Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WoD is it still ok in 2018.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • And that's how a thread dies, I suppose.

    Comment


    • We have had this exact "debate" before. Im not sure if it was Heavy Arms or not, but I do know the Mods had been involved, and explicitly tried to use their status to push their politics.

      I brought up the fact that in my travels I have met actual Gypsies/Romani/whatever, and that they adamantly disagreed with the narrative that Heavy Arms just offered in regards to "Gypsy" being a slur ir undesirable name for their people. Specifically highlighting that I, as in me personally, had been asked by them to be called Gypsy, and not any variation of Rom, and out of respect for their wishes would do so. Regardless of how it makes some non-Gypsies/Rom feel. Thing is, my personal experience is dramatically oppossed to their point of view, which may or may not be taking into account the wishes of the actual people being talked about. Mine is certainly anecdotal. Their's is muddied by other factors, it's emotionally fueled, virtue signally, at least somewhat based on echo chamber ideals, etc.

      Between the two, I know which I am going to put more stock in, because well, its my experience and I know 100% does involve the actual people in question.

      "Oddly", one of the responses was to ask how I would feel about a book like WoD: Jews, ("odd, because a similar type of arguement was made here), to which I think I surprized them, sincerely by saying Hell Yes!!! I'd pay cash right now for that because it would be awesome. Add in WoD: Cajun for pure fucking win.

      Point being, it is ok to have discussions, and it is okay to not allow people to bully. I would be perfectly fine calling a Gypsy Roma, Rom, or whatever they wanted if that is what they wanted. I, however, will continue to refere to them mainly as Gypsy normally because that is what I have been asked to and because I would rather help people be proud.

      Something I do wonder, pertaining to the slur part, is what do people view as or think of as being distinctly Gypsy/Rom? What are the good things about their culture? Outside of caravans, trickery, thievery, what are the not so good things? Obviously, I'm not asking for Google or Wiki links here, but a discussion of their actual culture.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Kalendeer View Post
        And that's how a thread dies, I suppose.
        Nah, lots of threads have survived my snark at the inane, "I'm leaving! I'm back just to shit on people!" tactic.

        This isn't a great thing for the thread though:

        Originally posted by Beckett View Post
        ...but I do know the Mods had been involved, and explicitly tried to use their status to push their politics.
        Since, you know, moderating a thread where people are accusing the mods of abuse publicly is extremely toxic. If the mods step in, they're just furthering the implication that they're abusing their power. If they do nothing, then the whole moderation system is undermined. Putting the mods in a Catch-22 isn't great for the health of the thread.

        I brought up the fact that in my travels I have met actual Gypsies/Romani/whatever, and that they adamantly disagreed with the narrative that Heavy Arms just offered in regards to "Gypsy" being a slur ir undesirable name for their people.
        You might be conflating Charlaquin and I a bit here. The only "narrative" I offered was the factual history of the word (that is, it was applied to the Rrom from the beginning as a slur, and any redefinition as a neutral term is a historically recent event).

        Though as both Charlaquin and I have both stated, we respect Rromani people that chose to use the term for themselves (that thing we keep referring to as reclaiming it). I directly stated that the status of the word is complicated and Rromani people are not unified in their feelings about it. So, you know, please don't use the word "narrative" to excuse misrepresenting my posts.

        Mine is certainly anecdotal. Their's is muddied by other factors, it's emotionally fueled, virtue signally, at least somewhat based on echo chamber ideals, etc.
        Sorry but this is bullshit. Your "virtue signalling" to your own audience and buzzword filled non-sense doesn't counter a simple fact: if I'm citing experiences with actual Rrom, and you're doing the same, you have no position to question my claims. If you want people to take your statements of your own experiences as 100% honest and in good faith, then you need to extend the same. If you're going to imply I'm lying about my experiences, then there is no reason to take your own claims at face value. For all we know you're 100% lying, you've never met a real Rrom in your life, and you're making it up to sow dissent.

