Search results

It's there at the start of the article (Bolded by myself for easy of locating):

This is true in the broader sense, but I think when a bunch of people are going around online defending Gary's honor over a disclaimer, then this sort of response is warranted. I don't think we always need to bring this up with everything and certainly not at random, as I've said in other posts...

Certainly possible, and I get not wanting to read 100 pages worth of text, as well as there being sort of kneejerk responses when it comes to things that roughly fit these sorts of facts. People fall into routines, after all. But I do think in this case people should read the contents of the...

Okay, but that's not what is being said. Let me direct you to the crow again, particularly the second panel: The point that is constantly being made it not that the 1970's weren't sexist, but that Gygax's sexism stood out even then. No one denies that there was sexism in the 1970s, but the...

Like, this is from the time. If you showed it to someone back then, it would not be looked at as "Oh, this is just something someone naturally says."

I'm not sure what the start of that... word medley is supposed to reference, but when it comes to that last part about Twitter: there is value in counter-programming and not ceding the narrative simply because of where the conversation is taking place. It's way worse to let people put out...

God, the f***ing receipts. And this is why this sort of pushback against the "different times" schtick needs to happen: because the revisionism here distorts the actual reality of what happened. It not only softens the image of the subject and normalizes their vice, but also disregards and...

People calling him out for his behavior is absolutely the definition of "blowback". Trying to restrict it to something financial is utterly inane. Most controversies don't reach that sort of level to begin with, but that doesn't mean they aren't controversies. If this were the case, then...

I don't really see a point as 1) We've already been warned off going into deep political and historical contexts right now (not that this is exactly deep) and 2) I don't see as particularly relevant to the situation given the context we actually have in front of us. I mean, yeah, I disagree...

Uh, by this logic wouldn't Gary still likely be worse simply because if everyone says worse stuff behind closed doors, wouldn't Gary also say worse stuff behind closed doors? I mean, I do believe that he probably did, and I feel like that matches up to what that one dude said about how the...

I mean, it's kind of neat to know that as long as someone says something worse, I can say terrible things and people will just assume what I'm saying is apparently mainstream... or so the logic goes.

Alternatively beyond your speculation we have people saying they were uncomfortable with it at the time combined with the fact that it got enough of a reaction from a small community of people that Gary felt he needed to actually say something. Like, we don't need your speculation because have...

And it's intellectually dishonest to not review the evidence we have. The "it was a different time" idea has been argued already and it's played out as an excuse. We have what he said at the time and we even have people talking about how his views beyond what the community felt comfortable with...

I mean, it would... if he didn't get enough pushback that he felt it warranted speaking out against. This whole idea that "but people were just more sexist back then" misses that he was sexist enough to get enough pushback within a small community that he felt the need to directly address it...

Call it the "Trout of Righteousness", I just see it as knowing who someone was. I find it important to know these things when discussing what came before it because, given how often people appeal to the tradition and talk about how it was like things, it's good to know where it comes from. No...