Confessions That Will Get You Shunned By The Members Of The Paizo Community


Gamer Life General Discussion

3,401 to 3,450 of 4,499 << first < prev | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | next > last >>

Cranky, you sidestepped my point. Discrimination of any type including racism, comes from the recognition of differences. If people didn't recognize a difference, then those individuals couldn't discriminate based on them (because you can't make a judgement about something you ignore or don't see).

There are a lot of folks that promote a "different but equal" approach which I think really just raised awareness of the difference which starts resulting in judgements about that difference (I.E. the newsies are idiots, now they say these people are different but equal. Since when can I trust the news. Are they really equal? I'll have to judge for myself.)

Honestly, I think that is the entire reason it has taken tjis long only for racism to still be a thing. I think saying everyone is the same is better because it focuses on people having things in common rather than shining a bright light on meaningless differences which gain meaning simply by being heavily scrutinized.


TheAlicornSage wrote:

Cranky, you sidestepped my point. Discrimination of any type including racism, comes from the recognition of differences. If people didn't recognize a difference, then those individuals couldn't discriminate based on them (because you can't make a judgement about something you ignore or don't see).

There are a lot of folks that promote a "different but equal" approach which I think really just raised awareness of the difference which starts resulting in judgements about that difference (I.E. the newsies are idiots, now they say these people are different but equal. Since when can I trust the news. Are they really equal? I'll have to judge for myself.)

Honestly, I think that is the entire reason it has taken tjis long only for racism to still be a thing. I think saying everyone is the same is better because it focuses on people having things in common rather than shining a bright light on meaningless differences which gain meaning simply by being heavily scrutinized.

But physically, people are different, and cultures can be diggerent, though that's not a certainty. You just have to make sure that's where you keep your recognitions - appearance alone. Recognition of skin color should be no more than pointing out eye color, or shape of a chin, or the like. They exist. You can't ignore it. But that's all it is - a physical distinction. It doesn't make anyone better or worse, smarter or dumber, more violent or passive, more dominant or submissive, or anything else.

...though, in my opinion, it does make a woman a heck of a lot sexier. I may be a little biased, given my previous post, but I still thought it when I was single.


No one refers to some other person as "the hazel eyed one" ut they do refer to others as "the black one"/"the white one"/etc. They are very different in terms of how people think about them.

Eye or hair color are details some may notice, but they aren't thought of as identifying features, and by identifying features, I mean things that someone uses as part of their self identity and thus apply a similar meaning to others. Basically, when someone identifies themself based on their skin color but not hair color, then they attribute a different level of meaning to skin color than to hair color. They identify with a skin color, and because it is important to self identity, it subconciously affects their view on others, seeing those with the same color as being more like themselves not just physically, but in personality, capability, tastes, and temperment as well. Then getting to know an individual can shift an opinion away from that base line assumption, but judgements are often made from that baseline before the chance comes along to get to know someone.

This is what I mean. There is a difference between the importance and perspective given about an aspect considered a minor detail and one that is significant.

Treating color as a significant difference makes it something people identify with, which makes it something they automatically judge others by. You can't include skin color as part of your self identity without it also being a major factor in making judgements about others (negative or otherwise).


There is a difference between "the black boy" and "the athletic boy."

In the first, the speaker considers the boy's color a defining feature. In the second one, the defining feature is their musculature and color is either considered obvious (thus not needed to specify, such as if all the oys were one color) or not a defining feature.

Making it not be a defining feature is important, but you can't make it not a defining feature if everyone keeps pointing out what color everybody is and raising hullabaloo over color.

Shadow Lodge

There's a good reason that skin color is more often used as an identifier as opposed to, for example, eye color. It's a hell of a lot more obvious. To really identify someone's eye color, they have to be facing you, and fairly close. Whereas skin color can be determined from a pretty good distance away, regardless of which way that person is facing.


TheAlicornSage wrote:
No one refers to some other person as "the hazel eyed one" but they do refer to others as "the black one"/"the white one"/etc. They are very different in terms of how people think about them.

Sure they do, if that's the most distinguishing feature.

For example- you get a group of Caucasian blond women in the room, most are tanned, one is pale. Most are blue-eyed, one is Hazel-eyed [not the pale one], one way taller [not the pale or Hazel-eye], and one is... thicker [not the pale or Hazel or tall one]

Of course you're going to identify someone by the clearest distinctive feature among them.

Racial background [barring multi-subcontinental mixed origins] is usually a pretty damned big distinction containing multiple facets [including skin color and facial structure. Telling Middle-easterner from a Caucasian from a Black from an East Asian from a Northern European from a Native American from a Mediterranean from a Pacific Islander is often pretty easy [except again in cases where these groupings intermixed, which in some cases is really common. France is pretty much a melting pot of Mediterranean and Northern European for example.]

Now, Racial background doesn't mean a damned thing when it comes to the human being on the inside [with perhaps a few very minor racial trends which might be more cultural than physiological, like the stereotypical 'smart asian' who may have just been more disciplined due to upbringing rather than more intellectual] but it's an easy way to identify an individual when you don't have a personal relationship with them.