        So either you can accept my experiences as being as valid as yours, your we can just disregard them. In either case that actually means moving beyond anecdote and addressing what was actually said, not just shitting on people and thinking you're making a point.

        "Oddly", one of the responses was to ask how I would feel about a book like WoD: Jews, ("odd, because a similar type of arguement was made here), to which I think I surprized them, sincerely by saying Hell Yes!!! I'd pay cash right now for that because it would be awesome. Add in WoD: Cajun for pure fucking win.
        Why should Jews or Cajuns care that you're willing to spend money on a book that might be horribly offensive just because you don't care about that? We have the right to call out any such books as offensive or not depending on how well they're actually written. Though if you actually think through the difficulties of trying to write books on the portrayal of real world ethnic and religious minorities for a game, it's quick to see why most companies avoid the idea. It's too easy to screw up. Either you put more focus on the game then accuracy and end up with something offensive, or you spend too much time writing a sociology text that isn't use at the gaming table. Hitting the middle ground is far too difficult for the pay off. People can always research these things on their own with serious sources instead of a gaming book.

        It's why Charnel Houses worked better. It's about the consequences of an event. You don't have to get into all of Judaism to understand the impact of the Holocaust on Jewish victims. You just need to explain the relevant details (and then get into the details on all the other victims on the same level). Charnel Houses never touching on Mizrahi Jews (and the issues of whether or not to classify them as such instead of Sephardi Jews) is fine, because the book doesn't go beyond Europe. WOD: Jews would certainly have to spend time explaining this stuff if you want to give people an understanding of Jewish culture.

        Something I do wonder, pertaining to the slur part, is what do people view as or think of as being distinctly Gypsy/Rom? What are the good things about their culture? Outside of caravans, trickery, thievery, what are the not so good things? Obviously, I'm not asking for Google or Wiki links here, but a discussion of their actual culture.
        This feels like a rhetorical trap. "pertaining to the slur" and "discussion of their actual culture" shouldn't be linked together.

        Comment


        • Oh bullshit. You just tried to shame and namecall someone who didn't agree with you that decided to just end the conversation not going anywhere, and get that last word in.

          And then you have the audacity to say anything is toxic.

          Comment


          • I never claimed I was trying to be nice here.

            Yeah, I tried to shame Jez, because Jez posted some shame worthy stuff. And yeah, I wanted to get a reply in after Jez said they were leaving. I've got every right to. And Jez responded instead of actually sticking with their original "ending it to keep things civil" statement; which is what happens pretty much 99.9% of the time in these sorts of things, someone says they're bowing out and not only doesn't, but comes back not to engage with any points made but to come back at another poster.

            And just because I'm not putting up false civility up for your benefit doesn't disprove my point. Accusing the mods of abusing their power when posting as normal users is toxic. It's also potentially against the rules that you agreed to to be here... so get off your high horse and don't act like you've got a moral high ground.

            And yeah, I've got near endless audacity to call out toxic shit from the "civility means minorities need to shut up to avoid upsetting people with uncomfortable truth" crowd.

            Comment


            • Sometimes the buzzwords the right uses to demean the left are very strange for me. Apparently, warring for social justice and showing signs of virtue are bad things. What’s the alternative? Social injustice warrior? Vice signaling? Like, what bizzaro world do the people who use justice and virtue as insults live in?
              Last edited by Charlaquin; 10-22-2018, 01:07 AM.


              Onyx Path Forum Moderator

              My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

              Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

              Comment


              • Well, the problem with those sorts of buzzwords is that they're far more insidious than that. They're used with the unstated implication of a lack of sincerity. It's a two pronged rhetorical attack. It pushes on an ad hominem level ("you're not posting X because you have virtue, you're posting X to falsely signal you have virtue for social approval") while pretending to be "civil" or sticking to the debates. It then equivocates to make any such distinction meaningless ("there's nothing wrong with pushing for social justice, but once you're framing it as a fight you're clearly just posturing instead of working to make the world a better place").

