Pathfinder 1E The good man WotC and the scoundrel Paizo

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you're assuming that a massive human tragedy in one or more places on this globe should somehow invalidate other feelings on other topics? Some of us have feelings to spare on more than one subject.

You're right. Maybe I should be using the term "superhate" to refer to the emotion that you undoubtedly have about dictatorial oppression. Who is anyone to tell you that you should probably feel some difference in emotion between the reaction you have to people giving their lives in the name of freedom, and someone changing one of your favorite boardgames?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

"A tsunami just erased multiple cities from the face of the planet

Help me out here. Which is the more effective snark?

(1) You're wasting your hate on geological activities? Are you planning to start hating gravity next? Maybe throw up your fist and curse the sun for all the skin cancer in the world?

(2) You hate Hitler 'cause of the 6 million Jews he killed? I don't get that. You should be saving your hate for the really important stuff, like Stalin killing 10 million people in his gulags.

First Newsflash: When I say that I hate radishes, it doesn't mean that I'm equating radishes to the most horrific atrocities of the modern world.

Second Newsflash: When I say that I love pepperoni pizza, I am not, in fact, suggesting that I hold such a deep, long-term emotional attachment to pizza that I want to marry the pizza pie.

Emotions vary in both flavor and intensity, no matter what the false-equivocation of second grade schoolyard taunts might imply.
 


Urm, I hate to intrude into this debate, but I find it just a little ironic that those who are telling Billd91 that there are more important things to worry about are spending just as much energy on what is a rather silly* sort of argument as he is.

*Silly to me. Please note I'm not telling you how passionately you should feel about it one way or the other. I take it as understood that no one dictates my feelings but me, but understand that a good part of the world is going to try and persuade me to their viewpoint and so long as they are polite about it, don't let it interfere with things.
 

Emotions vary in both flavor and intensity, no matter what the false-equivocation of second grade schoolyard taunts might imply.
Yes, they do. And, in a healthy human being, the emotional response to someone making a change to a boardgame you like is minor annoyance; similarly, in a healthy human being, the emotional response to unjust death is genuine distress. The gulf between these two emotions is massive. When you see someone who reacts similarly to both, or perhaps even more strongly to the boardgame than the death, there is something there that needs to be addressed. That is not a healthy way to view the world.

When we see people say "I love pizza," it's typically code for "I think pizza is pretty darn tasty." When we see people say "I hate WotC," or the equivalent, it's typically not code for "I'm slightly annoyed at WotC."
 
Last edited:

Urm, I hate to intrude into this debate, but I find it just a little ironic that those who are telling Billd91 that there are more important things to worry about are spending just as much energy on what is a rather silly* sort of argument as he is.
The amount of time spent discussing a topic isn't really what we're talking about here. Rather, it's the tone of the discussion. Or was that not clear?
 

When you see someone who reacts similarly to both, or perhaps even more strongly to the boardgame than the death, there is something there that needs to be addressed. That is not a healthy way to view the world.

I'm not sure I have observed that phenomena recently. Nor have you. You are casting aspersions on a fellow poster, who, for all you know just donated half his life's savings to help tsunami victims. Note that I am not saying that he did, but I don't know he didn't either, and neither do you.

Edit: And I also notice BillD91 made it clear he did not hate WotC (and I'll take him at his word). He just did not feel it to be a moderators place to try and dictate proper feelings on a topic.
 
Last edited:


I'm not sure I have observed that phenomena recently. Nor have you. You are casting aspersions on a fellow poster, who, for all you know just donated half his life's savings to help tsunami victims. Note that I am not saying that he did, but I don't know he didn't either, and neither do you.

No, I'm not. No one that I've seen here has even said that they hate WotC, which is what this entire discussion is predicated on. Umbran wanted to address the idea that there are people who espouse hatred for WotC, and billd91 literally responded with "You don't know me!" when I backed Umbran's advice.

I mean, okay, cool, we don't know you personally. But, for humanity in general (given that neither Umbran nor I was addressing any person in particular), it's probably healthier and more reasonable to save your genuine outrage for things that are genuinely worth being outraged over.

If you (again, not you, but rather a hypothetical individual who does believe these things) think that a change to a boardgame is deserving of genuine outrage then you're certainly entitled to your opinion. We're also entitled to our opinion that such a perception isn't constructive, healthy or reasonable.
 
Last edited:

Yes, they do. And, in a healthy human being, the emotional response to someone making a change to a boardgame you like is minor annoyance;

(Totally sarcastic attempt at levity on an Internet forum that is sure to be misinterpreted...)

1. D&D is a boardgame? Well, that's sure to piss off everyone who thinks it's a RPG.

2. (in reference to earlier post). Actually, it's "Holy God", not "god". Big G, bro. Unless you're singling out Zeus, Thor, Ares, or Osiris or something, then the little g is cool.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top