pawsplay's brain seems to be a bag of angry cats.

Racist, bigoted angry cats.

Quote from: pawsplay on January 09, 2024, 05:39:17 PM

Quote from: KindaMeh on January 09, 2024, 05:29:42 PM
"There might be a space from which black people might be excluded, for instance, a space for Asian and Pacific Islander gamers."

You do realize that POC sometimes historically have discriminated against and been racist towards one another, including along these specific lines? It's not a good thing, it divides people and spreads racial stereotypes, and it shouldn't be encouraged. I understand that on some level you must be against discrimination. If so, do not support stereotyping social threat and excluding people from locations and events on the basis of skin color. If you are against racial profiling and pro-BLM in that sense, all the more reason not to do that. Seriously, how the hell are folks selling this double think to keep us all divided and willing to enable overt race-disqualification based hiring discrimination and segregation, of all things?

What, really???

It's almost like I just mentioned someone who is both black and Asian should be welcome at such a gathering.

I had a friend who was a Mexican Jew. Went to synagogue with a bunch of white kids. They were absolutely shitty to him.

This is not about qualification. That's your fantasy, that people who seek diversity are trying to check some boxes, or load the bases, or something. It's about providing a welcoming experience. And sometimes that means un-inviting people who are not welcoming.

For instance, if you were running a panel on OSR games, and some storygamer went in there and started raising their hand a lot, and criticizing the very idea of traditional games, and was disruptive, you would kick them the fuck out.

Imagine if you offered me some nightshade berries, and I was like, "No, thanks." Then you said, "How can you can justify this? I know you eat blueberries, which are also berries."

That is what this line of argument sounds like to me.

I'm gonna go point by point and try to reach you on this. It is specifically the idea of excluding folks or determining them not to be ideologically safe or belong in a safe space BASED ON SKIN COLOR that I am arguing against. Perhaps even especially with respect to the tension between blacks and Asians.

Firstly, not being Asian is the disqualifying factor from a racial perspective.

This is bad enough in and of itself, but if you allow disqualifying discrimination along lines that have historical baggage (ex: blacks who are not Asian) that's a problem. Not least because it can be used or fuel the flames of actual racism.

Also, even in the earlier stated instance, is that African-American who is also Asian in a "safe space"? Maybe, maybe not. If not, the problem is ideology, not skin color. Which segues into my next point. Regardless, this hypothetical group of Asian-Americans has apparently decided that those who are not of Asian race and heritage are to be stereotyped as unsafe within the context of this get-together. They may not believe that all blacks are unsafe, but they apparently believe they can stereotype them racially based off of broader demographic trends to use a messed up rule of thumb, which is literally just that if you're not Asian (ex: only black) you're too racist/anti-Asian or something.

BLM was in part a major pushback against racial profiling in policing. A choosing of who is "safe" to be around via the context of racial stereotypes and demographics. Do you see the connection?

A policing trend which was perhaps rightly accused of only perpetuated the same stereotypes, prejudices, and miseries that fueled it. Similar in a sense to how stereotyping and race based exclusion based on stereotyping, ideological or otherwise, fan the flames of racism and further stupid ethnic tit-for-tat.

Quote from: KindaMeh on January 09, 2024, 06:17:47 PM
Firstly, not being Asian is the disqualifying factor from a racial perspective.

This is bad enough in and of itself,

How is that bad? Who is hurt by Asians only wanting Asians to participate in a small, closed group, focused on an Asian perspective, inside a larger event which is generally inclusive of potentially any human being on Earth?

I'm not sure what your qualifications are to lecture me on skin color, or being stereotyped just for looking a certain way. As a person of mixed ethnicity living in the USA, I've had ample time to experience various scenarios and think about them. My mother grew up in segregation in West Texas. What do you have to tell me about what racism is really like, I can't learn from her?

I don't think there's anything particularly "woke" about holding a few closed meetings, for people of like experiences to connect. It's not even particularly leftist, it's not particularly ideological. The people attending might be as woke as a gathering of Black Republicans, for all I know. It's a gathering based on natural affinities. And whether or not you are allowed to go there, whether or not anyone stops you from going there, if you got somewhere uninvited, you don't belong there. You're being an asshole.

So the question is, should a bunch of assholes who don't belong at a certain gathering be allowed to bully themselves in to spaces focused on underrepresented minorities? Is the only argument you have that not letting white people into a meeting for, say, black players of Vampire, is exactly the same as white people making my mom sit in the movie theater balcony away from white people? Do you not understand that whitening such a gather reproduces the conditions that made it desirable in the first place?

Quote from: jhkim on January 09, 2024, 05:22:04 PM
My question would be, are the Girl Scouts inherently sexist and boy-hating because they don't allow boys in?

I am opposed to gender discrimination, but I am OK with the Girl Scouts as well as Boy Scouts, along with men's groups and women's groups, as long as they aren't enforced by the government or tied to overall real-world advancement. People should be free to gather around particular identities. As another example, it's fine if a church restricts itself to Christian people, or a synagogue restricts itself to Jewish people. Arbitrarily discriminating against Jews is wrong, but hiring a Christian-only Sunday school teacher is reasonable.

