"Gaming in Color", a Kickstarter Documentary on LGBT+ Gaming

[runic knight]

snip

You should assume you are mistaken because you are. in every conceivable capacity. The reason... you know what? NO. I refuse to repeat myself for you again. Everything I could possibly say to you in response I have already said. I'm not playing whatever bull shit game you've been playing again.

You want to have an actual honest debate come talk to me again but if you're just going to keep clinging to a false claim after you've been shown that it's false and exactly why it's false by more than one person forget it. I have plenty of walls in my home to talk to if I were inclined to talk to a wall. I don't need you for that. What's more my walls have sure as hell have never been dishonest with me just to get out of having to admit they made a mistake or misunderstood what someone else said.

So... you don't actually have a rebuttal then? Or you never really did, did you?

I've been more then patient with you in this, so I find your tantrum here rather funny. You've done little more then repeat yourself because that is all you are doing, saying the same thing over and over and yet never addressing what is making my opinion.
Do you address what makes my understanding of how he paints his argument? No, even though I do take the time, every time, to write it out as clearly as I can the steps that lead to the decision. Do you address why, if I was mistaken, he has not explained that mistake after the first misconception rather then defending it for several posts before yours? Do you explain how the quote is out of context regardless the fact it was a direct reply, was defended against and was directly supported several times by him throughout the conversation? No, you call me dishonest and claim "he didn't support that", even though for several posts he argued from a defensive stance that any sane man would have just said "ok, not everyone falls into that" rather then "but the subject matter is why only bigots would ask such questions".

No, instead all you do is keep parroting the names of logical fallacies without showing how they are being done, and keep falling back on that. I back my claims every time, I take the time to make the case behind my logic and it makes it very hard to take you seriously when you refuse to address any of my post and instead just repeat yourself that "well, you are wrong" without explaining why. You know why I put the reasons behind thing? Because I do sort of want to have a discussion. Helps with the whole "help the other person understand your viewpoint". But, I get the feeling you never really cared about the other person's viewpoint to begin with. You certainly don't care about helping someone understand yours.

He is making blanket assumptions about people because they are questioning, based solely on the subject matter. He is assuming malice and bigotry because they question, not in relation to how in the least, and in spite of any argument or claims they have to the contrary. And... you don't care in the slightest because you already made up your mind 5 posts back that I am some evil asshole or something...
-shrug- Well, can't say your conversation was worth replying to most of the time to begin with.

Eh. He strikes me as one of those "Shut up, marginalised person, and let me, the privileged person, tell you what you should be thinking" people. You're never going to get anything productive out of someone like that.

 

[runic knight]

snip

No, I have a rebuttal. But I'm not going to bother because I'm just fucking sick and tired of having to say the same thing over and over and over and over... for a troll who won't listen. You want my rebuttal go read my previous posts, you haven't said anything that changes the situation any or warrants a response that hasn't already been given.

FYI, frustrating people to the point of not wanting to deal with you is NOT the same as being right. This isn't a cage fight, this sort of thing doesn't go by some last man standing rule. were I to never post in this thread again wouldn't change whether or not you are wrong.

I frustrate you because I keep asking the same thing you can't give. Back your claim and dissect my argument. You make claims, which doesn't address my argument. You name fallacies, which doesn't address my argument. You blow hot air and get huffy I don't agree, but you know what? You still don't address my argument. No, claiming fallacies doesn't address anything. No, repeating yourself telling me to reread your posts doesn't address anything.

I've explained as best I can the path I took to get to my conclusion. So far all you have done is said I made a mistake there, yet don't nothing to demonstrate it. Telling me to reread what obviously didn't do it right the first time yet getting all pissy that I just don't get it.
Honestly, it all comes off as rather like you don't know what the hell you are talking about and just keep saying "go back and do it again til you agree with me" isn't going to change that. And you not posting wouldn't change anything, you are right. But you will have not made your case nor proven your point in any way outside to an obviously biased person who already agreed with you. Congratulations, you preached to the choir successfully.

 

[Darken12]

And I was supposed to know you only meant a specific subset of education when you said "education", how exactly...? With that correction, alright, you have a point.

I'll only say that I might be prejudiced against people who choose to remain wilfully ignorant, I suppose.

I considered the fact that documentaries are not like schools to be self-evident. My apologies.

I think we agree on the fact that this documentary is a good thing, that's why this entire thing seems so weird to me.

