Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7417668" data-attributes="member: 5142">One would certainly hope that you would know that before you chose to wade into it. There are multiple divergent conversations at play here though. On this point, however, I think that Hussar is clearly discussing his own preferences that he would like expressed in published materials. As to the rest of the conversations? That might be a bit much to summarize. I would say that the argument that [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] presented was insufficient for explaining the reactions, and I provided another explanation that I believe describes it or that would supplement Bedrock's. But the bold is where you are wrong, Imaro. Their responses and counterpoints have been addressed repeatedly by me and others, but addressing those points was not my intent here, Imaro, as the goal was explaining the source of the emotional backlash. You were talking about the emotional content of the word "bad" that you felt was laden in the title "Why Worldbuilding is Bad" and Bedrockgames why people were reacting so strongly to the central premise. And given how there is a lot of misinterpretation of perspectives regarding the whole issue of "worldbuilding is bad," it is incumbent to explain why that may be the case - because they are not entirely "fact-based" or rooted in a close-reading of the text - and I do think that the feeling of moral judgment regarding the enterprise of worldbuilding is a component of the visceral pushback against the premise. You are certainly welcome to dismiss my explanation with your own gaslighting, but you should at least be aware that the "emotional" component of the pushback was already raised/acknowledged by you and others. Re: analogy: [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], when I initially raised this analogy many pages ago, I did indicate that no analogy was perfect and that I was open to alternatives. If you would like to discuss my "bad analogy" in further detail I am open to that, assuming that you are open to civil discussion here. I would welcome a more appropriate analogy to describe this particular phenomenon that so frequently transpires. How about this instead... you are presuming (1) that those points have been soundly countered (presumably by yourself and others) and (2) that they have been done so with "fact." The continued disagreement on these points kinda throw both of your premises into contention. "Fact" amounts to more than a repetition of assertions of opinions, and the use of logic means little when based on fawlty premises. This is not to say that the premises of the "other side" - a term I loathe to use given how there are posters in this thread with far more welcomed nuanced perspectives - are rooted in fawtly logic, only that the presence of logic is not necessarily the presence of truth or validity.</blockquote>

Verification