RPGnet Forums

[Fictional Character]

The abuse MZB allowed her twisted husband Walter Breen to inflict on her own daughter and other children is the stuff of horror movies. Incidentally this is what happens when thanks to progressive stack bullshit you allow a certain elite of people to be completely immune for their heinous acts.

Also it's not like it was unknown Breen was an open NAMBLA member.

Her daughter claimed that she molested her and did not just let her husband do whatever he wanted. Her son corroborated the daughter's claims. Elizabeth Waters, the heir to her literary estate and one of her greatest defenders, stated in her deposition that when she confronted MZB with the daughter's claim that she molested her, MZB said it was okay because children do not have erogenous zones. Two of her children agree that she was a child molester. Her defenders don't deny it, just try to downplay it. That's more than enough for me to believe she was a pedo like her husband.

 

[Jan Ciągwa]

Offtopic, but remember when during the 90s videogames had those dumb parental password options to lock out gore & violence from the game away from your kids? How it never worked, because computors were still toys for boring nerds and a typical dad had no idea how to do something as simple as that?

But hey, at least the church ladies were mollified and at least they were ladies back then, not crossdressing clowns suffering from male pattern baldness.

 

[NerdShamer]

You know, it's kind of weird to walk through one of their older threads and see quite a few people banned from them. This guy is permanently banned, for NOT agreeing with an retarded argument.

 

[PancakesPancakesPancakes]

You know, it's kind of weird to walk through one of their older threads and see quite a few people banned from them. This guy is permanently banned, for NOT agreeing with an exceptional argument.

Thats just purging the oldguard. Gotta get rid of the people who remember better times.

 

[NerdShamer]

Thats just purging the oldguard. Gotta get rid of the people who remember better times.

At least that explains why this guy is flagged as an repeat offender.

 

[Autistic Joe]

You know, it's kind of weird to walk through one of their older threads and see quite a few people banned from them. This guy is permanently banned, for NOT agreeing with an exceptional argument.

Kinda like browsing old threads on SA tbh, same type of capricious moderation. It's amazing there's any users left on either forum.

 

[Great Sun Jester]

"Hi, my name's Dawgstar and I'm a fucking moron."

View attachment 2662271

Show of hands: who here is in a wheelchair? Good. Now, have you ever felt it was necessary to be 'represented' in a game by playing someone in a wheelchair, especially a wheelchair system that was so unbalanced the designer should've been laughed out of the hobby?

The way they write "Good Thing" in capital letters really cements that this is not up to any kind of discussion. Even if you are a quadraplegic nigger faggot.

 

[Wallace]

It's been a busy week of banning people for not agreeing hard enough.

 

[Shaka Brah]

Cockmongler.

I'm not surprised to see them running interference for Baldwin. I guess guns really do just jump up and shoot people by themselves.

 

[Hugbox Kommissar]

That's gotta be the most specific group attack I've ever seen on that site. Fuck you, people from one specific Turkish city!

I really want someone to sit down and walk me through the process the Landback people expect to follow, because I'm guessing it's something like:
Step 1: induce white guilt
Step 2: ???
Step 3: cash government checks
Correct me if I'm wrong, people who expect the federal government to hand over Mount Rushmore.

 

[Shaka Brah]

I really want someone to sit down and walk me through the process the Landback people expect to follow, because I'm guessing it's something like:
Step 1: induce white guilt
Step 2: ???
Step 3: cash government checks
Correct me if I'm wrong, people who expect the federal government to hand over Mount Rushmore.

It's the usual grift, yes.

 

[Game master arino]

This is like if judge dredd were a internet janitor. two month bans for incorrect thoughts. Not to mention the smug way they type out each sentence as "time off".

 

[Wallace]

I really want someone to sit down and walk me through the process the Landback people expect to follow, because I'm guessing it's something like:
Step 1: induce white guilt
Step 2: ???
Step 3: cash government checks
Correct me if I'm wrong, people who expect the federal government to hand over Mount Rushmore.

You're not far off. Progressivism does not select for practicality. If anything, it selects against practical solutions. Commitment is what gets selected for, even if the commitments are absurd.

To the heroic narrative of progressivism, practicality is a limitation caused by a failure of sufficient commitment. Privileged people could solve all the injustice in the world if they wanted to, but they don't because they are evil oppressors. If enough resources are concentrated in the hands of people with strong enough commitment to the right intentions, then everything will magically work itself out.

It goes like this:

1. Give the Good People all the money and resources.
2. ?????
3. Fully automated luxury gay space communism and the end of oppression and injustice.

