3) I'm not. It is my nation, your nation, that first decided to transcend the old definition and do something the world had never really seen before. It was and is a fragile and beautiful experiment, and to a very large extent WWII was fought over whether such an experiment could endure. Any day now, it might stop, and it won't be one side that will be to blame for losing the plot.
That's an extremely...
imaginative interpretation of the causes and motivations involved with WW2. As to who will be to blame for "losing the plot;" I have no doubt that there are many who are small-minded and petty enough, after running face first into the brick wall of reality, will turn in anger to the very people who were telling them, "Hey, watch out for that wall up ahead!" and find some numbskull way to blame them for reality not conforming to their delusional wishful thinking. But I already expect that. For that matter, I already
see that on a regular basis. That's no longer a case of me saying that someday I'll tell you I told you so. I'm already doing it all the time.
A little advanced political science, particularly focusing on societies in conflict, or even asking that question around places like Turkey, the wider Caucasus region, or even Ireland will quickly illustrate that the definition you quote is overly simplistic. Of course, all you have to do is notice the "or" in that definition to see how subjective and fuzzy that quoted definition actually is. Is it shared history, or is it shared language, shared race, or shared religion, is it a desire to be British rather than Irish, Kurdish rather than Turkish, Ossetian rather than Georgian, or both or neither? The very fact that often these overlap or cut across each other demonstrates that the identification of a "nation" is based on subjectivity and more of a collective intention to agree to belong to a particular nation than objective criteria.
Genetic fallacy is still genetic fallacy. As is presenting an unusual case as if it were representative. Or maybe that's simply dishonest. The notion that the Irish can't tell the difference between themselves and the British would be news to the Irish. As well as to the Ulster Scots. And just because you can find a few dishonest or confused individuals here and there means that you've merely found that the exception proves the rule.
Or is that an old saying that someone will take offense to now too?
In case you were curious, he was referring to your use of the phrase "off the reservation", which... well, it's a particularly ironic and unfortunate turn of phrase given the context of your arguments. Exactly how bad it was, in the grand scheme of things, is not really my place to judge. But then again, it's also not really your (or anyone else's) place to presume the motivations of those who would admit to taking exception to it, either.
I wasn't curious. There's nothing unfortunate about that turn of phrase. And yes, it is actually exactly my place to judge the motivations of people who are attempting to pick fights with me by telling me that my expressions are "unfortunate" even though they've been in common currency for years, and I've used them myself—here, even—with regularity. It's absurd to claim otherwise.
As for the original premise of the thread; are we suggesting that the Forgotten Realms or the Belgariad are now "problematic" because they didn't use some bizarre moving target specification to avoid offending any hypothetical people by referencing a culture in a shorthand manner? Because that's where this goes; what the O/P suggests that "we all know is not OK" was the stock in trade for every D&D setting ever published up through the 00s, not to mention almost every fantasy novel ever published through that period as well. And most of those that still come out, for that matter. How did something that was OK for generations suddenly become "not OK" and who decided that? It didn't and nobody did, of course, is the real answer. Certainly nobody who's authority I'd recognize.
The thread started off on the wrong foot to begin with. An interesting discussion could have been had about "for my fantasy analog to the Turks I wanted to dig a little bit deeper than curved swords, big mustaches and kebabs, hurr!" and then discuss some of the details. Unfortunately, it's been hard to get to that discussion because of the "OMG, look how sensitive I am!" virtue signaling. Quite honestly, if I throw out a culture that's a rather transparent, quick and dirty (or "lazy" if I want to use the O/P's deliberately insulting and pejorative language) analog of, say, the Mongols, if any of my players are going to throw a tantrum because I'm not being "sensitive" enough to the Mongols and that's "not OK" they are welcome—immediately, in fact—to leave my game and leave my social circle entirely. In fact, they're not only welcome to do so, but I insist.
