Killing the Golden Goose

[rsanford]

8 minutes ago, klecser said:

I really admire the fact that you (and others) are trying, g33k. I think its pretty clear that we're wasting our time. They aren't interested in learning. The fact that someone equates "batshit insane" with "neurodiverse" shows what kind of social experience we're dealing with. I think this thread has accomplished what it needs to accomplish: to show the community that the incredibly aggressive attitudes espoused by some do not need to exist in role-playing groups.

There goes that divisiveness (spic?) again. I try to use language when I'm on this site that doesn't offend people and brings them together to talk about RPGs. Having an us against them attitude on the site is not condusive to the site's health in my view.

Edited August 15, 2019 by rsanford
Typo

[midwinter]

1 hour ago, Sumath said:

Finally, from an ethical, reputational and business point of view, the OP's idea that Chaosium (or any other modern international business) would not seek to distance themselves from the kind of repugnant views expressed in some of Lovecraft's stories is incredibly naïve. Which company is going to promote a product based upon the work of a highly problematic writer, yet not acknowledge those problems, or point out that they absolutely do not agree with such views?

Do you hear Ford distance itself from Henry Ford? Here is their history blurb from their own page, Henry Fords biography:

https://corporate.ford.com/articles/history/henry-ford-biography.html

Tell me if you find any mention of him being antisemitic on that site and I will reward you with a heart. Ten if I could.

Ethical would be for Chaosium to stop milking the apparently loathsome Lovecraft. Ramsey Campbell is probably safe with no skeletons in the closet. Chaosium could drop the Lovecraftian influence altogether and strike a deal with Mr. Campbell. Leave Lovecraft for us evil baby-eaters to enjoy.

Why even create CoC as an rpg if the author's views are so "repugnant" and if Chaosium feels a need to explain to everyone what a complete asshat Lovecraft was all the time? I think that the real Lovecraft was way more complex than Chaosium allows him to be, and I do think that all this talk about his negative sides would have hurt him deeply if he was alive today. And I think Chaosium should be ashamed of themselves to speak ill of Lovecraft in a 2 minute clip where they introduce Lovecraft and their brand new Starter Set. It's on Youtube for the world to see. Did old Chaosium act like this? 

And another thing, people and companies you respect might be highly problematic too, without you even knowing it. At least Lovecraft put down his thoughts on paper. Do you really know what your smiling neighbour thinks, what your boss thinks or what people at Chaosium thinks? Does anybody know what YOU think?

Edited August 15, 2019 by midwinter
"Lovercraft" perhaps?

[midwinter]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Again with the dismissive language... because?

As I stated:  it was "thought up" by the folks themselves who experience it on a daily basis (no think-tank involved).  It means exactly what it sounds like -- a non-typical range or diversity in neurology.  As widely noted, autism is a "spectrum" with very diverse effects&symptoms.

It's... actually a very elegant phrasing; information-dense, descriptive, lots of utility. 

But autism is not a mental illness. I have some mental diagnoses. I don't have neurological syndromes. I'm not neurodiverse. [... REMOVED BY ADMIN...]

Edited August 15, 2019 by Trifletraxor
Too aggressive.

[Qizilbashwoman]

8 minutes ago, midwinter said:

But autism is not a mental illness. I have some mental diagnoses. I don't have neurological syndromes. I'm not neurodiverse.

I literally don't know why I'm bothering, but

Neurodiversity explicitly includes people on the autism spectrum. It's kind of the point.

(I'm autistic, before you shout me down.)

[midwinter]

25 minutes ago, klecser said:

I really admire the fact that you (and others) are trying, g33k. I think its pretty clear that we're wasting our time. They aren't interested in learning. The fact that someone equates "batshit insane" with "neurodiverse" shows what kind of social experience we're dealing with.  I think this thread has accomplished what it needs to accomplish: to show the community that the incredibly aggressive attitudes espoused by some do not need to exist in role-playing groups.

Don't like something? Don't participate with it. But just know that you being ignorant of something doesn't make it wrong. Meet more people. Part of this reaction can be explained by a simple limitation of life experience. Salt of the Earth. Just because someone hasn't experienced something doesn't mean it isn't a thing. 

