Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Feiya

Caineach's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 4,729 posts (4,734 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,729 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would like to point out the Seoni is a power fantasy for many women. In fact, every female roleplayer I have shown the book to has had a noticeably favorable reaction to her, to the point of 2 of them saying almost instantaneously "ooh I want to play her". None of the other iconics have had such a strong positive reaction.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orthos wrote:

Long story short, IMO at least, Pacific Rim is one of those movies that gets less fun the more you know about how certain things work in real life, unless you're the kind of person who can turn off that "work brain" part of your analytic psyche when it comes time for entertainment.

If MST3K/Rifftrax'ing it up is the way you get the best fun out of it, by all means, have at it.

Just don't be a douche and do so in the theatre, though.

Having watched it with a group of mechanical engineers and physics majors, I can say that it is most likely you. Tons of technically minded people have no issue with giant robots killing giant monsters. The movie did not pretend it was about anything else.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

John Oliver on Scottish independence


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Popehat is a blog I enjoy by a lawyer who does a lot of free speech advocacy.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To chime in on Green Lantern - I felt it was a disappointing movie, but not a bad one. Everything about it felt consistently average. It was enjoyable enough, but the whole time I felt like it could be so much more. It was more not living up to expectations than actively being bad. Most of the Thor movies have felt the same way, but Loki is awesome as a villain. The Green Lantern villain was pretty bad. And in a lot of ways, the villain makes the hero.

Ghost Rider 2 was actively bad (except for Idris Elba. He was the one good thing.)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orthos wrote:

I have high hopes, but I also loved Codex Alera as much as Dresden. So I haven't been let down yet, which makes me more optimistic about Cinder Spires.

I'm the same way with Brandon Sanderson - I've loved every book he's put out, so I rarely get the feeling of impending disappointment with his stuff.

I enjoyed Codex Allera and thought it was as well written as most of the Dresden Files, but since it was a fantasy story the fact that he reused so many common tropes took away from it for me. He uses just as many in Dresden Files, but I'm less familiar with noir or mystery tropes, so they are less noticeable.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SeeDarkly_X wrote:
(Regarding Ang Lee vs Ed Norton Hulk's: it's interesting to note that as critically panned as Lee's non-MCU Hulk was, Incredible only made $1.5 million more than it domestically. That's not a huge margin.)

After the first one was so bad, releasing a new one so close will kill the second one's sales.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I do like big stompy robots.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

by the way, when is the next Marvel movie?

edit: sounds like avengers 2 - see link below, which also reveals that they are working on a Black Panther movie

Joss Whedon’s The Avengers: Age of Ultron (May 1, 2015), Captain America 3 (May 6, 2016) and James Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (July 28, 2017).

black panther movie

There's rumors that Doc Strange will be in 2016 as well, but nothing official. To be honest only one Marvel movie in 2015 bums me out! we have been spoiled with at least 2 or 3 Marvel movies a year lately! :)

Ant Man is in mid July


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Some 2D animators, mostly from Disney, are putting together a short, Hullabaloo. The steampunk art looks fantastic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alex Martin wrote:

I think it's interesting how Roy and company have now reached the point where NPC's are considering them to be the big "hero" types.

I know it's been a long run to get there, but having spent so much time having the OOTS get kicked around/ordered around/outgunned it seems curious to see them be looked at in such a way.

To me, the whole airship sequence has become a character building and storyline reset. Not complaining, after the extended Tarquin sequence, I can see it being helpful in setting the next leg of the story. I could see getting an Elan/Haley or Varsuvius vignette before this is done as well.

Well, it is the start of a new book.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I don't see how that works. More teen female readers means more adult female readers. That said, my main experience is talking to a teen writer I know, soooo...

With regards to teen fiction, just off the top of my head: Inception, Hunger Games, Twilight—basically, only fantasy and sci-fi are "safe". ;P

I think its because female teen fiction is newer, mostly within the last 10 years or so. So if your talking about new fiction I would be more inclined to agree with you.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

*Throws away thirty pages of Gender/Sex paleshipfic* :(

But hey, actually, I do have something to say here. Like I mentioned earlier, "boys don't read". So I actually think it's more likely guys have more trouble finding characters to relate to—in books—than girls do.

Just saying that because "straight white male" is a popular buzzword. Written fiction is one of the few places it's "straight white female". :P

I suspect that is true in teen fiction, but I find that hard to believe elsewhere from my personal experience.

edit: wait, I forgot romance novels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, it is pretty crazy there are people arguing that Larry is bigoted for saying that.

That's because some of us don't think that's all he's saying. Though it's kind of hard to get through all the stuff about there being only 2 biological sexes (which pretty much misses the entire point, even though it's true. Because gender<>sex)

He's writing an attack piece on a post which absolutely doesn't say "Write lousy token characters" and the only thing he has to say is "Don't write lousy token characters"?

To steal from Jim Hine's take on it, because he's a professional and says it better than I can.

Quote:

I … actually, I pretty much agree with him here. People read for story, not for checklists or quotas or lectures. I see nothing in MacFarlane’s article to suggest she believes any differently. Calling for authors to be more thoughtful about their craft doesn’t mean you’re telling authors to abandon story for MESSAGE.

But you know, readers also tend to enjoy stories where they can find characters like themselves. Which is easy if you’re a straight white dude, and gets progressively more difficult the further you stray from that default. Maybe if we want to write enjoyable stories, we should try looking beyond the same old default that’s been done again and again throughout the history of the genre.

Yeah, I read that failed attempt at a fisking already. It agrees with every important point of Correia, but still somehow tries to say he is wrong. Not to mention it makes assertions about Correia's stance and writing that are incorrect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JurgenV wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
HerosBackpack wrote:

I look around me and see at least 5 genders, right here in the present world. That's my world, the one I live in. I'd like to have the same chance of seeing all of those genders just having a great story to tell. Without it being hyperfocused on the gender. "This is Danny, he's bashing orcs with a greatsword." "This is Alex, zie's shooting the orcs with a longbow." "This is Qatz, they're guarding Danny's back as he fights."

Even Paizo, inclusive as they are, doesn't really have much that represents me. I like that they are inclusive, but I'd like to see NPCs and characters like me too....

At a certain point, one has to accept that certain aspects of one's own character put them in so small (and so poorly understood) a niche that representing those certain traits or characteristics in something like a Pathfinder iconic simply isn't feasible. I'm all for Paizo introducing characters that make it clear that there is no stigma attached to one's sexual orientation, but the sexuality/gender/identity spectra are so diverse and so (to be frank) poorly organized in terms of vocabulary and consistency (try getting a room full of genderqueer people to agree on a set of neutral-gendered pronouns like zie/zir) that going for even finer granularity isn't something I see happening in the near future.
Did you know there is a transgendered iconic? She is awesome.
Well written and in no way a token character.

