Any Gaming sites that aren’t all so left wing? Rowling & Other Catastrophes

[TheDreamlord]

Tovarish! Any and every opinion that hasn’t been previously Approve-stamped by the Politburo is thoughtcrime …da?

exactly why I (ok, a bit flippantly!) asked the question

[LexW]

I did ones of those Meyers Briggs personality tests a few years back, just out of interest, and I can’t remember the exact name of my result, but it was something like “diplomat” or “peacekeeper” or “mediator”.

It gets me in trouble sometimes. (Usually with LexW )

Pretty sure I also have that “mediator” personality type haha, just shows you what personality tests are worth. ENTP anyway. The only interesting thing about it is I kept taking M-B tests from like 1994-2004 and I was always INTP, then XNTP, then finally ENTP, which surprised me, but I think it makes sense.

Ironically I am actually pretty good at mediating disputes IRL, but I think that’s entirely down to 30+ years of being a Dungeon/Games Master in tabletop RPGs.

Or just, well, educate yourself about intersex people.

Yes this is what fucking gets me every time. How do people not know about this? Somewhere between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 60 people are born intersex (1 in 60 is closer when you including non-externally-obvious intersex stuff, but which can strongly impact people’s lives). Not 1 in 1 million like Tixy said. One of my friends is, but I wasn’t even surprised, because I knew about it for years before I met her. Doctors decided when she was born, because it was unclear, that she’d be raised as male, and that caused huge suffering for her, particularly as a teenager, until she transitioned at 18 or so (after which her life improved a lot).

The people who suffer most from that are cis women who don’t look stereotypically feminine.

Yup. My wife is 6’1" (I’m only 6’2" myself so we’re nearly the same height). She has a feminine figure, but before she did, she was constantly accused of being a boy and lying about her gender. If she’d stayed skinny and narrow, and a lot of people do, people probably would still say that - I’ve seen women called men before, especially if they have short hair. Hell, I’ve experienced it myself in reverse. I was pretty but not exactly feminine as a teenager, and had long-ish hair (which had been pretty common since the 1960s, so that was no excuse), and I frequently got called “Miss”, and some of it was definitely people being shitty, but some of it was morons who couldn’t tell. One time a guy catcalled me and when I didn’t respond, grabbed my ass. I spun around and before I could even say anything his eyes widened in terror and he was apologising frantically because I was a guy, because it would have been okay if I was a chick (?!?!). I was 15 and it was just in a residential street. And yes getting older ends it for a lot of people - but not everyone.

[Fart]

Isn’t the whole Rowling debate just a big fight over definitions? Where Rowling says the gamete type you produce determines your sex and her opponents say that sex is purely socially constructed and you’re a hideous monster for saying otherwise?

My main problem is that these opponents take such enormous offence at this classic, biological definition. It seems way out of proportion. People shouldn’t lose their job over a definition fight.

[Jerkzilla]

I was under the impression that gender was socially constructed while sex is rooted in physiological characteristics (and can still be ambiguous). This might require reading up.

Personally, I take more issue with the way free market economics get proverbially shat on, or rather, how the debate around economics starts from the premise of “capitalism doesn’t work”, then everyone is either in the Marxist planned economy camp or the AnCap camp. Though I’ve noticed people with explicitly centrist mindsets just get the blame for the present (bad) situation.
An example would be the Vicky Osterveil articles that sometimes come up in the Sunday Papers, I have some very strongly negative opinions of her writing. There are some IMO ridiculous leaps of logic there just to blame capitalism for homophobia and racism. She isn’t the only one peddling this stuff.

[LexW]

No, it isn’t. Rowling has specifically taken the train to TERF-town, where it’s no longer just “how do you define this”, but rather scaremongering about trans people, conspiracy theories, and excluding/blocking anyone who doesn’t agree with her completely. Take Steven King for example (the world-famous author). He long supported Rowling, promoted the HP books, and has, AFAIK, literally never said a single word against her. Likewise, Rowling has often been thankful to him, praised him for being a true ally to feminism and so on. Recently, Steven King said “Trans-women are women.”. That’s it. Nothing against Rowling, nothing more extreme than a simple assertion of fairly commonly-held opinion. So she immediately unfollowed him (possibly blocked him, only he’d know), and deleted every post she’d made thanking or praising him (certainly in recent months).

