Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="transmission89" data-source="post: 8326842" data-attributes="member: 6688441">Ok, so we can establish that there is a strong common ground from both sides (ignoring the right wing ass hats who band wagon and distort a message as they are wont to do). Note that I’ll be referring to sides just for simplicity and clarity, not to foster adversity.on your two points, it seems that where we differ is the ”value” or “relevance” on the aspects of these things. I dislike these two words as they sound cold and dismissive, but I can’t think of better right now, so I hope my intentions around it will be clear.Your side, views the context and relevance of Tolkien’s description as to tying it indelibly to these perceptions and creating this cultural baggage, that he is explicitly associating the two? My side, disagrees with the language used, but takes it at face value, a comparative that is clumsy by modern standards but was meant as just that, no associations beyond that. That therefore there is nothing beyond that (hence the reference to guide to readings above).Your side places value on the perceived notions of racial traits and draw the association with east Asian people’s due to certain visual cues and language semantic views? Where as my side again would argue that this is perception of reader, the reader association and just to take it at face value. An orc is just an orc. Please recognise that this isn’t a dismissive, “no you’re the racist“ and please it turn, don’t be dismissive of the counter view and take it as such. Its just, for my part at least, I value the quotes outlined in my post above. That reader understanding and interpretation is key. That I (and perhaps the others on ”my side” place less “relevance” on these visual and language cues and take them at the face value of the fantasy creature and not as a cue or indicator of a real world race or issue.And I think that much of the argument around issues of “a western perspective on orientalism or some such on “my side” is again that notion of “relevance”. A sense of “so what?” (Not intended as a callous and cruel way). In that there is no intention or design of racial offence, it’s just magpieing cool stuff for a fantasy game, it’s not meant to be representative or respective of real cultures because it’s not seeking to accurately portray or represent them) And it being a western perspective is immaterial because again it’s fantasy, and something through a different lens would change it as such. Obviously, were you setting out to create an authentic environment, you would ensure that this accuracy was guaranteed with the appropriate viewpoints and such (this view doesn’t discount the benefits of having a more diverse perspective anyway). And indeed, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander here as watching for example anime, seeing western culture through a Japanese lens in fantasy “not America” is interesting and different.So again, this is not a continuation of argument. I’m not seeking to persuade, it’s more a clarification of position. I would like to think that this would hopefully create some understanding on both sides. That actually, we agree on much of the issues.I’m hoping that at least for future conversation, it creates an understanding. That “my side“ do hear and understand “your sides” concerns. That we are not curmudgeonly roadblocks on the path of progress, we just disagree on the “relevance” of associations made as it pertains to the real world and the concerns and struggles of the various movements of equality. I hope that ”your sides” part will at least acknowledge that. That the issues of fantasy races and real life ethnicities are not straight up fact, that these associations are opinion based and not all that argue on this are straight up racists or anti progressives. Except the alt right band wagoning tools. Screw those guys.</blockquote>

Verification