| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
spotted the CN characterWho are you playing with?
If friends, does it even matter? If you don't publish your world publicly you shouldn't be afraid of offending anyone. Which is really what offensive things are, it's not an inherent quality to an act, but relative to those exposed to it. You can perform the vilest act imaginable, but if your sole witness is a rat, odds are no one will be offended...
Offensive is an adjective that means "to offend". To be offended one needs to be sentient and perceive the act.
Is eating meat on a sunday offensive? It would be to some. Eating a cow. To some. Eating any meat to others. Eating any animal products even to some.
Offensiveness is not an objective absolute, it is relatove to the perceiver. As such, whether a thing is offensive or not depends on who will be exposed.
This is in contrast to respect if the law, for example. Kill someone secretly and defile their body without being caught and you may not go to prison but you still have broken the law. You will not have offended anyone though because none were made aware of the deeds.
Offensive, unlawful, and vile are three completely independant concepts.
I find these arguments absurd. It's the first time I hear dwarves compared to Jews... but then again, in fantasy I guess anything even remotely greedy is automatically antisemetic. Absurd. It takes more than greed to make something "jew like", and honestly I find the mere idea of linking greed to jewery more antisemetic than the creation of greedy fantasy races themselves. Most dwarf stereotypes are completely incompatible with most jewish stereotypes anyways. I can't even fathom the thought that modern dwarf depictions can in any way harm jews. May as well say orc portrayals are islamophobic. Why? Who knows, but I'm sure someone could find some likeness to justify such a claim...Racism is not about intention at all, because racism is negative. People only do stuff for positive reasons, as selfish or deluded as they may be.
J. R. R. Tolkien based his dwarves on Jews, explicitly. But his depiction intended to be a celebration of Jewish culture and heritage.
While there are certainly too many merits for his work and his intention, it's hard to argue that dwarves being greedy gold diggers, in spite of their bravery and warm heartenedness, is not a racist stereotype.
We can forgive the misstep because of his intention and the cultural mores of his time, But it doesn't cease to be a harming depiction.
And no, I'm not saying that picturing a single character in a negative light means the author thinks the same of everyone of that race (I'd think much more of The merchant of Venice if Shylock's daughter didn't convert to Christianity), but it's another thing to embed racial stereotypes to a whole race.
"The dwarves of course are quite obviously - wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic."
Guess who wrote that. Starts with "J" and ends with "-Ohn Ronald Reuel Tolkien, and if you think antisemitic depictions of dwarves are harmless and absurd, you ought to do your homework and do some reading about Wagner's opus, particularly Ring of Nibelung, and its impact on German antisemitism leading towards Nazism".
spotted the CN characterWho are you playing with?
If friends, does it even matter? If you don't publish your world publicly you shouldn't be afraid of offending anyone. Which is really what offensive things are, it's not an inherent quality to an act, but relative to those exposed to it. You can perform the vilest act imaginable, but if your sole witness is a rat, odds are no one will be offended...
Offensive is an adjective that means "to offend". To be offended one needs to be sentient and perceive the act.
Is eating meat on a sunday offensive? It would be to some. Eating a cow. To some. Eating any meat to others. Eating any animal products even to some.
Offensiveness is not an objective absolute, it is relatove to the perceiver. As such, whether a thing is offensive or not depends on who will be exposed.
This is in contrast to respect if the law, for example. Kill someone secretly and defile their body without being caught and you may not go to prison but you still have broken the law. You will not have offended anyone though because none were made aware of the deeds.
Offensive, unlawful, and vile are three completely independant concepts.
Look, I'd rather discuss race than alignment. Let's stick to less controversial topics.
|
If you feel like this is a problem, I suggest (to the OP) to start by having a good identity for these creatures, sure they are analogues, but they shouldn't be carbon copies. They should have their own history, culture and way of being. Look at how pathfinder did its version of Europe and North Africa, similar so you can see where the numbers where filed off, but each is unique in its own right.
I think this statement can be empirically disproven. Well, not the fact that you agree, obviously. But unconscious and unintentional racism is a well-established thing. You might think that you are completely race-blind, but it may still show up in your behavior.
I do agree with raving dork in that you need to intentionally be racist to actually be racist though.
