Quote from: Antiquation!;1120316Another one bites the dust over Lovecraft. Lol. "STOP TALKING ABOUT HISTORY AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!"

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/ruemere-receives-a-%F0%9F%92%80-permanent-ban.858314/

Bites the dust or earns a badge of honor?

Quote from: Morlock;1120346I got no problem at all with pro-Israel folks, as long as they aren't hypocrites or Jewish particularists who only allow room for Jewish ethnostates. As long as they don't get up to that kind of slimy shit, they're fine by me.

I couldn't give less of a fuck about democracies in west Asia, though. ZFG.

I disagree that SJWs hate Israel. IME, this is mostly a GOPer fantasy.

Tell you what, you keep your dumb-fuck opinions about "da joos" to yourself and I'll keep my "slimy shit" opinions about ethnostates to myself and we'll all get along juuust fiiine.

Quote from: Morlock;1120346I got no problem at all with pro-Israel folks, as long as they aren't hypocrites or Jewish particularists who only allow room for Jewish ethnostates. As long as they don't get up to that kind of slimy shit, they're fine by me.

No one seems to have a problem with the idea of Ethnostates in general.  Well maybe the Leftists but can we even count them?

Quote from: Slipshot762;1120261Remember that time Visigoths colonized Rome?

Of course! That's when Al Bundy scored four touchdowns for Polk High. Who doesn't remember that glorious moment?

Welcome aboard Slipshot!!

Quote from: Slipshot762;1120261I wonder how many extinct-before-we-got-here peoples were "colonized" by native american tribes whilst greeks were mastering pottery?

Based on the scant records, the answer is MANY. And we know the Mongols wiped out whole civilizations and we have near nothing to figure out who they were or how long their nations existed. Brutal destruction of the conquered is the nature of man.

As jhkim pointed out, Korea is recent case study. If the USA had not crushed Japan in 1945, its quite possible Korea would just be an extension of Japan today instead of its own sovereign nation. We will never know what Mexico would have become if the Aztecs had been immune to Spanish germs, or China if they explored the entire Pacific before the Mongol invasion, or if they had fought off the British.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1119822Evil Hat's creating this:

"In Development: Fate Decolonization Toolkit
Sometimes we like role-playing games to help us escape from real-world struggles. Other times, we need the catharsis of a fictionalized struggle against injustice to prepare us to return to the everyday struggle. For those times, there's the Fate Decolonization Toolkit.

Under the creative direction of James Mendez Hodes, this book will show players how to include colonial powers as antagonists in their games, as well as how to create characters who fight against them. It breaks colonial domination down into its component systems of oppression such as violent conquest, the prison-industrial complex, theocracy, and ecological exploitation. Real-world examples expressed with Fate mechanisms will illustrate each of these systems, mapping out how you can apply them to your own games. It also will include a complete campaign frame which calls on the players to decolonize a fantasy setting; and a discussion of how to use safety tools to keep the process empowering and educational, not exploitative.

Even if you don't play Fate, you may find it a useful reference point if you ever want to speak frankly about, or play safely near, systemic oppression in creative media."

So essentially an #SJW playbook.

I wonder how they'll avoid endorsing violent solutions.

Quote from: Plotinus;1119841Will there be any support for running a campaign where a traditional society with strict gender roles and traditional sexual ethics resists the colonialism of rich white liberals and NGOs overseas, who are pressuring it to change and conform to the very latest western ideas about equality and gender?

No?

How very odd.

I wonder how they'll make sure it can't be about that.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1119866Seriously, I love the idea of playing a game about fighting oppressive forces in society, where everyone has to keep their head down cuz the ruling powers are corrupt clergy or an invading force that's taken over the region and enslaved the population, and characters are trying to retake their land, etc.

I mean it's not like this theme is uncommon or anything.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1119866It's the SJW preaching that puts me off, and I seriously doubt propagandists would be able to make a decent product that would be genuinely useful in actual play.

They might, though creating effective propaganda will certainly take priority over creating a playable game regardless.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1120061SJW-ism does indeed have MUCH more in common with colonialism then they wish to admit.

