Quote from: John MorrowOf 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.

Actually, it goes back further than that, as a social conservative's insult against lefties wanting to call disabled people "differently abled" and so on. It's just that the lefties said, "yes, I am politically correct, bitch! Er, "female dog," I mean... not that there's anything wrong specifically with the femininity of the dog, and... er... hey, look over there! A member of the hegemeny oppressing someone!" So the lefties appopriated the term. But the obnoxious gits are the ones who kept it alive.

"It's not that I'm a racist fuck, it's just that you're a politically correct pussy!"

Quote from: John MorrowThat's not my experience, and I'll happily discuss what the term means and even its origins, if you want.

What the terms means to you, you've made clear. What the term means to this doofus Jaeger is not clear at all. That's my point - politcal words mean different things to different people.

Quote from: JaegerIts good to know that making subtle, snide, blanket statements about people you disagree with is not a lost art.

I've never before been accused of being "subtle". If I want to call someone a doofus, I do. Like this: Jaeger, you are a doofus. See? Easy.

In general, I have found that those who bitch loudly about "political correctness" oppressing them horribly have a very fuzzy grasp of politics and world affairs.

Quote from: JaegerBut, I personally have never found political or world affairs to be mixed up or fuzzy.

If you find political and world affairs to not be mixed-up or fuzzy, then you definitely don't understand them well. The world's a complicated place.

But there's a difference between things being mixed-up and fuzzy, and having a mixed-up and fuzzy understanding of them. We use our reason to find patterns in the chaos. We use our insanity and stupidity to see patterns where there are none. Like a pattern connecting Dubya to the collapse of the twin towers, that sort of thing.

Quote from: JaegerAlso, 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 Ron Edwards at a Hackmaster convention.

Can I get a return salute?

Nope, because the parody is not well-done. It's just a word-substitution. If you wish to flame me, you have to try harder. Yours was just, "no, you poopyhead!"

It's guys who are that strange mixed-up right-wing-libertarian that you only get in the United States or those desperately imitating them who bitch about "political correctness." What they really mean is, "I deliberately say offensive things, and people are offended! Pussies! People should be tough and strong like me, sitting in my parents' basement eating pizza."

If you want to be an offensive sod, just come straight out and be an offensive prick, like I do. Don't make a political affair of it. If you can care for the elderly without being a socialist, and enjoy firing shotguns without being a fascist, then you can certainly be an offensive sod without bitching about "political correctness." Just come out and say straight out that you hate blackfellahs and laugh at Down's Syndrome kids, don't buggerise about saying that you're fighting for your freedoms or some horseshit like that.

Quote from: JimBobOzActually, it goes back further than that, as a social conservative's insult against lefties wanting to call disabled people "differently abled" and so on. It's just that the lefties said, "yes, I am politically correct, bitch! Er, "female dog," I mean... not that there's anything wrong specifically with the femininity of the dog, and... er... hey, look over there! A member of the hegemeny oppressing someone!" So the lefties appopriated the term. But the obnoxious gits are the ones who kept it alive.

No, JimBobOz, that's not true, as even the Wikipedia entry will tell you, or maybe you'd prefer the Answers.com version.  Here's another set of good explanations and here's another one.  Or maybe you'd trust an explanation from the OED2 which "does not even include a use of the term from a conservative source".  Now, while those pages may differ a bit on the exact origin, whether it's Maoist or Stalinist, or simply communist or American leftist, the origin is clearly on the left, not the right.  And the left started using it to mock the overly sincere in their own ranks before the right picked it up and started using it to mock them.

Now that leads me to my question.  Where did you get your explanation and why do you trust it or believe it?  

I think that's fair to ask after your charget that "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."

Quote from: WerekoalaIf 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.

SotC itself is alternate history at best. Are you saying it's a historically accurate game? Are you saying Pulp* as a genre is historically accurate? BTW was the player playing this black character black himself/herself ?

*In RPGs. I can't think of any historically accurate Pulp games.

And John Morrow, are you agreeing with Jaeger, that this supplement is just an excercise in PCness ?

