Adults only, will be a private game.

This game is not for the faint or fragile.
I do not want to fail to communicate to you the following;
This game uses the rules system for pathfinder 2e, and the Golarion Campaign setting.
This campaign setting includes;
... depictions of violence with lethal weapons, and the potential of graphic critical hit descriptions.
... Depictions of vile corruption (use of legal inebriation substances, legalistic semantic games to excuse criminal acts, use of political connections to evade justice.)
... Debasement and objectification of persons (Reducing a person's true worth/potential to a commodity for consumption, such as prostitution)
... and acts that are VERY OBVIOUSLY EVIL (slavery, destructive illegal drug abuse, evil cults attempting to sacrifice innocents)

The players are in a world of cruelties, and very real consequences (for actions... and Inaction).
The players are meant to rise up, stand in opposition to the wickedness - regardless of the personal cost.
The players may face dangers and opponents who have no restraint, no moral compunctions whatsoever.
The players can face impossible odds, suffer terrible injury, and be betrayed by allies...

The players are meant to rise above it all to embody "Invictus".

If you are fragile (can be hurt by words); you are not welcome to join this game.
This is YOUR WARNING.

no snowflakes

Wow... Is that how you address your fellow players? I'm not sure I would have you as a GM

It's perfectly fine to run a game that will cater to a certain audience. I appreciate that you've established what your game will be about and what the players can expect.

It is not okay to disparage those that are not of that audience. We are a diverse community with differing life experiences and preferences, and there is no need to insinuate that any one preference is better than others.

While I agree that it's ok to cater to certain audiences, I think it's equally disparaging to call people who are not of that demographic "snowflakes" or are somehow weaker if they don't appreciate that kind of game. The original post was itself full of insinuations belittling people who may be "triggered" which I think the other posting was calling out because it was felt pretty toxic.

Edit: Reading back, I'm not sure if you were siding with the OP or the first commenter on who was being disparaging, so apologies if you were calling out the OP and not the other poster.

I believe the OP and the first commenter are one and the same.

This is after him toning it down by a lot. This is positively mild compared to what this looked like yesterday night.
And then there was his Savage Worlds game from last week which promised to not be "SJW anti-christian garbage"...

Sorry, I meant the first post that wasn't the OP.

Damn, that is more red flags than a Chinese parade.

IMO the commentary is unnecessary. This kind of intro post is actually ideal, even if the game might not be to your taste. Anyone joining the came ought to know what they're getting into, rather than finding out later, so it perfectly filters for people REALIST wants to play with. If this doesn't look like the kind of game you'd enjoy, don't join it.

I think this is the community working as designed, expressing its feedback in response to a post that goes against the prevailing tone and sentiments that have been established over a period of years.

These are things not governed by rules. This part of the function of our community is intended to be self-regulating. That's exactly what is happening.

This is far from the first time he's behaved like this. I came over here expecting a trainwreck ERP posting. Found a different kind of trainwreck instead. At this point, not sure there's really any reason to even read his posts anymore.

I'll give him credit for setting very clear expectations as for the game's content. That much is good, I can appreciate that even though I'm definitely not a fan of the 3edgy5u tone.

However, putting down people who don't feel comfortable with that stuff is just unnecessary. Oh boy, I'm sure glad he told us that snowflakes aren't welcome, that sure was a warning that I needed after all the warnings about gore, prostitution, and "acts that are VERY OBVIOUSLY EVIL".

...I guess it is a warning, but not for the game's content.

Agreed.

Everyone is welcome to, and should, be up front about any "abnormal" game content.

But the community coming into this public post to comment on it's greater implications and value to them as a community member is just as welcome and necessary, IMO.

For instance, I hadn't seen any of his previous "work". I'm glad he put this post up...

*Adds a name to his very short "Users I'm Not Interested In Having Anything To Do With" list.*

CancerMan's post was perfect. This thread should have stopped there. At this point, it's just piling on with people saying "this guy sucks" which is no better than the snowflake comment. Please let it end.

If it's OPs "right" to imply anyone who doesn't want to be a part of graphic depictions and overtly evil gameplay is a a snowflake, it is absolutely everyone else's "right" to comment on that, should they so desire.

Trying to stifle that response - no matter how large - would be the same as stifling the OP.

It "should" only stop when everyone is done expressing their thoughts on the matter.

So long as such commentary remains within bounds of forum rules, of course.

The responses here do nothing but vindicate the OP.

As someone said this is a diverse group, if you object to the term snowflake (a label in a value system that you may not share) then why not scroll on? why start up with the moral outrage that the OP was talking about in the first place.
It's like you can't help yourselves, someone puts a post up about a game that is obviously not for you, and rather than accept that and move on there are replies using terms like toxic and red flag.

If you're serious about this being a diverse group, then respect the differences and just carry on!

If we are not able to respond to a post in which a member namecalls people who don't play the kind of game he likes to play, then what you're really advocating is that a certain type of member is entitled to "free speech" and those who are his targets are expected to "scroll on" and allow it.

EDIT: Just want to add that this kind of weaponization of the idea of "diversity" invariably is used to tell people who represent or champion marginalized groups that pointing out namecalling or subtle bigotry and abusive language is actually a form a oppression. This is utter hogwash.

I don't think the response has anything to do with moral outrage. No one's saying, "You can't run games like that!"

The exact opposite, he's been applauded for being up front about it.

I'd actually, broadly, be interested in such a game. And I would venture a guess that many respondents to his demeanor would too. I really enjoy a well done, hardcore, or evil campaign.

People are objecting to the manner in which he advertised it, which was via back-handed insults. And what that says about the OP.

It's the OPs right to say what kind of people he doesn't want in his game, and to use whatever cultural terms are appropriate!
For some reason people think it's appropriate to start policing the language of a person that they obviously wont be playing about a game they wont be joining.
why comment at all?

Just move on.

In a driverse group there are going to be people more aligned along the social progressive lines of the replies, and there are going to be others aligned on different lines.
Let's just self segregate, and play with the sort of people we want to play with in games we want to play and leave other people alone, if you object to the term snowflake or SJW that's your problem, these are totally acceptable (and non rude) terms for many people.
Just accept that some people think and feel differently than you, and practice what you preach.
The language may have been exclusionary, but that was the entire point of it, to exclude people who would be uncomfortable or offended by the games content.