| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I notice about this discussion is that GenCon is expected to solve the problems of institutional racism in isolation of the institutions themselves changing, which strikes me as about as reasonable as not carrying an umbrella because you don't want it to rain. I'm not trying to argue with A.A.George's experience or observation; I, too, think that the numbers of minority service staff as compared to minority attendees are very telling. However, it seems to me that the headline could have easily as read, "This year's GenCon is no more racist than baseline U.S. society, and given the history and stereotypes of the hobby, that's progress!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, George's definition of racism rings very very true, and that truth rings even louder if I substitute the word 'racism' for any of the isms I experience every day.
All I'm hearing from Larry is "you don't exist, you should never exist, you should never want to see anyone like you in books you enjoy, or in a hobby you enjoy, and I am going to mock eveything you have to live with and say if I don't see it, it isn't here."
And yes, I believe he sounds like a racist, sexist, transphobic bigot, and the more I hear the stronger that impression gets.
|
You can claim to be anything you want to be, but it's stupid to take every one of those claims seriously. I had a German (as in Germanic descent) Math teacher in 10th grade that liked to say he was black - just really, really deep down - because humanity ALL hails from Africa. Is it racist to point out that no, really, he actually isn't black?He can call himself Siberian for all that matters. Fact is though he wore the skin of a white man and I'm fairly sure he never had to deal being on the wrong side of a white society. Your math teacher was like many others.... dismissive of race problems, because he didn't have to deal with the consequences of being something other than white.
That was, er, kind of my point.
Lots of wargaming is WWII themed. Should the people playing axis not be able to dress for their role as general? It is a really common thing in the wargaming community, and in fact some tournaments give out prizes for it.
Frequently people demoing games will dress to advertise their games. As above, there are a lot of WWII themed games. Last time I was at Gencon I demoed one that was Nazi Zombies vs the US.
Nazis are villians in a lot of anime and video games. Lost of people cosplay villians. Should people not be able to dress as their favorite characters?
LARPs have a whole bunch of settings, and people often dress their characters. Should people cast as nazis in larps set in the 1940s not be able to dress the part?
Those are just a few possible reasons I can think of for someone wanting to dress the role in the past 5 minutes. The fact of the matter is, you have no context for why he was dressed like that. Any blanket statement about it being inappropriate I think is entirely unfounded.
That's only okay if I can wear a "kill whitey" shirt and carry a gun to all of the same locations because I can come up with an excuse when questioned. The problem isn't lack of a reason the problem is that you're ignoring that it essentially make some people not welcome at a location because you want to dress as a nazi. Or hell if I dressed as a Spanish Catholic penitent in America I'd be harassed for hate speech because the KKK stole our outfits. I understand that though and deal with the fact that even if it's a part of my culture to do something that I'm still obligated to consider how it makes others feel and that it makes some people feel endangered. Unless going to the area had the explicit assumption of seeing nazis (play involving nazis etc) you should avoid adding nazis to it in the same way that you shouldn't parade around with an assault rifle in a mall just because the law allows it. You're making people feel unsafe and unwelcome because you're selfish.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, George's definition of racism rings very very true, and that truth rings even louder if I substitute the word 'racism' for any of the isms I experience every day.
I'm actually fine with his definition of racism as defined early on in that article...I'm less fine with him outright stating that the GenCon organizers are guilty of promoting hate speech because there was a single guy dressed as a Nazi outside the Con. The first is reasonable (if perhaps poorly phrased...and I'm not sure why he's singling out GenCon when racism by that definition is prevalent throughout society in general), the second is not.
All I'm hearing from Larry is "you don't exist, you should never exist, you should never want to see anyone like you in books you enjoy, or in a hobby you enjoy, and I am going to mock eveything you have to live with and say if I don't see it, it isn't here."
I strongly disagree that this is either Mr. Correia's intent, or indeed a reasonable response to his words. He goes on a lengthy rant about economic inequalities and other issues that have to do with why there are fewer minorities than might be hoped for at GenCon...that's actually an outright acknowledgement that there's economic inequality along racial lines...he just prefers not to use 'racism' as a term for that sort of thing, and doesn't believe GenCon is any guiltier of this sort of thing than any other upper middle class hobby involving a fair bit of disposable income.
So it's not that he denies there are fewer people of several minorities there, he's just arguing definitions and why there are fewer such people.
And yes, I believe he sounds like a racist, sexist, transphobic bigot, and the more I hear the stronger that impression gets.
I don't get that impression at all. And I rather despise all the things you just listed and can generally spot them.
His published work strongly argues against this conclusion as well, with female, black, asian, and other protagonists who are both seriously impressive and portrayed sympathetically.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As one more item...
I finally went and read the original post on Tor.com.
AS a member of one of a set of minorities (though perhaps not the same as the author) I absolutely can relate to what that author is saying....and he nails it.
Correia took a LOT of what he countered out of context or mocked an experience that MANY REAL minorities have had as kids.
Especially the part where the kid talks about how he felt as a youth...
Many of those wonder why they can't be "normal" or be like everyone else.
To put down such a thing...after reading the original article and now seeing that blogpost in even more context...I am even MORE aghast at some of the comments in support of the guy.
Yeah, that's a large part of why I got irritated with Correia's post. If he'd just made the argument that not everything George pointed out was necessarily racist and that all in all Gencon wasn't more racist than society at large, I wouldn't have had a problem with it.
But he went out his way to mock George's childhood experiences.
Contrariwise, I felt like George was taking out his (almost certainly legitimate) childhood issues on a group of people who weren't responsible for them in the least (ie: the people at GenCon). Which is not appropriate behavior at all. Again, the guy came perilously close to actual actionable slander of the GenCon organizers with no evidence to support his allegations.
Now, would I have mocked his childhood (actually teenage, mostly) experiences? No. But then, I'm not one of the people he was actively insulting, nor do I know them. Correia's a lot closer to the subject, and has been sensitized by being repeatedly insulted for various things in this area that he hasn't actually said or done...an overreaction on his part is understandable.
Which is all more or less what I said in my first post of this thread...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My stance is and remains that he claims incorrectly to be a Person of Color to mock and dismiss racial discrimination. If he experienced discrimination as a 2nd generation immigrant, which is quite possible, and he actually used those experiences in his argument, that would be one thing. But he doesn't. He doesn't talk about any such experiences.
