Punishing the Innocent

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Punishing the Innocent

Is boycotting science fiction conventions as a form of protest against Donald Trump something that would matter or be effective?

Read Full Article

Eh, protests in foreign countries aren't always useless. They might not change the other country, but they are a good way of telling other locals that you don't want that sort of thing within your own borders. In my experience, though, they are also a good way of diverting attention from your own issues. No country is perfect, and if you are protesting against something somewhere you can't do anything about, you aren't drawing attention to issues you might feel bad about not trying to fix. A few years back, a vicious gang rape in India got worldwide attention, including from people who were quietly ignoring vicious gang rapes in their own countries at about the same time.

I also agree that boycotts often miss the nominal target. A few years back, there was a move to boycott Indiana over LGBT issues. Which meant less money going to people in that state, including LGBT people in Indiana. There's a problem there.

OTOH, nobody is obliged to go or spend money anywhere.

Robert B. Marks:
We need places and venues that are free of the culture wars, and where politics do not matter.

This right here. It's basically all many of us alleged "alt-right nazi misogynist reactionary hate groups" wanted, but apparently it was too much to ask in 2014, and ever since: art, entertainment and discussion that doesn't function solely as a conduit for drastically dumbed-down "instruction" in current political virtue. Instead, so overweening was the hubris in certain "progressive" circles in those days that they figured they might as well take over the whole culture, under the cover of fighting a subhuman menace of "trolls". Funny, I sort of remember being the one pleading the Accredited Intelligentsia in comments sections not to start a culture war, in those very words. Then it turns out it was my fault all along, as reported by all the usual reliable sources. I must have been asking for it, by asking for anything but.

Oh well, the embittered told-you-so thing aside, there are of course all sorts of impediments to returning to our senses in this respect, one of the main ones being the enthusiastic embrace of "content creationt" by joining the dots on virtue checklists by the major corporate interests in the culture industry. Which I suspect is largely about the organization of consumers into pseudo-communities or "fandoms" that self-police their membership according to a sense of moral obligation to "support" such overt displays of virtue as the product exhibits. After all, it's easier than trying to appeal to a disparate audience of discerning individuals by creating something genuinely compelling. And the beauty of "inclusiveness" in particular is that you can sell it to everyone indiscriminately, and it's frowned upon to reject the chance to participate in this social cause. Just look at the 2016 Ghostbusters.

StatusNil:

This right here. It's basically all many of us alleged "alt-right nazi misogynist reactionary hate groups" wanted, but apparently it was too much to ask in 2014, and ever since: art, entertainment and discussion that doesn't function solely as a conduit for drastically dumbed-down "instruction" in current political virtue. Instead, so overweening was the hubris in certain "progressive" circles in those days that they figured they might as well take over the whole culture, under the cover of fighting a subhuman menace of "trolls". Funny, I sort of remember being the one pleading the Accredited Intelligentsia in comments sections not to start a culture war, in those very words. Then it turns out it was my fault all along, as reported by all the usual reliable sources. I must have been asking for it, by asking for anything but.

This attitude puzzles me. You're evidently unhappy with the discussion around gaming, and yet rather than just go play games, which you profess to want to do, you keep going back to the discussion bit that makes you unhappy. My brother is a gamer, but a much busier person than me - he doesn't have times to mess about on forums, he just plays the games. He hasn't the faintest idea that there's any sort of culture war, sexism, racism, etc. issues in gaming. Just plays games and enjoys them.

I'm the same with films. I never go to film sites, just pick a film and watch it. If it isn't very good, I might not get all the way to the end.

Robert B. Marks:

...The voter turnout was 60.2%...
...only 27.9% of attendees would be Trump voters...

You are forgetting those 39.8%. They are the ones who need to be "punished".

We need places and venues that are free of the culture wars, and where politics do not matter.