Okay, so, assuming that that test is even a viable source. What do we do about something that's so subconscious and apparently ingrained in nearly every person, to the point that I can wholly feel nothing different when I look at people of other races... and still be racist on some deep, primal level.
What should we do about that? I think nothing, I don't think that it matters. Because even if that's an actual thing that I have, I dont see it affecting how I treat people.
This series of articles might help. Or it might be more of what you already know, OP.
Personally the best part is at the beginning where the author says people are going to fail in the process and that's okay. For some people that's a no-brainer. For someone like me we actually have to be told that directly.
It's a strong set of articles, and written in an angry tone, which may make it difficult for some to digest. But worth reading, all the same.
My advice to the OP would be to research each race/culture and come up with three things about them that we could admire and three that we don't care for. And then admit that -- if the OP is in fact a white -- his or her lens will be over their eyes and "admirable" and "regretable" will be in OUR values. But it's still better than "worth killing on sight." And to make sure that his campaign happens in a cosmopolitan area where others tend to not want to kill these other races on sight, too. Certainly not Phoenicians, obviously -- they want to buy what these people have for sale and sell local goods to them. But what about Persians? Spartans?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The dwarves of course are quite obviously - wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic."Guess who wrote that. Starts with "J" and ends with "-Ohn Ronald Reuel Tolkien, and if you think antisemitic depictions of dwarves are harmless and...
That's irrelevant. The creation is more than the sum of it's parts and it has evolved and matured since. Just because he thought of jews when he made them, and regardless of what he may have said or thought on jews, to call dwarfs antisemetic is both to reduce dwarves to a fraction of what they are AND to equate semetism with greed. It's ironic that those who make the most passionate arguments against antisemetism are the ones who argue the most by linking them with stereotypical faults. I cannot think of a more antisemetic statement than the one stating that a certain fantasy race is antisemetic because it is greedy.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about making something that isn't offensive, it's about not being offended because the well known history of some ancient ancestor correlates to a specific lifestyle suitable for comparison to some fantasy RPG racial attribute.
Further, it's about deciding that you can't be held responsible for what someone else may or may not find offensive. There was a time if someone said something offensive to you, you would walk away, stop listening, or just ignore them. When you choose not to say something like "Men are smart!" for fear that you might offend women, then things are clearly going too far. Just because a woman could infer that since you did not include women in the statement you are saying that women are not smart does not mean that you either intended to or should have offended any men. To be honest, by merely posting those two previous sentences I have probably offended some women because they feel that I am saying that women are too easily offended!
Recently everyone has started going on crusades to ensure that no one else says anything that might be offensive to them, as a result people are expected to ensure that nothing they say could ever be taken as offensive. If they do say something offensive, they get fired, blacklisted, or boycotted. Potentially even charged with slander or some other allegation.
That's irrelevant. The creation is more than the sum of it's parts and it has evolved and matured since. Just because he thought of jews when he made them, and regardless of what he may have said or thought on jews, to call dwarfs antisemetic is both to reduce dwarves to a fraction of what they are AND to equate semetism with greed. It's ironic that those who make the most passionate arguments against antisemetism are the ones who argue the most by linking them with stereotypical faults. I cannot think of a more antisemetic statement than the one stating that a certain fantasy race is antisemetic because it is greedy.
"The dwarves of course are quite obviously - wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic."Guess who wrote that. Starts with "J" and ends with "-Ohn Ronald Reuel Tolkien, and if you think antisemitic depictions of dwarves are harmless and...
Yes, creations evolve, but it's not done by ignoring their implications and creative animus as you suggest we all should do.
Modern dwarf depictions don't harm Jews. I never said they did. But this is because of awareness, not because of lack of it.
Wagner wanted his dwarves to be grotesque racial mockeries of Jews. There is evidence of his intent, and tragically plentiful evidence of its repercussions (and no, I'm not blaming all antisemitism on Wagner, he just happened to be someone who actively fostered it through the popular culture of Germany).
Tolkien based his dwarves on Wagner's, but explicitly attempted to make it a homage to the Jewish spirit. He built their culture, mythos and language on Jewish people. He took Wagner's insult and turn it to praise.
