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. 4,702 posts (4,707 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,702 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.


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.


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.


2 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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
He is basically calling all the white people at the con slave masters

This is where I lose it. How do you get that out of the post?

original article wrote:
It was a surreal experience and it felt like I had stepped into an ugly part of a bygone era, one in which whites were waited upon by minority servants.
If the minorities were servants, the whites are masters. It is passive-aggressive and makes pretty much everyone who doesn't agree with him roll their eyes and tune out the rest of his article. Because if he is going to open with crap, why bother reading the rest.
servant <> slave

No, but it is where most people will assume you are going.

Quote:


Black people playing a mostly servant role to wealthier whites lasted long after slavery ended. It's still not uncommon, at least in some settings and parts of the country - though now that few people have house servants it's more common at expensive hotels and other event type things. It really is disturbing when you notice it. At least for me.
But it's very much an emotional thing and I think it's a good way to start. I don't think it says anything in particular about the whites in the picture, other than possibly that they're oblivious to it, probably because they're focused on the gaming.

It is a terrible way to start. It assigns responsibility for this discrepancy on the Gencon attendees.

Quote:


As I've said all along, I don't think this is far more a reflection of systemic racism in society than it is GenCon's fault. I'm not even sure it's gaming's fault, though there are things gaming can do to encourage more minority participation. I'd read "gaming has made little room for people of color" as "as done little to actively encourage minority participation", rather than "actively excludes".

This is what I meant earlier about having to take everything he wrote in the worst possible light.

I ask again, if every discussion of race issues in the US has be phrased to make sure there is absolutely no blame ever laid on white people and that no white people are made uncomfortable by it, then how are we every going to get anywhere?

The first step in any conversation is making sure the other person is willing to listen to you. Starting with an accusation turns them off. Using charged language like "privilege" turns them off. If you want to actually affect change, you need to discuss the issue in a way that you don't alienate your audience. Otherwise, you just turn a potential ally into an enemy. The Tor article fails miserably at this.

To quote Correia

Quote:
And here we are at the end, after insinuating gamers are all racists, game companies are racists, and GenCon management loves Nazis, George gets to the useful part about actually getting more people from different backgrounds into our hobby. Way to go, buddy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
He is basically calling all the white people at the con slave masters

This is where I lose it. How do you get that out of the post?

original article wrote:
It was a surreal experience and it felt like I had stepped into an ugly part of a bygone era, one in which whites were waited upon by minority servants.

If the minorities were servants, the whites are masters. It is passive-aggressive and makes pretty much everyone who doesn't agree with him roll their eyes and tune out the rest of his article. Because if he is going to open with crap, why bother reading the rest.

You can call it a rhetorical flourish and not part of his argument if you want, but it is the very first point he makes after describing what Gencon is. He follows it up with an accusation that the gaming community actively excludes people of color

original article wrote:
Gaming has a race problem. For all its creativity and imagination, for all its acceptance of those who find it hard to be themselves in mainstream society, gaming has made little room for people of color.

emphasis added

Quote:


If some white people are going to be that sensitive, how can they ever be reached?

By not starting with an accusation that they are actively excluding people. You lose everyone who disagrees with that statement before you can possibly get them to understand the actual problems.

You want to see someone do this well:
Ted Talk Danger of a Single Story


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:
People keep picking at this, and I think it's important to note that this observation is part of a brief preamble. The problem isn't in George's "argument," the problem is treating every bit of George's article with over-intense scrutiny. Here's what I read in that part: George goes to GenCon as a non-white person and sees two populations, the convention-goers and the convention staff. The racial make up of these two groups (and probably both are fairly large considering the popularity of the Con) is disproportionate, with a greater percentage of the people who have and act on their access to the Con being white and a greater percentage of the staff being non-white. All he says is that it makes him feel uncomfortable, and reminds him of "ye olde racist times." Feel free to (re?)visit the articles I posted about privilege, and consider how our racist past and present might contribute to this racial disparity.

His preamble is so long and ridiculous that he becomes antagonistic to the people he is trying to convince there is a problem before even making a relevant claim about the convention. He is basically calling all the white people at the con slave masters, meanwhile he is trying to get them to take his claim that there is problem seriously.

