my dad has a friend who is a "liberal" author who is outrageously sexist.
Yeah. I actually have a liberal gay friend who I recently learn is against transgendered rights. Was unusual to find that out, but unusually enough, hate as a concept seems to stretch beyond concepts like race, gender, politics, and sexuality. Anyone and everyone is capable of hate, and of love. Let's not forget that :)LOL, what an interesting thread. I particularly loved the "liberals can't be sexist" comment.
I haven't laughed that hard in a long, long, long time.
Oh, one other thing.
Describing being "against transgendered rights" as "hate" is a big, big part of the problem in our political discourse. Too many tribes scream about "hate" whenever any other non-tribe member does not agree with their own ideologically motivated beliefs.
"Hate" is a strong word, and really should only be used to describe, you know, actual "hate." Not simple disagreement.
my question is, is this a recurring problem with gamers as a whole or just in the midwest?
do gamers use their characters to act out their deep down racism and sexism, cause it kinda seems that way from my seat.
If the gamers you are playing with are doing this, then it represents a way in which they suck. And yes, there are better gamers out there.
...that said, I also must admit to having played racist PCs. Not long ago one character had this work to his disadvantage when we played The Standing Stone, where
Hopefully I have managed to do so in a non shitty manner. I know I have managed to do a little better than "my character tells your character to shut up because (s)he is a stupid [race] [gender], HA LOOK AT ME ROLEPLAY."
Yeah. I actually have a liberal gay friend who I recently learn is against transgendered rights. Was unusual to find that out, but unusually enough, hate as a concept seems to stretch beyond concepts like race, gender, politics, and sexuality. Anyone and everyone is capable of hate, and of love. Let's not forget that :)LOL, what an interesting thread. I particularly loved the "liberals can't be sexist" comment.
I haven't laughed that hard in a long, long, long time.
Oh, one other thing.
Describing being "against transgendered rights" as "hate" is a big, big part of the problem in our political discourse. Too many tribes scream about "hate" whenever any other non-tribe member does not agree with their own ideologically motivated beliefs.
"Hate" is a strong word, and really should only be used to describe, you know, actual "hate." Not simple disagreement.
I agree... sadly when one side wants to justify themselves calling something "hate" when it is a simple disagreement galvanizes your sides followers against whatever disagreement it is.
Well, that escalated quickly.
but when the player is actively being aggressive and it cuts into the other player's fun, I feel that's a time I have to step in and talk about it real quick.
This is my rule number 1!!!! We play to have fun. If everyone is having a blast playing xenophobic elves then go for it. If not...rule number 1, we play to have fun.
Aranna, yeah, being called a "hater" tends to make people feel they are being unfairly attacked, and that means they feel it is then OK to respond in kind.
It's all part of the polarization of our political discourse.
|
It is possible, if the player works it out with the GM and other players, to have a bigoted character who isn't one-dimensional or who ruins everyone's fun. If the player is self-aware enough and understands the issues of the character's bigotry, sure you can have (in my case), a dwarf whose life was saved by an elf, and who gradually comes to address his difficulty with understanding elven and human culture. Ten levels later, he's still making a conscious effort to improve.
(So, as a helpful hint, making a bigoted character can easily have overcoming said character's prejudices a part of their development)
Of course, if the player isn't self-aware, and thinks he's being funny or "just reflecting the notions of the times" even after being informed that Golarion is a more equal-opportunities setting, then the player will eventually have to notice the reputation the character gets, such as why people keep asking him why he's so condescending toward women, or how he can demand to protect them when two women have been helping and healing him for months.
Intent is what makes the difference between a flawed character and a mouthpiece for prejudice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Describing being "against transgendered rights" as "hate" is a big, big part of the problem in our political discourse. Too many tribes scream about "hate" whenever any other non-tribe member does not agree with their own ideologically motivated beliefs.
"Hate" is a strong word, and really should only be used to describe, you know, actual "hate." Not simple disagreement.
"I say potato." "Well, I say potahto." <= Simple disagreement
"I want to be treated as a person with rights." "Pfft, no. Go away." <=Not simple disagreement.
