Skip to Content

WoW Insider has the latest on the Mists of Pandaria!
  • Shockna
  • Member Since Jun 17th, 2008

Are you Shockna? If So, Login Here.

BlogComments
WoW34 Comments

Recent Comments:

Obama's FCC transition co-chair is a WoW player {WoW}

Nov 20th 2008 6:22PM I kinda doubt that the FCC is the only thing keeping stations from being nothing but child porn, and to be honest, as someone who thinks Intellectual Property is stupid, pirated stuff doesn't overly bother me. >_>

Obama's FCC transition co-chair is a WoW player {WoW}

Nov 20th 2008 5:58PM Looks like the office of Censorship is going to have a WoWer at the helm... Hopefully he's too busy getting phat lootz from Arthas to help run the country into the ground! :D

Next best thing to totally abolishing the FCC (As they should, IMO).

Scourge invasion in Stormwind and Undercity {WoW}

Oct 28th 2008 10:24PM Whats the timer on the Pallid Horror, does anybody know? He's the only Invasion thing I've yet to grab... =/

LucasArts: Star Wars MMO will be bigger than WoW {WoW}

Oct 27th 2008 4:30PM Yeah, it has a shot at being big, but they presume beyond prudence.

The plague is gone, zombies dropping like flies {WoW}

Oct 27th 2008 4:12PM Glad that I'll be able to use the AH again, but I'll miss the plague. But what's this Cathedral event? Is it linked to the quest in which you hand a relic to your faction leader? Varian had nothing else for me after I turned it in...

Paladins nerfed on the beta {WoW}

Oct 25th 2008 9:55PM Nice going. My favorite Paladin spec gets to not completely suck for awhile, in fact, be overpowered, and Blizzard doesn't merely balance us or "tune down". They attempt to destroy us again. Hopefully they listen and balance it so we aren't OP OR lolret.

15 Minutes of Fame: Proudmoore guild plays out GLBT pride {WoW}

Oct 23rd 2008 4:27PM "Luckily, this in general isn't the case."

From my own experience, it's the case for the overwhelming majority. Perhaps you should come down and talk some sense into Tucsons Gay Activists, if it's much different everywhere else...

"So...stop shouting because we don't want to listen? Even though you're shouting for your own liberties that we've taken away?"

No, I'm just saying that it seems almost comical to continue going for an ideal that's impossible. Some people you just can't convince.

"Why is this so important to you? The argument isn't that gay people are more moral than straight people, the argument is that straight people shouldn't be restricting the liberty or endangering the lives/livelihoods of gay people. And vice-versa."

Though I believe homosexuality is immoral, the argument is over coercion. I find the acts of attempted coercion they've attempted down here to be far worse than their actual homosexuality. If they would just mention it casually like straight people do, rather than shouting it from the mountain top like they currently do, I wouldn't have a problem.

"Welp...it isn't. It's the first."

Not in the ones down here. >_> The agenda topper here seems to be angering straight anti-gay people.

"Of course the attitude of rejecting hate speech would have diminished the impact of Goebbels."

I personally think men like him would have found another way. I can't think of it, but I also can't deny the possibility that they would have. Would it have reduced the probability? Sure.

"And why do you believe that Catholic moral teaching is accurate?"

Same reason anyone believes in a Religious morality. Faith. There's no science to it. But think of my philosophy as a strange St. Augustine/Joseph Ratzinger meets Ayn Rand hybrid. If it was scientific, then I'd probably be off trying to legislate it. As it stands, there's a very intelligently erected barrier, intended to keep Church safe from State and vice-versa.

"First off: Diseases are communicable. Homosexuality isn't.
Second off: Are you under the impression that it's impossible that evolution could cause some members of society to be gay in response to overpopulation?"

Not all diseases are contagious. Is Multiple Sclerosis communicable?

"If we were animals I could understand. But given how intelligent we are, even in the case where everyone on Earth suddenly became gay, we could still continue humanity by impregnating women with sperm."

Yes, but I don't think intelligence was intended to go this far by nature. Too much intelligence allows a single life form to dominate nature and destroy any semblance of balance. After all, we are, indeed, still animals. Animals with oversized brains and a bad superiority complex, but animals nonetheless.

"Even if they didn't want to have intercourse, there's such a thing as artificial insemination.

"Which is very strange, and unjustified, considering that sexuality determines sexual behavior with the only guaranteed effect of not accidentally creating a baby, while autism determines general behavior and mental capability in all aspects of life."