Quote:

He cites several examples of other gamers dismissing his concerns about race representation, and points out that the leadership and decision makers of the Con (and the people they choose to honor with awards, recognition, etc) are sorely lacking in the PoC department. This isn't racist in the KKK way or anything, but it is a symptom of PoC systematically being denied opportunities and voices in gaming culture.

And as Correia rightly points out, the reason there is lack of PoC in the leadership is because those are the people who have volunteered for multiple years. The only way to change that is to get PoC to volunteer, and the leadership has no real way of getting people to. Hell, if Gencon is like any other convention I have seen most of the volunteers are drafted/guilted from friends of current staff, and because our society is racially stratified you consistently get more of the same.

Similarly, Correia points out the exact same thing about the awards. The people who receive them have all been in the community for years.

Any community that starts out racially stratified through no fault of its own will have a difficult time getting diversification in upper echelons. The top tiers will lag behind the general community because early adopters will have had more time to get experience. You claim people are being denied opportunities, but fail to prove that to any convincing degree. There are more logical explanations that do not involve malice, but you're focusing on as malice as the most likely explanation.

Quote:


Literally nowhere does he say GenCon is racist. He says there is a "Race Problem," and describes some ways in which he feels excluded. The thing about the Nazi cosplayer is definitely a weak example of this, but the article he links to about it also notes a booth that sells sexy Nazi pin-up art (which has problems on multiple fronts [dammit did I just make a WWII pun ugh]), which is disallowed by GenCon rules but the complaints seemingly went unheard. I think he also writes about things a little too generally, but he still provides specific instances of various gamers and gaming communities being an uncomfortable place for him as a PoC.

Any reasonable listener will hear "there is a race problem" and interpret that as racism. To claim otherwise is as disingenuous as saying Fox News doesn't racebait.

Quote:


But here's the real meat of the issue: it doesn't matter whether his article has "rational arguments" or is "too emotional." He identifies some things he didn't like and provides some suggestions of how to make GenCon more inclusive. He doesn't owe anyone a "logical" argument for inclusion. Part of white privilege is not seeing the discomfort of non-white groups who feel underrepresented in a given community. Having white privilege doesn't mean you're being evil and ignoring it, it means you literally don't see it. When George writes about feeling out of place at GenCon, the proper response shouldn't be, "Prove it!" There are a lot of people asking for more inclusion in the gaming community, and it's there if you look for it and listen to those voices. The burden of proof is not on George here.

Yes it does matter. He is using disingenuous claims - like not being represented in artwork (easily disproven with links to the artwork), or not being able to create what he wants (in a world where you can create anything), to make the claim that the problem is with other people. He needs to be able to at least make a reasonable argument as to why he doesn't feel like he belongs.


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

I'm going to suggest that if he didn't discover he was Latino until probably 2009, it's probably not a real major part of his life experience. The cynical part of me suggests he might just be using it as a dig at liberals who might challenge him.

Or he knew he was Portuguese but did not know that it was legally considered Latino. Latino is usually used to refer to people of Latin American decent. I'm willing to bet a large portion of the population does not realize that people from the Iberian Peninsula are considered Latino, even people with ancestors within 1 or 2 generations from that region. I've even seen different discrimination against Portuguese people than other Latino groups in areas like Cape Cod, where Portuguese people have a significant enough presence to be a distinctly noticeable group.

Oh, I'm sure he knew he was Portuguese, or rather Portuguese-American since he was born in California, but that doesn't mean his cultural experience wasn't basically white. And now he's using his legal* Latino status as a platform to bash other Latinos for noticing discrimination that he never had to deal with, implying that they're just being overly sensitive for having trouble with racism when he's a Latino too and never had any problems.

It's a real slimeball move and drags my opinion of him a lot farther down.

I could be wrong of course.

Except that isn't what he is doing when he brings up his race (at least from what I can tell). In that case, he is pointing out that you cannot tell someone's cultural identity easily, and that in assuming you can, like the Tor author did, you can easily make mistakes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
EntrerisShadow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'm going to suggest that if he didn't discover he was Latino until probably 2009, it's probably not a real major part of his life experience. The cynical part of me suggests he might just be using it as a dig at liberals who might challenge him.

Ding, ding, ding.

Of course, he didn't discover he was Latino, anyway. I know that's your point, but I REALLY want this clarified, because this really cuts to the core of why this guy, and his article, are really terrible. He's as white as he ever was - but now he gets to use an obvious error by the DOL to glibly steal that term with no regard for how people who actually ARE Latino are treated.