That's a very nice stance to take when aspects of your life aren't treated as inherently political. If a trans person wants to use a bathroom in said place or venue, what is the non-political culture-war-free answer to the question of which bathroom they should use?

Interesting how people here think

StatusNil:

Robert B. Marks:
We need places and venues that are free of the culture wars, and where politics do not matter.

This right here. It's basically all many of us alleged "alt-right nazi misogynist reactionary hate groups" wanted, but apparently it was too much to ask in 2014, and ever since: art, entertainment and discussion that doesn't function solely as a conduit for drastically dumbed-down "instruction" in current political virtue. Instead, so overweening was the hubris in certain "progressive" circles in those days that they figured they might as well take over the whole culture, under the cover of fighting a subhuman menace of "trolls". Funny, I sort of remember being the one pleading the Accredited Intelligentsia in comments sections not to start a culture war, in those very words. Then it turns out it was my fault all along, as reported by all the usual reliable sources. I must have been asking for it, by asking for anything but.

Interesting how you think the culture wars started in comment sections and entertainment. We think the culture wars started when we were being beaten, raped and killed. Slight difference in perspective.

StatusNil:
.

Oh fer FUCK'S SAKE. The hypocrisy made me throw up in my mouth there.

You only cared because it was the WRONG politics making it's way in. Where the fuck was your outrage over right wing politics worming their way in?

Speaking of interesting, interesting how this thread is starting to take shape as comments on my comment. There is an article by Mr. Marks up there too for your consideration, readers!

24Escaped:

Interesting how you think the culture wars started in comment sections and entertainment. We think the culture wars started when we were being beaten, raped and killed. Slight difference in perspective.

We are talking about "culture wars" on a popular culture website, so I narrowed down the definition to exclude a great many things that have happened during the entire span of history, including heinous crimes. The fact that you, anonymous spokesperson for some unspecified group, found it remarkable enough to create a profile just to "call me out" (I think?) on it is just another symptom of the problem. Fixating solely on atrocities is never going to retroactively save anyone. Good thing there is more to life than that.

Smithnikov:

You only cared because it was the WRONG politics making it's way in. Where the fuck was your outrage over right wing politics worming their way in?

I cared because it was a particular brand of politics becoming an entry requirement. You ask me where my outrage was for the corresponding dominance of "right wing politics"? Well, even if I'm not a very young person, I actually wasn't around to rage at Joe McCarthy, so the whereabouts of my outrage get a little metaphysical. Did it exist in Heaven, waiting for my birth? I can't really think of a comparable political inquisition since, until we get to Current Era.

Also, your repeatedly stated assumption about me being some big "right winger" even three years ago is a little off the mark, just FYI. Not that I believe I should prove my credentials to you or anyone to be taken seriously or something, it's just that the caricature you have in your head is a little distorted. Trashing it is not really reaching me.

StatusNil:
snip

Look, I understand that your not likely to listen, but I'll try rephrasing part of what people have said.

You can have politically free areas when you 1. Don't engage in politics. (I'm mean in that area) That's it. For example, you could have left this article there as it was, but you had to add your political view into it. That's literally the opposite of what you want. If someone disagree with what you think, you could just not engage. That's how you get rid of politics in your selected area

Zombie_Fish:

We need places and venues that are free of the culture wars, and where politics do not matter.

That's a very nice stance to take when aspects of your life aren't treated as inherently political. If a trans person wants to use a bathroom in said place or venue, what is the non-political culture-war-free answer to the question of which bathroom they should use?

The one compatible with their 'apparatus' in their pants.


Since when common sense became 'political'.

24Escaped:

Interesting how you think the culture wars started in comment sections and entertainment. We think the culture wars started when we were being beaten, raped and killed. Slight difference in perspective.

We are talking about "culture wars" on a popular culture website, so I narrowed down the definition to exclude a great many things that have happened during the entire span of history, including heinous crimes. The fact that you, anonymous spokesperson for some unspecified group, found it remarkable enough to create a profile just to "call me out" (I think?) on it is just another symptom of the problem. Fixating solely on atrocities is never going to retroactively save anyone. Good thing there is more to life than that.