You mean like this?
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.
Or this?
In my school, half of us could speak English. Half of those could read.
Because those sure sound like talking about his immigrant experiences.
He just claims the PoC flag and he does so without justification.
Again - discovered he was (legally) Latino circa 2009. Is of European (Portuguese) descent. Latinos, in this usage, can be either White or several varieties of not-white. European qualifies as white.
Whatever you think of his racial heritage, it's not remotely central to his arguments. Nor is it brought up in the way you imply. It's thrown out there in passing, not focused on in any way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see that, but it's not just that it's mocking, it's that it shows an incredibly blind eye to what a lot of minorities go through.
I could be white.Whoop de fricking doo. I could be a half-orc.
Maybe. I get the impression he's just frustrated with this guy and venting with humor, more than anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My stance is and remains that he claims incorrectly to be a Person of Color to mock and dismiss racial discrimination. If he experienced discrimination as a 2nd generation immigrant, which is quite possible, and he actually used those experiences in his argument, that would be one thing. But he doesn't. He doesn't talk about any such experiences. He just claims the PoC flag and he does so without justification.
Again - discovered he was (legally) Latino circa 2009. Is of European (Portuguese) descent. Latinos, in this usage, can be either White or several varieties of not-white. European qualifies as white.
I disagree. Saturday Night Live may have used the idea in a joke back when Dukakis and Bush were running for President but it's true - some Europeans are "whiter" than others. Some benefit from white privilege more than others. Not all Europeans qualify as being white in the same way - a lot of southern Europeans can tell you that. I can tell you it's well understood by Portuguese friends of mine - particularly in New England where they make up a substantial immigrant community the long-standing WASPs there don't much like (that Manhattan clam chowder? It's not from Manhattan - it's New England Portuguese - talk about "othering", they had to say it was from somewhere else to be sufficiently insulting and exclusionary).
George, in his attempt to show Gen Con's insensitivity to the issue, made a similar mistake by using the term PoC superficially as if race relations were binary. They're not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's only okay if I can wear a "kill whitey" shirt and carry a gun to all of the same locations because I can come up with an excuse when questioned. The problem isn't lack of a reason the problem is that you're ignoring that it essentially make some people not welcome at a location because you want to dress as a nazi. Or hell if I dressed as a Spanish Catholic penitent in America I'd be harassed for hate speech because the KKK stole our outfits. I understand that though and deal with the fact that even if it's a part of my culture to do something that I'm still obligated to consider how it makes others feel and that it makes some people feel endangered. Unless going to the area had the explicit assumption of seeing nazis (play involving nazis etc) you should avoid adding nazis to it in the same way that you shouldn't parade around with an assault rifle in a mall just because the law allows it. You're making people feel unsafe and unwelcome because you're selfish.Lots of wargaming is WWII themed. Should the people playing axis not be able to dress for their role as general? It is a really common thing in the wargaming community, and in fact some tournaments give out prizes for it.
Frequently people demoing games will dress to advertise their games. As above, there are a lot of WWII themed games. Last time I was at Gencon I demoed one that was Nazi Zombies vs the US.
Nazis are villians in a lot of anime and video games. Lost of people cosplay villians. Should people not be able to dress as their favorite characters?
LARPs have a whole bunch of settings, and people often dress their characters. Should people cast as nazis in larps set in the 1940s not be able to dress the part?
Those are just a few possible reasons I can think of for someone wanting to dress the role in the past 5 minutes. The fact of the matter is, you have no context for why he was dressed like that. Any blanket statement about it being inappropriate I think is entirely unfounded.
And I have a right to think this is oversensitivity, that you don't have the right to dictate how I should dress and act, and I don't have an obligation to give a s*+% about your personal hangups.
I think safe spaces are b*!++~@*. Usually, I find them to be one of the most uncomfortable places out there, because they encourage people to not be themselves and be overly focused on not potentially offending anyone. The real world doesn't work like that. We aren't mind readers.
And I have a right to think this is oversensitivity, that you don't have the right to dictate how I should dress and act, and I don't have an obligation to give a s#&+ about your personal hangups.
I think safe spaces are b&*!#*$~. Usually, I find them to be one of the most uncomfortable places out there, because they encourage people to not be themselves and be overly focused on not potentially offending anyone. The real world doesn't work like that. We aren't mind readers.
You have that right but that doesn't entail the right not to be called racist for doing so. If the culture decides you're in the wrong and shames you that isn't violating any of your rights. The vast majority of people will tell you that dressing as a nazi isn't okay and will in some way shame or exclude you from activities because of that. That's their right because your right to free speech doesn't include a right to be heard or have people put up with your racist b&&+*%~&.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have that right but that doesn't entail the right not to be called racist for doing so. If the culture decides you're in the wrong and shames you that isn't violating any of your rights. The vast majority of people will tell you that dressing as a nazi isn't okay and will in some way shame or exclude you from activities because of that. That's their right because your right to free speech doesn't include a right to be heard or have people put up with your racist b#%#$&+@.And I have a right to think this is oversensitivity, that you don't have the right to dictate how I should dress and act, and I don't have an obligation to give a s#&+ about your personal hangups.
I think safe spaces are b&*!#*$~. Usually, I find them to be one of the most uncomfortable places out there, because they encourage people to not be themselves and be overly focused on not potentially offending anyone. The real world doesn't work like that. We aren't mind readers.
Entirely true, except that part where you called me a racist. If you want to do that, at least point out something I've said that is racist.
I still don't think dressing as a nazi at gencon is intately inappropriate.
Entirely true, except that part where you called me a racist. If you want to do that, at least point out something I've said that is racist.
I still don't think dressing as a nazi at gencon is intately inappropriate.
It is because all 20th-21st century military uniforms are prohibited - unless they're a current soldier's uniform.
That said, if you're playing WWII wargames on the German side, I don't think anybody would object to wearing an officer's cap or an Iron Cross to set the mood. Most of the gamers at that table would probably be more interested in the story of those items than take offense.
Entirely true, except that part where you called me a racist. If you want to do that, at least point out something I've said that is racist.
