Larry Correia cites Pathfinder for diversity in gaming.


Gamer Life General Discussion

201 to 250 of 513 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Hama wrote:
Or maybe people are uncomfortable because they are being accused of stuff they are not doing?

Or because they're not paying enough attention to realize they're not being accused of what they think they're being accused of?

But it is entirely the black people's responsibility to educate white people about it and to do so without hurting their feelings. And if they ever slip up and let on that they are hurt or offended by what they see around them everyday, they're the racists.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

If we stop using the word 'privilege' and use a different word, then pretty soon THAT word will become the emotionally charged one that Caineach and those coming from the same position will be advising us not to use because it turns people off.

To hell with that. The reason people become uncomfortable with being told they bear a share of responsibility for a state of racial, gender, or similar inequality in society, insofar as they benefit from it in ways that minorities cannot, is because they are scared, subconsciously, that their privileges are going to be taken away. White people are scared of having more trouble getting jobs because they don't have a built in advantage over everyone else when being hired. Men are scared of having a harder time getting laid because they have to acquire enthusiastic consent before having sex with a woman. Christians are scared of having their children being taught that other religions, and nonreligiousness are the legal and logical equals of Christianity, because it may make it harder to keep their children in the faith when they know that there are other options.

These are not conscious fears, but they are one of the reasons why people get defensive and upset when you discuss their privileges.

I think you're going a bit far with the insinuation that every white person, every male, or every Christian who is made uncomfortable by being told that they are personally and offensively racist is harboring subconscious fears of losing privileges they are not even conscious of enjoying.

I think there are plenty of people who are consciously afraid of those things. And there may be some who are subconsciously afraid of those things. But that every single white person, male, or Christian who objects to being accused of being part of the problem is subconsciously trying to avoid losing out is going a few steps too far.

I'm going to be blunt: You need white people on your side. You need men on your side. You need Christians on your side. No matter what major social shift you are trying to make happen, you need these people to be on your side. By all means, assign blame where it's due. But restrain yourself from becoming so zealous in your rhetoric that you end up causing those who are already on your side (to say nothing of those who aren't, but who could be) to question whether they want to be associated with that kind of fervor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I liked one of Scott's comments. it's like the 3rd time - do I have to start playing 4E now ;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
MeanDM wrote:

There's some pretty unpleasant undercurrents going on in the criticism of Larry Corriea. The fact that he passes for white makes him no less Hispanic.

The fact that a couple of posters here have used that, combined with the fact he "passes as white" to minimize his position is pretty darn racist. You don't get to choose his ethnicity to minimize his arguments.

I didn't want to be the only one to bring this up, but I have noticed that as well. I may not personally like all of Correia's commentary, but sticking to the flaws or merits of his statements certainly helps in a discussion.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
I liked one of Scott's comments. it's like the 3rd time

*notches bedpost*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

If we stop using the word 'privilege' and use a different word, then pretty soon THAT word will become the emotionally charged one that Caineach and those coming from the same position will be advising us not to use because it turns people off.

To hell with that. The reason people become uncomfortable with being told they bear a share of responsibility for a state of racial, gender, or similar inequality in society, insofar as they benefit from it in ways that minorities cannot, is because they are scared, subconsciously, that their privileges are going to be taken away. White people are scared of having more trouble getting jobs because they don't have a built in advantage over everyone else when being hired. Men are scared of having a harder time getting laid because they have to acquire enthusiastic consent before having sex with a woman. Christians are scared of having their children being taught that other religions, and nonreligiousness are the legal and logical equals of Christianity, because it may make it harder to keep their children in the faith when they know that there are other options.

These are not conscious fears, but they are one of the reasons why people get defensive and upset when you discuss their privileges.

I think you're going a bit far with the insinuation that every white person, every male, or every Christian who is made uncomfortable by being told that they are personally and offensively racist is harboring subconscious fears of losing privileges they are not even conscious of enjoying.

I think there are plenty of people who are consciously afraid of those things. And there may be some who are subconsciously afraid of those things. But that every single white person, male, or Christian who objects to being accused of being part of the problem is subconsciously trying to avoid losing out is going a few steps too far.

I'm going to be blunt: You need white people on your side. You need men on your...

It seems to me that part of the issue some take with the word "privilege" lies in the idea that one "enjoys" it. There in lies the rub, whites don't enjoys white privilege. In fact, whites aren't even aware of white privilege unless they are actively thinking about it.

"Gosh, I sure am enjoying the fact that the cops didn't pull me over for being white just now!" "Yep! High-five White Brother!"

"Yea! I just got a new job, sure am glad I'm white!"

These things don't occur to white people.

So, the second part of that issue comes in with the idea of "fixing" white privilege. The problem with that is the definition is completely backwards. It doesn't make any sense to fix white privilege.

"Randy, you're fired."

"What? Why?"

"We had to fix white privilege, and well... you're basically the whitest guy here."

So, what really needs to be fixed isn't "white privilege" because "white privilege" isn't really a thing. What absolutely is real is that non-white people get s**@ dumped on them somewhere between constant and "OMG, you just shot me in the face while I was surrendering." THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.

And this is the really f!&#ed up part. Yes, it really will take getting white people motivated about the issue to get it fixed, and yes, that means it will have to be sold to them. And yes, that means terms like "white privilege" which are really bad descriptors to begin with are going to have to be removed from the conversation before it starts to make true progress. Because, the average white person is going to tune you out if you tell them, "You are privileged because the system isn't constantly taking a dump on you. In fact, your privileged non-dump-covered self is part of the problem."

It's a non-starter. Instead, we should be focused on the "how to stop the system from dumping on non-whites" issue; granted that isn't as catchy as "white privilege."


BigDTBone wrote:

It seems to me that part of the issue some take with the word "privilege" lies in the idea that one "enjoys" it. There in lies the rub, whites don't enjoys white privilege. In fact, whites aren't even aware of white privilege unless they are actively thinking about it.

"Gosh, I sure am enjoying the fact that the cops didn't pull me over for being white just now!" "Yep! High-five White Brother!"

"Yea! I just got a new job, sure am glad I'm white!"

These things don't occur to white people.

So, the second part of that issue comes in with the idea of "fixing" white privilege. The problem with that is the definition is completely backwards. It doesn't make any sense to fix white privilege.

"Randy, you're fired."

"What? Why?"

"We had to fix white privilege, and well... you're basically the whitest guy here."

So, what really needs to be fixed isn't "white privilege" because "white privilege" isn't really a thing. What absolutely is real is that non-white people get s#%$ dumped on them somewhere between constant and "OMG, you just shot me in the face while I was surrendering." THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.

And this is the really f++!ed up part. Yes, it really will take getting white people motivated about the issue to get it fixed, and yes, that means it will have to be sold to them. And yes, that means terms like "white privilege" which are really bad descriptors to begin with are going to have to be removed from the conversation before it starts to make true progress. Because, the average white person is going to tune you out if you tell them, "You are privileged because the system isn't constantly taking a dump on you. In fact, your privileged non-dump-covered self is part of the problem."

It's a non-starter. Instead, we should be focused on the "how to stop the system from dumping on non-whites" issue; granted that isn't as catchy as "white privilege."

In other words: systematic, institutional racism. That we whites benefit from even if we don't actively participate in it.

But that's even more of a non-starter than talking about privilege is.

Because apparently some people's minds just shut down when they hear the R-word.


Scott Betts wrote:
I think you're going a bit far with the insinuation that every white person, every male, or every Christian who is made uncomfortable by being told that they are personally and offensively racist is harboring subconscious fears of losing privileges they are not even conscious of enjoying.

Saying someone has white privilege is NOT the same as saying they are personally and offensively racist. We've gone around and around this on this thread and somehow people are still coming up with this strawman, that people who are saying "check your privilege" are actually saying "you're a racist m$%@#&~#&*!!". A statement that a person has racial privilege is NOT a statement that they are racist.

Quote:
I think there are plenty of people who are consciously afraid of those things. And there may be some who are subconsciously afraid of those things. But that every single white person, male, or Christian who objects to being accused of being part of the problem is subconsciously trying to avoid losing out is going a few steps too far.

Well, if a person is benefitting from the oppression of minorities, and isn't doing a thing to mitigate that, how is that not being part of the problem?

