Larry Correia cites Pathfinder for diversity in gaming.


Gamer Life General Discussion

401 to 450 of 513 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Vicious accusations like "Usually, they are well-meaning people who do not realize how their roles and decisions impact the larger gaming community and its lack of diversity."

No, more like this:

Quote:

GenCon has weakly worded policies to prevent these horrific violations, but it has failed to enforce its own rules.

These are symbols, important symbols. If the color of all the leadership, of all the roles of power and recognition, the entire structure is white, and if this same leadership is tolerant of hate-speech, it gives a clear unspoken signal to the non-white community: You can join us here, but only if you leave your history, your people, and your emotions at the door.

He's actively accusing the GenCon leadership of endorsing or tolerating people wearing Nazi outfits and other 'hate speech'. He does so without evidence, and for all the polite wording in the world, that's a hell of an accusation to throw without the least proof.

thejeff wrote:
Damn, that's some serious active racism right there. I still think most of this kerfluffle is about Correia substituting his definition of racism for George's and then being offended when George uses the word.

That's part of it...but far from all of it.

thejeff wrote:
You can not accept that definition, but you can't pretend George means something else when he uses the term.

Oh, I'm not. I'm going by what he actually wrote.

HerosBackpack wrote:

*sigh*

Quote:
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".

Y'know what, re-reading it (something everyone should do occasionally in these arguments...it'd been days since I read the whole thing, and human memory is faulty) you're right. He clearly misses the degree of racism/privilege in society as a whole to some degree.

HerosBackpack wrote:
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.

That is neither what he said, nor what he meant. He said that including transgender people in books shouldn't be mandatory, and that they were rare. He also said a fair bit of fairly ignorant stuff on the subject...but not what you just said.

HerosBackpack wrote:
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")

Uh...much as Correia says some potentially unpleasant stuff on transgender issues, can you give me a quote? Because I remember nothing remotely like this.

HerosBackpack wrote:
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.

This is true...but you did not precisely make this distinction clear in the post I originally responded to.

HerosBackpack wrote:
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.

This is quite possible, just clarifying what was going on there.

HerosBackpack wrote:
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.

I can see where that would be true...but there's a difference between sending up danger signals and accusing someone of a variety of unpleasant things.

Especially when they aren't mostly true. For example, very few of Correia's protagonists are white, while several are women. All are very cool people within the narrative he creates. That doesn't mean he doesn't have attitudes you dislike, or that you'd like the books...but it's true, and makes it a lot harder to seriously argue that he's actively racist or sexist.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:


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

1. Marceline and Princess Bubblegum in Adventure Time used to be a couple.

2. This is so insanely gender normative and gender essentialist that I don't even know where to start. So I'm just going to give you a big Nope.
2a. Let's just go ahead and say: it is bigotry, girls don't inherently want any of that because they're girls, boys don't inherently want that because they're boys.

Liberty's Edge

mechaPoet wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:


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

1. Marceline and Princess Bubblegum in Adventure Time used to be a couple.

2. This is so insanely gender normative and gender essentialist that I don't even know where to start. So I'm just going to give you a big Nope.
2a. Let's just go ahead and say: it is bigotry, girls don't inherently want any of that because they're girls, boys don't inherently want that because they're boys.

I've gotta agree with MechaPoet on this one. Kids aren't all that interested in relationships in general, but if they are they simply aren't gonna care much about the genders of who is involved in them.

I suspect it is indeed gonna be a while before we get gay protagonists in kids TV...but it pretty much is because of bigotry, or at least cultural gender norms.


mechaPoet wrote:


1. Marceline and Princess Bubblegum in Adventure Time used to be a couple.

That's good to know (not being sarcastic—I find that interesting). But Adventure Time is teen animation, is the thing. It's a whole other box of mice. Teen animation is very important because it works towards bridging the gap and getting adults to watch serious animation series. As such, though, it tends to prefer an older fringe audience to a younger fringe audience.

Adventure Time is basically on the levels of Legend of Korra and Batman: The Animated Series. It's not really for the same crowd of kids Disney focuses on.

Out of curiosity, though, how long were they together? Or was it a literal "used to" where it's part of the backstory? I'd Google it, but I intend to suffer through the first two seasons at some point and I don't want to risk spoiling the good stuff for myself. ;)

Quote:
2. This is so insanely gender normative and gender essentialist that I don't even know where to start. So I'm just going to give you a big Nope.

Then I think you really misunderstood what I'm saying. So before I even start to clarify what I said, let me clarify where I stand.

