TheRPGSite

I mean, let's face it:

They are unintentionally racist by revising history.
Unintentionally sexist the same way.
Due to that racists and sexists wouldn't much care for them.
Anyone who dislikes the confederacy wouldn't like the idea that they're still around.
Those who do like the confederacy would probably be upset at the way the setting just throws away some of their.. ahem... "core values".
They have mystic negroes, mystic chinese, and mystic indians.
Plus they shit all over freemasons.

Obviously there may be some other cases of intentional or unintentional insult, stupid PC-ness, historical whitewashing, stupid un-pcness, or whatnot that might make it offensive to group somehow not included above (I forget, for example, if they have anything that would insult homosexuals, or gypsies).

This setting is really the magnum opus of getting it fucking wrong, even when (tragically? ironically? fortunately?) its core concept gets it so right.

RPGPundit

I put the racism and sexism right back in.

Even to the point that the saloon staff in Enfield Colarado (fictional town I think) called this huge Native American in the corner Brick Shithouse.

revising history is racist now?

Revisionist history has been around a long time. Deadlands just embraces it.

And the Civil War was not about slavery, though politicians used slavery as a platform to promote it.

It's never come up between all the shooting and the running.

Quote from: RPGPundit;425653I mean, let's face it:

They are unintentionally racist by revising history.
Unintentionally sexist the same way.
Due to that racists and sexists wouldn't much care for them.
Anyone who dislikes the confederacy wouldn't like the idea that they're still around.
Those who do like the confederacy would probably be upset at the way the setting just throws away some of their.. ahem... "core values".
They have mystic negroes, mystic chinese, and mystic indians.
Plus they shit all over freemasons.

Obviously there may be some other cases of intentional or unintentional insult, stupid PC-ness, historical whitewashing, stupid un-pcness, or whatnot that might make it offensive to group somehow not included above (I forget, for example, if they have anything that would insult homosexuals, or gypsies).

This setting is really the magnum opus of getting it fucking wrong, even when (tragically? ironically? fortunately?) its core concept gets it so right.

RPGPundit

Hang on, there's an incongruity here.

What is it...

Hmmm....

Pundit GIVES A SHIT about people being OFFENDED by something!?

:p

Quote from: danbuter;425662Revisionist history has been around a long time. Deadlands just embraces it.

And the Civil War was not about slavery, though politicians used slavery as a platform to promote it.

I don't know, it may not have been the main motivation for generals and politicians, but for many of the abolitionist that signed up and, you know, died and shit, that's exactly what it was about.

Edit: that is not to say that the average rank and file Southern soldier was fighting to protect slavery, they were not, to the best of my knowledge. They were fighting to protect their land, and their right to control the destiny of their nation, as admirable a set of goals as any, in my opinion. As always, though,  the men on the ground, on both side of the conflict, were manipulated by elites with their own aggrandizement in mind; however, I believe that the majority of the guys who actually bled on both sides had their hearts in the right place.

I have played deadlands and there is nothing that bothers me about it.  Its a fun game

So what it revises history, its an rpg not a text book.

I think its the pundit is taking things way too seriously

Quote from: Aos;425696I don't know, it may not have been the main motivation for generals and politicians, but for many of the abolitionist that signed up and, you know, died and shit, that's exactly what it was about.

Edit: that is not to say that the average rank and file Southern soldier was fighting to protect slavery, they were not, to the best of my knowledge. They were fighting to protect their land, and their right to control the destiny of their nation, as admirable a set of goals as any, in my opinion. As always, though,  the men on the ground, on both side of the conflict, were manipulated by elites with their own aggrandizement in mind; however, I believe that the majority of the guys who actually bled on both sides had their hearts in the right place.

Even the poor Southern whites weren't secretly pals of the blacks. The same wacky belief that you can become a billionaire today despite vast social inequity contributed to a culture of even poor whites going "One day I'm gonna own me some niggers". While yes, they were manipulated into fighting a war over it, they didn't have to be manipulated hard - the Civil War was a mass popular movement as much as anything else.

For my part, if I played Deadlands, I'd play a time-traveling black guy from an alternate timeline more similar to our own who's come back to finish the job on the Confederacy.

Quote from: Ian Warner;425657I put the racism and sexism right back in.

As did I.

Quote from: danbuter;425662Revisionist history has been around a long time. Deadlands just embraces it.

And the Civil War was not about slavery, though politicians used slavery as a platform to promote it.

This is a really stupid statement.  I live in Oklahoma now, and have spent a good deal of time in Kansas and Missouri as I was growing up. I have studied war for half my life, with American wars being an object of study (as opposed to wars in the ancient world).

If you think the American Civil War wasn't about slavery, I'd like to know what the hell you think it was about.

Before you answer, you should do some research.

Or better yet, don't even fucking answer.

Quote from: danbuter;425662And the Civil War was not about slavery, though politicians used slavery as a platform to promote it.

It was all about slavery, it is specifically protected in their constitution for crying out loud. And if for some reason if they had the numbers to do so they would imposed slavery on the rest of the nation in the name of property rights (think Fugitive Slave Law written larger) and it would be the north singing the praises of state's rights.

Slavery distorted everything in southern society from the lynch laws, the plantation system, and so on.  

There were all sorts of unintended consequences like the fact that southern land boundaries was drawn in the meets and bounds instead of the north's quarter sections. This was partially a consequence of geography particularly in Louisiana but also because of the demands of the plantation system. The results was that land boundaries were unclear and subject to numerous lawsuits and made hard for lower income citizen to buy land free and clear. This directly contributed to the highly stratified society of the antebellum south.

Without the slavery the difference between North and South would not been enough to drive the nation into Civil War.

Lincoln wasn't kidding when he said

A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.

And neither side was going to become like the other because of slavery.

Quote from: Blackhand;425716This is a really stupid statement.  I live in Oklahoma now, and have spent a good deal of time in Kansas and Missouri as I was growing up. I have studied war for half my life, with American wars being an object of study (as opposed to wars in the ancient world).

If you think the American Civil War wasn't about slavery, I'd like to know what the hell you think it was about.

Before you answer, you should do some research.

Or better yet, don't even fucking answer.

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Slavery was not the major issue. And there weren't that many abolitionists signing up to fight. A couple thousand people, at most, in a war with a million troops on each side. The massacres in Kansas didn't mean crap in the war. They were just some cool headlines. Militarily, they were wingnuts fighting each other.

Folks at the time said it was about money. Sure, some folks were fighting for slavery, but others were fighting to defend their land, and others to become citizens.

Slavery is a common scapegoat, but every other country on the planet resolved their slavery issues without going to war over it, doing so peacefully. On the other hand, money's been the source of many wars.

A reasonable investigation of the issues shows that while slavery was a bone of contention (as were a thousand other things), money in the form of unfair taxation, was key.

Quote from: danbuter;425731Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Slavery was not the major issue. And there weren't that many abolitionists signing up to fight. A couple thousand people, at most, in a war with a million troops on each side. The massacres in Kansas didn't mean crap in the war. They were just some cool headlines. Militarily, they were wingnuts fighting each other.

You don't get to say anything else about this subject.  This is obviously a blatant trolling.

I feel terrible that some of you aren't quite sure about it.

The top five causes of the American Civil war, just in case you are stupid.

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
2. States versus federal rights.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

Top nine events leading up to the war, also just in case.

1. The Mexican War Ended - 1848
2. Fugitive Slave Act - 1850
3. Uncle Tom's Cabin Was Released
4. Bleeding Kansas shocked Northerners
5. Charles Sumner is Attacked by Preston on the Floor of the Senate
6. Dred Scott Decision - 1857
7. Lecompton Constitution Rejected
8. John Brown Raided Harper's Ferry
9. Abraham Lincoln Was Elected President

Every single one of the listed causes / events are directly related to slavery.  I dare you to refute even one of these that didn't involve the issue of free or slave states.  Everything you can think of points to slavery.

I would also like to know who fought the war if it weren't the abolitionists (including freed slaves).

You are in charted territory sir.  Remember that when you tell someone your uninformed opinion and set it forth as truth.

And go fuck yourself. Or do you forget how many Northerners were more than happy to lynch blacks?
And amazingly enough, your points 1 and 2 are the same ones I am making. Guess you took the short bus to school.

Quote from: Blackhand;425742I would also like to know who fought the war if it weren't the abolitionists (including freed slaves).

anti-abolitionists
recently arrived immigrants, fresh off the boat

Blackhand's right, though. The one major underlying reason for secession that precipitated the Civil War was turning around the subject of slavery, sometimes explicitly, and sometimes implicitly. Which doesn't mean this was the only reason, but it was the one major issue that triggered and fueled the whole conflict, let's not be morons about it.

I'm sorry, you keep saying there are other reasons, but no one has listed an example that isn't (as Benoist said) explicitly or implicitly tied to the subject of slavery.

It was the ONE THING that caused the civil war, simply by being prevalent.

Without this issue, the states would NOT have went to war with one another.

Oh yeah, and the snarky bit about anti-abolitionists and immigrants is true, and I should have been more loquacious with my initial response, but I was referring to the notion that abolitionists didn't do much to fight in the war.

Quote from: danbuter;425745And go fuck yourself. Or do you forget how many Northerners were more than happy to lynch blacks?
And amazingly enough, your points 1 and 2 are the same ones I am making. Guess you took the short bus to school.

I'm sorry, I'm unclear what your exact points I have listed are you saying is analogous to your argument? I have stated all my points are directly related to the issue of slavery and I can give more detailed explanations of any point I have brought up.

I have not forgotten some folks living up north were straight up nigger haters, but overwhelmingly the northern states were abolitionists.

Or did you forget, as you have so blithely insinuated is my issue?

yeah, I know. I should have resisted the lure of the imp of the perverse.

Now imagine an alternate future in which the Confederacy endured, twenty/thirty years after the war. Does anyone seriously think that the Confederacy would have abandoned slavery without a major blacklash/reason to do so in the first place?

I don't know how that's explained in Deadlands, but if the only reason to do so was for the sake of the readership, it sounds kinda lame, to be honest. Like gamers aren't adult enough to deal with alternate history in believable terms, you know.

Quote from: Benoist;425755Now imagine an alternate future in which the Confederacy endured, twenty/thirty years after the war. Does anyone seriously think that the Confederacy would have abandoned slavery without a major blacklash/reason to do so in the first place?

I don't know how that's explained in Deadlands, but if the only reason to do so was for the sake of the readership, it sounds kinda lame, to be honest. Like gamers aren't adult enough to deal with alternate history in believable terms, you know.

They would absolutely have NOT abandoned it, and it would probably have extended to immigrants, Native Americans and criminals such as the abolitionists (just after the war).

In the wake of a victorious Confederacy, it's not hard to imagine slavery as a punishment for a variety of criminal infractions.  It might have been this instead of a burgeoning prison system.

All I can say is I'm tired of game products that basically assume that I, the reader, am a moron, or an immature individual unable to deal with a boob on a page, two guys kissing, or this or that fictitious/alternate nation, or empire, or Confederacy, or whatnot, that would be a slaver state. I mean come on. Seriously?

To me, a role playing game product should be clear, explain what needs to be explained, and basically strive to make players and GM rise to the plate, instead of dumbing things down and avoiding subjects because they're "dirty." So you can both trust your readers to be intelligent beings, and at the same time be explicit about the aims of your game product, provide advice and guidelines on how to use it best, and so on, so forth.

It's all fine and good to avoid really sick stuff for the sake of it, but the same way, mature themes and ideas shouldn't be avoided just because "the readership wouldn't be able to handle it." That's bullshit, to me.

I like my gaming material sanitised. When I pick up a roleplaying game I just looking ofr cheap escapist thrills. I'm not making a statement, not trying to be edgy or examine serious issues. Sure, occasionally stuff happens that might make you think but that just incidental and not to be encouraged.

I find that when you place a serious, potentially sensitive issue right next to shooting zombies that latter kind of has the effect of trivialising the former.  And even if shouldn't bother me (and I am pretty squeamish by nature) there is always the risk it might bother someone else that table, and it's just not worth it.

I'm definitely in the 'it all centered on the issue of slavery' camp... I'd waffled in the past but after watching a 'debate' between a bunch of historians several years ago I became convinced.

When I first started playing Deadlands I was a bit confused... then annoyed. I knew very little about the setting's timeline... I'd ask about the war, the Confederacy, slaves... and I'd get these hand-wavy responses... 'tut, tut, let's not worry about all that and just have fun' type of shit.
I'm still not very happy about it but seeing as just about all our gaming has been centered in California it hasn't come up much. There's very little ethnic content of any sort actually... though I think it bothers them sometimes that one of my characters is overtly racist towards Mexicans (regardless of our hardly ever meeting any).
 
To my way of thinking part of playing in a historical setting (even something as vaguely historical as Deadlands) is exploring the bad stuff that went with the times as well as the interesting/fun aspects... trying to get a hint of a world-view that is alien to my modern way of thinking, including the nasty racist/classist/sexist stuff... but I get that a lot of folks would rather just ignore all that.

A lot of 'good' fantasy/horror/scifi stories/movies/etc. have used that step away from reality to comment on real-world issues... doesn't mean you have to get preachy about it, but ignoring relevant issues for the sake of 'fun' seems willfully ignorant.

Quote from: danbuter;425745And go fuck yourself. Or do you forget how many Northerners were more than happy to lynch blacks?

Well I'm not sure about blacks but Lincoln wrote lynching Italians was a good idea at one point.

Though I don't generally like Exalted or its setting, Manacle and Coin is an excellent supp that deals with the economic impacts of slavery on ancient economies. Not only that, but it makes the topic interesting for gaming by showing how it can be used to generate problems and challenges for PCs to deal with.

Deadlands is the single most insulting RPG setting to black people that has ever seen actual print.

And for the whole, 'it was a state's rights issue' crowd: One of the 'state rights' they wanted to preserve was the right to buy and sell human beings like livestock. The CSA were barbaric traitors. And glorifying them in the Deadlands setting is equally barbaric. This is a game. Keep your blatant racism out of it. At least in the ReichStar setting the Nazis were the bad guys. I Deadlands the CSA is just another faction. Go team slavery!

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;425768Though I don't generally like Exalted or its setting, Manacle and Coin is an excellent supp that deals with the economic impacts of slavery on ancient economies. Not only that, but it makes the topic interesting for gaming by showing how it can be used to generate problems and challenges for PCs to deal with.

Thank you. Exactly the sort of stuff I'm talking about. If it's relevant to the game, and creates conflicts/challenges/events for the PCs to deal with, or going on in the world, then I don't see why a publisher would shy away from a subject like slavery beyond the "readers are morons and will not understand" or "I'm so afraid of BADD I'm just going to avoid it."

Quote from: Benoist;425774Thank you. Exactly the sort of stuff I'm talking about. If it's relevant to the game, and creates conflicts/challenges/events for the PCs to deal with, or going on in the world, then I don't see why one would shy away from a subject like slavery.

Including slavery isn't the issue. Handwaving it away as some minor detail is though. Deadlands says, 'Hey Black Folks, it's all good, the CSA wasn't that bad!' It's an insult to millions of people.

Footnote to previous post: I'm assuming the author is not a moron in the first place, obviously, and is able to treat the subject matter in relevant, interesting ways for the game. Not as apologism/revisionism/whatever non-gaming agenda a misguided designer might have writing his RPG supplement.

Quote from: Tetsubo;425775Including slavery isn't the issue. Handwaving it away as some minor detail is though. Deadlands says, 'Hey Black Folks, it's all good, the CSA wasn't that bad!' It's an insult to millions of people.

I completely agree.

It's funny, systems which are inherently full of prejudice and tension sometimes DO manage a peaceful transition without war or conquest.

The best example is possibly how women got the vote in England through peaceful protest of the suffragettes etc. Obviously, the position of women in England was infinitely superior to that of blacks during slavery, so please, don't get me wrong, I'm not making light of the black experience. But we had a deeply entrenched system going back more than a thousand years which broadly denied women political power (notwithstanding the occasional Queen). Married women were little more than chattels at law. In fact the law was still thought to be that a husband could not be guilty of rape of his wife (her consent being irreversible within marriage) until 1992 or so when case-law reversed that. Until some time in the 19th century married women could not own property, and they do so even now by means of a legal fiction that they are unmarried, IIRC.

We also had the Electoral Reform Act or whatever it was called in England in the 1830s. We had Catholic Emancipation and all that in England. The Monument in Newcastle indicates that Earl Grey saved civil peace in England with his Electoral Reform Bill; whatever was going on back then I don't really know, but I'm fairly sure there was no ACTUAL civil war.

In South Africa Apartheid ended. Yes there was external pressure, but IIUC with all that pressure in place it ultimately came down to one man, F W de Klerk, becoming convinced that the system couldn't last forever, and carrying others with him through his personal political power. I'm not saying it could have happened without Mandela, etc. But it was IIUC, and I could be wrong, F W de Klerk whose actions definitively determined that it would happen peacefully, and not through violent confrontation.

Even in Ancient Rome the owner's power to free his slaves was extended through various developments in Roman law over the centures as far as I understand it, and the rights of freedmen of various categories were increased until they were all essentially granted the status of Roman Citizens, or something along those lines. Simply gratuitously murderising your slaves was also prohibited. Yes, Christianity was a big factor in some of the later developments at least IIUC. Ancient Rome seems remote, but really the human factors are the same, or at least similar, even if racism wasn't quite the same issue.

Anyway, who's to say whether the Confederacy would have evolved into something more palatable even if it had won the war. You just can't really hypothesise convincingly about it. It's nothing more than intellectual wanking. Maybe I'm naive but I'd like to believe there's enough generosity of spirit in humanity generally that the Confederacy might well have liberalised on its own in due course, just like some of those other societies.

I guess what it's important to remember is that human nature is very similar across vastly different societies. People in bad societies behave badly; people in nice societies behave nicely. White folks in the Confederacy by and large weren't evil, though they did evil things. They just had a distorted world-view and were de-sensitised to what they were doing. That's not to minimise the black experience in any way - which was, as best as I can imagine it, sordid, dehumanising, belittling, harsh, degrading and psychologically stifling/suffocating. The scary truth is that good people can do that to other good people in bad societies because they can get caught up in this collective sort of madness where it all seems normal, where they lose touch with human empathy with the subjugated class. But some of those good people are bound to open their eyes to what's going on and realise it's not right. It's just a matter of time. And maybe, just maybe, they might grasp the reins of their evil society and turn it around from within. There's plenty of precedents for that, I think. Not saying it's probable. But believably likely? Sure.

At the end of the day it only takes one charismatic individual with a big dose of luck who comes at the right time to turn a whole society around for good or for ill. McCarthy IMHO YMMV turned American society into a ridiculous and sinister anti-Communist witchhunt in the 1950s. Ian Paisley first madly fanned the flames of the Troubles in Northern Ireland in the 1970s or whenever, then was the final decisive force in cementing a pragmatic peace in very recent years. It only takes one man, but it's got to be the right one man - the right alpha male (or female) with the right vision to press the right switch at the time when the switch is open to be pressed. And BTW Gerry Adams is about to be in a position to do the same in Ireland, quite possibly. It's going to be very interesting to watch. I hope to God he shows some human reasonableness if he does get into government there, because he's not going to be in charge of some nicely reined-in province with a civil police force but no army. He could well be in charge of a fully independent country with its own army. Peace in this part of the world possibly depends on him continuing to see the sense in winning the hearts and minds of Northern Ireland and not resorting to new tactics suddenly made available to him by the economic crisis. Of course it's only that sensibleness which has made him electable in the South, so if he's rational, he'll understand that it's continuing sensibleness which will keep him in power and supply him with the best tools to strive for his goals. But he's going to face a crazy temptation, IMHO.

Quote from: Blackhand;425756They would absolutely have NOT abandoned it, and it would probably have extended to immigrants, Native Americans and criminals such as the abolitionists (just after the war).

In the wake of a victorious Confederacy, it's not hard to imagine slavery as a punishment for a variety of criminal infractions.  It might have been this instead of a burgeoning prison system.

Whilst I agree with your other points in time they would have abandoned it. You get to a point where mechanisation is cheaper than feeding and maintaining a popultion of workers even if you don't pay them. So then slavery slides into something approaching a concentration camp which is itself of a limited sustainable duration.
Ultimately Slavery has economic roots racism is a matrix ontop of slavery not its root cause.

Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves, he went to war to keep the United States from becoming a group of minor countries each of whom individually could have been stomped by Britain or France.  He wanted to preserve the Union.

Now why the South wanted to secede, slavery and the abolition movement was the main reason.

In Deadlands a world-changing event stopped the Civil War.  Once the South and North were no longer fighting, a period of entrenchment and recovery happened.   Expecting Britain and France to aid the South when the war was just about rebellion was one thing, after the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery became a retroactive Casus Belli.  If the South wanted any more help from Britain and France, it had to make the war not about slavery, but making it about rebellion again.  So the South freed the slaves.

The English government has faced near constant civil insurrection since William came to the island. Even the suffragettes were pretty violent (as were the Chartists, Parliamentarians, Levelers and Jacobites). In fact, the abolition of slavery is the only progressive cause I can think of that succeeded in England without a riot or attempted revolution behind it (and there probably was at least one that I'm just unaware of).

Quote from: CRKrueger;425780In Deadlands a world-changing event stopped the Civil War.  Once the South and North were no longer fighting, a period of entrenchment and recovery happened.   Expecting Britain and France to aid the South when the war was just about rebellion was one thing, after the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery became a retroactive Casus Belli.  If the South wanted any more help from Britain and France, it had to make the war not about slavery, but making it about rebellion again.  So the South freed the slaves.

That's kind of dumb alternate history if that's their explanation. For one thing, it would have required an amendment to the CSA's constitution, which had specific provisions in it to prevent any member state or the federal government from abolishing slavery. It also would have gone against the stated reasons for rebellion, and the popular sentiment of most Southerners (even non-slave owners were afraid that free blacks would seek vengeance against them). Even had they freed the slaves, the laws of the Confederacy would have, IIRC, required the government to pay compensation to owners, which would have bankrupted the government (which was never on great financial footing at the best of times).

IRL, the CSA government was well aware that its pro-slavery position was unpopular with Britain and France (not that it prevented those countries from trading with them for most of the war). It bulled through with it anyhow because it was too tightly integrated into the whole system to give up. That system quite literally had to be smashed and burnt to pieces by people like Sherman and Grant to end it.

Quote from: Omnifray;425778Even in Ancient Rome the owner's power to free his slaves was extended through various developments in Roman law over the centures as far as I understand it, and the rights of freedmen of various categories were increased until they were all essentially granted the status of Roman Citizens, or something along those lines. Simply gratuitously murderising your slaves was also prohibited. Yes, Christianity was a big factor in some of the later developments at least IIUC. Ancient Rome seems remote, but really the human factors are the same, or at least similar, even if racism wasn't quite the same issue.

That went the other way, too. Into the late Roman Imperium, tenant farmers and sharecroppers were increasingly legally tied to the land they worked and functionally enslaved (or perhaps "enserfed" might be the better term). Over the course of generations, they saw a slow degradation of their freedoms and legal protections.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;425782That's kind of dumb alternate history if that's their explanation. For one thing, it would have required an amendment to the CSA's constitution,

Sorry, but you are playing a game that assumes there are zombie cowboys and steampunk robots powred by magical rocks and you have a problem with constitutional changes?

Deadlands isn't an alternative history in the way "What if Napoleon had won at Waterloo or Justinian had reunited the Western Empire with the Eastern." Deadlands is comicbook pulp, just a bit of fun. It doesn't really merit overthinking... or any thinking at all.

Quote from: jibbajibba;425779Whilst I agree with your other points in time they would have abandoned it. You get to a point where mechanisation is cheaper than feeding and maintaining a popultion of workers even if you don't pay them. So then slavery slides into something approaching a concentration camp which is itself of a limited sustainable duration.
Ultimately Slavery has economic roots racism is a matrix ontop of slavery not its root cause.

He asked about what would happen in 20 or 30 years.

I agree totally with what you're saying, but this might not have happened until well into the 20th century.  I could see another (at least) half a century of slavery, depending on what events you choose to include in the alternate timeline.

Quote from: Soylent Green;425788Sorry, but you are playing a game that assumes there are zombie cowboys and steampunk robots powred by magical rocks and you have a problem with constitutional changes?

Deadlands isn't an alternative history in the way "What if Napoleon had won at Waterloo or Justinian had reunited the Western Empire with the Eastern." Deadlands is comicbook pulp, just a bit of fun. It doesn't really merit overthinking... or any thinking at all.

I don't play Deadlands at all because I find it absurd and uninteresting.

But yes, I do prefer designers to understand a historical period well if they want to use it as a point of departure. The guys who write for Clockwork and Chivalry, for example, have an excellent understanding of the period that makes it easier to swallow the alternate history and metaphysics they introduce.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;425792The guys who write for Clockwork and Chivalry, for example, have an excellent understanding of the period that makes it easier to swallow the alternate history and metaphysics they introduce.

Do they? I haven't checked it out yet.

Quote from: danbuter;425745And go fuck yourself. Or do you forget how many Northerners were more than happy to lynch blacks?
And amazingly enough, your points 1 and 2 are the same ones I am making. Guess you took the short bus to school.

Yes northerners treatment of African Americans was terrible. But it also shows your ignorance of the matter. Catholics, the Irish, and Eastern Europeans were all also on the short end of the northern stick as well. (See Know-Nothings)

What northerners resented was Slave Power. They viewed the south as being run by a bunch of rich arrogant plantation owners who had an unfair advantage because of the 3/5th representation for slaves rule. Time and time again their issues were not resolved because the slave states acted as a bloc to defeat them especially when if you counted only those who could be citizens the North would not issues.

The Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave laws was the straw that broke the northern camel back. Now not only the south was frustrating the north's agenda they were imposing their own agenda on the north. The wake of Dred Scott saw many Northern states calling for states rights and succession. But since they had population on their side what resulted was the Republican party and Lincoln's victory.

Prior to Dred Scott the northerners viewed abolitionists as radicals and an obstruction to peaceful compromise with the south. Afterwards the North felt it had no choice to use all of it's political advantages to prevent Slave Power from dominating the nation. It made common cause with the abolitionists which resulted in the Republican party.

All of these issues would not existed without slavery being the heart of southern society. The myth of States Rights, the Lost Cause and the noble cavaliers of the South  are the result of the Redemption movement that occurred when Reconstruction ended.  And while there are some elements of truths in each of these they are basically myths.

Quote from: danbuter;425731Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Slavery was not the major issue. And there weren't that many abolitionists signing up to fight. A couple thousand people, at most, in a war with a million troops on each side. The massacres in Kansas didn't mean crap in the war. They were just some cool headlines. Militarily, they were wingnuts fighting each other.

They wrote slavery, and particularly the slavery of blacks, into their Constitution as a right (http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/csaconstitution/):

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

"No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due."

"The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."

I'm sorry but the neo-Confederate argument that the states had the right to secede and that the Civil War wasn't about slavery (there is often something about Lincoln being the Anti-Christ in there somewhere) just don't hold up to or shoot down the ample evidence to the contrary.  

Concerning secession and whether the Founders would have supported it, see Article IV, Section 3 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article4) and Article VI (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6) of the US Contitution as well as other clauses (Article III, Section 3 and the provision for the suspension of habeas corpus in times of rebellion).  The precursor (and generally considered weaker) Articles of Confederation (http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html) repeatedly refers to a "perpetual Union" and, in Article VI, specifically describe what states can't do, including "No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the united States in congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue."  

It's pretty clear that the Founders didn't think there was a right to check out of the United States once a state was in it, at least not without the approval of Congress.

As for the war not being about Slavery, do a search for "slave" in any of the declarations of secession by various states such as these (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html).

Yes, I'm sure that many individuals fought on the side of the Confederacy for other reasons, perhaps even noble reasons, and there were other problems such as trade issues that played a role, but slavery had loomed large as a problem going back to the Constitution and the 3/5ths Compromise.  In many ways, the Civil War was the poison pill of the 3/5ths Compromise, which was designed to limit the political power of slave states and lead to the eventual end of slavery, playing out its end game.

IMNSHO I don't care if it was about slavery or not - what it ended UP being about was the ability of supposedly soverign states who voluentarily entered into a Union not being able to leave said Union if they wanted to.

Name another organization that once you join, you can't EVER leave, and if you try people with guns will force you to stay.

It is fairly well established (and mentioned earlier) that Lincoln didn't give a fig about the slaves, but you can't bring that up without being considered at best a closet racist. So carry on, I suppose.

Quote from: Werekoala;425800IMNSHO I don't care if it was about slavery or not - what it ended UP being about was the ability of supposedly soverign states who voluentarily entered into a Union not being able to leave said Union if they wanted to.

As I pointed out in my reply, the Articles of Confederation, generally considered to have created a much weaker union than the Constitution, specifically said that the Union was perpetual and there are various clauses in both documents that states, alone, could not simply leave.  The states were not fully "sovereign", even under the Articles of Confederation.  

If a state wanted to leave, it could always do what they did back in 1776 and fight a war for independence.  The South tried and lost and payed a pretty large price for it.

ADDED: You also may want to ask yourself why only one Confederate state supported a provision to guarantee the right to secession in their constitution.

Quote from: Werekoala;425800Name another organization that once you join, you can't EVER leave, and if you try people with guns will force you to stay.

States aren't people and the United States isn't an organization.  And to be perfectly honest, there were plenty of governments, religions, and even organizations that would kill people who try to leave.  In fact, there are libertarians who persuasively argue that the enforcement of any law ultimately requires a government to be willing to bring force against individuals to force them to comply (e.g., If they give you a speeding ticket and you refuse to pay or stop speeding, then what?).  The Constitution provided for the suspension of habeas corpus during times of rebellion which means that they pretty much assumed that if people rebelled against the government, the government could arrest and imprison people without charging them with a crime.  And none other that George Washington was ready to march into Western Pennsylvania to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.  

Quote from: Werekoala;425800It is fairly well established (and mentioned earlier) that Lincoln didn't give a fig about the slaves, but you can't bring that up without being considered at best a closet racist. So carry on, I suppose.

I don't think that's a fair assessment of Lincoln.  At best, I think it can be said that some of his sentiments would be considered racist by modern standards but would probably not have seemed so racist in their day and that he was a pragmatist above all, who was willing to compromise even on slavery to keep the Union together.  But I don't think these (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/speed.htm) are the words of a closet racist or even someone just trying to score political points, in my opinion:

Quote from: Abraham LincolnI am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.

Quote from: Werekoala;425800IMNSHO I don't care if it was about slavery or not - what it ended UP being about was the ability of supposedly soverign states who voluentarily entered into a Union not being able to leave said Union if they wanted to.

Name another organization that once you join, you can't EVER leave, and if you try people with guns will force you to stay.

Slave plantations.

The reason they wanted to leave was because they wanted to keep slavery and by extension, the political power it gave them over the rest of the nation. Boo hoo for them that they didn't win.

The Confederate Constitution actually gave states fewer rights within it than the regular one did. Read it sometime, it knocks the shit out of the "states' rights" argument. They were also no more friendly to states leaving the Confederacy than the Union was to states leaving it. They just had less ability to enforce their will in the matter because of the Union.

QuoteIt is fairly well established (and mentioned earlier) that Lincoln didn't give a fig about the slaves, but you can't bring that up without being considered at best a closet racist. So carry on, I suppose.

It's true Lincoln didn't give a fig about freeing the slaves at first (protip: his position changed over time) except insofar as it could be used to bolster the Union. So what? The end result was that the slaves were freed anyway. When it comes to politics, consequences beat intentions every time.

Quote from: Benoist;425795Do they? I haven't checked it out yet.

Yeah, it's well thought through and realised. The factions and ideological rules alone are awesome - you can proselytise others, rant unintentionally, and suffer crises of faith. Gets across the hysterical feeling of the times perfectly.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;425805Slave plantations.

:D

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;425805The Confederate Constitution actually gave states fewer rights within it than the regular one did. Read it sometime, it knocks the shit out of the "states' rights" argument. They were also no more friendly to states leaving the Confederacy than the Union was to states leaving it. They just had less ability to enforce their will in the matter because of the Union.

Yes, reading the Confederate constitution is a real eye-opener.  I provided a link to it earlier in this thread.  For a country that wasn't about slavery, they sure do manage to mention it quite a bit in their Constitution.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;425805Slave plantations.

LOL! Oooh. Well played, Sir! :D

Quote from: Tetsubo;425775Including slavery isn't the issue. Handwaving it away as some minor detail is though. Deadlands says, 'Hey Black Folks, it's all good, the CSA wasn't that bad!' It's an insult to millions of people.

I think the most insulting bit is that it is relegated to a sidebar. If you're going to make a massive change to peoples asumptions of the history and culture of your setting at least have the decency to write it in the main body of the text.

Question to anyone who put the racism back in. Do you feel a little bit guilty that you're getting enjoyment out of using very offensive terminology and treating people like dirt? I know I do!

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;425805Slave plantations.

You'd have a point - if slaves voluntarily joined the plantations. You did see the "once you join" part of what I wrote, right?

It doesn't matter if the Confederation restricted state's rights more or less than the US Constitution does/did - the point is that they should have had the right to leave the Union and not be forced back into it through a war. What they did after that point was up to them.

As the saying goes - the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

But its a moot point, no minds will be changed, spilt milk, etc. etc.

Werekoala: I don't know of any nation that accepted the autonomy of one of its territory without external pressure, riots or bloodshed. It's part of the basic concept of nationalism as it appeared in the XIXth century. Why would have it been different for the US, just because it's a union of states?

On second thoughts Deadlands is no more offensive than this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biy2kbqPqHY

Although I imagine when America does eventually tear itself to bits this will look pretty bad in hindsight.

Because it IS a Union of States - supposedly. Not one unified territory. Or it wasn't supposed to be. You know, a Republic? A voluentary assembly of mostly-self-governing assemblies who joined together for common cause and good, but not through some grand unifying war - until the Civil War, that is.

Realistically, today, there is no reason for "states" in this country anymore, they may as well just erase all the borders and redraw the map into administrative regions or something, since that's how we are governed anyway.