StatusNil:
Speaking of interesting, interesting how this thread is starting to take shape as comments on my comment. There is an article by Mr. Marks up there too for your consideration, readers!

24Escaped:

Interesting how you think the culture wars started in comment sections and entertainment. We think the culture wars started when we were being beaten, raped and killed. Slight difference in perspective.

We are talking about "culture wars" on a popular culture website, so I narrowed down the definition to exclude a great many things that have happened during the entire span of history, including heinous crimes. The fact that you, anonymous spokesperson for some unspecified group, found it remarkable enough to create a profile just to "call me out" (I think?) on it is just another symptom of the problem. Fixating solely on atrocities is never going to retroactively save anyone. Good thing there is more to life than that.

Another symptom of the problem is people thinking they're being attacked or oppressed, at least disadvantaged, when they're just experiencing for the first time a little taste of what various minority groups have lived with forever. Those feelings you may get when you see SJW propaganda, like how often white cis men are painted as the villain or whatever (A subtle social pressure on creative people to please a crowd? I think that's there) are pretty similar to what black men felt for decades. Not very nice, is it? Now that the tabled have turned in just a few instances, you guys need a space where you don't have to deal with it. Ghostbusters is a great example, I think I saw that in this thread somewhere. People crack the sads because there's four women, but for some reason it just doesn't occur to them it might be odd that four males are the default choice. Full disclosure, I haven't seen Fembusters, it looked shit.

trunkage:
Look, I understand that your not likely to listen, but I'll try rephrasing part of what people have said.

You can have politically free areas when you 1. Don't engage in politics. (I'm mean in that area) That's it. For example, you could have left this article there as it was, but you had to add your political view into it. That's literally the opposite of what you want. If someone disagree with what you think, you could just not engage. That's how you get rid of politics in your selected area

On the contrary, I'm all about appreciating people lecturing me very slowly like I'm a simpleton about my numerous mistakes in something I didn't actually say.

First of all, there is engaging with politics, that can be stimulating, versus engaging in politics. The first can even be material for art, the second is propaganda. The problem isn't the mere presence of a political dimension in a given field, it's the domination of a particular political orthodoxy. This culture war thing got started because of an ultimatum demanding allegiance, and to a very misguided ideology at that, in my sincere opinion. The point here is that it's not accurate to represent resistance to a rigid ideological hegemony as some absurd call to abolish all consideration of politics, in the transformed forms they take in fiction. "Transformed" meaning "not directly represented on your real life voting form".

I mean, as one example I recall being quite put off a few years ago by the fact that you couldn't actually join bomb-throwing communist goblins in overthrowing the exploitative gnome society in Dungeon Siege III, of all things. You had to settle for some ameliorative labor negotiations like some reactionary social democrat in order to improve the lot of the golem or whatever proletariat, after defeating the righteous goblin comrades. Because that might have been interesting, you see. Not because I think all gamers need to be forcefully indoctrinated into pseudo-revolutionary consumer cadres by the monolithic "Industry". And it was the latter view's monopoly with "Opinion Leaders" I had a massive problem with, as well as their reprehensibly mendacious and damaging tactics in working towards that goal.

Second, no, I don't get to have a "politically free area" by just shutting up, nor is it something that can reasonably be expected of me in any kind of free society. The political purity tests will still be there, negatively affecting the output of everyone making the stuff that I (used to?) like. What, you expect me to withdraw from civilization? Because I'm somehow not fit for it, valuing as I do independent thought over lockstep party lines? Well, I'll be sure to take that under consideration.

