This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?  (Read 19091 times)

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8331
Re: Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?
« Reply #150 on: September 12, 2020, 04:15:21 PM »
And I think we have reached the point where you guys have been so desensitized that you are unwilling to see fucked up shit when it does appear because you think it’s ceding ground to the critical race theorists/race supremacists.


When useful idiots are saying that giant penis monsters are really a metaphor for black people, then it becomes much easier to dismiss far more substantial allegations.


If I didn’t know any better than I’d say this was an elaborate plot by race supremacists (or trolls) to bring caricatures back in style under the guise of fiction.


Well, that was petulant.


Like I said, I'm willing to concede that, say, orcs in Tolkien rely on "the other" tropes, like using scimitars and being "swarthy".
What I'm not going to concede is the critical theory nonsense that this is all systemic, and therefore we all have to be good social justice "allies" and confess our white cis het privilige sin of racism and white supremacy.


Petulant?


I am critical of critical theory. Critical theorists openly advocate for segregation. It’s like a secret plot by white supremacists or something.


On the other end, I’ve seen people arguing that blatant racial caricatures aren’t blatant racial caricatures. Which also seems like a secret plot by white supremacists.


I live in clown world.


I’m seriously wondering right now if I could get away with writing racist propaganda by replacing the characters with fantasy races. Like, if I wrote a story that’s actually about the KKK lynching black people a la Birth of a Nation, but changed it to humans heroically killing orcs. Would people actually defend that if they didn’t know it was written to troll the audience?


Heroic there is a loaded term. People take lots of media at face value. Like how the film Starship Troopers is a really terrible parody of fascicm, because the bugs are literally killing machines that don't parley or show any concept of mercy.
So it depends on how you write your story.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

tenbones

  • Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6164
Re: Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?
« Reply #151 on: September 12, 2020, 07:32:04 PM »
I am critical of critical theory. Critical theorists openly advocate for segregation. It’s like a secret plot by white supremacists or something.

On the other end, I’ve seen people arguing that blatant racial caricatures aren’t blatant racial caricatures. Which also seems like a secret plot by white supremacists.

I live in clown world.

I’m seriously wondering right now if I could get away with writing racist propaganda by replacing the characters with fantasy races. Like, if I wrote a story that’s actually about the KKK lynching black people a la Birth of a Nation, but changed it to humans heroically killing orcs. Would people actually defend that if they didn’t know it was written to troll the audience?


So your example is you implicitly using black people as "orcs". YOU are intending that. YOU are being explicit in what only you perceive - which is orcs=black people. WHY would anyone else think that? Jesus, how did you sit through Lord of Rings with this view of reality?


Yes it sounds like you're living in a clown-world of your own creation.

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?
« Reply #152 on: September 12, 2020, 08:27:47 PM »
Heroic there is a loaded term. People take lots of media at face value. Like how the film Starship Troopers is a really terrible parody of fascicm, because the bugs are literally killing machines that don't parley or show any concept of mercy.
So it depends on how you write your story.

Indeed, it can be annoyingly difficult to distinguish satire from propaganda. Which plays right into the difficulty people can have distinguishing fucked up messages in the first place.

Anime like Terra Formars and Goblin Slayers are on their face exploitative fantasies of gruesome violence. Their messages are simplistic: you must kill the enemy because the enemy is inherently evil and/or inferior.

These works were not intended to stand up to any kind of analysis. If you try to analyze beyond being brain-dead violent entertainment for sheltered people who have never experienced the horror of real-life violence, then it quickly deteriorates into what you can only reconstruct as either fascist propaganda or failed satire thereof. Along with a possibly fetishistic fixation on imagery of women being raped.

The same holds true for D&D. We shouldn't kid ourselves: it's a children's game with about as much depth as a typical violent video game. It was not designed to stand up to rigorous analysis nor to hold any philosophical value beyond face value.

So if you analyze the typical trope of teh good adventurers killing teh evil orcs with standard academic rigor, then you inevitably end up with comparisons to colonialism and genocide at some point. Not because Gygax was intentionally trying to write a tract promoting genocide, but because he presumably grew up watching Westerns on TV, reading pulp fiction, etc and just imitated that without understanding their original cultural context (i.e. westerns, pulps, etc were really racist/sexist/other -ists).

