Quote from: TJS;1058286For some of these things there's at least a discussion to be had (keeping in mind that we're talking about games and the stakes are so very very low).  But in todays climate it's a waste of time.

Shame.

It's been done. Apparently the discussion leads to talking about how everyone is a Nazi.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1058327It's been done. Apparently the discussion leads to talking about how everyone is a Nazi.

They sure do love their fascists, don't they the 'Ctrl-Left' as we call them here.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1058327It's been done. Apparently the discussion leads to talking about how everyone is a Nazi.

Twenty years ago when we discussed these things it was stupid. It's only gotten worse.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1058327It's been done. Apparently the discussion leads to talking about how everyone is a Nazi.

Yes. It would be a short "discussion." But those threads are not meant for discussion, they are meant to identify and ban posters who are "bad fits." They are purity purges that occur on almost predictable cycles.

The irony is that I agree with some of their points. But if you really believe that killing monsters and taking their stuff is racist, you fundamentally hate D&D.

Quote from: TJS;1058322You know how I said that in today's climate it would be a waste of time?

A big part of that is because you can't make any points that aren't stupid gross oversimplifications. without people ignoring any points you might make and having an argument with the imaginary opponent in their head.

Of course now I see that I don't even have to go so far as to make any real points at all before the frothing insanity starts.

Did I say that I think Tolkien was racist?  No
Did I say that I think any OSR creators are nazis? No.

Your stupid fucking assumptions.  Well at least I guess I can say my point is well and truly proven.

Honestly, the most damaging aspect of the whole SJW movement isn't even its own idiocy; it's the way it drives non-SJWs into the same type of extremes (just in the opposite directions) and ultimately, hatred, that just shuts down any nuance and sees the bulk of the people in the middle who just want to enjoy themselves attacked from both sides as belonging to the other side for not being 100% in their camp.

I've been experiencing this more and more across fandom... where the ostensibly 'conservative' side sees some SJW agenda behind anything that doesn't 100% conform to their agenda; picking fights where none actually needed to fought and energy would be so much better spent elsewhere. It literally seems to be a case of each side becoming what they hate (which is each other).

Let's take Tolkein for example. No, he's not a racist; but his depiction of good vs. evil is heavily rooted in his views of pastoral commonfolk as the ideal for society vs. industrialization as a destructive force and that's something interesting to discuss.

Personally, I think industrialization has been a positive force that has elevated more people out of poverty and ended starvation as a threat for most of humanity (save where politics is preventing it) so I find Tolkein's depiction of it as intrinsically corrupt and destructive to be ill-informed (probably based on his experiences in WW1, the first time Europeans got exposed to effects of industrialization on warfare) and his depiction of those who embrace industrialization as ugly and wicked by nature may not be racist, but that's only because the elements of society he is villainizing aren't a race.

I think there is an interesting discussion to be had over the way later writers (particularly Americans; who's late arrival in WW1 and previous exposure to the horrors of modern war via the Civil War led to far less association of industry with evil) tended to shift the presentation of orcs, goblins, etc. from those corrupted by heavy industrialization (because that is seen much more positively) to representing more primitive forces that seek to tear down the more advanced "good" civilization.

You can also see it a bit in the balance between the presentation of elves and dwarves. In Tolkein the dwarves were depicted as greedy and foolish; Moria is destroyed because they dug too deep in their search for resources; while the elves are superior to Men in most every way because they live in harmony with nature. By contrast, more modern and American depictions tend to regard dwarves as honorable and industrious (and hard-drinking in a 'relax with the boys after a hard honest days' work' sense) while elves are seen as aloof and elitist jerks who look down on others while riddled with flaws of their own.

But there are some who'd just take all of that and say I'm some SJW type for questioning Tolkein's depictions of Orcs, Dwarves and Elves as being a product of his time and a life experience very different from more modern sentiments regarding industrialization vs. pastoralism.