I have to direct you to my answer regarding neurology vs my diagnoses. Clearly you are lacking a personal experience of mental illness. You are also lacking experience in what true aggression is if you think this is aggressive. I'm just teaching you the difference between the so called neurodiverse and me. You can be neurodiverce if you feel like it, no worries.

[Sumath]

12 minutes ago, midwinter said:

Do you hear Ford distance itself from Henry Ford?

Are you seriously suggesting that if Ford were asked 'Do you agree with Henry Ford's views on Jews?' they wouldn't fall over themselves to say no? 

Besides, the analogy is a poor one - many people have never heard of Lovecraft or the Cthulhu mythos. If you're going to introduce people to a body of work, it's advisable to be open and honest about it from the start, not sweep it under the carpet, only for people to find out afterwards and say "Hey, you never said anything about that...".

14 minutes ago, midwinter said:

Why even create CoC as an rpg if the author's views are so "repugnant"

Because the art is not the artist. But there is the possibility that some people will write off the Cthulhu mythos on the basis of HPL's prejudices. It is not only honest to make a statement about where Chaosium stands, it is also commercially sensible.

20 minutes ago, midwinter said:

I think that the real Lovecraft was way more complex than Chaosium allows him to be

Well, that's a very interesting theory and perhaps you'll write a dissertation about it at some point. I doubt that anyone is going to base a business enterprise on it just yet though.

22 minutes ago, midwinter said:

At least Lovecraft put down his thoughts on paper.

Are you related to HPL somehow? I can't help feeling you're taking this all rather personally. I'm not denying HPL's creative talent (he wasn't a great writer, but he did dream up a fascinating mythology). I like some of Jamiroquai's songs, but that doesn't stop me thinking Jay Kay is a bit of a prat. 

[midwinter]

3 minutes ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

I literally don't know why I'm bothering, but

Neurodiversity explicitly includes people on the autism spectrum. It's kind of the point.

(I'm autistic, before you shout me down.)

So was my cousin. But I am not autistic. Hence I am not neurodiverse. I have mental diagnoses. Is there an echo in here?

"non-neurotypical is a modern buzzword too, is it? In all my years meeting up with doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc, I have never come across such a term. Must be an American thing but I don't like the sound of that word. I'm rather "batshit insane" than "non-neurotypical"."

This was my statement. Naturally I haven't come across this word because...read above.

[midwinter]

5 minutes ago, Sumath said:

Are you seriously suggesting that if Ford were asked 'Do you agree with Henry Ford's views on Jews?' they wouldn't fall over themselves to say no? 

Besides, the analogy is a poor one - many people have never heard of Lovecraft or the Cthulhu mythos. If you're going to introduce people to a body of work, it's advisable to be open and honest about it from the start, not sweep it under the carpet, only for people to find out afterwards and say "Hey, you never said anything about that...".

Because the art is not the artist. But there is the possibility that some people will write off the Cthulhu mythos on the basis of HPL's prejudices. It is not only honest to make a statement about where Chaosium stands, it is also commercially sensible.

Well, that's a very interesting theory and perhaps you'll write a dissertation about it at some point. I doubt that anyone is going to base a business enterprise on it just yet though.

Are you related to HPL somehow? I can't help feeling you're taking this all rather personally. I'm not denying HPL's creative talent (he wasn't a great writer, but he did dream up a fascinating mythology). I like some of Jamiroquai's songs, but that doesn't stop me thinking Jay Kay is a bit of a prat. 

1) Ford doesn't mention Henry Ford hating jews because nobody cares today. People care about mileage, safety, design and stuff like that. When a person looks at a new Ford model at the dealer he doesn't bring up Henry Ford and jews, neither does the salesman. Volkswagen doesn't seem to have any problems with sales either.

2) If people has never heard of the author whose fiction you based your rpg on and you start off with some hired blonde, cute actress reading his poems holding a glass of wine in a sales pitch video for a starter set and then moments later having her declare the author's views as archaic and distasteful you have probably found your business degree in a cornflakes package. And as a potential consumer it wouldn't be some dead, distasteful author that turns me away from the product but the apparent hypocrisy of the company behind the video.

