Quote from: John Scott;1048119Absolutely! Howard was another writer used as a scapegoat for the simple fact that he was a southerner who lived in the 20's.

Sorry, but the majority of histories humans were just humaning wrong prior to the self perceived & bestowed enlightenment & superiority of modernity.
I mean after all, they didnt have the 'humanities' to instruct them on proper humaning for all those hundreds-of-thousands of years.

Its entirely bizarre for you, or any other to think that these people had it right prior to modern evaluation, approval and the guidebook/classroom instructing environment.

Were you "raised in a barn", or something ?

Quote from: S'mon;1048065Edit: Scrolling down, no way can I read the whole thing, but he has a picture of Zak S and appears to be saying Zak and Mark Reinhagen are Nazi sympathisers along with the new Vampire development team.

Man, what?  As much as I can tell neither of those guys are far enough to the right to even be called "center-left."

Quote from: The Exploited.;1048112Who?

Quote from: jeff37923;1048113Got any proof of this disagreement with his views? Which of Lovecraft's peers decried his views?

This is explained in the article that I linked to. Here is a quotation:

Quote from: Jason SanfordResponse to those who say Lovecraft merely reflected the racism and hatred of his times
H.P. Lovecraft lived in what has been called the nadir of American race relations. Because of this many people attempt to excuse Lovecraft's racism and anti-Semitism as merely being a product of his time.

However, Lovecraft's racism and anti-Semitism went far beyond the norm even of those horrific times. And as times changed, Lovecraft didn't change with them, instead sticking firmly to his racism and anti-Semitism.

Lovecraft's hateful views were a major concern of his wife Sonia Greene, who was Jewish. Sonia was extremely disturbed by Lovecraft's anti-Semitism and repeatedly raised this issue with Lovecraft, as related in this Wired article which states "Greene told a biographer later that she kept reminding Lovecraft about her own background, but it didn't seem to dissuade him from his fear of Jews and other immigrants."

Sonia even once confronted Lovecraft on how she was a member of a group he despised, to which he responded by saying she "no longer belonged to these mongrels."

Despite Sonia repeatedly raising these issues with Lovecraft, she later wrote, "Whenever we found ourselves in the racially mixed crowds which characterize New York, Howard would become livid with rage. He seemed almost to lose his mind."

It's likely even Lovecraft knew his views were not the standard racism and hate of his day. Otherwise, why would he have worked so hard to defend his views? An example of this is related in S.T. Joshi's A Dreamer and a Visionary: H.P. Lovecraft and his Time. Joshi describes how Charles D. Isaacson wrote an essay on racial tolerance which also attacked the film Birth of a Nation for inciting "racial hatred." In response Lovecraft wrote that "Mr. Isaacson's views on racial prejudice … are too subjective to be impartial."

Isaacson responded with an essay attacking Lovecraft, saying that the author "is against tolerance of color, creed and equality, upholds race prejudice…"

The year this exchange took place? 1915. Even that long ago people were willing to call out Lovecraft for his racism.

Lovecraft's friend Wilfred Branch Talman also noted Lovecraft's racism, although unlike with the Isaacson exchange Talman merely dismissed Lovecraft's "racist viewpoint" as being part of the bizarre 18th century aristocratic pose Lovecraft affected. But the fact that Talman even noticed Lovecraft's racism during one of the most racist times in American history speaks volumes about how bad Lovecraft's views were.

The idea that Lovecraft's racism and anti-Semitism wasn't merely a product of his times is also taken up by many of the people who have studied the author's works in recent years. For example, in the intro to The Mammoth Book of Cthulhu: New Lovecraftian Fiction, editor Paula Guran writes "Lovecraft's prejudice seems, at the very least, somewhat more pronounced than many of his contemporaries."

Guran's view is echoed by China Miéville in his introduction to At the Mountains of Madness: The Definitive Edition by H.P. Lovecraft, where Miéville writes "Two things are sometimes adduced to excuse (Lovecraft). One is that it was 'the time' -- people were just 'like that' back then. This is an unacceptable condescension to history: people were emphatically not all like that."

As I stated in my original XB-1 essay, despite Lovecraft's racism and anti-Semitism his legacy is secure because of the many authors and creators who have taken his ideas and run with them. In addition, most people are able to appreciate Lovecraft's influence on horror and dark fantasy while also acknowledging the negative aspects of his life and work.

