Quote from: David RDoes anyone know of any examples of "minorities" in Pulp - movies, books ? So, this discussion can move from an "is this a good idea" to "hey, this might actually sound interesting" discussion.

Pulp Fiction, perhaps? Not exactly the same thing, but related, maybe.
And of course superhero comic books, which are even closer to the subject, are full of portrayals of minorities (some pretty clumsy, but a few that are not).
Then there's Love & Rockets, which at least in early issues had some great genre-mixing of superhero/pulpy stuff with Latino flavorings. Especially the story "BEM".

Quote from: Elliot WilenPulp Fiction, perhaps? Not exactly the same thing, but related, maybe.
And of course superhero comic books, which are even closer to the subject, are full of portrayals of minorities (some pretty clumsy, but a few that are not).
Then there's Love & Rockets, which at least in early issues had some great genre-mixing of superhero/pulpy stuff with Latino flavorings. Especially the story "BEM".

Very interesting stuff Elliot. It may be a good idea to look beyond the genre (Pulp) for interesting portrayals.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Elliot WilenThen there's Love & Rockets, which at least in early issues had some great genre-mixing of superhero/pulpy stuff with Latino flavorings.

Oh, lordy yes.  Love and Rocket was and still is fantastic.  The stories that follow Maggie are possibly best -- "Mechanics" is a very stongly Latino-flavored pulp sci-fi series of stories.  I recommend them very highly.

!i!

Quote from: RPGPunditBut is that "unfriendly against homosexuals" or "unfriendly against Curt" and his homosexual victim-baiting?

I think there's a pretty serious difference, and you and others are obvious evidence that the issue is not really about homophobia at all.

RPGPundit

Ah, see...  Curt is confrontational.  He challenges assumptions and doesn't let things slide.  He comes off very strongly and defensively.

But for a gay male living in the good ol' US of A, I think he has every right to. Being angry and confrontational isn't my style but it's his and I can respect it.

We're not part of the status quo.  And every little casual barb or dismissal is aimed right at the heart of our identity.  Curt's obviously sick and tired and Not Gonna Take It Anymore.  He makes people uncomfortable because he directly challenges assumptions.  Ones people don't generally think about and don't generally want to think about.  Good on him, I say.

Now that's just my impression from the one or two times I've seen him tear into somebody on rpg.net.  Generally I was both wincing and cheering him on.  Wincing, because he comes off like a pissed off gay wolverine with a chip on his shoulder.  Cheering him on because he was in the right, and the person he was after went defensive rather than being courteous or apologetic.

So I admit there may have been behavior by Curt I haven't seen that was legitimately uncalled-for.  This is all, needless to say, regardless of his aptitude or suitability as a moderator.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaOh, lordy yes.  Love and Rocket was and still is fantastic.  The stories that follow Maggie are possibly best -- "Mechanics" is a very stongly Latino-flavored pulp sci-fi series of stories.  I recommend them very highly.

Yes, those too. Later in the series, Maggie & Hopey's stories do a sort of slow-dissolve into slice-of-life realism, but those early stories with Maggie as a Prosolar Mechanic, are pulpy fun.

I find that there are actually people who feel need for this supplement to be rather laughable. I laugh even harder when I read about people talking about what a good idea it is.

Just shows how far the infection of political correctness has gone.

Have the people who are mad at pulp genre games protrayal of minorities ever read actual pulp/adventure stories from that era?

Imagine that - a game reflecting its source material - even if subconciously.


.

Quote from: JaegerJust shows how far the infection of political correctness has gone.

Le sigh.

Go on.  Define "political correctness" for me, please.  I think it's a bullshit term that gets misused by just about everyone who bothers to use it.  It's bullshit when people are for it, and it's bullshit when people are against it.  So, please, remind me why I fucking hate the term again.

!i!

I put the stuff in bold.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaLe sigh.

Go on.  Define "political correctness" for me, please.  I think it's a bullshit term that gets misused by just about everyone who bothers to use it.  It's bullshit when people are for it, and it's bullshit when people are against it.  So, please, remind me why I fucking hate the term again.

!i!

Le sigh. (I can play this game too.)

You evidently hate it - And I have a little feeling that nothing I can say will change your mind.

I could define it , but then you'd just call my defenition BS.

So why should I even try?

In fact, I'm not going to.

Hating the term "political correctness" for whatever reason, is your perogative.
 
And useing it whenever I see fit is mine.

Because anything else would be bowing to "political correctness".

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaGo on.  Define "political correctness" for me, please.

This Usenet thread from 1985 is a good place to start.  To really understand the term, you need to understand that it was originally used, often in total seriousness, by leftists to describe ideas, positions, terms, and even facts.  Yes, people at Berkeley and elsewhere actually wore buttons to self-identify themselves as being "politically correct".  I'll leave how it became a pejorative label up to your imagination.

So, "politically correct" means, "stuff I dislike"? So when you say, "we must not give in to political correctness!" what you really mean is, "we must not give in to stuff I dislike!"