I get along swimmingly with people who can tolerate that we disagree on something and let it go. If you don't see eye to eye with me, that's perfectly fine. I take issue at people who cannot leave it at that.

in spite of any argument or claims they have to the contrary.

This is your problem. You have this strange idea that you are actually going to get me to change my mind about my own perceptions or my conclusions derived thereof. I do not need your permission or approval to do X or Y. You don't like the way I do things? You don't agree with the judgement calls I make? That's perfectly all right. We don't have to agree about anything whatsoever.

But let me make myself perfectly clear: I am not going to agree with you, ever. I have read your arguments and I do not see merit in them. I am also not interested in debating them. Ajr has demonstrated a boundless patience that I do not possess. This is not going to go anywhere.

I do not know how to tell you this more clearly.

 

[ajr209]

same as the last time and the time before that and the time before that...

I've given you your answers time and time again. That it wasn't the answers you hoped for isn't my problem and I don't have any relationship with you that would lead me to pretend otherwise. You haven't said anything that was worth a new response since I started posting. Why should I keep on writing new responses if you're going to keep saying same things that can easily be responded to by copy pasting my first post? How many times do I have to show that you are wrong and exponentially dumb down my explanation as to why before you are satisfied? What, do you think if you brow beat me enough I tell you what you want to hear just to get you off my back?

I've managed to disprove your claims time and time again and contrary to what you seem to think I don't owe it to you to keep on finding new ways to do it. You can keep blustering and insulting all you like but I still refuse to rewrite the same damn argument from ten posts ago just to have it ignored.

 

[ajr209]

trolling and flaming

That sarcasm of yours is unbecoming and is going to hold you back in life.

There's a phrase that get's tossed around a lot lately and it definitely applies here- The definition of insanity is saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. You want me to give you new responses yet you don't give me anything new to work with. If you keep spouting off the same crap you did a dozen posts ago my responses are just going to be the same as they were a dozen posts ago. Hell, I bet I could just copy paste my fist post repeatedly and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. A big part of the problem on your part seems to be you want something from me I can't give.

Your latest posts raises an interesting question I'd like to pose to you- Why do you want me to give a response if you know it's just going to be the same thing you were completely dismissive of a dozen posts ago?

It can't be that you honestly want to hear what I think (we don't like each other, I doubt you ever respected me and what respect I had for you you pissed away several pages back, when I give you an honest response you latch on to words you don't like and ignore the rest, etc...). You know I'm not going to be brow beaten into lying just so you can hear what you want to. I can't give you new answers because you're just asking the same old questions. There's clearly nothing I could ever say that would be satisfactory to you, your reaction to realizing that I was actually coming from a reasonable place that you understood was to tell me I had no business posting.

I just can't figure out what you think me rehashing what I said at least a dozen times before will accomplish.

 

[Schadrach]

The kickstarter reached funding by the skin of its teeth. Rejoice!

Very much so, even if I'm less enthused by the topic, it's nice to see such a project reach it's goal without resorting to any of the bullshit that have been involved in other "gender issues" related Kickstarters, or ones that have claimed to be.

No need for arguments over whether or not evidence of certain kinds of underhanded tactics are real or just fabrications, nor whether or not "let's rewrite the project page to change the entire premise of the project midway through" is reasonable or justifiable, or any of the other garbage that so often plagues these things. A clean win is a good win in my book.

 

[runic knight]

trolling and flaming

That sarcasm of yours is unbecoming and is going to hold you back in life.

There's a phrase that get's tossed around a lot lately and it definitely applies here- The definition of insanity is saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. You want me to give you new responses yet you don't give me anything new to work with. If you keep spouting off the same crap you did a dozen posts ago my responses are just going to be the same as they were a dozen posts ago. Hell, I bet I could just copy paste my fist post repeatedly and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. A big part of the problem on your part seems to be you want something from me I can't give.

Your latest posts raises an interesting question I'd like to pose to you- Why do you want me to give a response if you know it's just going to be the same thing you were completely dismissive of a dozen posts ago?

It can't be that you honestly want to hear what I think (we don't like each other, I doubt you ever respected me and what respect I had for you you pissed away several pages back, when I give you an honest response you latch on to words you don't like and ignore the rest, etc...). You know I'm not going to be brow beaten into lying just so you can hear what you want to. I can't give you new answers because you're just asking the same old questions. There's clearly nothing I could ever say that would be satisfactory to you, your reaction to realizing that I was actually coming from a reasonable place that you understood was to tell me I had no business posting.

