What is Political and Mod Direction

[Dammit Victor]

"No Politics" is a political stance... feels to me like "everything should be political". I didn't drop out from the other two to find the same thing happening here

I agree. Way I reckon it, everyone else feels the same way.

Thing is, well, "no politics" is a political stance whether we like it or not. Neutrality isn't a bad goal, but neutrality itself isn't politically neutral and pretending that is has the same predictable, inevitable failstates that everyone here agrees we don't want happening here.

 

[Agemegos]

Perhaps instead of a "don't" rule this forum ought to have a "do" rule, such as

• be excellent to each other
• accept that nothing you could post to this forum could have any possible effect on the outcome of the Culture War, the Greenhouse Effect, or the international rise of authoritarian nationalism
• go in peace

Yes, it's political. But everything is political, including doing nothing. And it's not as though anything political about the rules of this forum could have any possible effect on the outcome of the Culture War, the Greenhouse Effect, or the international rise of authoritarian nationalism.

 

[Nobby-W]

[ . . . ]

• accept that nothing you could post to this forum could have any possible effect on the outcome of the Culture War, the Greenhouse Effect, or the international rise of authoritarian nationalism

It seems like there is far more political wrangling about the definition of traditional vs. narrative gaming systems then there is about global geopolitics.

This is in line with the predictions of Nobby's Iron Law of Nonprofits™: The bitchiness of the politics is inversely proportional to what's actually at stake.

 

[TristramEvans]

The reason it doesn't make sense is that you're looking at it backwards-- you're wondering how people can form a whole political identity around a seemingly random grab-bag of "fiscal, economic, and social issues", when the political identity always comes first and people construct (what passes for) their beliefs and their values around that. There's no consistency behind all those random positions... because there doesn't need to be. The positions only exist to service the identity.

That is both very depressing and so very human.

 

[CRKrueger]

This just in, from the Bizarro Universe...

In my experience, there is a slight, but apparent right-wing bias on this board . It's not batshit crazy awful like the rpgsite (although some of the worst there post here as well), but it's there.

 

[TristramEvans]

I agree. Way I reckon it, everyone else feels the same way.

Thing is, well, "no politics" is a political stance whether we like it or not. Neutrality isn't a bad goal, but neutrality itself isn't politically neutral and pretending that is has the same predictable, inevitable failstates that everyone here agrees we don't want happening here.

Maybe instead of "neutral" it's better to look at it as "bi-partisan".

For example, on the whole, both conservatives and liberals aggree that racism is bad. They may disagree on what constitutes as racism, or how prevalent it is, or the solutions to the problem, but ultimately it is a standard across the majority of both sides that racism is a bad thing. Thus, our position here at the Pub that being in favour of racism is not a legtimate or defendable political position and likewise it's not "political" to acknowledge it as bad.

This at the very least draws on what we have in common rather than what divides folks.

 

[CRKrueger]

I think, over time, Brad Pitt has surpassed George Clooney as an actor.

Games Workshop fundamentally broke 40k with the 8th Edition armor system and they've been trying to write themselves out of that hole ever since.

One flaw of the Mythras system is that there is no way to do more than max damage of the weapon. It makes critical hits rely too much on bleed.

All opinions are political opinions, eh?

I can't decide whether that is the biggest load of horseshit I've read in this thread or that this forum leans Right.

 

[AsenRG]

But that's the thing, isn't it? If the statement carries with it an understood political argument, and you're not allowed to respond, that's not really keeping the peace. It's saying you can take shots knowing no one can call you on it.

Personally, in the immediate future, I plan to answer that kind of statements by "that's BS" combined with a report. If it works, well, no reason to feed the polititrolls...

One of the things that does come up this situation is what if someone genuinely doesn't notice the mod warning. I'm inclined to say it's their problem and they should have read the previous posts properly, but that's arguably overly harsh.

...because we all always read all posts before replying?
Yeah, overly harsh is how I view that stance. Better to grant everyone ONE "get out of jail free" card, I would think.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I don't think the GM is blameless in that situation.

...and the repeated mentions of "blame" is what sits badly with me. Blamed? For what I choose to do for entertainment?