What I don't understand is why anybody would try to deny this. That's super annoying. Acknowledging that media like D&D reproduce what is essentially colonialist imagery doesn't make D&D bad or you bad for playing it anymore than playing Hatred makes anyone a bad person.

But what I find the most annoying is a recurring underlying assumption that fiction can't or shouldn't have any deep meanings or messages applicable to reality. It's just supposed to be surface level entertainment... at least until anybody criticizes it. I'm really surprised by how vehemently weaboos can argue that something is simultaneous deep and yet undeserving of analysis/criticism.

Not everybody who consumes media will do so with their brain turned off. If you don't want lots of people of varying political persuasions to independently read messages that you never intended, like sexism or racism or fascism, then you shouldn't setup your work in such a way that lends itself so easily to such interpretations.

So your example is you implicitly using black people as "orcs". YOU are intending that. YOU are being explicit in what only you perceive - which is orcs=black people. WHY would anyone else think that? Jesus, how did you sit through Lord of Rings with this view of reality?
You're completely misunderstanding my point and putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying that orcs are black people. I do not believe or perceive that. At least in the Lord of the Rings, orcs bear a much closer resemblance to Huns or Mongols in their story role.

What I am saying is that I strongly suspect that if I wrote an explicit racist tract (not authentically, but as trolling) but changed all references to real races with fantasy races, then my audience would be split between people who notice the (here intentional) parallels to racist rhetoric and those who argue that no such parallels exist because you can't be racist against fictional creatures.

Have you ever read The Iron Dream? It discusses this sort of thing. The premise is that Hitler never becomes Fuhrer, but instead becomes a scifi author. He writes scifi that is thinly-veiled racist propaganda: the non-human villains of his book are Russian caricatures ruled by Jewish caricatures. Within the story itself, critics note a resemblance between his story and real caricature but dismiss it for being unrealistic.

That sort of thing I see time and time again in modern media discourses. In much the same way that the SST movie is indistinguishable as propaganda vs satire, a lot of people argue over whether fiction indistinguishable from -ist tracts is actually -ist. Pointing out similarities between the media we consume and -ist rhetoric sends people into fits of apoplexy.

That really frustrates me.

Alathon
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
Re: Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?
« Reply #153 on: September 12, 2020, 09:43:33 PM »
Indeed, it can be annoyingly difficult to distinguish satire from propaganda. Which plays right into the difficulty people can have distinguishing fucked up messages in the first place.

Anime like Terra Formars and Goblin Slayers are on their face exploitative fantasies of gruesome violence. Their messages are simplistic: you must kill the enemy because the enemy is inherently evil and/or inferior.

These works were not intended to stand up to any kind of analysis. If you try to analyze beyond being brain-dead violent entertainment for sheltered people who have never experienced the horror of real-life violence, then it quickly deteriorates into what you can only reconstruct as either fascist propaganda or failed satire thereof. Along with a possibly fetishistic fixation on imagery of women being raped.


...

But what I find the most annoying is a recurring underlying assumption that fiction can't or shouldn't have any deep meanings or messages applicable to reality. It's just supposed to be surface level entertainment... at least until anybody criticizes it. I'm really surprised by how vehemently weaboos can argue that something is simultaneous deep and yet undeserving of analysis/criticism.

Not everybody who consumes media will do so with their brain turned off. If you don't want lots of people of varying political persuasions to independently read messages that you never intended, like sexism or racism or fascism, then you shouldn't setup your work in such a way that lends itself so easily to such interpretations.


Goblin Slayer is superficially a fantasy/D&D/action anime.  It is also a story of a traumatized man who adopted the ways of his assailants.  He became the goblin to goblins (in his own words, even!), differentiated not in spirit but merely in capacity -- as a human he is capable of more, has better tools, and has better allies.  His peers warn his first party member away from him, knowing he ain't right.  When he dies, he sees a goblin asking him cliche riddles.

The higher level story is about the party members and childhood friend who strive to drag him away from insanity.  At least going by the anime, at the end of the first season, there are hints that they had some limited measure of success.

tenbones

  • Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6164
Re: Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?
« Reply #154 on: September 13, 2020, 12:17:41 AM »
You're completely misunderstanding my point and putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying that orcs are black people. I do not believe or perceive that. At least in the Lord of the Rings, orcs bear a much closer resemblance to Huns or Mongols in their story role.