I guess you can blame the Brits for the whole States thing. The first 13 were the original 13 colonies.

Quote from: Werekoala;425915Because it IS a Union of States - supposedly. Not one unified territory. Or it wasn't supposed to be. You know, a Republic? A voluentary assembly of mostly-self-governing assemblies who joined together for common cause and good, but not through some grand unifying war - until the Civil War, that is.

That is an interesting interpretation of American politics prior to the Civil War. Not particularly accurate though. For one thing, the southern pro-slavery states and their representatives were often proponents of federal power because the 3/5ths principle gave them more of it proportionally than the anti-slave states. Strong federal power goes back to at least Andrew Jackson (who is the template for the South American caudillo) and his anti-First Nations policies.

QuoteRealistically, today, there is no reason for "states" in this country anymore, they may as well just erase all the borders and redraw the map into administrative regions or something, since that's how we are governed anyway.

I'm pretty cool with the idea that human rights should be consistent across individual regions of a polity. They are natural rights, after all. Blacks shouldn't stop being people just because you cross into Georgia.

Despite your efforts to make it so, State's Rights is not solely about slavery, and it never was. It is, however, a convenient blunt object to use to stop any rational discussion of the subject.

Quote from: Werekoala;425933Despite your efforts to make it so, State's Rights is not solely about slavery, and it never was. It is, however, a convenient blunt object to use to stop any rational discussion of the subject.

The right in question was just and only the right to keep slaves, bro. This is explicit in contemporary documents.

It's also obvious when you read the Confederate constitution, which actually grants states fewer rights than the original constitution did, but secures the institution of slavery from being abolished in any member state.

It's true though, the contemporary States' Rights position is mainly about being able to discriminate against other minorities than blacks (mainly gays, non-Christians, and women). But it's a shitty idea with a shitty pedigree.

Sure it is - its allll about discrimination, not self-determination. So again, let's just eliminate states altogether - why even bother if its all going to be dictated from Washington anyway? Why maintain the charade that we're anything but "Americans" any longer? Who are we trying to fool?

Quote from: RPGPundit;425653I mean, let's face it:

They are unintentionally racist by revising history.
Unintentionally sexist the same way.
Due to that racists and sexists wouldn't much care for them.
Anyone who dislikes the confederacy wouldn't like the idea that they're still around.
Those who do like the confederacy would probably be upset at the way the setting just throws away some of their.. ahem... "core values".
They have mystic negroes, mystic chinese, and mystic indians.
Plus they shit all over freemasons.

Obviously there may be some other cases of intentional or unintentional insult, stupid PC-ness, historical whitewashing, stupid un-pcness, or whatnot that might make it offensive to group somehow not included above (I forget, for example, if they have anything that would insult homosexuals, or gypsies).

This setting is really the magnum opus of getting it fucking wrong, even when (tragically? ironically? fortunately?) its core concept gets it so right.

RPGPundit

It reminds me of Firefly, which is just White Washed US history with the confederates as the heroic failures.

Quote from: Werekoala;425956Sure it is - its allll about discrimination, not self-determination.

Well, only because empirically it is, and always has been. "Self-determination" in this context has this wacky side effect of historically meaning "The self-determination of rich, white men" at the expense of everyone else.

QuoteSo again, let's just eliminate states altogether - why even bother if its all going to be dictated from Washington anyway? Why maintain the charade that we're anything but "Americans" any longer? Who are we trying to fool?

Well, it looks like you're mainly trying to fool poor people, minorities and women.

I'm actually far more of a localist than you are, comrade. I just don't attach my position to racist, revanchist bullshit. Try it sometime!

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;425964I'm actually far more of a localist than you are, comrade. I just don't attach my position to racist, revanchist bullshit. Try it sometime!

I'd love to! Since apparently you know how this all works better than I do, how does one go about wanting to make decisions about how they are governed, as close to home as possible and with as little interference from a centralized Federal bureaucracy, without being called a racist?

Establish city states?

Quote from: Werekoala;425956... So again, let's just eliminate states altogether - why even bother if its all going to be dictated from Washington anyway? Why maintain the charade that we're anything but "Americans" any longer? Who are we trying to fool?

I'm sorry to say that in popular culture outside the USA you pretty much ARE all just Americans, although you might expect some appreciation of certain regions of the nation as having a distinctive character, Texas, wider Deep South, New York City [including Bronx Brooklyn and Queens], wider North East, California, possibly Florida and The Rest probably (Mid West?). But to those of us on the outside, you ARE basically one nation, and though I've heard it said by some Americans in New York that New York or Florida were essentially different countries, it didn't come across as being meant literally. I mean, what's the essential difference between Iowa and Ohio, or between Kentucky and Virginia? I'm fucked if I know!

BTW I think it's totally mad the way you all have separate legal systems for each state. What a completely pointless waste of time!! Yeah, I know, we have separate legal systems in Scotland versus Northern Ireland versus England & Wales, and Wales is kind of breaking away now. But I venture to think that on the whole for most individuals the sense of nationality of being Scottish rather than English is PROBABLY (forgive my ignorance if I'm wrong) significantly stronger than the sense of nationality of coming from say New Jersey rather than New York State, or North Dakota v. South Dakota, or Wyoming instead of Montana, or East Virginia instead of West Virginia. They have a pretty strong independence movement. The thing is - having so many legal systems - it's just not efficient.

Quote from: ggroy;425972Establish city states?

No, no - it has been clearly established that the only reason to want independence from a Central Federal Government (in America, at least) is because you're a racist. I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to avoid that label.

Quote from: Werekoala;425974No, no - it has been clearly established that the only reason to want independence from a Central Federal Government (in America, at least) is because you're a racist. I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to avoid that label.

This seems to be less the case in other parts of the world, such as the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia.

Quote from: Ian Warner;425914On second thoughts Deadlands is no more offensive than this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biy2kbqPqHY

Although I imagine when America does eventually tear itself to bits this will look pretty bad in hindsight.

That is pretty offensive actually, to my British eyes - they're dancing on graves the sick fucks. I don't really care who the dead guy is, at least if he's not Waffen SS, you don't dance on his grave, and even if he IS Waffen SS, I still wouldn't personally do it, not even for Hitler himself, at least not so many years down the line (though trying to be completely honest with myself I suppose I might have in 1945 I suppose just out of joy at the end of an evil era, had I been alive then). You can mourn the tragedy of a misspent life devoted to an evil cause without actually dancing on the guy's grave. Those Southerners who died for the South, for starters I'm guessing a lot of them didn't have an awful lot of practical choice what they were doing, and I'm guessing they could easily fight out of local patriotism even if they weren't particularly in favour of slavery; probably a good percentage of them (15%? 20%?) were as anti-slavery as the average Yankie, and a small percentage more so, and they're dancing on those graves too. Of course my knowledge of the Civil War is pretty woeful so I may stand to be corrected. Maybe you can prove to me that every Southerner or at least every one in the Confederate army was a racist wanker whose only interest was in suppressing the blacks, but I doubt it.

BTW, what about Lovecraft in his Cthulhu etc. stories having a character call his black cat N****r-man and sometimes writing about "negroes" as being a low and mean kind of person or something along those lines. Is he considered a racist?

Does that mean we should all hate on the Cthulhu mythos?

Quote from: Werekoala;425969I'd love to! Since apparently you know how this all works better than I do, how does one go about wanting to make decisions about how they are governed, as close to home as possible and with as little interference from a centralized Federal bureaucracy, without being called a racist?

Well, one sensible place to start is not to use terms that originated as a defense of a horrible system that actually enslaved millions of people and made their lives living, unfree hells. Or to defend that system as misunderstood.

From there, the rest is just anarchism, comrade. I can put together a reading list if you'd like.

Quote from: Omnifray;425982BTW, what about Lovecraft in his Cthulhu etc. stories having a character call his black cat N****r-man and sometimes writing about "negroes" as being a low and mean kind of person or something along those lines. Is he considered a racist?

Does that mean we should all hate on the Cthulhu mythos?

No, but we shouldn't hide or downplay the fact that he was a racist.

The main difference between HP Lovecraft and the citizens of the slave-owning states, of course, is that HP Lovecraft didn't coerce, beat, torture and kill millions of people, or participate in the system that did or violently physically assault those who attempted to abolish that system. A minor difference, I know, but it probably counts for something.

Quote from: ggroy;425977This seems to be less the case in other parts of the world, such as the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia.

Or Canada. We've had three votes on whether Quebec should leave confederation ("Canada: the Other Confederacy"). One reason it's a little less urgent whether it does or not is that Quebec doesn't have people in chains being whipped and burnt and forced to labour until dead.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;425987No, but we shouldn't hide or downplay the fact that he was a racist.

The main difference between HP Lovecraft and the citizens of the slave-owning states, of course, is that HP Lovecraft didn't coerce, beat, torture and kill millions of people, or participate in the system that did or violently physically assault those who attempted to abolish that system. A minor difference, I know, but it probably counts for something.

Did he participate in a system which denied civil rights to blacks? He was pre MLK wasn't he.

Quote from: Omnifray;426028Did he participate in a system which denied civil rights to blacks? He was pre MLK wasn't he.

Yeap, but I'm unaware of him being politically active. He also lived mainly in Massachusetts, which was one of the better states for blacks (though hardly perfect, of course).

Basically, Lovecraft's racism is incidental to his work. It's unfortunate, it's there, and it influences his work occasionally, but there's a lot more to the stuff he spent his life doing than racism.

The slave system has none of those ameliorations. Individual southerners might be more or less decent people, but the whole society was rotten, from top to bottom, and the chain of events that led to the Civil War was set in motion by the decisions and actions of millions of people to preserve that system at any cost.

Quote from: Cranewings;425957It reminds me of Firefly, which is just White Washed US history with the confederates as the heroic failures.

Cranewings,

 I call Bullshit! on your comment.

 If you actually pay attention to the show - Malcolm Reynolds and his crew are against slavery!! (There are at least THREE scenes in various episodes that make this very clear)

Its quite blatant in several scvenes that the bad guys morality-wise won that war they all talk about that took place seven years before the series. The 'Alliance' in the show quite clearly has slavery or condones it in some fashion.
However, the Independents or 'Browncoats' did NOT support slavery.

So Technically Mal and crew of SERENITY are mostly 'veterans of the North' if you look at it the right way.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;426039Cranewings,

 I call Bullshit! on your comment.

Yeah. I'm a huge Firefly fan, watch the episodes and movie over and over again with my wife, who loves the show as well, and I can honestly say I can see how people can make that Confederate reading out of it, but also that if one makes that kind of reading, then that pretty much means you WANT to go there in the first place, for whatever reason, pro or against. So it's in the eye of the beholder, to me.

Quote from: Benoist;426040Yeah. I'm a huge Firefly fan, watch the episodes and movie over and over again with my wife, who loves the show as well, and I can honestly say I can see how people can make that Confederate reading out of it, but also that if one makes that kind of reading, then that pretty much means you WANT to go there in the first place, for whatever reason, pro or against. So it's in the eye of the beholder, to me.

Benoist,

Then those are people that make only superficial judgements of things based on accents and dialects.

The show might not be a great work of art to some people - but assuming that they are 'confederate' or southern just because of speaking pattern or style is screwed up . (and almost suggests an accidentally bigoted or biased viewer)

One of the nicest things about the show is that it rewarded folks that paid attention with nice little insights and details into the background universe.

The Good Guys that we follow should have won the war - but didn't. Thats part of the reason we can cheer or root for them when they do what would normally be illegal activities in other shows - bnecause the background government and society is morally currupt and bankrupt at the core.

Its also tiuresome when people assume that just because a character doesn't speak perfect Shakespearean or New England states-style English - then he must represent the 'Southern states' somehow.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Benoist;426040Yeah. I'm a huge Firefly fan, watch the episodes and movie over and over again with my wife, who loves the show as well, and I can honestly say I can see how people can make that Confederate reading out of it, but also that if one makes that kind of reading, then that pretty much means you WANT to go there in the first place, for whatever reason, pro or against. So it's in the eye of the beholder, to me.

Kind of. What they did was break the correspondence between the North-South positions in the Civil War and the two sides in the show to make Reynolds and crew heroic freedom fighters instead of the Space Klan. Reynolds is basically Space Josey Wales though.

Chances are further seasons would have muddied the waters by bringing in moral complications regarding Browncoat conduct (about as typical a Sci-Fi TV plot as can be imagined) that might've illuminated the inspiration the Confederacy provided for them.

Quote from: Omnifray;425973I'm sorry to say that in popular culture outside the USA you pretty much ARE all just Americans, although you might expect some appreciation of certain regions of the nation as having a distinctive character, Texas, wider Deep South, New York City [including Bronx Brooklyn and Queens], wider North East, California, possibly Florida and The Rest probably (Mid West?). But to those of us on the outside, you ARE basically one nation, and though I've heard it said by some Americans in New York that New York or Florida were essentially different countries, it didn't come across as being meant literally. I mean, what's the essential difference between Iowa and Ohio, or between Kentucky and Virginia? I'm fucked if I know!

BTW I think it's totally mad the way you all have separate legal systems for each state. What a completely pointless waste of time!! Yeah, I know, we have separate legal systems in Scotland versus Northern Ireland versus England & Wales, and Wales is kind of breaking away now. But I venture to think that on the whole for most individuals the sense of nationality of being Scottish rather than English is PROBABLY (forgive my ignorance if I'm wrong) significantly stronger than the sense of nationality of coming from say New Jersey rather than New York State, or North Dakota v. South Dakota, or Wyoming instead of Montana, or East Virginia instead of West Virginia. They have a pretty strong independence movement. The thing is - having so many legal systems - it's just not efficient.

The truth is, the different states aren't really all that different - probably the biggest thing is just that we're so big that climate, topography, and demographics can vary a lot between regions.  Heck, even the nearby Canadian provinces aren't really that different from us (hence the common attitude of people from the USA considering Canada to be "America Junior").

Some people do get into the whole "state pride" thing, but definately not on the level of nationalism.

The legal system thing is both more and less complex that you ascribe.  It's true, the exact laws are completely different in each state and there are federal laws on top of that.  However, what generally ends up happening is that every state ends up copying the other ones and then you have federal case precedents that muddy the waters a bit, so what you end up with is that all the states laws are usually close enough that the layperson can't tell the difference.

I completely agree though, it never made sense to me even as a child.  I also never understood why we can't have a national ID card or why we can't have English as the official language.  But then, my love for standardization and efficiency tend to make me sympathetic to theoretical federalism (as opposed to actual federalism, which in our political system tends to end up less efficient a lot of the time).

Koltar, hey man, I'm a fan because I can over look that kind of stuff. I still enjoy Robert Howard and Lovecraft even though they were racists pieces of shit.

Firefly isn't racist, it is just based on white washed alternate history. I still enjoy it, I'm just realistic about what it is trying to appeal to.

My favourite goofy alt-history is in the Chinese-made A Man Called Hero, where Hero sails across the Pacific to New York where his fellow Chinese have been enslaved to mine for gold in the desert hills surrounding it. At the end, he defeats the Klu Klux Klan and hands them over to some mick cops from Boston.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;425984Well, one sensible place to start is not to use terms that originated as a defense of a horrible system that actually enslaved millions of people and made their lives living, unfree hells. Or to defend that system as misunderstood.

From there, the rest is just anarchism, comrade. I can put together a reading list if you'd like.

Terminology aside, When did I defend slavery?

Next - how do you propose to discuss such things without Federalists bringing up the Civil War and slavery, and by implication the racism of anyone who thinks individual States should have more autonomy from a centralized government? You strongly intimated (if not outright stated) that anyone who is for the rights of the individual states is, by definition, racist and probably sexist and homophobic as well.

When only one side is allowed to frame the debate, it tends to skew perceptions.

Quote from: Werekoala;426068When only one side is allowed to frame the debate, it tends to skew perceptions.

This is how propaganda works.

Quote from: Werekoala;426068Terminology aside, When did I defend slavery?

No one said you defended the institution of slavery. You just defended the system that happened to rely extensively on slavery by claiming that it was a matter of states' rights, and that this is what the Civil war was about.

This is the same as holding the position "Black people's freedoms don't matter, what matters is the rights of some rich white men to do as they please to other people". That is the set of assumptions, whether knowingly or not, that one must hold to prioritise the right of some rich white men to do as they please to other people over the right of black people not to be enslaved.

QuoteNext - how do you propose to discuss such things without Federalists bringing up the Civil War and slavery, and by implication the defense of it by anyone who thinks individual States should have more autonomy from a centralized government?

Well, for one thing, you should go further than "state" if your goal is to have power devolve to local communities. State governments aren't any more responsive than the federal one is. I'd also avoid language that is reminiscent of that very conflict: "States' rights" is one such term.

QuoteWhen only one side is allowed to frame the debate, it tends to skew perceptions.

One side is right - that the argument for states' rights is linked, historically and conceptually, to the "right" to own slaves and for small majorities to enforce their will on minorities.

Quote from: Werekoala;426068Terminology aside, When did I defend slavery?

Next - how do you propose to discuss such things without Federalists bringing up the Civil War and slavery, and by implication the racism of anyone who thinks individual States should have more autonomy from a centralized government? You strongly intimated (if not outright stated) that anyone who is for the rights of the individual states is, by definition, racist and probably sexist and homophobic as well.

When only one side is allowed to frame the debate, it tends to skew perceptions.

I would suggest bringing up state's rights in a context other than the U.S. Civil War, in which slavery was a very major factor.  The Soviet countries or Quebec might be good contexts.  

I think the U.S. Civil War is a good example of the opposition between state's rights and civil rights, though.  i.e. Is it more important for states to be free to secede, or more important for individuals to be free from slavery?  Local communities are often subject to strong factionalism - i.e. it's easier for a small community to agree on a violation of civil rights than a large country.

I'd disagree to a point - State governments are MORE responsive than Federal to the needs of the individuals within that particular state, but they're certainly not the end-all of governmental types.

Aside from that, I can see the point I suppose - the South certainly did nothing to help the academic debate regarding the USA as a Republic (and yes, it had already migrated from that greatly before the war, but the point stands) than anything else. I simply think that in a country as large as this one, having decisions being made that affect all regions equally without taking into account the historical differences of said regions may not be the best way to run the ship. If you don't like the law - where do you go to find something different? In effect, one of the things that created America in the first place (going somewhere to escape real or perceived injustice) has been legislated out of existence. No more frontiers, as it were.

To quote a bit of bumper-sticker wisdom that I'm sure was totally lost on the person who actually had it on their vehicle - "We shoulda picked our own damn cotton." That said, every ancestor I've been able to trace (either side) were, at best, tennant farmers, so I'm pretty certain that in my family we did.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;426054My favourite goofy alt-history is in the Chinese-made A Man Called Hero, where Hero sails across the Pacific to New York where his fellow Chinese have been enslaved to mine for gold in the desert hills surrounding it. At the end, he defeats the Klu Klux Klan and hands them over to some mick cops from Boston.

I fucking love that movie.

Quote from: Werekoala;425800Name another organization that once you join, you can't EVER leave, and if you try people with guns will force you to stay.

Marriage?  Sure, you can dissolve the marriage legally, but you can't just leave it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;425653Plus they shit all over freemasons.

This one I didn't know about.

Care to elaborate?

Quote from: Werekoala;425800Name another organization that once you join, you can't EVER leave, and if you try people with guns will force you to stay.

The Hotel California  :D

The Mafia too.

Quote from: Ian Warner;426128The Mafia too.

Interesting that the only one that meets the criteria of the US Government so far happens to be that one. :)

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;425948It's true though, the contemporary States' Rights position is mainly about being able to discriminate against other minorities than blacks (mainly gays, non-Christians, and women). But it's a shitty idea with a shitty pedigree.

No, that's the current left-wing straw man argument about States' Rights, though there are certainly some racists that hop on the bandwagon for those reasons.  For many, it's about limited government and local control of a variety of policies including education, land management, business regulations, and so on.  While States' Rights has it's problems, so does centralized management and it's no mistake that the more power gets concentrated centrally, the less democratic and accountable governments become.  And I suppose I should add that one can make a States' Rights argument from the left to support a variety of issues that play well in liberal states like Massachusetts, New York, and so on but would never fly on a national level.  After all, haven't several states legalized gay marriage?

If your argument is that the term "States' Rights" is forever tainted by it's association with the Confederacy and it's defense of slavery, I'll acknowledge that's a problem, so what do you suggest it be called?

Have to agree with John here. There is some blame that belongs to the States Rights position just like there is some blame resting squarely on the shoulders of the support for a centralized Federal Government. The dichotomy is actually at the heart of the United States, and I think it is a good thing on the long run, not a bad thing. Just like there is a separation of powers, or two chambers of Congress, this is part of these repartitions of responsibilities that create dynamics which, in the end, benefit society rather than impede it.

Quote from: John Morrow;426199No, that's the current left-wing straw man argument about States' Rights, though there are certainly some racists that hop on the bandwagon for those reasons.  For many, it's about limited government and local control of a variety of policies including education, land management, business regulations, and so on.

Education is a loaded one from what I can see... from the revisionist stuff the Texas state school board was pushing on textbooks... there is a definite attempt to push fundy Christian religious agendas like Creationism, re-contextualize the ACW, pave over civil rights issues in U.S. history.
Most of the people I see shouting about that stuff seem worthy of suspicion to me. Especially when just about all of them appear to be older white people with a comfortable life-style.

See? This is why politics should be outlawed on this site! Everyone has their ideas, and not a single one has been changed, nor will be. It just creates an atmosphere where people will really start to dislike each other.

i.e. This thread is Tangency in microcosm. It just needs someone to come up with gay rights and kittens to finish it off.

Quote from: danbuter;426207It just creates an atmosphere where people will really start to dislike each other.

I'm guessing that by "people" you mean, in fact, you. If you can't agree to disagree on important matters like religion and politics, then you need to take a course in basic human interactions. You can disagree and argue with people without hating them, as persons. You can even be FRIENDS with people and disagree and argue with them! Unbelievable! I know! Thinking that just because someone would be a socialist, or tea-party activist, this makes them "bad people", is completely, utterly stupid.

People are more complicated, deeper, and richer than that. It's just a matter of being mature about it.

Quote from: Simlasa;426206Education is a loaded one from what I can see... from the revisionist stuff the Texas state school board was pushing on textbooks... there is a definite attempt to push fundy Christian religious agendas like Creationism, re-contextualize the ACW, pave over civil rights issues in U.S. history.

It's always a problem if you don't agree with it and great if you do.  And don't think that there aren't people with political agendas for pushing science education that's explicitly hostile to religion, making civil rights issues a primary focus of US history, and so on.  The question is, who gets to decide what your children are taught?  You?  Someone in Washington, DC?  Someone in the UN?  And what can you do about it if their agenda doesn't match yours?

Quote from: Simlasa;426206Most of the people I see shouting about that stuff seem worthy of suspicion to me. Especially when just about all of them appear to be older white people with a comfortable life-style.

Do you have a problem with older white people being comfortable or maybe you think they all need to be punished for the sins of their race?  And, of course, you expect them all to allow others to punish them and ruin their lifestyle without complaint, right?

Quote from: danbuter;426207See? This is why politics should be outlawed on this site!

Well, you can thank the owner/operator of this site for tossing out this political hand-grenade.  It's pretty difficult to discuss the topic of this thread without delving into the politics of it.

Quote from: John Morrow;426222It's always a problem if you don't agree with it and great if you do.  And don't think that there aren't people with political agendas for pushing science education that's explicitly hostile to religion, making civil rights issues a primary focus of US history, and so on.  The question is, who gets to decide what your children are taught?  You?  Someone in Washington, DC?  Someone in the UN?  And what can you do about it if their agenda doesn't match yours?

I'm fine for teaching all sides of a controversial issue... but not so good with one state wanting to basically ignore things that are pretty much standard curriculum in 'first-world' countries... such as evolution being accepted scientific theory and creationism having no place in a science classroom.
I don't think parents should have the final say on what their children are taught, no... but if parents don't like what is being taught they have every right to offer their children the opposing viewpoint.

QuoteDo you have a problem with older white people being comfortable or maybe you think they all need to be punished for the sins of their race?  And, of course, you expect them all to allow others to punish them and ruin their lifestyle without complaint, right?

Neither, but I do think they are basically acting out of fear of the 'other'. Believing themselves somehow persecuted while actually being privileged.

Quote from: John Morrow;426199No, that's the current left-wing straw man argument about States' Rights, though there are certainly some racists that hop on the bandwagon for those reasons.  For many, it's about limited government and local control of a variety of policies including education, land management, business regulations, and so on.  While States' Rights has it's problems, so does centralized management and it's no mistake that the more power gets concentrated centrally, the less democratic and accountable governments become.  And I suppose I should add that one can make a States' Rights argument from the left to support a variety of issues that play well in liberal states like Massachusetts, New York, and so on but would never fly on a national level.  After all, haven't several states legalized gay marriage?

If your argument is that the term "States' Rights" is forever tainted by it's association with the Confederacy and it's defense of slavery, I'll acknowledge that's a problem, so what do you suggest it be called?

I suggest the widely used term "devolution", which is what it's properly called anyhow.

Also, comrade, I'm an anarchist. My position almost certainly involves a more radical devolution of power from all levels of government than anyone else here. You don't need to convince me that the capitalist bureaucratic state is a bad idea.

Quote from: Simlasa;426227I'm fine for teaching all sides of a controversial issue... but not so good with one state wanting to basically ignore things that are pretty much standard curriculum in 'first-world' countries... such as evolution being accepted scientific theory and creationism having no place in a science classroom.

Much of the reason why creationism is being injected into science classrooms is militant atheists positioning science as being in opposition to religion.  Telling people that evolution invalidated religion didn't convince people to abandon religion.  It convinced them to attack science.

Quote from: Simlasa;426227Neither, but I do think they are basically acting out of fear of the 'other'. Believing themselves somehow persecuted while actually being privileged.

I've read various essays and sites about "privilege" and the whole idea is really nonsense, especially as an assumption based on a single trait like race or sex.

Do you have any idea what my father's generation endured during the Great Depression?  My father recently showed his neighbors how fathers made their daughters toy cradles out of cylindrical cardboard salt containers during the Depression because they couldn't afford to actually buy them toys and his neighbors never heard of anything like that.  Many of my relatives had jobs before they were 10, not for spending money but to support their families.  The only reason my father had a bicycle is that he did deliveries and the guy let him use the bicycle when he wasn't working.  He had to work for the movie theater to be able to see movies.  He had no hot running water, no electric refrigeration, no television, and no air conditioning.  My mother's sisters remember living in a tenement with their family with two rooms and a shared bathroom in the hall and her brother sold flowers when he was 9 to help support his family.  Classes in my father's school had up to 45 students in them.  And during that period, white people discriminated against other white people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, and class which limited the opportunities people had (my father would have chosen a different career if his ethnicity hadn't been an issue).

I can go on and on with this stuff, but don't you think they might be a little annoyed by having some college-educated punk who never held a real job until they were in their late 20s telling them that they lived a life of "privilege?  In fact, one of the things that annoys my father the most is that welfare recipients were placed in apartments that would have been too good for my grandparents and proceeded to destroy them.

By the way, I've lived as a minority in Japan and, yes, being a minority and not speaking the language makes life difficult, but to blame the majority for that or demand that they specially accommodate other people is absurd.  Should I have demanded that the Japanese provide English translations for everything and institute quotas for non-Japanese workers so it would have been easier for me to find a job so I could have stayed there?  Should I have forced my way into rentals where the landlord didn't want to rent to a foreigner?

Minorities and the poor have always had a way to rise up and become comfortable.  They do that by advancing themselves rather than tearing other people down, which is exactly what poor white people did after the Great Depression(*).  Remember, the Irish were once discriminated against as badly as blacks were and the reasons why Irish mobs murdered blacks during the Draft Riots in 1863 was that they saw the blacks as competition for jobs.

And if you haven't noticed, Asians are kicking everyone's butts in the United States because they spend more time working hard and telling their kids to get educated and work hard than they do trying to figure out how to take someone else's money or win the lottery.  The formula for success is pretty clear.  Education.  Hard work.  Thrift.  That's exactly what my father's generation did to get the "privilege" you begrudge them.

Some more food for thought. (http://www.tsowell.com/spquestc.html)

(*) Yes, there was discrimination and still is, but they did not succeed because of that discrimination (the largest income rises and expansion in available occupations for blacks occurred during the 1940s and 1950s).

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;426239Also, comrade, I'm an anarchist. My position almost certainly involves a more radical devolution of power from all levels of government than anyone else here. You don't need to convince me that the capitalist bureaucratic state is a bad idea.

While I'm not an anarchist, I do believe that the concentration of power is a problem, whether it's concentrated in rich people, corporations, churches, schools, or governments and that, too, sometimes leaves me the odd man out in political discussions.  The important thing to remember is that governments and corporations are both run by people and psychopaths and other unsavory individuals migrate to where the power is, whether that's government or business or the church or school.  So it's always best to assume that any power might be wielded by a psychopath.

Quote from: John Morrow;426243While I'm not an anarchist, I do believe that the concentration of power is a problem, whether it's concentrated in rich people, corporations, churches, schools, or governments and that, too, sometimes leaves me the odd man out in political discussions.  The important thing to remember is that governments and corporations are both run by people and psychopaths and other unsavory individuals migrate to where the power is, whether that's government or business or the church or school.  So it's always best to assume that any power might be wielded by a psychopath.

Sort of. The system of organisation we use in these fields disproportionately places power in the hands of the most ruthless exploiters of that power, who then use it to crush alternate systems of economic and political activity that would otherwise out compete them in a variety of ways.

Mondragon, for example, is a world leader in producing white goods despite being run as a worker's democracy with high levels of participation by its employees and a commitment to their wellbeing over the accumulation of profit for shareholders. Power within Mondragon is not within the hands of psychopaths, and it provides us with one possible model, amongst many, of how we can and should structure our economic and political activity to avoid that fate, as opposed to simply handing it over to entities like federal or regional governments.

The only reason that there aren't more of these sorts of arrangements than already exist (and there are thousands of them anyhow, albeit mostly smaller than Mondragon) is that they are usually crushed violently and / or colluded against by the powerful who at risk of losing their power to them.

Getting from the one system to the others is the whole process of "dual power", which is a bit outside the scope of this thread and discussion.

Quote from: John Morrow;426241Much of the reason why creationism is being injected into science classrooms is militant atheists positioning science as being in opposition to religion.  Telling people that evolution invalidated religion didn't convince people to abandon religion.  It convinced them to attack science.

I'm not sure how that supports letting Kentucky raise a bunch of kids who know their Bible... and not much else.
(I've never had any scientist or teacher try to tell me that 'evolution invalidated religion'... but I know that's how a lot of church folk see it).

QuoteI've read various essays and sites about "privilege" and the whole idea is really nonsense, especially as an assumption based on a single trait like race or sex.

When I say 'privilege' all I mean is that they have been members of the group that was dominant culturally for the last... big block of time. It doesn't mean they stole what they have out of the mouths of poor black babies... but it does mean they were born with that little bit more going for them (white European heritage). My father grew up in the Depression too... I've heard the stories. They were a tougher bunch than we are.
Doesn't change the fact that during that whole time, if he went up for a job against an equally skilled black man/hispanic woman he stood a better chance of getting it because he looked like the guy doing the hiring.
Now that's not so true and it's scary for them (us).

Quote from: Simlasa;426249So yay, two wrongs make a right! Let's let Kentucky raise a bunch of kids who know their Bible... and not much else.

The solution is to teach evolution as the mainstream scientific explanation for things and acknowledge that it's a theory that does not necessarily invalidate the religious beliefs of students and their parents.  In other words, "This is what we are teaching you and you will be tested on, but you don't have to believe it."

Quote from: Simlasa;426249When I say 'privilege' all I mean is that they have been members of the group that was dominant culturally for the last... big block of time. It doesn't mean they stole what they have out of the mouths of poor black babies... but it does mean they were born with that little bit more going for them (white European heritage). My father grew up in the Depression too... I've heard the stories. They were a tougher bunch than we are.

The problem is that generalizing like that is doing the same thing that racists do when they assume that all black people are criminals.  You can't possibly know if the plight of an individual white person was more privileged than those of individual minorities.  I certainly didn't have an easier childhood than Barack Obama's daughters and my daughters aren't likely to attend Sidwell Friends.  My father never went to Harvard like Thomas Sowell did.  And this totally ignores that what people now think of as one "white" culture wasn't, and sometimes still isn't.  Irish, Italians, and Eastern Europeans were all heavily discriminated against as immigrants.  My father tells me about an Irish guy who was dating an Italian girl who was told by the priest, from the pulpit, to get back to the Irish-Catholic church where he belonged.  And there are still various classes of white people.  Ever hear the name "trailer trash"?

Quote from: Simlasa;426249Doesn't change the fact that during that whole time, if he went up for a job against an equally skilled black man/hispanic woman he stood a better chance of getting it because he looked like the guy doing the hiring.

Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned that my father had to abandon the career he loved because he was the wrong ethnicity and didn't have the connections to compete.  He did something else with his life.  So should he get reparations and resent someone else's success?  Does he get a pass on being categorized as "privileged".  Or do you, knowing almost nothing about my father and a hypothetical black person, really believe that you can justly determine who is more "privileged" and use that judgement to take away from one person and give to the other?

Quote from: John Morrow;426256The solution is to teach evolution as the mainstream scientific explanation for things and acknowledge that it's a theory that does not necessarily invalidate the religious beliefs of students and their parents.  In other words, "This is what we are teaching you and you will be tested on, but you don't have to believe it."

I wonder if that would settle the bickering.

QuoteThe problem is that generalizing like that is doing the same thing that racists do when they assume that all black people are criminals.  You can't possibly know if the plight of an individual white person was more privileged than those of individual minorities.

You're right of course, it's a vast generalization... but as a generalization (going only by 'race') it's supported by statistics... showing who had access to money and power during those years... and inversely gives some explanation of why, statistically, it might appear that non-whites were more likely to be 'criminals'.

Quotethis totally ignores that what people now think of as one "white" culture wasn't, and sometimes still isn't.  Irish, Italians, and Eastern Europeans were all heavily discriminated against as immigrants.