Ok, another confession: Diagnosed Asbergers Syndrome here. The impact of certain types is nowhere near as bad as you might think. It appears that you generalize autism as badly I have homosexuality... Either way, I see both of them as genetic flaws.

15 Minutes of Fame: Proudmoore guild plays out GLBT pride {WoW}

Oct 23rd 2008 12:31AM "Why, exactly, would people who want to be accepted not accept others?"

Emotional constraints, mostly. Many aren't willing to accept those who won't accept them.

"In my experience, and I believe mine is greater so please take it to heart, most gay activists only want everyone to accept everyone (which happens to include their own lifestyles)."

And for everyone to accept everyone's lifestyle is a pipe dream. They should make due with tolerance, as far as I'm concerned.

"Meanwhile, anti-gay activists do not want to accept gay people, and thus in general do not want to have to hear them speak (so they don't have to acknowledge and thus give credibility to gay activists)."

From my experience, the reverse is also true. Regardless, both engage in attempts of coercion.

"Are there one or two radicals out there who do want to restrict your freedom of speech? Yes. They do not represent the vast majority, just as (not as radical) anti-gay activists do not represent the majority when they want to keep gay people from demonstrating."

Perhaps. My experience is limited in scope simply based on a lack of omnipresence.

"I think assemblies of people hanging out together espousing self-respect isn't too far."

"Self respect" seems to be the last thing on the agenda at the parades I've been present at.

"Disproving specific instances of hateful speech isn't the same as disapproving of hateful speech in general, which--had it been a prevalent idea--would've kept the propaganda from happening in the first place."

I doubt it. I think that assuming that those ideas would stop propaganda doesn't give credit to the genius of Joseph Goebbels (No, I don't like the man, don't imply it).

"I guess you could explain why you think this is evil and a disease"

Evil: Catholic moral teaching (That's right, I've outed myself as an evil papist. Nothing I say is respectable in the least, right?)

Disease: Evolutionary thinking. A creature attracted to its own sex, which would inhibit reproduction certainly sounds like a serious flaw in design. I put homosexuality in the same vein as autism.

15 Minutes of Fame: Proudmoore guild plays out GLBT pride {WoW}

Oct 22nd 2008 10:14PM :The vast majority of people who consider themselves tolerant are much more accepting of the views of the intolerant than the intolerant are of the tolerant."

Not from my experience. There are exceptions, but most of the acolytes of "tolerance" I encounter are just as hateful of the other side as the side they oppose is of them.

"You might be thinking about how people are apt to automatically discredit the arguments of the intolerant and insult them."

The insults generally just show a lack of effective counters. Ad Hominem is for fools who can't discredit the actual points of the other side.

"But this isn't hypocrisy...it has little to nothing to do with whether or not they are allowed to speak in the first place. Most intolerant people are more likely to restrict the tolerant people's ability to say their piece at all."

And that's the problem with most of the "intolerant"... They almost all have that problem. However, the "tolerant" are no saints, either. Too many of them want the same thing as those who they oppose.

"Some slurs encourage the demonizing of certain groups of people, which leads to violence because people who would use ignorant terms are more likely to believe that they mean something."

They encourage it, but perhaps I have too much faith in humanity. I care little for those with lesser intelligence most of the time. I'd like to think that people worth my time won't go to violence over a few slurs.

"Because acknowledging an ignorance in another so fundamentally as to call others "fag" is a basis for believing that their entire viewpoint is going to be tainted by the ignorance."

Perhaps it's just prejudice? Use of the word as an insult isn't always ignorance.

"And thus it's hard to accept anything they say as being from a place of intelligence, because of the idiocy. See?"

Fair enough. I did overlook that.

"Sure, if they want to. If white people say it and blacks don't care, that's another case where it's fine. But generally they do care, and people know that, so it would be hateful to say it without a mutual understanding."

Why intrinsically hateful? Is "indifferent" not a conceivable factor? Is it not possible that they just don't care?

"Sometimes we like being in Guilds that aren't good for us, and sometimes we like trying to change things so that they're better."

Alright. Acceptable. However, just how far should one go to change things?

"If a dude went around constantly suggesting that women should let him take them violently, as a bad joke, it is indeed the Guild's decision whether or not to try to do anything about it."

Ok, had to make sure.

"But they should, because it promotes violence against women and we everyone who wants to participate in a democracy has an obligation to fight such actions when we can't ignore them."

I wouldn't say that such jokes are always promoting of violence. Done in proper sarcasm, it would really just be innocuous. However... Who said I want to participate in a Democracy? Democracy is a vile form of government, which is essentially three wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. Remember, sir, that America is a Republic, and should it be expected to survive, it should remain such. Democracy be damned.