I still don't think dressing as a nazi at gencon is intately inappropriate.
That was mainly the hypothetical you. In that the person who dresses as a nazi is racist. It's taking a symbol society as by in large identified as racist and wearing it regardless. There is a known social convention that you are defying in a way that only serves to hurt those that are already victimized by society. I'm not saying you need to double check everything you wear because someone might be terrified of that Spiderman shirt or something, but when it is something that is culture wide as obvious you should be aware of it. Wearing a nazi uniform associates you, knowingly or unknowingly, with the original nazi movement and the modern neo-nazi movements. If you're at a re-enactment then the reason is known by everyone there, but at a general convention no one has any way of knowin why you're dressed as a nazi without asking you. They aren't mind readers and in general have to assume that you are a neo-nazi. It's unreasonable for you to expect them to divine from the ether that you're really dressed as obscure anime nazi villain #4. This is the same as someone going to an airport and joking about bombs while in the security check. You're deliberately making other people feel unsafe and putting the burden on them to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Entirely true, except that part where you called me a racist. If you want to do that, at least point out something I've said that is racist.
I still don't think dressing as a nazi at gencon is intately inappropriate.It is because all 20th-21st century military uniforms are prohibited - unless they're a current soldier's uniform.
That said, if you're playing WWII wargames on the German side, I don't think anybody would object to wearing an officer's cap or an Iron Cross to set the mood. Most of the gamers at that table would probably be more interested in the story of those items than take offense.
Oh banning it because it is an accurate military uniform is a legitimate reason, as long as that gets applied evenly. It's not a rule I think should be there because of inclusion or anything like it. There is the legal requirement that US military uniforms not be accurate in movies. Not wanting to be afoul of that is a good reason to have that rule.
Oh banning it because it is an accurate military uniform is a legitimate reason, as long as that gets applied evenly. It's not a rule I think should be there because of inclusion or anything like it. There is the legal requirement that US military uniforms not be accurate in movies. Not wanting to be afoul of that is a good reason to have that rule.
Back in the 1980s, when I first noticed an earlier version of that rule, it was also possible to encounter gaming veterans of 20th century wars. So, there was still good reason to avoid letting people dressing as their comrades or their adversaries.
Notice, however, that civil war uniforms are fair game now as are plenty of European imperial troops - despite the likely racist connotations some of them could have.
Oh banning it because it is an accurate military uniform is a legitimate reason, as long as that gets applied evenly. It's not a rule I think should be there because of inclusion or anything like it. There is the legal requirement that US military uniforms not be accurate in movies. Not wanting to be afoul of that is a good reason to have that rule.Back in the 1980s, when I first noticed an earlier version of that rule, it was also possible to encounter gaming veterans of 20th century wars. So, there was still good reason to avoid letting people dressing as their comrades or their adversaries.
Notice, however, that civil war uniforms are fair game now as are plenty of European imperial troops - despite the likely racist connotations some of them could have.
I think you mean early 20th century wars :)
There are still plenty of Vietnam and later vets at the con.
It should be obvious which ones are the more racist of the posts to tell the truth...
Would that include statements such as:
Latinos and Hispanics are minorities, but technically, they have been considered white for the past century in the US.
They are a RECOGNIZED MINORITY....But they are a white minority.
Because while you are citing a census reference for the argument is fine, you are also implying that somehow being Hispanic doesn't carry racial discrimination because of that same technical example. That is simply not true based historical precedent and the current controversy in the US over several state-enacted laws.
But assuming that was not the intention, when you are criticizing Correia or defending George, the arguments you make are valid and on-point to the subject. But when you start vilifying people (or the folks at Paizo) without being willing to cite examples you weaken your own arguments and criticism.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It should be obvious which ones are the more racist of the posts to tell the truth...Would that include statements such as:
Latinos and Hispanics are minorities, but technically, they have been considered white for the past century in the US.They are a RECOGNIZED MINORITY....But they are a white minority.Because while you are citing a census reference for the argument is fine, you are also implying that somehow being Hispanic doesn't carry racial discrimination because of that same technical example. That is simply not true based historical precedent and the current controversy in the US over several state-enacted laws.
But assuming that was not the intention, when you are criticizing Correia or defending George, the arguments you make are valid and on-point to the subject. But when you start vilifying people (or the folks at Paizo) without being willing to cite examples you weaken your own arguments and criticism.
The anti-Hispanic speech in this thread has been staggering. Particularly coming from those who purport to agree with A.A. George.
That's an urban legend. The Supreme Court threw it out in 1970.
It is? Then why do they still always put the uniforms on wrong?
It is? Then why do they still always put the uniforms on wrong?That's an urban legend. The Supreme Court threw it out in 1970.
It tends to cause a big fuss among conservative members of the community if they think you're being disrespectful to the uniform. Conventions tend to not want to be in the paper for something negative.
All I'm hearing from Larry is "you don't exist, you should never exist, you should never want to see anyone like you in books you enjoy, or in a hobby you enjoy, and I am going to mock eveything you have to live with and say if I don't see it, it isn't here."I strongly disagree that this is either Mr. Correia's intent, or indeed a reasonable response to his words. He goes on a lengthy rant about economic inequalities and other issues that have to do with why there are fewer minorities than might be hoped for at GenCon...that's actually an outright acknowledgement that there's economic inequality along racial lines...he just prefers not to use 'racism' as a term for that sort of thing, and doesn't believe GenCon is any guiltier of this sort of thing than any other upper middle class hobby involving a fair bit of disposable income.
So it's not that he denies there are fewer people of several minorities there, he's just arguing definitions and why there are fewer such people.
And yes, I believe he sounds like a racist, sexist, transphobic bigot, and the more I hear the stronger that impression gets.I don't get that impression at all. And I rather despise all the things you just listed and can generally spot them.
His published work strongly argues against this conclusion as well,...
Larry can afford to not see things because he doesn't have to see them. Unfortunately, I can't afford to do that. And intent doesn't necessarily translate onto the page. You are welcome to disagree, or to read it differently, but that is what I get from his blog. (yes, I read all of both articles, though I could barely get through Larry's.)
I don't know his books. After reading his blog I don't want to know his books.
I'm also not American, or upper-middle-class, for what it's worth.