I love defying gender norms. The current script I'm working on has an evil female mercenary who serves as a Timon/Wile E. Coyote sort of character. I'm constantly annoyed at how there are so few female comic relief characters in animation (Ysma, Darla Dimple, Lottie). I also love to feature girls who don't pair up with anyone and girls who aren't especially attractive without their "homeliness" being a plot point (ever notice how it's really common to have ugly male heroes, while the only unattractive female heroes seem to be either old ladies or generally unsympathetic?). On the male side, my very first script featured a meek wizard guy whose main flaw was cowardice and main good trait was balancing out the vengeance-obsessed female lead. I use and abuse gender norms as the story demands.

Anyways, if you really feel that what I'm saying is untrue—that society has not conditioned the vast majority of girls to prefer romances and the vast majority of boys to prefer cowboys and dinosaurs—then that's fine. We clearly have very different perspectives. I assume, though, that you misunderstood and thought I was saying that these preferences were "ingrained" in us, in which case I apologize for my lack of clarity.

I'm not talking about gender norms and gender essentials (whatever that is—I really don't know). I'm talking about marketing demographics. I'm talking about the rule that "boys don't read", which leads books to almost always be marketed towards girls and causes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm talking about numbers, here.

Quote:
2a. Let's just go ahead and say: it is bigotry, girls don't inherently want any of that because they're girls, boys don't inherently want that because they're boys.

Nope. I agree.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


I suspect it is indeed gonna be a while before we get gay protagonists in kids TV...but it pretty much is because of bigotry, or at least cultural gender norms.

By the way, I certainly wouldn't deny that bigotry is playing a role. I just feel that the reasons I stated could potentially last longer if society doesn't move on from gender norms soon (and those don't seem to be moving with any particular haste).


Caineach wrote:
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.

I'm amused by this in the context of the official reason for this thread: Larry Correia praising Pathfinder for diversity.

The official stated reason for that diversity is exactly what he complains about: making sure they had representative characters of different genders and different races and even now LGBTQ characters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder's iconics aren't made primarily to tell a story. They're there to show example adventurers. That's the difference. His advice is for writers, not game designers. :P

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

Sorry, I wasn't clear on what you meant. Yeah, that's the gender norm for children's marketing. I thought you were claiming that to be true, rather than echoing what children are taught (or advertised to) about gender.

Gender essentialism: "the idea that men and women act differently and have different options in life because of intrinsic or essential differences between the genders." This is opposed to the idea that gender is a difference between men and women as a result of cultural and historical teachings about what it means to be a given gender.
Quotation Source


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

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 don't have at hand specific sources to present data, but I would say the Hispanic immigrant - whatever his racial distinction - will experience depending on location and history. Based on the regional history of the US, if you are Hispanic (white or not) in the Southwestern States it is likely to be the first approach. If you are an immigrant moving to say Florida or New York, your experience may likely be the latter.

If that seems less than a stellar answer, I'm sorry. I could bring up personal experiences across both sides of the question, but that would not add to the discussion.


thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
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.

I'm amused by this in the context of the official reason for this thread: Larry Correia praising Pathfinder for diversity.

The official stated reason for that diversity is exactly what he complains about: making sure they had representative characters of different genders and different races and even now LGBTQ characters.

Except Paizo didn't write the characters to just fill in a box. They made them awesome. And most new authors (Correia's audience for the gender post) wont be able to take something they aren't familiar with and make it awesome. It will come across as either bland or preachy, and no one will read it. And if no one reads your stuff, you will never make money.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I'm amused by this in the context of the official reason for this thread: Larry Correia praising Pathfinder for diversity.

The official stated reason for that diversity is exactly what he complains about: making sure they had representative characters of different genders and different races and even now LGBTQ characters.

Eh. His main point is that you shouldn't put message ahead of story. Paizo does not do that.

If merely including minority characters for non-plot essential reasons was actually something he objected to, his own books would read very differently.


Nah. Sorry I was unclear. I don't like gender norms and would like to help fight them at the source: Kids being told by their parents, and media, that they're supposed to behave in certain ways. :)

EDIT: Well, one of the sources. Fighting the parents may not go down well.

EDIT x2: Okay, I looked it up. Sounds like Bubblegum and Marceline only happened by Word of God, which doesn't exactly mean much. They still didn't put it in the show, for, I'm sure, a variety of reasons. :P


Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
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.

I'm amused by this in the context of the official reason for this thread: Larry Correia praising Pathfinder for diversity.

The official stated reason for that diversity is exactly what he complains about: making sure they had representative characters of different genders and different races and even now LGBTQ characters.

Except Paizo didn't write the characters to just fill in a box. They made them awesome. And most new authors (Correia's audience for the gender post) wont be able to take something they aren't familiar with and make it awesome. It will come across as either bland or preachy, and no one will read it. And if no one reads your stuff, you will never make money.

Luckily no one actually advises new authors to add diversity just to fill the box. Including the post he responded to about going beyond two genders. Correia added that in all himself.

And that exact criticism has been aimed at Paizo with nearly every appearance of new diversity, particularly the recent trans characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nobody has to advise new authors to make mistakes. They come up with those alllll on their own. ;)


Quote:
HerosBackpack wrote:

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.