Quote:
I'm going to be blunt: You need white people on your side. You need men on your side. You need Christians on your side. No matter what major social shift you are trying to make happen, you need these people to be on your side. By all means, assign blame where it's due. But restrain yourself from becoming so zealous in your rhetoric that you end up causing those who are already on your side (to say nothing of those who aren't, but who could be) to question whether they want to be associated with that kind of fervor.

I'm actually white, as well, and of course I wasn't saying that everyone is harboring unconscious fears of those things. If I had meant that I would have said that. But I suppose someone had to come in with #Notallmen.

What a person is fearing when they are told they have privilege may not be the loss of a job, or of having their kids become atheists, but they're afraid of SOMETHING, even if it's just fear of being called racist, and this fear is what causes defensiveness.

I don't think I'm making the kind of sense I'm meaning to. I blame the cold meds. *Achoo!*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

In other words: systematic, institutional racism. That we whites benefit from even if we don't actively participate in it.

But that's even more of a non-starter than talking about privilege is.

Because apparently some people's minds just shut down when they hear the R-word.

Pretty much, so the question becomes, do you want to do something about it or just b!*!# about how fuct up it is? One of those requires pragmatism which may taste bad, and one will give you the warm fuzzy without doing a damn bit of good.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Saying someone has white privilege is NOT the same as saying they are personally and offensively racist.

Then you have a language problem.

When I hear "told they bear a share of responsibility for a state of racial, gender, or similar inequality in society" that sounds a whole hell of a lot like saying they're part of the problem.

Quote:
We've gone around and around this on this thread and somehow people are still coming up with this strawman, that people who are saying "check your privilege" are actually saying "you're a racist m*!#$@@+&*$*". A statement that a person has racial privilege is NOT a statement that they are racist.

You're not simply saying that they enjoy racial privilege. You're saying that they enjoy racial privilege, that they are responsible for it being perpetuated, and that they have a duty above and beyond what they are already doing to fix the problem they are a part of, regardless of what they are actually doing.

This is radicalized language. It isn't grounded in reality.

Quote:
Well, if a person is benefitting from the oppression of minorities, and isn't doing a thing to mitigate that, how is that not being part of the problem?

You aren't making any distinction here between those who are doing something to mitigate it and those who are not. Your insinuation is blanket - that all whites, males, and Christians are part of the problem and are not part of the solution.

Quote:
I'm actually white, as well, and of course I wasn't saying that everyone is harboring unconscious fears of those things.

You aren't? Because that's exactly what your phrasing said.

You said:

Quote:
The reason people become uncomfortable with being told they bear a share of responsibility for a state of racial, gender, or similar inequality in society, insofar as they benefit from it in ways that minorities cannot, is because they are scared, subconsciously, that their privileges are going to be taken away.

I've highlighted the relevant bit. There is no such thing as "the reason" people are uncomfortable with that. There are a whole bunch of reasons people are uncomfortable with what you are describing, and some of those reasons are simply that they're not part of the problem but that you keep insisting that they are.

Quote:
If I had meant that I would have said that. But I suppose someone had to come in with #Notallmen.

See, right here: You didn't need to throw that hashtag out, but you did because - to you - someone who disagrees with your methods must also disagree with your goal.

Quote:
What a person is fearing when they are told they have privilege may not be the loss of a job, or of having their kids become atheists, but they're afraid of SOMETHING, even if it's just fear of being called racist, and this fear is what causes defensiveness.

Or - or - just maybe they're not fearing anything except being unfairly characterized as part of the problem by some guy on the internet!

To come at it from another direction, it seems, to us, that the only reason you would characterize our reaction to being told we're privileged as fearful is so that you can paint us as working consciously or subconsciously against it - it makes it incredibly easy to hop from "They're afraid of change" to "They're afraid of change and that's why they are hostile to it."


And, as illustrated here, this is the conversation going nowhere. I don't know why I decided to throw in, even though it went exactly as expected. On this issue, people just don't seem to budge. I don't think I've seen a side give on this issue.


[I started, This guy Correia sounds like a racist and anti-feminist all the way through.

He doesn't even address the issues. The original article notes that there are very few minorities at the con, and that the majority that ARE there aren't there because the Con is a place that wants them...but because they work to maintain the facilities that the Con has rented out. In otherwords...the Con can't simply wish them away because it doesn't hire them....but the ones hired by the Con...they are lily white overall.

and Correia's response...He complains about the minorities being there because they are in Indianapolis and says the ONLY reason minorities are there is because they live there...otherwise they don't deserve to be there and wouldn't be there. This guy...I really have NO words to say.

Instead of actually addressing the issue raised of a small number of minorities at Gencon...he goes into trying to go on a rant about minorities that are employed by the city...something totally unrelated.

As far as women goes...I guess this guy Correia has missed that there have been cases and suits brought up in regards to Cons and it's stereotyping of women and the objectification of women.

I never got to the original article...and I don't know how much racism there is at GenCon (never actually have gone), but the response the gentleman wrote should infuriate ANYONE who ever has had discrimination against them.

Anyways, started to do a quick search of the issues...and it seems feminists have already responded as well as some minorities to the racist rants of the blogger.

I have posted one of the better ones down below...and her response is miles better than anything I could say or word. Read her response for a good read.

Once again, I have no idea how many minorities are at Gencon (never have gone) and no idea of how much the original message went into, but the blog connected to this topic was so racist and disturbing...this was NOT what I needed to read tonight.

Probably won't happen, but Paizo asking to be unassociated with something this racist...would please me greatly...but probably not the best financial move for Paizo I suppose. Still...racism, and indeed any discrimination like this is rather ugly.


As for Nazism...I don't know either...however I found something from last year...apparently there are OTHERS that are also offended by things at Gencon...things which the blogger would probably ALSO just write off and mock the people at while calling them names.

gamingaswomen.com complaing on harassment at gen con

And this is an actual GREAT response to Correia's offensive blog

equality in Gencon and Ferguson's comparison

I love her closing statement

Quote:


Issues of inequality everywhere are serious topics, meant for serious people. They are not the place for internet tough guys who use their online anonymity to discount the experiences of others in favor of narrow thinking. And placing their behavior side by side with the events going on in the outside world put their relevance to the bigger picture in context.

I am tonight in solidarity with Ferguson and my hopes for justice for Mike Brown and his family. My solidarity also goes to those like A.A. George, who are getting hate from the outraged haters out there, and to anyone trying to bring up issues of inequality in whatever their community is and in whatever capacity. There are serious issues going on and they require serious discourse to work them out to build the communities and the overall world we’ll want to leave as a legacy. Haters and unethical harassers need not apply.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

[I started, This guy Correia sounds like a racist and anti-feminist all the way through.

He doesn't even address the issues. The original article notes that there are very few minorities at the con, and that the majority that ARE there aren't there because the Con is a place that wants them...but because they work to maintain the facilities that the Con has rented out. In otherwords...the Con can't simply wish them away because it doesn't hire them....but the ones hired by the Con...they are lily white overall.

Good Lord. I don't even know where to start with this.

Firstly, we begin with the 'he is a vile blahblahblah' as way of attempting to say 'well we don't need to listen to him.' Which obviously you didn't since it seems like you didn't even really read his post. Go on, read it, you're not going to catch Conservativitis or something.

Then it follows up with a clear indication you didn't actually read Mr. Correria's posting.

Mr. Correria isn't stating the con wants to 'wish anyone away' he's making the statement that Mr. George's little 'blacks working for whites is slavery (even if they get paid for it the same as anyone else doing the job does and do it under no compulsion)' nonsense is just that, nonsense. As well as making it clear that its not some sort of conspiracy to make blacks subservient to whites, but rather an issue of demographics. Personally I wonder if Mr. Georges would find it just as racist if the convention hall that hosts Gencon hosted a meeting for the NAACP the next week and had the same guys cleaning trash and sweeping the floors.

Also, Mr. Correria 'going on a rant' isn't unrelated, its directly related. George was trying for the 'how dare those rich white gamer kids flaunt their rich white gamer kid-ness in front of black service workers, why its like we're picking cotton' style accusation. So Correria, again like an adult, chooses to oppose this wild accusation by actually looking at the realities of the situation surrounding it to find what to him appears to be a more reasonable answer.

As to your attached quote, so we have a person (who apparently writes for a group who's primary function is identity politics) supporting a group of people who leap to immediate racial language before all the evidence is provided (The Ferguson rioters), who is indicating we should not get down on a person who leaps to immediate racial language before all the evidence is provided (Mr. George). When all you have is a hammer, I guess.

