Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6204748" data-attributes="member: 8461">I disagree with your characterization of the term. It's not a euphemism, but rather a shorthand. You may find it to connote a pejorative meaning towards issues of social justice, but I don't concur with you there; calling something "politically correct" does not imply that that which isn't politically correct is the purview of some sort of free-thinking radical who's fighting against oppressive group-think. As such, I feel no particular need to abandon the term.The problem with your reasoning here is that you've extended my original point to a ridiculous conclusion - you seem to think that I'm saying that because we can't objectively know someone else's thoughts and feelings, that all of communication is impossible. It's not; that's a fairly silly assertion to make, and it's not the one I'm making. I'm simply saying that making a leap between what people create, or consume, or enjoy has nothing to do with their attitudes and beliefs towards other people.It's also important to point out the illogical leap you made between this and discussing "illogical" rules - that being a somewhat loaded term where most games are based around inductive reasoning, if not abductive - as the two aren't related (something which I pointed out in my previous post). That's without even getting into the weird presumption you made that it must be confrontational; again, you're reading too much into my example - that was only to point out that even with a direct question-and-answer session on the topic, you can't know what someone else's motivation is.To that end, the other example questions you've posted don't really make any sort of point. Again, you can phrase the question any way you like, but when you're asking about someone else's opinions and beliefs, you aren't ever going to be sure that you're getting the truth from them. Hence, any kind of presumption - from a guess to them telling you outright - remains just a presumption, and as such has no informative value. If you think that a person is instituting a Strength cap for female characters because of prejudice, then there's no way for them to "prove" that that isn't the case.I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove here. I've never held that there isn't any value in the exchange of information and ideas - there is. I'm just saying that you can't use anything as a definitive indicator of their beliefs. That doesn't undercut the value of communication. Likewise, I'm not saying that things should be "like a trial" - you're again reading too much into the example I posted before.Again, you're arguing against a position that I've never taken. I said that when the GM violates a limitation that they've set down, you can hold this up to reasoning to the point of determining the objective question of why that's so. Now, I did personally advocate that you give the GM some breathing room to showcase that reason, and so reconcile the that exception to a limitation in a manner that satisfies internal logic and consistency...but you don't have to do so. If you want, you can just ask her why that is - and again, it goes without saying that you should do this in a non-confrontational manner (I've never suggested otherwise) - either way, the point is that this is something that can be subject to verification.It's all a presumption - asking them what their motivation is simply extends the presumption to "they're telling the truth" rather than "I've inferred their motivations based on their game." If that's enough for you, then that's fine.That said, you're idea of "I'm sure they mean well and it'll all be revealed in the fullness of time" is a hideous conflation - for the second time - of two separate ideas. The reconciliation of a limitation and an exception to that limitation is something that can be verified, and (I think) a good GM will make that clear over time. But "I'm sure they mean well" is just another guess that you've made about their motives.By all means, ask. The question of when the GM presents the reconciliation of limits and exceptions to those limits is less important than there is one at all; I personally feel you should give the GM some breathing room in that regard, but it's fine if you need to know why that's happening the instant that it happens.It's impossible to answer objectively because when you ask someone why they did something, you don't know if there answer is true or not. You can't ever know. Are they telling you their honest feelings, or are they making an argument to reconcile with what they think will satisfy your (presumed) objection? It can lead to a useful exchange of ideas, but ultimately you're going to have to decide if what their telling you is their honest feelings or not, and that's just a guess.</blockquote>

Verification