Larry Correia cites Pathfinder for diversity in gaming.


Gamer Life General Discussion

251 to 300 of 513 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

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.

Wait, people literally running around GenCon in Nazi paraphernalia isn't a specific actual incident?

If I was a person of color, knowing that white people are eager to latch onto any excuse to ignore the experiences of people of color that don't reinforce white supremacy, I'd be reluctant to share specific examples from my own experience, too.

So, given that this is the perception, and it seems to be a fairly widespread perception among people of color given that it's one that I've seen online and heard in person many times before, might it not behoove us to examine our own behavior and see if it might actually possess merit, instead of rejecting it out of hand?

Grand Lodge

thejeff wrote:
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.

Indeed. Correia's best buds with Theodore "Vox Day" Beale, who is a virulent racist, sexist, and homophobe (I'm fairly sure trans people Don't Exist in Beale's world). Your friends inform who you are, and Beale's a LOT of information. Even without Beale, there's plenty of sexist, homophobic and transphobic commentary from Correia out there.

Correia's been dismissive a lot of women's science fiction, of LGBT science fiction, of science fiction of people of color, of non-American science fiction (lumping all of them together as "message fiction" - ignoring the fact that all fiction is supposed to send a message), so the pattern is pretty well-established showing him to be a pretty big flaming bigot regardless of any use or nonuse of slurs.


Boy, still going, huh? People must be really interested in how diverse Pathfinder is!

Sovereign Court

Kittyburger wrote:
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.

Wait, people literally running around GenCon in Nazi paraphernalia isn't a specific actual incident?

If I was a person of color, knowing that white people are eager to latch onto any excuse to ignore the experiences of people of color that don't reinforce white supremacy, I'd be reluctant to share specific examples from my own experience, too.

So, given that this is the perception, and it seems to be a fairly widespread perception among people of color given that it's one that I've seen online and heard in person many times before, might it not behoove us to examine our own behavior and see if it might actually possess merit, instead of rejecting it out of hand?

Is there cosplay on GenCon? Just asking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, a single racist does not a pattern make. That's no better than saying, "See! There's a single black guy at GenCon! What a true melting pot of diversity!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kittyburger wrote:
ignoring the fact that all fiction is supposed to send a message

I think you are using the word 'fact' wrong.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kittyburger wrote:
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.

Wait, people literally running around GenCon in Nazi paraphernalia isn't a specific actual incident?

If I was a person of color, knowing that white people are eager to latch onto any excuse to ignore the experiences of people of color that don't reinforce white supremacy, I'd be reluctant to share specific examples from my own experience, too.

So, given that this is the perception, and it seems to be a fairly widespread perception among people of color given that it's one that I've seen online and heard in person many times before, might it not behoove us to examine our own behavior and see if it might actually possess merit, instead of rejecting it out of hand?

There was A person in Nazi Cosplay, there was A booth with nazi paraphernalia. Thats 2 people out of 50,000 attendees plus staff, merchants and guest speakers.


@thejeff

Sorry for no quote, posting from phone and the quote cut off :p

Well, I apologize for misreading your position. I thought you were more interested in defending the term than defending the concept. I was wrong.

For what it's worth, my experience is quite different from yours in that most people I know recognize an opportunity gap and general social discrimination but really find the idea that owe something for what they have to be distasteful. (I know this from other conversations, generally about how economic opportunity in the US helped us get where we are. That topic did not go well.)

So, it doesn't matter that they are wrong about the benefit they derive from the color of their skin, all that matters is they won't respond to that conversation.

BUT, that doesn't mean that those guys aren't a prime resource to effect positive change. Now, I'm not concerned about these guys, because I know them personally and I can help them to make better choices (as an aside, usually against poor advice. That's why I mentioned the whole background check thing. The guy who owns the best place in town to get high quality cuts of lumber was convinced by his attorney that he should do background checks on all of his employees. His wanted ads all said "must have clean criminal record." After years and years of badgering him, I finally convinced him to hire the brother of one of my employees who had just gotten out of the clink a few months back. The guy was so thankful to have a job that he worked his ass off for him. Today, that guy is his yard manager and the owner no longer have the line about clean records.) but it is guys like them all across America that will need to shown how to make a difference. Telling people to do the right thing against the advice of their attorney is hard. Telling a stranger to do the right thing against the advice of their attorney is near impossible. Telling someone to do the right thing against the advice of their attorney by calling them privileged/racist? That's a non-starter.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kittyburger wrote:


Indeed. Correia's best buds with Theodore "Vox Day" Beale, who is a virulent racist, sexist, and homophobe (I'm fairly sure trans people Don't Exist in Beale's world). Your friends inform who you are, and Beale's a LOT of information. Even without Beale, there's plenty of sexist, homophobic and transphobic commentary from Correia out there.

Correia's been dismissive a lot of women's science fiction, of LGBT science fiction, of science fiction of people of color, of non-American science fiction (lumping all of them together as "message fiction" - ignoring the fact that all fiction is supposed to send a message), so the pattern is pretty well-established showing him to be a pretty big flaming bigot regardless of any use or nonuse of slurs.