That is neither what he said, nor what he meant. He said that including transgender people in books shouldn't be mandatory, and that they were rare. He also said a fair bit of fairly ignorant stuff on the subject...but not what you just said.

He said 1. that gender was binary

2. that books should only show his assumed norms (binary) unless you were making it specifically about the multiple genders.
Quote:

male and female ... is a biological norm for all the higher life forms

what with all this BS with made up pronouns to get rid of Him and Her,

readers are going to assume that everything in your book is similar to the world they currently live in,

if it doesn’t play into the story at all, then why bother? And every time you change something to be different from the expected, there had better be a reason for it

I look around me and see at least 5 genders, right here in the present world. That's my world, the one I live in. I'd like to have the same chance of seeing all of those genders just having a great story to tell. Without it being hyperfocused on the gender. "This is Danny, he's bashing orcs with a greatsword." "This is Alex, zie's shooting the orcs with a longbow." "This is Qatz, they're guarding Danny's back as he fights."

Even Paizo, inclusive as they are, doesn't really have much that represents me. I like that they are inclusive, but I'd like to see NPCs and characters like me too....

Quote:
HerosBackpack wrote:

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")

Uh...much as Correia says some potentially unpleasant stuff on transgender issues, can you give me a quote? Because I remember nothing remotely like this.

He didn't give that example, but not having to worry about being beaten up over that is one of the "invisible privileges" he dismisses, and I can't.

He said:

Quote:

you SJWs are the boy who cried wolf. When every unconscious action or event is somehow racist, after a while we tune you out. Real racists disappear into the tall grass of micro-aggressions and invisible privilege.

...

SJWs can even suck the fun out of Guardians of the Galaxy, so it is up to us people who aren’t total psychopaths to invite more people,

SJWs have their sense of fun surgically removed


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Gee, I don't see him saying anything about people getting beaten up in restrooms. I see him mentioning real racism, and saying there are real problems which SJWs end up drowning out with pointless melodrama, but I don't see him saying there are no real problems at all. In fact, he seems concerned that real problems like people getting beaten up in restrooms will be ignored because words like "racism" and "gendernormative" are losing their meaning.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Y'know what? People are just gonna misconstrue this post anyways. Screw it.

In case anyone was wondering why conversations about race (or sexuality, or what-have-you) are hard, here's why: People like the Warriors who will prefer to accuse anyone who disagrees of being racist instead of trying to contribute to a meaningful dialogue. This leads to people who want to discuss it saying nothing so they won't look bigoted. This leads to the Warriors crowing and the actual bigots cheerfully trolling. This leads to people hating Warriors. This leads to people hating what Warriors stand for.

That is why Correia is talking about "crying wolf". An argument about a serious issue (like, say, a police shooting) can get derailed by a single guy who accidentally says "colored person" instead of "person of color".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HerosBackpack wrote:

I look around me and see at least 5 genders, right here in the present world. That's my world, the one I live in. I'd like to have the same chance of seeing all of those genders just having a great story to tell. Without it being hyperfocused on the gender. "This is Danny, he's bashing orcs with a greatsword." "This is Alex, zie's shooting the orcs with a longbow." "This is Qatz, they're guarding Danny's back as he fights."

Even Paizo, inclusive as they are, doesn't really have much that represents me. I like that they are inclusive, but I'd like to see NPCs and characters like me too....

At a certain point, one has to accept that certain aspects of one's own character put them in so small (and so poorly understood) a niche that representing those certain traits or characteristics in something like a Pathfinder iconic simply isn't feasible. I'm all for Paizo introducing characters that make it clear that there is no stigma attached to one's sexual orientation, but the sexuality/gender/identity spectra are so diverse and so (to be frank) poorly organized in terms of vocabulary and consistency (try getting a room full of genderqueer people to agree on a set of neutral-gendered pronouns like zie/zir) that going for even finer granularity isn't something I see happening in the near future.


Alex Martin wrote:
thejeff wrote:

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 don't have at hand specific sources to present data, but I would say the Hispanic immigrant - whatever his racial distinction - will experience depending on location and history. Based on the regional history of the US, if you are Hispanic (white or not) in the Southwestern States it is likely to be the first approach. If you are an immigrant moving to say Florida or New York, your experience may likely be the latter.

If that seems less than a stellar answer, I'm sorry. I could bring up personal experiences across both sides of the question, but that would not add to the discussion.

Not in Florida. Stark white gingers who are vacationing from Spain will get called Cuban. And unless they are in Dade County that definitely won't carry any privilege.


thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
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.

I'm amused by this in the context of the official reason for this thread: Larry Correia praising Pathfinder for diversity.

The official stated reason for that diversity is exactly what he complains about: making sure they had representative characters of different genders and different races and even now LGBTQ characters.

