Marvel's Retailer Breakfast falls off the rails 0

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

4 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

You like to tread water in semantics, so I will do the same. That was a response to one of your comments. Not all in general.

Thanks for pointing this out. I have a friend who likes to do the same in political arguments we have. While I think that RMA often has very good logical arguments, sometimes being selective about the meanings of words makes it seem like he has a decent argument, rather than being a good arguer.

[RockMyAmadeus]

8 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Not in this thread; I'm thinking back to some older threads. The Batgirl/Joker cover comes to mind; fanboys throwing a fit because a cover was pulled. There were others around that time as well (the Manara Spider-woman cover, probably others I'm forgetting).

SJW is a derogatory term used to lump together all of those who call out social injustice. There is a tiny tiny portion of that group that is unreasonable, but it's clear the intention is to make that portion represent the whole by lumping everyone together. Not necessarily on these boards, but certainly elsewhere.

I use the word "seem," because you can't always gauge with 100% accuracy by someone's comments on the internet. 

Without specific examples...not just specific situations...I have no way of knowing whether your contention....that "it seems like the people making the accusations of others being "snowflakes" are, themselves, the ones being the most emotional" (obviously paraphrased)...is valid. How does "fanboys throwing a fit because a cover was pulled" have anything to do with this discussion? Are you suggesting there's hypocrisy, that people tell others not to react emotionally, while they, themselves, react emotionally? You get zero argument from me. 

But how does that specifically relate to this discussion, and more specifically, the participants in this discussion...? Since it was said in response to me, do you have a specific example where I accused someone of being a "snowflake", while I, myself, was offended at something that wasn't personally directed at me...?

After all, the fact that you use the word "seem" indicates that you aren't really sure yourself, and yet, there ARE objective contextual clues as to what someone's state of mind is when they post on the internet. Sometimes it's clear as crystal, other times as mud, but that doesn't mean it's always unfathomable. So are those people really the ones being "the most emotional/offended", or is it just your perception that they are?

Without specific examples, no one can say. We're getting into the weeds, here, but it highlights the importance of not making casual analogies in discussions like this.

What does "social injustice" mean, to you...? 

And "a tiny, tiny" portion...? I'm afraid we'll have to disagree about that. 

 

[ygogolak]

1 minute ago, FairBall said:

Hey there, in the spirit of fairness I want to let you know this thread is being discussed here:

http://www.thecomicbookforum.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3160&p=30915#p30915

You might have to sign up to read it since it's hidden, but it might be worth it. The Mods don't bother you there and you won't be banned for having the kind of discussion you wish you could have on this board. Very cool place to have heated discussions without fear of ramifications.

Sounds like a place for trolls to fester. There is no fear of moderator action here unless it's deserved.

[RockMyAmadeus]

20 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

You like to tread water in semantics, so I will do the same. That was a response to one of your comments. Not all in general.

No, I like to get to the roots of matters, in environments where frank discussion is frequently not allowed. 

"There's nothing intelligent enough to respond to" is nothing but a swipe. It was wholly unnecessary, did nothing to advance the discussion, and was said solely because you're annoyed by what I said, so you decided to get a little jab in. Let's not pretend otherwise; doing that IS treading water in semantics. The fact is, the comment was perfectly intelligent enough to respond to, since it's the same thing I've been saying for multiple posts, but you don't have a response, so...here we are.

Deflecting is not proper debate. It's a TACTIC, for sure...but it's not proper debate. 

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Without specific examples...not just specific situations...I have no way of knowing whether your contention....that "it seems like the people making the accusations of others being "snowflakes" are, themselves, the ones being the most emotional" (obviously paraphrased)...is valid. How does "fanboys throwing a fit because a cover was pulled" have anything to do with this discussion? Are you suggesting there's hypocrisy, that people tell others not to react emotionally, while they, themselves, react emotionally? You get zero argument from me. 

But how does that specifically relate to this discussion, and more specifically, the participants in this discussion...? Since it was said in response to me, do you have a specific example where I accused someone of being a "snowflake", while I, myself, was offended at something that wasn't personally directed at me...?