Again, I agree... it's a generalization that paves over the exceptions. But didn't a fair number of people from those ethnic groups change their names so they could 'pass' as plain old white folks? Not really an option for folks with visible clues they were from 'somewhere else'.
I know my family's name went through a few alterations before it became 'Smith'.

QuoteOr do you, knowing almost nothing about my father and a hypothetical black person, really believe that you can justly determine who is more "privileged" and use that judgement to take away from one person and give to the other?

I never claimed to 'know' anything... just stating what my perceptions of certain current political groups are... and why they seem so scared and tribalistic. I never mentioned 'reparations' or quotas or anything else.

Quote from: Simlasa;426265I wonder if that would settle the bickering.

There is always going to be bickering at the extremes.  What it would end (and what such compromises should try to end) is the conflict driving the middle to the extremes by denying them the excluded middle argument.

Quote from: Simlasa;426265You're right of course, it's a vast generalization... but as a generalization (going only by 'race') it's supported by statistics... showing who had access to money and power during those years... and inversely gives some explanation of why, statistically, it might appear that non-whites were more likely to be 'criminals'.

Crime is not necessarily linked to poverty. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0913/Poverty-rate-paradox-Poverty-rises-but-FBI-crime-rate-falls)  Please note that I'm not denying that there were decades of institutional racism or that racism still exists.  I simply don't think the cause and effect relationships are what many people claim they are.

Quote from: Simlasa;426265Again, I agree... it's a generalization that paves over the exceptions. But didn't a fair number of people from those ethnic groups change their names so they could 'pass' as plain old white folks? Not really an option for folks with visible clues they were from 'somewhere else'.
I know my family's name went through a few alterations before it became 'Smith'.

You can still tell one ethnicity from another through hair and skin color, family names that weren't changed, and religion.  Remember, much of the hostility in the past was directed at Catholics and the Catholic Church, to the point it was still an issue when John F. Kennedy ran for President.  What changed, more than anything else, was how people perceive ethnicity and religion.  The way people view the Irish, Italians, and Eastern Europeans as well as Catholics today is not the same as they were viewed a hundred years ago.  

Quote from: Simlasa;426265I never claimed to 'know' anything... just stating what my perceptions of certain current political groups are... and why they seem so scared and tribalistic. I never mentioned 'reparations' or quotas or anything else.

Well, you faulted them for feeling persecuted despite having "privilege".  Just because a bunch of people in the ivory towers of academia declare them as "privileged" does not mean that they perceive themselves that way nor does it mean that they actually lived a life of "privilege", nor is that what most are looking to preserve.  I think you'd have a hard time finding many white people these days who have any problem with a qualified black candidate getting a job over a less qualified white candidate or even an equally qualified white candidate if an anti-white bias is not the deciding factor.  They aren't trying to preserve "privilege".  What they are trying to avoid is having someone hundreds or thousands of miles away from them judging them and telling them how to live their lives.  Stripped of all the political assumptions about sinister motives, that's a pretty easy thing to understand.

Quote from: danbuter;426207See? This is why politics should be outlawed on this site! Everyone has their ideas, and not a single one has been changed, nor will be. It just creates an atmosphere where people will really start to dislike each other.

i.e. This thread is Tangency in microcosm. It just needs someone to come up with gay rights and kittens to finish it off.

Actually I think you've got it exactly backwards - I think politics or whathaveyou should be totally open for debate here (so long as it is at least marginally RPG-related I suppose) exactly because you CAN'T have this discussion at the Other Site without the velvety Hand of Mod coming down on your head - especially if you disagree with the prevailing Social Norms of Said Site.

We're adults here - we can disagree, and have meaningful and useful debate while we do so. IMO, of course. I doubt (or at least hope) that any disagreements would lead to any kind of enmity between folks here. Again, being able to hash it out *should* actually help avoid problems like that - nobody will be cut off at the knees by the mods, and the disagreement can run its course and eventually peter out instead of festering over time.

That's actually a problem with modern society, in my opinion - too many people are able to silence true debate and discussion with loaded words and appeals to authority instead of, you know, talking.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;425660revising history is racist now?

Often, yes.  Like, for example, if you say "the Confederacy were just joshing about all that slavery stuff! That wasn't what really mattered to them at all, and at the first real opportunity they'd do a full 180 and become such an inclusive culture that black men could become army officers!".

That's racist revisionist history.

RPGPundit

Quote from: danbuter;425662And the Civil War was not about slavery, though politicians used slavery as a platform to promote it.

For the purposes of this thread, that's a half-truth.  Saying "the civil war was not about slavery" might be only just very technically true, but its a far cry from meaning that the Confederates didn't care about slavery. They did, an awful lot.

And both are light years away from the idea that the confederacy wasn't racist. The north was racist too, the south was just slightly more racist.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Omnifray;425692Hang on, there's an incongruity here.

What is it...

Hmmm....

Pundit GIVES A SHIT about people being OFFENDED by something!?

:p

Well, if I wanted to be really auto-critical, I'd say its for three reasons:

1. I'm impressed by how they managed to end up on the wrong side of pissing so many people off, while flustered by the stupidity of how most of it was unintentional.

2. As an historian, I'm fucking appalled by their alt-history and just how stupidly they go about it in an effort to make a wild-west setting fit to modern-day political/cultural sensitivity.

3. I find it hilarious that these guys go out of their way to whitewash culture to the point where women can be sheriffs, black men can be respected leaders of society, the south isn't racist, and neither is the north and people mostly even like and listen to the indians, but in a pique of utter frivolity they decide that the Freemasons are an entirely Evil secret cult that serves Satan and plots to take over the world.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;426338...... black men can be respected leaders of society,..................

RPGPundit

On this one detail, Pundit you may be partially wrong.

There were several towns in the Old West where black mean held the officee of Sherriff and even Maytor and had the respect of most of the town.

Only reason I know or rtemember this is because of a play that was in Cinncinnati at the Playhouse in the Park 10 years ago and in the play's program was the notes from the playwright that he had researched that particular fight.

Apparently many black men ran away or traveled west instead of North, some changed their names and started new lives and had a better life out west. Also some black men were veterans of the Civil War - so had some experience and earned respect because of that fact and had a second career or life in the westrern states.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Benoist;425755Now imagine an alternate future in which the Confederacy endured, twenty/thirty years after the war. Does anyone seriously think that the Confederacy would have abandoned slavery without a major blacklash/reason to do so in the first place?

I don't know how that's explained in Deadlands, but if the only reason to do so was for the sake of the readership, it sounds kinda lame, to be honest. Like gamers aren't adult enough to deal with alternate history in believable terms, you know.

In Deadlands, pres. Davies abolishes slavery in 1865 to win the support of france and britain and to get blacks into the army.  As of the 1880s the civil war is still being fought.

Now some people might say "well that doesn't sound so unhistoric", but there's two important things to consider:
1. In OUR timeline, the CSA could have done that and would have won the immediate support of the European powers, they would have won the war in all likelihood. But they DIDN'T do that, precisely because of how much slavery mattered to them.

2. In the Deadlands books, its not just the historical facts but the overall tone that is absurd; the game is set up such that you can play a black, chinese, native, hispanic or female character and have absolutely no social disadvantage (aside from a few lone npc that might have the "prejudiced" trait or whatever) to your background.  Its a game that suggests that the wild west could suddenly have late-1990s cultural values for no truly good reason.

RPGPundit

It was in no way universal though. You cannot make the statement Pinacle has about the multicultralism of the west without being shouted at. Not only by historians but by civil rights groups.

The concept of a female sherriff would have made the average varmit piss himself laughing.

Quote from: Omnifray;425778It's funny, systems which are inherently full of prejudice and tension sometimes DO manage a peaceful transition without war or conquest.

The best example is possibly how women got the vote in England through peaceful protest of the suffragettes etc.

Women got the vote more because of WWI than because of the suffragettes.  

RPGPundit

The Suffuragists were peaceful. They included an ancestor of mine.

The Suffuragettes were terrorists plain and simple. They blew up mailboxes and litter bins, flattened Churchill's House (while he was away thank God) and in a Dublin theatre very nearly invented the suicide bomber.

Neither had much effect on Women's rights. As Pundit said that was the war.

Quote from: The Butcher;426105This one I didn't know about.

Care to elaborate?

This is the "Back east" sourcebooks.  Basically they portray freemasonry as a satanic conspiracy of mustache-twirling evil led by the chief satanist Albert Pike who I think they had eating babies for breakfast or something.  It was like the fuckers were copypasting from the Opus Dei playbook.

RPGPundit

I do not have Deadlands, nor am I particularly interested in zombie cowboys. But, I do have a few observations.

Regarding the "root cause" of the Civil War, this thread actually points out a major reason which is often overlooked.  One side said it was about slavery while the other said it was about states' rights. The disagreement between those two viewpoints was the major cause of the war,  but not the only one.

On Deadlands itself, IIRC, it has the war continuing for a decade or two longer, more or less. There is absolutely no way that the scale of battles like Chancellorsville, Antietam, or Gettysburg could have continued.

And further, even in a scaled-down war, the Native Americans like the Commanche, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Sioux, would have resisted a peaceful co-existence with Anglos.  They had seen by then what the eventual outcome would have been.

I also view it as highly likely that the "civilized tribes" in Oklahoma would have seceded from the Union themselves, either singly or as a group.

Finally, in the Far West, there was more racism directed at Asians and Hispanics than at blacks. There was, of course, plenty of racism to go around.

But he big question is, does any of this belong in a game?  As always that question boils down to what the players want. It's their choice.

The whole Deadlands thing just strikes me as so fucking stupid.

I'd love to play some Brisco County Jr., but not this shit.

Quote from: Cranewings;426948I'd love to play some Brisco County Jr., but not this shit.

That's actually pretty much what our Deadlands games end up being like... one of the PCs is even named 'Brisco' (though the character isn't at all similar). I guess that's not so bad... I was just under the impression there'd be more 'horror'... but there ain't.

Quote from: Cranewings;426948The whole Deadlands thing just strikes me as so fucking stupid.

I'd love to play some Brisco County Jr., but not this shit.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on Deadlands. The closest I've come to this was running a small series of CoC adventures set around that time.

Quote from: RPGPundit;426334Often, yes.  Like, for example, if you say "the Confederacy were just joshing about all that slavery stuff! That wasn't what really mattered to them at all, and at the first real opportunity they'd do a full 180 and become such an inclusive culture that black men could become army officers!".

That's racist revisionist history.

RPGPundit

Deadlands isn't racist.

The end.

Quote from: Cranewings;426948The whole Deadlands thing just strikes me as so fucking stupid.

I'd love to play some Brisco County Jr., but not this shit.

A Briscoverse would be a lot lower magic level though. I like how Deadlands handles the magic.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;426975Deadlands isn't racist.

The end.

If that is how you want to see it, I don't think anyone can alter your view.

But for some of us, it's some of the most blatantly racist gaming material we've ever seen. I am in that camp.

I used to play the Dead Lands card game, sense I was huge into the L5R cards and it was by the same company. I just remember thinking that it was really shallow by comparison.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;426975Deadlands isn't racist.

The end.

Wow, the "toddler retort".  How useful.

Do you want to try again, this time trying to argue how it is that my argument about what they did re. the Confederacy does not amount to racism (intentional or not)? Or do you want to start to cry, call me a big meanie, and go off to sulk in your playpen?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;427220Do you want to try again, this time trying to argue how it is that my argument about what they did re. the Confederacy does not amount to racism (intentional or not)?

Let me take a stab at this, even though I don't like what Deadlands did and have never played it.

Hogans Heroes is a comedy set in a German POW camp during WW2.  The Gestapo show up but the germans are largely depicted as bumblers and it's played for laughs.  Was it anti-semitic because it ignores the Holocaust?

The US TV series Wonder Woman started out taking place during WW2 with Wonder Woman fighting Nazis.  Was it anti-semitic because it ignores the Holocaust and Wonder Women never tried to rescue those held in concentration camps?

The US TV series the Dukes of Hazzard featured a car called the General Lee with a big Confederate battle fag on the roof.  Was that racist because it ignored the racial elements of the Confederacy, even though it was clear in the course of the show that Duke family wasn't racist?

There are plenty of great classic Science Fiction movies made during the 1950s that feature all white casts that don't acknowledge the racism of the day.  Is it racist to enjoy When Worlds Collide and not notice or dwell on the fact that everyone saved from destruction is white (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2218956800/tt0044207)?

Alex Ross created a graphic novel where Superman goes on a mission to feed the starving people of the world. (http://www.alexrossart.com/artforsale.asp?sc=ARSU1)  Should a superhero take a vacation or kick back and have any fun so long as there are starving people in the world and people being oppressed by despots big and small?  

There is currently a controversy where Armenian groups are complaining about Kobe Bryant's two-year endorsement deal with Turkish Airlines (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/12/lakers-kobe-bryant-turkish-airlines-armenian.html) because of the Armenian genocide.  Is that really necessary?

No doubt the Holocaust, slavery, Armenian genocide, and countless other atrocities, both recent and historical, were truly horrible and should not be forgotten or dismissed, but is it possible to do any work of fiction that depicts Nazis without acknowledging the Holocaust or the Confederacy without acknowledging racism?  Is it possible for fiction to forget some of the suffering in the world, the starvation, sex slavery, child abuse, and so on so that adventures can be light and fun?  Is it impossible to say or do anything nice for a Turkish company until the Turkish government makes amends to the Armenians?

It seems to me that we are digging deeper and deeper to find offense and are actually creating it on purpose where people would not naturally find offense.  People wouldn't be offended by many of these things if they weren't told to be, including some of the people who you might think should be.

Nobody that I know of was hinting that the Dukes of Hazzard was racist in the 1980s, yet when they tried to make a Dukes of Hazzard movie recently, the General Lee became controversial.  The problem is that the Confederate battle flag was certainly used by racists and certainly symbolizes the side that fought for slavery, but for many people, it simply symbolized "Southerness", which is about a whole lot more than racism, including a few rappers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeVpEjwkoaE).  

Similarly, I never really noticed that everyone at the end of When Worlds Collide was white.  That was pointed out to me via a blog by a black science fiction fan who said her father asked her, "So where are the black people?" when she was watching movies like that, and I think it's a fair criticism.  However, I asked a black science fiction fan friend if that had bothered him and he hadn't really noticed, either, because he didn't have an adult demanding that he notice.  And nobody (or almost nobody) noticed that the Dukes of Hazzards' car had a racism angle until they were forced to notice that, too.  For most people, it just meant "Southern", just like Catherine Bach's fake Southern belle accent.

There are many things that can be looked at from two sides like that, and the side you look at will determine the tone.  When talking about America during WW2, do you want to focus on the horrible things that the Nazis and Japanese did and how the Americans defeated them or do you want to dwell on the atrocities committed by American troops and the racism in America and even in the military?  Can you focus on one without committing a horrible injustice to the other?  

So I think that the motivation for Deadlands was to keep the interesting non-racist trappings of antebellum Confederacy and a divided United States while not making slavery a huge issue in the game, which it most certainly would have been had they not gotten rid of it in the setting.  Firefly did the same thing, by putting the arguments of the Confederacy and States Rights libertarians in the mouths of Browncoats who were not fighting to defend slavery.  It was Whedon's attempt to capture what it felt like to be on the losing side of the Civil War without the racism and slavery issue casting a moral shadow over the fight.

In many ways, this goes right back to the arguments about pulp fiction and racism surrounding Spirit of the Century and Bruce Baugh's proposed New Horizons (http://drivingblind.livejournal.com/245561.html) supplement (never completed) that was designed to focus on the racism, sexism, anti-gay, and (apparently) anti-communist sentiments of the historical period in question, precisely because people were bothered by those things being swept under the carpet in pulp nostalgia games.  

So if you can't enjoy a Deadlands Confederacy that sweeps the racism and slavery under the rug to keep them from becoming issues in play, should you enjoy a pulp game that not only sweeps the bigotries of the early 20th Century under the rug but may even play on some of them as archetypes integral to the genre?  Should you enjoy a WW2 game that doesn't dwell on the Holocaust or Rape of Nanking and focuses, instead, on adventures like Von Ryan's Express or The Guns of Navarone?  Can you play a retro 1950s science fiction game that doesn't dwell on the racism of that period?

As I've said elsewhere, even the monstrous evil races in D&D play on the same psychology that racists do when they depict other races as sub-human monsters to be feared.  This is why things like inherently evil races and killing orcs without pause trouble some people as being racist, because if you interpret those monstrous humanoids as being human with a choice between Good and Evil, it pretty much is.  So are the people who take those evil races at face value, as being inherently evil subhuman monsters, engaging in, flirting in, or mocking real racism because they don't?

Yes, I think that was Deadlands does is implausible and silly, but I don't think the motivation was malicious or racism nor the result inherently racist.  That is, of course, unless you are willing to apologize the Bruce Baugh and help him finish his New Horizons supplement for Spirit of the Century so that pulp games like that don't get away with sweeping their racism under the carpet or can explain why sweeping racism and historically inconvenient or unpleasant facts under the carpet to make a setting fun to adventure in is wrong sometimes and right other times because, clearly, it's not a matter of absolute principle for you and others.

Most people who demand that we notice racism are grievance-mongers who make a living off of ensuring people notice racism (real or mostly imagined), and those who have fallen for their schtick. We are not allowed to NOT notice blacks, or gays, or women or whoever is feeling put-upon this week. Seriously - you can't just go through life living your life, you have to have Deep Concerns for everyone around you who is demanding that you do so, or else you're some kind of bigot/racist. It is the ultimate heel-kicking, tantrum-throwing child behaior brought into full bloom in a world of supposed adults, and it is ruining the world.

Oh, I know I'll get it now, from all sectors - I must be racist or bigotted or a homophobe because of those comments, right? No, the truth is a) I almost never think about anything in those terms and b) probably don't care anyway. Is a lack of caring a sign of hatred? It is if you listen to the folks pushing their agenda. Nope, its not enough to not actively hate people, you can't just go along to get along - you have to be CONCERNED and have to DO SOMETHING, or else you may as well be the one putting the noose about their neck.

Political Correctness is used like a blunt instrument, and unfortunately it works far too often.

I think it is highly relevant to this discussion that Deadlands is absurd.  It's not an attempt to construct a plausible alternative that could have happened, keeping most of the people and their motivations the same.  I'm pretty sure the Deadlands Jefferson Davis, for example, isn't even human.  Once Jackalopes, Wu Xia, and Ray Guns are present you have left the bounderies of Alternative History and entered Anything Goes territory.  You can criticize Deadlands for being unconcerned with history (while being happy to come up with real dates and events that suit the fiction they are presenting), but I'm not sure if "revisionist" can even apply - it's like accusing Star Wars of not being scientifically realistic.

Deadlands intentionally insults me.

The original art for Tombstone Frank is a picture of me from back when I used to write L5R stuff. After AEG and I went our separate ways, they showed who was classier by chopping the character's head off and putting it on a stick.

-Frank

Quote from: Werekoala;427263Most people who demand that we notice racism are grievance-mongers who make a living off of ensuring people notice racism (real or mostly imagined), and those who have fallen for their schtick. We are not allowed to NOT notice blacks, or gays, or women or whoever is feeling put-upon this week. Seriously - you can't just go through life living your life, you have to have Deep Concerns for everyone around you who is demanding that you do so, or else you're some kind of bigot/racist. It is the ultimate heel-kicking, tantrum-throwing child behaior brought into full bloom in a world of supposed adults

True.  There is not, and has never been, any discrimination against gays, blacks or women.  Their spoilt whining is just a distraction from real issues, like the states rights concerns of middle class white men and the lack of fences to keep Mexicans out.

Quoteand it is ruining the world.

Shouldn't the world have been ruined by jazz music, evolution, abortion, Elvis, feminism and the sheer existence non-Christians by now?  Surely civilisation can't stand another catastrophe on the same scale.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;427314Deadlands intentionally insults me.

The original art for Tombstone Frank is a picture of me from back when I used to write L5R stuff. After AEG and I went our separate ways, they showed who was classier by chopping the character's head off and putting it on a stick.

-Frank

Really?

Quote from: Cranewings;427339Really?

Yes. Really.

My time with Alderac came to a close when I discovered that the rules for "traits" in L5R technically made it so that Oni who could not wear armor could be paid for by artificers and all kinds of other stupid crap. I suggested an alternate set of trait rules. They called me a cheater, banned me from their rules discussions forever (they said I could continue to write fiction pieces for free, I declined), and chopped the head off my avatar. Then in the next revision of the rules, they used my suggested trait rule without attribution.

Classy stuff.

-Frank

I always enjoyed the game, but it always irritated me.

Like, why is the nation so militarized after 1000 years of the emperor's peace? Why is it impossible to beat a crane in a duel? Why is their any other type of character besides Shugenja and Mantis Archers?

I loved the original card game, for a long time too. I started playing it around the Anvil of Despair up to Oblivion's Gate, but the stupid I was overlooking just got to fucking terrible.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;427344Yes. Really.

My time with Alderac came to a close when I discovered that the rules for "traits" in L5R technically made it so that Oni who could not wear armor could be paid for by artificers and all kinds of other stupid crap. I suggested an alternate set of trait rules. They called me a cheater, banned me from their rules discussions forever (they said I could continue to write fiction pieces for free, I declined), and chopped the head off my avatar. Then in the next revision of the rules, they used my suggested trait rule without attribution.

Classy stuff.

-Frank

I'm not sure that writing good rules for the game was anywhere on their agenda.

Quote from: Cranewings;427346I'm not sure that writing good rules for the game was anywhere on their agenda.

Wonder how many rpg companies actually make "writing good rules" a priority in the first place.

From all outward appearances, WotC, Paizo, White Wolf, Palladium, Mongoose, etc ... along with many 3PP companies, don't seem to really give a damn as long as there's enough "completionists" buying their books.  For all we know, the "completionists" may very well not even read most of the rpg books they buy.

As long as the gearheads (ie. who place a premium on "writing good rules") are a small enough minority in the overall sales of rpg books, most rpg companies will continue cranking out crappy rulesets and even implicitly giving the "middle finger" to the gearheads.  Basically all they're saying is:

"The customers can fuck off because they can't do anything about it.  Ha Ha Ha!"

I for one make a point of thoroughly checking the rules part of the books to make sure they're watertight.

On one occasion I made a classic conversion mistake of copy pasting the old system rules into the new. I'm very embaressed about that and have since corrected it on the blog.

Quote from: John Morrow;427253Yes, I think that was Deadlands does is implausible and silly, but I don't think the motivation was malicious or racism nor the result inherently racist.  That is, of course, unless you are willing to apologize the Bruce Baugh and help him finish his New Horizons supplement for Spirit of the Century so that pulp games like that don't get away with sweeping their racism under the carpet or can explain why sweeping racism and historically inconvenient or unpleasant facts under the carpet to make a setting fun to adventure in is wrong sometimes and right other times because, clearly, it's not a matter of absolute principle for you and others.

Your comparison isn't apt.

No one is demanding that Deadlands be all about the racism all the time.  Nor does worrying about accurate portrayal of history equal "Bruce Baugh is right".  The fact that you have juxtaposed two extremes of stupidity doesn't prove your point.

Now, had Deadlands simply IGNORED the issue, I might have been inclined to feel that you have something of a point (I'd still be arguing that you could get more gaming meat out of a setting that included those elements of history as roleplay fodder, but had they simply ignored it, that would then leave things up to the choices of the individual GMs running the setting). But that's explicitly not what they did; instead they addressed the issue in the most immature and asinine way possible, by essentially whitewashing it and superimposing 1990s society on the 1880s.

And that's the crux of my issue with it.

RPGPundit

What exactly is the standing of black people in Deadlands' confederacy?

My issue with it, and most of the stuff to come out of the 1990s is simply that "less is more" was an extremely unpopular concept at the time.  What is the opposite of "reducto ad absurdium" I wonder?  Everything was so over the top and absurd that it was hard to get into anything.

I don't think that putting modern values onto a historical or quasi-historical setting is inherently wrong.  Shakespeare gave Elizabethan values to ancient Romans and Greeks, and Tolkien gave nineteenth century English values to prehistoric hobbits.  There is great value in fiction that is based on research and historical imagination and tries to show the perspective of alien times and places, but that is very hard even for most novelists, and should not be the aim of every game system not set in the gamers' own time and place.

Deadlands does not try to be a game for examining history or speculating about alternate history.  It uses flimsy excuses to stack a half dozen fantasy ideas on top of each other, shake vigourously, and watch them fight.  I suspect that the only reason that real places and dates are used at all is because there is so much recognition from the fictional accounts of the Wild West.

Quote from: RPGPundit;427417Your comparison isn't apt.

It's not perfect, but I think it is an appropriate comparison.

Quote from: RPGPundit;427417No one is demanding that Deadlands be all about the racism all the time.  Nor does worrying about accurate portrayal of history equal "Bruce Baugh is right".  The fact that you have juxtaposed two extremes of stupidity doesn't prove your point.

I think the underlying problem is the same, which is that history contains a lot of nasty stuff (particularly racism and sexism) that's at odds with the rollicking good times tone of a lot of genres and historical periods if you look at them from a certain perspective.  There was a lot of racism in pulps that goes beyond what was even considered moderate in their day.  The same goes for the Victorian period, and so on.  Most games whitewash this or shuffle it away from the players in some way, whether it's acknowledging the good and the bad of the period like Space: 1889 does, by altering the game setting to be friendlier to 21st Century sensibilities, or by ignoring it entirely.

Perhaps both Bruce Baugh's reaction to Spirit of the Century and Deadlands are two extreme cases, but they are the opposite extremes, and that's what's relevant.  In other words, one the one hand, you complain about dwelling on the sins of the past while, on the other, you also complain about hand-waving those sins away.  So how exactly should a setting handle these issues?  What's "just right", Goldilocks?

Quote from: RPGPundit;427417Now, had Deadlands simply IGNORED the issue, I might have been inclined to feel that you have something of a point (I'd still be arguing that you could get more gaming meat out of a setting that included those elements of history as roleplay fodder, but had they simply ignored it, that would then leave things up to the choices of the individual GMs running the setting). But that's explicitly not what they did; instead they addressed the issue in the most immature and asinine way possible, by essentially whitewashing it and superimposing 1990s society on the 1880s.

As if most games don't superimpose modern American (or Western European) society on historical periods and fantasy settings that emulate historical periods?  And unless you are playing a game with real history buffs or a GM who tells the players how to play toward historical accuracy, how many groups do you think really react in period to things like race, sex, class, or even being called a "bastard" by an NPC?  The reality, for better or worse, is that most games (and fiction and movies) set in historical periods depict modern people in period costumes with perhaps a few historically accurate quirks.  If that's an unforgivable sin, then we should be insulted by just about any game that tries to deal with a historical period.  And I think it's entirely understandable why they didn't want to get "gaming meat" out of slavery and racism in a horror western game with undead card sharks.  

Maybe it's both immature and asinine but so are a lot of things in role-playing, and that doesn't make it automatically offensive or insulting.  What makes it insulting to you is that they echoed a political stance that you found offensive (and that I agree is pretty absurd), which, whether you like it or not, is really not that different than Bruce Baugh being troubled that pulp games like Spirit of the Century sweep the racism that many pulps oozed under the carpet to sanitize the setting for modern players.  The problem is that there is no one right way to handle those issues that isn't going to offend or insult someone, either because it spends too much time on it or too little time on it.  Every Goldilocks has their own "just right" for these things.

Quote from: RPGPundit;427417And that's the crux of my issue with it.

Don't gloss over how you go from your problem being addressing "the issue in the most immature and asinine way possible" to "Is there any group that shouldn't feel insulted by the Deadlands setting?"  You just want to downplay that you, like Mr. Baugh, are offended at and insulted by the cheap and easy way a serious historical racial problem is being downplayed in a role-playing product.

Quote from: John Morrow;426222And don't think that there aren't people with political agendas for pushing science education that's explicitly hostile to religion, making civil rights issues a primary focus of US history, and so on.

...and?  Religion has no place in schools.  That fact that it stands in opposition ideologically to science doesn't make it 'explicitly hostile'.  That is a ridiculous claim; science classes are, if anything, simply indifferent.  I think that is what infuriates the various religious factions more than anything.  As to the other matter, civil rights simply are a large part of American history.

QuoteThe question is, who gets to decide what your children are taught?  You?  Someone in Washington, DC?  Someone in the UN?  And what can you do about it if their agenda doesn't match yours?

No, not some ideological boogey-man.  The actual answer is 'educators' decide what is taught.  And you can do the same thing about it that people have always done: home-schooling.  If someone wants to fill the heads of their children with ideology instead of education, it's hard work and in as much as you clearly don't feel children's education should be filled with mush-headed leftist ideas, I don't think it should be filled with proto-fascist rightist ideas.

QuoteDo you have a problem with older white people being comfortable or maybe you think they all need to be punished for the sins of their race?  And, of course, you expect them all to allow others to punish them and ruin their lifestyle without complaint, right?

Or, just maybe, there is some kind of middle ground that is being excluded?  Weren't you complaining about logical fallacies in another thread?

Maybe 'older white people being comfortable' shouldn't include casual racism and sexism as an inherent need.  Just maybe they aren't guaranteed the right to a 'lifestyle' that is absolutely prevented from disruption as society progresses.

Or maybe we can just elect them back to the aristocracy and have done with the Great American Experiment.  Because your argument sounds a good deal like someone who wants a return to an elite ruling class.

As for the history tangent a few important points:

1. If slavery really was just a tangential issue for the South, why didn't they outlaw slavery in an attempt to curry favor with the UK and France. Getting rid of slavery would've got them an intervention that would've won them the war. Why didn't they?

2. For a group that cared so much about "state's rights" they sure loved shoving their pro-slavery line down the north's throat at every opportunity (Dredd Scott decision, Fugitive Slave Act, etc. etc.) the South was trying a lot harder to export slavery beyond the bounds of the south (in ways that often trampled all over states rights) while the main Northern attempt to limit slavery (the Free Soil/no slavery in the territories line the Lincoln etc. were espousing) had nothing at all to do with state's rights since it was all about non-state territories. If anything the South didn't secede to keep the Federal government from restricting states rights so much as secede to ensure that they'd be part of a national government that would go again states rights in a pro-slavery direction (see the Confederate Constitution in which states weren't allowed to restrict slavery on their own).

3. What specifically was Lincoln proposing prior to secession that limited state's rights aside from the not recognizing the right to secede?

There's nothing wrong with wanting a less centralized government, but that is a very very very different thing from some of the Confederate apologism we've seen on this thread.

If Slavery was such a minor issue for the South, how come their declaration of secession is 100% about Slavery?

Quote from: South Carolina's Declaration of SecessionThe General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Their complaint isn't that the states don't have enough rights, it's that the states are exercising their rights in non-slaveholding states in ways that the slave holding states don't like. That's what the complaint always was - that the federal government wasn't cracking down on the states enough, and that fugitive slaves weren't being sent back to the slaveholding states to be returned to their owners or killed.

The whole idea of "states rights" as a rallying cry for Confederacy is historical revisionism developed much later. After "We want our slaves back!" stopped being a socially acceptable thing to say.

-Frank

Exactly, for the most part the North was pretty willing to compromise about the slavery issue along states rights lines, what blew up the pre-Civil War compromise was the south being unwilling to compromise and demanding pro-slavery policy be extended north over the protests of the local state governments. Saying that states rights was a higher priority than slavery for the south is deeply ignorant at best.

Quote from: StormBringer;427477...and?  Religion has no place in schools.

Nonsense.  Not only was it an integral part of schools for much of the existence of the United States but if you look outside of the United States at various countries around the world that are often held up as more progressive and advanced nations than the United States by those on the left, their governments often fund religious schools.  For example, the Australian government funds Catholic schools because Australian courts rules that it did not constitute an establishment of religion.  New Zealand funds Catholic school salaries and learning materials.  Canada has state-funded Catholic schools.  The government in the UK funds Catholic schools.  The government of France funds Catholic schools.  Norway funds religious schools.  Do I need to go on?  So how do all of those countries manage to get buy without treating Christianity as if it has cooties?

Quote from: StormBringer;427477That fact that it stands in opposition ideologically to science doesn't make it 'explicitly hostile'.  That is a ridiculous claim; science classes are, if anything, simply indifferent.  I think that is what infuriates the various religious factions more than anything.

Nonsense.  What infuriates them is people teaching their children that their religion is wrong and their politics are wrong.  Is that really that difficult to understand?  Are you any happier when the shoe is on the other foot, as it is in Texas, and children are being taught ideas that you probably don't approve of?

Quote from: StormBringer;427477As to the other matter, civil rights simply are a large part of American history.

So are plenty of other things from religion and what dead white guys did to NASCAR and sock hops.  Given limited time, the question is what the schools focus on.  And when you politicize eduction, something that both left and right are currently engaged in, then what you talk about is going to be filtered through a political lens, with everyone selecting the facts that show their side in the most positive light.

Quote from: StormBringer;427477No, not some ideological boogey-man.  The actual answer is 'educators' decide what is taught.

And who are these "educators"?  Mystic all-seeing objective brains in a jar that have no agenda and mean only the best for children?  Or are they people who, like all people, have their own biases and agendas?

Quote from: StormBringer;427477And you can do the same thing about it that people have always done: home-schooling.

And I'll accept that's a fair alternative the day that parents who choose to homeschool or send their children to private schools (religious or not) can receive vouchers to help them pay for that education.

Quote from: StormBringer;427477If someone wants to fill the heads of their children with ideology instead of education, it's hard work and in as much as you clearly don't feel children's education should be filled with mush-headed leftist ideas, I don't think it should be filled with proto-fascist rightist ideas.

Well, if the schools started teaching religion and right-wing ideas, you could always do the same thing about it that people have always done: home-schooling, right?

Quote from: StormBringer;427477Or, just maybe, there is some kind of middle ground that is being excluded?  Weren't you complaining about logical fallacies in another thread?

I gave what I suggested as the middle ground earlier in the thread.  Perhaps you missed it.  But as a free clue, "If you are religious and don't like it, then the Hell with you," is not the "middle".  

