| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do find amusing that in a post about cultural assumptions, generalizing and offensive stereotypes there are talks about 'the west' as some sort of cultural monolith. Perhaps a lesson there?
If you look at the movie Ip Man, along with a gazillion other chop sockey movies,
there's a predisposition there to make the Japanese out to be the heavies, man. You can butter it up all you want and squawk about the sun never setting on the British Empire and all, but.....the point is there was a lot of that colonialism or worse going on over there as well, and the "grar" of it all still sells movie tickets.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do find amusing that in a post about cultural assumptions, generalizing and offensive stereotypes there are talks about 'the west' as some sort of cultural monolith. Perhaps a lesson there?
Key West, Florida........um,......Liverpool,....uh.......Venice, Italy.......same exact thing man.
It has always been my impression that almost everyone on Golarion has some contemporary USAmerican mindset, dressed up in various cultural superficialities.
The "West" has a lot of shared cultural ties, including history, religion, and philosophy. From a historical perspective, there are probably more similarities between Key West and Venice than there are between China and Venice.
That isn't the same as saying Venice and Key West are the same, anymore as saying Japan and China are the same, even though those countries also share a lot of cultural similarities
I do find amusing that in a post about cultural assumptions, generalizing and offensive stereotypes there are talks about 'the west' as some sort of cultural monolith. Perhaps a lesson there?
Due to the prevalence of consumer capitalism working to structure not only production in the same way (the lives of labourers and capitalist and their relations are very similar, no matter where they live) but also consumption (Coca Cola, McDonalds, Hollywood, consumer electronics,...), there is at least some sense to be made from talking about a "western culture".
But: Culture is never monolithic. Not in one town or family. It is the nature of culture (one might conjecture: its very evolutionary function) to change. And change in culture is always also change in particular behaviours of particular humans.That said, there is a great drive towards cultural homogenization in the geographical territory of said western culture. If you want to think of it in Marxist terms: once a region has adopted capitalist production, it must adapt its old stories and modes of interpretation and structuring behaviour to this reality or adopt to some degree or another, cultural elements that already fit a society under that mode of production. Elements, which are often provided by enactment of capitalist consumption itself.
One certainly cannot speak of "the orient" in that way. From a western imperial perspective, the west is the centre, everything else is the periphery (if it appears on the map at all). Furthermore, historical imperial processes most often were not to any great extent cultural. Most commonly imperialism meant an exchange of ruling elites, with the vast majority of the population more or less unaffected by it. Even such a cultural giant as old China presented only a cultural colonialism of the elites.
I do find amusing that in a post about cultural assumptions, generalizing and offensive stereotypes there are talks about 'the west' as some sort of cultural monolith. Perhaps a lesson there?Key West, Florida........um,......Liverpool,....uh.......Venice, Italy.......same exact thing man.
I know this is a weird concept, but when your talking about that Venice, you don't need to add in the ",Italy" bit. Just like if you talking about Paris, London, or Berlin.
It doesn't make it clearer that your talking about those cities, because in the absence of information to the contrary, the assumption is that when your talking about a Venice, your talking about that Venice.
;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do find amusing that in a post about cultural assumptions, generalizing and offensive stereotypes there are talks about 'the west' as some sort of cultural monolith. Perhaps a lesson there?Key West, Florida........um,......Liverpool,....uh.......Venice, Italy.......same exact thing man.I know this is a weird concept, but when your talking about that Venice, you don't need to add in the ",Italy" bit. Just like if you talking about Paris, London, or Berlin.
It doesn't make it clearer that your talking about those cities, because in the absence of information to the contrary, the assumption is that when your talking about a Venice, your talking about that Venice.
;)
It's contextual, when I say in my trip home I pass through Lewisham, Petersham, Croydon, but I don't go as far as Liverpool. Or if I say Newcastle is to my north east but Liverpool is to my south west and I am not in the UK.
If I said I am taking a holiday and I am going to the New England region I am not going to the US.... I am staying in my own state.
Too funny 8th. Takes me back to the old days on the Red Rattlers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you tacitly base any concept on Real World cultures you are asking for trouble. Someone somewhere will find offense. There is no objective way to determine "harmful".
So is this any excuse to create racist material? Because I'm seeing a lot of the usual code words that are used to justify racism. "Oh, somebody is going to be offended no matter what you do. And they're all racist over there too. So it's OK if I just go ahead and depict Asians as buck-toothed, yellow skinned dwarves that are inscrutable. And while I'm at it, let's write up Africans as chicken and watermelon eating happy slaves. Because it's pointless to actually try to do better."
