THUNDERDOME: On the topic of Pride / Rainbow branded products

[GandalfPC]

I would refer to my comments above regarding to why unequal standards for moderation are applicable and not at odds

[Sir Toddalot]

I did contact Theory 11 in regards to the “cash grab” comment - I had figured it was in no way a cash grab, and knew that Shantell’s cards were very appropriate, but wanted to get all the facts before replying to it here - so here is what T11 said:
“

I’ll gladly retract my statement about this being a cash grab, that wasn’t the sentiment I was hoping to convey. That was worded poorly on my part, and I apologize. It does sound like they are doing more than just a simple recolor, I just meant it does seem lower effort to give a rainbow theme to an already existing deck for another organization. I think if they wanted to show support, they would be better off just making a new custom LGBT themed deck. It does sound like this new edition is the artists wish, and maybe T11 will sometime.

[STLBluesNut]

You can, and people do still laugh when old people slip and fall on ice, but I think it is better if we don’t. There are plenty of “off color” jokes that are not terribly appropriate, and in the case of the alphabet comment, it was not used in the context of a joke.

why limit it to old people? its kind of funny when any age slips and falls on ice, given no serious injury occurs.

i will agree that the statement was not in the context of a joke but it was an ''off color'' sarcastic term used for a group of people such as rednecks or tuckists. furries? weebs, noobs. tons of derogatory terms about people that were in the Navy and off color jokes, if i got offended over all of those i would be a sobbing mess in the corner. i digress, if you would like me to edit it i will.

[STLBluesNut]

I would refer to my comments above regarding to why unequal standards for moderation are applicable and not at odds

however, still ironic, perhaps a bit hypocritical, in the example i gave. they arent mutually exclusive.

[CourtCurator]

i do not disagree. although, i do think it is somewhat ironic when that unequal standard is applied by groups that are ''fighting for equality''.

This comment epitomizes your argument here. You are essentially saying “I don’t disagree, but I disagree.” You can’t even reconcile your own illogical argument because you are not able to honestly admit to yourself that you have hate in your heart that is at direct odds with your belief in the tenants of democracy. You appear to believe in freedom in principle but not practice.

[STLBluesNut]

i do not disagree. although, i do think it is somewhat ironic when that unequal standard is applied by groups that are ''fighting for equality''.

This comment epitomizes your argument here. You are essentially saying “I don’t disagree, but I disagree.” You can’t even reconcile your own illogical argument because you are not able to honestly admit to yourself that you have hate in your heart that is at direct odds with your belief in the tenants of democracy. You appear to believe in freedom in principle but not practice.

i can agree that he is not wrong that there can be a moderating standard applied unequally while thinking it is ironic at the same time. you realize 2 statements can be true at the same time? i am not saying “I don’t disagree, but I disagree.” i am am agreeing with you and at the same time its is ironic in the example i gave. if you dont understand the argument, that is on you. people can have the freedom to do or say whatever they like, one can still disagree with how they use that or what they say or do. just as i am sure you believe in freedom of speech and yet disagree with what i have said. so i guess you are illogical as well. im sure we could go round and round here. you disagree with me. congratulations. get in line.

perhaps you would understand this. lets say i am a person against widgets. i think that widgets are bad for your health and i go to rallys, send letters to senators, go on forums trying to get widgets completely banned because i believe with all that is in me that they are bad for humans and companies could not be allowed to sell them and people should not have them. however, on my way home from a rally against widgets, i stop at the store and buy myself a widget. you wouldn't find that ironic or hypocritical? perhaps double standard is the better term. try and use a different rebuttal than ''its not the same'' or ''but thats different''.

[CourtCurator]

If you actually agreed with what I posted, you wouldn’t think it was ironic. The truth is that you actually disagree with me. You deflect the point because you cannot reconcile the diametrically opposed viewpoints that you claim to support.

Let me ask you this. What would you have those who disagree with you and wish to express themselves do differently? The very nature of your original complaint implies that things should be done differently. What does that look like?

[STLBluesNut]

If you actually agreed with what I posted, you wouldn’t think it was ironic. The truth is that you actually disagree with me. You deflect the point because you cannot reconcile the diametrically opposed viewpoints that you claim to support.