Hate is an action. Someone actively opposing a group getting treated like equal human beings is engaging in hate. I don't care what their feelings are.
Aranna, yeah, being called a "hater" tends to make people feel they are being unfairly attacked, and that means they feel it is then OK to respond in kind.
It's all part of the polarization of our political discourse.
Yes, because it's so much worse to be called a hater than, say, to be denied employment because of non-conforming gender presentation or to be beaten up when you use the restroom.
|
in my weekday group.
my Plushie bard "Zipper" as the party Gadgeteer named her/it, is an equal opportunity homicidal maniac, whom especially hates old gnomes.
Zipper has to roll a DC 30 will save to resist the urge to kill old gnomes, DC 40 if the old gnome is male.
"Zipper hate Gnomes, Zipper think gnomes are Epitome of Evil, Zipper think gnomes should be extinct, Zipper kill every last Gnome Zipper see. Zipper see no difference between Halfling, Gnome or Moogle. Zipper see 3 confused species of Gnome whom deserve torture in the abyss for their sins."
and Zipper, is a chaotic evil Gnomicidal Plush doll animated by the soul of a slain chaotic evil homicidal angel.
the Homicidal Maniac Flaw was chosen for the 2 extra feats and because a Plushie that hated gnomes, sounded so fun.
Zipper is more Androgynistic, but racist against Gnomes.
Is THIS what you imagine, when you play your 'Zipper, the psychotic plushie'?
Describing being "against transgendered rights" as "hate" is a big, big part of the problem in our political discourse. Too many tribes scream about "hate" whenever any other non-tribe member does not agree with their own ideologically motivated beliefs.
"Hate" is a strong word, and really should only be used to describe, you know, actual "hate." Not simple disagreement.
"I say potato." "Well, I say potahto." <= Simple disagreement
"I want to be treated as a person with rights." "Pfft, no. Go away." <=Not simple disagreement.
Hate is an action. Someone actively opposing a group getting treated like equal human beings is engaging in hate. I don't care what their feelings are.
LOL, thank you for demonstrating what I mean about how discourse is immediately polarized.
I sometimes give some of my a racial/sexist view...of course I know the people I play with for the most part before I go to far overboard...
Not saying I'm completely right, but all mine are more jokes (half orc barbarian "nothing like a good dwarf toss") And they tend to use alot of sometimes offcolored jokes from basic history with nothing overtly offensive that everyone knows. (get in the kitchen make me a sandwich) I don't go outlandish and overtly offensive, just enough for a basic laugh then continue the story. If its offensive and I see others getting uncomfortable, I apologize and stop.
Like is an elf male or female? Anybody?
Lincoln, I think that it is true that role playing situations where you have to deal with different "races" in game does actually provide some basis for recognizing prejudice, and recognizing it is really the first and hardest step for combating it.
But then I think there are an enormous number of personal life benefits from playing RPGs. I've developed skills that have helped me in my professional life.
well i got all i needed from this forum it can be locked now. i'm not sure how so i'm just going to flag my own post:( thanks everyone for allaying my fears and showing what a great group gamers are:) kudos to all
well i got all i needed from this forum it can be locked now
LOL, good for you then. I'm pretty sure you're free to not click on the link anymore.
i just don't think anything has really been added just a bunch of back and forth, but yes if it isn't locked up then i will in fact not click on it anymore:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i just don't think anything has really been added just a bunch of back and forth, but yes if it isn't locked up then i will in fact not click on it anymore:)
Thanks for the news bulletin. We were all wondering. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So can we all just agree that Humans are obviously the superior race and all the rest just need to fall in line? It's the word of Zarus after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LOL, thank you for demonstrating what I mean about how discourse is immediately polarized.Describing being "against transgendered rights" as "hate" is a big, big part of the problem in our political discourse. Too many tribes scream about "hate" whenever any other non-tribe member does not agree with their own ideologically motivated beliefs.
"Hate" is a strong word, and really should only be used to describe, you know, actual "hate." Not simple disagreement.
"I say potato." "Well, I say potahto." <= Simple disagreement
"I want to be treated as a person with rights." "Pfft, no. Go away." <=Not simple disagreement.