And that is why Paizo can get away with including characters like her. They treat her well, don't harp on the subject of her being transgender, and they focus on making her awesome. It takes skill to make characters like her.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
HerosBackpack wrote:

I look around me and see at least 5 genders, right here in the present world. That's my world, the one I live in. I'd like to have the same chance of seeing all of those genders just having a great story to tell. Without it being hyperfocused on the gender. "This is Danny, he's bashing orcs with a greatsword." "This is Alex, zie's shooting the orcs with a longbow." "This is Qatz, they're guarding Danny's back as he fights."

Even Paizo, inclusive as they are, doesn't really have much that represents me. I like that they are inclusive, but I'd like to see NPCs and characters like me too....

At a certain point, one has to accept that certain aspects of one's own character put them in so small (and so poorly understood) a niche that representing those certain traits or characteristics in something like a Pathfinder iconic simply isn't feasible. I'm all for Paizo introducing characters that make it clear that there is no stigma attached to one's sexual orientation, but the sexuality/gender/identity spectra are so diverse and so (to be frank) poorly organized in terms of vocabulary and consistency (try getting a room full of genderqueer people to agree on a set of neutral-gendered pronouns like zie/zir) that going for even finer granularity isn't something I see happening in the near future.

Did you know there is a transgendered iconic? She is awesome.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
This is pretty much the exact point Correia was trying to make. In fact he even uses the "everything is for a reason". The entire post was to basically tell aspiring authors not to follow the advice just because, because then you will be shooting yourself in the foot trying to tie something in that doesn't really fit. Write the story that you want and add the details where needed, but not because of any particular social justice cause.

I'm amused by this in the context of the official reason for this thread: Larry Correia praising Pathfinder for diversity.

The official stated reason for that diversity is exactly what he complains about: making sure they had representative characters of different genders and different races and even now LGBTQ characters.

Except Paizo didn't write the characters to just fill in a box. They made them awesome. And most new authors (Correia's audience for the gender post) wont be able to take something they aren't familiar with and make it awesome. It will come across as either bland or preachy, and no one will read it. And if no one reads your stuff, you will never make money.

Luckily no one actually advises new authors to add diversity just to fill the box. Including the post he responded to about going beyond two genders. Correia added that in all himself.

And that exact criticism has been aimed at Paizo with nearly every appearance of new diversity, particularly the recent trans characters.

The orriginal artical included such lines as

Quote:
I want an end to the default of binary gender in science fiction stories.
Quote:
I want to never again read entire anthologies of SF stories or large-cast novels where every character is binary-gendered.

Correia didn't add it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
This is pretty much the exact point Correia was trying to make. In fact he even uses the "everything is for a reason". The entire post was to basically tell aspiring authors not to follow the advice just because, because then you will be shooting yourself in the foot trying to tie something in that doesn't really fit. Write the story that you want and add the details where needed, but not because of any particular social justice cause.

I'm amused by this in the context of the official reason for this thread: Larry Correia praising Pathfinder for diversity.

The official stated reason for that diversity is exactly what he complains about: making sure they had representative characters of different genders and different races and even now LGBTQ characters.

Except Paizo didn't write the characters to just fill in a box. They made them awesome. And most new authors (Correia's audience for the gender post) wont be able to take something they aren't familiar with and make it awesome. It will come across as either bland or preachy, and no one will read it. And if no one reads your stuff, you will never make money.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

There are some great books that tinker with gender and sexuality. I hear the guy that wrote "Lock In" does a lot of that very well.

Just randomly making a character, say, transsexual, though, and not involving that in any way with the character, plot, or theme, can come across as "fake". Like an author checking off boxes. In the same way, making a character heterosexual can come across as cheap and lazy if you make a point of it without tying it in in some fashion.

It's not a matter of hating diversity in that case. It's a matter of disliking false plot points. It's a very simple rule of writing that everything is for a reason. You don't stick something in a story that just distracts the reader without some sort of payoff.

Now, I love my stories to be diverse. I'm into animation, so I really enjoy making characters look and act very different. I'd love to get to write in a gay or lesbian character someday, though I doubt I'll ever be able to.

But regardless of that, I'm not gonna stick in a gay character just for the sake of having a gay character. I'll do it because it fits something I want to do—whether it be themes of intolerance, a romantic subplot, or just a character whose backstory is linked to their orientation. Hell, I might even do it for a joke, like the gag at the end of ParaNorman (which I liked both because it was funny and because it marked one of the first explicitly gay characters in kids' animation, like, ever).

I'll make a character gay if I envision them as gay. I won't make a character, and then decide later to make them gay because I realized I didn't have enough gayness in my story.

This is pretty much the exact point Correia was trying to make. In fact he even uses the "everything is for a reason". The entire post was to basically tell aspiring authors not to follow the advice just because, because then you will be shooting yourself in the foot trying to tie something in that doesn't really fit. Write the story that you want and add the details where needed, but not because of any particular social justice cause.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kittyburger wrote:
Caineach wrote:
HerosBackpack wrote:


Quote:
HerosBackpack wrote:

And intent doesn't necessarily translate onto the page. You are welcome to disagree, or to read it differently, but that is what I get from his blog.

Except that you're not just saying "He's wrong." You're saying "He's racist, sexist, transphobic bigot, and says I have no right to exist." (an almost direct quote from you) That's...a lot to get from one blog posts which, perhaps overly harshly, points out a number of legitimate problems with George's argument.

Two blog posts (the racism one and the gender diversity one linked earlier). In one he said I don't exist and should never be included in books, because that could only be "message fiction" and that is a bad thing. In the other he called me a psychopath for caring about such things as - for example - wanting to use a public bathroom without the risk of being beaten unconscious for it (and yes, in my demographic, that's a real risk, that he blows off as being a humorless "SJW")

And I said he gives that impression. Maybe he didn't mean it, any more than someone who accidentally stands on someone else's foot means to hurt them, but it hurts all the same.

If that is your take away from his blog post on gender in fiction, I think you need reading comprehension lessons. He not once says don't include non-binary characters. He says don't do it unless it fits the character and don't include it just to include it. Because then your writing will suck and no one will bother reading it. And you know what? The guy who fails at fisking his fisk agrees with those points.

If you have to have a "reason" to include anyone who's not a hetero white male, then your story's going to look like a whole lot of pale, boring sausage.