And from what I've been reading, that seems about the level this guy is on. Reading over a few more of his articles it seems like he takes every suggestion that sci-fi writers and fans consider other races, genders, or sexualities as evil thought police insisting we're not allowed to write about straight, white males any more.

Convenient how he used that opportunity to mock it, but then uses it in this article, without so much as an allusion to the irregularity, to lend credence to his point. It just makes an already rubbish article that much worse.

And my God, how people are eager to defend him and attack the tor.com writer. The fact alone that so much more scrutiny has been heaped upon the minority person - and that they have so far been the only one to face any allegations of actual racism in this thread - is so very, very telling. Sad, but very telling.

Of course, the fact that the Tor article is a piece of s*$*, fails to back up any of its assertions, and uses poor reasoning to reach bad conclusions can't be a reason people don't like it. Nope, it has to be racism.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:

P.S.: With regards to Correia's race: I do realize that Correia identifies as Latino. However:

-I saw the picture of him on his website. He's more or less white-passing, which is another form of privilege (the first article I link to specifically uses the phrase "white skin privilege" at one point, and that seems relevant). Which isn't to say that his opinions as a non-white don't count or something, but I still think he's a huge [redacted].
-I'm a little confused about how being Portuguese makes you Latino, but it's not something I feel remotely qualified to talk about, so I'm gonna leave it alone. I got the impression from Correia's article that he was equating the two, but it's not like there aren't both Portuguese white people and Portuguese PoC, so, again, dropping it.
From one of his other articles:
Quote:
I suppose this is what I get for being a Wise Latino. (a term stolen from Sonya Sotomeyor, since that was around the same time that I was filling out some EEOC worksheets at my Military Industrial Complex job and discovered that Portuguese was legally considered Latino by the Department of Labor).
I'm going to suggest that if he didn't discover he was Latino until probably 2009, it's probably not a real major part of his life experience. The cynical part of me suggests he might just be using it as a dig at liberals who might challenge him.

Or he knew he was Portuguese but did not know that it was legally considered Latino. Latino is usually used to refer to people of Latin American decent. I'm willing to bet a large portion of the population does not realize that people from the Iberian Peninsula are considered Latino, even people with ancestors within 1 or 2 generations from that region. I've even seen different discrimination against Portuguese people than other Latino groups in areas like Cape Cod, where Portuguese people have a significant enough presence to be a distinctly noticeable group.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
This "complex bundle of problems" is essentially the underlying racist structures of America. Correia's dismissal--his ability to ignore and dismiss this--is basically the definition of racial privilege. Having privilege isn't about getting everything handed to you on a platter because you're in the right social category, or saying your accomplishments don't mean anything. It's about how you don't have to constantly deal with oppression on a daily basis, and often not even being aware of it.
Uh...did you perhaps miss that Larry Correia is, in fact, a 'person of color' (though he apparently hates that term)? He's Latino. So...this statement? This does not make as much sense as you think it does.

Hell, one of Correia's complaints about the article was that it didn't include him as a PoC on the honored guest list.


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

This is disappointing. I will still be running with the original.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Professor Stuffington wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Haladir wrote:
Kung Fu Joe wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
What is 'riffing'? saw this in a couple post recently.
As long as it's not 'yiffing.'
I know what "riffing" is, but what the hell is "yiffing?"
So what IS 'riffing'?

Sorry.

riff /rɪf/

noun

1. (in jazz or rock music) a short series of chords.

verb, intransitive

2. To play or perform riffs in jazz or rock music.

3. (informal) To speak amusingly about a subject, or make an amusing series of remarks.

In this case, I think we mean definition 3.

If you have ever heard of Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K), they riff on the movie. In fact, you can find their new venture, RiffTrax, online.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kolokotroni wrote:
Caineach wrote:
I've encountered quite a few SJW. One lambasted her social circle at college and ended up quitting the school because hir friends argued that the NY legislature taking a few extra days to hammer out details on marriage equality to prevent lawsuits was a good thing (requirements that specify religious groups cannot be forced to perform marriages). Ze has now joined a likeminded group in the Boston area who all are equally rediculous in their views. One I've actually argued with that there are no physical differences between men and women.
Wait, no physical differences? I assume this was in regards to muscle mass and height and not... other things right?

all of the above.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm guessing they grabbed an older version of the evil eye hex. The mind effecting line was added after the witch beta.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:

Pyrta and Ruby both apparently have sonic thrust or telekinesis as an SLA and the CL is ridiculous since it's an object per CL and they threw a *lot* of soda cans and tableware back and forth.

