Quote from: jhkim;480568OK, I'm satisfied we're at the agree to disagree stage regarding Tolkien.  

Out of curiousity, does anyone agree with me that Robert E. Howard, H.P. Lovecraft, and Edgar Rice Burroughs were racists?  Or do people think that I'm also just crazy reading racism into their writing as well?

Did they, while writing in the first-person, non-fiction personal form, say something racist?

Then yes.  You can.

Otherwise, you're committing the biographical fallacy I've explained earlier.

Quote from: J Arcane;480589Did they, while writing in the first-person, non-fiction personal form, say something racist?

Then yes.  You can.

Otherwise, you're committing the biographical fallacy I've explained earlier.

Fine.  If you want to get all technical, then even a first-person, non-fiction personal writing doesn't need to express a person's true inner feelings.  People can lie, joke, exaggerate, etc.  Here, I'll say the following:

I, John Kim, claim that all white people are stupid and furthermore can't dance.

But for purposes of this discussion, I don't really care if an author had some secret reason other than being racist for writing stories with racist themes.  What I care about is the stories themselves, and the qualities of creations like orcs, Green Martians, etc.  So I will revise my question to "Would you agree that the writings of Robert E. Howard, H.P. Lovecraft, and Edgar Rice Burroughs frequently contain racist themes?"

Quote from: StormBringer;480586Then maybe you should take that up with him.

I did, actually. But thanks of the tip, I guess.

QuoteHave you seen anyone else make this argument?

You guys by defending this idiot. What the fuck is wrong with you, mate?

QuoteAlso, wasn't the primary complaint that the original guy was reading too much into things?

"So it all stinks to me of a kind of privileged, colonial, expansionist, genocidal viewpoint that makes my stomach turn."
When did "to me" come to mean "a general statement that applies to every single person on the planet without recourse"?

Stop being a hypocrite trying to move the goalposts every five seconds. "It's just my opinion" has never, ever been an excuse to say something stupid. You know that, I know that. That's just your latest attempt at a smoke screen, and it stinks. Just give that up.

You said that "nobody said that D&D was racist". Well YES, SOMEONE DID: the fucking OP. Now are you going to own up to the fact you're presently defending a fucking idiot, and thereby are making yourself look like one, or are we going for another round of goalposts shifting?

Quote from: Benoist;480603You guys by defending this idiot. What the fuck is wrong with you, mate?

Where am I defending his ideas?

QuoteStop being a hypocrite trying to move the goalposts every five seconds. "It's just my opinion" has never, ever been an excuse to say something stupid. You know that, I know that. That's just your latest attempt at a smoke screen, and it stinks. Just give that up.

It gets kind of tiring to have a pile of fallacy names thrown at a wall to see which one sticks.  Any examples?

QuoteYou said that "nobody said that D&D was racist". Well YES, SOMEONE DID: the fucking OP. Now are you going to own up to the fact you're presently defending a fucking idiot, and thereby are making yourself look like one, or are we going for another round of goalposts shifting?

And again, if the OP made that claim, then you should probably take it up with him.  Did anyone who is present on the thread make those claims?  You know, the people you would actually be having a discussion with, not the random blog on the internet you copied this from so they would be unable to respond?

Your whole contribution to this thread has been to simply repeat ad nauseum that everyone else is wrong, but you have not shown any basis as to why that is.  I can't, by definition, move goalposts with you, because you have again utterly failed to raise any points that could be considered or discussed.

So, does anyone feel like taking on the actual discussion here, or is it easier to make up strawmen and argue about what the OP did or didn't mean when they aren't here to clarify anything?  Didn't J Arcane just mention something or another about being psychic?

Quote from: StormBringer;480578Ok, hold on.  You just spent a considerable number of posts claiming that was absolutely impossible.

Fail, figured you'd try and slip crap like this by, as you have nothing else.

Quote from: StormBringer;480578That it was utterly and completely something the players brought to the table.  That there is absolutely nothing in RPGs that could facilitate it.  It is just as easy to introduce racist elements to a game of Monopoly.