24Escaped:

Another symptom of the problem is people thinking they're being attacked or oppressed, at least disadvantaged, when they're just experiencing for the first time a little taste of what various minority groups have lived with forever. Those feelings you may get when you see SJW propaganda, like how often white cis men are painted as the villain or whatever (A subtle social pressure on creative people to please a crowd? I think that's there) are pretty similar to what black men felt for decades. Not very nice, is it? Now that the tabled have turned in just a few instances, you guys need a space where you don't have to deal with it. Ghostbusters is a great example, I think I saw that in this thread somewhere. People crack the sads because there's four women, but for some reason it just doesn't occur to them it might be odd that four males are the default choice. Full disclosure, I haven't seen Fembusters, it looked shit.

I see. Lots of people have been mistreated in the past because of some immutable traits? Solution: make mistreating some other people based on their respective traits mandatory! Special Justice for all, and surely the roadmap to harmonious living. Quoth he, with exaggerated sarcasm.

"White cis men" have actually been painted as villains since forever, which is no problem if we're not talking about lazy cardboard caricatures whose sole defining feature is unmotivated villainy as a stand-in for all people sharing those traits. Maybe there's some truth to the claim that has been the case for black men, but surely the goal ought to be better characterization all around, including villains, rather than just replacing one set of lazy hack jobs with another one? For the narrative arts I mean, gaming doesn't really require good writing, though it's nice if there's some.

As for Fembusters, that whole simple gender-flip thing is not only lazy but deliberately antagonistic. "See, girls are taking the toys, and there's nothing stupid boys can do about it! Because they're stupid!" You want a story with female leads who are not just in it to serve as passive-aggressive (if even passive) bait for Muh Controversy? How about writing a new one? But that of course requires having something more to contribute than trendy pop misandry.

Huh. Impressive. It took less than a page for an article arguing that some spaces should be free of politics (not sure I agree), to a debate about politics with the usual rhetroic you'd expect.

I'd say carry on, but I've seen this dog and pony show so often I've lost interest.

StatusNil:

Second, no, I don't get to have a "politically free area" by just shutting up, nor is it something that can reasonably be expected of me in any kind of free society. The political purity tests will still be there, negatively affecting the output of everyone making the stuff that I (used to?) like. What, you expect me to withdraw from civilization? Because I'm somehow not fit for it, valuing as I do independent thought over lockstep party lines? Well, I'll be sure to take that under consideration.

Oh Lordy, stop feeling so sorry for yourself. Your personal complete inability to not make everything political, which most people can manage, is your own problem - you are the source of your own unhappiness. It's like you've decided to hang around in an echo chamber, but have inexplicably decided to choose one where everyone disagrees with you! There's plenty of echo chambers where people agree with you, go there instead! Y'all can have a massive pity party with cake and male leads.

Or just play the games you (used to) like. Why you'd play ones you don't like is beyond me.

Okay, I'm actually going to step in here...

The intention of this column, and the discussion thread attached to it, is to create a safe space where anybody can feel free to agree, disagree, or suggest something new without ever feeling attacked or judged for it. There should be no personal attacks like what I'm seeing right now.

Look, I want everybody to feel free to disagree with each other - please do so - but if you must attack, attack the ideas, not the person. We can all be better than that.

Robert idea of 'safe space' is bankrupt. If you want to have place where people are free to openly discuss ideas you need to just enforce meritocratic principles in argumentation.
If somone posts idiotic idea it has be torn down to pieces (mind you WITHOUT insulting person that posted something moronic). At the same time, if someone feels like a moron because of having posted something moronic it shouldn't be held against person who actually took time to point out the nonsense of it.
Ofcourse people will judge others by their actions, ie. posting outlandish ideas, both positively and negatively. This is also part of normal debate. Postulating that you can't make others 'ever feel attacked or judged' for their actions is counter productive to discussing anything. Most people are attached to their ideas and will feel like that as soon as the merit of said idea is successfully challanged by someone else.