I knew a guy that decried colonialism on one hand (for enforcing viewpoints on others) but made an instant pivot about the current (SJW) culture is the best because it promotes the best values and how its good to always push it onto others.

#SelfAwareWolves

Quote from: Manic Modron;1120149One of the reasons they got divorced was that he wouldn't shut up about how horrible Jews were and gave his wife the "you're one of the good ones" treatment.

She quotes him as saying  "You no longer belong to those mongrels."

It's the 'one black friend' effect.

Funny how having an actual relationship with someone can short circut bigotry and lead to all kinds of justifications to overcome the cognitive dissonance. I guess that's why totalitarians discourage them.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1120196Yes, but in myth and fairytale when this happens, almost always either the monster is ultimately redeemed from its monsterdom (Beauty and the Beast), or the human who couples willingly with it meets a terrible fate (selkie or swanmay legends) or is transformed into a being like the monster (vampire or faerie bride legends). The idea that both human and monster can stay as they are and nonetheless still be happy and contented together -- and not just happy and contented, but more happy and contented than either could be with their own kind -- is a uniquely modern twist, and one that (I think) comes not from SF&F literature but, as pointed out by L. Jagi Lamplighter, modern romance literature.

The key to a successful romance is that there have to be profound obstacles preventing the lovers from being together, or there's no struggle in their union and no drama to their story.  In the past you could set up all kinds of barriers -- class, religion, race, nationality, etc. -- which simply don't apply today, not without going to a great deal of work to establish a fairly specific and unusual context. Thus, one reason the paranormal romance has become so popular is that it replaces these outdated barriers with the existential barrier of one's very species: vampire/werewolf, vampire/human, half-angel/half-devil, whatever. But because the notion of changing's one's essential nature for the sake of a relationship is considered a politically problematic message today, these romances almost always find some way to imply a permanent happy ending without having to make such a change. The Shape of Water is a direct descendant of those narrative tropes.

I think the transformation aspect is still very much a thing though, given the success of #Twilight and #50ShadesOfGrey, and how often the theme of getting a 'bad boy' to change his ways pops up.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1120306"Colonization" is the term used in SJ advocacy for the act of one culture dominating another by force, so "decolonization" is any social movement aimed at undoing the effects of such domination. Restoration of fading languages, preference for original cultural names over those assigned by others (e.g. "Inuit" or "Innu" vs. "Eskimo/Esquimaux"), study of the works of art and history of the dominated people over the dominators', all the way up to outright violent overthrow of a regime, reclamation of dispossessed geographical territory and expulsion of "non-native" inhabitants -- all fall under the rubric of "decolonization".

Shit that's point #2 on Umberto Eco's essay on Ur-Fascism.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1120316Another one bites the dust over Lovecraft. Lol. "STOP TALKING ABOUT HISTORY AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!"

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/ruemere-receives-a-%F0%9F%92%80-permanent-ban.858314/

So they were banned for pointing out that this statement, which begins thusly...

Quote from: Lovecraft on Hitler (1933)The details of Nazism are deplorable, but they do not even begin to compare in harmfulness with the extravagances of communism. You seem to forget that most of the German people are quietly going about their business as usual, with a much better morale than they had last year. If the Nazi destruction of certain books is silly--& there is no reason to deny that it is--then there is no word to express the abysmal idiocy & turpitude of the bolshevik war on normal culture & expression. Germany has not even begun to parallel Russia in the destruction of those basic values which Western Europeans live by. When I say I like Hitler I do not imply that his is a & blindly against the disintegrative forces which more educated & sophisticated people accept without adequate evidence as inevitable. His neurotic fanaticism, scientific addle-patedness, & crude gaucheries & extravagances are admitted & deplored--& of course it is quite possible that he actually may do more harm than good.

...does not make Lovecraft a Nazi follower. Because it's not enough he was a raging xenophobe, he has to be a Nazi as well, regardless of the facts.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1120350Bites the dust or earns a badge of honor?

Fair point!