Fail.  Do you think this Freshman Year bullshit is going to fly here?  Slipping in your pathetic additions in an attempt to frame the argument isn't going to work, people here tend to have some brains, something you apparently have forgotten.  Where have you been anyway, were you forced to stay in Texas because of work?  Something turned you into a raving maniac.

Racism is something that is completely brought to the table by the players.  The ability to create fantasy cultures and races can lead to interesting and detailed races and cultures in RPGs that make you feel all warm, fuzzy and educational, or it can lead to Stormfront shit.  Similar to the situation in which a gun can be used to kill you whether or not the guy is shooting you because of your race or just because he wants your watch, or you could use it to defend your loved ones.  The gun is just a tool, the intent and racial baggage belongs solely to the user.

Awaiting the next pathetic driveby soundbite...

Quote from: J Arcane;480589Did they, while writing in the first-person, non-fiction personal form, say something racist?

Then yes.  You can.

From Gary Romeo's article Southern Discomfort:  Was Howard A Racist?:

Quote from: Gary RomeoHoward's attitude toward violence inflicted on non-whites is visible in some of his letters.  In a letter to H. P. Lovecraft, Howard talks about a rancher who was investigated for the murder of a Mexican.  "[...] just why so much trouble was taken about a Mexican I cannot understand." [ i]  In reference to a trial in Honolulu where native Hawaiians were accused of rape, Howard wrote, "I know what would have happened to them in Texas.  I don't know whether an Oriental smells any different than a n****r when he's roasting, but I'm willing to bet the aroma of scorching hide would have the same chastening effect on his surviving tribesman." [ii]  There is also a conversation between Howard and Novalyne Price that is remembered in her memoir on Howard.  Howard tells Novalyne,  "[...] I guess you know if a Negro is found on the streets after dark in Coleman, Santa Anna, and several other towns around here, they run him out of town.  Chances are they might tar and feather him."  When Novalyne reacted negatively, Howard returned, "Let me tell you something, girl, that you don't seem to know.  Those people come from a different line.  They have different blood - " [iii][/i]

Or how about, "This is based on his experience in New Orleans where he encountered a man of Chinese and Negro heritage.  Howard, in a letter, describes the man as an "it.""

That Novalyne Price reacted negatively to Howard's comments demonstrates that despite the prevalent racism of the day, one wasn't obliged to go along with it.

Does that meet your criteria?

Quote from: jhkim;480594So I will revise my question to "Would you agree that the writings of Robert E. Howard, H.P. Lovecraft, and Edgar Rice Burroughs frequently contain racist themes?"

As far as Howard goes, if you're talking about his published writings, I'd say very little, but when it's there, it's THERE.  The majority of his best stories, however, and all of his poetry that I've read don't contain a lot of racist stuff, no.

With Lovecraft I would argue, the racism is more prevalent in his stories, but it is less of a personal racism and more of a clueless cultural racism.

Quote from: John Morrow;480608From Gary Romeo's article Southern Discomfort:  Was Howard A Racist?:



Or how about, "This is based on his experience in New Orleans where he encountered a man of Chinese and Negro heritage.  Howard, in a letter, describes the man as an "it.""

That Novalyne Price reacted negatively to Howard's comments demonstrates that despite the prevalent racism of the day, one wasn't obliged to go along with it.

Does that meet your criteria?

Sure.  

I get the impression you're trying to score points against me somehow by pointing this out, but I didn't deny one way or the other that they were, only that one needed to decide such based on what they actually said, not what one has assumed from their fictions.

The former is reasonable.  The latter is a fallacious assumption.  Thus far, however, I have seen only the latter as respects Tolkien.

Quote from: StormBringer;480606blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah blah blah blah.

You've chosen the second option I see. *shakes head*

Quote from: beejazz;480130This is more or less the answer I was looking for. I can't see myself wanting to play in a game like this, but I can at least see why you would do this, and not use zombies or demons or what have you.

So did your setting not have artificial or unnaturally produced monsters? Or just not sentient ones that could fill that terminator role?

Not really, unless you count undead, and I didn't want the entire game to be about that.  I don't think one has to eliminate all of the other possibilities before choosing the one that I chose.

