[Discussion] Can't we just talk about {media} without bringing {issue} into it?

GWJ is a very diverse community with a very diverse set of viewpoints on any subject you care to mention. Some people just want to talk about games or movies or TV, or whatever and leave all that other stuff out of it. This topic is to discuss why or why not, or when, or if that is a good idea.

RnRClown wrote:
Stengah wrote:

But to use your specific example, if you do want to watch Hacksaw Ridge, that's your choice too. Also totally cool. However, you're not the center of the universe either and you don't get to forbid any talk about Mel Gibson as a person. You don't get to control how other people participate in a conversation. That, I think, is the biggest sticking point. People with the privilege to be able to ignore an issue getting upset when people remind them of it. As I said in my second post, don't get mad at them, get mad at Gibson for being such an ass that his involvement in anything taints it for so many people.

Disagree.

If folks attempt to have a conversation they want to have, how they want to have it, why place yourself amongst that to inform them that you do not like it, and here is why. Maybe even be so bold to move for the discussion to change direction, or to end entirely. No one forces you to participate.

If this were a private chat room or a private forum, you'd have a point. But it's a public forum and just reading a thread is participation. We have some very broad threads, so telling people not to participate can exclude them from large swaths of the site. If they share their thoughts on something problematic about the current topic of the thread, they're also attempting to have a conversation they want to have, how they want to have it. It's not on you to police their participation.
When it comes down to it, I'd rather have a fun and breezy conversation "killed" because someone made it serious than have someone feel like they're not allowed to post.

garion333 wrote:
Nobody in this community cares how you live your life or think your thoughts unless you start being abusive towards people in this community.
Nobody is judging you.

That's not an attack on you, Ken, but to point out that while you say this and almost certainly believe it to be true, I don't think reality matches it. I think there's plenty of judgment going on, a lot of the time. If someone takes a more moderate stance or (gawd forbid) a conservative stance then you'll absolutely be judged and probably knocked down a peg in people's eyes.

At one time I was probably the most hated person on this forum but now I think I have decent relationships with most folks. I certainly don’t feel like I can’t play games with Goodjers or go drinking during Pax parties just because I don’t have the same political beliefs. There’s only a handful of folks who I would probably avoid like the plague at a slap and tickle.

I do wish that conservatives weren’t painted with such a broad brush, but I’ve also come to realize there are vulnerable groups who get legit death threats in other internet circles. I’m glad they are able to find a home here.

Going back to the thread’s original question, I’m wondering how to approach artists whose message I may agree with but not their delivery. Specifically, I hadn’t realized why Chuck Wendig was let go at Marvel until I read his actual tweets. Calling all Republicans “prolapsed aholes” and even nastier things was IMHO over the top.

jdzappa wrote:

Going back to the thread’s original question, I’m wondering how to approach artists whose message I may agree with but not their delivery. Specifically, I hadn’t realized why Chuck Wendig was let go at Marvel until I read his actual tweets. Calling all Republicans “prolapsed aholes” and even nastier things was IMHO over the top.

Definitely a gross and rude thing to call someone, but that goes back to the question of civility that came up in a different thread. I mean, knowing what the Republican party currently stands for, what kind of person still willingly aligns themselves with that? I'm far more offended by some of the inhumanly cruel policies and actions of our current administration than I ever will by about namecalling on twitter, no matter how vulgar.

I've noticed in the past two years that this subforum has become incredibly nuanced, people posting harsh calling outs which perhaps go further than they need to in order to make the point. Is it a coincidence that the 2016 election and the 'likes' function both kicked in around the same time?

On the one hand, it's important to educate members, on the other, it's important not to suppress the right to participate in discourse.

I guess what I am trying to say is that everyone has an opinion, who we are and our politics may inevitably creep into every discussion (not a bad thing since it lets Goodjers express themselves in a safe environment). But we should avoid the caustic tone and bitterness that is currently prevailing in the subforum. I suppose another way to express it is for those dissatisfied with reality to take it up in meatspace and physically make a difference, while also making constructive posts without crossing the line into hostility unnecessarily.