3) And regarding my theories about Lovecraft as a person, there is no need to write anything since S. T. Joshi has that area well covered already, him being the foremost expert on the author. Mr. Joshi was furious when they removed the Lovecraft bust in that World Fantasy Award debacle by the way. I can relate to that.

[Sumath]

1) Ford aren't selling model T's either, and Ford is a brand in its own right and not reliant upon Henry Ford - indeed he forms no part of their modern brand whatsoever. That is never the case with an author and their works which will always be associated with one another. So again, it's a poor analogy.

2) And yet Chaosium are selling thousands of CoC RPG books.

3) I have no idea who ST Joshi is, so I have no idea what bearing that has upon the human capacity to admire something produced by someone you profoundly disagree with.

[midwinter]

4 minutes ago, Sumath said:

1) Ford aren't selling model T's either, and Ford is a brand in its own right and not reliant upon Henry Ford - indeed he forms no part of their modern brand whatsoever. That is never the case with an author and their works which will always be associated with one another. So again, it's a poor analogy.

2) And yet Chaosium are selling thousands of CoC RPG books.

3) I have no idea who ST Joshi is, so I have no idea what bearing that has upon the human capacity to admire something produced by someone you profoundly disagree with.

1) Ok. The VW beetle then? Isn't that associated with it's infamous creator? Or do you associate it with the old Herbie movies?

2) They might sell thousands of books, but by now CoC is a well established brand and they have alot of old hoarders onboard for now. But did old Chaosium take a crap on Lovecraft in their promotional material like they do now? Why was the commentary section for clip 2 closed in that Starter Set promotion? Can't they handle some critique? Hell, they even take a dump on old Chaosium products like Masks that have been declared as troublesome with racism and sexism. I have never seen another rpg company do that actually. It's pure virtue signalling.

[Qizilbashwoman]

34 minutes ago, Sumath said:

I have no idea who ST Joshi is

lucky you

[Sumath]

1) Nowadays people are more likely to associate VW with the emissions scandal than Adolf Hitler (that's Trivial Pursuit-level association, not brand identity).

2) The world changes. Businesses attempt to change with it. Those that don't, tend to disappear.

And really, you're criticising a business for acknowledging that some of their previous products could have been better? If you looked back at a product you once released and were now cringing at bits of it because, you know, the world has moved on and so have you, why wouldn't you be honest about that? It's also what capitalism is implicitly made out of ("New and Improved!")

 

[Trifletraxor]

3 hours ago, midwinter said:

Well, I hope you aren't employed by Chaosium. Calling customers odious is bad for business I think.

Just so there's no misunderstandings - no one from Chaosium are actively participating in this thread. All the Chaosium representatives are moderators. I'm the forum admin moderating this hot potatoe of a thread, but I'm not a Chaosium employee. 

[midwinter]

4 minutes ago, Sumath said:

1) Nowadays people are more likely to associate VW with the emissions scandal than Adolf Hitler (that's Trivial Pursuit-level association, not brand identity).

2) The world changes. Businesses attempt to change with it. Those that don't, tend to disappear.

And really, you're criticising a business for acknowledging that some of their previous products could have been better? If you looked back at a product you once released and were now cringing at bits of it because, you know, the world has moved on and so have you, why wouldn't you be honest about that? It's also what capitalism is implicitly made out of ("New and Improved!")

 

I really have to go to Burger King now, but I cherish the past. Like 70's and 80's horror and action movies. Like my childhood, listening to metal, reading Marvel, reading Bram Stoker's Dracula, Striebers Wolfen, playing Swedish rpgs. There is no new and improved in my book. There are just bad, politically correct remakes. I have never moved on. Why should I? Old Chaosium scenarios are better than the new ones in my book.

[midwinter]

19 minutes ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

lucky you

What's wrong with S. T. Joshi?

[Sumath]

8 minutes ago, midwinter said:

Old Chaosium scenarios are better than the new ones in my book.

You're in luck! There are plenty of them still about.

And just to be clear, I do not consider myself to be politically correct, and indeed I have argued against political correctness on many occasions in the past. This is not a matter of following a fashionable etiquette or trying to show how 'woke' I am.