However, not divorcing the dwarves from an unified lust for gold makes the depiction racist and offensive to many, in spite of Tolkien's intent (this is my point – things can be racist beyond the intentions of the author).
Dwarves have since become more tied to Scottish culture, which makes their inherent greed less resonant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about making something that isn't offensive, it's about not being offended because the well known history of some ancient ancestor correlates to a specific lifestyle suitable for comparison to some fantasy RPG racial attribute.
Further, it's about deciding that you can't be held responsible for what someone else may or may not find offensive. There was a time if someone said something offensive to you, you would walk away, stop listening, or just ignore them. When you choose not to say something like "Men are smart!" for fear that you might offend women, then things are clearly going too far. Just because a woman could infer that since you did not include women in the statement you are saying that women are not smart does not mean that you either intended to or should have offended any men. To be honest, by merely posting those two previous sentences I have probably offended some women because they feel that I am saying that women are too easily offended!
Recently everyone has started going on crusades to ensure that no one else says anything that might be offensive to them, as a result people are expected to ensure that nothing they say could ever be taken as offensive. If they do say something offensive, they get fired, blacklisted, or boycotted. Potentially even charged with slander or some other allegation.
So much this.
You mean they suffer repercussions for saying something offensive. As they should.
If something if offensive the correct response is NOT "they need to stop being offended", it's "you* need to stop being offensive".
*general you
You need to be careful with that line of thinking though, Rysky. That very quickly leads to the kind of slippery slope that will ultimately doom our own rights to free speech. We don't need an oppressive government, manipulative media, or foreign power for that. Our own citizens are already oppressing free speech through fear and stigmatization.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really?
The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason, it's b~&&$&#%. You're immediately appealing to fear and jumping to the far end outcome instead of actually engaging the current situation.
Freedom of speech does not entitle you to a platform nor a audience. It does not protect you if you are offensive or hateful nor should it. It's not a shield you can hide behind and demand you're being oppressed when you are the one being hateful and offensive.
Bigots should be afraid. They should be stigmatized.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about making something that isn't offensive, it's about not being offended because the well known history of some ancient ancestor correlates to a specific lifestyle suitable for comparison to some fantasy RPG racial attribute.
Further, it's about deciding that you can't be held responsible for what someone else may or may not find offensive. There was a time if someone said something offensive to you, you would walk away, stop listening, or just ignore them. When you choose not to say something like "Men are smart!" for fear that you might offend women, then things are clearly going too far. Just because a woman could infer that since you did not include women in the statement you are saying that women are not smart does not mean that you either intended to or should have offended any men. To be honest, by merely posting those two previous sentences I have probably offended some women because they feel that I am saying that women are too easily offended!
Recently everyone has started going on crusades to ensure that no one else says anything that might be offensive to them, as a result people are expected to ensure that nothing they say could ever be taken as offensive. If they do say something offensive, they get fired, blacklisted, or boycotted. Potentially even charged with slander or some other allegation.
So much this.
You need to be careful with that line of thinking though, Rysky. That very quickly leads to the kind of slippery slope that will ultimately doom our own rights to free speech. We don't need an oppressive government, manipulative media, or foreign power for that. Our own citizens are already oppressing free speech through fear and stigmatization.You mean they suffer repercussions for saying something offensive. As they should.
If something if offensive the correct response is NOT "they need to stop being offended", it's "you* need to stop being offensive".
*general you
I for one am all for making nazis and other racists feel stigmatized and in fear. I don't think that's quite a controversial position to take and I don't quite understand why we're arguing for racists to be able to feel safe to be racist. Of course the law will protect you if someone breaks the law, regardless of what offensive things you've said. But if you're spewing hate speech, you should definitely feel unsafe, because you aren't safe.
Am I the only one extremely confused why so many people are so adamantly supporting free speech for racists all of a sudden? They have free speech, but their freedom of speech does not keep them immune to others' free speech or from those willing to commit crimes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Free speech for everyone.
Outspoken, loud and assertive social condemnation and ostracism for bigots.
That's my recipe for democracy.
I suggest reading Marcuse's essay on Repressive Tolerance. It helps to put things into perspective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest reading Marcuse's essay on Repressive Tolerance. It helps to put things into perspective.