Quote from: StormBringer;427477Maybe 'older white people being comfortable' shouldn't include casual racism and sexism as an inherent need.  Just maybe they aren't guaranteed the right to a 'lifestyle' that is absolutely prevented from disruption as society progresses.

It doesn't "include casual racism and sexism as an inherent need" except in the minds of the far-left which need someone to blame and hate and a convenient straw man to knock down.  And while they might not be guaranteed the right to a lifestyle that isn't disrupted, nobody else is entitled to improve their lifestyle at their expense through the force of government.

Quote from: StormBringer;427477Or maybe we can just elect them back to the aristocracy and have done with the Great American Experiment.  Because your argument sounds a good deal like someone who wants a return to an elite ruling class.

You were saying something about excluded middle arguments a moment ago?

Obviously from the position of the South, slavery was the primary issue, it was the basis of their entire economy, which is why they didn't just free the slaves to get Britain and France on their side.  Winning the war was meaningless without the ability to keep the slave economy.

However, saying the South seceded because of slavery doesn't mean Lincoln went to war to abolish slavery, that's as much revisionist history as saying the south were concerned with state's rights.  Lincoln went to war to stop them from seceding, period.

Quote from: John Morrow;427618So how do all of those countries manage to get buy without treating Christianity as if it has cooties?

Because the Christians in those other countries aren't raging assholes that vomit hatred and intolerance while demanding everyone bows to their superior morality and scream like spoiled infants because the laws aren't exactly modelled on their particular interpretation of the Bible, and then have a complete meltdown about being 'persecuted' despite being the vast majority religion?

Or, to put it more simply, you are arguing in favour of a much more Liberal Christianity right now.

QuoteAre you any happier when the shoe is on the other foot, as it is in Texas, and children are being taught ideas that you probably don't approve of?

It has nothing to do with my approval, it's that they are wrong.  Rabbits don't chew their cud, the earth wasn't made in six days, and donkeys don't speak.  Further, the Texas textbook folks aren't arguing to have classes more inclusive of conservative ideas, they are re-writing history in an attempt to remove any hint of progressive ideas from the curricula because the whole conservative ideology is dying out from attrition and irrelevance.

QuoteSo are plenty of other things from religion and what dead white guys did to NASCAR and sock hops.  

There's your problem; history has not been written exclusively by white Christian men.

QuoteAnd who are these "educators"?  Mystic all-seeing objective brains in a jar that have no agenda and mean only the best for children?  Or are they people who, like all people, have their own biases and agendas?

Those two magic words don't exonerate all culpability.  The agenda that teaches only white Christian history is far more damaging than any of the invented 'political correctness' you care to rail against.

QuoteAnd I'll accept that's a fair alternative the day that parents who choose to homeschool or send their children to private schools (religious or not) can receive vouchers to help them pay for that education.

Why should they get vouchers?  What happened to limited government and personal responsibility?  Stop looking for a government handout and take the responsibility for raising your kids they way you want instead of whining about it.

QuoteWell, if the schools started teaching religion and right-wing ideas, you could always do the same thing about it that people have always done: home-schooling, right?

I am all for schools teaching religion.  But you don't want that.  When you say 'religion', you mean 'very specific sects of Protestant Christianity'.  If the schools started teaching Pastafarianism or Hindu myth, you would be up in arms and taking to the streets.

QuoteI gave what I suggested as the middle ground earlier in the thread.  Perhaps you missed it.  But as a free clue, "If you are religious and don't like it, then the Hell with you," is not the "middle".  

You don't have a middle ground, John.

QuoteIt doesn't "include casual racism and sexism as an inherent need" except in the minds of the far-left which need someone to blame and hate and a convenient straw man to knock down.  And while they might not be guaranteed the right to a lifestyle that isn't disrupted, nobody else is entitled to improve their lifestyle at their expense through the force of government.

Except the wealthy.  The wealthy are allowed to improve their lifestyle through force of the government, right?  Or did you really think they "worked hard" to get all that money?  I would ask what you think the underlying cause of the recent recession is, but I have a feeling it would include more conservative boogey-men like the Fair Housing Act or some other non-sense about how the government forced - forced I tell you! - all those helpless banks to give mortgages to people with bad credit.

As reality has a well-known liberal bias, I will leave you to your bizarro alternate reality where rich white people are being savagely repressed by the hordes of poor folks and have no protections against the depredations.  I mean, it is the ultimate role-playing game, I suppose.

QuoteYou were saying something about excluded middle arguments a moment ago?

Yes, I was.  I was saying that seems to be the only argument of which you are capable.

Quote from: CRKrueger;427638However, saying the South seceded because of slavery doesn't mean Lincoln went to war to abolish slavery, that's as much revisionist history as saying the south were concerned with state's rights.  Lincoln went to war to stop them from seceding, period.

That last sentence is a good deal more interesting to me.  I was reading a bit not too long ago that the Founding Fathers probably couldn't have imagined needing to have any kind of guidelines for secession in the Constitution, because they never would have imagined the United States being a unified country where the individual states were 'administrative zones' that would need to secede.  Of course, others couldn't have imagined there would be a strong enough central government to secede from, but the end result is roughly the same.

Interesting stuff, and far more engaging than the actual secession, in my mind.

Quote from: StormBringer;427653Because the Christians in those other countries aren't raging assholes that vomit hatred and intolerance while demanding everyone bows to their superior morality and scream like spoiled infants...

Takes one to know one, huh?

Quote from: StormBringer;427653Or, to put it more simply, you are arguing in favour of a much more Liberal Christianity right now.

Be sure to tell RPGPundit about how Liberal the Catholic Church is. :rolleyes:

Quote from: StormBringer;427653It has nothing to do with my approval, it's that they are wrong.  Rabbits don't chew their cud, the earth wasn't made in six days, and donkeys don't speak.

And plenty of religious people are just as convinced that they are right and you are wrong.  But, I know, you just know you are right because everyone you know thinks just like you do, right?

Quote from: StormBringer;427653Further, the Texas textbook folks aren't arguing to have classes more inclusive of conservative ideas, they are re-writing history in an attempt to remove any hint of progressive ideas from the curricula because the whole conservative ideology is dying out from attrition and irrelevance.

They are doing exactly what liberals have been doing for decades.  Conservatives have finally woken up, read Saul Alinsky, and decided to start playing the same game that liberals have been playing for decades and the left doesn't like it one bit.  No, sir, not one bit.  But of course you don't mind all the conservative ideas that were removed because that serves your political ends.  Stop pretending that you are outraged as a matter of principle.  It's all politics.  Yeah, liberals love "more inclusive" just so long as they control the overall narrative and conservatives don't get too uppity and actually want to drive the agenda.

As for the conservative ideology dying out from "attrition and irrelevance", have you been asleep since 2008?

Quote from: StormBringer;427653There's your problem; history has not been written exclusively by white Christian men.

I never said it was.  But let's not pretend that Molly Pitcher or Betsy Ross played as large of a role in the Revolutionary War as George Washington or Ethan Allen did.  

Quote from: StormBringer;427653Those two magic words don't exonerate all culpability.  The agenda that teaches only white Christian history is far more damaging than any of the invented 'political correctness' you care to rail against.

Wow, you really are swimming in the Kool Aid, aren't you?  

The term "political correctness" was first coined by academic leftists who used it literally, to judge the correctness or incorrectness of an idea through a political lens.  Neo-conservatives, themselves once leftists, realized how absurd the term was and proceeded to beat leftists with it mercilessly and they've been whining about it ever since.  And the reason why it's so effective is that anyone who has listened to a leftist blather on and on for any period of time (i.e., just about anyone who has gone to college) and hasn't become one (or has gotten better with age) knows exactly what the term means.

Quote from: StormBringer;427653Why should they get vouchers?  What happened to limited government and personal responsibility?  Stop looking for a government handout and take the responsibility for raising your kids they way you want instead of whining about it.

If the state stopped taking massive amounts of my money to run the school system (I live in New Jersey, by the way), then it wouldn't be so much of an issue.  Cutting taxes and giving the public schools less would work just as well if you insist on me adopting a heartless "limited government and personal responsibility" approach, so I can go with that, too.  Better?

Quote from: StormBringer;427653I am all for schools teaching religion.  But you don't want that.  When you say 'religion', you mean 'very specific sects of Protestant Christianity'.  If the schools started teaching Pastafarianism or Hindu myth, you would be up in arms and taking to the streets.

"Pastafarianism" isn't a religion, but you know that, don't you?  And if you teach Hindu religion as "myth", that's not really teaching religion, now is it?

I don't live in the Bible Belt.  I live among what is probably one of the largest populations of Asian Indians (i.e., Hindus) in the United States.  I've been to Bar and Bat Mitzvahs in Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed synagogues.  A friend had a pagan wedding.  Another friend and former apartment mate of my wife is a Shiite Muslim.  I watched a centuries-old Shinto ritual while I lived in Japan and wandered the temple complex at Nikkō, consisting of both Buddhist and Shinto temples, and understand why the Japanese have both side-by-side.  So, frankly, I think you have no clue what I mean when I say "religion".  

And, of course, you ignored my main point which is that your "just do homeschooling" suggestion isn't all that satisfying when you are on the losing side of the debate, is it?

Quote from: StormBringer;427653You don't have a middle ground, John.

And, frankly, I think you are so far left that you can't even see the middle from where you are standing.

Quote from: StormBringer;427653Except the wealthy.  The wealthy are allowed to improve their lifestyle through force of the government, right?  Or did you really think they "worked hard" to get all that money?

Yes, jackass, a great many of them did "work hard" to get that money.  Lots of them took risks that other people are afraid to take, too.  Do you really think most people who lived through the Great Depression remained wealthy through that period and just had things easy their entire life?  Have you ever even talked to anyone who lived through the Great Depression?  Plenty of them became fairly wealthy by the time they retired.  Think they didn't deserve it?

I've worked in enough entrepreneurial start-ups where people regularly work around the clock, both in the office and and home, come in on weekends, never take vacations, and travel constantly to earn their money.  Some of them are fairly wealthy because, yes, they worked hard.  The same pattern of success is repeated around the globe by middleman minorities who manage to succeed despite murderous persecution at the hands of the majority -- thrift, education, and hard work.  Others get wealthy because they took risks and made sacrifices to get where they are.  So, yes, people can "work hard" to get ahead so long as they save and their idea of "working hard" isn't doing something that a high school graduate could do just as well for a lot less.

Quote from: StormBringer;427653I would ask what you think the underlying cause of the recent recession is, but I have a feeling it would include more conservative boogey-men like the Fair Housing Act or some other non-sense about how the government forced - forced I tell you! - all those helpless banks to give mortgages to people with bad credit.

And I'd ask you, but I'm sure you are going to tell me equally predictable left-wing bogeymen as the cause, right?

Have you ever actually worked in government.  I have.  Let's just say that any faith that you might have that government will stick it to the rich and powerful is sadly misplaced, regardless of which party is in charge.

Quote from: StormBringer;427653As reality has a well-known liberal bias, I will leave you to your bizarro alternate reality where rich white people are being savagely repressed by the hordes of poor folks and have no protections against the depredations.  I mean, it is the ultimate role-playing game, I suppose.

If by "reality" you mean "What I read on the DailyKos, Huffington Post, Media Matters, and see on MSNBC", then I can see where you'd think that.  

Quote from: StormBringer;427653Yes, I was.  I was saying that seems to be the only argument of which you are capable.

Whatever.

Quote from: John Morrow;427664If by "reality" you mean "What I read on the DailyKos, Huffington Post, Media Matters, and see on MSNBC", then I can see where you'd think that.

You're having a great stoush with SB and I don't want to dogpile you, but you're greatly mistaken in this.  Over the last 2000 years, religious conservatives have asserted that: the earth is flat and is orbited by the sun, the value of pi is 3.0, children and women should be beaten regularly, feminism will destroy civilisation, ditto jazz music, nations will fall to communism like dominos (on the assumption that non-whites have no agency or intelligence), that Iraq was loaded up with WMD, and that scientists worldwide are motivated by a desire to destroy Christianity and capitalism.

That's just a partial list of the things the right has been completely, unarguably wrong about.  Reality has consistently defied conservative predictions, so surely you can understand why current accusations of muddle-brained liberal dogma are disregarded.

And, yes, communism.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Quote from: Hairfoot;427671You're having a great stoush with SB and I don't want to dogpile you, but you're greatly mistaken in this.  Over the last 2000 years, religious conservatives have asserted that: the earth is flat and is orbited by the sun, the value of pi is 3.0, children and women should be beaten regularly, feminism will destroy civilisation, ditto jazz music, nations will fall to communism like dominos (on the assumption that non-whites have no agency or intelligence), that Iraq was loaded up with WMD, and that scientists worldwide are motivated by a desire to destroy Christianity and capitalism.

No, I'm not greatly mistaken in this.

Religious conservatives also include the father of modern genetics and inheritance (Gregor Mendel, a monk) and the guy who first understood elliptical orbits (Johannes Kepler).  On the flip side, politicized science has led to the deaths of tens of millions when, for example, the Chinese tried to implement Trofim Lysenko's theories during the Great Leap Forward.  Science was also behind much of the racism and eugenics in the late-19th and early-20th centuries.  And, of course, you conveniently ignore the assaults on science from the left (http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/Ehrenreich.html).

The assumption that nations would fall to communism had little or nothing to do with the idea that "non-whites have no agency or intelligence" but with actual communist expansion and aggression.   Perhaps you missed what a Hell-hole North Korea is, North Vietnam conquering South Vietnam, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and the cause of the starvation in Ethiopia, or doesn't the massive suffering and slaughter of non-whites matter to you?

Just about everyone believed that Iraq had WMDs them at the time.  Saddam Hussein wanted people to believe he had WMDs and Muslim dissidents, who wanted the United States to attack, provided faulty intelligence, just as Muslim dissidents who wanted the United States to attack provided faulty intelligence a few years earlier of genocide in Kosovo.  You are aware that the UN never found those mass graves or evidence of widespread genocide in Kosovo, either, aren't you?  Yeah, I know.  It's easy to ignore the mistakes the left makes when people will sweep them under the carpet for you.  

Quote from: Hairfoot;427671That's just a partial list of the things the right has been completely, unarguably wrong about.  Reality has consistently defied conservative predictions, so surely you can understand why current accusations of muddle-brained liberal dogma are disregarded.

The left, throughout the 20th Century (and often still, in the case of Mao, Castro, and others) supported and apologized for governments and ideologies that murdered 100-170 million people, including the Khmer Rouge when they were fighting to take over Cambodia.  But that all matters a lot less than George W. Bush being wrong about WMDs in Iraq, right?  

Quote from: Hairfoot;427671And, yes, communism.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

So the left being wrong about communism was only a little thing?  What's 100-170 million dead people when you don't know any of them, right.

I can sit here and debate these talking points around and around in circles if you really want (I'm very patient that way), but this isn't really the place for it.

Please note that I'm not claiming that reality has a right-wing political bias.  What I really believe is that reality is frustratingly inconsistent with how any political ideology would like it to be, which is why there continues to be competing political ideologies rather than one winning.

Here's my little story about the relationship between states' rights and actual liberty.  

Once upon a time, there were 13 prisons, each with their own warden - Warden Alpha, Warden Beta, Warden Gamma, and so on.  These Wardens made all the rules for the inmates, and while some of them were spitefully cruel and others rational and efficient, all of them were concerned first and foremost with keeping their prisoners incarcerated.  One day, supreme overlord Adam Weishaupt had all of these Wardens killed and replaced by subwardens, each of whom worked for him and had to obey his commands.  Years later, demonstrations and riots were observed in the first of the prisons, but not for release or better conditions - these riots were held in memory of good old Warden Alpha, and a demand for a return to free, independant wardens.

Quote from: John Morrow;427618The government of France funds Catholic schools.

Not really. Religious private schools in France work under contract with the Republic. Meaning, they employ the same teachers as public schools, teaching the same program as public schools, but they're free to develop religious education on the side which is paid by the parents, not the state. Parental fees actually pay all the stuff that's not part of the public program. Private religious schools have to follow the public program and can't skip Darwin or other sensitive topics on religious grounds. It took decades of struggle to get crosses and priests away from classrooms. We don't cut them any slack, especially the Catholics.

Quote from: boulet;427693Not really. Religious private schools in France work under contract with the Republic. Meaning, they employ the same teachers as public schools, teaching the same program as public schools, but they're free to develop religious education on the side which is paid by the parents, not the state. Parental fees actually pay all the stuff that's not part of the public program. Private religious schools have to follow the public program and can't skip Darwin or other sensitive topics on religious grounds. It took decades of struggle to get crosses and priests away from classrooms. We don't cut them any slack, especially the Catholics.

Fair enough, but that's still more permissive than what's allowed in the United States right now.

Quote from: John Morrow;427706Fair enough, but that's still more permissive than what's allowed in the United States right now.

More permissive? When it comes to school programs all is centralized. I don't know the American educational system well but it seems to me local authorities get more elbow room.

Quote from: boulet;427723More permissive? When it comes to school programs all is centralized. I don't know the American educational system well but it seems to me local authorities get more elbow room.

Local authorities have to do what big government tells them to do (teach kids to pass a test), otherwise they get less funding. It is a miracle that kids in public school learn anything at all these days. Thanks Ted and George. Thanks a lot.

I don't know how anyone can read the Deadlands setting and take it this seriously. It is neither racist nor enlightened. It is just plain goofy and not particularly good alternate history. But the game has zombies, ghosts, and other strange stuff in it.... so there you go. It isn't realistic at all. I really don't think it was meant to be.

What was the original intention of the public school system, besides a glorified free babysitting service?

It's all a question of perspective. In some respects France is more permissive than the US with school programs, and in others, it isn't. The cultural fundamentals are very different, so you can't really compare the two situations.

Quote from: ggroy;427730What was the original intention of the public school system, besides a glorified free babysitting service?

In France it was in part to eradicate regionalism, regional languages, make all citizens educated and literate at the same source, to both increase the baseline education of the population, and ensure that all children are raised with the same Republican values.

So it's absolutely not *just* out of the goodness of their hearts they initiated those public education programs.

Quote from: Benoist;427732In France it was in part to eradicate regionalism, regional languages, make all citizens educated and literate at the same source, to both increase the baseline education of the population, and ensure that all children are raised with the same Republican values.

So it's absolutely not *just* out of the goodness of their hearts they initiated those public education programs.

Sounds just like everywhere else.  Indoctrinating kids with nationalism.

They know very well it is an exercise in futility in changing the minds of adults.  Easier to manipulate the minds of kids.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Daztur;427602Exactly, for the most part the North was pretty willing to compromise about the slavery issue along states rights lines, what blew up the pre-Civil War compromise was the south being unwilling to compromise and demanding pro-slavery policy be extended north over the protests of the local state governments. Saying that states rights was a higher priority than slavery for the south is deeply ignorant at best.

Well the North did not like the idea of what they called "Slave Power".  They took a hard line after Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Law and many Northern moderates now found themselves allied with the Abolitionists.  The results was that BOTH sides now under the control of hard liners and the result was civil war.

Quote from: John Morrow;427664Takes one to know one, huh?

Really?  That is all you have?  Sad.

QuoteThe term "political correctness" was first coined by academic leftists who used it literally, to judge the correctness or incorrectness of an idea through a political lens.

This is an absolute right-wing propaganda lie.  The only people who have ever used the term 'political correctness' outside of the PoliSci classroom are conservatives who want to defend their casual racism.

Quote...adopting a heartless "limited government and personal responsibility" approach...

Whoa, there, Chester!  Isn't that the very cornerstone of conservative ideology?

Quote"Pastafarianism" isn't a religion

Why isn't it?

QuoteAnd if you teach Hindu religion as "myth", that's not really teaching religion, now is it?

All religion is myth, even yours.  I will assume from your answer, however, that teaching Hinduism in place of Christianity would get you down to the school board meeting as fast as physics would allow.

 

QuoteSo, frankly, I think you have no clue what I mean when I say "religion".  

"Some of my best friends are non-Christian!!"

QuoteAnd, of course, you ignored my main point which is that your "just do homeschooling" suggestion isn't all that satisfying when you are on the losing side of the debate, is it?

So, you don't care about education particularly, you are just aggrieved from being on the losing side of the debate (and history!) for so long.  Gotcha.

QuoteAnd, frankly, I think you are so far left that you can't even see the middle from where you are standing.

John, you don't even have a concept of the middle.  You weasel around everything and demand everyone meet you on your terms.  For example, if I thought for a second that public schools would offer a course in theology that encompassed all faiths and philosophies, and a general study of religion and philosophy, I would be in the front lines fighting for that.  But you know very well that 'religion' means 'my version of Christianity', and you have no conceptual framework to understand why teaching any particular religion in a public school is a bad thing.

QuoteYes, jackass, a great many of them did "work hard" to get that money.  Lots of them took risks that other people are afraid to take, too.  Do you really think most people who lived through the Great Depression remained wealthy through that period and just had things easy their entire life?  Have you ever even talked to anyone who lived through the Great Depression?  Plenty of them became fairly wealthy by the time they retired.  Think they didn't deserve it?

That is a really big non-sequitur.
EDIT:  Almost forgot, my grandparents were around at the beginning of WWI, around 1915-6, and died 70-odd years later.  Your assumptions that the only person in the world with any personal experience in anything is named 'John Morrow' is getting really fucking old.

QuoteSo, yes, people can "work hard" to get ahead so long as they save and their idea of "working hard" isn't doing something that a high school graduate could do just as well for a lot less.

Those people are 'comfortable', or perhaps 'well-off'.  They aren't 'wealthy', and they are no where near 'rich'.

QuoteHave you ever actually worked in government.  I have.  Let's just say that any faith that you might have that government will stick it to the rich and powerful is sadly misplaced, regardless of which party is in charge.

Among other jobs, I have worked for the government.  And I am fully aware of how the political machine works these days, I don't need the lecture.  I understand that the only way you can communicate is through hierarchical language, but that is part of why your world is crumbling around you.

QuoteIf by "reality" you mean "What I read on the DailyKos, Huffington Post, Media Matters, and see on MSNBC", then I can see where you'd think that.  

Your tears of unhinged rage at the world you can't control anymore nourishes me.

QuoteWhatever.

Frustration makes for a nice dessert.

I wanted to snag this part and drop it in at the end.

QuoteBe sure to tell RPGPundit about how Liberal the Catholic Church is. :rolleyes:

Ok, John, I am pretty much done with this.  There is far more to  Christianity than the Catholic church, but that interferes with your  internal dialogue, and I am wholly uninterested in being the platform for  you to get your talking points out as quickly and as frequently as  possible.

As usual, your collision with the external world has put you over the edge, so I will leave you to your inconsolable rage with a reality that refuses to conform to your wishes.

Quote from: Benoist;427732In France it was in part to eradicate regionalism, regional languages, make all citizens educated and literate at the same source, to both increase the baseline education of the population, and ensure that all children are raised with the same Republican values.

So it's absolutely not *just* out of the goodness of their hearts they initiated those public education programs.

Ditto the US, largely.  'Republican' meaning 'the Republic' over here as well as over there.  Primarily to get a very basic education and literacy for the factory workers, and nothing else.
EDIT:  France and Europe in general are probably still very eager to teach civics in primary and secondary classes, but from what I can gather over here, civics has been quietly and almost completely excised from the curriculum.  In other words, we don't get much instruction about 'the Republic' anymore.

Quote from: John Morrow;427462Perhaps both Bruce Baugh's reaction to Spirit of the Century and Deadlands are two extreme cases, but they are the opposite extremes, and that's what's relevant.  In other words, one the one hand, you complain about dwelling on the sins of the past while, on the other, you also complain about hand-waving those sins away.  So how exactly should a setting handle these issues?  What's "just right", Goldilocks?

There are many games that get it just right, or just about just right, when it comes to history.  Most of the GURPS historical sourcebooks. Call of Cthulhu. Pendragon. Aces & Eights.  Space: 1889.  
Just present history honestly, as it was. It should neither be the job of the game designer to either forcibly whitewash or forcibly demand that these issues be addressed.

QuoteYou just want to downplay that you, like Mr. Baugh, are offended at and insulted by the cheap and easy way a serious historical racial problem is being downplayed in a role-playing product.

He may be voicing a superficially similar complaint, but his motives and his "solution" are dramatically different from my own.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John Morrow;427664And plenty of religious people are just as convinced that they are right and you are wrong.  But, I know, you just know you are right because everyone you know thinks just like you do, right?

Don't want to get in the middle of this, but, John there's a difference between talking about existence of God or matters of faith in a religion and whether the Earth is 5,000 or 5,000,000,000 years old.

We have a sitting US congressman who thinks that there won't be major worldwide flooding because God promised Noah in the bible that He wouldn't send another flood.  Who is this jackass?  John Shimkus.

Quote from: Jackass's WebsiteJohn M. Shimkus is serving his 14th year in Congress and represents the 19th District of Illinois.

John serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  He serves on the Subcommittees on Communications, Technology, and the Internet; Energy and Environment; and Health. He is the highest ranking Republican on the Health subcommittee.

Luckily this shithead hasn't gotten himself a committee chair yet.

Intelligent design, young earth, all kinds of Fundamentalist Protestant Christian beliefs are simply and objectively wrong.

Quote from: ggroy;427730What was the original intention of the public school system, besides a glorified free babysitting service?

To train the children of illiterate farmers to be good factory workers.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;427791To train the children of illiterate farmers to be good factory workers.

I can see this being the case for elementary school.

I remember quite a few older family members who never went to high school.  (The ones still alive would be in their eighties or nineties today).  Back then, high school was completely optional and actually required a written entrance exam for admissions in some jurisdictions.  Kids who didn't bother with high school, usually left after the seventh or eight grade and just went straight to the factories in town or they went to work for the family business.

John, the church thought Mendel and others were on their way to scientifically proving the bible.  If the Vatican had known Mendelian genetics would wind up confirming Darwin's big idea, he would have been as popular as Galileo and Copernicus.  Doing something based in reality wasn't the church's big hope for him.

The idea that everyone was convinced of Iraq's WMD is a fine example of revisionist history gaining popularity in a short time.  Hans Blix was given full access by Saddam and found nothing - a result so inconvenient that the Bush administration attempted to interfere with his investigation on every level.  Here in Australia we had Andrew Wilkie.  In Britain, David Kelly was hounded to suicide for publicly maintaining that Iraq had nothing.  There were street protests and masses of media reportage on this topic, and forgetting it is an achievement in itself.

Reality is liberal once again, and that's before we even start asking why the right believes Saudis training Saudis in Saudi to fly planes into American skyscrapers is a clear case for invading...Iraq.

As predicted, you leapt on communism with gusto, and it's easy to understand why.  Two millennia of conservatives being greatly mistaken not only in matters of ideology but fiercely resisting basic facts of the universe is a lot easier to ignore when there's a huge leftist error of judgement within the last century.

It's an interesting comparison to make, though, because it demonstrates the superior ability of liberals to get to grips with reality even after some deviation.  You don't find many enthusiastic western communists any more, and certainly not in positions of influence, but the right can't wait to delete basic theories from science textbooks and hand over the nuclear codes to people who call foreign leaders in the dead of night to say that Gog and Magog have arisen in the middle east and must be fought by the forces of light.

No shit.  In the 21st century the American right elected to the most powerful office in the world a man who believes his primary role is to hasten a supernatural apocalypse.  And now more of the same are lining up for a shot at the title.  Can you identify any popular western leftist who comes even close to such disdain for reality?  

And, of course, prior to the horrific century of left-sponsored communism, there were 2000 years of Christian pogroms, Inquisitions and crusades.  Compared to cultural conservatives, leftists are amateurs at this mass-killing business.  Even in the 20th century, liberal support for communism was based on a belief that it would improve the lives of human beings here and now, for evidence-based reasons.  The religious right, meanwhile, has been killing people for century after century because they disagreed with the specifics of middle eastern folktales, or placed greater value on data and observation than the edicts of a pope.  Even when the left fucks up, it's more grounded in reality than the right.

Now please don't reply with comparative body counts.  It would be embarrassing to have to explain why a Stalin can kill more people in a population of millions with machinery and firearms than Catholic crusaders could with swords and fire in a sparse population.

Reality has a liberal bias.  Now if you'll excuse me I have to go and make my way in a society that's been reduced to a smoking ruin by women's suffrage and the insidious plague of black jazz musicians.  Hopefully I won't be struck by lightning today for being a blasphemer.  These are, after all, unarguable facts that cannot be ignored.

To be fair... I've never attended any sort of class/school that didn't involve some amount of indoctrination into an orthodoxy of some sort. Just some were more honest about it than others...

Quote from: Hairfoot;427806Reality has a liberal bias.  Now if you'll excuse me I have to go and make my way in a society that's been reduced to a smoking ruin by women's suffrage and the insidious plague of black jazz musicians.  Hopefully I won't be struck by lightning today for being a blasphemer.  These are, after all, unarguable facts that cannot be ignored.

Dead on, brother.  I spent the last few hours dodging a saxophone and clarinet wielding Afro-Cuban fusion gang intent on an improv jam session.

Quote from: StormBringer;427756Really?  That is all you have?  Sad.

One can only say so much to a frothing mad dog's rants.  It's always hilarious to watch someone rant about "hatred and intolerance" while displaying "hatred and intolerance" aplenty.  Projection isn't just for movie theaters.

Quote from: StormBringer;427756This is an absolute right-wing propaganda lie.  The only people who have ever used the term 'political correctness' outside of the PoliSci classroom are conservatives who want to defend their casual racism.

Read this 1985 Usenet thread on net.women (http://groups.google.com/group/net.women/browse_thread/thread/7292f55ded3cfbde/) from when the term first started being used as a put-down.  Note the reply by Tony Wuersch, where he writes, "Around Berkeley, perhaps this didn't happen, since there are still many 'politically correct' buttons around.  The term hasn't become pejorative there as it has in New York City."  Note that both he and the original poster are talking about people wearing politically correct buttons to identify themselves as "politically correct".  Note also that he talks about the term becoming pejorative, because it originally wasn't.  

If you search the Usenet archives from the early 1980s, you'll certainly find people using the term pejoratively and in quotes, but you'll also find people using it seriously.  For example, Robert DeBenedictis wrote to net.motss in 1983 (//) (motss = members of the same sex, that is, the gay discussion group) "2. Coming Out, the Pros and Cons: is it politically correct (or even polite) to try to convince closeted people to come out.  How entitled are they to remain in the Closet? 3. Politicaly Correct: What does 'PC' mean?  Is it like etiquette? What are the advantages of being PC?  Am I 'self-depracating' if I am not PC?"  It's pretty clear that Mr. DeBenedictis was not picking the term up from Bible-thumping bigots as a pejorative.

Or you could just look at the Wikipedia entry for Political correctness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness) and find:

"By 1970, New Left proponents had adopted the term political correctness. In the essay The Black Woman, Toni Cade Bambara says: ". . . a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist too". The New Left later re-appropriated the term political correctness as satirical self-criticism; per Debra Shultz: "Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives . . . used their term politically correct ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts". Hence, it is a popular English usage in the underground comic book Merton of the Movement, by Bobby London, while ideologically sound, an alternative term, followed a like lexical path, appearing in Bart Dickon's satirical comic strips. Moreover, Ellen Willis says: " . . . in the early '80s, when feminists used the term political correctness, it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movement's efforts to define a 'feminist sexuality' "."

I mean, if you weren't so reality challenged, you'd realize that the term "politically correct" just oozes academic Marxism.  Conservatives don't talk like that... except when they are mocking liberals.  Of course people on the left were even mocking each other with that term before conservatives started doing it.  The term is so effective as a pejorative because what it mocks is so ridiculous that even the people who are ideologically on the same side often realize it.

Quote from: StormBringer;427756Whoa, there, Chester!  Isn't that the very cornerstone of conservative ideology?

It depends on how "limited" you want your "limited government" to be.  Among conservatives, that can range from the nutty belief that the government shouldn't do anything but protect property and keeping people from abusing each other to people who are perfectly fine with the government providing public education, Social Security, and so on, but the latter type are closer to the middle and thus don't make convenient straw men for angry leftist tirades, do they?  Limited government does not mean no government.

Quote from: StormBringer;427756Why isn't it?

Because everyone who says that they believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is lying.  Nobody actually believes it's real.  But I'm sure you already know that.

Quote from: StormBringer;427756All religion is myth, even yours.  I will assume from your answer, however, that teaching Hinduism in place of Christianity would get you down to the school board meeting as fast as physics would allow.

The problem is that you are assuming and not reading.  

No, what I was saying is that a school has no more business telling a Hindu child that their religion is a myth or treating it like a cultural curiosity than they have telling a Christian child that their religion is a myth and treating it as a cultural curiosity.  Or a Jewish kid.  Or a Muslim kid.  When I learned about Islam in Middle School, we were basically told that Mohammed was a charlatan and I could understand Muslim parents being unhappy about their kid being taught that in school and don't think that's appropriate, regardless of whether I think it's true or not.

Quote from: StormBringer;427756"Some of my best friends are non-Christian!!"

There is only so much one can do to prove a negative, but that's the beauty of calling someone a bigot, it's it?  My point is that I'm pretty well versed in what other religions believe and I'm not concerned about getting the cooties from non-Christians.

Quote from: StormBringer;427756So, you don't care about education particularly, you are just aggrieved from being on the losing side of the debate (and history!) for so long.  Gotcha.

Keep dancing with your straw man, Dorothy.  It sounds like you've already entered the final act of the movie Brazil.

Quote from: StormBringer;427756John, you don't even have a concept of the middle.  You weasel around everything and demand everyone meet you on your terms.

Nonsense.  I was asked for a middle ground on teaching evolution in schools.  You will notice that I didn't say "stop teaching evolution".  You will notice that I didn't say "teach creationism" or "teach the objections people have to creationism".  I said, "teach evolution as the mainstream scientific explanation for things and acknowledge that it's a theory that does not necessarily invalidate the religious beliefs of students and their parents."  I added, "In other words, 'This is what we are teaching you and you will be tested on, but you don't have to believe it.'"  So how, exactly, is that demanding that everyone meet me on my terms, Skippy?  

And if you are going to rant like a rabid Air America host every time you reply to me, I'm going to respond accordingly.  