Oh, and Ruby has it quickened since she was making a charge action at the same time.

Pyrta has control of metal, as explained in season 1. Ruby just has enough superspeed to create a shockwave.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:

I really want to post more here, but I gotta sleep. I just want to know, how do the new posters in this thread feel about this statement?

A.A. George wrote:


"I’ve been told time and again by gamers, “I don’t see race” as if they were doing me a kindness. This is not enlightenment or progressiveness. It is ignorance. If you do not see race, you do not see me. You do not see my identity, my ethnicity, my history, my people. What you are telling me, when you say “I do not see race,” is that you see everything as the normal default of society: white. In the absence of race and ethnicity, it is only the majority that remains. I am erased."
I personally found it offensive for reasons stated on page 1. Do you find this statement acceptable? Why?

I don't find it offensive at all.

Too often (usually) well-meaning white people say, "I don't see race" as confirmation that they're not at all racist. But it is a rather ignorant thing to say for precisely the reasons he's pointing out. What he's saying is that it is used as a way to be able to ignore other cultures and experiences because, to you, there is no difference.

There's a reason Stephen Colbert mocks the "I don't see race" line in his conservative-pundit guise. It is a dismissive thing to say. (And too often used to justify ignoring very real racial disparities in hiring, education, and our criminal justice system.) To respect a person is to respect the whole person - that includes understanding how their experience differs from yours due to not being a member of the dominant culture. The statistics do not lie - being black in America is very different from being white. (Also being gay, Latino/a, a woman, or non-Christian, but one thing at a time.)

DeadManWalking wrote:
He, uh, never claimed it was factual. And, much as I'm actually a strong advocate of working to destroy subconscious and cultural prejudices (which are a serious problem), a lot of people who go on about them come come
...

I've encountered quite a few SJW. One lambasted her social circle at college and ended up quitting the school because hir friends argued that the NY legislature taking a few extra days to hammer out details on marriage equality to prevent lawsuits was a good thing (requirements that specify religious groups cannot be forced to perform marriages). Ze has now joined a likeminded group in the Boston area who all are equally rediculous in their views. One I've actually argued with that there are no physical differences between men and women.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:

The latter, Larry Correia.

As far as I can tell, his "arguments" are mostly "well I don't feel the same way as you about racial issues, so you're WRONG!"

He seems very angry about how one person wrote an article about feeling underrepresented in their hobby. He's dismissive and inflammatory. Also, as a rule, I don't trust anyone who argues with "dictionary definitions" (especially with complicated and nuanced issues like race and racism), and unironically uses the term "Social Justice Warrior."

One person wrote an article highly critical of Gencon without any evidence to back up his position other than I felt buthurt growing up and these people don't understand my pain.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Paladin code of Torag wrote:
I am at all times truthful, honorable, and forthright, but my allegiance is to my people. I will do what is necessary to serve them, including misleading others if need be.

Paladins can be intentionally deceitful.

link


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hama wrote:
He shouldn't fall, I agree, but, however, he should have legal ramifications, because, instead of going to the city guard with evidence, he committed vigilante justice (murder), and most guards take a dim view to that.

Vigilante justice isn't against the Paladin code. In most cases, it is explicitly what the Paladin should be doing.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
Code of Torag wrote:
I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.

Emphasis added. I'd argue that cutting down unarmed civilians does not bring honor to Torag.

Since the evil little old lady turned out to be a spellcaster (though I'm really curious as to what kind - adept? witch? cleric?), and was stupid enough to try throwing spells at an armed and angry paladin, I'd be inclined to cut you some slack (i.e., shouldn't fall), but you still made a mess of the situation.

What you described the lady doing was pretty creepy/weird, but it certainly wasn't a capital offense.

Speaking as someone who plays paladins: Just because someone is a petty jerk does not make it okay to kill them.

Also, if you merely knocked her out on your first swing, and used a second attack to finish her off, then you probably should be in trouble.

I strongly recommend using a sap next time. Or getting merciful on your earthbreaker.

Code of Torag wrote:
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants.