It should be obvious which ones are the more racist of the posts to tell the truth...Would that include statements such as:
Latinos and Hispanics are minorities, but technically, they have been considered white for the past century in the US.They are a RECOGNIZED MINORITY....But they are a white minority.Because while you are citing a census reference for the argument is fine, you are also implying that somehow being Hispanic doesn't carry racial discrimination because of that same technical example. That is simply not true based historical precedent and the current controversy in the US over several state-enacted laws.
But assuming that was not the intention, when you are criticizing Correia or defending George, the arguments you make are valid and on-point to the subject. But when you start vilifying people (or the folks at Paizo) without being willing to cite examples you weaken your own arguments and criticism.
Actually, Hispanic and Latino are an ethnicity.
And there has been discrimination along ethnic lines. If you don't understand WHY, and refuse to understand why...the question is why are you being like that?
YOu seem like an intelligent person, so we can't ascribe that you are ignorant of the differences between the ethnicity and race categories. I've already explained some of the differences that were VERY real effects against those who were NOT CONSIDERED white (not being able to be married to anyone of any other race, segregation on an active scale, no being able to own land, not being allowed to vote) of which the laws did not pertain to Hispanics because they were considered white (unless they went out of their way to claim to be of another race).
So, I am pretty certain you should understand.
That doesn't mean Hispanics do NOT suffer from discrimination (in truth, they are one of the most discriminated groups in the US currently), or Latinos don't suffer from discrimination...HOWEVER...let's not confuse ethnicity from racial discrimination of the kind which Correia is discussing.
I am very aware of ethinic discrimination to tell the truth, and ironically, Correia is from part of the US where some of that discrimination is most prominent (though I believe Arizona supposedly beats out Utah according to some of the liberal stats counters currently).
AS such, one could ask why he hasn't been actively involved in helping those in South Provo, or in parts of West Valley, or involved in their equality and equal rights agendas...Oh...that's right...he didn't even KNOW he was part of that section until 2009...prior to that he simply though he was white....
At least that's what he implies.
So even if you say Hispanics are a race instead of an ethnicity...for Correia and his implications, it doesn't really apply as apparently he always portrayed himself as white and apparently those around him agreed with his assessment.
On another scale...did some research on this guy...WOW...Correia really IS aligned with racists. I was actually not aware of it when I originally posted in this thread...but looking up stuff on the internet...he actively promoted a racist to win an award, got them nominated, and a whole slew of other things. From the looks of it, I wasn't wrong in my assumptions of him...though now after looking up some comments on him and commentary, it appears that my assessment of him like this is not the only one. Most of these came about due to actions of his prior to this, and in some ways due to the politics of the Hugo awards.
Normally instead of appealing to his Latino background, however, he feels it is due to his political views (though I would say, most of it is because he's not a nice person to others...if he were nicer I don't think politics would have much to do with it at all) and that he's persecuted because of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, more to the point of the argument would you say that the experience of the experience of Spanish immigrants to the US is essentially the same as Mexican immigrants? They face the same kinds of discrimination? Both in the first and successive generation?
Because that's the distinction that Hispanic(White) and Hispanic(not-white) draws.
Or would the experience of that Spanish immigrant and his descendants be closer to a Polish immigrant and his? Both likely to face discrimination, but both considered white and not dealing with the same level that people of color face, especially after the first generation.
I expect there's going to be a lot of regional variation. Spanish immigrant coming to Arizona - or really anywhere in territory that used to be Mexico - probably have an experience much like a Mexican immigrant. Then, in successive generations, there's probably a good chance having a name that sounds Mexican will lead a lot of people to make assumptions that they're Mexican-American rather than Spanish-American.
Fun little aside. Remember when some people got all up in arms about Benedict Cumberbatch being cast as Khan in Star Trek: Into Darkness? There were complaints about whitewashing Khan. Here's even a blog post from someone at Tor Books about giving a person of color's part to a white guy: The Perfect Retcon to Star Trek: Into Darkness.
But here's the rub. If a Spanish immigrant to the US wouldn't be a person of color, neither was Ricardo Montalban both of whose parents immigrated to Mexico from Spain. They're assuming Montalban was a person of color because he was Mexican, had an awesome accent, and had a good tan. Or... they understood that being a PoC isn't necessarily about obvious skin tones or technical racial origin but being part of an ethnicity/race that's not necessarily treated as being white.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, uh, this conversation went in some directions that I was not expecting and am kind of uncomfortable with. Namely, the discussion of Correia's race.
Since it got brought up and I was specifically called out (among others), I want to respond to some of that, especially since I think I may have been the one who first brought it up. I regret doing that now, and I want to bring up a few things.
1) When I say that Correia looks white, I don't mean to say that he's lying about being a racial minority or anything, and I'm not trying to argue what his racial identity is. That's not remotely my place, or anyone else besides Correia's. What I am saying is that his race can be construed as white, and if other people assume you are (and from what Correia says about not being recognized as Portuguese, it sounds like that's happened to him before) then they'll treat you as such. In the same way that some light-skinned mixed-race people can benefit from being seen as white (often called "white passing"), it sounds like Correia isn't always recognized as something other than "white."
2) On a directly related note, I am unaware of whether being Portuguese (or, more importantly to this discussion, being Larry Correia) results in racial discrimination or systematized racism. Part of that is my never having lived anywhere with particularly high concentrations of Latin@ or Hispanic populations, and part of it is being white and not having to deal with it or be aware of it (white privilege). I lived in Hawaii for a while, where I've heard Portuguese jokes (they're like blonde jokes, but with the Portuguese), but they were infrequent enough and I didn't know anyone who was actually Portuguese, so they always confused me. As I said when I first mentioned this, I really don't know enough about this to effectively comment on it, and if I implied that I thought something like, "Well, Correia doesn't look non-white enough to really qualify as such, so his opinions as a non-white person don't count!" then I apologize, because that was s*~&ty and racist of me.
3) Larry Correia is free to think whatever he wants about the term "Person/People of Color." He hates it, and doesn't seriously use it to describe himself, and that's his prerogative. The term was actually coined in the 60s or 70s I believe, and was intended to be (and is still often used as) a unifying term for oppressed people of non-white races and ethnicities. There's no rule that someone HAS to identify themselves with that term, and I respect Correia's choice to reject it for himself, but it is a pretty widespread term of identity used by non-whites to describe themselves.