Quote from: StormBringer;427756For example, if I thought for a second that public schools would offer a course in theology that encompassed all faiths and philosophies, and a general study of religion and philosophy, I would be in the front lines fighting for that.  But you know very well that 'religion' means 'my version of Christianity', and you have no conceptual framework to understand why teaching any particular religion in a public school is a bad thing.

You don't oppose the teaching of religion in public schools because of any "conceptual framework" or "understanding".  You oppose it because, as you just said, "[a]ll religion is myth."  So stop the elitist posturing.  It all boils down to you having a chip on your shoulder about religion, that comes through loud and clear in all of your comments about religion and religious people.  

If you really had a case, you'd explain it rather than telling me what I don't understand.  Here's a free hint for the reality challenged: If your arguments only make sense to you, it's generally not because you are the only special person smart enough to understand it.  

Quote from: StormBringer;427756That is a really big non-sequitur.

How, exactly, is talking about the hardships that people endured, the work that they did, and the risks that the took to counter your skepticism that people actually do get wealthy through hard work a non-sequitur?

Quote from: StormBringer;427756EDIT:  Almost forgot, my grandparents were around at the beginning of WWI, around 1915-6, and died 70-odd years later.  Your assumptions that the only person in the world with any personal experience in anything is named 'John Morrow' is getting really fucking old.

And what did your grandparents tell you about their life during the Great Depression?  Because apparently you've never met anyone who got wealthy through hard work.  I was assuming ignorance.  I mean, I could just assume you are a self-hating rich kid or that your family are a bunch of losers who never succeeded, but that wouldn't be very nice of me or fair to your family, which I know nothing about.  So by all means, do fill in the details for me.

Quote from: StormBringer;427756Those people are 'comfortable', or perhaps 'well-off'.  They aren't 'wealthy', and they are no where near 'rich'.

And where, exactly, does "wealthy" or "rich" start, in our opinion?  Does Bill Gates count?  You don't think his 80 hour work-weeks and sleeping in a cot in his office count as "hard work"?  How about Steve Jobs?  Think he's a slacker?

Quote from: StormBringer;427756Among other jobs, I have worked for the government.  And I am fully aware of how the political machine works these days, I don't need the lecture.  I understand that the only way you can communicate is through hierarchical language, but that is part of why your world is crumbling around you.

Wow, the projection just keeps coming, and you actually don't even seem to realize you are doing it. :D

Quote from: StormBringer;427756Your tears of unhinged rage at the world you can't control anymore nourishes me.

Frustration makes for a nice dessert.

It always fascinates me when self-righteous leftists show their true colors and reveal what spiteful thugs they really are.  You don't disappoint.

Quote from: StormBringer;427756There is far more to  Christianity than the Catholic church, but that interferes with your  internal dialogue, and I am wholly uninterested in being the platform for  you to get your talking points out as quickly and as frequently as  possible.

Most of the examples I gave you involved government support of Catholic schools.  Being unable to square that with the idea that supposedly more enlightened non-American countries helping to fund religious schools, you tried to deal with the cognitive dissonance by claiming I was "arguing in favour of a much more Liberal Christianity right now".  No, I was talking about the Catholic church.  You can't even follow your own argument, can you?  

Quote from: StormBringer;427756As usual, your collision with the external world has put you over the edge, so I will leave you to your inconsolable rage with a reality that refuses to conform to your wishes.

What rage?  Dude, I'm finding this incredibly entertaining.  I don't think I could do any better if I created a sockpuppet to argue against.

Quote from: Hairfoot;427806Now please don't reply with comparative body counts.  It would be embarrassing to have to explain why a Stalin can kill more people in a population of millions with machinery and firearms than Catholic crusaders could with swords and fire in a sparse population.

QuoteThankfully, the Spanish Inquisition kept very good records and these are now being sifted through by historians. They paint a very different picture of sentencing patterns to traditional historians. Geoffrey Parker analyzed 49,000 trial records between 1540 and 1700, representing one third of the total, and found 776 executions took place. This suggests a total of about 2,000 in the period reviewed. Earlier records are less well preserved but do not support the picture of a bloodbath usually painted. Henry Kamen (p. 60) does not believe more than a thousand executions took place in the earlier period. However, he points out that the Inquisitors activities were heavily slanted towards Jewish and Moslem communities who would have suffered far more than most from their activities. Recent work, sponsored by the Catholic Church, also points to a significantly lower death toll. Professor Agostino Borromeo, a historian of Catholicism at the Sapienza University in Rome, writes that about 125,000 people were tried by church tribunals as suspected heretics in Spain. Of these, about 1,200 - 2,000 were actually executed, although more killings were performed by non-church tribunals.

That's talking about the Spanish Inquisition. Now, I really don't want to go there, and as a matter of fact, I will avoid answering any further in this thread, mostly because of the fucking ass-backwards left-right food fight going on that obliterates any possibility of constructive dialog, but I just wanted to tell you: if you seriously think what you are talking about is somehow a reflection of unbiased reality, do yourself a favor, and think again. Seriously. That'll do you some good.

Quote from: StormBringer;427826Dead on, brother.  I spent the last few hours dodging a saxophone and clarinet wielding Afro-Cuban fusion gang intent on an improv jam session.

You really gotta watch out for that kind of thing... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEiQ5hqT00U)

QuoteRecent work, sponsored by the Catholic Church, also points to a significantly lower death toll.

Just saying, not necessarily famous for policing their own... or owning up to past mistakes.

Quote from: John Morrow;427829Nonsense.  I was asked for a middle ground on teaching evolution in schools.  You will notice that I didn't say "stop teaching evolution".  You will notice that I didn't say "teach creationism" or "teach the objections people have to creationism".  I said, "teach evolution as the mainstream scientific explanation for things and acknowledge that it's a theory that does not necessarily invalidate the religious beliefs of students and their parents."  I added, "In other words, 'This is what we are teaching you and you will be tested on, but you don't have to believe it.'"  So how, exactly, is that demanding that everyone meet me on my terms, Skippy?

I'm about to teach evolution in January to my kids.  The above pretty much fits the standard response of liberal-biased California educators, and mostly fits the California standards for the topic.  While there are those who would teach science and evolution as inherently anti-religion (like Richard Dawkins), they are a rare fringe.  Within the U.S., the majority of Democrats and liberals are themselves religious - usually Christian.  

A few caveats on this:  I would never use the phrase "just a theory" - because there is nothing more solid in science than a well-established theory.  I would say that it is a theory that represents our best understanding as much as anything else in science.  I would say that students don't have to believe evolution as the absolute truth - just that they have to understand it and correctly answer test questions about it.  

However, the liberal side isn't going to budge anywhere past that.  I am willing to teach that science is not absolute truth - and indeed that is part of the California standards.  However, I'm not willing to put in any special disclaimer to suggest that evolution is any less solid than other parts of science.  I personally would be willing to mention Intelligent Design, but mainly by way of demonstrating that it is weaker.  However, in general the educational and liberal community is completely opposed to that.

Quote from: Simlasa;427839Just saying, not necessarily famous for policing their own... or owning up to past mistakes.

Wow, this thread has had one hell of a drift.

What the heck does the Catholic Church have to do with the Old West or alternate timelines and settings related to the American Civil War?


- Ed C.

Quote from: Hairfoot;427806John, the church thought Mendel and others were on their way to scientifically proving the bible.  If the Vatican had known Mendelian genetics would wind up confirming Darwin's big idea, he would have been as popular as Galileo and Copernicus.  Doing something based in reality wasn't the church's big hope for him.

So the modern Catholic Church still believes the world is flat and the Earth is the center of the Universe?  And, if not, why did they change their mind?

Quote from: Hairfoot;427806The idea that everyone was convinced of Iraq's WMD is a fine example of revisionist history gaining popularity in a short time.  Hans Blix was given full access by Saddam and found nothing - a result so inconvenient that the Bush administration attempted to interfere with his investigation on every level.  Here in Australia we had Andrew Wilkie.  In Britain, David Kelly was hounded to suicide for publicly maintaining that Iraq had nothing.  There were street protests and masses of media reportage on this topic, and forgetting it is an achievement in itself.

From Hans Blix's testimony before the UK Iraq Inquiry on Tuesday 27 July 2010 (http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/transcripts/oralevidence-bydate/100727.aspx):

Quote from: Hans BlixSo I was cautious all the way through, but this was the reason why I changed my view. I talked to Prime Minister Blair on 20 February 2002 and then I said I still thought that there were prohibited items in Iraq but at the same time our belief, faith in intelligence had been weakened. I said the same thing to Condoleezza Rice. Both Condoleezza Rice and Prime Minister Blair, I sort of alerted to the fact that we were sceptical. I made the remark that I cited many times, that: wouldn't it be paradoxical for you to invade Iraq with 250,000 men and find very little.

...also...

Quote from: Hans BlixOf course, we could not exclude -- sometimes we get too much credit and say, "You were right. You said there were no weapons of mass destruction". We did not say so. We said, "We have not found any". After 700 inspections and going to sites given to us, we did not find any, which is not the same thing. We did not exclude, but we didn't -- I mean, Mr Blair said that we didn't find the truth, but we found the untruth of some of the allegations, and that was important enough.

...or how about this...

Quote from: Hans BlixHowever, it seemed plausible to me at the time, and I also felt -- I, like most people at the time, felt that Iraq retains weapons of mass destruction. I did not say so publicly. I said it perhaps to Mr Blair in September 2002 privately, but not publicly because I think there is a big difference between your role as a trustee of the Security Council, "Investigate this and report to us", and the role of a politician. Individual governments here could prosecute and say, "We are accusing you, you have this", but that was not my role. The Security Council did not assume it and therefore I didn't say anything about it publicly. Privately, yes, I thought so.

So there are three quotes by Hans Blix saying that he not only didn't say that Iraq had no WMDs but that he probably confided that he, "like most people at the time", actually thought that they did to Tony Blair in 2002.

OK, so how about Andrew Wilkie?  Here is an interview with him from 2004 (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1037355.htm):

Quote from: InterviewANDREW WILKIE: I believe that Saddam Hussein had a limited and disjointed WMD program.

MARK COLVIN: So you believe that he did have them, just not enough to justify war?

ANDREW WILKIE: Absolutely, it all came back to my fundamental argument that Iraq didn't pose a serious enough security threat to justify a war, not least because his conventional military was weak, there was no evidence of active co-operation with al-Qaeda, and because his WMD program was limited. It was always well short of what our Government and the governments in Washington and London were claiming.

MARK COLVIN: But you, like the intelligence community which you then disassociated yourself from, and like most of the UN weapons inspectors and like the Americans and like the British all thought that there were weapons of mass destruction there.

ANDREW WILKIE: I certainly thought.

MARK COLVIN: On what basis did you think it?

ANDREW WILKIE: Based on the hard intelligence I saw and the assessments I saw I was fairly sure that he did have, Saddam did have some sort of limited program and almost certainly had a small number of weapons.

How about David Kelly?  According to this Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/31/davidkelly.iraq1):

Quote from: ArticleHe also argued that there was evidence Saddam still had chemical and biological weapons and regime change, the policy of the United States, was the only way to stop the Iraqi dictator.

According to full MoD statement on the Gilligan meeting (http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence/fac_1_0024.pdf):

"He has said that, as an expert in the field, he believes Saddam Hussein possessed WMD"

So they all thought that Iraq had WMD to some degree, right?

Quote from: Hairfoot;427806The issue here is one of degree. Within the intelligence community there was high confidence in how I just described it, but it was always fairly ambiguous, and the information being provided to government always was carefully worded to reflect that ambiguity.

The reality is that everyone was guessing.  When people guess, some people guess right and some people guess wrong.  But that's not the same thing as being "reality challenged", which was your claim.  Were there people who claimed that Iraq had no WMDs before the invasion and subsequent investigation gave many more people the 20/20 hindsight to claim that they'd known Iraq was lying all along?  Of course there were.  But they were guessing, too, or engaged in wishful thinking that turned out true because they opposed war.  But weren't you the one quipping about a broken clock being wrong twice a day?  

Quote from: Hairfoot;427806Reality is liberal once again, and that's before we even start asking why the right believes Saudis training Saudis in Saudi to fly planes into American skyscrapers is a clear case for invading...Iraq.

But the people you mentioned all believed that Iraq had WMD and they were wrong, too.

Quote from: Hairfoot;427806As predicted, you leapt on communism with gusto, and it's easy to understand why.  Two millennia of conservatives being greatly mistaken not only in matters of ideology but fiercely resisting basic facts of the universe is a lot easier to ignore when there's a huge leftist error of judgement within the last century.

Uh, huh.  Yeah, that was just a minor one-off "leftist error of judgement" and we should give the left another chance at running things because they promise not to murder 100 million people the next time, right?  Would you feel better if I used the French Revolution and Robespierre's Reign of Terror as an example of leftists gone wild, instead?  Or was that just another one-off "error of judgement" that just happened to lead to mass murder?  And when the social welfare systems in the Western World collapse under the weight of ever increasing costs and aging populations, will that just be another minor "error in judgement", too?  Yeah, I know.  Being on the left means never having to say you're sorry because your intentions are just so noble and pure, if the bodies start piling up like cordwood, that's not really the left's fault.  It's just a little oopsie on the way to Utopia and you just need to try again.  You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, right?

Quote from: Hairfoot;427806It's an interesting comparison to make, though, because it demonstrates the superior ability of liberals to get to grips with reality even after some deviation.  You don't find many enthusiastic western communists any more, and certainly not in positions of influence, but the right can't wait to delete basic theories from science textbooks and hand over the nuclear codes to people who call foreign leaders in the dead of night to say that Gog and Magog have arisen in the middle east and must be fought by the forces of light.

I like the lawyerly qualifiers you put in there and the straw man you end with is precious.  No, nobody like a White House Communications Director would ever call Mao Tse Tung one of their favorite political philosophers these days, right?  And if some mean old conservative were to call them out over it, then the conservative would be the bad guy, right?

Quote from: Hairfoot;427806No shit.  In the 21st century the American right elected to the most powerful office in the world a man who believes his primary role is to hasten a supernatural apocalypse.  And now more of the same are lining up for a shot at the title.  Can you identify any popular western leftist who comes even close to such disdain for reality?

And what makes you think George W. Bush believed "his primary role is to hasten a supernatural apocalypse"?  Since you have such a deep respect for reality, surely you can provide me with the quotes or evidence to back up that assertion, right?  Or does your "reality" include ESP that lets you know what George W. Bush was really thinking?

Quote from: Hairfoot;427806And, of course, prior to the horrific century of left-sponsored communism, there were 2000 years of Christian pogroms, Inquisitions and crusades.  Compared to cultural conservatives, leftists are amateurs at this mass-killing business.

Really?  Then why is the leftist body count so much larger in just one century?  Why don't you tell me how many people Christians killed through pogroms, inquisitions, and crusades over centuries, with your sources, and let's compare the numbers.  Since reality is biased toward the left, you should have no problem proving this assertion, right?  Oh, wait!  You do have a problem with that because you apparently know that reality is not going to be kind to your position.  So much for that left-biased reality.

Quote from: Hairfoot;427806Even in the 20th century, liberal support for communism was based on a belief that it would improve the lives of human beings here and now, for evidence-based reasons.  The religious right, meanwhile, has been killing people for century after century because they disagreed with the specifics of middle eastern folktales, or placed greater value on data and observation than the edicts of a pope.  Even when the left fucks up, it's more grounded in reality than the right.

You really do believe that this is all a fair and accurate characterization of reality, don't you?  If reality is really on your side, why do you have to warp it to make your point?

Quote from: Hairfoot;427806Now please don't reply with comparative body counts.  It would be embarrassing to have to explain why a Stalin can kill more people in a population of millions with machinery and firearms than Catholic crusaders could with swords and fire in a sparse population.

But Stalin and Mao didn't kill most of their people with machinery and firearms.  They starved them, which was certainly an available option in the Middle Ages.  Plenty of people who died during the Cultural Revolution died at the hands of young people without guns, too.  You do know all that, right?  You also realize the Khmer Rouge managed to kill about a third of Cambodia's population largely hacking and beating people to death and rarely using guns because ammunition was valuable and limited, right?  

Basically, you are illustrating why the left believes reality is biased to the left.  You aren't actually presenting evidence or logical arguments to prove your points (in some cases, I know you can't because you are wrong) but simply guess and make it up as you go, confident that since reality is biased to the left, things must work the way you image you do.  

Quote from: Hairfoot;427806Reality has a liberal bias.  Now if you'll excuse me I have to go and make my way in a society that's been reduced to a smoking ruin by women's suffrage and the insidious plague of black jazz musicians.  Hopefully I won't be struck by lightning today for being a blasphemer.  These are, after all, unarguable facts that cannot be ignored.

No, it's a straw man but this isn't the Yellow Brick Road.

Quote from: CRKrueger;427778Don't want to get in the middle of this, but, John there's a difference between talking about existence of God or matters of faith in a religion and whether the Earth is 5,000 or 5,000,000,000 years old.

While I understand your point, anyone who has seen the Matrix should understand the philosophical foundation upon which it was based, which is that we take just about everything on faith except for our own existence and concepts just a logic and mathematics.  We could all be brains in a vat or the universe could have been wished into existence seconds ago and we simply cannot prove beyond any doubt otherwise.

Do I believe that the Earth is 5,000 years old?  No.  I'm not a Biblical literalist.  But I also know that I can't prove with 100% certainty that I'm right and the Biblical literalists are wrong.

Quote from: CRKrueger;427778We have a sitting US congressman who thinks that there won't be major worldwide flooding because God promised Noah in the bible that He wouldn't send another flood.  Who is this jackass?  John Shimkus.

The presence of one person who takes something too far does not mean that they all do. The most recent Gallup Poll on evolution (December 2010) showed that 40% of Americans believe in young Earth Creationism, another 38% believe in guided evolution, and only 16% believe God had no part in the process.  Not every religious conservative is a young Earth Creationist and not all of those who are will be as boneheaded as John Shimkus.  And my point, that started this whole digression, is that Fundamentalism is often a backlash against attacks on religion.  When atheists use evolution to argue that God doesn't exist, they provide evidence in support of a slippery slope argument that positions guided evolution on the path to atheism, so the backlash is to reject guided evolution and even science and embrace Fundamentalism because science is positioned as being anti-God.

Quote from: CRKrueger;427778Intelligent design, young earth, all kinds of Fundamentalist Protestant Christian beliefs are simply and objectively wrong.

Prove to me, objectively and without any room for doubt, that we all existed a day ago.  I doubt you can without building on a fairly sizable pile of assumptions that are just that... assumptions, even if I agree with them.

Quote from: Simlasa;427839Just saying, not necessarily famous for policing their own... or owning up to past mistakes.

You're not seeing the point. EVEN if the numbers are WAY off. Think about it. An estimate of between 1,200 and 2,000 people actually executed. Over the course of nearly two HUNDRED YEARS.

Point of comparison:

IN ONE DAY.

Between 6,500 and 14,000 soldiers, Allies and Germans, DIED on D Day. A SINGLE DAY.

I think people really do not understand what they are talking about, sometimes. We're just repeating bullshit that's been passed on for decades upon decades down to us, and like to think we are the ones who are righteous, and objective, and know "the truth," while in fact, we really are no better than the people that came before us. Same lack of judgment. Same bias. Same mob mentality.

Quote from: jhkim;427841I'm about to teach evolution in January to my kids.  The above pretty much fits the standard response of liberal-biased California educators, and mostly fits the California standards for the topic.  While there are those who would teach science and evolution as inherently anti-religion (like Richard Dawkins), they are a rare fringe.  Within the U.S., the majority of Democrats and liberals are themselves religious - usually Christian.

Part of my point is that people like Dawkins do not do their own side a favor by positioning science that way.  If you give many people a choice between science or God, they'll pick God for reasons no doubt unfathomable to many atheists.  So add an explicit disclaimer that the purpose of teaching evolution is not to undermine religion or tell children what to believe.

Quote from: jhkim;427841A few caveats on this:  I would never use the phrase "just a theory" - because there is nothing more solid in science than a well-established theory.  I would say that it is a theory that represents our best understanding as much as anything else in science.  I would say that students don't have to believe evolution as the absolute truth - just that they have to understand it and correctly answer test questions about it.

I'm perfectly fine with that.

Quote from: jhkim;427841However, the liberal side isn't going to budge anywhere past that.  I am willing to teach that science is not absolute truth - and indeed that is part of the California standards.  However, I'm not willing to put in any special disclaimer to suggest that evolution is any less solid than other parts of science.  I personally would be willing to mention Intelligent Design, but mainly by way of demonstrating that it is weaker.  However, in general the educational and liberal community is completely opposed to that.

I think many people misunderstand Intelligent Design.  It's not so much a theory as a method to attempt to invalidate the theory of Evolution.  If you can prove that something can't evolve naturally, then naturalistic evolution fails as a theory.  I personally think it's a bit of a fool's errand, but I think it's a perfectly legitimate way to test evolutionary theory, even if it never pans out.  I also think it's constructive to ask evolutionists to explain how certain systems evolved rather than simply assuming they must have somehow.

Also bear in mind that what the standard say and what teachers teach is not always the same thing.  Teacher do go off the rails.  It may be rare, but thanks to the global transmission of news, local mistakes are no longer local.

I know the liberal side isn't going to budge much past that point, which is why I picked it.  I was, in fact, looking for the middle ground.  In fact, I might even have been too generous, since the true middle ground is often the point at which both sides aren't really happy.  You aren't unhappy enough. ;)

Actually, as Wittgenstein points out in On Certainty, the justification for a doubt has to be as well-founded as the justification of any other similar proposition. Unless there is some particular reason you have for believing we are brains in jars, then there is no reason to believe we are (a delightful tautology). Similarly so - can you describe a well-founded reason for believing that we could have been created a moment ago?

A healthy measure of skepticism is a good thing, but it's important to be skeptical about the right things in the right ways, and not to treat epistemologically unequal statements as equally sound or plausible.

Quote from: Benoist;427847You're not seeing the point. EVEN if the numbers are WAY off. Think about it. An estimate of between 1,200 and 2,000 people actually executed. Over the course of nearly two HUNDRED YEARS.

Mao's Great Leap to Famine (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/opinion/16iht-eddikotter16.html)

45 million people.  Less than a decade.  And he had the Cultural Revolution as an encore (http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-nien-cheng9-2009nov09,0,5650075.story).

Quote from: John Morrow;427852Mao's Great Leap to Famine (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/opinion/16iht-eddikotter16.html)

45 million people.  Less than a decade.  And he had the Cultural Revolution as an encore (http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-nien-cheng9-2009nov09,0,5650075.story).

For instance. Absolutely.

So when I read people talk about the left's "momentary lapse of reason" during the 20th century and throw all kinds of ridiculous comparisons into the mix to sort of prove their point... all the while saying that, in not so many words, they are speaking some sort of actual Truth with a capital "T" since "as we all know," "The Truth has a Liberal bias"... but not actual numbers mind you, because of course, the numbers aren't comparable... - OH MY GOD MY BRAIN IT IS BLEEDING NAO.

How deluded can you get, really?

Not that Liberals can't have the right out of some issue or problem, they absolutely can and do, some times, but all the time, ever, the end, and it's so obvious if you don't see it you're somehow mentally retarded? Are you fucking kidding me? LOL

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;427850Actually, as Wittgenstein points out in On Certainty, the justification for a doubt has to be as well-founded as the justification of any other similar proposition. Unless there is some particular reason you have for believing we are brains in jars, then there is no reason to believe we are (a delightful tautology). Similarly so - can you describe a well-founded reason for believing that we could have been created a moment ago?

No, but I do think that many religious people believe they have a well-founded justification for believing that the Bible is literally or largely true based on their personal experience of God.  A lot of atheists assume that religious belief is "blind faith" but I think is often not the case and that many people feel the presence of God in their lives.  And, yes, I know skeptics can dismiss that as self-delusion or psychological issues.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;427850A healthy measure of skepticism is a good thing, but it's important to be skeptical about the right things in the right ways, and not to treat epistemologically unequal statements as equally sound or plausible.

That's a perfectly legitimate and useful point that I agree with.  But my point was not to advocate militant skepticism but to point out that people talk with absolute certainty about things which are not absolutely certain.

Quote from: Benoist;427847You're not seeing the point.

No, I saw your point... I was just commenting on that particular quote.

Quote from: John Morrow;427854No, but I do think that many religious people believe they have a well-founded justification for believing that the Bible is literally or largely true based on their personal experience of God.(snip) And, yes, I know skeptics can dismiss that as self-delusion or psychological issues.

The last straw that finally brought me OUT fundamentalist Christianity was doing a long hard study into the history of the bible... based entirely on materials I gathered from Christian bookstores. That's what made me a skeptic, not 'liberal' science teachers.

Quote from: Simlasa;427857The last straw that finally brought me OUT fundamentalist Christianity was doing a long hard study into the history of the bible... based entirely on materials I gathered from Christian bookstores. That's what made me a skeptic, not 'liberal' science teachers.

I'm not a Fundamentalist Christian and I personally think it often creates expectations that can destroy a person's faith when various aspects are challenged and don't hold up for a person.  For example, author Bart Ehrman writes books about textual differences in early Bible Manuscripts because such differences destroyed his faith in the inerrancy of the Bible.  Stephen Colbert, of all people, actually blew his socks off while trying to be funny (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224128/april-09-2009/bart-ehrman).

Quote from: John Morrow;427846While I understand your point, anyone who has seen the Matrix should understand the philosophical foundation upon which it was based, which is that we take just about everything on faith except for our own existence and concepts just a logic and mathematics.  We could all be brains in a vat or the universe could have been wished into existence seconds ago and we simply cannot prove beyond any doubt otherwise.

...that I can't prove with 100% certainty that I'm right...

...so the backlash is to reject guided evolution and even science and embrace Fundamentalism because science is positioned as being anti-God.

Prove to me, objectively and without any room for doubt, that we all existed a day ago.  I doubt you can without building on a fairly sizable pile of assumptions that are just that... assumptions, even if I agree with them.

The bolded parts are the reasons people think you have a hard time with reality.  No serious inquiry into philosophy starts out by positing The Matrix.  A serious inquiry or discussion would start with the actual underpinning to which you refer obliquely: Plato's Allegory of the Cave.  I bring it up directly, because I strongly suspect you think The Matrix is based on something much more contemporary, and I have grave doubt you would have made the connection.

And your last paragraph?  Those of us out here in the reality whose existence eludes you call that 'solipsism'.  It's also why I laughed about 'objective reality' and 'objective truth' when they were brought up previously.  Those always lead back to the ultimate discussion silencer:  "You can't prove anything exists!!".

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;427850Actually, as Wittgenstein points out in On Certainty, the justification for a doubt has to be as well-founded as the justification of any other similar proposition. Unless there is some particular reason you have for believing we are brains in jars, then there is no reason to believe we are (a delightful tautology). Similarly so - can you describe a well-founded reason for believing that we could have been created a moment ago?

A healthy measure of skepticism is a good thing, but it's important to be skeptical about the right things in the right ways, and not to treat epistemologically unequal statements as equally sound or plausible.

I am going to go ahead and cut-and-paste this into my later reply and get Brett to delete yours, if that is OK with you.  :)

Quote from: Simlasa;427839Just saying, not necessarily famous for policing their own... or owning up to past mistakes.

Yes, its bullshit. They discounted every case where the victim was handed over to the local authorities, who then executed them with the church's support.

In fact, there were probably less victims of the Inquisition than popular conception likely imagines, but these guys just chose to slant all their statistics. Its like if a mob boss were to say "I only whacked 4 people myself, for the other 79 I just gave them the kiss of death, and then someone else whacked them for me, so that shouldn't count".

RPGPundit

Quote from: StormBringer;427861The bolded parts are the reasons people think you have a hard time with reality.  No serious inquiry into philosophy starts out by positing The Matrix.  A serious inquiry or discussion would start with the actual underpinning to which you refer obliquely: Plato's Allegory of the Cave.  I bring it up directly, because I strongly suspect you think The Matrix is based on something much more contemporary, and I have grave doubt you would have made the connection.

No, I simply see no reason why I shouldn't use a popular cultural reference that everyone is almost certainly familiar with on this message board rather than a more obscure philosophical reference that many people may not be familiar with.  I don't know about you but I thought I was having an off-topic discussion on a role-playing message board and not having a "serious" inquiry or discussion or trying to impress the teacher.  The point of these arguments is not to impress people with what a smarty pants you are.  It's to explain the point so they can understand it, a point lost on people who believe they are smarter than everyone else.

Quote from: StormBringer;427861And your last paragraph?  Those of us out here in the reality whose existence eludes you call that 'solipsism'.  It's also why I laughed about 'objective reality' and 'objective truth' when they were brought up previously.  Those always lead back to the ultimate discussion silencer:  "You can't prove anything exists!!".

That you can't absolutely prove anything exists does not mean that it doesn't exist and that people perceive reality subjectively does not negate the existence of objective reality, a point that seems to be lost on many people.  The question is whether your subjective assessment of reality really matches reality or not, and simply claiming that it's self-evident or certain doesn't do that.

Quote from: StormBringer;427861The bolded parts are the reasons people think you have a hard time with reality.  No serious inquiry into philosophy starts out by positing The Matrix.  A serious inquiry or discussion would start with the actual underpinning to which you refer obliquely: Plato's Allegory of the Cave.  I bring it up directly, because I strongly suspect you think The Matrix is based on something much more contemporary, and I have grave doubt you would have made the connection.

Plato's allegory of the cave is not about how we're all brains in jars.  In fact, its arguing just the opposite; that our sense of questioning reality is a product of our own flawed perceptions and assumptions and not a problem with reality itself, the direct experience of which would remove all doubt.

QuoteAnd your last paragraph?  Those of us out here in the reality whose existence eludes you call that 'solipsism'.  It's also why I laughed about 'objective reality' and 'objective truth' when they were brought up previously.  Those always lead back to the ultimate discussion silencer:  "You can't prove anything exists!!".

Only among people who don't get the real message of Plato's Cave. Or the Buddha's truths.  Or the Matrix, for that matter.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John Morrow;427846Do I believe that the Earth is 5,000 years old?  No.  I'm not a Biblical literalist.  But I also know that I can't prove with 100% certainty that I'm right and the Biblical literalists are wrong.

I know where you're coming from, but there's a big difference between 100% actually knowing and there being 99.9repeating percent chance.  Geological dating methods are not exact, but even the most conservative scientists place the earth in the tens to hundreds of millions categories.  Saying the earth is 5000 years old is simply wrong, and the fact that there remains a one in a IPv6 size number chance that all our dating methods are wrong (which is big damn assumption), seizing on that as a basis for an argument ranges anywhere from idiotic to intellectually dishonest.  Since I know you're not either of those, I'll chalk it up to mental masturbation.

Quote from: John Morrow;427846Prove to me, objectively and without any room for doubt, that we all existed a day ago.  I doubt you can without building on a fairly sizable pile of assumptions that are just that... assumptions, even if I agree with them.

No, I can't prove I'm not a computer simulation of a human mind that is being run as an experiment at MIT circa 2164.  However I'm not going to jump in front of a train to prove my point.  

Frankly, you start down the matrix road as a defense of fundamentalist christian belief and you're stroking yourself as much as any postmodernist ever did.

Quote from: RPGPundit;427895Plato's allegory of the cave is not about how we're all brains in jars.  In fact, its arguing just the opposite; that our sense of questioning reality is a product of our own flawed perceptions and assumptions and not a problem with reality itself, the direct experience of which would remove all doubt.

I would say it has as much to do with what we are presented with as 'reality' as well.  The projections on the cave wall can be considered 'society', and how it presents only the images that will keep us from entertaining the idea of looking elsewhere for 'truth'.  Modern forms of electronic distractions have shown that the chains holding us in place are entirely metaphorical; the latest episode of Dancing with the Survivors of Jersey Shore will affix the mind more strongly than any iron shackles of which Plato could have conceived.

I am not sure Plato ever considered the possibility that Forms were in any way physical.  They existed outside physical experience and were only attainable through the mind.  The mind of a philosopher, of course.  Recent discoveries (http://www.astroengine.com/2009/01/is-the-universe-a-holographic-projection/) may be confirming the concept.

Quote from: John Morrow;427894No, I simply see no reason why I shouldn't use a popular cultural reference that everyone is almost certainly familiar with on this message board rather than a more obscure philosophical reference that many people may not be familiar with.  I don't know about you but I thought I was having an off-topic discussion on a role-playing message board and not having a "serious" inquiry or discussion or trying to impress the teacher.

Plato's Cave is pretty basic stuff... commonly referenced... not some obscure thought experiment. If bringing it up is seen as 'showing off'... that's kinda sad.

Quote from: Cole;427831You really gotta watch out for that kind of thing... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEiQ5hqT00U)

Oh, Repo Man, is there any topic you can't address?  :)

(That clip is pretty funny.)

This thread needs to be nuked for a host of reasons.

Nuked from Orbit! The only way to be sure.

Quote from: PaladinCA;427936Nuked from Orbit! The only way to be sure.

Look out, more jazz gangs!

Nuclear War. It's a motherfucker, don't you know! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6qbSHKzcmI)

Quote from: StormBringer;427926I am not sure Plato ever considered the possibility that Forms were in any way physical.  They existed outside physical experience and were only attainable through the mind.  The mind of a philosopher, of course.

He did and rejected the idea (pardon the pun) that they were. His paradigms for "forms" were numbers.

Platonic philosophy, while incredibly rich, is not particularly useful for sorting out why we ought to prioritise the epistemological status of scientific knowledge over religious belief. IMHO, it'd be more useful to look at Heidegger, Habermas, Agamben and others, i.e. the dreaded "post-modernists".

Back on the topic of Deadlands, I still hold that it's an inferior alternate history that unnecessarily deviates from history. If the goal is to create a setting in which racial prejudice is not as virulent and powerful as it was in the antebellum south, then the obvious decision is to set the game after the American Civil War, and to simply have that conclude as it did IRL. If the goal is to have the Confederacy, then it should be set either immediately prior to the Civil War, or during it. Trying to have both at the same time leads to absurdities and damages the plausibility of the setting for thoughtful players and DMs.