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1120377...does not make Lovecraft a Nazi follower. Because it's not enough he was a raging xenophobe, he has to be a Nazi as well, regardless of the facts.

He obviously WAS definitely a Nazi, proper deplorable. Plus that poster that got permabanned, they're definitely a Nazi as well. I mean, just look! They said Hitler's name! :rolleyes:

With regards to decolonization... I would very much like these psychotic cultists to decolonize their asses from my fucking hobby. At the very least my personal table remains unconquered, shame so many conventions and games publishers haven't been as lucky. Nice to see a some companies still willing to stand up to the screeching mental patients though, such as SJG with their Frog God Games partnership. Or Kevin Crawford calmly shutting down people insinuating his upcoming Wolves of God game is racist and colonialist.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1120377I think the transformation aspect is still very much a thing though, given the success of #Twilight and #50ShadesOfGrey, and how often the theme of getting a 'bad boy' to change his ways pops up.

Agreed, although I think one of the ways that process has been thematically defanged in modern romance (vs. the myths and fairytales) is that modern romance tends to depict such processes not as a true transformation, per se -- i.e. as a process in which neither the end state nor its consequences are under the subject's control or match the subject's expectations -- but as a restoration; the implication is that whichever party changes more to make the relationship work isn't really "changing", but finding or releasing their "true self" or "another part of their nature" or "who they really were all along", etc.  It's always depicted as the psychological equivalent of the frog turning back into the prince, never vice versa. The philosophical overlap with certain recent political advocacy movements is not, I think, coincidental.

Consider, for example, that the first edit made to any werewolf or therianthrope/shapeshifter mythology, when redesigning it for non-horror protagonist characters, is to put the process of changing at least partially under the shifter's control and to let the shifter keep his memories, reason and most of his free will while changed. The reasoning behind this is obvious for urban fantasy RPGs or stories (you can't have a protagonist who loses all agency at critical points unless that loss of agency is itself his biggest antagonist, i.e. it's a horror story), but the effects on the myth's meaning are profound and unavoidable.

Emotional imperialism: The strange belief that your feelings should dictate someone else's behavior.

Identity colonialism: The assumption that you have a better grasp of what's harmful to a marginalized group than members of that group.


Fight the SJWs with their own stupid language.


Edit: The Lovecraft thing is CLEARLY a case of Nazinoia

Nazinoia: A delusional tendency to see Nazis as hiding behind ideas or practices one opposes, and by accusing anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders of being Nazis, fascists, white supremacists, or alt-right.

Quote from: tenbones;1120404Nazinoia: A delusional tendency to see Nazis as hiding behind ideas or practices one opposes, and by accusing anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders of being Nazis, fascists, white supremacists, or alt-right.

Or alternately:

Schizoaffective totaliphobia: A paranoid attribution of fascist philosophy to one's opposition which is so acute that it renders the sufferer incapable of perceiving his own use of fascistic tactics against those opponents.

Let's be honest - it both.

In fact that's not true either. It's WAY more than just those, haha. But they're great starting points to show the magnitude of the mental issues we're dealing with.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1120403Agreed, although I think one of the ways that process has been thematically defanged in modern romance (vs. the myths and fairytales) is that modern romance tends to depict such processes not as a true transformation, per se -- i.e. as a process in which neither the end state nor its consequences are under the subject's control or match the subject's expectations -- but as a restoration; the implication is that whichever party changes more to make the relationship work isn't really "changing", but finding or releasing their "true self" or "another part of their nature" or "who they really were all along", etc.  It's always depicted as the psychological equivalent of the frog turning back into the prince, never vice versa. The philosophical overlap with certain recent political advocacy movements is not, I think, coincidental.

Consider, for example, that the first edit made to any werewolf or therianthrope/shapeshifter mythology, when redesigning it for non-horror protagonist characters, is to put the process of changing at least partially under the shifter's control and to let the shifter keep his memories, reason and most of his free will while changed. The reasoning behind this is obvious for urban fantasy RPGs or stories (you can't have a protagonist who loses all agency at critical points unless that loss of agency is itself his biggest antagonist, i.e. it's a horror story), but the effects on the myth's meaning are profound and unavoidable.