After all, the fact that you use the word "seem" indicates that you aren't really sure yourself, and yet, there ARE objective contextual clues as to what someone's state of mind is when they post on the internet. Sometimes it's clear as crystal, other times as mud, but that doesn't mean it's always unfathomable. So are those people really the ones being "the most emotional/offended", or is it just your perception that they are?

Without specific examples, no one can say. We're getting into the weeds, here, but it highlights the importance of not making casual analogies in discussions like this.

What does "social injustice" mean, to you...? 

And "a tiny, tiny" portion...? I'm afraid we'll have to disagree about that. 

I don't have the time to go back to those previous threads and look for more concrete examples. I remember from reading them at the time indicated that my take is correct. Don't know if you made any of the comments I'm referring to, and wasn't suggesting you did. It relates to this discussion because they're decent examples of the difference between being offended and finding something offensive (i.e. emotion vs. reason). If we are to take comments in those threads at face value, then you can drop "seem" from my previous comment if you so desire.

Not going to get into my meaning of "social justice" because I'm not looking to buy myself a vacation from the board.

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

Sounds like a place for trolls to fester. There is no fear of moderator action here unless it's deserved.

No moderator is without bias. Moderators are human, too. Holding them to a standard of perfection is unfair to them, and creates unreasonable expectations in others.

In other words: it's manifestly silly to claim that moderation action has only happened when it was deserved.

[ygogolak]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No moderator is without bias. Moderators are human, too. Holding them to a standard of perfection is unfair to them, and creates unreasonable expectations in others.

In other words: it's manifestly silly to claim that moderation action has only happened when it was deserved.

Pretty obvious who has the grudge here. Responding to comments not directed at you and promoting other forums.

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I don't have the time to go back to those previous threads and look for more concrete examples. I remember from reading them at the time indicated that my take is correct. Don't know if you made any of the comments I'm referring to, and wasn't suggesting you did. It relates to this discussion because they're decent examples of the difference between being offended and finding something offensive (i.e. emotion vs. reason). If we are to take comments in those threads at face value, then you can drop "seem" from my previous comment if you so desire.

Not going to get into my meaning of "social justice" because I'm not looking to buy myself a vacation from the board.

Not trying to be unreasonable with you, here, but if you don't have the time to prove your claims, why make them...?

Is everyone reading this just supposed to take your word that they're "decent examples of the difference between being offended and finding something offensive" (which is NOT your original contention, which is that the people accusing others of being "snowflakes" for being offended are the ones who, in your perspective, seem to be the most offended)...?

And, if they're not relevant to this particular discussion, why bring it up, and try to tie it into this discussion...? I don't see anyone calling people snowflakes, while being offended themselves, here.

As to your definition of "social justice"...why would you be afraid to discuss it? Is it offensive? 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No moderator is without bias. Moderators are human, too. Holding them to a standard of perfection is unfair to them, and creates unreasonable expectations in others.

In other words: it's manifestly silly to claim that moderation action has only happened when it was deserved.

Pretty obvious who has the grudge here. Responding to comments not directed at you and promoting other forums.

Um...huh? What are you referring to, here...?

[RockMyAmadeus]

31 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

38 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

You like to tread water in semantics, so I will do the same. That was a response to one of your comments. Not all in general.

Thanks for pointing this out. I have a friend who likes to do the same in political arguments we have. While I think that RMA often has very good logical arguments, sometimes being selective about the meanings of words makes it seem like he has a decent argument, rather than being a good arguer.

Why is this comment necessary...? If you have a counterargument, make it. Otherwise, none of this is necessary.

Let's stick to the discussion, folks, and not the people in it.

[ygogolak]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Um...huh? What are you referring to, here...?

1 minute ago, FairBall said:

Was this meant for me?

 

Getting a lot of mileage out of these emoji's today.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Why is this comment necessary...? If you have a counterargument, make it. Otherwise, none of this is necessary.

Let's stick to the discussion, folks, and not the people in it.

Why did you bother with your comment about deflecting? Much like that comment, this was about tactics in arguing.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

12 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Not trying to be unreasonable with you, here, but if you don't have the time to prove your claims, why make them...?

Is everyone reading this just supposed to take your word that they're "decent examples of the difference between being offended and finding something offensive" (which is NOT your original contention, which is that the people accusing others of being "snowflakes" for being offended are the ones who, in your perspective, seem to be the most offended)...?

