Sensitivity Writers. AKA: avoiding cultural appropriate in writing

[Calithorne]

Oh my dude, you’re a delight.

You know there’s a difference between challenging people and being offensive because enough just don’t care how your work affects people, right?

What Twain did could not be further to the opposite end from what Sacrosanct is trying to avoid doing.

Twain considered the impact of every written word, and chose what to say based on a desire to challenge his neighbors to be better people by examining their own BS notions.

You’re advocating not giving a damn, and just writing what you feel like writing. Literally the direct opposite.

“Write for yourself” is self-indulgent nonsense, that Twain would despise with vociferous and eloquent spite.

It is the very height of comedic absurdity that you would come into this thread, performative indignation on your sleeve, to pronounce to the gathered participants your anecdote of the time you rallied against the terrible oppression of being invited to learn about the perspective that perhaps artists should have compassion of all things. All while behaving as though you were providing a novel perspective or argument, no less!

To simultaneously thread-crap, rail against “seeking offense”, and dive headlong into the thread for seemingly the sole purpose of being offended that anyone expects anything of other people, behaviorally, is genuinely the funniest thing I’ve witnessed in days.

You write a lot of big words, but it comes down to just a few: You support the notion that artistic works should be reviewed by political correctness committees and censored if they don't meet political correctness standards.

To make it even shorter: you are a Stalinist.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You write a lot of big words, but it comes down to just a few: You support the notion that artistic works should be reviewed by political correctness committees and censored if they don't meet political correctness standards.

To make it even shorter: you are a Stalinist.

Ah, man, I appreciate a good laugh but that one just caused me to wake up my wife and my dog!

Yep, definitely no daylight between “try to be considerate of others” and “literal authoritarian regime”. Foooor sure.

Are you the guy who was yelling at Morrus on Twitter the other day? Same energy.

Anyway, I’m glad you’re out there standing up against “censorship” in the form of...literally people asking other people to listen to the people of cultures they want to make art inspired by before making the art, so that they don’t make clueless art that rides on lazy ignorance of that culture.

On a brief non-sarcastic note, you do understand that folks don’t lose the right to make whatever they want when their neighbors ask them to be compassionate when making art, right? You can still make whatever edgy “I’m offensive for it’s own sake” “art” you want.

Folks aren’t obligated to support you, have any respect for you as an artist or person, or refrain from harsh criticism of what you end up making, though.

It’s extremely silly to characterize any of this in the melodramatic way that you have, and when you flounce into a thread to rant about it like you have, you’re gonna get criticized for that, too.

Turns out speech is a two way street.

 

[Derren]

No it’s not. It’s pretty well established.

Its established by a very specific circle of people who demand that it is true as otherwise no one would pay attention to them.
Too bad that just because you demand that something is true doesn't make it so. Notice how you didn't respond to any to the points in my last post? Or how your last post started with a combat term "white colonialism" in an effort to silence everyone who thinks differently as this term leaves no room for any debate or discussion? And here you are continuing to use racist combat terms with "white privilege".

My points still stand. Feel free to respond to them constructively. Just don't bother with combat terms and "whites are bad" rethoric.
As for your "problem", I have written the solution in my last posts. Ignore cultural appropation as its only a concern for a small circle of people who want it to be a problem. And if those are your target group don't use non european cultures (and probably be accused of not being inclusive enough by the same people who errect barriers around cultures so that no one can use foreign ones, but that is a different can of worms).

 

[pming]

Hiya!

shrug Go ahead and pay a "sensitivity writer" if you want. Won't make any difference to the vast majority of RPG'ers who just want a cool thing to play or add to their campaign. I've used stuff from all manner of writers, some are even considered "white supremacists" or even "sexual predators". Don't care. I have no horse in the race, so to speak. I bought and use their stuff because I find the IMAGINARY INFORMATION cool or useful in making my game more fun. Do I think the person behind the writing is "good" or "a fine, upstanding individual"? Hell no! But then again, I'm not paying him/her to be a better person or try and bring some sort of "social recognition of [insert minority anything]". I'm paying them to write cool, fun and interesting IMAGINARY INFORMATION that I can use in my IMAGINARY GAME OF MAKE BELIEVE in the privacy of my own home with my own friends/family.

YMMV.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Kaodi]

Its established by a very specific circle of people who demand that it is true as otherwise no one would pay attention to them.
Too bad that just because you demand that something is true doesn't make it so. Notice how you didn't respond to any to the points in my last post? Or how your last post started with a combat term "white colonialism" in an effort to silence everyone who thinks differently as this term leaves no room for any debate or discussion? And here you are continuing to use racist combat terms with "white privilege".