Really though I think it's just a fascinating area of study, particularly when looking at the villains you're creating and how they reflect what you find villainous in the real world. Also interesting is how both extremes of the political spectrum seem to use the exact same archetypes for villains as stand-ins for the other side.

Quote from: Chris24601;1058337Let's take Tolkein for example. No, he's not a racist; but his depiction of good vs. evil is heavily rooted in his views of pastoral commonfolk as the ideal for society vs. industrialization as a destructive force and that's something interesting to discuss.

Personally, I think industrialization has been a positive force that has elevated more people out of poverty and ended starvation as a threat for most of humanity (save where politics is preventing it) so I find Tolkein's depiction of it as intrinsically corrupt and destructive to be ill-informed (probably based on his experiences in WW1, the first time Europeans got exposed to effects of industrialization on warfare) and his depiction of those who embrace industrialization as ugly and wicked by nature may not be racist, but that's only because the elements of society he is villainizing aren't a race.

I think there is an interesting discussion to be had over the way later writers (particularly Americans; who's late arrival in WW1 and previous exposure to the horrors of modern war via the Civil War led to far less association of industry with evil) tended to shift the presentation of orcs, goblins, etc. from those corrupted by heavy industrialization (because that is seen much more positively) to representing more primitive forces that seek to tear down the more advanced "good" civilization.

You can also see it a bit in the balance between the presentation of elves and dwarves. In Tolkein the dwarves were depicted as greedy and foolish; Moria is destroyed because they dug too deep in their search for resources; while the elves are superior to Men in most every way because they live in harmony with nature. By contrast, more modern and American depictions tend to regard dwarves as honorable and industrious (and hard-drinking in a 'relax with the boys after a hard honest days' work' sense) while elves are seen as aloof and elitist jerks who look down on others while riddled with flaws of their own.

That's some good stuff there. :cool: Do you have a blog (etc)?

Quote from: Chris24601;1058337Honestly, the most damaging aspect of the whole SJW movement isn't even its own idiocy; it's the way it drives non-SJWs into the same type of extremes (just in the opposite directions) and ultimately, hatred, that just shuts down any nuance and sees the bulk of the people in the middle who just want to enjoy themselves attacked from both sides as belonging to the other side for not being 100% in their camp.

I've been experiencing this more and more across fandom... where the ostensibly 'conservative' side sees some SJW agenda behind anything that doesn't 100% conform to their agenda; picking fights where none actually needed to fought and energy would be so much better spent elsewhere. It literally seems to be a case of each side becoming what they hate (which is each other).

Let's take Tolkein for example. No, he's not a racist; but his depiction of good vs. evil is heavily rooted in his views of pastoral commonfolk as the ideal for society vs. industrialization as a destructive force and that's something interesting to discuss.

Personally, I think industrialization has been a positive force that has elevated more people out of poverty and ended starvation as a threat for most of humanity (save where politics is preventing it) so I find Tolkein's depiction of it as intrinsically corrupt and destructive to be ill-informed (probably based on his experiences in WW1, the first time Europeans got exposed to effects of industrialization on warfare) and his depiction of those who embrace industrialization as ugly and wicked by nature may not be racist, but that's only because the elements of society he is villainizing aren't a race.

I think there is an interesting discussion to be had over the way later writers (particularly Americans; who's late arrival in WW1 and previous exposure to the horrors of modern war via the Civil War led to far less association of industry with evil) tended to shift the presentation of orcs, goblins, etc. from those corrupted by heavy industrialization (because that is seen much more positively) to representing more primitive forces that seek to tear down the more advanced "good" civilization.

You can also see it a bit in the balance between the presentation of elves and dwarves. In Tolkein the dwarves were depicted as greedy and foolish; Moria is destroyed because they dug too deep in their search for resources; while the elves are superior to Men in most every way because they live in harmony with nature. By contrast, more modern and American depictions tend to regard dwarves as honorable and industrious (and hard-drinking in a 'relax with the boys after a hard honest days' work' sense) while elves are seen as aloof and elitist jerks who look down on others while riddled with flaws of their own.