None of this actually gets at the specific Tor Books blog post vs response post by Corriea, though. You don't like some of his other positions, statements, and associations... but what about the topic at hand?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Also, a single racist does not a pattern make. That's no better than saying, "See! There's a single black guy at GenCon! What a true melting pot of diversity!"

Ignoring that the actual complaint was that a store selling Nazi themed paraphernalia wasn't being addressed per official policy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:


Indeed. Correia's best buds with Theodore "Vox Day" Beale, who is a virulent racist, sexist, and homophobe (I'm fairly sure trans people Don't Exist in Beale's world). Your friends inform who you are, and Beale's a LOT of information. Even without Beale, there's plenty of sexist, homophobic and transphobic commentary from Correia out there.

Correia's been dismissive a lot of women's science fiction, of LGBT science fiction, of science fiction of people of color, of non-American science fiction (lumping all of them together as "message fiction" - ignoring the fact that all fiction is supposed to send a message), so the pattern is pretty well-established showing him to be a pretty big flaming bigot regardless of any use or nonuse of slurs.

None of this actually gets at the specific Tor Books blog post vs response post by Corriea, though. You don't like some of his other positions, statements, and associations... but what about the topic at hand?

Character assassination works faster than refuting what is actually said i guess.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:


Indeed. Correia's best buds with Theodore "Vox Day" Beale, who is a virulent racist, sexist, and homophobe (I'm fairly sure trans people Don't Exist in Beale's world). Your friends inform who you are, and Beale's a LOT of information. Even without Beale, there's plenty of sexist, homophobic and transphobic commentary from Correia out there.

Correia's been dismissive a lot of women's science fiction, of LGBT science fiction, of science fiction of people of color, of non-American science fiction (lumping all of them together as "message fiction" - ignoring the fact that all fiction is supposed to send a message), so the pattern is pretty well-established showing him to be a pretty big flaming bigot regardless of any use or nonuse of slurs.

None of this actually gets at the specific Tor Books blog post vs response post by Corriea, though. You don't like some of his other positions, statements, and associations... but what about the topic at hand?

I don't know. Once you realize that the headline here is "Bigot attacks blog post on racism", there really isn't much more to say.


thejeff wrote:
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.

I agree entirely that systemic rasism is a thing. Unlike you, I do have a problem with the words. Sure, once someone beat me over the head with what they were trying to discuss as (male at the time) privilege I learned what it was and how it was used. But they had to spend way too much effort getting over my knee jerk reaction to it, and I see almost the exact same reaction with everyone else I've seen initially exposed to the concept. Former military members are probably the most angered/insulted by the phrase.

My problem is with the words and the rhetoric. There is a major problem in society, but if the dialog used to discuss it is antagonistic in the minds of the people you need to convince there is a problem, nothing will change.

And this is if you get to someone before the people on Fox News get to them and pre-bias them against you.


thejeff wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Also, a single racist does not a pattern make. That's no better than saying, "See! There's a single black guy at GenCon! What a true melting pot of diversity!"
Ignoring that the actual complaint was that a store selling Nazi themed paraphernalia wasn't being addressed per official policy.

Actually, the Nazi memorabilia was not against policy (it was a grey zone). It was the underwear at the store that advocated sexual harassment of the wearer. The guy in Nazi uniform only violated the cosplay rules against being a 20th century military uniform. Also, we don't know if he was allowed to wear it in the con, since the person who wrote the blog complaining about it saw them outside the convention center.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Ignoring that the actual complaint was that a store selling Nazi themed paraphernalia wasn't being addressed per official policy.

That's assuming that it is clearly against policy. There are terms about being offensive and bad taste as well as some specifics about excessive gore (also frequently ignored), but offense and bad taste are quite often in the eye of the beholder.

There are a lot of options for people to find offense at Gen Con depending on what gets under their skin. But the impact of any one of them is actually pretty minimal in a sea of hundreds of exhibitors, hundreds of cosplayers, and 50,000 attendees.

Grand Lodge

thejeff wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:


Indeed. Correia's best buds with Theodore "Vox Day" Beale, who is a virulent racist, sexist, and homophobe (I'm fairly sure trans people Don't Exist in Beale's world). Your friends inform who you are, and Beale's a LOT of information. Even without Beale, there's plenty of sexist, homophobic and transphobic commentary from Correia out there.

Correia's been dismissive a lot of women's science fiction, of LGBT science fiction, of science fiction of people of color, of non-American science fiction (lumping all of them together as "message fiction" - ignoring the fact that all fiction is supposed to send a message), so the pattern is pretty well-established showing him to be a pretty big flaming bigot regardless of any use or nonuse of slurs.

None of this actually gets at the specific Tor Books blog post vs response post by Corriea, though. You don't like some of his other positions, statements, and associations... but what about the topic at hand?
I don't know. Once you realize that the headline here is "Bigot attacks blog post on racism", there really isn't much more to say.

Yep.

Correia has a pattern of bigotry and of denying the impact of bigotry when reported by other people.

I'm amused by the fact that calling out a pattern of actual behavior by the man in question is being called "character assassination." "Character assassination" would be if the claimed pattern of behavior were false - it isn't.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kittyburger wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:


Indeed. Correia's best buds with Theodore "Vox Day" Beale, who is a virulent racist, sexist, and homophobe (I'm fairly sure trans people Don't Exist in Beale's world). Your friends inform who you are, and Beale's a LOT of information. Even without Beale, there's plenty of sexist, homophobic and transphobic commentary from Correia out there.