Hate is an action. Someone actively opposing a group getting treated like equal human beings is engaging in hate. I don't care what their feelings are.
Polarization is not always bad, and FWIW, this is an issue on which I would be willing to adopt a polarizing position. On the issue of such rights I share no common ground with those who oppose them.
|
Favored Enemy doesn't require hate or even dislike. A human bounty hunter with Favored Enemy: Human living in an area predominantly inhabited by humans doesn't loathe his own race. He's just being smart.
That said, in my experience the hate-based abilities built into certain races has generally proven problematic more often than not when players read it as "must become a frothing murderer when confronted with certain races, regardless of your own alignment". >:(
(So, as a helpful hint, making a bigoted character can easily have overcoming said character's prejudices a part of their development)
Gotta admit, some of the greatest frustration I've had when playing a certain race targeted by another PC's prejudice came from him being downright cartoonish and static with his hate.
On the flipside, the mildly prejudiced dwarf and my half-orc(and proud of it)'s developing friendship has been a fun thing to play through.
No one would argue that the former is worse than the latter.
That still doesn't give you (or them) carte blanche to just accuse everyone of being hateful when they simply don't necessarily agree with what "rights" you want. It also doesn't mean we are in the same category as people that beat up transgenders in the bathroom.
As I said in a previous post, hate is a verb, an action. It's what you do, not what you feel or what you are.
Polarization is not always bad, and FWIW, this is an issue on which I would be willing to adopt a polarizing position. On the issue of such rights I share no common ground with those who oppose them.
LOL, so I guess you get to decide what is a "right" and if anyone disagrees with you, you can call them a hater because you defined what a "right" was in the first place.
Nice work if you can get it Coriat.
Well there are a great many reasons I have played such characters in the past, and why I would in the future. One of the most common reasons is that it is a setting norm.
For instance, when I play 1920's era Cthulhu, the characters I play tend to be racist more often than not. The same is true when I play WFRP.
Why? It would damage suspension of disbelief if none of the characters at the table held these views, in such a setting.
There are lots of other great reasons however.
Such view points are relatively juicy anchor points to build out from when roleplaying. If you know your character is racist, it informs his behavior across a wide range of situation, and it suggests other character traits he may have, many of which can be the source of great roleplaying.
I might also want to play a character on a path to redemption, who through the course of play overcome there bigotry and becomes a better person.
The list goes on...
I have no idea why some people want to play racist or misogynist jerks, especially when they do so in settings where that behaviour isn't exactly the norm. All of my less friendly characters (such as the arrogant Chelaxian Wizard or the vengeful Ustalavic Druid) are prone to character development, though that also requires someone actually showing them the error of their ways or pulling them away from a path of hatred. I usually (though not always) prefer playing characters who are good, altruistic and tolerant to begin with.
|
As I said in a previous post, hate is a verb, an action. It's what you do, not what you feel or what you are.No one would argue that the former is worse than the latter.
That still doesn't give you (or them) carte blanche to just accuse everyone of being hateful when they simply don't necessarily agree with what "rights" you want. It also doesn't mean we are in the same category as people that beat up transgenders in the bathroom.
Hate is what you feel. You can't produce hate, or do hate. You can only feel it.
Hate cannot be an action. Because it is a feeling. It also cannot be what i am, because it is not an adjective. It is a noun or a verb.
You can't force your definition of hate onto others who use it properly.
Hate is a feeling, but it's one that leads to action. Most real life massacres were done out of hatred.
Did someone here say that their hate makes people's heads explode?
|
I think it's fine to have a flair of racism/sexism in your characters, as long as the group as a whole agree on how it'll fit into the plot and that it won't be taken out of hand.
The way I see it is, if the group discuss it before hand and even one player objects to it, then it should be left out of the game; When you're playing in a group you want everyone to be comfortable with each other.
I've only done small bits of racism in a roleplay a couple of times, I usually start off with the character fairly headstrong in their views with it toning down as the party spends more time together.
In one adventure I played a Dwarf who was terribly unpleasant towards any race/species smaller than himself, as our story progressed we encountered quite a few Gnomes, Halflings and Goblins.