Also the anonymous "internet tough guy" part of the quote doesn't really apply well here when the subject of our discussion is very clearly Larry Correria, author, International Lord of Hate(tm), and member of the Evil League of Evil along side guys like J.C. Wright and Sarah Hoyt.

My suggestion is to go back to Mr. Correria's posting, read it (after whatever inoculations to Conservativitis you feel prudent), read what he is responding to, check out his comments feed as well, and then see if you have any useful commentary to add.

Grand Lodge

Albatoonoe wrote:
And, as illustrated here, this is the conversation going nowhere. I don't know why I decided to throw in, even though it went exactly as expected. On this issue, people just don't seem to budge. I don't think I've seen a side give on this issue.

The sad thing is I still remember when I used to come to these boards to talk about . . . some game. Packfreer, I think? It's been so long.

Silver Crusade

EntrerisShadow wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
And, as illustrated here, this is the conversation going nowhere. I don't know why I decided to throw in, even though it went exactly as expected. On this issue, people just don't seem to budge. I don't think I've seen a side give on this issue.
The sad thing is I still remember when I used to come to these boards to talk about . . . some game. Packfreer, I think? It's been so long.

Packfreer?

Naw, it was definately about this girl called Peth, and we had to find her.

Sovereign Court

Forums for that are there, scroll up a bit.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I think you're going a bit far with the insinuation that every white person, every male, or every Christian who is made uncomfortable by being told that they are personally and offensively racist is harboring subconscious fears of losing privileges they are not even conscious of enjoying.

Saying someone has white privilege is NOT the same as saying they are personally and offensively racist. We've gone around and around this on this thread and somehow people are still coming up with this strawman, that people who are saying "check your privilege" are actually saying "you're a racist m@@&***~%*@!". A statement that a person has racial privilege is NOT a statement that they are racist.

It doesn't matter how much you say this. Anyone who is educated in the topic will agree with you. But average people don't give a s!$@ about the topic on a scholarly level and won't learn the lingo. What the term sounds like to them is not what you mean AND THAT IS A PROBLEM. You can rant and rave about how that shouldn't be all you like, but it wont change the fundamental issue.

Quote:


Quote:
I think there are plenty of people who are consciously afraid of those things. And there may be some who are subconsciously afraid of those things. But that every single white person, male, or Christian who objects to being accused of being part of the problem is subconsciously trying to avoid losing out is going a few steps too far.
Well, if a person is benefitting from the oppression of minorities, and isn't doing a thing to mitigate that, how is that not being part of the problem?

Not being part of the solution is not the same as being part of the problem. The vast majority of people will likely fall in this category. By painting them with a negative brush so easily, you just alienated them. Good luck convincing them they should take up your cause. You will need them to make any change.

Quote:


Quote:
I'm going to be blunt: You need white people on your side. You need men on your side. You need Christians on your side. No matter what major social shift you are trying to make happen, you need these people to be on your side. By all means, assign blame where it's due. But restrain yourself from becoming so zealous in your rhetoric that you end up causing those who are already on your side (to say nothing of those who aren't, but who could be) to question whether they want to be associated with that kind of fervor.

I'm actually white, as well, and of course I wasn't saying that everyone is harboring unconscious fears of those things. If I had meant that I would have said that. But I suppose someone had to come in with #Notallmen.

What a person is fearing when they are told they have privilege may not be the loss of a job, or of having their kids become atheists, but they're afraid of SOMETHING, even if it's just fear of being called racist, and this fear is what causes defensiveness.

I don't think I'm making the kind of sense I'm meaning to. I blame the cold meds. *Achoo!*

Right, so lets throw random accusations at people we don't know to get them to support our cause. That works so well.


Caineach wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I think you're going a bit far with the insinuation that every white person, every male, or every Christian who is made uncomfortable by being told that they are personally and offensively racist is harboring subconscious fears of losing privileges they are not even conscious of enjoying.
Saying someone has white privilege is NOT the same as saying they are personally and offensively racist. We've gone around and around this on this thread and somehow people are still coming up with this strawman, that people who are saying "check your privilege" are actually saying "you're a racist m@@&***~%*@!". A statement that a person has racial privilege is NOT a statement that they are racist.
It doesn't matter how much you say this. Anyone who is educated in the topic will agree with you. But average people don't give a s+&$ about the topic on a scholarly level and won't learn the lingo. What the term sounds like to them is not what you mean AND THAT IS A PROBLEM. You can rant and rave about how that shouldn't be all you like, but it wont change the fundamental issue.

And those same average (white) people also aren't going to put up with a big lecture about the topic either. No long winded explanations about how race relations actually work in the US. I'd love to have a word or short phrase that sums it all up and can't be misunderstood or give offense to anyone. Got one?

That said, it is fair to argue that using the term "privilege" or talking about "systematic racism" isn't a good way to make a case to the masses.

It's another thing to misinterpret the usage in your own blog post about someone else's post on racism and expect to be taken seriously. Once you're actually debating racism, you really need to make an effort to figure out what people are talking about rather than just make knee-jerk responses to what you think they're saying. That applies to Larry and it applies to some here who keep reading George as if he's saying what they initially misread him as saying, even after all the discussion in this thread about how people actually educated in the topic use privilege and racism.


thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I think you're going a bit far with the insinuation that every white person, every male, or every Christian who is made uncomfortable by being told that they are personally and offensively racist is harboring subconscious fears of losing privileges they are not even conscious of enjoying.
Saying someone has white privilege is NOT the same as saying they are personally and offensively racist. We've gone around and around this on this thread and somehow people are still coming up with this strawman, that people who are saying "check your privilege" are actually saying "you're a racist m@@&***~%*@!". A statement that a person has racial privilege is NOT a statement that they are racist.
It doesn't matter how much you say this. Anyone who is educated in the topic will agree with you. But average people don't give a s+&$ about the topic on a scholarly level and won't learn the lingo. What the term sounds like to them is not what you mean AND THAT IS A PROBLEM. You can rant and rave about how that shouldn't be all you like, but it wont change the fundamental issue.

And those same average (white) people also aren't going to put up with a big lecture about the topic either. No long winded explanations about how race relations actually work in the US. I'd love to have a word or short phrase that sums it all up and can't be misunderstood or give offense to anyone. Got one?

That said, it is fair to argue that using the term "privilege" or talking about "systematic racism" isn't a good way to make a case to the masses.

It's another thing to misinterpret the usage in your own blog post about someone else's post on racism and expect to be taken seriously. Once you're actually debating racism, you really need to make an effort to figure out what people are talking about rather than just make knee-jerk responses to what you think they're saying. That applies to Larry and it applies to some here who keep reading George...

Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hama wrote:

When I say that I don't see race, by that I mean that I honestly don't care what someone's skin color is, and I treat everyone equally well.

When someone says that I see two possibilities.

1. They may be that incredibly rare ultra-empathic super-evolved Human that Roddenberry always claimed his characters to be.

2. They're in denial.

I'm going to come out and say it. I'm a racist, I'm a sexist, I'm a creation of a given cullture, religion, and region at a certain time of our mutual history. When I look at someone I do see their color, their dress, the red dot on their foreheads, the pierced lips, the pink triangle on black button they may be wearing. And I do have reactions based on that. And so do every one of you.

If you're not one of Roddenberry's Super-Evolved and are honest with yourself, you'll admit that you have those reactions as well, each and every one of us. We were raised in human societies, and every one of them is steeped in cultural and racist stereotypes taught to us by our families, our culture, and our nations. The only way to have avoided that would be to have been raised inside a box cut off from all human contact. And I don't even want to think of what kind of human that would have produced, or even if such a thing would be Human at all.

The question is then do you acknowledge those reactions, these prejudices, and keep yourselves aware of them? Or do you sit in comfortable denial of both those reactions and the actions you make in turn? It's not a crime to have prejudice any more than it's a crime to be born with gender. It's whether you grow beyond them or like most, be content to be driven by them.


Caineach wrote:
Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.

Not really. He laughed it off as "everything is racist" and then jumped to the dictionary definition and said basically Using this, there isn't any racism at GenCon, so George is making stuff up. Unlike Larry, he's "a mind reading Social Justice Warrior, constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.