Or you could look at the main characters of the author in question and see that of his novels he only has 1 hetero white male main character, which he brings up preemptively to cut off this comment in both of the linked posts on gender normativity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HerosBackpack wrote:


Quote:
HerosBackpack wrote:

And intent doesn't necessarily translate onto the page. You are welcome to disagree, or to read it differently, but that is what I get from his blog.

Except that you're not just saying "He's wrong." You're saying "He's racist, sexist, transphobic bigot, and says I have no right to exist." (an almost direct quote from you) That's...a lot to get from one blog posts which, perhaps overly harshly, points out a number of legitimate problems with George's argument.

Two blog posts (the racism one and the gender diversity one linked earlier). In one he said I don't exist and should never be included in books, because that could only be "message fiction" and that is a bad thing. In the other he called me a psychopath for caring about such things as - for example - wanting to use a public bathroom without the risk of being beaten unconscious for it (and yes, in my demographic, that's a real risk, that he blows off as being a humorless "SJW")

And I said he gives that impression. Maybe he didn't mean it, any more than someone who accidentally stands on someone else's foot means to hurt them, but it hurts all the same.

If that is your take away from his blog post on gender in fiction, I think you need reading comprehension lessons. He not once says don't include non-binary characters. He says don't do it unless it fits the character and don't include it just to include it. Because then your writing will suck and no one will bother reading it. And you know what? The guy who fails at fisking his fisk agrees with those points.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:

As one more item...

I finally went and read the original post on Tor.com.

AS a member of one of a set of minorities (though perhaps not the same as the author) I absolutely can relate to what that author is saying....and he nails it.

Correia took a LOT of what he countered out of context or mocked an experience that MANY REAL minorities have had as kids.

Especially the part where the kid talks about how he felt as a youth...

Many of those wonder why they can't be "normal" or be like everyone else.

To put down such a thing...after reading the original article and now seeing that blogpost in even more context...I am even MORE aghast at some of the comments in support of the guy.

Like REALLY aghast.

Correia quotes the entire post. He goes through line by line. He isn't taking things out of context. He does it for all 3 posts in this thread.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:

That's an urban legend. The Supreme Court threw it out in 1970.

It is? Then why do they still always put the uniforms on wrong?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Oh banning it because it is an accurate military uniform is a legitimate reason, as long as that gets applied evenly. It's not a rule I think should be there because of inclusion or anything like it. There is the legal requirement that US military uniforms not be accurate in movies. Not wanting to be afoul of that is a good reason to have that rule.

Back in the 1980s, when I first noticed an earlier version of that rule, it was also possible to encounter gaming veterans of 20th century wars. So, there was still good reason to avoid letting people dressing as their comrades or their adversaries.

Notice, however, that civil war uniforms are fair game now as are plenty of European imperial troops - despite the likely racist connotations some of them could have.

I think you mean early 20th century wars :)

There are still plenty of Vietnam and later vets at the con.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:
Caineach wrote:

Entirely true, except that part where you called me a racist. If you want to do that, at least point out something I've said that is racist.

I still don't think dressing as a nazi at gencon is intately inappropriate.

It is because all 20th-21st century military uniforms are prohibited - unless they're a current soldier's uniform.

That said, if you're playing WWII wargames on the German side, I don't think anybody would object to wearing an officer's cap or an Iron Cross to set the mood. Most of the gamers at that table would probably be more interested in the story of those items than take offense.

Oh banning it because it is an accurate military uniform is a legitimate reason, as long as that gets applied evenly. It's not a rule I think should be there because of inclusion or anything like it. There is the legal requirement that US military uniforms not be accurate in movies. Not wanting to be afoul of that is a good reason to have that rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Caineach wrote:

And I have a right to think this is oversensitivity, that you don't have the right to dictate how I should dress and act, and I don't have an obligation to give a s#&+ about your personal hangups.

I think safe spaces are b&*!#*$~. Usually, I find them to be one of the most uncomfortable places out there, because they encourage people to not be themselves and be overly focused on not potentially offending anyone. The real world doesn't work like that. We aren't mind readers.

You have that right but that doesn't entail the right not to be called racist for doing so. If the culture decides you're in the wrong and shames you that isn't violating any of your rights. The vast majority of people will tell you that dressing as a nazi isn't okay and will in some way shame or exclude you from activities because of that. That's their right because your right to free speech doesn't include a right to be heard or have people put up with your racist b#%#$&+@.

Entirely true, except that part where you called me a racist. If you want to do that, at least point out something I've said that is racist.

I still don't think dressing as a nazi at gencon is intately inappropriate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Caineach wrote:

Lots of wargaming is WWII themed. Should the people playing axis not be able to dress for their role as general? It is a really common thing in the wargaming community, and in fact some tournaments give out prizes for it.

Frequently people demoing games will dress to advertise their games. As above, there are a lot of WWII themed games. Last time I was at Gencon I demoed one that was Nazi Zombies vs the US.

Nazis are villians in a lot of anime and video games. Lost of people cosplay villians. Should people not be able to dress as their favorite characters?

LARPs have a whole bunch of settings, and people often dress their characters. Should people cast as nazis in larps set in the 1940s not be able to dress the part?

Those are just a few possible reasons I can think of for someone wanting to dress the role in the past 5 minutes. The fact of the matter is, you have no context for why he was dressed like that. Any blanket statement about it being inappropriate I think is entirely unfounded.

That's only okay if I can wear a "kill whitey" shirt and carry a gun to all of the same locations because I can come up with an excuse when questioned. The problem isn't lack of a reason the problem is that you're ignoring that it essentially make some people not welcome at a location because you want to dress as a nazi. Or hell if I dressed as a Spanish Catholic penitent in America I'd be harassed for hate speech because the KKK stole our outfits. I understand that though and deal with the fact that even if it's a part of my culture to do something that I'm still obligated to consider how it makes others feel and that it makes some people feel endangered. Unless going to the area had the explicit assumption of seeing nazis (play involving nazis etc) you should avoid adding nazis to it in the same way that you shouldn't parade around with an assault rifle in a mall just because the law allows it. You're making people feel unsafe and unwelcome because you're selfish.

And I have a right to think this is oversensitivity, that you don't have the right to dictate how I should dress and act, and I don't have an obligation to give a s+@! about your personal hangups.