I've seen school clubs like a Christian club, but also ethnic identities like a Filipino-American club. I don't think this is inherently racist any more than the Girl Scouts are inherently sexist.

I haven't seen a white-only club or gathering, but my big question about one would be why the organizers want it. I understand with something like a Filipino-American club that it's a chance for people with shared identity to interact with each other -- when in everyday life, they are surrounded by non-Filipinos. For white people - especially in RPGs - there are already a lot of accidentally white-only games and spaces, so that reason doesn't apply.

You know there is no more Boy Scouts of America, right?

The women in charge of the Girl Scouts engaged in lawfare against them until they collapsed.  They did so on the basis that there shouldn't exist a boys only organization.  However, they've not made any moves or statements in the direction of allowing boys into their organization.

Yes, the girl scouts are clearly sexist.

Edit:  BSA corporation still exists but it doesn't function.  There is no more nationwide organization, no more jamborees, no more camps, and no more outings.  It's all gone except a name and an empty bank account.

Quote from: BadApple on January 09, 2024, 06:38:01 PM
You know there is no more Boy Scouts of America, right?

The women in charge of the Girl Scouts engaged in lawfare against them until they collapsed.  They did so on the basis that there shouldn't exist a boys only organization.  However, they've not made any moves or statements in the direction of allowing boys into their organization.

Yes, the girl scouts are clearly sexist.

Is this a joke? If so, I don't get it. The Boy Scouts of America still exist, and boys can join Girl Scouts.

pawsplay, you could save a lot of wear and tear on your keyboard by just posting "some olden days people, that happened to be white, were racist to my mom. As a result I consider all white people to be demons, and take pleasure at every activity that hurts or excludes them, as they deserve everything they get."

You know, it seems like white folks are getting a might uppity. Maybe one of your small, closed groups based upon shared ethnicity, could do something about it. There's a lot of them though, so maybe dress up in some kind of concealing costume while carrying out righteous acts.

Please read through and respond to the rest of what I said. I've said quite a bit, and a fair amount is pretty damn relevant here. I'll also try to respond to more of what you have yourself posted.

"For instance, if you were running a panel on OSR games, and some storygamer went in there and started raising their hand a lot, and criticizing the very idea of traditional games, and was disruptive, you would kick them the fuck out."

If they are actively being disruptive not at all in a way that encourages decent criticism, sure, maybe. But I would never kick them out in advance just because they happen to be a storygamer, or have a White Wolf shirt, because that would be outright fucked up. Even if such people were more likely to screw up in that way. If you want to kick a disruptive player who happens to be white, go ahead. But don't set up corporate events where white people aren't allowed in certain sections. Because that is racial segregation, based off of ideological and political stereotyping on the basis of race.

"Imagine if you offered me some nightshade berries, and I was like, "No, thanks." Then you said, "How can you can justify this? I know you eat blueberries, which are also berries.""

Think for a moment about the fact that you may be subconsciously assuming white people WILL ruin your game, or be unkind to you, or hold a political view, or whatever, to a person. In the same sense that nightshade berries will to a berry cause you harm. Now consider that this would, if someone did it, be racial stereotyping along the lines of ethnic essentialism. It's terrible when white people use it, and yes, many ethnic essentialists over the years have been white. Do you really want to join them in assuming that race dictates opinion, competence, safety, and character? No. You do not. Nobody with half a functioning brain does.

It sounds like you have had more reason, by a lot, than most white racists to assume that a certain skin color will do you harm. Still, regardless of skin color, and regardless of who's making this point, racial profiling and stereotyping is wrong, as is segregation. Skin color does not define us, so it should not be used in place of ideology or character to exclude from unrelated tasks like gaming. Or really just in general.

If you want to set up a game with friends who aren't white, go ahead. I wouldn't say it'd be great to exclude a friend or even just a good fit on the basis of race, and it might even be morally questionable. Still, not the same as deciding that those who want events and spaces under corporate or government dominion not to be segregated on the basis of racial stereotyping are asshole bullies. Or that it is not only acceptable but laudable to stereotype safety and ideology off of skin color. Don't do that to yourself, don't do that to other people. Don't encourage it when a corporation does it.

Why do you think I think white people are demons? Why do you think I bother talking to people about this stuff? It's not a waste of time to me.

Quote from: KindaMeh on January 09, 2024, 06:45:33 PM
"Imagine if you offered me some nightshade berries, and I was like, "No, thanks." Then you said, "How can you can justify this? I know you eat blueberries, which are also berries.""

Think for a moment about the fact that you may be subconsciously assuming white people WILL ruin your game, or be unkind to you, or hold a political view, or whatever, to a person. In the same sense that nightshade berries will to a berry cause you harm.