Correia's been dismissive a lot of women's science fiction, of LGBT science fiction, of science fiction of people of color, of non-American science fiction (lumping all of them together as "message fiction" - ignoring the fact that all fiction is supposed to send a message), so the pattern is pretty well-established showing him to be a pretty big flaming bigot regardless of any use or nonuse of slurs.

None of this actually gets at the specific Tor Books blog post vs response post by Corriea, though. You don't like some of his other positions, statements, and associations... but what about the topic at hand?
I don't know. Once you realize that the headline here is "Bigot attacks blog post on racism", there really isn't much more to say.

Yep.

Correia has a pattern of bigotry and of denying the impact of bigotry when reported by other people.

I'm amused by the fact that calling out a pattern of actual behavior by the man in question is being called "character assassination." "Character assassination" would be if the claimed pattern of behavior were false - it isn't.

The point is show that he IS wrong if you disagree instead of saying well he is a bad guy so he must be wrong. Disprove his point not attack his person.


thejeff wrote:
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.

If that's actually the case, Correia seems like kind of an unpleasant person. I can't say I'm much enamored with him based on the one article I did read, and being genuinely dismissive of those things would put him firmly in the no-love category.


Kittyburger wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:


Indeed. Correia's best buds with Theodore "Vox Day" Beale, who is a virulent racist, sexist, and homophobe (I'm fairly sure trans people Don't Exist in Beale's world). Your friends inform who you are, and Beale's a LOT of information. Even without Beale, there's plenty of sexist, homophobic and transphobic commentary from Correia out there.

Correia's been dismissive a lot of women's science fiction, of LGBT science fiction, of science fiction of people of color, of non-American science fiction (lumping all of them together as "message fiction" - ignoring the fact that all fiction is supposed to send a message), so the pattern is pretty well-established showing him to be a pretty big flaming bigot regardless of any use or nonuse of slurs.

None of this actually gets at the specific Tor Books blog post vs response post by Corriea, though. You don't like some of his other positions, statements, and associations... but what about the topic at hand?
I don't know. Once you realize that the headline here is "Bigot attacks blog post on racism", there really isn't much more to say.

Yep.

Correia has a pattern of bigotry and of denying the impact of bigotry when reported by other people.

I'm amused by the fact that calling out a pattern of actual behavior by the man in question is being called "character assassination." "Character assassination" would be if the claimed pattern of behavior were false - it isn't.

As I said earlier, got any links to an example? You want to make the claim, back it up. Nothing in the article we are discussing shows this so called bigotry, and the onus isn't on me to go out and see that your point is proven or not. Until then, it is just character assassination.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kittyburger wrote:


Yep.

Correia has a pattern of bigotry and of denying the impact of bigotry when reported by other people.

I'm amused by the fact that calling out a pattern of actual behavior by the man in question is being called "character assassination." "Character assassination" would be if the claimed pattern of behavior were false - it isn't.

Whether he's a bigot or not, using that as an argument that his post is wrong or valueless is still argumentum ad hominem rather than actually interacting with the post. Granted, Correia does some of that as well with his social justice warrior stuff, but not all of his post descends to that level. Something I regrettably can't say about every post in this thread...


Oh hey, I was wondering when civil pretense would burn away. It just took a paizo rep to mention how surprisingly civil it has been.

And, for the record, I'm with Kittyburger on this one. This article doesn't exist in a vacuum. The fact that he has a history of dismissive attitudes towards just about everything is important to this discussion about his dismissive attitude towards this article on racism.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Kittyburger wrote:
Wait, people literally running around GenCon in Nazi paraphernalia isn't a specific actual incident?

I want you to read what you just wrote, and then try to see how you might have inadvertently used radicalized language here to describe the event in question.

I read Correia's article. Then I read George's article. Then I read the article that George's article linked to describing the Nazi "incident".

You said "people" - the article mentioned a person. Singular. You said "literally running around GenCon" - the article placed the cosplayer outside of GenCon, on the street. And the "incident" in question was a costume. There was no confrontation. There was no show of support for what was being worn. There was no context at all for what was going on.

Convince me that you're not taking an utterly context-free situation and fabricating your own context whole-cloth to fit a narrative. Because, based on my understanding of the situation, you just said a bunch of things that either aren't true at all or are total guesswork on your part and passed them off as fact.

Which, you know, probably isn't something you should be doing.

Quote:
If I was a person of color, knowing that white people are eager to latch onto any excuse to ignore the experiences of people of color that don't reinforce white supremacy, I'd be reluctant to share specific examples from my own experience, too.

"These situations totally exist at GenCon it's just no one's talking about them because they're too scared!"

I don't buy it.

Quote:
So, given that this is the perception, and it seems to be a fairly widespread perception among people of color given that it's one that I've seen online and heard in person many times before, might it not behoove us to examine our own behavior and see if it might actually possess merit, instead of rejecting it out of hand?

I think you're talking to a whole bunch of people who have examined their behavior - repeatedly - and have made changes to their behavior when they have found that behavior lacking.

