[Q&A] Questions you want answered (D&D Edition)

Reviving for the new D&D:
-ask or answer questions better suited for D&D than EE
-not intended as a debate thread; if people want to debate a particular issue feel free to create a new thread for it.

~mod~
Wishing death upon people is not acceptable on Gamers With Jobs.
mudbunny

Drazzil wrote:

This kinda goes back to where I view things currently but two questions:

1. Why haven't the "people" in general overthrown our terribly toxic government that threaten their lives?

2. Do the politicians think that this state of events can go on forever?

3. How can people be so *STUPID*

In reverse order.....”People eat blood sausage; people are morons.”
Sure they do. It has. What would that change.
I don’t know. I don’t because I made my husband a promise when we married that I wouldn’t. But I want to.

Stengah wrote:

I'm not ready to overthrow the government because I don't want to start killing people.
Humans are animals but we're social animals and killing our own kind doesn't come easy to those of us predisposed to empathy and compassion.
While you'll find many that agree that Republicans are toxic and dangerous and should be removed from power, you won't find that many that are willing to start outright murdering them, which would be required to overthrow them. That's why the preference is to work within the existing system to remove them from power.

Thank you. Agreed, and this conversation has taken a really dark turn.

SallyNasty wrote:

Thank you. Agreed, and this conversation has taken a really dark turn.

~mod~

Agreed. And it is a turn that is in no way, shape, or form acceptable on GWJ.

This line of discussion stops.

Now.

mudbunny

Gotcha.... BUT my larger point here is that I am an illustration of why gun control is needed.

I should not be ABLE to have access to guns.

The fact that I could choose to go and get one is a serious failing in this country.....and a danger.

mudbunny wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Thank you. Agreed, and this conversation has taken a really dark turn.

~mod~

Agreed. And it is a turn that is in no way, shape, or form acceptable on GWJ.

This line of discussion stops.

Now.

mudbunny

I think you're misapplying that rule, personally. She's not pointing at anyone in particular, and those posts were very powerful. That rule exists to prevent certain outcomes, and enforcing it in this case is, IMO, causing collateral damage.

You are entitled to that opinion.

On one hand, that may be true if we're only viewing posts in the context of armchairing ideas in a private conversation.

On the other hand, this is a publicly-viewable forum in a priavtely-owned space. Some of the things in the post were, frankly, disturbing. It was reported by a large number of people and if (and when) taken out of context, us remaining silent on that is also us being complicit in openly supporting or encouraging those kinds of statements with that silence.

To be clear, lusting for the mass murder of anyone columbine-style is not something I want people slavering for, in jest, in fantasy, or otherwise in this space. Feel free to post like that on your own personal twitter or facebook where they're notoriously lax on that kind of thing and you are welcome to own whatever fallout that entails.

Just to tack in a different direction, I have a crime coverage question that I think belongs in this thread since I’m genuinely curious.

At what point is it useful to start attributing a mass shooter’s intentions before an official investigation? The reason I’m asking is the media has been quick to call out the Atlanta shooter’s extreme Christian motivations but has held off on attributing any religious motivations to the Boulder shooter. I’m not buying into right wing media’s reports that this may have been an ISIS lone wolf attack, but I also want to see the investigation move forward before making conclusions. I feel the same should be done with the Atlanta case, although it’s of course fine to rally around the Asian community and dismiss stupid reasons like “sex addiction.”

Personally I think that any attribution of motives is risky - at any point in the investigation. I think it should be treated a bit like a scientific theory. This is the motive - as we currently understand it but it may change at any time if new evidence comes to light.

Amoebic wrote:

You are entitled to that opinion.

Well, for what it's worth, I'm glad I read those posts, and I think it's a damn shame that others have missed them.

Malor wrote:
Amoebic wrote:

You are entitled to that opinion.

Well, for what it's worth, I'm glad I read those posts, and I think it's a damn shame that others have missed them.

Now I have some serious FOMO, though I guess on the plus side I’ve stopped checking D&D every hour or so.

FWIW when I get pissed off at the other side and start wandering into “Thanos did nothing wrong” fantasy, I try to remember my experiences in Bosnia. When sh#t goes down it becomes very hard to tell the good guys from the bad because bad actors will crop up on both sides. And even if Team Blue keeps it together, they are fighting against an enemy that would love nothing more than to kick off genocide.

Malor wrote:
Amoebic wrote:

You are entitled to that opinion.

Well, for what it's worth, I'm glad I read those posts, and I think it's a damn shame that others have missed them.