I'm not a big fan of his focus on radicalized factions. I would've preferred a more generalized individual centered approach, but still interesting. (I'm very critical of opinion pieces, regardless of who they come from, just had to write a report that analyzed the opinions of two different news sources in terms of mobile device manipulation. I didn't know [major news network] could mention lizard people that many times...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its not all of a sudden and its because suppression of free speech is corrosive and the tools created to do so in (what people believe is) a righteous fashion can be used in an unrighteous one the moment a balance of power shifts.
History has some pretty stark examples of laws being created to help a group or hinder another that ended up being used to beat down a different group of people. I think it was the Sherman Antitrust act in the late 1800's that was aimed at breaking up big monopolies in railroads and steel work but was actually used to suppress union organization on the grounds that it created a "labor monopoly".
You're going to get the same result with social pressure or methods that dont move through the legal system. It will work fine for areas that are majority anti-racist, your berkleys, larger cities. But the justifications and tactics used and treated as socially ok will simply be adopted and used by the people who get it used against them and they'll turn it on the people everyone thinks they're protecting in less progressive areas. You can see this kind of adoption in the way terms like safe space and triggering have become subjects of mockery and linguistic weapons used by both left and right against one another. They may have once had a useful purpose but at this point they're discourse enders when used across ideological lines.
Moreover there will always be a group of people aiming for shock value, or taboo behaviors. By making a huge scene about these people you create buzz about their ideologies and draw more and more attention to them. You create their audience when you shut them down in dramatic public fashion. Conversely, most of the time if you let these people talk long enough they'll jam their foot in their mouth and you can count on the fact that the sane and reasonable will distance themselves, M. Yiawhateverpoulis as an example. If you make it an issue of "are only certain people allowed to talk, are only certain groups allowed to invite speakers to a campus" you're going to have a swarm of people who end up having to defend those they dont agree with on the grounds of protecting basic principles and freedoms from erosion.
|
|
First, My intent was not to stir up questions of American rights on Paizo's forum, as a vendor with international customers that could be offensive to anyone viewing these forums who doesn't have those same rights.
My intention was only to bring focus to the fact that while some things are obviously offensive, other things that one person might not consider offensive, someone else could consider offensive. So someone can be speaking with no intent to offend anyone and yet still might do so.
To spend your life so concerned that you might offend someone you have to go around asking people if you can say something without offending them is not very practical. By the same token, to be concerned that what racial choice you make to personify a region or culture may offend someone so you feel you need to reach out to the forum seems a little overboard to me. Perfect example the OP feels there is no issue with assigning Orc's as the Racial representatives of the spartan empire. To a historian that thrives on the Spartan culture having any race that is not naturally inclined towards lawful is offensive. Sure the spartans are a warlike culture, but they were a warlike culture so rooted in their own laws and heritage that weak mis-shapen children were simply cast aside as not being worthy.
No one was making a huge scene about oppressing racially insensitive behavior until someone said people who acted racially insensitive were being oppressed... Again, this is really weird. We've got to stop advocating on the behalf of racists. No one's free speech is being oppressed. You're still legally allowed to be a racist. But you still suffer consequences for it. You might lose your job for harassing a coworker due to their race. That's ok, you still voiced your free speech, and your former company did too. If your company does something racist, you voiced your free speech. So when consumers voice their free speech and boycott your product, even if you go under, that's all on you. That isn't the fault of the government, or the people you harmed by saying something hurtful. It's on you. Free speech works both ways, and it doesn't protect you from the free speech of others. If I go out right now stark naked, save a sock with the logo of the company I'm working at, firing me is definitely on the table (along, hopefully, with therapy). Your free speech can, and very well may, be obstructed and harmed by the free speech of another. But that does not mean you didn't get the opportunity to voice your free speech. You have the opportunity to speak, not the opportunity to speak the loudest and be spoken to kindly for your words, especially when they are words of hate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really?
The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason, it's b%~#@*%*. You're immediately appealing to fear and jumping to the far end outcome instead of actually engaging the current situation.
Freedom of speech does not entitle you to a platform nor a audience. It does not protect you if you are offensive or hateful nor should it. It's not a shield you can hide behind and demand you're being oppressed when you are the one being hateful and offensive.