Ps. Mind you I actually applaud that you stepped in here (I hope to stop ad personam bandwagoning at StatusNil's expense). This is part of policing meritocratic principles in argumentation I mentioned earlier, so bravo to you. However the idea you described of what and how can be discussed is self-defeating concept.

Robert B. Marks:
Okay, I'm actually going to step in here...

The intention of this column, and the discussion thread attached to it, is to create a safe space where anybody can feel free to agree, disagree, or suggest something new without ever feeling attacked or judged for it. There should be no personal attacks like what I'm seeing right now.

Look, I want everybody to feel free to disagree with each other - please do so - but if you must attack, attack the ideas, not the person. We can all be better than that.

That may seem a reasonable intent, but its naive and misguided at best. Many of the ideas that are going to be discussed are inherently based on attacks or judgements. For many people, politics isn't something remote and unimportant to be discussed dispassionately and academically, it's something that directly affects them. Often something to be feared.

So long as certain people are seen as less than others, the political is going to remain very personal.

StatusNil:
Second, no, I don't get to have a "politically free area" by just shutting up, nor is it something that can reasonably be expected of me in any kind of free society. The political purity tests will still be there, negatively affecting the output of everyone making the stuff that I (used to?) like. What, you expect me to withdraw from civilization? Because I'm somehow not fit for it, valuing as I do independent thought over lockstep party lines? Well, I'll be sure to take that under consideration.

Okay, firstly, so not engaging could mean shutting up or something like walking away or not being triggered by what someone says. If you respond, you are continuing something you don't want. Only you can create your free space. As you stated, no one should create it for your. If you want to withdraw from civilisation to help you feel better then go for it. I mean, the left and right have been sitting in the echo chamber for year (until very recently). It worked for them (until they engaged)

StatusNil:

On the contrary, I'm all about appreciating people lecturing me very slowly like I'm a simpleton about my numerous mistakes in something I didn't actually say.

I have so many questions about this sentence. Someone is lecturing you personally? That just sounds like a difference in ideas and you want to call it lecturing because to make it negative. Are they lecturing generally to a wide audience, not particularly at you? Um, freedom of speech. Mistakes about what you say? Sounds like you didn't explain yourself properly. Why is it the other persons problem. Just re-explain. They aren't mind reader and they don't think like you. Is this lecturing happening all the time? (Matching this with your sentence about not fitting in) Yes its true, if you don't fit in, people wont agree with you. How is this surprising or someone else fault? If you don't want to fit in, that's great. But there are consequences to action and that's a consequence of not fitting in. Was a lecturing happening on this forum? That's just how the Escapists works. Please, if you distresses you, exercise your freedom of speech and discussion your issue or find somewhere else.

If you find this paragraph lecturing and making you feel like a simpleton - look man, I'm just responding to what you wrote. I haven't responded quickly because I have to try and figure out what your trying to say. It didn't make sense to me. Personally, I think your expecting people to treat you a certain way, and its not happening. Complaining about the situation seems to get you lectured, maybe you could try a different tack.

"If you don't agree with their politics, don't buy from them"
"But if you don't buy, you're punishing the innocent"

Besides this Catch-22, other counter-argument is that visitors have to pay for their food, lodging and local transport too. All of these expenses have local taxes that put their money into the Republican State's coffer.

Hmm. I think we're getting the terminology wrong, and that's messing up the conclusions. Forget punishment. This isn't really about punishment at all - we're stretching the definition from the outset. This is about reward. Do we pay the innocent, knowing that some of that pay is going to the guilty? It's a fundamentally different question from punishing the innocent. These businesses have no moral right to your patronage in the first place. And the money you save can easily be spent in places that are, well, let's say less morally compromised. So, you can literally choose to reward the innocent more.

Same actions. You can call it "punish the innocent" but you can more accurately call it "reward the innocent". That's some messed up semantics.

Robert B. Marks:
Punishing the Innocent

Is boycotting science fiction conventions as a form of protest against Donald Trump something that would matter or be effective?

