Search results

I'm sorry I didn't include your meaningless clarification, which has no holding on what was said previously? Again, if you want to use it as an exit, feel free. But it doesn't really mean anything when you were the guy to first use the words and then get offended when they got shot back at you...

I mean, we're at a point where it's too difficult to argue with what is actually written, so just avoiding it and creating something out of thin air to argue against is far easier... just like last time.

Eh, high school is a bit late for "analogies" and "comparison". I know we go over that stuff in 6th Grade and I'm sure elementary school probably does a bit with them as well.

I didn't carefully edit any part out, but if that allows you to duck the debate, I suppose you can use that as an excuse!

I think they are pointing out that most of the people trying to defend Gary don't even have an accurate idea of what was said in the book (much like the last thread that dealt with this topic). It is very hard to discuss a topic with someone when they are making up things that aren't there to...

As frustrating as it is to deal with that, I have had at least one parent ask why I didn't extoll the virtues of Robert E. Lee before. I had to take a breath before responding to that one.

I dunno, feels like it'd be way more distasteful to not recognize that stuff and simply whitewash his legacy for the purposes of avoiding conflict. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure how you can betray a man by simply recognizing his flaws.

So just because this is a "celebration", we can't mention the general attitude of sexism in Lake Geneva? Just... not allowed? Seems very limiting. I mean, it seems like only one side is telling people to "go to hell". If you want people to recognize Gygax as being complex, wouldn't you want...

Just because you are celebrating something doesn't mean you gotta whitewash it, especially if your "celebration" is a look at the past.

I don't really care about the spelling (I followed your spelling last time), but I don't get that because it's milquetoast, we should make it even weaker. If anything, we should make fewer compromises and be stronger in our critique, which is the exact opposite of what you've been arguing so...

We're at a point where obviously everyone understands that certain views and ideas are wrong, but we can't say that in public because it's hotly-debated and I dunno, maybe the other guys had even worse views?!

This is such a bad line of criticism from your side: if it's a milquetoast academic critique, then why are you so strenuously opposed to it? I would understand that from my side of things, where I would want them to be more clear and firm on what what's problematic and why it's bad. But from...

My God, we've gotten to the point that we're posting Shaun videos for context. Wild times, people, wild times.

Look, we need more nuance. And until we get it, we should completely avoid giving any sort of context.

It's not. In fact, it's incredibly instructive as to how you presenting two contradictory arguments. Again, you say "hotly-debated" without weighing in. Who cares who is debating it? That's the point of bringing up the Lost Cause: plenty of people are still arguing for it, hotly, yet that...

No, the tweet analogy basically exposed the contradiction here: when you see an empty retweet, you simply look for context. Fair, I suppose. But in this case, you are arguing against Wizards putting in context to create clarity. Those two views are contradictory.

Look, if you are arguing that people need to go out and find context for things, you can't be complaining that Wizards chose to instead simply put the context right there for people to see. That just makes it seem like you're angry that they are providing context, and perhaps that you're angry...

This is just an argument for clarity and presenting the context. Again, that's what a foreword is for.