I mean, do we also go around blaming all the people that bought "50 shades of grey" and/or "Twilight"? There's most certainly a lot of what would/should be termed "toxic content" in both of these!
And how about some anime genres? No, I don't even mean hentai...
So yeah, until we spread the blame around, I don't plan to justify my decisions* to run Tales of Gor, Maid, or whatever else I like. And if we start assigning blame for that...well, the great leader Kim would certainly approve!
But I wouldn't approve, so anyone who isn't entertained by the same things is simply invited to use the Open Door tool.

*I don't actually run Tales of Gor, nor am I really planning to. Nor does it look likely that I'd run Maid.

If a setting contains Humans, or any species that even remotes thinks like us, it contains Racism, Sexism, Misogyny, etc. Look at every RPG setting that has ever existed....
View attachment 45714
That includes Star Wars and Star Trek.

To point to the Inherent Xism of a setting though, it seems to me at least, to be going that step beyond. It's to push that fact into a label, a label with context, as Tristram said, about the people who wrote it and the people who play it that stems from an ideology we all know far too well and can see being the primary bone of contention or the primary focus of mod enforcement on any board that doesn't say No Politics.

Yeah, conversations about the second case are very key to discussing TTRPGs generally. How do I handle X in setting Y? That sort of thing, or Can setting X work without Y because I don't really want to bring that to my table? I think both are very legitimate conversations that could be had here.

I concur. Both have their time and place...and for Chrissake, if someone states he's looking to do the former, don't tell him or her to do the latter, or vice versa!

As always, it depends on context I think. If there's a thread on Shadowrun and someone comes in to tell people it's a racist setting and nothing else, that's likely to be patronising. If someone asks what people think is core to the Shadowrun setting and someone brings up the racism that's entirely different. It's like if I advise someone looking at playing Maelstrom Beggars to really play up the inherent effects of poverty.

...you don't account for the inherent effects of poverty in your Beggars campaign?!? Wait...

Really? Because if I say Tudor society hated the poor (and they really did) I don't think I'm saying that I hate poor people because I run games where that's a major factor.

It seems I've misunderstood you, then.

The fact that racism might exist in a given setting does make that setting, ipso facto, 'inherently racist' by any definition that would stretch to cover the example(s) at hand. I would imagine that discussing the first is probably fine by board standards, while the second is not.

Yup. Humans naturally favouring those that are like them is...well, more or less a known fact with scientific basis.

I think, over time, Brad Pitt has surpassed George Clooney as an actor.

Games Workshop fundamentally broke 40k with the 8th Edition armor system and they've been trying to write themselves out of that hole ever since.

One flaw of the Mythras system is that there is no way to do more than max damage of the weapon. It makes critical hits rely too much on bleed.

All opinions are political opinions, eh?

I can't decide whether that is the biggest load of horseshit I've read in this thread or that this forum leans Right.

Definitely the former. It's more general.

"No Politics" is a political stance... feels to me like "everything should be political". I didn't drop out from the other two to find the same thing happening here
I just want to discuss games and geek culture, without the extra stress of being misunderstood or interpreted.

Same here.

I agree. Way I reckon it, everyone else feels the same way.

Thing is, well, "no politics" is a political stance whether we like it or not.

No, it's not. That's just a political position that's being pushed by people who want us to see everything through a political lense, so the indoctrination (and self-indoctrination) of their adherents would NEVER, EVER stop or relent.
You know, I lived a very short amount of time under a Communist regime...but I remember* being told "everything must be considered according to the Party line".
And frankly, I don't want to be reminded of this when visiting any forum. Because it not merely upsets me, nay, I'd say it triggers me!


Also, when we talk about stuff like racism upsetting people, why don't we mention other reasons to be upset? For example, there are genuinely upsetting CoC and DG scenarios.
So how comes nobody claims those shouldn't be run? Why is it that somehow, horror fans are given leeway for scenarios and settings involving anything, because that's part of the draw of horror, but fans of historical games are supposed to edit their settings, when getting as close to the authentic setting as possible is a major draw for us?


*My earliest memories date from the age of 2 or 3, from what we can tell. Obviously, that's mostly stuff that had impressed me, so it seems the statement above also has.

 

[Luca]

In my experience, there is a slight, but apparent right-wing bias on this board . It's not batshit crazy awful like the rpgsite (although some of the worst there post here as well), but it's there.

Weird. From where I'm sitting, this board is way too accepting of the left-wing fuckery (and I'd have plenty of objections to define it as "left-wing" actually, but then, I'm from Europe) so pervasive at rpg.net.
Guess the mods must be doing something right after all...