"Prejudice always turns to violence. Negative legislation isn't needed, we don't need to outlaw words since words in and of themselves are harmless."

Really? I have a great deal of initial prejudice (Particularly against homosexual activists), and I've never entertained the thought of violence against them. That's quite the generalization you've got going.

"It's up to society to discourage the use of the term "gay" negatively just as it was to discourage the use of other words that were used with hatred and thus promoted hatred and violence."

Disapproval doesn't necessarily lead to violence. While you are wrong, you're at least going about your ends the right way.

"Because you don't believe that there's a real problem with speech that promotes hate crimes. And again, no, it shouldn't be illegal by nature, but ignoring it is to close your mind to oppression."

I don't believe that the oppression is as bad as the greatest. Homosexuality, if we'd just research it better, could most likely be treated. Blacks and women can't change their skin color or gender. The oppression is quite different. I still don't follow the whole "disapproving speech leads 100% to violence" argument though.

"There's a difference between a right to exist and having a good reason for existence. I would protect the KKK, but I do do everything I can to discourage its members from being members. Doing otherwise would be tolerable but irresponsible."

Agreeable. I'm used to arguing with radicals, the types who believe in denying such organizations their right to exist. I generally argue with that sect in mind.

"You seem to be feigning incredibly naivete. You have no problem with hate speech, and believe that in and of itself hateful epithets aren't violence. But it's very obvious that they encourage the marginalization of certain peoples and help lead to violence."

In and of themselves, they aren't. It would take a fool to argue that they would. What I'm wondering though, is what exactly you define as "hate"... Are, say, some Christian Churches hateful organizations merely for disapproving of homosexuality and deeming it immoral?

"Without hateful propaganda against Jews, the Nazis would have never amassed the social capital to wage the war that they did."

Of course not. But even that hateful propaganda would have failed to amass such a vicious machine had Germany not been in such extreme times. Economics was the principle cause, race was merely the scapegoat.

"You would have let such propaganda exist, even if you would have later fought against the war itself...therefore, yes, you are part of the problem."

I would have let it exist, but I certainly wouldn't have ignored it. I'd have been out there disproving it.

"And no one isn't doing that. People with views like your own are very, very likely to try to keep articles like Lisa's from existing."

Most "intolerant" would. I wouldn't.

"People with views like mine will shout at and insult you but I would never keep you from saying what you want to say."

The insults give me a twisted amusement. Is it really that difficult to create substance?

"You seem to be assuming that we're trying to take a right of yours away that we aren't."

You may not be, but most radicals I've come across are.

"Otherwise you're repeating the fact that you have a right o speak freely over and over and over without reason. I prefer to believe you have a reason."

What motive would I have? I believe that homosexuality is immoral, and that it's a disease, but I would never condone violence.

Another issue comes in where the word "bigotry" is concerned. I repeat, is mere disapproval considered "hatred" to you? If so, it's a shame that you're becoming accepted. You are far worse than any of the so called "bigots" that you denounce (Don't take that out of context; if you will draw a line between disapproval and hatred, the statement before doesn't count you).

Either way, I won't stand by and allow something I see as evil become accepted lying down. I hold a dream of seeing a diseaseless world. In order to do this, homosexuality must be cleansed.

Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito!

15 Minutes of Fame: Proudmoore guild plays out GLBT pride {WoW}

Oct 22nd 2008 3:27PM “No one is arguing that you shouldn't be able to say what you say.”
I’ve heard plenty of the sort, actually. Most gay pride groups I’ve encountered are hypocrites who would like to put forward laws against any sort of criticism of their plague. Just because nobody here says it doesn’t mean that those who do don’t exist.
“But the fact is that by detracting gay pride you are inadvertently promoting what gay pride fights...hatred towards homosexuality.”
No, I’m saying that if people who dislike homosexuality must tolerate it, then homosexuals must equally tolerate the hatred. Inconsistency cripples a position.
“And so people will react to you by exercising their own freedom of speech, with insults and derision. You can get angry for being demonized but no freedom gives you some sort of protection from it happening. “
I never said I wanted any such laws. Insults and derision simply show a lack of an effective counter. Argumentum Ad Hominem.
“So people like yourself should just accept it and stop complaining about how their freedom of speech is being squashed. It isn't.”
It isn’t, but there are many who would like to see it crushed. Those radicals, from both the pro and anti-homosexual camps, are the real villains here.