Respecting LGBTQ people: Is this character backstory disrespectful or flattering?

[Madokar]

I recently joined a new campaign, and made an Aasimar (Angelkin) paladin. After reading over my copy of "Blood of Angels", a passage on Aasimar origins and births struck my fancy. It basically boils down to same-sex couples praying for children and being blessed with an Aasimar child. So I thought: what if my Aasimar paladin was born to a lesbian couple who wanted a child?

After all things like height, weight and age were calculated, my Aasimar paladin Ragathon (named after the Empyreal Lord Ragathiel) is 76 years old from Vigil in Lastwall. He's buried his birth mother after she's died of old age, and his second mother disappeared during a campaign in the Hold of Belkzen decades ago.

I see Ragathon's parents as being a paladin and cleric of Iomedae. With his birth mother being the cleric. I like the concept, but I'm a bit leery of using gay characters as my parents in my backstory. Mainly because I'm a straight white man born to straight parents and I worry about being insensitive to other groups.

[Vaz]

You cab play a murderous evil racist who.commits sacrifices and worships.elder eviks, but as soon as being Gay gets involed, people lose their cool?

You're fine. Be a decent human being IRL and you can play any character you want in our made up story.

[Calthropstu]

If you have to worry about offending people with a fantasy setting character backstory, then the world is in a sad state of affairs indeed.

[Troacctid]

LGBTQ person here. That sounds adorable. The only problem is...

his second mother (or "father")
...lesbian couples don't have one partner who's the "man." They're both women. That's kind of the point. So, there is no "father," just two mothers.

Also, that's not really how aasimars usually work, but whatever.


If you have to worry about offending people with a fantasy setting character backstory, then the world is in a sad state of affairs indeed.
I think it's great that he wanted to go the extra mile to make sure he wasn't being disrespectful. I've seen far too many cringeworthy stereotypes from people who had no idea what they were doing.

[Madokar]

LGBTQ person here. That sounds adorable. The only problem is...

...lesbian couples don't have one partner who's the "man." They're both women. That's kind of the point. So, there is no "father," just two mothers.

Also, that's not really how aasimars usually work, but whatever.


I think it's great that he wanted to go the extra mile to make sure he wasn't being disrespectful. I've seen far too many cringeworthy stereotypes from people who had no idea what they were doing.

Part of why I ask these questions. The paladin mother was a bit more masculine but still identified as female. I suppose I identified the paladin parent as the father figure because she acted in that capacity. So I learned something today. Don't categorize same-sex parents with traditional parental roles unless they identify with the roles.

The Blood of Angels book clearly states that aasimars can be born to same-sex couples that pray for children, though. Don't really understand how that's supposed to work for two gay men, though...

[nyjastul69]

...Don't really understand how that's supposed to work for two gay men, though...

I think a stork is involved in that one. ;)

[ExLibrisMortis]

The Blood of Angels book clearly states that aasimars can be born to same-sex couples that pray for children, though. Don't really understand how that's supposed to work for two gay men, though...
Miracle is a very versatile spell.

[Zanos]

I think that's a third party book, but whatever. I seriously doubt anyone but the most purposely offended would take issue with your backstory.

[Madokar]

I think that's a third party book, but whatever. I seriously doubt anyone but the most purposely offended would take issue with your backstory.

Nope. Blood of Angels is written by Paizo for Pathfinder.

https://www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/pathfinder-player-companion-blood-of/9781601254382-item.html?ikwid=Pathfinder+Blood+of+Angels&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0

[Melcar]

This is supposed to be a game about fantasy, where the murder of innocent children is sometimes fine. It's all about having fun, and is someone at your table is "triggered" by some ingame thing, I would say find another less overly sensitive friend... Racism is build into the game, who cares if it would hurt some LGBTQ people… IT’S A GAME!

[FreddyNoNose]

We have become a nation of people who are tissue paper tough.

Find another player to play in your game.

[Madokar]

This is supposed to be a game about fantasy, where the murder of innocent children is sometimes fine. It's all about having fun, and is someone at your table is "triggered" by some ingame thing, I would say find another less overly sensitive friend... Racism is build into the game, who cares if it would hurt some LGBTQ people… IT’S A GAME!

I care. Because how I play and conceive of a character reflects on me as a person outside the game. And I care about how I interpret LGBTQ issues.

Some people say they play evil characters as an outlet or a fantasy. If you need to fantasize about hurting people, I personally feel that you have some issues in your life you need to address. That isn't a rule for every player of evil characters, but it's my personal opinion. Because I play good characters, especially paladins, since whenever I play as the hero, as a definitive "good guy", it grants me a sense of catharsis and sense of accomplishment.

[Max Caysey]

Are you genuinely asking whether or not this would hurt people, who are not at your table, feelings? That’s so weird! That’s like me asking whether or not people get offended by what they don’t know? Which isn’t even possible! So unless someone at your table is hyper sensitive about a fantasy game, in which case you should talk to that, anything is literally fine. You could play a child rapist, who while defiling her victims ate them as well, but at the same time she was a racist and only defiled gnomes of same sex.

[Calthropstu]

This is supposed to be a game about fantasy, where the murder of innocent children is sometimes fine. It's all about having fun, and is someone at your table is "triggered" by some ingame thing, I would say find another less overly sensitive friend... Racism is build into the game, who cares if it would hurt some LGBTQ people… IT’S A GAME!

Agreed 100%. Getting offended at anything not directed at you or your character in this game is pure silliness.

[Madokar]

Are you genuinely asking whether or not this would hurt people, who are not at your table, feelings? That’s so weird! That’s like me asking whether or not people get offended by what they don’t know? Which isn’t even possible! So unless someone at your table is hyper sensitive about a fantasy game, in which case you should talk to that, anything is literally fine. You could play a child rapist, who while defiling her victims ate them as well, but at the same time she was a racist and only defiled gnomes of same sex.

That... is disgusting beyond all comprehension!!!

[NightDweller]

I recently joined a new campaign, and made an Aasimar (Angelkin) paladin. After reading over my copy of "Blood of Angels", a passage on Aasimar origins and births struck my fancy. It basically boils down to same-sex couples praying for children and being blessed with an Aasimar child. So I thought: what if my Aasimar paladin was born to a lesbian couple who wanted a child?

After all things like height, weight and age were calculated, my Aasimar paladin Ragathon (named after the Empyreal Lord Ragathiel) is 76 years old from Vigil in Lastwall. He's buried his birth mother after she's died of old age, and his second mother disappeared during a campaign in the Hold of Belkzen decades ago.

I see Ragathon's parents as being a paladin and cleric of Iomedae. With his birth mother being the cleric. I like the concept, but I'm a bit leery of using gay characters as my parents in my backstory. Mainly because I'm a straight white man born to straight parents and I worry about being insensitive to other groups.

There is no logical reason to think that what you are proposing is offensive, you being male or heterosexual has little to do with this. And you being caucasian has nothing to do with this.

[Komatik]

If you have to worry about offending people with a fantasy setting character backstory, then the world is in a sad state of affairs indeed.

The world is in a sad state of affairs.

[Recherché]

Queer woman here and yeah the only thing I find even slightly weird is gender stereotyping which parent is "the father figure" or for that matter assuming there is one. And honestly even that's just a minor quibble. I don't/can't represent all non-straight women much less LBGQT people in existence of course. Thank you for checking when you're feeling unsure though rather than blazing straight ahead :smallsmile:

[Troacctid]

This is supposed to be a game about fantasy, where the murder of innocent children is sometimes fine. It's all about having fun, and is someone at your table is "triggered" by some ingame thing, I would say find another less overly sensitive friend... Racism is build into the game, who cares if it would hurt some LGBTQ people… IT’S A GAME!
If you fantasize about killing innocent children, I don't think that's fine at all.

And if you think bigotry is okay and treating people with respect is weird, I don't know what to say to you. It's not and it isn't.

[NightDweller]

Queer woman here and yeah the only thing I find even slightly weird is gender stereotyping which parent is "the father figure" or for that matter assuming there is one. And honestly even that's just a minor quibble. I don't/can't represent all non-straight women much less LBGQT people in existence of course. Thank you for checking when you're feeling unsure though rather than blazing straight ahead :smallsmile:

No one is a father figure in there.....One of them is just the one to have the child.......

[Max Caysey]

Thank you for checking when you're feeling unsure though rather than blazing straight ahead :smallsmile:

Are you thanking him for checking with random people? What good can ever come of that? And what if people had said yes to being offended? Should he not have played his idea? I find it absurd to the highest degree that you would check with other people than your table. I’m not trying to be offensive, but its just so weird to want to get the approval of strangers for something your doing in a fantasy world.

[NightDweller]

Are you thanking him for checking with random people? What good can ever come of that? And what if people had said yes to being offended? Should he not have played his idea? I find it absurd to the highest degree that you would check with other people than your table. I’m not trying to be offensive, but its just so weird to want to get the approval of strangers for something your doing in a fantasy world.

What they said.

[Max Caysey]

If you fantasize about killing innocent children, I don't think that's fine at all.

And if you think bigotry is okay and treating people with respect is weird, I don't know what to say to you. It's not and it isn't.

It’s a fantasy world! I can do whatever. In the real world I treat every living being with respect. But In Dungeons and Dragons I let my imaginary character do imaginary things in an imaginary setting… Just checking here… Am I offending people by the way I play my chaotic evil undead, fiendish necromancer???

You do know that what happens in D&D is not a 1 to 1 representation of what goes on in the real world right? I mean my character can raise the dead. I cant in real life…

And explain why its wrong to play a bigot in a fantasy game?

[Troacctid]

Are you thanking him for checking with random people? What good can ever come of that?
A fairer and more accurate portrayal of a real-world group that he may not have much firsthand experience with.


And what if people had said yes to being offended? Should he not have played his idea?
Or changed it, yes.


I find it absurd to the highest degree that you would check with other people than your table. I’m not trying to be offensive, but its just so weird to want to get the approval of strangers for something your doing in a fantasy world.
You do realize there may be LGBTQ players at his table? If I were still in the closet, I would feel uncomfortable coming out to or even playing in a group that acted with hostility toward people like me. I get enough prejudice in real life without having to deal with it in my game from people who are supposed to be my friends, thanks.


It’s a fantasy world! I can do whatever. In the real world I treat every living being with respect. But In Dungeons and Dragons I let my imaginary character do imaginary things in an imaginary setting… Just checking here… Am I offending people by the way I play my chaotic evil undead, fiendish necromancer???

You do know that what happens in D&D is not a 1 to 1 representation of what goes on in the real world right? I mean my character can raise the dead. I cant in real life…
We're not talking about characters who are bigoted towards other characters. We're talking about characters who are bigoted stereotypes themselves.

[Max Caysey]

A fairer and more accurate portrayal of a real-world group that he may not have much firsthand experience with.


Or changed it, yes.


You do realize there may be LGBTQ players at his table? If I were still in the closet, I would feel uncomfortable coming out to or even playing in a group that acted with hostility toward people like me. I get enough prejudice in real life without having to deal with it in my game from people who are supposed to be my friends, thanks.


We're not talking about characters who are bigoted towards other characters. We're talking about characters who are bigoted stereotypes themselves.

I basically disagree with everything you said. Apart from the notion that there might be someone at his table who dont like it. Beside from that, we do not see eye to eye. I think in a fantasy world, anything is ok.

[Broutchev]

Is your table Ok with that; No ->change it
Yes ->Fine

The rest of the world don't need to approve. I guess it will be not that much relevant when you play your character if his parents wich is: Birth-giver mother, and mother, were lesbians.

If people at your table are homophobic and don't want to play with that, change either the table, or character.

It's kinda like in my game I say no to: Child-murdering, Evil character (not evil actions mind you), rape, graphical sex etc.

Still I say yes to racism, torture and other sensible subjects.

Am I racist, do I advice torture as a human being?

In the long run half the table will not even remember your character name, even less his/her parents relationship, and the other half will not care because killing orcs.

[Broutchev]

I basically disagree with everything you said. Apart from the notion that there might be someone at his table who dont like it. Beside from that, we do not see eye to eye. I think in a fantasy world, anything is ok.

May I addendum that?

I think in a fantasy world, anything (the table has accepted and discussed or is common) is ok

If I were a rape victim the first thing I would say to a new table is: please don't

So yeah like you said anything is ok until someone explicitly mention his limit.

[Keltest]

I basically disagree with everything you said. Apart from the notion that there might be someone at his table who dont like it. Beside from that, we do not see eye to eye. I think in a fantasy world, anything is ok.

Tabletop RPGs are, at the end of the day, a social experience. During such social experiences, people should generally try to avoid making other people uncomfortable.

while there is a certain amount of disconnect when you play "Lord TERROARZAR, the TYRANNICAL DESTROYER OF SEVENTEEN THOUSAND AND EIGHT REALMS", one should still generally strive to not portray an actively offensive stereotype of a real world group. Even if no members of that group are at your table (and in this case, its entirely possible that there can be without you knowing), its still in incredibly poor taste and I feel no qualms at all about judging people who do such things negatively.

In other words, yes, its mean. Don't do it.

[Broutchev]

In other words, yes, its mean. Don't do it.

I don't get it, why can't I play a female character? Why can't I play a black/Chinese/Slav/Latino/Australian dude? Why can't I play a LGBTQ character? Why can't I play an old character? Why can't I play a narrow-minded barbaric power-driven, megalomaniac condescending with ego trip character?

Also, it's not even his character, he's the offspring. It's like saying to the kid of a gay couple to not talk about it since he's not part of it.

You said it's mean, he asked if he was insensitive. The proper answer is ''I personally believe it is insensitive to portray a character from a subject you don't seem to fully grasp'' not ''it's mean. Don't do it''.

Is there a character creation police I was not aware of?

[Keltest]

I don't get it, why can't I play a female character? Why can't I play a black/Chinese/Slav/Latino/Australian dude? Why can't I play a LGBTQ character? Why can't I play an old character? Why can't I play a narrow-minded barbaric power-driven, megalomaniac condescending with ego trip character?

Also, it's not even his character, he's the offspring. It's like saying to the kid of a gay couple to not talk about it since he's not part of it.

You said it's mean, he asked if he was insensitive. The proper answer is ''I personally believe it is insensitive to portray a character from a subject you don't seem to fully grasp'' not ''it's mean. Don't do it''.

Is there a character creation police I was not aware of?

My response was responding to the idea that, because TTRPGs are not the real world, you can do or play anyone you want and not worry that your actions might offend someone. Yes, they can offend someone. Attempting to be respectful of other people is never, ever a bad thing.

[Sayt]

Plenty of straight people have LGBT parents of some stripe or another. Going out of your way to normalize this idea is, I think, admirable.

As for the "IT"S JUST A GAME STOP RUINING FUN" people.... chill.

Yes, the game allows you to play characters who would be awful, terrible people if they actually existed. I'm a bleeding heart pinko greenie liberal who's played a jackbooted fascist who thought slavery was a legitimate answer to banditry and vagrancy, but I did it in the company of people who were comfortable with the the diction and in acknowledgement that this character was abhorrent.

You can play a character that isn't a representation about yourself. That's one of the great things about RPGs. I'm a bi-romantic pakeha (caucasian) man. I can play a woman, or a straight person, or a setting analogue to a person from the Middle East, Africa, Asia or the Pacific without being offensive to any of those groups, but in doing so, we've gotta remember that these are people, and therefore, complex. You can't just boil them down to "They are an [x] person. They like the things that [x] people like and speak like all [x] people", that's when you get offensive stereotypes and caricatures.

This is where a lot of fantasy settings fall over, IMHO: the dwarves are all alcoholic Scottdinavians, humans are almost always crypto-european. Nonhuman species are frequently monocultural. I think Paizo's Golarion is actually really good at subverting this, but being publicly vocal in support of Paizo never ends well on this board)

[Razade]

I see Ragathon's parents as being a paladin and cleric of Iomedae. With his birth mother being the cleric. I like the concept, but I'm a bit leery of using gay characters as my parents in my backstory. Mainly because I'm a straight white man born to straight parents and I worry about being insensitive to other groups.

Man, this is what the SJW crowd has done. How are you going to learn if you don't do. You're being too worried for nothing.

[Calthropstu]

If you fantasize about killing innocent children, I don't think that's fine at all.

And if you think bigotry is okay and treating people with respect is weird, I don't know what to say to you. It's not and it isn't.

Bigotry is literally built into the game. "Orcs! Kill them! And their babies! Because they are orcs! YAY XP!"

No, seriously... role playing a bigot, a racist, an evil demon worshiper who eats babies, sells women and children into slavery, purchases slaves, kills slaves, goes on a wide ranging killing spree to appease evil gods, throwing maidens into volcanoes, poisoning lords and ladies, cutting out informants tongues, rape, pillage, murder... This is a ROLE PLAYING GAME. If my character is a vicious murdering bastard, and we are playing an evil campaign, and you can't handle that... DON'T BE PLAYING IN AN EVIL CAMPAIGN. Hell, you probably shouldn't be playing D&D at all. Go play pokemon or something.

Leave the grown up games to the grown ups.

[Zanos]

Nope. Blood of Angels is written by Paizo for Pathfinder.

https://www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/pathfinder-player-companion-blood-of/9781601254382-item.html?ikwid=Pathfinder+Blood+of+Angels&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0
Missed the pathfinder tag, because I am a genius.

I already commented that I think your initial situation is innocuous. Since the discussion has...migrated, I will also now comment in a more general sense.

Is your table Ok with that; No ->change it
Yes ->Fine



Tabletop RPGs are, at the end of the day, a social experience. During such social experiences, people should generally try to avoid making other people uncomfortable.
There's a lot of wisdom from these two posters. A TTRPG exists between the people who play it, and nobody else. Generally. You shouldn't ask for or need approval from an online group of people who claim to be the moral and social police regarding acceptable ideas. As long as nobody at your table has a problem with it, there isn't a problem. And for what it's worth, LBGT isn't a moral standpoint. While a member of a group that is discriminated against can offer insight as to their experience, they can't speak for them all, and none of those labels grant any deeper insight on moral issues. Reaching out to try to understand is a good thing, but allowing lose groups and ideological demagogues to define what you should be morally comfortable with is dangerous. Just ask yourself if you're hurting anyone, or if it feels wrong. If not, you're probably fine.

For what it's worth(and not much, in my opinion), I'm a member of a group that, in the area I live, has to keep it hidden unless they want to face serious discrimination. I wouldn't try to present myself as a moral authority for "right" and "wrong" ways to portray my group, because fantasy settings don't have to cleave entirely to reality.


I care. Because how I play and conceive of a character reflects on me as a person outside the game. And I care about how I interpret LGBTQ issues.

Some people say they play evil characters as an outlet or a fantasy. If you need to fantasize about hurting people, I personally feel that you have some issues in your life you need to address. That isn't a rule for every player of evil characters, but it's my personal opinion. Because I play good characters, especially paladins, since whenever I play as the hero, as a definitive "good guy", it grants me a sense of catharsis and sense of accomplishment.
I think you're wrong here. First of all, you make the assumption that other people have as weak a divide between the character they roleplay as you do. I'm perfectly capable of playing an Evil degenerate and having it not impact my day to day at all. Getting into the mindset of someone who is unlike yourself is a core part of good roleplaying.

Secondly, you assume that people play non-good characters to fantasize about hurting people. That's an extremely limited view at best. Selfish ambition and greed are often associated with non-good characters, and many of these characters aren't monsters because they like to hurt people, they just hurt people because it's more expedient or efficient than the alternative. For some people, their character fantasy isn't "save the town", it's "run the town." And that's okay.

I find it amusing that despite trying to understand others, you're automatically assuming that people who play Evil characters have some sort of psychosis without particularly caring about their views or reasons.

[Echch]

I find it amusing that despite trying to understand others, you're automatically assuming that people who play Evil characters have some sort of psychosis without particularly caring about their views or reasons.

I agree with that. How people are IRL has no real impact on their characters, nor the other way around. I, for one, have "some sort of psychosis", as Zanos put it, and can play good characters just fine (even if I rarely choose to). Just because you play out certain motivations doesn't mean you have to understand (or agree with) them.

As such, you shouldn't worry too much about your characters backstory reflecting horribly onto yourself. Still, you should check in with the group, just in case. SJWs and all that. While I'm not the biggest promoter of "Safe Spaces", even I can see that people would rather not be confronted with things they are uncomfortable with.

But overall, all I want to say is: Playing an evil character doesn't make you an evil person.

[zergling.exe]

Queer woman here and yeah the only thing I find even slightly weird is gender stereotyping which parent is "the father figure" or for that matter assuming there is one. And honestly even that's just a minor quibble.

After reading this I had a thought, wouldn't a 'father/mother figure' be something that the child could impose on their own conscious towards a parent? Growing up around others who have heterosexual parentage would, I imagine, cause a child to unconsciously project a 'father/mother figure' image their parents who seems to fit them more. As children are wont to try and fit it with their peers and all that.
Not saying that either parent would identify themselves as that role, but a child could identify them in that role.

[Madokar]

Missed the pathfinder tag, because I am a genius.

I already commented that I think your initial situation is innocuous. Since the discussion has...migrated, I will also now comment in a more general sense.



There's a lot of wisdom from these two posters. A TTRPG exists between the people who play it, and nobody else. Generally. You shouldn't ask for or need approval from an online group of people who claim to be the moral and social police regarding acceptable ideas. As long as nobody at your table has a problem with it, there isn't a problem. And for what it's worth, LBGT isn't a moral standpoint. While a member of a group that is discriminated against can offer insight as to their experience, they can't speak for them all, and none of those labels grant any deeper insight on moral issues. Reaching out to try to understand is a good thing, but allowing lose groups and ideological demagogues to define what you should be morally comfortable with is dangerous. Just ask yourself if you're hurting anyone, or if it feels wrong. If not, you're probably fine.

For what it's worth(and not much, in my opinion), I'm a member of a group that, in the area I live, has to keep it hidden unless they want to face serious discrimination. I wouldn't try to present myself as a moral authority for "right" and "wrong" ways to portray my group, because fantasy settings don't have to cleave entirely to reality.


I think you're wrong here. First of all, you make the assumption that other people have as weak a divide between the character they roleplay as you do. I'm perfectly capable of playing an Evil degenerate and having it not impact my day to day at all. Getting into the mindset of someone who is unlike yourself is a core part of good roleplaying.

Secondly, you assume that people play non-good characters to fantasize about hurting people. That's an extremely limited view at best. Selfish ambition and greed are often associated with non-good characters, and many of these characters aren't monsters because they like to hurt people, they just hurt people because it's more expedient or efficient than the alternative. For some people, their character fantasy isn't "save the town", it's "run the town." And that's okay.

I find it amusing that despite trying to understand others, you're automatically assuming that people who play Evil characters have some sort of psychosis without particularly caring about their views or reasons.


I agree with that. How people are IRL has no real impact on their characters, nor the other way around. I, for one, have "some sort of psychosis", as Zanos put it, and can play good characters just fine (even if I rarely choose to). Just because you play out certain motivations doesn't mean you have to understand (or agree with) them.

As such, you shouldn't worry too much about your characters backstory reflecting horribly onto yourself. Still, you should check in with the group, just in case. SJWs and all that. While I'm not the biggest promoter of "Safe Spaces", even I can see that people would rather not be confronted with things they are uncomfortable with.

But overall, all I want to say is: Playing an evil character doesn't make you an evil person.

I suppose I need to establish a little background for myself as a person. I have Asperger's Syndrome. Or I'm on the Autism Spectrum Disorder. Or what it is called right now. This is not a self-diagnosis, I was officially diagnosed with the condition when I was in my preteens. Now, I'm not blaming my previous statements on my Asperger's. It's more complicated than that.

Due to numerous reasons when I was younger, I refused to take my medication. This resulted in me being "moody", for lack of a better term. And I eventually adopted a selfish, angry and deeply depressed worldview that I am very ashamed of now in my life. I always take my meds now, because I don't like the person I become when I am off my medication.

So I guess I'm projecting my own personal history onto other people here. Because when I am off my medication, I am far more comfortable with evil roleplaying than I am when I am currently on my meds. Since I know I have issues that flare up usually when I have evil fantasies, I guess I assumed most other people do too.

[icefractal]

To everyone saying "SJW gone mad!" ... chill the hell out. This is a player asking about how to make their own character a better portrayal of the concept - what exactly is supposed to be wrong with that? Sure, it's not like people are going to die from seeing an offensive character, but bad stereotypes are irritating, and why would you want to irritate your friends when you could easily not?

If anyone is being oversensitive here, it's the people freaking out about "the world is in a sad state of affairs".
If someone asked about portraying a Viking in a more historically accurate way, would you yell that accuracy has no place in RPGs?
If someone complained about a ****ty stereotype of role-players in a TV show, would you tell them to shut up and stop being offended?
Nobody is coming to your table to arrest you for not playing the correct way, so stop acting like it.

[lylsyly]

I think a stork is involved in that one. ;)

Or they do what I did and get married for a few years (she insisted).

As far as the OP goes, being gay, I do appreciate the thoughtfulness of asking. It's a game, anyone who is a serious player is not going to be offended by coming up with something unusual for a backstory (IMO), in fact, I think a few XP are in order with that one.

Anyone is offended, I would be inclined to tell them to go find another hobby, of course, I am a bit of an a.....

Good luck!

[Broutchev]

There's a lot of wisdom from these two posters.

Heh someone said I am wise, jokes on you mom.




As far as the OP goes, being gay, I do appreciate the thoughtfulness of asking. It's a game, anyone who is a serious player is not going to be offended by coming up with something unusual for a backstory (IMO), in fact, I think a few XP are in order with that one.

Anyone is offended, I would be inclined to tell them to go find another hobby, of course, I am a bit of an a.....

Good luck!

This. 100X This. It is thoughtful, props. Also the part about people offended, nice.

I think one part of all this had not get the proper attention. Maybe I'm the only one who believe that, the player is NOT playing a LBGTQ character but his parents are. Isn't it not less dramatic, I mean he can't play a stereotype, he isn't not playing them. The only thing that he can do wrong is assuming some sort of education from LGTBQ parents is different. Also they are dead so he's not forcing the DM to play them in any way.

My point is, he cannot portray a lesbian character wrong if he's not playing one.


Edit: But he can play another race, Aasimar anyway he wants, right? Makes no sense.

[Recherché]

My point is, he cannot portray a lesbian character wrong if he's not playing one.
But he can play another race, Aasimar anyway he wants, right?

Yeah but the difference to me is that Aasimar aren't real so you're unlikely to offend one. Lesbians are real and might be sitting across the table from you when you say something that hurts them. That gives you a little less latitude, though both can certainly be done tastefully.

[Broutchev]

You are right, the last sentence breaks the logic. I just didn't reread

I'll edit

[Psyren]

OP's Aasimar idea = fine.
Checking with a progressive forum just to be sure = also fine.
Hostile responses from people who are more offended that people might be offended than the people themselves could ever be = ironic.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

OP's Aasimar idea = fine.
Checking with a progressive forum just to be sure = also fine.
Hostile responses from people who are more offended that people might be offended than the people themselves could ever be = ironic.For everything else, there's mastercard specialist.

[Psyren]

For everything else, there's mastercard specialist.

A winner is you

[FallenFallcrest]

Point 1: You aren't playing as the mothers of your character, you are playing as your character.

Point 2: The book says that this is a legitimate way that your character could be born.

Conclusion: I don't understand why you feel like this could somehow be offensive.

It is essentially magical adoption, or like any number of mythological virgin birth examples, just with two same sex parents. It isn't "disrespectful", and it isn't "flattering" it is just a thing that can happen and did happen for your character.


If you feel unsure about doing something, of course you should feel comfortable to ask about it, but I really have to question what you thought was questionable about your character having same sex parents.


Would you feel like you have offended someone if your character were adopted or had divorced parents, even if you weren't adopted or had divorced parents? What if your character had to deal with abuse or some other tragedy that you in real life never had to deal with? You shouldn't feel like it offended someone just because your character is different than you. It is up to you to decide what that means for how your character acts during the story, but your backstory shouldn't be a problem unless you are actively trying to offend someone. Remember too, that your character will face hardships that you won't have to face in real life. Maybe go through battles and war, but even though it is a glorification of real life combat, you haven't offended veterans of real wars (Although it is always possible that someone would be offended).

You could play as a girl or as a sexless rock creature, or as anyone with a totally different life than you have, and you should not be afraid of it. Just think about how best to play the character and play the character because you think it would be interesting to play as and you think you can do it well or at least learn something by doing so. (But don't do something for the sake of adding diversity, that results in tokenism because it usually means you don't care about what the character brings to the table, but only the fact that your character is X Y or Z and nobody else is X Y or Z.)

If you honestly think that you are offending someone at every possible turn, there is no chance to learn from other experiences of life, and so you would never learn anything about yourself. You would be forced to play exactly yourself in every single game, and that isn't even possible, because it is a game. The only winning move would be not to play the game at all. Just do your best.



(Also, I disagree with your statement about feeling like you shouldn't be fantasizing about "hurting people" remember that your character exists in a world where wanton murder is commonplace, and even if you think your character is good, chances are, your character will kill lots of sentient beings over the course of the adventure. Sure, those Goblins might have attacked you and steal for a living, but they had families that will never see them again. Those people died, their imaginary families will starve and it is your fault. It is how the game works. Consequences that you never need to care about. It is how real life works too.)

I apologize for being mildly rambly and for the fact that I often totally ruin my own point while trying to explain something... bottom line: be well-educated, ask questions, don't purposely try to offend people, play the best you can, do what you think seems interesting, and everything usually goes fine. And always remember that no matter what you do, it is ALWAYS possible for SOMEONE to feel offended.

[Reflect_Manta]

Dude, just do your thing. It's fine to play your character in a way that's considerate of others' feelings, but stepping on eggshells and pondering whether or not it'd offend people who literally would never see or hear your character in action...well, that strikes me as either virtue signaling or outright paranoia.

either way, do your thing with some confidence. you don't need someone's permission to experiment with a character backstory, and the only benefit either of you would derive from worrying about it pertains to accuracy(basically the parental roles thing). nothing really wrong with a bad guess anyway.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I am coming in a bit late to the conversation but I want to add that, as a gay man, I have no intrinsic problem with people playing non-heteronormative characters. I only get frustrated when they are stereotypes or caricatures. Gay men, in my experience, are humans with human wants and needs and take action based on human decisions. Now in a fantasy game they need not be, but generally they will react as members of their species generally would with the critical difference of their preferred partner differs from the norm of their species.

I understand your concern though; In a future setting I was running humanity had advanced socially and technologically that society could no longer be called heteronormative and boy were a couple people mad at me for that (I am still not entirely sure as to why), so caution is definitely good so as to avoid people randomly pitching fits.

[Raz Dazzle]

Man, this is what the SJW crowd has done.

Those darn SJWs, making people more considerate and respectful of others.

[Zanos]

Those darn SJWs, making people more considerate and respectful of others.
It's pretty silly when people are reporting in to the thought police to make sure they haven't committed thought crime.

[icefractal]

It's pretty silly when people are reporting in to the thought police so make sure they haven't committed thought crime.Personally, I think it's pretty silly when someone posts a question on a forum and people call it "reporting in to the thought police". :smalltongue:

[Echch]

Those darn SJWs, making people more considerate and respectful of others.

Considerate maybe, but respectful?

[Madokar]

I am coming in a bit late to the conversation but I want to add that, as a gay man, I have no intrinsic problem with people playing non-heteronormative characters. I only get frustrated when they are stereotypes or caricatures. Gay men, in my experience, are humans with human wants and needs and take action based on human decisions. Now in a fantasy game they need not be, but generally they will react as members of their species generally would with the critical difference of their preferred partner differs from the norm of their species.

I understand your concern though; In a future setting I was running humanity had advanced socially and technologically that society could no longer be called heteronormative and boy were a couple people mad at me for that (I am still not entirely sure as to why), so caution is definitely good so as to avoid people randomly pitching fits.

Pathfinder is very respectful to the LGBTQ community, I've discovered. Two of the iconics are in a lesbian relationship, and another is transgender (male to female). My first experience with this mindset was in a PFS module set in Ustalav. Can't remember the proper city it was set in. Maybe Caliphas?

At any rate, the antagonist of module was a werewolf, and as we invesitgated, we discovered that he was a retired member of the Pathfinder Society. We were able to track him down and cure him thanks to his lover, a half-elf nobleman. The fact that he was gay wasn't even a blip on anyone's radar, really. We were more concerned with the fact that he was an afflicted werewolf and could tear our faces off if we caught up to him unprepared. Doesn't really matter what your sexuality is if you're a feral lycanthrope. Because all feral lycanthropes are dangerous in exactly the same way.

[Echch]

Pathfinder is very respectful to the LGBTQ community, I've discovered. Two of the iconics are in a lesbian relationship, and another is transgender (male to female). My first experience with this mindset was in a PFS module set in Ustalav. Can't remember the proper city it was set in. Maybe Caliphas?

At any rate, the antagonist of module was a werewolf, and as we invesitgated, we discovered that he was a retired member of the Pathfinder Society. We were able to track him down and cure him thanks to his lover, a half-elf nobleman. The fact that he was gay wasn't even a blip on anyone's radar, really. We were more concerned with the fact that he was an afflicted werewolf and could tear our faces off if we caught up to him unprepared. Doesn't matter really matter what your sexuality is if you're a feral lycanthrope. Because all feral lycanthropes are dangerous in exactly the same way.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't werebears actually good? Or was that changed during pathfinder?

