Board 8 > Blizzard reveals their diversity tool

(+) Yeah! (+)

(And yes, ChaosTony is one of them.)

StealThisSheen posted...

The rest were either me speaking about a character, like Maria Bramford, or referencing you as the topic creator when talking to somebody else. I bolded the ones where we actually argued, which was three times. One of them I felt was very civil, one of them we admitted we got off on the wrong foot and ended fine, and the only one I'd say got truly heated was the save state one, but you attacked me first. Three times over many years, and only one actually got heated. I feel like my position of not remembering being part of a group of users that gang up on you seems fairly justified.

sure. personally I don't think it's actually valid for you to totally forget about it, and then once confronted with evidence just continue on. but either way, if you think you're justified, then so be it.

but I also feel that my stance is justified. while you may not consider yourself to be a part of the group, the reality is that if 10 people are arguing with me, and you are number 11, you're going to get remembered as part of the group. it's not about the severity of the argument, it's about the ridiculous extent of topic derailing from multiple users all nitpicking the same person.

(this topic itself is not a good example, for the record. well, it's a good example of foolmo's insanity but otherwise there is no real ganging up in this topic.)

as evidenced by my earlier post, I had remembered specifically arguing with you in the gun control topic. and I knew we had argued several times before, maybe not the exact severity or extent. but, once again, this isn't solely about you. it's a pattern of behavior involving multiple users.

as I said in my earlier post, maybe it's true (or not) that you were unfairly lumped in with others. but that only happened because you coincidentally were doing the same thing as some of them, at the same time as some of them. probably on multiple occasions, but maybe just one (with other misc arguing in between) if we want to give you the extreme benefit of the doubt. there are very likely other times we interacted where you never said the word maria. where either I or you used different usernames. or it just didn't get logged somehow. I'm also not going to read all of these old topics, so anything that you report is likely to have at least a slight bias in your own favor. and most importantly, even if you don't INTEND to do something, that doesn't mean that it's not happening. you can still be a member of a group all performing the same action, even if it wasn't premeditated.

I suppose I should've cross-referenced the list of topic IDs MariaTaylor & StealThisSheen have both posted with the list of topic IDs StealThisSheen has said "maria" to cut out incidental instances of SEP simply talking about other marias

MariaTaylor posted...

and that topic involved a similar discussion where you claimed you never argued with me before even though I said you did

And to answer this, there don't appear to be any other topics about gun reform that we were both in, so it appears I was, indeed, not in that topic, which you even admitted at the time you couldn't truly remember if I was or not.

MariaTaylor posted...

sure. personally I don't think it's actually valid for you to totally forget about it, and then once confronted with evidence just continue on. but either way, if you think you're justified, then so be it.

but I also feel that my stance is justified. while you may not consider yourself to be a part of the group, the reality is that if 10 people are arguing with me, and you are number 11, you're going to get remembered as part of the group. it's not about the severity of the argument, it's about the ridiculous extent of topic derailing from multiple users all nitpicking the same person.

(this topic itself is not a good example, for the record. well, it's a good example of foolmo's insanity but otherwise there is no real ganging up in this topic.)

as evidenced by my earlier post, I had remembered specifically arguing with you in the gun control topic. and I knew we had argued several times before, maybe not the exact severity or extent. but, once again, this isn't solely about you. it's a pattern of behavior involving multiple users.

as I said in my earlier post, maybe it's true (or not) that you were unfairly lumped in with others. but that only happened because you coincidentally were doing the same thing as some of them, at the same time as some of them. probably on multiple occasions, but maybe just one (with other misc arguing in between) if we want to give you the extreme benefit of the doubt. there are very likely other times we interacted where you never said the word maria. where either I or you used different usernames. or it just didn't get logged somehow. I'm also not going to read all of these old topics, so anything that you report is likely to have at least a slight bias in your own favor. and most importantly, even if you don't INTEND to do something, that doesn't mean that it's not happening. you can still be a member of a group all performing the same action, even if it wasn't premeditated.