I played it as if the character's tolerance for the other short races developed through the interactions and eventually was taught the error of his ways when saved by two Halflings who had previously experienced his foul attitude towards them when they crossed paths in a village.
He's still a mildly rude and outspoken fool when he's had a few too many to drink (though one of the other party members has taken to spiking his drinks in an attempt to knock him out before he says anything); he tends to hold his tongue when he's sober.
My character Chrysanthe holds a lot of contempt for anyone who isn't Chelaxian or Taldan by descent. She gives grudging respect to Elves and Dwarves for their given talents, while she views Gnomes with curiosity. Halflings she kind of feels sorry for. However, she makes it clear to all of them that she's better than them, whether it be due to her being a Wizard or because she's from a noble family. Despite the overwhelming arrogance she has (as well as her being a Tiefling), she has a soft spot for children and the poor. Sure, she might mock the latter openly, but would still lend them a hand in secret.
Who gave you permission to speak of me in such a manner?
Make another bold claim like that, and I'll have you fed to a daemon.
I have no weakness nor any sympathy for peasants or anyone else here.
I just don't see sexism as being incredibly prevalent in Golarion. There are many power female goddesses, which would put a damper on the "women are inferior" bit. I mean, look at Lamashtu. We're all terrified of her power. Don't lie. We all are. And then there is Shelyn, Sarenrae, Iomedae, half of Gozreh, Urgathoa, etc. etc.
As for the discussion about real life hate and polarizing debates? Well, forgive me for not being sympathetic and calm when someone wants to deny rights that they have to someone else just because they are different. It is an alien mode of thought to me and I just don't understand it. And maybe that's the crux of it. On both sides.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Odraude, I am pretty middle of the road politically. I mean ACTUALLY middle of the road, not what people believe is middle of the road. In the old days I'd have described myself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, when those terms had not been corrupted into uselessness by the polarizing forces in our culture today.
What is "middle of the road" is completely dependant on the context. Just here in Sweden, what was "middle of the road" just 40 years ago is considered leftist enough to get the swedish intelligence agency to infiltrate parties promoting those politics, and what was 40 years ago considered economically right-wing extreme is now in majority in the parliament... And those would probably be considered standard run of the mill republicans economically, and standard run of the mill democrats in terms of LGBTQ-rights and women's rights over in the US.
There isn't such a thing as the "middle" of the map since the map is of different things in different places at different times. 60 years ago the very majority of the swedes would have backed my political stances, nowadays I'm seen as kind of an "extremist" in views on economics and democracy.
Pocohantas doesn't perpetuate racism, but it continues the falsehoods that are too often institutionalized to young people. We gloss over and misrepresent history with Indians because its not compatible with the "great history of America" and the nationalism...
Well, I think when something perpetuates negative stereotypes about a structurally racially discriminated group and belittles the oppression that the oppressors has caused them, that is itself perpetuating racism.
To take an extreme but obvious example, if someone made a movie about the conflict between jews and Hitler during ww2 and cast the jews as "as bad as hitler", that would be perpetuating racism against jews.But there are a lot of issues with pocahontas outside of that too. As said, google and thou shalt find wisdom ;)
there is also a portrayal of older women as popular Disney villains too. the queen in Snow White whom envied her daughter, Malificent in Sleeping Beauty, Ursula in Little Mermaid, the evil stepmother in Cinderella. in fact, all of these women impeded the goals of the female protagonists, and 3 of them used magic to create roadblocks. the 4th was not a witch, but she had her own cruel methodsThere's also issues with sexism and disney's so common portrayal of flamboyant/"posh" men as evil (again see Scar, or Jafar, or several others). Google is your friend, and again, the blog linked above is great. While it focuses on issues of sexism, it also contains a lot about race.
- Ursula stealing Ariel's voice, her most appealing canon feature
- Maleficent Cursing princess Aurora to die on her 16th birthday
- the queen giving snow white a poisoned apple with the intent of murder so she could both slaughter the dwarves whom sheltered her, and expand her empire
- the stepmother who forced Cinderella to work as a slave
Absolutely. Older women basically comes down to two characters in disney: The Evil Witch and The Wise Nurturer. And the second type act only as objects/plot devices; they never have any goals of their own (see the fairy godmother, old willow tree).
