Harzel
Adventurer
I keep wanting to chime into this thread and have a careful discussion of some of the things that I found a bit lacking in the article linked in the OP. But this constant stream of dismissiveness and denial just make it seem inappropriate. I find this exhausting and it's not even my concerns that are being treated as if they are some intellectual abstractions that we can discuss in the parlor over tea and agree to disagree and then retire to our chambers for an evening's rest, leaving the cares of the world behind. Tra-la.
I'm sorry that's sarcastic; I'm just mystified at how this level of disconnect can exist in an era when so much information is available.
Lychee, it's not entirely fair of me to pick on your post, but it just happens to be the currently most recent (though maybe not by the time I actually get to post this). And before I say more, just to be clear, no, I do not think you are a bad person.
But
Yeah, see this is a problem already. We're really not talking about things that people 'allow'. We're talking about things that people have had, and are still having done to them not only without their permission, but over their objections - at least when they are allowed to even object.
I am glad that the affronts that you have experienced have been things that you could shake off. But you have used some language here that is really kind of awful, because you are insinuating things about others' experiences. First of all 'constantly' (underlined no less) and 'all the time' are completely unjustified hyperbole that paints the people you are talking about as sort of perpetually agitated without cause. Unless you mean being offended whenever something offensive happens. In which case, well, duh. That's sort of by definition, not something to be called out with underlined adverbs.
Then 'self-righteous indignation' and 'perceived injustices'. If those are good descriptions of your own experiences, that's fine. But applied to someone else, 'self-righteous' is a belittling and dismissive term. Not cool. And 'perceived injustice' carries the strong connotation that whether the situation in question is unjust might be a matter of opinion or point of view. Other people might be experiencing things that no sane, reasonable person could regard as just. Substituting your experience for theirs is not the way to have a respectful conversation.
And if you are now in your head formulating a response that includes something like, "But I didn't mean that.", please stop. Because a) if you don't mean it, then don't say it; and b) if you are thinking about how to respond, you're not paying attention to what I'm saying.
Literally true, but absolutely not an excuse to be careless or unmindful.
Perhaps, perhaps not. But I'm not sure how you would know that someone "wants to be offended" unless they told you so. The fact that there are things that offend others but not you is really not an indication that they will be offended no matter what you do. There would need to be a very clear-headed discussion of both sides of numerous cases before you could claim such a pattern.
I hope you are not meaning to imply that that is sufficient. It is not.
This seems to be just tossing some pejorative adjectives at people in order to claim that that somehow justifies being careless about their feelings. Well, they're ill-defined, so it must be ok to offend them. What?
Well, for myself, I do my best, but generally I think that it is other people who'll be best able to tell whether I am succeeding at treating everyone equitably.
Um, what? Who is being stifled here? I'm not clear how it could be you. But if it's someone else, this kind of sounds like something for them to work out. (?)
No. So what? At this point, you seem to have descended into FUD. This is a rhetorical question that seems logically connected to the matter at hand only in that it involves persons of color, but is made to sound as if it casts doubt on ... something.
I think most people commenting have acknowledged that ToA does represent an improvement. Many people also seem to feel that WoTC missed an opportunity to do much better. That was my general impression anyway; I'm happy to be corrected if that's not so.
Yeah, I understand the sentiment, but the existence of that ideal doesn't change the present situation. And dropping that in here sounds like you are just dismissing current problems - if we could just all become enlightened and not "believe in races", then everything would be ok. To borrow an analogy from an article that I read today, this is like racking up a huge credit card debt, then pledging to not charge anymore with the expectation that that will stop the bills from coming.
Oh, my. The only thing that I can think is that you don't understand what is meant by privilege in this context. If you are a white male of even modest means living in the U.S. (which I am), you are one of the luckiest people to ever walk the surface of this earth. And if you are not grateful for that, and humble enough to admit that largely you just lucked out, I just don't know what to say. Compared with other folks, you have, relatively, so many opportunities and so few things to worry about it is kind of mind-boggling. Life never provides guarantees, but your chances are comparatively truly outstanding.
Optimism is not a bad thing, I guess, but in general I think it is probably more respectful to just let the other person tell you what they think rather than making a supposition.
I'm sorry that's sarcastic; I'm just mystified at how this level of disconnect can exist in an era when so much information is available.
Lychee, it's not entirely fair of me to pick on your post, but it just happens to be the currently most recent (though maybe not by the time I actually get to post this). And before I say more, just to be clear, no, I do not think you are a bad person.
But
I'm only partly defined by what others think of me. If I allowed
Yeah, see this is a problem already. We're really not talking about things that people 'allow'. We're talking about things that people have had, and are still having done to them not only without their permission, but over their objections - at least when they are allowed to even object.
myself to be constantly offended by some badly acted portrayal of me - more precisely, by some badly acted portrayal of the people or the community I'm supposed to be part of - I would allow myself to always and thoroughly be (re)defined by others than me.
