My impetus for posting this is this thread. I posted a link to a blog article analyzing how real world racial tropes have influenced depictions of orcs in fantasy roleplaying games. I was expecting at least some blowback from the "racism don't real" crowd. I wasn't expecting it to get bad enough that locking the thread became necessary.
Now, I don't think that locking the thread was the wrong thing to do. I was mildly upset when I first noticed, but by the time I got to the end of the thread, I understood why it had been locked. However, the direction the thread took and the subsequent locking has the effect of stifling conversation on the topic. In the past, I've seen threads on similar topics face the same kind of reaction (though offhandedly I can't remember any that got bad enough they had to be locked).
Hence the question in the title. Is there a place for these sorts of conversations on Paizo's messageboards? I feel these are interesting and important conversations, at least as interesting and important as how this feat interacts with that class ability. The LGBT gamer community thread partially fills this role, but only with regard to talking about queer gamers and queer issues.
If you'd like to start a topic discussing real world issues and their relation to gaming specifically, then Gamer Talk is the most appropriate forum.
Okay...
That doesn't address my question. It's certainly good to know the best forum to place threads in. However, some of the people who contributed to the derailing and eventual closure of that thread post in Gamer Talk. If I would have posted that thread there, the derailment wouldn't have been avoided just because it was in a more appropriate forum for the subject.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay...
That doesn't address my question. It's certainly good to know the best forum to place threads in. However, some of the people who contributed to the derailing and eventual closure of that thread post in Gamer Talk. If I would have posted that thread there, the derailment wouldn't have been avoided just because it was in a more appropriate forum for the subject.
So what you really want is a place you can start a thread where the only people that reply are those who agree with you?
-Skeld
Okay...
That doesn't address my question. It's certainly good to know the best forum to place threads in. However, some of the people who contributed to the derailing and eventual closure of that thread post in Gamer Talk. If I would have posted that thread there, the derailment wouldn't have been avoided just because it was in a more appropriate forum for the subject.
The moderation here is pretty light when it comes to derailment/tangents (which I personally think is a great thing, but obviously tastes will vary). As such, you're probably right that the risk of it repeating is there.
.Nonetheless, based on past experience, often a thread getting locked and a conversation 'restarted' can bring in some new voices and allow those more adversarial posters from the old thread to cool off a bit so it might be worth a shot. Maybe the naysayers have had their say? At least you may have developed a feel for who not to engage with on the second time around.
If I would have posted that thread there, the derailment wouldn't have been avoided just because it was in a more appropriate forum for the subject.
Possibly. However many fewer people post there (some don't even see the posts from there). Slower posting tends to let tempers cool a bit.
@Steve Geddes
I definitely see something of the light moderation.
But I think another problem. Specifically that the thread was started to talk about an article I wrote, which introduced the subject oppression in the form of racism and sexism.
Of course there was some heavy-handed derailment, sometimes in the form unfriendly jibes at my intellectual character or personal motivation. Suffice it to say, that is all part and parcel with how "lightly moderated" internet discussions go.
But at the very moment the thread was locked (damn my decision to take a nap), some very strong accusations were made about the content of my article and about myself as a writer. I was never able to respond/discuss these accusations.
Whatever benevolent intentions were behind the moderation decision, locking it down at that moment proved to cripple whatever discussion I had hoped to see come out of my original work (at least here on Paizo forums). I think the moderators did what was right under the text or spirit of managing dialogue in Paizo owned spaces, but I'm left feeling a little... I can't quite put a word to it.
@Steve Geddes
I definitely see something of the light moderation.
But I think another problem. Specifically that the thread was started to talk about an article I wrote, which introduced the subject oppression in the form of racism and sexism.
Of course there was some heavy-handed derailment, sometimes in the form unfriendly jibes at my intellectual character or personal motivation. Suffice it to say, that is all part and parcel with how "lightly moderated" internet discussions go.
But at the very moment the thread was locked (damn my decision to take a nap), some very strong accusations were made about the content of my article and about myself as a writer. Whatever benevolent intentions were behind the moderation decision, locking it down at that moment proved to cripple whatever discussion I had hoped to see come out of my original work (at least here on Paizo forums).
I've certainly been there before (coming back to a locked thread to find a whole lot of loose ends I want to reply to).
.Depending on what you wanted to respond to, you may well be able to quote the relevant post and reply to it as the start of a new thread. I've certainly done that before when I've been part of a hostile thread where a substantive issue was being carried along parallel to the vitriol. I dont see a thread-locking as closing down all conversation on a topic - just closing down that conversation.
If you were rather looking for a 'right of reply' to one or two personal comments or somesuch, I'd send a pm to whoever locked the thread and include what you would have liked to say in response. Perhaps the moderator will append it to the locked thread on your behalf (?)
Okay...
