react "Anakin, you sound like a Nazi, are you sure that's how you want to express yourself?" If Luke flourishes his lightsaber in a similar way to Darth Maul, it would be unfair to compare the two and then make the accusation that Luke must be trained by the Sith. But if Luke turns up and force-chokes Jabba's guards, it's pretty bloody fair for Han to perhaps point out that, y'know, dude, that's some dark Sith stuff going on right there, do you not think you're on a bit of a dark path?

So at the same time, would you like to point out good regimes that have had the same view of women? If not, you must ask yourself why you point to the Nazis or Isis. The reason is that you want to demonize. If you want to have a reasoned discussion about the merits of an ideological position, you DO NOT connect it to Nazis or ISIS unless 1)You are a historian with extensive knowledge of Nazi or ISIS ideologies and 2) You are doing so to demonstrate the DIFFERENCES in the positions so as to better define that ideology. For example, Ian Kershaw's essay on Stalin's and Hitler's dictatorships in which he compares the two in order to better define Hitler's dictatorship. The essay is entitled "Working Toward the Fuhrer."

Space Nazis. Hitler.

So at the same time, would you like to point out good regimes that have had the same view of women? If not, you must ask yourself why you point to the Nazis or Isis. The reason is that you want to demonize. If you want to have a reasoned discussion about the merits of an ideological position, you DO NOT connect it to Nazis or ISIS unless 1)You are a historian with extensive knowledge of Nazi or ISIS ideologies and 2) You are doing so to demonstrate the DIFFERENCES in the positions so as to better define that ideology. For example, Ian Kershaw's essay on Stalin's and Hitler's dictatorships in which he compares the two in order to better define dictatorship. The essay is entitled "Working Toward the Fuhrer."

It's difficult for me to deny that I was "demonising" a specific point of view, because (and I'll apologise now for using language this strong in the discussion, but I'm kind-of on one, now) I do believe that the view that women are better off at home looking after children is pretty demonic, that's why I feel so strongly on the matter.

Specifically, I get annoyed when someone expresses their stance against having a young woman take the lead in a movie or TV show or other work of fiction, on the grounds that it is immoral. I can't personally reconcile a moral system which claims to promote freedom and individual liberty, but at the same time seeks to confine an entire gender to a limited role in society. That's a bit rubbish, especially for women, but also for men. Men who care about the women in their lives, and men who themselves might prefer to perform such duties without being judged as being worse, or lesser, for doing so.

I believe that the primary reason we fight, and have fought, against groups like ISIS and Nazi Germany are not just due to material concerns of territory and resources, but because our own moral beliefs contrast directly with theirs. We believe in democracy, freedom of speech and expression, and yes, even in individual liberties, such as the freedom for a woman to do whatever the hell she **** well pleases, from raising children to cooking for her family, to running for office and, yes, starring in action-focused sci-fi films. We haven't fought against dictatorships and tyrannies so that only half of our population can experience the freedom that those same tyrannies so drastically oppose.

You ask why I haven't made comparisons to "good regimes" that also have similar views to women. Well, for one, I'm not aware of any. I'm not aware of any "good regimes" that exist that have held the view that women belong at home caring for children without changing that view to a more equal one - if there are any, feel free to share them yourself. But, more than that, I'm not trying to have a reasoned discussion here. I'm not attempting to debate the rational, empirically-supported arguments in favour of or against equal treatment of women in society, for exactly the same reason I don't make rational, empirically-supported arguments in favour of democracy, or the right to trial and fair treatment under the law. Sadly, it's not about having a rational debate: it's about my mother, my female friends and any daughters I end up having growing up in a world where they can do and be whatever they want to do and be, and not have their lives shaped by the expectations of people who think they should be busy preparing themselves for motherhood and a life of domestic servitude.

So, yes, I am happy to point out to someone that the views they have expressed - views with which I happen to disagree - are views that are also shared by some very nasty people around the world. Not to try and make some rational argument that will convince them through reason and logic, but to point out to them in terms that will hopefully be shocking enough for them to at least reconsider their standpoint.

Normally, I'd prefer to have a more reasoned discussion on the topic, but when we all see an awesome trailer for a new film, and we get some voices in the crowd saying "Oh no, not another female lead!" I don't half get wound up by it. If nothing else, there's the fact that this hobby ought to be as open to women as it is to men, and those sorts of comments are alienating to women who might want to take part in this community.