Even if you do, it's not uncommon [nor racist in my opinion] to identify someone by their race in conversation with someone who doesn't. "You should have seen the mean Electric guitar my buddy Ollie used to play. It was amazing." "Who's Ollie?" "Oh, it was a black buddy of mine who used to go to my church, he's passed away in the time since but he was awesome."

[Example given is a true story, easier to use one than make one up.]

Scarab Sages

I started playing and enjoying 5e, even DCC more than pathfinder (mythic ruined it for it short term at least).


In your story why mention "black friend" instead of just "friend" or "old friend?"

Skin color is easy to see, but usually clothes and accessories are easier. Most of the time you need to give a description, it only needs to be good for a couple minutes, so the most distinguishable and unique feature is the best, clothes, items, bags, etc are far easier and better, as normally skin color won't help that much because too many people have the same color. So unless you are directing someone to the only [insert color] person there, it isn't all that helpful. I've certainly never needed to color, nor even thought about color unless it is brought up by others.

Note, racial trends and even gender trends are basically cultural (there are like two differences in gender, but the difference is so small that it is literally pointless to worry about)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Usually people don't wear the same accessories or clothing all the time. Unless your friends are "Hat Joe" or "Timmy the Blue Scarf Guy", it's not much of a reference point for people.

Edited to add:

TheAlicornSage wrote:
(there are like two differences in gender, but the difference is so small that it is literally pointless to worry about)

If you believe that this, you should probably steer clear of the other gender. The differences go beyond who is an innie or an outie.


Once they meet your friend, they'll have seen them and will no longer be relying on your description.

I'm not saying it would never be appropriate, just rarely. Most of the time you need to describe someone, it is because you and them are at the same or nearby locations, such as place of work, a party, a reunion, etc. At which time, you'll very likely know how they're dressed that day a'd whoever you describing them too will be looking for them then and there.

But consider Cranky's story where he described his friend. A physical description was pointless and by his own admission doesn't tell anything about his friend as a person. Since physical description was pointless, why did he use it as a reference? Why not use something more suitable to showing something about who his friend was?

I don't know Cranky well, but I suspect he identifies strongly with being black, hence to his subconcious, skin color says something very important about who he is, therefore, without conciously thinking about, he identifies others by color, he uses his expectation of what color means from his own self identity as a baseline in his mind for describing who others are, despite his concious knowledge of the lack of importance. If you were to physically alter his body to be white, he likely would be very distressed over it, because he would feel like he lost an important part of himself, and maybe even drive him into a complete identity crisis.

It is one of those things where concious knowledge isn't enough. The subconcious is what must be targeted. And that depends on factors outside of mere knowledge.


Actually, the gender difference thing is true. Studies show that test performance score averages change according to social status. In countries where women are seen as second class, or even property, will score lower not just on knowledge and skill tests, but on IQ and other more generalized tests. Meanwhile, in looking at various countries, there is a direct correlation between how equal genders are socially with how equal their average scores are on various tests.

Culture is literally a major factor in a persons potential and personality.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That all sounds very deep, but it doesn't actually say anything. People's racial make-up is more than their skin color -- that is certainly one factor but not the only one. I think you are making some simplistic connections that sound great and very progressive, but disregards what makes people who they are.

And none of this touches on the kid with the MLP problem.

Confession: I think house rules are a great way to fix "problems" with the game, and faster than waiting/hoping for whichever game you are playing to decide if your problem is their problem.

The Exchange

Kthulhu wrote:
There's a good reason that skin color is more often used as an identifier as opposed to, for example, eye color. It's a hell of a lot more obvious. To really identify someone's eye color, they have to be facing you, and fairly close. Whereas skin color can be determined from a pretty good distance away, regardless of which way that person is facing.

Also, for those who have long hair, hair colors is most definitely used as an identifier. "A blond an a brunette walk into a bar..."

Sure, if one stands in a room full of men with short hair of various shades of brown nobody is using that to point anyone out. But, and this is especially so with women because normally they have longer hair, the color is a really easy way to go with. "Black hair, green dress next to that tall guy".

If you stand in a room filled with black people, by the way, and there was a white person, you most certainly would have identified him by color.

As a broader comment on the "is it more racist to acknowledge color or not" thing, I strongly favor the viewpoint that it is more racist to acknowledge it. Whenever I hear someone say something like "I'm proud to be black" I get a case of the cringe almost as bad as "I'm proud to be white". The entire point of equality is that skin color doesn't matter. There might of course be some correlation between the skin color and certain types of life experiences - but that's because of prejudices that existed in the past and have no business still existing today. I just don't see the point of trying to preserve them. "Racism" in the strictest sense of the word - allowing a person's race to influence your conception of them - is almost unavoidable. As a person with white skin I can't help but notice that some people look more like me than others. Same with sex, gender, height (I have a friend who's over two meters tall and another who barely scratches 1.6, and of course my initial reactions to both have been different), accent and any other number of things. What I can do about it is teach myself to minimize those initial reactions and just approach each person as a person no matter the appearances. As such, a black person pleading to be recognized as different makes no sense to me.


TheAlicornSage wrote:
In your story why mention "black friend" instead of just "friend" or "old friend?"

Distinction my friend.