I can accept this if you're willing to accept that I have a right to want to start to question things like what you mean by me "attacking" you, and the severity of the arguments, and so on, because you made a specific accusation of me that I regularly attack you, snipe you with comments, and so on. I truly don't believe that to be the case, and the current evidence available to me reaffirms that feeling. I understand that you may group me together with others when I'm on the opposite side of a debate, but you basically made an accusation that I was intentionally going out of my way to jump on your case regularly, which caught me off guard because I can promise you that is not the case at all. Hell, in the provided examples, we have just as many topics of being on the same side in an argument as there are topics with us on opposite sides.

StealThisSheen posted...

And to answer this, there don't appear to be any other topics about gun reform that we were both in, so it appears I was, indeed, not in that topic, which you even admitted at the time you couldn't truly remember if I was or not.

there is probably someone who I called out specifically as having been in the previous topic. If you follow that person's posting history it would likely be possible to find the prior topic. not saying that you will show up in there, but it could be a further interesting look into how much this happens to me, and how long it's been going on.

StealThisSheen posted...

I can accept this if you're willing to accept that I have a right to want to start to question things like what you mean by me "attacking" you, and the severity of the arguments, and so on, because you made a specific accusation of me that I regularly attack you, snipe you with comments, and so on. I truly don't believe that to be the case, and the current evidence available to me reaffirms that feeling. I understand that you may group me together with others when I'm on the opposite side of a debate, but you basically made an accusation that I was intentionally going out of my way to jump on your case regularly, which caught me off guard because I can promise you that is not the case at all.

I can see why you feel that way. I don't know if I conveyed my message poorly, or if it was just poorly understood. I'd have to read back through this topic to see exactly who said exactly what.

But the reality is just this; My stance isn't that you (or anyone else really) is INTENTIONALLY going out of their way to form mobs to attack me. My point is that this same shit happens all the time, in every single topic, and it always devolves into the same nonsense. And I always see the same exact names popping up.

You may be correct in thinking that you and me were not regularly arguing anytime "recently," but I was also correct in remembering us arguing in the past, in similar topics, at a time when many other people were sniping at me. Even the examples that you've looked back and check, you've really only shared what you were doing at the time. But the context was important.

What matters is what was already happening in the topic at the time, because that can change a 'minor disagreement and then fizzled out' into being literally one argument in the middle of 50 nitpicks, 'gotcha!' remarks, etc. from my perpsective.

Saying it happens is not the same as saying that every person involved is intentionally going out of their way to try and bully me. If I had to say, there's probably 4 or fewer who are guilty of that. But a handful more who just straight up dislike me and will take any chance to snipe at me in any topic where I post. Add onto that any other random person who also joins in, and it gets pretty annoying pretty fast. I guess however I phrased it earlier in the topic may have given the wrong impression.

Is anybody still talking about the Blizzard thing or is it just arguing about whatever now

If we are: I think what makes it really weird is the way it quantifies things

Like if we're just keeping track of all these different character traits and examining them among different categories of character to make sure we're spreading things around and not making everybody the same, that's not a bad thing at all

But if you're figuring out what's the most Race race (which supposedly someone did based on the data we've seen and it's apparently Mexican?) then that's getting kinda weird

MariaTaylor posted...

you can literally go on (archive) and find any precursor topic to this one that I have posted in; something where people are arguing about politics, culture, or identity. you could put MONEY on the fact that foolmo, STA, Lasa would be among the people nitpicking and responding with zingers to every thing that I say. and you would most likely come out ahead.