Read Full Article

My thoughts on this part of your column:

I had no respect whatsoever for the Canadians who marched in the streets of Toronto to protest the beginning of the 2003 Iraq War - after all, what would President George W. Bush care about a protest march by bunch of non-Americans in a Canadian city when Canada had already declined to participate in the invasion? I had overwhelming respect and awe for those Canadians who protested in the streets of New York City, risking imprisonment in a foreign country in order to be heard in a way that would matter.

Now I won't claim to speak for my Commonwealth fellows in Canada, but I remember similar protests taking place in Australia but the purpose was to tell our Prime Minister that we did not want to go to War. Whether or not the American government went to war was immaterial to those protests.

OK, now that we've reached a dissensus on the merits of having a Culture War subsume all the space for independent artistic and critical insight, a brief word about the methods of those bent on waging it and what that means in terms of culture.

This is something that struck me a while back when I was idly flipping through the pages of one of those old-timey popular music "magazines" and came upon a news item about some prominent artists declaring that they're refusing to perform in a particular State of the Union (can't remember which one exactly) because it had passed some ordinance relating to the gendering of public restrooms that they considered unjust. I recall that among others there was Ringo Starr, releasing a statement to the effect that he was "all about Love" and didn't want to "support hate", and of course Bruce Springsteen, who has built an enduring brand (and no doubt comfortable lifestyle) on Standing For Good, Decent, Honest Things, and is therefore something of a role model for many current enterprises. But I propose we suspend such cynicism with ugly undertones of burning envy for the moment and consider what the artists are supposed to be engaged in.

Take Mr. Springsteen. What is he all about as a cultural figure? Correct me if I'm way off base here, but I would say that ideally he creates accessible, populist music that raises no elitist barriers of entry against anyone's visceral answer to the call of its inviting pulse, combined with a lyrical perspective that emphasizes our common emotional core as human beings and celebrates the dignity of our struggles, with particular empathy for those disenfranchised by the machinations of impersonal forces that would use them as tools, only to discard them once done. It follows that his shows (famous for their generous length, well beyond the minimal justification for collecting his pay) are events at which people gather for a joyful communal experience of sharing their particular individuality as part of the universal condition, demonstrating a unity and resilience of fellow feeling welcoming to all that manifests itself to the literally physically synchronized heartbeat of the Springsteenian anthems of inclusion, as each attendee feels the profound connection they have to each other in that moment and glimpses its potential for expansion beyond, to who knows what horizons. Does this sound fair on the merits? I wouldn't want to undersell the potential scope of this vital endeavor.

Now then, on the other side of the scale from this transformative potential we do have quite a few nickels and dimes that might be added to the economy of a state where many people voted wrong, due to factors like venue rental and a small spike in spending by the concert audience, maybe even including out-of-state revenues from some people who might travel to see the show. And some of those nickels might go to the pockets of wrong-voters, or even towards paying the salary of a politician enacting laws that we find objectionable. (For some reason, this only seems to be a danger in states where the balance of power favors The Enemy. Because as everybody knows, states in Friendly hands don't pay their Bad officials out of the common budget, right? And no wrong-voters will benefit from spending in those either. It's all good, or it's all bad.) How are we weighing these factors against each other?

Well, it appears that the artists in this example have determined that their presence and art are more of a treat to reward good behavior in aggregate than a powerful medium of communicating the "Love" that Mr. Starr embodies to counter the prevailing "hate", and that the spare change that would accrue to the state is a force greater than whatever their "message" is. Someone of an obsessive analytical bent might even try to figure out the formula for how much these artists value a potentially perceived celebrity endorsement by themselves over the work they are producing. So the result is an ultimatum to the allies within the state: No Bruce and no Ringo for you, until you work harder to overthrow your wicked neighbours! These sermons are Choir-only, not for heathen ears.

