Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DarkMantle" data-source="post: 8532184" data-attributes="member: 7034738">Regarding the "never, ever been about what someone does in their home game", so I didn't know for sure or it wasn't 100% clear to me. It certainly didn't feel like it. I have read posts (one specific one in mind right now) that could easily be interpreted as denouncements of what people think/do in their private imagination. I mean, do you know 100% for sure that are you able to speak on mostly everyone else's behalf? Anyway, it could be a lot clearer if people are referencing WoTC, hypothetical games, their games or somebody else's game.For the "I'm not really sure what more you are expecting", that's a good question, and I look at it this way (and the "you" below is generic you, not specific you):1. Take a contentious issue, like the edition wars, where people argued ad nauseum. Then, strip out the context for a moment and double-down on people's motivations/end goal2. Now let's say you dislike the current edition, and there is NO new edition on the horizon. If your end goal is to effect change, then for example, it is rational (albeit inefficient) to argue ad nauseum about how much you dislike the current edition, not particularly to change the minds of any Enworlder, but with the vague hope that WoTC designers might be listening and do something about it.3. Now let's say you dislike the current edition, BUT everyone knows there is a new upcoming edition. If you are the same example person in point #2, it is no longer rational to argue ad nauseum about how much you dislike the current edition, because the new edition is coming out anyway. Because it's not like you need the validation of other Enworlders that this new edition is coming, because you know it is. Unless you had some other new goal now (such as influencing what rules will be/not be in the new edition)Of course, the above presumes people are rational and it also presumes that arguing for fun can't be an end goal to itself, and that presumption does not hold water for anyone in any situation where that's not true.But for me, I guess I somehow interpreted all the arguing as people really wanting to effect or resist change. Or be a "justice warrior" and change someone's heart and mind. Whatever the reason, it felt like it was important and urgent.Also some people were hurting. If people are really hurting, I mean, that could be a reason in itself for urgency. (On the other hand, if you are correct that it was never really about what people do in their own private games, then who is hurting whom and when?)Anyway, looping back to my prior point, racism and inequality is serious, and people have literally died for it. So if there is no rational end goal, it seems like the act of arguing incessantly is somehow trivializing racism at some level that just feels wrong to me. I'm not sure yet how else to articulate that part to myself (or to another person)</blockquote>

Verification