In my case [likely primarily due to being in a fairly white-washed semi-rural area, although that facet of the area has been gradually fading over the last decade or so] he was one of very few black friends I had at the time. I was acquaintances with his kids [videogames and football] and his wife [church functions and she was a teacher at my school but not of any of my classes] but none of them [nor anyone else who comes to mind right now of that time period, though there may have been less memorable examples that have slipped my mind] were my friend.

Much like if I were to talk about Steven or Kevin I'd say my short friend [they're both under 5'3 caucasian dude] or if I were to talk about Jacky I'd say Smurfette [short blonde chick I know.] Or I might say Big Rick [500 pound 6'6 dude I know.]

Quote:
Skin color is easy to see, but usually clothes and accessories are easier.

Clothes and accessories [except in cases where somebody sticks to a highly identifiable style, like someone who always wears suits, or Lolita fashion or something of course] are temporal and don't actually do anything to identify with the person being mentioned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ignoring race (or other differences) sounds like a great idea, but in reality it causes problems. By refusing to acknowledge a person's race/ethnicity or gender you're denying a part of their identity. As you point out, gender and race/ethnicity are cultural ideas, and you can't understand or even respect someone's culture if you're ignoring it.

Additionally, the refusal to acknowledge race/ethnicity or gender prevents one from acknowledging the very real problems and issues that impact other races or genders. Sadly, a problem doesn't go away just because a person can't see them.


You kinda miss something. Race and gender are physical. They only become part of your identity if you make them. They are not required elements of an identity.

Besides, I care more about where culture is headed in the future than where it came from. Heritage is a nice thing to study, to learn from, but it isn't often a good thing to model your life on. Take what is learned and make something better, that means realizing that racial issues are a problem and can be reduced by not basing identity on race, therefore, the way you live should adapt to not base identity on race.

History in general is to be learned from, not emulated.

The Exchange

I'm with AlicornSage here. If I see someone tall and blond I *could* just assume they're Swedish and have all the corresponding cultural baggage... but then they might also just be living down the street with not much regard to that kind of thing. Similarly, if I see a black skinned person, in this day and age it tells me very little of the details of their life so far, of what their personal experiences have been like. So I'm just not making assumptions. I'm just not deciding who they are by looking at their racial features and their gender.

Rather, if I interact with them at all, I will decide who they are by what they say and do.

This seems like such a simple concept that I always wonder that there could be any back-and-forth on the issue at all.


Lord Snow wrote:

I'm with AlicornSage here. If I see someone tall and blond I *could* just assume they're Swedish and have all the corresponding cultural baggage... but then they might also just be living down the street with not much regard to that kind of thing. Similarly, if I see a black skinned person, in this day and age it tells me very little of the details of their life so far, of what their personal experiences have been like. So I'm just not making assumptions. I'm just not deciding who they are by looking at their racial features and their gender.

Rather, if I interact with them at all, I will decide who they are by what they say and do.

This seems like such a simple concept that I always wonder that there could be any back-and-forth on the issue at all.

I... hope I haven't been construed as having a 'back and forth' on the subject? [There's no telling for sure at whom your post was directed.]

There's no disagreement whatsoever between your post and my own thoughts on the subject, though I'm not certain if my own posts accurately reflect my thoughts in this regard.


Could we get back to shunning for real reasons, like gaming? This line of conversation will only end in tears or maybe threadlock.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I shun those nay saying do gooders who insist on basic things like 'staying on topic' :p


The glow of your shunning keeps me warm at night.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't stand the Sammy Hagar years of Van Halen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cranky Bastard wrote:
TheAlicornSage wrote:
Mistreatment is indeed all too common, but kicking nine year olds out of school over being too girly is beyond mere mistreatment. Luckily the parents raised a stink and since the school was public it got fixed, partially, but that was still crossing the line more than I've seen against other fandoms.

Children of color get kicked out of school for having natural hair.

In kindergarten.

You will forgive my compassion going elsewhere.

I wasn't aware compassion is a limited resource.

The Exchange

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:

I'm with AlicornSage here. If I see someone tall and blond I *could* just assume they're Swedish and have all the corresponding cultural baggage... but then they might also just be living down the street with not much regard to that kind of thing. Similarly, if I see a black skinned person, in this day and age it tells me very little of the details of their life so far, of what their personal experiences have been like. So I'm just not making assumptions. I'm just not deciding who they are by looking at their racial features and their gender.

Rather, if I interact with them at all, I will decide who they are by what they say and do.

This seems like such a simple concept that I always wonder that there could be any back-and-forth on the issue at all.

I... hope I haven't been construed as having a 'back and forth' on the subject? [There's no telling for sure at whom your post was directed.]

There's no disagreement whatsoever between your post and my own thoughts on the subject, though I'm not certain if my own posts accurately reflect my thoughts in this regard.

I was refering to Scythia, specifically to

Quote:

Ignoring race (or other differences) sounds like a great idea, but in reality it causes problems. By refusing to acknowledge a person's race/ethnicity or gender you're denying a part of their identity. As you point out, gender and race/ethnicity are cultural ideas, and you can't understand or even respect someone's culture if you're ignoring it.

Additionally, the refusal to acknowledge race/ethnicity or gender prevents one from acknowledging the very real problems and issues that impact other races or genders. Sadly, a problem doesn't go away just because a person can't see them.