Edit: One last question, with regards to your "It happened. Deal it with"  stance, would you have any objections (since you believe SotC is historically accurate) to the supplement if it was a historically accurate depiction of how minorities were treated ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JimBobOzWhat the terms means to you, you've made clear. What the term means to this doofus Jaeger is not clear at all. That's my point - politcal words mean different things to different people.

Why do you even care what the term 'political correctness" means to me at all?

And I could care less if you don't find my useage clear.

Words do mean different things to different people. And that's why I am not even going to try explain what the term "political correctness" means for me.

Becasue you'll probably just disagree with me anyway, and like I said earlier, nothing we say to each other will chage our respective minds.

Quote from: JimBobOzI've never before been accused of being "subtle".

[/B][/SIZE][/SIZE]

There is a first time for everything.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf I want to call someone a doofus, I do. Like this: Jaeger, you are a doofus. See? Easy.

[/B][/SIZE]

Then why didn't you say so the first time. You could have save yourself from so much typing.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf you find political and world affairs to not be mixed-up or fuzzy, then you definitely don't understand them well. The world's a complicated place.

[/B][/SIZE]

I disagree with you, my understanding is just fine. You have your opinion of me, and I think you are completely wrong.

You can probably care less that I disagree with you. But I can live with that.

Quote from: JimBobOzNope, because the parody is not well-done. It's just a word-substitution. If you wish to flame me, you have to try harder. Yours was just, "no, you poopyhead!" .

[/B][/SIZE]

Actually, thats exactly how I felt about your origional statement: you were just calling people poopyheads.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's guys who are that strange mixed-up right-wing-libertarian that you only get in the United States or those desperately imitating them who bitch about "political correctness." What they really mean is, "I deliberately say offensive things, and people are offended! Pussies! People should be tough and strong like me, sitting in my parents' basement eating pizza."

[/B][/SIZE]

Just a round about way calling people "poopyheads". And at the risk of commiting more sins of word substitution... You'll have to try harder for the flame.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf you want to be an offensive sod, just come straight out and be an offensive prick, like I do. Don't make a political affair of it. If you can care for the elderly without being a socialist, and enjoy firing shotguns without being a fascist, then you can certainly be an offensive sod without bitching about "political correctness." .

[/B][/SIZE]

I never made a political affair out of it.

It's others that keep asking for terms and definitions.

Yes, I bitched about the "political correctness" of a game supplement. So what.

I merely expressed my opinion like many others before me on this thread.

Quote from: JimBobOzJust come out and say straight out that you hate blackfellahs and laugh at Down's Syndrome kids, don't buggerise about saying that you're fighting for your freedoms or some horseshit like that.

[/B][/SIZE]

And if you want to mock and make fun of people, admit that you're being a bit of a Jerk when you are mocking them. And that you did it because you thought it would be funny.

Don't try to justify being an jerk by saying that: "Mockery is almost always productive." And that you were actually just trying to help by firing barbs at someone. If that's not buggeriseing about trying to justify your actions, I don't know what is.

This is like the pot calling the kettle black.


I won't cater to this guys wishes:

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaLe sigh.

Go on. Define "political correctness" for me, please. ...So, please, remind me why I fucking hate the term again.
.

[/B][/SIZE]

Like I told him.

It's obvious to me from the demanding tone and other content of his post that he would disagree with any response I make. So I'm not going to try.

Not for him, and not for you.

In fact if you find me as big of a "doofus" as you say you do please feel free to ignore anything I say. You won't be the first to do so, and certainly not the last.

Quote from: JimBobOzWhat the terms means to you, you've made clear. What the term means to this doofus Jaeger is not clear at all. That's my point - politcal words mean different things to different people.

No, I think it's pretty clear what it means to him and I think you are just playing games.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's guys who are that strange mixed-up right-wing-libertarian that you only get in the United States or those desperately imitating them who bitch about "political correctness." What they really mean is, "I deliberately say offensive things, and people are offended! Pussies! People should be tough and strong like me, sitting in my parents' basement eating pizza."

Nope.  Not at all.  A lot of them are people who don't deliberately say offensive things and still offend people looking to be offended.  I can offer up the slamming of SotC as Exhibit A.  Do you really think that Fred and Rob went out of their way to make their game offensive?  