Quote from: CRKrueger;480607Fail, figured you'd try and slip crap like this by, as you have nothing else.

So, you won't be addressing the self-contradiction then.  Unsurprising.

QuoteThe gun is just a tool, the intent and racial baggage belongs solely to the user.

But is the gun more or less efficient than a knife, or a whiffle bat?

QuoteAwaiting the next pathetic driveby soundbite...

You probably shouldn't.  I mean, your only goal here is to make sure it is absolutely clear that RPGs cannot possibly be used for such purposes by anyone with a shred of sanity.  

Besides, why would you care?  It's not like you were trying to argue against my points anyway.  It was much easier to make up a wholly different argument, defeat that, then try to make it sound like it was my argument.

Quote from: Benoist;480616You've chosen the second option I see. *shakes head*

So, still not going to address anything in this thread, then?  Is this the new MO we can expect around here?  Copy pasta some vaguely controversial blog and wait to see which way the wind is blowing before jumping off the fence.

At least you didn't waste everyone's time constructing an argument and then defending it.  It is much faster to read through posts that just say "You're wrong".

Quote from: J Arcane;480613I get the impression you're trying to score points against me somehow by pointing this out, but I didn't deny one way or the other that they were, only that one needed to decide such based on what they actually said, not what one has assumed from their fictions.

I was primarily trying to point out that the quotes exist that meet your criteria, though you seemed to be skeptical that such evidence existed.  The point about Novalyne Price's reaction was because Howard fans frequently apply the "he was a product of his times" defense to excuse his comments.  There is a point to which I the "he was a product of his times" is a reasonable excuse for ignorant and non-malicious racist comments, but I think Howard's comments fall well past that point.

Quote from: StormBringer;480626So, still not going to address anything in this thread, then?  Is this the new MO we can expect around here?  Copy pasta some vaguely controversial blog and wait to see which way the wind is blowing before jumping off the fence.

At least you didn't waste everyone's time constructing an argument and then defending it.  It is much faster to read through posts that just say "You're wrong".

(1) I created the thread. I'm on topic here. The one who's completely ignoring the OP is you, champ.

(2) I don't have time to waste writing paragraph after paragraph trying to convince you while you are so blatantly dishonest as to pretend to argue a position and then pretend it's actually not your position, make excuses and rewrite the retarded posts of the latest dickwad that strikes your fancy, or play the Team Left playbook to then pretend we're just hatemongers or Tea Party activists or whatever piece of bullshit you are going to come up with next. Like answering whether guns kill people to just change the subject to ask which is more lethal than the other. The premise is that they're all lethal, dick. Answer the fucking question. But nope. Let's just play it by shifting the topic. By the fucking book. Hope your proud of yourself.

Quote from: StormBringer;480626So, still not going to address anything in this thread, then?  Is this the new MO we can expect around here?  Copy pasta some vaguely controversial blog and wait to see which way the wind is blowing before jumping off the fence.

Not even a blog, a private Google+ post.  

Quote from: John Morrow;480629I was primarily trying to point out that the quotes exist that meet your criteria, though you seemed to be skeptical that such evidence existed.  The point about Novalyne Price's reaction was because Howard fans frequently apply the "he was a product of his times" defense to excuse his comments.  There is a point to which I the "he was a product of his times" is a reasonable excuse for ignorant and non-malicious racist comments, but I think Howard's comments fall well past that point.

If I gave the impression I was skeptical regarding the three figures (Howard, Lovecraft, Burroughs), I apologize.  To be honest, I just flat don't know, and was only trying to encourage intellectual honesty as to answering the question.  

Of the three, I have only read Lovecraft sparingly, and none of his personal writings. I have heard rumors about various figures from that time, but as this thread most adequately demonstrates, people often tend to conflate personal interpretation with biographical speech.

In Tolkien's case, the actual biographical speech suggests that in reality he expressed some disgust with the black segregation of his native South Africa.  
To then go and read one's own preconceptions into the text of his fictional works and assume he was racist, shows exactly why the biographical fallacy is to be avoided.

We cannot assume anything about an author's personal views or experiences based solely on what they account in a fictional work.