You don't need to "try and start a discussion" - we're having it. You don't need to convince us to start examining our behavior - we've been examining it. You don't need to start shining light on these events - light is shone on them every time something happens because this is an extremely vocal community.

We're past that. How about you tell us what's next?

Grand Lodge

JurgenV wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:


Indeed. Correia's best buds with Theodore "Vox Day" Beale, who is a virulent racist, sexist, and homophobe (I'm fairly sure trans people Don't Exist in Beale's world). Your friends inform who you are, and Beale's a LOT of information. Even without Beale, there's plenty of sexist, homophobic and transphobic commentary from Correia out there.

Correia's been dismissive a lot of women's science fiction, of LGBT science fiction, of science fiction of people of color, of non-American science fiction (lumping all of them together as "message fiction" - ignoring the fact that all fiction is supposed to send a message), so the pattern is pretty well-established showing him to be a pretty big flaming bigot regardless of any use or nonuse of slurs.

None of this actually gets at the specific Tor Books blog post vs response post by Corriea, though. You don't like some of his other positions, statements, and associations... but what about the topic at hand?
I don't know. Once you realize that the headline here is "Bigot attacks blog post on racism", there really isn't much more to say.

Yep.

Correia has a pattern of bigotry and of denying the impact of bigotry when reported by other people.

I'm amused by the fact that calling out a pattern of actual behavior by the man in question is being called "character assassination." "Character assassination" would be if the claimed pattern of behavior were false - it isn't.

The point is show that he IS wrong if you disagree instead of saying well he is a bad guy so he must be wrong. Disprove his point not attack his person.

Jim Hines on Correia's dismissive take on nonbinary gender in fiction (note that the post Jim Hines takes apart is entirely similar in nature to the one in question, ignoring the substantive criticism being offered).

If you look in A.A. George's comment section, other people of color are reiterating his experience, so Correia is doing exactly what was said: Erasing and belittling people's lived experiences because they don't match his rhetorical beliefs of The Way Things Ought To Be.


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

Quoted from this thread:

mechaPoet: I saw the picture of him on his website. He's more or less white-passing, which is another form of privilege.

thejeff:The cynical part of me suggests he might just be using it as a dig at liberals who might challenge him.

EntrerisShadow :… I REALLY want this clarified, because this really cuts to the core of why this guy, and his article, are really terrible. He's as white as he ever was - but now he gets to use an obvious error to glibly steal that term with no regard for how people who actually ARE Latino are treated.

thejeff:And now he's using his legal* Latino status as a platform to bash other Latinos for noticing discrimination that he never had to deal with, implying that they're just being overly sensitive for having trouble with racism when he's a Latino too and never had any problems. It's a real slimeball move and drags my opinion of him a lot farther down.

GreyWolfLord: This guy Correia sounds like a racist and anti-feminist all the way through.

GreyWolfLord: 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.

Kittyburger: Correia's best buds with Theodore "Vox Day" Beale, who is a virulent racist, sexist, and homophobe (I'm fairly sure trans people Don't Exist in Beale's world). Even without Beale, there's plenty of sexist, homophobic and transphobic commentary from Correia out there.

thejeff: I don't know. Once you realize that the headline here is "Bigot attacks blog post on racism", there really isn't much more to say.

Kittyburger: Correia has a pattern of bigotry and of denying the impact of bigotry when reported by other people. I'm amused by the fact that calling out a pattern of actual behavior by the man in question is being called "character assassination."

I am citing examples, and this isn't intended to question anyone's opinion. But if you are going to claim bigotry of Correia for things he has said(either in this article or in other writings) as justification for ignoring him, you make your own position questionable by throwing in bias about his own racial/cultural background; implying that somehow racial issues don't exist for a certain cultural group; and linking other traits to him without any examples.

(For example, mechaPoet did a great example of citing links when discussing the topic as it relates to racial privilege.)

There's also been a undertone of dismissal of anyone who has come out and commented about their racial/cultural heritage as it relates to the topic. Ignoring it or dismissing it because that doesn't meet whatever criteria people are defending is a form of racism. "That doesn't count/apply," in this context does not help anyone's argument.

If you dislike George's article or Correia's commentary or what it says about racism in the US or in gaming, then keep it there. Questioning either author's history outside this article adds nothing. To quote Jim Hines from the link above:"Can we not do that? Unless it’s directly relevant to the argument, it feels like a cheap shot, and doesn’t actually address what’s being discussed."


And he is being dismissed as "too white" to have a valid opinion....


Telling somebody your skin is not dark or light enough to be X race is racial vilification - it doesn't matter about the persons politics.

I will say it once more denying somebody's cultural heritage based on skin tone is Racial Vilification.

Mecha poet, thejeff, GWL, and EnterisShadow, maybe you should have think about your approach to this as Scott has pointed out where you engaged in questionable arguments to prove your point. Tainting your arguments for everybody else.


Alex Martin wrote:

Quoted from this thread:

mechaPoet: I saw the picture of him on his website. He's more or less white-passing, which is another form of privilege.

thejeff:The cynical part of me suggests he might just be using it as a dig at liberals who might challenge him.