Alright, I had my fun in my sarcastic response to your overly dismissive tones for the last couple posts, so I will level with you here since you did ask a question and didn't merely dismiss everything, well, everything that wasn't going to be dismissed anyways. Unexpected to get that from a post I had assumed would be fully written off with another of the same replies but whatever.

Honestly, I don't understand where I am "mistaken" in you eyes. I do take the time to type out and re-read every reply and try to aim for a general idea of what my point (or counter-point) is, and what logical path I took to get there. Now usually when someone starts to dismiss everything I type out, I write them off pretty quick. You though? I honestly feel more like there is just a hell of a communication issue here rather then something else. I don't know if the response I give every time wasn't clear, but I do care about this conversation enough to keep it going. Granted, it is frustrating, but still. You claim I am mistaken about something and yet I don't quite get why and I certainly don't follow you in your attempts to explain it. Your repeating that you already did it and you don't have to and everything else only add to the frustration in the same way that a bad teacher would with a kid who learns better in a different manner. If you tell someone something in a way they don't get, repeating it in the same way, or telling them to look at it again isn't going to change that. And while I don't like you certainly, I don't hate you, nor outright not respect you. More then happy to play the asshole to try to take the piss out of things though, as I saw, and still do see, your replies as being... nevermind, losing focus.

Point is, I do care about conversations I have and a claim about my opinions, motivations or arguments. I take the time to explain them as best as I can because of that reason and will try repeating them in different ways to make sure I am understood for what I am saying rather then what people what to hear me saying. I suppose I hope other people are as flexible with their own opinions. I do care about what you think the same as anyone else. And to that regard, I am confused and actually want to understand it. Hell, I have asked for other people's opinion on this one even just for a perspective removed from this to see if I missed something.
As for saying you had no business posting, I actually asked why you were arguing with me in the first place. Not to say you couldn't, but merely confusion as to why, if you shared the same reasonable stance I was trying to argue for, why were you arguing against me in a way that seemed to me like you thought I was saying something else.

I don't care if you agree with me. I am pretty sure you wont. I just want to understand why.

 

[Darken12]

Would this be a fair assessment of your stance then? 'I want to believe what I want and I don't have to prove it to you or anyone, even if it is an unfair, prejudiced judgement of someone that I think justifies my treating them differently then people like me.'?

No. You think it's an unfair, prejudiced judgement (that's pretty much the entire reason we were arguing in the first place). Don't project your own biases onto my stance. The first part is fine, though.

 

[ajr209]

trolling and flaming

That sarcasm of yours is unbecoming and is going to hold you back in life.

There's a phrase that get's tossed around a lot lately and it definitely applies here- The definition of insanity is saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. You want me to give you new responses yet you don't give me anything new to work with. If you keep spouting off the same crap you did a dozen posts ago my responses are just going to be the same as they were a dozen posts ago. Hell, I bet I could just copy paste my fist post repeatedly and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. A big part of the problem on your part seems to be you want something from me I can't give.

Your latest posts raises an interesting question I'd like to pose to you- Why do you want me to give a response if you know it's just going to be the same thing you were completely dismissive of a dozen posts ago?

It can't be that you honestly want to hear what I think (we don't like each other, I doubt you ever respected me and what respect I had for you you pissed away several pages back, when I give you an honest response you latch on to words you don't like and ignore the rest, etc...). You know I'm not going to be brow beaten into lying just so you can hear what you want to. I can't give you new answers because you're just asking the same old questions. There's clearly nothing I could ever say that would be satisfactory to you, your reaction to realizing that I was actually coming from a reasonable place that you understood was to tell me I had no business posting.

Alright, I had my fun in my sarcastic response to your overly dismissive tones for the last couple posts, so I will level with you here since you did ask a question and didn't merely dismiss everything, well, everything that wasn't going to be dismissed anyways. Unexpected to get that from a post I had assumed would be fully written off with another of the same replies but whatever.