If I see a black person, I don't know what their culture is. It depends on where and when they grew up, on their families, etc. Presuming to know someone because of the "culture" implied by their exterior appearance is often misguided. Which is why I don't do it and don't understand why some people expect me to.


Scythia wrote:
Additionally, the refusal to acknowledge race/ethnicity or gender prevents one from acknowledging the very real problems and issues that impact other races or genders. Sadly, a problem doesn't go away just because a person can't see them.

This is currently the biggest part. You can argue we shouldn't see or talk about race, but that doesn't stop others from doing so and from being unfair based on it.

The original post that started this derail was about children of color being kicked out of kindergarten for having natural hair. You can certainly argue that those who kicked them out shouldn't have done so because of their race, but claiming the rest of us shouldn't notice their race would leave us incapable of noticing the racism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheAlicornSage wrote:
You kinda miss something. Race and gender are physical. They only become part of your identity if you make them. They are not required elements of an identity.

They become a part of a person's identity the moment they are born. Both influence how they are raised, how they are treated by others, what expectations are placed upon them, what opportunities are available to them, even the toys they will be given. I'd say that's identity shaping.

TheAlicornSage wrote:

Besides, I care more about where culture is headed in the future than where it came from. Heritage is a nice thing to study, to learn from, but it isn't often a good thing to model your life on. Take what is learned and make something better, that means realizing that racial issues are a problem and can be reduced by not basing identity on race, therefore, the way you live should adapt to not base identity on race.

History in general is to be learned from, not emulated.

I'm more focused on where it is. Right now the state of culture is that race and gender make a big difference, and trying to overlook that will only insure that it continues to be so.


Cranky Bastard wrote:

Children of color get kicked out of school for having natural hair.

Wow what!?

When/where did this happen? That is horrible.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Additionally, the refusal to acknowledge race/ethnicity or gender prevents one from acknowledging the very real problems and issues that impact other races or genders. Sadly, a problem doesn't go away just because a person can't see them.

This is currently the biggest part. You can argue we shouldn't see or talk about race, but that doesn't stop others from doing so and from being unfair based on it.

The original post that started this derail was about children of color being kicked out of kindergarten for having natural hair. You can certainly argue that those who kicked them out shouldn't have done so because of their race, but claiming the rest of us shouldn't notice their race would leave us incapable of noticing the racism.

So you are saying we should acknowledge race in a context in which we already know it matters. To which I can only say... well, duh. That's the definition of making sense.

What I was speaking against is cases where, and I've often seen this, members of a minority ask to be given a different treatments from others out of respect for their culture, heritage or whatever, and yet at the same breath complain about things such as micro-aggression. To me, seeing a black person and assuming they are having a hard time of it is a classic example of prejudiced views causing miscommunication, otherwise known as "micro-aggressions."

Me myself, I am highly unlikely yo take an active part in protests or suchlike even for causes I support (being the cynic that I am), but I believe the only thing I should do right is not do wrong to anybody myself. That means, I'm not deciding anything about anyone because of their skin color or any other such meaningless external distinguishers, and I will only pay attention to someone's "culture" or "heritage" once I know about their specific life.


Culture is the issue here NOT racism. Ever wonder why black educators or black police officers target black youth? Because they aren't judging race they are judging culture. Dreads are emblematic of gang culture as are certain fashion choices, these are personal choices anyone can proclaim to others "I am in a gang" by wearing gang fashion or hairstyles. Other gang culture people look upon you as bad ass and perhaps even worthy of respect... But people in authority regardless of color are going to see you as potentially violent and certainly a trouble maker, you could take a different cultural appearance and have completely different responses to you if you wish. Try dressing in a suit and tie, sporting a close cropped conservative hairstyle, and speaking in a clear corporate dialect. If you do don't be surprised when people treat you NOT as a gangster but instead like a company paper pusher. You will get far more respect from those in authority for one thing. The trade off being your gang friends will think you sold out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Culture is the issue here NOT racism. Ever wonder why black educators or black police officers target black youth? Because they aren't judging race they are judging culture. Dreads are emblematic of gang culture as are certain fashion choices, these are personal choices anyone can proclaim to others "I am in a gang" by wearing gang fashion or hairstyles. Other gang culture people look upon you as bad ass and perhaps even worthy of respect... But people in authority regardless of color are going to see you as potentially violent and certainly a trouble maker, you could take a different cultural appearance and have completely different responses to you if you wish. Try dressing in a suit and tie, sporting a close cropped conservative hairstyle, and speaking in a clear corporate dialect. If you do don't be surprised when people treat you NOT as a gangster but instead like a company paper pusher. You will get far more respect from those in authority for one thing. The trade off being your gang friends will think you sold out.

In kindergarten?

A black person having unstraightened, non-chemically treated, natural long hair is "emblematic of gang culture"?

Sadly, you're probably right about how they see it, but it's still lousy.


Lord Snow wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:

I'm with AlicornSage here. If I see someone tall and blond I *could* just assume they're Swedish and have all the corresponding cultural baggage... but then they might also just be living down the street with not much regard to that kind of thing. Similarly, if I see a black skinned person, in this day and age it tells me very little of the details of their life so far, of what their personal experiences have been like. So I'm just not making assumptions. I'm just not deciding who they are by looking at their racial features and their gender.