[Madokar]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't werebears actually good? Or was that changed during pathfinder?

They are. But feral werebears are more bear than man, so I think they still become aggressive.

[Coidzor]

Well, they died or disappeared, what, 50 years before start of play and are unlikely to show up during the campaign as a result.

So I don't really see the back story coming up in the first place, unless a dedicated effort is made, and a group of people should generally have enough awareness of one another to have a good idea of comfort zones and level of interest.

Just, as said, don't call a woman a father.

Now, if you wanted one of them to be a trans man, that'd be something to tread extra carefully on if you were going to highlight this.

[KillingAScarab]

Pathfinder is very respectful to the LGBTQ community, I've discovered. Two of the iconics are in a lesbian relationship, and another is transgender (male to female). My first experience with this mindset was in a PFS module set in Ustalav. Can't remember the proper city it was set in. Maybe Caliphas?

At any rate, the antagonist of module was a werewolf, and as we invesitgated, we discovered that he was a retired member of the Pathfinder Society. We were able to track him down and cure him thanks to his lover, a half-elf nobleman. The fact that he was gay wasn't even a blip on anyone's radar, really. We were more concerned with the fact that he was an afflicted werewolf and could tear our faces off if we caught up to him unprepared. Doesn't matter really matter what your sexuality is if you're a feral lycanthrope. Because all feral lycanthropes are dangerous in exactly the same way.

That's quite nice. If you don't mind my piggybacking off this topic, I'm not really a GM but I periodically try to come up with ideas for campaigns and while I only have the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, the Pathfinder wiki (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/) is complete enough to give me some ideas about the Inner Sea region of Golarion. I have an idea for a female paladin of Shelyn who is trying to win the heart of a noblewoman, I just haven't figured out what nation works best to give a reason for some will-they-won't-they tension. Perhaps Taldor, maybe even use Eutropia (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Eutropia), but then again perhaps that's too much conflict to surround them with? Would anyone have any suggestions?

[Madokar]

That's quite nice. If you don't mind my piggybacking off this topic, I'm not really a GM but I periodically try to come up with ideas for campaigns and while I only have the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, the Pathfinder wiki (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/) is complete enough to give me some ideas about the Inner Sea region of Golarion. I have an idea for a female paladin of Shelyn who is trying to win the heart of a noblewoman, I just haven't figured out what nation works best to give a reason for some will-they-won't-they tension. Perhaps Taldor, maybe even use Eutropia (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Eutropia), but then again perhaps that's too much conflict to surround them with? Would anyone have any suggestions?

Shelyn's primary centers of worship in the Inner Sea region are Absalom, Galt, Sargava, and Taldor. Of those main worship centers, Absalom is the most stable. It's the one country that is effectively removed from major world politics aside from whatever issues prop up inside it's borders. The country got that way due to a variety factors, one of which is that it has never fallen to invasion. To give you sense of how secure the nation is, and how effectively it's run, the ruler of the island nation is Lord Gyr of House Gixx. Quite obviously a shout-out to Gary Gygax.

[Lord Raziere]

Considerate maybe, but respectful?

I think checking whether a portrayal is a good one or not is not disrespectful at all. I mean its like someone going up to a nerd and asking "hey I'm trying to portray DnD 3.5 players in this novel I'm writing, do you have any experience with that? If you do could you like just quickly check if my portrayal of them is not putting them into stupid stereotypes or anything that could offend them?"

because you wouldn't want the person NOT asking whether the portrayal is good or not, because THEN, they just make whatever stupid assumption they think is reasonable.

Like I'm not a 3.5 optimizer. See? So if I were like going to write something where I portray 3.5 optimizers as a hypothetical example, I could either
A: ask people here what their tables are like, what you discuss and how to portray how they play the game form my purposes for whatever reason- The reasonable, respectful option
B: be lazy, assume that all they talk about is optimization, numbers and so on while having nasally voices and pocket protectors with scant if any backstories for their characters and so on and so forth and end up making everyone here angry for not simply asking what its like.

Sure, Roleplaying is technically a game where you technically do whatever you want, and not writing. But its not PURELY a game, is the problem. It has too many mixed elements to separate one thing from another. and even if you personally were fine with me roleplaying some stupid caricature of 3.5 players for whatever reason, probably comedic ones, other people wouldn't be. If I on the other just ask a few questions and get a general sense of what its like, the benefits are clear:
-those people who play 3.5 who would be ticked off at me, wouldn't be.
-the people who play 3.5 who wouldn't be ticked off, but would accept whatever I decide to portray would accept it anyways. Better yet: they would remember that I put in the effort.
-people who have no idea about 3.5 players wouldn't be getting an inaccurate portrayal. which isn't directly beneficial, but could be beneficial in other ways I don't know yet.

So while from the viewers point of view, its all a SJW-fest, from the PORTRAYERS point of view, the person doing the actual work of making the story, there is more benefit to being accurate, considerate and respectful than there isn't. What would "just doing whatever I want with my game/series/novel/etc" get me? No clear answer. the approval of people who......are annoyed at SJW being a thing? Why would I want to appeal to them? Why would I want to make art- art from a game, but art NONETHELESS- to appeal to people whose problem seems to be a reactionary one, with no clear proposed alternative to the SJW's attempts at reminding people to be respectful and considerate, no matter how badly you think they go about it, or how much backlash they receive?

Especially when roleplaying is a social activity at all, and thing is about social activities....is that its a world of hidden dangers. You never know what you say could make someone angry at you, or cause a big fallout with a friend- or drive away people who COULD be friends with you. It is best to be cautious with your words in such a case, until you know the person and they know you. And even then....there are things you may not know about them. I have a friend, who I never knew that he was adopted until I cracked a bad joke about it and he told me that he was. Thankfully he is a good, forgiving sort and we still are friends. But ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and all that.

Communication is a firefight, all your words are bullets. Don't fire off anything at any targets you don't wish to get shot.

[KillingAScarab]

Shelyn's primary centers of worship in the Inner Sea region are Absalom, Galt, Sargava, and Taldor. Of those main worship centers, Absalom is the most stable. It's the one country that is effectively removed from major world politics aside from whatever issues prop up inside it's borders. The country got that way due to a variety factors, one of which is that it has never fallen to invasion. To give you sense of how secure the nation is, and how effectively it's run, the ruler of the island nation is Lord Gyr of House Gixx. Quite obviously a shout-out to Gary Gygax.After looking over Absalom's government a bit, I think that one may be a bit too stable to be the homeland of the characters, or at least for both characters. Trying to start or hold a relationship with a trade baron vying for power on the Grand Council doesn't have quite the same panache to it. I suppose it depends upon the level of intrigue a group wants to be involved in. The paladin could come from Absalom; that might be more conducive to the artistic side of worshipers of Shelyn. Perhaps the noblewoman could have simply been traveling through Absalom. Alternately, star-crossed lovers meet while passing through Absalom, which looks like might open up the possibilities to other planes? Huh.

[Madokar]

After looking over Absalom's government a bit, I think that one may be a bit too stable to be the homeland of the characters, or at least for both characters. Trying to start or hold a relationship with a trade baron vying for power on the Grand Council doesn't have quite the same panache to it. I suppose it depends upon the level of intrigue a group wants to be involved in. The paladin could come from Absalom; that might be more conducive to the artistic side of worshipers of Shelyn. Perhaps the noblewoman could have simply been traveling through Absalom. Alternately, star-crossed lovers meet while passing through Absalom, which looks like might open up the possibilities to other planes? Huh.

Your tale. You're free to put it together however you want. For what it's worth, Galt and Sargava are far too unstable to really use a "romance the noble" plot. So you might want to go with your first instinct and set it in Taldor. Of course, you could have the whole story start in Absalom and move it to Taldor.

[Coidzor]

Galt also killed all their nobles as I recall, so it's out coming and going.

Really, it depends a lot on what you want to do beyond romancing a noble, since that can happen against just about any kind of backdrop, it's just going to be very different seducing Abrogail Thrune while a group of good-aligned rebels make inroads against her government and playing Romeo and Juliet in Taldor, or seducing the heir to the throne of Minkai while fighting tooth and nail to see her crowned.

[KillingAScarab]

Your tale. You're free to put it together however you want. For what it's worth, Galt and Sargava are far too unstable to really use a "romance the noble" plot. So you might want to go with your first instinct and set it in Taldor. Of course, you could have the whole story start in Absalom and move it to Taldor.My tale, for now. If I ever bring it to a table, though, I would like to make sure people already familiar with the setting think it is reasonable.

Two benefits I see to Taldor are Eutropia already has a rejection of one of her country's traditions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnatic_primogeniture#Agnatic_primogeniture) built-in, and it is also close to Andoran, including its notable aasimar population. Perhaps the method you have described from Blood of Angels reaches her and she wants to institute that as a means of continuing her lineage? Though there could be conflict from nobles who are afraid of the consequences from too much angelic influence. Taldor is, after all, not that far from Cheliax. I also see "Eternal Monarch of Cheliax" amongst Eutropia's father (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Stavian_III)'s titles, though I'm not sure how that was gained.


Galt also killed all their nobles as I recall, so it's out coming and going.

Really, it depends a lot on what you want to do beyond romancing a noble, since that can happen against just about any kind of backdrop, it's just going to be very different seducing Abrogail Thrune while a group of good-aligned rebels make inroads against her government and playing Romeo and Juliet in Taldor, or seducing the heir to the throne of Minkai while fighting tooth and nail to see her crowned.Wow. Abrogail strikes me as a higher-level campaign. That would be something, though.

[Echch]

I think checking whether a portrayal is a good one or not is not disrespectful at all. I mean its like someone going up to a nerd and asking "hey I'm trying to portray DnD 3.5 players in this novel I'm writing, do you have any experience with that? If you do could you like just quickly check if my portrayal of them is not putting them into stupid stereotypes or anything that could offend them?"

because you wouldn't want the person NOT asking whether the portrayal is good or not, because THEN, they just make whatever stupid assumption they think is reasonable.

Like I'm not a 3.5 optimizer. See? So if I were like going to write something where I portray 3.5 optimizers as a hypothetical example, I could either
A: ask people here what their tables are like, what you discuss and how to portray how they play the game form my purposes for whatever reason- The reasonable, respectful option
B: be lazy, assume that all they talk about is optimization, numbers and so on while having nasally voices and pocket protectors with scant if any backstories for their characters and so on and so forth and end up making everyone here angry for not simply asking what its like.

Sure, Roleplaying is technically a game where you technically do whatever you want, and not writing. But its not PURELY a game, is the problem. It has too many mixed elements to separate one thing from another. and even if you personally were fine with me roleplaying some stupid caricature of 3.5 players for whatever reason, probably comedic ones, other people wouldn't be. If I on the other just ask a few questions and get a general sense of what its like, the benefits are clear:
-those people who play 3.5 who would be ticked off at me, wouldn't be.
-the people who play 3.5 who wouldn't be ticked off, but would accept whatever I decide to portray would accept it anyways. Better yet: they would remember that I put in the effort.
-people who have no idea about 3.5 players wouldn't be getting an inaccurate portrayal. which isn't directly beneficial, but could be beneficial in other ways I don't know yet.

So while from the viewers point of view, its all a SJW-fest, from the PORTRAYERS point of view, the person doing the actual work of making the story, there is more benefit to being accurate, considerate and respectful than there isn't. What would "just doing whatever I want with my game/series/novel/etc" get me? No clear answer. the approval of people who......are annoyed at SJW being a thing? Why would I want to appeal to them? Why would I want to make art- art from a game, but art NONETHELESS- to appeal to people whose problem seems to be a reactionary one, with no clear proposed alternative to the SJW's attempts at reminding people to be respectful and considerate, no matter how badly you think they go about it, or how much backlash they receive?

Especially when roleplaying is a social activity at all, and thing is about social activities....is that its a world of hidden dangers. You never know what you say could make someone angry at you, or cause a big fallout with a friend- or drive away people who COULD be friends with you. It is best to be cautious with your words in such a case, until you know the person and they know you. And even then....there are things you may not know about them. I have a friend, who I never knew that he was adopted until I cracked a bad joke about it and he told me that he was. Thankfully he is a good, forgiving sort and we still are friends. But ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and all that.

Communication is a firefight, all your words are bullets. Don't fire off anything at any targets you don't wish to get shot.

That wasn't what I meant. What I meant was: How do SJWs make me more respectful? I know I come from a rather bad place, so I'm not gonna say all SJWs are like that, but if you come towards me with a mob of 10 people and tell me you'll beat me up if I don't comply to your train of thought, I'm not gonna respect you. I fear you, as I know you'll break my bones if I don't comply, but I don't respect you. If you violently force your opinion on others, you won't gain respect from it, you only make your cause look bad. I'll become more considerate, sure: If my options are not to talk and getting my bones broken for talking, I'm inclined to shut up.

Sure, that does solve the problem the SJWs are trying to fix. Thought police always does. The price is rather steep though.

[Psyren]

You know, there was no problem to fix here until the folks who are throwing around terms like "SJW" and "thought police" created one, and an entire wagonload of strawmen to go along with it. The OP's request was perfectly reasonable and even thoughtful.


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't werebears actually good? Or was that changed during pathfinder?


They are. But feral werebears are more bear than man, so I think they still become aggressive.

They're generally good but they distrust strangers and are quick to attack ones they think might be evil to drive them away. Something obviously innocent like a small child or a unicorn might be safe around them, but most humanoids should probably steer clear, especially from feral ones.

[Coidzor]

I'd contend that OP being fearful instead of curious and not knowing how to query a population of LGBTA individuals were both problems that not only haven't really been directly addressed but are the reason the thread was made in the first place.

Unfortunately, I haven't the foggiest as to what to direct someone who has never met a non-hetero, non-cisgender person before to help give them the level of education to be equipped with a general understanding and feel able to further look into it as necessary. Probably will be taking that question to the dedicated LGBTA questions thread.

[Psyren]

I'd contend that OP being fearful instead of curious and not knowing how to query a population of LGBTA individuals were both problems that not only haven't really been directly addressed but are the reason the thread was made in the first place.

"I worry about being insensitive" is not fear, merely common decency/courtesy, and worthy of encouragement.

"Not knowing how to query LGBTA individuals" seems an odd statement to me given that's exactly what the OP successfully did. Well, minus all the derails from people who were offended that other people might potentially be offended and therefore got offended in order to pre-empt the hypothetical offended people.

[icefractal]

but if you come towards me with a mob of 10 people and tell me you'll beat me up if I don't comply to your train of thought, I'm not gonna respect you. I fear you, as I know you'll break my bones if I don't comply, but I don't respect you.Ok, I have to ask here - are you speaking literally or out of your ass metaphorically? Have you ever been literally, in the physical world, menaced by a mob of SJWs who threaten to break your bones?

Because if so, that's terrible, but a pretty unique occurrence. Not only not representative, but not even something I've heard of happening at all.

If not, and what you actually mean is that people were snippy with you on the internet - then no, that is not at all like being maimed by an angry mob. If you think it is, please re-calibrate your perspective in accord with reality.

[lylsyly]

You know, there was no problem to fix here until the folks who are throwing around terms like "SJW" and "thought police" created one, and an entire wagonload of strawmen to go along with it. The OP's request was perfectly reasonable and even thoughtful.





They're generally good but they distrust strangers and are quick to attack ones they think might be evil to drive them away. Something obviously innocent like a small child or a unicorn might be safe around them, but most humanoids should probably steer clear, especially from feral ones.


"I worry about being insensitive" is not fear, merely common decency/courtesy, and worthy of encouragement.

"Not knowing how to query LGBTA individuals" seems an odd statement to me given that's exactly what the OP successfully did. Well, minus all the derails from people who were offended that other people might potentially be offended and therefore got offended in order to pre-empt the hypothetical offended people.

+1 Psyren +1

[Stealth Marmot]

This thread went on WAY further than needed.

Not being LGBT I cant comment on whether it is offensive or not since it really isn't for me to say.

But I would say the fact that you are asking shows proper caution and you asked in a very respectful manner. I wish others would follow your example.

[Coidzor]

"I worry about being insensitive" is not fear, merely common decency/courtesy, and worthy of encouragement.

OP obviously goes beyond that.


"Not knowing how to query LGBTA individuals" seems an odd statement to me given that's exactly what the OP successfully did.

This is not the appropriate forum for learning or teaching basic information about acceptable ways to talk to and about LGBTA people, which is where OP ultimately needs to be directed or find on his own. This is the 3e/3.5/d20 subforum.

[Recherché]

This is not the appropriate forum for learning or teaching basic information about acceptable ways to talk to and about LGBTA people, which is where OP ultimately needs to be directed or find on his own. This is the 3e/3.5/d20 subforum.

This was a question about how LGBTA people and a game interact so honestly I could see it going in either direction. And as it is the location doesn't bother me or the OP. Plus I can kind of see it as seeming like the less intimidating place to ask instead of barging into an established thread that's dominated by people with their own codes of conduct and subculture (very friendly people for the most part but still.)

[Mordaedil]

This is not the appropriate forum for learning or teaching basic information about acceptable ways to talk to and about LGBTA people, which is where OP ultimately needs to be directed or find on his own. This is the 3e/3.5/d20 subforum.
So you want a... Safe space?

[Coidzor]

So you want a... Safe space?

No, I think OP needs further education which goes beyond the scope of this thread in order to deal with his underlying issue and was responding to the notion being dismissed.

[Mordaedil]

Honestly, it doesn't seem to me like he's the one with a problem/issue here.

[Psyren]

OP obviously goes beyond that.

The OP obviously did not; a handful of posters who wanted to turn what should have been a simple roleplaying question into a referendum on the evulz of political correctness did.

I see asking LGBTQ gamers what they think of an LGBTQ concept as being no different than, say, wanting to roleplay a native american character in a historical RPG, and asking native american players for ways to do so authentically and while avoiding shallow stereotypes. It's about getting firsthand knowledge from a primary source to make the character and concept stronger, not virtue signalling or thought policing or whatever other horror is being mistakenly ascribed here.



This is not the appropriate forum for learning or teaching basic information about acceptable ways to talk to and about LGBTA people, which is where OP ultimately needs to be directed or find on his own. This is the 3e/3.5/d20 subforum.

Oh come on, take off the fake mod hat. "Do you think this backstory/concept is okay" has been a topic here since forever; the opening post says not a thing about "learning basic information about acceptable ways to talk to and about LGBT people."

[Powerdork]

If you're the type who comes into a thread titled "Respecting LGBTQ people", you're not yourself LGBTQ, and you're saying "LGBTQ people don't need to be respected, it's just a game", please reconsider your life choices. That is all. Why, yes, I am reducing some viewpoints here. Do I care? No. OP's made a good effort to get the viewpoints of people in a minority group in depicting said minority group. Thanks.

As an enby: It's cute. Go for it.

[Stealth Marmot]

That wasn't what I meant. What I meant was: How do SJWs make me more respectful? I know I come from a rather bad place, so I'm not gonna say all SJWs are like that, but if you come towards me with a mob of 10 people and tell me you'll beat me up if I don't comply to your train of thought, I'm not gonna respect you. I fear you, as I know you'll break my bones if I don't comply, but I don't respect you. If you violently force your opinion on others, you won't gain respect from it, you only make your cause look bad. I'll become more considerate, sure: If my options are not to talk and getting my bones broken for talking, I'm inclined to shut up.

Sure, that does solve the problem the SJWs are trying to fix. Thought police always does. The price is rather steep though.

I'm going to try to be polite but will likely fail as this mentality pisses me off.

Okay first things first, an "SJW" as you call them (I prefer "Someone who expects people to treat others, particularly ones who are often subject to real discrimination on a daily basis, with dignity and respect", but that won't fit in 3 letters) are not here for your benefit, unless you are one of the people who are subject to the discrimination. The "SJW" is just a person who wants you or others who may be potentially discriminatory or hurtful, to know that actions that harass, hurt, or disrespect any particular group of normally disenfranchised group of people, are actions that are not welcome or condoned in their presence.

Speaking, commenting, or typing is an action, not a thought. What you think, and what you say where other people can't hear? That's something no one can, or even COULD, be angry at you for. But should you make comments that are unwelcome, or state opinions that are offensive to people, hurtful to people, or in some extreme cases even triggers for people, then those of us who feel that stating such is harmful will make sure you know it is unwelcome and if necessary, show you the door if we are capable.

Your hyperbole of describing violence against thoughts is enough to misrepresent the entire situation. You are not being told you cannot hold thoughts or even express them, but you are often being told you cannot express them (or in some cases express them in a certain way) without being asked to stop, asked to leave, or no longer be allowed to comment. In the latter's case, only moderators have that capability.

Should you want to bring the first amendment into it, I want to make sure you understand that free speech is in fact a two way street. Should you state something, then people are allowed to respond. Bullying is one thing, but if you are one of 11 people on this thread and you say something that the other 10 disagree with, the other 10 are allowed to get 10 responses to say how they disagree. This is not them threatening you or using numbers to push you around, it is the simple fact that many people disagree.

If you are operating under the idea that you should be able to state what you want without people being able to respond in a wave and make you feel uncomfortable and bullied, then you are asking for what is essentially a "Safe Space", that thing the "Anti-SJWs" seem to hate so much.

And just to be clear: Being told what you chose to say is hurtful, that we disagree, and that we would prefer you didn't say it here, are not the same as being told that your religion, orientation, gender, or gender identity is deserving of contempt, shame, or harassment. I am not swayed by your desire to play victim.

[Broutchev]

This whole mess of a thread as derailed way beyond it's original goal.

This thread is NOT about SJWs, safe-space, triggers and such.

This thread is about someone questioning if wheter or not he is insensitive to play a character with lgbt(A?q?) backstory.


I like the concept, but I'm a bit leery of using gay characters as my parents in my backstory. Mainly because I'm a straight white man born to straight parents and I worry about being insensitive to other groups.

First of, as said earlier, OP isn't sure therefore he asks. round of applause, cheers and whatnot, this is proper etiquette, just for that I would like to play with that gentlemen.

Second, he has not asked for a particular group of people their opinions, then everyone should be able to express their opinion.

Third, said earlier this is about a character concept and being insensitive, parallel can be drawn but devolving into a debate about SJWs and other flame bait is not intended.

I'll give my two cents as firsthand experience.
I gamed with a guy who dresses as a woman and who dates other guys. (many would say he is queer, he just say ''I like it and I don't care'') He used to play a black woman, he is neither, who was so tragically stereotyped it was a blast. But we all knew it wasn't a factual representation. This worked at my table, minor backstory lesbian character might not work as yours. I really believe by polarizing prejudice we are simply pulling people apart instead of making everyone together as one.

I also, as a man, played a female character but in the dozens of session I played the fact that she was female never went beyond the whole, oh right you are an elf, and female... She was racist and boy did that went into play.

Ask on the internet: step one, ask to the people on your table: all the other steps.

Tl.Dr. Long rant about people ranting.

Also out of interest I think you did a nice background and I would love to hear from it
(and by nice background I mean tremendous compared to those I did)

[Sacrieur]

I go out of my way to offend the sensibilities of my players.

If one player isn't crying in the corner by the end of one of my campaigns, I'm doing it wrong.

[Madokar]

I go out of my way to offend the sensibilities of my players.

If one player isn't crying in the corner by the end of one of my campaigns, I'm doing it wrong.

I find that really sad and pathetic.

[Hamste]

They're generally good but they distrust strangers and are quick to attack ones they think might be evil to drive them away. Something obviously innocent like a small child or a unicorn might be safe around them, but most humanoids should probably steer clear, especially from feral ones.

I'm trying to figure out if you are continuing the punband I'm missing the double meaning or if you missed the pun (it was a werewolf, one of the posters changed it to werebear as they were gay)

[Madokar]

I'm trying to figure out if you are continuing the punband I'm missing the double meaning or if you missed the pun (it was a werewolf, one of the posters changed it to werebear as they were gay)

We were talking about representation of the LGBTQ people in official Paizo products at one point. My first experience with such content revolved around a gay Pathfinder veteren from a PFS module that was cursed with lycanthropy. I said that it doesn't matter what a lycanthrope's sexuality is, they are all universally dangerous in the exact same way.

Somebody else stipulated that werebears are generally LG in alignment, so they wouldn't fall under such generalization. But a feral werebear is just as dangerous, if not more so, than a wild bear.

[Hamste]

We were talking about representation of the LGBTQ people in official Paizo products at one point. My first experience with such content revolved around a gay Pathfinder veteren from a PFS module that was cursed with lycanthropy. I said that it doesn't matter what a lycanthrope's sexuality is, they are all universally dangerous in the exact same way.

Somebody else stipulated that werebears are generally LG in alignment, so they wouldn't fall under such generalization. But a feral werebear is just as dangerous, if not more so, than a wild bear.

Yes, but you pointed out he was a werewolf in your original story. The most obvious way a werebear is related is if it was a joke based off the idea that a gay man with certain characteristics is called a bear. I guess it could be related to the feral part but it seems strangely nit picky considering what feral means if not a joke.

[Madokar]

Yes, but you pointed out he was a werewolf in your original story. The most obvious way a werebear is related is if it was a joke based off the idea that a gay man with certain characteristics is called a bear. I guess it could be related to the feral part but it seems strangely nit picky considering what feral means if not a joke.

The slang term "bear" didn't even factor into it. It was about lycanthropy and that werebears are the only good-aligned lycanthropes. So if they are good-aligned, they shouldn't be aggressive and dangerous like all the other lycanthropes. Hence, why the discussion of "feral" werebears would be dangerous.

[Psyren]

Yes, but you pointed out he was a werewolf in your original story. The most obvious way a werebear is related is if it was a joke based off the idea that a gay man with certain characteristics is called a bear. I guess it could be related to the feral part but it seems strangely nit picky considering what feral means if not a joke.

The two posts I was responding to - which, given that I quoted both of them, I thought would be obvious - were asking a general question about werebears totally independent of the werewolf conversation.


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't werebears actually good? Or was that changed during pathfinder?


They are. But feral werebears are more bear than man, so I think they still become aggressive.

[Jack_Simth]

I'm going to try to be polite but will likely fail as this mentality pisses me off.Term drift. Language is a fluid thing and varies from location to location and person to person. Your SJW is not Echch's SJW. I have personally encountered people who are only a few steps away from what Echch described about specific causes (if you have problems with their specific implementation of their cause, it's less 'gang up on you and break your bones' and more 'engage in personal insults', 'spread deliberate falsehoods about you with the goal of causing you harm', 'key your car and slash your tires when you aren't looking', and the like - it's a spectrum). If you always perfectly conform to their exact view of acceptable behavior and speech, you never have a problem with them.

When you want to specify a person that has some cause they consider to be 'social justice', and said person ignores all social niceties (and in some cases, rule of law) when dealing with those who hold a different view, what term do you use to differentiate them from more common varieties of not-nice-meanie-person?

[upho]

I'm late to the party, as always, but anyways:


I like the concept, but I'm a bit leery of using gay characters as my parents in my backstory. Mainly because I'm a straight white man born to straight parents and I worry about being insensitive to other groups.I also like the concept, and I think it's a good idea to ask around when your knowledge is limited, especially if your limited knowledge may result in unintentionally disrespectful and insensitive behavior. Would be a better world if more people did the same thing.


OP's Aasimar idea = fine.
Checking with a progressive forum just to be sure = also fine.
Hostile responses from people who are more offended that people might be offended than the people themselves could ever be = ironic.Good summary. And of course, the OP's motive for asking is the primary problem for the "offended" posters, and the reason for the general derail as well as the "entire wagonload of strawmen to go along with it", as you put it.

I suspect that had the OP's motive actually been less about respecting his fellow players, say to more convincingly portray his character, there probably wouldn't have been a single offended poster. (And ironically, this likely would've resulted in the same reduced risk of the OP ending up being insensitive to others at his table.)



You could play a child rapist, who while defiling her victims ate them as well, but at the same time she was a racist and only defiled gnomes of same sex.The "gnomes only" thing... Gnomes for crying out loud! Now that is truly deranged! :smalltongue:


Well, minus all the derails from people who were offended that other people might potentially be offended and therefore got offended in order to pre-empt the hypothetical offended people.Ha ha! That pretty much nails it!


I go out of my way to offend the sensibilities of my players.

If one player isn't crying in the corner by the end of one of my campaigns, I'm doing it wrong.Heh, that pretty accurately describes the philosophy behind - and the results of playing - a large majority of the many games I played in during a certain period. But while a game may still be very emotionally intense, and move me and my fellow grognards into tears from time to time, turns out moms and dads in their forties typically aren't nearly as easily scared, shocked or offended as they were 20 years back or so... :smallconfused:

So unfortunately, I'm not likely to experience another session able to spook any of these guys into classics like trying to hide behind furniture, covering eyes and ears and begging for the GM to stop, or lying whimpering and crying in fetal position. :smallfrown:

[Sacrieur]

I find that really sad and pathetic.

The fact you take offense to that offends me greatly.



Heh, that pretty accurately describes the philosophy behind - and the results of playing - a large majority of the many games I played in during a certain period. But while a game may still be very emotionally intense, and move me and my fellow grognards into tears from time to time, turns out moms and dads in their forties typically aren't nearly as easily scared, shocked or offended as they were 20 years back or so... :smallconfused:

So unfortunately, I'm not likely to experience another session able to spook any of these guys into classics like trying to hide behind furniture, covering eyes and ears and begging for the GM to stop, or lying whimpering and crying in fetal position. :smallfrown:

Those are the best and most memorable. People always like the movies they cry over.

[Psyren]

Term drift. Language is a fluid thing and varies from location to location and person to person. Your SJW is not Echch's SJW. I have personally encountered people who are only a few steps away from what Echch described about specific causes (if you have problems with their specific implementation of their cause, it's less 'gang up on you and break your bones' and more 'engage in personal insults', 'spread deliberate falsehoods about you with the goal of causing you harm', 'key your car and slash your tires when you aren't looking', and the like - it's a spectrum). If you always perfectly conform to their exact view of acceptable behavior and speech, you never have a problem with them.

When you want to specify a person that has some cause they consider to be 'social justice', and said person ignores all social niceties (and in some cases, rule of law) when dealing with those who hold a different view, what term do you use to differentiate them from more common varieties of not-nice-meanie-person?

The folks you have personally encountered that undertake extreme reactions such as these, assuming they truly even exist, are clearly not in this thread. Is that not then the very definition of a strawman? Arguing against a person or position who isn't even here, and that is too extreme for anyone on either side to ally with?

[Stealth Marmot]

The folks you have personally encountered that undertake extreme reactions such as these, assuming they truly even exist, are clearly not in this thread. Is that not then the very definition of a strawman? Arguing against a person or position who isn't even here, and that is too extreme for anyone on either side to ally with?

I tend to think that it generally shifts more towards false equivalence. When someone speaks about how a person who is female, LGBT, a PoC, or some combination therein faces abuse online there is a devils advocate type saying that there is "extremists on the other end too" or some such, even though you have to do a good bit of searching to find the examples of these supposed extremists on the other end, while basically any PoC, LGBT, or woman who makes their status known online has pretty much a better than 50% chance of having gotten a real death/rape threat related to their status as a minority while being online at some point.

Depending on exposure they may have gotten multiple.

Whereas the death/rape threats FROM a minority against a white/straight/male person is both a lot more rare and normally not DUE to their status as a white/straight/male person. It numbers low enough that they usually CAN be taken on individually instead of there being too many to confront.

It's a false equivalence because the amount and severity of the bullying, death threats, and harassment that PoC, LGBT, and women face online because of their status is several orders of magnitude greater than the amount of harassment sent FROM these supposed extremists.

[KillingAScarab]

It was about lycanthropy and that werebears are the only good-aligned lycanthropes.Technically, there are also the Lythari (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Lythari), but they are specific to Forgotten Realms.

[Echch]

Ok, I have to ask here - are you speaking literally or out of your ass metaphorically? Have you ever been literally, in the physical world, menaced by a mob of SJWs who threaten to break your bones?

Because if so, that's terrible, but a pretty unique occurrence. Not only not representative, but not even something I've heard of happening at all.

If not, and what you actually mean is that people were snippy with you on the internet - then no, that is not at all like being maimed by an angry mob. If you think it is, please re-calibrate your perspective in accord with reality.

Yes, and it happened at three seperate occasions. And I mean "literally". Funny how things work out: You get mugged by someone of a different nationality, manage to fend them off and the very next day you find yourself getting surrounded and beaten up for being a "Nazi".
Sure, it's been some years since (I was still in school at the time, which "literally" saved my life), but stuff like that sticks. This might not be the norm, and I hope it isn't and I'm just living in a very radical place, but seeing something like that from the outside changes your perspective on that stuff.

[Jack_Simth]

The folks you have personally encountered that undertake extreme reactions such as these, assuming they truly even exist, are clearly not in this thread. Is that not then the very definition of a strawman? Arguing against a person or position who isn't even here, and that is too extreme for anyone on either side to ally with?

You appear to have missed some of the context as I was seeing it.