Honestly, I don't understand where I am "mistaken" in you eyes. I do take the time to type out and re-read every reply and try to aim for a general idea of what my point (or counter-point) is, and what logical path I took to get there. Now usually when someone starts to dismiss everything I type out, I write them off pretty quick. You though? I honestly feel more like there is just a hell of a communication issue here rather then something else. I don't know if the response I give every time wasn't clear, but I do care about this conversation enough to keep it going. Granted, it is frustrating, but still. You claim I am mistaken about something and yet I don't quite get why and I certainly don't follow you in your attempts to explain it. Your repeating that you already did it and you don't have to and everything else only add to the frustration in the same way that a bad teacher would with a kid who learns better in a different manner. If you tell someone something in a way they don't get, repeating it in the same way, or telling them to look at it again isn't going to change that. And while I don't like you certainly, I don't hate you, nor outright not respect you. More then happy to play the asshole to try to take the piss out of things though, as I saw, and still do see, your replies as being... nevermind, losing focus.

Point is, I do care about conversations I have and a claim about my opinions, motivations or arguments. I take the time to explain them as best as I can because of that reason and will try repeating them in different ways to make sure I am understood for what I am saying rather then what people what to hear me saying. I suppose I hope other people are as flexible with their own opinions. I do care about what you think the same as anyone else. And to that regard, I am confused and actually want to understand it. Hell, I have asked for other people's opinion on this one even just for a perspective removed from this to see if I missed something.
As for saying you had no business posting, I actually asked why you were arguing with me in the first place. Not to say you couldn't, but merely confusion as to why, if you shared the same reasonable stance I was trying to argue for, why were you arguing against me in a way that seemed to me like you thought I was saying something else.

I don't care if you agree with me. I am pretty sure you wont. I just want to understand why.

Here's the problem, While you weren't dismissive of everything the things you were dismissive of were the things that actually mattered (when I say you don't "listen" I don't mean you don't hear, it's the difference between paying rapt attention to a song and the story the lyrics are telling and just having the radio on for background noise so you don't have to just listen to the sound of wind while you drive). Without those points there is nothing I could ever say or do that could make a difference.

Its like a a bad student who blames the teacher for their D- when the student was the one who dismissed the important parts of the lesson as being irrelevant to the test. That teacher sat down with that student and repeatedly went over the lesson again and again, being careful to be more plain and clear with each new attempt and told the student that they need to look at the deeper meaning behind the parts of the lesson and how they affect each other, that looking only at the individual pieces and not looking beneath the surface of said pieces would never result in a view of the big picture. But in the end it was all for nothing. Its not that the student was stupid, far from it in fact, but the way they viewed the lesson, despite being advised to view it a different way, ruined any chance of a decent grade on the test right off the bat. The fault didn't lie with the teacher, they did everything they could to get the student to understand. The student blaming the teacher doesn't help anyone and won't change that D- to an A+.

And That's where my frustration lies. I've given all the answers that are within my abilities to give and new answers can't be given until new questions are asked. I've repeated and found new ways to say what I'm trying to but in the end it's all for nothing. What's worse is you aren't dumb, if you were I could have written you off as a lost cause without having posted in the first place. The belief that you have the capacity to understand what I'm saying is what spurred me on in the first place. But that was at least a dozen posts ago and we're right back at where we started. There comes a point where a person just has to throw up their hands and say well I did my best but it didn't work out and there's no point in keeping at it. I could keep at it but in the end the results will be the same.

 

[runic knight]

Here's the problem, While you weren't dismissive of everything the things you were dismissive of were the things that actually mattered (when I say you don't "listen" I don't mean you don't hear, it's the difference between paying rapt attention to a song and the story the lyrics are telling and just having the radio on for background noise so you don't have to just listen to the sound of wind while you drive). Without those points there is nothing I could ever say or do that could make a difference.

Its like a a bad student who blames the teacher for their D- when the student was the one who dismissed the important parts of the lesson as being irrelevant to the test. That teacher sat down with that student and repeatedly went over the lesson again and again, being careful to be more plain and clear with each new attempt and told the student that they need to look at the deeper meaning behind the parts of the lesson and how they affect each other, that looking only at the individual pieces and not looking beneath the surface of said pieces would never result in a view of the big picture. But in the end it was all for nothing. Its not that the student was stupid, far from it in fact, but the way they viewed the lesson, despite being advised to view it a different way, ruined any chance of a decent grade on the test right off the bat. The fault didn't lie with the teacher, they did everything they could to get the student to understand. The student blaming the teacher doesn't help anyone and won't change that D- to an A+.