Except Paizo didn't write the characters to just fill in a box. They made them awesome. And most new authors (Correia's audience for the gender post) wont be able to take something they aren't familiar with and make it awesome. It will come across as either bland or preachy, and no one will read it. And if no one reads your stuff, you will never make money.

Luckily no one actually advises new authors to add diversity just to fill the box. Including the post he responded to about going beyond two genders. Correia added that in all himself.

And that exact criticism has been aimed at Paizo with nearly every appearance of new diversity, particularly the recent trans characters.

The orriginal artical included such lines as

Quote:
I want an end to the default of binary gender in science fiction stories.
Quote:
I want to never again read entire anthologies of SF stories or large-cast novels where every character is binary-gendered.

Correia didn't add it.


Scott Betts wrote:
HerosBackpack wrote:

I look around me and see at least 5 genders, right here in the present world. That's my world, the one I live in. I'd like to have the same chance of seeing all of those genders just having a great story to tell. Without it being hyperfocused on the gender. "This is Danny, he's bashing orcs with a greatsword." "This is Alex, zie's shooting the orcs with a longbow." "This is Qatz, they're guarding Danny's back as he fights."

Even Paizo, inclusive as they are, doesn't really have much that represents me. I like that they are inclusive, but I'd like to see NPCs and characters like me too....

At a certain point, one has to accept that certain aspects of one's own character put them in so small (and so poorly understood) a niche that representing those certain traits or characteristics in something like a Pathfinder iconic simply isn't feasible. I'm all for Paizo introducing characters that make it clear that there is no stigma attached to one's sexual orientation, but the sexuality/gender/identity spectra are so diverse and so (to be frank) poorly organized in terms of vocabulary and consistency (try getting a room full of genderqueer people to agree on a set of neutral-gendered pronouns like zie/zir) that going for even finer granularity isn't something I see happening in the near future.

Yeah, I may have to write it myself somewhere down the line. And I'm not asking for an iconic, I'd just like to exist. (There's a genderqueer NPC in Mummy's Mask, I can wait for an Ace one or an Aro one.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:


Actually, Hispanic and Latino are an ethnicity.
And there has been discrimination along ethnic lines... 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

That doesn't mean Hispanics do NOT suffer from discrimination (in truth, they are one of the most discriminated groups in the US currently),

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.

I understand the difference between race and ethnicity. I understand that are you trying to make the distinction between the two types by example, and how it adds to criticism of Correia's commentary. My intent was not to criticize that argument.

However, my earlier point in the thread, was that earlier there were broad statements about how white Hispanics don't know discrimination.* This was further compounded by making broad accusations about people in this thread being racists without any citation.

In both cases, the point is that critiquing the writer as a racist or bigot gets undermined when the critic makes prejudiced statements. I would admit that you have clarified these statements in the course of the thread to better make your case, but that initial response was not.


HerosBackpack wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
HerosBackpack wrote:

I look around me and see at least 5 genders, right here in the present world. That's my world, the one I live in. I'd like to have the same chance of seeing all of those genders just having a great story to tell. Without it being hyperfocused on the gender. "This is Danny, he's bashing orcs with a greatsword." "This is Alex, zie's shooting the orcs with a longbow." "This is Qatz, they're guarding Danny's back as he fights."

Even Paizo, inclusive as they are, doesn't really have much that represents me. I like that they are inclusive, but I'd like to see NPCs and characters like me too....

At a certain point, one has to accept that certain aspects of one's own character put them in so small (and so poorly understood) a niche that representing those certain traits or characteristics in something like a Pathfinder iconic simply isn't feasible. I'm all for Paizo introducing characters that make it clear that there is no stigma attached to one's sexual orientation, but the sexuality/gender/identity spectra are so diverse and so (to be frank) poorly organized in terms of vocabulary and consistency (try getting a room full of genderqueer people to agree on a set of neutral-gendered pronouns like zie/zir) that going for even finer granularity isn't something I see happening in the near future.
Yeah, I may have to write it myself somewhere down the line. And I'm not asking for an iconic, I'd just like to exist. (There's a genderqueer NPC in Mummy's Mask, I can wait for an Ace one or an Aro one.)

Most authors do not and will not take the time to search out every minor group or individual definition to give it screen time. some of us are used to this and do not care. i do not understand this need at all.


Scott Betts wrote:
HerosBackpack wrote:

I look around me and see at least 5 genders, right here in the present world. That's my world, the one I live in. I'd like to have the same chance of seeing all of those genders just having a great story to tell. Without it being hyperfocused on the gender. "This is Danny, he's bashing orcs with a greatsword." "This is Alex, zie's shooting the orcs with a longbow." "This is Qatz, they're guarding Danny's back as he fights."