Describing being "against transgendered rights" as "hate" is a big, big part of the problem in our political discourse. Too many tribes scream about "hate" whenever any other non-tribe member does not agree with their own ideologically motivated beliefs.
"Hate" is a strong word, and really should only be used to describe, you know, actual "hate." Not simple disagreement.
Honestly, I don't agree at all.
And while I'm critical towards the usage of "hate" as a pejorative itself (I think hate can be very healthy, if it's from an oppressed group and directed at oppressors), I think this hangup on a single word being a "big big part of the problem" is simply false. Getting a hangup on single words used by the oppressed is a standard tactic of oppressors to try to derail the discussion from the oppressed. I mean, it's just a word, and if we as privileged (most people have some kind of privilege so in this case I'm talking to you in those cases you have - whether male, white, straight or cis) want to end the oppression against others we just gotta get over it.
It's very popular for for example white racists to say "oh we don't hate blacks, there's no hate involved" or "we're not racists, it's about culture, not race!" bla bla bla and referring to some textbook definitions because it derails the discussion from them actually discriminating and hurting non-whites. If we (I'm white, that's why I said we; I have no idea if you are or aren't) want to aid non-whites fight the structural racism - both from ideological racists and just people in general - I think it's important not for us who are in a privileged position to nit-pick on every word racialized groups say, because the actual consequence of this is that white racists get the primary right to interpretation and the discussion stops being about racism and starts being about "oh these poor white people who get accused of all these horrible feelings when all they did was hang up nooses with obama".
In matter of politics where one side is oppressed, I think polarisation is _great_. Nearly all large positive reforms that have come have done so through a lot of polarization - whether worker's rights, women's rights or the civil rights movement - or the LGBTQ movement for that matter.
I think all the wellmeaning privileged saying "oh don't be so angry about it, you catch more bees with honey than vinegar" to the oppressed are a big, big part of the problem, and that the sentiment against polarisation is a large part of what allows oppression to continue for so long.
I do not have a problem with players playing bigoted characters, as long as they don't try to pass them off as good aligned, the player handles it decently, other players are okay with it and the player acknowledges it as the character flaw that it is.
I myself played a misandrist character once and a racial supremacist dromite in another campaign. (although the latter character was just an elaborate invader zim reference)
I've found a good way to handle mysogynist PCs is to look at the player. If the player handles the PC with humor and the attitude clearly isn't taken OOC, that's fine. If it isn't, then this is a problem that gets addressed on a personal level, which likely involves: this is not the place for you.
Yeah. I actually have a liberal gay friend who I recently learn is against transgendered rights. Was unusual to find that out, but unusually enough, hate as a concept seems to stretch beyond concepts like race, gender, politics, and sexuality. Anyone and everyone is capable of hate, and of love. Let's not forget that :)LOL, what an interesting thread. I particularly loved the "liberals can't be sexist" comment.
I haven't laughed that hard in a long, long, long time.
Oh, one other thing.
Describing being "against transgendered rights" as "hate" is a big, big part of the problem in our political discourse. Too many tribes scream about "hate" whenever any other non-tribe member does not agree with their own ideologically motivated beliefs.
"Hate" is a strong word, and really should only be used to describe, you know, actual "hate." Not simple disagreement.
Honestly i can't see how being against transgendered rights can be based in anything other than hate.
Honestly i can't see how being against transgendered rights can be based in anything other than hate.
Without going into detail, its likely that any response to that sort of thing can only go downhill. People have their reasons.
Anyways, its much different to be a misogynistic player and a misogynistic PC. The latter is also far easier to talk about I think, and less confrontational and about the person. "Hey, can you tune it down? Jess was pretty uncomfortable last session." Sometimes people don't notice they're causing a problem like that, and they really didn't intend to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ilja, it is the very nature of any discussion of "rights" that there will be conflict between the "rights" of the petitioner and the "rights" of those who disagree with the petitioner.
This is in part because people tend to define as a "right" something that they personally desire and view as a reasonable desire that should not be denied.
The oldest maxim about rights is this one. "Your 'right' to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
It is the absolute disregard for this natural conflict between people's opposing views about "rights" that leads to the polarization I see.
