THUNDERDOME!!

[STLBluesNut]

well, i suppose the video has some truth to it but wouldnt be very nice lol. one certainly, in the US, has the right to do either.

[acetofive]

I'll tell you why I cringe. Using "retarded" as a way to describe "something" or "somebody" as idiotic or stupid is offensive because it has been co-opted to describe a class of people. I'll put it another way: Retard means to hold back, or delay. Which has been used, appropriately, to describe things such as in your screenshot - which doesn't bother me. And it had also been applied medically, a long time ago, to describe a certain class of people. BUT, it started to get used like this, "Oh look, the Retards are here," which is abusive and humiliating - and painful to the recipients, and was so common, few people cared to take the time to realize how degrading that was. And that's the problem, how do you get people who say, "Oh, but I didn't mean any harm." to realize that, if you step into someone else's shoes, you can see how harmful it is. You don't have to be responsible for how another person responds to a situation - you were right, you can't control that, but you can try walking around in their shoes to get their perspective - it's just decent human behavior. SO, we don't use that word anymore in that context - idiotic or stupid, whether applied to a thing (a deck of cards) or a person - because the meaning - idiotic and stupid - isn't how the word is supposed to be used. When used like that, I cringe, because it's painful to people I care about, friends, family, and people I work with. I find it deeply troubling that some people don't give a crap to try.

Doesn't matter. When I came here last to share some cards, the joy in it was completely absent. I just don't have the "thick skin" to deal with this on a forum about playing cards.

[STLBluesNut]

look man, i dont know what to tell you if one comment about a deck of cards has ruined this whole forum for you. that comment was moderated, so, action was taken. im not sure what else you want. read comment, it was moderated, keep on truckin. you didnt have to come to this part of the forum actually dedicated to discussions such as these and keep on getting upset. im with you, you have a right to be offended, hurt, upset, etc. what you dont have a right to, in the US (not yet), is to not be offended. especially when someone, somewhere is so easily offended by anything and everything (that you have to admit is true). i would bet dollars to donuts someone was offended by reading '' idiotic and stupid'' in your post. sounds like your half defending calling someone stupid but cant say the r word to describe the same thing. someone is probably offended/''triggered'' by my lack of proper capitalization and punctuation OR IF I WERE TO TYPE LIKE THIS. THE AMOUNT OF TIMES IVE SEEN OTHERS PISSED ABOUT ALL CAPS IS MIND BOGGLING. yep, that is also one i consider a them problem.

hell, i am half offended when someone uses the word ''cringe''. dont get me started on the word ''ick''. maybe we can agree on the statement that the use of the english language has really gone downhill (you think hills are offended by that phrase?), but i am not lobbying the mods or threatening to leave because you said ''cringe.''

at the end of the day its personal preference. i am sure if i listed a number of things that i was irritated by you would say its no big deal, its the way it is now, get over it. its my problem if i am ''triggered'' by it. there might even be words that you think are silly or benign to use that i dont like.

its up to you to choose to ''keep it pushin''' or be upset to the point of leaving.

all that being said, personally, i dont normally go out of my way to intentionally offend or upset someone.

this is about the 4th response i have written. so this response is what it is. tired of typing and thinking about it.

[Bradius]

Yah know, I just ain't trigger'd by much at all. Heck, I'd just like to mosey over to the nearby Karbash brewery and lay down a few bills for some tall draft beers. That'd be nice and I would say I am in tall cotton indeed.

[Harvonsgard]

Lel. It's pretty boring how some have such a strong opinion on certain words and always want to paint people who use them as trolls, backwarded, intentionally hurtful or whatnot when these words and/or their direct translations are perfectly fine and not offensive in others everyday life. But appearantly that's a hard concept to grasp .
In the context of old standard courts I'll call them special from now on - if that is deemed appropriate. Saves me a letter to type so I'll call it a win-win if no one vetos special.
I'm open to other suggestions if special in that context is deemed offensive as well.

[Honeybee]

I have changed my avatar. In the context of the current discussion, I thought I would explain why.

I like Mechanic Industries Visualies deck with the 'stripped queen' trick but I am male and while I might love the vividness of my old avatar, I can no longer ignore that it may have made some others uncomfortable

I was reading a thread on reddit, "How many playing card collectors here are ladies? Why are males more drawn to this hobby than females?" and I could appreciate the sentiments of a female collector's contribution which included:

it’s also super disappointing to see how sexualised women can be in card art, I personally refuse to buy playing cards with boobs showing on the illustrations, things like that further reinforce the idea that playing cards are for men, especially as the kings or jacks are not shown in sexualised ways in the same packs

https://www.reddit.com/r/playingcards/c ... re_ladies/

I might still buy the occasional risque deck (especially as I love everything French) but I do not have to flaunt them, which is what using one as my avatar was doing

[Harvonsgard]

... someone is probably offended/''triggered'' by my lack of proper capitalization and punctuation OR IF I WERE TO TYPE LIKE THIS. THE AMOUNT OF TIMES IVE SEEN OTHERS PISSED ABOUT ALL CAPS IS MIND BOGGLING. yep, that is also one i consider a them problem.

That's me then, lel.
I want to unlife you everytime I read one of your posts. /s

[GandalfPC]

want to paint people who use them as trolls, backwarded, intentionally hurtful or whatnot

I don’t think it’s appropriate to paint people in that manner, and I hope that no one else mistakes you as such - but I don’t think its a matter of wanting to paint people one way or another over a word they used - just an ask that they stem its usage

[Timmargh]

[edit] On second thought, don't feed the trolls.

[Harvonsgard]

I don’t think it’s appropriate to paint people in that manner, and I hope that no one else mistakes you as such - but I don’t think its a matter of wanting to paint people one way or another over a word they used -

No worries at all. It just reads like that sometimes but as I wrote prior, I'll assume the best intention and I just chalk it up to they don't get me and no one certainly has to .

Now seriously though; can we ban STL for not using proper punctuation?

[GandalfPC]

Now seriously though; can we ban STL for not using proper punctuation?

Done.

[STLBluesNut]

lol. what can i say. im not a strong typer and really i am just too lazy to take the time for all that. when i use outlook for work it just does all of that for me. maybe there is a plugin for the forum that does it. i have tried a few times learning to type without looking and faster, its just not in my wheelhouse.

[STLBluesNut]

I have changed my avatar. In the context of the current discussion, I thought I would explain why.

I like Mechanic Industries Visualies deck with the 'stripped queen' trick but I am male and while I might love the vividness of my old avatar, I can no longer ignore that it may have made some others uncomfortable

I was reading a thread on reddit, "How many playing card collectors here are ladies? Why are males more drawn to this hobby than females?" and I could appreciate the sentiments of a female collector's contribution which included:

it’s also super disappointing to see how sexualised women can be in card art, I personally refuse to buy playing cards with boobs showing on the illustrations, things like that further reinforce the idea that playing cards are for men, especially as the kings or jacks are not shown in sexualised ways in the same packs

https://www.reddit.com/r/playingcards/c ... re_ladies/

I might still buy the occasional risque deck (especially as I love everything French) but I do not have to flaunt them, which is what using one as my avatar was doing

after reading and thinking about this, i find it interesting as to why men might be more interested in playing cards than women. i do not think it has anything to do with the way queens are depicted. i have pretty limited playing card history knowledge but it seems really custom decks with art other than standard being common is relatively new. standard courts were even more prevalent just 6 years ago. playing card collecting has been a thing much longer than that when it was just bicycle cards, airlines and cigarette ads. i think it could be a factor in some decks selling more but even then, those decks do not get as many sales in general as decks without scantily clad women. if this were the case every hartsoe deck on kickstarter would be setting records but they barely make enough to fund a low goal. i looked on KS at some of the more risqué campaigns i could think of and their funding isnt anything above average, seem quite low actually.

a quick google search shows about 75% of teachers in the US are women. would it be safe to just assume it is because women are more attracted to children? thats absurd right? so i think this female that made this assertion on reddit is... well... i cant really say considering the recent discussion in this thread.

my thoughts are it seems men are just more drawn to games in general and card games in particular. if you go past the poker room in a casino, my experience is that is filled with predominantly men. same with other card game tables. i think men have a propensity towards collecting things moreso than women as well. add those 2 and you have more men collecting playing cards and not for some inferred sexist reason.

also, why even post this? just change your avatar because you think it might offend and dont want to offend and keep scrolling. looking for some kind of kuddos or scooby snacks? virtue signaling?

[GandalfPC]

also, why even post this? just change your avatar because you think it might offend and dont want to offend and keep scrolling. looking for some kind of kuddos or scooby snacks? virtue signaling?

As fun as it can be to pick apart people’s motives, “virtue signaling” is just bloody fine with me. Don’t know if thats what it was - but if you feel like saying something here that might signal that you have virtue, please signal away. It warms my heart to hear it.

To try to call someone out for virtue signaling is virtue signaling.

[GandalfPC]

On a side note I actually did mean to comment on that - I do think it’s fine to post risqué decks in collection thread and a labeled deck thread. As for the Avatar it didn’t bother me, but it does appear in every corner of the site so I can see the reasoning

[STLBluesNut]

To try to call someone out for virtue signaling is virtue signaling.

i mean, if you say so. it certainly wasnt MY intention. i dont follow your logic here. it dont need to and it doesnt really matter. i was genuinely curious why. just so random and odd to make that post. im sure everyone here can recount instances where they did something with virtue. its just weird to randomly bring it up.

since you just called me out for virtue signaling, i guess by your definition you are virtue signaling, so then i am and around we go.

as a side, gandalf. you didnt comment on the rest of the post or his post. you seem pretty insightful, i would like to hear why you think there are more men than women in the card collecting hobby. you seem more in tune with psychological things and you certainly seem more eloquent and able to transfer thoughts to a written format than i.

[GandalfPC]

My point is that I have heard the term “virtue signaling” before, and I’m not a fan of its use. If you say that someone is doing that you are assuming that they have some motive you don’t approve of - it’s a judgement - one that quells speech.

It’s culture war wording and you will note it has a sharp edge. It is not a compliment or a color. It’s a judgement.

On top of that - it’s pretty stupid - as it denigrates people saying positive things - trying to paint them as some woke push.

When you signal a virtue you bring it to others minds, so that they may also contemplate that virtue. Perhaps they shake your hand. I frankly don’t care why you do it, or if you do it - but I’m not going to slap you for it.

But as it is “culture war” we know that the other side of the equation is a real desire to stomp it out, label it as pushing an ideology and try to make those doing so feel embarrassed or weak - painting the act as a cry for attention or desire for adulation.

[STLBluesNut]

well, i disagree with pretty much all of that, especially as i was asking a question but i have no interest in semantics debate with you for the same reasons i asked your opinion above ''you certainly seem more eloquent and able to transfer thoughts to a written format than i.'' also, it is a debate that would be unlikely to change your mind, or mine, therefore, fruitless. i do not need to change your mind or have you agree with me. i do not need some sort of validation of my opinions or actions as opposed to 'look what i did for women' above.

any opinion on more men than women in card collecting?

[GandalfPC]

While you may not appreciate it, others might. I did.

I also appreciated his voicing it and bringing it to my attention.

If you had asked a question we would not be chatting now - what you did was attempt to call them out for virtue signaling, which is more of an attack than a question.

You may or may not need validation on this or other topics - thats not the point - the point is that you have decided to paint someone else as seeking validation and covered it in a virtue signaling umbrella that seeks to find purchase in others minds so as to shut them up before they should utter further - question if they seek validation or if it will be seen that way by a critical crowd. It chills speech. That is the intention of the term “virtue signaling” - to say “keep it to yourself because if you don’t you are just doing it for yourself” - I don’t agree that communication or society works like that.

[Timmargh]

In my limited experience I think men are more likely to collect things and have similar hobbies than women in general, not just limited to card collecting. I have had, and do have, almost as many female friends as male and very few of the female friends really had anything that could be called a hobby other than maybe gaming.

I did have one friend however who seemed very keen on collecting a***ole boyfriends.

[STLBluesNut]

i asked a question, why post this and gave a couple of options. you can certainly attribute whatever you want to my motivation or paint me or my statement in any color you like. doesnt bother me at all because i know what my intentions were.

[STLBluesNut]

In my limited experience I think men are more likely to collect things and have similar hobbies than women in general, not just limited to card collecting. I have had, and do have, almost as many female friends as male and very few of the female friends really had anything that could be called a hobby other than maybe gaming.

I did have one friend however who seemed very keen on collecting a***ole boyfriends.

lol on the boyfriends.

for the hobbys, do you think that many hobbys, especially collecting things, seem to be a solo kind of activity? unless maybe discussing something about the hobby or trying to find information. with women being more social beings in general, hobbys and collecting things dont appeal as much?

[GandalfPC]

“Why post this” could have been asked without options, as those options seemed to include a few insulting ones.

One reason to post it would be to get feedback, as I think that decision was made without really knowing if it was the correct one.

But in regards to posting things that are “positive actions” to elicit praise, the pros and cons of the argument from Bard. This is assuming the praise was motivation, which I don’t in this case, to isolate the debate. The sum of it seems to be “it's important to be mindful of the potential for self-serving motivations and negative comparisons.” and “Seeing others receive praise for their good deeds can create feelings of comparison and competition, leading some to focus on external validation rather than the intrinsic reward of helping others. This can discourage genuine acts of kindness.”

So do good, and keep your motives pure for best effect

—————————-

The psychological impact of sharing good deeds online to get praise is complex and multifaceted, with potential benefits and drawbacks in terms of encouraging others to do good. Here's a breakdown:

Positive impacts:

Social reinforcement: Receiving positive feedback (likes, comments, etc.) can activate the reward system in the brain, creating a sense of pleasure and satisfaction. This can motivate the person who shared the good deed to repeat the behavior and potentially inspire others to do the same, hoping to receive similar positive reinforcement.

Increased visibility of good deeds: Sharing online can bring positive acts to the attention of a wider audience, inspiring others who might not have been aware of the opportunity to help. This can create a ripple effect of good deeds.
Sense of community and belonging: Sharing good deeds can foster a sense of community and belonging, encouraging people to feel connected to others who share similar values and motivations. This can create a supportive environment where good deeds are appreciated and encouraged.

Negative impacts:

Self-serving motivation: If the primary motivation for sharing is praise, it can undermine the intrinsic value of doing good. This can lead to people doing good deeds for the wrong reasons, potentially diminishing the impact and sincerity of their actions.
Comparison and competition: Seeing others receive praise for their good deeds can create feelings of comparison and competition, leading some to focus on external validation rather than the intrinsic reward of helping others. This can discourage genuine acts of kindness.

Discouragement and envy: If someone's good deeds are not recognized or praised online, it can lead to discouragement and envy, potentially hindering their motivation to continue doing good.

Overall:

The impact of sharing good deeds online depends on several factors, including the individual's motivation, the online community's response, and the broader social context. While it can encourage good deeds through social reinforcement and increased visibility, it's important to be mindful of the potential for self-serving motivations and negative comparisons. Ultimately, the most sustainable motivation for doing good comes from intrinsic values and a genuine desire to help others, regardless of online validation.

Additional considerations:

The type of good deed and the online platform can also influence the impact. Sharing personal acts of kindness might have a different effect than sharing volunteering experiences.

The individual's personality and online behavior can also play a role. Someone who is more susceptible to social validation might be more influenced by online praise.

[STLBluesNut]

you are right. the question could have been asked without options, but it wasnt and ill not go back and edit it. as you have made assumptions on my intention for asking i will make my own assumptions about why he posted. the ask was to find out more. your post here has potential options and i think one option is more likely than others.

i do find it ironic that you paint me in a bad light for asking a question which you interpret and assume is me attempting to paint his post in a bad light. you assume i am assuming his intentions because you are assuming my intentions. i believe they call that projecting. like the cheater that accuses their partner of cheating.

at the end of the day, it does not matter, i was only asking. assume whatever you like about the question or options. whether it is evident or not, i dont care about other's opinions of myself, actions or statements. although i suppose one could argue that since i keep replying that i actually do? perhaps it is the propensity of one to defend themselves or maybe a desire to ''be right''. either way, refer to the first 2 sentences of this paragraph. or maybe it is a flaw of mine to have the last word? i suppose if your goal was to get me thinking, mission accomplished.

[Timmargh]

lol on the boyfriends.

for the hobbys, do you think that many hobbys, especially collecting things, seem to be a solo kind of activity? unless maybe discussing something about the hobby or trying to find information. with women being more social beings in general, hobbys and collecting things dont appeal as much?

I've never really thought about it, but that could be a valid point. Now I do think about it, a few female friends did more creating hobbies, such as (but not limited to) drawing, and my last partner made greetings cards, and was a demon with a sewing machine.

[GandalfPC]

I wasn’t making observation about intent beyond warrant, but was mostly making observations of execution.

[Harvonsgard]

This thunderdome gets way too cosy imho. It's a fookin' thunderdome you guys! Less empathy and more bare knuckles please.

In regards to the hobby thing. In my experience it's congruent with what @Timmargh wrote. If women have hobbies it's either crafty/artsy stuff or sports. Collecting seems indeed to be more catering to male attributes.

[GandalfPC]

That may explain why our pants have more pockets

[Honeybee]

i was genuinely curious why. just so random and odd to make that post. im sure everyone here can recount instances where they did something with virtue. its just weird to randomly bring it up.

You thought I randomly brought it up - Really???????????
This thread was more or less discussing whether we should self censor our vocabulary out of consideration for others
Considering this and the fact that I had just read the Reddit post by a female who expressed her discomfort at the sexualization of women in decks
Don't you see the small step I took from self censoring vocab to self censoring picture/avatar posting

The reason I posted about it were twofold
1. After posting so often under the other avatar I thought I sort of owed an explanation/apology
2. I thought it contributed to the self censorship debate

I did not think that I was 'doing something with virtue' - I thought I was admitting a failure on my behalf

Why are you making assumptions about why I posted it before giving me a chance to see your question and answer it. When did I post it? 24hrs ago? I have been travelling today and I am so sorry for not answering your question fast enough for you (and necessitating you casting aspersion - holy cow)

Only 14 hours after I made my post you attacked me without waiting for an answer to what appeared to be a question for this was in the same post as the question!

looking for some kind of kuddos or scooby snacks? virtue signaling?

I don't even know what virtue signaling is (never heard it before)

I can tell you that I was not looking for any kudos, I feel quite the opposite - I feel guilty for having that avatar for 8mths

I had better stop before I too become a keyboard warrior attacking strangers on a forum
This has been such a fun place - you just took a chunk of that away

[Harvonsgard]

Some get it, some don't. The older I get, the more I realize it's wrong to assume that others are able to look into our heads, no matter how obvious and clear it looks for us. Communication is flawed.
I saw the intention of your first post and found it on topic to the former discussion.
Being mostly on here on an iPhone mini, I never realised your avatar was risqué to be honest, haha. On the mini display avatars are like 4x4 mm big - or tiny for that matter.