And That's where my frustration lies. I've given all the answers that are within my abilities to give and new answers can't be given until new questions are asked. I've repeated and found new ways to say what I'm trying to but in the end it's all for nothing. What's worse is you aren't dumb, if you were I could have written you off as a lost cause without having posted in the first place. The belief that you have the capacity to understand what I'm saying is what spurred me on in the first place. But that was at least a dozen posts ago and we're right back at where we started. There comes a point where a person just has to throw up their hands and say well I did my best but it didn't work out and there's no point in keeping at it. I could keep at it but in the end the results will be the same.

Alright, lets try something then. I'll try cutting all the fat from this post to get to the simplest point.

My main beef was, and is with the point that has risen up again with darken. I see his judgement dismissive based in an unfair preconception and his assumption from that preconception to be wrong. I think when he assumes motivations and uses that to justify dismissal of people and labeling as bigotry, it reveals a flawed, hypocritical logic.

Where am I wrong to see someone making a judgement on people asking questions in general, without quantifiers or exceptions mentioned, and presuming those questioning act out of malice or bigotry as wrong. And be able to draw parallels to the mindset of political or ideological divides where someone would make a judgement on people in a group based on religion or political leaning, and presume they act out of malice or bigotry or stupidity or just to claim to know their motivations at all solely on their questions? I know it is wrong when someone assumes of people because they are liberal or atheist or whatever else, so why is it not when, and again, without mentioned any exception and at best with sweeping lumping together with words like "most", when people start asking question about the point or purpose of a kickstarter on a subset of gamers, something that could easily be argued gives even less uniformity and less insight of the person asking then a political or religious group?

If I am mistaken, where is the fault? Is the understanding of the compared here somehow different? Am I somehow not seeing the stance right? And if not, why has there been such a defense of that stance rather then simple rewording?

No. You think it's an unfair, prejudiced judgement (that's pretty much the entire reason we were arguing in the first place). Don't project your own biases onto my stance. The first part is fine, though.

It is a preconception being projected onto people due solely to a characteristic that itself does not determine the perception. That is a bias view. You use that bias to justify treating someone differently, assuming you know their motivations based on one detail, as though you can lump people into a group over that detail and dismiss them or label them. I can't think of anything to call that other then an unfair, prejudiced judgement.

 

[Darken12]

It is a preconception being projected onto people due solely to a characteristic that itself does not determine the perception. That is a bias view. You use that bias to justify treating someone differently, assuming you know their motivations based on one detail, as though you can lump people into a group over that detail and dismiss them or label them. I can't think of anything to call that other then an unfair, prejudiced judgement.

I have repeatedly explained myself. If that's what you get out of it, there's nothing I can do. I cannot think of any new ways of getting you to actually understand the fact that you and I are doing literally the exact same thing (witnessing events and deriving conclusions from the evidence present in those events), only we happen to derive opposite conclusions. Your viewpoint is just as biased as mine. Or unbiased. Or partially biased. Whatever you want to call the process by which people judge other people's intentions based on the way they act. We all do this. Constantly. And I have no idea how to get you to understand this. So believe whatever you want to believe.

 

[ajr209]

Here's the problem, While you weren't dismissive of everything the things you were dismissive of were the things that actually mattered (when I say you don't "listen" I don't mean you don't hear, it's the difference between paying rapt attention to a song and the story the lyrics are telling and just having the radio on for background noise so you don't have to just listen to the sound of wind while you drive). Without those points there is nothing I could ever say or do that could make a difference.

Its like a a bad student who blames the teacher for their D- when the student was the one who dismissed the important parts of the lesson as being irrelevant to the test. That teacher sat down with that student and repeatedly went over the lesson again and again, being careful to be more plain and clear with each new attempt and told the student that they need to look at the deeper meaning behind the parts of the lesson and how they affect each other, that looking only at the individual pieces and not looking beneath the surface of said pieces would never result in a view of the big picture. But in the end it was all for nothing. Its not that the student was stupid, far from it in fact, but the way they viewed the lesson, despite being advised to view it a different way, ruined any chance of a decent grade on the test right off the bat. The fault didn't lie with the teacher, they did everything they could to get the student to understand. The student blaming the teacher doesn't help anyone and won't change that D- to an A+.

And That's where my frustration lies. I've given all the answers that are within my abilities to give and new answers can't be given until new questions are asked. I've repeated and found new ways to say what I'm trying to but in the end it's all for nothing. What's worse is you aren't dumb, if you were I could have written you off as a lost cause without having posted in the first place. The belief that you have the capacity to understand what I'm saying is what spurred me on in the first place. But that was at least a dozen posts ago and we're right back at where we started. There comes a point where a person just has to throw up their hands and say well I did my best but it didn't work out and there's no point in keeping at it. I could keep at it but in the end the results will be the same.