* Edit: Apologies, should add this final point as well

The other thing people need to respect is that certain topics are likely to be highly inflammatory and sensitive and not brooking devils advocacy. That's fine too, but those seeking to raise issues shouldn't post in such safe spaces and instead create a new topic where a fiery debate/discussion can take place.

JeremyK wrote:

I think when you get to the point where you realize every negative comment on something you like isn't a personal attack on you it's a lot easier to let people speak their mind without getting defensive. I still struggle with that at times.

Great post, and ending with this sentence immediately made me think of one of my favorite youtube videos ever.

NSFW language!

(not precisely aligned with the topic, but close enough :D)

garion333 wrote:

If someone takes a more moderate stance or (gawd forbid) a conservative stance then you'll absolutely be judged and probably knocked down a peg in people's eyes.

And for good reason.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
MathGoddess wrote:
garion333 wrote:

And all of this is fine. It makes GWJ less welcoming than it once was,

For some of you.

For others of us, it is welcoming rather than excluding.
If that means some of you feel "less" welcome rather than clearly unwelcome (as it has been for many of us and is in other locations), tough.

I appreciate there being a gaming site where I can read, occasionally post (very seldom...I've been here since 2003), and feel welcomed.

I'm very glad for the changes over the years. I like there being fewer masturbation jokes. "I'll be in my bunk!"

I'm feeling safer and am more willing to post than when I joined.

As to the original posts that started this thread, I appreciate a comment that may let me know, "hey, this may be problematic because...." I'd love after that one post for the subject to be dropped though. Then I can choose to investigate further if I want or ignore the problematic parts if I want.

Such a good post, I had to quote it. I agree with all of this. I don't miss GWJ's frat house days. At all.

And I do appreciate when someone points out an issue with something. It's not "sh*tting on the fun train" as I think it got called. I'd rather know than be ignorant, and most of the time it seems to turn into a discussion not because someone wants to dominate the conversation with (for example) their views of Mel Gibson but because a bunch of other people in the thread want to complain about their fun being ruined.

Even as a CIS white male with a tendency to feel like an outsider I feel much more comfortable post-frat boy and inside jokey days.

And yes, that was an excuse to quote and post your comments on a new page.

nako wrote:
garion333 wrote:

If someone takes a more moderate stance or (gawd forbid) a conservative stance then you'll absolutely be judged and probably knocked down a peg in people's eyes.

And for good reason.

Aaaaand there we are.

dejanzie wrote:

Even as a CIS white male with a tendency to feel like an outsider I feel much more comfortable post-frat boy and inside jokey days.

On the other hand, in those days if you pissed off the insiders, hey: no one is punching up or punching down because we're in the same societal weight class.

garion333 wrote:
nako wrote:
garion333 wrote:

If someone takes a more moderate stance or (gawd forbid) a conservative stance then you'll absolutely be judged and probably knocked down a peg in people's eyes.

And for good reason.

Aaaaand there we are.

Yeah, but really, there's no other place for us to be. I said it for years in these state-of-the-forum threads that this is where we'll wind up.

The stance someone takes can't just be treated as an intellectual stance, but is also a moral stance. It's not just "I saw the facts differently" and you need your logic and reason corrected, it's "your ability to even see the facts is miscalibrated by your privilege," and so you should be asking people to help you correct your ability to see the facts clearly and thanking them for it, let alone defending your stance in any way.

It might seem harsh, but it makes total sense.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
garion333 wrote:
nako wrote:
garion333 wrote:

If someone takes a more moderate stance or (gawd forbid) a conservative stance then you'll absolutely be judged and probably knocked down a peg in people's eyes.

And for good reason.

Aaaaand there we are.

Yeah, but really, there's no other place for us to be. I said it for years in these state-of-the-forum threads that this is where we'll wind up.

The stance someone takes can't just be treated as an intellectual stance, but is also a moral stance. It's not just "I saw the facts differently" and you need your logic and reason corrected, it's "your ability to even see the facts is miscalibrated by your privilege," and so you should be asking people to help you correct your ability to see the facts clearly and thanking them for it, let alone defending your stance in any way.

It might seem harsh, but it makes total sense.

How's that working out? Conservatives and moderates flocking to your platform? Trump still in office?

