D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

[HJFudge]

The fact that orcs are imaginary really isn't relevant. All characters in fiction are imaginary! If that defense held water, then you could always do whatever you wanted with any fictional representations without reproach, but that is empirically not the case. Symbols matter to real humans. You'd have to go much further, and establish that there's a clear line of "imaginary enough", that magically makes it okay. Good luck with that.

The argument that fictional depictions in the media (edit: effect attitude) is Cultivation Theory and there are some problems with it. In fact, a lot of sociological science has of late had some issues.

It is currently undergoing what is known as 'Replication Crisis', or the fact many studies in the past that have shaped popular psychological/sociological myths/beliefs are proving impossible to replicate under more stringent conditions.

Might I suggest "The Quick Fix" by Jesse Singal for a more in depth discussion and review of the subject.

 

[Bohandas]

In the end, you have one or more real-world humans who have made a choice to depict a thing that looks and operates a whole lot like real-world racism. Why would anyone really want to do that? Make a world that mirrors some of the worst elements of our own, and not for the explicit purposes of having characters fight against that aspect?

IT'S A COINCIDENCE!

This is just another instance of synchronicity. Like finding a hill on Mars that kind of looks like a face. Looking like a face doesn't make it a statue.

 

[Bohandas]

The argument that fictional depictions in the media is Cultivation Theory and there are some problems with it. In fact, a lot of sociological science has of late had some issues.

It is currently undergoing what is known as 'Replication Crisis', or the fact many studies in the past that have shaped popular psychological/sociological myths/beliefs are proving impossible to replicate under more stringent conditions.

Might I suggest "The Quick Fix" by Jesse Singal for a more in depth discussion and review of the subject.

I'd go further than that. Sociology borders on not being a science at all. It's more like a pseudoscience with a tiny bit of real science mixed in to fool you.

 

[Wicked Woodpecker]

In the end, you have one or more real-world humans who have made a choice to depict a thing that looks and operates a whole lot like real-world racism. Why would anyone really want to do that? Make a world that mirrors some of the worst elements of our own, and not for the explicit purposes of having characters fight against that aspect?

Well, it's sort of interesting concept overall.
Like making setting when human sacrifices to gods, are good, proper and fate of society truly depends on them, let's say.

Also - it's sort of hard to use "stereotype of savage horde" is racist, against people who are truly afflicted by ruthless enemy - I mean ruthless horde is not colonial stereotype - is stereotype born from countless very real blood war. If we want to add racial context - sure - Mongolian conquest of China, West Asia and big chunk of Eastern Europe. (But of course not only - bloody horde stereotype was used among various close neighbourhs if relations were really bad - for instance Polish people and Baltic Jotvingians and Prussians. Nordic people vision in times when viking raids were common. Any big plundering army really.

And that what orcs become in D&D (post 3.0 if I'm correct, I guess due to influence of Warcraft and Warhammer that made from them big hulking green football hools) - before they were more classic Tolkienian thralls to Darkmaster.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

IT'S A COINCIDENCE!

This is just another instance of synchronicity. Like finding a hill on Mars that kind of looks like a face. Looking like a face doesn't make it a statue.

I know you're probably joking, but it's a coincidence in more in the sense that might say the exact same words as some person on TV you heard 30 years ago, thinking you came up with them, and not realizing that you're actually bringing them out of deep memory. There's really little to no chance the people who wrote this stuff hadn't been exposed, at least briefly, to this kind of extreme racist sentiment.

Even then, it should have been spotted in Volo's and Strahd. They literally paid extra to have someone act as a consult on Strahd, and still, no-one spotted this stuff. The didn't spot stuff that previous editions HAD spotted, and veered away from - for example 4E understood that the Vistani were a pretty racist conceit as they were in the earlier editions, so totally reworked them. But 5E just brought them back. I doubt it was malice, that's serious incompetence.

 

[Justice and Rule]

The argument that fictional depictions in the media (edit: effect attitude) is Cultivation Theory and there are some problems with it. In fact, a lot of sociological science has of late had some issues.

It is currently undergoing what is known as 'Replication Crisis', or the fact many studies in the past that have shaped popular psychological/sociological myths/beliefs are proving impossible to replicate under more stringent conditions.

Might I suggest "The Quick Fix" by Jesse Singal for a more in depth discussion and review of the subject.

Yeah, no, I've seen Singal online and I've seen him in several arguments where he came off as insanely bad-faith when it comes to these things, especially on race issues. And that Ferguson is one of his guys makes a lot of sense. So that's gonna be a no from me.

IT'S A COINCIDENCE!

This is just another instance of synchronicity. Like finding a hill on Mars that kind of looks like a face. Looking like a face doesn't make it a statue.

This isn't a natural phenomenon, it's something that was actually put together by someone. D&D is built on old tropes, of course some of them would be bad. The fact of the matter is that modern D&D shouldn't be playing with them. Is this so hard?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, it's sort of interesting concept overall.
Like making setting when human sacrifices to gods, are good, proper and fate of society truly depends on them, let's say.

