Rolf's PvP on PvE Episode:: Stories...

[Flubb 773]

2 hours ago, Angelklaine said:

A person expressing their opinion can never be a bigot.

Except when it's a bigoted opinion? I see where you're coming from but I think you're reaching a bit with that general statement. In that case I could just say "It's my opinion that he's being bigoted". And it is, but I can substantiate it rather than tossing a definition at someone while misunderstanding the nuance about why it's not applicable. Something that I hate, because it's a petty piece of sophistry and rather lazy.

 

Let me clarify at this point: He's perfectly entitled to his opinion that PvE doesn't make sense, it's not the particular opinion he holds, but it'd be sanctimonious to claim now that he doesn't hold PvE and all who play it in contempt precisely because it's "nonsensical" to him and takes away from his selfish desires.

 

"PvE is nonsense" fine

"PvE is nonsense and it should be destroyed to serve my own agenda." Not fine. Unless you think it's okay to pursue a course of mutual destruction between PvE and PvP. And I'm of the strong opinion that it is not.

 

2 hours ago, Angelklaine said:

misuse the term to push their own narrative. 

What grand narrative is that? The "misuse" will be dispelled shortly.

 

2 hours ago, Gladiator said:

if PVE was no longer a thing, more people would be on PVP,

 

Meanwhile, most would be gone from the game for good instead. Those are the people you are being intolerant to, plain and simple. You don't think they have a place in WO and should be done away with, because they have a preference or opinion on the gameplay they enjoy that you disagree with. I don't know how one can be more "on the nose" intolerant.

You might want to pay attention here, @Angelklaine, as your proposed definition says "holding opinions", while you say "an opinion being expressed". You might not see these little cracks but the little changes in expression are rather jarring to me. It's like you're trying to limit it artificially so that it could only possibly apply to me - because I'm the one reacting to something being expressed, and Gladiator "just puts it out there", but he's clearly holding other opinions in contempt which your definition perfectly applies to aswell. I'm not accusing you of arguing in bad faith, but this is just to underline why I think it is in the very least "bad form".

 

2 hours ago, Gladiator said:

Or the dudes insulting him without any? 

 

Step 1: Ignore argument.

Step 2: Claim the opposition has no arguments.

 

Granted, I could have been more elaborate on that point. I figured it was said well enough by Ekcin that I don't have to be so verbose, so I'll reiterate: WO PvE is a sandbox game, it has whatever "purpose" or "meaning" you assign it to. People like different stuff, which is subject to ones own opinions and preferences. People are allowed to like different stuff. Including PvP. That's where I stand. It's clearly not where you stand, and that makes you the intolerant one.

Edited June 3, 2019 by Flubb

[Gladiator 968]

2 hours ago, Flubb said:

No matter what kind of elitist headcanon you've carefully cultivated in your little wonderland, wanting to destroy something because it "makes no sense" (to you, in an entirely subjective matter) but otherwise doesn't affect you is a categorically unhinged response. Reminds me of certain bigot groups really.

 

This was your only "argument". Starts off with an insult about my cultivating a headcanon in a wonderland. I dont exactly clasify an insult as an argument.

Then "Wanting to destroy something because it makes no sense is an unhinged response" . So basically you insulted my argument. This as well, is not an argument. You just insulted me twice so far. Then - > "Reminds me of certain bigot groups really" . This is the 3rd and last insult.

 

Where were your arguments?

[Brash_Endeavors 4,735]

2 hours ago, Angelklaine said:

A person expressing their opinion can never be a bigot.   

 

This is false. You did selectively  cherry pick a definition that seemed to support your own argument, however Mirriam Webster defines a bigot as

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

 

Which clearly implies a person "expressing their opinion" can, in fact, be a bigot as long as they are "intolerant" in their expression of it. 

 

Example:  "All women are tramps" is an opinion as well as a bigoted opinion. If I, as a woman, object to this, you claim this now somehow  makes ME the bigot, simply because I objected. This is some type of magical thinking at work here.  

 

Most of us are aware of the fact that people who are bigots will often loudly and obstinately express their opinion on anything ranging from racial, religious, political, gender, and other personal beliefs. The key here is not that someone has a belief, or is "expressing an opinion," but rather that they are adamantly intolerant about it. So clearly, "A person expressing their opinion can never be a bigot" is  false. ALL Bigots are expressing their opinions. That is what makes us aware of them. That is not what makes them a bigot but neither does it somehow magically  disqualify them from being one.  And objecting to it does not suddenly flip it  around in some sort of "I'm not but you are" type of illogical reasoning.

 

In this particular discussion, pve players who "hate" pvpers are bigots, just as are pvpers who "hate" pve players.  Pretty much any time someone  "hates" another group -- especially over something as benign as gameplay preferences --  should be a clear red flag.

 

Just pointing this out since you "hate people misusing terms".

 

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by Brash_Endeavors

[FranktheTank 1,901]

Oh what fine hell did you all decide to resurrect. 