But that is precisely what SJW's do publicly. Whether they actually believe it or not is irrelevant. It's become the doctrine under which they engage with *everyone* else. Maybe... just *maybe* orcs are just what the fairy tale demanded?


The cigar in the story might be an actual cigar, not a repressed phallic trigger denoting ones impotence as it lay there half-used in the ashtray. No, it's just a half-smoked cigar.


I did not misunderstand you at all. I'm saying the premise and question is perfectly fine if it's an honest discussion. If not for the fact that as you point out below (which is the only obvious conclusion that one can get to without diving over the cliff of stupid insanity)... SJW's EQUATE WORDS WITH ACTIONS. So whether YOU intend it or not, to the morons that have ruined pretty much all pop-culture and are currently well on their way to undermining all other cultural endeavors - they will *always* treat it with the worst possible view. Effectively removing any intent that anyone has when making a claim or creating content, as long as it serves the ulterior purposes of the Woke Cult.

What I am saying is that I strongly suspect that if I wrote an explicit racist tract (not authentically, but as trolling) but changed all references to real races with fantasy races, then my audience would be split between people who notice the (here intentional) parallels to racist rhetoric and those who argue that no such parallels exist because you can't be racist against fictional creatures.


What I'm strongly claiming is that to anyone that's not an *idiot* making such an assumption free of any context of understanding about another's overt biases - and anyone remotely honest with themselves actually interested in critical discussion would not necessarily assume you're intending such. The whole point of these issues are that Woke assholes aren't actually

[/size]1) able to be intellectually honest, because they put their stupid ideology first [size=78%]
[/size]2) They're not really interested AT ALL in the topic at hand. They have ulterior motives to any, and all, interactions that involve only one thing: your submission or erasure. [size=78%]

Have you ever read The Iron Dream? It discusses this sort of thing. The premise is that Hitler never becomes Fuhrer, but instead becomes a scifi author. He writes scifi that is thinly-veiled racist propaganda: the non-human villains of his book are Russian caricatures ruled by Jewish caricatures. Within the story itself, critics note a resemblance between his story and real caricature but dismiss it for being unrealistic.


Whoop-de-fuckin-do. How many works of fiction written by authors have lead directly to what Hitler, in actual history, accomplished? Hitler being a sci-fi author that happens to be an anti-Semite is meaningless to the reality of what Hitler, the dictator and leader of Germany, that *actually* engaged in his pogrom of genocide, did.


It doesn't take a genius to read a work of fiction for what it is. It further is not another person's job to interpret and control how another person is supposed to internalize it. Because it *never* stops there. That's the whole point of free-speech. You counter bad ideas with good ideas, not demonizing for the purposes of censure, or as ultimately Marxists have done in the past: elimination.


So what? Racist literature exists in reality. AND? Is it some magical sin that infects you defacto by having scanned your eyes off it? Seems to me that's not the real problem unless you ascribe to the notion that "words are violence".


Furthermore - Hitler didn't invent anti-antisemitism (newsflash). So even if he were only a sci-fi author... in all likelihood he'd have had a shitty career that went nowhere further than whatever fanbase he was serving. Just like the bullshit fiction produced by Woke retards.

Words are *not* actions. Thoughts are not words. No one has a right to equate the two as actual actions in some punitive manner here in America.

[/size]That sort of thing I see time and time again in modern media discourses. In much the same way that the SST movie is indistinguishable as propaganda vs satire, a lot of people argue over whether fiction indistinguishable from -ist tracts is actually -ist. Pointing out similarities between the media we consume and -ist rhetoric sends people into fits of apoplexy.[size=78%]


[/size]Really? I don't see this being discussed in media much at all. I see it being discussed in forums and chat-rooms. In media I see it being dictated that people like Tolkien, Lovecraft, White People writ-large, anything associated with Greco-Roman culture being told anything having to do with their culture is racist. Any and all engagement with the culture is watered down via "Critical Race Theory" to justify their own self-loathing and hatred for Western Culture (and more specifically caucasians) free of context by any means necessary.[size=78%]


That really frustrates me.