Bigots should be afraid. They should be stigmatized.
If you can't say anything offensive, you don't have freedom of speech. You don't need protection to be able to say stuff everyone agrees on.
Bigotry is defined as "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". Saying people should be punished for their opinions and/or for voicing those opinions is, in fact, quite biggoted.
The way to fight racism, sexism and prejudice is by showing how and why that type of thinking is flawed, not by inflicting on their right to express themselves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So long as it doesn't impinge upon the rights of others, or put anyone in danger, speech should be (and is) legally protected in the US.
A person is also permitted to believe in whatever they want (no matter how absurd or horrible). There is no thought police, nor should there ever be.
What then gives a person the right to then condemn someone else based on the accuser's beliefs? Absolutely nothing, that's what.
It's only when beliefs turn into actions, and those actions impinge upon the rights of others, that they should be targeted for stigmatization.
Anything else gets WAY too close to the distopian nightmare of 1984.
I for one am all for making nazis and other racists feel stigmatized and in fear. I don't think that's quite a controversial position to take and I don't quite understand why we're arguing for racists to be able to feel safe to be racist. Of course the law will protect you if someone breaks the law, regardless of what offensive things you've said. But if you're spewing hate speech, you should definitely feel unsafe, because you aren't safe.
Am I the only one extremely confused why so many people are so adamantly supporting free speech for racists all of a sudden? They have free speech, but their freedom of speech does not keep them immune to others' free speech or from those willing to commit crimes.
No one is doing what you describe. Not even close.
No one was making a huge scene about oppressing racially insensitive behavior until someone said people who acted racially insensitive were being oppressed... Again, this is really weird. We've got to stop advocating on the behalf of racists.
Again no one is doing this.
No one's free speech is being oppressed. You're still legally allowed to be a racist. But you still suffer consequences for it. You might lose your job for harassing a coworker due to their race. That's ok, you still voiced your free speech, and your former company did too. If your company does something racist, you voiced your free speech. So when consumers voice their free speech and boycott your product, even if you go under, that's all on you. That isn't the fault of the government, or the people you harmed by saying something hurtful. It's on you. Free speech works both ways, and it doesn't protect you from the free speech of others. If I go out right now stark naked, save a sock with the logo of the company I'm working at, firing me is definitely on the table (along, hopefully, with therapy). Your free speech can, and very well may, be obstructed and harmed by the free speech of another. But that does not mean you didn't get the opportunity to voice your free speech. You have the opportunity to speak, not the opportunity to speak the loudest and be spoken to kindly for your words, especially when they are words of hate.
Also, someone harassing a coworker should face disciplinary action. However, I've seen far too many people get fired, blacklisted, or boycotted due to patently false accusations and slander. Righteousness has become the weapon and shield of liars and demagogues, which is a shame, because it devalues those who truly are noble.
Is this in the right forum still? There was intent to homebrew when this thread started.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this in the right forum still? There was intent to homebrew when this thread started.
This is pretty much how most threads go around here though. It's also arguably helpful to the OP insofar as that it shows how far off the rails this sort of thing can go if not careful. And just how astoundingly bitter people can become when stuff like this gets brought up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's only when beliefs turn into actions, and those actions impinge upon the rights of others, that they should be targeted for stigmatization.
Speech is an action, and is prosecutable and justifiable (and just) cause for stigmatization.
Belief itself isn't, that's true.
Is this in the right forum still? There was intent to homebrew when this thread started.
My threads about removing DEX to damage get more violent, to be honest.
Bigots should be afraid. They should be stigmatized.
Thought crimes, thought crimes everywhere!
Is this in the right forum still? There was intent to homebrew when this thread started.This is pretty much how most threads go around here though. It's also arguably helpful to the OP insofar as that it shows how far off the rails this sort of thing can go if not careful. And just how astoundingly bitter people can become when stuff like this gets brought up.
In my experience, unless it's about alignment, paladins, politics, racism, or some other "trigger topic," I don't really see it happen too often at all on the Paizo boards.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, My intent was not to stir up questions of American rights on Paizo's forum, as a vendor with international customers that could be offensive to anyone viewing these forums who doesn't have those same rights.