And it is inevitably the masculine partner who adapts, because all the other partner needs is for someone to confirm to them.

Quote from: RandyB;1120413And it is inevitably the masculine partner who adapts, because all the other partner needs is for someone to confirm to them.

Not always; in Twilight the woman became a vampire to live forever with her love, rather than the story turning on finding a way for the male vampire to become human again.  And while it's certainly true that Twilight is not very well written and has its own share of flaws, the sheer scale of its success means that on some fundamental level it's appealing to some fantasy of most of its readers.

Then, too, the masculine partner adapting to the feminine is often presented as one half of a "saving each other" dynamic, where the man saves the woman from external, physical threats like the story's nominal villains, while the woman saves the man from internal, emotional threats, i.e. his own flaws and issues.  One reason this no longer rings as "balanced" to most readers is the feminism-cultivated dislike of women having to be saved by men, which inevitably spills over into dislike of plots turning on the woman doing more work in the relationship by "fixing" the man.

(I strongly suspect that this is part of why male-male "slash"/"yaoi" romances are so popular in fandom, because by their very nature they skip past most of these dynamics or mix them up chaotically across both participants.)

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1120417Not always; in Twilight the woman became a vampire to live forever with her love, rather than the story turning on finding a way for the male vampire to become human again.  And while it's certainly true that Twilight is not very well written and has its own share of flaws, the sheer scale of its success means that on some fundamental level it's appealing to some fantasy of most of its readers.

Then, too, the masculine partner adapting to the feminine is often presented as one half of a "saving each other" dynamic, where the man saves the woman from external, physical threats like the story's nominal villains, while the woman saves the man from internal, emotional threats, i.e. his own flaws and issues.  One reason this no longer rings as "balanced" to most readers is the feminism-cultivated dislike of women having to be saved by men, which inevitably spills over into dislike of plots turning on the woman doing more work in the relationship by "fixing" the man.

(I strongly suspect that this is part of why male-male "slash"/"yaoi" romances are so popular in fandom, because by their very nature they skip past most of these dynamics or mix them up chaotically across both participants.)

Eh, I didn't know that about Twilight. One example reduces the rule from universal to general.

OTOH, as Twilight illustrates, "I'll change for the 'right' partner" has a strong resonance with feminine audiences.

Quote from: RandyB;1120424Eh, I didn't know that about Twilight. One example reduces the rule from universal to general.

OTOH, as Twilight illustrates, "I'll change for the 'right' partner" has a strong resonance with feminine audiences.

It's also worth noting that even if both partners change significantly for the other in order to make the relationship work, it's far more common in fiction for the man's changes to involve sacrificing something, giving something up, or taking on a duty, limit, obligation or responsibility he didn't have or mostly disregarded before. The female partner's changes almost always involve having to grow in confidence and authority to a wholly positive degree, even if she has to get there faster than she's comfortable with; if she has to give something up to enter or uphold the relationship, it's usually depicted as something that really wasn't worth keeping anyway. In other words, in fiction, a man's changes are most commonly depicted as costs that must be paid for the relationship, while a woman's are most commonly depicted as benefits that accrue from the relationship.

(Example: Jake Peralta and Amy Santiago from Brooklyn 9-9: they've both changed visibly over the course of their relationship and eventual marriage, but all Jake's changes have involved him calming down and taking responsibility, while Amy's changes have involved her loosening up and earning authority.)

Quote from: tenbones;1120404Fight the SJWs with their own stupid language.

Don't. Not even out of any principle or whatever. Them never having to be culpable to their own language use isn't a flaw on their own end but an intentional structure of their ideology. "Gotcha your a hypocrite" never works on them because that implies they ever cared about ideological consistency in the first place. If they were ideologically consistent they would not be SJWs.

SJW-ism is anti-rules and laws but pro emotions and gut feelings. If you wanna beat SJWs at their own game you have to make them feel bad and not fall to emotional manipulation.