I'd like to say I'm exaggerating, but I see that exact argument used over and over again.
As I have said recently elsewhere, offense is for people who have an overdeveloped sense of the dramatic.
I've seen similar things said quite often by white men in conversations like this. It's a really easy thing for a person in a position of power and privilege to say. "Oh hey, I don't have any problems with stereotypes about Asians or Africans, why should they?"
For my part, I don't have any good answers, except possibly for the "Fail Better" idea Elizabeth Bear came up with; regard characters as unique people, rather than stereotypes. Do you research and consult with people from a target culture. And be aware that you are likely to get things wrong, and be prepared to try again, doing a little bit better next time.
See, I don't want to hear the same, tired excuses- I want to see people making an effort to do better, even if they fall short. Because that's how progress as a writer and society comes about.
I thought he meant Venice Beach.
Anyway, I am glad to see that Ms. Price was wrong in that one thread and tons of gamers know all about Said.
Anyway, I am glad to see that Ms. Price was wrong in that one thread and tons of gamers know all about Said.
Katie Price?
@Ericthetolle. I'm not justifying anything, excusing racist material nor advocating poor behaviour. My basic tenet is care and compassion. If you see code words then perhaps you are seeing code words for a code I do not possess.
Positions of power and privelige are relative. As are perceptions. You appear to be ascribing particular values to mine and viewing my comments through those values. I am unsure as to why. If my words cannot be separated by you from my (as yet) undetermined status and taken at face value then I am sorry.
Your post appears to cast me in a role that is deleterious to the aim and meaning of my actual sentiment. My comments apply universally, to all. A universal suffrage of patience and calm.
Eric lets take my great grandfathers people for example...
Because he has passed culturally I should not say his name nor should I see pictures of him. But within the context of operating in a post colonial society I do both, I speak his name with pride and I have a picture of him on my wall along with that of my grandmother who has also passed... I respect my relatives who would be affected (not many are) by the by warning them beforehand or putting the pictures away.
When in a historical context names and images of the deceased are going to be shown in a documentary or an old movie a warning is displayed beforehand so that relatives know not to watch.
Non Australian films or documentary makes are generally unaware of this and I have seen films that would have caused distress to relatives because they were not warned.
It is very easy to make the European the bogeyman.... But the world is bound by its own complexities and sitting there saying it's all the whitemans fault is just as racist.
Colonialism is as old as humanity.. It shouldn't be excused and It comes in many forms and the transfer of ideas and the supplanting of cultures by others happened on every continent before the Europeans got busy.
Deadly 8th. ;)
Deadly 8th. ;)
Deadly indeed... :-)
I am not excusing the effects of colonialism on my grandmothers side of the family or the continued racism they still have to deal with. I am multifaceted in my ancestry and have to come to terms with the fact I am a mix of European, Mauritian Creole, and Australian Aboriginal, I had red hair and a red beard (mostly grey now) so I don't look aboriginal and I don't identify as being Aboriginal but I am proud to be descended from Aboriginal people and I have made sure I my daughters know thier history. I grew up a 1000ks from my great grandfathers land and people and I never connected with the Aboriginal people in my community because they were a different country and people.
|
By the west I assume you mean US interpretations of the west.... You don't have to go far to see or hear dismissive, patronising, or insulting representations of Australian, British, Canadian, French, German culture within American media and similar portrails of the US within other western media... It is about Nationalism and ignorance more than anything else.
There is one recognisably Welsh thing in Pathfinder: Blodeuwedd (a difficult word for native English speakers to pronounce just from reading).
And they said it exists on the prairie... Wales doesn't have any prairies. So, the one Welsh thing in Pathfinder wouldn't be found in a Welsh landscape but in an American one.
Coastal plains: fishing, cows, root vegetables, salt
hills and vales: minerals, metals and sheep
That's it, pretty much. A large stretch of central-Southern Wales is just called 'The Valleys'.
Is that Orientalism? Are the Welsh 'other' enough?
I wonder about the Herodotaean approach. He would ask the local people: "What's that?" and then record their answers. These were often fanciful, absurd and untrue. Sometimes he would ask several relevant groups about the same thing and record, fairly faithfully, all of their answers. Only rarely did he suggest that one answer was more likely and when he did he explained his reasoning.
In Pathfinder this is rare: some divine stories and conflicting views of the Scarni are all I can recall.
dd is pronounced th I am guessing....