EDIT: I do want to mention in Lasa's defense that he PM'd me to ask something about this, and after we had that discussion I really don't remember him responding to any of my posts after that. so while I did bring him up because he would be contained in the same post history, I don't want to unfairly group him together as someone who is currently still doing this (to my knowledge)

i'll admit i nitpick a lot, that's probably one of the things i'm known for on this board (because i care way too much about minute stuff that doesn't matter in the least) but i don't think it's fair to say that's all i do when i respond to your posts. i usually do try to respond to the content of the arguments you make (like in the gun control argument, for instance). as for "responding with zingers," i don't think i do that often? i occasionally respond with stupid memes but i know i'm not a particularly funny person so i usually refrain from trying to make jokes.

as for me not responding to your posts, that's probably because before this topic, i haven't really seen you post about politics/culture/identity for awhile. i mostly see you in the vtuber topic now.

following up on what i said in my previous post, i kinda side with maria in the SEP/maria argument. i think the point maria is making is that she rarely posts in controversial topics anymore and hasn't for the past several years. so the fact that SEP and her haven't argued much for a long time doesn't say much in the grand scheme of things. if maria rarely posts then yeah, SEP is obviously rarely going to attack her. so these archives of 2018-present topics people are referring to don't reveal much. you'd have to go back to 2007-2010 era topics or something, when maria was a very active user in all sorts of topics, to really see how much SEP attacked her. now, i don't know how bad the attacks were or if SEP was really "bullying" maria. but i do agree with the point that the provided evidence isn't saying all that much.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

following up on what i said in my previous post, i kinda side with maria in the SEP/maria argument. i think the point maria is making is that she rarely posts in controversial topics anymore and hasn't for the past several years. so the fact that SEP and her haven't argued much for a long time doesn't say much in the grand scheme of things. if maria rarely posts then yeah, SEP is obviously rarely going to attack her. so these archives of 2018-present topics people are referring to don't reveal much. you'd have to go back to 2007-2010 era topics or something, when maria was a very active user in all sorts of topics, to really see how much SEP attacked her. now, i don't know how bad the attacks were or if SEP was really "bullying" maria. but i do agree with the point that the provided evidence isn't saying all that much.

I mean, if you go that far back, our interactions were mostly in Marias CYOA topics where I was an active participant.

Marias initial accusation against me was that I pretty much always attacked/provoked/came at them with zingers pretty much all the time, which is why so many topics from the past 7-10 years showing that isnt true matter.

you can literally go on (archive) and find any precursor topic to this one that I have posted in; something where people are arguing about politics, culture, or identity. you could put MONEY on the fact that foolmo, STA, Lasa would be among the people nitpicking and responding with zingers to every thing that I say. and you would most likely come out ahead.

This is what I was arguing against, specifically. This isnt saying I supposedly did this over 12 years ago, its implying I do it all the time, which I obviously did not recall or agree with, and hence the argument/archive topics/etc. Im not even sure Maria was making the argument that I was doing it that long ago, their reason for bringing up that they arent as active was to say it makes me doing so stand out more to them, but the reality appears to be that weve actually not really argued much at all in the grand scheme of things, I appear to just blend in with certain people, or certain topics stand out, I guess.

without getting into the decade of baggage, i agree that "we don't care about having ourselves represented" is just not a very good point to make. the "we" wording is significant especially when it comes to issues of representation, and it also actively works against a positive cause, because it reads as a denial of an issue that matters to people.

if you don't care about that effect of your words then it's a moot point i guess. i don't know anything about blizzard's games, but the stories about their abusive practices are disgusting, and i don't doubt that this is just a pathetic PR move by them, but at least it's a PR move that addresses something people should care about

I think some people care if there is a random female, trans, Indian or Spanish NPC in a game. And then there is another set of people who pretend to care and are very loud about it.

But by and large it's a laughable #1 goal for a video game company and is being focused on entirely to try and win points back from people who think Blizzard is a company plagued by socially archiac management. Further, the people who don't care I imagine don't care at all, generally, because to them they're playing games not thinking about that at all and wouldn't care if the characters were all genderless and raceless triangles and squares if said triangles and squares were cool character designs.

I wouldn't say SEP is picking on Maria per se. SEP just has a way of not being able to see the forest for the trees when it comes to arguments. Probably doesn't even realize that the stuff Tom and GMUN are going into ("this is important to me because ___") are in fact very different points than "you used we instead of I omg!!!" No one gives a shit about whether "we" encompasses literally every gamer because that clearly wasn't the point, and trying to point out "heh I won!" when this is pointed out was hilariously oblivious. The point was that many many people do not care about this at all (even if it's not 100% of gamers, doesn't matter, it can be significantly less than 100% to be a valid discussion point) and it's a dumb #1 priority for game design because of that.

birds are reptiles

Birds are reptiles

birds are reptiles

Lopen posted...

