Will you make transsexual Elves canon in your games ?

[Satyrn]

Double post

 

[Satyrn]

Lemme put it this way: I am only just barely aware that the Bare Naked Ladies are, in fact, fully dressed men. I'm glad I got that far, at least, because otherwise I'd have been really confused.

Their song If I Had a Million Dollars includes a line "I'd buy you a fur coat, but not a real fur coat - that's cruel" and later humourously mirrors that line with a green dress in place of the fur coat.

The song popped into my head while reading your post.

 

[Gradine]

Their song If I Had a Million Dollars includes a line "I'd buy you a fur coat, but not a real fur coat - that's cruel" and later humourously mirrors that line with a green dress in place of the fur coat.

The song popped into my head while reading your post.

They also have my favorite dad joke in a song:

/I could hide out under there/
/I just made you say "underwear"/

 

[TheCosmicKid]

My biggest problem is that what most people consider "objectivity" is not actually "objective" in the sense people mean it to be at all. "Objectivity" is very specifically a bias of its own, just that in most cases it tends to be a bias towards the status quo. If those claiming "objectivity" would be more open and honest about that fact (not that I think they're being deliberately dishonest, but far more likely to be believing their own lie) I would have significantly less problem with it.

If the real problem is that people who claim to be objective aren't, then taking aim at "objectivity" is wildly counterproductive. When somebody says something that is objectively untrue, any commitment to objectivity they profess is an invaluable gift to you. It means that they're obliged to accept in principle that there is a fact of the matter, that they might currently be wrong about it, and that certain rules of evidence can determine whether or not they are. You don't want to reject all that; you want to double down on it.

And if you get to the point where you do think that objectivity itself favors the other side, that's still no reason to question objectivity -- it's reason to question whether you're on the right side. My biggest problem is that most people who reject objectivity do so not out of principle, but because they get to this point but would rather keep arguing than concede. (Not that I think they're being deliberately dishonest, but far more likely to be believing their own lie... )

 

[Gradine]

If the real problem is that people who claim to be objective aren't, then taking aim at "objectivity" is wildly counterproductive. When somebody says something that is objectively untrue, any commitment to objectivity they profess is an invaluable gift to you. It means that they're obliged to accept in principle that there is a fact of the matter, that they might currently be wrong about it, and that certain rules of evidence can determine whether or not they are. You don't want to reject all that; you want to double down on it.

And if you get to the point where you do think that objectivity itself favors the other side, that's still no reason to question objectivity -- it's reason to question whether you're on the right side. My biggest problem is that most people who reject objectivity do so not out of principle, but because they get to this point but would rather keep arguing than concede. (Not that I think they're being deliberately dishonest, but far more likely to be believing their own lie... )

Here's the problem with objectivity: anything that can reasonably be considered an "objective fact of the matter" is can be more accurately described as "what we believe we can confirm". Because our capacity for knowledge is never capable of reaching true perfection we can never be truly sure of anything, just what we can appear to confirm with our limited human senses and the aid of whatever limited technology we have available at the time. And that's taught us a lot so far, but we've also discovered many times after the fact where we've gotten a lot of stuff wrong. Even in the hard sciences. There's a reason we aren't all watching the sun circle around the earth while we make sure to keep our four bodily humours in good balance.

The only way to progress; the only way to advance knowledge, is to upset the status quo, to reject what is "objectively known". The best way to do this is obviously with evidence. In a lot of cases concerning the humanities (linguistics, history) and social sciences (sociology, many forms of psychology), you're as likely to end up with more qualitative evidence than quantitative as you are to end up with more quantitative evidence than qualitative.

There was a point, not too long ago mind you, that one particular "fact of the matter" is that "there are two genders", and attempting to argue otherwise is an example of bias. There are still those who take this stance. And yet, any folx speaking truth to their identity (and those voicing their support in believing them) have been treated as totally being subjective and biased and or "advancing an agenda" while those who support the status quo are able to argue from their own biases and agendas while getting to pretend to cloak themselves in a veneer of "objectivity" (again, more likely than not believing the lie). If you want really obvious examples of this phenomenon in action, look at any trial jury selection process ("Will a black juror be able to judge this hate crime objectively?") Or hell, the entire judicial system, for that matter. People still make demands that openly gay judges recuse themselves from cases that involve gay rights (because, when it comes to civil rights and constitutional law, only straight people can be truly objective ).

"Objectivity", true objectivity in the way people define it, simply does not exist. Everyone is biased, either for or against the status quo in any given situation, and those who claim "objectivity" only believe themselves having the right to do so because they have a bias for the status quo. This not only unjustly allows them to claim some kind of moral or intellectual high ground, but it also allows them to reject wholesale any and all qualitative evidence they don't agree with as "obviously coming from a place of bias" or from people with an "agenda".

Everyone always forgets that the status quo is an agenda too.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

"Objectivity", true objectivity in the way people define it, simply does not exist. Everyone is biased, either for or against the status quo in any given situation, and those who claim "objectivity" only believe themselves having the right to do so because they have a bias for the status quo. This not only unjustly allows them to claim some kind of moral or intellectual high ground, but it also allows them to reject wholesale any and all qualitative evidence they don't agree with as "obviously coming from a place of bias" or from people with an "agenda".

Then you get to say, "Hey, you're rejecting evidence without looking at it! That's not very objective!" You progress, advance knowledge, upset the status quo, not by discarding objectivity but by being better at it.