So far the Australian monsters... The Thylacine, Bunyip, Kangaroo and platypus are all a little off, not quite but they give a sense of what they are about.... I could choose to be offended but I a happy my part of the world is represented in the game....
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the world is bound by its own complexities and sitting there saying it's all the whitemans fault is just as racist.
A common things in discussions of race is for someone to bring up a kind of racial tu quoque: no John, you are the racists. As ericthetolle pointed out, similar strategies are used to avoid addressing very real issues. Let's be clear: when you said "[colonialism] shouldn't be excused", you used that to try to excuse European colonialism. While of course Europe hasn't been the only area to practice colonialism, the modern world is shaped much more by western colonialism than any other brand of colonialism. Further, the relevance of the west is that Pathfinder is made by a western company and mostly played by a western audience. While western society doesn't have a monopoly on acting badly, it's a matter of addressing our own problems. A roleplaying game published in China with problematic elements would have problematic elements, but that's something that has to be addressed within the context it was created. We should do the same and not refuse to address the beams in our eyes because someone else has a mote.
I don't think one even has to approach this as a moral issue. I think the more important thing is not to condemn the actions of people in the past, but rather to understand how their actions have shaped the present world and how they have influenced how we see the world. To bring it back to the original topic, when drawing inspiration from real-world cultures for roleplaying settings, we are influenced by how the societies we live in view those cultures. It's simple fact that not all cultures are viewed in the same way; the process of understanding and creating knowledge about "other" cultures is different from the process of understanding and creating knowledge about one's own culture. Rather than denying these issues, we should be aware of their existence so when building fictional fantasy worlds, we can work to avoid reproducing their harmful elements.
Are you from the US or Europe Viv?
Are you from the US or Europe Viv?
Yes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...For my part, I don't have any good answers, except possibly for the "Fail Better" idea Elizabeth Bear came up with; regard characters as unique people, rather than stereotypes. Do you research and consult with people from a target culture. And be aware that you are likely to get things wrong, and be prepared to try again, doing a little bit better next time....
Is this the Elizabeth Bear and "Fail Better" your referencing? I read the article, and I thought it had some pretty cool ideas about writing that can easily apply to game design and roleplay.
1a) Do not use Otherness as a basis for pointing out how Wrongheaded Those People Are. Or, conversely, How Enlightened And Noble. They're not. They're people. Sure, you can pick the subculture you like and line 'em up and knock them down, and some are easier targets than others. But out there, somewhere, is a 12-year-old kid just beginning to tentatively explore her sexuality as a furry, and do you want to be the one who makes her feel even more ashamed and awful than she already does?
If you are going to write about people, try to be humane about it. Please do not use queerness, whiteness, blackness, obesity, or any such thing as a shorthand for Ebil....
Also, do not use it for a shorthand for Good. If all your good people are carnivorous and polyamorous, and all the bad ones are vegan celibates, we're going to catch on. You're either overcompensating, or you really hate vegans.
I also think that the comments offered by deepad on this article are really interesting too. In fact, Deepa D wrote an essay, "I Didn’t Dream of Dragons" where she addresses some concerns about "writing the other" and cultural appropriation. I think she does something interesting in sharing her experience as a writer who struggles with "how difficult it is to growing up reading books (and watching movies) about a culture alien to you, and how pernicious the influences thereof can be."
...writers create from the richly populated inner world of the imagination, and writers have evolved said imagination in many diverse corporeal circumstances of hardship and difficulty. However—no writer, I repeat my sweeping assumption—no writer is created from a vacuum. Almost the only universal characteristic I have seen in the biographical commonalities between writers across time and space has been their pleasure in reading (or accessing stories). Certainly the writers of the present era have grown up reading....
Her essay covers what it means to try to narrate stories, and how the difference in "uneven exchange with various kinds of power" (Said, pg. 12) influences what it means to be a writer of color and write for a predominantly white European imagination. I think it relates back to idea that the "Orient that is based on the Orient's special place in European Western experience."
Orientalism expresses and represents that part culturally and even ideologically as a mode of discourse with supporting institutions, vocabulary, scholarship, imagery, doctrines, even colonial bureaucracies and colonial styles.
The author/publisher has a responsibility to the share holders. If they publish something that the customer base finds overwhelmingly offensive, they are not going to make their money back on the work.In other words, let each game table decide for itself - the same way other sorts of "harmful to others" is handled (for example, Galorian has made a point to include LGBT characters, for which I am thankful, but some people believe such inclusion is "harmful" and can choose not to include it at their table).When you say "game table", do you mean game publishers should never consider these things?
