[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.

OG_slinger wrote:
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.)

Are you a white guy?

Reaper81 wrote:

Are you a white guy?

Yes, but I'm part of the 31% that doesn't vote Republican.

Docjoe wrote:

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

I would say more "inspired" by you. I don't want to call anyone out. If you feel targeted, I apologize. Your message happened to be a good jumping off point. I thought it might lead to a healthy discussion.

By my standards, I think it has. This topic has examples of people unknowingly discouraging certain posts and people who have been discouraged from posting because their ideology doesn't align with the majority. It's not a perfect discussion, but alas, we are not perfect Goodjers. Except, of course, *Legion*.

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.

Clock you make a great point and I had wrongly assumed the number of women and PoCs posting in the thread. That’s on me and I certainly wasn’t trying to promote “reverse racism” BS or violent rhetoric.

I fully respect the diversity of this site and at times have put my money where my mouth is by funding programs like Gamers With Hope. Still, at heart I see my current self as center right. I want to think that deep down inside most average liberals, conservatives and moderates have the same goals and hopes for their country and the world. I’m not talking about the oligarchs in power who have completely abandoned American principles and the common people. I just don’t know how we at the street level can start to come together.

And maybe that’s worth a different thread given that Doc Joe has clarified things.

OG_slinger wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

Are you a white guy?

Yes, but I'm part of the 31% that doesn't vote Republican.

I’m still going to ignore you anyway.

Maybe it's because these days I don't have much to say anymore about topics that fall outside of D&D, but aren't most of these conversations *still* mostly white guys talking to other white guys, even if the topics have changed to social justice? And mostly the same cast of characters you'd find in any P&C thread from years ago?

If that's not the case in the other forums, then, hey, that's a nice thing if it's true.

Is there a GWJ census I'm not aware of? Everyone in here are just silly screen names to me.

JeremyK wrote:

Is there a GWJ census I'm not aware of? Everyone in here are just silly screen names to me.

You're all imaginaments of my figtion.

Another white guy, chiming in.

Reaper81 wrote:

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.

I'm often bad at this, and I don't know that I'm getting better at it, but I think this is key stuff. Especially when I know I'm going to ruffle feathers, I wish I were better at being more surgical in my language to ruffle only the feathers that I intend to. That's especially true when I know I'm speaking into a situation where people are hurting, so that my desire to express myself doesn't turn me into a pyro in the burn ward when an Autoclave will do.

JeremyK wrote:

Is there a GWJ census I'm not aware of? Everyone in here are just silly screen names to me.

This. I like this.

I do not like identity politics. Highlighting individuals by skin colour, or gender? Not cool. They're the very same markers used by those who discriminate. Punching up is irrelevant as good and evil cannot be categorised by the shapes, sizes, colours, or flavours, which we all come in.

:rolls eyes:

RnRClown wrote:

. Punching up is irrelevant as good and evil cannot be categorised by the shapes, sizes, colours, or flavours, which we all come in.

Bullsh*t.

Punching up or down is about power differentials.

Which are very much driven by shapes, sizes and colors.

Your refusal to recognize that is a reflection of your status.

RnRClown wrote:
JeremyK wrote:

Is there a GWJ census I'm not aware of? Everyone in here are just silly screen names to me.

This. I like this.

I do not like identity politics. Highlighting individuals by skin colour, or gender? Not cool. They're the very same markers used by those who discriminate. Punching up is irrelevant as good and evil cannot be categorised by the shapes, sizes, colours, or flavours, which we all come in.

Popular feelings from the white privilege folks to try to establish the "both sides" position which is complete bullsh*t.

The idea that inflicting pain, physical or otherwise, on another person is justified by the color of their skin is racism. This whole idea only adds fuel to the fires of hatred in the deepening rift in our society today. Dismissal of this idea as white privilege is racism and acceptance of the very thing some claim to be fighting against.

Hmmm where did anyone say inflicting pain was justified by color of their skin? If you are talking about RnR statement I'm failing to see how you got there from his statement.

I was responding to the backlash RnR received in the posts following his.

ahh got you.

Nomad wrote:

The idea that inflicting pain, physical or otherwise, on another person is justified by the color of their skin is racism. This whole idea only adds fuel to the fires of hatred in the deepening rift in our society today. Dismissal of this idea as white privilege is racism and acceptance of the very thing some claim to be fighting against.