EntrerisShadow :… I REALLY want this clarified, because this really cuts to the core of why this guy, and his article, are really terrible. He's as white as he ever was - but now he gets to use an obvious error to glibly steal that term with no regard for how people who actually ARE Latino are treated.

thejeff:And now he's using his legal* Latino status as a platform to bash other Latinos for noticing discrimination that he never had to deal with, implying that they're just being overly sensitive for having trouble with racism when he's a Latino too and never had any problems. It's a real slimeball move and drags my opinion of him a lot farther down.

GreyWolfLord: This guy Correia sounds like a racist and anti-feminist all the way through.

GreyWolfLord: 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.

Kittyburger: Correia's best buds with Theodore "Vox Day" Beale, who is a virulent racist, sexist, and homophobe (I'm fairly sure trans people Don't Exist in Beale's world). Even without Beale, there's plenty of sexist, homophobic and transphobic commentary from Correia out there.

thejeff: I don't know. Once you realize that the headline here is "Bigot attacks blog post on racism", there really isn't much more to say.

Kittyburger: Correia has a pattern of bigotry and of denying the impact of bigotry when reported by other people. I'm amused by the fact that calling out a pattern of actual behavior by the man in question is being called "character assassination."

I am citing examples, and this isn't intended...

I quoted the US government's census bureau with quotations taken directly off of their site.

It's pertinent in showing that Correia is most likely white.

This is easy information to see and find (indeed, if you've taken survey's or tests which request racial information, you should already know this...and if you don't, it's right on the US Census Bureau's site and documents.

Correia was trying to claim he was a PoC (as he would put it)...simply because he was Latino. That isn't exactly a correct correlation...and without being able to claim something other than white...could be patently false.

Hispanics and Latinos may be minorities, but can also be white. In fact, when California had interracial marriage outlawed, Hispanics were counted as white and you could marry even if one was Latino/Hispanic white and one was European white. On the otherhand if you were Chinese (you couldn't even go to the same school in some places in California and the west, much less own land, or other things) you couldn't, if you were African American...you couldn't.

Claiming to be a PoC simply based on a false illusion that all minorities are PoC...and trying to use that to justify a racist rant...is really offensive to those who ARE PoC...and even more...

For those who are minorities of other types...in some ways tries to minimalize those who have other discriminations but are not PoC (such as the LGBT crowd).


GreyWolfLord wrote:

It's pertinent in showing that Correia is most likely white.

This is easy information to see and find (indeed, if you've taken survey's or tests which request racial information, you should already know this...and if you don't, it's right on the US Census Bureau's site and documents.

Correia was trying to claim he was a PoC (as he would put it)...simply because he was Latino. That isn't exactly a correct correlation...and without being able to claim something other than white...could be patently false.

And you saying well he's just white is denying his ethnicity. not cool. Keep in mind that some of us that are light skinned do NOT identify ourselves as white. Do not dismiss that, lest you be the racist one


What gives you the right to determine who is what, if somebody says they are Aboriginal and their skin tone whiter than mine....

Then that is good enough for me, in fact legally that is good enough for Australia, other people don't get to determine your ethnicity.

Telling people they are too white or too dark is racist.

You don't get to sit on the board of who is and who isn't.


Selling nazi paraphernalia is not cool regardless of context. It's the same as bringing a real gun or shouting "fire". It makes people feel unsafe. You violate their right to have a good time because you're either supporting nazi ideology or are so tone deaf to human interaction that you shouldn't go to large gatherings.

Edit: Also talking about white privilege on an international message board is problematic because it's only really in America where "white" is even close to a unified race. In other places ethnic divides are much more concrete over smaller differences making it difficult to definitively state anything based on skin color.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Selling nazi paraphernalia is not cool regardless of context. It's the same as bringing a real gun or shooting "fire". It makes people feel unsafe. You violate their right to have a good time because you're either supporting nazi ideology or are so tone deaf to human interaction that you shouldn't go to large gatherings.

Two major exceptions. Props for theater/movies and actual historical artifacts. And it should be made clear what they are, and even then should not be sold in all venues


The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Telling somebody your skin is not dark or light enough to be X race is racial vilification - it doesn't matter about the persons politics.

I will say it once more denying somebody's cultural heritage based on skin tone is Racial Vilification.

Mecha poet, thejeff, GWL, and EnterisShadow, maybe you should have think about your approach to this as Scott has pointed out where you engaged in questionable arguments to prove your point. Tainting your arguments for everybody else.

Previous in the thread, I actually posted the government classifications of what skin based correlated divisions are counted in the US, and according to that, without Correia claiming he is African, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American or something beyond just being Hispanic (many times stated as Latino, though most Latino's are Hispanic, but not all Hispanics are Latino, in the US)...according to how the courts and US system works (Correia is a Utah Mormon, and hence, in Utah, yes, I read through his site as well before making discussions on the vileness of his stuff), he is white.

Tricky laws and legal definitions and all...or not so tricky. He may be a minority, but that does not necessarily make him a PoC in the US.

Unsure about Australian law. He may qualify, I don't know.


JurgenV wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Selling nazi paraphernalia is not cool regardless of context. It's the same as bringing a real gun or shooting "fire". It makes people feel unsafe. You violate their right to have a good time because you're either supporting nazi ideology or are so tone deaf to human interaction that you shouldn't go to large gatherings.
Two major exceptions. Props for theater/movies and actual historical artifacts. And it should be made clear what they are, and even then should not be sold in all venues

Generally those aren't sold but yes when being used for those specific purposes sure.