But there are some who'd just take all of that and say I'm some SJW type for questioning Tolkein's depictions of Orcs, Dwarves and Elves as being a product of his time and a life experience very different from more modern sentiments regarding industrialization vs. pastoralism.

Really though I think it's just a fascinating area of study, particularly when looking at the villains you're creating and how they reflect what you find villainous in the real world. Also interesting is how both extremes of the political spectrum seem to use the exact same archetypes for villains as stand-ins for the other side.

I agree with you. All of your points above are fascinating. If explored with thoughtfulness it could be an interesting blog post. The issue today is that thoughtfulness is rejected in favor of Manichean morality.  In analytic philosophy, arguments are often poised as "Given X, therefore Y". And a critic can then respond either by saying "Maybe not X" or "Even given X, maybe not Y" and a fruitful conversation can develop on either facet. Contemporary debate simply asserts "Y" and there is no room for debate. Even if you say "I understand how you get to Y because Y implicitly assumes X, and you believe X, but I am not sure I disagree with X" - about the gentlest possible disagreement one could have - you've committed badwrongthink and need to be exiled. You are either on the right side of history or the wrong side of history - and if you reject the notion that history progresses, you're on the wrong side. You either are an ally of oppressed minorities or an oppressor - and if you reject the notion that oppressor/oppression is the best framework to apply, you're just an oppressor. You are either pro-choice without reservation or you hate women - and if you say you support choice but believe the calculus should include some rights for the unborn at a certain point, you just hate women. And so on and so on.

Quote from: amacris;1058340I agree with you. All of your points above are fascinating. If explored with thoughtfulness it could be an interesting blog post. The issue today is that thoughtfulness is rejected in favor of Manichean morality.  In analytic philosophy, arguments are often poised as "Given X, therefore Y". And a critic can then respond either by saying "Maybe not X" or "Even given X, maybe not Y" and a fruitful conversation can develop on either facet. Contemporary debate simply asserts "Y" and there is no room for debate. Even if you say "I understand how you get to Y because Y implicitly assumes X, and you believe X, but I am not sure I disagree with X" - about the gentlest possible disagreement one could have - you've committed badwrongthink and need to be exiled. You are either on the right side of history or the wrong side of history - and if you reject the notion that history progresses, you're on the wrong side. You either are an ally of oppressed minorities or an oppressor - and if you reject the notion that oppressor/oppression is the best framework to apply, you're just an oppressor. You are either pro-choice without reservation or you hate women - and if you say you support choice but believe the calculus should include some rights for the unborn at a certain point, you just hate women. And so on and so on.

I don't disagree from the SJW side, but the point that I am noticing with growing concern is the same sort of attitude coming from elements of the right.

I've seen instances where just having a female protagonist is enough to have a story labelled as "feminist propaganda" by certain right leaning individuals because, even though the female protagonist displays nothing but love and respect for all the men in her life, the protagonist solves their own problems instead of having a man do it (which is kinda the point of being the protagonist in every book on storytelling I've ever read) and had the gall to not look like an airbrushed cover girl at all times. The HATE for the SJWs has led them to see SJW plots behind every bush and accuse those who do not see it as they do of being SJW apologists.

THAT is the saddest part of the whole SJW thing to me... not that they're obnoxious idiots, but that they're corrupting otherwise good and rational people with their hatred and turning them from people who look at the facts into people who attack anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest. I recently had to give up a Catholic writer's blog because they couldn't see the degree to which this hatred had infected them. Where once they'd preached truth, now they were outright lying about what was actually being said and justified cyberstalking and harassment as valid tactics to employ so long as the targets were SJW adjacent because the SJWs wanted to do even worse (so basically, the Catholic who once preached truth and God's mercy became a liar who was preaching 'eye for an eye' and 'ends justify the means' because they grew to hate SJWs so much).