How frustrated can you be? I dunno. Try being an POC like me and watching assholes that don't look like me, that know nothing about the history of their own culture much less mine, patronizingly speaking for me and ALL other non-white cultures as to what I'm allowed to say/not say. And what I'm allowed to think. Worse - then effectively threaten the nation I love and the philosophy it's built on for their own narcissistic ego-driven lunacy, and demonize us for not kowtowing to their bullshit ideology? Yeah that's pretty frustrating - especially when I had nothing to do with these shenannigans.


nah. I'll chill out here in Lone Star, shoulder to shoulder with all the other frustrated Americans and wait to watch the Coasts burn. And if it comes here, well I will kindly put out the warning that it's not a wise idea. But wisdom seems to be a premium among the Woke. So all bets are off.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2020, 04:48:18 AM by tenbones »

David Johansen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • D
  • Posts: 6222
Re: Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?
« Reply #155 on: September 13, 2020, 08:59:56 PM »
Well, good news for the people of America Land, Canada will go down the drain first and who knows? the object might take.
Fantasy Adventure Comic, games, and more http://www.uncouthsavage.com

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?
« Reply #156 on: September 13, 2020, 09:36:13 PM »

If I understand the logic right, then it’s okay to depict ethnic cleansing as long as you depict it happening against fictional creatures. Because it’s impossible to be racist against humanoids.

Besides endorphins, what exactly does one get out of penning ultra violent anti-monster tracts? The sheer amount of glee authors seem to take in describing humanoids as subhuman scum that must be exterminated or trained or whatever is disproportionate, almost fetishized.


Indeed, it can be annoyingly difficult to distinguish satire from propaganda. Which plays right into the difficulty people can have distinguishing fucked up messages in the first place.

Anime like Terra Formars and Goblin Slayers are on their face exploitative fantasies of gruesome violence. Their messages are simplistic: you must kill the enemy because the enemy is inherently evil and/or inferior.

These works were not intended to stand up to any kind of analysis. If you try to analyze beyond being brain-dead violent entertainment for sheltered people who have never experienced the horror of real-life violence, then it quickly deteriorates into what you can only reconstruct as either fascist propaganda or failed satire thereof. Along with a possibly fetishistic fixation on imagery of women being raped.


...

But what I find the most annoying is a recurring underlying assumption that fiction can't or shouldn't have any deep meanings or messages applicable to reality. It's just supposed to be surface level entertainment... at least until anybody criticizes it. I'm really surprised by how vehemently weaboos can argue that something is simultaneous deep and yet undeserving of analysis/criticism.

Not everybody who consumes media will do so with their brain turned off. If you don't want lots of people of varying political persuasions to independently read messages that you never intended, like sexism or racism or fascism, then you shouldn't setup your work in such a way that lends itself so easily to such interpretations.


Goblin Slayer is superficially a fantasy/D&D/action anime.  It is also a story of a traumatized man who adopted the ways of his assailants.  He became the goblin to goblins (in his own words, even!), differentiated not in spirit but merely in capacity -- as a human he is capable of more, has better tools, and has better allies.  His peers warn his first party member away from him, knowing he ain't right.  When he dies, he sees a goblin asking him cliche riddles.

The higher level story is about the party members and childhood friend who strive to drag him away from insanity.  At least going by the anime, at the end of the first season, there are hints that they had some limited measure of success.
Trying to impose any kind of critical reading on Goblin Slayer is inevitably going to run into the fact that it’s misogynistic rape-porn/gore-porn. Making GS himself the real victim, while almost every woman introduced is a nameless disposable sex object stuffed in the fridge... do I really have to explain why that makes the supposed attempts to tackle serious issues fall flat? It’s so fucking tone deaf.


Go visit Ovarit.com if you want to learn how much shit women have to put up with in real life.


We live in a world where sexism, homophobia, racism, blah blah blah are alive and well and causing problems. But the woke crowd blows it out of proportion, desensitizing society to real problems and probably making society more prejudiced overall. That’s what I mean by clown world. One step forward, three steps back.

tenbones

  • Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6164
Re: Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?
« Reply #157 on: September 14, 2020, 10:05:25 AM »

If I understand the logic right, then it’s okay to depict ethnic cleansing as long as you depict it happening against fictional creatures. Because it’s impossible to be racist against humanoids.

