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

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 13,456 posts (14,254 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 13,456 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Set wrote:
thejeff wrote:
"What is so awesome about it that it's worth reworking the campaign so that it really does fit?"

What needs to be reworked, 'though? The object of running a game is giving people a chance to share some fun for a couple of hours, not for one frustrated wanna-be author to sit four other people down and tell them a story, and refuse to allow anyone to play any character that I don't pre-approve as existing in this story I'm telling them.

There is no 'setting' outside of the group fun we are having. If the setting is the Forgotten Realms, and somebody wants to play a member of the Sueloise Brotherhood, or an Eberron Changeling, then, bang, so it happens. If we decide to play a vampire game, and one dude wants to play a werewolf, there are balance issues, because vampires are the ugly stepsisters of the World of Darkness, and either they need to be toned up (or at least have their non-daylight operations rule negated, so that the werewolf player doesn't spend half the game waiting for the sun to set and the vampire players don't spend half the game waiting for the werewolf's daytime adventures to end). 'Theme' is not an issue. We aren't a boy band, and everybody doesn't have to dance in lockstep. We're more like the Village People, one dude playing a cop does not preclude someone else playing a cowboy.

Again, I'm spoiled by superhero games, where the players can literally say 'I'm playing the avatar of an Egyptian god I just made up' and I, as GM, do not have to GAF that Egyptian gods may not have existed in the setting I'm using until this very second. It's the work of a second for me to say 'Okay.' It's not like I have to go invent an Egyptian pantheon to go along with that character origin, or rearrange any pre-existing gods I've got going on or anything.

Two separate but related things: I like to have stuff in the setting connect and make sense. If there's a race in the setting, I like to know something about its history and how it fits in with the other races and cultures. This helps me root the characters in the setting and develop plots for them to deal with. The Eberron Changelings would be fairly easy to work in to most settings, since they don't really seem to have much culture of their own. They blend in to others. So they're a mystery with a few references to past historical events. Fine. Eberron's Warforged would require much more effort to find them an origin and a place.

Second and more important: I don't run (or often play) sandboxes. Nor do I just run players through basically unconnected adventures that they get sent on or happen to hear about.
I'm also not a frustrated wanna-be author sitting four other people down and telling them a story, and refusing to allow anyone to play any character that I don't pre-approve as existing in this story I'm telling them.
There's a vast area in between sandbox and railroad, where there's a basic concept and there are bad guys who have plots going on that the PCs will wind up dealing with, but they still have freedom to respond to what the outside world is doing. But sometimes the premise of the game I'm interested in running requires limitations. Obviously if the players aren't interested in the game I'm proposing, then it's not going to happen, but they can't agree to play in it and then bring characters that don't fit. Maybe theme was a bad word choice, but I didn't mean the party has to have a theme, like a boy band, but that the campaign itself has a theme or a concept. If the concept is elven court politics, that limits characters in one way. If the concept is "urban adventures of a gang of thieves", that limits the characters in a different direction. And that's where I'm talking about "What's so awesome about the character?" Don't come up with an excuse why your half-orc barbarian could be at the elven court, sell me on why this half-orc barbarian is going to make this elven court politics game so much better.

If your group is just a bunch of random murder-hobos who met in a bar and off killing things for fun and profit, then none of this matters. Include anything you like. I like my games to be more focused than that. I like that as a player too.

Oh, since you mentioned superhero games, not all concepts work there either. The one I mentioned where the GM went with it and it ruined the game was a superhero game. And partly my fault. The game proposal, as I heard it, was child proteges of 1950's superheroes. I played a demon mageling adopted and being taught by that world's Sorcerer Supreme equivalent. Another player was playing a ninja with some complicated background I don't remember. What the other players heard for the proposal and what the GM intended had much more of an emphasis on the 1950's 4-color, code-approved, straight-forward heroics. And that's what the other characters were. Clashed with our two gritty 90s style near anti-hero characters.
GM absolutely should have shot that character down. Didn't fit the theme.


LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

It's usually dead simple to have a 'one-off' race in a game world, if you have a multiplanar cosmology. People and things from other dimensions drop in all the time. Plus, there's always the idea of wizard experiments, random mutations, and all that. In Golarion, you even have the potential to be an alien.

Nothing says you have to be a 'race' of more than one.

And some of us consider that trope to be hackneyed, overused, and objectionable on aesthetic grounds, and won't allow it. I'm quite upfront about this sort of thing. If I'm going to invite you to a campaign, I'm going to tell you it's theme and setting first. If you can't get around making a character that fits, I won't strongarm you into playing. It helps however, that I only invite people I know, and this has not been an issue to date.

I agree. If it's just that you hadn't thought to put the race in the world yet, then "I just popped in from some other dimension" can work fine. For example if you were playing wide-open Golarion and someone wanted to use a 3rd Edition race that hadn't been ported over to PF, then it's not a big deal to add.

But if you're planning a campaign where the restriction on theme and setting actually matter, then asking to play something that doesn't fit is a pretty big warning flag that either the player didn't understand the theme and the setting or that he didn't really care and went on to do his own thing. The first can be fixed. The second is a problem.

My response, after making sure it isn't just miscommunication, is to get the player to sell me on it: "This concept doesn't really seem to fit what we talked about. What am I missing? How is this character going to make the campaign better?" Not just, "How can you justify bringing it in", but either "Why does it really fit, even though I can't see it?" or "What is so awesome about it that it's worth reworking the campaign so that it really does fit?"

That in itself is pretty...

I've seen it happen even with long-term groups. Though it's usually been more miscommunication than anything. At least once the GM rolled with it and it pretty much ruined the game. A couple of times the player's argument was good enough to spark something in the GM's head and make the game even better.


