Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Fortress America: When Gaming and Politics Collide
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 5758422" data-attributes="member: 8461"><p>I don't need to post examples because I've already told you precisely what it is I'm arguing against: intolerance. I don't have any statements from the people who didn't like FFG's original flavor text, but that's not really the point. The point is that people don't have the right to not be offended by something, and so have no basis upon which to demand that that which upsets them be changed.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hence why I said it was an analogy. It's not literal.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's not the question. The question is, do people have the right to expect something to be changed just because they don't like it? That's analogous to someone expecting that just because they don't like someone for President, that person should be killed.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If you're saying that anything can be taken too far, or otherwise made into something harmful, then I'll agree to that. But the flip side is to stand around and do nothing while people are intolerant in the first place.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>The first two are examples of intolerance, rather than intolerance towards instances of intolerance. The last example isn't relevant to the discussion we're having - it's not in the "wanting" that the intolerance is found; it's when that politician thinks they have a right to actually silence that person that things go too far.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The distinction is between communicating their offense, or stating why they feel that way. When people are making "I" statements, they're simply saying what they feel, which tends to be fine. It's when they start making "you" statements, saying what the other person "should" do, or "must" do, or "needs to" do, etc. that the problem comes.</p><p></p><p>Your offense is yours. You can talk about it, but you can't make it someone else's problem.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, this isn't what I'm saying. People should talk to managers and express themselves and say exactly how they were disappointed and why - but they don't get to decide what action (if any) gets taken, even if they demand that someone be disciplined or fired. It's not their decision to make.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 5758422, member: 8461"] I don't need to post examples because I've already told you precisely what it is I'm arguing against: intolerance. I don't have any statements from the people who didn't like FFG's original flavor text, but that's not really the point. The point is that people don't have the right to not be offended by something, and so have no basis upon which to demand that that which upsets them be changed. Hence why I said it was an analogy. It's not literal. That's not the question. The question is, do people have the right to expect something to be changed just because they don't like it? That's analogous to someone expecting that just because they don't like someone for President, that person should be killed. If you're saying that anything can be taken too far, or otherwise made into something harmful, then I'll agree to that. But the flip side is to stand around and do nothing while people are intolerant in the first place. The first two are examples of intolerance, rather than intolerance towards instances of intolerance. The last example isn't relevant to the discussion we're having - it's not in the "wanting" that the intolerance is found; it's when that politician thinks they have a right to actually silence that person that things go too far. The distinction is between communicating their offense, or stating why they feel that way. When people are making "I" statements, they're simply saying what they feel, which tends to be fine. It's when they start making "you" statements, saying what the other person "should" do, or "must" do, or "needs to" do, etc. that the problem comes. Your offense is yours. You can talk about it, but you can't make it someone else's problem. Again, this isn't what I'm saying. People should talk to managers and express themselves and say exactly how they were disappointed and why - but they don't get to decide what action (if any) gets taken, even if they demand that someone be disciplined or fired. It's not their decision to make. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Fortress America: When Gaming and Politics Collide
Top