 

[Nobby-W]

Put me in the camp of "No Politics" is a political stance. A explicitly conservative one which supports the status quo. I get that it's to avoid the absolutely gross, toxic behavior seen on therpgsite, and the constant walking on eggshells at rpg.net. IME, the application of the "No Politics" rule has created a different set of eggshells, since it has limited or censored (or made me feel limited and censored) in what I will bring to discussion on the board.

I see the No Politics rule as "avoid controversial subjects." Even if a subject has a true and fact based stance (i.e Global warming is real and man-made. Vaccines are safe and effective. Lovecraft incorrectly saw black people as inferior to whites, and this viewpoint is frequently reflected in his writing. Evolution is settled science.), there is a loud, obnoxious political stance opposed to it.

The other issue I see, is there are posters here who play the "No Politics" rule like a game and intentionally influence discussion on the board in "their" direction, and get away with it. In my experience, there is a slight, but apparent right-wing bias on this board . It's not batshit crazy awful like the rpgsite (although some of the worst there post here as well), but it's there.

This just in, from the Bizarro Universe...

Weird. From where I'm sitting, this board is way too accepting of the left-wing fuckery (and I'd have plenty of objections to define it as "left-wing" actually, but then, I'm from Europe) so pervasive at rpg.net.
Guess the mods must be doing something right after all...

Good lord! An honest-to-god left-vs-right political shit fight! Why on Gods' earth are we arguing this when the existential threat to civilisation is clearly Forge Theory and Storygamers?

 

[Shipyard Locked]

For the record, while I agree with many of the insights in it, I think the current "What's Wrong with Oriental Adventures?" thread is a bad fit for this forum and will set pernicious precedents.

 

[AsenRG]

For the record, while I agree with many of the insights in it, I think the current "What's Wrong with Oriental Adventures?" is a bad fit for this forum and will set pernicious precedents.

...while I disagree strongly. In fact, it was this very thread that gave us ground to believe that discussing OA is fine, and so Dammit Viktor stopped self-censuring.

 

[Dammit Victor]

Maybe instead of "neutral" it's better to look at it as "bi-partisan".

For example, on the whole, both conservatives and liberals aggree that racism is bad. They may disagree on what constitutes as racism, or how prevalent it is, or the solutions to the problem, but ultimately it is a standard across the majority of both sides that racism is a bad thing.

That's... the problem, though. If you and I agree wholeheartedly that racism is the most dangerous and unforgivable evil in human history and that it must be eradicated at all costs... we think we might have that common ground. But if I think racism is 'Adam and Eve, not Florence and the Machine' and you think racism is what the queers are doing to our soil, we're both very confused and that's really the only thing we have in common.

Everyone agrees that white nationalism is bad. Especially the vast majority of people actively, professionally promoting it-- the job of the losers in the brown shirts and white hoods isn't to win the argument, it's to make the ones in the blue suits and red ties look reasonable.

I know that I can't get what I want out of this discussion, because what I want doesn't depend on you, or the rest of the staff, or Endless Flight. You're all reasonable people trying to make this forum a pleasant and productive place for people who produce and consume Midwestern folk art. Most of the posters I interact with here, certainly everyone I can recall by name, are the same. The people on my Ignore List are morons, but even their hearts are in the right place.

I don't want to come here to talk about general politics and morality. I want to talk about Midwestern folk art. But art-- folk art especially-- is not separate from politics and morality and if you look at the themes and the narratives of the games we play and the games we write and design... the vast majority of them are blatantly, screamingly political. Leave the "orc discourse" out of it, Dungeons & Dragons posits an objective morality system that plays favorites in the eternal conflict between "savage" and "civilized" peoples, portrays and comments upon the relationships between wandering mercenaries and "legitimate" authority, and on and on and on and on and on and on. The World of Darkness and Chronicles of Darkness games explicitly identify themselves as "gothic punk" and all of them-- every last one of them-- is a heavy-handed political commentary about some facet of modern society. Shadowrun is made up of a genre of fiction invented to criticize post-industrial capitalism combined with fantasy elements that are blatant (hamhanded, and often misguided) allegories for class privilege, racism, and discrimination against people with chronic communicable diseases.

I'm not going sit here and say some shit like "D&D is inherently racist", but every single RPG I've ever played has been inherently political whether the people I was playing with wanted to focus on those elements or not. Point of fact, the people I've played with for the past decade-- and change-- prefer to keep the political messaging in our games to a minimum; I live in Wyoming, and believe it or not, most of the people I want to break bread or roll dice with on a regular basis hold (at least some) political positions I find inhuman and unjust.