I'd put that as a more general principle, which is that alternate histories should begin with a clear and consistent idea of what one wants to explore through the alternate history, and deviate from real history only in service to that idea and in maintaining consistency with the imagined consequences of that idea.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;427976Back on the topic of Deadlands, I still hold that it's an inferior alternate history that unnecessarily deviates from history. If the goal is to create a setting in which racial prejudice is not as virulent and powerful as it was in the antebellum south, then the obvious decision is to set the game after the American Civil War, and to simply have that conclude as it did IRL. If the goal is to have the Confederacy, then it should be set either immediately prior to the Civil War, or during it. Trying to have both at the same time leads to absurdities and damages the plausibility of the setting for thoughtful players and DMs.

Being that it is a fictional setting, don't even bother with the Civil War.  It never happened in the Deadlands milieu.  The North was trying to take over like some kind of Empire, or the South was dealing with France in a bid to take over America, or any one of a dozen other scenarios that don't require a Civil War that was fought over slavery.

QuoteI'd put that as a more general principle, which is that alternate histories should begin with a clear and consistent idea of what one wants to explore through the alternate history, and deviate from real history only in service to that idea and in maintaining consistency with the imagined consequences of that idea.

I agree completely, but I think it is 'the imagined consequences of that idea' where most people get tripped up.  That takes quite a bit of work and research, and unless you are Steve Jackson, it doesn't often have a very high ROI for the intended audience.

I wanted to address this separately.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;427976He did and rejected the idea (pardon the pun) that they were. His paradigms for "forms" were numbers.

I bring it up because it can be easy to conflate the idea that the shadows on the cave wall are the actual illusions, and the escape from the cave is a flight into physical reality.  While Plato considered the outside of the cave the more real of the two, a casual read would likely be insufficient to clarify the difference.

From a more individual perspective, one could consider the shadows are the 'illusions' of society: wealth, status, and so on.  Turning from those into the world outside the cave would represent a commitment to an 'authentic life', freed from those constraints (via the magic of PHILOSOPHY!!).  In some ways, the allegory is as much lesson as marketing campaign.  :)  However, even this more liberal interpretation uses a common experience (the real world) as a stand-in for a pretty abstract concept.

QuotePlatonic philosophy, while incredibly rich, is not particularly useful for sorting out why we ought to prioritise the epistemological status of scientific knowledge over religious belief. IMHO, it'd be more useful to look at Heidegger, Habermas, Agamben and others, i.e. the dreaded "post-modernists".

Exactly.  

And of course, all Western philosophy is just footnotes to Plato.  ;)

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;427976Back on the topic of Deadlands, I still hold that it's an inferior alternate history that unnecessarily deviates from history. If the goal is to create a setting in which racial prejudice is not as virulent and powerful as it was in the antebellum south, then the obvious decision is to set the game after the American Civil War, and to simply have that conclude as it did IRL. If the goal is to have the Confederacy, then it should be set either immediately prior to the Civil War, or during it. Trying to have both at the same time leads to absurdities and damages the plausibility of the setting for thoughtful players and DMs.

I'd put that as a more general principle, which is that alternate histories should begin with a clear and consistent idea of what one wants to explore through the alternate history, and deviate from real history only in service to that idea and in maintaining consistency with the imagined consequences of that idea.

I'm not sure if I agree with all of your points here, but your basic premise is very sound.  And it kind of reveals my issue here: they did an alternate history for motives that had nothing to do with exploring an alternate history; thus of course it was a bad and nonsensical alternate history.

RPGPundit

Quote from: CRKrueger;427910I know where you're coming from, but there's a big difference between 100% actually knowing and there being 99.9repeating percent chance.  Geological dating methods are not exact, but even the most conservative scientists place the earth in the tens to hundreds of millions categories.

Correct, which is why you'll notice that I said schools should teach evolution and don't think they should be teaching young Earth creationism.  

Quote from: CRKrueger;427910Saying the earth is 5000 years old is simply wrong, and the fact that there remains a one in a IPv6 size number chance that all our dating methods are wrong (which is big damn assumption), seizing on that as a basis for an argument ranges anywhere from idiotic to intellectually dishonest.  Since I know you're not either of those, I'll chalk it up to mental masturbation.

It's not simply a matter of our dating methods being right or wrong, though there are certainly young Earth creationists who make that argument.  Once you allow for a deity who created the universe, a lot of things become possible that wouldn't be possible in a natural universe.  For example, the deity could create an Earth to look natural, much as the designers designed Central Park in New York City to look natural, even though most of it is artificial.  As I've said, I don't agree with young Earth creationists, but I don't think it's the government's business to tell their children that their parents are liars.  It's much like acknowledging the right of others to have freedom of speech, even if they use it to say things I consider awful or untrue.  To accept democracy and liberty is to accept that other people are going to use their votes and freedoms in ways that I might not like or approve of.  I feel the same way about religious liberty.

Quote from: CRKrueger;427910No, I can't prove I'm not a computer simulation of a human mind that is being run as an experiment at MIT circa 2164.  However I'm not going to jump in front of a train to prove my point.

Yet there are people who do kill themselves or let themselves be killed for their religious beliefs.  For example, Thích Quảng Đức burned himself alive to protest the treatment of Buddhists in South Vietnam in 1963.

Quote from: CRKrueger;427910Frankly, you start down the matrix road as a defense of fundamentalist christian belief and you're stroking yourself as much as any postmodernist ever did.

I'm not defending Fundamentalist Christian beliefs so much as I'm defending people's rights to have such beliefs.  I've yet to meet one person who doesn't have some sort of belief that runs against the preponderance of evidence and it's uncertainty that drives differences of opinion, be they political, religious, scientific, or even about role-playing theory.  If one side of political debates cornered the market in truth, reality, and getting things right, don't you think they'd have one the debate for good by now?  

It's also very dangerous to teach reality and the truth as an orthodoxy and those who disagree as heretics.  The end game of that line of thinking almost always leads to some combination of oppression, reeducation camps, imprisonment, torture, and murder of those who refuse to think the correct way.  That's why so many well-intentioned left-wing revolutions "for the people" end up murdering large numbers of those people when those people refuse to think and act the right way.  It's not just a "whoopsie" one-off mistake.  It happens again and again around the world because it's the end result of a certain line of thought.

Quote from: Simlasa;427927Plato's Cave is pretty basic stuff... commonly referenced... not some obscure thought experiment. If bringing it up is seen as 'showing off'... that's kinda sad.

What's showing off is complaining that I'm using a vulgar pop media reference instead of a formal philosophical argument.  That's pedantry.  And as for Plato's Cave being "commonly referenced", among whom are you talking about?

Quote from: PaladinCA;427936This thread needs to be nuked for a host of reasons.

I'm amazed it hasn't been moved to a different forum yet, but it was something of a political hand grenade from the beginning.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;427976Back on the topic of Deadlands, I still hold that it's an inferior alternate history that unnecessarily deviates from history. If the goal is to create a setting in which racial prejudice is not as virulent and powerful as it was in the antebellum south, then the obvious decision is to set the game after the American Civil War, and to simply have that conclude as it did IRL. If the goal is to have the Confederacy, then it should be set either immediately prior to the Civil War, or during it. Trying to have both at the same time leads to absurdities and damages the plausibility of the setting for thoughtful players and DMs.

The goal was, I think, to basically have all the trappings of antibellum Southernness with none of the racism.  Having the South be defeated wouldn't have given them that, nor would have slavery.  I don't think "thoughtful players and DMs" was their target audience any more than it's the target audience for Dragonstar, Battlelords of the 23rd Century, or Broncosaurus Rex.  The criticism that RPGPundit raised in this thread was not that it was implausible but that it was insulting.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;427976He did and rejected the idea (pardon the pun) that they were. His paradigms for "forms" were numbers.

Platonic philosophy, while incredibly rich, is not particularly useful for sorting out why we ought to prioritise the epistemological status of scientific knowledge over religious belief. IMHO, it'd be more useful to look at Heidegger, Habermas, Agamben and others, i.e. the dreaded "post-modernists".

[...]

Quote from: StormBringer;428000I wanted to address this separately.

I bring it up because it can be easy to conflate the idea that the shadows on the cave wall are the actual illusions, and the escape from the cave is a flight into physical reality.  While Plato considered the outside of the cave the more real of the two, a casual read would likely be insufficient to clarify the difference.

[...]

I can see now how using Plato's Cave would have been much simpler, more precise, and better understood than my Matrix example. :rolleyes:

Quote from: RPGPundit;428001I'm not sure if I agree with all of your points here, but your basic premise is very sound.  And it kind of reveals my issue here: they did an alternate history for motives that had nothing to do with exploring an alternate history; thus of course it was a bad and nonsensical alternate history.

Absolutely.  They were mashing genres and wanted certain trappings.  But being bad and nonsensical alternate history is a very different question from whether it's insulting or offensive alternate history.  Is part of the reason why you find it insulting and offensive that you are taking it too seriously?

I don't have a problem with people holding religious beliefs, even fundamentalist ones.  I have a problem with institutionalizing those fundamentalist beliefs by pretending they have an equivalently valid point of view.

BTW, I see the idea of irreducible complexity to be a valid argument, however, again and again it is proven wrong.

Quote from: John Morrow;428008The goal was, I think, to basically have all the trappings of antibellum Southernness with none of the racism.  Having the South be defeated wouldn't have given them that, nor would have slavery.  I don't think "thoughtful players and DMs" was their target audience any more than it's the target audience for Dragonstar, Battlelords of the 23rd Century, or Broncosaurus Rex.  The criticism that RPGPundit raised in this thread was not that it was implausible but that it was insulting.

I agree with you that it was probably their intent, but I don't think it was well-thought-through. The trappings of the antebellum South that weren't slave-based could have been dealt with by setting the game in say, the Louisiana Territory north of the Missouri line prior to the Civil War (the Old West).

As for not having an intended audience that would notice, I think that's a poor choice on their part from a business perspective. It's true many people won't notice sloppy setting-construction, but you're intentionally choosing in that case to drive away or frustrate people who will. It also has the possibility to generate bad press for your game, as this thread illustrates. I don't think the effort required to think things through carefully is so onerous that it's worth skipping.

Quote from: RPGPundit;428001I'm not sure if I agree with all of your points here, but your basic premise is very sound.  And it kind of reveals my issue here: they did an alternate history for motives that had nothing to do with exploring an alternate history; thus of course it was a bad and nonsensical alternate history.

RPGPundit

I'm prepared to be fairly tolerant of what counts as an "idea" in my above statements. If the idea is to emulate a genre, then emulate away, so long as the changes to the setting are designed to aid that emulation.

In the specific example of Deadlands, I don't see how the Confederacy's continued existence is relevant to an Occult Pulp Western, so it kind of annoys me.

Quote from: John Morrow;428009I can see now how using Plato's Cave would have been much simpler, more precise, and better understood than my Matrix example. :rolleyes:

Enh, I got no problem with using the Matrix as an example.

Quote from: StormBringer;427998Being that it is a fictional setting, don't even bother with the Civil War.  It never happened in the Deadlands milieu.  The North was trying to take over like some kind of Empire, or the South was dealing with France in a bid to take over America, or any one of a dozen other scenarios that don't require a Civil War that was fought over slavery.

As I said to John, I'd probably set it in the Louisiana Territory north of the Missouri line post-Compromise. I'm not an expert on mid-19th century America or its fictional representations, but it strikes me that there are plenty of great Westerns that get by without ever mentioning the Confederacy (albeit there are some that do).

QuoteI agree completely, but I think it is 'the imagined consequences of that idea' where most people get tripped up.  That takes quite a bit of work and research, and unless you are Steve Jackson, it doesn't often have a very high ROI for the intended audience.

I think it depends on how you deal with it as a gaming resource. I find a lot of alternate history RPGs fail to explain how the changes allow you to tell interesting stories / run interesting games that wouldn't otherwise be possible. If more settings answered that, we might see people expressing more interest in buying them.

The Confederacy and the continued Civil War may not be necessary for any given campaign, but the inclusion of those elements is certainly consistent with the tone of the game.  There are plenty of occult civil war stories and Westerns in which the Civil War is part of the backdrop - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and Dances with Wolves come immediately to mind - neither is about the Civil War (or history at all), but the Civil War can be an effective McGuffin to say something about a character or just put an extra level on some ongoing conflict.

It has not been stressed enough that this game is based on the least realistic fictions of the Wild West and plays with images and archetypes, not real events.  Hucksters exist because someone wanted to wear the outfit of "The Gambler" and hold a deck of cards and imagined a way to make that a playable hack and slash option.  Deadlands reminds me of superhero comics, in which a character is defined by his costume and powers, and explanations are tacked on later.  That does not make it bad alternate history, any more than Spider-Man is bad science fiction or a bad analysis of the issue of vigilantism.

Quote from: John Morrow;428009I can see now how using Plato's Cave would have been much simpler, more precise, and better understood than my Matrix example. :rolleyes:

Because if there isn't a singular, uncomplicated, irrefutable answer, the whole idea must be wrong.  'Nuance' is a tool of the devil.

I mentioned this in another thread.  There can be no discussion, just transmitted wisdom; speaking back and forth is merely a matter of aligning the other person's incorrect views.  That the hierarchical communication I pointed out.  If there is a concept or idea that fails to garner 100% absolute agreement by all the involved parties on every single point, then the whole concept is utterly without merit.

This is why I laugh when 'objective truth' is brought up.  It always ends up right fucking here.  No allowance whatsoever is permitted for nuance and complexity; there is one answer, and one answer only.  And that answer is simply the one that has been handed down from on high.  It is never backed up by so much as even a wisp of anecdotal evidence:  "...science is positioned as being anti-God".  This is utter bullshit.  The only people that position science as being anti-God are religious people (and that includes atheists).  I have never, ever, never, never, ever had a science teacher say anything to attempt a repudiation of God, nor have I ever, ever, ever read a peer reviewed science article that intended to 'dis-prove God' or any such nonsense.

As much as it would play nicely into your heroic internal narrative, you aren't persecuted, John.  You aren't being oppressed by the diabolic Liberals in your speech, actions or thoughts.  There isn't a War on Christmas, and no one is trying to deny anyone the right to believe whatever they want, no matter how often you imply so.  No one gives two shits about the level of cognitive dissonance any of these things engenders in conservative/authoritarian thought processes.

I don't claim conservatism is irrelevant and disappearing just to be all cool and shit.  It is exactly because conservatives are terrified of change that I say this.  Whether it is comfortable for them or not, the world changes.  Yesterday, people couldn't be openly homosexual and serve in the military.  Today, they can.  It doesn't fucking matter what conservatives think about homosexuals.  It's a done deal.  No one wants to go back to the old ways, because the old ways sucked for most people.

And circling back around to the original jumping off point, the Civil War was actually fought to demonstrate that obstruction of progress results in your ass being handed to you.  In this instance, it was slavery that stood in the way of progress.  Plain and simple.  Looking for the 'objective truth'?  That is about as close as it gets.

One more data point to show that the losing side of history is almost entirely populated by people who fetishize the past.

(A quicky note to Pseudoephedrine, and I am bowing out of the thread)

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;428021As I said to John, I'd probably set it in the Louisiana Territory north of the Missouri line post-Compromise. I'm not an expert on mid-19th century America or its fictional representations, but it strikes me that there are plenty of great Westerns that get by without ever mentioning the Confederacy (albeit there are some that do).

Drop me a line if you ever get started on something like that, I would definitely be interested in contributing.

QuoteI think it depends on how you deal with it as a gaming resource. I find a lot of alternate history RPGs fail to explain how the changes allow you to tell interesting stories / run interesting games that wouldn't otherwise be possible. If more settings answered that, we might see people expressing more interest in buying them.

A good point; the publishers probably assume that the players will instinctively grasp how to incorporate the changes into a session or campaign, or why the changes the selected are significant in the first place.

Quote from: John Morrow;428010Absolutely.  They were mashing genres and wanted certain trappings.  But being bad and nonsensical alternate history is a very different question from whether it's insulting or offensive alternate history.  Is part of the reason why you find it insulting and offensive that you are taking it too seriously?

It isn't meant to be taken as comedy.   It may be that it is meant to be taken as utterly light-hearted fare, but if that's the case, why have the detailed history in the first place?
If they had said "fuck yeah!! the wild west that never existed! Black CSA captains! Zombie Gamblers! Women Sheriffs!! Why not?? FUCK YEAHH!!" and left it at that, the way that Gamma World does with the whole question of "what the fuck happened", then the tone would be light-hearted.  But that they tried to explain "no, you see, what really happened is that they started to fight the war, and then the CSA realized it needed black people to fight so it freed them, and then everyone discovered that they liked the negroes after all, and they gave them all the equal rights! Also, women are now absolutely equal too, for some other stupid reason" means that they were issuing a demand to be taken seriously, while feeding us tripe and telling us that it was fillet mignon.

You don't want your alternate history timeline torn to pieces? Then DON'T MAKE A FUCKING TIMELINE, or at least make one that isn't utter crap.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StormBringer;428042Because if there isn't a singular, uncomplicated, irrefutable answer, the whole idea must be wrong.  'Nuance' is a tool of the devil.

No, nitwit, because I was trying to convey a point clearly.  My example did.  Bringing up Plato's Cave started a mini-debate over exactly what Plato's Cave means.  That's not the sign of a clearly conveyed idea.

Quote from: StormBringer;428042I mentioned this in another thread.  There can be no discussion, just transmitted wisdom; speaking back and forth is merely a matter of aligning the other person's incorrect views.  That the hierarchical communication I pointed out.  If there is a concept or idea that fails to garner 100% absolute agreement by all the involved parties on every single point, then the whole concept is utterly without merit.

I didn't say Plato's Cave was without merit or should not be discussed.  What I'm saying is that clarity of communication matters more than appearing "serious".  

Quote from: StormBringer;428042This is why I laugh when 'objective truth' is brought up.  It always ends up right fucking here.  No allowance whatsoever is permitted for nuance and complexity; there is one answer, and one answer only.

Dude, you are the one claiming that reality has a political bias.  You are the one claiming that things shouldn't be taught in schools.  You really should talk to your therapist about your projection problem.

Quote from: StormBringer;428042And that answer is simply the one that has been handed down from on high.  It is never backed up by so much as even a wisp of anecdotal evidence:  "...science is positioned as being anti-God".  This is utter bullshit.  The only people that position science as being anti-God are religious people (and that includes atheists).  I have never, ever, never, never, ever had a science teacher say anything to attempt a repudiation of God, nor have I ever, ever, ever read a peer reviewed science article that intended to 'dis-prove God' or any such nonsense.

I presume you've never seen that obscure movie Inherit the Wind, never heard of Richard Dawkins, and never ever had a teacher that went off the official curriculum, and believe teachers would never ever say anything anti-religious in a classroom (http://www2.ocregister.com/articles/corbett-religion-court-2387684-farnan-selna), right?  And atheists never, ever, mock God or religious people, right?

Quote from: StormBringer;428042I don't claim conservatism is irrelevant and disappearing just to be all cool and shit.  It is exactly because conservatives are terrified of change that I say this.  Whether it is comfortable for them or not, the world changes.  Yesterday, people couldn't be openly homosexual and serve in the military.  Today, they can.  It doesn't fucking matter what conservatives think about homosexuals.  It's a done deal.  No one wants to go back to the old ways, because the old ways sucked for most people.

History never moves in one direction because things are rarely as simple as choosing the thing that sucks versus the thing that doesn't suck.  Most things simultaneously suck in some ways and don't suck in other ways.  While there are certainly those opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds and irrational hatred, the objection to gays in the military is far more fundamental for many people and is essentially the same reason why they don't want co-ed bathrooms, why men and women aren't randomly assigned to live together in college dorms, and why we don't send men out alone on camping trips with Girl Scouts.  Most people feel uncomfortable changing, showering, and going to the bathroom in front of people who may be sexually attracted to them.  And before you tell me about shower curtains and stalls, there are military facilities that don't have them or much privacy at all, even around the toilets, and such facilities aren't available in the field.  Is there really something terribly wrong about feeling that way?  I suppose I should also add that the driving force behind coed dormitory rooms in several colleges is gay and lesbian students who would feel more comfortable sharing a room with a person of the opposite sex, for much the same reason.

Quote from: StormBringer;428042And circling back around to the original jumping off point, the Civil War was actually fought to demonstrate that obstruction of progress results in your ass being handed to you.  In this instance, it was slavery that stood in the way of progress.  Plain and simple.  Looking for the 'objective truth'?  That is about as close as it gets.

Not all change is progress and not all causes as noble as ending slavery, even if you think they are.  As someone who started out this thread mocking the idea of "a singular, uncomplicated, irrefutable answer" and nuance being "a tool of the devil", you sure do seem to like to claim that everything has a single, uncomplicated, irrefutable answer and don't seem to have much room for nuance.

Quote from: StormBringer;428042One more data point to show that the losing side of history is almost entirely populated by people who fetishize the past.

Because history has always been a one-way march in a single direction and things never cycle back to the way they once were?  Do you really believe that history operates like a ratchet?

Quote from: RPGPundit;428104It isn't meant to be taken as comedy.   It may be that it is meant to be taken as utterly light-hearted fare, but if that's the case, why have the detailed history in the first place?

To fill up books that they could sell.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;428018In the specific example of Deadlands, I don't see how the Confederacy's continued existence is relevant to an Occult Pulp Western, so it kind of annoys me.

Well, apparently game designers really do believe it has something absolutely central to do with it, not even occult, just plain westerns.  Consider that Aces & Eights ALSO did an alternate history (one that was much much better conceived, mind you), where the CSA still exists.  Mind you, there it is less "southern glory" and more the third world shithole it would have very quickly turned into had the confederacy survived the war.

But yeah, considering that the defeat of the south and subsequent reconstruction is part of the fodder for a lot of what made the wild west, I don't quite understand the obsession with keeping the Confederacy alive in some geek minds.  I've met a lot of Confederacy fanatics among geeks, most of them were not at least overt racists, and none of those I met thus far were southerners or had any personal connection.

RPGPundit

One of the problems with a combat-oriented Wild West game is that there are generally not enough excuses for bloodshed.  The shootout at the O.K. Corral is well and good, but it didn't happen every week.  The Civil War also helps explain why the "cowboys" are well armed and super powerful, but not able to defeat the various other factions.  The War also creates a kind of epic quest for players - without the war, it is just a matter of time until the West is settled.

As far as the timeline, I think you underestimate the American obsession with the nineteenth century, and the extent to which reality and fiction have been blended since contemporary accounts.  The dime novels, stories, films, TV shows, and comic books set in the Wild West have always used real dates and real places, even when the stories were pure escapism.  It's like starting a book with genuine facts about relative orbits and the technical challenges of sending humans to Mars and then you get there and it's Barsoom.

Looking at just the timeline might give you the impression that this game wants to be seen as a legitimate alternative history, but I think it's just as likely that players and gamemasters are going to want to know what year is the right year to have a duel between Billy the Kid and Dracula.  Looking at the powers and monsters and scenarios, it's very clear to me that the game was designed by making doodles after watching High Plains Drifter.  History is just fuel for the absurdities, and makes the fictions easier to remember for those of us who know our country, like putting a City of Lost Angels where Los Angeles is, and Shan Fan on the site of San Fran.  That's not speculative, that's pure fantasy.

Morrow is right, of course, that the primary goal of the company is to move product and a sourcebook set in Salt Lake City will capture more interest than a sourcebook set in Tall Sake City.

Another point that just occurred to me is that the twenty year conflict with smaller neutral states turns the Wild West into a Cold War clone, with all the opportunities for spycraft implied thereby.  Post-slavery CSA resembles post-Stalin USSR - still plenty of evil, but not so monstrous that you can't reasonably expect to find honourable, intelligent agents on that side.

Wait?!

Is this the NEW Deadlands, the OLD Deadlands, or is this endemic to both?

'Cause I only has the old Deadlands and I don't remember a damn thing about how they treated Slavery Re: the CSA.  I do remember vague pictures of black characters, for what that's worth, just like they had women sheriffs, and the default, generally unspoken, assumption of all RPGs that racism and sexism may have existed in real life but it only exists in the game universe if you want it to.

Yes its silly, it may even be facile and mildly insulting in it dimunitization of real horrors, but that is/was Gaming... and I think its more fun that way.

Quote from: RPGPundit;428111Consider that Aces & Eights ALSO did an alternate history (one that was much much better conceived, mind you), where the CSA still exists.  

Aces and Eights also has a zombie sourcebook (http://www.kenzerco.com/product_info.php?products_id=737) for those who want to go that route, so it's one step closer to doing Deadlands better than Deadlands. Best of all, the sourcebook is FREE. And it's freakin' sweet.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: Spike;428672I do remember vague pictures of black characters, for what that's worth, just like they had women sheriffs, and the default, generally unspoken, assumption of all RPGs that racism and sexism may have existed in real life but it only exists in the game universe if you want it to.

Yes its silly, it may even be facile and mildly insulting in it dimunitization of real horrors, but that is/was Gaming... and I think its more fun that way.

Normally, I might agree that RPGs should gloss over the racial and gender issues of the past.  I don't in this case, however, because it was a core part of the CSA and their beliefs.

It's the same way I'd be offended by a WWII "reimagining" that featured a kinder, gentler Hitler who runs the German army with his best pal, Field Marshall Bernie Goldstein.

Quote from: jgants;428845It's the same way I'd be offended by a WWII "reimagining" that featured a kinder, gentler Hitler who runs the German army with his best pal, Field Marshall Bernie Goldstein.

Its a godwin, but basically yes.  And let's face it, certain military-geeks love the confederacy and the nazis alike, because they're obsessed with either their generals, or their strategy, or their cool uniforms, or their tech (not so much the latter in the case of the CSA), or their general "attitude", and at the same time they're too autistic to understand the monstrousness of the racism inherent in both cultures.  Its not that the geeks in question are racists themselves, they're just too retarded at the basic social-emotional level to understand that you can't just say "ok yeah, they had some slaves/killed some jews but that's not what i care about, what i care about was their awesome uniforms and accents!",  that this is not in fact an acceptable excuse for hailing them.

At least the Nazis are so utterly atrocious that only the most utterly worthless of lawncrappers will actually try to present them positively; no game designer has done so to my knowledge (and no, the nazi tards who wrote that one racial-war game don't count), and instead have to be satisfied with creating nazi-like clones (like RIFTS' Coalition, which even then get MOSTLY presented as seriously villainous by the authors, and only some of the most social-retard fans want to think of as the great heroes).

But because we're far enough away in time, and because it was slavery and not genocide  (and note, I'm certainly not trying to put both groups at the same spot on the scale of evil, as it were), it seems that the geeks have no such qualms about the CSA.  They can feel free to create a  world where Robert E. Lee shares command of the valiant Confederate armies with some black guy (who's also probably totally kickass in a mary-sue way) fighting against the evil and oppressive forces of the north and protecting the happy negroes of virginia from the evil general sherman, and think that this somehow is "ok" and is like, totally the "opposite" of racism.

Honestly, some days I feel like this hobby is just drowning in the social retardation.

RPGPundit

Maybe I should repeat my question:

Is this directed solely at the new edition of the game or at the old edition of the game, or both editions of the game?


Just to check myself I checked the old book on my shelf and, after about ten minutes of searching found a single solitary line regarding the CSA's position on slavery.

Relevant to the discussion: The slaves were freed in 1864, a year after Gettysburg.  That's it.  While the experts and professional confederate states historians among us can point out that they wrote their very government to prevent that, at the time I was playing the game my room mate, a non-gaming southern black (so you don't think he was racist about it...) was telling me that the south would have freed the slaves eventually, civil war or not, because they were increasing their industrialization and the slavery model of economics was simply not viable in an increasingly mechanized system.  

Thus, to me and to a lot of people who just want to play cowboys and zombies (circa 1997 or so...), a toss off line like the one I mentioned, buried in a bunch of other stuff about deals with the British going bad and annexing california, is plausible enough.

Though I take it that it is actually MORE offensive since they don't even get a sidebar.  The sidebar is reserved for the women.

Arguments like this is why I refuse to game with historians in historical settings, physicists in sci-fi, and people who read Drizz't novels in Forgotten Realms.  

Great forum fodder, though.

(I got into an "Alternate WWII" game once where the Germans weren't Nazis and were the aggrieved party trying to stave off the godless commies and money hungry imperial brits and Americans and oh god it was so transparent what the GM was trying to do/say I quit posthaste...  He fit into Pundit's thesis about certain military/history geeks.)

Quote from: RPGPundit;428874Honestly, some days I feel like this hobby is just drowning in the social retardation.

RPGPundit

Indeed; see the Shadowrun book "WAR!" wherein you can kill Jew ghosts at Auschwitz to get magic items.

No, I'm not kidding.  Yes, that's really what you can do.

Quote from: Spike;428897Arguments like this is why I refuse to game with historians in historical settings, physicists in sci-fi, and people who read Drizz't novels in Forgotten Realms.

In the defense of historians, one of our best players is a historian, but he's usually kind enough to leave his degree at the door and buy in whatever wacky alt-hist we're rocking this week (and even concoct a few of his own). And his critical insights do make for a decent discussion over a beer, away from the gaming table.

He did throw a hissy fit when we contradicted canon in a Dragonlance game, though. Go figure. :D

Quote from: thedungeondelver;428901Indeed; see the Shadowrun book "WAR!" wherein you can kill Jew ghosts at Auschwitz to get magic items.

No, I'm not kidding.  Yes, that's really what you can do.

*cringe*

Quote from: thedungeondelver;428901Indeed; see the Shadowrun book "WAR!" wherein you can kill Jew ghosts at Auschwitz to get magic items.

No, I'm not kidding.  Yes, that's really what you can do.

Jesus fucking Moroni.

RPGpundit

Quote from: thedungeondelver;428898(I got into an "Alternate WWII" game once where the Germans weren't Nazis and were the aggrieved party trying to stave off the godless commies and money hungry imperial brits and Americans and oh god it was so transparent what the GM was trying to do/say I quit posthaste...  He fit into Pundit's thesis about certain military/history geeks.)

Let me correct you in one thing, its not "miltary/history geeks", its "military-history geeks".  That is to say, there are a very very tiny group of "history geeks", people like me, who care about details aside from the size of german howitzers or whatever, and who do not cream over nazis because being a real historian gives you a very good innoculation to that particularly disgusting type of romanticism.  Then there's the "Military history geeks", most of which are not in any way shape or form actual historians, who are just obsessed with macho militarism and seem drawn to idealize and revise the most disgusting examples of the same.

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Butcher;428905In the defense of historians, one of our best players is a historian, but he's usually kind enough to leave his degree at the door and buy in whatever wacky alt-hist we're rocking this week (and even concoct a few of his own). And his critical insights do make for a decent discussion over a beer, away from the gaming table.

He did throw a hissy fit when we contradicted canon in a Dragonlance game, though. Go figure. :D

I don't have any problem at all with "wacky alt-history" that makes no effort to try to pretend its a credible perspective on how things might go.  My issue is when certain writers of certain games (or theoretically, the GMs of certain homebrew campaigns) try to make claims that their alt-history is somehow credible when it so clearly is not.  
Aces & Eights is an example of an alt-history game that is fairly credible.
Castle falkenstein is a wacky historical game that isn't credible but doesn't seem to make any serious claims to be credible about its alt-history, so I don't have any real problem with it.
Games like Deadlands and Roma Imperious, on the other hand, have utterly absurd and impossible alt-histories but try to make a big deal out of the veneer of credibility (Roma Imperious much moreso than Deadlands, mind you), and thus piss me of immensely.

If you want to be a stupid fun gonzo game that makes no sense historically speaking, that's awesome, just make sure you stick to that and don't try to start pretending that "it could have really happened this way".

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;428917If you want to be a stupid fun gonzo game that makes no sense historically speaking, that's awesome, just make sure you stick to that and don't try to start pretending that "it could have really happened this way".

I understand the distinction, but where is it exacly that Deadlands makes a claim to verisimilitude?

Just curious. For what it's worth, I found their handwaving away of the racist issue... ill-advised, to put it mildly, and well worth the panning it's getting in this thread, with or without claims to consistency.

And speaking of Castle Falkenstein (one of the best games ever, BTW) and alt-hist Western games, has anyone here ever read a copy of the CF American sourcebook, Sixguns & Sorcery? What's it like?

Quote from: RPGPundit;428917Games like Deadlands and Roma Imperious, on the other hand, have utterly absurd and impossible alt-histories but try to make a big deal out of the veneer of credibility (Roma Imperious much moreso than Deadlands, mind you), and thus piss me of immensely.

If you want to be a stupid fun gonzo game that makes no sense historically speaking, that's awesome, just make sure you stick to that and don't try to start pretending that "it could have really happened this way".

RPGpundit

Seriously?

Deadlands???

Again: Are we even looking at the same setting?  You know: The one with kung fu pirates navigating the canyons of california and undead cowboys working for the four horsemen of the apocalypse freed by a pissed of Indian (er... native american...) shaman and Doyle's book of games being a major fucking grimoire of spells for literally no reason at all?!

This isn't a 'wacky alt-history' but a misguided attempt to solve the question: What would have happened in the US Civil War if there was coal made of the compressed souls of the damned you could burn for magic juice?

Spike - I submit that the question is even less serious, something like "What excuse would allow seven totally different sci-fi/fantasy/pulp/horror genres to coexist with cowboys?"

See also: Brisco County, Jr.

Quote from: RPGPundit;428913Let me correct you in one thing, its not "miltary/history geeks", its "military-history geeks".  That is to say, there are a very very tiny group of "history geeks", people like me, who care about details aside from the size of german howitzers or whatever, and who do not cream over nazis because being a real historian gives you a very good innoculation to that particularly disgusting type of romanticism.  Then there's the "Military history geeks", most of which are not in any way shape or form actual historians, who are just obsessed with macho militarism and seem drawn to idealize and revise the most disgusting examples of the same.

RPGPundit

Yes, that's what I was going for; I chose the wrong punctuation there is all.

Quote from: Esgaldil;428987Spike - I submit that the question is even less serious, something like "What excuse would allow seven totally different sci-fi/fantasy/pulp/horror genres to coexist with cowboys?"