Echch referenced SJW's, contextually as violent enforcers.
Stealth Marmot seemed to get upset with Echch, with SM apparently identifying as an SJW, and seemed offended by Echch's portrail (because Stealth Marmot is not a violent enforcer, just a vocal activist).
I was trying to point out that the term 'Social Justice Warrior' as Echch was using it is not the same thing as the 'Social Justice Warrior' that Stealth Marmot was using. Additionally, Stealth Marmot (at the time) seemed to think that what Echch referred to simply didn't exist. Hence me saying that yes, I have met some.

I have found that when people do not understand that they are using terms differently, there is a high tendency to get extremely emotional, in part due to repeated miscommunication. I can't do much for the actual situation, but I might be able to help two people who seem to be having trouble understanding each other realize that they're not quite talking about the same thing. Maybe.

Edit: Oh yes, and would you please knock off insinuating that I'm a liar? Tossing in the "assuming they truly even exist" is the specific point of contention on this bit, in case you're curious.

[nyjastul69]

I tend to think that it generally shifts more towards false equivalence. When someone speaks about how a person who is female, LGBT, a PoC, or some combination therein faces abuse online there is a devils advocate type saying that there is "extremists on the other end too" or some such, even though you have to do a good bit of searching to find the examples of these supposed extremists on the other end, while basically any PoC, LGBT, or woman who makes their status known online has pretty much a better than 50% chance of having gotten a real death/rape threat related to their status as a minority while being online at some point.

Depending on exposure they may have gotten multiple.

Whereas the death/rape threats FROM a minority against a white/straight/male person is both a lot more rare and normally not DUE to their status as a white/straight/male person. It numbers low enough that they usually CAN be taken on individually instead of there being too many to confront.

It's a false equivalence because the amount and severity of the bullying, death threats, and harassment that PoC, LGBT, and women face online because of their status is several orders of magnitude greater than the amount of harassment sent FROM these supposed extremists.

I have no dog in this silly fight.

You'll need to cite sources on your percentages. I do not believe them to be correct.

[Echch]

*Stuff*

...Uhm... Good on you, pal? My opinion differs from yours, and you are allowed to be offended by me not thinking like you. Free interwebs and all that.
You do you, I do me and all that. As long as you don't threaten to make my life physically impossible, that's your choice really.

Personally, I think your decision to attack me (NOT literally/physically) is totally within your right of things to do. So is it for you to consider it ok to attack me, while, for whatever reason, you consider it shameful if I attack others on their opinions on topics.

As long as we keep this online and as far away from life-ruining physical reality, my PM-box is pretty much wide open for you. Maybe not forever (I do reserve the right to "save-space" myself on that), but currently it absolutely is.

EDIT:
Now for the most important thing: We CAN agree that he should first ask the table, right? We are already going off-topic with this, so I'd at least like to know if we have come to a unified suggestion on the thing we are actually here for.

[Broutchev]

Well, this is going downhill.

In fact, it completely validates what Madokar intended, as in, this is a hot topic and both sides of the problem can have issue with it so I'm ''leery about it and being insensitive''.



I will repeat myself, and others:
If it is acepted at your table and don't cause drama, go for it, if not restrain. Sometimes it is better not to play your backstory a certain way in order to have fun playing at all.

I'm still amazed thought how this forum keeps flame wars to a minimum and still be civil. Good on ya mates.

[Troacctid]

EDIT:
Now for the most important thing: We CAN agree that he should first ask the table, right? We are already going off-topic with this, so I'd at least like to know if we have come to a unified suggestion on the thing we are actually here for.

I will repeat myself, and others:
If it is acepted at your table and don't cause drama, go for it, if not restrain. Sometimes it is better not to play your backstory a certain way in order to have fun playing at all.
Why would you ask the table? I don't understand the value in that. Do you mean ask to find out if they'll be offended by the existence of gay people? Because that's not a question that should have table variance. There is a clear right and wrong answer. If your players are morally offended by homosexuality, they are wrong, period, and you need to set them straight. That's just simple bigotry. It's not up for debate. At all.

If you mean you should ask your group how to avoid offensive stereotypes and/or accidental insensitivity...um, why is that better than asking actual LGBT people, exactly? If your friends aren't LGBT, what do they know? And if they are LGBT, asking them questions that you're not sure they'd be comfortable answering would seem to defeat the purpose of the exercise at least a little bit.

[Boci]

Why would you ask the table? I don't understand the value in that. Do you mean ask to find out if they'll be offended by the existence of gay people? Because that's not a question that should have table variance. There is a clear right and wrong answer. If your players are morally offended by homosexuality, they are wrong, period, and you need to set them straight. That's just simple bigotry. It's not up for debate. At all.

Yes, ideally yes, but how? If people are offended by the existence of gay people, that likely a deeply held belief that you may not be able change these with your logical arguments. I live in Hungary, and at times I've had to just swallow my feelings about a particular topic. If your players are homophobic, "how do I convince them otherwise" is a good question ask, but you should prepare for being unable to do that and consider plan B question "is this a deal breaker?".

[Echch]

Given that Boci already addressed the first part, I'll address the second.


If you mean you should ask your group how to avoid offensive stereotypes and/or accidental insensitivity...um, why is that better than asking actual LGBT people, exactly? If your friends aren't LGBT, what do they know? And if they are LGBT, asking them questions that you're not sure they'd be comfortable answering would seem to defeat the purpose of the exercise at least a little bit.

Maybe they have a different viewpoint from LGBT people? In the given situation, it doesn't matter if the viewpoint presented is right, it matters if the table is comfortable with it. Maybe there is a person on the table that absolutely can't deal with the way a gay/lesbian person is portrayed in the backstory? Maybe there is some sensitivity about that topic for whatever other reason? Who knows?

In either scenario, there is also the fact that there is a good chance that OP is worrying for nothing. At the end of the day, only the table will know what it is comfortable with. What that is might not be logical, but as long as it works, that's perfectly fine.

[Troacctid]

There's no argument. If someone is being a butt, it's their responsibility to stop being a butt. They shouldn't need to be convinced that being a butt is in fact a bad thing. And as an ally, it's your responsibility to tell them that they're being a butt and that they should stop being a butt. And then you play your gay character and they can deal with it.

[Boci]

There's no argument. There's no debate. If someone is being an *******, it's their responsibility to stop being an *******. They shouldn't need to be convinced that being an ******* is in fact a bad thing. And as an ally, it's your responsibility to tell them that they're being an ******* and that they should stop being an *******. And then you play your gay character and they can deal with it.

No, as an ally is your job to help the LGBT movement as a whole. Often that means speaking up on their behalf, but it also means knowing where to draw the line and when to walk away, because pressing the issue (like playing an openly gay character at the table) will only cement their homophobia deeper.

You're right, they shouldn't need to be convinced that being LGBT is okay, that rascism is bad, but sometimes they will need convincing. And telling such a person "look you ****ing idiot its 2016, get your head out your **" will not do that. If anything, it will have the opposite effect.

[Remuko]

As an LGBT person myself I'm gonna have to throw my hat into the ring and wholeheartedly agree with Troacctid.

[Troacctid]

No, as an ally is your job to help the LGBT movement as a whole. Often that means speaking up on their behalf, but it also means knowing where to draw the line and when to walk away, because pressing the issue (like playing an openly gay character at the table) will only cement their homophobia deeper.

You're right, they shouldn't need to be convinced that being LGBT is okay, that rascism is bad, but sometimes they will need convincing. And telling such a person "look you ****ing idiot its 2016, get your head out your **" will not do that. If anything, it will have the opposite effect.
Great. So what do you do if you ARE gay? Same advice? Ask your table if they're okay with it? "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you! I'll divorce my partner right away. I wouldn't want to 'press the issue' by being openly gay at the table! After all, it would probably only cement your homophobia deeper!"

[Boci]

Great. So what do you do if you ARE gay? Same advice? Ask your table if they're okay with it? "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you! I'll divorce my partner right away. I wouldn't want to 'press the issue' by being openly gay at the table! After all, it would probably only cement your homophobia deeper!"

If people don't accept you for who you are, and won't be convinced, you walk away. There's no third option. No one, ally or LGBT, can force reason on someone who doesn't want to see it.

[Echch]

...So why would he need to ask LGBT people then? I mean, if someone is being a butt about it, they are clearly the problem and can deal with it or find another group. Seems like simple "the benefits of the many outweight the benefits of the few" type of deal.

In which case the entire thread seems pretty pointless. Honestly, to say that a gay couple can never exhibit specific behaviours seems close-minded anyway. If the backstory is offending, well, just because they are homosexual doesn't imply they are bad people doesn't mean they have to be holy either.
And in the light of that, a gay couple can be portrayed any way you want to portray it, because saying that this specific type of gay couple couldn't exist would be to simplify a group the same way as saying "gay couples work like this".


I'm getting the feeling we are all talking about different things. I mean the situation on the table, while Troaccid seems to look at the question as a whole. Or am I interpreting things wrong?

EDIT:

Great. So what do you do if you ARE gay? Same advice? Ask your table if they're okay with it? "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you! I'll divorce my partner right away. I wouldn't want to 'press the issue' by being openly gay at the table! After all, it would probably only cement your homophobia deeper!"

...Why would a players marriage come up IC anyway?

[Troacctid]

If people don't accept you for who you are, and won't be convinced, you walk away. There's no third option. No one, ally or LGBT, can force reason on someone who doesn't want to see it.
How about they can walk away? They're the butt.


...So why would he need to ask LGBT people then? I mean, if someone is being a butt about it, they are clearly the problem and can deal with it or find another group. Seems like simple "the benefits of the many outweight the benefits of the few" type of deal.
In order to avoid accidentally being disrespectful or offensive with his portrayal.

Edit:

...Why would a players marriage come up IC anyway?
Well, this may come as a shock, but some people are also gay OOC. :smalltongue:

[Echch]

How about they can walk away? They're the butt.


In order to avoid accidentally being disrespectful or offensive with his portrayal.

Edit:

Well, this may come as a shock, but some people are also gay OOC. :smalltongue:

Ah ok, so you DID mean it outside of a specific group. That really got me confused.

And yeah, I am aware of that^^
I was just surprised that the OOC marriage life would come up at a game table. In the groups I'm in, we mostly stay IC, so I was kinda surprised about that.

[Boci]

How about they can walk away? They're the butt.

Sure, they may make that decision themselves, but homophobic people may want to continue being friends with a gay person, despite not respecting who they are as a person. Human can be irrational that way.

Now are you finished implying I'm a horrible person who believes gay people should divorce to mollify homophones?

[gooddragon1]

I remember playing in a group where a guy had a character use alter self as a dragonfire adept to make themselves compatible either way. I let them know that as long as they didn't try anything on my character we'd be fine. So, basically, as long as the people in the group are civil about it and things are kept family friendly it should be fine (that was my experience anyways).

[Recherché]

Sure, they may make that decision themselves, but homophobic people may want to continue being friends with a gay person, despite not respecting who they are as a person. Human can be irrational that way.

Now are you finished implying I'm a horrible person who believes gay people should divorce to mollify homophones?

Eh maybe not homophones but I'm not a linguistic purist that way.

I kinda disagree on the walk away angle but I can understand why it can be useful in some circumstances. Personally I've found the only way to convince people has been to get close and make it personal. Try to be if not a friend than at least an acquaintance and to understand what drives a person to believe what they believe. And then once you can establish basic human empathy you might be able to start talking about how homophobia hurts. It's easy to dismiss an activist who's talking about the general and the impersonal, it's a lot harder to dismiss the pain you caused to someone you know and have at least some kind of rapport with.

That being said it can be hard to make yourself see a person you disagree with as a human and to have compassion and empathy for them. And that goes both ways. It's easy to let yourself be angry and to see them as an enemy. Sometimes righteous rage and seeing the world as a battlefield can be useful as well. Sometimes it can be too dangerous to get close to someone you disagree with. But I believe love, friendship and compassion will solve much more than yelling or even facts will in the end.

[Boci]

Eh maybe not homophones but I'm not a linguistic purist that way.

Yeah, the line can be blurred sometimes. My mother will have a gay person over for dinner but doesn't believe they should be able to get married. My dad is very spiritual and believes in the Ying and Yang, and as a consequence subscribes to the idea that homosexual couples will mimics the gender dynamics of a heterosexual couple. Are either homophobic? Probably not, just old fashioned and maybe a little weird.


I kinda disagree on the walk away angle but I can understand why it can be useful in some circumstances. Personally I've found the only way to convince people has been to get close and make it personal. Try to be if not a friend than at least an acquaintance and to understand what drives a person to believe what they believe. And then once you can establish basic human empathy you might be able to start talking about how homophobia hurts. It's easy to dismiss an activist who's talking about the general and the impersonal, it's a lot harder to dismiss the pain you caused to someone you know and have at least some kind of rapport with.

That being said it can be hard to make yourself see a person you disagree with as a human and to have compassion and empathy for them. And that goes both ways. It's easy to let yourself be angry and to see them as an enemy. Sometimes righteous rage and seeing the world as a battlefield can be useful as well. Sometimes it can be too dangerous to get close to someone you disagree with. But I believe love, friendship and compassion will solve much more than yelling or even facts will in the end.

Yeah, you're right, I guess there is a third option as you say, it just isn't "argue harder". I actually heard a story about that recently, a Jewish Rabbi befirended a granddragon from the KKK and after a while the person quite the group and resourced their ideology. It was quite inspiring.

[Madokar]

For the record, my aasimar paladin is straight. He was just born to a lesbian couple. I don't have the confidence to roleplay a gay/lesbian character yet without portraying the character as a stereotype, or ignoring it completely.

Case in point. My current half-orc paladin is in a romantic relationship with a half-elf sorceress/dragon disciple. Outside of spending nights in the same room at a taven or my temple, we don't elaborate much on what we do behind closed doors. Outside of having to pay for the smoke, fire, linen, drapes, and wall damages when we get too... passionate every now and then. And using up some charges on the Cure Light Wounds wand to get me ready for the day.

And by the by, she's the one doing the damage. She's got a STR score of 20 and I have a STR score of 18. She also has claws, a bite attack, and fire breath at this point, so when things get heavy... I play it like my paladin liking the hurt a little bit. Chalking it up to having orc blood.

[Stealth Marmot]

Yeah, the line can be blurred sometimes. My mother will have a gay person over for dinner but doesn't believe they should be able to get married. My dad is very spiritual and believes in the Ying and Yang, and as a consequence subscribes to the idea that homosexual couples will mimics the gender dynamics of a heterosexual couple. Are either homophobic? Probably not, just old fashioned and maybe a little weird.

It's less that a line is blurred so much as homophobia, like racism and sexism, are a spectrum. And we are all on it. Everyone, regardless of race, gender, and orientation are in some regards racist, sexist, AND homophobic. Me, you, everyone.

It can be rather easy to try to paint with a black and white "homophobic/not-homophobic" brush, trying to say a person is one or the other, but in reality it is always more complex, just as people are complex.

Instead of labeling, a much more productive thing to do is instead look at one's actions and try to think if their actions are harmful, hurtful, or insulting to LGBT people.

Which is exactly what the OP is doing here.

As for the mother and father: Believing, and consequently probably voting, that gay people should not be allowed to get married is hurtful towards their happiness and life. The father's beliefs are far less harmful directly, but do perpetuate a stereotype that gay people dislike: That one of the members is the "man" and one is the "woman". Gender identity is not tied to sexuality. Keep in mind that I am speaking against the action, not the person.

[Zanos]

How about they can walk away? They're the butt.
This doesn't make any sense. A gay person tries to play with a table of homophobes, and, what, the gay person stands their ground in someone else's house and tells them to leave?

And no, it's not my responsibility to start an argument with every person who's opinion I don't like. I vote according to what I think is right, and I'm not going to get kicked out of my gaming group for starting arguments with the 60 something Vietnam vet DM who has political opinions that are kind of garbage by progressive standards. He's a good DM and I like that group.

Encouraging people to be aggressive with or cut ties with people who don't agree is part of why a lot of social justice groups get a reputation for having cult elements, by the way.

[Troacctid]

This doesn't make any sense. A gay person tries to play with a table of homophobes, and, what, the gay person stands their ground in someone else's house and tells them to leave?
I'm assuming neither player in this case is the DM.

If the whole table is homophobic and harasses me, or if the DM is homophobic and the other players don't stand up for me, probably my guess is I burst into tears, run home, sob into my pillow for a while because I thought they were my friends, and hope they feel like jerks for making me cry. Then I'd see if I could report them to the store if it was at a LGS, and/or to Wizards of the Coast if it was an Adventurer's League game. But I don't know, that's never happened. Closest thing was there was this one guy in a game at our gaming club in college who was a jerk and kind of racist, so we booted him. He was not missed.

Of course what would really happen, because I always seem to be the DM, is I'd tell them that's not okay and they can knock it off or they're out of the game.


And no, it's not my responsibility to start an argument with every person who's opinion I don't like. I vote according to what I think is right, and I'm not going to get kicked out of my gaming group for starting arguments with the 60 something Vietnam vet DM who has political opinions that are kind of garbage by progressive standards. He's a good DM and I like that group.
You can't even spare a "Dude, not cool"?

[KillingAScarab]

For the record, my aasimar paladin is straight. He was just born to a lesbian couple. I don't have the confidence to roleplay a gay/lesbian character yet without portraying the character as a stereotype, or ignoring it completely.

Case in point. ...I feel I am in a similar place, which is why I'm interested in working on NPCs in a homosexual relationship before trying a player character in one. If I may comment on what you have written about how you handle a character in a heterosexual relationship, though, that piece of it would only be the consequences of the sex. For all I know, you have amazing ideas on how those two characters work out long-term commitment, and just haven't decided to share them. From what you have described of your table's setting/experience with Pathfinder, it seems to me like being half-orc or drawing power from your possibly-evil-dragon-ancestors would be more likely to have consequences in most social activities than your aasimar's parents' relationship. If that is the setting/case, I think there could be a lot of similarities in portrayal, except for your aasimar's parents potentially being from two different faith traditions (cleric and paladin) rather than one character not being inspired by divine powers. You're more interested in the aasimar, after all that's your character, so perhaps he just has brief anecdotes to share about them? You did write that Ragathon is 76 years old; unless it's out-of-character to talk about his past, I think he could have a few stories worth telling by that point.

[Ieagleroar]

Reminds me off when my male homophobic sorcerer had a gay snake as his familiar. There were many laughs around that table, especially due to empathic link, and that fact that the snake bluffed him into thinking he was actually starting to turn gay himself. And, of course, there was that one battle where my sorcerer didn't do anything at all because 'that dragon was just so sexy.'

[Psyren]

Echch referenced SJW's, contextually as violent enforcers.
...
Edit: Oh yes, and would you please knock off insinuating that I'm a liar? Tossing in the "assuming they truly even exist" is the specific point of contention on this bit, in case you're curious.

It was more incredulity on my part than an insinuation on yours. You're asking me to believe that roaming bands of militant SJWs who "key cars," slash tires," and willfully commit slander are pervasive enough to warrant the kinds of reactions that immediately popped up in this thread. I don't, and can't.



Now for the most important thing: We CAN agree that he should first ask the table, right? We are already going off-topic with this, so I'd at least like to know if we have come to a unified suggestion on the thing we are actually here for.

Talking to the table is absolutely fine (though I agree with Troacctid, you shouldn't need their approval for something as innocuous as this), but asking a message board is also fine. The order in which the OP does these two isn't relevant unless there are people from his table here.

[lylsyly]

And by the by, she's the one doing the damage. She's got a STR score of 20 and I have a STR score of 18. She also has claws, a bite attack, and fire breath at this point, so when things get heavy... I play it like my paladin liking the hurt a little bit. Chalking it up to having orc blood.

I love it.

Look, I am gay. The 5 other people I play (3 guys, two girls) with know I am gay. They don't bloody care. Any body needs to really check their hormone level when an LGBTAI person is in their group can always leave if they want. Or stay. The OP was kind enough to ask for an opinion, +10 to him for doing so, but this thread as actually become something much more than that, without any real reason.

Maybe it should be moved over to Friendly Banter or even locked.

my 2 coppers, YMMV.

[Madokar]

I feel I am in a similar place, which is why I'm interested in working on NPCs in a homosexual relationship before trying a player character in one. If I may comment on what you have written about how you handle a character in a heterosexual relationship, though, that piece of it would only be the consequences of the sex. For all I know, you have amazing ideas on how those two characters work out long-term commitment, and just haven't decided to share them. From what you have described of your table's setting/experience with Pathfinder, it seems to me like being half-orc or drawing power from your possibly-evil-dragon-ancestors would be more likely to have consequences in most social activities than your aasimar's parents' relationship. If that is the setting/case, I think there could be a lot of similarities in portrayal, except for your aasimar's parents potentially being from two different faith traditions (cleric and paladin) rather than one character not being inspired by divine powers. You're more interested in the aasimar, after all that's your character, so perhaps he just has brief anecdotes to share about them? You did write that Ragathon is 76 years old; unless it's out-of-character to talk about his past, I think he could have a few stories worth telling by that point.

I shared what I did out of regards to keeping in touch with theme of representing sexuality. And to clarify, my paladin's girlfriend has Gold Dragon magic in her veins. So no worries about an evil dragon coming down to harass the party on that front.

Not sure about Ragathon quite yet. He might have had only one major romantic relationship before it became painfully clear that as one of the Planetouched, he would be able to outlive elves if he was lucky enough. So he stopped looking for romance because he'd outlive most of his romantic partners. As for stories of his life, he had a fairly average childhood. He quite possibly became a paladin because he would have such a long lifetime to dedicate to the order.

[Jack_Simth]

It was more incredulity on my part than an insinuation on yours. You're asking me to believe that roaming bands of militant SJWs who "key cars," slash tires," and willfully commit slander are pervasive enough to warrant the kinds of reactions that immediately popped up in this thread. I don't, and can't. You haven't encountered that sort of extremist? Understandable, different life experiences are a thing. Of course, if your behaviors happened to line up with theirs other than the 'extreme actions', and they didn't discuss the 'extreme actions', then you wouldn't necessarily know. With the number of humans, and the amount of variety found in them, saying a particular sort of personality doesn't exist is usually going to be false, though. Sure, as far as I can tell, the extremists of that level do not exist in great quantities... but a thing doesn't need to be common to deserve a term (the Amur Leopard has a name, after all, and there's only thought to be around 40 of them left).

When it comes to individuals, scars are scars. The people who bear them (or who are sufficiently sympathetic to those who do) will react strongly. Echch later clarified that it happened three times while in school. In a rather lot of places, school attendance is essentially mandatory for most; for practical purposes, I expect Echch was trapped with them. I've never seen it go as far as Echch described, but I've seen it go far enough that direction that I can recognize that Echch may very well have some experience with the far end of the bell curve, given that the population for that bell curve covers multiple countries. Dealing with a roving band a few times will still leave sensitive emotional scars on many sorts of people, regardless of how (un)common the roving band, if it's a different band each time, or if it's the same band each time. Is it fair for you to take the brunt of Echch's scars because you happen to share a chunk of demographic category with the people who caused them? I'd say no. In fact, I'd go so far as to say nearly nobody deserves it. On either side of whichever fence happens to be in question at a given moment. Doesn't stop it from happening, in both directions, over essentially all fences. Is it in balance? Rarely, if ever, as far as I'm aware. I've never seen the effect restricted to a single direction, though. Humans are highly variable creatures, there can be quite a lot of proportion shift in different regions, and any large group will have bad apples. Someone else's scars being of a less common sort than yours doesn't make them any less painful or less real for the individual carrying them. When working at the level of a large community, those putting in the resources will usually want to focus either on the ones seen as most common or devastating (resource efficiency) or that impact those putting in the resources to solve the problems (personal interest). When working with individuals, what sort or how common is less relevant than how deep. A conversation is almost always going to be with an individual rather than a community... and scars are scars, when it comes to individuals.

[upho]

Case in point. My current half-orc paladin is in a romantic relationship with a half-elf sorceress/dragon disciple. Outside of spending nights in the same room at a taven or my temple, we don't elaborate much on what we do behind closed doors. Outside of having to pay for the smoke, fire, linen, drapes, and wall damages when we get too... passionate every now and then. And using up some charges on the Cure Light Wounds wand to get me ready for the day.

And by the by, she's the one doing the damage. She's got a STR score of 20 and I have a STR score of 18. She also has claws, a bite attack, and fire breath at this point, so when things get heavy... I play it like my paladin liking the hurt a little bit. Chalking it up to having orc blood.Oh, I like it. Please elaborate! I may be having certain thoughts and "psychosomatic reactions" that would get me banned if I described them, but I really would like more details... :smallredface: Besides, do you actually think it's fair to tempt us with a juicy story of a pally and a sorceress having passionate interracial S/M, and then simply leave us hanging? Me wants more decadence, sleaze and excess! :smallannoyed:

More seriously though, considering your group obviously consists of people OK with the above, I don't think you have to worry about accidentally being insensitive with regards to LGBTQ stuff. If your PC's backstory, against all odds, happens to come off as somewhat stereotypical, I'm finding it hard to believe any LGBTQ people at the table would think any less of you, especially if they knew you actually took steps to avoid being insensitive. And FWITW, I'm pretty certain the LGBTQ people I know personally would actually appreciate it, seeing it as one of those many little steps that need to be taken to change people's attitudes towards LGBTQ. But alas, I'm also a "white heterosexual male" who unfortunately lack mind-reading powers, so I cannot know for sure, and neither are my friends' views applicable to the people at your table, LGBTQ or not.


The OP was kind enough to ask for an opinion, +10 to him for doing so...This.


...but this thread as actually become something much more than that, without any real reason.:smalleek: No! No locking! As sound as your arguments may be, don't you dare suggest locking this thread before we get to hear more about the pally and sorceress! (But it might just belong in friendly banter...)

[Madokar]

Oh, I like it. Please elaborate! I may be having certain thoughts and "psychosomatic reactions" that would get me banned if I described them, but I really would like more details... :smallredface: Besides, do you actually think it's fair to tempt us with a juicy story of a pally and a sorceress having passionate interracial S/M, and then simply leave us hanging? Me wants more decadence, sleaze and excess! :smallannoyed:

More seriously though, considering your group obviously consists of people OK with the above, I don't think you have to worry about accidentally being insensitive with regards to LGBTQ stuff. If your PC's backstory, against all odds, happens to come off as somewhat stereotypical, I'm finding it hard to believe any LGBTQ people at the table would think any less of you, especially if they knew you actually took steps to avoid being insensitive. And FWITW, I'm pretty certain the LGBTQ people I know personally would actually appreciate it, seeing it as one of those many little steps that need to be taken to change people's attitudes towards LGBTQ. But alas, I'm also a "white heterosexual male" who unfortunately lack mind-reading powers, so I cannot know for sure, and neither are my friends' views applicable to the people at your table, LGBTQ or not.

This.

:smalleek: No! No locking! As sound as your arguments may be, don't you dare suggest locking this thread before we get to hear more about the pally and sorceress! (But it might just belong in friendly banter...)

I think it would be a stretch to call it S&M. They are both just strong enough to break the furniture with their... "rhythm". And when we say a dragon-blooded sorceress gets "hot and heavy"...

[DegeneratesitP]

For the record, my aasimar paladin is straight. He was just born to a lesbian couple. I don't have the confidence to roleplay a gay/lesbian character yet without portraying the character as a stereotype, or ignoring it completely.
How would you play them? Not every action a character does has anything to do with their sexuality.


Case in point. My current half-orc paladin is in a romantic relationship with a half-elf sorceress/dragon disciple. Outside of spending nights in the same room at a taven or my temple, we don't elaborate much on what we do behind closed doors.

This is how any character regardless of sexuality should be used unless they're trying to skeeve out everyone at the table.





Outside of having to pay for the smoke, fire, linen, drapes, and wall damages when we get too... passionate every now and then. And using up some charges on the Cure Light Wounds wand to get me ready for the day.And by the by, she's the one doing the damage. She's got a STR score of 20 and I have a STR score of 18. She also has claws, a bite attack, and fire breath at this point, so when things get heavy... I play it like my paladin liking the hurt a little bit. Chalking it up to having orc blood.

Suddenly it all makes sense.

[Psyren]

You haven't encountered that sort of extremist? Understandable, different life experiences are a thing. Of course, if your behaviors happened to line up with theirs other than the 'extreme actions', and they didn't discuss the 'extreme actions', then you wouldn't necessarily know. With the number of humans, and the amount of variety found in them, saying a particular sort of personality doesn't exist is usually going to be false, though. Sure, as far as I can tell, the extremists of that level do not exist in great quantities... but a thing doesn't need to be common to deserve a term (the Amur Leopard has a name, after all, and there's only thought to be around 40 of them left).

Whether such extremists exist or not isn't actually relevant. None of them are in this thread, or at the very least I somehow missed all the posts that were calling for dissidents' cars to be keyed or bones to be broken. So as I said before - what would you call arguing against an extreme position that nobody actually supports, if not a strawman? What does it add to the discussion besides useless acrimony?

If such people were here, I'd be joining my voice to yours and I think most everyone else's in denouncing them, but they're not.

[Echch]

Whether such extremists exist or not isn't actually relevant. None of them are in this thread, or at the very least I somehow missed all the posts that were calling for dissidents' cars to be keyed or bones to be broken. So as I said before - what would you call arguing against an extreme position that nobody actually supports, if not a strawman? What does it add to the discussion besides useless acrimony?

If such people were here, I'd be joining my voice to yours and I think most everyone else's in denouncing them, but they're not.

What you say makes sense, except that I have yet to argue against said position. The only thing I said was that the closest thing to respect a SJW ever invoked in me was fear. So if you DO the things that made me fear them in the first place, there is a reasonable chance that I'll fear you.

I never said there were any in this thread. The first thing I said in my first post concerning these extremists was
I know I come from a rather bad place, so I'm not gonna say all SJWs are like that, so it's not like I'm not aware that these people are far and far between.

My question is thus still unanswered: Why would someone being a SJW make me respect them, the people they defend or their position more than I already do? I know there are reasons for why I might fear them (which is closely related to respecting someone, which was why I brought it up), but I still have to hear the reason for why someone being a SJW has to innately make me respect said person more.

[Stealth Marmot]

Case in point. My current half-orc paladin is in a romantic relationship with a half-elf sorceress/dragon disciple. Outside of spending nights in the same room at a taven or my temple, we don't elaborate much on what we do behind closed doors. Outside of having to pay for the smoke, fire, linen, drapes, and wall damages when we get too... passionate every now and then. And using up some charges on the Cure Light Wounds wand to get me ready for the day.

And by the by, she's the one doing the damage. She's got a STR score of 20 and I have a STR score of 18. She also has claws, a bite attack, and fire breath at this point, so when things get heavy... I play it like my paladin liking the hurt a little bit. Chalking it up to having orc blood.

"When she lays her hands on me...I have to lay on hands on myself afterwards. Worth it."

[xkaliburr]

What you say makes sense, except that I have yet to argue against said position. The only thing I said was that the closest thing to respect a SJW ever invoked in me was fear. So if you DO the things that made me fear them in the first place, there is a reasonable chance that I'll fear you.

I never said there were any in this thread. The first thing I said in my first post concerning these extremists was , so it's not like I'm not aware that these people are far and far between.

My question is thus still unanswered: Why would someone being a SJW make me respect them, the people they defend or their position more than I already do? I know there are reasons for why I might fear them (which is closely related to respecting someone, which was why I brought it up), but I still have to hear the reason for why someone being a SJW has to innately make me respect said person more.

IMO, everyone should be treated with respect until they do something to have respect taken away from them.

Of course, it would help if you agree to terms as to what respect means in this context. Do we mean treating people like people, as in not disrespecting, or are we talking about holding someone in a high and esteemed regard. Both are valid definitions of respect, and I think the two of you are using different definitions.

As for whether or not the poster should have made this thread, let me tell you a little story. I am a very nice and open-minded person. I used to create characters for my Smackdown vs Raw games. They were for my amusement, for no one else. I had a few that I later found out were offensive stereotypes. I felt like a ****, because I had not associated them with stereotypes when I made them. I deleted the characters. In summation, there is nothing wrong with not wanting to be a ****, even in a private setting.

[Echch]

IMO, everyone should be treated with respect until they do something to have respect taken away from them.

Of course, it would help if you agree to terms as to what respect means in this context. Do we mean treating people like people, as in not disrespecting, or are we talking about holding someone in a high and esteemed regard. Both are valid definitions of respect, and I think the two of you are using different definitions.

As for whether or not the poster should have made this thread, let me tell you a little story. I am a very nice and open-minded person. I used to create characters for my Smackdown vs Raw games. They were for my amusement, for no one else. I had a few that I later found out were offensive stereotypes. I felt like a ****, because I had not associated them with stereotypes when I made them. I deleted the characters. In summation, there is nothing wrong with not wanting to be a ****, even in a private setting.

Seems like a good idea.

The definition I meant was the second one. To rephrase my question: Why would someone being a SJW (or being protected by a SJW) result into me considering said someone as a superior human being to those that aren't?

And while I agree with your notion that there is nothing wrong with not wanting to be a butt in a private setting, I would also like to say that there is no need to be politically correct in such an environment as long as everyone in aforementioned private setting is okay with that.
The reason why I questioned him making the post, however, came from somewhere else. To make it another question:
If you make a character that is stereotypical while calling him out as being a perceived stereotype and him not being representative for the majority of whatever you sterotype, how racist is that?
To make an example: It is a sterotype that "black people" like Kool Aid and KFC. Is a "black person" thus automatically offensive if he enjoys it? As such, should it be a requirement for all "black people" to absolutely hate these two products? My opinion is that it shouldn't, because the the sterotype would simply change from "black people like Kool Aid and KFC" to "black people hate Kool Aid and KFC", which doesn't seem like a major improvement to me.