I think some people care if there is a random female, trans, Indian or Spanish NPC in a game. And then there is another set of people who pretend to care and are very loud about it.

But by and large it's a laughable #1 goal for a video game company and is being focused on entirely to try and win points back from people who think Blizzard is a company plagued by socially archiac management. Further, the people who don't care I imagine don't care at all, generally, because to them they're playing games not thinking about that at all and wouldn't care if the characters were all genderless and raceless triangles and squares if said triangles and squares were cool character designs.

I wouldn't say SEP is picking on Maria per se. SEP just has a way of not being able to see the forest for the trees when it comes to arguments. Probably doesn't even realize that the stuff Tom and GMUN are going into ("this is important to me because ___") are in fact very different points than "you used we instead of I omg!!!" No one gives a shit about whether "we" encompasses literally every gamer because that clearly wasn't the point, and trying to point out "heh I won!" when this is pointed out was hilariously oblivious. The point was that many many people do not care about this at all (even if it's not 100% of gamers, doesn't matter, it can be significantly less than 100% to be a valid discussion point) and it's a dumb #1 priority for game design because of that.

My argument was literally never a semantics one, and Im sorry you hate me so much that you just automatically make assumptions about my arguments in order to paint the worst possible picture of me. My entire point wasnt lol you used the wrong word, I win. My point was that when you literally use the word we, you are making your argument a very broad, generalizing argument that is then open to being argued against on such merits, and thus why people like GMUN and Tom felt the need to argue, because they obviously felt Maria was overlooking and/or implying they matter less with that generalized statement. It has nothing to do with grammar and everything to do with the fact that its harmful to attempt to speak for everybody like that, intentionally or otherwise. Maria themself was the one that broke it down into Should I have maybe used I instead? Sure. My first post on it was literally you know you dont speak for everyone, right, not ah-ha, poor grammar! It wasnt to say omg you think you speak for literally everybody lmaolmao, it was basically to say arguments like that are not a good look because they lessen the importance of others feelings and experiences.

I don't make assumptions about you. Have literally seen your arguments for 15 years now. More than enough data to know you just argue to win, not understand, and will literally make things up about the other person and intentionally misrepresent their point to win.

I say you were bringing focus to a largely irrelevant point to try and win the argument here because that's what you were doing. No I don't like you. That doesn't make my points about you invalid. The cause of me not liking you is because you do these things-- it's not a matter of me fabricating these things because I don't like you.

Lopen posted...

I don't make assumptions about you. Have literally seen your arguments for 15 years now. More than enough data to know you just argue to win, not understand, and will literally make things up about the other person and intentionally misrepresent their point to win.

I say you were bringing focus to a largely irrelevant point to try and win the argument here because that's what you were doing. No I don't like you. That doesn't make my points about you invalid. The cause of me not liking you is because you do these things-- it's not a matter of me fabricating these things because I don't like you.

Id personally like to know if people like GMUN and Tom think I was trying to make some irrelevant semantics point or something, since they also had a reaction to the same posts, because youre quite blatantly biased and love to tell people what they really did instead of what they actually did. If it came off like that, then Ill concede, but that was very much not the intention.

If I was the only one that responded, youd have a point. Instead, youre attempting to go they replied legitimately, but you SEP did not because reasons I know everything I am all knowing and its not just because I hate you even though I hate you.

I'm saying they were making different points than you. You can put your fingers in your ears and lalala all you want, whatever helps you cope, but they were not laser focused on the use of "we" like you were.

GuessMyUserName posted...

yes we do

Tom Bombadil posted...

maybe you don't but I'd love it

StealThisSheen posted...