But none of that means we should ignore or excuse his racism and hate.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1048118This is a monumentally stupid statement. You have apparently never been to Boston. It is notorious for "voluntary" racial segregation in nieghberhoods and racial problems within the police. They often have racial slurs being thrown at the outfielders at ball games in both Philly and Boston.

Have you heard of any problems in Baltimore over the last couple of years? Do you think that happened overnight?

I assure you "racism" was and still is alive and well in new England and the North in general.

Your argument based on geography of the author is something you dreamed up and can't possibly prove. Sorry, your entire argument is a tired stereotype against the South that has never held up (that the there is no racism in the North, but those Rednecks in the South....). Tired of the stupidity of this argument.

Then I am ignorant in that particular geographical matter and my statement about levels of racism in the North and South was in error. I do not claim to be an expert in these matters, nor do I claim that racism is dead. Indeed, in my last post I stated quite explicitly that racism varies immensely across time and space. I only argue that Lovecraft's racism should not be excused for any reason and that it is not necessarily representative of his historical era. (See the quote from Sanford's article for examples.)

I think confronting and overturning Lovecraft's racism in fiction writing is more productive than ignoring or excusing it, particular given that racism is alive and well today. Given that I have suffered prejudice myself and still suffer self-image problems, I am more inclined to sympathize with Lovecraft's hideously ugly villains and consume revisionist takes on his fiction.

Quote from: John Scott;1048119Absolutely! Howard was another writer used as a scapegoat for the simple fact that he was a southerner who lived in the 20's.

Lovecraft was born and raised in Providence, Rhode Island. He lived in New England his entire life. He was never a "southerner" and he is not being used as a scapegoat.

You can cite all the evidence you want that absolutely every white person in the 20s was some kind of racist asshole, but that misses the point of my argument. It does not matter if Lovecraft was "a man of his time" (which is contentious, as Sanford attests), it is immoral to excuse racism for any reason. You are just upset that he was a racist nutjob and think that invalidates his contributions, reflects badly on yourself for liking him (although I seriously doubt most here have actually read his work) or something similarly inane. You have the audacity to think those accusing us of being alt-right are utterly baseless, when it is arguments just like yours which the inflame those accursed SJWs.

Lovecraft was racist, his views were not remotely universal, and it is absolutely disgusting to make excuses for him. Lovecraft's racism does not devalue his work or his contributions, quite the opposite. Without Lovecraft's racism, his work arguably would not have been as remotely powerful as it is. Without his racism, we would not have amazing revisionist fiction like The Litany of Earth or The Song of Saya. Excusing Lovecraft's racism is an insult to the literary establishment. Excusing Lovecraft's racism is an insult to S.T. Joshi, an ethnic Indian who fervently studied and defended Lovecraft to point of giving up his award when the bust was replaced by Octavia Butler (I would have preferred Ursula K. Le Guin myself, and her whiteness would have made the award recast look less like an obvious cave to SJWs).

He was a freaking nutjob, all things considered. That is why his work is so enduring. His work is only good because it includes horrible racism and general insanity and self-loathing. That is a fundamental and terrible part of the human experience. So please do not make excuses, because your fervent denial only devalues his work worse than the SJWs ever could.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1048129..given that racism is alive and well today.

Indeed.

Look at those decades long cross-demographic crime statistics that have to be plumbed from sources like the NVCS, because law enforcement & official three letter orgs officially documenting some of the most perpetrator revealing facts for public perusal equals ' muh racism '.

...and how if those behaviors were demographic universal habits/behaviors, certain groups would lose the power of the tireless accusation and may earnestly live a life of struggle due to the human 'other'

What about the original article. It seems like just someone with very rigid and elaborate ideology interpreting stuff in ways that meet his worldview. Are the new WW crew actually part of a neo-Nazi party?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1048129It does not matter if Lovecraft was "a man of his time" (which is contentious, as Sanford attests), it is immoral to excuse racism for any reason.

Yyyeah because being capable of condemning the majority of human history, probably isnt a broken method.

...and y'know, concepts like advancement and progress based on inheriting the societal achievements of those prior and building on them are counterfeit and/or some form of apologism  

"The lessons we learn sometimes are written on the tombstones of others" <--- Sounds like some Klan grade revisionism propaganda to me :rolleyes:

While an entire decades old political faction that largely influences your ideological positioning so believes said concept(s) to be true that its not only the core engine of its assembly, but is the group header.