[KillingAScarab]

I shared what I did out of regards to keeping in touch with theme of representing sexuality. And to clarify, my paladin's girlfriend has Gold Dragon magic in her veins. So no worries about an evil dragon coming down to harass the party on that front.Given that you said she was involved with a paladin, I guessed that was likely. Still, townspeople + ignorance = possible story influence?


Not sure about Ragathon quite yet. He might have had only one major romantic relationship before it became painfully clear that as one of the Planetouched, he would be able to outlive elves if he was lucky enough. So he stopped looking for romance because he'd outlive most of his romantic partners. As for stories of his life, he had a fairly average childhood. He quite possibly became a paladin because he would have such a long lifetime to dedicate to the order.Oh, wow. I hadn't realized that Pathfinder's aasimar (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-aasimar) age differently than humans (which is not the case in 3.x, usually). I had assumed you were playing an old character, possibly making use of age resistance (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/age-resistance), and my anecdote suggestion was regarding looking back upon Ragathon's parents' rather than his own relationships.

That throws another interesting wrinkle into choosing praying to good-aligned outsiders for children rather than adopting. That generation will have a longer potential influence upon local politics. Something tells me if the idea were foreign to Taldor, its introduction wouldn't go over well with the upper class, though upon reading some more about the country it doesn't seem like they would all be trying to appease Cheliax anyway.

[Madokar]

Given that you said she was involved with a paladin, I guessed that was likely. Still, townspeople + ignorance = possible story influence?

Oh, wow. I hadn't realized that Pathfinder's aasimar (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-aasimar) age differently than humans (which is not the case in 3.x, usually). I had assumed you were playing an old character, possibly making use of age resistance (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/age-resistance), and my anecdote suggestion was regarding looking back upon Ragathon's parents' rather than his own relationships.

That throws another interesting wrinkle into choosing praying to good-aligned outsiders for children rather than adopting. That generation will have a longer potential influence upon local politics. Something tells me if the idea were foreign to Taldor, its introduction wouldn't go over well with the upper class, though upon reading some more about the country it doesn't seem like they would all be trying to appease Cheliax anyway.

Yeah, Ragathon may be 76 chronologically, but biologically, he's around 17.

Paizo has released an errata that allows a planetouched humanoid to age as fast as the parent race. It is completely optional, however. So you can have aasimars that age at the same rate as humans, or you can have aasimars that can live as long as 850 years. I guess that, mechanically, it depends on whether the aasimar identifies more with their mortal or their outsider heritage. An aasimar that ages like a human does so because he connects more with his human side. An aasimar that lives as long as Ragathon does so because they embrace their divine forebears.

[ace rooster]

As another white straight male, just chiming in my support for the OP in checking (better late than never). The world is complicated and it is always better to ask if you are unsure. This stuff is hard, and can be costly when you get it wrong.

My entirely unqualified answer to the initial question would be that it is neither disrespectful, or flattering. It looks normal. The geneticist part of me is wondering how two females produced a male child though. :smalltongue:

[Madokar]

As another white straight male, just chiming in my support for the OP in checking (better late than never). The world is complicated and it is always better to ask if you are unsure. This stuff is hard, and can be costly when you get it wrong.

My entirely unqualified answer to the initial question would be that it is neither disrespectful, or flattering. It looks normal. The geneticist part of me is wondering how two females produced a male child though. :smalltongue:

That's where the angel daddy comes into play as a beam of light.

[Jack_Simth]

Whether such extremists exist or not isn't actually relevant. None of them are in this thread, or at the very least I somehow missed all the posts that were calling for dissidents' cars to be keyed or bones to be broken. So as I said before - what would you call arguing against an extreme position that nobody actually supports, if not a strawman? What does it add to the discussion besides useless acrimony?

If such people were here, I'd be joining my voice to yours and I think most everyone else's in denouncing them, but they're not.
I have not been discussing the ethics of the extremist subgroup of social activists. If I were, your statements might apply. I started by trying to clear up an apparent miscommunication - two people reacting to each other because they're using different definitions for the exact same word. I have been pointing out that the extremists leave impressions on people, and that yes, regular members of the group containing the extremists suffer through some negative reactions as a result. I have been reacting to someone who was insinuating that I was lying. Suppose instead of saying how a particular group has impacted some individuals in society, suppose we were instead discussing how tornadoes had impacted some individuals in a society. Would it be a strawman argument when there are no actual tornadoes in the thread? Please, tell me what you think I'm arguing that the post of yours I just quoted would actually apply.

[atemu1234]

We have become a nation of people who are tissue paper tough.

Find another player to play in your game.

Oh, look, George Carlin has come back from the dead to grace our humble thread.

Avoiding disrespecting a group of people who face remarkably danger IRL at your table is hardly something deserving of a joke, and it's not like he's being told by someone at his table to avoid playing the character. He just wants to play a character respectfully, and has gone on this forum for help


Are you genuinely asking whether or not this would hurt people, who are not at your table, feelings? That’s so weird! That’s like me asking whether or not people get offended by what they don’t know? Which isn’t even possible! So unless someone at your table is hyper sensitive about a fantasy game, in which case you should talk to that, anything is literally fine. You could play a child rapist, who while defiling her victims ate them as well, but at the same time she was a racist and only defiled gnomes of same sex.

That is multiple levels of horrible, and at most tables, wouldn't be allowed. Believe it or not, some people do have delicate sensibilities and a basic expectation of humanity when at a gaming table. And acting like anybody gets a free pass for whatever reason is bad and wrong.


Agreed 100%. Getting offended at anything not directed at you or your character in this game is pure silliness.

Getting 'offended' is quite a natural reaction when faced with something morally repugnant; and yes, you do have the right to call people on their bull when they do something bad.


If you fantasize about killing innocent children, I don't think that's fine at all.

And if you think bigotry is okay and treating people with respect is weird, I don't know what to say to you. It's not and it isn't.

Same here.


Are you thanking him for checking with random people? What good can ever come of that? And what if people had said yes to being offended? Should he not have played his idea? I find it absurd to the highest degree that you would check with other people than your table. I’m not trying to be offensive, but its just so weird to want to get the approval of strangers for something your doing in a fantasy world.

I can think of a couple reason why he'd do this: one, it's an interesting enough question and he may be playing with someone who is LGBTQ+ and doesn't want to talk to them for fear of it being offensive, this being easier (something I can kind of understand, but as a queer person who has had to explain to multiple straights why what they're doing is offensive, you're usually better off running it past them instead, if you can) or two: he doesn't know if someone in the group might be LGBTQ+, in the closet or questioning, and again, doesn't want to offend them or accidentally put them off.


@OP
I don't think this is disrespectful at all. You seem to be handling this with a good deal of respect, and that's for the best.

@everyone else
Please stop threadcrapping and making fun of OP for attempting to not be accidentally homophobic.

Edit:


OP's Aasimar idea = fine.
Checking with a progressive forum just to be sure = also fine.
Hostile responses from people who are more offended that people might be offended than the people themselves could ever be = ironic.
I may need to sig-quote this


I tend to think that it generally shifts more towards false equivalence. When someone speaks about how a person who is female, LGBT, a PoC, or some combination therein faces abuse online there is a devils advocate type saying that there is "extremists on the other end too" or some such, even though you have to do a good bit of searching to find the examples of these supposed extremists on the other end, while basically any PoC, LGBT, or woman who makes their status known online has pretty much a better than 50% chance of having gotten a real death/rape threat related to their status as a minority while being online at some point.

Depending on exposure they may have gotten multiple.

Whereas the death/rape threats FROM a minority against a white/straight/male person is both a lot more rare and normally not DUE to their status as a white/straight/male person. It numbers low enough that they usually CAN be taken on individually instead of there being too many to confront.

It's a false equivalence because the amount and severity of the bullying, death threats, and harassment that PoC, LGBT, and women face online because of their status is several orders of magnitude greater than the amount of harassment sent FROM these supposed extremists.

I term this the Bell-Curve Fallacy.

Edit to my Edit:

It's also quite telling that people's response to someone asking how to be respectful to gay people was met with, "this reminds me of the time I played a child-murdering paedophile rapist and everyone at my table swallowed back whatever bile they were about to projectile-vomit at me. which means they clearly weren't offended!"

[Echch]

*stuffs*

...And this is where we have officially met the end of any sort of meaningful discussion in this thread.
It has pretty much been over about 3 pages ago, but I think we've really hit rock-bottom now.

Since this is obviously not pathfinder related anymore, I think now would be the perfect point to put this over to friendly banter.

@OP
Your story is interesting, but I highly suggest that you make a different thread (or even a campaign log, as they are always welcome) about it. This thread has gone far and beyond the original topic now and will soon be... well, let's be honest here, already IS pretty toxic.

[atemu1234]

...And this is where we have officially met the end of any sort of meaningful discussion in this thread.
It has pretty much been over about 3 pages ago, but I think we've really hit rock-bottom now.

Since this is obviously not pathfinder related anymore, I think now would be the perfect point to put this over to friendly banter.

@OP
Your story is interesting, but I highly suggest that you make a different thread (or even a campaign log, as they are always welcome) about it. This thread has gone far and beyond the original topic now and will soon be... well, let's be honest here, already IS pretty toxic.

Okay, this brought me back around to your earlier comment.


Seems like a good idea.

The definition I meant was the second one. To rephrase my question: Why would someone being a SJW (or being protected by a SJW) result into me considering said someone as a superior human being to those that aren't?

And while I agree with your notion that there is nothing wrong with not wanting to be a butt in a private setting, I would also like to say that there is no need to be politically correct in such an environment as long as everyone in aforementioned private setting is okay with that.
The reason why I questioned him making the post, however, came from somewhere else. To make it another question:
If you make a character that is stereotypical while calling him out as being a perceived stereotype and him not being representative for the majority of whatever you sterotype, how racist is that?
To make an example: It is a sterotype that "black people" like Kool Aid and KFC. Is a "black person" thus automatically offensive if he enjoys it? As such, should it be a requirement for all "black people" to absolutely hate these two products? My opinion is that it shouldn't, because the the sterotype would simply change from "black people like Kool Aid and KFC" to "black people hate Kool Aid and KFC", which doesn't seem like a major improvement to me.

The problem isn't and never was black people liking kool aid and kfc, it's been white people stereotyping them as such, and using that as a way to make fun of and demean black people.

And there's a major problem with social justice and 'sjwism' in general, but they have both become such buzzwords I avoid them in general. There is no meaningful way of describing either based on how people use them; are they white feminists, who don't listen to black women and make racist statements? Then how is that in any way 'social justice'? Is it just anyone who believes in some kind of social equity being reached? Then why do we need a term for such a broad group? Does that make people like Martin Luther King a SJW? Then why is it a bad thing?

The end result is that it's just used to tack onto people you dislike? Then does it have any meaning?

Also, I really feel like I need to bring this point home - stereotypes are not the issue, it's that they are used to make fun of and demean people that is the issue.


Finally - this thread has really reached its conclusion, and should probably be locked. I can only see this conversation becoming less and less rational and more and more vitriolic.

[Echch]

The problem isn't and never was black people liking kool aid and kfc, it's been white people stereotyping them as such, and using that as a way to make fun of and demean black people.

And there's a major problem with social justice and 'sjwism' in general, but they have both become such buzzwords I avoid them in general. There is no meaningful way of describing either based on how people use them; are they white feminists, who don't listen to black women and make racist statements? Then how is that in any way 'social justice'? Is it just anyone who believes in some kind of social equity being reached? Then why do we need a term for such a broad group? Does that make people like Martin Luther King a SJW? Then why is it a bad thing?

The end result is that it's just used to tack onto people you dislike? Then does it have any meaning?


That's a fair point. I believe originally the term SJW described a specific group of people. Regressive left, authoritarian, intellectually dishonest, militant. It wasn't your beliefs that made you a SJW, it was the way you tried to enforce them. A lot of "Anti-SJWs" aren't concerned over SJWs managing to create equality (as that is what a large portion of the "Anti-SJWs" want too), but are concerned about the SJWs trying to get you banned from places (like it was already suggested) or even ruining your life by getting you fired, which, at least where I come from, can be lethal.




Also, I really feel like I need to bring this point home - stereotypes are not the issue, it's that they are used to make fun of and demean people that is the issue.

Exactly my point: Sterotypes, in and of themselves, aren't a problem. It's the way they are used. Which is what makes me wonder why OP asked the question. He doesn't seem like the type to use sterotypes to make fun of others. Someone who does that wouldn't even have considered making that post.
Then again, I admit I might just get confused in my age. It's just... Why is them being gay such a big deal? It shouldn't be. They are supposed to be people, not some arbitrary concepts. And as people, they can be what they are.
... Sorry, I'm getting flashbacks from a specific Atheist Convention I attended that I really shouldn't have.




Finally - this thread has really reached its conclusion, and should probably be locked. I can only see this conversation becoming less and less rational and more and more vitriolic.


Yeah, it should be... I'm feeling myself getting more emotional and salty about this topic.

[atemu1234]

That's a fair point. I believe originally the term SJW described a specific group of people. Regressive left, authoritarian, intellectually dishonest, militant. It wasn't your beliefs that made you a SJW, it was the way you tried to enforce them. A lot of "Anti-SJWs" aren't concerned over SJWs managing to create equality (as that is what a large portion of the "Anti-SJWs" want too), but are concerned about the SJWs trying to get you banned from places (like it was already suggested) or even ruining your life by getting you fired, which, at least where I come from, can be lethal.

Eh, I feel like a lot of it turns into tone-policing. Nothing gets done if people are prevented from fighting. Let SJWs be loud and fight for equality, because it's only by being loud that things get done.

I feel like a lot of the really bad 'sjw' stereotypes are just rehashed racist ones.


Exactly my point: Sterotypes, in and of themselves, aren't a problem. It's the way they are used. Which is what makes me wonder why OP asked the question. He doesn't seem like the type to use sterotypes to make fun of others. Someone who does that wouldn't even have considered making that post.
Then again, I admit I might just get confused in my age. It's just... Why is them being gay such a big deal? It shouldn't be. They are supposed to be people, not some arbitrary concepts. And as people, they can be what they are.
... Sorry, I'm getting flashbacks from a specific Atheist Convention I attended that I really shouldn't have.

I'm more wary of stereotypes in larger media - on a personal level, they can be used. But expecting everyone to be ok with you using them in a wider context, when that normalizes the mistreatment of a group, who already face marginalization, is not good.

Also, as to the point about people being people, a large quantity of media isn't about people - it's about a story, which turns the people into concepts in a way. If they are stereotyped, especially by people of a different group, that concept spreads and that's a bad thing, especially when that translates into justifications for awful actions.


Yeah, it should be... I'm feeling myself getting more emotional and salty about this topic.

Yeah, if you want to keep talking about this feel free to PM me, in the meantime I think that I'll have to try to keep my comments on-topic to the OP's point. And wait for this thread to be locked, I guess.

[Recherché]

That's a fair point. I believe originally the term SJW described a specific group of people. Regressive left, authoritarian, intellectually dishonest, militant. It wasn't your beliefs that made you a SJW, it was the way you tried to enforce them. A lot of "Anti-SJWs" aren't concerned over SJWs managing to create equality (as that is what a large portion of the "Anti-SJWs" want too), but are concerned about the SJWs trying to get you banned from places (like it was already suggested) or even ruining your life by getting you fired, which, at least where I come from, can be lethal.

It didn't originally mean anything like that. "Social Justice" as a catch all phrase for promoting fair and just treatment of individuals by society goes back to the 19th century. In the 1990's "Social Justice Warrior" was an accolade used to describe people who'd fought long and hard for equality for all; the phrase was used to describe MLK and Ghandi for crying out loud. It wasn't until the late 2000's that term began to shift. In part it was the rise of online activism which made some of the more far out and radical members of the social justice movement more visible to outsiders. This then led to some people taking them a bit out of context. Some of those people who took them out of context repeated what they understood of the movement to other people and it ended up being a sort of game of telephone where each time the ideas get repeated they mutate and change a little more. The new people, some of whom were getting really weird by older feminist/anti-racist/pro-equality standards, took the term "Social Justice Warrior" with them. And when they started clashing with people outside the entire progressive movement on twitter, well extremists always tend to be the loud ones, their use of the phrase overwhelmed any older ones and it turned into an insult in some corners of the internet. A lot of people inside these movements tend to remember the older meaning more strongly though and there can be some disconnect.

Source (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/07/why-social-justice-warrior-a-gamergate-insult-is-now-a-dictionary-entry/) for some of the history, the rest is what I remember from being a feminist for a friggen long time and some conjecture


Exactly my point: Sterotypes, in and of themselves, aren't a problem. It's the way they are used. Which is what makes me wonder why OP asked the question. He doesn't seem like the type to use sterotypes to make fun of others. Someone who does that wouldn't even have considered making that post.
Then again, I admit I might just get confused in my age. It's just... Why is them being gay such a big deal? It shouldn't be. They are supposed to be people, not some arbitrary concepts. And as people, they can be what they are.

As to this most of the time my orientation isn't important. Honestly my grocery errands, my work they aren't influenced. There can be days if not weeks when I barely have to think about the fact that I'm not straight. But that doesn't mean that I appreciate it when people have false beliefs about me because they assume that I fit they're stereotype of a queer woman. My mother's first concern on me coming out was she thought I would suddenly turn into an extremely masculine person and abandon my interests in fashion and sewing. Seriously that's what she thought, Pelor bless her. If I can disrupt the cliched stories people sometimes tell about gender and orientation, I figure maybe I won't have to spend so much time explaining to people that I don't fit all the stereotypes about queer women. Maybe I won't have to do sexual orientation education 101 with people and we can get to people seeing me for me sooner. Maybe by making it a small deal now I can prevent it from being a big entrenched deal later. I dunno but I figure its worth more of a shot than letting every stupid stereotype go by without questioning it.

[Mordaedil]

That's a fair point. I believe originally the term SJW described a specific group of people. Regressive left, authoritarian, intellectually dishonest, militant. It wasn't your beliefs that made you a SJW, it was the way you tried to enforce them. A lot of "Anti-SJWs" aren't concerned over SJWs managing to create equality (as that is what a large portion of the "Anti-SJWs" want too), but are concerned about the SJWs trying to get you banned from places (like it was already suggested) or even ruining your life by getting you fired, which, at least where I come from, can be lethal.

Yeah, it should be... I'm feeling myself getting more emotional and salty about this topic.
Are you from San Francisco?

I mean, if your opinions are so bad that they can get you fired and be lethal to your health, are you sure they aren't just bad opinions and you should rethink your standpoint?

[nyjastul69]

It didn't originally mean anything like that. "Social Justice" as a catch all phrase for promoting fair and just treatment of individuals by society goes back to the 19th century. In the 1990's "Social Justice Warrior" was an accolade used to describe people who'd fought long and hard for equality for all; the phrase was used to describe MLK and Ghandi for crying out loud. It wasn't until the late 2000's that term began to shift. In part it was the rise of online activism which made some of the more far out and radical members of the social justice movement more visible to outsiders. This then led to some people taking them a bit out of context. Some of those people who took them out of context repeated what they understood of the movement to other people and it ended up being a sort of game of telephone where each time the ideas get repeated they mutate and change a little more. The new people, some of whom were getting really weird by older feminist/anti-racist/pro-equality standards, took the term "Social Justice Warrior" with them. And when they started clashing with people outside the entire progressive movement on twitter, well extremists always tend to be the loud ones, their use of the phrase overwhelmed any older ones and it turned into an insult in some corners of the internet. A lot of people inside these movements tend to remember the older meaning more strongly though and there can be some disconnect.

Source (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/07/why-social-justice-warrior-a-gamergate-insult-is-now-a-dictionary-entry/) for some of the history, the rest is what I remember from being a feminist for a friggen long time and some conjecture



As to this most of the time my orientation isn't important. Honestly my grocery errands, my work they aren't influenced. There can be days if not weeks when I barely have to think about the fact that I'm not straight. But that doesn't mean that I appreciate it when people have false beliefs about me because they assume that I fit they're stereotype of a queer woman. My mother's first concern on me coming out was she thought I would suddenly turn into an extremely masculine person and abandon my interests in fashion and sewing. Seriously that's what she thought, Pelor bless her. If I can disrupt the cliched stories people sometimes tell about gender and orientation, I figure maybe I won't have to spend so much time explaining to people that I don't fit all the stereotypes about queer women. Maybe I won't have to do sexual orientation education 101 with people and we can get to people seeing me for me sooner. Maybe by making it a small deal now I can prevent it from being a big entrenched deal later. I dunno but I figure its worth more of a shot than letting every stupid stereotype go by without questioning it.

It seems the term SJW has suffered the same bastardization as discrimination. Once a good thing, but no longer considered as such.

[KillingAScarab]

Paizo has released an errata that allows a planetouched humanoid to age as fast as the parent race. It is completely optional, however. So you can have aasimars that age at the same rate as humans, or you can have aasimars that can live as long as 850 years. I guess that, mechanically, it depends on whether the aasimar identifies more with their mortal or their outsider heritage. An aasimar that ages like a human does so because he connects more with his human side. An aasimar that lives as long as Ragathon does so because they embrace their divine forebears.Thank you again for the information. I think if/when I get around to these NPCs, I will probably go for the shorter lifespan. That would probably have to be the rule for the game. Otherwise, that sort of seems like a test of faith which I would rather explicitly include later, if at all. Also, I would probably treat long-lived aasimar like Forlorn and be far too likely to start playing Voltaire's Almost Human (https://www.reverbnation.com/voltairenyc/song/7520323-almost-human) during a game session involving one.


My entirely unqualified answer to the initial question would be that it is neither disrespectful, or flattering. It looks normal. The geneticist part of me is wondering how two females produced a male child though. :smalltongue:


That's where the angel daddy comes into play as a beam of light.The beam of light induces parthenogenesis but damages an X chromosome, and one of the parents is also secretly a vole (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system#XX.2FX0_sex_chromosomes). Problem solved. :smallcool:

[atemu1234]

Thank you again for the information. I think if/when I get around to these NPCs, I will probably go for the shorter lifespan. That would probably have to be the rule for the game. Otherwise, that sort of seems like a test of faith which I would rather explicitly include later, if at all. Also, I would probably treat long-lived aasimar like Forlorn and be far too likely to start playing Voltaire's Almost Human (https://www.reverbnation.com/voltairenyc/song/7520323-almost-human) during a game session involving one.



The beam of light induces parthenogenesis but damages an X chromosome, and one of the parents is also secretly a vole (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system#XX.2FX0_sex_chromosomes). Problem solved. :smallcool:

Maybe it's magic. Maybe they're komodo dragons.

File under: jokes that straight people may want to avoid making.

[Echch]

Are you from San Francisco?

I mean, if your opinions are so bad that they can get you fired and be lethal to your health, are you sure they aren't just bad opinions and you should rethink your standpoint?

Germany. We are... very oversensitive. I don't mean that in the way SJWs are described as oversensitive, I mean REALLY oversensitive. As for opinions getting you fired, one of my professors was kicked out for asking questions about the validity of genderstudies. Over here, you are gone FAST.

[Stealth Marmot]

Maybe it's magic. Maybe they're komodo dragons.


Maybe it's Maybelline.

[Segev]

SJWs - in the modern sense - tend to seem less interested in equality and more interested in special privileges...and that's if you take them at face value. Scratch the surface, and most of them seem to be more of the sort of attention-seeking personality that wants to be accoladed for a "brave" position that pits them against a cold, cruel, heartless world...while making sure to armor themselves in a zeitgeist-approved position that is actually well-protected to the point that any disagreement with it is to be treated as the most vile of behavior. In short, they want to be "different, just like everybody else," with a patina of "courage" while remaining completely safe.

As with everything, this is not a blanketly-true characterization, but, as others have noted, the loud and the obnoxious and the extreme tend to be the most visible, and they have colored the various movements those extreme, loud, obnoxious people have contaminated with their egocentric touch.

A good hallmark, in my entirely unhumble opinion, of a "bad SJW" vs. somebody really seeking equality and commity between mankind is whether they demand you openly and proudly celebrate and support their position and personal choices, or allow you to simply treat them like you would anybody else, neither condoning nor condemning their personal choices. The "bad SJW" types tend to be very in-your-face about it, and if you aren't completely supportive of their choices, and willing to express enthusiastic agreement with whatever their claims about the nature of their situation are, they will cry "discrimination!" and call you all sorts of names. If the term "microaggression" comes out, it's almost guaranteed.

If "fair treatment" means you have to shut down debate rather than being able to demonstrate a position you feel is wrong's wrongness, then you're probably a "bad SJW." If you're calling names, yelling that people are filled with "hate" for disagreeing with you or because they aren't supporting you the way you want to be supported, you're probably a bad SJW.

If you're happy so long as people say "oh, okay" and don't actively harass you over your positions and choices (where those positions and choices don't affect them), then you're probably not what "anti-SJW" people call an "SJW." If you find offence in everything that isn't precisely the way you want the world to treat you based on your choices and preferences and feelings, and you demand that people not just be accepting but actively change their behavior to make you comfortable, you probably are that kind of SJW.

(Note: "Stop calling people a known slur," is not what I'm talking about. "How dare you not use precisely the language I insist upon!?" is. If you can't see the difference, then you might be the kind of SJW that is considered problematic.)

[Psyren]

I have been reacting to someone who was insinuating that I was lying.

At the risk of repeating myself, I wasn't meaning to insinuate that you were lying. I'm sure militant extremists for and against just about any polarizing viewpoint do exist (somewhere.) However, it is the immediate and hostile reaction in this thread, borne of an expectation that said extremists would somehow come out of the woodwork just because of the OP's perfectly reasonable request, that I am opposing.

In short, oppose extremism when there is extremism. But just bringing it up apropos of nothing/because scars serves no purpose but to antagonize what is otherwise a wholly reasonable request.


Suppose instead of saying how a particular group has impacted some individuals in society, suppose we were instead discussing how tornadoes had impacted some individuals in a society. Would it be a strawman argument when there are no actual tornadoes in the thread? Please, tell me what you think I'm arguing that the post of yours I just quoted would actually apply.

Very well then, let's use your analogy.

Let's say I wanted to roleplay a character who lost his childhood home to a tornado, or a "mana-tempest" if you want to get fantastic. There are in fact some pretty insensitive and mean-spirited ways I could go about doing that, like making said character into the clichéd stereotype of an inbred, uneducated redneck who lives in a trailer with a swarm of children and doesn't have the sense to avoid inhabiting an area that isn't continually ravaged by such disasters. (Again, this is a terrible stereotype, not something I would actually ever conceive.) I, being a progressive player, would want to avoid such an insensitive portrayal, yet my concept might want to adopt some elements into my backstory that at first glance seem to be common with that stereotype - for example, I might want my character to be relatively unsophisticated and to have an impoverished upbringing, but for reasons unrelated to living in a tornado alley or my genealogy. Would it be wrong of me to come to a forum and say "I want a character with this type of backstory and these elements, but I don't want people to immediately leap to an insensitive stereotype in their minds the moment I start talking about it. Is there a way to do that more empathetically, or is this entire idea a lost cause?" And in this case, yes, people who actually did lose their homes to a tornado (or have family members/close friends who did so) would be welcome to chime in with their experiences - here's why we/they lived there despite the dangers, here's the kind of horrors we/they lived through, please don't name your character "Bubba" or "Cletus", consider having fantasy equivalents of agencies like Red Cross both to make the story more authentic and to let the GM tie your character to the world etc. And to go a step further, some survivors might indeed come into the thread and say "having lived through that ourselves, we think your concept is a bit harsh and should be changed or scrapped." At which point, I would change it (even before presenting it to my local playgroup), if not reconsider it entirely.

Now, the consensus for the OP's backstory idea (among those whose opinions he actually solicited that is) is that he is totally fine. This makes sense, as his concept is far more benign than what I posted above. Whereas for mine, considerable rework might be required, and doing so would just be human decency on my part.

[KillingAScarab]

Maybe it's magic. Maybe they're komodo dragons.A ZW sex-determination system would be a neater solution, yes.


File under: jokes that straight people may want to avoid making.I will keep that in mind the next time I bring up with complete strangers the possibility of different sex-determination systems being used to let fictional characters pray for angel babies.

More seriously, I suspect where you were going with that was a conflation of different uses of "magical" by an audience which is not familiar or concerned with ways a fantasy setting might duplicate the results of reproductive technologies. I can agree that's not the best way to bring up the topic.


Maybe it's Maybelline.I see what you did there.


Germany. We are... very oversensitive. I don't mean that in the way SJWs are described as oversensitive, I mean REALLY oversensitive. As for opinions getting you fired, one of my professors was kicked out for asking questions about the validity of genderstudies. Over here, you are gone FAST.Is it possible that may not be the sole reason for being dismissed? Even if it were, I can see it being justified. I have encountered university faculty who were more than willing to discuss things outside of the field of their profession during their lectures. If enough students aren't happy with how the class time they are paying for is being spent on other matters, corrective action will be taken by the administration. While digressions happen, and they can be constructive, I'm less inclined to categorize, "The United Nations is out to get us. Booga, booga, booga. Here's a book I can sell you," as benign during a computer science lecture.

[Stealth Marmot]

I see what you did there.


IT'S A REFLEX!



Is it possible that may not be the sole reason for being dismissed? Even if it were, I can see it being justified. I have encountered university faculty who were more than willing to discuss things outside of the field of their profession during their lectures. If enough students aren't happy with how the class time they are paying for is being spent on other matters, corrective action will be taken by the administration. While digressions happen, and they can be constructive, I'm less inclined to categorize, "The United Nations is out to get us. Booga, booga, booga. Here's a book I can sell you," as benign during a computer science lecture.

Often enough I find when people say "They were X'd just because of Y" there is usually more to it. I'm not saying people can't be unreasonable, but in general people's jobs aren't usually lost over a single statement unless either it was the straw that broke the camel's back, or it was the snowball that became an avalanche. So, most likely, either they were already on thin ice for saying or doing other things, or their one statement ended up starting something that eventually got out of control.

I'm not saying it was their fault necessarily, I'm just saying there is almost certainly more to the story.

[Segev]

To be fair, universities are rife with double-standards. If you're speaking the politically correct line, you can holler about how abused you are by the world and the faculty and activist portions of the student body will rally to your defense. If you're speaking a politically incorrect line, you will be treated like you're personally, physically assaulting every student and faculty member who wants to cry foul, and anybody who tries to defend you is a horrible monster who doesn't deserve to be considered human.

"Safe spaces" tend to be remarkably unsafe for those who don't share the already-protected opinion of the faculty and SJW activists, as well. And asking for a "safe space" for a point of view that isn't one of the approved ones will get you, AT BEST, laughed at. Potentially attacked and have calls for expulsion, censure, or termination of employment for your "hurtful" views.

Tragically, you will even find most proponents of "safe spaces" openly question whether free speech is a good thing. They seem to make the assumption that the only speech that should be protected is that with which they agree, and to fail to see that opening that door makes it possible for the ones deciding what speech is approved to decide their preferred speech is not.

[Echch]

I have to admit that the only thing I can say on this topic is the offical side of the story, where this was the reason for why he was fired. Of course, as I have not personally been there when he was dismissed (and first found out about it via newspaper), I can neither confirm nor deny that this was the sole reason for the loss of his job.

[Jack_Simth]

At the risk of repeating myself, I wasn't meaning to insinuate that you were lying.
You've said that. Doesn't mean that's not something I was reacting to. What was intended and what was received do not always line up. You may also notice the use past tense in the statement you quoted. Miscommunications are a thing. In fact, that's exactly one of the things I was trying to clear up when you started criticizing at me. Two people were using the same term, but with significantly different meanings, and I was trying to point that out. Since you started criticizing at me, I've been trying to track down what you think I'm actually arguing, and why you think that, so I can communicate better in the future. Echch got a 'practical' definition of SJW based off a bunch of far-out extremists. Stealth Marmot was using a 'practical' definition of SJW's that did not include the extremists, with a hint that SM had never really encountered the far-end extremists that self-identify as being part of that group. So I pointed out that they're using different definitions, and that Echch isn't the only one who's encountered such. Again, what do you actually think I'm arguing that you're being so vehement against what I say?

I'm sure militant extremists for and against just about any polarizing viewpoint do exist (somewhere.) However, it is the immediate and hostile reaction in this thread, borne of an expectation that said extremists would somehow come out of the woodwork just because of the OP's perfectly reasonable request, that I am opposing.
Interesting... where did I say anything along those lines? I'm curious why you think I'm espousing this viewpoint that you're against.

In short, oppose extremism when there is extremism. But just bringing it up apropos of nothing/because scars serves no purpose but to antagonize what is otherwise a wholly reasonable request.
I was trying to clear up an obvious communication difficulty. Still am, really, just a different one. Why do you think I'm serving no purpose with my words?

Very well then, let's use your analogy.