                The goal isn't to promote the opposite, but to undermine good (of course, I'll get slammed for trying to claim the left as good and the right as bad, but this does actually get aimed at the right as well) to promote false equivalencies, project rhetorical holes, or similar "both sides" and whataboutisms to at a minimum perpetuate the status quo by trying to make fighting to make things better a "moral" equivalent to fighting to make things worse.

                It is just another phase in the long history of sophistry, where rhetorical skills trumps logical coherence or factual evidence; and controlling language (esp. definitions) is a vital tactic.

                Comment


                • The problem I currently have with how the thread turned out it that :

                  "Yeah, I tried to shame Jez, because Jez posted some shame worthy stuff. And yeah, I wanted to get a reply in after Jez said they were leaving. I've got every right to. "

                  Earlier in the thread I said that I did not interact anymore with some people on Tumblr, who usually label their blog as SJW. The main reason why I do not interact with them is the bolded part: because shaming is a big part of their rethoric, and I do not believe any random stranger on the internet, who may not be from my country (and this is important, because the world is not just one big flat culture and somethings, that are pretty rude in my country, aren't rude in the US) has any right to decide what is shameful and what isn't. In my country, speaking about "race" is flagged as a nazi thing. Yet I do not go around calling any American who uses the word a nazi, despite the fact that to my ears they sound like they are using nazi words.

                  I do not see what gives you, Heavy Arms, the legitimacy to shame another member of this forum. You are speaking of a moral high ground but you behave like you are the one up there with the right to judge others.

                  And before you ask, no, I'm not voting for the right, but not every single left people approves of shaming tactics as a mean to convince others, because that just doesn't work. You aren't going to convince any racist that his ideas are bad by clamoring they are bad people because they, too, have no reason at all to believe you have any right to judge them. What may convince them is hard facts and actual arguments to allow them to challenge by themselves their own ideas.

                  And before you ask, no, I have nothing against people working for social justice. There are people out there who do that quite well without name calling, and I believe their work is undermined by the wide use of shaming tactics.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                    Sometimes the buzzwords the right uses to demean the left are very strange for me. Apparently, warring for social justice and showing signs of virtue are bad things. What’s the alternative? Social injustice warrior? Vice signaling? Like, what bizzaro world do the people who use justice and virtue as insults live in?
                    Well the implication (from my understanding, and something which you're probably aware of) is the person is holding such stances disingenuously. Not that social justice or virtue are negatives, but that the approach some people have towards them are either insincere or comically extreme.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Monalfie View Post
                      Well the implication (from my understanding, and something which you're probably aware of) is the person is holding such stances disingenuously. Not that social justice or virtue are negatives, but that the approach some people have towards them are either insincere or comically extreme.
                      As I understand it, self-righteousness and/or overzealousness also are part of the trope. Cue: Shut up woman, don't you see I'm defending your rights!

                      Comment


                      • This entire tangent about the word "Gypsy" got started because someone suggested that the fact that some people at WW were considering an updated version of World of Darkness: Gypsy was evidence that the people at WW are somehow "Alt-Right" or something along those lines. While I do believe that revisiting that book would be a mistake, neither the consideration nor the original book were in any way right wing nor would they appeal to white racists. The WoD:G book was a work of left leaning people whose writing was very strongly informed by their leftist sensibilities. Of course, they were making an insensitive product, but it was a mystification, perhaps even a fetishization, of their subject - nothing like one might expect from right wing racists. The people in that book were mystical, magical, special - which is racist in an entirely different sort of way.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kalendeer View Post
                          I do not see what gives you, Heavy Arms, the legitimacy to shame another member of this forum.
                          The same thing that gives you the legitimacy to post that.

                          What do you think you're doing exactly? You're trying to shame me for posting something you disagree with. It's a fundamental aspect of human communication when someone says something you don't like. You try to make them realize it by appealing to their sense of shame at their actions.