It turns out that the ultimate casualty of a Culture War is Culture itself, being reduced to tokens of affiliation whose purveyors themselves deem it insignificant as compared to a minor blip in tourist spending. But hey, you keep up The Good Fight, o Warriors of Canadia! Seems we never cared for it anyway.

StatusNil:
SNIP

(a) You said that would be brief and it clearly wasn't. Your judgement is questionable.
(b) They're standing up for what they believe in and exerting the little influence they can in the ways they can. If you don't like it, well, there's nothing you can do about it I guess. Maybe listen to artists that separate their own politics from their own music. I hear Daphne and Celeste might be making a comeback.

You have the wrong idea. It is not about punishing anyone, it is about not supporting something you are against.

And everything is about politics. There are no politics free spaces.

bjj hero:
You have the wrong idea. It is not about punishing anyone, it is about not supporting something you are against.

And everything is about politics. There are no politics free spaces.

Pretty much. If I was a sci-fi writer (I've given it a thought, but I'm not good at prose) I wouldn't go to the U.S. with Trump's America. Funnily enough I like to avoid places where a Sheriff could beat the shit out of me for being trans and in a public toilet, or arbitrarily detained for days, and Trump may even give a pardon to a sheriff that effectively chains a bunch of trans people in a open air camp. For a lot of people, it's a bit hard to call something 'apolitical' when simply being some place becomes possible ammunition for them getting hurt or abused. Marks may call it 'boycotting', but when a country does its darnedest to make thoroughly unwelcome entire slabs of people why does it suddenly become bad to lift up a hand and say; 'Pass'?

I imagine there's a collection of would be con goers just saying; "U.S. is more frightening than usual."

That's about as political as it gets, but it's also not unreasonable to assume various different types of artists simply not wanting to go to the U.S. on that basis alone. And I think that's a reasonable response to what we're seeing. You can call it a 'protest', but then you're trying to politicise what might more so be a case of simple disinterest to visit a place that is thoroughly unwelcoming to begin with. Why visit someplace you're just going to get a markedly higher amount of abuse, vitriol, threats, or the possibility of simply being refused service at the hotel or groped and treated like shit at customs at the airport? Marks is trying to sell it as a protest, maybe the real reason is because people don't like being treated like garbage? After all, you couldn't convince me to tour about the U.S. and spend money there ... what makes you think that would change simply because of a con?

And hell, that's just the social implications of travelling to the U.S. Have you seen the economy? Travelling is expensive. There's serious wage stagnation across both Canada and the U.S. .... plenty of economic (also political) forces that are inflicting on people to save money they might not even have to begin with...

I am a huge board game fan. Boardgaming is my favourite type of gaming. I've always entertained visiting Gen Con.

Of course that involves going to Indianapolis, of which I can't even be guaranteed that my dollar will be treated as anyone else's if I'm outed. So, you know ... the U.S. has already effectively dissuaded someone ever spending money in its corner of the world. And I find it utterly fucking moronic that that can simply be written off as 'halfhearted protest'. The problem is highly political, but that doesn't mean it's somehow a moral or half-hearted reason to 'boycott' the U.S.

In short, your ideas are broken Marks. I'm not going to spend money in a country that is going to treat me as reduced before its laws simply for existing.

I might forgive it if the picture was looking better. But I'm not going to do so when it is getting worse.

As less of a centerist and more of a nihilist, I've come to the conclusion that protest in today's political climate is meaningless. Nobody whose opinion matters cares what you think, they can afford not to, at best you're something to be ignored and at worst your very presence becomes ammunition against you. The people that don't want to be involved in that at all are the smart ones, why would you willingly to stick your head in a sewer afterall. In fact, the damage to the economy that comes from numerous people just avoiding us like the plague might be the only thing that will actually get enough attention to bring about any change, though I suspect that will just be ignored as well.

Sorry to cut in, but this one's important.

