The Goblins Fan Forum

Neither am I.
Nor do/did I play "Baldur's Gate" or any other game of that series.
I just do not know where that name came from.

But well done, anyway.
I am also a fan of such modded games.
Often difficult to do though.

Wow. Sorry, that was just unexpected
Cespenar is a little impish bugger that resides in your private hell-crib and fixes legendary armament for you. Also, he's annoying as hell, at least in Polish translation, dunno about the original.

Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-RhrMlnklw

My my, I guess he IS as annoying in English version too.

Casi Informado wrote: @Thunt_Goblins you're more than an author to us. We follow your tweets, watch your streamings. Hope for more pages. So Joe carrol :O

I'm just going to put it out there right now that if Thunt starts asking us to kill people, I am no longer a part of this team. I saw what happened to all of Joe's Followers. Nope. All the nope.

What the f* is up with that status discussion? Is this some Poe's Law bullcrap?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. The Joe Carroll part was a reference to the TV show, The Following. That particular tweet came after Krulle asked Thunt if he was OK, since he hadn't tweeted in a couple of days. Thunt said yes, he's fine, and not to worry; he's not having another breakdown. I'm reasonably sure Krulle isn't a Poe. I don't know the person who posted the tweet about Joe Carroll, though. I guess he could be. Does that answer your question?

No, there was something on twitter about him discussing a "mansplaining" statue, that's what I was talking about. Had nothing to do with the other comments here, sorry that I didn't make myself clear.

Oh! OK. I was so confused. I didn't see that conversation. And I can't find it now, so Idk.

Haha, I see now that my phone autocorrected statue to status, no wonder you were confused, that made no sense whatsoever

I was bored, and after having checked my twitter feed, and once again nothing new there, I simply wanted to know whether Thunt is fine, has a flue, or just offline.

I do not know "The Following", so the tweet and your reference tell me nothing...

Joe Carrol is one of those charming mass-murderer/master manipulator types. As far as Incould see his main drive was to push the protagonist over the edge. Anyway, sometimes I just browse THunt's twitter page AMD he also response to others etc, which doesn't show up at the website itself (which is a good thing I'd say)

Yeah, the IMDb description of The Following says:

A brilliant and charismatic, yet psychotic serial killer communicates with other active serial killers and activates a cult of believers following his every command.

Joe is the serial killer. And all of his followers end up dead eventually. Every single one of them. Painfully dead. Which I don't want to be.

I can't for the life of me figure out what a mansplaining statue would be. But maybe I don't want to know. Anyway, I understand why it would give you a case of the WTFs.

Guus wrote:No, there was something on twitter about him discussing a "mansplaining" statue, that's what I was talking about.

How to put this delicately...

The statue: It was in a Tweet reading "Mansplaining: The Statue", presumably because it shows a man discussing something with a woman (modelled after the artists's daughter). For more info on that, see here. To summarise, Thunt broke that rule of his again and talked about how much he hates man- being stuck on things and men being the default evil guys - something I totally understand, but we've seen where talking about social/political stuff has gotten him before. I haven't seen a backlash yet, so I guess no harm done.

Personally, I think that it's not worth getting worked up about, and that unnecessarily gendering bad things ("man-splain", "man-spread", "man-flu") is a regressive attitude that directly contradicts the idea that large groups of people should not have broad, sweeping statements applied to them. I know for certain that someone saying their girlfriend was "woma-nagging" or similar would get swiftly crucified.

Funny how these terms are actively used online but I never see them used in our national institute for female history and emancipation. I called Poe's Law because I was hoping that the one who posted it was making a joke, which seems half true. I never know how serious I should take Twitter activism because it is all so... uninformed.

Guus wrote:Funny how these terms are actively used online but I never see them used in our national institute for female history and emancipation.

Try the Australian Senate.

I called Poe's Law because I was hoping that the one who posted it was making a joke, which seems half true. I never know how serious I should take Twitter activism because it is all so... uninformed.

I checked the twitterer's feed, and she appears legitimate - she's part of a dev team for a niche video game. Also, as linked, there's a new article on the issue.

That little clip is exactly what I mean, there isn't any real context there. You don't know how he was speaking before she made the comment, so it might've well been in a demeaning manner. Still, you're inclined to root for the guy because out of context she does seem to throw around a term loaded with sexism. On the other hand he might be completely correct in his retort. Same goes for the statue: it goes viral, and the original creator just kind of shrugs because it wasn't his intent at all, and had nothing to do with how it was portrayed on twitter.

I'll let it go now though, because there is a different place for this discussion and I'm kind of already overstepping the boundaries as it is here.