4) All of that said, the reason I brought this up in the first place is because of the part where Correia mocks George for not feeling represented in gaming. George outlines what internalized racism looks like: even in a fantasy world, George can imagine fighting orcs more easily than he can imagine a non-white character for himself. This isn't an issue of George's lack of imagination; it's the result of a culture that tells him what's normal/normative for a medieval fantasy setting is that everyone is white. The narratives present in both our history and much of our pop culture about medieval/renaissance Europe has erased the history of PoC. It is affected by the other racist narratives in our culture, and affects them in turn in a vicious cycle that has made people like George feel like he doesn't have a voice or a place in the usual cultural narrative. Even when he tries to branch out and make characters of color, it's unhelpful and discouraging when people ask him if he's trying to make a statement or send a message by doing that. And for Correia to mock George and dismiss his feelings on this is a dick move. Making a half-orc with green skin isn't the same as making a character with brown or black skin, because no one is going to call you out on "message fiction" for playing a half-orc. This is a racist action--please note that I'm not saying anything about Correia's character or his ~*~innermost soul as a human being~*~, just pointing to this particular action as racist and rude. Maybe Correia wasn't bothered by not seeing himself represented in fantasy games (or, for many PoC, almost all media), or maybe he did feel represented (which is a tricky feeling to identify, because it's the feeling of being "normal" when you engage with any form of media with characters). So, you know, that's cool for him, but he's being a huge a$!+%%! about it to George and dismissing what is a serious and widespread problem. Admittedly, it is one that Paizo art tries to address, which is awesome, and which the latest edition of D&D is trying to do as well (I got a chance to flip through it, and the example pictures for the human, fighter, and wizard are all black). But for Correia to dismiss his concerns is exactly the opposite of what he praises Paizo for trying to do! So is Correia white? It seems like he doesn't identify as such, and if he experiences racism directed toward him for being non-white Portuguese, then that's s++&ty. However, he also says some s@+#ty racist stuff in his response article, and that's just not acceptable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The anti-Hispanic speech in this thread has been staggering. Particularly coming from those who purport to agree with A.A. George.It should be obvious which ones are the more racist of the posts to tell the truth...Would that include statements such as:Latinos and Hispanics are minorities, but technically, they have been considered white for the past century in the US.They are a RECOGNIZED MINORITY....But they are a white minority.Because while you are citing a census reference for the argument is fine, you are also implying that somehow being Hispanic doesn't carry racial discrimination because of that same technical example. That is simply not true based historical precedent and the current controversy in the US over several state-enacted laws.
But assuming that was not the intention, when you are criticizing Correia or defending George, the arguments you make are valid and on-point to the subject. But when you start vilifying people (or the folks at Paizo) without being willing to cite examples you weaken your own arguments and criticism.
So, more to the point of the argument would you say that the experience of the experience of Spanish immigrants to the US is essentially the same as Mexican immigrants? They face the same kinds of discrimination? Both in the first and successive generation?
Because that's the distinction that Hispanic(White) and Hispanic(not-white) draws.
Or would the experience of that Spanish immigrant and his descendants be closer to a Polish immigrant and his? Both likely to face discrimination, but both considered white and not dealing with the same level that people of color face, especially after the first generation.
I won't be drawn into a debate about whether someone is "white enough" to make it ok to discriminate against them. I'm not interested in drawing those lines or having those conversations.
As one more item...
I finally went and read the original post on Tor.com.
AS a member of one of a set of minorities (though perhaps not the same as the author) I absolutely can relate to what that author is saying....and he nails it.
Correia took a LOT of what he countered out of context or mocked an experience that MANY REAL minorities have had as kids.
Especially the part where the kid talks about how he felt as a youth...
Many of those wonder why they can't be "normal" or be like everyone else.
To put down such a thing...after reading the original article and now seeing that blogpost in even more context...I am even MORE aghast at some of the comments in support of the guy.
Like REALLY aghast.
Correia quotes the entire post. He goes through line by line. He isn't taking things out of context. He does it for all 3 posts in this thread.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Larry can afford to not see things because he doesn't have to see them. Unfortunately, I can't afford to do that.
What doesn't he see? He acknowledges the disparity in numbers between white people and people of minorities. He prefers to chalk it up to economic inequalities as opposed to active racism on the con staff's part...and that seems a reasonable argument.
Maybe he's even wrong...but George presents no proof of his (rather vicious) accusations of the GenCon organizers, and that's usually the job of the person accusing someone of malfeasance, y'know?
I'm serious about the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing. In many ways this can be likened to a court case, with George as the prosecuting attorney and Correia as the defense, and friendly with the defendants. Look at it that way for a moment and see why Correia might be annoyed. People he knows and likes are having their character defamed in a public forum with basically no evidence that they personally did anything wrong...something that's happened to him personally a fair bit recently. Is it an wonder he got annoyed and said some personal insults along with his listing of the arguments flaws?
If George had made a general statement about gaming in general, or just how he feels as a black gamer, Correia almost certainly wouldn't have posted a thing. He was responding to the fact that George's article calls out the GenCon staff as personally supporting or tolerating hate speech and being personally responsible for the lack of minority gamers there. That's a hell of an accusation to make and one that necessitates some sort of evidence, even if only in the form of personal testimony of particular incidents...and there's nothing with the sole exception of one guy dressed as a Nazi who wasn't even actually inside the Con.
That kind of unsubstantiated accusation is not acceptable behavior regardless of how excluded you feel. You can't take out society's inequalities on individual people who are only tangentially involved in them. That's simply not an okay thing to do.
And intent doesn't necessarily translate onto the page. You are welcome to disagree, or to read it differently, but that is what I get from his blog.
Except that you're not just saying "He's wrong." You're saying "He's racist, sexist, transphobic bigot, and says I have no right to exist." (an almost direct quote from you) That's...a lot to get from one blog posts which, perhaps overly harshly, points out a number of legitimate problems with George's argument.
I mean, I'm not in agreement with Larry Correia on several of the things he says even in that post...but geeze man, that's a really low bar to label someone with as much hateful language as you use. Seriously, you make his harshness look mild in comparison. The worst he called George was a whiny teenager (and that after George hurled some pretty vile accusations with little proof at the GenCon organizers).
