6 hours ago, Daeglan said:

-

-

2 hours ago, DanteRotterdam said:

Nope.

You can claim that. problem is it is available to see that that is exactly what you did.

18 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You don't, but if you are going to call someone altright, and you don't back it up with anything, then there is no reason anyone should even consider it for half a second. I especially have no patience for it since I know you have hurled similar accusations in the past, baselessly. Pardon me if I don't give you the benefit of the doubt.

I hope others share this skepticism, and my lack of patience for slanderous name-calling.

A large part of what really, really sets me off about this is that terms like racist, Nazi, altright, etc. have meaning . Legitimate meaning and serious implications. Using those names, baselessly, against someone you disagree with cheapens the terms and robs them of that meaning, aside from the slanderous nature of it.

Maybe he is as despicable as you claim he is, but I will not accept, and I hope no one else accepts, such accusations without evidence.

I agree with you. As much as I do think @DanteRotterdam has made a lot of points I agree with on the past. This is one I can't really support. While I am sceptical of Harlocks dislike of Rebels and such, to label such a thing as 'racist', 'bigoted' etc is damaging to a community.

Are there people who perhaps hide their bias and bigoted views behind a legitimate facade? **** yes there are. However, you can't just assume that because someone is calling a character a badly written mary sue that they are sexist. They may legitimately think that character is a badly written mary-sue.

Innocent until proven guilty. I've seen many people with legitimate arguments get thrown under a bus because instead of saying "I disagree and here are my points" they just say "Snowflake" or "You're just sexist." That being said, if said person is ever exposed is such, then yes they should rightly not tolerated. However...we cannot assume and must verify.

I do think the modern internet age has done a lot to damage how we interact with others. Often we attack people in very callous ways when they have different opinions and can't fathom they have that opinion. Some people just have irrational opinions on things, which is how I view Harlocks dislike of Rebels because I agree with Mando, you can't really say something is 'objectively bad' if you've only experienced less than a majority of it. That does not give me a right to call Harlock sexist, racist, or anything like that. Just that I think his views are predicated on a lack of evidence and highly unfair and applying the word 'objective' to something that is clearly a subjective opinion (a personal pet peeve of mine).

3 hours ago, Ebak said:

-

4 hours ago, Daeglan said:

-

On 5/26/2020 at 1:44 AM, DanteRotterdam said:

If you enjoy the company of fragile male altright snowflakes then sure.

This right here is you making a personal attack with no evidence to back up any of the things you claim.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

This right here is you making a personal attack with no evidence to back up any of the things you claim.

Yes. It is.

You guys make fair points. I will remove the offending post and refrain from further discussion this.

5 hours ago, Ebak said:

I do think the modern internet age has done a lot to damage how we interact with others. Often we attack people in very callous ways when they have different opinions and can't fathom they have that opinion.

Yup. I agree. I reckon if we were all just chatting in person it wouldn't be nearly so heated.

Kind of related. I always wonder if a lot of you guys know each other? I know on the IA threads a lot of people know each other from tournaments and Worlds and whatnot, but RPGs don't really have that collective competitive calendar that board games have. It's a bit more insular. Not that that's bad, just different.

Gotta say, I'm not looking fwd to the High Republic stuff either but maybe I'll be surprised. As of now, it's just books/comics right?

1 hour ago, Mandalore of the Rings said:

I reckon if we were all just chatting in person it wouldn't be nearly so heated.

The Internet Equation: Audience + Anonymity = A**h**e.

Yeah, I have tons of friends I disagree with. I bet if we had never met and were just interacting on the internet I wouldn't like them at all. Ha.

Kind of related, our current culture also takes offense at stuff SO easily. It's scary. I better stop there.

Changing the subject... Umm, Star Wars something something... uh... yeah Cartoons! Jar Jar and the Emperor. Who's Dengar? What?

Wow, looks like I missed a lot. I can only assume Dante was up to his old tricks again... Heh.

For the record, I'd like to believe I'm not racist, sexist, any kind of [whatever]-phobe, alt-Right, a snowflake, a safespacer, a cultist, nor an a-hole. Although maybe sometimes I can be an a-hole.

I love freedom, diversity of thought, and opinions based on reason rather than knee-jerk emotions.

I love those who stay informed rather than allow themselves to remain uninformed or, even worse, misinformed. I have zero respect for blind loyalty and hive mind mentality.

I believe those who quickly resort to name-calling (especially when it removes humor from the equation) have already lost their argument(s).

I believe great characters come from great storytelling; great characters are not produced through an artificial mix of "representation" and "diversity" that eliminates any need for narrative struggle. The second I see or hear the words "best ever" or "perfect" or "shining example?" I'm out.

I hate Mary Sues and Gary Stus ... with the exception of the old 80s Star Trek novels "Dreadnought!" and "Battlestations!" (Those Mary Sues were actually pretty great POV characters who made a lot of bad choices before becoming amazing and, yes, eliciting "ooohs" and "aaaahs" from the likes of Captain Kirk and the Starfleet brass.)

I like Lando.

Oh, and if you feel my opinions on Rebels are not worth anything more than a grain of salt because I didn't sit through the entire series? That's fine. I'm just glad I staved off the torture.

Serious question however... How long should you stick with a series before deeming it unwatchable?