Besides endorphins, what exactly does one get out of penning ultra violent anti-monster tracts? The sheer amount of glee authors seem to take in describing humanoids as subhuman scum that must be exterminated or trained or whatever is disproportionate, almost fetishized.


Telling a story well means every event that occurs is used to reinforce some conceit of the character within the context of his setting. It may/may not be a reflection of some bias on the author - but that's not the point. Nor should that be the concern of a reader, unless they have some axe to grind.


Spending time trying to figure out what an author *really* believes in their head, by pretending what they're writing on the page for the purposes of telling a story is a fools game. It is setting an agenda before the telling of a tale. If you *want* read something into a story - you will.


Why does Lothar of the Hill People have such bloody genocidal scenes of him killing orcish invaders to his Hill-Lands? Maybe it's to show the environment he's grown up in? Maybe it's to show his battle-prowess? Maybe it's to show the battle-prowess of his people and how they became such - maybe it was never always this way? Maybe it's because later in the story, these things will matter? Maybe not? The telling is in the tale. And maybe the tale is of zero interest to you as a consumer? Perhaps violence in fiction is anathema to your sensibilities. Maybe Jane Austen is more your jam?


As to what does a writer get out of having such fare in their stories? I can only answer it like this...


I can't imagine Jane Austen writing the Illiad.


There are people that have been in the arena of conflict that fictional violence is just that - fictional violence. And there are those that may have the interest in trying to convey that, in whatever manner, if only as fiction in order to impress the nature of the world upon the reader.


I no more believe that R.E.Howard has been personally in axe-combat with Picts than I believe Tolkien has ever killed demons on mountaintops while sky-diving. But I do believe the dramatic telling of their tales were richer for their characters having done it, because I got to be there with them.


As to what the authors believed about black people in their personal lives - without them telling me literally in their non-fictional writing, or some other account - I have no idea, and I don't really care. If the purpose of their fiction is to tell a tale, it will speak for itself.


As someone that lives with a novel-editor, and happens to be a pretty voracious reader (and writer) in my own right, ideologically driven people tend to rarely be able to pull off fiction very well. Because their ideology is put before their story. And propaganda is almost never fun and enjoyable to read. At best it's saccharine and trite and it's always very obvious.


People with an ideological bent also have a pathological inability to not see any kind of narrative or phenomenon outside of their usually binary view of pro-ideology/anti-ideology. So it makes their Crusades for Purity that much easier to target their projections accordingly.


This is why you have DC Comics authors who re-imagine Aquaman as a gay hispanic teenager that has a romantic coming-of-age story about his homosexual trysts with a male dolphin, whose salary is south of 30k/year angry at Keanu Reeves new comic that is about an immortal warrior trying to find a way to kill himself, whose comic is allegedly very violent - because as she says "Do we need another violent CIS-white male comic?" And is subsequently trying to cancel Keanu...


But the 600K he's made in the first 48-hrs of his kickstarter apparently means we DO need it. Maybe not her, or you. But people like reading stories with action. Been that way since the dawn of fiction...


Again... I couldn't imagine Jane Austen writing the Iliad.


And some people don't/will never get it. And that's okay too.


BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?
« Reply #158 on: September 14, 2020, 11:52:10 AM »

If I understand the logic right, then it’s okay to depict ethnic cleansing as long as you depict it happening against fictional creatures. Because it’s impossible to be racist against humanoids.

Besides endorphins, what exactly does one get out of penning ultra violent anti-monster tracts? The sheer amount of glee authors seem to take in describing humanoids as subhuman scum that must be exterminated or trained or whatever is disproportionate, almost fetishized.


Telling a story well means every event that occurs is used to reinforce some conceit of the character within the context of his setting. It may/may not be a reflection of some bias on the author - but that's not the point. Nor should that be the concern of a reader, unless they have some axe to grind.


Spending time trying to figure out what an author *really* believes in their head, by pretending what they're writing on the page for the purposes of telling a story is a fools game. It is setting an agenda before the telling of a tale. If you *want* read something into a story - you will.