Guus wrote:That little clip is exactly what I mean, there isn't any real context there. You don't know how he was speaking before she made the comment, so it might've well been in a demeaning manner. Still, you're inclined to root for the guy because out of context she does seem to throw around a term loaded with sexism. On the other hand he might be completely correct in his retort. Same goes for the statue: it goes viral, and the original creator just kind of shrugs because it wasn't his intent at all, and had nothing to do with how it was portrayed on twitter.

I'll let it go now though, because there is a different place for this discussion and I'm kind of already overstepping the boundaries as it is here.

You're right, we're treading close to Controversy territory. I'll only say I more or less agree, it's possible that the other person was being condescending, but phrasing it in a gendered way is unnecessary. If you're going to say that in the first place, just go with "condescending", and speak plainly.

You guys sure have a lot of time, wasting it on political correctness. Then again, I'm dabbling in this offtopic myself, so...
The two primal reasons language exists are communication and preservation of culture. Leaving the latter aside for a moment, as well as leaving the EGO aside... there IS a common situation in which men speak to women in a patronising manner, as well as there are situations completely reversed. It's facts, not insults. If someone is doing it, there is no harm in specifically informing them of that, as it can be sometimes done sub-consciously.

Whether the person in front of you can take the rebuke with dignity is a completely different matter. The guy in the video... I don't know the context, but it sure looks like he's just grasping straws while being a douche. Which is pretty much being a politician.

I'd say it was much more a discussion about context than about political correctness, but whatever floats your boat.

Way I see it, the only reason you needed to discuss the context was because of political correctness

I disagree, Like-A-Horse; in this case context is very important, because it decides whether that woman's accusations of sexist behavior are unfounded or not. That's the problem with using the term "mansplaining". It doesn't just say that he was condencending and/or a douche, it specifically invokes sexist reasons for that behavior. If she hadn't done that, the video would most likely not even be on YouTube. Therefore, to form an opinion on actual facts instead of just pure sympathy for the two people involved or personal opinions on the gender debate, we'd need to know what happened before. Or in other words, context

Well, you are not contradicting what I'm trying to say here. My point being, why bother with that? The whole reason this clip is on YT is the shock one word instilled in the mind of the guy/girl uploading it. No one word should be treated with such anxiety. Political correctness has taken over the world, while not really being a thing.

tl;dr - If you do need to put the blame here, then yes, the context is important. My point is - why bother?

We're not blaming anyone for anything here, were just having a friendly discussion among forum members. Why bother? Because I enjoy doing that, and I assume Glemp does too.

Also, we were not discussing political correctness, because we weren't talking about if anyone was allowed to say what was being said or to prevent people from being offended. We were discussing about context and conclusions. You dragged PC into a discussion where it had no place.

Guus wrote:Because I enjoy doing that, and I assume Glemp does too.

Your assumtion is correct - these days, I make an effort to come across as little of a prick as possible when arguing specifically because I don't want a war, I want discussion.

---

Back on topic! Thunt said something interesting when someone asked if he'd sell his soul to Not-Walter:

Like-A-Horse wrote:Well, you are not contradicting what I'm trying to say here. My point being, why bother with that? The whole reason this clip is on YT is the shock one word instilled in the mind of the guy/girl uploading it. No one word should be treated with such anxiety. Political correctness has taken over the world, while not really being a thing.

tl;dr - If you do need to put the blame here, then yes, the context is important. My point is - why bother?

The phrase 'political correctness' as a label to discount something... okay, I'll say my piece. Only once, though, because this really does belong in controversy, not here. You see, I've noticed that the phrase is pretty much never used to reduce the value of one's own likes and dislikes; it is always attached to somebody else's response.

I know that there is a subculture, mostly in the United States, where 'political correctness' is a shorthand phrase for a wide range of thoughts and attitudes on some controversial issues. The meaning within the group is that those other people outside the group are making a big fuss about nothing, and those other people's responses aren't even worth talking about, so why is everyone talking about them? Within the group, this shorthand of course goes unchallenged. In a wider group, though, such as an internet forum with participants from all around the world, the same usage is going to make a lot of people uncomfortable.

Not only that -- because this happens a lot, you're going to run into many people who have previously had their thoughts dismissed this way, so complaining about 'political correctness' is going to be read as a provocation. If it doesn't raise the temperature of a discussion, that's only because some readers out there are biting their tongues. Even if it's part of your usual vocabulary and to you it's just this objective thing in the world that, hey, everyone knows about, right? ...it won't be taken the way you meant it.

tl;dr - When you're not trying to start a fight, it's best to avoid grumbling about political correctness.

I'm just going to point at what Sessine said and nod. Don't make me repeat it in moderator voice. Railing about political correctness, i.e. consideration of other people's feelings, belongs in the Controversy forum.