Just Chatting
The Blind Eternities forum
Posted on Oct. 31, 2014, 11:52 p.m. by Femme_Fatale
A place for the wondrous population of T/O to exercise their weirdness in common chat and not even realize that it is weird :D
elpokitolama says... #2
AAAARGH I'M BEING NOTIFIED ON TO FRONTS AT OOOOOOONCE
Too much for my small brain. >(@-@>)"
February 28, 2015 3:39 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #4
This thread is like that.
And then we go back to things like this: 
February 28, 2015 3:51 p.m.
grumbledore says... #5
i could literally watch videos of goat screaming on youtube for hours. in fact, i have done exactly that!
February 28, 2015 3:53 p.m.
I know your views and Im well aware of your arguments. What Im saying is, we both live in countries where disparaging comments can result in arrest. Therefore the state has deemed that if any individual feels a comment made about them or to them is threatening / disparaging etc they can take legal action IF THEY WISH TO. Surely then the state is saying that criticism or disparaging comments that are UNWANTED are illegal and therefore to take it one step further - certain types of speech require consent. If I don't get consent to make a disparaging comment then I can be arrested. How do you view that progression? I don't see it as at all relevant that it's retroactive, the behaviour is still illegal and therefore not protected. I realise it's not prohibition in that sometimes this behaviour is warranted but again it all comes down to whether the individual feels threatened or not. It seems that consent is important.
I like that in pragraph 3 you say that nobody has the right to not be offended but again seem to forget that harassment is a thing. Intentional, repeated offensive messages or actions that result in upset are not protected by law. They are covered by harassment. I very much have the right to not be offended if I don't want to be. Unfortunately I still have to suffer the course of the upset and then seek action afterwards but it's still absolutely in my right to seek action for offense caused by others.
Regarding my second paragraph I think my standard of English is getting in the way at the moment. My point wasn't that we challenge racist ideals. Racist people are still racist. My point was that we challenged the manifestations of racism. My second sentence of that paragraph is poor. Yet I still maintain that the line is clear between personal belief and voicing or demonstrating it. That was poorly written though.
Ultimately I understand your view but I think it's ideological, not pragmatic. Absolute free speech is not protected. Arrests are made on the basis of offence. I mean, Internet trolls have been jailed. It doesn't seem to be clearer that derogatory speech and behaviour requires consent or isn't protected. I absolutely do have the right to not be offended and consent does seem to be important in deciding what is harassment and what isn't. Current events seem to support this view. I feel that you argue in favour of something that doesn't actually exist in any nation currently, and therefore your ideals aren't so relevant because they're not having an impact in the real world, at this moment. Regarding the original topic in displaying erotic material, we know that in practice if repeated sexual behaviours are displayed towards an individual that makes them uncomfortable this is something that legal action can be taken about. It'd be a long and boring case but it does skirt the bounds of decency. Perhaps you're right about the way things should be, but as it stands I don't think the world reflects this view.
February 28, 2015 3:55 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #7
Guessing you liked that Discover commercial. Link
February 28, 2015 3:56 p.m.
Whatever guys. Typing on iPad is bad and I should feel bad for doing it. I'm just going to watch modern family. Does anyone else like that show?
February 28, 2015 3:57 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #10
I was going to join in on that conversation a little more, but the spectrum went wider then I wanted to type about right now.
February 28, 2015 4:02 p.m.
Modern Family is hilarious.
Recently i've been marathoning That 70's Show.
This show is like 1/3 of my childhood
February 28, 2015 4:03 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #12
Didgeridooda literally my reaction to the spider on me last night
February 28, 2015 4:04 p.m.
So is Netflix better than Amazon video or the other way around?
February 28, 2015 4:11 p.m.
filledelanuit says... #14
Netflix is much better for TV but worse for movies.
February 28, 2015 4:20 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #15
Racist speech is not itself illegal. Nor is yelling the word "fire," for example. It's the context that's central to the law. If the victim of racist speech believes he or she is in direct danger, or if someone yells "fire" in a crowded public area, then you have the potential for physical harm. The laws don't protect your emotions. They protect your safety.
And what the state does is not a representation of what should be or even what the people would do.
Further, you simply don't have a right not to be offended. I wonder where you got the idea that this is the case. It may be preferable that people not find offense in their day to day lives, but you do not have any right not to be offended. To argue that this is the case is to argue that nobody should ever be offended or give offense. It's a goal not worth having and certainly not worth achieving. As I said before, the idea that others aren't allowed to offend you is one of the most central ideas to every unfreedom that has ever been. It is central to totalitarian rule. It is central to terrorist motivation. It is central to subjection.