Let me ask you this. What would you have those who disagree with you and wish to express themselves do differently? The very nature of your original complaint implies that things should be done differently. What does that look like?

i havent agreed with what you posted, i agreed with what gandolf posted. i think everything is getting confused here on one end or the other or both. i do disagree with you on some, if not all, of your points. i think one can believe in freedom but disagree with how someone uses that freedom. for instance, i can agree with someone having the freedom to burn the american flag in protest, however, do it in my presence and i can guarantee there will be a conflict. you can have the freedom to burn it, however, there will be a disagreement and consequence.

i am not asking anyone who disagrees with me to do anything differently. do what you are doing and express your opinion. tell me you think i am wrong. have a discussion if you feel like it. remain silent if you feel like it. my original complaint is that there is a company that is supporting a cause i do not agree with and further deleting comments on a post that they do not like, therefore, i will not support them financially. i didnt call for them to do anything differently. the only thing i think you could say i implied was that i don't think they SHOULD censor their comments section. can they? yes. do they have the right and freedom to? yes. whether they SHOULD or not is my opinion. what COULD be done differently is they leave the comments that they disagree with and reply to them or not. a big maybe remove comments that are obviously vile and report the ones they think are offensive through the appropriate channels. that of course is one of many options.

if it were me personally, i would reply to the comments to an extent that i thought was appropriate and report the comments that i thought were inappropriate or violated the platform guidelines. which, at that point, anyone is still free to agree or disagree with my actions and buy or not buy what i am selling.

[STLBluesNut]

i do not disagree. although, i do think it is somewhat ironic when that unequal standard is applied by groups that are ''fighting for equality''.

This comment epitomizes your argument here. You are essentially saying “I don’t disagree, but I disagree.” You can’t even reconcile your own illogical argument because you are not able to honestly admit to yourself that you have hate in your heart that is at direct odds with your belief in the tenants of democracy. You appear to believe in freedom in principle but not practice.

i can agree that he is not wrong that there can be a moderating standard applied unequally while thinking it is ironic at the same time. you realize 2 statements can be true at the same time? i am not saying “I don’t disagree, but I disagree.” i am am agreeing with him and at the same time saying its is ironic in the example i gave. if you dont understand the argument, that is on you. people can have the freedom to do or say whatever they like, one can still disagree with how they use that or what they say or do. just as i am sure you believe in freedom of speech and yet disagree with what i have said. so i guess you are illogical as well. im sure we could go round and round here. you disagree with me. congratulations. get in line.

perhaps you would understand this. lets say i am a person against widgets. i think that widgets are bad for your health and i go to rallys, send letters to senators, go on forums trying to get widgets completely banned because i believe with all that is in me that they are bad for humans and companies could not be allowed to sell them and people should not have them. however, on my way home from a rally against widgets, i stop at the store and buy myself a widget. you wouldn't find that ironic or hypocritical? perhaps double standard is the better term. try and use a different rebuttal than ''its not the same'' or ''but thats different''.

[Harvonsgard]

...i can agree with someone having the freedom to burn the american flag in protest, however, do it in my presence and i can guarantee there will be a conflict. you can have the freedom to burn it, however, there will be a disagreement and consequence.

This is literally not how freedom works and you're literally threating someone disagreeing with you in that example.
It's sad that you aren't able to grasp that, while being 30+ years old (I assume).

[GandalfPC]

Again, I don't think its right to delete dissenting views - and your dissenting views are not being deleted here - that would be inappropriate.

But T11 deleting dissenting views from their instagram post promoting this cause is not the same thing at all - that is their advertising billboard for a product, that is their promotional material for this charity effort - that is not a discussion forum.

They are allowed to promote without providing dissenting views.

I would also say that although a recolor was "low effort" in comparison to a new deck, the artist in question is quite busy with other work regarding this cause and may very well have been too busy with other support efforts to design a new deck, but the deck and artist are still a good fit for this campaign. Didn't mean to call you out on the "cash grab" either - as I had to check to make sure it wasn't one - it well might have been.

[STLBluesNut]

...i can agree with someone having the freedom to burn the american flag in protest, however, do it in my presence and i can guarantee there will be a conflict. you can have the freedom to burn it, however, there will be a disagreement and consequence.

This is literally not how freedom works and you're literally threating someone disagreeing with you in that example.
It's sad that you aren't able to grasp that, while being 30+ years old (I assume).

freedom means the government gives you, or preserves, the ability for you to do something. in this case, burn the flag. you having the freedom to do so does not prevent someone from from disagreeing with what you are doing it, telling you to stop, saying it is wrong, etc. having the freedom to do something doesn't negate the right of someone else to disagree with you. now if i were to say take physical action against said flag burner, that could be a crime for which i could be held legally accountable for.