LazarX wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

It's usually dead simple to have a 'one-off' race in a game world, if you have a multiplanar cosmology. People and things from other dimensions drop in all the time. Plus, there's always the idea of wizard experiments, random mutations, and all that. In Golarion, you even have the potential to be an alien.

Nothing says you have to be a 'race' of more than one.

And some of us consider that trope to be hackneyed, overused, and objectionable on aesthetic grounds, and won't allow it. I'm quite upfront about this sort of thing. If I'm going to invite you to a campaign, I'm going to tell you it's theme and setting first. If you can't get around making a character that fits, I won't strongarm you into playing. It helps however, that I only invite people I know, and this has not been an issue to date.

I agree. If it's just that you hadn't thought to put the race in the world yet, then "I just popped in from some other dimension" can work fine. For example if you were playing wide-open Golarion and someone wanted to use a 3rd Edition race that hadn't been ported over to PF, then it's not a big deal to add.

But if you're planning a campaign where the restriction on theme and setting actually matter, then asking to play something that doesn't fit is a pretty big warning flag that either the player didn't understand the theme and the setting or that he didn't really care and went on to do his own thing. The first can be fixed. The second is a problem.

My response, after making sure it isn't just miscommunication, is to get the player to sell me on it: "This concept doesn't really seem to fit what we talked about. What am I missing? How is this character going to make the campaign better?" Not just, "How can you justify bringing it in", but either "Why does it really fit, even though I can't see it?" or "What is so awesome about it that it's worth reworking the campaign so that it really does fit?"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What you're angry about is someone that was fighting for a good cause, actively tried to keep the casualties to a minimum, and oddly enough was human so he didn't do it perfectly and three people died. As opposed to say, Dick Cheney collecting speakers fees from universities when he deliberately cooked the information so the oil company that was paying him could make oodles of money in iraq and at least 100,000 civilians got killed.

Or John Yoo writing secret legal arguments to justify torture.

Currently a Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley.


Ronin_Knight wrote:

sorry for another derail but I wasn't sure where to post this and thought it had some relevance to some aspects of the discussion:

I've been looking in to privilege theory online mainly because the 'check your privilege'/''it's not my job to educate you' response are the only ones I've had when asking those who make reference to it in their campaigns at my University but all I can find is studies and opinions based out of the US and I'm in the UK and from what I could find there seems to be significant enough differences in our cultures to warrant studies based in Britain rather than simply applying the american one and saying 'this applies despite the differences'so can anyone recommend UK or Europe based studies or is the theory based purely on the society of the US and being applied regardless?

I'd say the basic theory, especially when you apply intersectionality to consider the different types of privilege (or the opposite) that affect each case. Members of the dominant race/ethnicity/culture in any given place have advantages over others that they are generally unaware of, unless they've educated themselves on the topic in one way or another.

What groups get those privileges and exactly what the privileges are various from country to country and even in different regions within the country, but the basic concept applies.


Kthulhu wrote:
Fun fact: Charlize Theron is an African-American.

That's true, in a way. And I'd laugh at anyone who claimed that she was black because of it. Or a person of color.


Matthew Morris wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
thejeff wrote:
]My stance is and remains that he claims incorrectly to be a Person of Color to mock and dismiss racial discrimination.
Do we REALLY want to go down the road of saying "He isn't [color] enough to be a REAL [race]?

No. And I'm not.

He's Portuguese-American. He's European-American. He's white.

It's not about being not [color] enough to be a REAL [race].

This doesn't mean he wasn't poor. This doesn't mean he didn't face discrimination, 1st and 2nd generation immigrants often face discrimination where ever they come from. I lived until recently in a town with a high Polish immigrant population. They had a rough time of it in many ways. But that doesn't make them people of color.

So you're saying Theresa Heinz-Kerry is African American?

Cute.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

If we didn't say "Social Justice Warrior", we'd just call them "whiner" or "jerk" or "bully".

I didn't really want to have to spend an hour on this (not least because I hate giving tor.com ad revenue), but if you insist:

George wrote:
By far, the most visible minorities at GenCon were the hired convention hall facilities staff who were setting up, serving, and cleaning up garbage for the predominantly white convention-goers. 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.
Stupid statement speaks for itself.

I've said it before and I certainly don't blame Gencon for it, but I've been in places that had this dynamic and it's freaky when you realize it. And I'm a white guy. I really can't imagine what it's like if you match the servants, not the guests.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:


George 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.

To be more precise, America has a race problem, and gaming happens to exist in America. Gaming is an extraordinarily inclusive hobby—it's just expensive.

George wrote:
The broad acceptance that white people enjoy is the unspoken—but clearly visible—rule of our society, reinforced through a thousand structures and symbols. It pervades everything around us, reminding everyone that white people are the center of the story, no matter what story is being told. As a kid who desperately wanted to belong and fit in, white was the color of god.

While it is true that media often used to only center on white people, there are a ton of movies, TV shows and novels with non-white leads nowadays. The number grows steadily, too.

His point applies to his childhood, not the modern day. That complaint also applies to his complaints about non-inclusive tabletop games—Pathfinder and D&D both disprove his point with tons of minority characters.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:


George wrote:
I don’t think there are official surveys and statistics on the gaming subculture, but perhaps this study on the top 100 domestic grossing films in science-fiction and fantasy is an indication of similar trends in gaming: There are only eight protagonists of color in the top 100 science-fiction and fantasy films. Six are played by Will Smith and one is a cartoon character (Aladdin). None of these protagonists are women of color.

Gee, maybe if he looked at more recent movies, he'd see a change (funny enough, Lion King is pretty damn centered on Africa, though I'll concede the characters don't exactly look black).