JurgenV wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

It's pertinent in showing that Correia is most likely white.

This is easy information to see and find (indeed, if you've taken survey's or tests which request racial information, you should already know this...and if you don't, it's right on the US Census Bureau's site and documents.

Correia was trying to claim he was a PoC (as he would put it)...simply because he was Latino. That isn't exactly a correct correlation...and without being able to claim something other than white...could be patently false.

And you saying well he's just white is denying his ethnicity. not cool. Keep in mind that some of us that are light skinned do NOT identify ourselves as white. Do not dismiss that, lest you be the racist one

Absolutely NOT!

I am giving the definition used in the US.

He can say whatever he wants, but in a court of LAW...it seems he probably would be considered WHITE.

Can Eminem say he's African American...of course...but in a Court of Law...would that hold up?

However, being Latino or Hispanic, it is an officially recognized MINORITY, and in fact, I believe the largest minority group in the US.

They are divided into racial groups and ethnic groups...the largest and most normal group are White Hispanics. Comparatively, very few Black or Asian Hispanics are there.

He never claimed ANYTHING other than being Latino made him a PoC...but since Latino doesn't make you a PoC in the US...and he's in the US...

His statement is actually not a true statement without further evidence of what makes him a PoC under the US standards of race and ethnicity.


Kittyburger wrote:


Indeed. Correia's best buds with Theodore "Vox Day" Beale, who is a virulent racist, sexist, and homophobe (I'm fairly sure trans people Don't Exist in Beale's world). Your friends inform who you are, and Beale's a LOT of information.

Correia isn't 'best buds' with Theodore Beale (Vox Day), He goes into it here. CTRL+F for "The Controversial Slate" and read the whole thing.

In short, Correia agrees with Theodore Beale on some things, disagrees with him on a lot of others, and voted Beale's book for a Hugo nomination because he thought it was pretty good.

You'll notice Vox Popoli on Correia's blogroll. You'll also notice "The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse", Micheal Z. Williamson's website. Larry Correia hangs out with MZW a lot more than Vox, and MZW thinks Theodore Beale is an idiot.

So, which friend is doing the informing?

Kittyburger wrote:
Even without Beale, there's plenty of sexist, homophobic and transphobic commentary from Correia out there.

Find it. Provide links.

Kittyburger wrote:
Correia's been dismissive a lot of women's science fiction, of LGBT science fiction, of science fiction of people of color, of non-American science fiction (lumping all of them together as "message fiction" - ignoring the fact that all fiction is supposed to send a message)

He's against fiction that puts the message before the story. He's said this multiple times, and even cited his own fiction as having a message while putting the emphasis on entertaining readers.

Kittyburger wrote:
Jim Hines on Correia's dismissive take on nonbinary gender in fiction (note that the post Jim Hines takes apart is entirely similar in nature to the one in question, ignoring the substantive criticism being offered).

In which Correia takes Hines to task.

Kittyburger wrote:
Wait, people literally running around GenCon in Nazi paraphernalia isn't a specific actual incident?

Not at all.

Donning the uniform for cosplay or roleplay doesn't mean you embrace the Nazi philosophy. Or are you seriously going to argue that Bruno Ganz idolizes Hitler?

Kittyburger wrote:
might it not behoove us to examine our own behavior and see if it might actually possess merit, instead of rejecting it out of hand?

I have read George's arguments, weighed them, and rejected them. It does not mean that I reject the argument that many minorities in America are second-class citizens. It just means that I do not believe that the people running GenCon are racist, and that I find George's proposed fixes to be vague and unhelpful.


So a predominantly white institution gets to determine who is what ethnicity, you do know you are using institutionalised racism to say somebody doesn't qualify as a race because of their skin colour....


I am not really focused on George's statement or document.

In fact, what infuriated me was NOT George's post, but the racist statements made by Mr. Correia, and even more shocking the acceptance of Racism and discrimination among individuals on these boards.

Those congratulating a racist rant and patting him on the back. I've seen similar things posted by TRUE racists (from Stormfront) and it makes me very uncomfortable to see someone restating their racist attitudes as a supposed defense. If it talks the same as the racists, and uses the same arguments...it sure seems like it's racist to me.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
So a predominantly white institution gets to determine who is what ethnicity, you do know you are using institutionalised racism to say somebody doesn't qualify as a race because of their skin colour....

Well...seeing Hispanics were a part of that institution with all it's privileges waaaay far back, while Chinese and African Americans in the past were subject to being kept from voting, marrying, owning land, and many of the other things that they are still trying to gain equality about today...

I'm not quite so sure what to make of it. They are a RECOGNIZED MINORITY....

But they are a white minority.

You do realize that the reason white Hispanics and Latinos are considered white is that they have European backgrounds. They are from German, French, Spain, Portugal, and other European nations and have the same ethinicity as Whites everywhere else.

IF they are of color, as you would, such as being a European who actually married someone from the Americas (such as a Native American) which probably can be reflected in their skin tone, they can do that if they so wish. They can also select an African Ancestry.