Not really. He laughed it off as "everything is racist" and then jumped to the dictionary definition and said basically Using this, there isn't any racism at GenCon, so George is making stuff up. Unlike Larry, he's "a mind reading Social Justice Warrior, constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."

Yeah. Because that definition is honestly comical.


Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.
Not really. He laughed it off as "everything is racist" and then jumped to the dictionary definition and said basically Using this, there isn't any racism at GenCon, so George is making stuff up. Unlike Larry, he's "a mind reading Social Justice Warrior, constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."
Yeah. Because that definition is honestly comical.

And we circle back around.

I'm getting the feeling that your actual problem with talking about white privilege and whatever-you-want-to-call-it-but-certainly-not-racism isn't that you worry that the terms will turn off those not up on the jargon, but that you don't think they exist.

Cause, while I wouldn't use the exact phrasing George quoted, I think it really is talking about a real thing.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.

Not really. He laughed it off as "everything is racist" and then jumped to the dictionary definition and said basically Using this, there isn't any racism at GenCon, so George is making stuff up. Unlike Larry, he's "a mind reading Social Justice Warrior, constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."

On a related note, I'm trying to optimize a build around swooping in and righting wrongs. I was thinking Social Justice Warrior, but then I realized that a Social Justice Batman/God Wizard would be much more effective and maybe a little OP. [/levity?]

Anyway, reposting the links I provided earlier about what the phrase "white privilege" means:

mechaPoet wrote:

(These are all largely, if not entirely, American-centric, just fyi)

From Tolerance.org: On Racism and White Privilege
-a general overview of what white privilege is
From OccupyWallStreet.net: Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person
From EverydayFeminism.com: How to Talk to Someone About Privilege Who Doesn't Know What That Is
-The two above talk about talking about privilege, and also explore the difference between various kinds of privilege
A comic about what white privilege is: Comic
-I've saved this one for last as it contains some mildly accusatory language, and if you can get through the first three and try to understand what (white) privilege is without feeling accused of anything, you can probably handle this one being 90% informative and 10% disappointed that people don't understand privilege

So maybe y'all can read these and understand the definition as it is commonly understood among people who use such terms?

And, please, if you think it needs some alternate phrasing or more convenient way of talking about that sounds less accusatory, I'm SUPER open to suggestions. Really, let me hear 'em.

As for whether this language is "too scholarly" to bring to "the masses," well, again, what would you suggest? Don't tell me that you can memorize most of the intricacies of the Pathfinder combat system, but you can't engage with what is meant by the term "privilege." It seems like there's a lot of "you need these certain people on your side!" with regards to alienating language. I would encourage you all to be more specific--the stakes here aren't some theoretical conversation on the Paizo forums, this is a serious issue that affects (and if you're not white, pretty exclusively worsens) people's lives. So instead of talking about "the masses," what makes this such a difficult topic for you to engage with personally? Why don't you as an individual person like the word privilege, and how does it affect you and not just your theoretical arguments?


LazarX wrote:
Hama wrote:

When I say that I don't see race, by that I mean that I honestly don't care what someone's skin color is, and I treat everyone equally well.

When someone says that I see two possibilities.

1. They may be that incredibly rare ultra-empathic super-evolved Human that Roddenberry always claimed his characters to be.

2. They're in denial.

I'm going to come out and say it. I'm a racist, I'm a sexist, I'm a creation of a given cullture, religion, and region at a certain time of our mutual history. When I look at someone I do see their color, their dress, the red dot on their foreheads, the pierced lips, the pink triangle on black button they may be wearing. And I do have reactions based on that. And so do every one of you.

Funnily enough, Larry Correia touched on that topic in another blog post, though he was more concerned with the tactical "Is this guy a threat or not?" side of things.

LazarX wrote:
The question is then do you acknowledge those reactions, these prejudices, and keep yourselves aware of them? Or do you sit in comfortable denial of both those reactions and the actions you make in turn? It's not a crime to have prejudice any more than it's a crime to be born with gender. It's whether you grow beyond them or like most, be content to be driven by them.

In my experience, that's what most people mean when they say "I don't see color". They're largely caught up in race-oriented language, where "I don't see race" is the opposite of "I judge people on their race."

People judge people by race, just like they judge them on how they dress, how they present themselves, whether they have tattoos, etc. It's called 'first impressions'. I like to think that most people are capable of looking beyond those first impressions.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Just read the article.

Wow. Just wow. That guy A.A. George has some Hang-Ups that... Shall we say over filter his perceptions.

I just read a blog about a folks playing PF with kids in Uganda.

My wife is trying to start a PFS/Beginner Box group at her school. She is one of about 4 white people in the building. Our local PFS group has as high or higher minority participation than I think are the percentages in the community.

Let's see...
The 2 PFS tables I played at GenCon included 2 black guys (I think African American is currently the correct term but one was clearly not American), as least 2 maybe 3 Hispanics, a woman, at least 1 homosexual (possibly 3 since I'm bad at that identification), I guy that is of Jewish decent (at least based on the name), and a guy from the middle-east (couldn't tell you which country).

Out of 13 people I would say that's a pretty decent list. There was no persecution because of race or gender or anything else. Neither I nor anyone else seemed to have any problem with any of them. Heck, I'd say almost everyone at the table* was a better RPG'er than me. I learned quite a bit.

*Except for the annoying 13 year old kid. Most 13 year olds are annoying. I know I certainly was.

Were all the GM's and PF event staffers white? I honestly don't know, but I would agree that most of them were. Were all of them male and straight? No, but I would guess the majority were.
But here's the thing. They were all volunteers online. The folks selecting for the positions would have no way of knowing race even if they wanted to discriminate for that (no I don't think any of them would).
You want more African Americans / Hispanics / Orientals / transgender / homosexual / female / etc... in those volunteer positions? Talk some more into volunteering.

Is Racism a real thing that sill happens? Heck yeah!
But I saw no evidence of it at GenCon or in my local PFS community. Anyone that showed up and paid the entrance fee got in. There was no one pressuring people of color to not come in the door. Every 6 people that showed up with a ticket got seated at a game table. No persecution, no turning away, no problems in the game that I ever saw.

Is there still a socio-economic problem in the US. Of course. At least 3 people I know in minority groups wanted to go to GenCon and couldn't afford it. (I also know 4 wasp that couldn't afford to go.) But that isn't the fault of the organizers of GenCon, nor is it anything that they can do anything about.
That is a local society/community issue.


MeanDM wrote:

There's some pretty unpleasant undercurrents going on in the criticism of Larry Corriea. The fact that he passes for white makes him no less Hispanic. His criticism of the EEOC forms, was exactly the fact that the ethnic diversity of Latinos vs. Hispanics is not being recognized. It was sarcasm. When he says he. "Discovered he was Latino," what he means is that he's Hispanic, not Latino.

The fact that a couple of posters here have used that, combined with the fact he "passes as white" to minimize his position is pretty darn racist. You don't get to choose his ethnicity to minimize his arguments.

There are criticisms of his response that are valid. Increasing diversity is important in our hobby. I've had some heartfelt conversations on here with folks like Freehold DM and others about direct and indirect racism that can and does exist in the gaming community, but we don't fix that by calling a child of Portuguese immigrants white.

I'll leave you with a quote from the very article some people are criticizing which makes me wonder how those using this tactic could have missed it.

Larry Corriea wrote wrote:


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

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

Mr. Correia actually appears to be white. He seems to be ignorant of what WHITE actually is. Latinos and Hispanics are minorities, but technically, they have been considered white for the past century in the US.

Now, obviously, that may not be true in some people's eyes...but even in South America there tend to be racism...and yes...there are Hispanics (such as Portuguese and Spaniards direct descendants...and even German descendants) that are directly as white as you can get...whereas there are others which are more akin to the relations you may see from a Native American.

There's a reason being Latino or Hispanic, though a minority, does not instantly say you are a PoC...as the term goes...so lets stop confusing the term.

The US census bureau has divided them into different categories, so it's possible to be Hispanic and Black, or Hispanic and White...so being Hispanic does not necessarily mean you are a PoC.

With Latino, it's even LESS defining as a person of Color. Latinos come from any nation that speaks a Romance (language derived from Latin) Language...hence France and Italy and Spain.

In the US, it is more specific, and specified than Hispanic, in that it refers to those from Latin America. In that sense, one would assume Mr. Correia is from Latin America...but being from Latin America is no more defining as a Person of Color than being from the US defines you as such.