That doesn't address my question. It's certainly good to know the best forum to place threads in. However, some of the people who contributed to the derailing and eventual closure of that thread post in Gamer Talk. If I would have posted that thread there, the derailment wouldn't have been avoided just because it was in a more appropriate forum for the subject.
So what you really want is a place you can start a thread where the only people that reply are those who agree with you?
-Skeld
Yep, this is exactly what she's looking for.
Ugh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Steve Geddes
I definitely see something of the light moderation.
But I think another problem. Specifically that the thread was started to talk about an article I wrote, which introduced the subject oppression in the form of racism and sexism.
Of course there was some heavy-handed derailment, sometimes in the form unfriendly jibes at my intellectual character or personal motivation. Suffice it to say, that is all part and parcel with how "lightly moderated" internet discussions go.
But at the very moment the thread was locked (damn my decision to take a nap), some very strong accusations were made about the content of my article and about myself as a writer. I was never able to respond/discuss these accusations.
Whatever benevolent intentions were behind the moderation decision, locking it down at that moment proved to cripple whatever discussion I had hoped to see come out of my original work (at least here on Paizo forums). I think the moderators did what was right under the text or spirit of managing dialogue in Paizo owned spaces, but I'm left feeling a little... I can't quite put a word to it.
Annabel, while the specific posts that led to the locking of the thread were particularly harsh, the substance of those criticisms had already been well explored and you had plenty of opportunity to defend against them, which you did.
The problem is that a number of people on the thread didn't agree that your defenses were effective when compared to what you actually wrote.
You could well have once again defended the charges, but I don't see what you could have added to your previous defenses that would have made people ignore what you actually wrote.
EDIT: Also, the fact that you did not LIKE the discussion about what you wrote does not mean that the discussion was "crippled". There was PLENTY of discussion, a lot of it just happened to be critical instead of laudatory. Thems the breaks when you write and publish it for the public to read.
... and one more thing. The "derailing" that you and the moderator referenced was, in fact, an attempt to take your premise and apply it to a real world example, an activity you could have participated in instead of ignoring, and perhaps you could have seen what I was using the example to illustrate.
Its fantasy guys, geeze give it a break.
If I make all women beautiful, curvacious and dress scantily in my world, it doesnt make me a sexist.
If I elect to have everyone heterosexual, it doesnt mean I hate gays.
If all goblins have squinty eyes and speak pidgeon english it doesnt mean I have a problem with orientals.
Its my world, a fantasy world, where I dont have to worry about such offenses. I would never want to alienate or oppress anyone in real life, and I make every attempt to avoid it. In a fantasy world however I dont even want to think of such things. The fact that the thread on homosexuality in Golarion is thousands of posts and still going is absolutely rediculous to me.
Put who you want in your world. Make sure your players know about it and agree. If they are all Klan members, and you are too... well shame on you but have fun! I wont be in any of your games but its your business.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I make all women beautiful, curvacious and dress scantily in my world, it doesnt make me a sexist.
Actually, it does. Creating a work of fiction where all women therein exist solely to sexually please men is a common sexist trope.
If I elect to have everyone heterosexual, it doesnt mean I hate gays.
Hate might not be quite the right word, but it does evince heterosexism.
If all goblins have squinty eyes and speak pidgeon english it doesnt mean I have a problem with orientals.
Using a racist stereotype of asian people like this is going to be racist. Also, referring to people as "orientals" is itself racist.
I read most of the article and I think I will finish it later, but I feel much more certain now that orcs are not racist then I did before reading it.
I read most of the article and I think I will finish it later, but I feel much more certain now that orcs are not racist then I did before reading it.
I don't even need to read it to know orcs are not racist.
"Orc" is an old word for "demon," co-opted by Tolkien for his completely constructed race of non-humans, and in-world were made from corrupted elves. Tolkien disdained real-world parallels, so neither elves nor orcs were modeled on real-world races. Fantasy orcs often look like pigs and are highly stylized but bear no real-world elements that would point to a particular race nor nation of humans upon which they might be modeled in any depiction I have ever seen.
The closest parallel I can think of in other fantasy, which might have some slight real-world connotation, would be the sub-human "caveman" types that often appeared in Robert E. Howard's work, particularly Conan stories. Those things were somewhat orclike, but though Howard lived in a different time, and there were some nods to real-world races, the sub-humans (proto-humans might be a better term) were clearly a product of his understanding of evolution, and were not meant to reflect a modern race. A few other writers of his time, particularly those in the Lovecraft circle, had similar depictions of races that had split off from the human line, and were not quite as evolved. But those were meant to be monsters, not human analogs.
To be fair to Annabel, she only used Tolkien's alleged racist orcs as a lead in to a larger examination of her interpretation of racial characteristics in fantasy role playing in general.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you think about it... if you can imagine a different version of our world where, as it happens, human beings don't have any variation of skin tone... Let's just say everyone happens to be black. No white people, or any other variation, everyone has the kind of skin we call "black" in todays world, right?