See also: Brisco County, Jr.

My formulation of the question was to address the apparent premise assumed by this thread.

Quote from: jgants;428845Normally, I might agree that RPGs should gloss over the racial and gender issues of the past.  I don't in this case, however, because it was a core part of the CSA and their beliefs.

I think that's a good general rule to follow.  The problem with that here is that years of propaganda by Lost Cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy) advocates have convinced an awful lot of people who don't know any better (but probably should) that the CSA and Civil War wasn't all about slavery or even significantly about slavery, which it was.  

Quote from: jgants;428845It's the same way I'd be offended by a WWII "reimagining" that featured a kinder, gentler Hitler who runs the German army with his best pal, Field Marshall Bernie Goldstein.

How about "reimagining" the Soviet Union to be a kindler gentler place resembling what was found on propaganda posters, or at least downplaying the gulags and mass murder, like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Star) (which was adapted as an RPG setting) or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman:_Red_Son), which one could also argue is offensive.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/RedStarCover_01.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Supermanredson.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/Superman_in_Red_Son.png)

I sometimes think that we were lucky that the Nazis were just so unequivocally over-the-top evil that it's nigh-impossible to apologize for them or romanticize them without looking evil, otherwise, we probably would see a lot more romanticization of them the way people do romanticize the CSA, 20th century communism, the French Revolution, and, oh yeah, I probably shouldn't forget this:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/SpaceBattleshipYamato.jpg)

At least Klan romanticism seems to be long dead:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Birth-of-a-nation-poster-color.jpg)

Quote from: RPGPundit;428874Its a godwin, but basically yes.  And let's face it, certain military-geeks love the confederacy and the nazis alike, because they're obsessed with either their generals, or their strategy, or their cool uniforms, or their tech (not so much the latter in the case of the CSA), or their general "attitude", and at the same time they're too autistic to understand the monstrousness of the racism inherent in both cultures.  Its not that the geeks in question are racists themselves, they're just too retarded at the basic social-emotional level to understand that you can't just say "ok yeah, they had some slaves/killed some jews but that's not what i care about, what i care about was their awesome uniforms and accents!",  that this is not in fact an acceptable excuse for hailing them.



RPGPundit

It's right up there with people who think commisars in 40k are cool. Communists have killed more people than anyone else in the history of the world, but you're not allowed to say that, or the Left might get their panties in a bind.

Quote from: danbuter;429006It's right up there with people who think commisars in 40k are cool. Communists have killed more people than anyone else in the history of the world...

Excepting capitalists, of course. The body count of white imperialism makes Mao look like a rank amateur.


I'm generally leery of whitewashing the Soviets, just as I am of white-washing any other totalitarian or oppressive regime. I would give the Mark Millar Superman thing a pass because it focuses on the crimes of the Soviet government about as much as regular Superman comics focus on the crimes of the American government (that is, minimally, if at all). Also because it's more of  a thought-experiment that reflects on the cultural contingency of Superman's valorisation than an attempt to justify Soviet ideology.

Quote from: danbuter;429006It's right up there with people who think commisars in 40k are cool. Communists have killed more people than anyone else in the history of the world, but you're not allowed to say that, or the Left might get their panties in a bind.

You can say that as much as you like, and it will go toward  explaining why genuine communists are at the very fringe of the modern left while moderate social-democracy is at the centre.

On the right, meanwhile, the same brand of fearful, racist, homophobic, anti-science religious zealot who goes in for theocracy and white supremacism is still running the show.  Screaming "but...communism!" doesn't hide the fact that modern conservatism is no different to dark ages conservatism.

Quote from: John Morrow;429005How about "reimagining" the Soviet Union to be a kindler gentler place resembling what was found on propaganda posters, or at least downplaying the gulags and mass murder, like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Star) (which was adapted as an RPG setting) or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman:_Red_Son), which one could also argue is offensive.

Haven't read them.  I'd have to see them in context.  They might be offensive, they might not (it would depend on what light the Russian communist angle and the related atrocities were presented in).

As far as Russia goes, I'm generally offended more by the frequent romanticization (not to mention canonization) of Nicholas II and the Romanovs, who frankly weren't all that much better that the Bolsheviks.

But as far as romaniticism of communism in general goes, the "Che Guevara = cool" thing is probably the one I find most objectionable (though moreso because of the strain I get from rolling my eyes over people who do it).

Why it is that people can't figure out two opposing factions can both be evil is beyond me.

Quote from: Hairfoot;429035You can say that as much as you like, and it will go toward  explaining why genuine communists are at the very fringe of the modern left while moderate social-democracy is at the centre.

On the right, meanwhile, the same brand of fearful, racist, homophobic, anti-science religious zealot who goes in for theocracy and white supremacism is still running the show.  Screaming "but...communism!" doesn't hide the fact that modern conservatism is no different to dark ages conservatism.

I mean, right, you've got the left who completely eschew those values (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd), and has no outspoken violent elements at all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ayers) which makes them totally awesome.  Meanwhile, the right is filled with rich white racists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice) who can't stand so called 'mixed' racial types (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell).  Good call.

(for the link-shy: I'm calling you a fucking idiot.  Because you are.)

Hey, Dungeondelver !

Very Good choices on your second link there.


- Ed C.

Quote from: The Butcher;428919I understand the distinction, but where is it exacly that Deadlands makes a claim to verisimilitude?

Just curious. For what it's worth, I found their handwaving away of the racist issue... ill-advised, to put it mildly, and well worth the panning it's getting in this thread, with or without claims to consistency.

The moment they made a chronology that wasn't meant to be seen as tongue-in-cheek, they basically made that claim.  But they get really bad about it in the sourcebooks, particularly the "back east" sourcebooks, that try very very hard to seem quite "credible" and serious, and fail at it spectacularly as I recall.

Part of the fault for all this could lie in that Deadlands is a product of its time.  Had it come out in, say, 2003, it would likely never have tried to be "credible and serious", it would have worn its gonzo colours with pride.  But having come out in the 90s, at the height of the "story-based" WW-style metaplot-and-pretentiousness days, it was bound to be infected by that way of thinking to believe that you couldn't really just be "mindless" fun or you were in some way inferior.

RPGPundit

And dudes, let's try to keep the focus in this particular thread on the Deadlands setting; which as far as I know has no communists in it.

If you want to criticize an RPG setting that romanticizes or revises the history of communism, find one and start a new thread about that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;429172Part of the fault for all this could lie in that Deadlands is a product of its time.  Had it come out in, say, 2003, it would likely never have tried to be "credible and serious", it would have worn its gonzo colours with pride.  But having come out in the 90s, at the height of the "story-based" WW-style metaplot-and-pretentiousness days, it was bound to be infected by that way of thinking to believe that you couldn't really just be "mindless" fun or you were in some way inferior.

RPGPundit

My copy says Copyright 1996-1997 on the title page.

Quote from: RPGPundit;429172Part of the fault for all this could lie in that Deadlands is a product of its time.  Had it come out in, say, 2003, it would likely never have tried to be "credible and serious", it would have worn its gonzo colours with pride.  But having come out in the 90s, at the height of the "story-based" WW-style metaplot-and-pretentiousness days, it was bound to be infected by that way of thinking to believe that you couldn't really just be "mindless" fun or you were in some way inferior.

This sounds about right.

It's not too late for Pinnacle, though. I'm not terribly familiar with Deadlands Classic, but Reloaded looks like a step on that direction.

Quote from: Spike;429189My copy says Copyright 1996-1997 on the title page.

Isn't that what I said?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;429028Excepting capitalists, of course. The body count of white imperialism makes Mao look like a rank amateur.

And what, exactly, is that count?  How many deaths do you attribute to "white imperialism"?

(Ignoring, of course, the fact that "white imperialism" isn't a person but Mao was.)

Quote from: RPGPundit;429174And dudes, let's try to keep the focus in this particular thread on the Deadlands setting; which as far as I know has no communists in it.

You are claiming that whitewashing history in Deadlands is insulting.  While I think everyone agrees that whitewashing Nazis is mighty offensive, I think that whitewashing communists is a pretty good comparison for whitewashing the CSA.  Both get done by people with political motivations who find it easier to excuse atrocities, rationalize them away, or claim that the never happened than admit that the end game of their ideology might just end someplace really nasty and unpleasant.  The Nazis, however, were simply so evil that almost nobody makes excuses for them.  Instead, right and left try to pin them on the other side, even though they exhibited traits that both otherwise approve of (e.g., nationalism, central control).  

And my point was that if it's wrong to whitewash the CSA to get the cool trappings of the Confederacy and Lost Cause nobility for a role-playing game or work of alternate history fiction, then is it also wrong to whitewash communism to get the cool trappings of communist propaganda for a role-playing game or work of alternate fiction, or is that a question you'd rather sidestep?

Quote from: RPGPundit;429174If you want to criticize an RPG setting that romanticizes or revises the history of communism, find one and start a new thread about that.

I want to address the broader issue of when it's acceptable or unacceptable to whitewash history for a role-playing setting or, more broadly, a work of alternate history fiction.  And I also think it's relevant how and why people do their whitewashing in the real world as well as in their role-playing games and fiction, because that's how things like Lost Cause romanticism happen, which is relevant to your complaint.

To be perfectly honest with you, if you want to argue that racism is a special issue, I think I'm more insulted by the whitewashing of post-Civil War Jim Crow racism when it comes to pulps, the works of people like Robert E. Howard (who I would argue had some genuinely racist views (http://www.rehupa.com/romeo_southern.htm)), the Victorian era, the Prohibition era, and so on, which are all staples of role-playing games.  I'm not buying your "seriousness" argument because laziness, silliness, and whitewashing is probably more common than not.  And given that you've acknowledged at least a superficial similarity between your complain and Bruce Baugh's complaint about pulps, I'd like to know if there is more to your complaint than implausibility and cheesiness that made this particular example offend you while not having similar complaints about a host of similar examples.

This also goes back to the point I've made in the past that the humanoid monsters in role-playing games push many of the same buttons that racists push about various racial or ethnic groups because the goal is terthe same -- to depict a group as monstrous and threatening and worthy of violence or even annihilation.  Role-playing games casually and sometimes carelessly play with all sorts of things that people can and sometimes do find insulting (http://raceindnd.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/nerd-nite-presentation-november-18th-2008/).

So is the problem really whitewashing atrocities or racism or laziness or is something more going on here?

Quote from: jgants;429069Why it is that people can't figure out two opposing factions can both be evil is beyond me.

The problem is that people don't want to imagine that their own side can be evil.  That's why tempered democracy and limits on power are so important, because without accountability, checks, and balances, any political ideology can be evil.  Even mine or yours.  Seriously, any ideology (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=316371&page=1).

Quote from: RPGPundit;429231Isn't that what I said?

RPGPundit

So...


You are saying classic came out 8 years too early and reloaded came out... um... 5 years to late?

Quote from: Hairfoot;429035You can say that as much as you like, and it will go toward  explaining why genuine communists are at the very fringe of the modern left while moderate social-democracy is at the centre.

Dude, so why were you trying to downplay communist atrocities, handwave them away as a "deviation", and make absurd claims about Christian atrocities that you know you can't back up unless, well, you were trying to hide the fact that modern leftism is no different than gulag or killing field communism?  Seriously, take a look at the mirror and see the spittle around your mouth and consider just how far you might be willing to go to solve the "problem" of conservative Christian Fox News viewers.  Denial of voting rights?  Taking their children away from them?  Reeducation camps?  Gulags?  Slaughter?

Quote from: Hairfoot;429035On the right, meanwhile, the same brand of fearful, racist, homophobic, anti-science religious zealot who goes in for theocracy and white supremacism is still running the show.  Screaming "but...communism!" doesn't hide the fact that modern conservatism is no different to dark ages conservatism.

So your side is moderate and everyone else is a zealot, bigot, and fanatic. No, you don't sound like a zealot, bigot, or fanatic at all.  :rolleyes:

Pundit - I still think that you have greatly exaggerated the seriousness of Deadlands (any version), as well as the relevance of supplemental material unlikely to be used by more than a small minority of Deadlands campaigns.  You will find real names, real dates, and real places in the silliest Wild West stories imaginable.  

Whether whitewashed revisionism is necessarily racist or not, Deadlands would seem to be merely following a trend as far as the colourblind Wild West goes.  There has been a strong trend in the last thirty years to recast stories with unlikely black heroes that tend to gloss over the racism in their lives - I submit as examples Silverado, Brisco County, Jr., Unforgiven, and perhaps most importantly as comparison to Deadlands - Wild Wild West (1999).  Call it the Sheriff Bart effect.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;428901Indeed; see the Shadowrun book "WAR!" wherein you can kill Jew ghosts at Auschwitz to get magic items.

No, I'm not kidding.  Yes, that's really what you can do.

For fuck's sakes. What the fuck, honestly?!

Quote from: John Morrow;429251That's why tempered democracy and limits on power are so important, because without accountability, checks, and balances, any political ideology can be evil.  Even mine or yours.  Seriously, any ideology (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=316371&page=1).

Just curious, do you think those limits, checks and balances, and accountability also need to apply to financial systems and certain corporate products and practices?

Quote from: CRKrueger;429259Just curious, do you think those limits, checks and balances, and accountability also need to apply to financial systems and certain corporate products and practices?

Speaking for myself, as a person who totally believes in the system of constitutional and political checks and balances John's been referring to, as well as I did much earlier in this thread, I would answer a big fat "YES" to that question. I think we have tendencies to just take sides in the political equations of our time, THEN using reason as some sort of bludgeon to reverse-engineer our emotional allegiances. I think this is a nasty habit when it comes to politics, power and ideologies.

What I'm trying to say is that I believe that practical solutions that make sense are just that, and we shouldn't ignore problems or issues just because they are somehow flying in the face of the ideologies we learned to like when we were kids. What we should be asking ourselves is not whether there should be some form of practical checks and balances as far as economic and financial instutions are concerned, it's HOW these checks and balances should be designed, to what exact effect, under which precise circumstances, as well as the legislation needed to support such efforts, that we should be wondering about. What is going to both work, prevent catastrophies for our economies in the future, while still enabling markets to grow and their actors to compete freely. It's not an easy thing to do.

Quote from: CRKrueger;429259Just curious, do you think those limits, checks and balances, and accountability also need to apply to financial systems and certain corporate products and practices?

Absolutely.  It's a big reason why I'm not a libertarian, am a supporter of antitrust laws, and have issues with corporate juggernauts.  And, with the exception of a few die-hard libertarians and ultra-conservatives, conservatives are not calling for the abolition of all corporate regulations.  But if you want to stop a extreme anti-government conservative or libertarian rant dead in it's tracks, ask the ranting person if they think the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) should be abolished.  

Years ago, I saw an interview with Ralph Nader where he talked about a conservative asking him why he was obsessed with car safety when cars were pretty safe.  Nader pointed out that cars were pretty safe because of his crusades for car safety.  But what he missed is that he's still fighting a war that he's already won as far as everyone else is concerned.  And the real point is that forcing both sides to make their case and convince everyone that a regulation is needed or not needed is far superior to handing political ideologues the keys to government and letting them run wild.

Quote from: John Morrow;429250Role-playing games casually and sometimes carelessly play with all sorts of things that people can and sometimes do find insulting (http://raceindnd.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/nerd-nite-presentation-november-18th-2008/).

Wow. That is some really astonishing bullshit you linked to, there, John.

Quote from: John Morrow;429247And what, exactly, is that count?  How many deaths do you attribute to "white imperialism"?

Millions upon millions. Let's talk about the relatively straightforward examples to start with:The Congo Free State (5-22 million), the Amerindian genocides (45-90 million), the Irish potato famine (1 million), the Bengali tax-induced famine in 1770 (~10 million), and of course, the triangle trade (1-2.5 million) and its knock-on effects (another 6-8 million). These are a few examples amongst dozens, if not hundreds.

It also leaves out all the other deaths resulting from capitalism, including dead unionists & labour activists, those killed as a result of cost-cutting on safety etc.

Quote(Ignoring, of course, the fact that "white imperialism" isn't a person but Mao was.)

"Communists" are a group, just as "white imperialists" and "capitalists" are. No shifting goalposts here.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;429265Millions upon millions. Let's talk about the relatively straightforward examples to start with:The Congo Free State (5-22 million),

Valid example

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;429265the Amerindian genocides (45-90 million),

Invalid example.  The vast majority of the indigenous population of the Americas was wiped out by disease, much of it unintentional and much of it affecting areas before "white imperialists" ever reached them.  Blaming "white imperialism" for those deaths is like blaming Asia for trying to wipe out Europe because of the Black Death, which wiped out half of Europe's population and about 20% of the global population at the time. It's also further complicated by the indigenous people's working with the Europeans against the "brown imperialists" in their midst that had subjugated them throughout the Americas.  Yes, there are plenty of deaths that are legitimate to count, but those numbers won't be nearly as high as what you are claiming.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;429265the Irish potato famine (1 million),

I think that's a bit of a stretch to blame that on "white imperialism", but I'll give you "imperialism".

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;429265the Bengali tax-induced famine in 1770 (~10 million), and of course, the triangle trade (1-2.5 million) and its knock-on effects (another 6-8 million).

Those examples are essentially valid, though I'm curious about what you count as "knock-on effects".

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;429265These are a few examples amongst dozens, if not hundreds.

See if you can get over 100 million without including diseases as "white imperialism", since even a small band of pacifist communist explorers could have caused that "genocide" simply by landing in the Americas while carrying European diseases, so there was nothing particularly "white" or "imperialist" about most of those deaths.  That would at least help support he claim that "white imperialists" were just as bad as communists.  I keep hearing that various groups were just as bad as 20th Century communists or even worse but nobody seems willing to show the work of actually proving it.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;429265It also leaves out all the other deaths resulting from capitalism, including dead unionists & labour activists, those killed as a result of cost-cutting on safety etc.

Really?  You want to count "cost-cutting on safety" as if communists never do that?  So then should I add in all the other deaths that resulted from communism as a result of poor healthcare, shoddy construction, bad equipment, environmental destruction, poor workplace safety, and so on?  Do you really want to go there?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;429265"Communists" are a group, just as "white imperialists" and "capitalists" are. No shifting goalposts here.

You specifically said "Mao".  That was the claim you made.  I'm happy to stick to comparing "white imperialists" with communists.

The spread and exploitation of disease certainly are part of the death count. "Could have been" is not "was". It was white imperialists who came to North America and spread disease, not a pacifist band of communists. And the diseases spread by their trip were the direct result of the desire to accumulate more wealth.

Hernando de Soto, driven by the desire for economic gain, came to North America with pigs with various diseases. He consciously released them in order to let them multiply to provide for future expeditions. While they didn't have modern epidemiological knowledge, it wasn't a secret that sickness could infect others.

The search for gold and a passage to China caused him to travel as extensively as he did, spreading the diseases around to populations that otherwise had limited contact with one another.

De Soto is one of more pleasant characters from Spain to visit the New World, he didn't intend to enslave, conquer or eradicate the natives (though decisions he made did so and aggravated the damage his negligence or ignorance had caused). Many of his comrades did though, and they were extremely successful. This cycle of violence continued up to the 20th century (and arguably is still going on) as South and Central American countries struggled to throw off violent political domination by European masters or their descendants.

Of course, it's hard to provide good numbers for communist killings because most people have no idea just how many people died in the USSR or China (and are still being killed in Tibet). Add in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, much of southern Africa and most of Central and South America. It's a mess.

Quote from: John Morrow;429261And the real point is that forcing both sides to make their case and convince everyone that a regulation is needed or not needed is far superior to handing political ideologues the keys to government and letting them run wild.

True.  However, unless Obama starts a nuclear war, I think the case can be made that handing a few "too big to fail" financial institutions the keys to the global economy makes what Obama can do by "running wild" look like swiping nickels from a lemonade stand.

Quote from: Benoist;429258For fuck's sakes. What the fuck, honestly?!

Yep.  For-reals.

Quote from: John Morrow;429250You are claiming that whitewashing history in Deadlands is insulting.  While I think everyone agrees that whitewashing Nazis is mighty offensive, I think that whitewashing communists is a pretty good comparison for whitewashing the CSA.  Both get done by people with political motivations who find it easier to excuse atrocities, rationalize them away, or claim that the never happened than admit that the end game of their ideology might just end someplace really nasty and unpleasant.  The Nazis, however, were simply so evil that almost nobody makes excuses for them.  Instead, right and left try to pin them on the other side, even though they exhibited traits that both otherwise approve of (e.g., nationalism, central control).  

Yes, and a very good point that is. Now you've made it, and we can go back to talking about deadlands on this thread.

QuoteAnd my point was that if it's wrong to whitewash the CSA to get the cool trappings of the Confederacy and Lost Cause nobility for a role-playing game or work of alternate history fiction, then is it also wrong to whitewash communism to get the cool trappings of communist propaganda for a role-playing game or work of alternate fiction, or is that a question you'd rather sidestep?

yes, it would also be wrong, if not being done in a gonzo, ironic, or tongue-in-cheek fashion. And even in the latter areas one can question the appropriateness of it.

QuoteTo be perfectly honest with you, if you want to argue that racism is a special issue, I think I'm more insulted by the whitewashing of post-Civil War Jim Crow racism when it comes to pulps, the works of people like Robert E. Howard (who I would argue had some genuinely racist views (http://www.rehupa.com/romeo_southern.htm)), the Victorian era, the Prohibition era, and so on, which are all staples of role-playing games.  I'm not buying your "seriousness" argument because laziness, silliness, and whitewashing is probably more common than not.  And given that you've acknowledged at least a superficial similarity between your complain and Bruce Baugh's complaint about pulps, I'd like to know if there is more to your complaint than implausibility and cheesiness that made this particular example offend you while not having similar complaints about a host of similar examples.

The whitewashing in Pulps is not really quite the same.  But IF someone were to make a Pulp RPG that presented the 1920s as a time when black people explicitly had all the same opportunities as white people, or where women and other minorities were regularly presented as being institutionally in equal positions, and no one had an issue with things like sexual orientation or whatnot; in other words, if they took all the values of 2010 and projected them backward through time drooping them superimposed like some fat prostitute over an 18 year old farmboy on the historical backdrop of that other time; I would be just as bothered by it.  ESPECIALLY if their claim or their tone implied that this was meant to be taken as a serious and historically plausible setting.

That's my complaint: that historical RPGs shouldn't whitewash history by projecting modern values on historical periods.  Bruce Baugh's complaint is more like "RPGs should be forced to constantly address issues of racism and sexism and oppression which by the way we will judge entirely from our 21st century vantage point of smug superiority".  
Well, actually his complaint is more like "Waaah I'm a fat piece of shit who can't write and has no discernible talents but I want people to give me money anyways".

RPGpundit

Quote from: Spike;429252So...


You are saying classic came out 8 years too early and reloaded came out... um... 5 years to late?

I'm barely even considering reloaded, but yes. I'm saying that the ORIGINAL concept of Deadlands had the misfortune to come out at a time when everyone was so cowed by the White Wolf Pretentious mentality that the authors couldn't dare to make a game that just said "Its Gonzo, just roll with it".  That had it come out after D20 and the restoration of sanity, it probably would have been more likely to do so.

Instead, they took a setting that had zombie cardplayers and all the other things that have been mentioned here, and felt the need to add a thick, metaplot-rich backstory and alternate-history justification to try to seem "deep" to satisfy the White Wolf Swine.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Esgaldil;429257Unforgiven, and perhaps most importantly as comparison to Deadlands - Wild Wild West (1999).  Call it the Sheriff Bart effect.

But that's the point. Nowhere in Wild Wild West does the movie pause to explain "Here is how it turns out that the Fresh Prince can be the top U.S. secret agent; because see this is an alternate universe where people woke up one day and decided that they wouldn't be racist and would all eat granola, and that's TOTALLY PLAUSIBLE".

Instead, they just have the guy there, he's a black secret agent in a world with giant steampunk spider-constructs, and we all get that we're just supposed to run with it, because it makes no sense and couldn't possibly make any sense.
Deadlands, on the other hand, tries to claim that it does make sense and try to give ridiculous reasons why it could make sense.

RPGPundit

Ok, again, this is NOT the thread to be talking about "deaths caused by capitalism vs. deaths caused by communism"; there is no fucking way in which that is relevant to the issue of Deadlands.  

Take it elsewhere. Start a thread about it in the Pundit's forum if you like.  But keep talking about it here and I will have to end some people.

Its a stupid fucking argument anyways, as if a magic number somehow proves you're right and the other guy is wrong, as if "my" ideology killing 1.2 million versus the other guy's having killed 2.4 million is somehow "proof" that his is worse, as if democracy wouldn't still be better than autocracy if democracy had killed 200 times more people. Death is not the worst thing that can happen.  I would rather live in a world with more deaths by sugar overdose than in a nanny state where sugar is forbidden.

And yes, I'm getting the last word about this subject on this thread.  You want to respond? GO START ANOTHER FUCKING THREAD that isn't about deadlands.

RPGPundit

So Pundit's argument seems to have been reduced to 'Deadlands is racist, sexist, revisionist, anti-Masonic etc because it provides some half-hearted explanation of it's reason why you can play black and female characters whereas if thery had just done it with no half-hearted explanation it would have been fine.'

Is the alternative that any game set in anything that looks like the real world should carry a caveat that ethinc and female characters have a limited number of careers and come with the disadvantage 'minority'.

I can just see Pundit going for that :)

James bond: cool I want to play a female 00 agent... ah sorry as a female you are limited to the roles of "evil assasin", "Ugly Henchwoman" or "Shag fodder" (in the 007 game they used the name Beautiful Foil but you get the idea).

Cthulu: Cool I want to play a Black PI .... ah sorry as a black PC in CoC you are restricted to "Hobo", "Jazz Musician" and "Criminal" .....

Hmmm I can see how well that would go down :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;429324Is the alternative that any game set in anything that looks like the real world should carry a caveat that ethinc and female characters have a limited number of careers and come with the disadvantage 'minority'.

NO......
The Alternative is that the player and GM stick to something close to real history and talk it out ahead of time how this particular character survives in the era as an ethnic or subculture minority.
How did this potential character confront the barriers to wind up as an adventurer of some kind?

 As I pointed out in an earlier post, there WERE Black Sherrifs and such in the 'Old West'. Not a huge number - but enough of them to be plausible.

Ever see "Deadwood" ?  Calamity Jane was a real woman. (Maybe not looking like that tho and not as 'friendly') There may have been one or two others in tne REAL Old West. A player could somewhat believably come up with a backstory for such a character - without having a BS alternate timeline of the real world.

Part of the ongoing campaign of course would be these characters butting heads with prevailing bigotry in some towns - but their allies and friends in the player character party are there to back them up (or should be).


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;429326NO......
The Alternative is that the player and GM stick to something close to real history and talk it out ahead of time how this particular character survives in the era as an ethnic or subculture minority.
How did this potentialk character confront the barriers to wind up as an adventurer of some kind?

 As I pointed out in an earlier post, there WERE Black Sherrifs and such in the 'Old West'. Not a huge number - but enough of them to be plausible.

Ever see "Deadwood" ?  Calamity Jane was a real woman. (Maybe not looking like that tho and not as 'friendly') There may have been one or two others in tne REAL Old West. A player could somewhat believably come up with a backstory for such a character - without having a BS alternate timeline of the real world.

Part of the ongoing campaign of course would be these characters butting heads with prevailing bigotry in some towns - but their allies and friends in the player character party are there to back them up (or should be).


- Ed C.

Bravo, I agree 100% with ya here Ed.

Yup, Ed's basically got it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Koltar;429326NO......
The Alternative is that the player and GM stick to something close to real history and talk it out ahead of time how this particular character survives in the era as an ethnic or subculture minority.
How did this potential character confront the barriers to wind up as an adventurer of some kind?

 As I pointed out in an earlier post, there WERE Black Sherrifs and such in the 'Old West'. Not a huge number - but enough of them to be plausible.

Ever see "Deadwood" ?  Calamity Jane was a real woman. (Maybe not looking like that tho and not as 'friendly') There may have been one or two others in tne REAL Old West. A player could somewhat believably come up with a backstory for such a character - without having a BS alternate timeline of the real world.

Part of the ongoing campaign of course would be these characters butting heads with prevailing bigotry in some towns - but their allies and friends in the player character party are there to back them up (or should be).


- Ed C.

Of course, some estimates say upto 30% of cowboys in the 1860s were black but that doesn't mean that one is going to get elected Mayor of Dodge so easily.

The fact is that if you really place bigotry, sexism, Islamaphobia or the like acurately in an RPG it gets tired and creates conflict in the group.
In one of my earliest Cthulu games back in school one of the players decided to play a black sportsman in 1920s Boston. The GM played it acurately so the guy was banned from diners, brutalised by the police, and generally picked on. I thought it was unnecessary and gratuitous the GM just said he was being acurate and to be fair he probabaly was but it didn;t make it fun for that player.

Most of us don't want our games to become studies in social injustices so we whitewash that stuff. It's the same as the horey old debate as to whether women should get a Strength penalty on their stats or whether you should differentiate stats based on race in modern "realistic" games like you do with demi-humans in fantasy.

You are playing in a game where there are Zombie card sharps and magic is real are you really going to get hung up on the fact that Black PCs should be hauling cotton not shooting irons...really .....

This puts me in the mind of one of those PBS (or maybe it was TLC) reality shows where they had families come out to the Montana "territories" and live for a few months prior to winter and they were graded on how they prepared for the coming winter months.

Basically the most prepared were the families who spent about 80% of their time chopping wood and the rest of the time preparing food, but I digress:

One of the participants was a black guy married to a white woman and it was laid flat out to the guy that neither he nor his kids were entitled to anything Montana per territorial laws.  No education, no protection under the law, nothing.  He took it in stride, and the (for lack of a better term) "Game masters" said, okay, here's what: this is out in the territories, far, far from the Capital, far from anyone else.  What's on the books for territorial law and how people actually behave are/were often different things.  So, as long as a territorial marshal doesn't show up (and they didn't role-play any doing so), you're one of us just the same.

I thought it was pretty interesting how they handled that.

Quote from: jibbajibba;429391Of course, some estimates say upto 30% of cowboys in the 1860s were black but that doesn't mean that one is going to get elected Mayor of Dodge so easily.

The fact is that if you really place bigotry, sexism, Islamaphobia or the like acurately in an RPG it gets tired and creates conflict in the group.
In one of my earliest Cthulu games back in school one of the players decided to play a black sportsman in 1920s Boston. The GM played it acurately so the guy was banned from diners, brutalised by the police, and generally picked on. I thought it was unnecessary and gratuitous the GM just said he was being acurate and to be fair he probabaly was but it didn;t make it fun for that player.

Most of us don't want our games to become studies in social injustices so we whitewash that stuff. It's the same as the horey old debate as to whether women should get a Strength penalty on their stats or whether you should differentiate stats based on race in modern "realistic" games like you do with demi-humans in fantasy.

You are playing in a game where there are Zombie card sharps and magic is real are you really going to get hung up on the fact that Black PCs should be hauling cotton not shooting irons...really .....

Zombies aren't real. magic card sharps aren't real. The injustice done to blacks in America during and after slavery is real. To 'whitewash' it is disgusting, demeaning and insulting. I can't possibly think of a better word for this unethical act than 'whitewash'.

Quote from: Tetsubo;429412Zombies aren't real. magic card sharps aren't real. The injustice done to blacks in America during and after slavery is real. To 'whitewash' it is disgusting, demeaning and insulting. I can't possibly think of a better word for this unethical act than 'whitewash'.

I agree.

Cf Jibba's example: If the player in the CoC game intended to play a black sportsman and the Keeper thought of running the 1920s environment in a believable fashion vis a vis his character, the Keeper should have told him so before the game started. If the player wouldn't want to face this type of environment, he would be welcome to play another character. But whitewashing the environment for the sake of "more fun" feels like a very slippery slope to me, one that I'm not willing to engage in with a semi-historical game like CoC or whatnot. Next you might go for stuff like "un-racist Nazis" which happen to be "great heroes" and whatnot which frankly, I would find totally insulting and unacceptable at a game table.

Quote from: Tetsubo;429412Zombies aren't real. magic card sharps aren't real. The injustice done to blacks in America during and after slavery is real. To 'whitewash' it is disgusting, demeaning and insulting. I can't possibly think of a better word for this unethical act than 'whitewash'.

So that means you don't play pseudo-historic or modern games?

What about sexism in your medieval fantasy games ? etc etc

Aren't you being less racist by having a Deadlands game with a black Sherrif than one in which black npcs get treated really badly by PCs because that would be 'in character' for the time period?

I am not proposing we whitewash history. I am proposing that we can play a game with our mates without having to consider the socio-political ramifications of the setting.

Honestly, I think Deadlands has as much to do with a "plausible alternate history" as it does with plausible geology (Ghost Rock literally being the solidified souls of the damned) and plausible biology (salt rattlers being dune-like worms living in the great salt flats).

As far as the whitewash goes, if anyone has read Back East: The South, if I remember correctly, all the historical stuff is laid out the way it always is, as an "in character" Tombstone Epitaph newspaper article.  In the case of this article, the contributors are all southerners.

The claim that they were following White Wolf is specious at best.  As gonzo supernatural alternate reality goes, Deadlands is much closer to Shadowrun.

Quote from: Benoist;429418I agree.

Cf Jibba's example: If the player in the CoC game intended to play a black sportsman and the Keeper thought of running the 1920s environment in a believable fashion vis a vis his character, the Keeper should have told him so before the game started. If the player wouldn't want to face this type of environment, he would be welcome to play another character. But whitewashing the environment for the sake of "more fun" feels like a very slippery slope to me, one that I'm not willing to engage in with a semi-historical game like CoC or whatnot. Next you might go for stuff like "un-racist Nazis" which happen to be "great heroes" and whatnot which frankly, I would find totally insulting and unacceptable at a game table.

so this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_90aSXkP5Q
funny?
or an insult to 6million jews, 1/2 a million Rom and most of the population of Russia?

Quote from: jibbajibba;429436so this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_90aSXkP5Q
funny?
or an insult to 6million jews, 1/2 a million Rom and most of the population of Russia?

