Cultural Appropriation in role-playing games (draft)

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

I want to thank everyone for their comments, even the ones with which I disagree. I am revising the column, which unfortunately appears to be making it longer.

 

[Umbran]

It is a complicated subject, possibly without one single correct approach to dealing with the issues. Any thoughts that a good treatment of it would be *short* are probably to be left behind

 

[Mistwell]

Only God knows someone’s actual intent and he does not exist – the rest of us have to cope with the person’s excuses and mealy-mouthed assertions about the best of intentions.

This part is offensive, and doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the piece. It just comes off as needless snark at the expense of those who believe in God, and not even for a point that reinforces any theme of the article.

 

[Bagpuss]

Agreed I'm an atheist but there is no need to rub it in believers faces all the time if it adds nothing to the conversation. Seems to be there deliberately to cause offense. Rather than most cultural appropriation, which apart from the most extreme cases isn't intended to cause offense.

A lot in the original post seems to just be trolling, deliberately looking to get a negative response. Rather than actually asking the audience to think and engage with the topic.

 

[Umbran]

A lot in the original post seems to just be trolling, deliberately looking to get a negative response.

Well, he *does* sell himself as "grumpy". Not exactly a descriptor that suggests positive slants on the topics.

 

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

I have an inherent cruel streak I try to keep on a short leash - I'm not even joking about that.
That said, I try to use "being provocative" as a tool and I don't view my video podcast series as comfort food.

 

[Celebrim]

This part is offensive, and doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the piece. It just comes off as needless snark at the expense of those who believe in God, and not even for a point that reinforces any theme of the article.

Meh.

The fact that its making a contentious point that isn't part of the theme of the article is the point. It tribal signaling. It's not so much primarily intended to cause offense as it is to garner the sympathy of the rest of the tribe. "I'm an atheist, so if you are an atheist, then you'll agree with the rest of what I say as well." Plenty of tribes define themselves primarily by who they aren't or who they oppose. That's nothing weird.

Announcing such a marker reminds me of the homeless people who when you actually look the in the eye always want to say first, "I'm a Christian." in the false assumption that I'd be more willing to help them because of it. Essentially it's just pleading, "No really, I'm a good person. I believe all the right things necessary to deserve your sympathy."

It's like believers that put Ichthys on the back of their cars so that other members of their social tribe will know them. Or it's like certain social groups that put so many bumper stickers on the back of their car you can no longer see the back of their car so that likeminded groups will recognize a fellow member of their creed: "Coexist" written in the symbols of religions that the person isn't member of, etc. Or it's like a church that names itself, "Apostolic Pentecostal Full Gospel Holiness Missionary Baptist Church of God in Christ Jesus", just so that from the name alone you can check off the boxes no whether or not you are in the tribe.

If it is intended to be offensive, sort of "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Darwin Fish" style, it's predicated on a false assumption of what I find offensive. It's a bit less than pleasant to think that someone dislikes you so much that they are trying to insult you, but the snark itself isn't offensive. The only reason to point out the snark and how unhelpful it is to the theme, is if you want the essay to be more persuasive, which in full honesty I don't.

Besides, I detest victim based morality almost as much as I detest shame based morality. I'm not victimized by original poster declaring he doesn't believe in God. I am explicitly not demanding any authority figure protect me from the victimization I'm not actually experiencing. And I'm explicitly calling for people to not passively aggressively attack ideas by cloaking themselves in the mantle of victimhood. Agreeing that it is offensive and victimizing for the OP to declare God doesn't exist, would in fact be agreeing with the underlying principles of the essay and the world view it is trying to advance - namely, that we should be aggressively defending the conversational space from ideas that offend us (or others) even when it wasn't the intention to be offensive.

 

[delericho]

That said, I try to use "being provocative" as a tool and I don't view my video podcast series as comfort food.

Which would be fair enough, except that, "Morally and ethically, intent counts for less than we might wish."

 

[Mistwell]

Meh.

The fact that its making a contentious point that isn't part of the theme of the article is the point. It tribal signaling. It's not so much primarily intended to cause offense as it is to garner the sympathy of the rest of the tribe. "I'm an atheist, so if you are an atheist, then you'll agree with the rest of what I say as well." Plenty of tribes define themselves primarily by who they aren't or who they oppose. That's nothing weird.

Announcing such a marker reminds me of the homeless people who when you actually look the in the eye always want to say first, "I'm a Christian." in the false assumption that I'd be more willing to help them because of it. Essentially it's just pleading, "No really, I'm a good person. I believe all the right things necessary to deserve your sympathy."

It's like believers that put Ichthys on the back of their cars so that other members of their social tribe will know them. Or it's like certain social groups that put so many bumper stickers on the back of their car you can no longer see the back of their car so that likeminded groups will recognize a fellow member of their creed: "Coexist" written in the symbols of religions that the person isn't member of, etc. Or it's like a church that names itself, "Apostolic Pentecostal Full Gospel Holiness Missionary Baptist Church of God in Christ Jesus", just so that from the name alone you can check off the boxes no whether or not you are in the tribe.

If it is intended to be offensive, sort of "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Darwin Fish" style, it's predicated on a false assumption of what I find offensive. It's a bit less than pleasant to think that someone dislikes you so much that they are trying to insult you, but the snark itself isn't offensive. The only reason to point out the snark and how unhelpful it is to the theme, is if you want the essay to be more persuasive, which in full honesty I don't.

Besides, I detest victim based morality almost as much as I detest shame based morality. I'm not victimized by original poster declaring he doesn't believe in God. I am explicitly not demanding any authority figure protect me from the victimization I'm not actually experiencing. And I'm explicitly calling for people to not passively aggressively attack ideas by cloaking themselves in the mantle of victimhood. Agreeing that it is offensive and victimizing for the OP to declare God doesn't exist, would in fact be agreeing with the underlying principles of the essay and the world view it is trying to advance - namely, that we should be aggressively defending the conversational space from ideas that offend us (or others) even when it wasn't the intention to be offensive.

I agree with you entirely. I am not personally offended. I am just trying to speak his language - he speaks in terms of offensive regardless of intent, about how a reader feels about something written as opposed to what the communication is intended to communicate. So OK, I understand his communication of that point, and apply it to this other thing he said, and find it clearly breaks the criteria he set forth. I assume he wants to operate within the same rules he's applying to others.

As for tribalism, your comment reminds me of this article. An article I think is rather powerful and deeply on point.

 

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

...Touche.