Also - it's sort of hard to use "stereotype of savage horde" is racist, against people who are truly afflicted by ruthless enemy - I mean ruthless horde is not colonial stereotype - is stereotype born from countless very real blood war. If we want to add racial context - sure - Mongolian conquest of China, West Asia and big chunk of Eastern Europe. (But of course not only - bloody horde stereotype was used among various close neighbourhs if relations were really bad - for instance Polish people and Baltic Jotvingians and Prussians. Nordic people vision in times when viking raids were common. Any big plundering army really.

And that what orcs become in D&D (post 3.0 if I'm correct, I guess due to influence of Warcraft and Warhammer that made from them big hulking green football hools) - before they were more classic Tolkienian thralls to Darkmaster.

The "savage horde" becomes racist when you start applying liberally to people who aren't the Mongols or the like, but just "people who you don't like". It becomes bonus mode super-racist when you start adding insane nonsense like "and they breed really fast and have a low IQ!!!!".

 

[pming]

I'm talking about extremely well-established racist stereotyping and messaging. If you want to put your head in the sand, and the pretend that 19th and 20th century racism didn't happen, go ahead, no-one can stop you, but intentional ignorance is not a valid argument. You're literally dismissing stuff I've been reading actual research on (not activist stuff) days ago. It's ridiculous and conceited in the worst kind of way.

Also, as I suspect you know gnomes have been used as a weakly anti-semitic trope, just not the D&D kind, largely through lazy "banker = jewish person stuff" connected to the "gnomes of zurich" and so on (which traditionally just refers to any bankers in Switzerland). It's not the same kind of widespread libel though. If you didn't know that, maybe this is a good time for you to butt out of a conversation you aren't interesting learning enough about to have?

Hiya!

Reiterating, what you do in your own home is your business - I'm talking about published works.

Folks have already brought up the Thermian Argument, haven't they?

The fact that orcs are imaginary really isn't relevant. All characters in fiction are imaginary! If that defense held water, then you could always do whatever you wanted with any fictional representations without reproach, but that is empirically not the case. Symbols matter to real humans. You'd have to go much further, and establish that there's a clear line of "imaginary enough", that magically makes it okay. Good luck with that.

In the end, you have one or more real-world humans who have made a choice to depict a thing that looks and operates a whole lot like real-world racism. Why would anyone really want to do that? Make a world that mirrors some of the worst elements of our own, and not for the explicit purposes of having characters fight against that aspect?

Because it is simpler? That's a privilege argument - since we are in a position in which we can ignore it, we will do so, because that is more pleasant. That's either ignorant, or pretty explicitly choosing to disengage your empathy and respect for those who cannot ignore it, because they live it.

Ignorance isn't a sin, and can be rectified. But, once informed, willfully choosing to disengage the empathy is... not a good look. Do that publicly, and you deserve a heap of criticism for that.

Long story short... you and I have vastly different interpretations of life in general. This is good! It's not going to help us come to any sort of acceptance of the other's thought process or preferences, but it does help us develop our "thick skin". What you are saying annoys me to no end because [reasons I can't discuss due to forum rules]...and I'm sure the opposite is true. So...both of us can now happily just do the old "Agree to disagree" thing and move on.

I'm not going to bother replying to anything you said. You are a Mod, I am not. There are forum rules that prevent me from speaking my mind. I'm cool with that because I agreed to the terms by posting. So, I'll just sum up...

"Huh. Interesting world view you have. Glad it's working for you. Have a nice day and Game On!"



^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Maxperson]

In fact, your absolutism justifies child murder. Cause guess what? Those 10,000 dead, some would be children. Children you murdered, because you could've saved them but chose not to.

That's..........................not how it works.

 

[HJFudge]

I'd go further than that. Sociology borders on not being a science at all.

This is a very real concern in the fields of psychology and sociology. In 2011, there was a piece, peer reviewed and published in a leading scientific journal that suggested that humans can foretell the future.

I am not kidding.

It has, since, began to get a bit better in a lot of ways (but worse in others).

Other recent 'science' that has become part of the social narrative is the concept of Himmicanes. The belief that male named hurricanes caused less damage because people, being effected by systemic misogyny, prepared for them more seriously than female ones.

Yeah, no, I've seen Singal online and I've seen him in several arguments where he came off as insanely bad-faith when it comes to these things, especially on race issues. And that Ferguson is one of his guys makes a lot of sense. So that's gonna be a no from me.

You illustrate another issue. That people pick studies that agree with their worldview. You've basically self selected so that any study you read will support your theory, because any scientist or doctor who happens to disagree is now engaging in 'bad science'.

So, how are you ever to have your ideas challenged scientifically if anytime anyone does, they are 'not True Science'?

It's a bit of a trap. Impossible to escape from.

You tow the party line or you are engaging in, and there is an actual term for it, 'racist science'. Your studies are pulled not because the science is at question, but the results of the science is politically 'wrong'.