And, if they're not relevant to this particular discussion, why bring it up, and try to tie it into this discussion...? I don't see anyone calling people snowflakes, while being offended themselves, here.

As to your definition of "social justice"...why would you be afraid to discuss it? Is it offensive? 

 

This isn't a court case; I'm not obligated to prevent evidence. People are free to go and seek out those threads, if they have the time and care to take a look at it from a different perspective. The bonus there is that there's no chance of it being selectively filtered by me.

Not afraid to discuss, but expanding on one's definition of "social justice" would probably be construed as political arguments, which are banned on this board. Passing is a practical decision.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Choosing to be "hateful" (not the word I used, but whatever…) suggests to me a choice to follow through with an action. But "hatred" (the word I actually used) is an emotional reaction, not a choice.

The word you used is "hatred." "Hateful" is the state of having hatred, just like "afraid" is the state of having fear. I'm following the rules of syntax, not changing your words to mean other than what you meant.

And no, "hatred" and being "hateful" is not an emotional reaction; it is a state of being. "Revulsion" would be an emotional reaction; "hatred" is a conscious decision, spanning time. "Hate" is NOT an emotion. Fear is an emotion, anger is an emotion, sadness is an emotion, happiness is an emotion, surprise is an emotion..."hate" is not.

1 hour ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I think my response above covers this, but yes. Being the target of an offensive comment is going to resonate with the target in a way that it won't with someone who is not the target of the comment. But the person who is not the target can still recognize how inappropriate a comment will be, even without that emotional reaction. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept.

Yes, and you're making my point: if someone has control over their emotions, it will not "resonate" no matter what it is.

If you say "I think bald people are stupid, and shouldn't have the same rights as people with hair!" am I going to be offended? After all, I'M bald, and I didn't have any choice in the matter. 

No, I'm not going to be offended, because it's a stupid thing to say. And if I can choose to be offended, I can also choose to be NOT offended.

However...if someone says to ME, PERSONALLY "Hey, Baldy, nice haircut!"...will I be offended? After all, now it's personally directed AT ME. But the odds are pretty good I won't be, because 1. I'm bald; 2. I had no choice in the matter; 3. being bald has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my talents, abilities, character, personality, or value as a human being.

As an aside: "I don't see why this is such a difficult concept" is something that people say when they're irritated and frustrated that someone else doesn't agree with them. Frequently, when these discussions go "off the rails" themselves, some effect down the line is usually pointed to and someone says "SEE!!! SO AND SO ALWAYS DOES THIS!!!", when it was actually comments like "I don't see why this is such a difficult concept" where it really starts. 

And in no way am I pretending that I have always been above such comments; I'm just as guilty as others. I only wish that they weren't ignored by people who make the decisions about where things actually went off track. 

There's absolutely nothing difficult to understand about what you're saying: I simply don't agree with it. I can disagree with you, and not treat you like you're a dummy who can't comprehend what I'm saying in the process. You ought to be able to do the same, no...?

Edited October 14, 2017 by RockMyAmadeus
Syntax!

[RockMyAmadeus]

16 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

This isn't a court case; I'm not obligated to prevent evidence. People are free to go and seek out those threads, if they have the time and care to take a look at it from a different perspective. The bonus there is that there's no chance of it being selectively filtered by me.

Not afraid to discuss, but expanding on one's definition of "social justice" would probably be construed as political arguments, which are banned on this board. Passing is a practical decision.

I think you mean you're not obligated to PROVIDE, not PREVENT, evidence. In any event, the "rules" for debate were established thousands of years ago, and remain the same: the burden of proof, in court or in life, is on the claimant. If you're not willing to prove the claim...and that's perfectly within your rights to refuse to do so...your claim should be understood in that light, and given the weight it is due in such a circumstance.

I don't think the term "social justice" is necessarily political, but if you can't discuss it without being political (and this entire thread has been political, just not "capital P" political) then by all means, you shouldn't discuss it. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Of your first statement, I have no doubt. Do you recognize, however, that your definition of "advancing" and that of others may not be the same? And that your definition of "treating people as equals" and that of others also may not be the same? What type of "equality" are you talking about? Should I treat the ignorant the same way I treat the wise? Should I treat the journeyman the same way I treat the novice? Should I treat the young the same way I treat the old? Should I treat the talented the same way I treat those without? Without definitions, "treat each others (sic) as equals" has no meaning.