Skepticism, on practical grounds, about whether such resources+intent arrangements will work as well as claimed are treated as being hostile to the noble goals of progressivism and so are treated as merely making excuses for the evil oppressors to be allowed to persist.

 

[Nigger Respecter]

The goal being wildly unattainable is precisely the point. You can just announce that you believe this goal should be reached, and the fact that it's never going to happen doesn't really matter, because you've vocalized a position that others can laud you for having.

Practical solutions are discouraged because they are seen as "compromising" with evil people. It all makes sense if you split political factions into Good vs. Bad with no middleground whatsoever

 

[Loose Goose]

Two months for not being 100% on board with a ludicrous, harebrained scheme, though, must be close to the end of the purity spiral. A step up even among reality deniers.

 

[Mola Ram]

Two months for not being 100% on board with a ludicrous, harebrained scheme, though, must be close to the end of the purity spiral. A step up even among reality deniers.

The purity spiral is not going to end until 1) the board shuts down completely or 2) the mods start banning each other.

 

[Kongo-Müller]

That's gotta be the most specific group attack I've ever seen on that site. Fuck you, people from one specific Turkish city!

I wonder if the film Vampire Circus could be discussed on RPG.net these days without groveling about potential group attack trigger warnings, as its plot hinges on a curse placed on the people of a specific Serbian town.

But then it also has a naked bodypainted woman, thieving gypsies and crosses being an undisputed force of good, so this highly problematic film would give RPG.net mods several aneurysms anyway.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

Two months for not being 100% on board with a ludicrous, harebrained scheme, though, must be close to the end of the purity spiral. A step up even among reality deniers.

Woooow, that was some gay fucking bullshit. Not you, Loose, but the Rpgnet forum posts.

Someone points out 'hey, you're running the risk of this being hijacked, or a case of meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old' and they ban them for two months? Holy fuckballs.

Astralrunner had no prior infractions, near as I can tell. Maxen M had one: a one day ban for an absolutely retarded take by Salinea.

DarkStarling, Karalora, DLathrop and Maxen M, the only thing repeatedly asked in this thread was for progressive Christians to not keep calling Christians with values contrary to theirs "not Christians". One of the reasons for this is that this establishes the moral good of Christians as a premise, and that in itself frames non-Christians in opposition. This is a simple request that is not particularly difficult to follow, and yet, your posts, showed a pattern of taking that and reimagining it into a demand for widespread reform, which was then rejected as impossible even as your posts agreed superficially with the statement.

Bolded portion was bolded by me. If you claim to be a Christian and you hold values and views contrary and antithetical to Christian doctrine, exactly how the fuck are you a Christian? I mean, that's like me declaring 'I like free speech' and calling for KF to be shut down.

(No, I'm not calling for KF to be shut down. LOL.)

Those two should shake the dust from their sandals and find another forum. Maxen's been there since 2012; Astralrunner's been there since 2006. I know it'll be a wrench, but they're probably on the shitlist at this point for addressing the elephants in the room.

 

[Kongo-Müller]

Bolded portion was bolded by me. If you claim to be a Christian and you hold values and views contrary and antithetical to Christian doctrine, exactly how the fuck are you a Christian?

BRIAN: Are you the Christian Progressive Front?

REG: Fuck off!

BRIAN: What?

REG: Christian Progressive Front. We're the Progressive Front of Christians! Christian Progressive Front. Cawk.

FRANCIS: Wankers.

BRIAN: Can I... join your group?

REG: No. Piss off.

BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Nonchristians as much as anybody.

PROGRESSIVE FRONT OF CHRISTIANS: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.

REG: Stumm.

JUDITH: Are you sure?

BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Nonchristians already.

REG: Listen. If you wanted to join the P.F.C., you'd have to really hate the Nonchristians.

BRIAN: I do!

REG: Oh, yeah? How much?

BRIAN: A lot!

REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Nonchristians are the fucking Christian Progressive Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah...

JUDITH: Splitters.

P.F.J.: Splitters...

FRANCIS: And the Christian Popular Progressive Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

LORETTA: And the Progressive Front of Christians.

P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

REG: What?

LORETTA: The Progressive Front of Christians. Splitters.

REG: We're the Progressive Front of Christians!

LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.

REG: Progressive Front! C-huh.

FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?

REG: He's over there.

P.F.J.: Splitter!

 

[Wallace]

One of the reasons for this is that this establishes the moral good of Christians as a premise, and that in itself frames non-Christians in opposition.

Kind of like when you establish yourself as being pro-social justice or anti-racism, you can then cast your detractors as anti-social justice or pro-racism, huh?