Why does Lothar of the Hill People have such bloody genocidal scenes of him killing orcish invaders to his Hill-Lands? Maybe it's to show the environment he's grown up in? Maybe it's to show his battle-prowess? Maybe it's to show the battle-prowess of his people and how they became such - maybe it was never always this way? Maybe it's because later in the story, these things will matter? Maybe not? The telling is in the tale. And maybe the tale is of zero interest to you as a consumer? Perhaps violence in fiction is anathema to your sensibilities. Maybe Jane Austen is more your jam?


As to what does a writer get out of having such fare in their stories? I can only answer it like this...


I can't imagine Jane Austen writing the Illiad.


There are people that have been in the arena of conflict that fictional violence is just that - fictional violence. And there are those that may have the interest in trying to convey that, in whatever manner, if only as fiction in order to impress the nature of the world upon the reader.


I no more believe that R.E.Howard has been personally in axe-combat with Picts than I believe Tolkien has ever killed demons on mountaintops while sky-diving. But I do believe the dramatic telling of their tales were richer for their characters having done it, because I got to be there with them.


As to what the authors believed about black people in their personal lives - without them telling me literally in their non-fictional writing, or some other account - I have no idea, and I don't really care. If the purpose of their fiction is to tell a tale, it will speak for itself.


As someone that lives with a novel-editor, and happens to be a pretty voracious reader (and writer) in my own right, ideologically driven people tend to rarely be able to pull off fiction very well. Because their ideology is put before their story. And propaganda is almost never fun and enjoyable to read. At best it's saccharine and trite and it's always very obvious.


People with an ideological bent also have a pathological inability to not see any kind of narrative or phenomenon outside of their usually binary view of pro-ideology/anti-ideology. So it makes their Crusades for Purity that much easier to target their projections accordingly.


This is why you have DC Comics authors who re-imagine Aquaman as a gay hispanic teenager that has a romantic coming-of-age story about his homosexual trysts with a male dolphin, whose salary is south of 30k/year angry at Keanu Reeves new comic that is about an immortal warrior trying to find a way to kill himself, whose comic is allegedly very violent - because as she says "Do we need another violent CIS-white male comic?" And is subsequently trying to cancel Keanu...


But the 600K he's made in the first 48-hrs of his kickstarter apparently means we DO need it. Maybe not her, or you. But people like reading stories with action. Been that way since the dawn of fiction...


Again... I couldn't imagine Jane Austen writing the Iliad.


And some people don't/will never get it. And that's okay too.

The Iliad didn't take time out to demonize one side as being fundamentally evil subhuman scum by virtue of birth that deserve either extermination or enslavement, or describe the rape and dismemberment of women in fetishistic detail.

I can't imagine Jane Austen writing To Reign in Hell or Elric of Melniboné, either. I can't imagine her writing outside the genre that she wrote within.


By the same token, I can't imagine Homer (or any Greek writer) penning The Lord of the Rings. The Iliad is far more nuanced than most fantasy fiction aside from maybe A Song of Ice and Fire.


All of that feels rather tangential to the fact that humanoids are simply props in violent fantasies and don't lend themselves to fleshing out. It's about as deep as the old television westerns that depicted native americans as simply generic baddies to be gunned down by the heroes, or the action movies that depict the hero mowing down hordes of faceless mooks.

Attempts to flesh them out have resulted in pointlessly elaborate justifications for "they're totes evil and should be killed on sight."

Pointing out the similarities in depersonization between westerns, action movies, fantasy escapades, FPS games, etc does not make me the real racist here.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2020, 10:39:17 AM by BoxCrayonTales »

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3770
Re: Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?
« Reply #159 on: September 14, 2020, 12:03:40 PM »
Spending time trying to figure out what an author *really* believes in their head, by pretending what they're writing on the page for the purposes of telling a story is a fools game. It is setting an agenda before the telling of a tale. If you *want* read something into a story - you will.
As an aside, the real root of this isn't even justified in literary criticism or teaching.  Rather, it's a direct function of subsidized college degrees in literature such that a host of people found it easy to get a credential saying that they understood literature when in fact they didn't have a whole lot useful to say about the Homer, Jane Austen, or anyone in between.  It is a lot easier to write some bullshit about the author's intentions than it is to try to get inside the sensibility of the story and then go from there.  People don't think about it as much now, because the degree is barely ahead of the various "studies" degrees in perception, but anyone that has done the real work (as I have) can tell you that thoughtful literary exploration is exactly that--work. 

