Players out of time - code of conduct

[nik592]

When a vegan calls me out for eating meat, I don't whine about how they are "harming" me by telling me I'm doing something immoral. I acknowledge the validity of their reasoning. It's intellectual dishonesty to just sweep aside the accusation that is inconvenient for you, and try to turn things around and say they are the ones harming you.

I have some friends who are vegans. They typically explain their position as it applies to them, and don't insult or "describe" the behaviour of me or any others who choose not to be vegan as "selfish", "a bad guy" or any other particular negative characteristic. They respect the choice of others to do something different. To be honest, I've never heard a vegan I respect describe the choice as immoral. They are usually quite clear that for them, they feel a particular way and change their behaviour accordingly. They're not looking to judge the behaviour of others.

I was having a discussion with my children this weekend about religion and why I am not particularly religious. I mentioned that I've seen people do lots of bad things in the name of religion. I also pointed out that we have several friends who are religious, who are very nice people, and they have never sought to condemn my choice not to be or to convince me that I should be doing what they are doing. They also respect the choice of others to do something different.

I've met both vegans and members of various religions who have sought to make others feel bad about their own choices and (one assumes) hopefully come around to their way of thinking. I am not friends with those people and generally avoid them.

You have made it abundantly clear in this thread (and others) that you do not respect the choices of others (in respect to ending games early), not least by the fact that you ascribe them negative characteristics, designed to make people feel bad and come around to your way of thinking. You are seeking to cause harm with your word choices - I personally don't feel bad about it, mostly because I couldn't care less what you think about me (mostly because I don't respect you either), but that doesn't change the fact that you are seeking to cause harm to others.

I don't care that you think ending games early is a problem for you, and you don't do it to others. I agree with you (mostly) on that point. But I will defend the rights of others to choose differently. Like veganism or religion, there is no (general) right way or wrong way (there is of course a right/wrong way for you as an individual), just different choices.

[tbhp]

I have some friends who are vegans. They typically explain their position as it applies to them, and don't insult or "describe" the behaviour of me or any others who choose not to be vegan as "selfish", "a bad guy" or any other particular negative characteristic. They respect the choice of others to do something different. To be honest, I've never heard a vegan I respect describe the choice as immoral. They are usually quite clear that for them, they feel a particular way and change their behaviour accordingly. They're not looking to judge the behaviour of others.

I don't think I've ever been called those things either, but maybe people are just trying to be polite or something. I mean, the reasoning for veganism logically leads to eating meat is an immoral action. It's not a matter of doing what feels "right for you", it's a moral belief that it is wrong and therefore applies to everyone.

Of course, some people might be vegan for more like a personal ick or something, in which case it would follow what you say. But I'm talking about people who are vegans for moral reasons. They wouldn't be wrong to call me selfish. I literally am when I choose to prioritize my own comfort and habits.

I don't know why people are acting so sensitive about being called bad character traits. It seems wild to me that someone can be called out on something they are objectively doing and then come back at the person and say they are the one harming them. By this reasoning, we can't call out anything and improve as a society because we are constantly hurting people's feelings when we try to change things.

Imagine an homophobic person complaining about being called a bigot when instead they should be reflecting on said bigotry. Words exist for a reason, sometimes you have to call things as they are and hopefully this can help people realize what they are doing wrong.

I was having a discussion with my children this weekend about religion and why I am not particularly religious. I mentioned that I've seen people do lots of bad things in the name of religion. I also pointed out that we have several friends who are religious, who are very nice people, and they have never sought to condemn my choice not to be or to convince me that I should be doing what they are doing. They also respect the choice of others to do something different.

Like with veganism, they may have beliefs that they think apply to everyone but instead they pass it off as "it's just my way" because they may be worried of coming off as antagonistic. And they wouldn't be wrong to think that, given how you and others in this thread have reacted negatively to criticism.

This whole "I respect everyone's choice" is not really a good thing in my opinion, because if you truly believe something is wrong, you should be working for it to be addressed at a societal level, not just in your personal life.

I'm sure you yourself don't follow your line of argument here, because you probably wouldn't say that fighting sexism, racism, or homophobia is "just an opinion that we should keep to ourselves". You yourself understand that when society really believes something is wrong, it tries to convert that to social norms and laws, applying those moral standards to everyone.