The US Census Bureau utilizes it as such

Quote:


The race and Hispanic origin categories used by the Census Bureau are mandated
by Office of Management and Budget Directive No. 15, which requires all
federal record keeping and data presentation to use four race categories
(White, Black, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian and Pacific Islander)
and two ethnicity categories (Hispanic, non-Hispanic). These classifications
are not intended to be scientific in nature, but are designed to promote
consistency in federal record keeping and data presentation.

It is important to recognize that this system treats race and ethnicity as
separate and independent categories. This means that within the federal system
everyone is classified as both a member of one of the four race groups and also
as either Hispanic or non-Hispanic. Consequently, there are a total of 8
race-ethnicity categories, as illustrated by the table below:

U.S. Population by Race and Hispanic Origin, July 1, 1997
(in thousands)

White Black American Indian Asian & Pacific
& Alaska Native Islander
non-Hispanic 194,571 32,324 1,977 9,532
Hispanic 26,746 1,649 347 598

As the above table illustrates, the Hispanic population is predominately White.
Because the number of Hispanics in the Black, American Indian & Alaska Native,
and Asian & Pacific Islander categories is relatively small and thus difficult
to estimate accurately at smaller levels of geography, our tables which display
race and Hispanic origin information divide only the White category by
ethnicity. The complete race by Hispanic origin breakdown is available in our
data sets.

In other nations it may be different than how the US does it, but Mr. Correia is from the US...correct?


Quirel wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Hama wrote:

When I say that I don't see race, by that I mean that I honestly don't care what someone's skin color is, and I treat everyone equally well.

When someone says that I see two possibilities.

1. They may be that incredibly rare ultra-empathic super-evolved Human that Roddenberry always claimed his characters to be.

2. They're in denial.

I'm going to come out and say it. I'm a racist, I'm a sexist, I'm a creation of a given cullture, religion, and region at a certain time of our mutual history. When I look at someone I do see their color, their dress, the red dot on their foreheads, the pierced lips, the pink triangle on black button they may be wearing. And I do have reactions based on that. And so do every one of you.

Funnily enough, Larry Correia touched on that topic in another blog post, though he was more concerned with the tactical "Is this guy a threat or not?" side of things.

LazarX wrote:
The question is then do you acknowledge those reactions, these prejudices, and keep yourselves aware of them? Or do you sit in comfortable denial of both those reactions and the actions you make in turn? It's not a crime to have prejudice any more than it's a crime to be born with gender. It's whether you grow beyond them or like most, be content to be driven by them.

In my experience, that's what most people mean when they say "I don't see color". They're largely caught up in race-oriented language, where "I don't see race" is the opposite of "I judge people on their race."

People judge people by race, just like they judge them on how they dress, how they present themselves, whether they have tattoos, etc. It's called 'first impressions'. I like to think that most people are capable of looking beyond those first impressions.

I'd like to think that to. But then, almost universally, those who've said "I don't see race", then proceed to dismiss any discussion of actual widespread racial bias or the experiences of minorities who claim to have experienced it. Often combined with accusations of racism directed at those raising such issues (because they actually pay attention to race, they are therefore racists.)


thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.
Not really. He laughed it off as "everything is racist" and then jumped to the dictionary definition and said basically Using this, there isn't any racism at GenCon, so George is making stuff up. Unlike Larry, he's "a mind reading Social Justice Warrior, constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."
Yeah. Because that definition is honestly comical.

And we circle back around.

I'm getting the feeling that your actual problem with talking about white privilege and whatever-you-want-to-call-it-but-certainly-not-racism isn't that you worry that the terms will turn off those not up on the jargon, but that you don't think they exist.

Cause, while I wouldn't use the exact phrasing George quoted, I think it really is talking about a real thing.

The issue is that some people have a flat tire on their car. The issue isn't how some people have tires that aren't flat.

By describing an issue with flat tires as "non-flat tire privilege" you (1) skew the issue away from the actual problem, (2) lose credibility with people who's tires aren't flat.


On the topic of discrimination in gaming...it is there. Go no further than Woman and the objectification of them in many gaming materials (though it can be funny to some...not so much to others, there's a reason the chainmail bikini is brought up in many instances for stereotypes).

I have no idea how it is at GenCon, but I do know that there are minorities that feel uncomfortable in many settings where they cannot find those of the same race.

There can be many situations where someone of one race does not feel safe in areas where they are the only member of that race.

In gaming there should be questions as to why minorities do not seem to be as equally represented as Whites (if this is really the case, I don't know, has there actually ever been a survey to this effect?).

It's been around for 40 years now...which is more than long enough to have equal representation of minorities...what about gaming makes it so that they are not equally represented?

Saying it's poverty or money is equal to being racist...IMO. There are plenty of minorities which are just as well off as anyone else.

Why are there not more represented in game companies?

Look at Washington State for example, there are plenty of People of Color as someone is using the term (to tell the truth, I basically never use the term, but since we are using it here for a broad genus of race and whites...I'll use it) which are mostly Asian and Native American in Washington. There are also African Americans, but not as high a concentration as found in the South and East of the US.

Where are these representatives in the gaming companies...and if they are there, why don't we see more photos of them in the photos of the game companies?

It's one thing to draw minorities and others (for more inclusivity, LGBT) in your art, it's another to actually walk the walk and include them in your company, your promotion, and show them in the forefront of your company.

In that light, why are minorities under represented. We know that the players of Video games(which have been less at the forefront than RPGs themselves) there is a good representation of everyone...even in CRPGs.

Obviously people other than the White/European enjoy RPGs, and in great numbers (Japan seems to be equal to the US even in appeal of CRPGs, as does Korea)...what is it then about the TTRPG that is causing the exclusion of minorities? (IF this is actually the case...as I said, I know of no studies that really address this).

I think that actually SHOULD be a question asked rather than having people like Mr. Correia attack and belittle such questions from arising or looking at it and trying to figure out what's happening. Instead he uses the typical racist dismissals that you see in every other end of the spectrum of US politics...and that type of racism is offensive, and very evil in many ways towards many minorities.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.
Not really. He laughed it off as "everything is racist" and then jumped to the dictionary definition and said basically Using this, there isn't any racism at GenCon, so George is making stuff up. Unlike Larry, he's "a mind reading Social Justice Warrior, constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."
Yeah. Because that definition is honestly comical.

And we circle back around.

I'm getting the feeling that your actual problem with talking about white privilege and whatever-you-want-to-call-it-but-certainly-not-racism isn't that you worry that the terms will turn off those not up on the jargon, but that you don't think they exist.

Cause, while I wouldn't use the exact phrasing George quoted, I think it really is talking about a real thing.

The issue is that some people have a flat tire on their car. The issue isn't how some people have tires that aren't flat.

By describing an issue with flat tires as "non-flat tire privilege" you (1) skew the issue away from the actual problem, (2) lose credibility with people who's tires aren't flat.

Correia dismisses discussion of actual incidents of sexism by women, discussion of actual incidents of racism by people of color, actual incidents of gender identity and sexual orientation bias by LGBTQIA+ people (notice a running theme here?). It's almost like he refuses to see - not just being not directly affected by but actually ignoring specific, noteworthy incidents because they don't fit his worldview - bias because he wants to believe that society gives everyone a fair shake and anyone who doesn't agree that it does is a whiner.

That, to anyone who's actually paying attention, is actually insulting.


Hama wrote:
Well, the Japanese just love to mess with westerners by insulting christianity and making Nazis wacky fun. Just look at any anime or manga with priests or Nazis.

Japanese culture and the Japanese right wing parts of the government in particular are super racist. This is a problem in most developed countries but Japan has ones that set off other people's buttons. It's most comparable to how absurdly racist Europeans get with regard to Roma or how former colonies treat indigenous peoples. They're all bits of racism that are acceptable in one country but not in another so those from the outside react more harshly even if it's on a similar level to things they do.


thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.
Not really. He laughed it off as "everything is racist" and then jumped to the dictionary definition and said basically Using this, there isn't any racism at GenCon, so George is making stuff up. Unlike Larry, he's "a mind reading Social Justice Warrior, constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."
Yeah. Because that definition is honestly comical.

And we circle back around.