I think safe spaces are b!%%+%@+. Usually, I find them to be one of the most uncomfortable places out there, because they encourage people to not be themselves and be overly focused on not potentially offending anyone. The real world doesn't work like that. We aren't mind readers.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
You have a guy who blogged a post similar to those posted by people part of racist organizations (most notably stormfront...though you could probably find similar items on Arian Nations, KKK, or other racist sites)

It has some questionable elements, and people are rightly saying that they disagree with those elements.

Quote:
and people all over this thread are posting their support for it.

No, they aren't. At the most, they're saying that they understand some of Correia's points and that they disagree with George.

Quote:
Then again, racist people almost never consider themselves racist

Which makes it okay for you to accuse anyone who doesn't meet your personal standards of zealotry of supporting racism, right?

Quote:
In regards to racism this is basically, white=right and minority and anyone else are wrong.
I don't see anyone, anywhere in this thread stating or even implying that.

This is a very interesting thing for people to note. There IS discriminatory posts in this thread that are derogatory towards some minorities.

I imagine this could be a good test. Most minorities probably can see it...and those who have experienced it could as well.

Oh there are racist things here. You can't see them, but they are there... Point them out or don't make the claim.

Quote:


Those who deny it...perhaps there should be a re-examination of how you view the world.

I do. Constantly. I think your definition of racism is ridiculous, unworkable, and can be used to claim anything is racist.

Quote:


On another subject.

Latino is an Ethnicity. There IS a difference. This is why you can be white, and still be a Latino. Without actually identifying a race...and when you appear to be white...and seeing a majority of Latinos/Hispanics consider themselves white...well.

Now, the ethnicity is considered a minority. It can also be discriminated against, but being discriminated against does not make you a PoC by any means (unless you are suddenly considering every LGBT individual as a PoC...which they are not). Some of the worst discrimination in the world has been with Ethnic cleansing.

However, ethnicity and race are two separate and different things in the US. You can be Hispanic as your ethnicity, as well as being a member of any race you are a member of also. The majority (just like the majority in the US) according to the Census right now, are White Hispanics.

They can mark anything else on the Census if they so desire, they can mark it on the job applications and the social dynamic surveys. They can self identify as any race they want. When they simply say they are Hispanic or Latino though...the default is basically white. If they were Hispanic African American, they'd probably mention they were African American (as well as it probably being rather obvious as well).

They can do that for any other race as well.

Ethnic discrimination can be equally bad as racial discrimination. I won't argue that at all...however the guy was discussing racial discrimination and dismissing it out of hand.

Making the statement that Hispanics are PoC is not disingenuous. Sure, it may not be technically correct, but the vast majority of people I am willing to bet do not consider it to be. I know until your posts I have never heard of someone using the term to not include Hispanics or Latinos.

Also, every federal form I have seen treats Hispanics as a separate race. It is right there along with white (not Hispanic). I have yet to fill out a census form, but a lot of other documentation requires/asks for it it, like every job interview I have been on. I have never seen ethnicity asked.

Quote:

I have never been to GenCon, but I have been around Gamers long enough to know that there is discrimination among them. I've learned to accept it. I can see it from people in this thread.

I have seen them move tables, sit on different rows, go to different chairs. I have seen a friend, a lone African American sitting alone (until I sat next to him) at a meeting where every other row had a bunch of people sitting there, but every seat in his row was empty...with him basically isolated. I don't think that was on purpose...but they simply felt they couldn't relate to him and hence sat with those they could relate...that is actually a form of racism in my eyes.

With these indications, if that happens to Asian guys at Gencon, where they sit alone while everyone else gathers in their groups...I could see how one could perceive racism. I know that there are women out there that warn against going to GenCon (or any other Con for that matter) due to what they consider harassment (whether it is or not, I don't know, just that I've heard the warnings).

Or it is because he didn't really know people there and most people come to events in groups that try to find a place by themselves. Have you ever actually watched a space like this fill? People don't like sitting near people they don't know. Skin color may have been a factor, but claiming racism from seeing the seating arrangements of a group of random people once is ridiculous without support.

Quote:

As I said earlier, CRPGs is a booming business and you have TONS of every type of person from every race in those. They are RPGs, even if we don't see them as such...and we can see that RPGs DO appeal to people of every race and gender and orientation.

CRPGs can be just as expensive as a PHB (sometimes more expensive, typical new CRPG is $60 USD), and MMORPGs can be even more than that.

Saying it's because it's a middle class thing and that's why TTRPGs are primarily white males is ALSO rather discriminating...it's NOT because it's a middle class thing any more than CRPGs are a middle class thing as far as money is concerned.

Or it is because people get exposed to video games in different ways than they get exposed to TTRPGs. You can go into a video game store to buy Call of Duty and be exposed to Skyrim. Relatives go into video games stores and buy random stuff all the time. Video gaming is a well known hobby relatives will get as gifts. TTRPGs are sold in specialty stores you have to know about before waking in to, and unless a relative is also a gamer, they will have no idea to buy you it for Christmas. Not to mention a single video game can easily have the budget of the entire TTRPG anual market, so they can spend a lot more on advertising.

You don't need friends to enjoy a CRPG. You don't need to convince them to play with you. There are different social stigmas against spending your time alone on a video game than getting friends together to play a social game. Different communities in the US have different social stigmas, and those communities can have heavy racial bias. Those stigmas can prevent people from even asking their friends if they want to try a game with as much negative connotation as D&D has. I know in high school I didn't even want to admit to anyone outside my gaming group that I played D&D, and I was a textbook nerd. How hard can it be for someone who is black to bring it up with a group he feels may judge him for wanting to play something with a "white" stigma, I can only imagine. But I have read and talked too far too many black people whom have said the backlash they received for playing games was worse or at least on par in the black community than the lack of fitting in they felt in the gamer community, because of the huge stigma against "acting white".

Quote:


From the parts Correia quoted, a large amount of it dealt with this issue of not fitting in among those who are not the same race. Correia tried to mock it...but in truth, this is a VERY serious thing...and something that I could completely see happening at Gen Con (never been there, don't know, but from what I've seen from gamers elsewhere, they tend to congregate with what they know and feel comfortable with, someone different, an LGBT or perhaps minorities...sometimes they won't feel like that).

That in and of itself may not be racism....trying to cover up and blame the minorities for it...that's crossing the line into racism (or prejudice and discrimination when against other minorities such as LGBT, or even with women who aren't quite a minority, but equally discriminated against at times).

People feel uncomfortable outside of their culture all the time. I went to a Motley Crew concert the other night and was highly uncomfortable because I don't have a mullet, wasn't wearing a wifebeater, and turned down the guy offering me shrooms. It's not the fault of a new community if you don't feel like you fit in. Everyone doesn't fit in somewhere, no matter how welcoming the community thinks it is.