Again, he's not really going for an up-to-date view. I think that's really harmful. Racism is a thing nowadays, too. Focusing on the problems of way-back-when reinforces the people who claim racism to be dead and in fact hurts the case of actual social justice.

Will Smith isn't exactly ancient history.

Quote:
Her other complaint was about someone selling nazi paraphernalia at a booth. This was explicitly against the rules (no 20th century costumes) and I heard it got shut down for that and other reasons, so, yeah. It's a damn cosplay. Not a very okay cosplay, no, but seriously? We have Irregular Webcomic featuring a group of nazis as joke villains. We have Springtime for Hitler. I know joking about nazis still upsets people, but...are we really gonna call GenCon racist over this?

I don't know if that booth was eventually shut down or not, but according to the linked story, GenCon officials basically ignored complaints and did nothing about it.

More generally, I agree with you. The racist problem is a more generally American one and less a specifically GenCon or gaming one. That said, in the sense in which George is using the term racist, the GenCon organization is racist. As are most of us. Well-meaning, as he acknowledges, but clueless.
In the sense in which Correia uses the term, they are not. One of the problems with Correia's piece is that he dismisses Georges definition and proceeds to analyze the post using his own definition. Another is his casual mocking of George's description of his own experiences.


Darche Schneider wrote:

There is a couple of things I learned..

Gotta bunch of extra numbers? Can you subtract them to make 0?

Because 0 x anything = 0. So once you can consistently get a preset grouping of numbers, you can almost always throw out the rest with 0.

1x1 = 1. 1xX=X. Which is a few more ways you can math out a few numbers as well.

That's even easier and I don't know why I didn't think of it. And that means it really does get much easier as you get more dice.

So 15d6 ⇒ (4, 6, 3, 1, 1, 1, 5, 3, 6, 4, 1, 6, 5, 4, 3) = 53

101 = (5*5*4 + 1) + 1-1*( 6 + 3 + 3 + 6 + 4 + 1 + 6 + 4 + 3)

103 = (5*5*4 + 3) + 1-1*( 6 + 1 + 3 + 6 + 4 + 1 + 6 + 4 + 3)

107 = (5*5*4 + 6 + 1) + 1-1*( 3 + 3 + 6 + 4 + 1 + 6 + 4 + 3)


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Of course not. That's why people should stop refuting Larry's points with accusations of racism and "privilege".

The bare fact is that the guy who wrote the original article comes across as clueless, self-righteous, melodramatic, and itchin' for a fight. Correia states he has frequently responded to tor.com's articles, so while he comes across as quite confrontational, I got the sense he was more irritated because he was sick of having to deal with this particular website.

If you don't want people to try calling tor.com or its supporters racist, stop calling Correia and his supporters racist, or privileged, or gendernormative, or whatever the hay we're calling people now. Someone can have a different opinion from a supporter of social justice and be just that—someone with a differing point of view.

Well, it's not like he has to deal with this particular website. He could, for example, ignore it.

It's almost like he's some kind of anti-Social Justice Warrior, "constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."

And the first accusations of racism in this thread were thrown at George, not Correia.


Irontruth wrote:

My favorite morsel of information from this whole thing is in the story about the guy who was falsely arrested, beaten in his cell and charged with destruction of property.

He sued the police department for what they did to him. On the stand, the officer who wrote up the report had the following exchange:

Quote:

“After Mr. Davis was detained, did you have any blood on you?” asked Davis’ lawyer, James Schottel.

“No, sir,” Beaird replied.

Schottel showed Beaird a copy of the “property damage” complaint.

“Is that your signature as complainant?” the lawyer asked.

“It is, sir,” the cop said.

“And what do you allege that Mr. Davis did unlawfully in this one?” the lawyer asked.

“Transferred blood to my uniform while Davis was resisting,” the cop said.

“And didn’t I ask you earlier in this deposition if Mr. Davis got blood on your uniform?”

“You did, sir.”

“And didn’t you respond no?”

“Correct. I did.”

Afterwards, the St Louis prosecutor in charge of the 4 counts of damage of government property only dropped 2 of the charges. He is also currently unopposed in his re-election campaign this November.

Don't forget that one of the officers involved in that is one the city council.


AxiomOfAnarchy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Without even trying to dig into the math, that analysis is fundamentally flawed because you're not looking to exhaust the search space. There is not only one solution, nor do you have to find all the solutions. You only need one.

One out of X, where X is a ridiculously large search space. The computational complexity of the direct brute force approach is O(n!); that is precisely what my post demonstrated.

thejeff wrote:
Others have posted fairly simple and elegant approaches to finding those solutions. It's not really difficult, but will definitely slow down play.
Links? The only "solution" I've come across fairly consistently produces incorrect results.

But it's not one out of X. The number of combinations is ridiculously large, but so is the number of combinations that solve the problem. And you only need one of those combinations.

I'm not sure what problem your math is actually trying to solve. What you don't allow for is how many working combination there are. That essentially divides your search space, since you only need to brute force until you find the first one.

In reality, you don't need to brute force of course. I'm not sure how I'd write a program to solve it, but it really is a few minutes of work at worst to actually solve any given example.

As suggested earlier in thread: multiply a couple dice together until you're near one of the targets. Add or subtract to reach the target. Pair the rest of the dice together so they come to 1 or 0, then multiply and add.

Let's say you roll 15 dice trying to cast an effective level 9 spell. The prime numbers are 101, 103, 107.

15d6 ⇒ (4, 5, 2, 3, 3, 5, 1, 4, 2, 1, 5, 4, 5, 3, 3) = 50

Edit: Solved for the wrong thing
So 5*4*5 = 100, leaving me with 2,3,3,1,4,2,1,5,4,5,3,3, then you just subtract or divide out pairs.
(5*4*5 +2-2+3-3)*1*4/4+5-5+3-3+1 = 101

That took about 4 minutes, but it's actually easier to match dice together than to keep track while typing it out. (And there's a cat demanding attention.)

