Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1120439You're not wrong, but in certain contexts making sure this hypocrisy is demonstrated in public can go a long way towards mitigating the effect.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1120427It'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: jhkimIn RPGs, I think colonizers can be excellent villains. In many fantasy games, the monsters are on the fringes. i.e. The PCs go out into the wilds to find and fight evil monsters, and then go back to civilization to recover and re-equip and such. That pattern means that the monsters aren't all that threatening. Whereas if the monsters are actually in the process of taking over civilization, and control large territory, then they are a more serious threat that has to be countered.

Actually, a couple of my recent campaigns have featured more monster-dominant settings. I ran a D&D campaign where dragons were conquering the surface world - that was my post-apocalyptic "Dawn of Fire" game where surviving humans were heading into dungeons to find a safe place to live. I also ran a Call of Cthulhu campaign which was set in an alternate 1940s after a world-spanning war with the Deep Ones, and there was still overt Deep-One-controlled territory.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1120320Personally, I had an idea for a game that turns the anti-colonialist narrative on its head. A scenario where the colonizers are the good guys and the indigenous tribals are the villains.

I'm imagining either a horror scenario in the vein of "The Hills Have Eyes" or an adventure campaign that is a fantasy parallel of the Aztec Empire's downfall.

The latter scenario would be really good, because you could have a different group of indigenous people as allies of the heroes, much like how the Tlaxcala helped the Spaniards fight the Aztecs.

Quote from: jhkim;1120476In my experience of RPGs, it's rare for the heroes to be indigenous locals fighting off colonizers.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1120478Palladium's a big fan of this theme. In Nightbane, the Nightlords are trying to transform Earth. Same with the Bugs in Systems Failure. In Rifts, we see the Southwest trying to hold off the Vampires which rule Mexico and numerous communities trying to withstand the crushing colonization of the Coalition States.

Quote from: RandyB;1120494As the SJW's use the term, decolonization is squarely anti-Western Civilization. To them, colonization, like slavery, is a sin that is unique and egregious to Western Civilization, and especially to the predominant ethnic group of Western Civilization.

To express that in gaming requires a proxy for Western Civilization, whether cultural or racial, as the evil colonizer. The "good guys" are then a diverse group opposing the evil colonizers.

Quote from: sureshot;1120495Seconded as apparently no one else but Western civilization aka "white" people are the only ones who engaged in colonization. As no other races beyond that one ever did engage in colonization. To say otherwise is to be told only non-whites can be the victim of colonization. At least that is the narrative that way too many SJWs try to push. Speak against said narrative and one is ignored or called evil and an colonization apologist.

Quote from: Morlock;1120453To reciprocate; you can keep your dumb-fuck opinions about anything and everything to yourself.

Quote from: Shasarak;1120358No 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: Ayn RandRacism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

Quote from: Haffrung;1120506Most woke activists are woefully ignorant of history. I mean, they know marginally more than know-nothing conservatives who have never read a book. But they only learn enough history, selectively parsed, to use as a cudgel against Western culture.

What might actually educate both the conservative know-nothings and the anti-colonial brigade is to delve into history that doesn't involve Europeans at all, either as heroes or oppressors. But of course that would require a genuine curiosity about the world, rather than a need for emotionally-satisfying narratives of good and evil.

Quote from: Altheus;1120517This always bugs me, what would they replace western culture with?

Every people on earth who ever had the ability to colonize and conquer places and people did so. Why are the more recent incidences considered worse? Somebody won, somebody lost, just like the rest of history.

Quote from: Brendan;1120518They have a Rousseauian view of human nature, which means they don't think that they need to replace it with anything.  

https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-myth-of-the-noble-savage-55316

They think that if they just remove the entirely negative social conditioning that has produced modern man then we'll return to an organic Eden-like state.  The Right-Left divide is more significant than just an awareness of history vs an ignorance of it.  It goes to a fundamental understanding of the human condition.

Quote from: Omega;1120485Except in most of those cases its not colonialism as the aliens want to wipe out the indigent species rather than enslave, displace or absorb them into the colony. Nearly all the Palladium settings boil down to an all-or-nothing situation.