The Magic-Walmart myth

[Storm Raven]

I think it says more about the nature of the Interweb than about the terms themselves. And, of course, it says something about people's unwillingness to examine (or even have people post) ideas that are contrary to their own.

I am simply not seeing how using terms that are guaranteed to offend others, and were originally intended as dismissive and derisive insults helps others "examine ideas contrary to their own".

If you want people to examine your ideas, don't use obnoxious terminology when advancing them.

 

[Shadeydm]

Yet it seems to be only a vocal minority who are offended by these terms. Specifically the self proclaimed wrongbadfun victims who are screaming from the rooftops about how offended they are by these terms. I have little doubt that the vast majority of players understand that if I say there will not be magic walmarts or magicmarts in my game they know exactly what I mean. Same deal with pokemount I find it mindboggling that anyone but the designer could be personally offended if I say I don't like the pokemount its crappy/lazy game design.

 

[Storm Raven]

Same deal with pokemount I find it mindboggling that anyone but the designer could be personally offended if I say I don't like the pokemount its crappy/lazy game design.

A lot of people like Farscape. A lot of others don't. Those that want to offend people who like Farscape say "oh, it's that show with the muppets". Using your argument, no one should ever get annoyed that the show they like is dismissed by derisively calling it "that show with the muppets". Only the prop designers should feel slighted.

But the intent is to be insulting, and so it is. Similarly, when someone talks about 3.5, people who intend to be insulting say "oh, that version with the pokemounts", and dismiss the edition in a derisive manner and, by implication, dismiss the opinions of those who like it. Once you understand this, then you will understand why these are entirely useless terms. Saying "no magic Walmarts" is contentless for the most part, and basically says little more than "anyone who plays different from me is a munchkin".

 

[Raven Crowking]

A lot of people like Farscape. A lot of others don't. Those that want to offend people who like Farscape say "oh, it's that show with the muppets". Using your argument, no one should ever get annoyed that the show they like is dismissed by derisively calling it "that show with the muppets". Only the prop designers should feel slighted.

Whether you like it or not, Farscape is a show with muppets. Labyrinth and Dark Crystal are movies with muppets that I quite like. That anyone should be offended (even the prop designers, in this case) by "oh, it's that show with the muppets" makes no sense.

dismiss the edition in a derisive manner and, by implication, dismiss the opinions of those who like it.

Answered ad infinitum ad nauseum upthread.

You are correct in saying, in effect, that if you hate muppets, I will probably dismiss my opinion that muppets are cool. That this somehow equates to dismissing or denegrating me overall, though, makes no sense.

That I demand that you not dismiss my opinion that "muppets are cool", though, is a clear and obvious problem.

Here again we have evidence that it is not the term, but the meaning of the term, which is being objected to. And the meaning is, clearly, that some people don't like what you like. The only people that are guaranteed to be offended are those who have no desire to hear that others hold differing opinions from their own.

 

[Shadeydm]

A lot of people like Farscape. A lot of others don't. Those that want to offend people who like Farscape say "oh, it's that show with the muppets". Using your argument, no one should ever get annoyed that the show they like is dismissed by derisively calling it "that show with the muppets". Only the prop designers should feel slighted.

But the intent is to be insulting, and so it is. Similarly, when someone talks about 3.5, people who intend to be insulting say "oh, that version with the pokemounts", and dismiss the edition in a derisive manner and, by implication, dismiss the opinions of those who like it. Once you understand this, then you will understand why these are entirely useless terms. Saying "no magic Walmarts" is contentless for the most part, and basically says little more than "anyone who plays different from me is a munchkin".

Trying to reason with a brick wall is foolish on my part. If you want to be insulted by these or any other term I am sure you can find a way but that doesn't make the term insulting only the baggage you are adding in about munchkinism and edition wars adds insult. Things which aren't commonly accepted as meaning of the term but it sure does seem to float your boat to imply otherwise.

 

[Midknightsun]

What I've been seeing here. . and what it seems RC is trying to rail against . . .is that certain individuals are internalizing waaaay too much; taking statements that are meant to give a clue into a particular idea as somehow applying to THEM instead of the IDEA. Cripes, I know few people who I game with who don't know exactly what I mean when I say "magic Walmart" or "magic mart". None of them (and even the ones who admit to using that approach) are offended by it. Its a phrase that gets the idea across in most circles. Thinking that this somehow means someone is having "wrongbadfun" if their campaign contains an element similar to this seems to indicate a lack of ability to differentiate between their games and themselves.

A healthy dose of the ability to laugh at oneself would end this whole debate right here.

But, I must admit, you all must have amazing Fort and Will saves to continue this thing for so long . . . that, plus a Ring of Stubborness or two to go around.

YMMV

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, I must admit, you all must have amazing Fort and Will saves to continue this thing for so long . . . that, plus a Ring of Stubborness or two to go around.

I use a Cloak of Stubborness. I need those Ring slots.

And, yes, you get exactly what I am saying.

RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

certain individuals are internalizing waaaay too much;

Welcome to the human race, where my subjective experience always trumps your intentions.

I know few people who I game with who don't know exactly what I mean when I say "magic Walmart" or "magic mart"...Its a phrase that gets the idea across in most circles.

Yours does too, I guess.

Funny how that works, and how when you assume that a definition you hold is necessarily a definition that others should hold, how they don't. (CF: "Coke")

Seriously, it doesn't matter what it's offensive too. It matters that it is messy communication that has the ADDED burden of being perceived by some as derogatory, encouraging it's messiness. If you don't WANT to be understood, fine, but it's not someone else's fault that you keep using a messy term.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Seriously, it doesn't matter what it's offensive too. It matters that it is messy communication that has the ADDED burden of being perceived by some as derogatory, encouraging it's messiness. If you don't WANT to be understood, fine, but it's not someone else's fault that you keep using a messy term.

Ad infinitum, ad nausuem upthread.

Are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Magic Walmart" means? Are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Pokemount" means? Are you actually arguing that you do not understand the connotations of either word? Because those are the requirements for arguing that the language is unclear. If you are not arguing this, you are not arguing against the clarity of language used.

If you are arguing any of these things, then how can you also argue that a term you do not understand is offensive?

If you are arguing that a term is offensive, then how can you also argue that you do not understand it?

The fact is that very, very few people have problems understanding these terms, and none whatsoever of the very vocal minority claiming that they are unclear makes a claim to not understand them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Welcome to the human race, where my subjective experience always trumps your intentions.

BTW, I would say that a large part of maturity is recognizing that our experiences are subjective, and making the attempt to understand the POV of others. The claim that "I shouldn't have to attempt to understand your POV" is, while technically true, tantamount saying to "I shouldn't have to grow up".

IMHO, this is a stance that should be (when possible) corrected rather than catered to.

YMMV.