I'm getting the feeling that your actual problem with talking about white privilege and whatever-you-want-to-call-it-but-certainly-not-racism isn't that you worry that the terms will turn off those not up on the jargon, but that you don't think they exist.

Cause, while I wouldn't use the exact phrasing George quoted, I think it really is talking about a real thing.

1. It is describing it in such broad strokes that virtually everything can be assigned to it. A definition that includes everything isn't an actually workable definition.

2. It describes the issue in terms that make the status quo for the "privledged" sound like they are getting unfair advantages, rather that defining it based on how those who are disadvantaged are put behind. It uses the discriminated against as a baseline rather than "normal/white" society.

3. This causes it to treat the advantages as problems rather than the discrimination as the problem. Discussions frequently talk about eliminating advantages rather than addressing disadvantages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Mr. Correia actually appears to be white. He seems to be ignorant of what WHITE actually is. Latinos and Hispanics are minorities, but technically, they have been considered white for the past century in the US.

Now, obviously, that may not be true in some people's eyes...but even in South America there tend to be racism...and yes...there are Hispanics (such as Portuguese and Spaniards direct descendants...and even German descendants) that are directly as white as you can get...whereas there are others which are more akin to the relations you may see from a Native American.

There's a reason being Latino or Hispanic, though a minority, does not instantly say you are a PoC...as the term goes...so lets stop confusing the term.

The US census bureau has divided them into different categories, so it's possible to be Hispanic and Black, or Hispanic and White...so being Hispanic does not necessarily mean you are a PoC.

With Latino, it's even LESS defining as a person of Color. Latinos come from any nation that speaks a Romance (language derived from Latin) Language...hence France and Italy and Spain.

In the US, it is more specific, and specified than Hispanic, in that it refers to those from Latin America. In that sense, one would assume Mr. Correia is from Latin America...but being from Latin America is no more defining as a Person of Color than being from the US defines you as such.

I'm guessing you haven't heard of a lot of people being stopped by traffic cops for DWH (Driving while Hispanic). A friend of mine basically gets stopped for it - he's Portuguese-American.

While he may not technically be a "person of color", he's not exactly white and brimming with white privilege either.

Ultimately, I think this is actually serving Mr. Corriea's point - that use of the term POC can end up being divisive and tinged with racism. It has been a while since I attended grad school but the uses it was put to there in the 1990s had me thinking it was another version of Jim Crow thinking - just from a different perspective. It was disturbing to come to that realization that the people bandying the term about in their identity-politics stands were using the same kinds of criteria to label someone a person of color as the Jim Crow supporters were using to keep people away from the white privilege of sitting at the front of the bus or eating at the lunch counter.


Kittyburger wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.
Not really. He laughed it off as "everything is racist" and then jumped to the dictionary definition and said basically Using this, there isn't any racism at GenCon, so George is making stuff up. Unlike Larry, he's "a mind reading Social Justice Warrior, constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."
Yeah. Because that definition is honestly comical.

And we circle back around.

I'm getting the feeling that your actual problem with talking about white privilege and whatever-you-want-to-call-it-but-certainly-not-racism isn't that you worry that the terms will turn off those not up on the jargon, but that you don't think they exist.

Cause, while I wouldn't use the exact phrasing George quoted, I think it really is talking about a real thing.

The issue is that some people have a flat tire on their car. The issue isn't how some people have tires that aren't flat.

By describing an issue with flat tires as "non-flat tire privilege" you (1) skew the issue away from the actual problem, (2) lose credibility with people who's tires aren't flat.

Correia dismisses discussion of actual incidents of sexism by women, discussion of actual incidents of racism by people of color, actual incidents of gender identity and sexual orientation bias by LGBTQIA+ people (notice a running theme here?). It's almost like he refuses to see - not just being not directly affected by but...

Citation? I see none of that in this article. I haven't read any of his other posts, so it could be a theme among his stuff. But this Tor article fails to actually cite a single instance of racism despite claiming it is a big problem at the convention.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

The issue is that some people have a flat tire on their car. The issue isn't how some people have tires that aren't flat.

By describing an issue with flat tires as "non-flat tire privilege" you (1) skew the issue away from the actual problem, (2) lose credibility with people who's tires aren't flat.

All right, so what I'm getting here is:

The problem is that institutionalized racism is bad for non-whites. It has nothing to do with how white people don't suffer from institutionalized racism.

The whole point is that it's all relative and comparative.

1. White privilege doesn't distract from the problem, because it's descriptive of the problem: white people have their skin color treated as the default (see: "flesh-colored" Band-Aids), their names treated as "normal," their natural hair is never considered "unprofessional." They aren't disproportionately pulled over by cops, illegally searched by cops, brutally murdered by cops and vigilantes. White privilege is a term that explains the racial disparity that is the problem. You can't talk about racism without talking about the people that aren't affected by that racism in even close to the same way.

2. Glad to know that you don't find me credible for using a term that I've explained several times and provided helpful explanatory links to. Unless you're just talking about some other "people whose tires aren't flat" and not yourself????


BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.
Not really. He laughed it off as "everything is racist" and then jumped to the dictionary definition and said basically Using this, there isn't any racism at GenCon, so George is making stuff up. Unlike Larry, he's "a mind reading Social Justice Warrior, constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."
Yeah. Because that definition is honestly comical.

And we circle back around.

I'm getting the feeling that your actual problem with talking about white privilege and whatever-you-want-to-call-it-but-certainly-not-racism isn't that you worry that the terms will turn off those not up on the jargon, but that you don't think they exist.

Cause, while I wouldn't use the exact phrasing George quoted, I think it really is talking about a real thing.

The issue is that some people have a flat tire on their car. The issue isn't how some people have tires that aren't flat.

By describing an issue with flat tires as "non-flat tire privilege" you (1) skew the issue away from the actual problem, (2) lose credibility with people who's tires aren't flat.

Except that in this case we were talking about the definition of racism.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:


2. Glad to know that you don't find me credible for using a term that I've explained several times and provided helpful explanatory links to. Unless you're just talking about some other "people whose tires aren't flat" and not yourself????

I have to say that the article by Gina Crosley-Corcoran is particularly helpful since it also focuses on the intersectionality that people experience with overlapping fields of privilege/lack of privilege. I had read it before and thought it was quite well done.

But I'd say George and his blog post still needs to go from the fact that white privilege has had an effect on the racial makeup of Gen Con attendees compared to that of the Indiana Convention Center employees and "Houston, we have a problem." And he isn't doing so.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

And we circle back around.

I'm getting the feeling that your actual problem with talking about white privilege and whatever-you-want-to-call-it-but-certainly-not-racism isn't that you worry that the terms will turn off those not up on the jargon, but that you don't think they exist.

Cause, while I wouldn't use the exact phrasing George quoted, I think it really is talking about a real thing.

And I get the feeling you're getting so upset over this discussion because people are challenging the sop you use to assuage your white middle class liberal guilt that racism still exists in place of actually trying to solve the issues.

See other people can be dismissive too.

There's two main problems with the term white privilege is that:

1: It's divisive and accusatory. Especially since it's usually brought up in a way the implies or outright states that someone has gotten stuff they don't deserve and are actively benefiting from it like they're a member of some secret club. Now hold your horses, we'll get to the bilous lump forming in your throat in a second.

2: It's an incorrect phrase, which is where the major issues in problem 1 come from. A privilege is a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people. That's how pretty much every person who isn't versed on your jargon definition views it. Now part of why white people don't view themselves as privileged is because the advantages of not being subject to the horrors of institutional racism are invisible to most of them. The other problem is because most people don't see those advantages and benefits (not being harassed by the police, access to capital, not being assumed to be a criminal or a drug user or on welfare or whatever) as being special rights and privileges. They see them as the steady state of life.

You what? They're fscking right. The goal is equality, right? To eliminate white privilege by raising everyone up to the same standard of rights and access and whatever. Right?

Well when you talk about white privilege and eliminating it of course the immediate response is negative. Not because people (with glaring, horrible, repugnant exceptions) want to be better than people of color, but because the language used implies pulling everyone down to the same sucky level of hopelessness and official abuse that people of color suffer.

If you want a useful, tactically viable phrase you need to flip it around because:

1: It doesn't get people's hackles up.
2: It's not a non-intuitive abuse of the English language that way.