Do you mean equals in outcome, or equals in opportunity?

As to your second statement, I disagree entirely. Ignoring something that is offensive for the sake of being offensive is wisdom.

I can't speak for ygogolak, but on the point of treating people equally, I'm in the camp that that applies to opportunity, to aspects which one has no control over. But equality of opportunity doesn't necessarily mean treating people exactly the same, as we all have different starting point in life. But to dive into that any further would probably get all of this removed as political commentary, so I'm going to stop there.

As for your point about ignoring something that is offensive for the sake of being offensive: if everyone does that, then sure, that might be wise. But if there are people that are legitimately offended by something, to not call out that the source if being offensive is anything but wise, I think. Ignoring it is giving them power.

Ignoring something gives it power...?

Really...?

Interesting perspective. We'll have to disagree on that point, too.

What does "legitimately offended" mean? Are we EVER "legitimately offended" on our own behalf...?

[fastballspecial]

This thread has gone off the rails lol.

 

[ygogolak]

3 minutes ago, fastballspecial said:

This thread has gone off the rails lol.

 

Yes, who started this thread anyway?!

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

6 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The word you used is "hatred." "Hateful" is the state of having hatred, just like "afraid" is the state of having fear. I'm following the rules of syntax, not changing your words to mean other than what you meant.

And no, "hatred" and being "hateful" is not an emotional reaction; it is a state of being. "Revulsion" would be an emotional reaction; "hatred" is a conscious decision, spanning time. "Hate" is NOT an emotion. Fear is an emotion, anger is an emotion, sadness is an emotion, happiness is an emotion, surprise is an emotion..."hate" is not.

Yes, and you're making my point: if someone has control over their emotions, it will not "resonate" no matter what it is.

If you say "I think bald people are stupid, and shouldn't have the same rights as people with hair!" am I going to be offended? After all, I'M bald, and I didn't have any choice in the matter. 

No, I'm not going to be offended, because it's a stupid thing to say. And if I can choose to be offended, I can also choose to be NOT offended.

However...if someone says to ME, PERSONALLY "Hey, Baldy, nice haircut!"...will I be offended? After all, now it's personally directed AT ME. But the odds are pretty good I won't be, because 1. I'm bald; 2. I had no choice in the matter; 3. being bald has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my talents, abilities, character, personality, or value as a human being.

As an aside: "I don't see why this is such a difficult concept" is something that people say when they're irritated and frustrated that someone else doesn't agree with them. Frequently, when these discussions go "off the rails" themselves, some effect down the line is usually pointed to and someone says "SEE!!! SO AND SO ALWAYS DOES THIS!!!", when it was really comments like "I don't see why this is such a difficult concept" is where it really starts. 

And in no way am I pretending that I have always been above such comments; I'm just as guilty as others. I only wish that they weren't ignored by people who make the decisions about where things actually went off track. 

There's absolutely nothing difficult to understand about what you're saying: I simply don't agree with it. I can disagree with you, and not treat you like you're a dummy who can't comprehend what I'm saying in the process. You ought to be able to do the same, no...?

If you like, you can swap in any of those other emotions you mentioned for "hatred" in my earlier comment. It's not "hatred" that's important in this case; it's that the emotional reaction is not a choice (even if how one reacts to them is)

Maybe you're wired in such a way that things don't easily affect you on an emotional level. Most people aren't wired that way. If I could choose to be happy all of the time, I'd easily make that choice. But your emotional state is affected by the circumstances of your life, not by choice.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

7 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I think you mean you're not obligated to PROVIDE, not PREVENT, evidence. In any event, the "rules" for debate were established thousands of years ago, and remain the same: the burden of proof, in court or in life, is on the claimant. If you're not willing to prove the claim...and that's perfectly within your rights to refuse to do so...your claim should be understood in that light, and given the weight it is due in such a circumstance.

I don't think the term "social justice" is necessarily political, but if you can't discuss it without being political (and this entire thread has been political, just not "capital P" political) then by all means, you shouldn't discuss it. 

You're correct, "provide," not "prevent." but I did provide as an example previous threads, even if I did not cherry pick them. They're out there, if people should choose to look into them.