[Flubb 773]

@Gladiator

3 hours ago, Flubb said:

(to you, in an entirely subjective matter)

 

Spoken through the flower, but that's the main contention that @Ekcinhas already made their objections to, and rightfully so. Didn't think you'd be so daft not to get the memo that not being able to concede that people may want to play the game differently is a bad place to start out with formulating an "opinion".

 

And two can play the dismissal game: PvE not making sense to you is not an argument for destroying it, because it obviously makes sense to plenty of people, and your singleminded perception of it barely outweighs what makes the majority of WO today.

 

And I did pretty much expect your argument of "More for me", it's terribly predictable. And completely shortsighted, ultimately detrimental and purely selfish.

Now, people are allowed to be selfish, but the irony here is that if you are, so am I, and so is everyone else who doesn't want to touch PvP with a ten foot pole, so who wins in the end? Your "argument" of "people should cater to me" holds absolutely no water in a society that respects people's agency and personal liberty. I wouldn't for the life of me even think of forcing you into PvE, because I know by your own words you'd simply just quit the game instead, and you'd be in your complete right to do so. Now what did I gain from "destroying PvP"(assuming that's the scenario)? PvE purity points for defending the only and most noble way of playing Wurm?

Oh right, we got a fraction of those players on PvE now who find it lowkey miserable and would rather be somewhere else. But because of our callous disregard for their preferences, it had to be taken away so we can have more neighbors and live in somewhat less of an abandoned wasteland. I'd rather people have their choice.
 

Edited June 3, 2019 by Flubb

[Flubb 773]

1 hour ago, Gladiator said:

 

This was your only "argument". Starts off with an insult about my cultivating a headcanon in a wonderland. I dont exactly clasify an insult as an argument.

Then "Wanting to destroy something because it makes no sense is an unhinged response" . So basically you insulted my argument. This as well, is not an argument. You just insulted me twice so far. Then - > "Reminds me of certain bigot groups really" . This is the 3rd and last insult.

 

Where were your arguments?

 

I'll up one you on this one because I'm generous.

 

My first "insult" is my criticism of you constructing an argument based on a very narrow minded view that disregards "outside" perspectives, which again, is a bad place to form an opinion from. I have elaborated on why that is a bad opinion, coming from a bad place and resulting in bad outcomes and implications in the last post, which you have ignored and will continue to ignore on your current trajectory.

 

My second "insult" is...against your argument? Because I think it's a bad argument that is unjustifiable and unwarranted for; an absolute non-sequitur for anyone with a shred of respect towards other people's choices to which you are not entitled to have any control over? Yeah, that's called criticism.

 

My third "insult" is an observation that Ekcin has already made in a different color; that you opine in a zealous and dismissive fashion that stems from extreme selfishness and narrowmindedness.

 

Am I being rude in all of this and could be more civil?

Yeah.

But you're certainly no stranger to it and have professed to not caring about stepping on someone's toes.

So seeing you throw your hands up in a kneejerk ego-protection fashion where the insulting implications is all you can look at because you're so conceited about your position and its legitimacy is pretty funny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and before you or Angelkaine say it: "You said his position is not legitimate! That's intolerant! That's against his freedom of opinion!"

 

you can have any opinion you like. That doesn't automatically make your position correct, rational, justifiable, and certainly not beyond criticism. And even if we can not determine objective truth, what's left is that I am also free to have an opinion that yours is...disagreeable.

(This preemptive explanation is not unfounded condescension by the way, that's exactly the nuance that has been glaringly glossed over already, so I'm saying it again in case notes were not taken.)

[Damascus 375]

Can we get back to the Rolf story of what happen I find it interesting what players did .

 

[Ekcin 2,407]

4 hours ago, Angelklaine said:

A person expressing their opinion can never be a bigot. The bigot is the person showing intolerance to the opinion being expressed. You might want to research terms before using them.

 

Intolerance can be an "opinion" as well.

 

And it can hardly be considered tolerant what Gladiator expressed. Rather it was fanatic and extremely narrow minded. And that is exactly what bigot means: A person with a narrow, fanatic mindset, unable to understand or at least be able to sustain and tolerate different views and ways.

 

Definitions different from yours:

- One who is narrrowly or intolerantly devoted to his or her opinions and prejudices.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bigot

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

 

That matches perfectly what Gladiator uttered here in the forum. In this case, the narrow-mindedness goes so far that he advocates the destruction of the game infrastructure of the 90% who hold different views and act differently from him. "Because it makes no sense." To him.

 

So it would be good if you would base your defense on better founded arguments. The term was not polemic and well founded on the previous points made. You cannot expect applause when somebody advocates the destruction of your ingame presence. And as usual, after the rant the whining about "insults". Such a crybaby.

Edited June 3, 2019 by Ekcin

[shakys 526]

Thread has now been locked due to it has derailed with nothing constructive being added to this old thread.

 

Regards

 

Shakys (Forum Moderator)