She’s not just arguing definitions, she’s aggressively into pretty far-out TERF stuff, and willing to cut herself off from people to prove her devotion. She’s basically joined a cult. Just arguing definitions isn’t joining a cult, but when you’re cutting people off, and promoting conspiracy theories (or at least “Liking” them on Twitter, and following people who promote them), and scaremongering, you are in cult-land.

It’s also worth noting that definition you’re calling “classic” is scientifically wrong, and has been known to be for most of a century. It’s not accurate, and when this is pointed out, the people who have been insisting it is usually get very upset and start just saying “Well there aren’t many people who are intersex!” (because that makes it okay to shit on them and hurt them, I guess?), but “not many” is between about 1 in 1000 and 1 in 60 depending on the precise definition. And that’s just people with measurable anatomical differences, not ones that impact brain chemistry or the like.

Also no-one has “lost their job” over this - people have lost jobs over deciding to be offensive to customers/clients/co-workers and violate the policies of their workplace. That’s how the world works.

[Fart]

Wow, I really didn’t get that idea at all. What even is a TERF? I only saw some of the initial outrage so I’m judging from that position, but I’d rather judge Rowling on her arguments than on who she does and doesn’t follow on Twitter. I didn’t really see it as shitting on intersex people or trans people at all, I thought she was being pretty nuanced. Don’t know about the recent stuff though. I gotta say that the superheavy reaction to what I saw as reasonable tweets looked a little culty to me, but from the people that took such big offense at her tweets.

Okay, I just opened an article about everything that’s happened since and I don’t really wanna spend a day reading it all so I’ll just leave the discussion here.

[Hanimalle]

Personally, I take more issue with the way free market economics get proverbially shat on, or rather, how the debate around economics starts from the premise of “capitalism doesn’t work”

I mean, technically, capitalism does work, at least for the small minority that keeps getting richer while the rest of us struggle (some more than others obviously) in our daily lives.

[Vheissu]

TERF is one of those terms you see on twitter occasionally and you’re not really sure what it means, but it is abundantly obvious that people are getting very upset about it.

I can still remember the ignorant bliss of seeing people talk about “SJWs” and not understanding what they were going on about.

[Sarfrin]

Personally, I take more issue with the way free market economics get proverbially shat on, or rather, how the debate around economics starts from the premise of “capitalism doesn’t work”, then everyone is either in the Marxist planned economy camp or the AnCap camp.

The difference there is that free market economics isn’t people and doesn’t have a life or feelings. Being ‘shat on’ doesn’t hurt it.

[Det.Bullock]

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.
Basically people that use feminism as an excuse to justify their bigotry against trans people.

Before the kerfuffle I thought of buying the english version of Harry Potter (back in the day I borrowed the Italian translations from my little brother) but now I think I’ll just read something else, I really don’t feel like giving her money.

[TheDreamlord]

Since it is relevant to the discussion here.

JK Rowling joins warning over free speech

Signatories include Noam Chomsky amongst others.

And I am with Obama on this, watch his 1 min clip in the link (the clip is from some time back, as I have seen it before).

[Vheissu]

See, I get the point they are making there but I think the issue will go away on its own.

There’s definitely a lack of nuance among the discussions of “cancelling” people publically online. People who voice dissent, no matter how wrong they may be, don’t all deserve the same level of ostracism as do the folks who spew genuinely vile hatred. I’ve seen the same thing happen with the #metoo movement where guys who are creepy pick-up aficionados get the same treatment as rapists and abusers.

It’s almost impossible to perform the moral calculus necessary to decide exactly what level of punishment or public shaming a person should receive for their wrongs compared to another. That said, I think it’s pretty clear that blanket condemnations are reactionary. I’d much rather see reasoned discourse like the response by Mermaidsuk posted earlier in the thread.

I don’t think it’s a serious issue however. Minorities are finally getting a seat at the table and having their voices heard in a way that actually matters. Discrimination, be it against women, trans people or other minorities has historically always been minimized and excused, because you know, it wasn’t really bad. One could always point a finger at a worse example of discrimination and divert attention from a lesser crime. The message now is that NO example of discrimination is ok, regardless of its scale or the harm it inflicted. That’s a worthwhile message. It’s probably going to take a decade or two for the message to sink in. Nuanced treatment of transphobia, sexism, racism and so on will return but first society has to undergo a reckoning.