Even Paizo, inclusive as they are, doesn't really have much that represents me. I like that they are inclusive, but I'd like to see NPCs and characters like me too....

At a certain point, one has to accept that certain aspects of one's own character put them in so small (and so poorly understood) a niche that representing those certain traits or characteristics in something like a Pathfinder iconic simply isn't feasible. I'm all for Paizo introducing characters that make it clear that there is no stigma attached to one's sexual orientation, but the sexuality/gender/identity spectra are so diverse and so (to be frank) poorly organized in terms of vocabulary and consistency (try getting a room full of genderqueer people to agree on a set of neutral-gendered pronouns like zie/zir) that going for even finer granularity isn't something I see happening in the near future.

Did you know there is a transgendered iconic? She is awesome.


Caineach wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
HerosBackpack wrote:

I look around me and see at least 5 genders, right here in the present world. That's my world, the one I live in. I'd like to have the same chance of seeing all of those genders just having a great story to tell. Without it being hyperfocused on the gender. "This is Danny, he's bashing orcs with a greatsword." "This is Alex, zie's shooting the orcs with a longbow." "This is Qatz, they're guarding Danny's back as he fights."

Even Paizo, inclusive as they are, doesn't really have much that represents me. I like that they are inclusive, but I'd like to see NPCs and characters like me too....

At a certain point, one has to accept that certain aspects of one's own character put them in so small (and so poorly understood) a niche that representing those certain traits or characteristics in something like a Pathfinder iconic simply isn't feasible. I'm all for Paizo introducing characters that make it clear that there is no stigma attached to one's sexual orientation, but the sexuality/gender/identity spectra are so diverse and so (to be frank) poorly organized in terms of vocabulary and consistency (try getting a room full of genderqueer people to agree on a set of neutral-gendered pronouns like zie/zir) that going for even finer granularity isn't something I see happening in the near future.
Did you know there is a transgendered iconic? She is awesome.

Well written and in no way a token character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JurgenV wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
HerosBackpack wrote:

I look around me and see at least 5 genders, right here in the present world. That's my world, the one I live in. I'd like to have the same chance of seeing all of those genders just having a great story to tell. Without it being hyperfocused on the gender. "This is Danny, he's bashing orcs with a greatsword." "This is Alex, zie's shooting the orcs with a longbow." "This is Qatz, they're guarding Danny's back as he fights."

Even Paizo, inclusive as they are, doesn't really have much that represents me. I like that they are inclusive, but I'd like to see NPCs and characters like me too....

At a certain point, one has to accept that certain aspects of one's own character put them in so small (and so poorly understood) a niche that representing those certain traits or characteristics in something like a Pathfinder iconic simply isn't feasible. I'm all for Paizo introducing characters that make it clear that there is no stigma attached to one's sexual orientation, but the sexuality/gender/identity spectra are so diverse and so (to be frank) poorly organized in terms of vocabulary and consistency (try getting a room full of genderqueer people to agree on a set of neutral-gendered pronouns like zie/zir) that going for even finer granularity isn't something I see happening in the near future.
Did you know there is a transgendered iconic? She is awesome.
Well written and in no way a token character.

And that is why Paizo can get away with including characters like her. They treat her well, don't harp on the subject of her being transgender, and they focus on making her awesome. It takes skill to make characters like her.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
JurgenV wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
HerosBackpack wrote:

I look around me and see at least 5 genders, right here in the present world. That's my world, the one I live in. I'd like to have the same chance of seeing all of those genders just having a great story to tell. Without it being hyperfocused on the gender. "This is Danny, he's bashing orcs with a greatsword." "This is Alex, zie's shooting the orcs with a longbow." "This is Qatz, they're guarding Danny's back as he fights."

Even Paizo, inclusive as they are, doesn't really have much that represents me. I like that they are inclusive, but I'd like to see NPCs and characters like me too....

At a certain point, one has to accept that certain aspects of one's own character put them in so small (and so poorly understood) a niche that representing those certain traits or characteristics in something like a Pathfinder iconic simply isn't feasible. I'm all for Paizo introducing characters that make it clear that there is no stigma attached to one's sexual orientation, but the sexuality/gender/identity spectra are so diverse and so (to be frank) poorly organized in terms of vocabulary and consistency (try getting a room full of genderqueer people to agree on a set of neutral-gendered pronouns like zie/zir) that going for even finer granularity isn't something I see happening in the near future.
Did you know there is a transgendered iconic? She is awesome.
Well written and in no way a token character.
And that is why Paizo can get away with including characters like her. They treat her well, don't harp on the subject of her being transgender, and they focus on making her awesome. It takes skill to make characters like her.

They make it PART of the character, not in place OF the character. It makes sense to who the character is not something tacked on.


JurgenV wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Did you know there is a transgendered iconic? She is awesome.
Well written and in no way a token character.

No one has said anyone should be writing token characters. At least if you define token as badly written.