Additionally, Correia mocked him for bringing up his high school hangups and projecting them on the convention attendees, and for implying that somehow all of his teenage angst was related to racial discrimination. Every teen has angst. That entire section, in context, was quite mockable.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Your dealing with a place where thousands of people are dressed in costumes buying stuff for costumes. There is a TON of costuming material at Gencon. I've been to smaller, 5K person cons with dozens of costuming booths. Saying costuming material isn't sold at a venue that caters to people costuming is ridiculous.
If you're at a convention the understanding is that the costumes are for presenting at conventions. It is never appropriate to wear a nazi uniform as convention cosplay.

Lots of wargaming is WWII themed. Should the people playing axis not be able to dress for their role as general? It is a really common thing in the wargaming community, and in fact some tournaments give out prizes for it.

Frequently people demoing games will dress to advertise their games. As above, there are a lot of WWII themed games. Last time I was at Gencon I demoed one that was Nazi Zombies vs the US.

Nazis are villians in a lot of anime and video games. Lost of people cosplay villians. Should people not be able to dress as their favorite characters?

LARPs have a whole bunch of settings, and people often dress their characters. Should people cast as nazis in larps set in the 1940s not be able to dress the part?

Those are just a few possible reasons I can think of for someone wanting to dress the role in the past 5 minutes. The fact of the matter is, you have no context for why he was dressed like that. Any blanket statement about it being inappropriate I think is entirely unfounded.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Caineach wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
LazarX wrote:
It is... it can't help being racist, because the people that founded the hobby like most of us grew up in a racist culture with certain preconceptions for norms.

This depends on how you define 'racism'...which is a large part of Correia's point.

LazarX wrote:
You can't really argue that it somehow is magically "race/culture neutral."

I...don't think people were? I think the argument was that the reasons for that GenCon is mostly white are more complicated than simple racism, and that it wasn't actively exclusionary in the way implied.

You can argue with that, but it's not the argument you were making in the post I responded to.

LazarX wrote:
I will say that even though I'm nominally "white", I've always felt out of place at GenCon due to my North Jersey boy origins. The MidWest culture is unavoidably different. And I've found the locals to be comparatively intolerant, compared to what I'm used to.
That's possible. I've never personally been to GenCon. All the 'evidence' that A.A. George presents of this is utter b+!@&*#$, though.
He's been there, I've been there several times as both player and GM. You by your own admission haven't been there ever. Are you open to the possibility that the conclusion you've reached is at least partly due to the fact that it's what you WANT to believe?
How does the quality of the argument change if he has been there? The article is targeting people who are unfamiliar with the con.
It determines what input is going into his evaluation. At best he's judging from third or fourth hand data as opposed to first hand experience. I don't know about you, but I tend to give a bit more weight to first hand experience.

And I tend to give weight to the people who can make reasoned arguments. The Tor article fails at this.

And I have been to Gencon. I agree it is mostly white. I disagree that the cause is racism within the community.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
LazarX wrote:
It is... it can't help being racist, because the people that founded the hobby like most of us grew up in a racist culture with certain preconceptions for norms.

This depends on how you define 'racism'...which is a large part of Correia's point.

LazarX wrote:
You can't really argue that it somehow is magically "race/culture neutral."

I...don't think people were? I think the argument was that the reasons for that GenCon is mostly white are more complicated than simple racism, and that it wasn't actively exclusionary in the way implied.

You can argue with that, but it's not the argument you were making in the post I responded to.

LazarX wrote:
I will say that even though I'm nominally "white", I've always felt out of place at GenCon due to my North Jersey boy origins. The MidWest culture is unavoidably different. And I've found the locals to be comparatively intolerant, compared to what I'm used to.
That's possible. I've never personally been to GenCon. All the 'evidence' that A.A. George presents of this is utter b+!@&*#$, though.
He's been there, I've been there several times as both player and GM. You by your own admission haven't been there ever. Are you open to the possibility that the conclusion you've reached is at least partly due to the fact that it's what you WANT to believe?

How does the quality of the argument change if he has been there? The article is targeting people who are unfamiliar with the con.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
LazarX wrote:

Having been several times to GenCon, I'm going to have to say that A.A. George's article is right on the money. The number of nonwhite attendees is still vastly outnumbered by the nonwhite cleaning and service staff. And if you walk around with a shirt that say "Kill Whitey" you're not gong to get the assumptions usually afforded to someone walking around in full SS Nazi gear.

It's still a heavily white and importantly, heavily MALE hobby. And it shows.

Uh...I don't think a single person here, and certainly not Larry Correia, would argue that Gencon isn't mostly white, or even mostly male. It's both. The argument is with the claim that this is because the Con and the hobby are racist.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Caineach.

It is... it can't help being racist, because the people that founded the hobby like most of us grew up in a racist culture with certain preconceptions for norms. You can't really argue that it somehow is magically "race/culture neutral." I will say that even though I'm nominally "white", I've always felt out of place at GenCon due to my North Jersey boy origins. The MidWest culture is unavoidably different. And I've found the locals to be comparatively intolerant, compared to what I'm used to.

Its comments like these that make liberal ideas die before they hit the masses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:

Having been several times to GenCon, I'm going to have to say that A.A. George's article is right on the money. The number of nonwhite attendees is still vastly outnumbered by the nonwhite cleaning and service staff. And if you walk around with a shirt that say "Kill Whitey" you're not gong to get the assumptions usually afforded to someone walking around in full SS Nazi gear.

It's still a heavily white and importantly, heavily MALE hobby. And it shows.

No one is arguing that.

George's article argues that the reason for it is racism (that he fails to actually show) and that it is a problem, and then proposes fairly impotent potential solutions after first insulting everyone at the con multiple times. That is what people are arguing about.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kittyburger wrote:
JurgenV wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:


Indeed. Correia's best buds with Theodore "Vox Day" Beale, who is a virulent racist, sexist, and homophobe (I'm fairly sure trans people Don't Exist in Beale's world). Your friends inform who you are, and Beale's a LOT of information. Even without Beale, there's plenty of sexist, homophobic and transphobic commentary from Correia out there.

Correia's been dismissive a lot of women's science fiction, of LGBT science fiction, of science fiction of people of color, of non-American science fiction (lumping all of them together as "message fiction" - ignoring the fact that all fiction is supposed to send a message), so the pattern is pretty well-established showing him to be a pretty big flaming bigot regardless of any use or nonuse of slurs.