I don't know about formal mathematical solutions to the problem, but it's pretty trivial to do by hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vod Canockers wrote:
But still my point was to commit crimes in the name of a movement, so Universities will hire you later.

I still think you've got causation and correlation screwed up here.

Universities may hire you despite past criminal movement activity. You have not demonstrated that "committing crimes in the name of a movement" is actually a useful way to get universities to hire you.

Especially since one of your two examples was dismissed because of it.


Abraham spalding wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

You cannot give consent while drunk.

Consent must be obtained or the act is forced.

Drunk has a legal definition. Consent has a legal definition, and you cannot consent while drunk. If you do not have consent then the act is not willing.

This is a basic point everyone needs to get into their heads.

Does this mean that you didn't do something that put you in the situation? No. But that doesn't excuse the other persons behavior either.

If I leave my house open and you take something from it you have still robbed me. I made it easy but you are still a robber.

Consequently if I get drunk I cannot give consent. If I do not give consent and you do it anyways you are a rapist.

My idiocy does not give you the right to my possessions.

Define drunk.

1) Had any alchohol.
2) Past the legal limit for driving.
3) Beyond that, but still walking and talking coherently, but judgement is probably impaired.
4) Incapacitated. Passed out or at least not capable of coherent conversation or control of your body.

As I understand it, 4 is the only one where you're likely to get a conviction. 1-3 would criminalize an awful lot of sex. And 3 is basically what we're talking about with charm magic.

1. Is questionable

2. Is drunk -> No Consent ∴ Rape
3. Is drunk -> No Consent ∴ Rape
4. Is drunk -> No Consent ∴ Rape

Also we very much are not talking about number 3 with charm magic from the get go:

Charm magic is not by consent -- [b]by very definition it is forcibly changing your opinion[b]. This means your judgement is impaired. You are under the effects of a mind altering substance (in this case a magic spell), which means you cannot (in regards to the person you are charmed towards) give informed consent, because they have already violated you.

Right, your judgment is impaired, just like with a sufficient amount of alcohol. The difference I wasn't thinking of when I wrote that was that unlike the alcohol the charm itself was almost certainly applied without consent.

But in the real world, you're serious?
You do realize that the legal limit for driving is low enough that it's hard to even tell that someone is past it?
That people sometimes actually want to have sex even when they've been drinking?
That you're essentially criminalizing the entire bar scene? And even anyone who goes out with their partner and has a couple drinks with dinner or at a party then goes home to bed?
That you're accusing me of rape? And all of my partners. Multiple times, though almost always in the context of a long term relationship where alcohol wasn't a significant factor in whether we had sex at a particular time. The only exception, she was the initiator, though we were both drunk, so it was probably mutual rape.
I don't think I'm an exception here.

And you think this is the law already? Have sex with someone who's had a couple of drinks and you're busted for rape. Both of you, if you'd been drinking too.

BTW, that's actually a great hedge against rape prosecutions: If the rapist has been drinking too, he can charge the victim.


Abraham spalding wrote:

You cannot give consent while drunk.

Consent must be obtained or the act is forced.

Drunk has a legal definition. Consent has a legal definition, and you cannot consent while drunk. If you do not have consent then the act is not willing.

This is a basic point everyone needs to get into their heads.

Does this mean that you didn't do something that put you in the situation? No. But that doesn't excuse the other persons behavior either.

If I leave my house open and you take something from it you have still robbed me. I made it easy but you are still a robber.

Consequently if I get drunk I cannot give consent. If I do not give consent and you do it anyways you are a rapist.

My idiocy does not give you the right to my possessions.

Define drunk.

1) Had any alchohol.
2) Past the legal limit for driving.
3) Beyond that, but still walking and talking coherently, but judgement is probably impaired.
4) Incapacitated. Passed out or at least not capable of coherent conversation or control of your body.

As I understand it, 4 is the only one where you're likely to get a conviction. 1-3 would criminalize an awful lot of sex. And 3 is basically what we're talking about with charm magic.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Or more accurately, "white".
Or, more accurately still, "insufficiently minority". Which is, y'know, wrong.

Yes, just like I am "insufficiently not-white", or as I usually put it, "white".

And nothing on him actually claiming any discrimination?


Without even trying to dig into the math, that analysis is fundamentally flawed because you're not looking to exhaust the search space. There is not only one solution, nor do you have to find all the solutions. You only need one.

Others have posted fairly simple and elegant approaches to finding those solutions. It's not really difficult, but will definitely slow down play.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Horse. S*++.

*Ponyfeathers

EntrerisShadow wrote:

It's not a No True Scotsman. If his family had immigrated from a Latin American country and had a background there, then I would have no problem saying he's Latino. At some point there's a difference between NTS and just ignoring facts.

Actually, I'm more protesting about the people claiming Correia hasn't dealt with discrimination and treating this article as proof of that. They then point to things like "insufficiently non-white".

Or more accurately, "white".

But leaving that aside, where does Correia claim he's dealt with discrimination. He says

Quote:

I get that. I truly do. I grew up in a Portuguese culture in a really poor dairy farming town, where the men were manly men, problems were solved with fists and the problems that couldn’t be solved with fists were dulled with beer, reading books was a waste of time that could better be spent milking cows, and D&D was for worshipping the devil.

In my school, half of us could speak English. Half of those could read.

So, he grew up poor, but I don't see any actual claims of discrimination.

I didn't reread the whole thing, so I might have missed something.