We've got people here in America so twisted up trying to use the right words that I've heard people describe black people in Africa as "African Americans" because they really want to say "black" but feel it wouldn't be acceptable.  And there are American Indians who are pretty annoyed that a bunch of leftist whites would replace one name given them by colonial white people ("Indians") with another name given them by white people ("Native Americans") without ever asking them what they want to be called.  So we have a bunch of people calling American Indians "Native Americans" even though that's not what many of them want to be called.

So, no, JimBobOz, it's not just people looking to be racist or offensive who get caught up in this stuff.  It's often people trying not to be racist or offensive and even the people who are supposed to be offended, themselves, who get caught up in it and offend people, anyway.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf you want to be an offensive sod, just come straight out and be an offensive prick, like I do. Don't make a political affair of it. If you can care for the elderly without being a socialist, and enjoy firing shotguns without being a fascist, then you can certainly be an offensive sod without bitching about "political correctness." Just come out and say straight out that you hate blackfellahs and laugh at Down's Syndrome kids, don't buggerise about saying that you're fighting for your freedoms or some horseshit like that.

And I'm supposed to believe that you have a more sophisticated understanding of politics than the people you are mocking?  Did it ever cross your mind that some of the opponents of political correctness might be "blackfellahs" themselves?  And if you are such a champion of straight talk, why not just come out and call other people bigots instead of implying it?

Quote from: JaegerI 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.


.

Has anyone said we need it?  Certainly I don't think anyone on this thread has.

As for a good thing, Bruce Baugh is a good writer and I think it could make for some fun gaming, I would say I'm sorry if that offends you, but I'm not so that would be dishonest.

And it has nothing to do with how things were depicted in those stories, I mean fuck it, I love the Fu Manchu stories and those babies are intrinsically racist.  But we're talking here about a gaming supplement which some people may purchase to play games now (or more accurately, about a year from now).  If it has fun ideas, then that will be great, and since I think Bruce is a good writer I think it likely will.  If it doesn't, then it won't.

The thing with genre is playing with new ideas within the genre framework, otherwise all you have is pastiche.  I see this as a genre supplement in that sense.

As for reflecting the source material, most rpgs don't, they reflect a geek version of the source material.  HEX being an honourable exception.

This is what bugs me, I had the same argument on storygames, modern pulp rpgs do not particularly contain racist elements as a rule, on occasion sure but it is not an intrinsic part of the genre in gaming today.  If this is cool, it will be because it sparks some new ideas, not because it counters existing ones.  The existing ones by and large aren't there except in the head of people like Bankuei.

Edit:  Love the avatar by the way, most cool.

I am agreeing with John Morrow on this thread.

Okay okay okay checkitout.  I got a plan.

It's only two steps.  Easy.  Very simple.  Here goes:

• Bruce Baugh writes "New Horizons".
• I don't purchase a copy.

Whoa, I'm sweating from exert...no I'm not.

...is Baugh's treatment of the 800lb Gorilla of Awkwardness for the politics of the period: the Left and Communism in the 20's and 30's.  Now, the extreme-right of the time can be played as villains no problem.  The good thing about fascists and other sorts is that, hey, they *were* Evil with a Big TM.  Absolutely *nothing* redeeming about their philosophy or ideology.  But the socalists and communists of the time...well.  Sure, you can explore the way trade unionists and other radicals were discriminated against by a socially and economically conservative mainstream.

  But then you have the self-same radicals apologising or concealing the effects of Soviet collectivization policies that created famine.  Or the Stalinist terror.  Or the very real fact that the Marxist factions of the time were actively plotting to destroy liberal democracy, just like their counterparts in the fascist camp were doing.  Exploring the "enlightened" struggle in the Spanish Civil War of Republicans vs. the Francoites tends to get a little...complicated when one checks out the viciousness of the extremist anarchist and communist militias who went in for slaughtering priests and nuns.  

   Hell, screw the New Horizons book.  A Pulp supplement exploring the ramifications of the communist and socialist movement of the early 20th century would be frickin' golden material when it comes to pulp adventure goodness.  SotC itself touches on these issues in the latter chapters.

Quote from: John MorrowIn 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.

