Search results

I don't consider a tangent to be that. I consider it to be a related side path that may be wandered down in parallel with the main topic (since nothing on a message board prevents us from having multiple conversations at once) and may even cross-pollinate ideas with the main topic. You...

Then I think we're probably just quibbling over the definition of "outlier." My definition is having an opinion so far from the mainstream that you can't express it without suffering serious social and/or business repercussions. I do not consider arguments from those with opposing opinions to be...

One other thing I wanted to zero in on in your previous message: Not "other angles to consider his writing from." Other potential discussions about his opinions that are tangential to, and do not interfere with, passing moral judgment on his statements. Yes! Some other people in the 70s...

I'm going to go paragraph by paragraph to avoid snipping statements. It wasn't intended to be about Gygax specifically. My mind was on the 1970s when I typed that he wasn't an outlier, which I do believe. It seems really obvious to me that some things could be said in those days without the...

Meaning he didn't think about his phrasing much because there was no reason to. YES. That is exactly what I'm saying. We are on the same page.

One thread of mainstream opinion that was in opposition to others. Do you think he was an outlier for the 1970s? How is it irrelevant to the point that there were multiple viewpoints in dialogue throughout the 1970s? It doesn't. What do you need me to say in order for you to believe that me...

The two are not mutually exclusive! I don't see it as "but." I see it as "and." If that is the ONLY thing that you want to talk about, then fine.

They was intended to be statements about the 1970s. "Not that much of an outlier" and "not that rare" were only intended as neutral statements about the commonality of those opinions at the time; no moral assessment or exoneration was attached. But I'll accept that they didn't sound that way to...

I'm sorry we can't find common ground, but I appreciate you being polite throughout the exchange. Sure, and I think those factors are interesting too. What they were, why they worked in the 1970s, why they don't hold sway today, and whether they might reappear. I'm feeling frustrated again...

I think those are comments on the 1970s, not on Gygax specifically ...?

Possibly my response to @Steampunkette in post #980 will help.

Basically, yes. "The times were more sexist" is my attempt to explain why he didn't.

I suspect it's not that people didn't see it, back in the day. It's just that a greater percentage of them agreed with it.

My focus is on the listeners, not the speaker. The speaker said what he said, and the words are what they are. Nothing changes that. I think "These statements are sexist" is bleeding obvious, and not actually that interesting as a topic for discussion. The changing perception of those words...

I accept that the two things seem inseparable to you, but they seem very separate and distinct to me. As for "Why bring it up?"--well, I think the difference in impact with regard to the norms of the time is interesting in its own right. I didn't expect that idea to be so foreign to so many...

Sigh, well, clearly I'm making a muddle of this whole discussion, and I'm regretting wading into it. I think ... and this may be overly pessimistic ... that there are people today who privately hold opinions pretty close to (or even beyond) GG's, but they know they can't get away with saying so...

But I'm not defending him! What I said is that his views probably sound more extreme viewed through the prism of today than they did in the 1970s because public opinion has shifted in the past 50 years. I don't mean to say that his statements weren't borderline in the 1970s, but today they're...

I never took the harlot table seriously. I've always found it funny.

I've never denied that feminist ideas were out there, though. I don't get why this is supposed to refute me. If that's what you're getting, then you're not actually reading what I'm saying. I've explicitly stated that this is not my point. I've said that I personally don't like the things he...

I'm getting very frustrated with how you all are arguing against what you have decided I'm saying without listening to what I've actually said. Because I have explicitly denied holding any of these opinions. I'll quote myself again, from up thread.