[theclockworkrat]

Signatory Jennifer Finney Boylan, a US author and transgender activist, apologised within hours of the letter being published, tweeting “I did not know who else had signed that letter”.

I think this is a pertinent quote from the article. I suspect that whilst many of the signatories may share some of the sentiment expressed in the letter, there are probably a number who would really not want to be associated with others.

[TheDreamlord]

I suspect that whilst many of the signatories may share some of the sentiment expressed in the letter, there are probably a number who would really not want to be associated with others.

This perfectly highlights moralistic finger waging. It is like saying “I have these beliefs” or “this is my personal point of view (on a topic)”, but ONLY if I approve of others sharing the sentiment.

What sort of morally bankrupt ethics are these? You either believe in something, or you don’t. You do not believe in something based on who else shares your beliefs. This is ridiculous.

[DeekyFun]

I think its definitely a problem with modern discourse and, perhaps, in the minds of those behaving that way, a determined sacrifice that prioritises a cause that matters more than what is being lost.

I think in the case of that last quote, it’s more that the signatory agreed maybe with some of the ideals of the message, but perhaps not all of it, and when the additional baggage that comes with some of the signatories is added on top, or that her other morals matter more, her priorities changed? I dont think it necessarily has to be a case of moral bankruptcy.

[alms]

JK Rowling joins warning over free speech

Unfortunately “free speech” is code for being able to say whatever one wants without consequences, a “freedom” that should only enjoyed by certain people BUT NOT others.

According to this “ideology”:

• JK Rowling, for instance, should be allowed to spread FUD about “transvestites” being actually men that molest women in the ladies’ room.
• LGBTQ should shut up, and stop pretending to be what they’re not

Just look at the jokers who are defending a self-proclaimed feminist (JK Rowling) who, in any other circumstance, they would call a “feminazi”, for the SOLE reason that she is spreading FUD about LGBTQ people. = “The enemy of my enemy is not exactly my friend but I will take your free hate lel”

The real red pill is realizing that as soon as society stops putting egotistic, short-sighted sociopaths in charge, we can ALL begin to move on, and to greener pastures.

[TheDreamlord]

I will refer you back to my comment.

I am with Obama on this

View the clip. The world is a messy place and we do not live (nor will we ever live) in a utopia. There are good people, bad people, bad-for-some people and all the variants between.

I don’t understand where you get that there are no consequences to free speech? What some people are objecting to is the extreme ostracization that seems to be prevalent lately in some corners. And the public hanging and quartering based on personal interpretations of what others say.

My view is, you want to combat certain things, you need to allow them out in the open where you can see them and combat them effectively. Otherwise, it just goes underground and transforms into something much nastier.

My two cents.

[alms]

I don’t understand where you get that there are no consequences to free speech?

I get it from looking at these people and seeing what they’ve been doing and how it’s completely different from what they’re preaching.

Sorry, today is not yet the day I will be fooled by trolls who hide behind high concepts like “freedom of speech”, or what Obama said, to keep harassing people they don’t like.

(I’m not saying you are the troll or harassing people, mind – and Obama does raise some valid points, but some that are beside THIS point).

Harassing people has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Let’s not mix Voltaire with those who love to bash skulls in, verbally or otherwise.

Now, please go on and explain why JK Rowling should be allowed to leverage her status as a rich, powerful person to keep spreading FUD about “transvestites” molesting women in the ladies’ room, and how this is to be regarded “freedom of speech”?

[TheDreamlord]

I’m not saying you are the troll or harassing people, mind

Glad to hear that

please go on and explain why JK Rowling should be allowed to leverage her status as a rich, powerful person to keep spreading FUD about “transvestites” molesting women in the ladies’ room, and how this is to be regarded “freedom of speech”

Firstly, I would like to know exactly which quote (of hers) I should be commenting on.
Secondly, “freedom of speech”, the same as “freedom” and “equality”, are concepts that have to apply universally and equally to everyone, regardless of their status, finances, religion, beliefs, color and whatnot. Otherwise, the terms are completely mislabeled. I don’t think “my freedom is more than your freedom” is or should be a thing. No?

[Jerkzilla]

See? We’re doing the thing I said people do when they talk about economics online.

For what it’s worth, I’m no libertarian. I have no problem with pollution regulations, state run education or healthcare in principle.
What alternative to capitalism do you subscribe to?