It doesn't matter if this stance is correct, it's still being played out all wrong.

garion333 wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
garion333 wrote:
nako wrote:
garion333 wrote:

If someone takes a more moderate stance or (gawd forbid) a conservative stance then you'll absolutely be judged and probably knocked down a peg in people's eyes.

And for good reason.

Aaaaand there we are.

Yeah, but really, there's no other place for us to be. I said it for years in these state-of-the-forum threads that this is where we'll wind up.

The stance someone takes can't just be treated as an intellectual stance, but is also a moral stance. It's not just "I saw the facts differently" and you need your logic and reason corrected, it's "your ability to even see the facts is miscalibrated by your privilege," and so you should be asking people to help you correct your ability to see the facts clearly and thanking them for it, let alone defending your stance in any way.

It might seem harsh, but it makes total sense.

How's that working out? Conservatives and moderates flocking to your platform? Trump still in office?

It doesn't matter if this stance is correct, it's still being played out all wrong.

And, it seems, that many people feel that the stance is incorrect.

garion333 wrote:

How's that working out? Conservatives and moderates flocking to your platform? Trump still in office?

It doesn't matter if this stance is correct, it's still being played out all wrong.

I think talk about 'tone policing' and someone quoting MLK's criticism of the white moderate is the next step in the conversation, if history is any guide.

Reaper81 wrote:
garion333 wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
garion333 wrote:
nako wrote:
garion333 wrote:

If someone takes a more moderate stance or (gawd forbid) a conservative stance then you'll absolutely be judged and probably knocked down a peg in people's eyes.

And for good reason.

Aaaaand there we are.

Yeah, but really, there's no other place for us to be. I said it for years in these state-of-the-forum threads that this is where we'll wind up.

The stance someone takes can't just be treated as an intellectual stance, but is also a moral stance. It's not just "I saw the facts differently" and you need your logic and reason corrected, it's "your ability to even see the facts is miscalibrated by your privilege," and so you should be asking people to help you correct your ability to see the facts clearly and thanking them for it, let alone defending your stance in any way.

It might seem harsh, but it makes total sense.

How's that working out? Conservatives and moderates flocking to your platform? Trump still in office?

It doesn't matter if this stance is correct, it's still being played out all wrong.

And, it seems, that many people feel that the stance is incorrect.

Sure, but then they just need to have their ability to see the facts clearly adjusted. And then thank you for it. lol

I'll let my parents know I'm coming to adjust their facts.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
garion333 wrote:

How's that working out? Conservatives and moderates flocking to your platform? Trump still in office?

It doesn't matter if this stance is correct, it's still being played out all wrong.

I think talk about 'tone policing' and someone quoting MLK's criticism of the white moderate is the next step in the conversation, if history is any guide.

Sure, but I thought this discussion was about this community where there was no judgment.

And Ken's PM to DocJoe is exactly the sort of tone policing that works best in a shared space like GWJ. Unless yall want to actually turn this site into a full-on activist space where conservatives and moderates aren't welcome except to have their thoughts and beliefs turned inside out at every turn.

garion333 wrote:

Unless yall want to actually turn this site into a full-on activist space where conservatives and moderates aren't welcome except to have their thoughts and beliefs turned inside out at every turn.

Wait... you mean to tell me we're not already at that point?

WizKid wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Unless yall want to actually turn this site into a full-on activist space where conservatives and moderates aren't welcome except to have their thoughts and beliefs turned inside out at every turn.

Wait... you mean to tell me we're not already at that point?

In all seriousness, no, we aren't there yet.

I beg to differ.

garion333 wrote:
WizKid wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Unless yall want to actually turn this site into a full-on activist space where conservatives and moderates aren't welcome except to have their thoughts and beliefs turned inside out at every turn.

Wait... you mean to tell me we're not already at that point?

In all seriousness, no, we aren't there yet.

Agree.

I feel what Wiz is alluding to is that the tendency of people to personalize responses on forums.

Personal example time! Feel free to skip to the end.

For instance, people seemingly got hot and bothered a few months back when I made some loaded statements regarding CBT (the therapy).

In discussing the situation with a clinical peer, he pointed out the facts as he saw them.

1. People, on the whole, have positive experiences with CBT. Indeed, it is a preferred short-term modality for problems related to distorted thinking and problematic behaviors.