(yes, I read all of both articles, though I could barely get through Larry's.)
Right...I've read significantly more stuff he's written than that. Which is why, in my very first post, I noted that taken in isolation this particular post seemed really harsh, and I noted some context.
I don't know his books. After reading his blog I don't want to know his books.
Because you're making a lot of assumptions about his attitudes. Most of which are pretty readily demonstrated to be falseif you looked deeper into the matter.
I'm also not American, or upper-middle-class, for what it's worth.
Noted. Are...we all going to have to disclose demographic information now? Because I'm really not clear on why exactly you bring this up.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the OP and original posts/link
Outside of government everyone is on their own to determine the level that a culture/counter-culture, scene or in this case a hobby is inclusive.
If you are black and want to see more black Punk bands - start a punk band with black bandmates, want to see more black gamers - promote the game among the people of your race (if that's your desire or agenda).
Gaming doesn't owe you squat - if there's a predominantly white following it's because of the genesis of gaming back in the day (and continued interest) was primarily with white people - specifically geek culture, though that has been changing over the last decade.
You want to change it - become part of it, put your face on it. This isn't a special club or union.
The AA George complaints would be akin to a white guy going to a local inner city hip-hop concert/event and complaining about the racial makeup of the fans (lack of white representation, etc).
I could understand Mr. George's complaints if he was stopped at the doors at GenCon or was given looks but that wasn't the case. Also the symbolism he's complaining about in gaming isn't institutional, it's artistic - its the people who made the game stamping it with their faces and influences as human beings (not just white people) are known to do.
You are not owed representation beyond public institutions -
You decide your level of attraction and involvement and subsequently how that "X" is going to change over time if it doesn't look or act the way you want it to.
You want to see LGBTQ people represented in gaming, create that content (see Paizo.com) - the hobby doesn't owe it to you.
If AA George wants to see more Black people represented at GenCon maybe he should consider securing a booth/write a product/create a game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
4) All of that said, the reason I brought this up in the first place is because of the part where Correia mocks George for not feeling represented in gaming. George outlines what internalized racism looks like: even in a fantasy world, George can imagine fighting orcs more easily than he can imagine a non-white character for himself. This isn't an issue of George's lack of imagination; it's the result of a culture that tells him what's normal/normative for a medieval fantasy setting is that everyone is white. The narratives present in both our history and much of our pop culture about medieval/renaissance Europe has erased the history of PoC. It is affected by the other racist narratives in our culture, and affects them in turn in a vicious cycle that has made people like George feel like he doesn't have a voice or a place in the usual cultural narrative. Even when he tries to branch out and make characters of color, it's unhelpful and discouraging when people ask him if he's trying to make a statement or send a message by doing that. And for Correia to mock George and dismiss his feelings on this is a dick move. Making a half-orc with green skin isn't the same as making a character with brown or black skin, because no one is going to call you out on "message fiction" for playing a half-orc. This is a racist action--please note that I'm not saying anything about Correia's character or his ~*~innermost soul as a human being~*~, just pointing to this particular action as racist and rude. Maybe Correia wasn't bothered by not seeing himself represented in fantasy games (or, for many PoC, almost all media), or maybe he did feel represented (which is a tricky feeling to identify, because it's the feeling of being "normal" when you engage with any form of media with characters). So, you know, that's cool for him, but he's being a huge a!%$%*! about it to George and dismissing what is a serious and widespread problem. Admittedly, it is one that Paizo art tries to address, which is awesome, and which the latest edition of D&D is trying to do as well (I got a chance to flip through it, and the example pictures for the human, fighter, and wizard are all black). But for Correia to dismiss his concerns is exactly the opposite of what he praises Paizo for trying to do! So is Correia white? It seems like he doesn't identify as such, and if he experiences racism directed toward him for being non-white Portuguese, then that's s*%!ty. However, he also says some s~+@ty racist stuff in his response article, and that's just not acceptable.
Even if someone were to agree with you on this or take George at his word, there's still a gap between experiencing racism away from gaming to the point it affects your early forays into gaming and even having a racist incident at a local gaming table and projecting that onto the whole community and Gen Con. And I'd say it's an even bigger gap now than it would have been in the early days of gaming since there are major companies including diverse characters in their art, some for over a decade. The environment for attracting diversity in gaming - whether it's ethnic/racial diversity or gender/sexual preference diversity - is pretty much the best it has ever been thanks to companies like WotC and Paizo.
But at some point, people have to realize it's not gaming that doesn't afford people options. Gaming has no inherent horizon (though local groups may have their own limits and limitations). If George thinks gaming didn't or doesn't afford him those options, it's because he didn't (and maybe still doesn't) reach for them. Maybe he feels like an outsider - as a minority, that's understandable. But being an outsider doesn't make the experience inherently racist nor does he become an insider by choosing to distance himself from the community or events.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that there's a difference between experiencing racism at gaming tables outside of GenCon and addressing perceived racism at GenCon. And I appreciate the efforts of major gaming companies to increase their diverse, positive representation.
As far as whether gaming is more or less inclusive/exclusive as a hobby and/or community than anything else, I just don't have the numbers on that. But I can say that geographical, economic, cultural, etc. factors that are cited for why there aren't more gamers attending GenCon who aren't white and male can all involve race. The disadvantages that PoC face include being forced to live in certain places, facing discrimination in both their ability to be employed and in receiving lower wages than white people for the same job (and before you cite minimum wage, know that a disproportionately high percentage of the minimum wage workforce are PoC), etc. And that affects PoC across the board, not just those who attend (or want to but can't, etc) GenCon. But if GenCon is par-for-the-course in terms of being disproportionately white and male, then I'd say they could actively do more to make PoC feel welcome. They could reach out to minority communities to find gamers who want to attend, but face the barriers of expense or not feeling welcome, and perhaps work with them to overcome those barriers. Someone mentioned that thread about the guy who teaches kids to play Pathfinder; why not do the same in the U.S.?