Let's just look at one recent case of a transgender related lawsuit here in Colorado. There was a young pre-surgery transgender "girl" who wanted to use the girl's restroom because that is how she defined her sexuality.
There is a definite argument to be made that sexual self-identification is a powerful aspect of a person's personality and that if the child identifies as a girl, she should be allowed to act like a girl.
And that is what the courts finally ruled.
The opposing point of view in this lawsuit was not based on "hate" of the child, but was based on the view mostly by parents of other young girls, that they had a "right" to expect their little girls to go to a public elementary school bathroom without risk of running into someone with a penis.
Now, apparently those people have no such "right."
They thought they did. They mostly probably still believe that they have that "right."
So this was a case where two groups each felt they had a "right" and those "rights" were in conflict and had to be adjudicated by the courts.
Calling parents who feel their elementary school daughter should not run the risk of encountering a penis in the girls bathroom "haters" is not fair or reasonable. But that's how they were described.
Honestly i can't see how being against transgendered rights can be based in anything other than hate.Yeah. I actually have a liberal gay friend who I recently learn is against transgendered rights. Was unusual to find that out, but unusually enough, hate as a concept seems to stretch beyond concepts like race, gender, politics, and sexuality. Anyone and everyone is capable of hate, and of love. Let's not forget that :)LOL, what an interesting thread. I particularly loved the "liberals can't be sexist" comment.
I haven't laughed that hard in a long, long, long time.
Oh, one other thing.
Describing being "against transgendered rights" as "hate" is a big, big part of the problem in our political discourse. Too many tribes scream about "hate" whenever any other non-tribe member does not agree with their own ideologically motivated beliefs.
"Hate" is a strong word, and really should only be used to describe, you know, actual "hate." Not simple disagreement.
Since transgendered have all the same rights everyone else does, I am guessing AD meant preferential treatment under the law not stripping away the rights all humans have. And preferential treatment is highly debatable. Being against preferential treatment is hardly "hate".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since transgendered have all the same rights everyone else does, I am guessing AD meant preferential treatment under the law not stripping away the rights all humans have. And preferential treatment is highly debatable. Being against preferential treatment is hardly "hate".Honestly i can't see how being against transgendered rights can be based in anything other than hate.Yeah. I actually have a liberal gay friend who I recently learn is against transgendered rights. Was unusual to find that out, but unusually enough, hate as a concept seems to stretch beyond concepts like race, gender, politics, and sexuality. Anyone and everyone is capable of hate, and of love. Let's not forget that :)LOL, what an interesting thread. I particularly loved the "liberals can't be sexist" comment.
I haven't laughed that hard in a long, long, long time.
Oh, one other thing.
Describing being "against transgendered rights" as "hate" is a big, big part of the problem in our political discourse. Too many tribes scream about "hate" whenever any other non-tribe member does not agree with their own ideologically motivated beliefs.
"Hate" is a strong word, and really should only be used to describe, you know, actual "hate." Not simple disagreement.
Yes, I did mean that. But I also meant that a "right" is something that is debatable, and always has been debatable, until it is codified into law. There is a concept of "natural rights" such as those mentioned in the US's Declaration of Independence, but those are generally abstractions such as "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". It is rare that someone will claim that a pre-surgery elementary school transgendered girl using a girl's bathroom is a "natural right." Those are rights that the courts decide on a daily basis. And sometimes that decision is very difficult and BOTH SIDES have valid points in the debate.
What I find to be offensive is that both sides tend to view the other side as being "hateful" or some other derogatory term.
It has become nearly impossible to discuss any of these things and take a "I see your point, but I disagree for these reasons" perspective. Everything becomes "you agree with me or you're a dirty hater!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are we still talking about DnD?
thejeff...
Last time I checked, these boards are moderated.
Lots of discussions go off-topic on occasion. I've never understood why that irritates some people so much. Honestly I tend to find the off-topic conversations much more interesting and fulfilling than yet another "I play a half-orc who loves to toss dwarfs!" post.
There, I took it back on topic.
Are we still talking about DnD?
I thought we were talking about Pathfinder.