It's a completely different thing:
(1) It's comedy.
(2) It's British comedy, i.e. w/lots of irony thrown in.

The sketch is precisely funny BECAUSE these ARE the baddies. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Benoist;429437It's a completely different thing:
(1) It's comedy.
(2) It's British comedy, i.e. w/lots of irony thrown in.

The sketch is precisely funny BECAUSE these ARE the baddies. :rolleyes:

No its funny because they aren't the baddies they are just ordinary blokes who didn't realise that nazis were the badies but just liked the swanky uniforms.

:rolleyes:

I guess the French never get our humour which is why Jacques Tati had a career.... :)

irony - like goldy and silvery only made of iron .....

Quote from: jibbajibba;429438I guess the French never get our humour which is why Jacques Tati had a career.... :)

You know dude, at this point I could go for any British cooking insult or other I could think of, but I think I'm just going to pass on this one.

Feel free to actually address my point when you feel like it, though.

Quote from: Benoist;429443You know dude, at this point I could go for any British cooking insult

You're a saucepan.

You know what? Scratch that last post. I have a better idea. :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;429436so this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_90aSXkP5Q
funny?
or an insult to 6million jews, 1/2 a million Rom and most of the population of Russia?

What's your thought on Hogan's Heroes?

Before you answer: almost all of the "Nazis" were played by Jews who took the job with the caveat that their characters would always fail.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;429450What's your thought on Hogan's Heroes?

Before you answer: almost all of the "Nazis" were played by Jews who took the job with the caveat that their characters would always fail.

See my (1) point. It's comedy.

I really like Hogan's Heroes, actually. :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;429391In one of my earliest Cthulu games back in school one of the players decided to play a black sportsman in 1920s Boston. The GM played it acurately so the guy was banned from diners, brutalised by the police, and generally picked on. I thought it was unnecessary and gratuitous the GM just said he was being acurate and to be fair he probabaly was but it didn;t make it fun for that player.

That does sound like it was a bit extreme, and I suspect historically exaggerated.  But just out of curiosity, was the player of that character also black?

RPGPundit

I think a case can be made that Deadlands revisionism is bad because revisionism is always bad and/or because Nigger General in Deadwood is more interesting than Jim West in Wild Wild West (1999).  I agree with Ed that a game in which historical racism and sexism are completely ignored is likely to be a missed opportunity, though I don't think it is always inappropriate.

What I have tried to dispute, and where I really think the Pundit is completely wrong, is that Deadlands revisionism is bad because Deadlands demands to be taken seriously rather than enjoyed as gonzo bizarreness.  In the gonzo category we have jackalopes, hangin' judges, magic poker, steam powered ray guns and clockwork robots, wuxia pirates, and the only way to put Wild Bill down for good is to shoot him (again) with Jack McCall's gun.  In the serious category we have a timeline.  For some people, timelines are fun to look at and fun to make, like maps.  Just having a map doesn't mean that geography has been carefully considered.  It might, but sometimes you just want to have a choice of going through the forest or over the mountain pass.

Forgetting everything else, consider that in Deadlands some major political decisions and widespread public opinions are being generated by demons.  For me, that kind of takes it right out of the "Serious Alternate History with aspirations to Social Significance" category.

ESgaldil,

 Before going al "gonzo" in a game a character should have at least a pretense of plausibility.


Ever see "Silverado" ?

The Danny Glover character and his family were at least worked into that setting pretty much believably.


Now that we've gone through 10 plus pages on this topic I realize I might actually give a damn about this - because my groups tend to have at least two women players at each session. Also, I met a friend for lunch and she is interested in RPGs - she's also African-American/Black.

SO,...the topic re-gained a bit of relevance for me today.

IF I was going tyo run "DEADLANDS" I'd say to hell with their 'official' timeline and just run it as if there was a spell backfire or mis-cast that brought magic back into the world the year that the Civil War ended.

Plenty of Blacks served on the Northern side might strike out for the west after serving in the military  - and take their families with them.

All sorts of possibilities.


- Ed C.

I have no objection to your proposal, Ed, and I'd probably enjoy your campaign.  However, I think plausibility can be maintained in the actions and motives of a character without forcing every setting to have a plausible basis.  There's a time for history class, and there's a time for TOON, and I submit that despite making use of many real places, dates, and people, Deadlands consistently demonstrates its proclivities for over the top absurdity, which is why I object to the Pundit's specific criticism.

I would actually call Silverado an example of mild whitewashing, in that the white protagonists and all sympathetic characters are portrayed as being completely colourblind with respect to Glover's character.  There are references to systemic racism existing in Chicago and Georgia, but the actual events onscreen show racism as something only criminals and idiots demonstrate.

Quote from: Esgaldil;429479I would actually call Silverado an example of mild whitewashing, in that the white protagonists and all sympathetic characters are portrayed as being completely colourblind with respect to Glover's character.  There are references to systemic racism existing in Chicago and Georgia, but the actual events onscreen show racism as something only criminals and idiots demonstrate.

Not really 'whitewashing'.

 As I've pointed out earlier in this thread (and maybe one other thread) many blacks went out west because of the possibility of more freedom and respect than they had ion the East. It didn't always work out in their favor - but there were areas where it didn't matter you looked likle as long as you helped out each other and showed competency at a needed skill.

There was a 'second chance' aspect to some towns and camps in the old west.  Not every person is going to be a bastard toward others - sometimes people choose to be nice or even good. thats probably why Humankind has lasted as long as it has.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Esgaldil;429472consider that in Deadlands some major political decisions and widespread public opinions are being generated by demons.  For me, that kind of takes it right out of the "Serious Alternate History with aspirations to Social Significance" category.

People should read that quote 5 times before they post again on this topic. :D

Quote from: RPGPundit;429465That does sound like it was a bit extreme, and I suspect historically exaggerated.  But just out of curiosity, was the player of that character also black?

RPGPundit

Nope the player was white. I think I went to the whitest school in the whitest town in the whitest county of the UK. There were two black guys in a school of 1000 I knew one of them cos he did boxing and another cos he dated my sister for a bit.
I suspect the situation was exagerated by the GM but from later reading not as much as I thought at the time.

Quote from: Koltar;429482Not really 'whitewashing'.

 As I've pointed out earlier in this thread (and maybe one other thread) many blacks went out west because of the possibility of more freedom and respect than they had ion the East. It didn't always work out in their favor - but there were areas where it didn't matter you looked likle as long as you helped out each other and showed competency at a needed skill.

There was a 'second chance' aspect to some towns and camps in the old west.  Not every person is going to be a bastard toward others - sometimes people choose to be nice or even good. thats probably why Humankind has lasted as long as it has.


- Ed C.

You see I think that that is a bit naive, which is sweet but ultimately doesn't support this discussion (as an aside in the Dogs in the Vineyard thread you seemed to indicate some LDS attachment how do you reconcile that with your obviously modern liberal views on race and gender - apologies if I am mis-remembering).
I mean you live in a country where some states had segregated schools until the 1960s and the KKK is still an active force. If you really think that the Western frountier of the 1860 - 1890 was a utopia of social progressiveness then you should read a book as opposed to watching Danny Glover movies.... just saying.

But the key was posted by Esgaldil and CRKrueger. Its a gonzo mismash of so much stuff that its obviously not supposed to be taken any more seriously than Hogan's Heroes.

But congrats on The Pundit for generating 10 pages of posts on it

Quote from: thedungeondelver;429450What's your thought on Hogan's Heroes?

Before you answer: almost all of the "Nazis" were played by Jews who took the job with the caveat that their characters would always fail.

Not keen as its just not very funny. Its a bit like 'Allo 'Allo .....

Quote from: Esgaldil;429472Forgetting everything else, consider that in Deadlands some major political decisions and widespread public opinions are being generated by demons.  For me, that kind of takes it right out of the "Serious Alternate History with aspirations to Social Significance" category.

Unless the entire population of the CSA has now been replaced by incredibly racially tolerant Demons, it still makes no fucking sense.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Esgaldil;429479I have no objection to your proposal, Ed, and I'd probably enjoy your campaign.  However, I think plausibility can be maintained in the actions and motives of a character without forcing every setting to have a plausible basis.  There's a time for history class, and there's a time for TOON, and I submit that despite making use of many real places, dates, and people, Deadlands consistently demonstrates its proclivities for over the top absurdity, which is why I object to the Pundit's specific criticism.

But it doesn't.  Read the sourcebooks, they're mostly dead serious. Read Back East, the north and south volumes and you think you're reading a sourcebook for a WW game.
Which was of course the problem.  It SHOULD have been "over the top absurdity", but it wasn't, because it was written at a time when gaming companies were convinced that over the top absurdity was Not Allowed.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jibbajibba;429516Nope the player was white. I think I went to the whitest school in the whitest town in the whitest county of the UK. There were two black guys in a school of 1000 I knew one of them cos he did boxing and another cos he dated my sister for a bit.
I suspect the situation was exagerated by the GM but from later reading not as much as I thought at the time.

So then the question becomes, why did he play a black character? Did he WANT to play a black character and have himself be treated exactly like a white character? If so, what would have been the point?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;429318Take it elsewhere. Start a thread about it in the Pundit's forum if you like.  But keep talking about it here and I will have to end some people.

Done here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=19074).

Quote from: RPGPundit;429564Read the sourcebooks, they're mostly dead serious.

I've read much of the old material, and I think you're confusing "dead serious" with "deadpan".  Here's a couple of quotes (for reviewing purposes, since this is the book we are mostly talking about, despite being one of the less important supplemental materials to the game as intended) from The South:

"The peculiar smoke pillar is actually a moonshiner's signal. If your heroes follow it, they find a hidden clearing and buy tasty, tax-free whiskey. What, does everything have to be evil?"

"This creature is a large skunk ape (see River o' Blood) who has become
addicted to tobacco. He hangs around the cigar plant to steal cigars."

None of the text conveys the spirit of the books as well as the illustrations, though, which often look as though they came straight out of (amateur ripoffs of) E.C. Comics.  If White Wolf has anything like Old Fire Dragaman, they're a lot less serious than I thought.

Quote from: RPGPundit...it still makes no fucking sense.

That's what I've been saying.  It's up to you whether or not revisionism is an important issue in a setting that deliberately and gleefully (though not quite jumping up and down and shouting "THIS IS ALL A JOKE!") makes no fucking sense.

Quote from: RPGPundit;429565So then the question becomes, why did he play a black character?

I'm going to take a wild guess and say he had a Redd Foxx impression he wanted to use.

Quote from: jibbajibba;429517You see I think that that is a bit naive, which is sweet but ultimately doesn't support this discussion (as an aside in the Dogs in the Vineyard thread you seemed to indicate some LDS attachment how do you reconcile that with your obviously modern liberal views on race and gender - apologies if I am mis-remembering).

Had to go back to this post I half-remembered.....
WOW! You called me 'modern' and 'liberal' - that might shock a few who only hang out on the web.

My views on race and gender are not in any way 'modern' or 'liberal'.
My views are plain common sense and just normal humane kindness and love.
(also some brain-stuff involved)
Coupled with the fact that I evolved into not thinking of blacks as a seperate 'race'. They are the same race I am - Human  and currently living on Earth. If Lady C and I got married and could have kids together - then we are the same race. Any other way of looking at it is strange use of language and semantics to seperate people from knowqing each other and getting to be friends.

QuoteI mean you live in a country where some states had segregated schools until the 1960s and the KKK is still an active force. If you really think that the Western frountier of the 1860 - 1890 was a utopia of social progressiveness then you should read a book as opposed to watching Danny Glover movies.... just saying.

This part you got REALLY wrong. The KKK is no longer an 'active force' in America. They are a joke and the people that publicly admit to joining that group are also considered jokes.
I never said the western frontier was a 'utopia' - I DID say that many people got a second chance or tried for a second chance there - both white and black. Hell, erven a bastard like Al Swearingen in "DEADWOOD" was trying for his second or third chanc e with his little corrupt empire in that town.

Its also a little-known historical fact that a few towns did have a black sherriff. Doesn't mean things were a 'utopia' - it just means such things happened. I'm sure bigoted or racist incidents still happened in those towns. However, the town residents likely said "We know him as our Sherriff and thats good enough for us ...get your ass out of town."


- Ed C.

Quote from: Esgaldil;429585I'm going to take a wild guess and say he had a Redd Foxx impression he wanted to use.

To be fair, that's a good reason.

Quote from: RPGPundit;429307yes, it would also be wrong, if not being done in a gonzo, ironic, or tongue-in-cheek fashion. And even in the latter areas one can question the appropriateness of it.

So which is it?

Are you complaining that Deadlands is "insulting" because it's a an alternate history RPG will an alternate history that's cheesy or are you complaining that it's offensive even though it's gonzo, ironic, or tongue-in-cheek?  Or are you mangling the two complaints into one mess of an argument?

With respect to the first, it seems pretty clear to lots of people in this thread that Deadlands isn't a serious attempt at alternate history and your complaints are like complaining about what they did with California isn't geologically accurate.  With respect to the latter, that's why people are talking about Nazis and Hogan's Heroes as well as communists and pulps, because there are plenty of other examples of role-playing games taking liberties with historical nastiness to keep things gonzo and playful rather than heavy and serious.  Just about everything about Deadlands screams "gonzo and fun" yet you are choosing to take it far more seriously than intended.  

So why did they bother to write all of that alternate history detail, then?  To sell books.  A big part of what drove all the meta-plot story nonsense in the 1990s was the idea that they could sell role-playing books full of fiction that that people who don't actually role-play anymore would also buy them.  And I'm guessing that they picked the explanation they picked in the hope that it would be the quickest, bluntest, least complicated way to get from the antibellum South to something more politically correct, which is why it's so crude and blunt, like sliding the needle from one track to another on a record.  It wasn't meant to be plausible.  It was meant to sweep the issue under the rug so that people wouldn't keep asking, "So why is there still a CSA with no slavery?"  That they spend so little time on it tells me that thy are hoping you won't spend too much time dwelling on itand stop talking about it.  Is that inherently "insulting" or "offensive"?  And if you want to argue that a game must address slavery and racism in a detailed and serious manner, isn't that pushing you into Bruce Baugh territory?

Quote from: RPGPundit;429307The whitewashing in Pulps is not really quite the same.  But IF someone were to make a Pulp RPG that presented the 1920s as a time when black people explicitly had all the same opportunities as white people, or where women and other minorities were regularly presented as being institutionally in equal positions, and no one had an issue with things like sexual orientation or whatnot; in other words, if they took all the values of 2010 and projected them backward through time drooping them superimposed like some fat prostitute over an 18 year old farmboy on the historical backdrop of that other time; I would be just as bothered by it.

I think that describes the vast majority of pulp role-playing games out there, as well as the vast majority of historical and alternate history role-playing games out there.  The vast majority of all role-playing games present the values from 2010 and project them onto whatever time period or fantasy they depict.  And I can think of plenty of other places to start with this complaint other than a game with undead cardsharks and wuxia pirates.

Quote from: RPGPundit;429307ESPECIALLY if their claim or their tone implied that this was meant to be taken as a serious and historically plausible setting.

On what basis do you think Deadlands was made to be taken seriously or their history as plausible?  Just because they provide some explanation for their history does not automatically make the effort serious or plausible.  That Star Trek, a far more serious work than Deadlands, mentions the "Eugenics Wars" happening in the 1990s does not mean that such a war was ever a serious or plausible projection of the future, nor was Space: 1999 putting nuclear waste dumps on the Moon or having them blast the moon out of orbit.  Eugenics and nuclear waste disposal are serious subjects, but that does not make either of those works of fiction either serious or plausible and it would be foolish and miss the point to call either work "insulting" on the basis of their ham-handed treatment of those issues.

Quote from: RPGPundit;429307That's my complaint: that historical RPGs shouldn't whitewash history by projecting modern values on historical periods.

Well, then you should complain about the vast majority of the hobby and the genres that it's built upon because the vast majority of role-playing games, science fiction, and fantasy do just that.  Even the most highly regarded and serious of it tends to do what you are complaining about to some degree because it's all written by contemporary people with contemporary assumptions.

Further, I would argue that to complain about this, just as complaining about monocultural alien and fantasy races, misses the whole point of them in fantasy and science fiction, which are not to be a serious history lesson or plausible extrapolation of reality but to say something to the audience, all of whom are contemporary humans, most of whom live in a Western culture, most of whom don't know any historical period well enough to plausibly portray the denizens of that period, and most of whom are not looking for a history lesson in their science fiction, fantasy, or role-playing games, which is why you'll find so few pure historical role-playing games and settings.  The vast majority of people looking for historical authenticity belong to reenactment groups and/or read history books and/or read fiction specifically designed around historical accuracy.  They don't pick up books about undead gunslingers and card sharks looking for a serious treatment of history, just like they don't pick up books about zeppelin aircraft carriers and lost civilizations in Antarctica looking for a serious treatment of history.

All that said, I do think that a plausible and serious alternate history can be a good thing and help verisimilitude and I'm all for it, but even if I were going to make that argument, I wouldn't start with Deadlands.

Quote from: RPGPundit;429307Bruce Baugh's complaint is more like "RPGs should be forced to constantly address issues of racism and sexism and oppression which by the way we will judge entirely from our 21st century vantage point of smug superiority".

Well, isn't your complaint about Deadlands that it doesn't really address the treatment of slavery and racism and simply sweeps it under the carpet?  Isn't that more a difference in degree than kind?  Is your complaint about Bruce Baugh that he simply takes it too far?

Well, I have to say first of all its nice to have someone debating me that actually wants to and is capable of debate, unlike the tired string of Swine who come and go from these boards just looking to "challenge" me.

Quote from: John Morrow;429600So which is it?

Are you complaining that Deadlands is "insulting" because it's a an alternate history RPG will an alternate history that's cheesy or are you complaining that it's offensive even though it's gonzo, ironic, or tongue-in-cheek?  Or are you mangling the two complaints into one mess of an argument?

I'm arguing that Deadlands is schizophrenic.  It has a dual personality; at times being completely gonzo, but when it comes to presenting their alternate history trying to suddenly put on the veneer of seriousness.

QuoteWith respect to the first, it seems pretty clear to lots of people in this thread that Deadlands isn't a serious attempt at alternate history and your complaints are like complaining about what they did with California isn't geologically accurate.  

As far as I can recall, they don't dedicate dozens of pages to claiming that what they did to the California coastline is geographically plausible.

QuoteSo why did they bother to write all of that alternate history detail, then?  To sell books.  A big part of what drove all the meta-plot story nonsense in the 1990s was the idea that they could sell role-playing books full of fiction that that people who don't actually role-play anymore would also buy them.

I can't disagree with this, really.  Obviously it was to sell books, and they thought they had to do so in this way because they were completely sold on the dominating gaming ideology of the time (the White Wolf model).

QuoteAnd if you want to argue that a game must address slavery and racism in a detailed and serious manner, isn't that pushing you into Bruce Baugh territory?

Again, what I'm saying is a game should either shit or get off the pot.  If you're going to present a detailed alternate history, make it a plausible one, otherwise say "its just this way because it is" and get on with it.

QuoteI think that describes the vast majority of pulp role-playing games out there, as well as the vast majority of historical and alternate history role-playing games out there.  The vast majority of all role-playing games present the values from 2010 and project them onto whatever time period or fantasy they depict.  And I can think of plenty of other places to start with this complaint other than a game with undead cardsharks and wuxia pirates.

There are plenty of other game settings that do this, its true.  I have issues with most of them to, at least the ones who end up having a double discourse about it.  The reason I chose deadlands is explained in the thread title: I think Deadlands stands out in just how many different groups they ended up inadvertently selling short in different ways.

QuoteThat Star Trek, a far more serious work than Deadlands, mentions the "Eugenics Wars" happening in the 1990s does not mean that such a war was ever a serious or plausible projection of the future, nor was Space: 1999 putting nuclear waste dumps on the Moon or having them blast the moon out of orbit.  

I don't think you can seriously make a comparison on the basis of 60s and 70s TV sci-fi, where the standards of intellectual rigor were entirely different.

QuoteFurther, I would argue that to complain about this, just as complaining about monocultural alien and fantasy races, misses the whole point of them in fantasy and science fiction, which are not to be a serious history lesson or plausible extrapolation of reality but to say something to the audience, all of whom are contemporary humans, most of whom live in a Western culture, most of whom don't know any historical period well enough to plausibly portray the denizens of that period, and most of whom are not looking for a history lesson in their science fiction, fantasy, or role-playing games, which is why you'll find so few pure historical role-playing games and settings.

Pure? True. But there are many RPGs that do a good job about their history or about their alternate history as the case may be.  

QuoteWell, isn't your complaint about Deadlands that it doesn't really address the treatment of slavery and racism and simply sweeps it under the carpet?  Isn't that more a difference in degree than kind?  Is your complaint about Bruce Baugh that he simply takes it too far?

No.  If you understand what he's saying, Baugh basically wants to do the exact same thing the Deadlands guys did, impose 21st century morality on history (or rather, on how we look at historical settings in RPGs). That's not what I'm saying extrapolated, that's an entirely different argument.  Its not even the opposite of what I'm saying; if anything, its just the opposite of what the Deadlands guys did.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;429684If you're going to present a detailed alternate history, make it a plausible one

This is where you have made a serious error.  Deadlands has a detailed fictional history that is never plausible and never serious.  A good comparison could be made to Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which has an extremely detailed timeline and glossary, linking fictional characters from the Faerie Queen to Alice in Wonderland.  The fact that Deadlands includes real places, dates, and people should not obscure the fact that it draws on all manner of fictions without any regard at any point to plausibility.  I can't think of a single statement in the core or anywhere else that tried for a moment to convince me that this scenario was a plausible counterfactual history.  

A "veneer of seriousness" is often the best way to tell a joke.  If nothing in the source material argues for seriousness other than the amount of detail given to the fictional history, I don't think that is sufficient for accusing a game of being schizophrenic when it is, in fact, merely looney.

Quote from: RPGPundit;429684Well, I have to say first of all its nice to have someone debating me that actually wants to and is capable of debate, unlike the tired string of Swine who come and go from these boards just looking to "challenge" me.

Talking a schizo out of his delusions is not much of a debate, now, is it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;429684I'm arguing that Deadlands is schizophrenic.  It has a dual personality; at times being completely gonzo, but when it comes to presenting their alternate history trying to suddenly put on the veneer of seriousness.

And what several people here are saying is that the "veneer of seriousness" was never meant to be anything more than a veneer, if even that.  The quantity of writing and detail presented do not automatically translate into seriousness or an attempt at plausibility.  And from what I'm seeing, it looks an awful lot like "We have to say something but how can we quickly sweep the whole slavery thing under the rug?"  And while that may come off as insulting or offensive, the actual intent might have been to avoid giving offense.  It seems less a matter of trying to downplay a nasty bit of history and more a matter of trying to avert one's eyes from it, which is often a way to be polite.  I think they were petty much going to be damned by someone no matter what they chose to do here.

Quote from: RPGPundit;429684As far as I can recall, they don't dedicate dozens of pages to claiming that what they did to the California coastline is geographically plausible.

I don't have the complete Deadlines line and it's been a while since I looked at it, so I'll take your word for it.  My point is that they do give explanations for implausible details to explain them, but the presence of those explanations does not automatically translate into seriousness or plausibility.

Quote from: RPGPundit;429684I can't disagree with this, really.  Obviously it was to sell books, and they thought they had to do so in this way because they were completely sold on the dominating gaming ideology of the time (the White Wolf model).

In some ways, I think they became so enamored with selling games to people who weren't playing that they started writing books that were of no use to people who were actually playing.  Had such books totally failed to sell in the marketplace, people wouldn't have been sold on that line of thinking, but they were selling -- to people who often weren't actually using any of it in play.

Quote from: RPGPundit;429684Again, what I'm saying is a game should either shit or get off the pot.  If you're going to present a detailed alternate history, make it a plausible one, otherwise say "its just this way because it is" and get on with it.

As a matter of personal preference, I agree with you, but detailed alternate histories in gonzo settings can serve purposes other than seriousness and plausibility.  Essentially, they are there to provide what you referred to as a "veneer of seriousness", just enough of an explanation to add some color and head off the inevitable questions about why things are a certain way in the setting, but aren't intended to be taken wholly seriously or plausibly.  It's like the technobabble in Star Trek.  It can be fairly detailed and take up quite a bit of an episode, but often it's not particularly serious or credible, and even where it has some depth, it can still run into problems if you go too deep.  It's not intended to hold up to rigorous scrutiny.  It's an attempt to add a "veneer of seriousness" to the situation.

Quote from: RPGPundit;429684There are plenty of other game settings that do this, its true.  I have issues with most of them to, at least the ones who end up having a double discourse about it.  The reason I chose deadlands is explained in the thread title: I think Deadlands stands out in just how many different groups they ended up inadvertently selling short in different ways.

Well, I think they were purposely trying to avoid the game being about slavery but wanted various antebellum Southern trappings so there were only so many ways to pull that trick off.  Maybe the could have done a better job with the details, but there was going to be a certain amount of inevitable hand-waving involved.  It would be nice to hear what the authors, themselves, have to say about their motivations, but I can think of plenty of motives that were neither malicious nor lazy.

Quote from: RPGPundit;429684I don't think you can seriously make a comparison on the basis of 60s and 70s TV sci-fi, where the standards of intellectual rigor were entirely different.

Given how many role-playing games draw on material from the 60s and 70s or try to emulate the feel of that period, I think it's fair.  And I'm not really sure the "standards of intellectual rigor" have changed all that much for most people, even if people who spend their days debating fantasy on the Internet might give the impression that it has.  

At a convention, J. Michael Straczynski talked about observing a focus group watching Babylon 5 from behind a two-way mirror when a member of the focus group said that they wished Babylon 5 was more "science fictiony".  Asked to explain further, the person responed, "You know, like the Power Rangers."  People who watch movies like Troy or Gladiator are not sticklers for historical accuracy or even plausibility.

Quote from: RPGPundit;429684Pure? True. But there are many RPGs that do a good job about their history or about their alternate history as the case may be.

It depends on how picky you want to be, what pushes your buttons, and the ideological lens that you look at them through.  

Quote from: RPGPundit;429684No.  If you understand what he's saying, Baugh basically wants to do the exact same thing the Deadlands guys did, impose 21st century morality on history (or rather, on how we look at historical settings in RPGs). That's not what I'm saying extrapolated, that's an entirely different argument.  Its not even the opposite of what I'm saying; if anything, its just the opposite of what the Deadlands guys did.

That's not the impression I got about Bruce Baugh's intentions.  What he wanted to do was write a book that highlighted the racial, ethnic, sexual, and ideological politics and bigotry of the period (through his own ideological lens, of course) rather than sweep it under the carpet.  And I honestly don't see much of a distinction between that and saying that the the CSA in Deadlands should have faced the slavery issue dead-on rather than sweeping it under the carpet.  It's basically saying that "look away" is not a legitimate option and that the bigotries and oppression of a period should be present and addressed.

Quote from: John Morrow;429705That's not the impression I got about Bruce Baugh's intentions.  What he wanted to do was write a book that highlighted the racial, ethnic, sexual, and ideological politics and bigotry of the period (through his own ideological lens, of course) rather than sweep it under the carpet.  And I honestly don't see much of a distinction between that and saying that the the CSA in Deadlands should have faced the slavery issue dead-on rather than sweeping it under the carpet.  It's basically saying that "look away" is not a legitimate option and that the bigotries and oppression of a period should be present and addressed.

My point was that Baugh wants to impose 21st century morality by demanding that we look at these issues with a modern liberal agenda; while the authors of Deadlands want to impose a 21st century morality by projecting modern values on the past and engaging in revisionist history. They are two sides of the same coin.

My proposal is something totally different: Don't whitewash, and don't turn it into a morality tale of judging how evil and wrong the white patriarchy is or some other bullshit like that.  Look at it as real human problems that were a product of the historical times, but only to the extent that it naturally would come up in the EMULATION of the world. In other words, play the fucking setting for what it is, rather than trying to make a morality-play out of it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;429885My proposal is something totally different: Don't whitewash, and don't turn it into a morality tale of judging how evil and wrong the white patriarchy is or some other bullshit like that.  Look at it as real human problems that were a product of the historical times, but only to the extent that it naturally would come up in the EMULATION of the world. In other words, play the fucking setting for what it is, rather than trying to make a morality-play out of it.

But is putting heavy real world issues like slavery, sexism, racism, and so on into your setting really compatible with the light gonzo fun that the authors seem to have been looking for?  What would Deadlands had felt like if slavery and racism remained issues in the setting?

Paranoia has a twisted take on any number of real-world ideologies and situations, and remains "gonzo fun". I can think of a few other settings that do likewise.

How far do you go with that line of thinking? I mean, what about poverty? Are you not allowed to have poor people in a gonzo setting?

RPGPundit

Speaking for myself, I was not arguing that Deadlands is allowed to have a stupid solution to slavery because it is a silly game.  I think you can still object to the whitewashing and point this out as a flaw in Deadlands.  My point was that you cannot do that on the grounds that Deadlands is in any way a serious game.  If, Pundit, you are now conceding that point (that Deadlands is not a serious setting), feel free to say so.

Quote from: Esgaldil;430014Speaking for myself, I was not arguing that Deadlands is allowed to have a stupid solution to slavery because it is a silly game.  I think you can still object to the whitewashing and point this out as a flaw in Deadlands.  My point was that you cannot do that on the grounds that Deadlands is in any way a serious game.  If, Pundit, you are now conceding that point (that Deadlands is not a serious setting), feel free to say so.

I believe that Deadlands is a game with a split personality.  At its core, it is a gonzo game (which I guess you could call silly), but that for reasons of prevailing design ideology at the time of its creation also tries to be "serious" about its background story, because the authors thought it had to be to be "cool".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;430004Paranoia has a twisted take on any number of real-world ideologies and situations, and remains "gonzo fun". I can think of a few other settings that do likewise.

Years ago, at a convention, author Ken Rolston talked about having a moment of pause when he realized that he was writing up a humorous torture table for Paranoia as he realized he was a member of Amnesty International and was using torture for laughs.  So, yes, I think that even including it in a game like Paranoia runs a risk of it putting a damper on the fun if someone thinks about it too much.

Quote from: RPGPundit;430004How far do you go with that line of thinking? I mean, what about poverty? Are you not allowed to have poor people in a gonzo setting?

Can you think of any gonzo setting that spends any time treating poverty with realistic detail or respect?

Quote from: John Morrow;430026Can you think of any gonzo setting that spends any time treating poverty with realistic detail or respect?

WFRP

...well, detail, anyway.

Pundit - speaking of the difference between detail and respect, can you show me any evidence of this alleged "serious" background in Deadlands?  This may have to remain an area of subjective interpretation, but I'd be happy to reconsider my position if any material anywhere in the Deadlands books supports the thesis that someone was trying to be serious/cool amidst the flying aces and cannibal preachers.

Quote from: rpgpundit;429885my point was that baugh wants to impose 21st century morality by demanding that we look at these issues with a modern liberal agenda; while the authors of deadlands want to impose a 21st century morality by projecting modern values on the past and engaging in revisionist history. They are two sides of the same coin.

My proposal is something totally different: Don't whitewash, and don't turn it into a morality tale of judging how evil and wrong the white patriarchy is or some other bullshit like that.  Look at it as real human problems that were a product of the historical times, but only to the extent that it naturally would come up in the emulation of the world. In other words, play the fucking setting for what it is, rather than trying to make a morality-play out of it.

Rpgpundit

...

I just want to shoot zombies in a saloon!

Here's the thing for me - what makes this offensive is that they actually bring up the CSA and slavery, but they make a big deal about how the CSA got rid of slavery - despite it being the whole point for them forming the CSA and being the backbone of their economy.

That's what's so annoying to me.  It comes off as another "noble southerners of the CSA" thing like that Gods and Generals movie.  Don't feed me the "obviously they would have abandoned slavery on their own very soon" nonsense.  It's insulting.

You know what wouldn't have been annoying or insulting - simply not saying anything one way or the other about slavery as part of the core setting.  Maybe with a page or two saying how to handle slavery if you want it to exist in your campaign, options for hand-waving it away if you want, implications one way or the other, at least acknowledging that is a tricky subject, etc.

Quote from: jgants;430079Here's the thing for me - what makes this offensive is that they actually bring up the CSA and slavery, but they make a big deal about how the CSA got rid of slavery - despite it being the whole point for them forming the CSA and being the backbone of their economy.

That's what's so annoying to me.  It comes off as another "noble southerners of the CSA" thing like that Gods and Generals movie.  Don't feed me the "obviously they would have abandoned slavery on their own very soon" nonsense.  It's insulting.

You know what wouldn't have been annoying or insulting - simply not saying anything one way or the other about slavery as part of the core setting.  Maybe with a page or two saying how to handle slavery if you want it to exist in your campaign, options for hand-waving it away if you want, implications one way or the other, at least acknowledging that is a tricky subject, etc.

From what I heard somewhere, the reason they gave up slavery was so the French or someone would support them in a war?  I'm not sure, my memory is very vague, so please correct me if I am wrong.

It seems to me that the film of Wild Wild West is a good example of silly gonzo actions that doesn't ignore racism and slavery.  Indeed, it has a black protagonist - who is at one point mobbed by a crowd at a party looking to lynch him.  It's just that this is all done in a gonzo fashion, rather than turning it serious.  

If they really really wanted the CSA to still be around post-Civil-War, they could just have Jefferson Davis make a deal with some supernatural creature to have zombie hordes fight for him or plenty of other possibilities.

Quote from: John Morrow;430026Can you think of any gonzo setting that spends any time treating poverty with realistic detail or respect?

Why does it need "realistic detail"?! All I'm arguing is that its enough to just have it there.  In RIFTS, for example, the vast majority of common people are extremely poor (and I guess technically, RIFTS does go into some detail about it with the Chi-town Burbs).

The point is to have it there, in no small part so that your PCs can be heroes about it.

If Deadlands really just wanted to have the CSA around for the "gonzo" it would have made far more sense for them to have stayed around as slave-owning villains for heroic PCs to thwart, instead of the very UN-gonzo "shades of grey" pretty much nice guys that theyr'e made out to be in the setting.

RPGPundit