Surely you see how you don't speak for everybody

Id really like to know how mine is laser focused instead of being another way of saying yes we do, especially since my follow up post was about generalizations, which is what Im saying my argument was and youre saying No SEP it wasnt I know what you were arguing more than you do.

as someone who is looking though this topic and having the same reaction as ChaosTony, SEP's initial post of "you don't speak for everybody" is both a reasonable point and is basically a less substantive version of the same arguments GMUN, Tom, and SeabassDebeste are laying out in greater detail.

b8 just has this curse on it that turns normal discussions into semantic arguments and personal grievances. (actually this is not even specific to b8, this is just Forum Posting)

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

basically a less substantive version of the same arguments GMUN, Tom, and SeabassDebeste are laying out in greater detail

Less substantive is entirely the point. If it was more substantive there would be more to discuss.

SEP's objective in posting is to boil down an argument into something he can win, even if it's an utter bastardization of what's important in the original point. The more focus on the little part that is wrong, the higher chance of winning.

Also SEP unblock Ulti please

Lopen posted...

Less substantive is entirely the point. If it was more substantive there would be more to discuss.

SEP's objective in posting is to boil down an argument into something he can win, even if it's an utter bastardization of what's important in the original point.

ok but Maria's initial post of "no we don't" was also pithy and substance-less and so an equally pithy response is fine actually

what is happening here is the classic internet move of reading into things too much (read: making shit up) and arguments spinning wildly out of control based on making up a guy

Maria unpacked it more

SEP chose to remain pithy rather than addressing the actual point cause he would rather win

Lopen posted...

Less substantive is entirely the point. If it was more substantive there would be more to discuss.

SEP's objective in posting is to boil down an argument into something he can win, even if it's an utter bastardization of what's important in the original point. The more focus on the little part that is wrong, the higher chance of winning.

Also SEP unblock Ulti please

What was I trying to win? I didnt even enter an argument until Maria replied, and Maria was the first to even make the argument about the specific language (we vs I). It kinda blew up from there, but I made all of one post before anything occurred and that one post doesnt do what youre saying it did.

You are blatantly assuming things and attributing things to me that I did not do, something you claim to hate but are blatantly guilty of.

Lopen posted...

Maria unpacked it more

SEP chose to remain pithy rather than addressing the actual point cause he would rather win

These are literally the first three posts of the argument:

StealThisSheen posted...

Surely you see how you don't speak for everybody

MariaTaylor posted...

surely you see how blizzard's poorly sourced research doesn't speak for everybody

StealThisSheen posted...

Doesn't mean we answer poorly sourced research with equally poor generalizations.

They then go on to make the post with it wasnt a sweeping generalization, maybe I should have used I, etc.

I then stuck on the initial post in my next reply because the initial post was what was causing the reactions to begin with, and it was a point I felt worth making. It was sweeping, generalizing language that does more harm than good, which was my point. After that it spiraled.

I have no beef with Maria. I had beef with the initial post/the other poster backing it up. It felt worth arguing because it obviously caused people to react to it negatively, because, again, generalizations are harmful.

Lopen posted...

Maria unpacked it more

Maria was talking about bad data gathering and survey methodology, which I think is a good and fine point to make but is actually tangential to the issue of whether or not Gamers want Diversity. You can't use a badly designed survey to prove the opposite point it makes, you can only discount that particular data. So you're back to talking about personal opinions on the matter which is what is actually prompting people to respond to her claims.

My post here is, in itself, another example of Posting turning things into rather pointless semantic debates so I'm gonna drop it after this.

Read post 80
Read post 82

You can see where one attempts to engage in a serious discussion and explain what the point is and the other is continuing to try to focus on something irrelevant to win an argument

That's pretty much it.

HashtagSEP posted...

Id personally like to know if people like GMUN and Tom think I was trying to make some irrelevant semantics point or something, since they also had a reaction to the same posts, because youre quite blatantly biased and love to tell people what they really did instead of what they actually did. If it came off like that, then Ill concede, but that was very much not the intention.

my issue with maria's initial post is it just a dismissive example of confirmation bias - the need to object to a concern others have just because maria does not share that same concern. they go on to complain about methodology to "debunk" the claim, except in these counter-arguments they just use their own personal anecdotes from maria's "individual experience" with gaming and that of people they know (a friend group is not a non-biased sample)

this is because I am speaking from a position that I feel very confident that "more diversity" is not a priority for a majority of gamers, and I know this because I'm one of those gamers who doesn't care about it at all.

