"Those Who Cannot Abide" Topic

If we all need to take each other's classes to be able to talk, then I suggest everyone take my Latin I, Attic Greek I and II classes, and my Life of Alexander Elective.

Well, I didn't say you needed to take the class to have a discussion here. I was just inquiring. The fact that you excel at the use of basic propaganda techniques indicates you don't need to.

Techniques, like, for example, responding to something that wasn't said. While I teach that technique in IO for the pruposes of recognition of the technique and countering with a logical, evidence-based argument, the information is certainly leveragable either way.

Responding to something that wasn't said is great for … "dog whistling" … in hopes that others (that support you) will join in and dertail the conversation from the fact that your side is losing the evidence-based argument. It's a great technique for the modern age where quantity of responses can easily drown out quality.

This technique can also potentially derail from a losing argument by leading your opponent into responding to the misleading statement, leafing the actual conversation thread to be lost.

So, again, any empircal data on the use of the term "woke" and the political affinities of members of the forum?

I actually don't believe conversations on a message board require empirical data, we're not at an academic conference. But you don't actually want data, you are just posturing. Data you are well aware it is impossible to have on this message board.

And no, we're not losing an argument. The folks who are not willfully ignoring events to paint the reactionary coup attempt as somehow equivalent to protests for racial justice are just shaking their heads.

I'm not exchanging pseudo intellectual banter with you anymore because I don't believe you are interested in a good faith argument at all. You are wasting our time.

And keep implying I'm a propagandist, go ahead. I'm sure it's a big hit with the people you're winking at.

I wish I could collect a check from Soros and whatever "globalist conspiracy" you think I'm propagandizing for, it would incentivize my time in threads like this.

I don't know what to tell you. Basic data would tell you that this website is overwhelmingly older white males. You know that demographic is about as far away from progressive liberal left as you can get. Its unlikely you will change any minds here, you're yelling into the void.

"Basic data would tell you that this website is overwhelmingly older white males"

I suspect this is probably correct. On the other hand I doubt that there is anything but anecdotal evidence to back it up. And it is possible that the posters here on TMP are actual not representative Of the typical members. I believe Bill made that case about women members.

"you're yelling into the void" no-things that are wrong need to be respectfully called out.

"On the other hand I doubt that there is anything but anecdotal evidence to back it up."

Judging by what I see at various HMGS cons from all regions and pictures from Salute wargaming as a whole is mostly college educated older white men with an interest in history and an occupation that allows them to spend thousands of dollars on figures/terrain. For all that people joke about how cheap wargamers are many of them spend an awful lot of money on the hobby. You have outliers like Bolt Action or Flames of War which attracted a younger crowd but look at pictures of any tournament and tell me what you see. More diversity would absolutely help the long term viability of the hobby and you see it more in fantasy gaming but kids just don't seem interested in refighting Normandy or Waterloo. Not to mention the cost for some systems has spiraled out of control and for a kid with rent + a college loan to pay, spending a few hundred bucks on figures is often out of the question.

TMP is a dinosaur. The forum software is ancient by digital standards, and some people have been posting on the website with the same account for 20 years. If the website hasn't changed in that time its simply not going to. In the end its Bill's website and its going to operate the way he wants it to. I'm not totally against your point, I just think you guys are wasting your time.

overwhelmingly older white males.

Can't really change that …

I believe Bill made that case about women members.

I agree. It is what it is. No one is forced to join or read any posts.

The good thing about old white men is we will all be dead within the next 20 years …

+1 TSD101

I wonder if Bill will actually run a poll to find out what the membership here consists of? I would imagine as others have stated based on anecdotal evidence it would be mostly White males if all answered honestly.

I don't doubt that … old white [some fat] males are the primary denizens to join or visits TMP.
😎

I am supportive data, Legion.

There are many of us, "We are legion." … 😆

I'm not exchanging pseudo intellectual banter

And yet you followed up that post with another…

I wish I could collect a check from Soros and whatever "globalist conspiracy" you think I'm propagandizing for,

Please show me where I accused you of participating in a "globalist consipracy". Well, first tell me what one is.

So, sorry, your psychic powers about what I think are signifcantly lacking.

The only thing I am responding to is your propensity to make unfounded global statements. It's intersting that the other people here that you are disparaging say things like "I feel", "in my experience", "or according to [reference]".

If you're going to say "wargamers" do "this", you should be able to source it. If you're saying "from my experience at XYZ conference" "that", you have sourced it.

I actually don't believe conversations on a message board require empirical data[/quote[

And, again, no one said you need to have data to have conversations. I only asked for data to support your global statements about users here or all wargamers.