Rather, if I interact with them at all, I will decide who they are by what they say and do.

This seems like such a simple concept that I always wonder that there could be any back-and-forth on the issue at all.

I... hope I haven't been construed as having a 'back and forth' on the subject? [There's no telling for sure at whom your post was directed.]

There's no disagreement whatsoever between your post and my own thoughts on the subject, though I'm not certain if my own posts accurately reflect my thoughts in this regard.

I was refering to Scythia, specifically to

Quote:

Ignoring race (or other differences) sounds like a great idea, but in reality it causes problems. By refusing to acknowledge a person's race/ethnicity or gender you're denying a part of their identity. As you point out, gender and race/ethnicity are cultural ideas, and you can't understand or even respect someone's culture if you're ignoring it.

Additionally, the refusal to acknowledge race/ethnicity or gender prevents one from acknowledging the very real problems and issues that impact other races or genders. Sadly, a problem doesn't go away just because a person can't see them.

If I see a black person, I don't know what their culture is. It depends on where and when they grew up, on their families, etc. Presuming to know someone because of the "culture" implied by their exterior appearance is often misguided. Which is why I don't do it and don't understand why some people expect me to.

It could be even worse.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I can't stand the Sammy Hagar years of Van Halen.

No one will shun you for that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Culture is the issue here NOT racism. Ever wonder why black educators or black police officers target black youth? Because they aren't judging race they are judging culture. Dreads are emblematic of gang culture as are certain fashion choices, these are personal choices anyone can proclaim to others "I am in a gang" by wearing gang fashion or hairstyles. Other gang culture people look upon you as bad ass and perhaps even worthy of respect... But people in authority regardless of color are going to see you as potentially violent and certainly a trouble maker, you could take a different cultural appearance and have completely different responses to you if you wish. Try dressing in a suit and tie, sporting a close cropped conservative hairstyle, and speaking in a clear corporate dialect. If you do don't be surprised when people treat you NOT as a gangster but instead like a company paper pusher. You will get far more respect from those in authority for one thing. The trade off being your gang friends will think you sold out.

Nope, it's racist. I can bet you with 10:1 odds if a cop sees a white guy with dreads, he isn't thinking gang member. Stoner with half a brick of weed on him, maybe, but not gang member. White kid with a fro? 70s throwback to the cop, maybe, but not gang member. White kids don't have to wear a suit and tie to get police respect. I disdain corporate dress, and I've never had a cop pull me over for something I didn't deserve. It's racism masked by cultural preference.


Why is it lousy thejeff? I think it's kind of neat that YOU have control over how others see you simply by changing your clothes, hair and speech. When I was the religious nut in junior high and the outcast all I needed to do to fit in WAS decide I wanted to fit in. I switched from home made clothing to trendy styles, I got a popular hair style, and I stopped talking about God except when it specifically came up. And next thing I knew I was a cheerleader, I was popular instead of the outcast. Sure I had more lessons to learn in life, but hey I was a kid and this made school fun instead of hell.


Aranna, part of the problem stems from making judgements about race, those judgements are based on the expectation of an individual to have a particular "culture" based on factors such as racism, that don't actually have anything to do with it. People associate blacks as stereotypically violent and in gangs, just like they stereotypically assume that a guy likely something traditionally seen as girly is gay. Neither case is always true, not even often true, but it is still people making judgements on factors they shouldn't.

Skin color is the simplier of the two to handle, at least individually, as a society however, it is the more difficult. There are a number of people who live in bad places with bad blood, and the families pass on the hatred rather than trying to escape it. As for bronies, we'll see how that turns out, it is still a little early to call it, but I suspect it will be a bigger problem than most realize. Men have always had priviledge for centuries, but also many more restrictions on acceptable behaviour, and most of those restrictions are still going strong.

I try to live as an example of how I believe others should live. I believe in ignoring race, but that doesn't mean I'll ignore the fact that other people still make bad choices based on race. If I did, would I have gotten into this conversation in the first place?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Why is it lousy thejeff? I think it's kind of neat that YOU have control over how others see you simply by changing your clothes, hair and speech. When I was the religious nut in junior high and the outcast all I needed to do to fit in WAS decide I wanted to fit in. I switched from home made clothing to trendy styles, I got a popular hair style, and I stopped talking about God except when it specifically came up. And next thing I knew I was a cheerleader, I was popular instead of the outcast. Sure I had more lessons to learn in life, but hey I was a kid and this made school fun instead of hell.

Because it's about pushing blacks to conform to white standards to fit in. Not the clothes so much, but the hair, especially. Treatments to make black hair do what white hair often does naturally. Particularly prevalent among black women, even in settings where "gang" isn't really in question.

Like kindergarten.

On the larger scale, I'm also not real fond of the idea of judging people by superficialities like dress, fashion and hairstyles. As you say those have drastic effects on how people treat us, in the job market and elsewhere, while being relatively easy to fake and having very little to do with any actual qualifications.


Shifty wrote:
Cranky Bastard wrote:

Children of color get kicked out of school for having natural hair.

Wow what!?

When/where did this happen? That is horrible.