What you're addressing is colored detriment. Being a person of color in the United States, historically and currently, means you suffer from numerous disadvantages and abridgments of your rights. Many people who do not suffer these disadvantages do not see them do to the simple human tendency of assuming most people and their circumstances are, at the core, like them and theirs.

If I knew how to solve all of the issues that continue to contribute to colored detriment I'd give you an action plan. I don't though. So I call out ignorance on the issue where I see it. I treat everyone as equally and respectfully as I can. I do all I can to suppress prejudices and assumptions. I engage in political action to help address disparities and imbalances. I call out stupid bullcrap from the radical extremes of both sides. if you have some other, actionable, suggestions for things to do I'm more than happy to discuss them. Just repeating "reduce white privilege" over and over like a mantra is not useful or meaaningful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

On the topic of discrimination in gaming...it is there. Go no further than Woman and the objectification of them in many gaming materials (though it can be funny to some...not so much to others, there's a reason the chainmail bikini is brought up in many instances for stereotypes).

I have no idea how it is at GenCon, but I do know that there are minorities that feel uncomfortable in many settings where they cannot find those of the same race.

There can be many situations where someone of one race does not feel safe in areas where they are the only member of that race.

In gaming there should be questions as to why minorities do not seem to be as equally represented as Whites (if this is really the case, I don't know, has there actually ever been a survey to this effect?).

It's been around for 40 years now...which is more than long enough to have equal representation of minorities...what about gaming makes it so that they are not equally represented?

Saying it's poverty or money is equal to being racist...IMO. There are plenty of minorities which are just as well off as anyone else.

Why are there not more represented in game companies?

Look at Washington State for example, there are plenty of People of Color as someone is using the term (to tell the truth, I basically never use the term, but since we are using it here for a broad genus of race and whites...I'll use it) which are mostly Asian and Native American in Washington. There are also African Americans, but not as high a concentration as found in the South and East of the US.

Where are these representatives in the gaming companies...and if they are there, why don't we see more photos of them in the photos of the game companies?

It's one thing to draw minorities and others (for more inclusivity, LGBT) in your art, it's another to actually walk the walk and include them in your company, your promotion, and show them in the forefront of your company.

In that light, why are minorities under represented. We know that the players of Video games(which have been less at the forefront than RPGs themselves) there is a good representation of everyone...even in CRPGs.

Obviously people other than the White/European enjoy RPGs, and in great numbers (Japan seems to be equal to the US even in appeal of CRPGs, as does Korea)...what is it then about the TTRPG that is causing the exclusion of minorities? (IF this is actually the case...as I said, I know of no studies that really address this).

I think that actually SHOULD be a question asked rather than having people like Mr. Correia attack and belittle such questions from arising or looking at it and trying to figure out what's happening. Instead he uses the typical racist dismissals that you see in every other end of the spectrum of US politics...and that type of racism is offensive, and very evil in many ways towards many minorities.

Seriously, social dynamics and the way ideas spread.

Gaming started as a middle class white hobby, and still is middle class. Most of its popularity is from word of mouth. The people involved spread it to their friends. Since friend circles are racially segregated because of economic segregation that led to geographic and cultural segregation, it mostly spread to other white people. 40 years later, the predominant advertising is still through friend circles, and those friend circles are still racially segregated.


Kittyburger wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Correia's blog post is pointing out that the majority of people will use the actual dictionary definition, rather than the one the Tor article uses. Also, he points out he thinks that definition is dumb (and a lot of people do), because it says everything is racist. Just because liberal polysci groups have taken to a definition doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. There is lots of criticism out there on the definition the tor article uses, and not all of it is crap.
Not really. He laughed it off as "everything is racist" and then jumped to the dictionary definition and said basically Using this, there isn't any racism at GenCon, so George is making stuff up. Unlike Larry, he's "a mind reading Social Justice Warrior, constantly perched like a falcon, ready to swoop in to right wrongs."
Yeah. Because that definition is honestly comical.

And we circle back around.

I'm getting the feeling that your actual problem with talking about white privilege and whatever-you-want-to-call-it-but-certainly-not-racism isn't that you worry that the terms will turn off those not up on the jargon, but that you don't think they exist.

Cause, while I wouldn't use the exact phrasing George quoted, I think it really is talking about a real thing.

The issue is that some people have a flat tire on their car. The issue isn't how some people have tires that aren't flat.

By describing an issue with flat tires as "non-flat tire privilege" you (1) skew the issue away from the actual problem, (2) lose credibility with people who's tires aren't flat.

Correia dismisses discussion of actual incidents of sexism by women, discussion of actual incidents of racism by people of color, actual incidents of gender identity and sexual orientation bias by LGBTQIA+ people (notice a running theme here?). It's almost like he refuses to see - not just being not directly affected by but...

I'm not sure how that is responding to my post, but for what it's worth it doesn't matter to me if one jack-hole with a loud horn shows the world that he's an idiot. I'm far more concerned with the actions of faceless (though presumably white) HR managers of Fortune 500 companies, small business owners across America, casting directors, police officers, finance and loan officers, school admissions directors, college professors, and retail managers.


Speak for yourself Cain. My first gaming group had 3 black guys all of which came from poor backgrounds. A few years later when a lot of our high school friends moved on, 1 of the 4 new guys recruited was black bringing our total out of 5 PC's to 2.

Though honestly I've never played with Hispanic or Asian people and have only played with 2 females.

White folk aren't quite as segregated as you may think.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

The issue is that some people have a flat tire on their car. The issue isn't how some people have tires that aren't flat.

By describing an issue with flat tires as "non-flat tire privilege" you (1) skew the issue away from the actual problem, (2) lose credibility with people who's tires aren't flat.

All right, so what I'm getting here is:

The problem is that institutionalized racism is bad for non-whites. It has nothing to do with how white people don't suffer from institutionalized racism.

The whole point is that it's all relative and comparative.

1. White privilege doesn't distract from the problem, because it's descriptive of the problem: white people have their skin color treated as the default (see: "flesh-colored" Band-Aids), their names treated as "normal," their natural hair is never considered "unprofessional." They aren't disproportionately pulled over by cops, illegally searched by cops, brutally murdered by cops and vigilantes. White privilege is a term that explains the racial disparity that is the problem. You can't talk about racism without talking about the people that aren't affected by that racism in even close to the same way.

2. Glad to know that you don't find me credible for using a term that I've explained several times and provided helpful explanatory links to. Unless you're just talking about some other "people whose tires aren't flat" and not yourself????

Yea... I'm not talking about me here. I'm talking about pragmatically what needs to be done to fix it.

Thejeff wants to roll his eyes and circle jerk and not actually get anything done. I'm talking about the actual real steps that must take place to start seeing real progress.

Look, I'm a small business owner. I sell business cards to car dealers for an insane amount of markup. My company prospects, sells, designs, prints, cuts, and ships these cards. That's a bunch of jobs. Very few of those jobs require my employees to deal with customer information. That means that I don't run background checks for 90% of my employees.

I don't do it because (1) I don't care what you did in the past, and (2) I don't want to discourage people from applying who are willing to work hard and need the job.

Aside from that, I actively recruit from minority neighborhoods. How did I make this decision? I joined the chamber of commerce and showed up to meetings and talked to people. I met some folks who were members of the local black chamber of commerce. I asked them, "I've got jobs to give hard workers, where can I find them?" They have me a list of churches (not just Christian ones either.)

I'm not saying this for you to pat me on the back. I don't give a flip what you think of me. I'm saying this to point out that progress is possible so long as we can convince other "BigDTBone's" out there to take purposeful positive actions. If we want that to happen then a certain amount of pragmatism is required. I'll tell you that most of the other business owners I know are open to making a positive purposeful change but don't know how or where to begin, but at the same time most of them will tune you out if you start using terms like "white privilege." Small business owners (particularly 1st generation business owners) generally had to work incredibly hard, insane hours, risk financial ruin, and lost their significant others and families in the building of that business. Most of the ones I know did all of that after using the GI bill to get through college. These people are not open to the idea that something in life was "handed" to them and while I know that you aren't saying that, it sounds like that to the uninitiated.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Kittyburger wrote:
Correia dismisses discussion of actual incidents of sexism by women, discussion of actual incidents of racism by people of color, actual incidents of gender identity and sexual orientation bias by LGBTQIA+ people (notice a running theme here?).

Where?