My intention was only to bring focus to the fact that while some things are obviously offensive, other things that one person might not consider offensive, someone else could consider offensive. So someone can be speaking with no intent to offend anyone and yet still might do so.
To spend your life so concerned that you might offend someone you have to go around asking people if you can say something without offending them is not very practical. By the same token, to be concerned that what racial choice you make to personify a region or culture may offend someone so you feel you need to reach out to the forum seems a little overboard to me. Perfect example the OP feels there is no issue with assigning Orc's as the Racial representatives of the spartan empire. To a historian that thrives on the Spartan culture having any race that is not naturally inclined towards lawful is offensive. Sure the spartans are a warlike culture, but they were a warlike culture so rooted in their own laws and heritage that weak mis-shapen children were simply cast aside as not being worthy.
As a person with autism I'd like to give a different perspective. I live every day with the knowledge that at any moment, without any intent, I could say something that someone who is neurotypical could take as offensive. It is scary and it is intimidating. But we as people judge ourselves by our intent and others by their action. We can't judge everyone by intent. Often times my intent is to make people happy. I often don't understand certain queues and because of that I can cause people great pain. It is not the job of the people I hurt to get over the pain I cause them. It is my responsibility to find the best way that I can communicate, to judge myself by my actions and to improve my actions in the future. I don't believe that people, even the most vile of people, believe their intentions to be anything but good. But intent and execution are and will always be different. When I accidentally say something harmful to my girlfriend despite my intent to make her laugh and smile, if I was to judge myself by my intentions alone, I did great. But my intentions are not reality, and when she is hurting, I can't just tell her to get over it. I can't say that my intentions are good, and then blame others for their actions. We are judged by our actions, so we need to judge everyone equally by their actions.It is scary, and it can be intimidating, but it can also make us more aware and cautions. We can become more empathetic and kind to the pain other feel.
My threads about removing DEX to damage get more violent, to be honest.
As they should be. DO YOU WANNA FIGHT!?! I will gut you, with or without my awesome Dexterity bonus! (preferably with please...)
As a person with autism I'd like to give a different perspective. I live every day with the knowledge that at any moment, without any intent, I could say something that someone who is neurotypical could take as offensive. It is scary and it is intimidating. But we as people judge ourselves by our intent and others by their action. We can't judge everyone by intent. Often times my intent is to make people happy. I often don't understand certain queues and because of that I can cause people great pain. It is not the job of the people I hurt to get over the pain I cause them. It is my responsibility to find the best way that I can communicate, to judge myself by my actions and to improve my actions in the future. I don't believe that people, even the most vile of people, believe their intentions to be anything but good. But intent and execution are and will always be different. When I accidentally say something harmful to my girlfriend despite my intent to make her laugh and smile, if I was to judge myself by my intentions alone, I did great. But my intentions are not reality, and when she is hurting, I can't just tell her to get over it. I can't say that my intentions are good, and then blame others for their actions. We are judged by our actions, so we need to judge everyone equally by their actions.It is scary, and it can be intimidating, but it can also make us more aware and cautions. We can become more empathetic and kind to the pain other feel.
Well said, Archmage Variel.
Moving slightly back towards the OP:
While working on a (very) similar project (more Iron age than bronze age), I was running into a lot of the same concerns. What I ended up doing was making sure that no real world nation or its analogue was represented by a single Pathfinder race. Areas with a substantial role in the campaign had at least 5 races that would be thought of as normal people to find there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So long as it doesn't impinge upon the rights of others, or put anyone in danger, speech should be (and is) legally protected in the US.
[...]
What then gives a person the right to then condemn someone else based on the accuser's beliefs?
You answered your own question. I can "condemn" anyone I like for based on anything I like, based on my own freedom of speech. You can "condemn" me for anything you like, including my condemnation of others.
You have a right to be a racist bastard.
I have a right to call you out on it.
You have a right to call me out on my call-out, if you see fit.
I have a right to call you out on your call-out of my calling out.
All "freedom of speech" means is that the government can't arrest you for saying what you are saying. It doesn't mean that you can't be fired from your job for unprofessional behavior, that your neighbors can't ostracize you for your views, or that your gaming group has to let you join in their reindeer games. Nothing about your freedom of speech compels me to like you, to respect you, to support you, or to provide you with a soapbox.