None of this actually gets at the specific Tor Books blog post vs response post by Corriea, though. You don't like some of his other positions, statements, and associations... but what about the topic at hand?
I don't know. Once you realize that the headline here is "Bigot attacks blog post on racism", there really isn't much more to say.

Yep.

Correia has a pattern of bigotry and of denying the impact of bigotry when reported by other people.

I'm amused by the fact that calling out a pattern of actual behavior by the man in question is being called "character assassination." "Character assassination" would be if the claimed pattern of behavior were false - it isn't.

The point is show that he IS wrong if you disagree instead of saying well he is a bad guy so he must be wrong. Disprove his point not attack his person.

Jim Hines on Correia's dismissive take on nonbinary gender in fiction (note that the post Jim Hines takes apart is entirely similar in nature to the one in question, ignoring the substantive criticism being offered).

If you look in...

I see no bigotry there, like you tell me I will find. I actually see a very consistent message of do whatever the f~+* you want, but the most important thing is to make your story fun. Because if you don't make your story fun then no one will bother reading it.

Quote:

But the important thing there is STORY. Not the cause of the day. STORY.

Because readers buy STORIES they enjoy and when readers buy our stuff, authors GET PAID.
Quote:

So if humans having 5 or 6 sexes in the future is part of your story, write it. If it isn’t part of the story, why would you waste words on it? Oh, that’s right, because MESSAGE.

ProTip: Focusing on message rather than story is a wonderful way for writers to continue working at Starbucks for the rest of their lives.

Quote:
Not that you can’t get a cause into your story, as long as you do it with skill. But the minute you destroy the default just to destroy the default, congratulations, you just annoyed the s~#@ out of the reader. You want to slip in a message and not annoy your customers, that takes skill, so until you have developed your skills, don’t beat people over the head with your personal hang ups.

He is antagonistic, but there is not evidence that that is towards people of different sexual orientations or genders but, instead, authors who give bad advice to would-be authors. The article that spawned it was bad advice, and your posted fisking is a terrible response.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
JurgenV wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Selling nazi paraphernalia is not cool regardless of context. It's the same as bringing a real gun or shooting "fire". It makes people feel unsafe. You violate their right to have a good time because you're either supporting nazi ideology or are so tone deaf to human interaction that you shouldn't go to large gatherings.
Two major exceptions. Props for theater/movies and actual historical artifacts. And it should be made clear what they are, and even then should not be sold in all venues
Generally those aren't sold but yes when being used for those specific purposes sure.

Your dealing with a place where thousands of people are dressed in costumes buying stuff for costumes. There is a TON of costuming material at Gencon. I've been to smaller, 5K person cons with dozens of costuming booths. Saying costuming material isn't sold at a venue that caters to people costuming is ridiculous.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kittyburger wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:


Indeed. Correia's best buds with Theodore "Vox Day" Beale, who is a virulent racist, sexist, and homophobe (I'm fairly sure trans people Don't Exist in Beale's world). Your friends inform who you are, and Beale's a LOT of information. Even without Beale, there's plenty of sexist, homophobic and transphobic commentary from Correia out there.

Correia's been dismissive a lot of women's science fiction, of LGBT science fiction, of science fiction of people of color, of non-American science fiction (lumping all of them together as "message fiction" - ignoring the fact that all fiction is supposed to send a message), so the pattern is pretty well-established showing him to be a pretty big flaming bigot regardless of any use or nonuse of slurs.

None of this actually gets at the specific Tor Books blog post vs response post by Corriea, though. You don't like some of his other positions, statements, and associations... but what about the topic at hand?
I don't know. Once you realize that the headline here is "Bigot attacks blog post on racism", there really isn't much more to say.

Yep.

Correia has a pattern of bigotry and of denying the impact of bigotry when reported by other people.

I'm amused by the fact that calling out a pattern of actual behavior by the man in question is being called "character assassination." "Character assassination" would be if the claimed pattern of behavior were false - it isn't.

As I said earlier, got any links to an example? You want to make the claim, back it up. Nothing in the article we are discussing shows this so called bigotry, and the onus isn't on me to go out and see that your point is proven or not. Until then, it is just character assassination.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Also, a single racist does not a pattern make. That's no better than saying, "See! There's a single black guy at GenCon! What a true melting pot of diversity!"
Ignoring that the actual complaint was that a store selling Nazi themed paraphernalia wasn't being addressed per official policy.

Actually, the Nazi memorabilia was not against policy (it was a grey zone). It was the underwear at the store that advocated sexual harassment of the wearer. The guy in Nazi uniform only violated the cosplay rules against being a 20th century military uniform. Also, we don't know if he was allowed to wear it in the con, since the person who wrote the blog complaining about it saw them outside the convention center.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
As I've said several times in this thread, I'm perfectly willing to drop the white privilege term, but I'm not willing to stop talking about the concept. I do like the term. It helped me to understand the way racism (another term I'm willing to drop as soon as I've got a substitute) works in modern America. Along with the various other privileges that intersect with it.

I agree entirely that systemic rasism is a thing. Unlike you, I do have a problem with the words. Sure, once someone beat me over the head with what they were trying to discuss as (male at the time) privilege I learned what it was and how it was used. But they had to spend way too much effort getting over my knee jerk reaction to it, and I see almost the exact same reaction with everyone else I've seen initially exposed to the concept. Former military members are probably the most angered/insulted by the phrase.

My problem is with the words and the rhetoric. There is a major problem in society, but if the dialog used to discuss it is antagonistic in the minds of the people you need to convince there is a problem, nothing will change.

And this is if you get to someone before the people on Fox News get to them and pre-bias them against you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:

On the topic of discrimination in gaming...it is there. Go no further than Woman and the objectification of them in many gaming materials (though it can be funny to some...not so much to others, there's a reason the chainmail bikini is brought up in many instances for stereotypes).

I have no idea how it is at GenCon, but I do know that there are minorities that feel uncomfortable in many settings where they cannot find those of the same race.

There can be many situations where someone of one race does not feel safe in areas where they are the only member of that race.

In gaming there should be questions as to why minorities do not seem to be as equally represented as Whites (if this is really the case, I don't know, has there actually ever been a survey to this effect?).

It's been around for 40 years now...which is more than long enough to have equal representation of minorities...what about gaming makes it so that they are not equally represented?

Saying it's poverty or money is equal to being racist...IMO. There are plenty of minorities which are just as well off as anyone else.

Why are there not more represented in game companies?

Look at Washington State for example, there are plenty of People of Color as someone is using the term (to tell the truth, I basically never use the term, but since we are using it here for a broad genus of race and whites...I'll use it) which are mostly Asian and Native American in Washington. There are also African Americans, but not as high a concentration as found in the South and East of the US.