Obviously individual groups can add or remove whatever they choose, but does the author or publisher bear no responsibility?
So no other ethical or moral responsibilities at all?
By the same argument, if the author/publisher could make more money for the shareholders by publishing something more offensive, it would be their moral duty to do so?
Is it an artists moral duty to avoid producing something offensive?
So what's the alternative? Just don't worry about anything that might bother people from other cultures?Of course not. The alternative is to use some actual sensitivity to context instead of relying on some reductionistic, hegemonic, monolithic Ur text detailing what "should" be done and what is "harmful".
I don't think that discussing what kinds of things are offensive, problematic, or harmful necessitates a "reductionistic, hegemonic, monolithic Ur text." But maybe I'm not catching your drift, your usages of all those terms seem to be somewhat muddled (or is this just an extension of your mocking postmodernism or critical theory?). What do you mean by putting adjectives together? And what kind of urtext are you trying to talk about?
In other words, let each game table decide for itself - the same way other sorts of "harmful to others" is handled
My concern over problematic, offensive or harmful content goes beyond just considering what is harmful to just those at the game table. It seems that just because it's "okay among friends," doesn't obviously lead to it being okay. While I by no means am conceiving of a way to police individual game groups (it being both impossible and undesirable). However, it seems completely within reason that there can be problematic content to a specific narrative device, roleplay game, or character concept and that a game table could be unaware of said problematic content. I don't think ignorance relieves us of any ethical concerns regarding the problem.
In fact, I think that talking about these issues with the wider gaming community has the capacity to start making these things apparent so that "each game table decide for itself." Further, I think that by discussing how we have individually handled these issues (both when it's handled well or handled poorly), other gaming tables can draw on the tools, ideas, and strategies presented here. I don't think it's enough to say, "let each game table decide for itself," because I don't think we as a community should simply abandon each game table to their own devices. We publish rulebooks, adventures, and stories because we want to share these things among the gaming community. Why can't we do the same with ideas about problematic content?
I argued earlier that one of the essential abilities necessary to address these issues is to be sensitive and responsive to those concerns of others (whether present at the gaming table or not). This doesn't mean that we necessarily need to be crippled by indecision, but that we simply ought to be willing to consider alternative perspectives and make an effort to understand and incorporate them into our game design, and roleplaying decisions.
Roleplaying games are participatory experiences, and roleplaying material draws on what the participants understand from there own lives and culture. Because of this, the experience is are bound to draw on racism and sexism (among other things) which is bound up in our own culture. The question is, when this happens (and it will happens) can we (as both participants and producers of this culture) recognize and identify racism, sexism, etc for what they are.
I am of the opinion that not only does this have the potential to address some ethical concerns about problematic content, but it also can enrich the roleplaying experience. It can give the game more depth, and can provide means for interesting stories and themes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, I am glad to see that Ms. Price was wrong in that one thread and tons of gamers know all about Said.Katie Price?
Oooh, does she post in here, too?
In general, though, I find this thread wicked vague. Like, so abstract I don't even know what you people are arguing about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So no other ethical or moral responsibilities at all?
By the same argument, if the author/publisher could make more money for the shareholders by publishing something more offensive, it would be their moral duty to do so?
Companies have no moral obligations or responsibilities.
People of certain religious beliefs may have a Moral Responsibility of some kind. For an example of how that doesn't mix well with business, check out Hobby Lobby shutting down over religious reasons.
A company does have ethical requirements. They are not moral requirements.
Ethically, a company must produce a product without stealing it from others, without cheating their customers, and without cheating their employees.
Ethically, they should pay their employees a wage that matches what their type of company pays for a certain position. Ethically they should make and sell products that are profitable without breaking any laws, and they should maximize revenue for the owner/shareholder without breaking any other ethical precepts (including doing what is good for the company long term). Ethically, the company should do what is good for the company in the long term, not the short term, again without breaking other precepts.
So, ethically, yes, if publishing something some people find immoral or repugnant is good for the company, allows them to pay their people a viable wage, and doesn't otherwise break any other ethical requirements, then they should. From gun manufacturers to car manufacturers to chemical manufacturers to adult magazine publishers to RPG publishers. Company's are not moral entities, they are businesses, and should follow ethical business practices.
So yes, if they publish something you find morally offensive, but it's popular, and it lets them pay their employees, then the company is ethically obliged to do so.