It is a case of recognising really quite blatant bigotry in a body of historical fiction and being honest enough to say "yeah, that's what that is" and then moving on from that. In the same way that Heart of Darkness is a great novella, and inspired a great film, but is also a fundamentally racist and misanthropic book. Recognising the deficiencies of an artist and their work, as well as their merits, is a sign of honest and credible critique. Total denial of an artist's deficiencies should be left to fanboys.

[g33k]

6 minutes ago, rsanford said:

I don't know G33. In Dallas where I live (in a suburb) being called privilege is usually meant as an insult and as a way of saying that a person's voice doesn't matter (because they aren't inclusive).

Sounds like "privilege" and "inclusion" have become polarized code-words, used on both sides mostly as bludgeons...?

"Privilege" isn't necessarily a criticism.  One generally cannot help being in a position of privilege, it doesn't make you wrong or bad, etc.  That said, many terms can be used in an insulting way, and this is certainly one of them! 

The biggest problem with "privilege" is when you cannot look at it, or admit it...  when "I don't have this problem" makes you presume "this problem does not exist" or claim that "he/she/they/whoever does not have this problem."  Closely related (and frequent fallback from the prior steps) is "this problem MAY exist, but you're blowing it out of proportion / it isn't a significant problem / it doesn't matter."

Most especially pernicious is when the idea creeps in that it's somehow the "fault" of the un-privileged, that there is something wrong with them... that they deserve it.  That they don't deserve to complain, or seek to make it better.  FWIW, note how easily "it doesn't matter" oozes over to the often-implicit, often-unstated "... because you don't deserve better."

And to the degree that some folks use "privilege" to encompass all those problematic points of view, and use the one word to accuse a person of holding them... yeah, then it can become an insult.

Also, a separate but related issue:  most of us in the USA like to presume a certain degree of "fairness," that things aren't stacked against any American; especially, we don't like to admit that WE have the advantage:  it feels like being accused, like someone is saying that WE are actively, intentionally being unfair.  To the degree that you understand "privilege" to mean, "things are unfair, in your favor" you can feel criticised/insulted, even if no insult was intended.

To the degree that anyone DOES feel that their privilege DOES make them better... I think the criticism -- and even the insult -- is deserved.

 

For the record:  I don't really see that anyone in this thread -- even the ones I am arguing with and criticizing -- is holding to those most-problematic sorts of "privileged" point of view.  Unregarded / unacknowledged privilege ...  Sure, absolutely.  Some pretty severe instances of it, too.

But... ya can't admit what ya can't admit to, y'know?  It's part of the human condition.  All of us have blind spots we cannot see; all of us have flaws we cannot admit to (and in case anyone reading this thinks, "no, not me!" well... there ya go, that's another one  😏 ).

Some of our flaws & blind spots, when we finally come to grips with them...  they can be kind of a moral gut-punch, hmm?   I know I've taken a few.

 

 

Quote

... usually meant as an insult and as a way of saying that a person's voice doesn't matter (because they aren't inclusive).

I can't speak to the context and the usage you have observed in your area.  I will make (some possibly-erroneous) assumptions, and comment on that basis...  If I'm mistaken here (you know your region) please feel free to correct me!

It may INDEED mean that person's voice is less important at the moment... because by definition (not seeing/admitting a genuine problem) they are speaking from ignorance.

Seriously:  I know virtually nothing about, say... endocrinology.  Nobody should pay attention to me if I voice an opinion on the topic.

Why should someone who grew up white think they understand what it's like to be black?  Why should someone who grew up wealthy think they understand poverty?  Very specifically:  why should we pay attention to them when they make this claim? 

And yes, the reverse cases are also true, but that's VERY much not to the point... unless you're claiming that -- for example -- the downtrodden wealthy 1% need the sympathies and attention (and effort to remedy their afflicted situation) from the 15% or so of Americans (including 1 out of every 5 children in the USA) living in poverty.

If someone is speaking from a privileged position -- without realizing it -- about the experience of someone who does NOT have that privilege... yeah, I'm OK with the response to that being "you should sit down now and listen, because you don't know what you're talking about."   Sometimes, that is shortened to "privilege."

And yeah, being called out in this way can be F'ing discomforting.  You can feel VERY insulted.  I'm... kind of stuck, here.  I'm not sure I've got any better response than "suck it up, Buttercup."  Or -- like, my posts here -- trying to explain, unpack, etc.