Without hyperbole, I maintain friendships and close family relationships with people who openly advocate policies that violate my most dearly held moral values and that I would-- as a simple factual statement-- rather die than see come to pass.

Fish deny the existence of water. That doesn't mean that water doesn't exist, it means fish are grossly unqualified to have opinions about it.

 

[Stumpydave]

The reason it doesn't make sense is that you're looking at it backwards-- you're wondering how people can form a whole political identity around a seemingly random grab-bag of "fiscal, economic, and social issues", when the political identity always comes first and people construct (what passes for) their beliefs and their values around that. There's no consistency behind all those random positions... because there doesn't need to be. The positions only exist to service the identity.

I disgree with this 1000%.
The way it reads its like saying you pick your side and then make your opinions fit that side.
In my case its the opposite where my values and beliefs find me agreeing with a political standpoint. However, if that political standpoint shifts out of alignment with my beliefs I'll stick to my guns. I certainly won't shift my beliefs to better suit the majority group.

 

[TristramEvans]

For the record, while I agree with many of the insights in it, I think the current "What's Wrong with Oriental Adventures?" is a bad fit for this forum and will set pernicious precedents.

I...don't disagree. I think that and the recent WOTC thread represent a shift in the Overton Window for the board, and it's not one I'm thrilled about. But I recognize that I am more hard-nosed about keeping anything remotely political off the forum than the other mods Hell, I didn't even want us to discuss the Zak controversy here when that happened.

 

[Nobby-W]

I disgree with this 1000%.
The way it reads its like saying you pick your side and then make your opinions fit that side.
In my case its the opposite where my values and beliefs find me agreeing with a political standpoint. However, if that political standpoint shifts out of alignment with my beliefs I'll stick to my guns. I certainly won't shift my beliefs to better suit the majority group.

A lot of people will. The phenomenon is known as The Overton Window and is the primary means that looney ideas get established in a population. I'm sure I don't have to list any obvious examples of this, in either the online elfgame communities or global geopolitics.

 

[Dammit Victor]

For the record, while I agree with many of the insights in it, I think the current "What's Wrong with Oriental Adventures?" is a bad fit for this forum and will set pernicious precedents.

We'll find out. I hope I'm not the only one who learns from it.

 

[TristramEvans]

That's... the problem, though. If you and I agree wholeheartedly that racism is the most dangerous and unforgivable evil in human history and that it must be eradicated at all costs... we think we might have that common ground. But if I think racism is 'Adam and Eve, not Florence and the Machine' and you think racism is what the queers are doing to our soil, we're both very confused and that's really the only thing we have in common.

I am at least very confused by that example.

For the record, racism to me is "making judgements or invoking stereotypes about a person or group based on their race or skin colour".

 

[Dammit Victor]

No, it's not. That's just a political position that's being pushed by people who want us to see everything through a political lense, so the indoctrination (and self-indoctrination) of their adherents would NEVER, EVER stop or relent.

You really don't recognize the ridiculous irony in this statement, do you?

I disgree with this 1000%.
The way it reads its like saying you pick your side and then make your opinions fit that side.

You may not do it that way yourself. You may not want other people to do it that way. But that's how it works.

The vast majority of human beings, the overwhelming majority of human beings, do not have coherent moral principles that inform their political beliefs.

They pick a side and they believe what they think everyone else on their side wants them to believe.

In my case its the opposite where my values and beliefs find me agreeing with a political standpoint. However, if that political standpoint shifts out of alignment with my beliefs I'll stick to my guns. I certainly won't shift my beliefs to better suit the majority group.

I hope this is true. But if it turned out not to be, you wouldn't even realize it had happened.

 

[Dammit Victor]

I am at least very confused by that example.

I thought it was safer than using examples that could possibly be construed as either of our actual positions on the matter.

 

[TristramEvans]

I thought it was safer than using examples that could possibly be construed as either of our actual positions on the matter.

ah, fair enough, makes more sense then

 

[Agemegos]

The phenomenon is known as The Overton Window and is the primary means that looney ideas get established in a population.

In my parlance the Overton window is the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time, the range of acceptable discourse.

 

[TristramEvans]

In my parlance the Overton window is the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time, the range of acceptable discourse.