Let's say I wanted to roleplay a character who lost his childhood home to a tornado, or a "mana-tempest" if you want to get fantastic. There are in fact some pretty insensitive and mean-spirited ways I could go about doing that, like making said character into the clichéd stereotype of an inbred, uneducated redneck who lives in a trailer with a swarm of children and doesn't have the sense to avoid inhabiting an area that isn't continually ravaged by such disasters. (Again, this is a terrible stereotype, not something I would actually ever conceive.) I, being a progressive player, would want to avoid such an insensitive portrayal, yet my concept might want to adopt some elements into my backstory that at first glance seem to be common with that stereotype - for example, I might want my character to be relatively unsophisticated and to have an impoverished upbringing, but for reasons unrelated to living in a tornado alley or my genealogy. Would it be wrong of me to come to a forum and say "I want a character with this type of backstory and these elements, but I don't want people to immediately leap to an insensitive stereotype in their minds the moment I start talking about it. Is there a way to do that more empathetically, or is this entire idea a lost cause?" And in this case, yes, people who actually did lose their homes to a tornado (or have family members/close friends who did so) would be welcome to chime in with their experiences - here's why we/they lived there despite the dangers, here's the kind of horrors we/they lived through, please don't name your character "Bubba" or "Cletus", consider having fantasy equivalents of agencies like Red Cross both to make the story more authentic and to let the GM tie your character to the world etc. And to go a step further, some survivors might indeed come into the thread and say "having lived through that ourselves, we think your concept is a bit harsh and should be changed or scrapped." At which point, I would change it (even before presenting it to my local playgroup), if not reconsider it entirely.

Now, the consensus for the OP's backstory idea (among those whose opinions he actually solicited that is) is that he is totally fine. This makes sense, as his concept is far more benign than what I posted above. Whereas for mine, considerable rework might be required, and doing so would just be human decency on my part.
... you ran with an analogy in a way that doesn't seem to address the actual question. What do you think I'm actually arguing?

[Psyren]

... you ran with an analogy in a way that doesn't seem to address the actual question.

Well, I believe I did, but if we're just doomed to miscommunicate, then so be it.

[Jack_Simth]

Well, I believe I did, but if we're just doomed to miscommunicate, then so be it.
Hmm. Oh well, guess I won't learn much from this one, then.

[Troacctid]

From Wikipedia I found: "......warrior" (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term", and "Usage of the term as a pejorative was popularized on websites Reddit and 4chan".

So as far as I can tell "SJW" is a slur that is used against people who try to get people to stop being mean?
Yes, that is basically accurate.

[Stealth Marmot]

Hmm. Oh well, guess I won't learn much from this one, then.

Guess so. Good thing it isn't our collective job to teach you anything.

[Zanos]

So as far as I can tell "SJW" is a slur that is used against people who try to get people to stop being mean?
I'm pretty sure this is bait, because Wikipedia also says "The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation."

SJW isn't a term used to insult people who are actually fighting for equality. It's a term for people who take it too (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R6dzZdceT4) far (http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/26/video-uc-berkeley-protesters-built-a-hum), and begin to see everything as offensive (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzA4dCT4X0I), and try to silence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO_X4DkwA_Q) anyone (http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/09/29/milo-event-florida-atlantic-university-cancelled-due-credible-threats/) who (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IawEMxTroBk) doesn't share their opinion (http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/10/23/milo-event-cancelled-due-security-fee-censorship/).

To make it clear, I don't agree with Milo about...pretty much anything. But silencing people who don't share your opinion is exactly what people who claim to want Social Justice should be fighting against.

[Psyren]

Hmm. Oh well, guess I won't learn much from this one, then.

Guess not.


Guess so. Good thing it isn't our collective job to teach you anything.

Yep.



SJW isn't a term used to insult people who are actually fighting for equality.

It very much is used for that, including against non-extreme supporters against equality. Repeatedly. Including in this thread.

[Troacctid]

SJW isn't a term used to insult people who are actually fighting for equality.
Yes it is. All the time.

You see, there are many people who don't believe in equality, and to these people, anyone who supports equality at all is "going too far." Don't support gay marriage? Anyone who does is an SJW. Don't want transgender people to have basic rights? Anyone who does is an SJW. Etc.

"But I don't mean it that way!" Well I don't know you and I have no way of knowing that, so if you don't want to get lumped in with the people who do mean it that way, maybe don't use the same language as them.

[Stealth Marmot]

SJW isn't a term used to insult people who are actually fighting for equality.

It sometimes is. Depends on who is saying it and who they are saying it about.

Some people deserve to be called on their Social Justice antics, particularly when the person screaming so loud is someone who is interested in making themselves look and feel good instead of helping others feel welcome. Ironically, some of these people end up becoming the type of person they hate so much, especially when you have people working at different social reforms at each other for the problems within each of their communities (Homophobia within the black community, racism within feminist spheres, etc.). This is a genuine concern for people, as often times "allies" can hijack a movement or group instead making it about them. It can be a hard tightrope to walk, standing up for people you want to help and making sure the fight isn't about you. And some people don't care to even walk that tightrope and instead shove their faces up their rear ends and congratulate themselves. These people are called out within those spheres as well, though sometimes not often enough. (I find myself spending a great deal of time hoping I'm not one of those people and checking myself when I can)

However, some people love to just slap the SJW tag on whoever makes them feel like maybe what they are doing might be insensitive or dickish, even though what they are doing IS insensitive or dickish. It's the defensive reflex that people have, it pushes people to try to deny any feelings of being a jerk and instead accuse the attacker of being wrong or oversensitive without looking at their own actions and how to amend them. Everyone wants change, no one wants TO change. Because changing is hard.

What's more, there used to be a real form of censorship about ideas during the McCarthy era and other times where ideas were pushed away as immoral, and people still have a desire to rebel against the idea of shutting out ideas that people say are immoral or harmful. We still have people trying to ban Harry Potter. The internet has allowed ideas that would normally be pushed down to spread around, and it has been a way for people to communicate things that normally you could never get a voice for in the world before the net.

This is a double-edged sword however, as not every idea is a good one.

I used to be a huge first amendment proponent, thinking that nothing should ever be censored and that banning comments or such was a sign that you didn't have a good argument. And in some cases, it is true, some people will close a thread or comments because they don't want to address the stream of good counterpoints and certainly don't want others to see them (I have had my comments removed from an Anti-Vaccination youtube video before where I put sourced commentary and carefully worded and empathetic pleading explaining why vaccines are good for kids).

However, there are also reasons to NOT allow comments. Sometimes a person does not want to deal with the people who will harass a video and bombard it with idiocy. (Recently saw a video from Lindsay Ellis, formerly the Nostalgia Chick talking about portrayals of 9/11 and she explained that she turned the comments off because of 9/11 truthers who have a habit of harassing and bombarding comment sections)

It may seem weird and against the idea of the first amendment to ban or moderate comments like that, but the truth is that not everything people have to say on a matter is useful, and often enough people will not respond to reasoned responses, and even more often they can bombard over and over and you won't have time to address them all.

It took a while for me to realize something about people who put up things concerning feminism, racism, LGBT rights, and other ideas that come up a lot: They have to tell different people the same things over and over. And most of the time, the people they tell them to, won't listen.

What's more, the people asking feel like they are owed your time. They feel like only 2 possibilities exist: You will explain your side and teach it to me, or you don't have a good argument.

The truth is more likely to be: They don't have time to tell you something you can research yourself. It's not their job to google stuff for you.

This is an unfortunate state to be in because the person asking could honestly be curious and could honestly want to change and be shut down. That has happened to me. I figured their loss for losing an ally, but was it? After all I was the kind of guy who expected everyone to drop what they were doing and explain things they already explained to their audience over again.

I kind of got off on a rant here, but my point is this: Before you label someone an SJW, look at yourself first and wonder if maybe you're being entitled by expecting them to do what's best for you instead of what's best for the people they are working for. I cannot stress enough how helpful it is to sometimes admit that you were wrong, even if only partially. I was wrong to imply that every person who gets labeled an SJW doesn't deserve it, even if that wasn't my intent. I was wrong to imply that people like that aren't harmful or can't be as problematic as the people on the other side. I was wrong to dismiss the arguments that use those words immediately. (which is a reflex due to so many people abusing the term)

I will say this however, and this is critical: Criticism is not censorship, and that cuts both ways. Being called out for your opinions is free speech, and if people think your view is invalid, they have a right to tell you so. This applies to comments, replies to comments, and replies to replies of comments and so forth. But if someone says "I'm sick of explaining this" then you haven't won the argument, it just means that they quit and if it really matters to you, you will do your own research. No everyone owes YOU, personally, an explanation.

Sorry for the wall of text, this was as much a mental release than it was a response to anything.

[Stealth Marmot]

I'd genuinely had never seen tha term "SJW" before I read some of this thread today, and I didn't remember reading the part of the Wikipedia article that you quoted, probably because once I read enough to see what "SJW" stood for I immediately posted, but I was hoping that someone would respond and explain how it became a slur which puzzled me, since it seems akin to "good Samaritan" becoming an insult.

Interestingly enough, there is an insult along those lines, and it is related to SJW, it's called "White Knight". That has basically become a derogatory used to describe people who charge in to defend someone without being asked and in a way that isn't welcome or needed. It in particular describes a guy defending a woman in a condescending way when the woman is capable of defending themself.

In some situations helping someone out is warranted, but knowing the difference is the blurred line.



I also find it interesting that all the complaints I've seen on this thread (which admittedly I've only skimmed) about "SJW" "going too far", have referenced stuff on College campuses.

Maybe those complaints are true.

I wouldn't know.

I never went to college.

Most people I work with and know have never gone to college.

Most Americans have never gone to college.

In fact all the guys I work alonside who did go to college were educated in other nations.

So I've never seen any of these "too far" campus antics.

I also have never seen any "too far" off-campus antics.

But I have seen a lot of bigotry and cruelty at many job-site's in the over three decades since I left High School, so in my perhaps limited experience bigots are a much bigger problem than anti-bigots.

That's my $.02 anyway

Looking at statistics, almost 2/3 of Americans aged 25-29 have gone to SOME college, but less than 45% of Americans in that same age group got a degree. It is not uncommon for a lot of people, particularly in a rural area away from big cities, to not have gone to college.

Honestly, the value of a degree has gone down and the cost of tuition has gone up that a lot of people are regretting getting into decades of student loans for something that does not guarantee them a better job.

But the reason that colleges are brought up, in addition to the fact that Im betting a lot of forum goers GO to college, is that colleges sometimes have what is referred to as a "Safe Space". This is a pretty controversial idea.

Basically a Safe Space is more or less an area where kids, especially minorities and LGBT people, can gather together and discuss issues related to minority and LGBT and gender issues without having to answer to opposition.

On the one hand it is a relief to not have to deal with the majority groups constantly bringing up their points of view to turn it into an argument and constantly play devils advocate, so the group can openly discuss things without fear of having to explain their lifestyles or beliefs. It particularly is for LGBT students who often have fear of exposure and often have had to live their whole lives concealing any sort of thought relating to their sexuality. On the other hand it also specifically stymies debate in those areas and people say that it leaves college students ill equipped to deal with real resistance and real people in the world. Basically the big criticism is it treats students like babies.

I wouldn't know, the college I went to recently didn't appear to HAVE a safe space as far as I knew, then again I'm a heterosexual white male so I never needed one really. Plus this was in Baltimore City, so no shortage of overall representation there. Any debate concerning those topics did not have any real stakes in it for me, any concern I would have would be for other people. I wouldn't know exactly how necessary these safe spaces are since I never was part of the group they are for.

The idea of a Safe Space is one that I could see working and doing a lot of good for people who need it, particularly since this is the first time some young people ages 18-22 will have the chance to be away from an environment that stigmatizes their lifestyle or other aspect, but it is also something that I could see easily abused if not limited very strictly.

And I will always say to the critics saying "The world is not a safe space" that the people who need the safe space know that a lot better than you ever will.

[KillingAScarab]

I have to admit that the only thing I can say on this topic is the offical side of the story, where this was the reason for why he was fired. Of course, as I have not personally been there when he was dismissed (and first found out about it via newspaper), I can neither confirm nor deny that this was the sole reason for the loss of his job.Thank you for this. There are tons of things I know nothing about. I don't know about you, but sometimes I find it hard to admit that.


I'd genuinely had never seen tha term "SJW" before I read some of this thread today, and I didn't remember reading the part of the Wikipedia article that you quoted, probably because once I read enough to see what "SJW" stood for I immediately posted, but I was hoping that someone would respond and explain how it became a slur which puzzled me, since it seems akin to "good Samaritan" becoming an insult.It has only been two years since I encountered the term, myself. I think the thing to take away from it is that it is a generalization. Once the generalization becomes used enough, it becomes harder to see the individuals, and those who are using the generalization may ascribe new traits to them which may not reflect reality. Associate enough negativity with the generalization that those traits can be invoked and you create a new slur. People may be dismissed with an utterance, a keystroke. "Know-it-all," "academic," "lawyer," "hacker," are all examples of ones' work to gain a specialization being turned against them with a label and enough examples of that placing them out of touch with others. "Peacenik," "hippie," "treehugger," "activist judge" are closer in context to "social justice warrior." The trick is to turn a label into perceived opposition. Turn a person into "one of them" to try to get people to stop listening to their opinion.

Please don't take my lack of exhausting all labels as an omission because I fight tirelessly to slant things in favor of cause X Y or Z. I have empty causes (http://www.badreligion.com/albums/9/The_Gray_Race), I'm quite tired and I also don't want to get banned for delving further into the origins of slurs germane to the original topic. Although, I do find a little humor in the idea of Ragathon responding to some child saying, "Your mother wears army boots," with, "Yes, she's a paladin, they all do so while they protect you from tyrants from other planes of existence."

[Mordaedil]

As somebody who has had to deal with internet discussions on gender politics for years, I think it is perfectly safe to sort of tune out people who say "SJW" in a serious manner, because it is really weird in the exact same way you feel it is weird. And the ones who use it in a serious manner sort of use it as a flaredog manner to shut down discussion by attempting to out the other person in some manner, usually by insisting they do this thing for some inner sense of self-worth and that it is motivated by entirely selfish desires, you know, as if being a legit good person is selfishly motivated somehow.

White Knights are treated in much the same way, where they go around behaving nicely to women over other genders in some sort of hope that it will land them sex, even though generally that is a really futile effort.

If you chose to dive down into this particular rabbit hole, you will eventually encounter another term that is catching up a bit of wind these days, which is called "Virtue Signalling", an alarmist term that really doesn't mean anything.

If you want a bit better explaination of exactly what this whole ordeal is and why it is just plain weird, feel free to look at this video, made by some goon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAmM872874A

[Echch]

I'm pretty sure this is bait, because Wikipedia also says "The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation."

Wikipedia tends not to be the most reliable source of everything ever.


SJW isn't a term used to insult people who are actually fighting for equality. It's a term for people who take it too (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R6dzZdceT4) far (http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/26/video-uc-berkeley-protesters-built-a-hum), and begin to see everything as offensive (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzA4dCT4X0I), and try to silence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO_X4DkwA_Q) anyone (http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/09/29/milo-event-florida-atlantic-university-cancelled-due-credible-threats/) who (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IawEMxTroBk) doesn't share their opinion (http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/10/23/milo-event-cancelled-due-security-fee-censorship/).

I love how everyone just ignores the second sentence here like it clearly doesn't exist.

It's a good question though, because to me SJW still has nothing to do with what you want to achieve (or at least claim you want to achieve), but with the way you do it.
Then again, that definition comes from the media I consume (like Armoured Skeptic, Sargon, Thunderf00t), which is not exactly neutral media, so I'm running a serious risk of being biased. Well, about as much as people that consume hbomberguy, I guess.

[Mordaedil]

I don't really recommend outing yourself as a misogynist by acknowleding that you follow people who outright obsess over women and how wrong they are on the Internet, but maybe that's just me.

[Echch]

I don't really recommend outing yourself as a misogynist by acknowleding that you follow people who outright obsess over women and how wrong they are on the Internet, but maybe that's just me.

EDIT: Ok, so after finishing my laughflash, let me make something clear:
Not believing in everything feminism tells you doesn't make you any more misogyist than not believing the earth is flat/something in the Torah makes you an anti-semitic.


You just made my day man :,)

[Stealth Marmot]

I don't really recommend outing yourself as a misogynist by acknowleding that you follow people who outright obsess over women and how wrong they are on the Internet, but maybe that's just me.


EDIT: Ok, so after finishing my laughflash, let me make something clear:
Not believing in everything feminism tells you doesn't make you any more misogyist than not believing the earth is flat/something in the Torah makes you an anti-semitic.


You just made my day man :,)

Let's not bring the YouTube drama here.


I was really suprised to read that so many Americans between 25-29 had gone to college, so I looked it up:

Educational Attainment in the United States: 2015 - Census.gov PDF (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwiC0K-ZwtDQAhVG4iYKHYM5DWEQFggrMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2F Census%2Flibrary%2Fpublications%2F2016%2Fdemo%2Fp2 0-578.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHR14-oekBB4VAWet6e-JRNWXs7zg)

I found that while it's still true that less than a third of the people born in the United States over 25 years old and still living have gone to college, you are correct, the majority of Americans 25 to 29 do have some college.

This suprised me, probably because at 48 I'm one of the younger guys at my job, and former college students are rare.

Live and learn.

I imagine that as my and previous generations die out what goes on at college campuses will seem more important.

I actually checked those exact same statistics before posting. When you said most Americans hadn't gone to college, I wondered how true that was so I googled it.

I figured it was generational, previous generations had a smaller college attendance, but on the other hand college attendance and graduation used to mean a lot more than it does currently as far as getting a job.

[KillingAScarab]

I love how everyone just ignores the second sentence here like it clearly doesn't exist.

It's a good question though, because to me SJW still has nothing to do with what you want to achieve (or at least claim you want to achieve), but with the way you do it.If the problem is with the tactics used and not the motivation, then I think "bully" is still applicable. A bully doesn't fit into a limited background. From what I can tell, "social justice warrior" does.

It also seems to me that bully would translate better between cultures and languages. Social justice warrior would have been created with a more specific purpose.

[Segev]

The modern use of "SJW" is certainly to suggest that the person is not really seeking equality (no matter how fervently they convince themselves they are) but, instead, are seeking to enforce their personal views and silence all disagreement.

While I do not doubt there are people who legitimately are seeking fairness and all who get painted with the "SJW" brush, it seems far more common, to me, for people who are actively looking for excuses to be offended and to use their "victim" status as a weapon to victimize others (essentially a variant on the wounded gazelle gambit) to claim that anybody who would dare disagree with them opposes equality.

Orwellian insistence on changing the language, particularly when it's hurled like a javelin from ambush waiting for somebody to "assume their gender" or somesuch (rather than politely requested), is worthy of a perjorative. Demands that others actively celebrate your choices, feelings, preferences, and predilections are worthy of a perjorative.

I wouldn't negatively term somebody an SJW just for saying, "Hey, don't call black people the n-word" or "While that word may mean 'cigarette' in Britain, in the US it's a very nasty thing to call a homosexual and I'd thank you not to speak about people that way," or even "leave them alone, they're not bothering you" is not worthy of a perjorative. That's common decency.

Barging in to a jewish-owned bakery and demanding that they cater your celebration of Hitler's birthday would not, however, be tolerated. Neither should one deliberately seek out those who do not approve of your lifestyle and force them to feign enthusiasm for it. Were there a legitimate problem with finding bakeries to cater your event, there would be room to complain. But when there are plenty of willing options, seeking out the unwilling and bullying them is, well, being a bully.


In truth, though, the failure of civility and tolerance by the SJW-oriented crowd is not limited to SJW issues, as evidenced by the behaviors on campuses and in various riots around the country after the US election results were known. The double-standard is obvious, as well. Not only is it doubtful that there would have been "safe spaces" for Trump supporters to mourn Hillary's victory if she had won, nor that there would have been riots from said supporters over Hillary's victory, but if there were, they would be mocked for even whining about Hillary's victory (and any demands for "safe spaces" would be decried as insensitive hate directed towards 'real' issues that 'genuinely need safe spaces') and the riots would not be downplayed as understandable protests in a divided country, but would be played up as examples of the hate and insanity of the right wing who can't handle that the country is slipping away from their hate-filled mindset.


But no, I think that saying "people who use 'SJW' as a perjorative are unfairly dismissing legitimate calls for equality" is inaccurate. It's an attempt to legitimize genuine bullying and defend it from being properly identified.

When most people refer to "SJW" in a negative sense, what they're talking about are bullies who've donned a politically correct cause as their mantle to justify their bullying. "You can't defend yourself," they're saying, "because defending yourself means you're a bad person and proves we're right to attack you."


Again, I am sure there are real seekers after civility and comity out there on the side SJWs purport to support. But they're drowned out by the vocal, obnoxious SJWs who are most certainly NOT seeking it.

Personally, I seek comity and a live-and-let-live attitude. Civility involves treating people as people, and caring about their behavior towards others and little else in terms of civil interaction. Expressions of hate are rude at BEST, and usually very wrong. Violence is unacceptable (except in self-defense or defense of others from violence).

But if you have to look for "microaggressions" and lie in wait for chances to be offended, you're probably the kind of SJW that deserves the term being used as a perjorative.

[Troacctid]

Then again, that definition comes from the media I consume (like Armoured Skeptic, Sargon, Thunderf00t), which is not exactly neutral media, so I'm running a serious risk of being biased. Well, about as much as people that consume hbomberguy, I guess.
Yes, those sources sound much more reliable than the Washington Post or the Oxford English Dictionary.

[Troacctid]

While I do not doubt there are people who legitimately are seeking fairness and all who get painted with the "SJW" brush, it seems far more common, to me, for people who are actively looking for excuses to be offended and to use their "victim" status as a weapon to victimize others (essentially a variant on the wounded gazelle gambit) to claim that anybody who would dare disagree with them opposes equality.
And it seems to me that that's an imaginary grievance by misguided straight white cis people who are uncomfortable with diversity, used as a scapegoat to demonize minority rights in the name of free speech. You know. As long as we're saying what things seem like.


Orwellian insistence on changing the language, particularly when it's hurled like a javelin from ambush waiting for somebody to "assume their gender" or somesuch (rather than politely requested), is worthy of a perjorative.
Okay, you do know that's a transphobic meme used to bully and mock transgender people, and not an actual thing transgender people do, right?


Demands that others actively celebrate your choices, feelings, preferences, and predilections are worthy of a perjorative.
Or maybe you don't, because apparently you're taking the position that asking to be treated with basic respect and dignity is worthy of mockery. Wow. Okay. Well that's cool.

I hope everyone reading this understands that gender identity is not a choice, and to never refer to a transgender person by the wrong gender, because it might not be important to you, but it's very real for them.


When most people refer to "SJW" in a negative sense, what they're talking about are bullies who've donned a politically correct cause as their mantle to justify their bullying. "You can't defend yourself," they're saying, "because defending yourself means you're a bad person and proves we're right to attack you."
Right, exactly. You've got to be allowed to stand up for your right to discriminate against and make fun of persecuted minorities. Who do those SJWs think they are, being intolerant of you like that?


But if you have to look for "microaggressions" and lie in wait for chances to be offended, you're probably the kind of SJW that deserves the term being used as a perjorative.
Sure, that's what transgender people do, isn't it? Lie in wait for people to misgender them so they can have an excuse to bully the poor innocent cisgender victim. That's basically the whole transgender agenda right there, along with sneaking into women's bathrooms. I mean, why else would they be upset when people invalidate their identities? I can't think of any possible reason. Cisgender people need to be protected from this horrible oppression, or else they might be forced to...gasp...be respectful and inclusive of a marginalized group! The horror! Next thing you know they'll be asking us to say "Happy holidays!" instead of "Merry Christmas!" *shakes fist* SJWs!

[Echch]

Yes, those sources sound much more reliable than the Washington Post or the Oxford English Dictionary.

Oxford English Dictionary has the word "mansplain" too.
Reliable? Maybe. Neutral? Definitely not. Surprising given the current political situation? Nah.
...Of course, if you want to use the word SJW that way... Any idea what I should call the people I described that would be to your liking?


If they were it would be front page news.

Where? Ever even heard of Jackie?
And what "stories" anyway? I said it happened on a few occasions
1. In an area that's rad-left to begin with.
2. In Germany, which is a whole different world from San Franscisco.

EDIT:


I hope everyone reading this understands that gender identity is not a choice, and to never refer to a transgender person by the wrong gender, because it might not be important to you, but it's very real for them.

I have to admit, I never really understood the gender identity thing. I know a lot of women and a lot of men, but if I group them together by biological gender, I'm hard-pressed to find any sort of personality or physical trait that is truly exclusive to a single group.
Which does make me question what exactly it means when someone identifies as a different gender (also, when you say refering to them as the wrong gender... do you mean I should not call someone who identifies as a woman male or do you mean I should never say a transgender person has the wrong gender? 'Cause if it's the second, that would be really confusing).

[Madokar]

You know guys, I got answers to my original question a couple of pages ago. I think it's time to drop the discussion. It's completely cyclical at this point. Nobody is going to convince the people on the other side, because people can be pretty damn obstinate about these things.

Do what I do and ignore SJW bull****. And by that, I mean discussions that like the one this thread has devolved into. People, regardless of their skin, faith or sexual orientation are deserving of respect by virtue of these people BEING people. When we get too worked up about political correctness, all we get just another conflict waiting to happen.

[Psyren]

You know guys, I got answers to my original question a couple of pages ago. I think it's time to drop the discussion. It's completely cyclical at this point. Nobody is going to convince the people on the other side, because people can be pretty damn obstinate about these things.

Do what I do and ignore SJW bull****. And by that, I mean discussions that like the one this thread has devolved into. People, regardless of their skin, faith or sexual orientation are deserving of respect by virtue of these people BEING people. When we get too worked up about political correctness, all we get just another conflict waiting to happen.

Thank you again for having the decency / empathy to solicit feedback around this and being willing to act on it (even though in this case, the concept was fine.)

I'll also be vacating this thread.

[Jack_Simth]

If they were it would be front page news.The news industry is primarily interested in making money, so things that don't fit the current drama they're hawking are almost always underreported. I will grant you the WAY TOO FAR cases are a lot less common, but it does happen, and does make the news occasionally. I'd link an article or two that mentions it, but there's a prohibition on real world politics here.

[upho]

Oh, crap. Cannot keep myself from posting. :smallsigh:



While I do not doubt there are people who legitimately are seeking fairness and all who get painted with the "SJW" brush, it seems far more common, to me, for people who are actively looking for excuses to be offended and to use their "victim" status as a weapon to victimize others (essentially a variant on the wounded gazelle gambit) to claim that anybody who would dare disagree with them opposes equality.And it seems to me that that's an imaginary grievance by misguided straight white cis people who are uncomfortable with diversity, used as a scapegoat to demonize minority rights in the name of free speech. You know. As long as we're saying what things seem like.I'd like to give you two a challenge in three steps:


1. Assume the other poster is a good person not out to be disrespectful or insensitive towards you or anyone else.
2. Assume the reasons for the other poster's views are solid and perfectly valid. Or IOW, assume you're both right.
3. Identify possible causes of this paradox.

I'll be impressed if the both of you succeed. :smallsmile:




Orwellian insistence on changing the language, particularly when it's hurled like a javelin from ambush waiting for somebody to "assume their gender" or somesuch (rather than politely requested), is worthy of a perjorative. Okay, you do know that's a transphobic meme used to bully and mock transgender people, and not an actual thing transgender people do, right?AFAICT, he did not claim anything about transgender people, but rather about the SJWs he most commonly encounters. Major difference.




Demands that others actively celebrate your choices, feelings, preferences, and predilections are worthy of a perjorative.Or maybe you don't, because apparently you're taking the position that asking to be treated with basic respect and dignity is worthy of mockery. Wow. Okay. Well that's cool.Wait, is "not actively celebrating another person's choices, feelings, preferences, and predilections" the same as "taking the position that asking to be treated with basic respect and dignity is worthy of mockery"?

Or less wordy, does a person actually have to "actively celebrate your choices, preferences, etc" in order to "treat you with basic respect and dignity"? :smallconfused:

Please explain your reasoning here, 'cause I just don't get it.



I hope everyone reading this understands that gender identity is not a choice, and to never refer to a transgender person by the wrong gender, because it might not be important to you, but it's very real for them.What makes you assume Segev would refer to a transgender person by the wrong gender? Or that he wouldn't consider it important to do so? In my eyes, those assumptions don't jam well with what he did write:
Personally, I seek comity and a live-and-let-live attitude. Civility involves treating people as people, and caring about their behavior towards others and little else in terms of civil interaction.

And while I would normally applaud you for writing this, in this context and in my view it came out as a knee-jerk reaction which doesn't actually have much bearing on what Segev wrote. And unfortunately, some people would probably even interpret your response as an example of precisely what he wrote:
"You can't defend yourself," they're saying, "because defending yourself means you're a bad person and proves we're right to attack you."

That said, I may very well have missed something here and hope you will inform me if that is the case.



Right, exactly. You've got to be allowed to stand up for your right to discriminate against and make fun of persecuted minorities. Who do those SJWs think they are, being intolerant of you like that?I don't really see how this has any actual bearing on what Segev wrote. AFAICT, he's NOT talking about people who actually stand up for vulnerable minorities, he's talking about bullies making unsubstantiated claims painting others as bigots, as a means of shutting out, shutting up and branding anyone who might even suggest there might be valid viewpoints not fully in line with theirs. I believe these bullies are the very reason why some posters have been reacting to the OP's request - they're afraid/assuming he's been intimidated even into having to censor his PC's backstory.

I would also like to add that IME the few "SJW bullies" I've encountered or heard of basically never belong to the group who's rights they claim to have been disrespected by their victims. Real SJWs are never bullies IME. Uncompromising when needed, yes, but never bullies intimidating people into silence. And they generally don't need to, as their arguments stand on their own.

[KillingAScarab]

You know guys, I got answers to my original question a couple of pages ago. I think it's time to drop the discussion. It's completely cyclical at this point. Nobody is going to convince the people on the other side, because people can be pretty damn obstinate about these things.

Do what I do and ignore SJW bull****. And by that, I mean discussions that like the one this thread has devolved into. People, regardless of their skin, faith or sexual orientation are deserving of respect by virtue of these people BEING people. When we get too worked up about political correctness, all we get just another conflict waiting to happen.Thanks for starting the topic, I learned some stuff about Pathfinder.

See you all around in other topics.

[Troacctid]

Oh, crap. Cannot keep myself from posting. :smallsigh:

I'd like to give you two a challenge in three steps:


1. Assume the other poster is a good person not out to be disrespectful or insensitive towards you or anyone else.
2. Assume the reasons for the other poster's views are solid and perfectly valid. Or IOW, assume you're both right.
3. Identify possible causes of this paradox.

I'll be impressed if the both of you succeed. :smallsmile:
No.

Anyone who believes it's okay not to be respectful of all sexual orientations and gender identities is wrong. Period. This is not a gray issue. It is very black and white. And it's important. Do you know the suicide rate of transgender people in unsupportive environments? It's more than 30 times that of the general population. I'm lucky enough not to have lost anyone close to me—but I have friends who have. This is serious **** and I have zero patience for bigots and anyone who apologizes for them.

Look, believe me, I'd love to have the luxury of not having to care, of being able to compromise. Maybe you're a straight cisgender person and this is all theoretical for you. Well I'm not, and I have to deal with this very real issue every single day of my life. And anyone who says it should be okay to disrespect LGBT people is saying that it's okay to disrespect me, personally.

"But Troacctid, you'll never change anyone's mind if you aren't willing to look from their point of view!" I'm not interested in changing those people's minds. I'm not a saint. I don't have the patience for that stuff. If they wanted their minds changed, they wouldn't be arguing on the internet. The reason I'm here challenging all this bullcrap is because I refuse to participate in an environment where it goes unchallenged. When people can say some of the stuff I've heard in this thread and not get called out for it, LGBT people feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. I know this because I have been in environments like that, and I have felt uncomfortable and unwelcome. So when I hear bullcrap, I challenge it.

I get that maybe you're not well-informed about this stuff and maybe you don't understand why it's such a sore point. I get that. And I don't do the education thing. Sorry. But I'm told there's some kind of LGBT Q&A thread elsewhere on this forum that you can check out if you feel you need to get a better understanding. Maybe ask those people.


AFAICT, he did not claim anything about transgender people, but rather about the SJWs he most commonly encounters. Major difference.
"Did you just assume my gender?" is a transphobic meme. It is used on reddit and 4chan to mock the idea of having a gender identity that differs from one's assigned sex. It is not something that "SJWs" say, and it is roughly equivalent to a racist joke. If this is news to Segev, I assume a retraction will be forthcoming.


Wait, is "not actively celebrating another person's choices, feelings, preferences, and predilections" the same as "taking the position that asking to be treated with basic respect and dignity is worthy of mockery"?
Essentially, yes. Those are two ways of saying the same thing.


Or less wordy, does a person actually have to "actively celebrate your choices, preferences, etc" in order to "treat you with basic respect and dignity"? :smallconfused:

Please explain your reasoning here, 'cause I just don't get it.
We're both talking about supporting LGBT rights and respecting the identities of transgender and nonbinary people. One of us phrased it to sound like a big hassle that people shouldn't be forced to do. The other phrased it to sound like something you should be ashamed of yourself for not doing.