So add to the various other problems of the SJW's that they are both insecure and lazy.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?
« Reply #160 on: September 14, 2020, 12:44:50 PM »

If I understand the logic right, then it’s okay to depict ethnic cleansing as long as you depict it happening against fictional creatures. Because it’s impossible to be racist against humanoids.

Besides endorphins, what exactly does one get out of penning ultra violent anti-monster tracts? The sheer amount of glee authors seem to take in describing humanoids as subhuman scum that must be exterminated or trained or whatever is disproportionate, almost fetishized.


Indeed, it can be annoyingly difficult to distinguish satire from propaganda. Which plays right into the difficulty people can have distinguishing fucked up messages in the first place.

Anime like Terra Formars and Goblin Slayers are on their face exploitative fantasies of gruesome violence. Their messages are simplistic: you must kill the enemy because the enemy is inherently evil and/or inferior.

These works were not intended to stand up to any kind of analysis. If you try to analyze beyond being brain-dead violent entertainment for sheltered people who have never experienced the horror of real-life violence, then it quickly deteriorates into what you can only reconstruct as either fascist propaganda or failed satire thereof. Along with a possibly fetishistic fixation on imagery of women being raped.


...

But what I find the most annoying is a recurring underlying assumption that fiction can't or shouldn't have any deep meanings or messages applicable to reality. It's just supposed to be surface level entertainment... at least until anybody criticizes it. I'm really surprised by how vehemently weaboos can argue that something is simultaneous deep and yet undeserving of analysis/criticism.

Not everybody who consumes media will do so with their brain turned off. If you don't want lots of people of varying political persuasions to independently read messages that you never intended, like sexism or racism or fascism, then you shouldn't setup your work in such a way that lends itself so easily to such interpretations.


Goblin Slayer is superficially a fantasy/D&D/action anime.  It is also a story of a traumatized man who adopted the ways of his assailants.  He became the goblin to goblins (in his own words, even!), differentiated not in spirit but merely in capacity -- as a human he is capable of more, has better tools, and has better allies.  His peers warn his first party member away from him, knowing he ain't right.  When he dies, he sees a goblin asking him cliche riddles.

The higher level story is about the party members and childhood friend who strive to drag him away from insanity.  At least going by the anime, at the end of the first season, there are hints that they had some limited measure of success.
Trying to impose any kind of critical reading on Goblin Slayer is inevitably going to run into the fact that it’s misogynistic rape-porn/gore-porn. Making GS himself the real victim, while almost every woman introduced is a nameless disposable sex object stuffed in the fridge... do I really have to explain why that makes the supposed attempts to tackle serious issues fall flat? It’s so fucking tone deaf.


Go visit Ovarit.com if you want to learn how much shit women have to put up with in real life.


We live in a world where sexism, homophobia, racism, blah blah blah are alive and well and causing problems. But the woke crowd blows it out of proportion, desensitizing society to real problems and probably making society more prejudiced overall. That’s what I mean by clown world. One step forward, three steps back.
Yes so much sexism the wahmen are such an oppressed group outside of the islamic countries and other various shitholes, ditto for the gays.
As for the racism and the woke, well they just made a whites only space in the name of inclusion...
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

tenbones

  • Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6164
Re: Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?
« Reply #161 on: September 14, 2020, 10:22:55 PM »
The Iliad didn't take time out to demonize one side as being fundamentally evil subhuman scum by virtue of birth that deserve either extermination or enslavement, or describe the rape and dismemberment of women in fetishistic detail.

I can't imagine Jane Austen writing To Reign in Hell or Elric of Melniboné, either. I can't imagine her writing outside the genre that she wrote within.


So you can't not take my example so literally as to ascertain what I meant? Can you not resist the disingenuous impulse to dive to the furthest extreme to make a point which you then conflate with a gross overgeneralization that your entire position hinges on, that no one here, and no one with any reasonable intelligence, can possibly agree with?