OTOH, Paizo definitely wanted to have a trans iconic, so in some sense she could be considered a token.

And yes, she is awesome.


JurgenV wrote:
Caineach wrote:
JurgenV wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
HerosBackpack wrote:

I look around me and see at least 5 genders, right here in the present world. That's my world, the one I live in. I'd like to have the same chance of seeing all of those genders just having a great story to tell. Without it being hyperfocused on the gender. "This is Danny, he's bashing orcs with a greatsword." "This is Alex, zie's shooting the orcs with a longbow." "This is Qatz, they're guarding Danny's back as he fights."

Even Paizo, inclusive as they are, doesn't really have much that represents me. I like that they are inclusive, but I'd like to see NPCs and characters like me too....

At a certain point, one has to accept that certain aspects of one's own character put them in so small (and so poorly understood) a niche that representing those certain traits or characteristics in something like a Pathfinder iconic simply isn't feasible. I'm all for Paizo introducing characters that make it clear that there is no stigma attached to one's sexual orientation, but the sexuality/gender/identity spectra are so diverse and so (to be frank) poorly organized in terms of vocabulary and consistency (try getting a room full of genderqueer people to agree on a set of neutral-gendered pronouns like zie/zir) that going for even finer granularity isn't something I see happening in the near future.
Did you know there is a transgendered iconic? She is awesome.
Well written and in no way a token character.
And that is why Paizo can get away with including characters like her. They treat her well, don't harp on the subject of her being transgender, and they focus on making her awesome. It takes skill to make characters like her.
They make it PART of the character, not in place OF the character. It makes sense to who the character is not something tacked on.

I can't believe the argument has devolved to "Larry said writers shouldn't write lousy characters. Unlike that guy he was responding to who totally said they should."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, it is pretty crazy there are people arguing that Larry is bigoted for saying that.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, it is pretty crazy there are people arguing that Larry is bigoted for saying that.

That's because some of us don't think that's all he's saying. Though it's kind of hard to get through all the stuff about there being only 2 biological sexes (which pretty much misses the entire point, even though it's true. Because gender<>sex)

He's writing an attack piece on a post which absolutely doesn't say "Write lousy token characters" and the only thing he has to say is "Don't write lousy token characters"?

To steal from Jim Hine's take on it, because he's a professional and says it better than I can.

Quote:

I … actually, I pretty much agree with him here. People read for story, not for checklists or quotas or lectures. I see nothing in MacFarlane’s article to suggest she believes any differently. Calling for authors to be more thoughtful about their craft doesn’t mean you’re telling authors to abandon story for MESSAGE.

But you know, readers also tend to enjoy stories where they can find characters like themselves. Which is easy if you’re a straight white dude, and gets progressively more difficult the further you stray from that default. Maybe if we want to write enjoyable stories, we should try looking beyond the same old default that’s been done again and again throughout the history of the genre.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

...Gender is neither greater than nor equal to sex?

Gender and sex are moirails?

Kobold Cleaver doesn't have much to say and never saw "<>" used to mean "=/="?

Hey, look, a fish! <><


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

...Gender is neither greater than nor equal to sex?

Gender and sex are moirails?

Kobold Cleaver doesn't have much to say and never saw "<>" used to mean "=/="?

Hey, look, a fish! <><

Sorry. Programming usage. "!=" would be my other go to.

And it would be "Less than or Greater than", with equal remaining as the untrue option. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, it is pretty crazy there are people arguing that Larry is bigoted for saying that.

That's because some of us don't think that's all he's saying. Though it's kind of hard to get through all the stuff about there being only 2 biological sexes (which pretty much misses the entire point, even though it's true. Because gender<>sex)

He's writing an attack piece on a post which absolutely doesn't say "Write lousy token characters" and the only thing he has to say is "Don't write lousy token characters"?

To steal from Jim Hine's take on it, because he's a professional and says it better than I can.

Quote:

I … actually, I pretty much agree with him here. People read for story, not for checklists or quotas or lectures. I see nothing in MacFarlane’s article to suggest she believes any differently. Calling for authors to be more thoughtful about their craft doesn’t mean you’re telling authors to abandon story for MESSAGE.

But you know, readers also tend to enjoy stories where they can find characters like themselves. Which is easy if you’re a straight white dude, and gets progressively more difficult the further you stray from that default. Maybe if we want to write enjoyable stories, we should try looking beyond the same old default that’s been done again and again throughout the history of the genre.

Yeah, I read that failed attempt at a fisking already. It agrees with every important point of Correia, but still somehow tries to say he is wrong. Not to mention it makes assertions about Correia's stance and writing that are incorrect.


*Throws away thirty pages of Gender/Sex paleshipfic* :(

But hey, actually, I do have something to say here. Like I mentioned earlier, "boys don't read". So I actually think it's more likely guys have more trouble finding characters to relate to—in books—than girls do.