Saying that racism is a larger issue than just GenCon is true. But that doesn't mean GenCon can't recognize and attempt to do more when it comes to attracting a more diverse and inclusive attendance. And this ISN'T to say "they're not doing enough!" because obviously companies like Paizo and WotC are taking steps to be more inclusive in their representation.
Whether you agree with George or think he's being way too harsh, my main point is still that Correia's response was out of line. Being under fire from people who don't like you is a hard situation, but a vitriolic and dismissively racist attack on someone is never an acceptable response.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing a lot of No True Scotsman going on here.
"This guy is a racist, white, privileged jerk!"
"Actually, he's Latino."
"Well, he's not a real Latino. And he probably grew up in a rich neighborhood."
"Actually, he grew up in a pretty poor neighborhood."
Not to mention:
"I disagree with tor.com."
"Well, you must be racist."
"I'm not racist."
"The fact that you disagree with tor.com is all the proof we need."
EDIT: By the way, I want to specifically exclude mechaPoet from this, since he or she seems to have tried hard to avoid such ad hominem nonsense.
There are two types of people who argue with what I call "tumblr's idea of Social Justice"—bigots, and people who can't stand tumblr's idea of Social Justice. What Correia calls Social Justice Warriors (a term I'll concede I misused earlier) do not understand this difference. It's easier to be the hero if you get to call everyone you argue with a racist, completely eliminating those pesky shades of grays, right?
I agree that there's a difference between experiencing racism at gaming tables outside of GenCon and addressing perceived racism at GenCon. And I appreciate the efforts of major gaming companies to increase their diverse, positive representation.
As far as whether gaming is more or less inclusive/exclusive as a hobby and/or community than anything else, I just don't have the numbers on that. But I can say that geographical, economic, cultural, etc. factors that are cited for why there aren't more gamers attending GenCon who aren't white and male can all involve race. The disadvantages that PoC face include being forced to live in certain places, facing discrimination in both their ability to be employed and in receiving lower wages than white people for the same job (and before you cite minimum wage, know that a disproportionately high percentage of the minimum wage workforce are PoC), etc. And that affects PoC across the board, not just those who attend (or want to but can't, etc) GenCon. But if GenCon is par-for-the-course in terms of being disproportionately white and male, then I'd say they could actively do more to make PoC feel welcome. They could reach out to minority communities to find gamers who want to attend, but face the barriers of expense or not feeling welcome, and perhaps work with them to overcome those barriers. Someone mentioned that thread about the guy who teaches kids to play Pathfinder; why not do the same in the U.S.?
Saying that racism is a larger issue than just GenCon is true. But that doesn't mean GenCon can't recognize and attempt to do more when it comes to attracting a more diverse and inclusive attendance. And this ISN'T to say "they're not doing enough!" because obviously companies like Paizo and WotC are taking steps to be more inclusive in their representation.
Whether you agree with George or think he's being way too harsh, my main point is still that Correia's response was out of line. Being under fire from people who don't like you is a hard situation, but...
I think a great first place to start would be for gencon to give each of the facility employees 2 badges that they could use on their off shift or day off. Or sell to someone else as they see fit...
That's not to say that those folks don't get paid well enough to attend (I have no idea) but it extends an invitation to those who help to throw the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Larry can afford to not see things because he doesn't have to see them. Unfortunately, I can't afford to do that.What doesn't he see? He acknowledges the disparity in numbers between white people and people of minorities. He prefers to chalk it up to economic inequalities as opposed to active racism on the con staff's part...and that seems a reasonable argument.
*sigh*
Did I see unconscious micro-aggressions and invisible privilege? Beats the hell out of me.
I wasn't there. I can't tell for certain, but I very much doubt it was free of micro-aggressions. Almost nowhere is. It clearly wasn't free of "invisible privilege".
Except that you're not just saying "He's wrong." You're saying "He's racist, sexist, transphobic bigot, and says I have no right to exist." (an almost direct quote from you) That's...a lot to get from one blog posts which, perhaps overly harshly, points out a number of legitimate problems with George's argument.And intent doesn't necessarily translate onto the page. You are welcome to disagree, or to read it differently, but that is what I get from his blog.
Two blog posts (the racism one and the gender diversity one linked earlier). In one he said I don't exist and should never be included in books, because that could only be "message fiction" and that is a bad thing. In the other he called me a psychopath for caring about such things as - for example - wanting to use a public bathroom without the risk of being beaten unconscious for it (and yes, in my demographic, that's a real risk, that he blows off as being a humorless "SJW")
And I said he gives that impression. Maybe he didn't mean it, any more than someone who accidentally stands on someone else's foot means to hurt them, but it hurts all the same.
Noted. I'm really not clear on why exactly you bring this up.I'm also not American, or upper-middle-class, for what it's worth.
Divided by a common language and all that. Maaaybe I hear things differently from you because I don't speak quite the same language as he does. Not banking on that.
I'm not giving George a free pass either, but there are more things that strike danger bells from Larry's blog writing, for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that you're not just saying "He's wrong." You're saying "He's racist, sexist, transphobic bigot, and says I have no right to exist." (an almost direct quote from you) That's...a lot to get from one blog posts which, perhaps overly harshly, points out a number of legitimate problems with George's argument.And intent doesn't necessarily translate onto the page. You are welcome to disagree, or to read it differently, but that is what I get from his blog.
Two blog posts (the racism one and the gender diversity one linked earlier). In one he said I don't exist and should never be included in books, because that could only be "message fiction" and that is a bad thing. In the other he called me a psychopath for caring about such things as - for example - wanting to use a public bathroom without the risk of being beaten unconscious for it (and yes, in my demographic, that's a real risk, that he blows off as being a humorless "SJW")
And I said he gives that impression. Maybe he didn't mean it, any more than someone who accidentally stands on someone else's foot means to hurt them, but it hurts all the same.
If that is your take away from his blog post on gender in fiction, I think you need reading comprehension lessons. He not once says don't include non-binary characters. He says don't do it unless it fits the character and don't include it just to include it. Because then your writing will suck and no one will bother reading it. And you know what? The guy who fails at fisking his fisk agrees with those points.
|
|
Except that you're not just saying "He's wrong." You're saying "He's racist, sexist, transphobic bigot, and says I have no right to exist." (an almost direct quote from you) That's...a lot to get from one blog posts which, perhaps overly harshly, points out a number of legitimate problems with George's argument.And intent doesn't necessarily translate onto the page. You are welcome to disagree, or to read it differently, but that is what I get from his blog.