 

[klecser]

3 hours ago, rsanford said:

There goes that divisiveness (spic?) again. I try to use language when I'm on this site that doesn't offend people and brings them together to talk about RPGs. Having an us against them attitude on the site is not condusive to the site's health in my view.

Feel free to use the ignore feature. What you call "divisive," I call holding people accountable for gatekeeping the hobby. I'm thinking that some people aren't used to having their ideas questioned.

Edited August 15, 2019 by klecser

[g33k]

2 hours ago, midwinter said:

Do you hear Ford distance itself from Henry Ford?

Huh.

You've claimed to have some sort of "mental diagnosis," so I really cannot tell if you actually believe you've made an analogous point, and are unable to grasp how irrelevant it is?

Or if you're just tossing out a garden-variety bit of "hah, gotcha!" rhetoric, and haven't spotted (or hope nobody else spots) the fallacy?

Or if you're actually arguing in bad faith?

Or something else entirely?

Like... I honestly cannot tell.  Not claiming ANY of those to be true, not accusing you of any of those.

But I am absolutely denying any validity to that analogy!

===

Let's break it down...

Cars, as mechanisms, are largely blind to issues of race, religion, etc.  Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Pastafarian; asian, caucasion, hispanic; whatever... the car doesn't care, doesn't drive any differently.  And therefore, mostly, the customer doesn't care.

But when playing CoC... there is no car, no machine.  It's all people at the table, playing roles.  And people (are supposed to) care about one another.  Are they playing out century-old racism & sexism & similar bigotry... accurately reflecting those biases?  Accurately being bigots?

Even if it makes the game non-fun or less-fun for others at the table?

(n.b. "But that's what my character would do!" is infamous now, if used as an excuse to ruin other players' fun).

The game plays differently at the table.

The car (as a customer experience) is in no way analogous to the game (as a customer experience).

 

[klecser]

28 minutes ago, g33k said:

But when playing CoC... there is no car, no machine.  It's all people at the table, playing roles.  And people (are supposed to) care about one another.  Are they playing out century-old racism & sexism & similar bigotry... accurately reflecting those biases?  Accurately being bigots?

Even if it makes the game non-fun or less-fun for others at the table?

(n.b. "But that's what my character would do!" is infamous now, if used as an excuse to ruin other players' fun).

The game plays differently at the table.

The car (as a customer experience) is in no way analogous to the game (as a customer experience).

This is what bothers me. If you say that "social issues shouldn't have any bearing on role-playing games," you are either 1) devaluing those social issues or 2) unaware of those social issues. And no matter which of those is true, I don't see people being able to offer a positive table environment to people. That is, unless, you only game with people who have the same views as you.

People have different views. And when you say "ideas that people want to explore that I don't want to explore shouldn't have a place at a role-playing table," you are gate-keeping the hobby. You are effectively saying that the only ideas and perspectives welcome at the table are ones that don't "bother" you. And you aren't welcome at the table if you want your views expressed in the game. 

I'm suspicious that that is what we are really talking about here. At least, that is basically the message that I am receiving, and that attitude is really bad for the hobby. 

If we're gonna be fully real here...Call of Cthulhu has a "good 'ol boy" problem. I stopped posting on Yoggie because you could impale yourself on the upward pointing noses. Many games have this problem. I think that, since CoC has been around for so long, it may be more pronounced. There are a lot of people that take HPL criticism incredibly personally. I see many players of the game that act like if you aren't already "part of The Club," you aren't getting into the Club. That is POISON for games. And the reason I'm posting here is to prevent that attitude from dominating the discourse. It won't attract new players. To be fair, I've also encountered many positive people in both places. But the negative ones are just SO negative. It is unfun, a lot of the time. If Call of Cthulhu fails to grow, it won't be Chaosium's fault. It will be the fan base's fault. I don't think many players understand how caustic they are to the average new fan. And this thread pretty much sum's it up for me: "You play the game MY way, without any of your foofy political correctness, or you don't play AT ALL. It's my way, or the highway." That is not a sustainable perspective for growth of the hobby.