This line here is incredibly self-centered, to claim that one is confident on their opinion of the "majority of gamers" because of their own personal disinterest as an individual (neglecting the fact that "more diversity is a priority for a majority of gamers" was not in fact the initial claim, and coming up with that interpretation shows their own biased gut feelings on the subject). But if the supposed issue is Blizzard making a scientific claim, it's hard to take seriously and not see the deeper emotional reaction behind the objection when arguing with an even flimsier anecdote.

It's just a reactive hypocrisy to find a claim so strongly objectionable and then assert your own so weakly but with "confidence" from your own feelings. it's the same confirmation bias I see commonly from my brother who does the same thing whenever he hears something he doesn't "feel" is right which is just his based on his own preconceived notions ignorant of voices who do actually care about the subject or are sympathetic to it

truthfully though this continued discussion is just the same meaningless pedantry, it's circular and not gonna go anywhere which is where I stop my engagement and am only chiming in again because asked. my real advice is to just stop engaging, it should be clear that this page focusing so intently on "we"gate instead of the actual topic of diversity isn't worth continuing

Yeah, not engaging is probably the best advice I can take. Looking back now, its telling to me that most of Lopens contributions to the topic that hes attempting to claim moral high ground on were just random zingers and jabs attempting to egg me into a fight, which I stupidly later played into now, so Ill just stop.

SeabassDebeste posted...

without getting into the decade of baggage, i agree that "we don't care about having ourselves represented" is just not a very good point to make. the "we" wording is significant especially when it comes to issues of representation, and it also actively works against a positive cause, because it reads as a denial of an issue that matters to people.

I think it's a fine point to make and it is 100% intended as a denial of an issue that matters to SOME people. it doesn't just read that way. I am absolutely denying that this is what gamers want. do SOME of them want this? of course. there's always going to be a nonzero number of people who want something. do they get to speak for everybody? ironically, no. but it seems REALLY important to them that I'm not allowed to speak for everybody (even though I'm actually just speaking for the majority).

you can use "we" to refer to a group that consists of more people than just 1 but less people than 7 billion.

my ultimate response to SEP was NOT to "admit" that the use of I or we was correct. it was that "you can argue that if you want, but it's a really dumb argument to make."

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

ok but Maria's initial post of "no we don't" was also pithy and substance-less and so an equally pithy response is fine actually

this is so wrong. anyone can go back to the first page of this topic, my post is at the very bottom. I go into detail about blizzard's sourcing method and why it is poor. it's one of the only posts in the topic that actually responds to blizzard's initial report with a criticism of actual substance.

which is probably why it's so important for people to nitpick and derail anything that I say. if they DO care about representation in games, but they can't answer with an argument of equal substance, then I guess the strategy is to just make the topic into nonsense that nobody wants to read.

look at GMUN's full responses to my post, and how I responded to GMUN in this topic on the subject of blizzard. you could remove 50 posts worth of garbage and essentially condense the entire argument down to just those few posts. that's what this topic could have looked like.

on that note...

GuessMyUserName posted...

they go on to complain about methodology to "debunk" the claim, except in these counter-arguments they just use their own personal anecdotes from maria's "individual experience" with gaming and that of people they know (a friend group is not a non-biased sample)

no, I debunked the claim by citing their research paper and how their methodology is flawed. I don't understand how you're still unable to process that. sharing my own personal views on the subject just gives more information and a deeper understanding of the subject matter, but it's irrelevant to blizzard having cited bad research. polling a bunch of your friends in order to write a research paper where your stance was already decided before you did any reseach is absolutely a biased sample.

But if the supposed issue is Blizzard making a scientific claim, it's hard to take seriously and not see the deeper emotional reaction behind the objection when arguing with an even flimsier anecdote.