Yeah. It can happen. Not because of the hair, but because the hair makes the person in authority think "troublemaker" and then the children get targeted more often.

There's a decent amount of research backing it. It's called the "school-to-prison pipeline." The hypothesis is that minority children and black children in particular get targeted at school for indescrepencies - often ones that other children do not get targeted for - and then punished more severely. Since this happens as early as kindergarten, the child grows up to learn that they're bad and they're the problem and then they begin to take on that personality and nature against the rest of society. By the time they're teenagers and adults, they've fully accepted that they're "problem children" and then go on to commit more crime than they otherwise would have (possibly none at all if they were treated normally), and when they get sentenced by a judge they get harsher punishments.

It's real. It's happening. And we can fix it simply by not treating black children differently than white children while in k-12. Stopping that behavior will go a long ways towards stopping the harsher sentencing as adults, and go a long ways towards fixing our society.

Check out the first act of this This American Life episode, which covers the basics of it. Link

The example in that episode is a black kindergarten child would get suspended and sent home for things like knocking a chair to the floor in anger or "acting up" while the white kids in class wouldn't even get "time out" for things like hitting another kid so hard he had to be sent to the hospital.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
TheAlicornSage wrote:

You kinda miss something. Race and gender are physical. They only become part of your identity if you make them. They are not required elements of an identity.

Besides, I care more about where culture is headed in the future than where it came from. Heritage is a nice thing to study, to learn from, but it isn't often a good thing to model your life on. Take what is learned and make something better, that means realizing that racial issues are a problem and can be reduced by not basing identity on race, therefore, the way you live should adapt to not base identity on race.

History in general is to be learned from, not emulated.

There is so much privilege in these statements that I almost choked. So, I'll make a statement and then address the two points in your comment.

Being "color blind" perpetuates white privilege.

Point 1: Race and gender ARE ALWAYS parts of your identity. You don't see that because your self-identity is what you concider, "generic," or "non race or gender related." This is because your race and gender are societal "norms." You don't realize that being a white male ARE defining characteristics of your identity because society treats YOUR identity as BASELINE.

Point 2: The future is what is at stake. You want to continue to live your life and have the future generations of the world live their lives without racial consideration. What you are in effect doing is requiring everyone who isn't a white male to conform to your sensibilities of "generic" identity. In effect you are actually asking them to conform to a white male identity. If this were to happen people of the future would lose the cultural history, diversity, and richness that we are able to celebrate today.


TheAlicornSage wrote:

Cranky, you sidestepped my point. Discrimination of any type including racism, comes from the recognition of differences. If people didn't recognize a difference, then those individuals couldn't discriminate based on them (because you can't make a judgement about something you ignore or don't see).

There are a lot of folks that promote a "different but equal" approach which I think really just raised awareness of the difference which starts resulting in judgements about that difference (I.E. the newsies are idiots, now they say these people are different but equal. Since when can I trust the news. Are they really equal? I'll have to judge for myself.)

Honestly, I think that is the entire reason it has taken tjis long only for racism to still be a thing. I think saying everyone is the same is better because it focuses on people having things in common rather than shining a bright light on meaningless differences which gain meaning simply by being heavily scrutinized.

I sidestepped nothing - you were responding to someone else. I do agree with them, though.

Racism remains a 'thing' because of tribalism. Behaviors help reinforce said tribalism. Shares behaviors create bonds, in theory but the tribalism aspect makes that less viable.

To use a rather pertinent recent example, the recent church burnings across the US have been at congregations predominantly of people of color; it's been black churches. People have said, in utter seriousness, that the problem was that the churches were, in fact, black churches, and if they had just let white people in there would not have been a problem.

Without going into the history of why black churches exist in the first place, the presumption that the worshipping behavior of a congregation made them the target for suspected arson is idiotic on its face, but insidiously racist in its underpinnings. The fact that my manner of dressing, speaking, and conducting myself is considered 'acting white' and is as much a source of discrimination as the fact that the desire implied is for homogeneous conduct.

Behavioral outliers draw attention, and this children acting outside of expected 'norms' draw attention, sought or otherwise. If the kid was just carrying a backpack for the series, perhaps it would have been seen as just odd; if he was being disruptive and problematic, the part which I have not been able to find and confirm in my own searches, then that would clearly be a different matter.

Given how often children of my own ethnicity get kicked out of school though, I suspect I will find little data on cartoon choice being the central factor.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd be willing to bet white men in corporate dress have robbed more people of their livelihood than all the black men in the world, regardless of dress or gang affiliation. Enron is just one example - there have been a multitude who were never even caught.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
I'd be willing to bet men in corporate dress have robbed more people of their livelihood than all the common men in the world, regardless of dress or gang affiliation or color.

Fixed that for you.

While it's true that these legal crooks are predominantly white, there's nothing special about the individuals among them of other ethnic origins in this regard.


Jaelithe wrote:
Cranky Bastard wrote:
TheAlicornSage wrote:
Mistreatment is indeed all too common, but kicking nine year olds out of school over being too girly is beyond mere mistreatment. Luckily the parents raised a stink and since the school was public it got fixed, partially, but that was still crossing the line more than I've seen against other fandoms.

Children of color get kicked out of school for having natural hair.