Alright, lets try something then. I'll try cutting all the fat from this post to get to the simplest point.

My main beef was, and is with the point that has risen up again with darken. I see his judgement dismissive based in an unfair preconception and his assumption from that preconception to be wrong. I think when he assumes motivations and uses that to justify dismissal of people and labeling as bigotry, it reveals a flawed, hypocritical logic.

Where am I wrong to see someone making a judgement on people asking questions in general, without quantifiers or exceptions mentioned, and presuming those questioning act out of malice or bigotry as wrong. And be able to draw parallels to the mindset of political or ideological divides where someone would make a judgement on people in a group based on religion or political leaning, and presume they act out of malice or bigotry or stupidity or just to claim to know their motivations at all solely on their questions? I know it is wrong when someone assumes of people because they are liberal or atheist or whatever else, so why is it not when, and again, without mentioned any exception and at best with sweeping lumping together with words like "most", when people start asking question about the point or purpose of a kickstarter on a subset of gamers, something that could easily be argued gives even less uniformity and less insight of the person asking then a political or religious group?

If I am mistaken, where is the fault? Is the understanding of the compared here somehow different? Am I somehow not seeing the stance right? And if not, why has there been such a defense of that stance rather then simple rewording?

No. You think it's an unfair, prejudiced judgement (that's pretty much the entire reason we were arguing in the first place). Don't project your own biases onto my stance. The first part is fine, though.

It is a preconception being projected onto people due solely to a characteristic that itself does not determine the perception. That is a bias view. You use that bias to justify treating someone differently, assuming you know their motivations based on one detail, as though you can lump people into a group over that detail and dismiss them or label them. I can't think of anything to call that other then an unfair, prejudiced judgement.

He was not talking about all who were questioning. Looking back to the first page and a half (and this is why I stress the importance of looking at the situation as a whole and not just the individual parts) people started questioning immediately. Yet for that time he is calm and not accusing anyone of anything, in fact he's thanking people for their support. It wasn't until later that things started to turn ugly. Where you are mistaken is you are coming with the preconception that he is saying that ALL who questioned are bigoted because questioning is bigoted. Were that the truth he would have been reacting badly right off the bat. Who he is talking about are the posters who later came in and used the thread as a platform to express prejudice and used their questions/comments to show their disdain and be dismissive of the subject matter, and really reading it is clear that was their intent as they weren't exactly subtle about it. Had they been subtle you might have a point about preconception on his part but they were pretty straight forward with what they meant. Perhaps "most" is a bit of an exaggeration but that doesn't change that there are people in this thread openly expressing prejudiced views.

I suppose to sum it up the fault lies with your own preconception and not looking past it to consider what you are being presented.

 

[runic knight]

He was not talking about all who were questioning. Looking back to the first page and a half (and this is why I stress the importance of looking at the situation as a whole and not just the individual parts) people started questioning immediately. Yet for that time he is calm and not accusing anyone of anything, in fact he's thanking people for their support. It wasn't until later that things started to turn ugly. Where you are mistaken is you are coming with the preconception that he is saying that ALL who questioned are bigoted because questioning is bigoted. Were that the truth he would have been reacting badly right off the bat. Who he is talking about are the posters who later came in and used the thread as a platform to express prejudice and used their questions/comments to show their disdain and be dismissive of the subject matter, and really reading it is clear that was their intent as they weren't exactly subtle about it. Had they been subtle you might have a point about preconception on his part but they were pretty straight forward with what they meant. Perhaps "most" is a bit of an exaggeration but that doesn't change that there are people in this thread openly expressing prejudiced views.

I suppose to sum it up the fault lies with your own preconception and not looking past it to consider what you are being presented.

I still find fault with assumptions of motivation or prejudices, let alone bigotry, based on people questioning things. I have looked back at the thread, as a whole, and still don't see much in the way of prejudice. Dismissal, questioning, and snark, sure, but nothing that suggested homophobia, bigotry or anything of that nature. Heck, a lot of it seems dismissive based on ideas of the doc being political correctness in nature, or the lack of the point of looking at them specifically when everyone regardless of gender, orientation or whatever else will have to deal with assholes at some point or another. Hardly bigotry or prejudiced behavior, but rather what one would likely expect of any large group that you told were going to make a documentary of a sub-group of.