Edited August 15, 2019 by klecser

[rsanford]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

>> Okay I don't know how to do a multi-quote so I am going to just type right here. First off G33 Iove you RPG post as I frequently find them educational!

Sounds like "privilege" and "inclusion" have become polarized code-words, used on both sides mostly as bludgeons...?

"Privilege" isn't necessarily a criticism.  One generally cannot help being in a position of privilege, it doesn't make you wrong or bad, etc.  That said, many terms can be used in an insulting way, and this is certainly one of them! 

The biggest problem with "privilege" is when you cannot look at it, or admit it...  when "I don't have this problem" makes you presume "this problem does not exist" or claim that "he/she/they/whoever does not have this problem."  Closely related (and frequent fallback from the prior steps) is "this problem MAY exist, but you're blowing it out of proportion / it isn't a significant problem / it doesn't matter."

Most especially pernicious is when the idea creeps in that it's somehow the "fault" of the un-privileged, that there is something wrong with them... that they deserve it.  That they don't deserve to complain, or seek to make it better.  FWIW, note how easily "it doesn't matter" oozes over to the often-implicit, often-unstated "... because you don't deserve better."

>> This all sounds well reasoned to me. I do think that people both downplay and play up the amount of privilege they think a person has but thats a one on one matter. Its really hard to know what a person's life has been like unless your in their shoes but I would agree that in some cases privilege seems obvious.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

And to the degree that some folks use "privilege" to encompass all those problematic points of view, and use the one word to accuse a person of holding them... yeah, then it can become an insult.

I would add that if you are a conservative living in Dallas and you have mostly conservative friends you are most likely to hear words like privilege on the nightly news (CNN, MSNBC, etc) or during the recent democrat presidental candidate debates. In those cases privilege is nearly always directed at conservatives as a slur. It happens so often that for many of us the definition of the word that pops into our heads is ALWAYS an insult. Obviously I know your taking the time to explain your thoughts and are acting in good faith and I can see the difference, but I am not confident that your use of the word is the normal use of the word. I think the insult form is the normal use of the word. I am glad to discuss this point as it might be just me. So feel free to educate me.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Also, a separate but related issue:  most of us in the USA like to presume a certain degree of "fairness," that things aren't stacked against any American; especially, we don't like to admit that WE have the advantage:  it feels like being accused, like someone is saying that WE are actively, intentionally being unfair.  To the degree that you understand "privilege" to mean, "things are unfair, in your favor" you can feel criticised/insulted, even if no insult was intended.

I guess so. I definitely think their should be an even playing field for everyone. I don't think I have taken privilege to mean that but I suppose some people do.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

To the degree that anyone DOES feel that their privilege DOES make them better... I think the criticism -- and even the insult -- is deserved.

We are going to have to disagree on this one. I have never seen an insult help in any situation. Rather its divisive and builds walls between people that should be trying to understand how each other thinks. It's also quite rude.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

 

For the record:  I don't really see that anyone in this thread -- even the ones I am arguing with and criticizing -- is holding to those most-problematic sorts of "privileged" point of view.  Unregarded / unacknowledged privilege ...  Sure, absolutely.  Some pretty severe instances of it, too.

But... ya can't admit what ya can't admit to, y'know?  It's part of the human condition.  All of us have blind spots we cannot see; all of us have flaws we cannot admit to (and in case anyone reading this thinks, "no, not me!" well... there ya go, that's another one  😏 ).

Some of our flaws & blind spots, when we finally come to grips with them...  they can be kind of a moral gut-punch, hmm?   I know I've taken a few.

I can't speak to the context and the usage you have observed in your area.  I will make (some possibly-erroneous) assumptions, and comment on that basis...  If I'm mistaken here (you know your region) please feel free to correct me!

I suspect that many of the people that are benefitting from some unacknowledged privilege just think they are THAT good. We all have our various flaws wether its because we lack humility or something else. Like you said its the human condition.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

It may INDEED mean that person's voice is less important at the moment... because by definition (not seeing/admitting a genuine problem) they are speaking from ignorance.

Seriously:  I know virtually nothing about, say... endocrinology.  Nobody should pay attention to me if I voice an opinion on the topic.