In spite of what I just wrote I still get regularly offended, of course, for various reasons, but I strive to not let myself wallow in self-righteous indignation at the perceived injustices of the world because, well... it's bad for my heart and for my soul.
To let oneself be angry all the time, as a fraction of some members of minorities in the USA do, and lash out constantly at the world, in an accusatory way, is not healthy, nor productive. I find it disempowering, in fact.
I am glad that the affronts that you have experienced have been things that you could shake off. But you have used some language here that is really kind of awful, because you are insinuating things about others' experiences. First of all 'constantly' (underlined no less) and 'all the time' are completely unjustified hyperbole that paints the people you are talking about as sort of perpetually agitated without cause. Unless you mean being offended whenever something offensive happens. In which case, well, duh. That's sort of by definition, not something to be called out with underlined adverbs.
Then 'self-righteous indignation' and 'perceived injustices'. If those are good descriptions of your own experiences, that's fine. But applied to someone else, 'self-righteous' is a belittling and dismissive term. Not cool. And 'perceived injustice' carries the strong connotation that whether the situation in question is unjust might be a matter of opinion or point of view. Other people might be experiencing things that no sane, reasonable person could regard as just. Substituting your experience for theirs is not the way to have a respectful conversation.
And if you are now in your head formulating a response that includes something like, "But I didn't mean that.", please stop. Because a) if you don't mean it, then don't say it; and b) if you are thinking about how to respond, you're not paying attention to what I'm saying.
I'm of the opinion that we can not avoid the possibility of anything to cause offense.
Literally true, but absolutely not an excuse to be careless or unmindful.
Some people want to be offended, and they will be, no matter what you do.
Perhaps, perhaps not. But I'm not sure how you would know that someone "wants to be offended" unless they told you so. The fact that there are things that offend others but not you is really not an indication that they will be offended no matter what you do. There would need to be a very clear-headed discussion of both sides of numerous cases before you could claim such a pattern.
I'm a writer myself, and I don't go out of my way to offend people,
I hope you are not meaning to imply that that is sufficient. It is not.
but I refuse to censor myself to avoid offending some vague and ill-defined minorities ("people of color", "black men", "Jews", etc.).
This seems to be just tossing some pejorative adjectives at people in order to claim that that somehow justifies being careless about their feelings. Well, they're ill-defined, so it must be ok to offend them. What?
Not being a racist myself,
Well, for myself, I do my best, but generally I think that it is other people who'll be best able to tell whether I am succeeding at treating everyone equitably.
I find these minorities ill-defined, and stifling in terms of the individual.
Um, what? Who is being stifled here? I'm not clear how it could be you. But if it's someone else, this kind of sounds like something for them to work out. (?)
Are all person of dark hues supposed to be "black", for example, and are they supposed to be affected in the exact same way by the history of slavery in the USA ?
No. So what? At this point, you seem to have descended into FUD. This is a rhetorical question that seems logically connected to the matter at hand only in that it involves persons of color, but is made to sound as if it casts doubt on ... something.
There is definitely room for improvement. ToA IS improvement to me, and not being able to see it diminishes its impact, and perhaps lessens the good will of its authors.
I think most people commenting have acknowledged that ToA does represent an improvement. Many people also seem to feel that WoTC missed an opportunity to do much better. That was my general impression anyway; I'm happy to be corrected if that's not so.
Re:improvement - I don't believe in "races". It's a very flawed and outdated concept, and I think the world would be better if we learned to discard it - though I don't think that will happen for some centuries from now.
Yeah, I understand the sentiment, but the existence of that ideal doesn't change the present situation. And dropping that in here sounds like you are just dismissing current problems - if we could just all become enlightened and not "believe in races", then everything would be ok. To borrow an analogy from an article that I read today, this is like racking up a huge credit card debt, then pledging to not charge anymore with the expectation that that will stop the bills from coming.
I don't think the concept of privilege - as in the privilege of the white man, I suppose - is a sound one either, though I acknowledge that it is for you.
Oh, my. The only thing that I can think is that you don't understand what is meant by privilege in this context. If you are a white male of even modest means living in the U.S. (which I am), you are one of the luckiest people to ever walk the surface of this earth. And if you are not grateful for that, and humble enough to admit that largely you just lucked out, I just don't know what to say. Compared with other folks, you have, relatively, so many opportunities and so few things to worry about it is kind of mind-boggling. Life never provides guarantees, but your chances are comparatively truly outstanding.
I would say that you and me we understand the worldview of each other, to an extent - and that our worldviews happen to be orthogonal on some important points. I don't think that makes either one of us a bad person. And I don't think you think it does either, and for that I'm grateful
Optimism is not a bad thing, I guess, but in general I think it is probably more respectful to just let the other person tell you what they think rather than making a supposition.