Modulo the editorial comment that it's usually left-wing, I'd agree with this definition.  But that just points out that it was irrelevant to bring up political correctness in the first place.  How exactly is this supplement censorship?  

Quote from: WerekoalaMy 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.

According to the initial explanation on Bruce's LJ, the supplement is precisely about the marginalization of such groups.  It specifically mentions that the heroes it covers are marginalized by Western society -- denied rights, forced to go through the servants entrance, and so forth.  i.e.

He is a supernaturally good poet. He can smell truth and lies from across the street. He's saved the life of one president, two prime ministers, and a future pope. But if he goes out for a gourmet meal with friends, managers will insist he go in through the servants' entrance.

I don't know any more details about it (and indeed its not written yet), but it certainly sounds like it maintains the historical discrimination of the times rather than making an alternate history.  Indeed, discrimination seems to be a focus of this.  

The historical discrimination is explicitly ignored in the main book of Spirit of the Century, which gives a two paragraph disclaimer on "Some Ugly Truths" about the pulps, but then doesn't mention discrimination anywhere else in the book.  (Though it does have an archetype for "Primitive/Foreigner")

QuotePrimitive/Foreigner
Usually of a people that some explorer has 'discovered', the primitive is an outsider in the world that other heroes operate in . The subject of conde- scension and curiosity, he is also the keeper of knowledge that has been lost, or not yet discovered, by the white man in his tall cities .  Perhaps this knowledge is some form of "magic" or something more recognizable as science, like a knowledge of botany far beyond what "modern" man has discovered . One way or another, the primitive is usually quite sophisticated, albeit in a way that most people don't recognize .

What are you doing: You are representing your people, looking for knowledge to take back to them, or perhaps trying to carve out a new life in exile .

It sounds like the main Spirit of the Century book is closer to your picture of an alternate history by not covering the historical discrimination -- and the supplement is designed to correct that.

Quote from: Samarkand...is Baugh's treatment of the 800lb Gorilla of Awkwardness for the politics of the period: the Left and Communism in the 20's and 30's.  Now, the extreme-right of the time can be played as villains no problem.  The good thing about fascists and other sorts is that, hey, they *were* Evil with a Big TM.  Absolutely *nothing* redeeming about their philosophy or ideology.  But the socalists and communists of the time...well.  Sure, you can explore the way trade unionists and other radicals were discriminated against by a socially and economically conservative mainstream.

  But then you have the self-same radicals apologising or concealing the effects of Soviet collectivization policies that created famine.  Or the Stalinist terror.  Or the very real fact that the Marxist factions of the time were actively plotting to destroy liberal democracy, just like their counterparts in the fascist camp were doing.  Exploring the "enlightened" struggle in the Spanish Civil War of Republicans vs. the Francoites tends to get a little...complicated when one checks out the viciousness of the extremist anarchist and communist militias who went in for slaughtering priests and nuns.  

   Hell, screw the New Horizons book.  A Pulp supplement exploring the ramifications of the communist and socialist movement of the early 20th century would be frickin' golden material when it comes to pulp adventure goodness.  SotC itself touches on these issues in the latter chapters.

Yup, the left as a movement has never come to terms with the atrocities perpetrated by Leftist groups in the first half of the 20th century (or indeed the second half come to think of it).

I've seen people defend Stalin at dinner parties as having a bad press, when IMO he has a fucking good press all considered.  The Great Famine is portrayed as exaggerated and at worst as the result of some bad apples in the system, arguments close to those used by Holocaust deniers.

I suspect they'll flub this aspect, as you say, nobody squawks when you critique fascism but a sober and accurate account of the atrocities of the left will still get you labelled as a right-winger by many.

There's a wonderful, in a fundamentally depressing way, quote from one of the anarchists in Beevor's Spanish Civil war book.  I don't remember the exact words, but they say basically "it no longer matters if the nationalists or the communists win, we'll be shot either way".

Quote from: David RSotC itself is alternate history at best. Are you saying it's a historically accurate game? Are you saying Pulp* as a genre is historically accurate? BTW was the player playing this black character black himself/herself ?

*In RPGs. I can't think of any historically accurate Pulp games.