Keep in mind, too, that claiming "true objectivity does not exist" is what is allowing you to claim some kind of moral and intellectual high ground, right here and right now. It could also very easily allow you to reject wholesale any and all evidence you don't agree with. To be sure, I don't see you doing this at the moment, but then again, I don't see anyone else rejecting evidence out of "objectivity" at the moment either. If you've seen the latter done at other times and places, well, I've seen the former done at other times and places too. And between objectivity and anti-objectivity, one of them contains a commitment to the value of evidence which can serve as a check on unjust rejection, while the other... doesn't.

 

[psychophipps]

If the real problem is that people who claim to be objective aren't, then taking aim at "objectivity" is wildly counterproductive. When somebody says something that is objectively untrue, any commitment to objectivity they profess is an invaluable gift to you. It means that they're obliged to accept in principle that there is a fact of the matter, that they might currently be wrong about it, and that certain rules of evidence can determine whether or not they are. You don't want to reject all that; you want to double down on it.

And if you get to the point where you do think that objectivity itself favors the other side, that's still no reason to question objectivity -- it's reason to question whether you're on the right side. My biggest problem is that most people who reject objectivity do so not out of principle, but because they get to this point but would rather keep arguing than concede. (Not that I think they're being deliberately dishonest, but far more likely to be believing their own lie... )

People will almost always choose an pretty lie over an ugly truth.

The pretty lie most often selected on the internet is, "I'm not acting the fool in this conversation where I'm obviously talking from my hind end to people that study this stuff."

 

[Gradine]

Then you get to say, "Hey, you're rejecting evidence without looking at it! That's not very objective!" You progress, advance knowledge, upset the status quo, not by discarding objectivity but by being better at it.

The problem is that the status quo often is backed by those who get to claim authority (often earned by upsetting and overthrowing the previous status quo) and people resist change strictly for the sake of not having to admit that you, too, were wrong. This process basically seeps into all fields of cultural production*, not just in regards civil rights or human dignity; that's just where that kind of intransigence is the most aggravating and actually damaging to people.

You're still not refuting the point that what is claimed to be "objective" is always the "status quo" until such time as enough evidence to the contrary overwhelms it, or the point that defenders of the status quo wield so-called "objectivity" as a weapon to protect their own agendas, often with the power and authority to get away with it.



*Speaking of, Fields of Cultural Production by Pierre Bourdieu is an excellent book that covers this subject pretty well, and one I'd recommend to anyone who wants to also study this stuff, even the peanut gallery

 

[Zardnaar]

The problem is that the status quo often is backed by those who get to claim authority (often earned by upsetting and overthrowing the previous status quo) and people resist change strictly for the sake of not having to admit that you, too, were wrong. This process basically seeps into all fields of cultural production*, not just in regards civil rights or human dignity; that's just where that kind of intransigence is the most aggravating and actually damaging to people.

You're still not refuting the point that what is claimed to be "objective" is always the "status quo" until such time as enough evidence to the contrary overwhelms it, or the point that defenders of the status quo wield so-called "objectivity" as a weapon to protect their own agendas, often with the power and authority to get away with it.



*Speaking of, Fields of Cultural Production by Pierre Bourdieu is an excellent book that covers this subject pretty well, and one I'd recommend to anyone who wants to also study this stuff, even the peanut gallery

Objectively from a historical PoV you can find plenty of examples where trying to stop change or speed it up have blown up and made things worse and counter productive to whatever the people were actually trying to achieve.

German conservatives giving Austria a blank check to rally the nation around the flag and overthrowing the Tsar would be prime examples of conservatives/progressives dropping the ball and making things worse. Hell you would have had a better outcome in 1914 if everyone stayed at home and had a national lottery to randomly execute 50 000 of your own citizens would have been cheaper and saved lives vs fighting WW1.

Similar theory in USA politics I suppose. If you aggressive push a social engineering agenda you annoy the conservatives and Trump gets elected. Trumps annoying a lot of people the effects of that will be clear in the 2018 mid terms and/or 2020 elections. If you do nothing sure you may not get the change you want (liberal or conservative) as fast as you want, but you don't take a massive step backwards when you get annihilated at the national level in elections (2008 or 2016 same thing really). Can't get progressive laws passed if you're in opposition or lose control of the senate, congress, presidency and the supreme court.

Here we had a right wing government pass the human rights bill covering discrimination against sexuality, a left wing government made prostitution legal and when they got voted out the right wing government left it in place. Having a government that works funny concept that. Sometimes waiting 10 years or doing nothing is the better play IMHO.

 

[psychophipps]

People will almost always choose an pretty lie over and ugly truth.

The pretty lie most often selected on the internet is, "I'm not acting the fool in this conversation where I'm obviously talking from my hind end to people that study this stuff."

And now that I'm not surrounded by kiddos at VBS, I will finish my comments.

1) I'm just as guilty of my post above post as anyone else.

2) Gender is between your ears. Sex is between your legs.

3) The fact that traditional gender roles strongly tend to match with the sex of the person is a societal "happy accident" and has almost nothing to do with biology.

4) If you're talking about your support for something like LGBTQA+ (if I missed some, I'm sorry) and toss in the aforementioned "but" then:
A) Stop right there.
B) Delete what you just typed.
C)Find another thread to add to.