                          You can disagree with my word choice all you want, but don't pass this off as anything but a difference in such to the same ends.

                          And before you ask, no, I'm not voting for the right, but not every single left people approves of shaming tactics as a mean to convince others, because that just doesn't work.
                          There are people out there who do that quite well without name calling, and I believe their work is undermined by the wide use of shaming tactics.
                          History tends to disagree. Very little progress has happened without shaming tactics. Is it always the right choice? No. Is it something you can get anything done by disavowing? Nope. What major advancement in humans treating other humans better hasn't ended up using shame as a tool?

                          I mean, what's the point of your post because shaming me? You're publicly taking me to task. You're not relying on the mods to sanction me. You're not trying to approach me in private to try to engage me in a discussion without the pressure of other people watching to influence things. You're not presenting hard facts with solid arguments towards your position. You haven't even actually proposed what people are supposed to use as an alternate tactic.

                          As has needed citation far too frequently in US political discourse at the moment, MLK Jr's Letter from a Birmingham Jail sums up the issues with your position here with greater gravitas than I ever could muster. You cannot disrupt the status quo without disruption. Calls for "not now," or to use more "acceptable" tactics, are no different for calls of, "never, and "do nothing." Once you are convinced to value respectability over ideals, you'll never be allowed to push ideals that change the status quo, because changing the status quo is always something that challenges your respectability to the general public used to using the status quo to judge respect.

                          -------------

                          Originally posted by Sergeant Brother View Post
                          This entire tangent about the word "Gypsy" got started because someone suggested that the fact that some people at WW were considering an updated version of World of Darkness: Gypsy was evidence that the people at WW are somehow "Alt-Right" or something along those lines.
                          Yeah, which is still dumb. Martin's statements and V5 do indicate a very different approach to the politics of the WoD games, but not a hard shift to the right. If anything we're more likely to see exactly what you identified:


                          The people in that book were mystical, magical, special - which is racist in an entirely different sort of way.
                          That is the bigger problem with the book than the title, and something Martin seems particularly prone to saying is an OK thing for the WoD to continue doing, while also saying he wants to do things "right." Though as I understand it, some of it is also just a problem with him talking about stuff he cares about and not picking his words carefully, which is worse when he's speaking outside is native language.

                          Comment


                          • EDIT : Now that I think about it, it's pointless to have this conversation with HeavyArms, so let's not waste the mods' time.
                            Last edited by Kalendeer; 10-22-2018, 06:18 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Monalfie View Post
                              Well the implication (from my understanding, and something which you're probably aware of) is the person is holding such stances disingenuously. Not that social justice or virtue are negatives, but that the approach some people have towards them are either insincere or comically extreme.
                              There is decades of writing on how authoritarian ideologists disingenuously claiming a position that they are the real defenders of some minority group as the pretense to attack groups that advocate for that minority group. Projection. "Anti racists are the real racist!" "Antifa are the real fascists!"etc.

                              People that rant about "social justice warriors." or otherwise try to troll and hate people for giving a shit tend to either be nothing but trolls playing "I'm twelve and just heard about nihilism." games or people who really do think empathy, the social contract,etc are left wing conspiracies. Not exactly the cream of humanity there.....

                              Since some people seem to want to die on the hill of defending a slur. It really should NOT have to be explained to people why a book about a people having "special" "magical" blood that also makes other people hate them is messed up. The idea that it's informed by left wing sensibilities however, is laughable.


                              “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
                                That is the bigger problem with the book than the title, and something Martin seems particularly prone to saying is an OK thing for the WoD to continue doing, while also saying he wants to do things "right." Though as I understand it, some of it is also just a problem with him talking about stuff he cares about and not picking his words carefully, which is worse when he's speaking outside is native language.
                                That sort of thing was nearly ubiquitous in the original WoD material. Native Americans and East Asians got a lot of that treatment too, actually, probably any group which wasn’t pure WASP.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X