Alternatively, I found them extremely upsetting and wish I hadn't seen them and am glad others will not be subject to them. With no attempt at humor or hyperbole I wonder if we have a responsibility to report them to the appropriate authorities.

SallyNasty wrote:
Malor wrote:
Amoebic wrote:

You are entitled to that opinion.

Well, for what it's worth, I'm glad I read those posts, and I think it's a damn shame that others have missed them.

Alternatively, I found them extremely upsetting and wish I hadn't seen them and am glad others will not be subject to them. With no attempt at humor or hyperbole I wonder if we have a responsibility to report them to the appropriate authorities.

I mean is that worth doing on a gaming forum? I’m gaming buddies with many Goodjers but I don’t know their personal lives or propensity to violence. Compare this to say some of my crazy former Army buddies who I have been watching since they have the motive and means (they LOVE posting their arsenals).

It’s hard to gauge if someone is just spouting off, and I’d prefer not to involve police and possibly get someone beat up or worse for an ill timed rant.

I haven't, to be clear, but it was basically a shooting spree fantasy against conservatives, framed in the context of being prevented from doing so by gun control. It was gross.

That said, every one of these mass shooters that posted on Facebook were probably dismissed initially as well.

SallyNasty wrote:

I haven't, to be clear, but it was basically a shooting spree fantasy against conservatives, framed in the context of being prevented from doing so by gun control. It was gross.

That said, every one of these mass shooters that posted on Facebook were probably dismissed initially as well.

Maybe it’s because I’ve been guilty of raging in the past that I don’t put much stock in general rants. I guess I figured everyone has those moments so live and learn unless it’s a very specific threat - aka “I’m headed down to the Re-elect Trump rally at 1 pm. And check out my cherry new AR 15.”

jdzappa wrote:

Just to tack in a different direction, I have a crime coverage question that I think belongs in this thread since I’m genuinely curious.

At what point is it useful to start attributing a mass shooter’s intentions before an official investigation? The reason I’m asking is the media has been quick to call out the Atlanta shooter’s extreme Christian motivations but has held off on attributing any religious motivations to the Boulder shooter. I’m not buying into right wing media’s reports that this may have been an ISIS lone wolf attack, but I also want to see the investigation move forward before making conclusions. I feel the same should be done with the Atlanta case, although it’s of course fine to rally around the Asian community and dismiss stupid reasons like “sex addiction.”

There's never really an "official investigation," though. If the shooter didn't off themselves or get killed then they're going to be prosecuted. And whatever evidence of their motivation is going to get locked down for the trial, which will be months or years after the fact.

Nor is there a need for an "official investigation" when the shooter leaves a manifesto or final message. His motivation should be clear.

From what I've read about the Boulder shooter experts haven't found any telltale signs of radicalization from his social media:

Washington Post wrote:

A Facebook profile that appears to be Alissa’s contains posts about martial arts and Islam, with no evidence of “any radical or extremist views,” according to an analysis Tuesday by the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors online extremism. Analysts there reviewed an archived version of the Facebook page, which has been removed from the platform.

The profile shows that Alissa “was born in Syria and came to the U.S. as a toddler in 2002. He studied computer science and expressed an interest in wrestling and mixed martial arts (MMA). Alissa also frequently discussed PlayStation 4, Islam, and his stance against same-sex marriage.”

“We still don’t know what his motive was, or if he had one at all. But what I can say is that based on what I’ve seen of his social media presence, he didn’t even remotely suggest having radical Islamist leanings, or really radical leanings of any kind,” said Rita Katz, executive director of SITE. “There are already some suggesting he was a jihadi or anti-Trump terrorist, but social media posts they cite as evidence don’t really back it up.”

There is evidence that he was a loner/anti-social and had a temper, but nothing that remotely says he was an ISIS lone wolf. But conservative media just assumes that every Muslim is a terrorist.

The Atlanta shooter was much, much clearer, IMO. No 21-year-old says they have a "sex addiction" unless that sh*t's been burned into them by their f*cked up religious upbringing. Hell, "sex addiction" is a literal evangelical Christian code phrase for anything that's not boring-ass p-in-v missionary sex between a husband and a wife. You look at porn or masterbate and it's "you have a sex addiction." 21-year-olds are sexual, not "sex addicts."

And he targeted multiple Asian-run spas. One attack is random, two is maybe a coincidence, but three is "I'm specifically trying to kill Asians."

There's a slim chance he was simply targeting the places he had visited, but that doesn't really matter in the big picture, especially when the people he targeted have a long history of being targeted in this country, doubly so since COVID.