/ insert infinite laugh emojis

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1048132What about the original article. It seems like just someone with very rigid and elaborate ideology interpreting stuff in ways that meet his worldview. Are the new WW crew actually part of a neo-Nazi party?

No. Of course they aren't.

Quotewhen the bust was replaced by Octavia Butler

Minor point, but the HPL bust wasn't replaced by Octavia Butler (although some people were pushing for that). The current WFA trophy doesn't depict a person at all, it's a depiction of a tree against a full moon.

Quote from: S'mon;1048065Now, I know what many of 'a bunch of Swedish edgelords' defenders will say – that the pre-generated PC in question was not a sexual character and was not a rapist. The character was simply a person who surrounded themselves with children, and drank from them regularly. To that, I respond that in this game the act of drinking blood has always been comparable to a sexual act. In earlier editions it was said to be so pleasurable that  it surpassed a vampire's sexual desire, and was outright addictive to mortals. By framing this character as someone who drinks primarily from children, the game codes that character as somebody who indulges in a predominantly sexual act with children.

Alt-Right Nazis are of course well known for their love of roleplaying vampires who drink the blood of children.

I think the doofus who wrote this article is just trying to get attention.

Edit: Scrolling down, no way can I read the whole thing, but he has a picture of Zak S and appears to be saying Zak and Mark Reinhagen are Nazi sympathisers along with the new Vampire development team. Apparently he's in Europe, so maybe a nice Libel action is called for.

So by that logic, vampires are rapists.

Are OP doing an Vampire content? Turnabout being fair play after all.

These people are demented. I tried to read the article, but it's such a long nonsensical rant that I had to just skim it. This is another case of the radical left being so intolerant that they eat their own.

Too bad the new Vampire game isn't actually Alt-Right, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Quote from: Sergeant Brother;1048142These people are demented. I tried to read the article, but it's such a long nonsensical rant that I had to just skim it. This is another case of the radical left being so intolerant that they eat their own.

Too bad the new Vampire game isn't actually Alt-Right, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

I don't want an Alt-Right Vampire any more than I want a hard Left Vampire.

Speaking of the new Vampire:

I havent made the time to look into it, anything really noteworthy in change about the game mechanics or setting? I mean 'natzi dog whistle the rpg' aside.

I'm curious how they address The Masquerade in our much more camera riddled and networked society.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1048143I don't want an Alt-Right Vampire any more than I want a hard Left Vampire.

There are numerous RPG's out there written by leftists that push left wing ideology. White Wolf has been doing that for decades. I think it might be refreshing to see a right wing RPG. Not that I demand one, I'm fine if my games are ideologically neutral. Though if there was an RPG that was right wing, I'd buy it.

Caveat: I could not finish the entire article. I have shit to do.

This article stinks of desperation, grasping at imaginary straws and earnestly trying to make their point by pointing at the image of the unfinished book and screaming "Nazi Monsters!". The only saving grace is the somewhat monotone Victorian tone in contrast to what I expected; a hysteric Victorian tone.

Why in the seven FUCKS of demonic WONDER does everything have to be about something? This is exactly like that video making the rounds about people that are "too woke". I don't think I can call myself a liberal anymore. That crowd has gone completely full retard. You never go full retard. My god it's full of dumb.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1048129This is explained in the article that I linked to.

Lovecraft was racist, his views were not remotely universal, and it is absolutely disgusting to make excuses for him. Lovecraft's racism does not devalue his work or his contributions, quite the opposite. Without Lovecraft's racism, his work arguably would not have been as remotely powerful as it is. Without his racism, we would not have amazing revisionist fiction like The Litany of Earth or The Song of Saya. Excusing Lovecraft's racism is an insult to the literary establishment. Excusing Lovecraft's racism is an insult to S.T. Joshi, an ethnic Indian who fervently studied and defended Lovecraft to point of giving up his award when the bust was replaced by Octavia Butler (I would have preferred Ursula K. Le Guin myself, and her whiteness would have made the award recast look less like an obvious cave to SJWs)..

A poorly researched article that the use of easy to find historical evidence discredit it entirely. Again, only a fool or a dishonest person would take Lovecraft out of contex of his era and paint him a bad person while there is plenty of evidence that suggests he was no more of a "racist" than Carl Barks, and that unless you have no sense of humor is at least hilarious! Everything else including your emotional drivel just reinforce my opinion that you and the author want a narrative to justify the lame changes at new CoC and Mask of Nyarlathotep, changes aimed at people like yourself maybe who might be offended by anything that walks on the planet.