Freedom of speech necessarily includes the capacity to offend, even if common decency asks that you not offend needlessly.
February 28, 2015 4:22 p.m.
CommanderOfBolas says... #16
I personally use Netflix. ive never tried amazon, though.
February 28, 2015 4:22 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #17
If you really want to combat the issue of the use of sexualized mtg products and accessories on a discussion matter, you should also have more detailed knowledge in both aspects of Sociology and Sexology beyond Philosophy and Psychology. This way you can define WHY men and women do these things from the aspect of society itself and from the aspect of their own sexuality.
But the real matter is is that the discussion isn't going to get you anywhere. If you have problems with it, take action against those problems. Tell the person who is using these items that it is disrepectful to those around you. Ask the shop owner to put in some rules and guidelines as to respected material. Tell the young ones around you that the imagery does not define the figures they represent.
Arguing your ideas and beliefs against each other doesn't solve these problems. And let me tell you this, ideas and beliefs backed by science doesn't entirely make them fact. Especially in fields of study that don't have absolute methods of gaining causal evidence. They are still ideas and beliefs, and trying to force them as fact onto one another is no different from forcing your religion onto another person.
February 28, 2015 4:22 p.m.
CommanderOfBolas says... #18
does anyone know what Jim Davis is playing at the modern SCG event right now?
February 28, 2015 4:23 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #19
@Femme_Fatale: Defining the basic rights that govern human action and interaction is fundamentally different from forcing religion onto people.
February 28, 2015 4:27 p.m.
elpokitolama says... #20
(grabs pop-corn)
CommanderOfBolas, want some? :D
February 28, 2015 4:28 p.m.
CommanderOfBolas says... #21
@elpokitolama id love some! care for some tea, as well? or would you prefer something like a cola?
February 28, 2015 4:35 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #22
Cola is a trap. I'm happy I was able to stop drinking it a few years back.
February 28, 2015 4:36 p.m.
CommanderOfBolas says... #23
I agree. I generally avoid it, except on special occasions
February 28, 2015 4:38 p.m.
elpokitolama says... #24
Tea is perfect CommanderOfBolas! Maybe along with crackers instead of pop-corn?
February 28, 2015 4:38 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #25
You two are just bickering your ideas without getting anywhere Epochalyptik. It is clear that neither of you are going to reach a consensus and now you are just trying to force the other to conform to your ideals, whether you realize it or not.
If that isn't true, then at least what I can say for certain is that the argument is making others uncomfortable. That, and I don't like having to censor what I post knowing that it can start unpleasant arguments that many of us don't want to be experiencing. So please, if the argument doesn't actually solve the problem, at least bring it to someplace where the rest of us don't have to see. Even if it we can choose not to read it on here, the fact that it is there just brings down the mood of the thread itself.
February 28, 2015 4:39 p.m.
CommanderOfBolas says... #26
i can get on board with that. that sounds pretty good. do you have a preference on what kind of tea? i like a good, strong, black tea, personally
February 28, 2015 4:40 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #27
Non fruity tea. Pretty much the rest is good. Citrus is ok sometimes I guess.
February 28, 2015 4:44 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #28
@Femme_Fatale: I'm sorry to have to inform you that it's perfectly possible to have a debate without ever intending to change the other individual's mind or reach any kind of consensus. The point of most debates is to educate yourself and, if there's an audience, to offer them information to make their own decisions. I'm not telling ChiefBell that he must believe as I do, nor do I expect him to intend the converse.
I'd also like to point out that the argument is far from unpleasant. Strongly-worded opinions are much different from disparaging or malicious ones.
Context, fine. The discussion doesn't need to be here, but that's where it started. ChiefBell, if you (or anyone, really) would like to continue the debate, feel free to email me.
February 28, 2015 4:45 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #29
I'm a fan of chai or Thai myself, but that may just be my upbringing. I like most of the teas I've encountered.
February 28, 2015 4:46 p.m.
elpokitolama says... #30
All right girls and guys, ALL BETS ARE OFF! At my left side, the most well-know female user of T/O, she who created this thread, Femme_Fatale! And at my left, on the the best contributors to the site, creators of the famous Modern Format Primer, ChiefBell!
Who will win? Who will lose? It's up to YOU to decide! Vote by sending a message to (insert overpriced phone number here) and you may win an INCREDIBLE Eager Cadet FOIL!
CommanderOfBolas: I prefer tea flavored with red fruits. But this is only my personal opinion. :)
February 28, 2015 4:47 p.m.
I'm on my phone and this is hopeless but here goes.