Auxmaulous wrote:

Maybe you should just stop deciding "other" peoples experiences - that's the part you should probably "give up" on. That or validating a persons discrimination based on the fact that they are a person of color (or not).

If a person of Irish decent gets beat down because he was Irish (race, heritage, religion) does him not being a "person of color" give him a faster healing rate? Did he experience "less" racism?

You can say whatever you want about yourself and your own personal experiences - people of other races do not need you to "white knight" for them and their experiences (coupled with guesses). They don't need you to speak for them.

No. The Irish guy doesn't heal faster nor does his beat down become less discrimination.

He also doesn't become a person of color because he got beaten up.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
]
Haskol wrote:


Using evil methods to accomplish non-evil ends is still evil.
Is mind control more Evil than stabbing someone repeatedly in the face? Probably not usually (though it can be if you mind control them to do certain things). That being the case, it seems a reasonable thing to use in combat against people trying to kill you.

Or to prevent combat when the alternative is killing them.


BigDTBone wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Uh Oh! Not Again! Unarmed Black Woman Shot to Death by Police in Georgia!
How is it possible to run a news site and NOT time/date stamp your articles?
When it's not a news site?
Quote:
NewsBuzzDaily.com is a combination of real shocking news and satire news. Please note that articles written on this site are for entertainment and satirical purposes only.

Sorry, Comrade Anklebiter, this one doesn't seem real.

The handcuffed guy shooting himself in the chest after having been searched for weapons is real though.
As I said earlier, it just goes to show you can't take any chances with those black thugs.


Auxmaulous wrote:
I guess now we have appointed posters to decide who's white or a person of color,and based off of that who can or cannot experience racism (even if they have experienced racism).

Words actually mean things. They have definitions.

I give up.

Can I declare myself a person of color too? Maybe I'll be black and pontificate about how I've never been bothered by racism even though I've decided to be black.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just another day in Post-Racial America.


Kthulhu wrote:
thejeff wrote:
]My stance is and remains that he claims incorrectly to be a Person of Color to mock and dismiss racial discrimination.
Do we REALLY want to go down the road of saying "He isn't [color] enough to be a REAL [race]?

No. And I'm not.

He's Portuguese-American. He's European-American. He's white.

It's not about being not [color] enough to be a REAL [race].

This doesn't mean he wasn't poor. This doesn't mean he didn't face discrimination, 1st and 2nd generation immigrants often face discrimination where ever they come from. I lived until recently in a town with a high Polish immigrant population. They had a rough time of it in many ways. But that doesn't make them people of color.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By which you actually mean, be in an organization that commits crimes, but either don't actually commit them yourself or at least don't get charged and convicted for committing them, or for only minor crimes, and it's still possible to get a University job, assuming you also have the credentials.

It's not exactly a career path I'd suggest.


Caineach wrote:
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.

That last may well be true, but for the first, yeah if you reduce Correia's screed to "Don't write tokens" or "Story is more important than message", then all three of them agree.

Which makes Correia's takedown of MacFarlane's post pretty pathetic already.

Except I do think he's saying more than that. And I think it ties into his mocking of George.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

...Gender is neither greater than nor equal to sex?

Gender and sex are moirails?

Kobold Cleaver doesn't have much to say and never saw "<>" used to mean "=/="?

Hey, look, a fish! <><

Sorry. Programming usage. "!=" would be my other go to.

And it would be "Less than or Greater than", with equal remaining as the untrue option. :)


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.


JurgenV wrote:
Caineach wrote:
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.
They make it PART of the character, not in place OF the character. It makes sense to who the character is not something tacked on.

I can't believe the argument has devolved to "Larry said writers shouldn't write lousy characters. Unlike that guy he was responding to who totally said they should."


JurgenV wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Did you know there is a transgendered iconic? She is awesome.
Well written and in no way a token character.

No one has said anyone should be writing token characters. At least if you define token as badly written.

OTOH, Paizo definitely wanted to have a trans iconic, so in some sense she could be considered a token.

And yes, she is awesome.


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.


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.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
HerosBackpack wrote:
Larry can afford to not see things because he doesn't have to see them. Unfortunately, I can't afford to do that.

What doesn't he see? He acknowledges the disparity in numbers between white people and people of minorities. He prefers to chalk it up to economic inequalities as opposed to active racism on the con staff's part...and that seems a reasonable argument.

Maybe he's even wrong...but George presents no proof of his (rather vicious) accusations of the GenCon organizers, and that's usually the job of the person accusing someone of malfeasance, y'know?

Vicious accusations like "Usually, they are well-meaning people who do not realize how their roles and decisions impact the larger gaming community and its lack of diversity."

Damn, that's some serious active racism right there. I still think most of this kerfluffle is about Correia substituting his definition of racism for George's and then being offended when George uses the word.

You can not accept that definition, but you can't pretend George means something else when he uses the term.


BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Alex Martin wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
It should be obvious which ones are the more racist of the posts to tell the truth...
Would that include statements such as:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Latinos and Hispanics are minorities, but technically, they have been considered white for the past century in the US.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
They are a RECOGNIZED MINORITY....But they are a white minority.
The anti-Hispanic speech in this thread has been staggering. Particularly coming from those who purport to agree with A.A. George.

So, more to the point of the argument would you say that the experience of the experience of Spanish immigrants to the US is essentially the same as Mexican immigrants? They face the same kinds of discrimination? Both in the first and successive generation?

Because that's the distinction that Hispanic(White) and Hispanic(not-white) draws.

Or would the experience of that Spanish immigrant and his descendants be closer to a Polish immigrant and his? Both likely to face discrimination, but both considered white and not dealing with the same level that people of color face, especially after the first generation.

I won't be drawn into a debate about whether someone is "white enough" to make it ok to discriminate against them. I'm not interested in drawing those lines or having those...

