Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kinematics" data-source="post: 8863787" data-attributes="member: 6932123">I would say not so much revisionist as subject to refactoring. A certain tool (race) has been accumulating stuff for a long time, and is currently a bucket of traits that are a mix of inherent/biological and social/cultural. There are a lot of reasons to want to make use of those trait categories separately, so you want to refactor the system to isolate the concepts and provide a proper separation of concerns. It's just an easier system to use and expand on, as seen in Level Up's Heritage and Culture building blocks.Since the social/cultural side of things is easily identified using the Culture category, that leaves the biological side of things to be identified as 'race'. Except race has issues both with real-life hangups, and the historical baggage of being the identifying term that encompassed both biological and cultural aspects of one's development.So it's not unreasonable to want another term that you can use to help people grasp what you're defining, and keep it separate from the old term. But one of many problems is changing the term used (such as species), but not changing the trait categorization (that is, leaving in cultural elements).&nbsp; Changing race to another word, but having it mean the same thing, would be revisionism. Changing it to mean only one aspect of the previous trait grouping would be refactoring, but with the possibility of some confusion over which version is meant at any given time if you don't change the term itself.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kinematics, post: 8863787, member: 6932123"] I would say not so much revisionist as subject to refactoring. A certain tool (race) has been accumulating stuff for a long time, and is currently a bucket of traits that are a mix of inherent/biological and social/cultural. There are a lot of reasons to want to make use of those trait categories separately, so you want to refactor the system to isolate the concepts and provide a proper separation of concerns. It's just an easier system to use and expand on, as seen in Level Up's Heritage and Culture building blocks. Since the social/cultural side of things is easily identified using the Culture category, that leaves the biological side of things to be identified as 'race'. Except race has issues both with real-life hangups, and the historical baggage of being the identifying term that encompassed both biological and cultural aspects of one's development. So it's not unreasonable to want another term that you can use to help people grasp what you're defining, and keep it separate from the old term. But one of many problems is changing the term used (such as species), but not changing the trait categorization (that is, leaving in cultural elements). Changing race to another word, but having it mean the same thing, would be revisionism. Changing it to mean only one aspect of the previous trait grouping would be refactoring, but with the possibility of some confusion over which version is meant at any given time if you don't change the term itself. [/QUOTE]

Verification