opinions of "Asterids parlor"

[Fenes]

I've never really thought about it before, but I have proposed a couple of non-eurocentric campaigns to my players over the years and their response has always been a bewildered "why?". I have been very interested in the progress of settings like Nyambe and that that South Pacific one that was on the forum about a year ago. A special forum would be nice for discussing settings like this. But as far as forging a community, "I am nonwhite" is really not a unifying theme and I wouldn't necessarily have more in common with anyone posting there.

The definition of "Non-euro-centric" varies. I play in FR, but mainly in the Southern areas. Is it Euro-centric? Or arabian/egyptian-themed? Or both?

 

[llamatron2000]

Also, nice work in using a misogynist for your philosophical example. Good one.

Alright, I have to interrupt by correcting a logical fallacy.

Sorry, I just have to say that just because someone's a hypocrite or a misogynist doesn't instantly invalidate every point they make.

Okay, you all can continue your bickering.

 

[Elf Witch]

Alright, I have to interrupt by correcting a logical fallacy.

Sorry, I just have to say that just because someone's a hypocrite or a misogynist doesn't instantly invalidate every point they make.

Okay, you all can continue your bickering.

This is true but using a misogynist or hypocrite's quotes in your arguments when discussing issues like sexism is most cases going tp get you dismissed along with your views by a lot of people.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But its still a logical fallacy.

I'm sure even Charlie Manson is right a couple of times a day.

Discussing & dismissing a philosopher's points & theories based on his personal life or anything else rather than upon the inherent strength or weakness of the arguement is basically a roundabout delayed ad hominem attack on him or her.

 

[tzor]

I will preface this by stating that I haven’t been to Astrid’s Parlor in quite some time, but that is really because of a specific (male) person and not the forum itself. In fact I’ve not been to the forums in general. In the spirit of full disclosure I am a guy.

I thought Astrid’s Parlor was a great idea. I read “Confessions” and my only part was it seemed to this two score old plus male from the east coast too “west coast” but otherwise it was a good book that I have not gotten anyone to read yet, including my cousin’s daughter in law who got the book from me as a Christmas present along with two Jane Austin books. (Imagine; she started reading the Jane Austin first!)

Astrid’s Parlor was not designed to be a ladies only forum. But it was designed to support a certain point of view, which a significant number of ladies are not ashamed to admit to. There I’ve said it, “not ashamed to admit to.” I’ve been around this game long enough (since 1980) to see how the game has narrowed to one particular point of view again and again over time. I started playing the game in college. I remember watching in horror as “kids” played the game in the movie E.T. (this was, after all, an intellectual game that required advanced understanding of tactics, knowledge of rules and a mature imagination). Once off of the high horse of college gaming superiority the view wasn’t all that bad.

The question of Astrid’s Parlor is first and foremost how to make the game appeal to a wider audience. While I may not agree with the original author on a number of items (I always thought of a magic missile as more of a dart like thing so mini franks in a blanket is a better magic missile than a meatball) I think having a place where a different point of view is encouraged was a good idea and is still a good idea.

 

[Elf Witch]

But its still a logical fallacy.

I'm sure even Charlie Manson is right a couple of times a day.

Discussing & dismissing a philosopher's points & theories based on his personal life or anything else rather than upon the inherent strength or weakness of the arguement is basically a roundabout delayed ad hominem attack on him or her.

Again that maybe but if you want people to listen to you sometimes it is better to use caution on who you quote or how you write.

On Astrid's someome posted a link to a site on advice for men on the best way to approach forums that deal with woman's issues. There was a lot of good advice but it was worded rather angrily. Most of the men who went there were so turned off and pissed off that they couldn't or wouldn't hear what the writer was saying.

I am sure Charles Mason is right about stuff sometimes and I sure the family of his victims don't really give a damn.

 

[roguerouge]

But its still a logical fallacy.

I'm sure even Charlie Manson is right a couple of times a day.

Discussing & dismissing a philosopher's points & theories based on his personal life or anything else rather than upon the inherent strength or weakness of the arguement is basically a roundabout delayed ad hominem attack on him or her.

I completely agree with you both. It's about the difference between being right and being persuasive.

 

[SavageRobby]

Because those (the "femi-nazis") are the self-same folk that have forcibly cut off their access to do what is being done in that forum (or what they perceive, at least), and they're resentful about it. While their behavior stinks, the feeling of resentment is real, and somewhat justified.

But SavageRobby, this is wrong on the facts: in order for them to act like annoying Trogs, they have to have access to the forum in question. They have complete and total access. They've not been excluded from anything or any place.

What they resent is someone talking about gender from a woman's perspective AT ALL.

And so they act out.

Given a lack of a legitimate grievance, awfully rude behavior, and many other forums on that web site for their interests, they're just being jerks and don't deserve your sympathy.

I highlighted parts of my original quote.

I agree that the behavior is unwarranted. But look closer; except for pure sociopaths, poor behavior is almost always preceded by some legitimate gripe (at least to the person in question). Simply saying, "They're acting boorish" without an attempt to understand why is as short-sighted as, well, trolling in a forum devoted to women's issues because one doesn't understand women's issues.

 

[SavageRobby]

Yeah, white males, we are soooo oppressed in today's society, always being excluding from gyms full of hotties and gaming forums discussing women's issues . . . . except, wait for it, as pointed out several times in the thread, we aren't being excluded from anything (well, maybe Curves)! Astrid's Parlor is a forum for people of all genders to come together and discuss women's issues. Go check it out man, they won't make you present your "female" card at the door.

I'm not sure if you missed the point on purpose or not. Given the general tone of your posts, I suspect so, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The point isn't that groups are excluded from places like Asterid's Parlor (as you pointed out, or not), the point is that putting the shoe on the other foot and say, creating a forum focused on white male issues, would cause tremendous outrage. The point isn't that men can't join a place like Curves, its that those kind of institutions for men have been forcibly closed down or converted.

We are straying into real life politics here . . . well, I guess it's too late, we've already done that and my posts are just as guilty. But if you are seriously equating the topic at hand, a gaming forum dedicated to women's issues but not restricted to the participation of women only, to the NAACP (positive) and a "white males only club" (negative) . . . then I just feel for you man, as I find that kinda sad. BTW, you do know that white men and women CAN join the NAACP, right? Because a group that focuses on African-American issues desires the input and support of ALL Americans . . . . hmmm, not a bad comparison to Astrid's Parlor after all . . .

And again, you choose to miss the point, on several levels. For example, you immediately equate a white males only club to something negative. Yet earlier in the thread it was pointed out that women need a placel ike that so they can "just go be women". The presumption is that men don't ever need that? I find that a ... strange viewpoint.


Don't take the narrow assumption that because one thinks that equality means equal rights and access for all means that organizations like the NAACP or places like Curves (or Asterid's Parlor) shouldn't exist. I'm merely trying to point out (to apparently deaf ears) that no small amount resentment arises from the fact that a certain segment of the population is essentially not allowed to create such organizations, by public pressure or in some cases by law.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Do I CARE that there are male knitters and they have the absolute nerve to create a community within a traditionally female community? No frakking way. Those communities exist for a reason, the same way Astrid's Parlor exists. Those men want support within the knitting community just the same as women want to chat with other women within the gaming community.

I am pretty much in agreement, here. If the ladies want a sub-forum in which they can discuss gaming from a female perspective, without the distraction of what men have to say, then, more power to 'em... I say.

Later
silver