I responded scientifically. the anecdote only came later, in response to YOUR anecdote. NOT to blizzard.

It's just a reactive hypocrisy to find a claim so strongly objectionable and then assert your own so weakly but with "confidence" from your own feelings. it's the same confirmation bias I see commonly from my brother who does the same thing whenever he hears something he doesn't "feel" is right which is just his based on his own preconceived notions ignorant of voices who do actually care about the subject or are sympathetic to it

whatever your problems are with your brother, you need to stop projecting them onto me. this is not what I did.

truthfully though this continued discussion is just the same meaningless pedantry, it's circular and not gonna go anywhere which is where I stop my engagement and am only chiming in again because asked. my real advice is to just stop engaging, it should be clear that this page focusing so intently on "we"gate instead of the actual topic of diversity isn't worth continuing

now this I do agree on. (see above)

MariaTaylor posted...

whatever your problems are with your brother, you need to stop projecting them onto me. this is not what I did.

sorry if that came off as projecting onto you because gooood lord no you are not my brother and I don't mean to suggest that, but that is the background of my perception here

I kinda wanted to put a little note on that to underline but felt wordy and didn't wanna put too much on it

HashtagSEP posted...

Yeah, not engaging is probably the best advice I can take

I hope you realize you've been the one overly focusing on "we" and the main one that shouldn't be engaged with here

I was attempting to do that with my "ok"s but after you rambled on for a page in a righteous huff about whether you were attacking Maria or not I decided to explain why it wasn't an attack on Maria and just how you are

Dude spends his first several posts in this topic doing nothing but attempting to get me to fight with him, but I'm the problem and I'm the one that shouldn't be engaged.

Okay.

Sorry for all the derails, everyone. Can guarantee it won't happen again after this.

VintageGin posted...

what the fuck

same tbh

See I'm supposedly the one playing highground and he's the one blocking me.

It's cool. You were never going to get any good conversation out of me again when you basically called me a bigot because I disagreed with you on something completely unrelated to anything regarding bigotry.

Joke user, not worth taking seriously in any discussion. You can fuck right off.

Lopen posted...

Also SEP unblock Ulti please

worst line in this topic tbqh (and that's saying something!!)

UltimaterializerX posted...

Your posts are fun to read. Thanks for having me back man.

I'm willing to give anybody a chance after awhile. I don't really like blocking anybody, but Lopen's first several posts in this topic had nothing to actually do with the topic and were just intended to antagonize me into a fight, which he got, and then he tried to say I'm the problem. Nah, done with that.

I'm not saying anything that's not the truth.

You literally derailed the topic for like 70 posts cause you'd rather win an argument than discuss the point actually being made. Then made a sub argument about whether you had a history of being mean to a person (which I explained is irrelevant)

UltimaterializerX posted...

I wouldnt block Lopen either. Ive removed most people off my list, because lifes too short for that stuff.

Beefing never ends so Ive stopped doing it.

I'd agree, but Lopen has made it painfully clear he's never going to engage with me in good faith, so I've got no need for that. He began posting in this topic not to discuss anything, but to mock me in hopes of starting a fight, which he pretty much even outright admitted to, and then he tried to insist it's all me. That's a bunch of noise not worth listening to.

It definitely makes sense to block me. My only response to SEP arguments is basically going to be to mock him and point out how pointless it is from now on. Because it is. He's a bad faith arguer.

Announcing it to the topic after claiming I was on the moral highground is gross hypocrisy though.

Gmun blocked me because he thought I was transphobic because I thought neo pronouns were dumb.

Am I missing anything of value here

masterplum posted...

Gmun blocked me because he thought I was transphobic because I thought neo pronouns were dumb.

Am I missing anything of value here

she

Paratroopa1 posted...

she

Honest mistake. Edited

You were blocked before the neopronouns topic which resulted in me never even making a post in there or knowing about it you fucking idiot

Speaking of transphobia, I remember GenesisSaga literally calling Poison a 'shim' in 2013, but people turned a blind eye to it.

I even tagged her as "Called Poison a shim".