So, you are cherry picking which topics should be generalized and which topics people should just keep to themselves and not try to convince other people about. But, if people never try to convince other people about things they think are wrong in a society, then how can those things be considered and potentially accepted by society at large? This is conservative logic. You are only interested in upholding the moral principles that already fit the status quo. We would never have gotten anywhere as a civilization if everyone thought like that. At every stage of civilization, we need people who think differently and introduce those new ways of thinking so that we can improve as a society. The fights against the -isms mentioned above wouldn't have been successful if people hadn't been vocal about them, if they had been "respecting of others" in the way you expect me to be.

You have made it abundantly clear in this thread (and others) that you do not respect the choices of others (in respect to ending games early), not least by the fact that you ascribe them negative characteristics, designed to make people feel bad and come around to your way of thinking. You are seeking to cause harm with your word choices - I personally don't feel bad about it, mostly because I couldn't care less what you think about me (mostly because I don't respect you either), but that doesn't change the fact that you are seeking to cause harm to others.

I think I've made clear at this point that I use the words that best fit what I think in order that hopefully this has an impact in the future. Your attempt to say I'm just trying to harm people for no reason, when my agenda has been nothing but clear this whole discussion, is just attempting to sweep the issue under the rug so that you don't have to think about it. Although, you said you share some of my perspective so I'm not sure why it matters so much to you to defend the other side. You have no reason to stoop to the level of the other poster who tried to turn things around on me.

I would have expected better of you than to not see that attacking someone who is trying to do the right thing with the argument that "but you are hurting others too when you criticize their bad actions!" is the most ludicrous statement. It's like the paradox of tolerance. How can people complain that other people are not tolerant of their own intolerance? What do they expect? To just be free to do whatever they want without ever facing any criticism?

[BarnardsStar]

This whole "I respect everyone's choice" is not really a good thing in my opinion, because if you truly believe something is wrong, you should be working for it to be addressed at a societal level, not just in your personal life.

This is what zealots and fanatics of all stripes tell themselves to justify their actions and beliefs. “I truly believe it is wrong that not everybody accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.” “I truly believe it is wrong that some people are attracted to their own gender.” “I truly believe it is wrong that people eat meat.” “I truly believe it is wrong that people expel others from board games just for being two weeks in the red.”

[tbhp]

This whole "I respect everyone's choice" is not really a good thing in my opinion, because if you truly believe something is wrong, you should be working for it to be addressed at a societal level, not just in your personal life.

This is what zealots and fanatics of all stripes tell themselves to justify their actions and beliefs. “I truly believe it is wrong that not everybody accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.” “I truly believe it is wrong that some people are attracted to their own gender.” “I truly believe it is wrong that people eat meat.” “I truly believe it is wrong that people expel others from board games just for being two weeks in the red.”

And all the things you enjoy and the rights you have exist because people at some point in history fought for those things to be accepted.

Comparing fighting for politics and morals to fighting for religious beliefs is yet another absurd take in this thread. The former justifies their opinions with facts and logic, the latter justifies them because it's written in a book. Most modern western societies make a separation between the church and the state precisely for that reason.

The good thing when someone tries to convince you with facts and logic is that you don't have to agree with them. You can counter them with facts and logic. But it seems that like others in this thread, you are more interested in complaining that no one should have opinions, because apparently people fighting for what they think is right is oh so detrimental for a society.

Also note that all your examples constitute beliefs that are controversial. You wouldn't have any issue with someone who says "I truly believe it is wrong for people to kill each other". So just like nik, you cherry pick and only have a problem with people whose beliefs disturb the status quo.

[BarnardsStar]

I have no words. The guy whose entire argument rests on him being emotionally devastated by a board game ending early is now claiming he is on the side of facts and logic.

Whereas the guy (me) who stated that zealots and fanatics always rely on the argument “if you truly believe something is wrong, you should be working for it to be addressed at a societal level” is somehow … not on the side of facts and logic? Maybe you’d like to tell me what part of my statement was wrong? Or maybe you are conflating it with the notion that only fanatics and zealots feel this way? Because I very definitely did not say that. I am merely pointing out that your argument has, in the past, lead to zealotry. I do not claim it always does so, just that it is not a valid argument for pushing societal acceptance of any belief. You do in fact have to provide facts and logic, which I have yet to see you do.