That's good, because I'm not either. I just think that claiming Europeans are people of color is silly. Despite any discrimination against immigrants.


BigDTBone wrote:
Alex Martin wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
It should be obvious which ones are the more racist of the posts to tell the truth...
Would that include statements such as:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Latinos and Hispanics are minorities, but technically, they have been considered white for the past century in the US.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
They are a RECOGNIZED MINORITY....But they are a white minority.

Because while you are citing a census reference for the argument is fine, you are also implying that somehow being Hispanic doesn't carry racial discrimination because of that same technical example. That is simply not true based historical precedent and the current controversy in the US over several state-enacted laws.

But assuming that was not the intention, when you are criticizing Correia or defending George, the arguments you make are valid and on-point to the subject. But when you start vilifying people (or the folks at Paizo) without being willing to cite examples you weaken your own arguments and criticism.

The anti-Hispanic speech in this thread has been staggering. Particularly coming from those who purport to agree with A.A. George.

So, more to the point of the argument would you say that the experience of the experience of Spanish immigrants to the US is essentially the same as Mexican immigrants? They face the same kinds of discrimination? Both in the first and successive generation?

Because that's the distinction that Hispanic(White) and Hispanic(not-white) draws.

Or would the experience of that Spanish immigrant and his descendants be closer to a Polish immigrant and his? Both likely to face discrimination, but both considered white and not dealing with the same level that people of color face, especially after the first generation.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Although I can make a starting wizard with 16s in both Dex and Int (so her attack mod equals the fighter's at 1st), as the fighter levels he'll increase his attack stat but the wizard will increase her casting stat instead, so the martial will pull ahead later in the game on pure attack mod. Then there's all the extra stuff martials get for melee; I wouldn't worry about martials being redundant just because the proficiency bonus is identical.

If you focus on self buffs and other things without saves or attack rolls then the elf wizard can just go ahead and buff dex. That isn't going to be the usual build, though.

What is actually propping up the fighter are the additional attacks he gets. That works just fine, though.

Except with most buffs being concentration, that's not going to work well.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Officer resigns, Lieutenant fired

Good to know. Interesting that in normal circumstances death threats are only enough to rate suspended without pay. And that even though (former) Officer Jiminez was enough out of line to get fired, they keep trying to make the officer the victim and the crowd the bad guy and pushing the us vs. them mentality. Do they ever think statements like that are the reason this crap is happening?

I also love the whole "they're waiting for something stupid to happen" rather than "they're trying to protect themselves and their rights" or even "they're waiting for something illegal to happen".

Read more closely and that's backward: The officer, Matthew Pappert, was fired for Facebook comments. The Lieutenant, Ray Albers, also known as Officer GoF&*#Yourself, resigned. Chief Jiminez says “I'm not condoning his behavior whatsoever” and then goes on to excuse and condone his actions, except possibly swearing.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

As for Comrade Jeff's question above, Alexander locates the birth of "law and order" rhetoric among Southern segregationists as a rallying cry against the Civil Rights Movement (the passages where she quotes Southern segregationists about civil disobedience and crime being one and the same thing should raise the nape hairs for the anti-police faction of the thread), traces it through the Republican Southern Strategy, the Nixon administration and the Reagan years* and the declaration of the War on Drugs, two years before the crack epidemic (which, Alexander claims, was mostly overblown by the Reagan administration and a servile press), Willie Horton and Ricky Ray Rector.

So, Citizen Pres Man was right: somewhere after 1973.

I don't think that was quite my question: I want to know when people think it actually stopped being a racial thing and because a justified criminal thing.

Not when the rhetoric changed.
I suspect you agree with me that it's been a racial thing all along. I'm asking those who think today's greater proportion of minorities in the justice system is not due to any racial bias, but just because they commit more crimes.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:


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.

Yeah, that's a large part of why I got irritated with Correia's post. If he'd just made the argument that not everything George pointed out was necessarily racist and that all in all Gencon wasn't more racist than society at large, I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

But he went out his way to mock George's childhood experiences.

Contrariwise, I felt like George was taking out his (almost certainly legitimate) childhood issues on a group of people who weren't responsible for them in the least (ie: the people at GenCon). Which is not appropriate behavior in the least. Again, the guy came perilously close to actual actionable slander of the GenCon organizers with no evidence to support his allegations.

Now, would I have mocked his childhood (actually teenage, mostly) experiences? No. But then, I'm not one of the people he was actively insulting, nor do I know them. Correia's a lot closer to the subject, and has been sensitized by being repeatedly insulted for various things in this area that he hasn't actually said or done...an overreaction on his part is understandable.

Which is all more or less what I said in my first post of this thread...

I can see that, but it's not just that it's mocking, it's that it shows an incredibly blind eye to what a lot of minorities go through.

George wrote:
I could be white.
Correia wrote:
Whoop de fricking doo. I could be a half-orc.


Alex Martin wrote:
thejeff wrote:
My problem with it, as I have perhaps badly said before, is that he seems to be using an racial classification that he doesn't actually qualify for* primarily as a rhetorical device. He's appropriating other people's heritage and experience of discrimination to help dismiss it.

And that argument is certainly more valid when people reference statistics and solid information to argue it. The problem has been that people have uttered baseless statements and attempted to defame the man when he argues that he also has a racial/cultural heritage as part of the critique of George's article. If the argument is that he shouldn't be able to claim that status legally that is one thing. But the implication that his argument doesn't hold weight (as some have stated) because somehow being Latino/Hispanic doesn't apply or doesn't have a history of racial prejudice is not acceptable if your very stance is that there is racism in Correia's argument.