Two blog posts (the racism one and the gender diversity one linked earlier). In one he said I don't exist and should never be included in books, because that could only be "message fiction" and that is a bad thing. In the other he called me a psychopath for caring about such things as - for example - wanting to use a public bathroom without the risk of being beaten unconscious for it (and yes, in my demographic, that's a real risk, that he blows off as being a humorless "SJW")
And I said he gives that impression. Maybe he didn't mean it, any more than someone who accidentally stands on someone else's foot means to hurt them, but it hurts all the same.
If that is your take away from his blog post on gender in fiction, I think you need reading comprehension lessons. He not once says don't include non-binary characters. He says don't do it unless it fits the character and don't include it just to include it. Because then your writing will suck and no one will bother reading it. And you know what? The guy who fails at fisking his fisk agrees with those points.
If you have to have a "reason" to include anyone who's not a hetero white male, then your story's going to look like a whole lot of pale, boring sausage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have to have a "reason" to include anyone who's not a hetero white male, then your story's going to look like a whole lot of pale, boring sausage.
Except that you're not just saying "He's wrong." You're saying "He's racist, sexist, transphobic bigot, and says I have no right to exist." (an almost direct quote from you) That's...a lot to get from one blog posts which, perhaps overly harshly, points out a number of legitimate problems with George's argument.And intent doesn't necessarily translate onto the page. You are welcome to disagree, or to read it differently, but that is what I get from his blog.
Two blog posts (the racism one and the gender diversity one linked earlier). In one he said I don't exist and should never be included in books, because that could only be "message fiction" and that is a bad thing. In the other he called me a psychopath for caring about such things as - for example - wanting to use a public bathroom without the risk of being beaten unconscious for it (and yes, in my demographic, that's a real risk, that he blows off as being a humorless "SJW")
And I said he gives that impression. Maybe he didn't mean it, any more than someone who accidentally stands on someone else's foot means to hurt them, but it hurts all the same.
If that is your take away from his blog post on gender in fiction, I think you need reading comprehension lessons. He not once says don't include non-binary characters. He says don't do it unless it fits the character and don't include it just to include it. Because then your writing will suck and no one will bother reading it. And you know what? The guy who fails at fisking his fisk agrees with those points.
Or you could look at the main characters of the author in question and see that of his novels he only has 1 hetero white male main character, which he brings up preemptively to cut off this comment in both of the linked posts on gender normativity.
|
|
If you have to have a "reason" to include anyone who's not a hetero white male, then your story's going to look like a whole lot of pale, boring sausage.If that is your take away from his blog post on gender in fiction, I think you need reading comprehension lessons. He not once says don't include non-binary characters. He says don't do it unless it fits the character and don't include it just to include it. Because then your writing will suck and no one will bother reading it. And you know what? The guy who fails at fisking his fisk agrees with those points.
Or you know, you could let the market decide (in either case)?
There are some great books that tinker with gender and sexuality. I hear the guy that wrote "Lock In" does a lot of that very well.
Just randomly making a character, say, transsexual, though, and not involving that in any way with the character, plot, or theme, can come across as "fake". Like an author checking off boxes. In the same way, making a character heterosexual can come across as cheap and lazy if you make a point of it without tying it in in some fashion.
It's not a matter of hating diversity in that case. It's a matter of disliking false plot points. It's a very simple rule of writing that everything is for a reason. You don't stick something in a story that just distracts the reader without some sort of payoff.
Now, I love my stories to be diverse. I'm into animation, so I really enjoy making characters look and act very different. I'd love to get to write in a gay or lesbian character someday, though I doubt I'll ever be able to.
But regardless of that, I'm not gonna stick in a gay character just for the sake of having a gay character. I'll do it because it fits something I want to do—whether it be themes of intolerance, a romantic subplot, or just a character whose backstory is linked to their orientation. Hell, I might even do it for a joke, like the gag at the end of ParaNorman (which I liked both because it was funny and because it marked one of the first explicitly gay characters in kids' animation, like, ever).
I'll make a character gay if I envision them as gay. I won't make a character, and then decide later to make them gay because I realized I didn't have enough gayness in my story.
Or you know, you could let the market decide (in either case)?
If you'll pardon the slight tangent—this is, I believe, the chief reason we're never gonna get a gay main character in kids' animation. At least not anytime soon. It's not even a matter of bigotry, it's just not really marketable to kids. The little girls want a traditional romance ("prince/princess"), the little boys aren't old enough to like lesbians and would rather there be little-to-no romance at all. ;P
There are some great books that tinker with gender and sexuality. I hear the guy that wrote "Lock In" does a lot of that very well.
Just randomly making a character, say, transsexual, though, and not involving that in any way with the character, plot, or theme, can come across as "fake". Like an author checking off boxes. In the same way, making a character heterosexual can come across as cheap and lazy if you make a point of it without tying it in in some fashion.
It's not a matter of hating diversity in that case. It's a matter of disliking false plot points. It's a very simple rule of writing that everything is for a reason. You don't stick something in a story that just distracts the reader without some sort of payoff.
Now, I love my stories to be diverse. I'm into animation, so I really enjoy making characters look and act very different. I'd love to get to write in a gay or lesbian character someday, though I doubt I'll ever be able to.
But regardless of that, I'm not gonna stick in a gay character just for the sake of having a gay character. I'll do it because it fits something I want to do—whether it be themes of intolerance, a romantic subplot, or just a character whose backstory is linked to their orientation. Hell, I might even do it for a joke, like the gag at the end of ParaNorman (which I liked both because it was funny and because it marked one of the first explicitly gay characters in kids' animation, like, ever).
I'll make a character gay if I envision them as gay. I won't make a character, and then decide later to make them gay because I realized I didn't have enough gayness in my story.
This is pretty much the exact point Correia was trying to make. In fact he even uses the "everything is for a reason". The entire post was to basically tell aspiring authors not to follow the advice just because, because then you will be shooting yourself in the foot trying to tie something in that doesn't really fit. Write the story that you want and add the details where needed, but not because of any particular social justice cause.