George never mentioned any actual incidents of racism, sexism, or sexual orientation bias. He insinuated that the predominately white, straight, male makeup of GenCon is the result of racism, sexism, and sexual orientation bias, but never actually bothered to identify the actual source of any of those problems. I'm guessing this is primarily because: a) Insinuating that racism is a problem is easy to do (and doesn't require pesky evidence), while actually identifying its source is hard; b) the primary cause of the lack of diversity he sees probably isn't actually racism, sexism, or sexual orientation bias - that's a far less parsimonious explanation than, say, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and so on; and c) bringing up actual incidents would open George up to people actually involved in those incidents offering alternative (contradictory) explanations for them.

In short, Correia literally cannot be dismissive of something that was never mentioned there to begin with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

The issue is that some people have a flat tire on their car. The issue isn't how some people have tires that aren't flat.

By describing an issue with flat tires as "non-flat tire privilege" you (1) skew the issue away from the actual problem, (2) lose credibility with people who's tires aren't flat.

All right, so what I'm getting here is:

The problem is that institutionalized racism is bad for non-whites. It has nothing to do with how white people don't suffer from institutionalized racism.

The whole point is that it's all relative and comparative.

1. White privilege doesn't distract from the problem, because it's descriptive of the problem: white people have their skin color treated as the default (see: "flesh-colored" Band-Aids), their names treated as "normal," their natural hair is never considered "unprofessional." They aren't disproportionately pulled over by cops, illegally searched by cops, brutally murdered by cops and vigilantes. White privilege is a term that explains the racial disparity that is the problem. You can't talk about racism without talking about the people that aren't affected by that racism in even close to the same way.

2. Glad to know that you don't find me credible for using a term that I've explained several times and provided helpful explanatory links to. Unless you're just talking about some other "people whose tires aren't flat" and not yourself????

Your links are extremely helpful and they certainly help explain for someone who is willing to read them. But as you mentioned before you shouldnt have to post those links, or walk around with flyiers to be able to talk about this problem. But that specific term, makes that necessary with a majority of the people who need to learn, understand and act on the issue.

As I said before. Its not white privaledge. Its White, Anglo-Saxon, Straight, Male, Protestant, Wealthy Privaledge. Alter any of those terms and the degree and nature of that privaledge changes.

By using the Term White Privaledge, you are not only invoking a negative image in the minds of those people that most need to be educated on the subject. You are also being inaccurate.

My Name? Not normal, 'flesh colored bandaids?' about as close to my skin tone as it is to an asian person or a hispanic. My hair? Not 'normal' since the 1950s. At the same time, I no one will argue with my choice of mate (I am straight), I dont worry about whether or not the police will randomly shoot me, or whether I will be sexually assaulted on my way home from work (white male). My sense of cultural pride? Comes from the fact that my parents dragged me to school AFTER school and had someone from our community teach me our language, and our history. Didnt come from movies, or for the most part from history books. Hell, the English word for my people, Greeks, is an insult. Not a racial slur. Not slang. The actual dictionary english word was one assigned to us by another people that conquered us that is at best like calling a Native Amrerican an Indian, and more likely a direct attempt to diminish my people's heritage.

We are in fact a disperate nation. The term white itself ignores the diverity of culture and challege that makes up, at the moment, a majority of this nation.

Jews are white. Are we going to sit here honestly and say their privaledge is the same as the rich WASP? A Serb who's family came here to escape the mess that is the former Yugoslavia doesnt know what oppression feels like? How about my family that lived under the Military Junta in Greece in the late 60's and 70's?

White Privaledge is a bad term because its immflamatory, and because its not accurate. It implies at its core, that their all white people recieve this privaledge, which isnt remotely true, since the term white itself, is inaccurate. You arent being descriptive. You are being dismissive.

Do all 'white' people share certain benefits? Certainly. But not all of them share all of the privaledges. And by using the massive generalization that is 'white privaledge' you dont just not make your point. You actually turn people that would be receptive to the idea against you. Many of those 'white' people know what oppression and systemic racism is like. And they would be allies in the fight if they didnt think you were calling them southern plantation owners with the first words you speak describing the problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:
Correia dismisses discussion of actual incidents of sexism by women, discussion of actual incidents of racism by people of color, actual incidents of gender identity and sexual orientation bias by LGBTQIA+ people (notice a running theme here?).

Where?

George never mentioned any actual incidents of racism, sexism, or sexual orientation bias. He insinuated that the predominately white, straight, male makeup of GenCon is the result of racism, sexism, and sexual orientation bias, but never actually bothered to identify the actual source of any of those problems. I'm guessing this is primarily because: a) Insinuating that racism is a problem is easy to do (and doesn't require pesky evidence), while actually identifying its source is hard; b) the primary cause of the lack of diversity he sees probably isn't actually racism, sexism, or sexual orientation bias - that's a far less parsimonious explanation than, say, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and so on; and c) bringing up actual incidents would open George up to people actually involved in those incidents offering alternative (contradictory) explanations for them.

In short, Correia literally cannot be dismissive of something that was never mentioned there to begin with.

I believe Kittyburger actually went back and read Correia's other posts to establish a pattern of dismissing such discussion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Do all 'white' people share certain benefits?

Absolutely! Though I hesitate to call an increased risk of sun damage a benefit. :)


BigDTBone wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

The issue is that some people have a flat tire on their car. The issue isn't how some people have tires that aren't flat.

By describing an issue with flat tires as "non-flat tire privilege" you (1) skew the issue away from the actual problem, (2) lose credibility with people who's tires aren't flat.

All right, so what I'm getting here is:

The problem is that institutionalized racism is bad for non-whites. It has nothing to do with how white people don't suffer from institutionalized racism.

The whole point is that it's all relative and comparative.

1. White privilege doesn't distract from the problem, because it's descriptive of the problem: white people have their skin color treated as the default (see: "flesh-colored" Band-Aids), their names treated as "normal," their natural hair is never considered "unprofessional." They aren't disproportionately pulled over by cops, illegally searched by cops, brutally murdered by cops and vigilantes. White privilege is a term that explains the racial disparity that is the problem. You can't talk about racism without talking about the people that aren't affected by that racism in even close to the same way.

2. Glad to know that you don't find me credible for using a term that I've explained several times and provided helpful explanatory links to. Unless you're just talking about some other "people whose tires aren't flat" and not yourself????

Yea... I'm not talking about me here. I'm talking about pragmatically what needs to be done to fix it.

Thejeff wants to roll his eyes and circle jerk and not actually get anything done. I'm talking about the actual real steps that must take place to start seeing real progress.

Look, I'm a small business owner. I sell business cards to car dealers for an insane amount of markup. My company prospects, sells, designs, prints, cuts, and ships these cards. That's a bunch of jobs. Very few of those jobs require my employees to deal with customer...

Well, I'd rather not just roll my eyes and circle jerk, thank you, nor do you have any idea what I do when I'm not posting here. You probably do more direct good than I do, since I'm not a small business owner and don't have any say over hiring decisions so kudos to you.

As I've said several times in this thread, I'm perfectly willing to drop the white privilege term, but I'm not willing to stop talking about the concept. I do like the term. It helped me to understand the way racism (another term I'm willing to drop as soon as I've got a substitute) works in modern America. Along with the various other privileges that intersect with it.

But honestly, I think and this is what I was trying to challenge Caineach on, it's not the terms that are the problem. It's the concepts. Whether you call it "white privilege" or "color detriment" or "systematic racism" or "fizzbig", a certain chunk of the population isn't going to react well to the concept that America really isn't the land of equality, that we really do have a huge racial divide that is not just historical, but supported by ongoing prejudice. In fact, in my "Circle back around" post, I really should have left out "white privilege", since the real point was the broad definition of racism. Which is apparently comical.

I haven't seen anyone in any of these discussions get offended by the terms, but when they were explained, agree with the basic concept that black people were getting screwed. There's plenty of digressions. Some attacks back on anyone pointing it out. Plenty of attempts to argue that there might be some other explanation in this particular case.

You're sort of an exception, except that you already knew the terms and I don't think were bothered by the terms, just found them ineffective.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Just popping in real quick: this has been a relatively civil discussion thus far, let's keep it on track and focus on discussing the ideas present here, rather than making the debate about other people/resorting to personal insults. Please keep the Community Guidelines in mind when posting. Thanks!

201 to 250 of 513 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Larry Correia cites Pathfinder for diversity in gaming. All Messageboards