And John Morrow, are you agreeing with Jaeger, that this supplement is just an excercise in PCness ?

Edit: One last question, with regards to your "It happened. Deal it with"  stance, would you have any objections (since you believe SotC is historically accurate) to the supplement if it was a historically accurate depiction of how minorities were treated ?

The player playing the black character was not black.

Pulp isn't in and of itself "historically accurate" unless there were fleets of robot airships I missed in history class. Of COURSE people can act differently in Pulps (or any genre) if the players want them to. I'm just saying that people and periods should be represented accurately unless its a whole cloth "gee I wish it were THIS way" supplement. And it may be. Its just my personal preference in dealing with historical settings.

Quote from: BalbinusHas anyone said we need it?  Certainly I don't think anyone on this thread has.

As for a good thing, Bruce Baugh is a good writer and I think it could make for some fun gaming, I would say I'm sorry if that offends you, but I'm not so that would be dishonest.

You're right, I don't think anyone on this board as come flat out and said we need it. But Baugh and other think we do or he wouldn't be writing it.

And like I said, I found the idea a funny indicator of certain trends. It takes much more than a silly rpg supplement to actually offend me.

I don't think much of the potential use the supplement may have. But I can hardly say you are having badwrongfun if you use it. It's not like I'm going to show up at your home and stop you or anything.

Thank you for your honesty. You have nothing  to apologize for. It is absolutely OK to disagree with someone without trying to soften it with false apologies.

Quote from: BalbinusAs for reflecting the source material, most rpgs don't, they reflect a geek version of the source material.  HEX being an honourable exception.

I agree, that's why I said a game may only subconciously reflect some of it's source material.

If my PC is attacked by a tribe of savages I certainly don't expect the GM to describe them as black, hulking, apelike brutes.

But I do expect to be attacked by primitive savages, and to save the damsel in distress. All of which is to be done with a cuban between my teeth, and a gun in each hand, in a manly heroic fashion.

Quote from: BalbinusThis is what bugs me, I had the same argument on storygames, modern pulp rpgs do not particularly contain racist elements as a rule, on occasion sure but it is not an intrinsic part of the genre in gaming today.  If this is cool, it will be because it sparks some new ideas, not because it counters existing ones.  The existing ones by and large aren't there except in the head of people like Bankuei.
.

I've gamed with Chris before and get along great with him, even if he likes indie games a lot more than I do.

It's funny now that you mention it, I've never heard him go on about those "issues" while we were gameing that I see him hit upon in various posts and his old blog. (I would have certainly remembered the argument!) I'll try to remember to ask him why it just never came up. I haven't talked to him in several months, this is as good an excuse as any to get back in contact with him.

Quote from: WerekoalaOkay, 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.

Well, on this point we certainly agree! With the caveat that this rule only applies IF the game is being played as historically "serious".  I think if you're trying to run a historical Western game, it behooves you to try to include all the socio-political details that will make the game historically authentic. If you're running "Wild Wild West", you probably don't need to. It becomes a question of emulation of genre.

Pulp games are, in general, NOT a "historical game" as such, they're not trying to emulate history, they're trying to emulate the Pulp GENRE. As such, I wouldn't really have a problem with playing it a little less than historical. I would have a serious problem with turning it into something that ISN'T PULP in order to make a preachy political point.

That said, I think if I read you correctly that we're both actually arguing on the same side in this one.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JaegerIf my PC is attacked by a tribe of savages I certainly don't expect the GM to describe them as black, hulking, apelike brutes.

Would you object?  I'm not sure myself to be honest, to me that is in genre, but it's also pretty awful, I'm a bit ambivalent on the whole issue.

Quote from: JaegerAll of which is to be done with a cuban between my teeth, and a gun in each hand, in a manly heroic fashion.

Damn straight.

Quote from: JaegerIt's funny now that you mention it, I've never heard him go on about those "issues" while we were gameing that I see him hit upon in various posts and his old blog. (I would have certainly remembered the argument!) I'll try to remember to ask him why it just never came up. I haven't talked to him in several months, this is as good an excuse as any to get back in contact with him.

He's an internet blowhard?

Ouch, sorry, bit of my glass house fell on me.