And I quoted the qualifier that follows the sentence you quoted =P

Also note the "except when strategy warrants." Torag does not give a paladin permission to turn his brain off. If you're in a situation where "show no mercy" is idiotic (like arresting a little old lady for a nonviolent crime), then you're expected to have some discretion.

Think for yourself, and don't be a disgrace.

"except where strategy warrants" refers to being able to exploit prisoners to your advantage, which I think is very much not the situation here. I think your qualifiers are explicitly not applicable to this situation.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:
Code of Torag wrote:
I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.

Emphasis added. I'd argue that cutting down unarmed civilians does not bring honor to Torag.

Since the evil little old lady turned out to be a spellcaster (though I'm really curious as to what kind - adept? witch? cleric?), and was stupid enough to try throwing spells at an armed and angry paladin, I'd be inclined to cut you some slack (i.e., shouldn't fall), but you still made a mess of the situation.

What you described the lady doing was pretty creepy/weird, but it certainly wasn't a capital offense.

Speaking as someone who plays paladins: Just because someone is a petty jerk does not make it okay to kill them.

Also, if you merely knocked her out on your first swing, and used a second attack to finish her off, then you probably should be in trouble.

I strongly recommend using a sap next time. Or getting merciful on your earthbreaker.

Code of Torag wrote:
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hama wrote:
They still committed murder in an urban area. Like I said, Paladin shouldn't fall, but there are enough grounds to have them arrested and harassed by the local police force for vigilante justice. Because most coppers frown upon such works.

Mortal authority does not affect whether he falls or not. A Paladin can not fall and still be liable to face charges by the law.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Now that I look at Torag's code again, not killing her would probably have been a violoation.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:

There's a big difference between being out on your own, purging evil in some truly Gods forsaken Dungeon, and doing your thing in the middle of civilization itself.

Different rules apply because killing someone without due process can lead to justifiable charges of murder. Dealing with urban adventures calls on a talent many Pathfinders find hard to master..... finesse. And I'm not talking about that thing you do with your rapier.

I disagree entirely. A Paladin's mandate is from their beliefs and their god, not from mortal civilization. The rules do not change. The Paladin does not answer to mortal authorities.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You did exactly as a Paladin of Torag should.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

You all do know that Evil Racist Cop isn't the majority of cops, right? And Evil, Racist DA? And Evil, Racist Jury and Judge?

I get it that there are some. But you do get that it isn't most of them, right?
Or are we to the point that all cops are Evil Racist Cop? Because that's what is being implied.
So we judge ALL the protesters by the worse of the bunch but the racist cops, that you admit to existing, are outliers to be ignored?

Not only are they to be ignored, but when they are identified 9 times in 10 they will face no repercussions.


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

You all do know that Evil Racist Cop isn't the majority of cops, right? And Evil, Racist DA? And Evil, Racist Jury and Judge?

I get it that there are some. But you do get that it isn't most of them, right?
Or are we to the point that all cops are Evil Racist Cop? Because that's what is being implied.

Prick cop on a power trip accounts for every cop I have ever interacted with.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Finally saw it last night.
I felt like Gamora had the most character development of the group. The problem was her character was bland and uninteresting, so it didn't matter how much they developed her.

Rocket stole the scene whenever he was on camera.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charlie Bell wrote:
GregH wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I suspect that bit's not actually true. Soldiers occasionally take prisoners and I suspect they point guns at them even when not actually shooting. If someone tries to surrender, do soldiers immediately stop covering them, even if he still has weapons close to hand?

It's one of those catch phrases that sounds good and may even be generally true, but certainly isn't a hard and fast rule.

Fair enough, I've never been in the military so if anyone else knows better I'll concede the point.

I'm an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran; you can point your weapon at someone in an escalation of force scenario, and you can keep weapons trained on detainees until they're secured, and you probably should.

Aiming a weapon is definitely in the lethal end of the spectrum, however, and is only really warranted when there's the possibility of a lethal threat from the subject. This doesn't preclude the possibility of a lethal threat from an unarmed subject. They might have a weapon you can't see, or they might try to gain control of your weapon. Standard disclaimer, IANAL.

From an uniformed person wanting to know more:

In these cases you are talking about having a specific target and suspect, not a large group of people who are mostly nonviolent, correct? Patroling a street you would not have your weapon up and ready.

1 to 50 of 4,702 << 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.