XKCD put it well: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So long as it doesn't impinge upon the rights of others, or put anyone in danger, speech should be (and is) legally protected in the US.
[...]
What then gives a person the right to then condemn someone else based on the accuser's beliefs?
You answered your own question. I can "condemn" anyone I like for based on anything I like, based on my own freedom of speech. You can "condemn" me for anything you like, including my condemnation of others.
You have a right to be a racist bastard.
I have a right to call you out on it.
You have a right to call me out on my call-out, if you see fit.
I have a right to call you out on your call-out of my calling out.All "freedom of speech" means is that the government can't arrest you for saying what you are saying. It doesn't mean that you can't be fired from your job for unprofessional behavior, that your neighbors can't ostracize you for your views, or that your gaming group has to let you join in their reindeer games. Nothing about your freedom of speech compels me to like you, to respect you, to support you, or to provide you with a soapbox.
XKCD put it well: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
I'll concede this point.
Nevertheless, I remain quite wary about the intentions of those who are quick to judge others vocally and publicly.
Moving slightly back towards the OP:
While working on a (very) similar project (more Iron age than bronze age), I was running into a lot of the same concerns. What I ended up doing was making sure that no real world nation or its analogue was represented by a single Pathfinder race. Areas with a substantial role in the campaign had at least 5 races that would be thought of as normal people to find there.
Honestly doing a campaign in the way the OP seems to want can be done very simply. Be cautious of your own personal biases. Everyone has them. Humans need to categorize things. It's how our brains work. Just be cautious, because even good people can say offensive things (I'm more true neutral myself, but I do try). But caution does not mean your creativity should be repressed. Far from it. Try to use your own biases not as chains, but as inspiration. Where do these biases come from? What do these biases actually reflect in the reality of the world my characters live in? Do my biases reflect a lack of knowledge on a certain subject? Can I learn more to flesh out my world? Can I implement other aspects from other experiences to break the biases I hold and create a more compelling and enthralling environment?
Another aspect is openness. When I don't understand something about a culture, or when I believe I may offend one of the players I am with, one of the best ways to start a dialogue is to be honest about my ignorance on the topic. The groups I play with and the players in them are under no obligation to open up to me if I ask, but asking questions about how I can be more accommodating and sensitive to certain issues, and making them feel more able to approach me when they feel hurt is important when taking on certain topics in roleplay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll concede this point.
Nevertheless, I remain quite wary about the intentions of those who are quick to judge others vocally and publicly.
It's all about virtue signaling and social brownie points. "Hey everybody! I just yelled at that guy for saying something offensive! AREN'T I COOL! AREN'T I NICE! LOVE ME!"
It's all about virtue signaling and social brownie points. "Hey everybody! I just yelled at that guy for saying something offensive! AREN'T I COOL! AREN'T I NICE! LOVE ME!"I'll concede this point.
Nevertheless, I remain quite wary about the intentions of those who are quick to judge others vocally and publicly.
I'm sure that's not always the case, but it certainly can be. I have seen this phenomenon in action more times than I'd like.
I'm going to bow out of this discussion now. It's not healthy, not helpful, and not on topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's all about virtue signaling and social brownie points. "Hey everybody! I just yelled at that guy for saying something offensive! AREN'T I COOL! AREN'T I NICE! LOVE ME!"I'll concede this point.
Nevertheless, I remain quite wary about the intentions of those who are quick to judge others vocally and publicly.
That assumption is just wrong. No one want brownie points for calling out something offensive, they just want to stop people being hurtful. You don't get brownie points for calling out racist behavior. Also virtue signaling has become a term very common with the alt-right, often used minimize the impact of the point that the speaker desires to ignore or deflect from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's all about virtue signaling and social brownie points. "Hey everybody! I just yelled at that guy for saying something offensive! AREN'T I COOL! AREN'T I NICE! LOVE ME!"I'll concede this point.
Nevertheless, I remain quite wary about the intentions of those who are quick to judge others vocally and publicly.
sweet summer child
You switched over from offensive behavior to racist behavior there in that second sentence. Two very different things, as being actually racist is different from telling a racially offensive joke.