Of course, my own posts on this topic are doubtless just as alienating to people who are averse to long, ranty diatribes, the "association fallacy", and to people who do believe that women are better employed as mothers and homemakers but, if I'm being honest, I'd rather alienate ten of those people than have one woman alienated by the kind of comments that have emerged in this thread, which frankly have no place in a modern society that distinguishes itself by the rights from which its population benefits. People can express whatever opinions they like, and I am absolutely going to express my objection to and distaste for those opinions where I think they are particularly out of place, and I'll express my opposition in whatever manner I feel to be most effective.

To those of you who have expressed opinions to which I have objected, I apologise that it has come to these sorts of strong exchanges of view, but I do not intend to let those opinions stand unchallenged in a public forum which theoretically represents a hobby I enjoy and which represents a community of which I consider myself to be a part. If there are Armada players out there who have what I consider to be negative opinions of women, I want people to know that there are also Armada players who oppose those views.

Please let this thread die or create a new thread about your opinions on social norms, the role of women etc and then debate it out there.

We all have strong views on all of this but a Star Wars internet forum on Armada really isn't the best way to express them and debate them. Really any text only forum is a terrible way to debate opinions and any discussion quickly goes down hill into pointless banter where someone cares more about proving someone wrong and being right than they actually care about the person for whom they are talking to.

Green Knight,

Your post about if you had a blaster I would COMPLETELY do away with religion was rather heartbreaking. Heartbreaking because it makes me think your main experience with Religion is the abuse of it. Countless horrors have been made in the name of Atheism as well as the abuse of religion. The one common denominator is fallen man who seeks to pervert anything to his own benefit. I have no wish to have a debate but only point to the Cross of Jesus Christ who was put on that Cross by the "Religious" of His day that had learned how to abuse it for their benefit. I only caution you to not judge a world view by its abuse but by the actual world view it presents. Our world would be far better off with people understanding that every person they cross paths with is someone who is loved and has absolute worth not because a government or society says they have worth but because they are endowed by their creator with rights that no man can take away. I just hope you will look for yourself on who Jesus claimed to be, the evidence for it, and the world view He presents.

JHOX-

Thanks for the statement. I have no issues with your strong views. I am supportive of you stating that you think that the way some have portrayed the role of women as evil. I simply was stating that your comparison was indeed a comparison. One that was meant to suggest that those who have such a view of women are the same as Nazis or ISIS. I actually think you presented yourself better in this last post since you did not resort to the associative fallacy. Instead, you stated that you believe such views are evil because they are evil. Not because they are similar to X or Y.

I too think it is odd that people would immediately be upset by a female lead. Nevertheless, I prefer to have a less emotional discussion. You can only have an emotional one and I understand that.

In the end. I am glad that you are supportive of your female friends and family. Have a blessed day!

Please let this thread die or create a new thread about your opinions on social norms, the role of women etc and then debate it out there.

We all have strong views on all of this but a Star Wars internet forum on Armada really isn't the best way to express them and debate them. Really any text only forum is a terrible way to debate opinions and any discussion quickly goes down hill into pointless banter where someone cares more about proving someone wrong and being right than they actually care about the person for whom they are talking to.

Green Knight,

Your post about if you had a blaster I would COMPLETELY do away with religion was rather heartbreaking. Heartbreaking because it makes me think your main experience with Religion is the abuse of it. Countless horrors have been made in the name of Atheism as well as the abuse of religion. The one common denominator is fallen man who seeks to pervert anything to his own benefit. I have no wish to have a debate but only point to the Cross of Jesus Christ who was put on that Cross by the "Religious" of His day that had learned how to abuse it for their benefit. I only caution you to not judge a world view by its abuse but by the actual world view it presents. Our world would be far better off with people understanding that every person they cross paths with is someone who is loved and has absolute worth not because a government or society says they have worth but because they are endowed by their creator with rights that no man can take away. I just hope you will look for yourself on who Jesus claimed to be, the evidence for it, and the world view He presents.

Not really, no. It's more about a certain Han Solo quote (from A New Hope). And blasters...well, they don't exist. So I'm good.