Yeah, that's how I understand it

 

[Stumpydave]

You really don't recognize the ridiculous irony in this statement, do you?


You may not do it that way yourself. You may not want other people to do it that way. But that's how it works.

The vast majority of human beings, the overwhelming majority of human beings, do not have coherent moral principles that inform their political beliefs.

They pick a side and they believe what they think everyone else on their side wants them to believe.

Nope, can't see it, don't buy it.
If human nature was that blatantly superficial, the UK Labour party wouldn't be tearing itself apart over points of principle. Politicians wouldn't cross the floor or resign if their party took a stance they disagreed with.

I think your posited view of humanity disenfranchises how important people's principles and beliefs are to them. Politics isn't football. You don't pick a side and state "My team, right or wrong."

 

[Stumpydave]

I think the problem isn't so much politics as it is certain peoples inability to accept differing viewpoints or to let their pet crusades lie dormant whilst they talk rubbish about orcs and spells and spaceships.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

As a litmus test, I think this one is good (I think it was either from Bunch or Butcher).

Can I reliably predict your opinion on a whole swathe of political opinions from your post? If so, it's probably an issue.

I say reliably because on the handful of times someone's tried to guess my wider politics on here it's always been really funny quite how much they get wrong.

 

[Torque2100]

Something that I really think needs to be said is that the "No Politics" rule on this and a few other small, intimate communities I frequent is about more than just the surface level politics. It's about keeping out a whole suite of nasty, toxic behaviors that tend to accompany online political discourse.

So much online discourse is done through fallacious Motte and Bailey arguments. That is something you've probably seen on The Big Purple or The Bird App. It's when a person takes two arguments that are very different but tangentially related and purposefully conflates them so they can use the reasonable and mundane statement to advance something ridiculous that most people would find objectionable.

This is to say nothing of the Reverse Motte and Bailey, where a perfectly reasonable statement is used to try and trap the speaker into defending an objectionable viewpoint and to imply the speaker is a Nazi/Commie/Racist/etc.

These fallacies are utterly exhausting to argue against, so discussions tend to degenerate into name-calling.

I think banning politics to avoid these behaviors is perfectly reasonable.

 

[AsenRG]

You really don't recognize the ridiculous irony in this statement, do you?

There's no irony. You're assuming that the opposite of a political position is also political. But I'm not taking the position that the other side is right, my position is that this political stance makes no sense.

Rejecting a ridiculous statement that someone wants me to believe in for his or her own political gains is not political, just as (as per the official mod ruling) rejecting nazism isn't political, either.

The opposite of such politics is just common sense!

I think the problem isn't so much politics as it is certain peoples inability to accept differing viewpoints or to let their pet crusades lie dormant whilst they talk rubbish about orcs and spells and spaceships.

Yup, though you missed the gunporn!

As a litmus test, I think this one is good (I think it was either from Bunch or Butcher).

Can I reliably predict your opinion on a whole swathe of political opinions from your post? If so, it's probably an issue.

I say reliably because on the handful of times someone's tried to guess my wider politics on here it's always been really funny quite how much they get wrong.

Funny, that...
So can you?

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

And yeah, I wouldn't *necessarily* have thought the OA thread was a good idea. But I'm not sure how to handle that, unless you declare the very subject of OA off limits and I don't really like that either as a solution.

 

[JamesV]

I don't go to Five Guys Burger and Fries to fix my driveway, and I don't come to the Pub for its scintillating or raucous political debate.

 

[Torque2100]

This is really where the rubber hits the road. Some people might just mean taking it down a notch when it comes to how shitty people were a thousand years ago. But, marking a setting as "Inherently Racist" is doing more than that. To a lot of people it's branding it, calling it tainted, something that Good People don't play. If you want to see actual proof of this, you don't have to go very far.

CRKrueger is right about this and this is where the discussion turns into a Motte and Bailey.

The Motte: "Racism, Sexism and Classism are bad"

The Bailey: "If you write a campaign setting featuring racism, classism or sexism you are endorsing these things. Settings that feature any of the above, even if it's to point to these things and say 'this is bad' are inherently evil, tainted, Good People do not play them. They should be banned and burned out of existence. If you participate in these games I have designated as evil in any way, you are a bad person."

Maybe it's projection, but these sorts of fallacious arguments have been the standard on other forums for almost 2 decades at this point. It's made me and many other people hyper-sensitive to certain words (EG "Woke", "problematic," "colonialist," Any sort of "-ism") that in our experience, indicate that one of these motte and baileys is incoming.