Do you think you, personally, have ever done anything to convince someone otherwise? I don't get what mean by subconscious. White people showing up to an event that is black only, to be a safe space for black people, are ruining the experience for people. Black people don't need to be freed from racism, they need to be freed from the racism of white people.

Quote from: pawsplay on January 09, 2024, 06:47:12 PM
Why do you think I think white people are demons? Why do you think I bother talking to people about this stuff? It's not a waste of time to me.

At. You talk at people about this stuff, while casually throwing out the most heinous racism, because your cult has told you only white people can be racist.

Quote from: Grognard GM on January 09, 2024, 06:50:01 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on January 09, 2024, 06:47:12 PM
Why do you think I think white people are demons? Why do you think I bother talking to people about this stuff? It's not a waste of time to me.

At. You talk at people about this stuff, while casually throwing out the most heinous racism, because your cult has told you only white people can be racist.

Usually when people talk about imaginary cults on an RPG board, I expect it to be about Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons.

Welp, This thread haven't been about the topic in several pages.  We aren't having a meaningful conversation about the politicization of companies that produce RPG material anymore. 

Pawsplay managed to get our goat and get us to destroy yet another thread.  Frankly, It would serve us all right if Pundit locked this thread and banned us all.

Quote from: pawsplay on January 09, 2024, 06:47:12 PM

Quote from: KindaMeh on January 09, 2024, 06:45:33 PM
"Imagine if you offered me some nightshade berries, and I was like, "No, thanks." Then you said, "How can you can justify this? I know you eat blueberries, which are also berries.""

Think for a moment about the fact that you may be subconsciously assuming white people WILL ruin your game, or be unkind to you, or hold a political view, or whatever, to a person. In the same sense that nightshade berries will to a berry cause you harm.

Do you think you, personally, have ever done anything to convince someone otherwise? I don't get what mean by subconscious.

That's a pretty damn low bar. So yes. Literally anything said that takes a stance against racism more broadly, within this very thread, would qualify. But yes, even outside that kind of thing.

As for the second sentence, I was hoping you weren't consciously racially profiling all white people. That's what I meant by subconscious, and I even couched it within terms that implied the possibility of not doing that. Seems I may have been wrong about that. Do you seriously think that white people are homogenous in opinion? Or that they are to a person horrible people by right of their skin color's inevitable influence? Or that we don't care about other people who are of different skin colors than us? That we do not have friends, loved ones, and compassion across the bounds of race? That we are as nightberries intrinsically harmful to society and people of color? If you answered yes to any of those questions, you may want to seriously reconsider not only your position, but also the degree to which you are beginning to resemble the discrimination and racism you claim to oppose.

Quote from: BadApple on January 09, 2024, 07:07:53 PM
Welp, This thread haven't been about the topic in several pages.  We aren't having a meaningful conversation about the politicization of companies that produce RPG material anymore. 

Pawsplay managed to get our goat and get us to destroy yet another thread.  Frankly, It would serve us all right if Pundit locked this thread and banned us all.

He could ban all of us, and make pawsplay a mod. Then he could take up his purple lightsabre, and join TBP as a Sith Lord.

Quote from: KindaMeh on January 09, 2024, 07:14:50 PM

That's a pretty damn low bar. So yes. Literally anything said that takes a stance against racism more broadly, within this very thread, would qualify. But yes, even outside that kind of thing.

As for the second sentence, I was hoping you weren't consciously racially profiling all white people. That's what I meant by subconscious, and I even couched it within terms that implied the possibility of not doing that. Seems I may have been wrong about that. Do you seriously think that white people are homogenous in opinion? Or that they are to a person horrible people by right of their skin color's inevitable influence? Or that we don't care about other people who are of different skin colors than us? That we do not have friends, loved ones, and compassion across the bounds of race? That we are as nightberries intrinsically harmful to society and people of color? If you answered yes to any of those questions, you may want to seriously reconsider not only your position, but also the degree to which you are beginning to resemble the discrimination and racism you claim to oppose.

Saying I'm consciously racially profiling people is like saying, if someone robs a bank, I'm profiling them as a bank robber. A white person who invades a safe space that is not for them is doing something. They are not being pre-judged. They are completely guilty of what they are being judged for. All the white people NOT expressing their white pride by invading intentionally POC spaces? Perfectly cool.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 09, 2024, 05:48:39 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 09, 2024, 05:22:04 PM
My question would be, are the Girl Scouts inherently sexist and boy-hating because they don't allow boys in?

In context? Yes.

https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/BSA_Family-Entry-Fact-Sheet.pdf

https://www.girlscouts.org/en/raising-girls/happy-and-healthy/happy/girls-only-single-gender-empowering-girls.html

It sounds like you disagree with the argument that the Boy Scouts should necessarily admit girls. i.e. That the old 20th-century Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts were fine, even though they discriminated based on gender.

The point is about the inherently exclusion which was a part of the founding of the scouts. Do you think the 20th-century Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts were OK, or were they inherently wrong because they were gender-discriminatory, and needed to be corrected?