[GandalfPC]

When words and protests get a violent physical response it is always the violent physical response that is most at fault, regardless of the "inciting" role that the words played - throwing a punch is only truly justified in defense against physical violence, regardless.

Sure, one can expect they might get punched if insulting someones wife, but that does not justify the punch nor excuse it from legal consequences (nor does it make it wise to insult someones wife) - neither truly applies to a flag, which is a protest against the state.

Not only "could" physical violence against a flag burner be a crime, it "is" a crime.

[STLBluesNut]

Again, I don't think its right to delete dissenting views - and your dissenting views are not being deleted here - that would be inappropriate.

They are allowed to promote without providing dissenting views.

no, they are not being deleted here. if they contained language that crossed the guidelines or rules then that actually would be appropriate.

T11 ''being allowed'' to is not the argument now or at the start. i feel like that is just going in circles.

there is a way, i believe, at least with ads, to just turn off or not allow any comments. i would rather see that than only allowing comments they agree with. AGAIN, for those in the back, they can do whatever they like. i am simply not going to support a company financially, partially, that is going to censor, moderate, disallow comments that dissent or disagree. ymmv.

[Harvonsgard]

If you take physical action, you are not respecting and granting the freedom you pretend to agree with. You know nothing about freedom but I don't expected it anyways - just leaving this comment for neutral observers, not as a reply.

[GandalfPC]

Yes, if they act in a manner that you would rather they not you may decide not to support them - I will agree with that entirely.

I personally think it would be inappropriate for T11 to not handle things exactly the way they are handling them, that they are entirely correct for allowing comments that are positive while squashing ones that are negative - my personal feelings - and they have my personal support. I appreciate that they are doing what I consider to be a good thing for a group, and for society in general - ymmv.

[STLBluesNut]

When words and protests get a violent physical response it is always the violent physical response that is most at fault, regardless of the "inciting" role that the words played - throwing a punch is only truly justified in defense against physical violence, regardless. (i hope you have the same opinion towards other acts of violence and violent protests)

Sure, one can expect they might get punched if insulting someones wife, but that does not justify the punch nor excuse it from legal consequences (nor does it make it wise to insult someones wife) - [100 % agree up to here] neither truly applies to a flag, which is a protest against the state.

Not only "could" physical violence against a flag burner be a crime, it "is" a crime.

i only use ''could'' because the physical act was not specified, such as dousing the fire with water. yes, if it were a physical act such as striking the person, it would definitely be a crime. with no other extenuating circumstances.

[STLBluesNut]

If you take physical action, you are not respecting and granting the freedom you pretend to agree with. You know nothing about freedom but I don't expected it anyways - just leaving this comment for neutral observers, not as a reply.

this is situational and not specifying the action. also, as an individual, i dont grant freedom.

[GandalfPC]

Not sure that the situation matters when it comes to respecting anothers freedom - if a person burns a flag and you pour water on it you are not respecting their freedom to protest - you could make your own protest that does not physically interact with their protest, such as holding up your own flag (which they can not and should not set fire to for example)

[Sir Toddalot]

Didn't mean to call you out on the "cash grab" either - as I had to check to make sure it wasn't one - it well might have been.

No worries, I wasn’t offended. Just wanted to clarify my point so I wasn’t misunderstood. My main annoyance is with big companies that jump on every popular movement and use it to sell products and make money. It seems like LGBT is the main thing right now, I see so many rainbow themed products these days. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but I’m sure for a lot of companies it’s just exploiting a popular movement right now, and as soon as some other popular trend comes up they’ll move to that to help sell products. You see it a lot with USA themed stuff too, it used be cool to be patriotic, every company was selling red white and blue stuff. Now it’s not cool to like America, so they’ve moved on. However, In T11s case it does seem like a more sincere effort.

[STLBluesNut]

again, situational. ill take not setting a dry field in a park on fire or causing an explosion because they are standing next to a generator or gas can or protesting at a gas station. so i will put out the fire even if it is a flag in protest. everything is situational and/or limited. everything. we could use the classic yelling fire in a crowded theater. slander. liable. inciting violence.

but, i understand the sentiment. we all have situations where we are not going to respect someone else's freedom. if you say you don't you're just not thinking of those situations at the moment or are a liar. yes, someone burning the flag is a situation where i would not sit by and let them do it without a word, if you want to get specific. im sure i could come up with a number of hypothetical situations many would agree with. neither here nor there. call me a hypocrite or say i don't understand freedom, its all good.

[Harvonsgard]

... i dont grant freedom.

As a free human you do exactly that. But I get it, the deeper understanding of those mechanics requires a certain level of moral, philosophical and political education you're not willing to aquire.