What makes you assume Segev would refer to a transgender person by the wrong gender? Or that he wouldn't consider it important to do so? In my eyes, those assumptions don't jam well with what he did write:

And while I would normally applaud you for writing this, in this context and in my view it came out as a knee-jerk reaction which doesn't actually have much bearing on what Segev wrote. And unfortunately, some people would probably even interpret your response as an example of precisely what he wrote:

That said, I may very well have missed something here and hope you will inform me if that is the case.


I don't really see how this has any actual bearing on what Segev wrote. AFAICT, he's NOT talking about people who actually stand up for vulnerable minorities, he's talking about bullies making unsubstantiated claims painting others as bigots, as a means of shutting out, shutting up and branding anyone who might even suggest there might be valid viewpoints not fully in line with theirs. I believe these bullies are the very reason why some posters have been reacting to the OP's request - they're afraid/assuming he's been intimidated even into having to censor his PC's backstory.
Like I said, it's an imaginary grievance that's used as a scapegoat. It's a strawman. It's the same strawman I've heard many times before, always by people who think that they shouldn't have to support LGBT rights. I have zero tolerance for it at this point. And no, you can't couch it by saying "But it's only the really bad 'SJWs' that I don't like!" because if the people saying that really meant it, they never would have complained about it in this thread in the first place.

There's a tendency among the type of people who rail against "political correctness" to believe that everyone else feels the same way they do and is simply afraid to speak out. In that context, I can see how they would interpret OP's question as "Please help me get this right so the SJWs in my group won't beat me up!" But just because I can see it doesn't mean it isn't a load of...let's politely say malarkey. It's wrong. It is an incorrect view of the world.

EDIT:

I have to admit, I never really understood the gender identity thing. I know a lot of women and a lot of men, but if I group them together by biological gender, I'm hard-pressed to find any sort of personality or physical trait that is truly exclusive to a single group.
Which does make me question what exactly it means when someone identifies as a different gender (also, when you say refering to them as the wrong gender... do you mean I should not call someone who identifies as a woman male or do you mean I should never say a transgender person has the wrong gender? 'Cause if it's the second, that would be really confusing).
Okay, fine, this one I will answer, I guess. Gender identity is a person's innate internal sense of gender. Like sexual orientation, it occurs on a spectrum, so you might have a strong sense that you are male, or a strong sense that you are female, or a weak sense either way, or you might feel somewhere in the middle. Approximately 1 in 200 people have a gender identity that differs from their assigned sex. (Aside: "Assigned sex" is considered a more precise term than "Biological sex" because physical sex also occurs on a spectrum, and many aspects of it are difficult or impractical to measure. Also, many transgender women are "biologically" female by most reasonable standards, and many transgender men are similarly "biologically" male.) These people are considered transgender. Like sexual orientation, being transgender is not a choice, although you do get to choose whether to come out and whether to transition, either socially or medically. It's not about gender roles or gender stereotypes—it's about psychology, neurobiology, epigenetics, and other science things that I don't fully understand.

A transgender woman was assigned male at birth, but identifies as female. She is a woman, and should be referred to as such, including female pronouns. A transgender man was assigned female at birth, but identifies as male. He is a man, and should be referred to as such, including male pronouns. There are also nonbinary transgender individuals who may identify as both, or neither, or somewhere in between. This is a real thing that is documented by medical science. If a nonbinary person asks you to use certain pronouns for them, do so.

If you ever screw any of this up, say "Sorry," correct yourself, and try to remember better next time.

This was a very brief explanation. If you want a longer version, read this (https://www.pflag.org/sites/default/files/guide%20to%20being%20a%20trans%20ally.pdf).

[OldTrees1]

Oh, crap. Cannot keep myself from posting. :smallsigh:

I'd like to give you two a challenge in three steps:


1. Assume the other poster is a good person not out to be disrespectful or insensitive towards you or anyone else.
2. Assume the reasons for the other poster's views are solid and perfectly valid. Or IOW, assume you're both right.
3. Identify possible causes of this paradox.

I'll be impressed if the both of you succeed. :smallsmile:


No.

Anyone who believes it's okay not to be respectful of all sexual orientations and gender identities is wrong. Period. This is not a gray issue. It is very black and white. And it's important.

You are correct that respect is not a gray issue and that it is important.

However that does not absolve you from your cognitive biases. upho mentioned a common self applied method for checking and correcting for your own mental blocks and assumptions when reading the written word of another person. The method is not asking you to assume your assumption of their position is correct, it is asking you to presume they have exceeded the very very low bar of being able to derive conclusions from premises.

Troacctid, I have argued with both you and Segev many times before with us being on the same side more often than not. Would you do me the honor of considering that you may have a flawed assumption about what position Segev is holding?



There exist many areas where society could be more just. There are people that attempt to move us towards that ideal. Since there have been improvements, not every change from the present is an improvement (some would undo progress). There are people that honestly believe that one of those harmful changes would make society better. People can be right or wrong about their causes. Just as people can be right or wrong about their causes, others can be right or wrong about their judgement of the causes of others.

SJW has been used to mean the literal meaning of its component words, and has been used as a sarcastic pejorative for the judged activist when the one judging believes the activist is promoting a harmful change. I personally have seen it more often used as the latter, and I have seen it used against both good and bad causes. This is what one would expect when the pejorative usage is basically just "You're wrong to pursue that!".

You may also note that everyone I described I described as individuals. You can have people in a group fall on either or both sides of this as the variation between individuals can result in person A having a good cause and person B having a harmful cause.

[Segev]

Oh, crap. Cannot keep myself from posting. :smallsigh:

I'd like to give you two a challenge in three steps:


1. Assume the other poster is a good person not out to be disrespectful or insensitive towards you or anyone else.
2. Assume the reasons for the other poster's views are solid and perfectly valid. Or IOW, assume you're both right.
3. Identify possible causes of this paradox.

I know your pain; I probably should have avoided the thread entirely, myself, and managed for...quite some time. But *sigh* I find myself frustrated when it keeps popping up and is a topic I was...unfortunately...right about the nature it had taken on.

I actually do assume Troacctid is a well-intentioned person who genuinely, earnestly believes what he is writing.

In the interests of not prolonging a potential flame war, I will simply thank you and OldTrees1 (referenced below) for grasping what I was trying to say and expressing in more eloquent terms the responses I likely would (or should) have made to Troacctid's post.

You are correct that respect is not a gray issue and that it is important.

Not excluding the rest because it's not worthy of quoting, but just for space and to limit my own replies to a "small" essay (rather than a novella).

I fully agree that respect is important, and thank you and upho for recognizing that as my core position.


At no point, Troacctid, did I say respect wasn't important. I said quite the opposite. I would posit that respect of those who disagree with you is important, even if they are NOT showing what you feel to be appropriate respect. Barring violence or other directly harmful action (and slurs and insults are not directly harmful; hurtful, yes, but worthy of response only with being ignored or countered where there's enough substance to bother countering), shouting at and picking fights with people or even dismissing their disagreement as "hate" on the basis of you not liking it...only hurts your position. It comes off as bullying.

Even when the "other guy" is legitimately being a jerk, it usually comes off as petulant at best to dismiss him with your own slurs. And, rightly or not, "bigot" and "homophobe" and "transphobe" have become slurs in their own right, used to blanket paint people for failing to actively celebrate a position with sufficient, approved fervor.


You only have to go to youtube to find plenty of university protests and confrontations, sometimes with the (extremely rare) conservative or non-LGBT-activist professor who feels some increasingly extreme demand of the activists on his campus are getting a bit ludicrous, to see people unironically and unmockingly using exactly the arguments discussed. Serious talks and lectures have been given at universities about "microaggressions," and "safe spaces" generally have as part of their purpose protecting people from this supposed nefarious signs of pervasive bigotry.

Under no circumstances do I support mocking people for their sexual choices, identity, etc. Using slurs is rude at best, and I don't condone rudeness. Let alone more aggressive nastiness. But there is a vast difference between "live and let live" and "you must not express disapproval of anything I do, say, believe, or stand for, under any circumstances, and are presumed guilty until proven innocent. If you don't smile and applaud and actively support my situation as I want you to, you are persecuting me, you monster."

And if you think that's just something "made up on reddit" to mock genuinely victimized people, I'm happy that you've never had to deal with the activists who get aggressive and cruel and seek to ruin lives for failure to kneel at the altar of their cause with sufficient obeisance.

"Live and let live" should be the gold standard. Demands to go beyond that start becoming bullying.

If that sounds like an excuse to express hate for people to you...I don't know what to say.

[Jormengand]

I actually do assume Troacctid is a well-intentioned person who genuinely, earnestly believes what he is writing.

It's funny, because it turns out that everyone who was accusing you of not respecting the identities of trans people was right.

[OldTrees1]

It's funny, because it turns out that everyone who was accusing you of not respecting the identities of trans people was right.

Is this a reference to the gender pronoun typo? It is quite an easy, and insensitive, mistake to make. Easy enough of a mistake that I try to avoid pronouns when possible and use neutral ones (they rather than he, she, or even he/she) when forced. I would not consider such a typo to be significant evidence of lack of respect.

[Segev]

It's funny, because it turns out that everyone who was accusing you of not respecting the identities of trans people was right.

I'll be honest; I generally don't check. I'll be happy to refer to Troaccid as "her" if that's what she wants to be referred to as. "Troaccid is a girl, actually," would be all that it took. Or "prefers to be referred to as 'her.'" The only legitimate way to claim that using the wrong pronoun indicates disrespect is if it's obviously being done to push an identity onto somebody who rejects it.

That this unintentionally incorrect use of "he" on somebody I will presume from this reaction is a "she" is proof that I'm somehow a horrible monster who doesn't respect people's identities makes me sigh, as you're proving MY point. It's lying in wait for an excuse to attack somebody. Perhaps I should have been more observant; I wasn't, and probably won't be in the future.

I do generally use the male pronoun if I don't know differently. I didn't know differently. But, here you are, eager to jump all over me and paint me as a monster, filled with hate and disrespect, as a reason to dismiss what I had to say. It's almost as if you want to delegitimize my points by attacking me, personally.

Because I can't currently see avatars and I don't see a symbol identifying gender on your profile, Jormengand, which should I use for you? (I seem to vaguely recall you saying you're a girl at one point, but I could be misremembering.)

My whole point was based around basic civility and respect. "By the way, you used the wrong pronoun for Troaccid" is civil. "You're a horrid, disrespectful monster for getting it wrong!" is uncivil bullying.

[Jormengand]

My whole point was based around basic civility and respect. "By the way, you used the wrong pronoun for Troaccid" is civil. "You're a horrid, disrespectful monster for getting it wrong!" is uncivil bullying.

Then I suppose it's just as well that I didn't say either of those? The least you could do is check her gender marker. You know, it's what it's there for (the reason I don't use it is, well, consider it a test of basic reading comprehension to see if you can work out why. I prefer "It" and related; thanks for asking).

I will admit that my response was a little harsh. I'm sorry. But your arguments - that the concept of microaggressions is just a lie perpetrated by SJW scum rather than a theory of psychiatry proposed by a Harvard professor (of which, to be clear, it is the latter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory)) and that trans people, in general, are deliberately seeking to come up with ways that they can solicit attacks against themselves so they can respond in kind, rather than this being fabricated as a way to make fun of trans people (of which, to be clear, it is the later (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/did-you-just-assume-my-gender)) - are, to be quite honest, disrespectful, no matter how respectfully you word them. One person can be exceptionally rude about the fact that people should be treated well, and someone else can very politely explain why they deserve to be tortured, but that doesn't really change the fact that the latter person is more disrespectful. (To clarify, I don't think this is the case in the discussion at hand)

"Tone policing (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument)" angry members of oppressed groups isn't a new thing, but when you get upset at the way in which people are telling you to stop spreading ideas which are hurting people, you lose a lot of your credibility.

[Troacctid]

You are correct that respect is not a gray issue and that it is important.

However that does not absolve you from your cognitive biases. upho mentioned a common self applied method for checking and correcting for your own mental blocks and assumptions when reading the written word of another person. The method is not asking you to assume your assumption of their position is correct, it is asking you to presume they have exceeded the very very low bar of being able to derive conclusions from premises.

Troacctid, I have argued with both you and Segev many times before with us being on the same side more often than not. Would you do me the honor of considering that you may have a flawed assumption about what position Segev is holding?
I think it's been made very clear that my "assumptions" are not flawed at all.

I'm not interested in dissecting the arguments against "political correctness" (read: basic respect) to see if maybe this time, even though it's the same argument as the last time and the time before that and the time before that, maybe this time they have a point. Spoiler alert: they don't, and they're wrong, and their ideas cause real harm to real people.


Even when the "other guy" is legitimately being a jerk, it usually comes off as petulant at best to dismiss him with your own slurs. And, rightly or not, "bigot" and "homophobe" and "transphobe" have become slurs in their own right, used to blanket paint people for failing to actively celebrate a position with sufficient, approved fervor.
My heart bleeds for all the poor straight white cis dudes being persecuted because of their intolerance. How many people do you know who have committed suicide, or even just suffered from depression, because they were called a bigot or a homophobe? Because at last count, 41% of transgender people have attempted suicide. And this rate further increased by another ~35% among those who had were repeatedly and intentionally referred to as the wrong gender. (According to a 2014 UCLA study.) On the other hand, in supportive environments, the rate drops by nearly 90%. So when I say that this is a matter of life and death, I am not kidding around. But hey, your buddies' right to misgender people and tell transmisogynistic jokes is more important than that, right? We wouldn't want you to have to support something you disapprove of.


Under no circumstances do I support mocking people for their sexual choices, identity, etc. Using slurs is rude at best, and I don't condone rudeness. Let alone more aggressive nastiness. But there is a vast difference between "live and let live" and "you must not express disapproval of anything I do, say, believe, or stand for, under any circumstances, and are presumed guilty until proven innocent. If you don't smile and applaud and actively support my situation as I want you to, you are persecuting me, you monster."
"I don't support homophobia or transphobia, I just think that if people disagree with the existence of transgender people, they should be allowed to be rude and disrespectful towards them, that's all."


And if you think that's just something "made up on reddit" to mock genuinely victimized people, I'm happy that you've never had to deal with the activists who get aggressive and cruel and seek to ruin lives for failure to kneel at the altar of their cause with sufficient obeisance.
That's literally what it is. I don't know what to tell you.

[Murdim]

At no point, Troacctid, did I say respect wasn't important. I said quite the opposite. I would posit that respect of those who disagree with you is important, even if they are NOT showing what you feel to be appropriate respect. Barring violence or other directly harmful action (and slurs and insults are not directly harmful; hurtful, yes, but worthy of response only with being ignored or countered where there's enough substance to bother countering), shouting at and picking fights with people or even dismissing their disagreement as "hate" on the basis of you not liking it...only hurts your position. It comes off as bullying.

Even when the "other guy" is legitimately being a jerk, it usually comes off as petulant at best to dismiss him with your own slurs. And, rightly or not, "bigot" and "homophobe" and "transphobe" have become slurs in their own right, used to blanket paint people for failing to actively celebrate a position with sufficient, approved fervor.

In other words, it is impossible to effectively defend yourself or other people against social ostracism without being dismissed as a SJW bully by people such as Segev. You can't reason people out of using "slurs and insults", and prejudice that stems from dogma, and slander, and gossip, and even stereotypes - people just keep using them even when they know better. Social pressure is the only way to effectively deal with those, yet in the situation at hand, social pressure has most aggressively been used to uphold the idea that nobody should ever worry about treating LGBT people in a respectful way - in fiction at least. No, not even "people who want, or do not care about using disrespectful caricatures should be able to do so without having to worry about the backlash", which is at least debatable, technically right even. Someone asking for advice is apparently enough proof of the intolerable influence the SJWs have on the culture of these forums, and should be actively discouraged.

Just in case, I'm not talking about Segev in the previous paragraph past the first sentence. The goalposts have been moved several miles away, and I just want to re-frame the debate in its original context. Regardless of anything else that has been going on here, to my knowledge, Segev hasn't been explicitly siding with those people. He's the only one who can tell us whether he actually agrees with them, or doesn't, and is just pushing back against perceived excesses from people that are technically "on his side" on this particular issue. Which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, I might add.

upho's guidelines are excellent in the context of a friendly and constructive discussion, where the participants respect each other's opinions and actively expect to have their views challenged, to learn something from each other's experiences, to end up with a broader mind. However, this is not what's going on here, at all. This is a debate, and debates are ultimately nothing more than posturing contests that are won by speaking louder, with more voices, more persuasive rhetoric and in a way that "speaks more" to your audience than the other guys, not actual arguments. Segev's actual position on the debate does not really change anything to this core dynamic ; "sides" are always blurry at best and uncountable at worst, anyway.

Bear in mind that not everything that in the context of the debate, is actually part of the debate. There have been cases where someone was genuinely curious about some notion or group they didn't know about before encountering it in this thread, and other people answered to the best of their capabilities. No need to feel bad about that. Also, as counterintuitive as it might seem, the appeals to emotion and personal experience on both sides are probably the most constructive parts of the debate. These have at least the merit of serving as pieces of data one can use to form their own opinion.

In any case, if anyone wondered what Troacctid meant by that...



Wait, is "not actively celebrating another person's choices, feelings, preferences, and predilections" the same as "taking the position that asking to be treated with basic respect and dignity is worthy of mockery"?

Essentially, yes. Those are two ways of saying the same thing.

... I think you have your answer now. People tend to have have... extremely flexible definitions of "basic respect and dignity".

[Segev]

I will admit that my response was a little harsh. I'm sorry.Apology accepted.

But your arguments - that the concept of microaggressions is just a lie perpetrated by SJW scum rather than a theory of psychiatry proposed by a Harvard professor (of which, to be clear, it is the latter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory)) and that trans people, in general, are deliberately seeking to come up with ways that they can solicit attacks against themselves so they can respond in kind, rather than this being fabricated as a way to make fun of trans people (of which, to be clear, it is the later (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/did-you-just-assume-my-gender)) - are, to be quite honest, disrespectful, no matter how respectfully you word them. One person can be exceptionally rude about the fact that people should be treated well, and someone else can very politely explain why they deserve to be tortured, but that doesn't really change the fact that the latter person is more disrespectful. (To clarify, I don't think this is the case in the discussion at hand)I have...limited respect for the psychiatric fields, partially due to anecdotal reasons which I will not get into. I am aware, nonetheless, that the theory has been put out by professionals. That doesn't mean I think it holds water, especially when I witness how it's applied and find it to be more used as a weapon to silence speech and demand only certain opinions be expressed than any effort to spare people genuine emotional hardship.

Given that I have seen, personally, non-ironic use of each of the things I've decried, I find "it is just used to insult legitimate standing up for equal treatment" to be specious at best.

Note that I'm not saying you can't address actual points. If somebody very politely discusses why torture is actually healthy for people, you have every right to be appalled by the argument and express exactly why it's wrong. Heck, if they suggest they engage or encourage the engagement of such things, you can feel appalled at their callousness.

However, if they genuinely, honestly are THAT misguided, calling them monsters is hardly going to convince them that you're right.

Note that I disagree entirely with the association of "not being willing to put up with being screamed at and bullied" to "torturing LGBT people." But if you really MUST make that argument, be prepared to make the argument, not merely say "it's like you're torturing them" and then dismiss any disagreement as "wanting to torture people."

That'd be like declaring that LGBT people want to eat live babies, and that any argument that they don't is supporting baby-eating. Even if I thought that there was a clear, logical connection (for the record, I don't; this is an analogy), my refusal to even engage with people's arguments that there is no such connection at all by insisting their desire to show the lack of connection means they also want to eat live babies would be, in fact, inane and worthy of being viewed as a concession that I didn't really have anything to support my claims.


I respect people's right to live as they wish to. I don't respect anybody's right to tell me that I must condone all their personal choices. I certainly don't respect anybody's claim to a right to force me to help them with it.

To move into slightly less controversial territory, my moral beliefs are such that I view extra-marital sex as a sin. But it is not my place to judge people for their sins, and I'm not going to treat people differently if they choose to engage in what I believe to be a sin, so long as they're not hurting anybody who isn't voluntarily participating. (And, PERHAPS, if I think the harm is great enough, trying to talk the harmed party into ceasing to voluntarily participate. But as it's their choice, I'm not going to do more than that. It is not my place.) But I certainly am not going to help somebody engage in extra-marital sex. If they want to do it, that's their business, and not mine, but I have no duty to help them with it.

If they start demanding that I help them with it, then they have crossed a line. If they start demanding I help them celebrate it, they are not expecting basic respect; they're demanding that I shelve my morality and adopt theirs.


In the end, respect goes both ways. I can respect anybody's right to make any personal choice they like. To have any belief they like. I can disagree with it without getting in their way or insulting them. But they must respect my right to disagree. They don't have an exclusive right to free speech nor expression. And they certainly have no right to demand my silence in the face of their speech on the basis that MY speech is harmful to them, but THEIRs can't possibly harm me because, as Troaccid puts it, I'm a "cis, straight, white man."

That kind of gender and racial bigotry is bigotry, too. Just because the target is a "cis, straight, white man" doesn't make it somehow more justified to judge or dismiss them based on their sex, preference, or skin color.



"Tone policing (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument)" angry members of oppressed groups isn't a new thing, but when you get upset at the way in which people are telling you to stop spreading ideas which are hurting people, you lose a lot of your credibility.Ironically, you're engaging in "tone policing" when you accuse me of it. The whole concept behind microaggressions is to take normal, everyday speech and transform it into "unacceptable tone" that can be policed.


I think it's been made very clear that my "assumptions" are not flawed at all.

I'm not interested in dissecting the arguments against "political correctness" (read: basic respect) to see if maybe this time, even though it's the same argument as the last time and the time before that and the time before that, maybe this time they have a point. Spoiler alert: they don't, and they're wrong, and their ideas cause real harm to real people.Political correctness isn't about respect at all. It's about language control and silencing speech people don't like.

I have no idea what you're talking about at this stage, as I don't know what arguments you're dismissing. Since we're making broad assumptions and declaring them true, I will take the liberty of assuming you mean that my saying that I have as much right to refuse to celebrate your choices as you have to make those choices is somehow a flawed argument.

The problem with that position is that as soon as you declare one group to have moral authority to demand everybody celebrate their choices, you make it so that all that has to happen is the people in charge of assigning that authority shift to opposing your preferred group to see your preferred group subject to legitimized persecution.

If you genuinely want freedom from persecution, you aren't allowed to persecute others. No, not even "cis, straight, white men" who don't gleefully celebrate your preferred beliefs and lifestyles.



My heart bleeds for all the poor straight white cis dudes being persecuted because of their intolerance.It's funny how you keep insisting that I'm talking about people being allowed to be intolerant, when I've gone out of my way to express the opposite. It's almost as if you're intolerant of people who have different points of view than you.

Not of people who hate, or are intolerant, but of people who are insufficiently enthusiastic in agreeing with your position.

You are aware that intolerance of people just because they're cis, straight, white, and male is still intolerant bigotry, right? "Let's see how they like it, those jerks" is hardly a way to promote equality and comity.


How many people do you know who have committed suicide, or even just suffered from depression, because they were called a bigot or a homophobe?Why is that relevant? Plenty have been told they should. I am certain that your heart would bleed for them if they did, too. They probably deserve it, don't they.


Because at last count, 41% of transgender people have attempted suicide. And this rate further increased by another ~35% among those who had were repeatedly and intentionally referred to as the wrong gender. (According to a 2014 UCLA study.)And that's tragic. I have questions about the validity of aspects of those studies, because frankly UCLA is a questionably-trustworthy source of...well, anything. And this subject is so highly politically charged that bias cannot be escaped.

But while I have a much more in-depth discussion I could go into on the problems that LGBT people experience, that's really beside the point.

I fully acknowledge that things are harder for them.

That doesn't justify bullying people for simply disagreeing with their choices.

"Intentional mis-gendering" is mean. Heck, calling young boys "girls" as an insult, or young women "mannish" as an insult, is mean. Any deliberate insult is mean. It doesn't matter what form it takes.


On the other hand, in supportive environments, the rate drops by nearly 90%.That's nice. I still don't trust your study's accuracy, but it's nice to hear there's a solution that helps. And since I have no problem with passive support in the form of "don't be mean" and "call those who say 'I'm a girl' 'her' and 'I'm a boy' 'him'" is the polite way to go about it, I don't see why you're so up in arms.


But hey, your buddies' right to misgender people and tell transmisogynistic jokes is more important than that, right?Who said anything about "my buddies' right to misgender people and tell transmisogynistic jokes?" Other than you, I mean. You brought it up, just now.

In fact, I think I went out of my way to repeatedly suggest that such mean, rude behavior is not acceptable in civil society.


We wouldn't want you to have to support something you disapprove of.I'm sorry, do you somehow think that "active support" means refraining from doing something? Because...that's the antonym of "active." NOT doing something is by definition non-active.

NOT insulting people isn't active support. It's the absence of active opposition. Insulting people isn't "living and let living." It isn't leaving people alone.

I...don't see how you can interpret it otherwise, unless you're trying to falsely conflate NOT insulting people with refusing to be forced to ACTIVELY compliment and assist them in activities you do not support.


"I don't support homophobia or transphobia, I just think that if people disagree with the existence of transgender people, they should be allowed to be rude and disrespectful towards them, that's all."

Amazingly....I said nothing of the sort. That you're pretending I did is...telling.

[Zanos]

My heart bleeds for all the poor straight white cis dudes being persecuted because of their intolerance.
Since you seem to have been particularly marked by suicide, I'd just like to take a second to point out that men are four times as likely to die from suicide as women(although women attempt more), and despite making up about 30% of the population, white males are 70% of all suicide deaths in America.

[Segev]

In other words, it is impossible to effectively defend yourself or other people against social ostracism without being dismissed as a SJW bully by people such as Segev.Nor, apparently, is it possible to defend yourself against claims of "hate" by Murdim or Troaccid and people like them without being dismissed as proving you're hateful.

To the point that anything you say is re-written in words you never used to say "I hate people and want to insult them." Even when you said the exact opposite.


The goalposts have been moved several miles away, and I just want to re-frame the debate in its original context.Fair enough.

Regardless of anything else that has been going on here, to my knowledge, Segev hasn't been explicitly siding with those people. He's the only one who can tell us whether he actually agrees with them, or doesn't, and is just pushing back against perceived excesses from people that are technically "on his side" on this particular issue. Which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, I might add.I'm against bullying, really.

I oppose it being done to LGBT people by anybody. I oppose it being done by LGBT people to anybody. (I have a friend who is in that group that was bullied BY that group for not being pretty enough, in college, which I thought was...well, I couldn't do anything about it, so I just rolled my eyes and commiserated with him. Anecdotal example of how bullying can be within the group in question, too, is all, here.)

I oppose bullying of cis, straight, white men, too, and not JUST because I happen to be one. It is no less bigoted to belittle bullying of me and others who share my sex, orientation, and skin color just because of what values those fields have in defining me than it is to do so for any other set of such values.

I mean, I've dealt with bullying for so long that it barely affects my ego, but I still find it abhorrent and will stand against it.

And the kind of SJW I speak of is a bully. Regardless of how sincere they believe themselves to be in standing up for their chosen cause, the extrema of their demands move beyond "stop picking on LGBT folks" and into "bow down and grovel and give unto the LGBT your substance, love, and active aid in all they do" territory. That they resort to ad hominem, labeling any who even question their claims as "hateful" for daring to question or who even think that choices in lifestyle are foolish must HATE those who make them and thus deserve to have hate directed at them, personally...well, it's telling. It's how you know they are, themselves, bullies.


People tend to have have... extremely flexible definitions of "basic respect and dignity".
I'll try to give mine, then, for clarity.

Basic respect means that you don't deliberately insult people. It also means that you don't demand that everybody else tip-toe around you and speak only the way YOU want them to.

"Don't make hurtful jokes hinging on insulting people" is a request (or demand) for basic respect.

"You must come help me celebrate my expression of my lifestyle" or "You can't use common parlance but must instead change your mode of speech to this more artificially-constructed one I have chosen for all in my presence to use" is unreasonable. And adding "...or you're a bigot who hates people like me," is bullying.


Basic respect means that, if people aren't supportive of your situation, but aren't doing anything to deliberately insult or oppose you, you respect their right to not like it. If you don't want them thrusting pamphlets about your sinful ways at you, don't thrust demands for specific "supportive" behaviors at them.

Generally speaking, these things should not matter in day-to-day interactions. It really doesn't matter if your co-worker or classmate is straight, bi, gay, trans-, or an alien from the planet Nork here because Mork gave our planet such a great review in his travelogue, in nearly ANY interaction you'll have.

Grow a thicker skin if somebody accidentally calling you "she" when you're a "he" bothers you; correct them as needed, and they'll figure it out. In my experience, most trans- people make an effort to "present" (I believe that's the term) as the sex they prefer, and are sufficiently good at it that my tertiary sexual characteristic identification neural mappings will have me naturally referring to them (in person, at least) as their preferred gender.

If somebody is using a sex-based pronoun insistently as an insult, of course that's wrong. But if honest mistakes are that upsetting, I'm sorry, you really do need to get over it. This isn't insensitivity; this is concern: mistakes happen, and if you can't handle them, you're going to be miserable.

It's reasonable to ask people to treat you how you'd like to be treated. It's reasonable to ask people to respect your personal restrictions, as well. Demanding people actively aid you in violating their principles is at least as disrespectful as others telling insulting jokes about you and those like you.

As a general rule, if offense isn't meant, taking it is not demanding respect...it's looking for an excuse. Note that this is a general rule, and like all such, there are exceptions, but look to this first and ask yourself if it applies when you start taking offense and somebody else isn't deliberately trying to provoke it.

[Madokar]

Guys, if you don't stop this pointless bickering now, I'm going to look into getting this thread locked.

[Segev]

Guys, if you don't stop this pointless bickering now, I'm going to look into getting this thread locked.

I'm not sure there's anything left to discuss other than the pointless bickering; that might be for the best. ^^; (And yes, I admit I'm part of the problem, there, because I can't stand having my position mischaracterized or worse, misunderstood.)

[Jack_Simth]

Guys, if you don't stop this pointless bickering now, I'm going to look into getting this thread locked.Oh, that's actually quite easy. You hit the little triangle-warning-thingie at the lower-left corner of the post, it takes you to a form, and you fill it out with which of the Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1) you suspect the post of breaking (I've think I've used it a few times to report "Commercial (For-Profit) Advertising"). As I understand it, it then flags one or more moderators by some manner, and one of them takes a look at it a little while later and determines the appropriate course of action. I've never been a moderator here, so I don't know the actual mechanics beyond "hit the little report button and fill out the form". Sometimes it's useful to report yourself - for instance, if you posted something in the rules forum that you intended to put in the homebrew forum, and mistakenly had the wrong tab up when posted the topic: mods can move threads.

[Murdim]

... okay, Segev.

First of all. I'm not going to play by your rules and quote-mine right back at you. This rhetorical device is extremely handy to "win points" by cherry-picking the juicy part and treat them however you want, but it also prevents you (or, perhaps more appropriately, exempts you) from addressing my points in an adequate way that would encourage me to re-think my opinions. As a general rule, if you really aim for a constructive and mutually respectful discourse, you should either focus on whole points that really bother you (which I did in my previous message) or treat the message in its entirety with all the vagueness that it implies (which I'm doing right now).

Second. Madokar reminded us to stop the pointless bickering, so that's one more reason to be direct and to the point. This is my last message on this thread, probably also my last on these boards for a long time, and I've already said everything I wanted to say about the original thread hijack. I really just want to point out what I perceive as dishonesty on your part. Whether this dishonesty is intentional or the result of spending too much time debating the same points with the same kind of people over and over (and I know that one from direct experience), it doesn't matter, and you're the only one who knows that anyway. Do whatever you want with it.

Third. I can't speak for Troacctid, but there has been no accusation of hate coming from me towards you in my previous (and first) message, whether implicit or explicit. I actually went out of my way and wrote one whole paragraph to defuse something that might have been interpreted as implicit guilt by association, and that accusation still wasn't as serious as the one you claim. You even quoted that paragraph. You still pulled the "you're intolerant of what you perceive as intolerance" card on me. Eh. :smallsigh:

Fourth. I've already mentioned in my previous message that some kind of social pressure is required to prevent jerks from acting like jerks. I...didn't think I would have to point out that the line between "legitimate" social pressure and non-physical bullying is a very blurry one. You should probably have addressed that point, instead of using the subject of bullying as an excuse to dodge another (admittedly related) question. In any case, one should be mindful of what they see as "crossing the line" to bullying, and examine their possible biases on that matter. "I know it when I see it" is a terrible guideline. And yes, I'm very much aware that "both sides do it", I will even admit that I haven't always been so self-questioning myself.

Fifth. Bullies in the name of "social justice" are actually a thing. I know that. I knew that before it was cool to hate them above and beyond anything else. They're still not that relevant to the discussion at hand. They are mostly used, by you among others, in this thread and elsewhere, to net easy rhetorical points that only a noob, a fool or a SJW would try to take on. If you want this kind of discussion to be something more than yet another pointless debate, then stop trying to push it towards the low-hanging fruit.

And lastly... I think I will just re-quote the part I addressed in my previous message. It's still very much relevant, both for your answer to me as a whole (though it doesn't contradict it directly), and even moreso for that last quote you mined from Troacctid's message. Emphasis mine.