Theoretically I agree with this but I have a feeling we would clash on the details. I may know nothing about endorinology but I might not trust someones judgement or maybe even their motives. I am very likely to hire my own endocrinology doctor and I would expect them to be listened too also. Also if your the expert and you make a decision that's going to adversally affect me you will need to either convince me, the voter, or at least convince my representative in government.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Why should someone who grew up white think they understand what it's like to be black?  Why should someone who grew up wealthy think they understand poverty?  Very specifically:  why should we pay attention to them when they make this claim? 

I think this rarely comes up in terms of people as I believe people are all the same. Black, white, asian, hispanic, slavs, rich, poor, Hindu, Christians, etc... I have been all over the world and people are always worried about their children, have hopes for their family, and just want to make it through life. In my view (which is limited to the US) the government should provide a level playing field but beyond that should get out of the way.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

And yes, the reverse cases are also true, but that's VERY much not to the point... unless you're claiming that -- for example -- the downtrodden wealthy 1% need the sympathies and attention (and effort to remedy their afflicted situation) from the 15% or so of Americans (including 1 out of every 5 children in the USA) living in poverty.

I an agree with that too as long as your provide the same even playing field for the impoverished family as you do the wealthy family. I dont believe the US government has the authority to play favorites.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

If someone is speaking from a privileged position -- without realizing it -- about the experience of someone who does NOT have that privilege... yeah, I'm OK with the response to that being "you should sit down now and listen, because you don't know what you're talking about."   Sometimes, that is shortened to "privilege."

Sure as long as you don't then say (because your are unprivileged) that you are going to regulate me, violate my constitutional rights are unfairly tax me. Like you said - a fair, and even playing ground is the key. And it would help a lot if the person telling the other person to sit down and listen has the credibility to pull it off. CNN routinely tells me the "way things are" and I roll my eyes. If you want to convince me and not just waste your breath you need to show me that you are credible, and that you have good motives.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

And yeah, being called out in this way can be F'ing discomforting.  You can feel VERY insulted.  I'm... kind of stuck, here.  I'm not sure I've got any better response than "suck it up, Buttercup."  Or -- like, my posts here -- trying to explain, unpack, etc.

 

Like I said you better convince me that your credible or you wasted both of our time.

 

Very stimulating discussion! Thank you!

 

[midwinter]

18 minutes ago, g33k said:

Huh.

You've claimed to have some sort of "mental diagnosis," so I really cannot tell if you actually believe you've made an analogous point, and are unable to grasp how irrelevant it is?

Or if you're just tossing out a garden-variety bit of "hah, gotcha!" rhetoric, and haven't spotted (or hope nobody else spots) the fallacy?

Or if you're actually arguing in bad faith?

Or something else entirely?

Like... I honestly cannot tell.  Not claiming ANY of those to be true, not accusing you of any of those.

But I am absolutely denying any validity to that analogy!

===

Let's break it down...

Cars, as mechanisms, are largely blind to issues of race, religion, etc.  Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Pastafarian; asian, caucasion, hispanic; whatever... the car doesn't care, doesn't drive any differently.  And therefore, mostly, the customer doesn't care.

But when playing CoC... there is no car, no machine.  It's all people at the table, playing roles.  And people (are supposed to) care about one another.  Are they playing out century-old racism & sexism & similar bigotry... accurately reflecting those biases?  Accurately being bigots?

Even if it makes the game non-fun or less-fun for others at the table?

(n.b. "But that's what my character would do!" is infamous now, if used as an excuse to ruin other players' fun).

The game plays differently at the table.

The car (as a customer experience) is in no way analogous to the game (as a customer experience).

 

I'm many things. One is that I'm unable to grasp the importance of your break down. You seem so utterly confused. I will make it easy for you. Ford (Chaosium), the company built its name and business upon a racist's invention and vision (the first Ford/The Mythos). That's the gist of it. Anyone with some basic knowledge of history knows about Ford and his views (well, maybe not in America). But when you visit Ford's own website and read Henry Fords biography (that mentions some of his books too, but nothing about the international jew). It's clean and nice. Whitewashed and no warts. There is no need to bring all that ugliness up. But when you for instance visit Chaosium's Youtube channel it's another matter. Watch episode 2 of What is Call of Cthulhu? Starting at 00:57 a giant turd is dropped on the dead man they should give their thanks to for their daily bread. Less than one minute in! Some random blonde Aussie actress pretending to be a roleplayer/Keeper reads a bit from a poem all snug with a drink in her hand (but she never drinks from the glass, lol), then spurts out "During his lifetime Lovecraft's personal views were distasteful and archaic". It's like the sales pitch from hell. And she almost said it with a little smile too. Is she selling a Starter set for Call of Cthulhu or Mein Kampf - The RPG?