That's a sophisticated argument, that is. With that level of logic and rhetoric, you could become a senator!

Quote from: JimBobOzSo, "politically correct" means, "stuff I dislike"? So when you say, "we must not give in to political correctness!" what you really mean is, "we must not give in to stuff I dislike!"

In the current usage of the term, I think it's pretty clear.  It tends to mean "censoring or modifying language to conform to (usually left-wing) political sensibilities" when used in that context.  

Thus what he's saying is that he will not censor or modify his language to conform to (probably left-wing) political sensibilities that dislike the term.

Are you guys really so dense that you need all of this spelled out or maybe Google isn't working anymore in your neck of the Internet?

Yes, it does need to be spelled out. Because it's a political term, and politics is a fuzzy, mixed-up thing. I mean, over in the USA a "liberal" is economically conversative, and a "conservative" is economically liberal; here Down Under our Liberal Party is a socially conservative, while the Labor Party is the party of the urban middle class. In Europe many parties are "socialist", but in the USA, UK or Australia, if you called your party "socialist" people would think you're a communist. So the meaning of political words is not entirely consistent from place to place, and the internet is a medium with people from many places.

Also, the sort of people who regularly bitch about things being "politically correct" are the sort of people who have a pretty fuzzy grasp of political and world affairs. So if you ask them to speak clearly and say exactly what they mean they tend to run away faster than Ron Edwards at a Hackmaster convention.

Quote from: JimBobOzYes, it does need to be spelled out. Because it's a political term, and politics is a fuzzy, mixed-up thing.

Of course it is, but I find it difficult to believe that you've never encountered the term "politically correct" or it's common meaning which, by the way, is Marxist in origins.

Quote from: JimBobOzAlso, the sort of people who regularly bitch about things being "politically correct" are the sort of people who have a pretty fuzzy grasp of political and world affairs. So if you ask them to speak clearly and say exactly what they mean they tend to run away faster than Ron Edwards at a Hackmaster convention.

That's not my experience, and I'll happily discuss what the term means and even its origins, if you want.

Okay, I've tried REALLY hard to avoid this subject. But I can't do it any longer. Here's MY point of view,for what its worth.:

Any "period" role-playing game HAS to be cast in the era in which it takes place.

I am currently running a very successful GURPS Time Travel game wherein one of the PCs is playing a black (or dare I say, African American) person.

The first session after orientation and training, he was assigned to be the "assistant" to an upper class white female in the mid/late 1800's to observe the completion of the transcontinental railroad in the United States, at Promontory Junction, in northern Utah. You've seen pictures, I'm sure.

In the context of the game, he was a second-class citizen. He deferred to white folk at every turn. He took a job as a bus-boy/dishwasher in the primary tavern in town. He was admired by the kitchen staff because of his hard work and experience (he was a DJ/Bartender at an adult club in the 21st century), but dismissed by most everyone else in the adventure.

But he overheard the most important clues to his "mission" of the entire adventure. Even MORE so than the upper-class white woman who was a "reporter" for a "Back East" newspaper. The woman (another agent) whom he was supposed to be a "manservant" for. HE was the most important person in the mission because he had access to the most important areas and most important conversations.

My point is - deal with race/sex/class based upon the era they are in. Make the ADVENTURE reflect your desires, as the GM, as opposed to trying to make the GAME reflect them.

We can NOT impose our early 21st century values on the periods that came before us for this simple reason: We are the RESULT of those earlier perods. The sum of everything that came before us. If you try to emancipate women, or blacks, or anyone else, before the point when they actually became emancipated in OUR history, then that's at BEST an alternate history, and at BEST a reflection of the GM, not the players. Interesting, yes. A good source of conflict and adventure, of course. But its NOT "our history".

If Bruce Baugh is trying to do a Pulp game wherein women, or Blacks, or Indians, are given more of a place at the "table" than they actually had in the earlier period of our history (the 1930's), then its an alternate history at best. If its marketed as such, then fine. If its an attempt at re-writing history, then I reject and fight it with my last breath!

History, is history. It happened. Deal with it.

Quote from: JimBobOzYes, it does need to be spelled out. Because it's a political term, and politics is a fuzzy, mixed-up thing.

Also, the sort of people who regularly bitch about things being "politically correct" are the sort of people who have a pretty fuzzy grasp of political and world affairs. So if you ask them to speak clearly and say exactly what they mean they tend to run away faster than Ron Edwards at a Hackmaster convention.

It's good to know that making subtle, snide, blanket statements about people you disagree with is not a lost art.

JimBobOz, I salute you.

But, I personally have never found political or world affairs to be mixed up or fuzzy.

In fact I find it rather easy to pick out the lying bastards that are in it to serve their own self interests.

Also, the sort of people who regularly bitch about things having to be spelled out for them are the sort of people who have a pretty fuzzy grasp of political and world affairs. So when you start to hold their hand and tell them exactly what you mean in small, simple words, so that they can understand, they tend to run away faster than RPG Pundit at a Ron Edwards GNS Theory seminar.

Can I get a return salute?