Now in this other version of our world, do you think that darkness and light would still have a strong metaphorical relationship with the concept of good and evil, like they do for us today? Would people in this world where everyone had melanin in their skin still talk about confessing their "darkest secrets"? Would they thank a particularly joyful person for "brightening their day"?
I think so, because I think that whole paradigm has very little to do with subconscious embedded racism. It has more to do with how as a species we experience literal light and darkness, depending, primally, on the light of the day for survival. In the night it is colder, things are obfuscated. There is a fear associated with the night that has nothing to do with condemnation of non-white people.
Honestly, I'm glad I read this article because I wasn't sure how I felt about this before, and had sort of had the same thesis floating around half-baked in my mind for years. Now I feel a bit silly for entertaining the notion.
To stick strictly on thread regarding a place in the Paizo boards for this discussion, it should be noted that Wesley Schneider already spent considerable time responding to the original blog on that page. To ask if there is a place on the Paizo boards for this discussion without acknowledging the time and energy that an editor-in-cheif at Paizo already contributed to the discussion seems unfair.
Frankly, I found Wesley's comments much more enlightening than the blog itself, but they should be taken together.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you think about it... if you can imagine a different version of our world where, as it happens, human beings don't have any variation of skin tone... Let's just say everyone happens to be black. No white people, or any other variation, everyone has the kind of skin we call "black" in todays world, right?
Now in this other version of our world, do you think that darkness and light would still have a strong metaphorical relationship with the concept of good and evil, like they do for us today? Would people in this world where everyone had melanin in their skin still talk about confessing their "darkest secrets"? Would they thank a particularly joyful person for "brightening their day"?
I think so, because I think that whole paradigm has very little to do with subconscious embedded racism. It has more to do with how as a species we experience literal light and darkness, depending, primally, on the light of the day for survival. In the night it is colder, things are obfuscated. There is a fear associated with the night that has nothing to do with condemnation of non-white people.
Honestly, I'm glad I read this article because I wasn't sure how I felt about this before, and had sort of had the same thesis floating around half-baked in my mind for years. Now I feel a bit silly for entertaining the notion.
Well, yeah. Virtually every culture on Earth has tales involving the clash of light and darkness, going back to pre-Zoarastrian times. Most of the people who created such tales were of color (like the Hebrews, the Indians, etc.). "Light" skin would have meant nothing to them. "Light" was never in reference to pale skin, it was about actual light versus the actual darkness of night time, or otherwise lack of light.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think so, because I think that whole paradigm has very little to do with subconscious embedded racism. It has more to do with how as a species we experience literal light and darkness, depending, primally, on the light of the day for survival. In the night it is colder, things are obfuscated. There is a fear associated with the night that has nothing to do with condemnation of non-white people.
This is exactly right. If you look at the cultures of Africa, their use of white and black in symbolism is the same as many others: White = joy, purity, goodness. Black = mourning, death, evil. They don't look at the color of their own skin and think they're the same color as the night sky any more than they look at white people and think they're the same color as an egg shell or bleached linens.
This is exactly right. If you look at the cultures of Africa, their use of white and black in symbolism is the same as many others: White = joy, purity, goodness. Black = mourning, death, evil. They don't look at the color of their own skin and think they're the same color as the night sky any more than they look at white people and think they're the same color as an egg shell or bleached linens.
I think so, because I think that whole paradigm has very little to do with subconscious embedded racism. It has more to do with how as a species we experience literal light and darkness, depending, primally, on the light of the day for survival. In the night it is colder, things are obfuscated. There is a fear associated with the night that has nothing to do with condemnation of non-white people.
No, it takes years of a particular sort of dedicated education to reach those conclusions.
To stick strictly on thread regarding a place in the Paizo boards for this discussion, it should be noted that Wesley Schneider already spent considerable time responding to the original blog on that page. To ask if there is a place on the Paizo boards for this discussion without acknowledging the time and energy that an editor-in-cheif at Paizo already contributed to the discussion seems unfair.
Frankly, I found Wesley's comments much more enlightening than the blog itself, but they should be taken together.
Wesley is one smart dude!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Folks, when we say a discussion has soured past the point of being acceptable here, and lock it, that's not an invitation to start another thread to continue the fight, get the last word in, respond to allegations about one's character, etc. Our choice to lock a thread at a certain point is not a referendum on who's correct (even if they were the last person to post before the lock) -- it's a decision that the argument is heated enough to be detrimental to our community and needs to end.
If you feel the need to do any of the above, you're welcome to engage with other posters via private channels, or on some other website, but not here.
If you'd like to actually discuss the intersection of games and real-world issues, rather than continuing personal sniping from previous discussions, you're welcome to do so in the Gamer Talk forum, as Chris noted.
Thread locked.