Your qualification over "fetishization" is made as someone that either doesn't understand genre, or you're pretending to be too stupid to. OR maybe you don't, and that is the real problem.


What you call "fetishization" needs clarification. It's a term you're tossing out there with some clearly unspoken claims - which is what makes you disingenuous.


By the same token, I can't imagine Homer (or any Greek writer) penning The Lord of the Rings. The Iliad is far more nuanced than most fantasy fiction aside from maybe A Song of Ice and Fire.


Smokescreen. You either understand what I'm talking about, or you don't.


All of that feels rather tangential to the fact that humanoids are simply props in violent fantasies and don't lend themselves to fleshing out. It's about as deep as the old television westerns that depicted native americans as simply generic baddies to be gunned down by the heroes, or the action movies that depict the hero mowing down hordes of faceless mooks.


So tangential that you created some tangents of your own to dodge the very claim I'm making while you re-word the very issue I'm having: you're pretending to know the mind of ALL authors you decide are racist arbitrarily. Homer wasn't "racist" by any standard you entertain today? Please.


You literally nuanced your own argument into meaningless.

Attempts to flesh them out have resulted in pointlessly elaborate justifications for "they're totes evil and should be killed on sight."

Pointing out the similarities in depersonization between westerns, action movies, fantasy escapades, FPS games, etc does not make me the real racist here.


Well show us all with examples how works of sci-fi have created genocides. Please show us! And show us where the consumptions of any such fare is *NORMAL* and not an outlier?


We've done this dance many times - heavy metal, D&D, pornography, etc. etc. You will fail in your claims just like all the rest. Maybe this is just mental illness? Stupidity? Seems more likely. But I await your evidence.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2020, 10:29:20 AM by tenbones »

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?
« Reply #162 on: September 14, 2020, 11:57:41 PM »
We've done this dance many times - heavy metal, D&D, pornography, etc. etc. You will fail in your claims just like all the rest. Maybe this is just mental illness? Stupidity? Seems more likely. But I await your evidence.
You waste your time. Box is a guilt-wracked self-loathing white liberal fully indoctrinated into Wokism to the point that he can only make ritualistic mouth sounds that he’s been assured will cleanse him of his original sin of white privilege.


He claims he’s not, but the woke are indoctrinated to lie in order to try and win others to their nihilistic cult in which the only truth is what they decide it to be in this moment and can be the opposite tomorrow if they feel like it and everything he espouses is right out of the Church of Wokism.


I went and looked and he hasn’t produced one useful suggestion or idea in any RPG-related thread since I’ve been here. He’s joined HappyDaze on my ignore list because trying to reason with the intellectually dishonest is a waste of time.

Abraxus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2434
Re: Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?
« Reply #163 on: September 15, 2020, 08:18:40 AM »
So Box pulled a HD because the forum is not agreeing enough with his counterpoints on a topic. Sad to see though not surprised as many claim to want to hear both sides yet really just want posts that keep pushing the carefully constructed personal narratives. Why pretend to want to hear from both sides especially when it's just a lie to talk town, wag the finger and claim to ones ideological opponent that they are terrible people.

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3770
Re: Is there any monster the SJWs don't see as Black People?
« Reply #164 on: September 15, 2020, 08:22:07 AM »
He claims he’s not, but the woke are indoctrinated to lie in order to try and win others to their nihilistic cult in which the only truth is what they decide it to be in this moment and can be the opposite tomorrow if they feel like it and everything he espouses is right out of the Church of Wokism.


I went and looked and he hasn’t produced one useful suggestion or idea in any RPG-related thread since I’ve been here. He’s joined HappyDaze on my ignore list because trying to reason with the intellectually dishonest is a waste of time.
You never can know for sure, but Box might be a true believer.  If nothing else, he's a one-trick pony.  You understate the case in one respect, because not only has he not contributed to any RPG-related thread, all of his "contributions" are on this one narrow topic in one respect or another.  It might be more monomania than woke.  Also, this might be one of those rare cases of "intellectually dishonest" being the charitable description of a toxic mix of stupid, ignorant, and too lacking in self-awareness to begin to correct either.

Not that any of that really changes the validity of your conclusion.