[BarnardsStar]

Also note that all your examples constitute beliefs that are controversial. You wouldn't have any issue with someone who says "I truly believe it is wrong for people to kill each other". So just like nik, you cherry pick and only have a problem with people whose beliefs disturb the status quo.

I see you added this last bit while I was writing my last response, so let me say: I’m hardly cherry-picking here; this discussion isn’t about a universally held belief like “murder is wrong.” It is very much you choosing a controversial belief that is based on your personal emotions and attempting to extort certain behaviors from the rest of us.

[tbhp]

I have no words. The guy whose entire argument rests on him being emotionally devastated by a board game ending early is now claiming he is on the side of facts and logic.

All morality is based on emotions. If sentient beings didn't have emotions, there would be no right or wrong way to treat someone, so there would be no concept of morality.

Basing yourself on facts as it pertains to morality means investigating the ways various people react to things, in order to create a moral framework that best accounts for everyone's feelings.

So, this is yet another absurd argument from someone in this thread. If you think being factual about morality doesn't have anything to do with people's feelings, then what do you think morality even is?

[tbhp]

Also note that all your examples constitute beliefs that are controversial. You wouldn't have any issue with someone who says "I truly believe it is wrong for people to kill each other". So just like nik, you cherry pick and only have a problem with people whose beliefs disturb the status quo.

I see you added this last bit while I was writing my last response, so let me say: I’m hardly cherry-picking here; this discussion isn’t about a universally held belief like “murder is wrong.” It is very much you choosing a controversial belief that is based on your personal emotions and attempting to extort certain behaviors from the rest of us.

Yet instead of arguing against this belief (which granted, you did earlier in the thread), you've now resorted to arguing that people shouldn't even have beliefs that disturb the status quo.

This sort of conservative logic is inherently nonsensical. All the things you enjoy now and that you take as "universal" may not always have been seen as universal. There may have been a point in time when they were controversial takes too, and people had to fight to convince others that this should be the "universal" standard.

So, you criticize people who try to change things now, while simultaneously benefiting from the actions of people who tried to change things throughout history, and you apparently fail to realize how nonsensical and hypocritical this is.

[BarnardsStar]

Yet instead of arguing against this belief (which granted, you did earlier in the thread), you've now resorted to arguing that people shouldn't even have beliefs that disturb the status quo.

Show me where I said that. I did not argue any such thing.

Your position is that you are emotionally devastated by a particular action, and therefore nobody should ever engage in that action. But there are many thing—and I gave a list—of things that some people are emotionally devastated by that, nonetheless, we do not make a part of the “status quo”—the universally held morality. This is not an argument that people should not have such beliefs. It may well be an argument that changing the “status quo” may require a high bar. (A statement of fact, which is neutral on whether or not things should be this way.)

My argument is that emotional devastation of one person by a particular action is not an argument for declaring that action to be immoral. And this is all you have—it upsets you so nobody should do it.

The real irony here has already been stated well up thread… there was a politician in my country who once stated a certain action should be “safe, legal, and rare”—she was up against politicians who wanted to take an absolutist view and say this thing should never happen. And I am put in mind of this because many of the people arguing against you—I recall nik saying this, and allow me to voice my agreement—are saying that kicking people out of games should be, in effect, safe, legal, and rare. And we end up arguing with you and not agreeing with you because of your absolutist take on things. Somebody who says they kick people out very rarely becomes the bad guy to you. They want it to be safe, legal, and rare while you want it to never ever happen. And so we get into these heated discussions about morality because, like the opposing politicians, you believe that allowing it sometimes is immoral and causing harm, so it must never happen.

[Ceaseless]

I don't know why people are acting so sensitive about being called bad character traits.

This sentence illustrates a rather notable problem you've shown in a lot of posts. Which is that you don't bother to think about how other people would feel. Whether it's it outright ignoring it, or in comparing how the way anyone that might disagree with you feels must inherently be less than the way you feel, etc. If they disagree with you, they must be crazy, not understand themselves, etc.

Also note that all your examples constitute beliefs that are controversial. You wouldn't have any issue with someone who says "I truly believe it is wrong for people to kill each other". So just like nik, you cherry pick and only have a problem with people whose beliefs disturb the status quo.

Well... that, or they personally think it's wrong for people to kill each other.