It may be racial prejudice, but it's not racism. It's impossible to be racist against the group with all the systemic power.
Anyway, the rift in society will only be healed despite the privileged white men calling for civility, not with their help. If they actually worked towards mending it half as hard as they chide others for not being "civil" enough it'd already be fixed.

Nomad wrote:

The idea that inflicting pain, physical or otherwise, on another person is justified by the color of their skin is racism. This whole idea only adds fuel to the fires of hatred in the deepening rift in our society today. Dismissal of this idea as white privilege is racism and acceptance of the very thing some claim to be fighting against.

It's either willful ignorance and/or privilege to make statements like that. Identity is the very core of every black Americans life. It's easy for white people to dismiss the idea of identity politics as a "both sides" issue but the reality is unless white people are subjected to the horrors that black people (and other people of color) both in America and around the world have been (and continue to be) subjected to then its not even close to "equal".

Somehow claiming that marginalized people who still suffer today have any measure of blame in the "deepening rift in our society" is bullsh*t.. it simply does not work that way. I want people to fight back because acquiescence and turning the other cheek gets nobody anywhere.

People groups have been inflicting pain on each other since the beginning. If equal suffering is the only thing that can provide a level playing field, who determines how much is enough? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Why can’t we break the cycle?

Nomad wrote:

People groups have been inflicting pain on each other since the beginning. If equal suffering is the only thing that can provide a level playing field, who determines how much is enough? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Why can’t we break the cycle?

What interpretation is there for this other than, “Sure I’ve been sh*tting on you for years, but can’t we all just stop sh*tting on each other”?

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Nomad wrote:

People groups have been inflicting pain on each other since the beginning. If equal suffering is the only thing that can provide a level playing field, who determines how much is enough? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Why can’t we break the cycle?

What interpretation is there for this other than, “Sure I’ve been sh*tting on you for years, but can’t we all just stop sh*tting on each other”?

When we reduce others words to convenient talking points to make our own positions more tenable, everyone loses.

Chumpy, do you honestly think I believe what you just summarized my post as, or are you just trying to attack my character in order to win an argument on the internet?

I’m all for the 99 percent to stop sh*ting on each other so we can stop the 1 percent from giving us a group golden shower.

Spoiler:

Unless you’re into that. Don’t let me kink shame you.

Nomad wrote:

People groups have been inflicting pain on each other since the beginning. If equal suffering is the only thing that can provide a level playing field, who determines how much is enough? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Why can’t we break the cycle?

We can, but asking those who are overwhelmingly on the receiving end to be the ones to initiate the stop is either ignorant or massively disingenuous. They would if they could.
If the cycle were depicted like this:
IMAGE(https://www.vakil.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/calvin-1.jpg)
That sentiment is the equivalent of begging Calvin to please stop picking fights with Moe.

How is Calvin inflicting pain on Moe? This does not represent my point in any way.

Moe is the one inflicting pain, unless there is a hidden next frame where Calvin comes back with an AR15 and shoots him.

That's the point. Calvin isn't responsible for the rift between him and Moe just as "both sides" of the rift in society aren't equally at fault for the rift. A refusal to acknowledge the power imbalance is either ignorant of the situation or disingenuous about it, and any resolution that treat both sides as equally responsible (demands for civility from those on the receiving end) are extremely unfair and unproductive.

Nomad wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Nomad wrote:

People groups have been inflicting pain on each other since the beginning. If equal suffering is the only thing that can provide a level playing field, who determines how much is enough? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Why can’t we break the cycle?

What interpretation is there for this other than, “Sure I’ve been sh*tting on you for years, but can’t we all just stop sh*tting on each other”?

When we reduce others words to convenient talking points to make our own positions more tenable, everyone loses.

Chumpy, do you honestly think I believe what you just summarized my post as, or are you just trying to attack my character in order to win an argument on the internet?

I’m neither trying to win Internet Points (tm) nor dictate what you believe. As Stengah pointed out, it’s a question of where the balance of power lies. It’s not ok for the group who has done the damage to say, “ok, no more fighting”.

It’s also a matter of perspective. Your initial comment suggests that folks need to stop inflicting pain; I posit that this is not an “eye for an eye” situation, and that the groups with power now should be willing to give that power to others (possibly in an imbalanced way) to let others “catch up”, so to speak. Bringing some groups up as opposed to tearing some groups down.

*mod*

This is an old argument being had by people who have had it among themselves before. It’s also veering off topic from the scope of the thread, which also had five days of inactivity before this new line of discussion started so I’m gonna lock it up.

As usual, please make a new thread directed at this new topic if you’d like to keep exploring it.