... we all have situations where we are not going to respect someone else's freedom. if you say you don't you're just not thinking of those situations at the moment or are a liar.

Don't extrapolate your lack of imagination on others. Some of us are capable of doing so.

[STLBluesNut]

... i dont grant freedom.

As a free human you do exactly that. But I get it, the deeper understanding of those mechanics requires a certain level of moral, philosophical and political education you're not willing to aquire.

... we all have situations where we are not going to respect someone else's freedom. if you say you don't you're just not thinking of those situations at the moment or are a liar.

Don't extrapolate your lack of imagination on others. Some of us are capable of doing so.

i am not able to grant someone freedom, for instance, to do something illegal. no worries, i don't really take your condescending insults to heart.

if you would put up with things like others using their freedom of speech to insult your wife, children, family. we are just different. someone who has maybe been abusive to your daughter showing up in the same isle as you and your daughter in the grocery store who has the freedom to be in said store just be by your daughter. etc. that may be you but it isnt me and i wont apologize for it one bit nor feel bad for ''violating their freedom''.

[GandalfPC]

I will agree with blues here - while we may not "all" have situations I think that many if not most of us do - I might punch you given the right provocation, I might go over the line with a nazi protesting or yelling hate - it would be nice if I would respect their freedom, but frankly even typing the words I have a tough time with the idea - I would much rather take away a nazi's freedom to protest, I simply live with the fact that we don't seem to be able to do that while still protecting others freedoms. Why do the kkk get to march down the street? Aren't we better than that? No, this is as good as we have managed to figure it. It is an imperfect world by many measures.

[STLBluesNut]

It is an imperfect world by many measures.

i do think that is quite an understatement and something we can, literally, ''all'' agree on.

[CourtCurator]

.. for their latest go woke deck and deleting comments on their insta. t11 officially on the no buy shit list. you want to make some political statement pandering deck then silence those that disagree. go smurf yourselves.

You don’t think you are asking anyone who disagrees with you to do anything differently? You clearly are offended that the deck exists in the comment above. You also clearly think they should have to listen to your thoughts on the matter. Why?

Your complaint implies by its very nature that the way things have happened should not have gone down the way they did. The problem is that if it others had to do it the way that satisfies you, they would be limited in their ability to express their freedom. You don’t have to like what happened, but by complaining about it as though this behavior is a problem for the world, you are effectively denouncing their freedom to do something you disagree with. Why not just move on and allow them to do as they please if you believe so strongly in their freedom of expression? Because you don’t truly believe in it. That’s why.

[Harvonsgard]

no worries, i don't really take your condescending insults to heart.

Where did I insult you?

[STLBluesNut]

.. for their latest go woke deck and deleting comments on their insta. t11 officially on the no buy shit list. you want to make some political statement pandering deck then silence those that disagree. go smurf yourselves.

You don’t think you are asking anyone who disagrees with you to do anything differently? You clearly are offended that the deck exists in the comment above. You also clearly think they should have to listen to your thoughts on the matter. Why?

Your complaint implies by its very nature that the way things have happened should not have gone down the way they did. The problem is that if it others had to do it the way that satisfies you, they would be limited in their ability to express their freedom. You don’t have to like what happened, but by complaining about it as though this behavior is a problem for the world, you are effectively denouncing their freedom to do something you disagree with. Why not just move on and allow them to do as they please if you believe so strongly in their freedom of expression? Because you don’t truly believe in it. That’s why.

lol literally. i started to type a response here, clearly we are on a different wavelength and no amount of explaining to you is going to make any difference nor do i really care to make any difference. i dont need some kind of validation from you or anyone else. you can take what i said as what i said, i disagree and am not going to support them, or take it some other way. nor am i going to go into the hypocrisy or certain parts of your statement because i doubt that all of the ''complaining'' that other groups or people do are doing would be seen by you as a ''problem for the world''. to use your words, you are effectively denouncing my freedom to do something you disagree with, which is simply state that i disagree and that i am not going to support them. have a great day!

[STLBluesNut]

no worries, i don't really take your condescending insults to heart.

Where did I insult you?

''But I get it, the deeper understanding of those mechanics requires a certain level of moral, philosophical and political education you're not willing to aquire.'' i could argue that you are lacking a certain level of intelligence if you do not see that as an insult or condescending.

so wise but not smart enough to figure that one out. again, no worries. reply to that however you like or not at all. im not going to get into a semantical pissing match with you.

[Timmargh]

Dammit, I'm out of popcorn.