Claiming that Latino makes you a PoC would be the same as claiming you are from Australia and that makes you a PoC as everyone in Australia is not white and there are no whites in Australia. (I know this isn't true, just stating a parallel of what this Correia is trying to claim).

Latin America has a LOT of diversity out there, which is probably why it's impossible to define someone's race simply because of what location their ancestry hails from. This is why they can further specify what they are...which apparently according to the census bureau, a majority select white. If they are not white, they can ALSO claim that in addition to the Hispanic minority status.

If he is a PoC, he should state why he is a PoC instead of using something that doesn't fall in the definition (or are we going to start saying everyone in Britain is Non-White now, or some other nonsense).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I am not really focused on George's statement or document.

In fact, what infuriated me was NOT George's post, but the racist statements made by Mr. Correia, and even more shocking the acceptance of Racism and discrimination among individuals on these boards.

I don't see anyone accepting racism or discrimination on these boards. (At least, not in this thread.)

What a see a whole lot of is people accusing others of being racist or supporting racism - including members of this board - without little or no evidence supporting it.

So you'll either come up with defensible proof that the people you're talking to are supporting racism, or you'll kindly keep your accusations to yourself.


Genetics - it depends if the gene that determines skin colour is recessive or not. For aboriginal Australians it is, that is why you have white blond blue eyed Aboriginals in Australia.

That is why you can't tell a person what race they are based on skin colour.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hama wrote:

I'm a Serb. Trust me I know something about discrimination. And yes, I'm white.

What's white? Go to a Klan meeting sometime, and you may be quite surprised to find out that you don't fit in their definition.

Liberty's Edge

Kittyburger wrote:
Indeed. Correia's best buds with Theodore "Vox Day" Beale, who is a virulent racist, sexist, and homophobe (I'm fairly sure trans people Don't Exist in Beale's world). Your friends inform who you are, and Beale's a LOT of information.

'Best friends' seems an overstatement of their relationship. They're certainly somewhat friendly, but that's a very different thing. Correia doesn't defend Beale's arguments, and indeed specifies that he disagrees with him on various issues.

I've got a friend who's kind of a dick. Does that make me a dick? I have another who's a socialist. I'm a libertarian. Your friends say something about you...but they don't say "We are friends we thus hold identical views."

Besides, he's also a friend of Michael Z. Williamson, who as Correia notes in something I link below, writes a fair number of LGBT main characters, and treats them respectfully. So...yeah.

Kittyburger wrote:

Even without Beale, there's plenty of sexist, homophobic and transphobic commentary from Correia out there.

Correia's been dismissive a lot of women's science fiction, of LGBT science fiction, of science fiction of people of color, of non-American science fiction (lumping all of them together as "message fiction" - ignoring the fact that all fiction is supposed to send a message), so the pattern is pretty well-established showing him to be a pretty big flaming bigot regardless of any use or nonuse of slurs.

Having read a fair amount of his blog...no, no he is not. This is a gross mischaracterization of his attitudes. His objection really does seem to be towards fiction that puts message before story. Now, that doesn't mean he's not guilty of some stuff (see below)...but you're grossly misrepresenting him.

Scott Betts wrote:
If that's actually the case, Correia seems like kind of an unpleasant person. I can't say I'm much enamored with him based on the one article I did read, and being genuinely dismissive of those things would put him firmly in the no-love category.

He is in no way categorically dismissive of those things. As I mentioned before, he has a variety of interesting and competent women and non-American characters in his own books, and has recommended at least one book with a bisexual protagonist on the very blog in question.

Kittyburger wrote:
Jim Hines on Correia's dismissive take on nonbinary gender in fiction (note that the post Jim Hines takes apart is entirely similar in nature to the one in question, ignoring the substantive criticism being offered).

Larry Correia wrote a response to that, actually. One I think makes some legitimate points (and includes a response from at least one transgender fan of his).

Now, I'd like to take a moment and note that Larry Corriea is clearly pretty deeply ignorant about trans* issues and how gender is defined in such discussions, and that he thus says some debatably transphobic stuff...but that seriously seems to be from a place of ignorance rather than malice. He seems to legitimately not care about anyone being transgender per se, just against the inclusion of non gender-normative characters in every single work of fiction as a mandated thing (which MacFarlane doesn't seem to quite be advocating, but comes close).

And that's the only thing actually coming close to actual prejudice I've found in his blog, and I read, like, the last year of it or so. I actually disagree strongly with Correia on many topics, and think he's way too harsh and confrontational on political topics in general...but a bigot? That's not a label that fits very well.

Kittyburger wrote:
If you look in A.A. George's comment section, other people of color are reiterating his experience, so Correia is doing exactly what was said: Erasing and belittling people's lived experiences because they don't match his rhetorical beliefs of The Way Things Ought To Be.

Having gone through that comments section...there are a whole 3 people who agree with him about Gencon (which is the part Correia primarily disputes), as opposed to about racism in general. And one of them wasn't even there, and is basing that opinion on photos of Gencon, while another never makes it clear whether they were there or not. So...one person who actually went to Gencon agrees with him. Maybe two. And this amounts to ignoring vast numbers of people?