My points still stand. Feel free to respond to them constructively. Just don't bother with combat terms and "whites are bad" rethoric.

I do think Sacrosanct was in error to single out "white colonialism" . Either you object to colonialism or you just object to white people. But* all of this other stuff you are saying is... not good. The concept of "white privilege" is not racist. Race is merely the object which is describes. There are certainly even knowledgeable people who debate the utility of the concept. Those people, however, do not frame its mere existence as an affront to white people.

*You know what they say about ignoring everything before the "but" .

As for your "problem", I have written the solution in my last posts. Ignore cultural appropation as its only a concern for a small circle of people who want it to be a problem.

I suppose you do not see the intense irony here. Cultural appropriation is a "problem" only for a small group of people? Perhaps that has something to do with the peoples being appropriated from often being, get this, small. In the United States and Canada indigenous peoples, for instance, are only a fraction of the total population. Half the problem is precisely that the ability of the rest of us to capitalize on their cultural products outstrips their ability to get them to market themselves. Being small and marginalized is precisely what makes the appropriation threatening.

I may object to the extremes of rhetoric coming from those who object to cultural appropriation. But I am not here for this pretending it does not describe a meaningful problem.

 

[Derren]

I do think Sacrosanct was in error to single out "white colonialism" . Either you object to colonialism or you just object to white people. But* all of this other stuff you are saying is... not good. The concept of "white privilege" is not racist. Race is merely the object which is describes. There are certainly even knowledgeable people who debate the utility of the concept. Those people, however, do not frame its mere existence as an affront to white people.

*You know what they say about ignoring everything before the "but" .



I suppose you do not see the intense irony here. Cultural appropriation is a "problem" only for a small group of people? Perhaps that has something to do with the peoples being appropriated from often being, get this, small. In the United States and Canada indigenous peoples, for instance, are only a fraction of the total population. Half the problem is precisely that the ability of the rest of us to capitalize on their cultural products outstrips their ability to get them to market themselves. Being small and marginalized is precisely what makes the appropriation threatening.

I may object to the extremes of rhetoric coming from those who object to cultural appropriation. But I am not here for this pretending it does not describe a meaningful problem.

Color privilege certainly exist, but which one is privileged depends on the region. It is not a global concept. And what is racist is to use alleged global privilege of one color or the other as excuse to discriminate against people of the color which is what usual happens when someone cites white privelege.

Also, while there certainly is some overlap, the circle of people who claim that cultural appropation is a problem are not always the ones affected by it (at least in a way it is considered problematic).

See Sacrosanct himself. He describes himself as white and of european descent, but is very concerned about cultural appropation of native american cultures and somehow thinks he is qualified to speak for native americans and how their culture shall be handled.
That doesn't mean that european cultures are not subjected to cultural appropation as he defines it and some are also on their way to extinction. But as I said before that is usually not seen as a problem for people who otherwise claim to be very concerned about this. This just shows the hypocrisy and arbitrary drawn lines.

 

[Ryujin]

It's not my job as a writer to give a damn about offending people.

Much of the greatest pieces of literature are very offensive, on purpose.

For example, Mark Twain went out of his way to offend his fellow Southerners in his books.

My father, who is a devout Catholic, would be very offended by many aspects of my story.

If I'm willing to offend him, I'm not going to worry about offending people I don't know.

I note that a person who demands we don't culturally appropriate from other cultures, however, is going out of his way to be offended.

A good measure for such things is whether you're "punching up" or "punching down", in who you're offending. Twain was "punching up."

 

[billd91]

See Sacrosanct himself. He describes himself as white and of european descent, but is very concerned about cultural appropation of native american cultures and somehow thinks he is qualified to speak for native americans and how their culture shall be handled.

That's where, in the fundamentals, you are wrong. He's not trying to speak from within their culture but from within his and how members of his community should respect how other cultures would like their cultures to be handled.

 

[Derren]

That's where, in the fundamentals, you are wrong. He's not trying to speak from within their culture but from within his and how members of his community should respect how other cultures would like their cultures to be handled.

And who decides "how other cultures would like their cultures to be handled"?
He seems pretty certain to know the answer. Is he really qualified to decide that? Is anyone? Who owns a culture?

 

[Deset Gled]

And who decides "how other cultures would like their cultures to be handled"?

The original purpose of this thread was an attempt to discuss this exact question as reasonable, rational adults. If you don't want to have that discussion, why are you here?