Just saying that because "straight white male" is a popular buzzword. Written fiction is one of the few places it's "straight white female". :P


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

*Throws away thirty pages of Gender/Sex paleshipfic* :(

But hey, actually, I do have something to say here. Like I mentioned earlier, "boys don't read". So I actually think it's more likely guys have more trouble finding characters to relate to—in books—than girls do.

Just saying that because "straight white male" is a popular buzzword. Written fiction is one of the few places it's "straight white female". :P

I suspect that is true in teen fiction, but I find that hard to believe elsewhere from my personal experience.

edit: wait, I forgot romance novels.


I don't see how that works. More teen female readers means more adult female readers. That said, my main experience is talking to a teen writer I know, soooo...

With regards to teen fiction, just off the top of my head: Inception, Hunger Games, Twilight—basically, only fantasy and sci-fi are "safe". ;P


Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, it is pretty crazy there are people arguing that Larry is bigoted for saying that.

That's because some of us don't think that's all he's saying. Though it's kind of hard to get through all the stuff about there being only 2 biological sexes (which pretty much misses the entire point, even though it's true. Because gender<>sex)

He's writing an attack piece on a post which absolutely doesn't say "Write lousy token characters" and the only thing he has to say is "Don't write lousy token characters"?

To steal from Jim Hine's take on it, because he's a professional and says it better than I can.

Quote:

I … actually, I pretty much agree with him here. People read for story, not for checklists or quotas or lectures. I see nothing in MacFarlane’s article to suggest she believes any differently. Calling for authors to be more thoughtful about their craft doesn’t mean you’re telling authors to abandon story for MESSAGE.

But you know, readers also tend to enjoy stories where they can find characters like themselves. Which is easy if you’re a straight white dude, and gets progressively more difficult the further you stray from that default. Maybe if we want to write enjoyable stories, we should try looking beyond the same old default that’s been done again and again throughout the history of the genre.

Yeah, I read that failed attempt at a fisking already. It agrees with every important point of Correia, but still somehow tries to say he is wrong. Not to mention it makes assertions about Correia's stance and writing that are incorrect.

That last may well be true, but for the first, yeah if you reduce Correia's screed to "Don't write tokens" or "Story is more important than message", then all three of them agree.

Which makes Correia's takedown of MacFarlane's post pretty pathetic already.

Except I do think he's saying more than that. And I think it ties into his mocking of George.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I don't see how that works. More teen female readers means more adult female readers. That said, my main experience is talking to a teen writer I know, soooo...

With regards to teen fiction, just off the top of my head: Inception, Hunger Games, Twilight—basically, only fantasy and sci-fi are "safe". ;P

I think its because female teen fiction is newer, mostly within the last 10 years or so. So if your talking about new fiction I would be more inclined to agree with you.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kittyburger wrote:
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.

Well, when you write a story you're not just watching random events unfold. You are (usually?) making deliberate choices, so anything included is bound to have a "reason" to exist. In the perfect world, that reason should be in service of the story, rather than a 'diversity checklist'.

At least, that's how I understand his point.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Adventure Time is basically on the levels of Legend of Korra and Batman: The Animated Series. It's not really for the same crowd of kids Disney focuses on.

Korra kind of left that venue when they started killing characters on screen. Which is why it's no longer broadcast but web only as of the last few episodes.


Ah. I've only seen Season One so far, so I guess I was referring to that. :P

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, I've tried avoiding this thread for a while, but this is so endemic of everything wrong with this debate and society in general I can't let it go.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

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."

It's not a No True Scotsman. If his family had immigrated from a Latin American country and had a background there, then I would have no problem saying he's Latino. At some point there's a difference between NTS and just ignoring facts.

The Dutch colonized Africa, too. Most South Africans speak a version of the dialect they inherited. Do I get to say I'm black now? If you answer "no" to that, well, then I suppose you're submitting to No True Scotsman. I could easily be mistaken for a really, really, really, really light skinned black guy, so obviously I've faced discrimination.

Remember, if you point out the absurdity of that, you're engaging in a logical fallacy!

If I insisted that Larry Correia wasn't Latino because he doesn't act stereotypically Latino enough, or doesn't trace his lineage far back enough, you would have a case on your hands. But that is not the case at all.

Nobody was insisting he, personally, is rich. There was some conversation about gaming typically being a middle upper-class hobby, which is predominately white. But being a poor white person is not nearly the same as being a poor PoC. Just like being a poor man is not the same as being a poor woman. Or being a poor straight person is not the same as being a poor gay person. Wealth is its own distinction with its own set of inherent privileges, but poverty is not the great equalizer everybody likes to treat it as.

Quote:

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?

Horse. $%^@.