EDIT: Partially Ninja'd by Quirel. Ah, well.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Telling somebody your skin is not dark or light enough to be X race is racial vilification - it doesn't matter about the persons politics.

I will say it once more denying somebody's cultural heritage based on skin tone is Racial Vilification.

Mecha poet, thejeff, GWL, and EnterisShadow, maybe you should have think about your approach to this as Scott has pointed out where you engaged in questionable arguments to prove your point. Tainting your arguments for everybody else.

I never said his skin wasn't dark enough to be X race. I did say that since he claims to only have found out he was legally considered Latino around 2009, I doubt it really played any role in his experiences. I doubt anyone discriminated against him because he was a person of color, when he didn't even know he could be classified as such. He is apparently the child of immigrants and that is it's own experience with it's own problems, but it's not the same the experience that many people of color face.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Genetics - it depends if the gene that determines skin colour is recessive or not. For aboriginal Australians it is, that is why you have white blond blue eyed Aboriginals in Australia.

That is why you can't tell a person what race they are based on skin colour.

Latino isn't a race though.

That's where the differences come in. It's a categorization originally of everyone who spoke one of the Romance Languages (Italian, French, etc), and then got narrowed to those who are specifically from Latin America, which has people of all races. So they get to select whether they are Hispanic (more broad than Latino, and in the US normally is inclusive of Latinos), and what race they are.

It's like saying, because I'm catholic I'm a PoC...or because I'm from the US I'm a PoC if you say a Latino is a PoC.

Latino isn't a race...which is where the interesting part comes in. If you are a Native (so American Aboriginal, or Native American) you can select that ALONG with selecting that you are Hispanic or not.

However, it IS considered a Minority. In fact it's now the largest minority group in the US. (and as clarification, even if not a RACE, they are considered an ETHNICITY).

Scott Betts wrote:

I don't see anyone accepting racism or discrimination on these boards. (At least, not in this thread.)

You have a guy who blogged a post similar to those posted by people part of racist organizations (most notably stormfront...though you could probably find similar items on Arian Nations, KKK, or other racist sites) and people all over this thread are posting their support for it.

If you post support for racism...what do you call it?

Then again, racist people almost never consider themselves racist (and in fact a majority who discriminate against any minority whether it's racism or orientation or other discrimination), and consider those who wish and desire equality and equal rights as the ones who are in the wrong. In regards to racism this is basically, white=right and minority and anyone else are wrong.

I'm not saying anyone here is racist, but I see a lot of support for a racist blogpost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Hama wrote:

I'm a Serb. Trust me I know something about discrimination. And yes, I'm white.

What's white? Go to a Klan meeting sometime, and you may be quite surprised to find out that you don't fit in their definition.

If we let the Klan decide my lily butt doesn't count as white. That group of angry evil Protestants are closer to European definitions of race that America doesn't have a problem with as much anymore. American racism is more a problem with entrenched cultural norms and wealth disparity than weird technical pseudoscience.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Hama wrote:

I'm a Serb. Trust me I know something about discrimination. And yes, I'm white.

What's white? Go to a Klan meeting sometime, and you may be quite surprised to find out that you don't fit in their definition.
If we let the Klan decide my lily butt doesn't count as white. That group of angry evil Protestants are closer to European definitions of race that America doesn't have a problem with as much anymore. American racism is more a problem with entrenched cultural norms and wealth disparity than weird technical pseudoscience.

Though the Klan and other racist organizations have been evolving quite a bit over the past score of years. You may be surprised at their approaches today. Much of their statements at the denial of racial discrimination is mirrored in Correia's blogpost people are discussing. They don't simply go out and rant and rave...and are much more sly in how they post their racism and discrimination these days.

That goes for many of the Racist groups in the US currently actually.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
I quoted the US government's census bureau with quotations taken directly off of their site.

And I can respect that you cited an example of what is PoC per the US Census.

In response to George's complaint: Of the twenty-seven Guests of Honor (in various categories), only two are people of color.
What Correia said was: " I’m betting he didn’t count me in there and I am legally a Person of Color (holy s@#&, how I f!##ing hate that term)."

Also - in response to George's statement about being an immigrant:
"I get that. I truly do. I grew up in a Portuguese culture in a really poor dairy farming town, 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."

I don't believe that - based on that - he is taking the term PoC seriously in light of George's comments. I also don't know what format he is using as a "legally" person of color reference. But what he did reference was the point that George's empathy for understanding cultural conflict is not his alone - which seems to be a part of problem with the original article.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
You have a guy who blogged a post similar to those posted by people part of racist organizations (most notably stormfront...though you could probably find similar items on Arian Nations, KKK, or other racist sites)

It has some questionable elements, and people are rightly saying that they disagree with those elements.

Quote:
and people all over this thread are posting their support for it.

No, they aren't. At the most, they're saying that they understand some of Correia's points and that they disagree with George.

Quote:
Then again, racist people almost never consider themselves racist

Which makes it okay for you to accuse anyone who doesn't meet your personal standards of zealotry of supporting racism, right?

Quote:
In regards to racism this is basically, white=right and minority and anyone else are wrong.

I don't see anyone, anywhere in this thread stating or even implying that.

251 to 300 of 513 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Larry Correia cites Pathfinder for diversity in gaming. All Messageboards