And if you want to dismiss Correia as disingenuous to discuss the issue of diversity in gaming, that's understandable. But, again, there have been times that people have spoken in agreement with his points or at least disagreed with George's article. And its been implied on this thread that the person doesn't understand because of their racial background. And when that person has said, I do have an ethnic background (whether it's Serbian, Greek, Portuguese, Hispanic, etc.) and I do know what discrimination is, there's been a tendency to dismiss it or explain it away as if it does apply.

For clarification, I used your quote for reference because it was concise to the gist of the argument. I am not singling you out as an example or making an accusations of you personally.

My stance is and remains that he claims incorrectly to be a Person of Color to mock and dismiss racial discrimination. If he experienced discrimination as a 2nd generation immigrant, which is quite possible, and he actually used those experiences in his argument, that would be one thing. But he doesn't. He doesn't talk about any such experiences. He just claims the PoC flag and he does so without justification.

Again - discovered he was (legally) Latino circa 2009. Is of European (Portuguese) descent. Latinos, in this usage, can be either White or several varieties of not-white. European qualifies as white.


Bill Dunn wrote:
We should really leave the feds and the census out of this. Neither has any definitive bearing on how person/people of color is actually used.

Except that Correia only claims PoC status because he found on some federal form somewhere around 2009 that Portuguese-Americans qualify as Latino. I linked or at least quoted that up thread.

Even in this article he says something like "Legally, I'm a person of color".


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.

Yeah, that's a large part of why I got irritated with Correia's post. If he'd just made the argument that not everything George pointed out was necessarily racist and that all in all Gencon wasn't more racist than society at large, I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

But he went out his way to mock George's childhood experiences.


Ascalaphus wrote:
I think a reduction in the amount of modifiers you need to stack would be a real improvement. I don't so much care whether that's done with Advantage or some other method. I've wondered what it'd be like to just say "maximum of two positive modifiers and two negative modifiers on any roll".

I suspect it would be more complicated than you expect: What counts as "modifiers"?

Is the BAB bonus one of them? Is the -5 modifier for iteratives? Etc?


BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Telling somebody your skin is not dark or light enough to be X race is racial vilification - it doesn't matter about the persons politics.

I will say it once more denying somebody's cultural heritage based on skin tone is Racial Vilification.

Mecha poet, thejeff, GWL, and EnterisShadow, maybe you should have think about your approach to this as Scott has pointed out where you engaged in questionable arguments to prove your point. Tainting your arguments for everybody else.

I never said his skin wasn't dark enough to be X race. I did say that since he claims to only have found out he was legally considered Latino around 2009, I doubt it really played any role in his experiences. I doubt anyone discriminated against him because he was a person of color, when he didn't even know he could be classified as such. He is apparently the child of immigrants and that is it's own experience with it's own problems, but it's not the same the experience that many people of color face.
How is it that someone can benefit from racism without being aware of it, but someone couldn't suffer from it without being aware of it?
In theory he could, but it would seem to require monumental levels of self-delusion. Generally white people benefit from racism without being aware of it because they see they live in a primarily white world and don't see the discrimination holding back other people because it doesn't happen to them. Not only is it more likely that you'll notice discrimination applied to you, it also means that other people can identify him on a glance as fitting a category he's never even noticed he belongs in.
Not at all. He could have been turned down for a job or a loan because his qualifications were on the edge, but the way his hair waved reminded the hiring manager/loan officer of a Portuguese guy that he didn't care for, so the guy didn't go to bat for him like he may have for a regular white...

And I could have been turned down for something because my name reminded the guy of someone he didn't like. Or maybe he just prefers blonds. Anything's possible.

But it's nothing like the systemic discrimination people of color face.


Alex Martin wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:


I'm not quite so sure what to make of it. They are a RECOGNIZED MINORITY....But they are a white minority. Latin America has a LOT of diversity out there, which is probably why it's impossible to define someone's race simply because of what location their ancestry hails from.

I can understand that the question of racial definition is part of the problem when it comes to those of Hispanic or Latino descent. Correia points that out in the article, albeit in a sarcastic tone and tied to another article as well. He tries to point out, being a person who is culturally/lingually different in parts of the US creates it's own negative experience that is not impacted by your skin-tone.

Given that you have racial identification come up in things like Proposition 187 and it's legal and social implications. Given that there are articles questioning Hispanics' roles in movies or how Latinas are shown, there is a an element of racial bias that has be considered. You may argue that the definition is legally invalid, but there is still a social element that impacts perceptions.

And as a historical reference, being a white minority didn't exactly make being Irish in America an easy experience at one time either.

My problem with it, as I have perhaps badly said before, is that he seems to be using an racial classification that he doesn't actually qualify for* primarily as a rhetorical device. He's appropriating other people's heritage and experience of discrimination to help dismiss it.

*Assuming Portuguese actually qualifies as Latino, which still isn't at all clear to me, not all Latinos are People of Color. Those of European descent are white. He claims he's PoC because he's Latino.

Admittedly, the practical nature of whiteness in the US is more complicated than that, particularly historically. Irish and Italians are well known for not being considered white in the past, but now both are generally, and certainly officially, considered as such. 1st generation European immigrants are often also discriminated against, especially if they don't speak good English. Their children however find it much easier to assimilate.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
motivation to invade

And here we have a problem.Why now?

Rebels are good.Dark One Himself asks them to show mercy to defeated enemy.
Why ruin all and invade?

Sigh. To rephrase "motivation to in a more subtle fashion, if they were going to invade at all".

Please do not snip sentence fragments out of context.


JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:

The hysterics are amusing.

"A top UN official told the Security Council further violence in Ukraine marked a dangerous escalation, but that the international body had no way of verifying the latest reports of a Russian invasion, during an emergency session Thursday afternoon."