I also hate how using a legitimate term can get you lumped in with people like the alt right. Virtue signaling means that you have no interest in the subject other than to show how virtues you are about it, I've never seen someone call out something "offensive" that wasn't just looking to be praised for their virtue.
You switched over from offensive behavior to racist behavior there in that second sentence. Two very different things, as being actually racist is different from telling a racially offensive joke.
I also hate how using a legitimate term can get you lumped in with people like the alt right. Virtue signaling means that you have no interest in the subject other than to show how virtues you are about it, I've never seen someone call out something "offensive" that wasn't just looking to be praised for their virtue.
To clarify my terminology, all people have personal biases and the capacity to be racist (I'm not so virtuous as to not have that capacity myself). I don't think anyone here is looking for praise, although that could easily be an incentive. I like to believe (as delusional as it may be), that people want what they believe is best for others for the most part (though people may put various values on individuals, which can be a bias in itself). If I call something offensive please don't assume I want to be praised, or believe I am somehow better than the person I call out. I don't find it fun or praiseworthy to see someone causing harm, and to call out that harm. I consider that as simply being human, and being human is not a reason for praise. Certainly there will be people who will be opportunists, but that does not necessarily negate the ideas that they use. Those ideas do not stem from the opportunity they can hold. They come from the meaning that they have.
sweet summer child
I just don't like having to watch my language because someone might get offended. If you don't like the way I speak or the jokes I make because they're to offensive, then you don't have to be around me. Just leave, because I wont stop being me for someone else's feelings, when they have a pair legs to walk away from me with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
sweet summer childI just don't like having to watch my language because someone might get offended. If you don't like the way I speak or the jokes I make because they're to offensive, then you don't have to be around me. Just leave, because I wont stop being me for someone else's feelings, when they have a pair legs to walk away from me with.
But that's the thing. You don't get to choose who walks away. If you're unwilling to be sensitive to the feelings of other people, you're welcome to speak your mind, but you're not welcome to feel comfortable speaking your mind. If you say something hurtful to someone, someone may say something hurtful to you, and that's ok. They're allowed to call you out when you say something insensitive, so long as you're willing to be insensitive. We aren't judged by our intent, but if your intent is to ignore the emotions of others, it's doubtful that your actions will be seen as empathetic either.
The only way I wouldn't feel comfortable speaking my mind, is if it carried some sort of physical penalty with it.
Like if I was standing next to a biker talking about how cool his tattoo is, when its really just scribbles. I don't say that his tattoo sucks, because I'm afraid he will physically assault me, not because he will call me a jerk and explain why I'm a jerk.
So in order for me to not speak my mind, people have to assault me, should they be allowed to do so.
The only way I wouldn't feel comfortable speaking my mind, is if it carried some sort of physical penalty with it.
Like if I was standing next to a biker talking about how cool his tattoo is, when its really just scribbles. I don't say that his tattoo sucks, because I'm afraid he will physically assault me, not because he will call me a jerk and explain why I'm a jerk.
So in order for me to not speak my mind, people have to assault me, should they be allowed to do so.
Of course not. That said, you did just say that you don't like having to watch our language, so obviously you must be making some conscious decision as to whether or not to watch your language. I'd like to believe you at least have some sense of empathy when discussing sensitive topics. That said, you always welcome to speak your mind, but if you say something insensitive, you of accept the consequences that someone else may use their own free speech. No one is preventing you from saying whatever you'd like. Of course moderators can always use their own legal form of free speech to delete an individual's comments. But that's their right as the moderators of this forum. We all accept such things by using forums to speak.
|
Moving slightly back towards the OP:
While working on a (very) similar project (more Iron age than bronze age), I was running into a lot of the same concerns. What I ended up doing was making sure that no real world nation or its analogue was represented by a single Pathfinder race. Areas with a substantial role in the campaign had at least 5 races that would be thought of as normal people to find there.
That's actually really cool, and something I hadn't thought of. I'm going to have to steal that. :)
I'm going to just leave it, I don't think I'm going to change your mind and i don't think your going to change mine. Not to mention people who might actually be looking to help OP could be getting scared off by this.