At no point, Troacctid, did I say respect wasn't important. I said quite the opposite. I would posit that respect of those who disagree with you is important, even if they are NOT showing what you feel to be appropriate respect. Barring violence or other directly harmful action (and slurs and insults are not directly harmful; hurtful, yes, but worthy of response only with being ignored or countered where there's enough substance to bother countering), shouting at and picking fights with people or even dismissing their disagreement as "hate" on the basis of you not liking it...only hurts your position. It comes off as bullying.

Even when the "other guy" is legitimately being a jerk, it usually comes off as petulant at best to dismiss him with your own slurs. And, rightly or not, "bigot" and "homophobe" and "transphobe" have become slurs in their own right, used to blanket paint people for failing to actively celebrate a position with sufficient, approved fervor.


... :smallfrown:

To no one in particular. Fairness is hard. Honesty is hard. Tolerance... not even respectful acceptance, just live-and-let-live tolerance... is really hard. If these seems easy to you, if you almost never catch yourself being unfair, or dishonest, or oppressive, or if you are able to dismiss those instances as purely unintentional, then you can be pretty much certain that you're doing those things wrong.

Also, unless it's literally part of your job, we should all try our best to eschew rhetoric. Do not use it, and do not fall for it. The art of twisting words and minds is the worst enemy of critical thought, and I'm not even exaggerating.

[2D8HP]

:mitd::haley::elan::thog::cool:


(Which is what most of you were already doing, because you're awesome posters.)

Let's keep this forum a place where people who need to escape politics can escape politics, OK? OK.:elan::thog:
Dear Reader Who Emailed That They’re Not Buying My Book Because I Recently Included a Gay Character: I deeply apologize for waiting so long. Had I been more proactive in offending your sensibilities, you could have stopped reading years ago. It won’t happen again, I assure you.:cool::mitd::haley::elan::thog:

[Andreaz]

I see Ragathon's parents as being a paladin and cleric of Iomedae. With his birth mother being the cleric. I like the concept, but I'm a bit leery of using gay characters as my parents in my backstory. Mainly because I'm a straight white man born to straight parents and I worry about being insensitive to other groups.

1) About using those characters. It really, really shouldn't matter. It's fiction. If you're cool with it, and your table is cool with it, that's all you need.
2) Don't segregate yourself. That way lies madness and aggravation.

[Segev]

... okay, Segev.

First of all. I'm not going to play by your rules and quote-mine right back at you. This rhetorical device is extremely handy to "win points" by cherry-picking the juicy part and treat them however you want, but it also prevents you (or, perhaps more appropriately, exempts you) from addressing my points in an adequate way that would encourage me to re-think my opinions. As a general rule, if you really aim for a constructive and mutually respectful discourse, you should either focus on whole points that really bother you (which I did in my previous message) or treat the message in its entirety with all the vagueness that it implies (which I'm doing right now).

Really? I usually feel kind-of guilty when I do lump-responses rather than multi-quotes, because I feel like I'm probably leaving some of the person's point on the floor as I forget about it and focus on certain concepts in their posts. I'll try to remember your name in particular so when I'm conversing with you, I remember to do the "short cut" (to my mind) of just responding in general. It really is a lot easier for me. Though...I take a bit of umbrage at the accusation of "quote-mining" for the "juicy bits," as I didn't leave much out of your post as I quoted it. Sorry if you felt what I did leave out so changed the meaning of what I quoted that I effectively mis-quoted you. It wasn't my intention.


As a whole: Don't be a jerk. No, not even if you think the other side is "evil" for having opinions you don't like. (Hint: if all they're doing is saying things you don't like, they probably aren't as evil as you think they are. True evil acts upon its loathsome urges.) If your urge is to bully somebody into silence, rather than rip apart their views for the flaws they contain and the hate they represent, you're probably doing it wrong.

[OldTrees1]

To no one in particular. Fairness is hard. Honesty is hard. Tolerance... not even respectful acceptance, just live-and-let-live tolerance... is really hard. If these seems easy to you, if you almost never catch yourself being unfair, or dishonest, or oppressive, or if you are able to dismiss those instances as purely unintentional, then you can be pretty much certain that you're doing those things wrong.

Yes, it is hard. It is hard for many different reasons. One of those reasons is how easy it is to see "the opposition's" position through an aggravating lens. It is all too easy for each side to argue against the fictional villain they see rather than to argue with the person that is actually in front of them.


While I think I will take your wisdom and also bow out of this thread(despite the brief visit), I do hope to see you around the forum in better threads.

Hoping your day only improves from here.

[upho]

No.

Anyone who believes it's okay not to be respectful of all sexual orientations and gender identities is wrong. Period. This is not a gray issue. It is very black and white. And it's important. Do you know the suicide rate of transgender people in unsupportive environments? It's more than 30 times that of the general population. I'm lucky enough not to have lost anyone close to me—but I have friends who have. This is serious **** and I have zero patience for bigots and anyone who apologizes for them.I agree with this 100%. I'm also well aware of these statistics and I fully support, endorse and actively practice zero tolerance for bigotry. (And for personal reasons, especially bigotry against LGBTQ people, more on that below.)

So to clarify, my little challenge is not about you having to let go of these values. They're great and you're doing the right thing by being uncompromising about them. Instead, my challenge is about you testing whether Segev could actually share these values (="a good person not out to be disrespectful or insensitive towards you or anyone else") and still have solid and perfectly valid reasons for his views. And I mean solid and perfectly valid reasons according to you, not just according to him. The challenge is identical for him.


Look, believe me, I'd love to have the luxury of not having to care, of being able to compromise. Maybe you're a straight cisgender person and this is all theoretical for you. Well I'm not, and I have to deal with this very real issue every single day of my life. And anyone who says it should be okay to disrespect LGBT people is saying that it's okay to disrespect me, personally.Ok, let's get my personal background, values and motives out of the way so they won't be further mistaken or allowed to confuse anyone's arguments:
1. Straight? Yes.
2. Cisgender? Somewhat depending on your categorization of gender-related behavior, yes and no. Let's just say I'm very far from the stereotypical "white American male" and that I'm spoiled by generally not having to give a crap about whether I or other people conform to more traditional norms (and that goes for sex as well as age, ethnicity, culture, etc).
3. All theoretical for me? Most definitely not. Some of my closest friends - three with which I share a home and much of my everyday life - identify as LGBTQ in one or more ways. Unsurprisingly, it deeply affects me, personally, when they're not accepted for who they are. (And yes, sadly this happens even in Stockholm, which is probably one of the most (if not the most) LGBTQ friendly cities in the world.) I'm also an active member of the Swedish Humanist Association (part of IHEU (http://iheu.org/about/about-iheu/)), which fights for human rights.



"But Troacctid, you'll never change anyone's mind if you aren't willing to look from their point of view!" I'm not interested in changing those people's minds. I'm not a saint. I don't have the patience for that stuff. If they wanted their minds changed, they wouldn't be arguing on the internet. The reason I'm here challenging all this bullcrap is because I refuse to participate in an environment where it goes unchallenged. When people can say some of the stuff I've heard in this thread and not get called out for it, LGBT people feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. I know this because I have been in environments like that, and I have felt uncomfortable and unwelcome. So when I hear bullcrap, I challenge it.All well and good, provided you do not actually jump to conclusions and cry wolf (or "hear bullcrap" in this case) while pointing at a sheep (or "valid points and experiences I may learn from").

And here is also where you'll find my motive for replying to your post in the first place. It gets to me when someone jumps to conclusions about other people's attitudes and beliefs, make bad straw man arguments based on those foregone conclusions, and/or assume that critique of the behavior of (supposed) followers of a good cause is the same as opposing to the good cause itself. I don't demand you have to be productive and change people's minds, I simply ask you to not be counter-productive and actively hurt your - our - cause.



I get that maybe you're not well-informed about this stuff and maybe you don't understand why it's such a sore point. I get that. And I don't do the education thing. Sorry. But I'm told there's some kind of LGBT Q&A thread elsewhere on this forum that you can check out if you feel you need to get a better understanding. Maybe ask those people.No (see above). And again, beware of jumping to conclusions.



"Did you just assume my gender?" is a transphobic meme. It is used on reddit and 4chan to mock the idea of having a gender identity that differs from one's assigned sex. It is not something that "SJWs" say, and it is roughly equivalent to a racist joke. If this is news to Segev, I assume a retraction will be forthcoming.Didn't know it was being commonly used on reddit and 4chan (which I very rarely visit), but I knew of the meme. But that doesn't mean I can assume Segev knew, and neither can I claim anything about the so-called SJWs he's encountered. And unless you know Segev personally and witnessed his encounters, the same goes for you.



Essentially, yes. Those are two ways of saying the same thing.Then you're reading a whole lot more than Segev actually wrote. Please don't simply assume the worst, ask!



We're both talking about supporting LGBT rights and respecting the identities of transgender and nonbinary people. One of us phrased it to sound like a big hassle that people shouldn't be forced to do. The other phrased it to sound like something you should be ashamed of yourself for not doing.Funny, that's not my interpretation of what he wrote. And again, he did actually write something which - at least in my world - is contradictory to your interpretation:
Personally, I seek comity and a live-and-let-live attitude. Civility involves treating people as people, and caring about their behavior towards others and little else in terms of civil interaction. Expressions of hate are rude at BEST, and usually very wrong. Violence is unacceptable (except in self-defense or defense of others from violence).



Like I said, it's an imaginary grievance that's used as a scapegoat. It's a strawman. It's the same strawman I've heard many times before, always by people who think that they shouldn't have to support LGBT rights. I have zero tolerance for it at this point. And no, you can't couch it by saying "But it's only the really bad 'SJWs' that I don't like!" because if the people saying that really meant it, they never would have complained about it in this thread in the first place.But again, you're jumping to conclusions. Maybe not about "people who think that they shouldn't have to support LGBT rights" in general, but certainly about Segev. And the fact that the cause is just, important and sometimes very personal does not excuse people misusing the cause and behaving like jerks. Rather the opposite, actually.

Please don't become the monster you're fighting. And by that, I mean please don't become deaf to critique of behavior and blind to the possibility that there might be bullies wielding your cause as a weapon to "punish" innocent and silence important voices.



There's a tendency among the type of people who rail against "political correctness" to believe that everyone else feels the same way they do and is simply afraid to speak out. In that context, I can see how they would interpret OP's question as "Please help me get this right so the SJWs in my group won't beat me up!" But just because I can see it doesn't mean it isn't a load of...let's politely say malarkey. It's wrong. It is an incorrect view of the world.I agree. But I have personally encountered some of the bad bullying behavior Segev is talking about (though not specifically related to LGBTQ rights). And let's just say that my aversion for these bullies is just as strong as it is for the bigots.

[Mordaedil]

Since you seem to have been particularly marked by suicide, I'd just like to take a second to point out that men are four times as likely to die from suicide as women(although women attempt more), and despite making up about 30% of the population, white males are 70% of all suicide deaths in America.

How many of those white males are gay or secretly transgender, but couldn't live with being ostracized?

I mean, I'm sure a fair bit of those are from work-stress, a broken heart or for feeling inadequate, but as a statistic, "white males" doesn't inform much about what those white males are.

[upho]

That this unintentionally incorrect use of "he" on somebody I will presume from this reaction is a "she" is proof that I'm somehow a horrible monster who doesn't respect people's identities makes me sigh, as you're proving MY point. It's lying in wait for an excuse to attack somebody.I do believe you when you say it was simply a mistake and you didn't intend to be disrespectful in any way. But unless you were distracted for some reason, can you see how the problem isn't the mistake itself, it's the underlying lack of understanding and the unwillingness to put in that tiny bit of extra effort required of you, despite the current topic and the fact that Troaccid had just informed you that precisely this actually matters a great deal to her? Can you see how poorly this lack of understanding and willingness rhyme with your previous statements about the importance of showing respect and being civil?



Perhaps I should have been more observant; I wasn't, and probably won't be in the future.If you don't see that you clearly should've been more observant, and - most importantly - that you definitely should put in an effort to be more observant in the future, you most certainly haven't been successful with that little challenge I put to you and Troaccid. I believe you need to think long and hard about the fact that what you might consider an unimportant detail might actually matter a great deal to someone else, for very good reasons, and what you actually mean by
Civility involves treating people as people, and caring about their behavior towards others and little else in terms of civil interaction.

It's one thing to say you don't intend to be disrespectful or insensitive, and a very different thing to actually show that respect and sensitivity in action, by changing the way you think and consequently behave. The first only says you're not actively trying to be a jerk, the second is actually being civil, as you put it.



I do generally use the male pronoun if I don't know differently. I didn't know differently. But, here you are, eager to jump all over me and paint me as a monster, filled with hate and disrespect, as a reason to dismiss what I had to say. It's almost as if you want to delegitimize my points by attacking me, personally.I see Troaccid certainly isn't the only one jumping to conclusions...



My whole point was based around basic civility and respect. "By the way, you used the wrong pronoun for Troaccid" is civil. "You're a horrid, disrespectful monster for getting it wrong!" is uncivil bullying.For the record, I don't think "you're a horrid, disrespectful monster for getting it wrong!" It may be the case you simply haven't had much chance to train your ability to understand and pay attention to views and needs of others, specifically views and needs which you don't share. Because make no mistake, civility is a learned thing and it requires training, real effort. But regardless, it appears to me that this is something you should work on (just like most of us), for the sake of those around you as well as the credibility of your arguments.

Finally, like I wrote in my response to Troaccid, please note that your mistake and whatever caused it doesn't necessarily make your arguments about bullying SJWs any less valid in my eyes. But it certainly will severely hurt your credibility if you don't even see that you should be more observant in the future. Please don't invalidate your experiences and arguments, it would make me feel very lonely...

[Stealth Marmot]

Since you seem to have been particularly marked by suicide, I'd just like to take a second to point out that men are four times as likely to die from suicide as women(although women attempt more), and despite making up about 30% of the population, white males are 70% of all suicide deaths in America.


How many of those white males are gay or secretly transgender, but couldn't live with being ostracized?

I mean, I'm sure a fair bit of those are from work-stress, a broken heart or for feeling inadequate, but as a statistic, "white males" doesn't inform much about what those white males are.

I decided to look this up. Long story short, the suicide rate of white males, and white people in general is mostly unrelated to LGBT issues. Don't get me wrong, LGBT issues factor heavily into suicide rates in general, but the reason for high white male suicide rates is because OLDER, as in 65+ white people, especially males, are far more likely to commit suicide than older members of other races.

Mainly due to the fact that white families have a tendency to ship older members of the family off to nursing homes and are often neglected, leaving them feeling very lonely. Older members of other races, who often either culturally wish to keep older members around or financially can't afford a nursing home, end up living with their families so they aren't as lonely. Other factors come into play as well, but they are not LGBT related.

In short, the statistic is irrelevant to the discussion here.

[Mordaedil]

Yeah, I was mostly curious.

That was interesting and really sad. :smallfrown:

[Segev]

"It isn't about being LGBT, so it isn't relevant. But being LGBT has a higher suicide rate, so you should feel badly for them and guilty about not kowtowing to every demand made by anybody claiming to stand up for them, since refusing to do so reveals a deep hatred of LGBT people, you monster. But you can't compare the suicide rate of LGBT folks to that of white males because white males don't commit suicide due to being LGBT, so their suicide rate is irrelevant and can be dismissed. They're the bad guys, after all, and we shouldn't feel sorry for them for any reason. Even if we must dismiss the same reason that we're using to hold up how bad a person you are for questioning ANYTHING those purporting to stand up for LGBT folks might say at all."





I'd say I'm engaging in hyperbole, here, but given that a call for civility from both sides was hammered as being filled with hate for LGBT people, and was said to be demanding a "right" to deliberately make hurtful comments and jokes about them and insult them and help drive them to suicide... and that the statistics about white male suicides are being dismissed as "irrelevant" because apparently suicide is only something that indicates a group has legitimate suffering if it is over LGBT issues...


Seriously, guys. Think about your enormous double-standards, here. You're literally saying something that boils down to "evidence only matters if it supports my views."


Edit: Were I to apply the same standards that have been applied to my own comments, I'd be responding to these comments by calling those who made them hate-filled people who want to justify driving white men to suicide just so they don't have to feel bad about insulting, attacking, and demeaning white men. That heaven forbid they should have to stop trying to beat down white men in order to feel better about themselves.


I'm not going to; I am simply illustrating how the behavior exhibited towards me could easily be turned around in such a fashion. And that if you find turning it around objectionable, but felt it justified directed at me, that you should probably really examine WHY you have such a double-standard. Because it seems awfully bigoted.

[Jormengand]

This just in: being angry at the use of tactics which are used to encourage opression is bigoted, rather than the use of those tactics themselves.

[Stealth Marmot]

This just in: being angry at the use of tactics which are used to encourage opression is bigoted, rather than the use of those tactics themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

This old chestnut.

Here's an article. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/04/the-intolerance-of-bigotry-is-not-bigotry/

It makes good points. I'll leave it at that.

[Jormengand]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

This old chestnut.

Here's an article. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/04/the-intolerance-of-bigotry-is-not-bigotry/

It makes good points. I'll leave it at that.

I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic, or didn't realise I was being sarcastic, or you're actually agreeing with me and chose to do so in a way that makes it seem as though you're not. Clarify?

[Segev]

This just in: being angry at the use of tactics which are used to encourage opression is bigoted, rather than the use of those tactics themselves.

Interestingly, this can be taken to agree with either side of this discussion. Which I will choose to take as a good sign.


As to "intolerance of bigotry is not bigotry," that's true...but "I have no sympathy for people who have this particular combination of traits, because they all oppress those with the combination of traits I am standing up for," is bigotry: it assumes that a particular combination of traits translates to specific behaviors.

I could also phrase it: "Intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance." Or, "tolerance goes both ways."

If you don't want to be harassed, don't harass others. Politely asking people not to use certain language is fine. Even telling them why it's bad to use it is fine. That's your own right to speak. But you have no right to demand anybody forcibly stop others from using language. Even "hateful" language.

Because the moment you do, you open the door to those who get to use that force labeling anything they don't like as "hateful."

Freedom of speech and expression MUST extend to even "hate." The remedy for hate is to call it out. But, by the same token, expect your own speech to be called out.


Labeling any opposition to your speech, and any expression you dislike as "hate" only undermines the seriousness of your position. And, again, highlights the danger of banning "hateful" speech, because even if you get to define it today, what happens when that evil cis straight white male gets to define "hateful speech" tomorrow, and decides YOUR speech is "hateful" and must be banned?


Call out bullying. By all means. But don't be shocked when your bullying tactics - even if used in a "good cause" to "oppose oppression" - are also called out.

[Stealth Marmot]

I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic, or didn't realise I was being sarcastic, or you're actually agreeing with me and chose to do so in a way that makes it seem as though you're not. Clarify?

Nah. I think this thread has already jumped the rails enough I think I'm going to go ahead and...

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/29/AbandonThread.gif

[LeSwordfish]

I stopped reading this thread a while back because i'm one of those people trying to escape the politics, but I would feel remiss in not coming in here to show my support for the consideration shown by the OP, and the respectful nature and willingness to learn of the query.

[Jormengand]

I apologise, Segev, if you feel that I've "Bullied" you by pointing out the substantial flaws in your arguments. The fact that you respond to my doing by saying that you have no respect for certain types of science, by using anectodes as though they had any particular relevance to a general discussion, by claiming I was equating two things which I clarified that I was not trying to equate, and by arguing that asking you not to use incorrect arguments such as tone policing was itself tone policing (on the basis that being casually dismissive of marginalised groups is "Normal, everyday speech"), and the fact that you seem to be taking any move against your arguments as an attack on you personally, makes it very difficult for me to take your arguments seriously at this time. In fact, I wouldn't be, if it weren't for the fact that that way of thinking (for example, that not being casually dismissive of marginalised groups is "Actively celebrating" them and thus too much for us to be reasonably expected to do) weren't actively damaging.

Do you think I'm arguing to win intangible Internet Points? No, I'm arguing in the hope that you, or at least someone reading this, actually engages with my arguments and stops, essentially, harassing people for imagined slights and, as I said before, spreading ideas which are hurting people.

[Segev]

I apologise, Segev, if you feel that I've "Bullied" you by pointing out the substantial flaws in your arguments.

If you point out flaws (or what you view as flaws), I'm happy to debate them. If you simply resort to mischaracterizing my arguments as "Segev wants to insult and abuse LGBT people" (as Troaccid has done), that's an ad hominem attack, not pointing out flaws in argument.

I'm a big boy; I can handle ad hominem.

As to my disrespect for the psychiatric field, I'd have more respect if it WERE science. It isn't. It's politics and pill pushing. I find what little legitimate science is done in that field to be fascinating, but the majority of its practitioning drivel seems more concerned with pushing political agendas and/or pushing mind-altering substances (and then pushing more to counteract the "new disorders" "revealed" by the ones they're currently on...which amazingly are side effects of the first ones, if you bother to read them, but which I've seen too many people ignore and treat as if they're actually genuinely discovering they're actually more mentally diseased than they had previously thought).

I absolutely refuse to get into a genuine, serious question of the psychology of LGBT people, because I have seen that actually asking questions about it in a scientific manner (rather than one rooted in a religious sort of acceptance) is painted as "hate." And frankly, I don't think it would be constructive.


The fact that you respond ... by claiming I was equating two things which I clarified that I was not trying to equateI apologize. I may have been addressing somebody else, or the "side" as a whole. Which two things did you explicitly say you were not conflating?


and by arguing that asking you not to use incorrect arguments such as tone policing was itself tone policing (on the basis that being casually dismissive of marginalised groups is "Normal, everyday speech")The problem here is that what I am calling "normal, everyday speech" isn't casually dismissive of marginalized groups. What I am opposing is the requirement that normal, everyday speech be altered to accommodate these "marginalized groups" in ways that thrusts them front and center and draws attention to them as special.

If you don't want to be marginalized, don't go out of your way to demand attention and highlight your differences. Especially those differences that you'll quickly say are "private matters" and be all huffy if people don't adore you for them.


and the fact that you seem to be taking any move against your arguments as an attack on you personallyI think you're projecting, now.


makes it very difficult for me to take your arguments seriously at this time.Oddly, this is why I have to fight NOT to be dismissive of the SJW position. Because, again, ANYTHING other than adoration for their cause and their bravery for standing up for it and support for every detail of their demands is "hate."


In fact, I wouldn't be, if it weren't for the fact that that way of thinking (for example, that not being casually dismissive of marginalised groups is "Actively celebrating" them and thus too much for us to be reasonably expected to do) weren't actively damaging.Okay, seriously. What do you think "actively celebrating" means?

Where have I suggested "dismissal" is a good thing?

What I have said is that you walking into my house and demanding that I refer to all religious matters in the terms you define by your religion, that I applaud decorations for your holy sacrements and holidays, and that I make sure that there's room for them in my home and my private life is demanding that I actively celebrate your religion.

At no point have I suggested that anybody has a right to mock your religion, to tell you you can't have your decorations up for your holidays, nor tell you you can't use your religious terms. All I'm asking for is that you leave me alone to do the same.

In case it is not obvious, I use "religion" here as an analogy, rather than in the more literal sense.


Do you think I'm arguing to win intangible Internet Points? No, I'm arguing in the hope that you, or at least someone reading this, actually engages with my arguments and stops, essentially, harassing people for imagined slights and, as I said before, spreading ideas which are hurting people.
When have I harassed somebody? Is saying, "There exist people who actively harass others for not actively supporting their cause, and pretending they don't exist either justifies their behavior or is denying reality," somehow harassment?

If you look at my first post in this thread, all I did was point out that, yes, there ARE "SJWs" of the bad sort, and they ARE the vocal, obvious crowd who draw the attention, and that they DO engage in bullying in the name of "the cause." This was in response to somebody saying "those don't exist, and anybody who says they do just hates LGBT people." Which...well, seems to be what you're doing. If you're not, sorry, I may be conflating you with others in this thread.

Bit nowhere have I deliberately ignored your arguments. I have been pointing out where "arguments" amount to "For disagreeing with me, you are a hateful person, and thus your argument is invalid," and where Troaccid (and maybe others) have put words in my mouth and claimed I said them (or at least "really meant them"). This, you do seem to be guilty of, by saying that I am harassing people and spreading ideas that hurt people when all I'm doing is saying "people should live and let live and stop trying to dictate who can say what."







Let me put my position thusly: What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If you don't think the way you treat others should be done back to you, then you have a double standard, and should carefully examine it. Because if "your cause" or "your fight against oppression" justifies a behavior you would not allow those who oppose you, you're at best a hypocrite, and you undermine your own position.

[Echch]

No, I'm arguing in the hope that you, or at least someone reading this, actually engages with my arguments and stops, essentially, harassing people for imagined slights and, as I said before, spreading ideas which are hurting people.

Well, ok. Then we are on the same page, right?
Then next time I get called a "d*ck", I will focus on the things I said and of what this word means in everyday language and ask myself why I could have been called that and adjust my behaviour so I won't be a "d*ck", solving the problem by attacking the root cause of it, instead of harassing the one who called me a "d*ck" because that's a part of the male anatomy and implies that the male anatomy and someone being male is inherently bad, making the person that called me a "d*ck" a bigot, and g to the UN and plead for the word "d*ck" to be declared illegal hatespeech...
And in return, next time I call someone a "b***h", I can expect the same the same behaviour instead of harassment, right?

...Seems alright to me so far. Where's the catch?

[Jormengand]

Look, at this point, neither of you seems to be addressing anything that I've, you know, actually said, so I'll put it like this:

This thread was, at the start, going fine. People talked about the original topic, they kept their replies short and to the point, and all was relatively well in the world. There was conflict, as there always will be about such a topic, but it was going fairly fine for the subject matter.

Then the word "SJW" gets used. Notice how it's directed at the kind of person who encourage people to be treated with respect (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21408888&postcount=32), not at any kind of "Bully". Quickly, Psyren posts a prophetic judgment not only of the thread so far, but as it happens, the rest of the thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21410604&postcount=43). Echch, you then proceed to compare "SJWs" to a mob of people beating you up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=21414485), and then Psyren points out that there was no problem until you created one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21414851&postcount=65). Stealth Marmot points out that there was no problem until you created one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21419036&postcount=78). Broutchev points out that there was no problem until you created one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21422095&postcount=79). You then immediately call this an attack on you (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21429392&postcount=96).

Do you not see the problem? You're walking into a field, starting a battle, and complaining that it's turned into a battlefield. The thread was doing just fine until the moment someone - to your eternal cosmic credit, not you - called someone an "SJW". Which, given your experience with actual SJWs, you should honestly have realised was hyperbolic, as has already been pointed out (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21433447&postcount=126).

Then Segev comes in, quickly assuming that all people who mention a specific theory of psychiatry are "Bad SJWs" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21437753&postcount=148), presumably the same kind that apparently went and attacked Echch. Then goes on a tirade against people being allowed to have spaces set aside where people don't have to listen to his opinions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21438893&postcount=152) that they're intrinsically bad people equivalent to nazis - spaces in which it's actually safe to ask people not to assume your gender, because those don't exist outside of specific safe spaces - (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21442648&postcount=171) and is visibly saddened by the fact that he can't be transphobic without being called a transphobe (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21446079&postcount=182). I'm sorry, but it's hard not to characterise that as an attack on LGBT people because, I say it and I would if I could say it to your face, it is. There is no way that you can characterise trans people as nazi-equivalent people, use trans-mocking memes to denigrate them, and use every trick in the book to stop them from responding, that will not earn my scorn.

That is all.

[Zanos]

I decided to look this up. Long story short, the suicide rate of white males, and white people in general is mostly unrelated to LGBT issues. Don't get me wrong, LGBT issues factor heavily into suicide rates in general, but the reason for high white male suicide rates is because OLDER, as in 65+ white people, especially males, are far more likely to commit suicide than older members of other races.

Mainly due to the fact that white families have a tendency to ship older members of the family off to nursing homes and are often neglected, leaving them feeling very lonely. Older members of other races, who often either culturally wish to keep older members around or financially can't afford a nursing home, end up living with their families so they aren't as lonely. Other factors come into play as well, but they are not LGBT related.

In short, the statistic is irrelevant to the discussion here.
I was more commenting that it seemed hypocritical to discuss suicide rates among LGBT individuals as being problematically high while disparaging cis white male privilege in the same breath. White males have disproportionately high suicide rates across all age brackets, although it's more pronounced in the 45-65 range.

[Segev]

Jormengand, would you support "safe spaces" for people who don't want to hear about LGBT issues, or put up with people expressing anything that could "trigger" them based on seeing something to do with LGBT?

Saying "that's what the majority of the world is" is a falsehood, because even if you can claim an arbitrary unlikelihood that any given area will have such things expressed at any point in time, there aren't, to my knowledge, any places set up in, say, university campuses where a cis, white, straight man can go and be absolutely guaranteed he will not be exposed to LGBT issues or reminders of the same.

In fact, I posit that, were a cis, straight, white man to stand up in a college environment and say that he wants such a safe space set aside, he'd be shouted down for his bigotry, at best (and possibly bureaucratically and socially lynched, with the university being pressured to expel him, his housing brought into question, and potentially the student council demanding he write an apology for his insensitivity).



Now, I will say this: I don't feel a need for "safe spaces" for such things. In fact, if anybody said unironically that they need a "safe space" to avoid LGBT issues, and demanded it be set aside for them in an otherwise public forum (e.g. a university campus), I would roll my eyes at them. I'd probably even call them out as thin-skinned and needing to deal with the fact that the world doesn't reshape itself to their whims just because it upsets them.

But if you believe "safe spaces" are something that universities should be creating to protect people from ideas and influences and speech and behaviors which upset them, then what is good for the goose should also be good for the gander.

Otherwise, you're being bigoted, claiming some speech is to be protected and other speech is not, based solely on who does or does not want to hear it.

My issue is with those who weaponize a marginalized group's plight as a tool of their own oppression. Those for whom "live and let live" is insufficient, because they look at the world and see anything that isn't 100% actively supportive of their views as a microaggression that is "casually dismissive" of their cause.



Honestly, I'm not sure we're not talking past each other. Because any time I say I don't want to be forced to "actively celebrate" something, it seems to me people prove my point by trying to conflate active celebration with refraining from deliberate verbal assault. And...I honestly can't see why that is, unless, yes, people are trying to "win internet argument points." Or to, well, prove my point.



Is it really so much to ask that people leave each other alone if they don't like their views, lifestyles, opinions, situations, etc.? Is it really so much to ask that I be allowed to say, if asked, "No, I think that's a bad idea," and not be told I'm a hateful monster who wants to murder people for being different?

I know it's too much to ask that we have an honest discussion in scientific terms. Even asking questions and analyzing them is viewed as "hateful," on this topic.



So... yes. I do see where this thread went where it did. I do stand by my assertion that "SJW" is not purely a term used to demonize innocent folks who just want to politely say "stop beating up LGBT people." It is also a term used to properly identify those who want to pick up LGBT people (metaphorically) and beat others over the head with them, demanding they reshape their societies and thoughts to their dictates lest they be labeled "hateful."

The vocal, obnoxious SJWs give the movement(s) a bad name, and you can't really blame people who are sick of that bad behavior for it. Stop supporting them and stand with those who just want to live and let live, and we'll make a lot more progress.

[upho]

Do you think I'm arguing to win intangible Internet Points? No, I'm arguing in the hope that you, or at least someone reading this, actually engages with my arguments and stops, essentially, harassing people for imagined slights and, as I said before, spreading ideas which are hurting people.Oh, you have no idea how much I agree with this!

But (and it's a big one), in order for this to happen, you actually have to start leading by example. In short: don't allow yourself to make the same mistakes you observe those in the so-called opposing camp are making and refuse to stoop to their level. Demand of yourself, say, that your arguments have to live up to a standard at the very least twice as high as those of the opposition, and that you're at the very least least twice as rigorous when searching you own arguments for potential straw men, hyperbole, ad hominem etc than when searching the opposition's arguments. Finally, try your utmost to remain honest, yet polite, and pretend you're oblivious to the tone of any responses that seem to be patronizing, overly aggressive, rude and/or try to paint you as some kind of idiot/monster/bigot/thought-police/d*ck/bullying-SJW/whatever. Simply focus on the actual point the opposing side is making (if any), and only address that point, not any real or imagined slights you read between the lines.

IOW: be the bigger person, the a calm, respectful voice of reason that actually engages with the opposition's arguments instead of harassing people in torrents of bad assumptions and unwarranted accusations.

If you're successful, your opposition will soon start trying to catch up to your standards and/or they may actually be convinced your arguments are more sound than theirs. Either outcome is a win not only for you, but also for your opposition (not to mention any poor bystander readers who then actually might gain some real insights from this thread).

Do you think you've really tried doing any of the above in this thread? And if you don't, why not start right now?

[Echch]

Look, at this point, neither of you seems to be addressing anything that I've, you know, actually said, so I'll put it like this:

I responded to the quote I used. Nothing but that quote, and ONLY that quote. You said that you'd like that someone
stops, essentially, harassing people for imagined slights... Which is what I talked about.