In kindergarten.

You will forgive my compassion going elsewhere.

I wasn't aware compassion is a limited resource.

It is infinite, in theory, but not omnipresent. I think of it as a steady stream that is allocated into different cups at any given moment. The term wellspring of compassion is particularly apt - such can vary drastically in size and rate of production.

Some days I have plenty for everyone - those days, I'm not a cranky bastard. And some days so much shyte is happening that my own reserved are drained, and someone wants to drink from my well while having plenty of other wells to drink from, and clearly unwilling to acknowledge the not empty canteen they are carrying.

On topic: I enjoy alignment argument threads, but am not as much of an absolutist about alignment as some of its most virulent haters. Barring outsiders, who are literally made of alignment stuff, I like to think that mortals can have an off day without it being the start of a change of worldview.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to make a comment on the "Gender is only a part of your identity if you make it so" line.

This is flat out false. My wife has never made an issue of her gender until just the past few years - because she's discriminated against due to her gender.

She's one of the best chemists I know (and I know a lot of them). She is by far the best chemist at her work, getting her own work done significantly faster than everyone else while also producing higher quality work. Just last week her manager assigned her two weeks worth of work to get done. She had it done within two days. Her work is fast and top quality. Some of this is because she doesn't sit around and BS half the day like many of her coworkers do. Some of it is because she simply works more efficiently - she doesn't sit around and watch the instruments run, once she starts one, she walks away and works on another project. What takes her a single day to do, it can take some of her slower coworkers upwards of two weeks. I've even listened to her complain about a coworker taking three months to do something that she can get done in a single day - and then his work was so bad that she had to repeat it! But he still got the credit, not her.

Despite all this, she was skipped over for the supposedly automatic annual raise last December. Despite all this, it took her three years (3!) to get the supposedly automatic title and raise that came with the promotion to this position (whereas it took her male colleagues zero time to get the pay increase for the promotion to this position). Despite all this, she was just skipped over a title promotion and ou raise just last month over two of her less experienced and slower coworkers.

For projects that she and other women are in charge of, they've been told to give all their data to male colleagues so the guy can present the data at major meetings - while the women weren't even invited to those meetings. For their own projects! Because somehow having a dick makes you a better presenter.

You don't feel these things because you don't get discriminated against. Those who do are not making their race and gender a part of their identity by choice - it's being forced upon them by people who actively discriminate and by people who simply can't tel the difference and allow it to happen.

Some people choose to make it a part of their identity. Most people are forced to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I'd be willing to bet white men in corporate dress have robbed more people of their livelihood than all the black men in the world, regardless of dress or gang affiliation. Enron is just one example - there have been a multitude who were never even caught.

Amen.

There is absolutely NO decrepancy in the number of crimes committed by any one human grouping to any other. There absolutely is a difference in which crimes get investigated, charged, and prosecuted. For some reason we are ok with the guy in the suit with a store-bought-smile stealing 80% of our wealth with schemes, tricks, and lies. We will even happily shake his hand and pay him fees and commissions for fleecing us. But that guy who picked our wallet to make rent, that guy needs to go to jail for maximum sentence, and his family should be homeless after, and none of them should ever be able to work again.

Blek :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shifty wrote:
Cranky Bastard wrote:

Children of color get kicked out of school for having natural hair.

Wow what!?

When/where did this happen? That is horrible.

Was going to PM, but I am spoiler marking it here for any who are curious and will try to quash further derail as it stemmed from a pet peeve about Fandom (and frequently player) behavior and got taken way further than I was originally going to go with it.

Spoiler:
This right here pissed me off far more than it should have.

By my own admission I am not terribly fond of children. I don't exactly like bad things happening to them, though. And in the hierarchy of things, what one is tends to tame priority over what one likes and has.

Confession: this is exactly why I have the love-hate relationship with players who want to play nonstandard races; they care more about the mechanics and I want to look at sociopolitical ramifications.


bookrat wrote:

I'd like to make a comment on the "Gender is only a part of your identity if you make it so" line.

This is flat out false. My wife has never made an issue of her gender until just the past few years - because she's discriminated against due to her gender.

She's one of the best chemists I know (and I know a lot of them). She is by far the best chemist at her work, getting her own work done significantly faster than everyone else while also producing higher quality work. Just last week her manager assigned her two weeks worth of work to get done. She had it done within two days. Her work is fast and top quality. Some of this is because she doesn't sit around and BS half the day like many of her coworkers do. Some of it is because she simply works more efficiently - she doesn't sit around and watch the instruments run, once she starts one, she walks away and works on another project. What takes her a single day to do, it can take some of her slower coworkers upwards of two weeks. I've even listened to her complain about a coworker taking three months to do something that she can get done in a single day - and then his work was so bad that she had to repeat it! But he still got the credit, not her.

Despite all this, she was skipped over for the supposedly automatic annual raise last December. Despite all this, it took her three years (3!) to get the supposedly automatic title and raise that came with the promotion to this position (whereas it took her male colleagues zero time to get the pay increase for the promotion to this position). Despite all this, she was just skipped over a title promotion and ou raise just last month over two of her less experienced and slower coworkers.

