Quote from: Doctor Jest;565057That would be a really compelling argument if it wasn't complete and utter bullshit.

That's like saying anyone who listens to Wagner is promoting Nazisim. It's both disingenuous AND fallacious. It's a slippery slope argument.

Well that's the argument being made here. If you are using traditional images of Zulu warriors, you must be a racist, since the British colonials used such images to belittle the "savages".

Quote from: Benoist;565058Well that's the argument being made here. If you are using traditional images of Zulu warriors, you must be a racist, since the British colonials used such images to belittle the "savages".

Yeah, I get that. What I don't get is anyone responding to that as if it's a rational point and not laughably stupid.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;565059Yeah, I get that. What I don't get is anyone responding to that as if it's a rational point and not laughably stupid.

Yeah, I'm with you there. I don't understand it either.

It's so mindbogglingly stupid it should be well, obvious at face value, really.

What would be racist, then?  I agree that Golarion isn't, but short of the obvious RaHoWa and anything by Stormfront, what elements would get a game labeled 'racist'?

Quote from: Doctor Jest;565057That's like saying anyone who listens to Wagner is promoting Nazisim. It's both disingenuous AND fallacious. It's a slippery slope argument.

Yet there are people who feel exactly like that about Wagner or even buying Volkswagens.  And I don't think it's disingenuous or fallacious for many people, nor is it a slippery slope argument.  It's a failure to make a distinction that other people are willing to make.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;565059Yeah, I get that. What I don't get is anyone responding to that as if it's a rational point and not laughably stupid.

Morality isn't rational.  It's emotional.  One considers certain things morally objectionable because thinking about those things produces a feeling of anger and disgust.  See this article for the details.

Quote from: John Morrow;565066Morality isn't rational.  It's emotional.  One considers certain things morally objectionable because thinking about those things produces a feeling of anger and disgust.  See this article for the details.

I don't agree that this is a moral dilemma. It doesn't meet the criterion set even in that article. There is no dilemma here.

Being mad about something isn't the same as having a moral viewpoint. People can, and do, get mad about really stupid things.

Quote from: John Morrow;565065Yet there are people who feel exactly like that about Wagner or even buying Volkswagens.  And I don't think it's disingenuous or fallacious for many people, nor is it a slippery slope argument.  It's a failure to make a distinction that other people are willing to make.

"A failure to make a distinction other people are willing to make" is a very nice way of saying it, to be sure.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;565069I don't agree that this is a moral dilemma. It doesn't meet the criterion.

And that's the problem.  For the people who genuinely see the portrayals in Golarion as racist do see it as a moral concern.  And no amount of pointing to elements or talking about what the problem really is will necessarily make you feel what they feel or make them stop feeling what they feel about it.  The reason why discussions about moral issues usually consist of people talking past each other and making incorrect assumptions about what the other side thinks is that their difference of opinion doesn't hinge on a rational argument but on how the parties feel about things.  And both sides frequently assume that the other side feels what they feel, which often isn't the case.

Quote from: John Morrow;565071And that's the problem.  For the people who genuinely see the portrayals in Golarion as racist do see it as a moral concern.  

It's not a dilemma by definition. Which is what the article you linked to was about.  You understand the distinction between a moral dilemma and "something I think is wrong because it makes me unhappy"?

Quote from: Doctor Jest;565072It's not a dilemma by definition. Which is what the article you linked to was about.

The article is about moral reasoning and how "morality may be hardwired into our brains by evolution".

Quote from: John Morrow;565073The article is about moral reasoning and how "morality may be hardwired into our brains by evolution".

Yeah, but the morality it's addressing isn't what you're talking about. There's a difference between morality and self-righteous pomposity. Since there's no dilemma present, it can't be a moral issue, by definition. Morality isn't just "things that make me sad". It's how we come to the answers to moral quandaries and dilemmas, and what a fictional game setting is like isn't either.

Scroo it. I'm just going to leave this here:

Quote from: Doctor Jest;565074Yeah, but the morality it's addressing isn't what you're talking about.

The point of the trolley problem is to illustrate that even the same person can come to two diametrically opposed opinions about a scenario that is, from a rational pros and cons perspective, identical simply by changing how they feel about it.  

Quote from: Doctor Jest;565074There's a difference between morality and self-righteous pomposity.

Is there?  Doesn't self-righteousness come from moral certainty?

Quote from: Doctor Jest;565074And even if I just give you the argument and say ok, sure, it's a moral belief and there's an evolutionary impetus to it... So what? There's an evolutionary impetus for hitting people who you don't like with rocks until they bleed out of the eyes, but we still don't allow that sort of thing in polite company.

Actually, the moral impetus for normal people is not to kill people, even people that they don't like.  Modern militaries actually do quite a bit to convince soldiers to act as expected without thinking because soldiers who think about killing their opponents often won't do it.  

Why are you reacting so emotionally to this?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;564772Part of the problem is that certain people see this:


And immediately react like it was this:

There's a pretty big difference between the two, and it's sad the people can't see it.  One is clearly racist, while the other is a researched historical accuracy.  A company that puts the 2nd image in their book deserves to get flogged, but a company that puts the first should in no way get vilified.

In general, I agree.  I'm all for researched historical accuracy, as in general the researched historical accuracy strongly diverges from the stereotypes of old fiction.  So Fu Manchu isn't like real 1920s Chinese; and real Africans aren't like the Africans in depicted in Burrough's Tarzan stories.  

From what has been said in this thread so far, I'm not convinced that Golarion is racist - but the arguments on both sides have been pretty limited.  

Quote from: John Morrow;564541I'll ask less rhetorically this time...

So what's wrong with old historical race stereotypes? (This question is intended to identify the problem or problems, not claim that there is no problem.)

I don't think that being ingrained and expected is a problem.  As the quote from S. John Ross argues above, I think that's often a feature, not a bug.  But is that really your primary problem?

Old race stereotypes (to give an idea - say from prior to 1950) are generally racist - i.e. the grasping moneylending Jew; the lazy, watermelon-eating pickaninny; the lying thieving gypsy; etc.  These examples are typical of the stereotypes of non-white characters in old fiction.  These stereotypes are not based on accurate depictions of historical reality, but rather on the biased views of mainstream Western authors.  (Non-Western authors have different stereotypes - often that are also racist.)  

So, on the one hand, Fu Manchu is certainly an powerful stereotype that is familiar and quickly conveys content - that may be seen as a feature to use.  However, I think that there is a problem with continuing to use that stereotype straight.  

I could go on a bit about why I think it is bad, but I'd like to hear first from you - do you think that stereotypes like Fu Manchu or the lying thieving gypsy should be considered features and used for good effect?  Or do you think that they are a problem - but that they rare offshoots and that non-white stereotypes in old fiction are usually not like that?

Quote from: StormBringer;565064What would be racist, then?  I agree that Golarion isn't, but short of the obvious RaHoWa and anything by Stormfront, what elements would get a game labeled 'racist'?

Something that was actually racist.  Hint, orcs don't qualify.