Echch, you then proceed to compare "SJWs" to a mob of people beating you up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=21414485)

Yes, because that is what they identified themselves as and is the closest I came to "respecting" them, with "respect" meaning "to hold in high regard". The fact that the respect that was previously mentioned was a different one was something I didn't know. Heck, I literally say that
I know I come from a rather bad place, so I'm not gonna say all SJWs are like that in the same comment, already telling you that no, this is NOT what SJWs normally are, but that's the closest a group that identified themselves as SJWs managed by putting fear into me.


[...] You then immediately call this an attack on you (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21429392&postcount=96).

Given that I was, according to them, a liar, I believe I'm allowed to defend myself from this. My reply wasn't justified, I will totally admit that, but I fail to see how I could not have viewed it as an attack on myself. Heh, I actually realize that I got my initial idea totally backwards.


Which, given your experience with actual SJWs, you should honestly have realised was hyperbolic, as has already been pointed out (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21433447&postcount=126).

Ah... I think I now know what happened from your viewpoint. Your viewpoint was that I responded to the question of "Why wouldn't you respect (as in, treat them like people) SJWs?" with "Because they are all brutal fearmongers that don't deserve it". From my viewpoint, I answered the question of "Why wouldn't you respect (as in, hold in high regard/regard as superior human beings) SJWs?" with "Why should I? The only time I can remember having any similar emotional response was when I get threatened by people that identify as them (due to past experiences)".

I hope that clears the question up.

[icefractal]

Honestly, I'm not sure we're not talking past each other. Because any time I say I don't want to be forced to "actively celebrate" something, it seems to me people prove my point by trying to conflate active celebration with refraining from deliberate verbal assault. And...I honestly can't see why that is, unless, yes, people are trying to "win internet argument points." Or to, well, prove my point.Ok, you've been repeating this point a lot and now it's bugging me - what exactly do you mean by "actively celebrate"?

The "pro-LGBTQ" things that have been mentioned in this thread are:
* Using the correct pronoun for people.
* Not calling them slurs.
* If someone voluntarily asks whether a particular portrayal is a good one, not complaining about them doing so.

So which of those are "active celebrating" that you don't want to do? Because it seems like either you are responding to things nobody here has said, or your definition of "active" is rather different than mine.

I keep hearing "There are some obnoxious jerkwads who call themselves SJWs - therefore anything associated with it is bad." Which I don't agree with at all - if the fire inspector comes over and tells you not to store those oily rags next to the heater, but he's really condescending and rude about it ... then it's still a bad idea to burn your house down out of spite; you should move the rags.

[upho]

Then Segev comes in, quickly assuming that all people who mention a specific theory of psychiatry are "Bad SJWs" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21437753&postcount=148), presumably the same kind that apparently went and attacked Echch.Yeah, I don't think Segev was (is?) seeing the hyperbolic nature of what he writes here.


Then goes on a tirade against people being allowed to have spaces set aside where people don't have to listen to his opinions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21438893&postcount=152) that they're intrinsically bad people equivalent to nazis - spaces in which it's actually safe to ask people not to assume your gender, because those don't exist outside of specific safe spaces - (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21442648&postcount=171)I don't get the impression that he's primarily talking about the people for which the safe places where introduced, but about the "Bad SJWs". He does say:
Tragically, you will even find most proponents of "safe spaces" openly question whether free speech is a good thing. They seem to make the assumption that the only speech that should be protected is that with which they agree, and to fail to see that opening that door makes it possible for the ones deciding what speech is approved to decide their preferred speech is not.Which I wouldn't equate to "they're intrinsically bad people equivalent to nazis". It would certainly be condescending to claim the "safe space people" don't otherwise approve of free speech, but he's actually talking about "most proponents of safe spaces", which I assume, judging from the description, again refers to "Bad SJWs". Though it doesn't exactly serve his believability to claim this nonsense that most proponents of safe spaces are "Bad SJWs".


and is visibly saddened by the fact that he can't be transphobic without being called a transphobe (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21446079&postcount=182). I'm sorry, but it's hard not to characterise that as an attack on LGBT people because, I say it and I would if I could say it to your face, it is.Though I may not agree with all the details, I do agree with the conclusion. And like I said earlier, I hope Segev's able to see his mistakes, and that he personally regards them as such and tries to avoid making them in the future.

Now for the tough part: is it possible he does have valid points about "Bad SJWs" actually being a problem? And is there a spreading of a dogmatic inquisition-style culture, in media and in colleges, silencing even healthy critique among especially "politically correct" progressives and "social justice activists"?

Unfortunately, I think the answer to both questions is yes. And I also think it's high time those (like myself) who belong to these groups start taking these issues seriously. We will never see the end we wish for by allowing it to justify the means. The same goes for silencing critique instead of actively encouraging it.

[Boci]

So... yes. I do see where this thread went where it did. I do stand by my assertion that "SJW" is not purely a term used to demonize innocent folks who just want to politely say "stop beating up LGBT people." It is also a term used to properly identify those who want to pick up LGBT people (metaphorically) and beat others over the head with them, demanding they reshape their societies and thoughts to their dictates lest they be labeled "hateful."

The vocal, obnoxious SJWs give the movement(s) a bad name, and you can't really blame people who are sick of that bad behavior for it. Stop supporting them and stand with those who just want to live and let live, and we'll make a lot more progress.

This argument inherently favours the establishment, who don't get labeled, and therefor don't need to share the sins of other people. Since they are not one group, they need not be tarred with the same brush as those who hold similar stances but are far more rude or even violent about it. If SJW are given a bad name by their members who misbehave, then everyone who isn't an SJW should be given a bad name by their members who behave badly, otherwise you force them to dilute the integrity of their own argument whilst people they debate with face no such disadvantage.

[Troacctid]

I do believe you when you say it was simply a mistake and you didn't intend to be disrespectful in any way. But unless you were distracted for some reason, can you see how the problem isn't the mistake itself, it's the underlying lack of understanding and the unwillingness to put in that tiny bit of extra effort required of you, despite the current topic and the fact that Troaccid had just informed you that precisely this actually matters a great deal to her? Can you see how poorly this lack of understanding and willingness rhyme with your previous statements about the importance of showing respect and being civil?


If you don't see that you clearly should've been more observant, and - most importantly - that you definitely should put in an effort to be more observant in the future, you most certainly haven't been successful with that little challenge I put to you and Troaccid. I believe you need to think long and hard about the fact that what you might consider an unimportant detail might actually matter a great deal to someone else, for very good reasons, and what you actually mean by

It's one thing to say you don't intend to be disrespectful or insensitive, and a very different thing to actually show that respect and sensitivity in action, by changing the way you think and consequently behave. The first only says you're not actively trying to be a jerk, the second is actually being civil, as you put it.
Ooh, let's see how long it takes you to notice the irony. :smallsmile:


Now for the tough part: is it possible he does have valid points about "Bad SJWs" actually being a problem? And is there a spreading of a dogmatic inquisition-style culture, in media and in colleges, silencing even healthy critique among especially "politically correct" progressives and "social justice activists"?

Unfortunately, I think the answer to both questions is yes. And I also think it's high time those (like myself) who belong to these groups start taking these issues seriously. We will never see the end we wish for by allowing it to justify the means. The same goes for silencing critique instead of actively encouraging it.
It's not tough at all. The answers are no and no. "Bad SJWs" are no more a problem than "Perverts pretending to be transgender to sneak into women's restrooms" or "Psychiatrists pressuring cis children to transition." It's a nonsense scapegoat that is used to deny rights and protections to LGBT people under the guise of protecting the anti-LGBT crowd from being "discriminated against" for their belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman, for example. (These people believe that they shouldn't be forced to actively celebrate LGBT people by e.g. not firing them because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.)

[Segev]

Interestingly... I never said anything positive or negative about trans- people.

But somehow, this makes me a transphobe? Again, the immediate ad hominem attacks serve to prove my point: there is little interest in debate, and more in painting disagreement with ANY part of ANY extreme behavior as "hate" and the people voicing it as horrific monsters to be ignored and/or denigrated.

I'd say I'm hurt, but I'm really not, and I try to avoid sarcastic hyperbole in conversations already charged with misunderstanding and emotion. But please do consider that I have said nothing hateful about anybody other than "loud, obnoxious SJWs." And even that was just to denigrate their behavior. I am unsure if people are catching a distinction between disapproving of behavior and hating the person engaged in it. There is one, I assure you.

This, by the way, means I've expressed less hate and bigotry than those who've done things like dismiss potential pain of entire sexual orientations, physical sexes, and races as something to scoff at because they're not in the chosen protected minority. Again, just something I really hope people think about, if they want to be taken seriously outside an echo chamber that already agrees with them.


Ok, you've been repeating this point a lot and now it's bugging me - what exactly do you mean by "actively celebrate"?

The "pro-LGBTQ" things that have been mentioned in this thread are:
* Using the correct pronoun for people.
* Not calling them slurs.
* If someone voluntarily asks whether a particular portrayal is a good one, not complaining about them doing so.

So which of those are "active celebrating" that you don't want to do? Because it seems like either you are responding to things nobody here has said, or your definition of "active" is rather different than mine. None of those is demanding active celebration.

Active celebration requires helping support the cause in some fashion. It requires participating in events which celebrate or enable behaviors related to the cause.

Let's say that I am a member of "Islamophobics United," a group which has regular monthly meetings around a lovely bonfire built on Korans. (Please note that this is a deliberately despicable group I am positing, here.) It is absolutely my freedom of expression to participate in such events. You have no right to tell me I am not allowed to do so. However, if I try to force you to let me hold it on your college campus, or if I try to bully into oblivion a Muslim bookstore after they refuse to sell me Korans for the next bonfire night, I am trying to force you/the Muslim bookstore to actively celebrate my expression of disdain (even hatred) for Muslims and their beliefs.

If I try to bully you into only using the word "terrorism" when referring to any crime committed by a Muslim, even if it was something as petty as pickpocketing that doesn't fit the definition, I am trying to force you to actively participate in my beliefs.

If I tell you to leave me alone and stop throwing wadded up socks at me just because you disapprove of my Koran-burning club, that's asking you to live and let live.

Note that I have no more right to compel you to stop telling me that what I'm doing is wrong than you do to compel me to stop doing it. If we want to have a civil coexistence, however, it would behoove both of us to simply not discuss Islam and Korans and my hobbies regarding them.

(Again, I am not actually condoning any such behaviors. They are deliberately despicable to help make my point.)


I keep hearing "There are some obnoxious jerkwads who call themselves SJWs - therefore anything associated with it is bad." Which I don't agree with at all - if the fire inspector comes over and tells you not to store those oily rags next to the heater, but he's really condescending and rude about it ... then it's still a bad idea to burn your house down out of spite; you should move the rags.That's...not what's being said. What's being said is that the loud, obnoxious jerkwad SJWs are generally what people who speak disparagingly about "SJWs" are referring to.

My initial objection was to the claim that "SJW" was a term used to unfairly delegitimize any defense of the downtrodden. It isn't. It's a term used to call out the loud, obnoxious, vocally bad behavior of some who purport to do it. The claim to which I object is one which, if not refuted, can lead to any attempt to disagree with the loud, obnoxious, jerkwad SJWs and, indeed, defend oneself against them being painted as hateful bigotry. In other words, it's a dangerous claim to let stand because it cedes the argument to the jerkwads by default.

And I sincerely hope that those who genuinely want to encourage equality and kindness to all aren't willing to let the jerkwads speak for them.

[Zanos]

I feel like celebrate is being used in a weird way here. I'm not going to march in a parade or congratulate someone for being gay. I'll vote for gays to have equal rights and go home. I don't "celebrate" who anyone is. Even someone voting for a candidate that doesn't support those rights doesn't make them a bigot unless they do so explicitly for that reason. It's entirely possible that they simply don't weight those issues very heavily.

[Boci]

If I tell you to leave me alone and stop throwing wadded up socks at me just because you disapprove of my Koran-burning club, that's asking you to live and let live.

But you don't have to live and let live a group defined by hating others for what they are. Some times you should, no doubt everyone at times will, but you never have to.

[ComaVision]

I feel like celebrate is being used in a weird way here. I'm not going to march in a parade or congratulate someone for being gay. I'll vote for gays to have equal rights and go home. I don't "celebrate" who anyone is. Even someone voting for a candidate that doesn't support those rights doesn't make them a bigot unless they do so explicitly for that reason. It's entirely possible that they simply don't weight those issues very heavily.

I am totally agreed with this.

[Segev]

This argument inherently favours the establishment, who don't get labeled, and therefor don't need to share the sins of other people. Since they are not one group, they need not be tarred with the same brush as those who hold similar stances but are far more rude or even violent about it. If SJW are given a bad name by their members who misbehave, then everyone who isn't an SJW should be given a bad name by their members who behave badly, otherwise you force them to dilute the integrity of their own argument whilst people they debate with face no such disadvantage.

All it takes is denouncing the bad behavior, as is demanded of several groups who ARE painted with the worst behavior of anybody who even marginally claims to be a member. Such groups are not in the politically protected classes. Oft viewed as "the majority" and thus unworthy of it.

It's when the bad behavior won't be denounced, and any offense taken at the bad behavior is mischaracterized as a desire to pick on those the bad actors claim to defend, that the problem arises.

[Boci]

All it takes is denouncing the bad behavior, as is demanded of several groups who ARE painted with the worst behavior of anybody who even marginally claims to be a member. Such groups are not in the politically protected classes. Oft viewed as "the majority" and thus unworthy of it.

It's when the bad behavior won't be denounced, and any offense taken at the bad behavior is mischaracterized as a desire to pick on those the bad actors claim to defend, that the problem arises.

Okay. Why does only one side need to denounce bad behavior? Unless I missed it and you denounced all bad behavior associated with not-SJW.

Alternatively, people could be, not required to denounce bad behavior, and an absence of advocating it could be interpreted as a denouncement by others.

[Troacctid]

I feel like celebrate is being used in a weird way here. I'm not going to march in a parade or congratulate someone for being gay. I'll vote for gays to have equal rights and go home. I don't "celebrate" who anyone is. Even someone voting for a candidate that doesn't support those rights doesn't make them a bigot unless they do so explicitly for that reason. It's entirely possible that they simply don't weight those issues very heavily.
That's because it's a deliberate word choice meant to evoke that sentiment. Another word that could be used in its place might be "support" or "accept". Some actual examples of things that have been decried as "celebrating" LGBT people might include a business covering transition-related medical costs in the health insurance plan it offers to its employees or a wedding caterer serving gay couples. EDIT: Or, to bring it full circle, allowing a player in your D&D game to have a gay character or a character with gay parents.

[Segev]

Okay. Why does only one side need to denounce bad behavior? Unless I missed it and you denounced all bad behavior associated with not-SJW.

Alternatively, people could be, not required to denounce bad behavior, and an absence of advocating it could be interpreted as a denouncement by others.You have missed it. Given how you've misinterpreted things I've said in horrifically straw-mannish ways, I am unsure if it's deliberate or if you just have such a strong cognitive bias that your reading comprehension is suffering for it.

I have repeatedly denounced, separated myself from, and expressed disdain for cruel, unkind, mean, and otherwise unfair treatment of anybody, including those of an LGBT persuasion. I have advocated treating them like you would anybody else, and requested the same. I have suggested that those who don't like them should just leave them alone, and that such should be reciprocated for those who dislike the intolerant.


That's because it's a deliberate word choice meant to evoke that sentiment. Another word that could be used in its place might be "support" or "accept". Some actual examples of things that have been decried as "celebrating" LGBT people might include a business covering transition-related medical costs in the health insurance plan it offers to its employees or a wedding caterer serving gay couples.
No, "celebrate" does not mean "tolerate" nor "accept," and your insistence that it does indicates exactly why you cannot be reasoned with.

And yes, those latter examples would be requiring celebration of it.

"It is not enough that I am able to get this taken care of. YOU, a person who does not like nor wish to participate in my choices, lifestyle, preference, etc., must actively aid me in getting it done. You must become an active participant in my choices, despite your morals, beliefs, and preferences being offended by it."

That is, in fact, requiring "celebration." That goes beyond "accept" and "tolerate."

I'll grand that you might say "support" is a synonym. But why is it my obligation to support you? It isn't your obligation to support me. Going back to my (deliberately distasteful) Islamophobics United monthly meetings, do you have an obligation to SUPPORT my efforts to have that bonfire of Korans, lest you be a hateful bigot?

No. You merely must tolerate it by not getting in the way, so long as I'm not causing harm to other people or their property. You can vocally oppose it, even. But you cannot stop it. But "not stopping it" doesn't mean you have to, if I demand it of you, sell me the Korans to burn. Even if you're in the Koran-selling business.


That you equate "does not actively support, nor wish to participate in celebration of" something with "hateful oppression" of it is...wrong. Tyrannical, even. You have no right to demand support, for yourself or on behalf of anybody else. You have the right to demand tolerance and freedom to speak and (generally) express yourself, and to be left alone while doing it. (So long as you're showing the same courtesy to others.) "Tolerance" means "not being actively oppressed." Refusing to actively aid you in your expression is NOT oppression. Demanding it of people you know want no part of it is bullying at best.

[Segev]

As a side thought: Does anybody here remember when the phrase, "I despise what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it," was in vogue?

[Jormengand]

As a side thought: Does anybody here remember when the phrase, "I despise what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it," was in vogue?

I don't think anyone here is actually taking away your right to speak, hence your doing so long after it became ill-advised. Again, another baseless attack on the mystical SJW who, as far as I'm concerned, never actually existed.

[Boci]

I have repeatedly denounced, separated myself from, and expressed disdain for cruel, unkind, mean, and otherwise unfair treatment of anybody, including those of an LGBT persuasion.

So, everyone pre-phrases their argument with that watered down and meaningless sentiment that sounds like the kind of thing a company lawyer writes to outflank a potential future lawsuit, and everything is good?

Doesn't that seem a little pointless.


I have advocated treating them like you would anybody else, and requested the same. I have suggested that those who don't like them should just leave them alone, and that such should be reciprocated for those who dislike the intolerant.

But they aren't like everybody else, they are still fighting to be accepted and to not be discriminated against, so treating them like everyone else, i.e. people who do not have to fight to be accepted, seems misguided, and whilst likely well intentioned, may prove unhelpful.


You have no right to demand support, for yourself or on behalf of anybody else.

Of course you do. Maybe you shouldn't, but you can. You are advocating people's right to hate others for who they are, yet saying its tyrannical to demand support for others, and you're confused why that's being taken badly?

Its probably tyrannical to enforce support of others. But to demand it?

[Jormengand]

But they aren't like everybody else, they are still fighting to be accepted and to not be discriminated against, so treating them like everyone else, i.e. people who do not have to fight to be accepted, seems misguided, and whilst likely well intentioned, may prove unhelpful.

And honestly, it's not like this hasn't happened before. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/culturally-speaking/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism)

[Zanos]

That's because it's a deliberate word choice meant to evoke that sentiment.
Are you suggesting that people who oppose such rights encourage such terminology? It seems weird for supporters to also use that terminology, if that's the case. I might not be taking your meaning.



Some actual examples of things that have been decried as "celebrating" LGBT people might include a business covering transition-related medical costs in the health insurance plan it offers to its employees or a wedding caterer serving gay couples.
Places of public accommodation aren't legally allowed to refuse service for such reasons, and anyone trying to put forth a law, like the ridiculous suggestions for laws that "restore religious freedom" by effectively allowing such discrimination are ridiculous. That, I will agree, is flat out bigotry.

Health care in the US is in a sour state in general. I'll say I think it's unusual that health insurance providers aren't allowed to charge someone more if they have pre-existing conditions. That person costs more to cover, and health insurance providers are largely for profit corporations. The staggering costs of medical care unfortunately make it impossible to opt out of in today's society, but ideally people would pay for what they use, rather than the costs of high users being distributed over everyone in the system. Making human health a massive for profit businesses complex was probably not the most intelligent path to take.



EDIT: Or, to bring it full circle, allowing a player in your D&D game to have a gay character or a character with gay parents

I think a D&D game is a bit more private than other things you mentioned. I don't personally take issue with it, but people are free to be bigots in their own homes.


As a side thought: Does anybody here remember when the phrase, "I despise what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it," was in vogue?
I still stick by it. Freedom of expression is crucial to our society. So many ideas over the course of history have been suppressed on a moral basis, and it's a very dangerous thing. Both the far right and the far left want to restrict what people can say.

[Troacctid]

I have repeatedly denounced, separated myself from, and expressed disdain for cruel, unkind, mean, and otherwise unfair treatment of anybody, including those of an LGBT persuasion. I have advocated treating them like you would anybody else, and requested the same. I have suggested that those who don't like them should just leave them alone, and that such should be reciprocated for those who dislike the intolerant.
Hey, remember when you unironically used an unkind and mean transphobic meme, and then when I called you out for it, you did not denounce or separate yourself from it and in fact doubled down on it? Or how about just now when you complained about businesses not being allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation? Good times.


Are you suggesting that people who oppose such rights encourage such terminology? It seems weird for supporters to also use that terminology, if that's the case. I might not be taking your meaning.
Supporters don't use that terminology, or at least not outside of literal celebrations. Bigots use it to make it sound like being told not to blatantly discriminate against LGBT people is the equivalent of being told to host mandatory gay pride parades.

[Segev]

Its probably tyrannical to enforce support of others. But to demand it?

You're right, I chose words poorly. You have ever right to "demand" as long as your demand carries no enforcement power nor authority. I did, in fact, mean "enforce."

I will say that I find advocating for the demand to be enforced is just as reprehensible as advocating for violence against people you hate. Because "enforcement" is also a call for threat of violence. Or at least force, if you wish to quibble over whether "destroying/taking somebody's property in a way they're powerless to stop" qualifies as "violence" or not.



As to the rest...

I believe I've made my point sufficiently. I am certain those who refuse to see it will feel their points have been made by the arguments they choose to put in my mouth.

I'm thrilled for you if you don't think there are any jerks out there seeking to suppress speech just because they dislike it. I am sorry for you if you feel that you're oppressed just because people don't 100% agree with you and take all your prescriptions for their behavior as gospel.

The difference between "don't be a jerk to people" and "no, I won't actively provide support to you" is, hopefully, clear, and the fact that some have openly argued that there is no difference should, I hope, stand on its own for people to make their own judgments.

I have not advocated for nor condoned any hateful speech nor actions, though my defense of others' right to such speech (though not actions) - on any side - has apparently been construed as me personally wishing to cause harm to people. This saddens me, but...doesn't surprise me.

[Boci]

You're right, I chose words poorly. You have ever right to "demand" as long as your demand carries no enforcement power nor authority. I did, in fact, mean "enforce."

I will say that I find advocating for the demand to be enforced is just as reprehensible as advocating for violence against people you hate. Because "enforcement" is also a call for threat of violence. Or at least force, if you wish to quibble over whether "destroying/taking somebody's property in a way they're powerless to stop" qualifies as "violence" or not.

And how are "bad SJWs" enforcing their demands?


I have not advocated for nor condoned any hateful speech nor actions, though my defense of others' right to such speech (though not actions) - on any side - has apparently been construed as me personally wishing to cause harm to people. This saddens me, but...doesn't surprise me.

But who judges that? You may not feel you have, but that doesn't automatically make it so. And equally so in the other direction, someone else saying you've advocated hateful speech doesn't automatically mean you have.

But, you did bring up the "Did you just assume my gender" meme. Have you ever actually seen it used, in a way that wasn't a joke/jab at trans people?

[Jormengand]

If someone misrepresents your argument to make it seem as though it misrepresents their argument, is that ironic, meta or both? :smallconfused::smalltongue:

[Segev]

And how are "bad SJWs" enforcing their demands?
Well, amongst other things, but advocating violence against private businesses which do not accede to their demands, and by seeking to have people fired for expressing views they don't like (see: some college professors who aren't sufficiently convinced that LGBT people need additional active protections and concessions).


But who judges that? You may not feel you have, but that doesn't automatically make it so. And equally so in the other direction, someone else saying you've advocated hateful speech doesn't automatically mean you have....right. So, then, if nobody can judge hate, I am totally right and justified to assume everybody who has disagreed with me in this thread actively hates all white males and wants to see them murdered in the streets. Right? Am I playing this game correctly now?


But, you did bring up the "Did you just assume my gender" meme. Have you ever actually seen it used, in a way that wasn't a joke/jab at trans people?Yes. By active, badly behaved SJWs who were specifically baiting those who disagreed with them and trying to assault (though not physically batter) people for disagreeing.

I've also seen people apopleptic with surprise after it was sprung on them. They weren't even offended, because they weren't harassed beyond the moment, but they were shocked and flabberghasted.

The problem seems to arise most commonly near and on college campuses, especially those with "safe spaces." The strong correlation suggests some amount of inculcation, but I will admit that correlation is not causation.


If someone misrepresents your argument to make it seem as though it misrepresents their argument, is that ironic, meta or both? :smallconfused::smalltongue:

I was...I think...not referring to you, but to Troacctid's repeated assertions that I had expressed hatred for people and a desire to slur them, both personally and to support (actively, not merely tolerate) my "buddies" in doing the same.

Though maybe you have. I admit it gets hard to keep who was arguing what separated.

But as the quotes that supposedly are my expressions of hate contain...not even a whit of negative comment about anybody except by their behavior...well, so be it.

If disapproving of bullying means I hate people in your mind, I guess you will always see me as hateful. I'll stay over here, not advocating any harm come to anybody, and let that zen-like hatred flow. 9_9

[Jormengand]

If disapproving of bullying means I hate people in your mind, I guess you will always see me as hateful. I'll stay over here, not advocating any harm come to anybody, and let that zen-like hatred flow. 9_9

I don't see you as hateful. I see you as someone under the illusion that you're not bringing harm to people. Which, to be fair, you are, so...

[Boci]

Well, amongst other things, but advocating violence against private businesses which do not accede to their demands, and by seeking to have people fired for expressing views they don't like (see: some college professors who aren't sufficiently convinced that LGBT people need additional active protections and concessions).

And they're not allowed to express these views? Aren't they entitled too under freedom of speech?


...right. So, then, if nobody can judge hate, I am totally right and justified to assume everybody who has disagreed with me in this thread actively hates all white males and wants to see them murdered in the streets. Right? Am I playing this game correctly now?

No, because you're basing this "game" on the idea that no one can judge hate, which isn't what I'm saying where you quoted me. Not the clause "automatically". You saying "I'm not advocating hate" doesn't automatically mean you aren't. Just like saying "I don't mean to be racist but..." doesn't magically mean the probably rascist thing you are about to say stops being so.


Yes. By active, badly behaved SJWs who were specifically baiting those who disagreed with them and trying to assault (though not physically batter) people for disagreeing.

I've also seen people apopleptic with surprise after it was sprung on them. They weren't even offended, because they weren't harassed beyond the moment, but they were shocked and flabberghasted.

The problem seems to arise most commonly near and on college campuses, especially those with "safe spaces." The strong correlation suggests some amount of inculcation, but I will admit that correlation is not causation.

Interesting how you've experienced a strong correlation reguarding the meme "did you just assume my gender", whilst other people in this thread haven't seen one examples. Can you link one?

[icefractal]

None of those is demanding active celebration.

Active celebration requires helping support the cause in some fashion. It requires participating in events which celebrate or enable behaviors related to the cause.So ... you didn't answer my question. Is anyone here saying that you have to go to a Pride parade? Or anything "active"? What specifically are the unreasonable demands being made, and who is making them? Please answer literally, not in an another analogy.

As for "A hypothetical group might want to mandate behavior we all consider bad. Therefore, any attempt by anyone to advocate any type of behavior is bad." ... no. Not all positions are equivalent. "We should put asbestos in our food to keep away fire imps," is not of the same validity as "We should make sure the food is not poisonous or rotten."

[upho]

Ooh, let's see how long it takes you to notice the irony. :smallsmile:Oh, it's kept a tired smile on my face for a long time now. And giving is the greatest gift, so even if this was unintentional, I thank you for the honor! :smallwink: And I sincerely hope this little irony, however sour and sad it may be for both of us, can at least bring a small smile to your face as well. :smallsmile:

That said, I still meant every word of what I wrote earlier, and my message is as valid now as it was then.


It's not tough at all. The answers are no and no. "Bad SJWs" are no more a problem than "Perverts pretending to be transgender to sneak into women's restrooms" or "Psychiatrists pressuring cis children to transition." It's a nonsense scapegoat that is used to deny rights and protections to LGBT people under the guise of protecting the anti-LGBT crowd from being "discriminated against" for their belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman, for example. (These people believe that they shouldn't be forced to actively celebrate LGBT people by e.g. not firing them because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.)I'm sorry, I should've been more clear that I was thinking of "Bad SJWs" in any social justice movement, not specifically in the LGBT related. And frankly, according to my own experiences, you're absolutely right when it comes to so-called "Bad SJWs" using LGBT rights to bully innocent. That is indeed a nonsense scapegoat also in my world, a myth perpetuated by bigots and "holy book"-thumping lunatics.

But that doesn't mean the "Bad SJWs" don't exist in other areas of social justice, and the same goes for the toxic quasi-religious cultures they shape and the hostile behavior and paranoid mentality they promote. I've unfortunately been both a first and second hand witness to such problems several times here in Sweden, in people and in groups otherwise proclaiming to have values with which I fully sympathize. And I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise, as no group or cause is immune to bad apples. Sadly and ironically, of the victims that I know personally, the most innocent yet perhaps most badly hurt by one such over-zealous bully was one of my closest LGBT friends.

[upho]

No, "celebrate" does not mean "tolerate" nor "accept," and your insistence that it does indicates exactly why you cannot be reasoned with.

And yes, those latter examples would be requiring celebration of it.Oh my, you definitions of the words "tolerate" and "accept", not to mention "civility", are pure fantasies in the context of a society built upon on co-existence and co-operation. Do you seriously believe that a butler serving at a gay wedding requires that he "celebrates" men who happen to be predominantly attracted to other men? :smallconfused: I mean, we're only talking about working for beings who might not have the same sexual preferences for crying out loud, not dangerous wild animals or toxic plants.


"It is not enough that I am able to get this taken care of. YOU, a person who does not like nor wish to participate in my choices, lifestyle, preference, etc., must actively aid me in getting it done. You must become an active participant in my choices, despite your morals, beliefs, and preferences being offended by it."

That is, in fact, requiring "celebration." That goes beyond "accept" and "tolerate."Here's what you simply refuse to understand for some reason: when living in a society shared with other people, there is no such thing as showing "acceptance" or "being civil" without being an "active participant". And if you actually do equate "actively participating" to "celebrating", then "celebrating" is what you have to do in order to be civil. Simple as that.

This is btw exactly what I referred to in my previous reply to you:
Because make no mistake, civility is a learned thing and it requires training, real effort.

[Keltest]

:sigh:
*breaking my promise*

Your worldview is so strange to me.

I never noticed the label "SJW'er" until I saw it in this thread, but now that I've learned it, the few I've seen mostly just cry "please stop beating and killing us".

Occasionally a more strident "You need to stop beating and killing us".

I genuinely just don't recognize the world that you see.

Well, you can count your blessings then. I guess youll have to take our word for it that yes, there are definitely people out there who will hide behind the LGBT community (or your other disadvantaged group of preference) like a shield and wield them like a sword in an attempt to protect themselves from legitimately earned criticism. These people tend to not actually be a part of said communities, yet also exceptionally skilled at generating negative opinions of them in spite of it.

For example, I knew somebody on another forum for a video game who insisted that one of the white male characters would be better off as a stereotypical angry, noisy black woman "because diversity", and shot down any arguments against this idea with the same. Yes, it is a racist stereotype. No, they did not appear to understand why that was bad. To this day I'm not sure if they were doing it just to be a troll or if they were actually that oblivious. There weren't even any arguments included as to why such a character would be better beyond "diversity, yay!"

[AzureDidact]

I recently joined a new campaign, and made an Aasimar (Angelkin) paladin. After reading over my copy of "Blood of Angels", a passage on Aasimar origins and births struck my fancy. It basically boils down to same-sex couples praying for children and being blessed with an Aasimar child. So I thought: what if my Aasimar paladin was born to a lesbian couple who wanted a child?

After all things like height, weight and age were calculated, my Aasimar paladin Ragathon (named after the Empyreal Lord Ragathiel) is 76 years old from Vigil in Lastwall. He's buried his birth mother after she's died of old age, and his second mother disappeared during a campaign in the Hold of Belkzen decades ago.

I see Ragathon's parents as being a paladin and cleric of Iomedae. With his birth mother being the cleric. I like the concept, but I'm a bit leery of using gay characters as my parents in my backstory. Mainly because I'm a straight white man born to straight parents and I worry about being insensitive to other groups.

Honestly, It sounds super sweet. I'm inclined to think most LGBT couples would be somewhat charmed by the idea.

I know several couples who have tried (with great effort) to conceive with donors, and it can be a real struggle.

Kudos on the novel concept.

[Esprit15]

Honestly, It sounds super sweet. I'm inclined to think most LGBT couples would be somewhat charmed by the idea.

I know several couples who have tried (with great effort) to conceive with donors, and it can be a real struggle.

Kudos on the novel concept.

I agree. The backstory is nice, and actually emphasizes their aasimar nature, rather than it just being a thing.

[2D8HP]

actually emphasizes their aasimar natureYeah, the O.P. seems both courteous and imaginative.
A bit of an aasimar.
:cool:



:thog: