I swear to god he has some kind of ancient Egyptian curse. There is always, always one of these whenever something happens. He stole an amulet from a tomb or some shit.
More you might like
When you plunder the tomb of an ancient social media magnate from 2003, searching through the abandoned CRT monitors and tangles of ethernet cables, accidentally activating an artifact that will allow you to use social media to gain incredible power, but at a terrible price.
The pact is sealed. Your tweets shall be written in blood.
I swear to god he has some kind of ancient Egyptian curse. There is always, always one of these whenever something happens. He stole an amulet from a tomb or some shit.
Anonymous asked:
🔥tabletop gaming
cptsdcarlosdevil answered:
I always get confused and lose track of the plot because I can’t take in information through my ears very well
This response was super confusing until I realized that some people mean RPGs when they say “tabletop gaming.”
I’ve done tabletop RPGs through written internet chat in the past. OP might find that easier to follow, if they are interested.
I actually prefer doing them through written internet chat, personally, but IRL lets you do a bit of social activity for bonding with more local people.
We really ought to bring back the term “grognards” for misogynist throwback geek boys. I know it used to be applied to “old school” tabletop gamer bros who refused to grow as game systems and gaming culture changed, but I think it’s a good term that deserves to be applied more broadly.
French for “complainers”, the historic grognards were Napoleon’s Old Imperial Guard that he let get away with complaining about stuff that others might go to the guillotine for saying. They were not good for morale, and pretty much universally reviled by the rest of the French Army. Even Napoleon wasn’t all that fond of them, but he let them get away with it because seniority.
I second this motion.
the last time we took an insult that mocked already-hateable people for something relatively unimportant and tried to turn it into a synonym for “misogynist” it did not end particularly well
I hate the word ‘neckbeard’ (to the point where I think it’s an anti-autistic slur), but I still think this is a good idea. The difference is that having a neckbeard does not inherently make you an asshole, but being a grognard in the geek sense has always meant you’re an asshole.
A grognard isn’t just ‘someone who likes older game systems and is sad that newer ones don’t have the features he wants them to’, a grognard is someone who’s That Fucking Guy about it. A guy who says that anyone who isn’t playing their preferred edition of a game is a Fake Geek who Has It Too Easy and Doesn’t Understand What Makes The Hobby Great (sound familiar?). A guy who’s willing to get in big flame wars on the internet about how OH MY GOD 1ST EDITION WAS THE BEST AND ANYONE ELSE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS LYING. A guy who, in short, believes No Fun Allowed unless it’s his preferred kind of fun.
‘Grognard’ thus has two connotations built into it that ‘neckbeard’ does not:
1. “You’re being That Fucking Guy, stop it.”
2. “It’s just a game, you should really just relax.”
As long as we’re careful to specify that this doesn’t just mean someone who’s socially awkward or “creepy” - it specifically means someone who’s That Fucking Guy about women/minorities/LGBT+ people in Nerd Stuff- I think it works.
This was exactly where I was going with it. Thank you for finding better vocabulary than me. Because I also hate the term “neckbeard”, and I also don’t like that we stick related stereotypes to “basement dwellers” and “fedora wearers”. Those things are not the problem with the behavior. That’s bullying someone’s outward appearance or living situation, and that’s not fair or right. But “les grognards” - the complainers - describes what they do, and carries with it why it’s a problem.
I appreciate where you’re coming from, I appreciate the distinctions that you’re trying to draw, but…this is not a good plan, folks, you will not like the thing it ends up doing.
As long as we’re careful to specify that this doesn’t just mean someone who’s socially awkward or “creepy”
That never ever works. Once you create a discursive category, it will immediately start mutating to fit the needs of the people in the discourse. Once you create a discursive category that is specifically crafted to be an insult, it will immediately start being used to insult whatever groups people actually want to insult, so long as they’re close enough to the blast radius that the semantic stretch can be made to work. That is how categorical language works. And if you try to push against it, to defend the rigorous boundaries of your terminology…well, we’ve all seen how well the phrase “well, actually” fares in the wild.
“Grognard” sounds a whole lot like it means “filthy basement-dwelling subhuman autistic neckbeard.” Therefore, if it gains any traction, it will be used to mean that thing by the many people who are invested in making such attacks. The niceties of your usage choices won’t have any power to constrain.
To be clear: I don’t mean to be policing your private vocabulary here, it sucks when you can’t talk as you please, use whatever terminology makes you happy (and live with the consequences if/when people misunderstand you or diverge from your intentions). But it sounds like you’re saying that it would be good to make a public campaign of spreading this particular usage of “grognard,” so as a member of the public I’m pushing back.
The best results are likely to come from not creating weaponizable categories. Say the thing you mean, don’t chunk ideas together. You want to say that someone is complaining about other people having Bad Wrong Fun? Say “he’s complaining about people having Bad Wrong Fun, and he should stop.” It’s more words than “grognard,” but the costs are much lower.
Yes, being redeployed against autistics or fat people or the unfashionable is the almost certain outcome of such an endeavor. You can’t euphemism treadmill your way out of being low status. Just ask the “retarded” - or was it “developmentally challenged” now? The establishment keeps trying, at any rate, but it will never work.
SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.
Watching these videos of people keeping exotic animals on the Internet.
Then you look it up, and it’s like…
The less smug you are, (and the less unethical you are), the less it stings when your most unethical behavior comes to light.
It’s good standard practice to avoid using “wit” (and snark) on people because they are low-status (”gross,” “smelly,” “ugly,” “fat harpy” and so on). First of all, it’s just not a good mental hygiene habit. Second of all, it cannot then come back to haunt you.