Femme_Fatale - it's not my job to educate others on why it's problematic, yet I still have every right to say that it is problematic. I don't have to back up everything I say. If you want more information read all of Moradi and Huang 2008, and Stern's work from the 1990s. Trust me, I know why but it's not my job to educate. Please don't call me out because you think I'm poorly educated.
Epochalyptik - we had previously agreed that this issue surpasses physical harm and that emotional harm may be included in some cases. I think this was a few months ago? Again, I'm not necessarily sure that your views match up to legality, though I concede that the law doesn't necessarily dictate the height of morality. For this issue around sexualisation I think it's clear that physical violence doesn't have to be involved at all. For example, being naked in public is an offence that broadly fits under lurid behaviour and sexual harassment - threat of harm doesn't factor in. So too with these card sleeves the argument is that this is unwanted sexual contact. No threat of physical harm, I concede, but that doesn't actually seem to be required for some offences. Furthermore it does cause psychological harm, though as with asbestos cases, you can't prove which injustice was the straw that broke the camels back as it were. You cant prove which image finally triggered the illness or distress. My understanding is that I have the right to not be targeted by speech or behaviour that I find distressing. I suppose it's subtly different from the right to not be offended but the basis of the argument is the same. I think it needs refining and qualifying though, so instead of offense it should be enduring psychological distress.
February 28, 2015 4:47 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #33
I know that quite well Epochalyptik, but that's certainly not what the tone of the argument you two set forth is displaying. And there are quite a few here who do find it unpleasant. VampireArmy and myself being examples.
February 28, 2015 4:49 p.m.
CommanderOfBolas says... #35
@elpokitolama: interesting, i don't think i have ever had a tea llike that. is there a particular brand you get? id like to give it a try
February 28, 2015 4:51 p.m.
Given my stance on free speech Femme_Fatale, I'd be the first to stop discussing someone if a member said it's making them uncomfortable but nobody has said that. I've also specifically avoided issues that I know make some members uncomfortable. No one has expressed concern and therefore I push forward, respectfully, with the discussion.
If you yourself wish that I stop then I have no problems. I would echo epochs sentiments. There is no animosity between us or in our points. There's just determination.
February 28, 2015 4:52 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #38
I never once said that you were poorly educated ChiefBell, but I'm saying is that it would better if you looked at the matter from all angles that the issue requires. Psychology is just one aspect.
February 28, 2015 4:53 p.m.
elpokitolama says... #39
@CommanderOfBolas: I really like Kusmi Tea's take on it, but I don't know if you can't find some outside France... :/
February 28, 2015 4:53 p.m.
Well a lot of this is social theory and to some extent serology.
February 28, 2015 4:54 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #41
I accept the potential impact of sexualized images, but I don't think there needs to exist a prohibition on their display. We don't have to tailor our behavior to tiptoe around those who might be offended or distressed by an idea.
As far as Magic is concerned, there's a time and place as far as "socially acceptable" is concerned. I wouldn't care if someone in my playgroup had sleeves with sexualized fantasy art, but I wouldn't advise him to use them in an event with minors in attendance.
My previous posts dealt with larger ideas like that of a right not to be offended. And with the general idea that distasteful expression is necessarily low brow or detached from reality. I'm not a fan of blanket condemnations based on personal preference.
And that's where I'll leave it as far as this thread is concerned.
February 28, 2015 4:54 p.m.
CommanderOfBolas says... #42
hmm....im sure i can order some online somehow. ill take a look to see if i can find some
February 28, 2015 4:55 p.m.
elpokitolama says... #44
Let me sum up this last two pages: two people are basically trying to kill each other, but we're calmly talking about tea, right?
Kusmi is definitively a great brand. They offer plenty of differents kinds of tea, from the most basic to the most flavoured.
February 28, 2015 4:55 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #45
I'm not a fan of people presuming to tell me what I intend. You are more than welcome to ask that we avoid discussing something here, but don't tell me I'm intent on shoving something on someone.
February 28, 2015 4:57 p.m.
I find it a tad unfair when you say that you were made uncomfortable femme and yet contributed to the discussion without asking it to stop.
I also see thus often on this site when there's a debate there's the assumption that it's full of animosity and hatred. Not so, I greatly respect epoch. Hell, I think he's great. That wont stop me from saying 'I think you're wrong because reasons'.
February 28, 2015 5 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #48
I'm basically telling you that's the way you are coming off to others, even if you aren't intent on it.
February 28, 2015 5 p.m.
Well that's a clear statement and one that I'm happy to take as a sign to just leave it.
February 28, 2015 5:02 p.m.
elpokitolama says... #50
And this poor Epochalyptik is stuck between two conversations. We support you, man! :'(
Caligula says... #1
FOR THE FATHERLAND. x4.
February 28, 2015 3:34 p.m.