psychophipps
Explorer
Reality. They are from reality, except in areas like where I currently live where whites are the distinct minority.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Harassment in gaming
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
The pushback contributes to the overall problem, too.
While watching some of the conversations on Facebook about the way the discussions of harassment are taking place here, at EN World, I have seen posts by women who stated that the reason they don't visit EN World anymore is because other users are pushing back against the very idea that there is even is harassment problem to begin with.
Fortunately, EN World appears to have seen those same statements on FB.
Last edited:
Gosh, all sorts of people.
If you're a female in costume and a guy asks to take a picture with you, and he whispers in your ear that he'd like to grope you when the picture is taken, then you get to decide that's inappropriate.
If you're a parent watching your son or daughter play D&D at a Con, and at the next table over a couple of guys waiting for their DM to show up decide to pass the time by having a loud conversation about which of the females in the room are hot, which are ugly and who they'd like to do it with, then you get to decide that's inappropriate.
No, it's not, because most people are capable of determining what is and is not appropriate, and most staff at Cons already know that.
This is the same level of intelligence required for a person to be able to put their shoes on the right feet, to navigate to and from work, to a Con, or to the store and back, and to otherwise interact with people the world over in a civil manner.
It's not that hard.
No, really. It's just not that hard.
So if there is a break in play, and the 99% decide that the topic of which movie on Netflix has the best sex scenes to masturbate to is going to be discussed, and if you're the 1% at the table then tough luck?
In other words, you're saying it's OK if the group decides it's OK?
You probably don't know this, but the real creepers--as in the ones who make it their business to look for opportunities to isolate women and stalk them--are more successful in groups with the mindset of "If we're comfortable with it, then it shouldn't be anyone else's problem how we're behaving."
It means, "Be mindful of others, because you are in public and you may not do anything you want in public. If you feel otherwise, go home."
Basically the same thing any decent parent would take the time to teach a child, starting at a very early age.
Con policies don't seem to require this. Regardless, if you're convinced that the best way to keep from being ejected from a convention is by not saying anything to anyone, then may I suggest you learn sign language?
People seem pretty amenable to people who have to sign to communicate.
If that's still too much of a risk for you, then I have a bunker for sale in an undisclosed location that's internet and cable ready. Cheap, too.
Last edited:
Ms. Manners and other similar guardians of polite behavior would bemoan this as an example of how far society has slipped. If someone can't make the assessment that certain language- be it bigoted, sexist, obscene, etc.- might be highly charged, thus unwelcome and unacceptable in a given context, then they may be in need of some instruction in the social graces. That it is said only in jest isn't an excuse.
That it may only come as a result of getting publicly reprimanded, ejected or even arrested is just a sign of the times.
Ditto that for the 99% who are equally clueless or insensitive.
sunshadow21
Explorer
Again, that's works because WotC is organized like PFS so as long as both parties are actually participants and the complaint is timely, that approach still works. Move out into the general convention space and very often different types of solutions are needed.
If "most people are capable of determining what is and is not appropriate" then why did you come up with a hypothetical that shows the opposite just to counter one of Springheels points which essentially said "most people are capable of determining what is and is not appropriate" when he mentioned his 99% example?
I think you want to paint a picture where most people are capable of determining what is and is not appropriate so you can trust the individual who claims that they're offended by certain statements because that individual would be part of the larger group of people who can determine what is and is not appropriate. But you also want the opposite, you want the individual to know better than the group who now no longer is capable of determining what is and is not appropriate, because it suits your argument now, just in case they actually disagree that what was said was actually offensive.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I'm not going to deny that offensive things can be said and be minimized by a larger group of people wanting to protect each other. That's perfectly plausible. But, and there's no way around this, that's also an argument against the individual reporting offensive comments as their also part of that same group of people. It's just as possible that they're also incapable of determining what is and is not appropriate just like the larger group may be incapable of doing in your Netflix example.
That's why this isn't simply as easy as just listening to the person claiming to be offended.
Springheel
First Post
Just to make a point, I find your sarcasm and condescending attitude to be "offensive" and "inappropriate". I guess if we were at a con I could have you pulled aside and cautioned, and maybe even sent home if it happens again, without question?
You are ignoring the other examples that have been brought up in the thread already. Tell me, if it's not so hard, which of the following statements are "inappropriate" and should be grounds for a warning and/or dismissal from a convention?
"You chant a prayer to the Lord of Evil and he sends his demons to aid you in your fight."
"I hope Trump goes all the way."
"People should be able to wear whatever costumes they want."
“Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”
Unless your answer was "all of them", then you are not really on board with the "ask no questions" approach to dealing with offense.
So if 99% of people around you did NOT find it inappropriate, and 1% did, then what do you tell that one percent who did? Is your answer, "most people are capable of determining what is appropriate"?
The entire problem with this "ask no questions" attitude is that "inappropriate" is ENTIRELY subjective. Not only does it depend on the sensibilities of the individual, it also depends on context, on the setting, on the age range of the participants, and who the target of the behaviour was. Is there anyone who can disagree with that fact?
There are these things called "acceptable social norms".
As a member of society, it is *your own* responsibility to keep up on acceptable social norms. That's right - the world is not responsible for giving people a comprehensive list of things that are okay to say, and things that are not. Society, instead, assumes that your brain functions, and that you will use it (and, for those with actual issues with their mental function, we give leeway). But, generally, failing to use your grey matter is your own fault, and you suffer the consequences.
Will there be the occasional misstep or edge case or misunderstanding? Yes. We cannot have a strict set of rules that actually cover all cases. Perfect justice is eternally denied us.
But, this is also a bit of a boogeyman. It isn't like men by the hordes are being caught up by edge cases, persecuted with minutae. They're getting caught up by the fact that they cannot get it into their heads that they might actually be held accountable, like an *equal*.
As noted elsewhere - for those who are used to being top dogs, being treated like equals *feels* like oppression. The folks who are asking for more protection from harassment aren't oppressing anyone. They are asking for a basic level of respect that they historically have not had. If "I must show respect for people" is too much for someone, or it seems arbitrary, dangerous, or burdensome to them, maybe they shouldn't be at a con in the first place.
Last edited:
You're mistaking mockery for condescension. But the question is still valid.
And yeah, you could go right ahead and do your worst.
I wouldn't not be able to stop you from abusing the system we all rely on, because I can't control how a person will react when his or her character and integrity is called into question.
I'd hope for a pause and reflect response, but some people prefer to lash out instead.
Similar Threads