Where are these representatives in the gaming companies...and if they are there, why don't we see more photos of them in the photos of the game companies?

It's one thing to draw minorities and others (for more inclusivity, LGBT) in your art, it's another to actually walk the walk and include them in your company, your promotion, and show them in the forefront of your company.

In that light, why are minorities under represented. We know that the players of Video games(which have been less at the forefront than RPGs themselves) there is a good representation of everyone...even in CRPGs.

Obviously people other than the White/European enjoy RPGs, and in great numbers (Japan seems to be equal to the US even in appeal of CRPGs, as does Korea)...what is it then about the TTRPG that is causing the exclusion of minorities? (IF this is actually the case...as I said, I know of no studies that really address this).

I think that actually SHOULD be a question asked rather than having people like Mr. Correia attack and belittle such questions from arising or looking at it and trying to figure out what's happening. Instead he uses the typical racist dismissals that you see in every other end of the spectrum of US politics...and that type of racism is offensive, and very evil in many ways towards many minorities.

Seriously, social dynamics and the way ideas spread.

Gaming started as a middle class white hobby, and still is middle class. Most of its popularity is from word of mouth. The people involved spread it to their friends. Since friend circles are racially segregated because of economic segregation that led to geographic and cultural segregation, it mostly spread to other white people. 40 years later, the predominant advertising is still through friend circles, and those friend circles are still racially segregated.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kittyburger wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.
Not really. He laughed it off as "everything is racist" and then jumped to the dictionary definition and said basically Using this, there isn't any racism at GenCon, so George is making stuff up. Unlike Larry, he's "a mind reading Social Justice Warrior, constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."
Yeah. Because that definition is honestly comical.

And we circle back around.

I'm getting the feeling that your actual problem with talking about white privilege and whatever-you-want-to-call-it-but-certainly-not-racism isn't that you worry that the terms will turn off those not up on the jargon, but that you don't think they exist.

Cause, while I wouldn't use the exact phrasing George quoted, I think it really is talking about a real thing.

The issue is that some people have a flat tire on their car. The issue isn't how some people have tires that aren't flat.

By describing an issue with flat tires as "non-flat tire privilege" you (1) skew the issue away from the actual problem, (2) lose credibility with people who's tires aren't flat.

Correia dismisses discussion of actual incidents of sexism by women, discussion of actual incidents of racism by people of color, actual incidents of gender identity and sexual orientation bias by LGBTQIA+ people (notice a running theme here?). It's almost like he refuses to see - not just being not directly affected by but...

Citation? I see none of that in this article. I haven't read any of his other posts, so it could be a theme among his stuff. But this Tor article fails to actually cite a single instance of racism despite claiming it is a big problem at the convention.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.
Not really. He laughed it off as "everything is racist" and then jumped to the dictionary definition and said basically Using this, there isn't any racism at GenCon, so George is making stuff up. Unlike Larry, he's "a mind reading Social Justice Warrior, constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."
Yeah. Because that definition is honestly comical.

And we circle back around.

I'm getting the feeling that your actual problem with talking about white privilege and whatever-you-want-to-call-it-but-certainly-not-racism isn't that you worry that the terms will turn off those not up on the jargon, but that you don't think they exist.

Cause, while I wouldn't use the exact phrasing George quoted, I think it really is talking about a real thing.

1. It is describing it in such broad strokes that virtually everything can be assigned to it. A definition that includes everything isn't an actually workable definition.

2. It describes the issue in terms that make the status quo for the "privledged" sound like they are getting unfair advantages, rather that defining it based on how those who are disadvantaged are put behind. It uses the discriminated against as a baseline rather than "normal/white" society.

3. This causes it to treat the advantages as problems rather than the discrimination as the problem. Discussions frequently talk about eliminating advantages rather than addressing disadvantages.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.

Not really. He laughed it off as "everything is racist" and then jumped to the dictionary definition and said basically Using this, there isn't any racism at GenCon, so George is making stuff up. Unlike Larry, he's "a mind reading Social Justice Warrior, constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."

Yeah. Because that definition is honestly comical.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I think you're going a bit far with the insinuation that every white person, every male, or every Christian who is made uncomfortable by being told that they are personally and offensively racist is harboring subconscious fears of losing privileges they are not even conscious of enjoying.
Saying someone has white privilege is NOT the same as saying they are personally and offensively racist. We've gone around and around this on this thread and somehow people are still coming up with this strawman, that people who are saying "check your privilege" are actually saying "you're a racist m@@&***~%*@!". A statement that a person has racial privilege is NOT a statement that they are racist.
It doesn't matter how much you say this. Anyone who is educated in the topic will agree with you. But average people don't give a s+&$ about the topic on a scholarly level and won't learn the lingo. What the term sounds like to them is not what you mean AND THAT IS A PROBLEM. You can rant and rave about how that shouldn't be all you like, but it wont change the fundamental issue.

And those same average (white) people also aren't going to put up with a big lecture about the topic either. No long winded explanations about how race relations actually work in the US. I'd love to have a word or short phrase that sums it all up and can't be misunderstood or give offense to anyone. Got one?

That said, it is fair to argue that using the term "privilege" or talking about "systematic racism" isn't a good way to make a case to the masses.

It's another thing to misinterpret the usage in your own blog post about someone else's post on racism and expect to be taken seriously. Once you're actually debating racism, you really need to make an effort to figure out what people are talking about rather than just make knee-jerk responses to what you think they're saying. That applies to Larry and it applies to some here who keep reading George...

Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I think you're going a bit far with the insinuation that every white person, every male, or every Christian who is made uncomfortable by being told that they are personally and offensively racist is harboring subconscious fears of losing privileges they are not even conscious of enjoying.

Saying someone has white privilege is NOT the same as saying they are personally and offensively racist. We've gone around and around this on this thread and somehow people are still coming up with this strawman, that people who are saying "check your privilege" are actually saying "you're a racist m@@&***~%*@!". A statement that a person has racial privilege is NOT a statement that they are racist.

It doesn't matter how much you say this. Anyone who is educated in the topic will agree with you. But average people don't give a s!+! about the topic on a scholarly level and won't learn the lingo. What the term sounds like to them is not what you mean AND THAT IS A PROBLEM. You can rant and rave about how that shouldn't be all you like, but it wont change the fundamental issue.