It is all woke as hell. What does she know about archaic? Everything before 1990 is probably archaic to her. She just read it from a script that Chaosium cooked up in their silly new belief that people want to hear that crap. And for reference...Chaosium has about 2k subscibers to their Youtube channel. The brilliant Seth Skorkowsky has over 40k. They should have let him take care of the introduction of the Starter set instead. He would have been more respectful to the man behind the Mythos. Hell, Ricky Berwick would have done a better job at it than that hired actress. He has 1.6 million subscribers.

Believe or not, Lovecraft wasn't that odd of an duck growing up as he did in a time where eugenics were high science and compulsary sterilization was considered a-ok. If we could go back in time, we would probably find some grandfathers or great grandfathers of people on this very forum that held similar or even worse views.

I know though that historical context is so hard to grasp in the Twitter-era and that the world is now different, supposedly filled with galant Seattle knights in shiny armour who fight for the good of mankind with thunderous words (but not deeds). I know that I, as a white person, according to the manifests of the righteous, should feel guilty about slavery, about how women weren't allowed to vote, that I'm supposed to be on the #metoo train, hate Trump, hate Putin, hate Åkesson, hate Orban, love immigration, embrace multiculturalism, feminism and globalism and so forth. I know the drill. But guess what? I don't give a damn. I never profited from any slaves, I never stopped women from voting, dying on some muddy battlefield or working in coal mines. I'm not privileged. I'm white trash, I live in a shitty neighbourhood where I hear more Arabic than Swedish and where Isis recruit people, I'm on welfare. I have had mental issues for a decade now and today I learned that I was odious on this very fine forum. I know that Lovecraft was a racist and had lots of issues, but the man just wrote pulp stories, poems and tons of letters. He didn't burn crosses in front of people's homes, he didn't hang black people down South. I also know that he loved cats, especially the cat with that "shocking" name. A man that loves animals can't be all bad. Who are you to judge Lovecraft? You never knew him. Who am I to judge him? I have terrible thoughts sometimes, but I don't put them on paper. Overkill did it for me:

"And if I had just one more day
I'd say it to your face
I'll pull the plug on everyone
Eliminate this race"

 

[rsanford]

2 hours ago, klecser said:

Feel free to use the ignore feature. What you call "divisive," I call holding people accountable for gatekeeping the hobby. I'm thinking that some people aren't used to having their ideas questioned.

Dude you make lots of great points and I have no reason to ignore you at all. I apologize if I have offended you but I am a big believer in peace making and consensus building and its hard for me to hide that trait.

Edited August 15, 2019 by rsanford

[g33k]

27 minutes ago, midwinter said:

... I'm unable to grasp the importance of your break down...

(etc)

OK.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.

[Qizilbashwoman]

47 minutes ago, rsanford said:

In those cases privilege is nearly always directed at conservatives as a slur.

except it's not a slur. when someone describes you as having more institutional power than they do, that's not automatically a slur. the person saying it might be saying you're an ass, but that term? it's not a slur. i am a disabled, autistic, queer woman and i assure you i've been called out for privilege (as I should have been). the entire point of kimberley crenshaw and her theory of intersectionality was that there is no one metric of power and authority. a black jewish man and a white muslim woman each have extremely complicated interactions power in the US, for example, and interactions between them would be extremely dependent on the situation in terms of who would find themselves more comfortable and in power.

... and it's definitely not always directed at conservatives. It's certainly not as if there are competing Republican candidates in the field? who would they be focusing on as a challenge to their presidential runs?

also, anyone running for president has enough privilege to swing that. warren has been excoriated for her privilege a ton - ironically, probably because she's female - and Biden is a walking talking tower of privilege. beto is like 25 and was like ME RUN PRESIDENT and just ... did. (can you imagine?)