I called you a fragile male altright snowflake and the other people felt I was not being fair in that assessment. Since I was not interested in roaming through your inane posts to prove my point and seeing how it was indeed a personal attack I decided to delete it. Your smuck reply after I deleted the posts should be enough for others to somewhat understand why I believe you are despicable.

1 hour ago, Harlock999 said:

I believe those who quickly resort to name-calling (especially when it removes humor from the equation) have already lost their argument(s).

Unfortunately (for you) life is not a debate club and the fact that someone calls you a name does not mean, in any way, you win an argument. You would just be an a**hole that had lost an argument.

4 hours ago, Harlock999 said:

Serious question however... How long should you stick with a series before deeming it unwatchable?

It can take just seconds to decide that it’s not for you. My wife and I didn’t make it through the first episode of The Office . Based on commercials alone, we didn’t even try Modern Family . For us, they were both unwatchable.

But, despite our opinions of them, would you say that we’re able to make determinations about their “objective” quality? (The Emmys would say we don’t.)

What about Scandal ? My wife loved it. I didn’t. Being in the same room sometimes, I’ve seen a handful of complete episodes. Which one of us is right about the show’s “objective” quality? Seeing portions of episodes while waiting for something else to come on, I found Veep painful. Do I have a leg to stand on when discussing its “objective” quality?

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

It can take just seconds to decide that it’s not for you. My wife and I didn’t make it through the first episode of The Office . Based on commercials alone, we didn’t even try Modern Family . For us, they were both unwatchable.

But, despite our opinions of them, would you say that we’re able to make determinations about their “objective” quality? (The Emmys would say we don’t.)

What about Scandal ? My wife loved it. I didn’t. Being in the same room sometimes, I’ve seen a handful of complete episodes. Which one of us is right about the show’s “objective” quality? Seeing portions of episodes while waiting for something else to come on, I found Veep painful. Do I have a leg to stand on when discussing its “objective” quality?

It's like the first two Godfather films for me.

I mean, I can tell the acting is top notch, the directing flawless, the editing sublime. Objectively they are near-perfect movies.

Subjectively, I just really don't like them for whatever reason I can't put into words.

Similarly, there is plenty of media that I can see little to no objective quality in, beyond perhaps the enthousiasm the cat and crew put into them, that I love dearly.

You're going to like what you like, and whether something is well made or not isn't always going to be even a remote factor in that. But I feel it's important to know the difference between "stuff that is trash" and "stuff that I personally do not like".

Also, I do not seek out Godfather fan sites to inflict my feelings about their object of affection on fans.

3 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Also, I do not seek out Godfather fan sites to inflict my feelings about their object of affection on fans.

The difference is that he is complaining about a part of Star Wars, not Star Wars as a whole. If he disliked Star Wars, he almost certainly wouldn't be here.

If this was a Sequel Trilogy fan site, I doubt he would be here.

9 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The difference is that he is complaining about a part of Star Wars, not Star Wars as a whole. If he disliked Star Wars, he almost certainly wouldn't be here.

If this was a Sequel Trilogy fan site, I doubt he would be here.

And yet quite often when somebody mentions Rebels in a random thread, or even mentions Rey in any context, there he is to inform us all about how crap it is. I mean, just read his first post in this very thread.

17 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The difference is that he is complaining about a part of Star Wars, not Star Wars as a whole. If he disliked Star Wars, he almost certainly wouldn't be here.

If this was a Sequel Trilogy fan site, I doubt he would be here.

Sorry, but why are you continuously being his spokesman in this thread???

5 hours ago, DanteRotterdam said:

I called you a fragile male altright snowflake and the other people felt I was not being fair in that assessment. Since I was not interested in roaming through your inane posts to prove my point and seeing how it was indeed a personal attack I decided to delete it. Your smuck reply after I deleted the posts should be enough for others to somewhat understand why I believe you are despicable.

And here you go making personal attacks again instead of addressing what is actually being said. This is why we cant have nice things.

23 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

Sorry, but why are you continuously being his spokesman in this thread???

Because instead of discussing the content of his posts you instead attack the person.

24 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

Sorry, but why are you continuously being his spokesman in this thread???

I'm not. It's the principle of the thing, he just happens to be the one being attacked.

Just now, Daeglan said:

Because instead of discussing the content of his posts you instead attack the person.

Exactly.

34 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

And yet quite often when somebody mentions Rebels in a random thread, or even mentions Rey in any context, there he is to inform us all about how crap it is. I mean, just read his first post in this very thread.

Considering that the topic is "What should the next Star Wars cartoon be about?" criticism of previous cartoons that he didn't like is perfectly reasonable. I think he comes on a bit stronger than necessary and oversells his case, but you shouldn't get so bent out of shape over it.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Considering that the topic is "What should the next Star Wars cartoon be about?" criticism of previous cartoons that he didn't like is perfectly reasonable. I think he comes on a bit stronger than necessary and oversells his case, but you shouldn't get so bent out of shape over it.

For example I don't like the sequels beyond The Force Awakens. Not because of race or gender. but because the characters were really poorly handled and it is clear they had NO PLAN.

I think part of Harlocks issue is many expect super deep stories and usually it takes about a season and a half for a show to hit its stride.