I'm sure it's a big hit with the people you're winking at.

Again, your psychic powers are failing. Who are these people?

The folks who are not willfully ignoring events to paint the reactionary coup attempt as somehow equivalent to protests for racial justice are just shaking their heads.

So I diagrammed this sentence to figure out what it says. Then I had to make assumptions about the events to which you are referring. The only connection between those events and this conversation I can make is the assumption that you are pissed off about both.

You've also made a poor psychic judgement about my opinion on the "reactionary coup attempt".

Ok, let's make a deal. I only will engage with you in the future if you refrain from the sophistry and overanalysis and keep to "straight talk".

I will restrict my comments to my own experiences and observations.

And if we're calling out broad generalizations, how about TSDs ridiculous assertion that because most wargamers are older white males (unproven) that it follows that most wargamers are reactionaries (definitely unproven!)

TMP is a dinosaur. The forum software is ancient by digital standards,

Yeah, it's using that 1969 technology …

ridiculous assertion that because most wargamers are older white males (unproven) that it follows that most wargamers are reactionaries (definitely unproven!)

I'm betting most here on TMP are old white [fat] men …

Yeah, it's using that 1969 technology …

Wow I must really be a dino !!! …🦕🦖

Ok, let's make a deal. I only will engage with you in the future if you refrain from the sophistry and overanalysis and keep to "straight talk".

You sure respond a lot for someone who isn't going to respond.

I wouldn't say that pointing out that you were making an unsupported generalization is sophistry.

And if we're calling out broad generalizations, how about TSDs

An, of course, practically no one teaches rhetoric any more. Es Quoque – Him as well (This is the more popular Tu Quoque in third person, colloquially called the "Johnny's Mom" fallacy). Whether or not someone else's statement is an unfounded generalization is irrelevant to whether or not yours is.

TSD101 speaks about "data", which is presumably the site data on demographics, which were already addressed in this threatd and have been addressed as baseless ad nauseum on TMP and manyh other places. The assertiona about political leanings and behaviour is a poorly based ad populum.

how about TSDs ridiculous assertion that because most wargamers are older white males (unproven)

I'm going to assume you have 2 functioning eyes. What do you see in the images of every thread that posts convention photos from across America and Europe? A sea of older white faces. They haven't been joking about the greying of the hobby.

You've been on this site for a year. You'll learn eventually or leave. My bet is on the leaving part.

I'm going to assume you have 2 functioning eyes.

I'm going to assume you don't know the difference between "data" (the word you used) and "anecdote" (what you just described).

Lol "I'll bet on the leaving part"

I wonder why I would with such jolly welcoming banter like that.

I wonder why I would with such jolly welcoming banter like that.

I don't post or even view any of the threads you have a problem with, so it won't be me. I just know that this has been a recurring theme for over a decade on this website and other people have tried and failed to push the change you want. That's not unproven, that is fact as evidenced by the list of people who no longer post here for exactly those reasons. Other people on TMP went down this road before and it never ended in their favor.

I'm going to assume you don't know the difference between "data" (the word you used) and "anecdote" (what you just described).

link

link

link

Feel free to email any of them and ask them how they came up with their numbers and opinions.

So, you don't know the difference between anecdote and data.

First, the information you sighted before my remark was photos from threads; you provided anecdote.

Second, there's no data or method in the first two articles. unless you count "They're all white men, all 50 and older." data instead of hyperbole. In there third, there is a little data, mixed in with a bunch of supposition and bad math.

The data that is there, however, does not reflect what you were talking about, the demongraphics of wargamers.

The data that is there, however, does not reflect what you were talking about, the demongraphics of wargamers.

link

99% Male. 70% of readers are in what might be termed the "established professional" category (ages 36-64).

Sure, its just one site. TMP had similar results in terms of % of male users. Unless you think they're lying. If you have any data that refutes these kinds of numbers, feel free to post it.

Sure, its just one site.

Data from the LLC I run says it's 50% male, 50% female. Attending IIT/sec last week demonstrated to me over 80% of wargamers are female.

Those data are equally as useless to address all wargamers as yours.

So you've got nothing. Got it. Continuing seems rather pointless then.

I got a good tu quoque and quantification fallaccy from you.

I'm glad I could make your day. Bellerophon is right, you aren't interested in any kind of good faith argument, or even discussion. This is a message board essentially about toy soldiers, not your information operations class.

Well, if you consider characterizing large groups of people based on miniscule amounts of evidence "good faith", I certainly won't miss the conversation.

Good point …