So, they're outraged at Russia's vicious, criminal invasion of Ukraine but have no actual proof it's happening. Yes, that sounds very much like the UN doing what it does best - nothing.

Also, to any Ukrainian shills: if Russia did invade, you and everyone else would know it, trust me. There'd be smoking craters where your neo-nazi formations once were beating hasty retreats, twisted burning rubble where your air force once flew, and Porkyshenko would be found dead, drowned under one of his own chocolate fountains, before the protest mobs in Kiev could get a hold of him.

Unless of course, they're trying to influence the outcome without being blatantly obvious about it.

But no regional power would ever do that.

Only the evil imperialist West would ever use such tactics.

Sure Jeff :-) I'm sure you're tired of all the maligning your noble USA has suffered in this thread, just for trying to be the good guys. I'm sure the US just wants to help the good, robust peasants of Ukraine. Did those backwards fools in Crimea and the two eastern oblasts really think they could VOTE their way out of Ukraine? Uh-uh! The US knows how an election should be won.

I understand that as...

No. I'm fully aware the US does a ton of bad crap. I've protested some of it. I really was just commenting on your claim that Russia couldn't and wouldn't any motivation to invade in a more subtle fashion than all out war.


BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Telling somebody your skin is not dark or light enough to be X race is racial vilification - it doesn't matter about the persons politics.

I will say it once more denying somebody's cultural heritage based on skin tone is Racial Vilification.

Mecha poet, thejeff, GWL, and EnterisShadow, maybe you should have think about your approach to this as Scott has pointed out where you engaged in questionable arguments to prove your point. Tainting your arguments for everybody else.

I never said his skin wasn't dark enough to be X race. I did say that since he claims to only have found out he was legally considered Latino around 2009, I doubt it really played any role in his experiences. I doubt anyone discriminated against him because he was a person of color, when he didn't even know he could be classified as such. He is apparently the child of immigrants and that is it's own experience with it's own problems, but it's not the same the experience that many people of color face.
How is it that someone can benefit from racism without being aware of it, but someone couldn't suffer from it without being aware of it?

In theory he could, but it would seem to require monumental levels of self-delusion. Generally white people benefit from racism without being aware of it because they see they live in a primarily white world and don't see the discrimination holding back other people because it doesn't happen to them. Not only is it more likely that you'll notice discrimination applied to you, it also means that other people can identify him on a glance as fitting a category he's never even noticed he belongs in.


BigDTBone wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
So a predominantly white institution gets to determine who is what ethnicity, you do know you are using institutionalised racism to say somebody doesn't qualify as a race because of their skin colour....

Well...seeing Hispanics were a part of that institution with all it's privileges waaaay far back, while Chinese and African Americans in the past were subject to being kept from voting, marrying, owning land, and many of the other things that they are still trying to gain equality about today...

I'm not quite so sure what to make of it. They are a RECOGNIZED MINORITY....

But they are a white minority.

You do realize that the reason white Hispanics and Latinos are considered white is that they have European backgrounds. They are from German, French, Spain, Portugal, and other European nations and have the same ethinicity as Whites everywhere else.

IF they are of color, as you would, such as being a European who actually married someone from the Americas (such as a Native American) which probably can be reflected in their skin tone, they can do that if they so wish. They can also select an African Ancestry.

Claiming that Latino makes you a PoC would be the same as claiming you are from Australia and that makes you a PoC as everyone in Australia is not white and there are no whites in Australia. (I know this isn't true, just stating a parallel of what this Correia is trying to claim).

Latin America has a LOT of diversity out there, which is probably why it's impossible to define someone's race simply because of what location their ancestry hails from. This is why they can further specify what they are...which apparently according to the census bureau, a majority select white. If they are not white, they can ALSO claim that in addition to the Hispanic minority status.

If he is a PoC, he should state why he is a PoC instead of using something that doesn't fall in the definition (or are we going to start saying everyone in

Saying that Hispanics enjoy "white privilege" is basically saying that you have no idea what you are talking about in the larger picture of Chicano/American history. Why don't you take a trip to Brownsville some time and just look around? Then blindfold yourself and ask 8 random people how long their families have been there and if they ever felt like law enforcement profiled them. I'll bet you $1,000 that 4 of them say "longer than it's been the United States," and "yes."

Then go visit Albuquerque, get something to eat with green chilies on it (because seriously, you are in Albuquerque), and then hop on I40 and go west out to the Laguna Pueblo reservation and ask those folks how they feel about being called "white." Actually, don't do that, because you would actually die. Instead ask them the same questions you asked the random people in Brownsville. Same $1,000 bet.

Which I don't think he actually said. Hispanic is a broad category. Check your census forms, you get to pick both Hispanic or not and a race. So if you're identified as Hispanic and white, you often get treated as white. This would, for example, be someone who's parents or grandparents came from Spain (or in some versions of the definition Portugal). Chicano is a more specific term, being essentially Mexican-American. They may self identify as white, but they don't get treated as white. Race and prejudice are complicated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Genetics - it depends if the gene that determines skin colour is recessive or not. For aboriginal Australians it is, that is why you have white blond blue eyed Aboriginals in Australia.

That is why you can't tell a person what race they are based on skin colour.

You can't, but neither can the bigots. If you're really African-American, but somehow you look like a Nordic white guy, you're not going to experience the same kind of discrimination that African-Americans who look black do.

Now in some extreme cases bigots who find out you're really African-American will hate you anyway, but you still won't get the casual everyday stuff.

Race, as it applies to racism/privilege/discrimination/prejudice/whatever you want to call it, is largely perceived race, not actual race.

Not that actual race really means much biologically. Race is a social construct, but it's a hell of a powerful social construct.

1 to 50 of 13,456 << 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.