2. My assessment of CBT being hot garbage for PTSD is not necessarily incorrect.

3. My assessment was needlessly inflammatory and controversial.

3. Making a statement that seemingly runs contrary to people’s very general knowledge or experiences is going to really rile people up.

4. Doing it in the way I did was extra rile-y.

5. Doing it on the internet was stupid and pointless.

I really went back and forth with him about point 5. I tried to make the argument that virtual social spaces have merit and value.

His argument was that at best, even if they do have value, they lack the vital non-verbal cues that fully inform human interpersonal communication.

At worst, his experience has been that a small number of personalities dominate a given thread or forum and squeeze the life out of a given group. His experience was fishing forums.

This also, interestingly, mirrored a lovely conversation I had with a national advocate for transgender visibility and workplace representation. They basically said they ceased participating in regional groups due to group think, cliques, and harrassment of ignorant but otherwise well-meaning allies. They came to feel that such small formats and communities were kind of self-destructive.

They had tried, unsuccessfully from their perspective, to encourage a more growth oriented mindset that tolerated genuine ignorance (as opposed to veiled harassment) but with clear boundaries and limits. They felt that most people just didn’t want that challenge due to the stress of daily survival and existence. Which they felt was fair but would have negative consequences in the future.

TL; DR. The internet is garbage because people are garbage.

MOD

Just acknowledging that I see your posts and reports. Unfortunately, this is a huge issue that I can’t resolve in a single post. I don’t like speaking for others, but since Certis is unavailable, I’ll note that he’s well aware of the changes in GWJ’s climate over the years, and has been discussing with moderation how GWJ can be a welcoming space for all. In the meantime, I invite you all to review the Codes of Conduct for both the general site and Discussion and Debates. It’s okay to respectfully disagree with people, but it’s not okay to harass or name-call.

Reaper81 wrote:

At worst, his experience has been that a small number of personalities dominate a given thread or forum and squeeze the life out of a given group. His experience was fishing forums.

Did they argue a lot about trolling?

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

At worst, his experience has been that a small number of personalities dominate a given thread or forum and squeeze the life out of a given group. His experience was fishing forums.

Did they argue a lot about trolling?

And whether or not something was bait.

Reaper81 wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

At worst, his experience has been that a small number of personalities dominate a given thread or forum and squeeze the life out of a given group. His experience was fishing forums.

Did they argue a lot about trolling?

And whether or not something was bait.

IMAGE(https://media.giphy.com/media/srTYyZ1BjBtGU/giphy.gif)

@ Reaper - your example perfectly illustrates the need to not run off differing voices. I would say CBT has been very helpful in bringing me back from the edge when I was diagnosed with bipolar. But your experience is no less valid. We need that dialogue and abandoning all right or moderate leaning folks is a losing strategy.

White males shouldn’t dominate the conversation - but their life experiences are valid and shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.

PS - it also makes me sad that some of you judge people so harshly for having different political views as if politics is the only thing that defines a person.

jdzappa wrote:

PS - it also makes me sad that some of you judge people so harshly for having different political views as if politics is the only thing that defines a person.

Not directed at you personally, zappa, but when "different political views" equates to "you're indifferent to whether I live or die", how do you move past the implied 'f*ck-you' without harsh judgement?

To pick a few topics at random where that applies, consider trans rights, black lives matter, pre-existing conditions or abortion rights.

jdzappa wrote:

White males shouldn’t dominate the conversation - but their life experiences are valid and shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.

Our government, our media, and our culture is completely dominated by white men. Their experiences aren't being ignored or dismissed out of hand. We're just finally reaching a point where other voices--voices that white men have long considered invalid and dismissed out of hand--are finally being heard and white dudes are flipping the f*ck out about it.

As an example, a YouGov/The Economist poll was released yesterday that found that 49% of Trump supporters (white people, mostly white men) felt that men experienced "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of discrimination today.

For the sake of comparison, 30% of those Trump supporters felt women experienced similar levels of discrimination; 42% for Mexican Americans; 38% for African Americans; a 27% for Asian Americans; 53% for Arab Americans; and 63% of people "with your religious beliefs."