For projects that she and other women are in charge of, they've been told to give all their data to male colleagues so the guy can present the data at major meetings - while the women weren't even invited to those meetings. For their own projects! Because somehow having a dick makes you a better presenter.

You don't...

My graduate advisor has a story from one of his colleagues.

A female biologist was working on publishing some protein research. She submitted it to a journal with a fairly high impact factor and it went through peer review. Only one reviewer rejected the paper. Over and over, clarification after clarification, she could not make this reviewer happy. Finally she desides to submit to a different journal and get published almost immediately.

This biologist was also in the process of transitioning from female to male. After his surgery and recovery he went on with his career including attending conferences to present his paper. At one conference the biologist noticed the petulant reviewer in the audience. After his presentation the reviewer came up to the front and spoke with him.

"Hello Dr. Lastname, I really enjoyed your speech. Your name sounds familiar, are you related to Dr. Female Lastname, I reviewed some papers of hers recently."

"Erm, yes?"

"Oh, your work is so much better than hers!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cranky Bastard wrote:


This right here pissed me off far more than it should have.

*Not actually possible. The sum of seething rage that festers in the deepest places in hell could not begin to account for enough anger to be considered "too much" to respond to this.


thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Why is it lousy thejeff? I think it's kind of neat that YOU have control over how others see you simply by changing your clothes, hair and speech. When I was the religious nut in junior high and the outcast all I needed to do to fit in WAS decide I wanted to fit in. I switched from home made clothing to trendy styles, I got a popular hair style, and I stopped talking about God except when it specifically came up. And next thing I knew I was a cheerleader, I was popular instead of the outcast. Sure I had more lessons to learn in life, but hey I was a kid and this made school fun instead of hell.

Because it's about pushing blacks to conform to white standards to fit in. Not the clothes so much, but the hair, especially. Treatments to make black hair do what white hair often does naturally. Particularly prevalent among black women, even in settings where "gang" isn't really in question.

Like kindergarten.

On the larger scale, I'm also not real fond of the idea of judging people by superficialities like dress, fashion and hairstyles. As you say those have drastic effects on how people treat us, in the job market and elsewhere, while being relatively easy to fake and having very little to do with any actual qualifications.

So your saying black educators are forcing "white standards" that's crazy there is no white standard. Look around white people have all manner of different standards. That is just a black on black myth... "Your acting white" is a lie. What black educators are forcing is probably a college prep culture. Which makes sense since those black educators are part of that culture. And you don't need hair treatments to have conservative hair, just invest in this invention called scissors. Well... Unless you're a girl, but then we have to buy a lot of beauty products boys don't regardless of race.

As for judging by superficial standards? Well humans are tribal and always will be. every group prosecutes the outsiders. If you have some magic pill that changes human nature then great but until then why not use it for our benefit rather than suffering as an outsider pointlessly. Having happy children who fit in and have tons of friends and a future is better than having kids who take some pointless stand against fitting in and spend their life being targeted.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

If all they have to do to "not fit in" is have their natural hair, then the standards they're being coerced into conforming to are utter bullshit.

Edit for phrasing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Why is it lousy thejeff? I think it's kind of neat that YOU have control over how others see you simply by changing your clothes, hair and speech. When I was the religious nut in junior high and the outcast all I needed to do to fit in WAS decide I wanted to fit in. I switched from home made clothing to trendy styles, I got a popular hair style, and I stopped talking about God except when it specifically came up. And next thing I knew I was a cheerleader, I was popular instead of the outcast. Sure I had more lessons to learn in life, but hey I was a kid and this made school fun instead of hell.

Because it's about pushing blacks to conform to white standards to fit in. Not the clothes so much, but the hair, especially. Treatments to make black hair do what white hair often does naturally. Particularly prevalent among black women, even in settings where "gang" isn't really in question.

Like kindergarten.

On the larger scale, I'm also not real fond of the idea of judging people by superficialities like dress, fashion and hairstyles. As you say those have drastic effects on how people treat us, in the job market and elsewhere, while being relatively easy to fake and having very little to do with any actual qualifications.

So your saying black educators are forcing "white standards" that's crazy there is no white standard. Look around white people have all manner of different standards. That is just a black on black myth... "Your acting white" is a lie. What black educators are forcing is probably a college prep culture. Which makes sense since those black educators are part of that culture. And you don't need hair treatments to have conservative hair, just invest in this invention called scissors. Well... Unless you're a girl, but then we have to buy a lot of beauty products boys don't regardless of race.

As for judging by superficial standards? Well humans are tribal and always will be. every group prosecutes the outsiders. If you have some...

Actually look into some of the stuff on black hair issues, particularly woman's hair. If you have the common kinky black hair you can't get "conservative hair" with a pair of scissors. You can buzz cut it or you can have it straightened, which is a big step beyond what white traditionally do to their hair, well beyond a perm, for example. This really is kind of a big deal. Much bigger than it seems at a glance from outside when you know nothing about it. Like me a few years ago. :)

And again - in kindergarten.

I was speaking specifically of appearance, not of "acting white" or "college prep culture".

Edit: Ninja'd by Zhangar, who said it better and shorter.

3,401 to 3,450 of 4,499 << first < prev | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Confessions That Will Get You Shunned By The Members Of The Paizo Community All Messageboards