Note that moral is entirely subjective depending on which religion you are in, so that shouldn't come into it. It's no more unethical for Paizo to alter their own setting specific rules for Golarion than it is for Hugh Hefner to pay Cindy Crawford to pose nude.
It might be immoral, depending on your religious beliefs (both might be, there's plenty of religions that teach that D&D (and by extension PF) are devil products), but it's not unethical.
Unethical would be stealing another persons work and publishing it as their own. Or knowingly publishing books with razor blades concealed in the binding to cut players fingers to shreds. Unethical can be immoral, but it is not required that the two in any way shape or form be the same.
mdt, I think you may be using "morality" and "ethics" in a different sense than it's been used elsewhere. In particular, I don't see why you are distinguishing between morals and ethics in this sense. In either case, one is speaking of what one ought do. The question could be restated as "ought we as players, game designers, and DMs care about how the game worlds we create interact with real-world cultures and ought we take steps to avoid reproducing harmful notions?"
For a fun way of learning about some 'Orientalism', I might suggest the series by Kylie Chen. Suggest her books at your gaming table and see if anyone bites.
It's received high reviews, and the author is used to translating as she's from Australia, but ended up marrying someone from Taiwan and living there for a number of years.
She isn't a voice for Orientialism 'in general,' but does provide an entertaining view into a portion of it, specifically, in how they blend belief systems.
I don't think it's enough to say, "let each game table decide for itself," because I don't think we as a community should simply abandon each game table to their own devices.How is that NOT arguing for a reductionistic, hegemonic, monolithic Ur text detailing what "should" be done and what is "harmful"?
Explain what a "reductionistic, hegemonic, monolithic Ur text" is. Because as it stands now it looks like a meaningless hodgepodge of of words meant to communicate that you disagree without communicating the content of your disagreement.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm at a loss to figure out what this thread is actually about. Like JR, I got all the fancy stuff about hypothetical sub-ramifications of theoretical mental shortcuts on pseudo-contiguous image-metaphors and their associated collective constructs, and all that, but -- stripping away all the academic discussion and saying it in plain English -- what are we actually trying to accomplish in the real world?
mdt, I think you may be using "morality" and "ethics" in a different sense than it's been used elsewhere. In particular, I don't see why you are distinguishing between morals and ethics in this sense. In either case, one is speaking of what one ought do. The question could be restated as "ought we as players, game designers, and DMs care about how the game worlds we create interact with real-world cultures and ought we take steps to avoid reproducing harmful notions?"
The term Moral and Immoral are inherently linked to religious debates. Giving charity to the poor is Moral. Stealing is Immoral. Sex out of marriage is Immoral.
Ethics, on the other hand, are not tied exclusively to religion. There are overlaps of course (it is unethical to steal, because you are taking something you didn't earn), but it's not unethical to have sex outside of marriage (provided it's consensual of course). By the same token, it is Moral to pray every day, but it's neither Ethical nor Unethical.
Blowing up children is Immoral in one religious sect, and Moral in another. It is however Unethical in every ethical framework I'm aware of, if for no other reason than it's a waste of future resources.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one from a comparative studies course is there to hear it, do we decide whether it makes a sound based on whether it's an American Poplar or a Siberian Alder?
So no other ethical or moral responsibilities at all?
By the same argument, if the author/publisher could make more money for the shareholders by publishing something more offensive, it would be their moral duty to do so?
Companies have no moral obligations or responsibilities.
People of certain religious beliefs may have a Moral Responsibility of some kind. For an example of how that doesn't mix well with business, check out Hobby Lobby shutting down over religious reasons.
A company does have ethical requirements. They are not moral requirements.
Ethically, a company must produce a product without stealing it from others, without cheating their customers, and without cheating their employees.
Ethically, they should pay their employees a wage that matches what their type of company pays for a certain position. Ethically they should make and sell products that are profitable without breaking any laws, and they should maximize revenue for the owner/shareholder without breaking any other ethical precepts (including doing what is good for the company long term). Ethically, the company should do what is good for the company in the long term, not the short term, again without breaking other precepts.
So, ethically, yes, if publishing something some people find immoral or repugnant is good for the company, allows them to pay their people a viable wage, and doesn't otherwise break any other ethical requirements, then they should. From gun manufacturers to car manufacturers to chemical manufacturers to adult magazine publishers to RPG publishers. Company's are not moral entities, they are businesses, and should follow ethical business practices.
So yes, if they publish something you find morally offensive, but it's popular, and it lets them pay their employees, then the company is ethically obliged to do so.