So Trump supporting men feel they are the 3rd most discriminated against group in America today, right behind white evangelicals and Arab Americans (but white evangelicals are totally more discriminated against than Arab Americans...).

What's valid about those perceptions? Realistically, absolutely nothing. How much should we pay attention to white dudes concerns that white dudes are one of the most discriminated against groups in America? I'd say 'absolutely none,' but in reality we have to pay attention because the odds are really good that at least one of those white dudes is going to violently lash out because of their perceived drop in status and power.

OG_slinger wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

White males shouldn’t dominate the conversation - but their life experiences are valid and shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.

Our government, our media, and our culture is completely dominated by white men. Their experiences aren't being ignored or dismissed out of hand.

Much of what you say is true, but I took jdzappa's comment to be about White men in this community, specifically, where I don't think there's much danger of White men violently lashing out. There does seem to be concern among some that White male voices aren't being equally accepted in this community as others.

But, unless I've incorrectly identified someone, literally everyone who has posted in this thread so except for sometimesdee, MathGoddess, me, and maybe nako, is a White male, and the four of us have contributed five out of 55 posts. So White men aren't exactly not being listened to here, either, although "White male" does seem to be used at times as a proxy for center-right and more conservative views.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

White males shouldn’t dominate the conversation - but their life experiences are valid and shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.

Our government, our media, and our culture is completely dominated by white men. Their experiences aren't being ignored or dismissed out of hand.

Much of what you say is true, but I took jdzappa's comment to be about White men in this community, specifically, where I don't think there's much danger of White men violently lashing out. There does seem to be concern among some that White male voices aren't being equally accepted in this community as others.

But, unless I've incorrectly identified someone, literally everyone who has posted in this thread so except for sometimesdee, MathGoddess, me, and maybe nako, is a White male, and the four of us have contributed five out of 55 posts. So White men aren't exactly not being listened to here, either, although "White male" does seem to be used at times as a proxy for center-right and more conservative views.

Make that 6/55 with me, although being born in Australia my cultural views and traditions are rather white. Not dismissing the point in any way however, it's true GWJ is predominantly white dudes.

At the risk of going off topic, recently a conservative and racist federal senator raised a motion for a vote that "it is okay to be white". It was passed mistakenly by the Coalition (our local Republican equivalent) and they retracted their vote after being called out on the contextual meaning of that phrase.

^ edited to remove "CIS" since it's a phrase I thought was appropriate but in reality I don't really have its full contextual meaning, thanks to Tangle for pointing it out for me

ClockworkHouse wrote:

So White men aren't exactly not being listened to here, either, although "White male" does seem to be used at times as a proxy for center-right and more conservative views.

Two-thirds of white men vote Republican. And when you dig down and account for things like education level or where they live, white men skew even harder Republican.

Is seven out of ten white dudes consistently voting for Republican candidates not enough for them to be considered a proxy of conservative political views? And it's perfectly clear that Republicans and conservative groups themselves consider white men to be their proxy. I mean it's not like the RNC's 2012 Autopsy report had a section about how conservatives needed to reach out more to white dudes. (Instead, it had a section about how the Republican party needed to do more to reach non-white voters, something they have clearly ignored.)

Well since this thread was targeted at me, I should say something.

This place has been an oasis in a desert of crap for me. I came here because I am a gamer with a job and have no other adults in my life who share or understand my passion for gaming. There are lots of places online to talk about gaming but I've left all of them because they are dominated by dudebros who almost always eventually start showing their racist and sexist selves.

GWJ is obviously nothing like that and it has been really refreshing. My original post that led to the educational moment by BadKen was when I was having a bad day and really just wanted to talk about games and movies. But I agree, that was shallow of me and just a sign of ugly privilege. Just shut up, listen and learn is good advise and its what I should have done that day.

OG_slinger wrote:

Is seven out of ten white dudes consistently voting for Republican candidates not enough for them to be considered a proxy of conservative political views?

Sure, in a broad sense. In this conversation and on these forums, where 90+% of the posts are from White men, I don't think it's appropriate to say that White men are being marginalized because there aren't enough conservative voices. It's still mostly y'all just talking to each other.

Bfgp wrote:

Make that 6/55 with me, although being born in Australia my cultural views and traditions are rather white.

Sorry about misidentifying you.