If that's what we were saying, most of us would be calling ourselves racist. I didn't agree with a lot of what A.A. George wrote. But there is a HUGE difference between disagreeing with an article, and being utterly dismissive and calling the author a racist.

Which is what happened. The first people to start throwing around the "R" word were people who wanted to dig at "SJW" types so they blatantly called A.A. George a racist. And then we were racist for pointing out that Larry Correia is actually Western European, so even if you say "OK, that's Latino", it's still really disingenuous to describe himself as a person of color.

If you want to break this down into a way oversimplified version of events, it's a lot more like:

"I definitely agree with Larry. That tor.com was full of it."
"I found his attitude to be terrible - that first article wasn't entirely off base."
"Whatever, A.A. George is a racist. Besides Larry Correia is a PoC - he's Latino!"
"He's a white skinned European. So, no, he's not really."
"You're racist!"
"White privilege exists and that specific attitude about it is problematic."
"You're calling us racist!"

People on this side of the divide have been very careful about calling those on the board on the other side racist. mechaPoet even apologized for straddling too close to that line. But pointing out problematic attitudes or acknowledging that white privilege exists is not the same as saying white people are racist. The same way most men aren't chauvinists or most heterosexuals (well, sadly, that still depends on geography a bit) are not homophobic - it's just that those who are privileged by a system tend not to notice it. We live within a very narrow experience and don't bother to look at it through the lens of somebody who hasn't had that experience.

Saying, "Your attitude is contributing to a problem," is not the same as, "You're a racist." But nobody likes to hear they're part of the problem, so it's far easier to dismiss anybody who points it out as a bunch of wild-eyed slacktivists who are just looking to slap labels on people.

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:
]My stance is and remains that he claims incorrectly to be a Person of Color to mock and dismiss racial discrimination.

Do we REALLY want to go down the road of saying "He isn't [color] enough to be a REAL [race]?


Kthulhu wrote:
thejeff wrote:
]My stance is and remains that he claims incorrectly to be a Person of Color to mock and dismiss racial discrimination.
Do we REALLY want to go down the road of saying "He isn't [color] enough to be a REAL [race]?

No. And I'm not.

He's Portuguese-American. He's European-American. He's white.

It's not about being not [color] enough to be a REAL [race].

This doesn't mean he wasn't poor. This doesn't mean he didn't face discrimination, 1st and 2nd generation immigrants often face discrimination where ever they come from. I lived until recently in a town with a high Polish immigrant population. They had a rough time of it in many ways. But that doesn't make them people of color.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess now we have appointed posters to decide who's white or a person of color,and based off of that who can or cannot experience racism (even if they have experienced racism).

Yeah, this thread jumped the shark. Just not sure if it was a great white shark or a shark of color.


Auxmaulous wrote:
I guess now we have appointed posters to decide who's white or a person of color,and based off of that who can or cannot experience racism (even if they have experienced racism).

Words actually mean things. They have definitions.

I give up.

Can I declare myself a person of color too? Maybe I'll be black and pontificate about how I've never been bothered by racism even though I've decided to be black.

Dark Archive

Maybe you should just stop deciding "other" peoples experiences - that's the part you should probably "give up" on. That or validating a persons discrimination based on the fact that they are a person of color (or not).
If a person of Irish decent gets beat down because he was Irish (race, heritage, religion) does him not being a "person of color" give him a faster healing rate? Did he experience "less" racism?

You can say whatever you want about yourself and your own personal experiences - people of other races do not need you to "white knight" for them and their experiences (coupled with guesses). They don't need you to speak for them.


Auxmaulous wrote:

Maybe you should just stop deciding "other" peoples experiences - that's the part you should probably "give up" on. That or validating a persons discrimination based on the fact that they are a person of color (or not).

If a person of Irish decent gets beat down because he was Irish (race, heritage, religion) does him not being a "person of color" give him a faster healing rate? Did he experience "less" racism?

You can say whatever you want about yourself and your own personal experiences - people of other races do not need you to "white knight" for them and their experiences (coupled with guesses). They don't need you to speak for them.

No. The Irish guy doesn't heal faster nor does his beat down become less discrimination.

He also doesn't become a person of color because he got beaten up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Horse. S!+~.

*Ponyfeathers

EntrerisShadow wrote:

It's not a No True Scotsman. If his family had immigrated from a Latin American country and had a background there, then I would have no problem saying he's Latino. At some point there's a difference between NTS and just ignoring facts.

Actually, I'm more protesting about the people claiming Correia hasn't dealt with discrimination and treating this article as proof of that. They then point to things like "insufficiently non-white".

Quote:

"White privilege exists and that specific attitude about it is problematic."

"You're calling us racist!"

Yeah, that does look pretty bad when you carefully leave out the implications people made that we're racist and privileged for disagreeing.

Also, since nobody else has mentioned it, I guess I should make some kinda joke about "transethnics". ;D

401 to 450 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