Note that moral is entirely subjective depending on which religion you are in, so that shouldn't come into it. It's no more unethical for...
Technically correct, but note that at least in the US, publishing things considered (or which could be perceived as so by a large percentage of the public) as repugnant or immoral is likely to turn off a good chunk of your consumer base, and potentially lead to boycotts and other negative publicity. It may also drive talent needed in the company away, resulting in an inferior product.
In contrast, supporting positive portrayals of different ethnic groups/genders/races is likely to give you positive attention and potentially grow your customer base, and improve your companies image.
As an example, see Paizo's treatment of homosexuality and race, which in general has led to several positive articles and has made certain competitors look bad. It's perhaps turned off some consumers, but probably not enough to hurt the company/game.
also yeah I agree with others. Right now this thread would be easier to read and discuss in if there were more specific examples. Right now everything is so rarified it's hard for me to get at the issues.
Explain...I don't think it's enough to say, "let each game table decide for itself," because I don't think we as a community should simply abandon each game table to their own devices.How is that NOT arguing for a reductionistic, hegemonic, monolithic Ur text detailing what "should" be done and what is "harmful"?"reductionistic" - reducing the rhetoric by removing context
"hegemonic" - with a sense of authority derived from the core
"monolithic" - one and only one
"Ur text" - definitive source
So, when I say that you are proposing the use of a "reductionistic, hegemonic, monolithic Ur text detailing what 'should' be done and what is 'harmful'", I am saying that you are proposing the use of a definitive source which carries a sense of authority it derives from the core and does not consider context.
In your comment
Oh, well lets break it down then.
I actually think that my examination of these issues has been the very opposite of your definition. I have been suggesting that we ought to consider the context in which rhetoric is embedded. Not only have I been suggesting this, when I introduced the topic with a potential tool for understanding , I did so because Orientalism is a great example of understanding rhetoric, knowledge, and discourse in the context of colonialism.
I don't know how what I've been saying is related at all to the derivation of authority for some "core." This definition is a little weird, you're proposing that what I am doing is hegemonic without identifying some sort of process that reproduces my power, or the power of whatever system I supposedly am proposing. Whatever you want to argue by this seems lost in the fact that I don't know how what I've been saying can possibly be interpreted as hegemonic.
By no means have I implied that there is "one and only one" source or perspective on this issue. Rather, I am encouraging the sharing of multiple perspectives and opinions as a means to diversify individual repertoires of understanding.
I guess I think you might be trying to argue I use Orientalism as the sole tool in our understanding of these issues, but that is just clearly false. Not only do I accept that there are multiple ways to go about doing this, but I acknowledged that different ways work in different situations. Further, if the issues is that I have limited my introducing to just Said, then all I have to do is point out that myself and other people in this thread have suggested other sources for the discussion.
No.
The term Moral and Immoral are inherently linked to religious debates. Giving charity to the poor is Moral. Stealing is Immoral. Sex out of marriage is Immoral.
Your usage is at odds with e.g. how wikipedia uses the terms.
Technically correct, but note that at least in the US, publishing things considered (or which could be perceived as so by a large percentage of the public) as repugnant or immoral is likely to turn off a good chunk of your consumer base, and potentially lead to boycotts and other negative publicity. It may also drive talent needed in the company away, resulting in an inferior product.
Already noted, if publishing it reduces their profits, then ethically the company shouldn't publish it, as that reduces the value of the company.
In contrast, supporting positive portrayals of different ethnic groups/genders/races is likely to give you positive attention and potentially grow your customer base, and improve your companies image.
As an example, see Paizo's treatment of homosexuality and race, which in general has led to several positive articles and has made certain competitors look bad. It's perhaps turned off some consumers, but probably not enough to hurt the company/game.
And, if these positive portrayals of different ethnic groups/genders/races/sexuality then they wouldn't publish it. So, there's no real argument with what I said, that I can see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The term Moral and Immoral are inherently linked to religious debates. Giving charity to the poor is Moral. Stealing is Immoral. Sex out of marriage is Immoral.Your usage is at odds with e.g. how wikipedia uses the terms.
My usage is consistent with the way it's used in the US, and everywhere I've ever lived, and most of the places I've visited that spoke english.
How wikipedia uses it probably has a lot to do with it being different cultures contributing to it.
Everywhere I've lived in the US (and that's quite a few places) Ethics and Morals are two completely different animals. Same when I was in London. Never came up when I was in Singapore or Hong Kong.