Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stefano Rinaldelli" data-source="post: 8569773" data-attributes="member: 6791994">My argument rest on the fact that going fantasy from real is easy. Instead, going real from fantasy must be first contextualized and then proven to be offensive.The only point of connection between Romani and Kender is the klepto-think. For Romani (real people) is a stereotype. For Kender (fantasy people) is fictionally real.&nbsp; In your idea nobody can write about a race of kleptomaniac? Your approach is to censor a concept just because it let you remember something wrong with a free wheel chain of associations that are driven by similarity, not logic nor causality. This is the magical way of thinking.Just to clarify to you my concept: If Kender were depicted as Romani in a clear iconographic way THEN the &quot;naturally klepto&quot; thing could be considered wrong, because the writer were clearly saying: &quot;ok Romani people (that I'm not going to call romani but kender), are naturally born kleptomaniac.&nbsp; (Aside from the fact that the stereotype over romani are not &quot;all kleptomaniac&quot;, is even worst: &quot;all thieves&quot;.My argument rest on the fact that the mere presence of somebody who could be offended by you doesn't mean that you have to preheventively censor yourself.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stefano Rinaldelli, post: 8569773, member: 6791994"] My argument rest on the fact that going fantasy from real is easy. Instead, going real from fantasy must be first [I]contextualized and then proven to be offensive[/I]. The only point of connection between Romani and Kender is the klepto-think. For Romani (real people) is a stereotype. For Kender (fantasy people) is fictionally real. In your idea nobody can write about a race of kleptomaniac? Your approach is to censor a concept just because it let you remember something wrong with a free wheel chain of associations that are driven by similarity, not logic nor causality. This is the magical way of thinking. Just to clarify to you my concept: If Kender were depicted as Romani in a clear iconographic way THEN the "naturally klepto" thing could be considered wrong, because the writer were clearly saying: "ok Romani people (that I'm not going to call romani but kender), are naturally born kleptomaniac. (Aside from the fact that the stereotype over romani are not "all kleptomaniac", is even worst: "all thieves". My argument rest on the fact that the mere presence of somebody who could be offended by you doesn't mean that you have to preheventively censor yourself. [/QUOTE]

Verification