So, I just got the word that this will be the last installment of Garwulf's Corner to run on The Escapist - I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to say at this point, so I'm going to consider myself not at liberty to go into too many details.

That said, I AM going to, at the very least, see if I can't run the last remaining installments on my Livejournal, with links and/or copies of the articles here in the forums, so that the last two or three installments actually do get to run.

Sorry for the conversation killer, but I didn't want any of my readers to think they were being forgotten as things develop.

Robert B. Marks:
Sorry to cut in, but this one's important.

So, I just got the word that this will be the last installment of Garwulf's Corner to run on The Escapist - I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to say at this point, so I'm going to consider myself not at liberty to go into too many details.

That said, I AM going to, at the very least, see if I can't run the last remaining installments on my Livejournal, with links and/or copies of the articles here in the forums, so that the last two or three installments actually do get to run.

Sorry for the conversation killer, but I didn't want any of my readers to think they were being forgotten as things develop.

Godspeed Robert!

Robert B. Marks:
Sorry to cut in, but this one's important.

So, I just got the word that this will be the last installment of Garwulf's Corner to run on The Escapist - I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to say at this point, so I'm going to consider myself not at liberty to go into too many details.

That said, I AM going to, at the very least, see if I can't run the last remaining installments on my Livejournal, with links and/or copies of the articles here in the forums, so that the last two or three installments actually do get to run.

Sorry for the conversation killer, but I didn't want any of my readers to think they were being forgotten as things develop.

Well, that sounds ominous.

Thanks for the prompt heads up. We've had our differences (as you may or may not recall), but I certainly appreciate your standards of treating your audience with respect. That's somewhat... uncommon these days.

Robert B. Marks:
Okay, I'm actually going to step in here...

The intention of this column, and the discussion thread attached to it, is to create a safe space where anybody can feel free to agree, disagree, or suggest something new without ever feeling attacked or judged for it. There should be no personal attacks like what I'm seeing right now.

Look, I want everybody to feel free to disagree with each other - please do so - but if you must attack, attack the ideas, not the person. We can all be better than that.

Everyone who attacks my rights as an LGBT person is personally attacking me. They are literally attempting to hinder my well-being by supporting people and laws who want to oppress me as a person.

Saelune:

Robert B. Marks:
Okay, I'm actually going to step in here...

The intention of this column, and the discussion thread attached to it, is to create a safe space where anybody can feel free to agree, disagree, or suggest something new without ever feeling attacked or judged for it. There should be no personal attacks like what I'm seeing right now.

Look, I want everybody to feel free to disagree with each other - please do so - but if you must attack, attack the ideas, not the person. We can all be better than that.

Everyone who attacks my rights as an LGBT person is personally attacking me. They are literally attempting to hinder my well-being by supporting people and laws who want to oppress me as a person.

image

Well, lets talk about same-sex marriage. Why are so many people opposed to me getting married? How can I not take that as a personal attack when people try to take away my legal rights to partner with someone just because we're different than them?

"If any object to this union, please speak now"

Atleast 7million Californians would have spoken up if given the chance, considering thats around how many opposed gay marriage via Prop 8 less than 10 years ago.

And same-sex marriage being federally legalized was only by a 5-4 split on the Supreme Court.

StatusNil:

First of all, there is engaging with politics, that can be stimulating, versus engaging in politics. The first can even be material for art, the second is propaganda. The problem isn't the mere presence of a political dimension in a given field, it's the domination of a particular political orthodoxy. This culture war thing got started because of an ultimatum demanding allegiance, and to a very misguided ideology at that, in my sincere opinion.

To anyone who doesn't see this, look at the reaction to The Last Night, which went from being treated as an awesome upcoming cyberpunk game to the spawn of literal Nazis because of the specific politics of it's cyberpunk dystopia and tweets from years ago that apparently displeased Zoe Quinn of all people, to the point where its creator was pressed into public apology for his wrongthink.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here