Quote:


Quote:
I think there are plenty of people who are consciously afraid of those things. And there may be some who are subconsciously afraid of those things. But that every single white person, male, or Christian who objects to being accused of being part of the problem is subconsciously trying to avoid losing out is going a few steps too far.
Well, if a person is benefitting from the oppression of minorities, and isn't doing a thing to mitigate that, how is that not being part of the problem?

Not being part of the solution is not the same as being part of the problem. The vast majority of people will likely fall in this category. By painting them with a negative brush so easily, you just alienated them. Good luck convincing them they should take up your cause. You will need them to make any change.

Quote:


Quote:
I'm going to be blunt: You need white people on your side. You need men on your side. You need Christians on your side. No matter what major social shift you are trying to make happen, you need these people to be on your side. By all means, assign blame where it's due. But restrain yourself from becoming so zealous in your rhetoric that you end up causing those who are already on your side (to say nothing of those who aren't, but who could be) to question whether they want to be associated with that kind of fervor.

I'm actually white, as well, and of course I wasn't saying that everyone is harboring unconscious fears of those things. If I had meant that I would have said that. But I suppose someone had to come in with #Notallmen.

What a person is fearing when they are told they have privilege may not be the loss of a job, or of having their kids become atheists, but they're afraid of SOMETHING, even if it's just fear of being called racist, and this fear is what causes defensiveness.

I don't think I'm making the kind of sense I'm meaning to. I blame the cold meds. *Achoo!*

Right, so lets throw random accusations at people we don't know to get them to support our cause. That works so well.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

If we stop using the word 'privilege' and use a different word, then pretty soon THAT word will become the emotionally charged one that Caineach and those coming from the same position will be advising us not to use because it turns people off.

To hell with that. The reason people become uncomfortable with being told they bear a share of responsibility for a state of racial, gender, or similar inequality in society, insofar as they benefit from it in ways that minorities cannot, is because they are scared, subconsciously, that their privileges are going to be taken away. White people are scared of having more trouble getting jobs because they don't have a built in advantage over everyone else when being hired. Men are scared of having a harder time getting laid because they have to acquire enthusiastic consent before having sex with a woman. Christians are scared of having their children being taught that other religions, and nonreligiousness are the legal and logical equals of Christianity, because it may make it harder to keep their children in the faith when they know that there are other options.

These are not conscious fears, but they are one of the reasons why people get defensive and upset when you discuss their privileges.

It depends on what word you use. Privilege has connotations from before it became the goto word. It had a meaning, and then another was added on top of it, and then you complain because people don't understand you new meaning, when the only people using it in that context are people actively discussing it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

black guy resisting arrest after a strong arm robbery, taunting and then rushing the attempted arresting officer who has a gun drawn over 20 paces away = stupid.

Hell, anyone doing that is stupid. Stupid is color blind.

The problem is that its also so stupid that it strains credibility.

Come on BNW, everyone knows that black teenage males are all so dumb, violent and hopped up on cheap cigarillos and rap music that they'll snap and turn into foaming berserker animals at the least excuse.

Just ask the Fergusson Police.

[/sarcasm]

How about Louisiana, where someone with their hand cuffed behind their back can shoot themselves in the chest after being searched for weapons and narcotics.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I just read the article on the Nazis. I'm surprised the Nazi pinups wasn't a complaint about the card game Barbarossa.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:


Go slow. Be nice and respectful and eventually the man will give you want you want. Go slow. Don't ask for too much. Don't let him know you're hurt and angry.

Except that isn't what my argument at all. I said you have to make them care. Mass protests make people care, if for no other reason than they want you to shut up. Whiny articles on social justice sites don't. Tor is mostly a circle jerk for people to talk to others who already agree with them and for their opponents to occasionally stumble upon and start a flame war.

Gamers, in my experience, are a receptive group for arguments of disenfranchisement, so you don't have to start with forcibly getting people's attention. You have to focus on making arguments that they will listen to. you have to make them understand the things bothering you, and if you can propose solutions that they can actually help bring about. That is why the Tor article is junk. It starts with a receptive audience and spends the first half driving them away with accusations and then proposes solutions that are honestly fairly laughable and contradictory.
for example:
Hire people of color and make them prominent but don't use them in advertising and don't hire a token minority.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Albatoonoe wrote:
Caineach wrote:

When someone uses a phrase like "racism is everywhere", they may be what trying to say that, but that is not what the audience is hearing. It is shows a complete lack of knowledge about the target audience and how to effectively communicate with them. Most people don't have the vocabulary to discuss the issue the way they are wanting to. As was pointed out upthread, most people do not consider not getting harassed by cops a privilege. Instead of actually discussing it on a level that will engage them, it immediately turns the audience off. No amount of berating them about ignoring an issue will ever bring them back.

It is a great way to turn potential allies into enemies.

Honestly, I think that's a problematic attitude. You're telling potentially disenfranchised minorities to play on the majority's terms. Instead of going "Wait, I'm not racist! Stop accusing me of racism!", why don't people just listen and accept that maybe they aren't perfect angels.

For reference, my only claim to being a minority is being bisexual, so a lot of this comes from personal introspection and trying to improve myself.

But it is reality. You don't get to make other people listen to your arguments, and you don't get to dictate how they respond to them. The only thing you can do is design your argument in a way that brings people to the table willingly and guides them to the conclusions that you want.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:

When he says "racism is everywhere", he really isn't saying that all whites are KKK members. That shows a gross misunderstanding of the quote and what he was getting at. What he was saying was that this is a deeply rooted, subconscious social problem. That we've done things for so long a certain way that we don't even realize we're doing them. For most people, the default is a white male because that's just the way things have been. This isn't malicious and that's why it is so terrible. It's because we don't realize it that it is so pervasive.

In the Diversity in Fantasy panel that paizo did at Gencon, they talked about how they had someone actually count out the spread of ethnicities and genders because they would skew towards white males by default. This is a problem that can only be fixed when you take an introspective look and realize that everyone has it, white or not.

When someone uses a phrase like "racism is everywhere", they may be what trying to say that, but that is not what the audience is hearing. It is shows a complete lack of knowledge about the target audience and how to effectively communicate with them. Most people don't have the vocabulary to discuss the issue the way they are wanting to. As was pointed out upthread, most people do not consider not getting harassed by cops a privilege. Instead of actually discussing it on a level that will engage them, it immediately turns the audience off. No amount of berating them about ignoring an issue will ever bring them back.

It is a great way to turn potential allies into enemies.

It's funny because the term "privilege" was introduced in order to do exactly that: Talk about the pervasive racism without accusing white people of racism.

And they chose a word with a lot of other connotations that don't make sense to their target audience.

1 to 50 of 4,729 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.