 

[AsenRG]

CRKrueger is right about this and this is where the discussion turns into a Motte and Bailey.

The Motte: "Racism, Sexism and Classism are bad"

The Bailey: "If you write a campaign setting featuring racism, classism or sexism you are endorsing these things. Settings that feature any of the above, even if it's to point to these things and say 'this is bad' are inherently evil, tainted, Good People do not play them. They should be banned and burned out of existence. If you participate in these games I have designated as evil in any way, you are a bad person."

Maybe it's projection, but these sorts of fallacious arguments have been the standard on other forums for almost 2 decades at this point. It's made me and many other people hyper-sensitive to certain words that in our experience, indicate that one of these motte and baileys is incoming.

Yeah, this.

And yeah, I wouldn't *necessarily* have thought the OA thread was a good idea. But I'm not sure how to handle that, unless you declare the very subject of OA off limits and I don't really like that either as a solution.

Why? What's wrong with identifying what was wrong with one of the first attempts to make an East Asia-themed game and how to do better when running our own games inspired by the same setting (i.e. Ancient Asia)? I'd figure this is one of the questions that should very much be discussed on this forum!

 

[Dammit Victor]

There's no irony. You're assuming that the opposite of a political position is also political. But I'm not taking the position that the other side is right, my position is that this political stance makes no sense.

There is no such thing as the "opposite of political". The irony lies in the fact that you're accusing people of viewing the world through a "politicized" lens for the benefit of an unspecified political agenda, on the basis of your childhood experience with and (legit) repudiation of an authoritarian regime-- and somehow you are capable of claiming that your stance and your promotion of it is apolitical.

It's adorable. I've got a jar of cheese marshmallows if you know any other tricks.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Yeah, this.

Why? What's wrong with identifying what was wrong with one of the first attempts to make an East Asia-themed game and how to do better when running our own games inspired by the same setting (i.e. Ancient Asia)? I'd figure this is one of the questions that should very much be discussed on this forum!

Because it is a specific product that has political debate surrounding it.

This is, at least in my view, what implementing Kruger's preferred hardline on politics would require. You'd need to start cracking down on anything with a sizeable chance of stirring political debate.

 

[Dammit Victor]

It's adorable. I've got a jar of cheese marshmallows if you know any other tricks.

AsenRG -- I'd like to apologize for this last line. Uncalled for and unbefitting of our friendship.

 

[CRKrueger]

In my parlance the Overton window is the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time, the range of acceptable discourse.

Yeah, that's how I understand it

Nobby's talking about shifting the Overton Window.
To succeed as a politician, politician must promote policy within the Window.
To effect social or political change, one must shift the Overton Window.
You can do this by espousing extreme ideas, which, if held long enough, make the extreme seem normal, among other ways.

 

[Fenris-77]

I like to open the Overton Window in the afternoon to let in a nice breeze, and possibly spend some time drinking a nice cup of tea with my elbows on the sill watching the world go by.

 

[AsenRG]

There is no such thing as the "opposite of political".

That is, frankly, bullshit of the highest order. Krueger gave you opinions that aren't political. I can give you others. I'd note you're not responding to him, though...
The opposite of political is the rejection of all politics and ideologies and going by common sense.

The irony lies in the fact that you're accusing people of viewing the world through a "politicized" lens for the benefit of an unspecified political agenda, on the basis of your childhood experience with and (legit) repudiation of an authoritarian regime-- and somehow you are capable of claiming that your stance and your promotion of it is apolitical.

No, on the basis of childhood experience backed up by university education in politics and having watched in real time where accepting the bullshit line that "everything is political" took another forum. These things matter.
Show of hands, people...how many of us know each other since TBP, and how many didn't leave or were made to leave because of its increasing politicisation?

It's adorable. I've got a jar of cheese marshmallows if you know any other tricks.

Also, kindly knock off the condescending tone, please!
Or else, as an Oriental Adventures character would say, "don't blame me if I respond in kind".

AsenRG -- I'd like to apologize for this last line. Uncalled for and unbefitting of our friendship.

Apology accepted - but keep in mind the warning (which I posted before seeing your follow-up post).

Because it is a specific product that has political debate surrounding it.