I do think I understand where you are coming from now more clearly though, and I think I understand where the main difference is. I don't see dismissiveness, snark or questioning the point as a sign of bigotry or prejudice in and of itself, so looking back at the thread, and seeing most opposition opinions being that, I don't see it as such but rather what one would expect given the circumstances, and not based in the subject matter. As such, I think it is a bias that would be required to see such people as bigots and prejudice itself to start treating those people as such based on the presumption that they are because they question or dismiss.
You seem to agree with Darken that their dismissiveness and how they respond are signs of prejudice, thus supports calling and treating them as such. How we define prejudice and bigotry define our stances here and what is required for people to be fitting of those labels seems to be the underlying point of disagreement. I think this will be the point where we have to just disagree then.

I have repeatedly explained myself. If that's what you get out of it, there's nothing I can do. I cannot think of any new ways of getting you to actually understand the fact that you and I are doing literally the exact same thing (witnessing events and deriving conclusions from the evidence present in those events), only we happen to derive opposite conclusions. Your viewpoint is just as biased as mine. Or unbiased. Or partially biased. Whatever you want to call the process by which people judge other people's intentions based on the way they act. We all do this. Constantly. And I have no idea how to get you to understand this. So believe whatever you want to believe.

Everyone has bias, that is fine. I just find fault when this bias is used to justify labeling people with such a negative term as "bigot" because you think you know their motivations. I don't agree that you are applying the term as it is defined, rather, using your bias to justify the use and either counting on or ignoring the way that such labeling can be used as emotional appeal. But it seems we wont reach any agreement here so I will leave it at that.

If either of you wish to reply, I will read them, but probably wont reply anymore myself.

 

[ajr209]

He was not talking about all who were questioning. Looking back to the first page and a half (and this is why I stress the importance of looking at the situation as a whole and not just the individual parts) people started questioning immediately. Yet for that time he is calm and not accusing anyone of anything, in fact he's thanking people for their support. It wasn't until later that things started to turn ugly. Where you are mistaken is you are coming with the preconception that he is saying that ALL who questioned are bigoted because questioning is bigoted. Were that the truth he would have been reacting badly right off the bat. Who he is talking about are the posters who later came in and used the thread as a platform to express prejudice and used their questions/comments to show their disdain and be dismissive of the subject matter, and really reading it is clear that was their intent as they weren't exactly subtle about it. Had they been subtle you might have a point about preconception on his part but they were pretty straight forward with what they meant. Perhaps "most" is a bit of an exaggeration but that doesn't change that there are people in this thread openly expressing prejudiced views.

I suppose to sum it up the fault lies with your own preconception and not looking past it to consider what you are being presented.

I still find fault with assumptions of motivation or prejudices, let alone bigotry, based on people questioning things. I have looked back at the thread, as a whole, and still don't see much in the way of prejudice. Dismissal, questioning, and snark, sure, but nothing that suggested homophobia, bigotry or anything of that nature. Heck, a lot of it seems dismissive based on ideas of the doc being political correctness in nature, or the lack of the point of looking at them specifically when everyone regardless of gender, orientation or whatever else will have to deal with assholes at some point or another. Hardly bigotry or prejudiced behavior, but rather what one would likely expect of any large group that you told were going to make a documentary of a sub-group of.

I do think I understand where you are coming from now more clearly though, and I think I understand where the main difference is. I don't see dismissiveness, snark or questioning the point as a sign of bigotry or prejudice in and of itself, so looking back at the thread, and seeing most opposition opinions being that, I don't see it as such but rather what one would expect given the circumstances, and not based in the subject matter. As such, I think it is a bias that would be required to see such people as bigots and prejudice itself to start treating those people as such based on the presumption that they are because they question or dismiss.
You seem to agree with Darken that their dismissiveness and how they respond are signs of prejudice, thus supports calling and treating them as such. How we define prejudice and bigotry define our stances here and what is required for people to be fitting of those labels seems to be the underlying point of disagreement. I think this will be the point where we have to just disagree then.

I suppose we are going to just have to face the fact that we have different definitions when it comes to this sort of thing and because of that its unlikely either of us is going to say anything that could change each other's stance. Yeah, this is definitely the point where we should agree to disagree.