I see it starting to creep into the Right-learning RPG rhetoric too; the idea that the political beliefs of the authors should be used as criteria for supporting a product rather than the merits or flaws of the project itself. My fear is that if those opposed to the SJWs let hate take over its going to polarize the industry to the point that there is no safe middle ground for all the players who just want to have a good time on Saturday night, people who play 5e because its easy and fun or Pathfinder because all their friends do (and they do because they still had all their 3e books and didn't want to switch to 4e) and haven't given two seconds' thought to the parts that support the SJW agenda because they're so focused on the bulk of the game that is not those things.

Its hard not to become what you hate and the SJWs try really hard to make you hate them. They need the wedges and divides to succeed in splintering and destroying what they oppose. To Balkanize everything so much that they can then pick off each isolated group one at a time. That's why free speech zones like this where we have to put up with each other despite our differences are so important.

Quote from: Chris24601;1058337You can also see it a bit in the balance between the presentation of elves and dwarves. In Tolkein the dwarves were depicted as greedy and foolish; Moria is destroyed because they dug too deep in their search for resources; while the elves are superior to Men in most every way because they live in harmony with nature. By contrast, more modern and American depictions tend to regard dwarves as honorable and industrious (and hard-drinking in a 'relax with the boys after a hard honest days' work' sense) while elves are seen as aloof and elitist jerks who look down on others while riddled with flaws of their own.

Tolkien himself went to that well. Feanor was one of the most bloody-handed, vicious antagonists of the Silmarillon whose personality flaws caused great suffering for many people in Middle Earth. And he was an elf.

Nobody has issues with taking a deeper look at the themes of say Tolkien's work. But when the default assumption on TBP is Tolkien is racist (he's not) and to rove the context inwhich Tolkien was raised and his experiences, not a lot of good faith discussion can take place.

When the default assumption is that Orcs and goblins are a secret stand in for ethnic minorities in the United States, we cannot have a good faith discussion.

The reason why I snap at when people say "there is something to discuss here" is that on TBP there isn't. This topic is about how TBP hit almost all the notes.

Quote from: Chris24601;1058355Its hard not to become what you hate and the SJWs try really hard to make you hate them.

Yeah, this is very true. It's very important not to give in to hate.

"Daddy, are the SJWs bad people?" asked my son.

"No, most of them are just sad, unhappy, often mentally ill. They take out their inner torment on others." I replied.

Of course there are genuinely evil individuals, but you don't have to be evil to do bad things. (Obviously this is equally true of the Alt-Righters too - a lot of them have mental problems & they take out their inner torment on others.)

Quote from: Chris24601;1058337Let's take Tolkein for example. No, he's not a racist; but his depiction of good vs. evil is heavily rooted in his views of pastoral commonfolk as the ideal for society vs. industrialization as a destructive force and that's something interesting to discuss.

People who read Tolkein as racist don't understand that he was a product of his time, and we shouldn't even be reading the races as analogues of human ethnicity. He was a classist snob, not a racist; orcs represented the industrial working classes, compared to the pure and virtuous rural working classes of the Shire.

Quote from: Lurtch;1058323We are talking about a very specific thread on a very specific forum, where people believe the Lord of the Rings is racist. They D&D is racist and "problematic". If you want to make an argument around one of the points brought up in the thread, go ahead. But, no, don't give me any bullshit.

This shit again.

I think I'll stick you on the Ignore List for a while until you calm down and stop frothing at the mouth.

The thread where they started from the premise that Mind Flayers aren't pure evil just because eating sentient brains is their form of nourishment so isn't it wrong to kill them was the last time I bothered posting there IIRC.

Quote from: KingCheops;1058378The thread where they started from the premise that Mind Flayers aren't pure evil just because eating sentient brains is their form of nourishment so isn't it wrong to kill them was the last time I bothered posting there IIRC.

Now that is fucked up and twisted. They have the stones to lash out at others.