This is, at least in my view, what implementing Kruger's preferred hardline on politics would require. You'd need to start cracking down on anything with a sizeable chance of stirring political debate.

Great, but according to the "everything is political" BS every debate is political as well, so we could as well close the forum.
Second, I'm not sure that banning the discussion of any and all products mired in controversy is desirable. I mean, the more Twitter is twittering, the less of a playing field would remain for debate here... and why should we leave politics to define what we can and cannot discuss? By the power of SWO, that sure sounds like the opposite of the purpose of the "no politics" rule!

 

[Baulderstone]

As a non-American, one of the perks of the No Politics Rule is not having to hear Americans bicker about their politics everywhere in my life. I think that's a reason this forum has such a strong international base. As others have said, even for people that label themselves as liberal or conservative, the labels mean different things around the world.

I swear, it's like trying to enjoy a meal with an old, bitter couple arguing at the next table.

I agree. Way I reckon it, everyone else feels the same way.

Thing is, well, "no politics" is a political stance whether we like it or not. Neutrality isn't a bad goal, but neutrality itself isn't politically neutral and pretending that is has the same predictable, inevitable failstates that everyone here agrees we don't want happening here.

I'm not "pretending" anything. I think this whole line of argument is sophistry. Most people who come here instinctively understand the value of a place to to talk about games without dragging in other bullshit. It's not like posting here means I don't spend the rest of my time on the Internet wading through the political open sewers. I'm still hearing everyone's knee-jerk propaganda. I just have a place to go for respite.

It seems like there is far more political wrangling about the definition of traditional vs. narrative gaming systems then there is about global geopolitics.

This is in line with the predictions of Nobby's Iron Law of Nonprofits™: The bitchiness of the politics is inversely proportional to what's actually at stake.

That's a good opening for something I wanted to bring up: politics isn't all about government. I also hate the "scene" politics of the RPG community. As someone that like a wide variety of games, it's annoying to have people try and form cliques and identify enemies based on their taste in games.

I think Nobby-W is right that it's a bigger obstacle to good discussion on an RPG forum than debate over who the next president of the United States will be.

CRKrueger is right about this and this is where the discussion turns into a Motte and Bailey.

The Motte: "Racism, Sexism and Classism are bad"

The Bailey: "If you write a campaign setting featuring racism, classism or sexism you are endorsing these things. Settings that feature any of the above, even if it's to point to these things and say 'this is bad' are inherently evil, tainted, Good People do not play them. They should be banned and burned out of existence. If you participate in these games I have designated as evil in any way, you are a bad person."

Maybe it's projection, but these sorts of fallacious arguments have been the standard on other forums for almost 2 decades at this point. It's made me and many other people hyper-sensitive to certain words (EG "Woke", "problematic," "colonialist," Any sort of "-ism") that in our experience, indicate that one of these motte and baileys is incoming.

As I said in my earlier post, that's where I draw the line on being too political. You can say a setting is racist. You can't say someone is racist for liking a setting. Hell, WFRP is one of my favorite games, and it has inherent racism baked into the animosity rules. Is it racist to like the game. Definitely not. The game is poking a stick in the eye of racism by including it.

Because it is a specific product that has political debate surrounding it.

This is, at least in my view, what implementing Kruger's preferred hardline on politics would require. You'd need to start cracking down on anything with a sizeable chance of stirring political debate.

Yeah, if we get to a point where we are cracking down on banned phrases and the like, I am done here. That just lead to the noob trap at rpg.net where someone walks in, uses a word and gets a ban and a lecture.

I'm fine breaking up fights, but I don't want to form a Precrime Division to stop them before they start.

 

[CRKrueger]

Because it is a specific product that has political debate surrounding it.

This is, at least in my view, what implementing Kruger's preferred hardline on politics would require. You'd need to start cracking down on anything with a sizeable chance of stirring political debate.

Yeah, not calling Tolkien a racist because of his "Jewish" Dwarves, or not branding a game or setting Inherently "ist". That's walking on eggshells?

We have, on a "No Politics" board, right now, a discussion going on as to whether Kwan's criticisms are valid. What's next, an analysis of the Tetsubo affair? An actual, open discussion of the comic book industry?

Tristram's right, this is a massive Overton shift on the board, the kind of thing I've been telling you guys to watch out for ever since the No Politics rule went into place. That rule keeps getting hit again, and again, and again, and now calling a game Inherently Racist is OK and "Gee, doesn't Kwan have a point?"